XSF Discussion - 2011-08-24


  1. Florian

    evening all :)

  2. Kev

    Evening.

  3. Florian

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

  4. bear

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

  5. Florian is TimeZoneHopping

  6. Florian

    right :)

  7. 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.

  8. bear

    ick

  9. Kev

    So maybe another year.

  10. stpeter

    that's a shame

  11. Kev

    Say lah vee.

  12. bear

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

  13. bear

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

  14. stpeter

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

  15. bear counts

  16. bear

    don't think we have a quorum yet

  17. Florian

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

  18. bear

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

  19. stpeter

    I see Jack online

  20. stpeter

    sent him an invite

  21. Will

    Hello

  22. stpeter

    hi Will!

  23. bear

    hi

  24. Florian

    hey Will

  25. Will

    Sorry, cycle to the train

  26. Will

    Station tool a little longer

  27. Will

    Took

  28. stpeter

    texting while cycling is dangerous

  29. Will

    Heh

  30. bear

    anything for the agenda?

  31. stpeter surfs to http://typewith.me/TclFScASHi

  32. Florian

    should we start?

  33. bear

    if my math is correct, we have a quoram

  34. stpeter

    math is good

  35. bear bangs the gavel

  36. bear

    agenda bashing?

  37. Will

    I have nothing

  38. bear

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

  39. stpeter

    Kev had a note about GSoC mentors meeting above

  40. bear adds

  41. bear

    ok, onward then

  42. stpeter

    well

  43. stpeter

    about the teams...

  44. bear pauses

  45. Florian

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

  46. Florian

    as it's not directly XSF

  47. Kev

    iTeam *is* XSF.

  48. Florian

    oh right

  49. Kev

    It's jabber.org that isn't.

  50. Florian

    BOFH isn't

  51. 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

  52. 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.

  53. Kev goes back to lurking.

  54. Florian

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

  55. 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

  56. Florian

    right

  57. Will

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

  58. bear

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

  59. stpeter

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

  60. stpeter

    heh

  61. stpeter

    Will: you're always an outlier :P

  62. Florian

    :p

  63. stpeter

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

  64. Will

    I'm just "out there"

  65. Florian

    hehe

  66. bear

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

  67. Florian

    yup, sounds good

  68. Will

    I think so

  69. Florian

    next item then?

  70. stpeter

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

  71. bear

    ouch

  72. Will

    Im illegal!!

  73. stpeter

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

  74. Kev

    Which is what we do anyway.

  75. 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"

  76. bear

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

  77. stpeter

    bear: I would agree

  78. Florian

    or amend it saying the preferred but not required

  79. Florian

    or amend it saying preferred but not required

  80. stpeter

    at the time, there was interest in having official teams

  81. Will

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

  82. Florian

    :)

  83. bear

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

  84. stpeter

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

  85. bear

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

  86. stpeter

    but we don't even really have teams anymore

  87. Kev

    Apart from the iteam.

  88. Will

    Indeed

  89. Florian

    right

  90. bear

    we have 1.2 teams

  91. stpeter

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

  92. bear

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

  93. 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

  94. 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 :)

  95. bear

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

  96. bear

    s/w//

  97. Florian

    +1

  98. 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."

  99. bear

    +1

  100. Florian

    +1

  101. stpeter

    so that's in the Bylaws now

  102. stpeter

    but we're not exactly chartering new work

  103. bear notes that stpeter is *good* at this stuff

  104. stpeter

    haha

  105. Florian

    :)

  106. Will

    Peter has a big brain

  107. 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."

  108. bear

    +1

  109. Florian

    +1

  110. Will

    That sounds reasonable cannot see any downsides +1

  111. stpeter

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

  112. Florian

    lol

  113. Will

    I'm self serving

  114. 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)

  115. Florian

    sounds good

  116. stpeter

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

  117. bear

    :)

  118. Florian

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

  119. bear

    quick question if you can florian

  120. Florian

    sure

  121. bear

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

  122. bear

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

  123. stpeter

    I think it's for GSoC

  124. stpeter

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

  125. bear

    good point

  126. Florian

    I'd support covering the difference

  127. bear

    my question then is would the board approve covering the difference

  128. Florian

    given it's not blowing our own budget :)

  129. 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!

  130. Florian

    stpeter: especially as Google will pay a part

  131. Will

    how much?

  132. stpeter

    right

  133. stpeter

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

  134. stpeter

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

  135. Florian

    :)

  136. stpeter

    but Kev would know

  137. stpeter

    so let's follow up with him

  138. Florian

    sounds good

  139. bear

    ok, we can follow up on this for next week

  140. stpeter

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

  141. bear

    *nod*

  142. bear

    with that I think we are done

  143. stpeter

    yes

  144. Florian

    ok :)

  145. stpeter

    nothing else here

  146. bear

    thanks all

  147. Florian

    great ... thanks all

  148. Will

    cool

  149. Florian

    gotta run

  150. Florian

    ttyl

  151. stpeter

    thanks, guys

  152. stpeter

    ciao Florian!

  153. bear

    any tweaks to the notes?

  154. stpeter looks

  155. stpeter

    yeah fine

  156. bear chuckles

  157. stpeter

    almost added Kev but he wasn't really here

  158. bear

    I sense that someone has editor fatigue

  159. stpeter

    thanks, bear

  160. stpeter

    heh

  161. bear

    k, i'll send the email

  162. stpeter

    super

  163. stpeter

    much appreciated

  164. stpeter goes back to voting

  165. stpeter votes against himself, as always :)

  166. bear

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

  167. stpeter

    hmm

  168. stpeter

    did you get logged out?

  169. bear

    ahh -got timed out

  170. bear

    duh

  171. stpeter

    heh

  172. stpeter

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

  173. bear

    lol

  174. stpeter

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

  175. stpeter

    ok, time to cook up some lunch here, bbiab

  176. bear

    ciao

  177. Kev

    Right, sorry.

  178. Kev

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

  179. stpeter

    ok

  180. Kev

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

  181. stpeter

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

  182. stpeter

    damn Americans

  183. Kev

    Right.

  184. Kev

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

  185. stpeter

    $500 seems a small price to pay by the XSF

  186. stpeter

    given that we'll be receiving payment from Google anyway

  187. 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.

  188. stpeter

    's ok

  189. Kev

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

  190. stpeter

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

  191. Kev

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

  192. Kev

    [*Not small]

  193. stpeter

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

  194. Kev

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

  195. stpeter nods

  196. stpeter

    for sure

  197. Kev

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

  198. stpeter

    it was a stroke of brilliance

  199. bear

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

  200. stpeter

    actually I shan't go

  201. stpeter

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

  202. 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.

  203. bear

    22 - 23 Oct

  204. Kev

    October the *mumble*

  205. stpeter

    hmm

  206. bear

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

  207. 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

  208. bear

    google I don't think would refuse him admission

  209. Kev

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

  210. Kev

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

  211. bear

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

  212. Kev

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

  213. stpeter

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

  214. Kev

    :)