jonas’MattJ, after council meeting isn’t really going to work for me, I’m usually preparing dinner then. I assume weekends aren’t going to work for you?
MattJUsually not, but I might be able to make this Sunday work
jonas’SMS-based 2fa is very convenient with MAXS ;-) (cc and thx @ flow)
Ge0rGjonas’: it's also reducing the number of factors.
jonas’although that depends really
jonas’but in any case, I’m not fond of SMS based 2fa anyways
jonas’I don’t trust the phone or phone network with that
MattJI agree, MAXS makes it easier
MattJand it's not really removing a factor, it just means you have to have your phone or your laptop, the other factor is still the password
MattJUnless you have the password saved on the laptop :)
MattJHuh, we swapped rooms
Ge0rGMattJ: or in the app on your phone
Dele (Mobile)has joined
Dele (Mobile)has left
Dele (Mobile)has joined
nyco_Ralph is not joining, excused by email
SeveCan someone else chair today, please?
GuusMattJ - are you around?
Guusbangs the gavel
GuusHello, and welcome to the umptieth edition of the XSF board meeting!
Guus1) Role call and agenda
Guuswe've established that everyone is here, but Ralph that just sent an email to apologise
Guusas usual, the agenda is driven by our Trello board at https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
MattJRe. agenda: I propose we tackle some of the items we didn't cover last week, due to the length of the DOAP discussion last week
Guusdoes anyone want us to address anything that's not on there?
MattJand if we have time, we can revisit DOAP
SeveYes, I would also like to do that, MattJ
GuusI have no preference either way.
Seve(And I do not have anything for the agenda)
GuusUnless nyco strongly objects within the next few moments, so it shall be then.
Guus2) Confirm minute taker
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
GuusWho would be so kind?
nyco_I object this objection! :)
Dele (Mobile)has left
MattJI'll do it
GuusAnyone? We'd be helped a lot by someone taking notes, compiling them and sending them on the members lists after the meeting. There's nothing more to it.
GuusThanks MattJ - if anyone that's not also taking part in the discussion would consider doing this next time(s), please!
Guus3) Topics for decisions
Guus3.1) Sponsorship request
MattJRalph isn't here, but indicated he would rather decline this unless we can determine their relationship with XMPP
Guuswe received this offer:
> I represent a company called TheBestVPN.com and we'd like to make a sponsorship for XMPP.
> Can you let us know if you're accepting any new sponsorship request and are there any perks associated with it?
MattJAlso, relatedly, I just searched my inbox to find the email from Peter
MattJand turned up an email from someone at TheBestVPN.com to a Debian mailing list, which looked like a thinly-veiled SEO attempt
SeveI tried to find some information about them on the Internet but it is not quite clear to me if there is a real support for XMPP or it is a "kind of SEO request"
GuusI'm not sure if we should limit ourselves to sponsors that have a direct relation to XMPP
nyco_fine, so be it: it's no
MattJI don't see anything particularly shady in any of it itself, but we've previously declined SEO-only sponsors, and I'm inclined to maintain this policy
nyco_do we need to debate more?
GuusI do think we should not have sponsors that only want to use us for blatant SEO
nyco_they are bad SEO then, because you can some for free
GuusWell, this guy didn't say/do anything to suggest that this is a SEO attempt.
SeveGuus, I think we should not close the doors to any sponsors, either XMPP supporters or not, but yeah, not only SEO requests
GuusHe just offered to sponsor, and asked about the perks.
GuusI see no harm in pointing him at the website that lists the perks.
MattJBased on everything I've seen so far, and the email to the Debian list, it's 99.99% likely to be SEO-related
GuusGiven that, I suggest that we reject based on the shady history of the company, and that we're reluctant to be associated to that.
Ge0rGI suggest to drop and not to reject.
nyco_yes, please, let's reject it
Ge0rGdon't reply at all, that reduces the risk of long discussions.
GuusHe already sent a follow-up question. I'll try to formulate a response - that's the least we can do.
Ge0rGpeople who are good at SEO are also good at sending follow-up requests
Guusso, we reject this offer due to the perceived SEO-nature and non-positive history of the company?
nyco_on LinuxFr, I usually reject kindly all ads, promoted content, links exchanges, partnerships...
explicity, it helps
I get a "thank you" almost every time
nyco_I'd reject based on non-relatedness to XMPP
Ge0rGAny kind of rejection needs to be well argued based on our public policy.
GuusI don't want to reject it based on non-XMPP relationship. That's an excuse.
nyco_no one in that company has written XMPP software, no one is a member
=> correct assumption?
Ge0rGWriting a proper rejection will be some work.
MattJI know why you would say "don't limit us to XMPP-related things only", but if someone wants to sponsor us who is not related to XMPP or aligned with the XSF's goals, what could their motives be?
nyco_no, it's quite easy and fast
SeveApart from SEO... Hmm
MattJSEO is top of that list
GuusMattJ supporting OSS / Open standards?
MattJGuus, that aligns with our goals, obviously
nyco_I feel we're wasting too much time on this
GuusI tend to agree nyco.
MattJWell, we're not just really discussing this request, but how to deal with requests of this kind (this is not the first and it won't be the last)
GuusI'll draft a rejection reply, and share it with board.
Guusif there's no consensus via mail, we can pick this up again next week.
MattJUltimately we could provide Peter with some guidance on how to handle these himself
MattJInstead of every inbound SEO request ending up on Board's agenda
MattJwhich believe me, doesn't happen in any other sane organisation
Guusgiven that this is our second request in as many years... 🙂
nyco_we get two or three such requests per month on LinuxFr.org
nyco_it takes 5 min each
MattJThen maybe no general action is needed, let's just ask Peter to kindly reject with a one-liner
SeveWe would need to check if he said he would forward it to Board
GuusI'll send the one-liner.
GuusLet's move on
SeveOk, thank you.
Guus4) Commitment for the week ahead
GuusI'm skipping over the issues with Ralph's face tagged to it, as he's not here
Guus4.1) GSOC '19 evaluation
GuusNyco, I'm seeing your name attached to that
GuusDo we want to do anything here?
nyco_yes, https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/GSoC_2019 or not... just asked the commTeam
nyco_sorry, it went out of my mind
GuusNo worries, I have a similar mind 🙂
nyco_we are closing the newsletter tomorrow, we'll send a PR on GitHub, for a publication on Tue 1st Oct
nyco_so either someone write a short piece
Guuscomms related to this is good, but not something that board is needed for.
nyco_or we forget it
Guusdo we want to evaluate the process itself? Eg: flow organizing things for the first time?
nyco_he hasn't got time for this, I asked
GuusI think I pinged him on that, but forgot his response, if I got any.
GuusOk - Is there anyone that feels an evaluation is needed?
GuusWe seem to hav had a successful gsoc?
nyco_maybe a summary could do, as a reminder for our newsletter readers
nyco_(and contribute to SEO as well...)
SeveIdeally I would like someone related to it
Guusthat's comms again 🙂
Guus(and: fine by me)
GuusI'm not hearing anyone particularly wanting to go over this.
nyco_I'll try, low proba it will end up in the newsletter
Ge0rGAren't there blogs kept by all participants? A summary could link those.
GuusYeah, I intended this to be not about comms
Guusbut more around the question: do we want to organize things differently next year?
GuusI don't see any reason to, and as I'm having trouble getting this discussion off the ground, let's skip it completely and thank Flow and others involved for their effort.
SeveThat would require input from the people involved in it, I can't tell much, unfortunately.
Guus5) Items for discussion
Guus5.1) Publicize XSF financials
GuusThis is in response to a question I received from an XSF Member about the state of the XSF financials.
Guuslet me quote some stuff
SeveWhere they done public in the past? I've read that by someone but can't remember who :)
Guus> Earlier today, a member had detailed questions on XSF financials (what do we spend money on, how do we obtain money, etc). He asked if/why data was private.
> I had to admit that I simply didn't know. I feel that much of this isn't private data, but I don't think we publicly share information either.
> There's a least one member that hinted at us being secretive about the financials. I don't think that's necessarily true, but since we've not been publishing any information, I can see how that can be perceived as being secretive.
> Someone else mentioned that the XSF has been 'more open' about this in the past. I'm thinking that the lack of information sharing is largely caused by people being less active, and not so much a deliberate attempt at withholding data. What do you think?
> I'd hate for people to feel that we're doing things in the dark here. If we did things differently before, can you share on what worked well at that time?
SeveJust to know how things went previously, etc
Guusthat was all me, to Peter
> The board has never set a policy on this. If we want to open the books, it is easy enough to do.
> Well, "secretive" is a bit strong. In the far past we posted a kind of spreadsheet on the website, describing various expenses. I'd be happy to do that again, and even reconstruct expenses for all the years between then and now. Naturally it will take me some time to generate that information from file folders in my safe. 🙂
Guus(that concludes my quoting of things)
GuusI'd not mind taking Peter up on that offer.
SeveThat helps a lot, really
MattJIs backfilling a requirement?
GuusWhich in my perspective is basically picking up where we left off.
jonas’floor comment: I suggest we don’t put too much load on peter in htis regard and do not ask for expense summaries since back then
MattJI agree, I'd rather not provide Peter with more work if we can help it
nyco_agree, it's a question of RoI
GuusI disagree. If we do make things public, it shouldn't have gaps.
nyco_ROTI, return on time invested
jonas’unless a majority of members wants that information, of course
pep.MattJ: is as one of the people to ask about this, I don't mind if it's just from now on.
Guusalso, I'm guessing that the work involved is light, as he already should have administation
MattJGuus, we make things public from today, I don't see the problem
MattJHe said himself it will "take some time"
GuusSure, doesn't need to happen overnight
nyco_can we easily track the board's decisions regarding spending?
Guusbut I think it's sensible to have a complete record.
MattJI feel it's unfair to ask him to put in that time just to satisfy the curiosity of a couple of folks, when just general overview of current+future would be fine
Guusalso, he offered without being asked to.
MattJWe're over time again and I need to prep for my next meeting
GuusI'm not seeing this as satisfying curiosity, but as a way to be transparant as an organisastion.
GuusOk, can we conclude this before you go?
MattJI've no objection to transparency
nyco_yep, we are fully transparent with the board, holding meetings in public...
MattJBut I don't see that historical records are a hard requirement
MattJI see them as a nice thing to have, but I think publishing our current financial state and maintaining that going forwards is plenty of improvement already
KevWhat practical purpose would historical records have, compared to current?
jonas’middle-ground: add a note (to whereever this is going to be published) that historical records are not available in digital form, but can be requested by any member at any time
KevHow is a lack of trust current presenting itself?
KevHow is a lack of trust currently presenting itself?
nyco_not sure, people asking on written form?
GuusIn the interest of time, let's move this to next week
MattJKev, well, arguably I could have been colluding with Peter to siphon XSF funds into the Prosody project, hence my argument to keep the records closed :)
GuusMatt needs to go.
Guus6) AOB (that are pressing?)
MattJI obviously haven't, but there is merit to having open historical records
Guus7) Date/Time of next
Guusdo we have DST changes upon us?
Guus(it's that time of year)
Guuswe're all on the same switchover date, I think?
SeveYes, we are.
MattJin a few weeks at least
nyco_ah ok, not this weekend
GuusOk, we'll continue to use London time then, which should avoid us being affected at all
SeveThank you :)
MattJI'll have to finish the minutes after my meetings today
GuusKev - I think the purpose of opening the books is to prevent a lack of trust manifesting itself.
Guusnot the other way around
KevYes, and opening the books from now seems quite pragmatic and sensible. I'm not sure it's worth the effort of going back and reconstructing reports, given Peter's time is presumably not easy to come by.
GuusI appreciate that, but a) he offered, and b) it kind of comes with the role of being a Treasurer.
Guusit's not that I suggest we pressure him into doing things
Guusbut as he offered, and I think it'd be good to have a full set of records, I'm inclined to take him up on that offer.
Guusalso, I'm happy for this to not be ready tomorrow.
SeveI don't see any specific urgency on this, either. But I also do not expect members to request trust from Boards long time ago.
GuusI'm envisioning this as nothing more than a simple table, right - not extensive details
SeveI guessed so.
nyco_anything you publish, you might have questions around it
nyco_if not objections
Guusthen we decide to not publish anything
Guus(which I think is a bad idea)
nyco_hide and stop doing things
jonas’Guus, there appears to be a full set of records, it’s just not public