[22:50:15] [connected at Thu Feb 1 22:50:15 2018]
[22:50:26] [I have joined #xf-bod]
[22:50:48] <danvet> uh, has the xorg.git repo moved?
[22:54:29] <mupuf> Gsoc update: Application sent, answer in 2/3 weeks. Have to go now, sorry!
[22:56:37] <danvet> mupuf, thx
[23:00:59] <danvet> agd5f, bryce egbert keithp robclark hi all!
[23:01:06] <bryce> *wave*
[23:01:08] <egbert> hi danvet!
[23:01:09] <robclark> o/
[23:01:34] <agd5f> hi
[23:02:22] <danvet> Agenda: gsoc, treasurer's report, election, sponsoring
[23:02:26] <danvet> anything to add?
[23:03:27] <robclark> maybe "do we really want to be web developers"? :-P
[23:04:55] <danvet> haha
[23:05:04] <keithp> hey ho
[23:05:05] <danvet> can we like not talk about that?
[23:05:09] <danvet> keithp, hi!
[23:05:17] <danvet> I guess let's get going
[23:05:21] <keithp> danvet: lovely to see you last week
[23:05:26] <robclark> danvet, anyways, that is a background thing.. we won't change system mid-election, I guess ;-)
[23:05:33] <danvet> keithp, lca was awesome \o/
[23:05:38] <danvet> robclark, nope
[23:05:54] <danvet> mupuf already delivered gsoc update
[23:06:20] <danvet> bryce, should I keep the treasurer report on the agenda? or will you bring it up once spi has done their part?
[23:06:39] <bryce> yes keep
[23:06:46] <bryce> want the update?
[23:07:37] <bryce> there's a big problem... SPI can't get us our financial data
[23:08:05] <bryce> I finally did get a response from SPI, but only to say there's no chance they can get any of our transaction data in February
[23:08:12] <bryce> Last year they got us a detailed dump to us on Feb 27th for FY2016.
[23:08:13] <bryce> Maybe there's a chance they could do so again, dunno.
[23:08:26] <bryce> Difficulty is that our bylaws specify the treasurer report needs to be sent by "60 days after end of fiscal year".
[23:08:34] <danvet> so earliest we get fy2017 is March?
[23:08:45] <bryce> So either the due date needs delayed for this year's report or I'll have to go with a numberless descriptive report, or some combination of the two.
[23:08:56] <bryce> danvet, well they were talking about July. :-/
[23:09:09] <danvet> oh right, forgot I read that mail :-/
[23:09:17] <bryce> anyway, this is blocked hard. So I need the board's direction as to how to proceed.
[23:09:39] <danvet> hm
[23:09:59] <danvet> I guess we don't really have any reasonable option than waive the deadline and extend until July :-(
[23:10:08] <danvet> treasurer report without numbers isn't all that useful
[23:10:13] <robclark> for future, we might want to update the bylaws to fit w/ SPI's cycle.. anyways I guess our fiscal year should be tied to SPI's (if that is the issue, I didn't read the email)
[23:10:21] <bryce> (also, problem is a bit bigger than just the treasurer report, since I can't accurately answer basic questions like "did the sponsor's money come through" and "how much cash is in our account" without it.)
[23:10:37] <danvet> bryce, yeah that's the part that worries me more tbh
[23:10:51] <danvet> Riastradh, hi
[23:11:00] <Riastradh> Hi! Sorry, folks, I left my laptop at home during a brief trip to San Francisco this week.
[23:11:02] <robclark> bryce, that might be a bit worse if we need to change sponsor rules re: linking to sponsor thing..
[23:11:12] <bryce> they did say they'd like to work on their processes to get the data to us in time. So hope exists, but not sure I'd want to hold breath...
[23:11:29] <bryce> robclark, yep what I'm thinking too
[23:14:33] <danvet> I guess poke spi again and hope meanwhile?
[23:14:39] <danvet> not much we can do I think ...
[23:15:15] <bryce> danvet, so, wait for now and revisit next meeting?
[23:16:16] <robclark> I guess.. we are a bit tied.. although if a bylaws update to change the report timeframe will be useful in the future, now is the time to do something about that (ie. before approx one week from today)
[23:16:35] <robclark> err, well, I guess one week is nomiinations, not voting yet
[23:16:41] <robclark> but, well, soonish
[23:16:49] <danvet> robclark, tbh I wouldn't rush bylaw changes
[23:17:07] <danvet> also I'm kinda looking for a relaxed election for once, drumming up the 75% every time is work
[23:17:19] <danvet> and last year we barely managed with just 1-2 votes above the level
[23:17:20] <robclark> fair
[23:17:22] <bryce> btw, fwiw, I noticed the bylaws also require the annual secretary's report due in the same timeframe, but we've generally done that one to coincide with XDC
[23:17:46] <danvet> yeah, we've had a fairly stretchy definition of 60 days ...
[23:17:53] <robclark> well, I guess the plan for now is "keep working with SPI" then..
[23:17:54] <agd5f> I think it's only 60% but still
[23:18:05] <danvet> I don't even have reports in the secretary files for a lot of years
[23:18:21] <danvet> agd5f, we also have that discussion every time :-)
[23:18:35] <danvet> ok, I'll keep it for next mtg
[23:20:47] <danvet> elections is next
[23:21:03] <danvet> big thx to robclark for wrangling our lovely php scripts
[23:21:14] <robclark> ok.. I've expired members and sent out renewal announce..
[23:21:32] <danvet> I guess we should wait 2-3 weeks now before sending out anything important
[23:21:45] <danvet> since not everyone renewed and would hence miss announcements
[23:21:46] <robclark> I'll periodically check member admin page (thx to danvet for spiffing admin gui)
[23:22:06] <danvet> \o/
[23:22:06] <robclark> timeline says to start nominations next week..
[23:22:16] <danvet> it's been like 15 years since I last hacked on some php
[23:22:18] <robclark> that is open for two weeks before voting actually starts
[23:22:27] <robclark> or, no more than that..
[23:22:40] <danvet> hm, I'd vote to delay it a bit
[23:22:44] <robclark> anyways, I should probably set calendar reminders for those parts..
[23:22:52] <danvet> usually we had more time between renewal and start of nomination
[23:22:59] <robclark> elections don't start until 6th week..
[23:23:05] <robclark> so I guess that should be plenty
[23:23:09] <danvet> robclark, did you start the wiki template already for 2017?
[23:23:20] <danvet> ok, makes sense
[23:23:24] <robclark> (2018 I guess?)
[23:23:30] <robclark> no.. I'll do that..
[23:23:49] <agd5f> you almost always have to slip the election schedule a bit for various things. It's more of a guideline than a hard requirement
[23:23:50] <robclark> hmm, didn't see that step on https://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections/
[23:24:23] <robclark> danvet, ping me after about this wiki template thing?
[23:25:03] <robclark> agd5f, well, I guess we can at least start nomination period on time? If we have to slip the end of nomination period, that is fine, but I guess no reason to delay at step #2?
[23:25:31] <robclark> anyways, while danvet is on vaca I'll monitor the member admin page to approve renewals
[23:25:40] <danvet> robclark, cp Elections2016.md Elections2017.md
[23:25:42] * robclark can handle busywork :-P
[23:25:46] <robclark> k
[23:25:57] <danvet> and start filling out the details
[23:26:02] <danvet> maybe even dates
[23:26:08] <danvet> adjusting links and all that
[23:26:14] <agd5f> robclark, sure. I'm just saying if you have to delay for something, no big deal
[23:26:23] <bryce> the expiration mail came through labeled as from "www-data" :-P
[23:26:28] <danvet> I think ideally next mtg we can then decide when we'll start the clock
[23:26:30] <robclark> agd5f, k
[23:26:33] <danvet> and start sending out mails ...
[23:26:43] <danvet> agd5f, yeah, always seems to take longer than planned
[23:26:56] <robclark> bryce, yeah.. we're awesome at being web devel's :-P
[23:27:06] <bryce> robclark, :-D
[23:27:29] <danvet> bryce, it's the x.org style we're rocking here :-)
[23:30:49] <robclark> hmm, maybe I should backfill 2017Results.md too ;-)
[23:31:04] <danvet> yeah copy the entire thing
[23:31:12] <danvet> we'll fix the elections right today :-)
[23:31:15] <tlwoerner> does the person who runs/organizes the vote _have_ to be an elected official? because that seems to be the biggest issue. people elected to x.org aren't (ever?) going to be the same people who like running websites etc
[23:31:47] <robclark> tlwoerner, well, bigger issue isn't running the site but *developing* the site..
[23:31:59] <danvet> tlwoerner, we could fix that this year, just find someone who cares about the open gfx stack and knows web stuff
[23:32:09] <danvet> and then volunteer them to run for the board
[23:32:32] <tlwoerner> okay, but if they lose the vote...
[23:33:09] <danvet> we can fix it
[23:33:11] <agd5f> could also get an intern and have them update it
[23:33:11] <danvet> :-)
[23:33:26] <danvet> more seriously, "I'm going to polish the x.org page" sounds like a platform that guarantees a win
[23:33:26] <bryce> agd5f, +1 what I was wondering too
[23:33:30] <robclark> anyways, I was going to suggest, if bryce has contacts at inkscape foundation (or anyone else at other foundations) we should reach out and discuss if there is some potentional to come up with a shared codebase for member/voting system
[23:33:40] <robclark> agd5f, isn't that how we got into current state :-P
[23:33:55] <bryce> robclark, yep
[23:33:59] <agd5f> robclark, I think the previous state was paper based ;)
[23:34:45] <danvet> one upside of the current thing is that it's very simple (I managed to hack in the admin text field in a few minutes)
[23:34:57] <danvet> and it has this very classic "must be done by the x.org folks" vibe to it
[23:35:03] <tlwoerner> i know of another group looking for an online voting thingamajig
[23:35:07] <danvet> aka 0 taste for proper UX :-)
[23:35:10] <robclark> heheh, true, it has it's "charm"
[23:35:23] <agd5f> it's the twm of websites
[23:35:47] <danvet> and I made it worse
[23:35:59] <danvet> somehow the field I added for admins is misaligned in the table
[23:36:02] <robclark> tlwoerner, (and all), I guess it makes sense to start talking to other orgs.. the worst case is that each org has a "workflow" that is too much different and we stick to the existing thing..
[23:36:21] <danvet> joking aside: do we have anything else to discuss for voting?
[23:36:28] <robclark> anyways, a bit of a background task, but I think we should look into it..
[23:36:49] <danvet> would be good to start asking possible candidates who could run for the board
[23:36:53] <robclark> danvet, yeah, I think I covered everything on voting, and moved into "should we be web developers" :-P
[23:36:59] <robclark> yeah
[23:37:21] <danvet> note: don't bother with Intel, they can't be elected
[23:37:48] <tlwoerner> danvet: does that include you?!
[23:38:14] <danvet> mupuf and my term are not up for election
[23:38:32] <robclark> tlwoerner, the issue is max # from individual employer
[23:38:33] <danvet> so already maxed out for intel folks
[23:38:49] <tlwoerner> ah
[23:39:10] <danvet> I mean you can put them on the ballot, but it's pointless
[23:40:02] <danvet> ok, next up sponsoring stuff
[23:40:33] <danvet> bryce&I had some discussions, and I volunteered to revise bryce's sponsoring unification draft from a while back
[23:40:40] <danvet> but didn't get around to that yet
[23:41:06] <bryce> honestly I am wondering if we should just get rid of the website general sponsoring bit
[23:41:27] <danvet> bryce, only attracts clickspam?
[23:41:32] <bryce> pretty much
[23:41:48] <bryce> besides, by and far more of our income so far has been from the events sponsors.
[23:41:58] <robclark> we should get rid of URL's, IMHO.. at a minimum..
[23:42:08] <danvet> XDC is a great product to sell :-)
[23:42:11] <robclark> maybe there is something we can do w/ robots.txt to help?
[23:42:23] <robclark> but yeah, XDC sponsors is I think far more useful
[23:43:29] <agd5f> I guess if we don't need the money, that's fine, but if a clickspam sponsor means two extra students get to go to xdc or fosdem, seems a like a reasonable trade off. to a point
[23:44:19] <agd5f> brought to you by Carl's Jr.
[23:44:20] <danvet> only thing I'm worried about is whether google will derank us if we have too much clickspam
[23:44:38] <danvet> if we can't google wiki.x.org anymore, that'd be bad
[23:44:40] <robclark> agd5f, mmm, idk, I think the problem w/ current thing is it is cheap (for what they get) deal to link spammers but not to actual useful sponsors..
[23:45:06] <robclark> agd5f, I did some digging about latest company that wants to sponsor us and seems a bit sketchy..
[23:45:18] <bryce> I'm less worried about google ranking than the labor involved in having to futz around with it
[23:45:31] <danvet> bryce, good point
[23:45:45] <agd5f> maybe we just need a bit more discretion with who we accept
[23:46:07] <robclark> at a minimum, I think we should put new site sponsors on hold until we sort out a reasonable process.. it was something we didn't really foresee initially..
[23:46:40] <danvet> yeah, checking the sponsors for relevancy to what we're doing might be a good criteria
[23:46:51] <danvet> that cuts out the random stuff
[23:47:00] <robclark> yeah, not sure how to "codify" that..
[23:47:12] <robclark> hence "put on hold until we sort out a process" ;-)
[23:48:11] <danvet> I could work on some verbiage for the revised sponsoring thing
[23:48:37] <robclark> agd5f, https://blog.zipfworks.com/promocodewatch/ for example
[23:48:42] <bryce> if we do want to keep it, I've changed my mind a bit about merging with the events policy. I think now it probably should be completely separate. If we want to be able to drop it later, then having it discrete would make it less thorny to turn off.
[23:49:05] <robclark> agreed
[23:49:30] <bryce> maybe we could drop the levels for that, to eliminate that bit of confusion with the events policy.
[23:49:31] <agd5f> or just some general legalese. "we reserve the right to refuse sponsorship to anyone"
[23:49:34] <robclark> bryce, perhaps for time being, something like "sponsors need to be approved by a board vote"
[23:49:42] <bryce> robclark, +1
[23:49:51] <danvet> yeah that sounds good
[23:49:54] <agd5f> robclark, +1
[23:51:05] <danvet> maybe add "... to ensure relevancy to the foundation or the work of any of its member projects"
[23:51:17] <robclark> yeah, sgtm, +1
[23:51:19] <danvet> gives a hint to the clickspam people to maybe not even bother
[23:51:24] <robclark> right
[23:51:44] <bryce> ok, I'll do up a diff to the sponsorship policies to vote on
[23:51:44] <robclark> intent isn't to be a popularity contest, just filter out scams
[23:52:09] <danvet> bryce, thx
[23:52:15] <robclark> yeah, thx
[23:52:24] <danvet> bryce, so for now plan is also to keep the split?
[23:52:48] <bryce> danvet, yeah
[23:52:58] <bryce> took care of your task for you ;-)
[23:53:03] <danvet> and do you also want to simplify the levels, for less admin overhead?
[23:53:10] <bryce> sure
[23:53:11] <danvet> bryce, I'm happy :-)
[23:53:37] <danvet> sounds all great
[23:54:26] <bryce> danvet, I do think you should probably put some cogitation into the event host discount stuff...
[23:55:07] <bryce> but you can figure that out separately.
[23:55:52] <bryce> might want to think about getting more explicit on hosting requirements, maybe even breaking it out to a separate policy or something.
[23:56:19] <bryce> anyway, back on the topic of bad SEO sponsors...
[23:57:05] <danvet> oh right, that's definitely something I need to do
[23:57:10] <danvet> will put a reminder in the minutes
[23:57:36] <bryce> we got one new sponsor this week at the silver level ($2000) that as rob mentioned he found reports on that may make it not a sponsor we want to list
[23:58:01] <bryce> he and I decided to hold off on doing anything until it could get discussion at this meeting
[23:58:27] <danvet> do we want to wait for the clarified website sponsoring policy, or better we make a decision right now?
[23:58:50] <bryce> I need board direction on whether to a) decline the sponsorship (and maybe ask SPI to refund), or b) accept and post it (maybe removing the URL even though that's the main bit they want).
[23:58:50] <robclark> I guess we can decide to "put on hold" now, perhaps?
[23:59:24] <robclark> not quite sure what to do if they have already made payment/donation to SPI?
[23:59:28] <bryce> danvet, it's orthogonal. since the money's been paid, we need to deal with it now under the current policy.
[00:00:37] <robclark> perhaps talk w/ SPI about refunding the payment and tell the guy who sent the money that sponsor policy is being updated and adding additional sponsors is on hold?? Not sure if that is possible?
[00:00:52] <danvet> bryce, oh, I didn't realize the sponsor went right ahead and paid
[00:01:01] <robclark> yeah
[00:01:06] <danvet> I guess definitely need to add some disclaimer that they need our permission first
[00:01:17] <bryce> danvet, well he said it was paid; again I have no data from SPI to know one way or the other :-/
[00:01:27] <danvet> otoh: take the 2k and reject the next one?
[00:01:37] <danvet> ugh
[00:01:45] <bryce> danvet, yeah that's an option too
[00:01:46] <danvet> this is all a bit complicated
[00:01:56] <bryce> danvet, I know, and its frustrating
[00:01:57] <danvet> I'd vote for whatever is simplest
[00:02:07] <bryce> "mo' money mo' problems"
[00:02:15] <danvet> yeah ...
[00:03:05] <bryce> simplest would be to accept the sponsorship, put sponsorships on hold, and then improve the policy before we get another.
[00:03:19] <bryce> (simplest for me anyway)
[00:03:23] <agd5f> seems reasonable to me
[00:03:49] <bryce> the sponsorship runs for one year
[00:04:13] <robclark> bryce, maybe updated sponsor policy should include some verbage about revoking sponorship? I'd prefer not to have their link on our front page for a year if possible..
[00:04:57] <bryce> robclark, ok
[00:04:58] <danvet> selling a single letter tld we don't even legally own, for cheap
[00:05:07] <danvet> *selling off
[00:05:11] <robclark> right
[00:05:12] <danvet> :-)
[00:05:26] <robclark> I'm pretty sure that is why we got this unwanted interest ;-)
[00:05:42] <bryce> yeah our price tag may be too cheap
[00:05:57] <bryce> however getting rid of urls should solve that
[00:06:02] <agd5f> we should verify the money before we post it
[00:06:09] <danvet> yeah that's for sure
[00:06:27] <danvet> ok its' getting late, I want to ^Z
[00:06:41] <danvet> ok if we postpone this specific case to next mtg?
[00:06:50] <robclark> bryce, does nofollow help?
[00:07:03] <bryce> robclark, no idea but I can look into it
[00:07:11] <danvet> I'll try to run it from the mountain cabin, so no need for someone else to do the secretary
[00:07:14] <robclark> ok, that might be a good short term patch
[00:07:23] <bryce> alright
[00:07:48] <danvet> thx everyone, I'll close the irc logger in a 1-2 minutes or so
[00:07:56] <danvet> in case you want to sneak something in for the record still
[00:07:57] <robclark> I'm +1 for nofollow if that work, btw
[00:08:10] <agd5f> sure, +1 from me too
[00:08:17] <robclark> (so we don't need further vote after research)
[00:10:19] <robclark> bryce, well, I guess you already found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow .. but sounds like it should be what we want..
[00:10:33] <bryce> ok great
[00:10:43] <bryce> yeah that does look sensible
[00:21:13] [disconnected at Fri Feb 2 00:21:13 2018]