XSF Discussion - 2011-08-24

evening all :)

Evening.

I thought I've missed the meeeting .. but looks like I'm just in time :)

Should be a fast meeting today - nothing on the agenda that I can see

right :)

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.

ick

So maybe another year.

that's a shame

Say lah vee.

meeting notes: http://typewith.me/TclFScASHi

the only thing I have for the agenda is a question about team members and xsf membership

gosh the websocket discussion list is killing my inbox...

don't think we have a quorum yet

Couldn't send message: The service is unavailable when I try to contact Will

I only have a question about some of the folks who did not reapply for xsf membership being on different teams

I see Jack online

sent him an invite

Hello

hi Will!

hi

hey Will

Sorry, cycle to the train

Station tool a little longer

Took

texting while cycling is dangerous

Heh

anything for the agenda?

should we start?

if my math is correct, we have a quoram

math is good

agenda bashing?

I have nothing

currently I have for it a question: - are Comm/iTeam members required to be XSF members?

Kev had a note about GSoC mentors meeting above

ok, onward then

well

about the teams...

my first guess would be ... iTeam .. not required

as it's not directly XSF

iTeam *is* XSF.

oh right

It's jabber.org that isn't.

BOFH isn't

we added the notion of teams to the bylaws some years ago when there was a lot of interest in making things more formal

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.

ARTICLE VIII: XMPP Council; Special Interest Groups; XSF Work Teams

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

right

I'm a commteam member and I'm not in the xsf

it sounds like then, that I shouldn't open this can-o-worms :)

or that people like Jerry can't help with Infrastructure issues because he's not an XSF member

heh

Will: you're always an outlier :P

:p

I'm not calling you a lier, just an outlier ;-)

I'm just "out there"

hehe

so the answer then is "preferred, but not required"

yup, sounds good

I think so

next item then?

well, the Bylaws are clear: "Participation in Teams shall be limited to elected Members of the Corporation."

ouch

Im illegal!!

so either change the bylaws or do things outside of the teams (e.g., just do stuff instead of having rules and regulations)

Which is what we do anyway.

"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"

sounds to me that we need to remove that part of the bylaw since in practice it is being ignored

bear: I would agree

or amend it saying the preferred but not required

or amend it saying preferred but not required

at the time, there was interest in having official teams

"participation in teams shall be limited to jolly nice people"

:)

or add wiggle text to allow team leaders to delegate to anyone

mostly so that people could say "hey look, I'm the Official Chair of the XSF Marketing Team" and the like

"at the discretion of the team leader, outside parties ...."

but we don't even really have teams anymore

Apart from the iteam.

Indeed

right

we have 1.2 teams

not in the sense of teams with members and leaders working on chartered projects approved by the Board -- that was the original impetus

iteam + 2 folks who are not on the comm team who do things ;)

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

but day-to-day things like maintaining the servers and posting to the website -- that's not a team thing, it's just stuff :)

then we should change the bylaws to allow for team creation by the board w

s/w//

+1

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."

+1

+1

so that's in the Bylaws now

but we're not exactly chartering new work

haha

:)

Peter has a big brain

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."

+1

+1

That sounds reasonable cannot see any downsides +1

Will: you *would* say that, as a non-member :P

lol

I'm self serving

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)

sounds good

ok, now that we've cleared that up...

:)

I'm sorry to say, but I've got to run ...

quick question if you can florian

sure

kev's report - are they over budget for gsoc or for us?

and by how much? if it's gsoc could we cover that difference?

I think it's for GSoC

since we don't have a budget for this :)

good point

I'd support covering the difference

my question then is would the board approve covering the difference

given it's not blowing our own budget :)

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!

stpeter: especially as Google will pay a part

how much?

right

I don't remember how much Google pays for going to the summit

perhaps they'd make an exception given that we've never sent anyone :)

:)

but Kev would know

so let's follow up with him

sounds good

ok, we can follow up on this for next week

I think the summit is in October, so we'll need to figure this out soonish

*nod*

with that I think we are done

yes

ok :)

nothing else here

thanks all

great ... thanks all

cool

gotta run

ttyl

thanks, guys

ciao Florian!

any tweaks to the notes?

yeah fine

almost added Kev but he wasn't really here

I sense that someone has editor fatigue

thanks, bear

heh

k, i'll send the email

super

much appreciated

hmm, suddenly I can't edit wiki pages :/

hmm

did you get logged out?

ahh -got timed out

duh

heh

another episode of "When Smart People Do Dumb Things" :)

lol

I've done my fair share of those so far today :)

ok, time to cook up some lunch here, bbiab

ciao

Right, sorry.

Google's budget is $2000 for travel for two.

ok

My estimates the other day were something like $2500 for the two of us.

yeah that's not exactly priced right for coming from Europe

damn Americans

Right.

If you get in early enough you can probably get flights for that much.

$500 seems a small price to pay by the XSF

given that we'll be receiving payment from Google anyway

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.

's ok

Not wishing to appear ungrateful, as Google putting up the money is obviously great.

heck, I'm almost tempted to go so we can have a book author reunion party ;-)

Just a lack of competence on my part into checking the small* print.

[*Not small]

I think we'll be able to work it all out

I've not looked at the prices today, and I'm in the office tomorrow (and it's late now, etc. etc.)

for sure

I'm very grateful to Board for the suggestion :)

it was a stroke of brilliance

yes, I am all for sending the three of you to the event

actually I shan't go

at least I don't think I would -- when is it exactly?

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.

22 - 23 Oct

October the *mumble*

hmm

I think we could have gsoc send you two and just sponsor stpeter's trip

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

google I don't think would refuse him admission

bear: I'm not sure that's true.

I *think* the waiting list is for everyone, because they have a limit on space in the (conferenceish) rooms.

he's not going anyways - so my wishful thinking is just that

But I'm happy for Peter and Remko to go and me not :)

I'm more likely to go next year if we participate, because I will be post-IETF at that point

:)