XSF logo XSF Discussion - 2011-08-24

  1. koski has joined
  2. koski has left
  3. Tobias has joined
  4. luca tagliaferri has joined
  5. luca tagliaferri has left
  6. Tobias has left
  7. koski has joined
  8. koski has left
  9. stpeter has joined
  10. stpeter has left
  11. stpeter has joined
  12. Tobias has joined
  13. Tobias has left
  14. Tobias has joined
  15. Tobias has left
  16. Florian has joined
  17. Tobias has joined
  18. Florian evening all :)
  19. Kev Evening.
  20. Florian I thought I've missed the meeeting .. but looks like I'm just in time :)
  21. bear Should be a fast meeting today - nothing on the agenda that I can see
  22. Florian is TimeZoneHopping
  23. Florian right :)
  24. Kev I may be out later, so I'll report now - it looks like it's not possible for Remko and me to get to the GSoC summit within budget, unfortunately.
  25. bear ick
  26. Kev So maybe another year.
  27. stpeter that's a shame
  28. Kev Say lah vee.
  29. bear meeting notes: http://typewith.me/TclFScASHi
  30. bear the only thing I have for the agenda is a question about team members and xsf membership
  31. stpeter gosh the websocket discussion list is killing my inbox...
  32. bear counts
  33. bear don't think we have a quorum yet
  34. Florian Couldn't send message: The service is unavailable when I try to contact Will
  35. bear I only have a question about some of the folks who did not reapply for xsf membership being on different teams
  36. stpeter I see Jack online
  37. stpeter sent him an invite
  38. Will has joined
  39. Will Hello
  40. stpeter hi Will!
  41. bear hi
  42. Florian hey Will
  43. Will Sorry, cycle to the train
  44. Will Station tool a little longer
  45. Will Took
  46. stpeter texting while cycling is dangerous
  47. Will Heh
  48. bear anything for the agenda?
  49. stpeter surfs to http://typewith.me/TclFScASHi
  50. Florian should we start?
  51. bear if my math is correct, we have a quoram
  52. stpeter math is good
  53. bear bangs the gavel
  54. bear agenda bashing?
  55. Will I have nothing
  56. bear currently I have for it a question: - are Comm/iTeam members required to be XSF members?
  57. stpeter Kev had a note about GSoC mentors meeting above
  58. bear adds
  59. bear ok, onward then
  60. stpeter well
  61. stpeter about the teams...
  62. bear pauses
  63. Florian my first guess would be ... iTeam .. not required
  64. Florian as it's not directly XSF
  65. Kev iTeam *is* XSF.
  66. Florian oh right
  67. Kev It's jabber.org that isn't.
  68. Florian BOFH isn't
  69. stpeter we added the notion of teams to the bylaws some years ago when there was a lot of interest in making things more formal
  70. Kev And nominally you'd need to be XSF to be on the iTeam or CommTeam - but in practice we have people (Jerry) working on infrastructure who aren't members and we're not in a position to be turning away help.
  71. Kev goes back to lurking.
  72. Florian ARTICLE VIII: XMPP Council; Special Interest Groups; XSF Work Teams
  73. stpeter we can leave it as-is, but that doesn't mean (for example) that people can't help out with the website unless they're members of the XSF Communications Team
  74. Florian right
  75. Will I'm a commteam member and I'm not in the xsf
  76. bear it sounds like then, that I shouldn't open this can-o-worms :)
  77. stpeter or that people like Jerry can't help with Infrastructure issues because he's not an XSF member
  78. stpeter heh
  79. stpeter Will: you're always an outlier :P
  80. Florian :p
  81. stpeter I'm not calling you a lier, just an outlier ;-)
  82. Will I'm just "out there"
  83. Florian hehe
  84. bear so the answer then is "preferred, but not required"
  85. Florian yup, sounds good
  86. Will I think so
  87. Florian next item then?
  88. stpeter well, the Bylaws are clear: "Participation in Teams shall be limited to elected Members of the Corporation."
  89. bear ouch
  90. Will Im illegal!!
  91. stpeter so either change the bylaws or do things outside of the teams (e.g., just do stuff instead of having rules and regulations)
  92. Kev Which is what we do anyway.
  93. stpeter "Bob is helping out with the website" vs. "Bob isn't an XSF member so therefore he can't be added to the XSF Communications Team"
  94. bear sounds to me that we need to remove that part of the bylaw since in practice it is being ignored
  95. stpeter bear: I would agree
  96. Florian or amend it saying the preferred but not required
  97. Florian or amend it saying preferred but not required
  98. stpeter at the time, there was interest in having official teams
  99. Will "participation in teams shall be limited to jolly nice people"
  100. Florian :)
  101. bear or add wiggle text to allow team leaders to delegate to anyone
  102. stpeter mostly so that people could say "hey look, I'm the Official Chair of the XSF Marketing Team" and the like
  103. bear "at the discretion of the team leader, outside parties ...."
  104. stpeter but we don't even really have teams anymore
  105. Kev Apart from the iteam.
  106. Will Indeed
  107. Florian right
  108. bear we have 1.2 teams
  109. stpeter not in the sense of teams with members and leaders working on chartered projects approved by the Board -- that was the original impetus
  110. bear iteam + 2 folks who are not on the comm team who do things ;)
  111. stpeter if we had, say, a project to work on an XMPP Validator and the Board budgeted for that work and we felt we needed to organize it among the members, then we'd have need for a team
  112. stpeter but day-to-day things like maintaining the servers and posting to the website -- that's not a team thing, it's just stuff :)
  113. bear then we should change the bylaws to allow for team creation by the board w
  114. bear s/w//
  115. Florian +1
  116. stpeter as in "Each Team shall be responsible for the active management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board or of the Members of the Corporation as of importance to the affairs of the Corporation, or shall act in an advisory capacity to the Board or a Committee of the Board. The specific nature of the Team’s responsibilities shall be defined by a Team Charter, which must be approved by the Board."
  117. bear +1
  118. Florian +1
  119. stpeter so that's in the Bylaws now
  120. stpeter but we're not exactly chartering new work
  121. bear notes that stpeter is *good* at this stuff
  122. stpeter haha
  123. Florian :)
  124. Will Peter has a big brain
  125. stpeter so, we could modify the charter to remove "Participation in Teams shall be limited to elected Members of the Corporation." and then the existing text covers it: "The Charter shall also define the process by which Team members shall be chosen or approved."
  126. bear +1
  127. Florian +1
  128. Will That sounds reasonable cannot see any downsides +1
  129. stpeter Will: you *would* say that, as a non-member :P
  130. Florian lol
  131. Will I'm self serving
  132. stpeter ok, so we can bring that change to the membership during the next voting period (not the current one on members since that's underway, speaking of which I need to vote)
  133. Florian sounds good
  134. stpeter ok, now that we've cleared that up...
  135. bear :)
  136. Florian I'm sorry to say, but I've got to run ...
  137. bear quick question if you can florian
  138. Florian sure
  139. bear kev's report - are they over budget for gsoc or for us?
  140. bear and by how much? if it's gsoc could we cover that difference?
  141. stpeter I think it's for GSoC
  142. stpeter since we don't have a budget for this :)
  143. bear good point
  144. Florian I'd support covering the difference
  145. bear my question then is would the board approve covering the difference
  146. Florian given it's not blowing our own budget :)
  147. stpeter however, we have only $10k in the bank, however I doubt that it was going to cost that much to send two people to California for a few days!
  148. Florian stpeter: especially as Google will pay a part
  149. Will how much?
  150. stpeter right
  151. stpeter I don't remember how much Google pays for going to the summit
  152. stpeter perhaps they'd make an exception given that we've never sent anyone :)
  153. Florian :)
  154. stpeter but Kev would know
  155. stpeter so let's follow up with him
  156. Florian sounds good
  157. bear ok, we can follow up on this for next week
  158. stpeter I think the summit is in October, so we'll need to figure this out soonish
  159. bear *nod*
  160. bear with that I think we are done
  161. stpeter yes
  162. Florian ok :)
  163. stpeter nothing else here
  164. bear thanks all
  165. Florian great ... thanks all
  166. Will cool
  167. Florian gotta run
  168. Florian ttyl
  169. stpeter thanks, guys
  170. stpeter ciao Florian!
  171. Will has left
  172. bear any tweaks to the notes?
  173. stpeter looks
  174. stpeter yeah fine
  175. bear chuckles
  176. stpeter almost added Kev but he wasn't really here
  177. bear I sense that someone has editor fatigue
  178. stpeter thanks, bear
  179. stpeter heh
  180. bear k, i'll send the email
  181. stpeter super
  182. stpeter much appreciated
  183. stpeter goes back to voting
  184. stpeter votes against himself, as always :)
  185. bear hmm, suddenly I can't edit wiki pages :/
  186. stpeter hmm
  187. stpeter did you get logged out?
  188. luca tagliaferri has joined
  189. bear ahh -got timed out
  190. bear duh
  191. stpeter heh
  192. stpeter another episode of "When Smart People Do Dumb Things" :)
  193. bear lol
  194. stpeter I've done my fair share of those so far today :)
  195. stpeter ok, time to cook up some lunch here, bbiab
  196. bear ciao
  197. jack has joined
  198. jack has left
  199. luca tagliaferri has left
  200. Tobias has left
  201. Tobias has joined
  202. Tobias has left
  203. Kev Right, sorry.
  204. Kev Google's budget is $2000 for travel for two.
  205. stpeter ok
  206. Kev My estimates the other day were something like $2500 for the two of us.
  207. stpeter yeah that's not exactly priced right for coming from Europe
  208. stpeter damn Americans
  209. Kev Right.
  210. Kev If you get in early enough you can probably get flights for that much.
  211. stpeter $500 seems a small price to pay by the XSF
  212. stpeter given that we'll be receiving payment from Google anyway
  213. Kev I'd not appreciated the budget was quite that low, or I might have gotten stuff done earlier, and if Remko had realised he'd have poked me into doing something.
  214. stpeter 's ok
  215. Kev Not wishing to appear ungrateful, as Google putting up the money is obviously great.
  216. stpeter heck, I'm almost tempted to go so we can have a book author reunion party ;-)
  217. Kev Just a lack of competence on my part into checking the small* print.
  218. Kev [*Not small]
  219. stpeter I think we'll be able to work it all out
  220. Kev I've not looked at the prices today, and I'm in the office tomorrow (and it's late now, etc. etc.)
  221. stpeter nods
  222. stpeter for sure
  223. Kev I'm very grateful to Board for the suggestion :)
  224. stpeter it was a stroke of brilliance
  225. bear yes, I am all for sending the three of you to the event
  226. stpeter actually I shan't go
  227. stpeter at least I don't think I would -- when is it exactly?
  228. Kev There's an automatic allocation of two people, with a waiting list for extras - I'm happy to give up my seat to send Peter instead.
  229. bear 22 - 23 Oct
  230. Kev October the *mumble*
  231. stpeter hmm
  232. bear I think we could have gsoc send you two and just sponsor stpeter's trip
  233. stpeter yeah I need to go to the W3C Plenary meetings the week of October 31 and then Taipei for IETF 82 the week of November 13 -- that's enough for me
  234. bear google I don't think would refuse him admission
  235. Kev bear: I'm not sure that's true.
  236. Kev I *think* the waiting list is for everyone, because they have a limit on space in the (conferenceish) rooms.
  237. bear he's not going anyways - so my wishful thinking is just that
  238. Kev But I'm happy for Peter and Remko to go and me not :)
  239. stpeter I'm more likely to go next year if we participate, because I will be post-IETF at that point
  240. Kev :)
  241. bear has left
  242. bear has joined