FlorianI thought I've missed the meeeting .. but looks like I'm just in time :)
bearShould be a fast meeting today - nothing on the agenda that I can see
Florianis TimeZoneHopping
Florianright :)
KevI 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.
bearick
KevSo maybe another year.
stpeterthat's a shame
KevSay lah vee.
bearmeeting notes: http://typewith.me/TclFScASHi
bearthe only thing I have for the agenda is a question about team members and xsf membership
stpetergosh the websocket discussion list is killing my inbox...
bearcounts
beardon't think we have a quorum yet
FlorianCouldn't send message: The service is unavailable
when I try to contact Will
bearI only have a question about some of the folks who did not reapply for xsf membership being on different teams
stpeterI see Jack online
stpetersent him an invite
Willhas joined
WillHello
stpeterhi Will!
bearhi
Florianhey Will
WillSorry, cycle to the train
WillStation tool a little longer
WillTook
stpetertexting while cycling is dangerous
WillHeh
bearanything for the agenda?
stpetersurfs to http://typewith.me/TclFScASHi
Florianshould we start?
bearif my math is correct, we have a quoram
stpetermath is good
bearbangs the gavel
bearagenda bashing?
WillI have nothing
bearcurrently I have for it a question: - are Comm/iTeam members required to be XSF members?
stpeterKev had a note about GSoC mentors meeting above
bearadds
bearok, onward then
stpeterwell
stpeterabout the teams...
bearpauses
Florianmy first guess would be ... iTeam .. not required
Florianas it's not directly XSF
KeviTeam *is* XSF.
Florianoh right
KevIt's jabber.org that isn't.
FlorianBOFH isn't
stpeterwe added the notion of teams to the bylaws some years ago when there was a lot of interest in making things more formal
KevAnd 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.
Kevgoes back to lurking.
FlorianARTICLE VIII: XMPP Council; Special Interest Groups; XSF Work Teams
stpeterwe 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
Florianright
WillI'm a commteam member and I'm not in the xsf
bearit sounds like then, that I shouldn't open this can-o-worms :)
stpeteror that people like Jerry can't help with Infrastructure issues because he's not an XSF member
stpeterheh
stpeterWill: you're always an outlier :P
Florian:p
stpeterI'm not calling you a lier, just an outlier ;-)
WillI'm just "out there"
Florianhehe
bearso the answer then is "preferred, but not required"
Florianyup, sounds good
WillI think so
Floriannext item then?
stpeterwell, the Bylaws are clear: "Participation in Teams shall be limited to elected Members of the Corporation."
bearouch
Will Im illegal!!
stpeterso either change the bylaws or do things outside of the teams (e.g., just do stuff instead of having rules and regulations)
KevWhich is what we do anyway.
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"
bearsounds to me that we need to remove that part of the bylaw since in practice it is being ignored
stpeterbear: I would agree
Florianor amend it saying the preferred but not required
Florianor amend it saying preferred but not required
stpeterat the time, there was interest in having official teams
Will"participation in teams shall be limited to jolly nice people"
Florian:)
bearor add wiggle text to allow team leaders to delegate to anyone
stpetermostly so that people could say "hey look, I'm the Official Chair of the XSF Marketing Team" and the like
bear"at the discretion of the team leader, outside parties ...."
stpeterbut we don't even really have teams anymore
KevApart from the iteam.
WillIndeed
Florianright
bearwe have 1.2 teams
stpeternot in the sense of teams with members and leaders working on chartered projects approved by the Board -- that was the original impetus
beariteam + 2 folks who are not on the comm team who do things ;)
stpeterif 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
stpeterbut day-to-day things like maintaining the servers and posting to the website -- that's not a team thing, it's just stuff :)
bearthen we should change the bylaws to allow for team creation by the board w
bears/w//
Florian+1
stpeteras 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."
bear+1
Florian+1
stpeterso that's in the Bylaws now
stpeterbut we're not exactly chartering new work
bearnotes that stpeter is *good* at this stuff
stpeterhaha
Florian:)
WillPeter has a big brain
stpeterso, 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."
bear+1
Florian+1
WillThat sounds reasonable cannot see any downsides +1
stpeterWill: you *would* say that, as a non-member :P
Florianlol
WillI'm self serving
stpeterok, 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)
Floriansounds good
stpeterok, now that we've cleared that up...
bear:)
FlorianI'm sorry to say, but I've got to run ...
bearquick question if you can florian
Floriansure
bearkev's report - are they over budget for gsoc or for us?
bearand by how much? if it's gsoc could we cover that difference?
stpeterI think it's for GSoC
stpetersince we don't have a budget for this :)
beargood point
FlorianI'd support covering the difference
bearmy question then is would the board approve covering the difference
Floriangiven it's not blowing our own budget :)
stpeterhowever, 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!
Florianstpeter: especially as Google will pay a part
Willhow much?
stpeterright
stpeterI don't remember how much Google pays for going to the summit
stpeterperhaps they'd make an exception given that we've never sent anyone :)
Florian:)
stpeterbut Kev would know
stpeterso let's follow up with him
Floriansounds good
bearok, we can follow up on this for next week
stpeterI think the summit is in October, so we'll need to figure this out soonish
bear*nod*
bearwith that I think we are done
stpeteryes
Florianok :)
stpeternothing else here
bearthanks all
Floriangreat ... thanks all
Willcool
Floriangotta run
Florianttyl
stpeterthanks, guys
stpeterciao Florian!
Willhas left
bearany tweaks to the notes?
stpeterlooks
stpeteryeah fine
bearchuckles
stpeteralmost added Kev but he wasn't really here
bearI sense that someone has editor fatigue
stpeterthanks, bear
stpeterheh
beark, i'll send the email
stpetersuper
stpetermuch appreciated
stpetergoes back to voting
stpetervotes against himself, as always :)
bearhmm, suddenly I can't edit wiki pages :/
stpeterhmm
stpeterdid you get logged out?
luca tagliaferrihas joined
bearahh -got timed out
bearduh
stpeterheh
stpeteranother episode of "When Smart People Do Dumb Things" :)
bearlol
stpeterI've done my fair share of those so far today :)
stpeterok, time to cook up some lunch here, bbiab
bearciao
jackhas joined
jackhas left
luca tagliaferrihas left
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
Tobiashas left
KevRight, sorry.
KevGoogle's budget is $2000 for travel for two.
stpeterok
KevMy estimates the other day were something like $2500 for the two of us.
stpeteryeah that's not exactly priced right for coming from Europe
stpeterdamn Americans
KevRight.
KevIf you get in early enough you can probably get flights for that much.
stpeter$500 seems a small price to pay by the XSF
stpetergiven that we'll be receiving payment from Google anyway
KevI'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.
stpeter's ok
KevNot wishing to appear ungrateful, as Google putting up the money is obviously great.
stpeterheck, I'm almost tempted to go so we can have a book author reunion party ;-)
KevJust a lack of competence on my part into checking the small* print.
Kev[*Not small]
stpeterI think we'll be able to work it all out
KevI've not looked at the prices today, and I'm in the office tomorrow (and it's late now, etc. etc.)
stpeternods
stpeterfor sure
KevI'm very grateful to Board for the suggestion :)
stpeterit was a stroke of brilliance
bearyes, I am all for sending the three of you to the event
stpeteractually I shan't go
stpeterat least I don't think I would -- when is it exactly?
KevThere'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.
bear22 - 23 Oct
KevOctober the *mumble*
stpeterhmm
bearI think we could have gsoc send you two and just sponsor stpeter's trip
stpeteryeah 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
beargoogle I don't think would refuse him admission
Kevbear: I'm not sure that's true.
KevI *think* the waiting list is for everyone, because they have a limit on space in the (conferenceish) rooms.
bearhe's not going anyways - so my wishful thinking is just that
KevBut I'm happy for Peter and Remko to go and me not :)
stpeterI'm more likely to go next year if we participate, because I will be post-IETF at that point