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?
MattJ
Usually not, but I might be able to make this Sunday work
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
jonas’
SMS-based 2fa is very convenient with MAXS ;-) (cc and thx @ flow)
LNJhas left
LNJhas joined
Ge0rG
jonas’: it's also reducing the number of factors.
jonas’
Ge0rG, yeah
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
MattJ
I agree, MAXS makes it easier
Yagizahas left
Yagizahas joined
Syndacehas joined
MattJ
and 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
MattJ
Unless you have the password saved on the laptop :)
pdurbinhas joined
MattJ
Huh, we swapped rooms
Ge0rG
MattJ: or in the app on your phone
remkohas left
remkohas joined
lskdjfhas joined
jubalhhas joined
pdurbinhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
mukt2has joined
remkohas left
jubalhhas left
mukt2has left
remkohas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
Chobbeshas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
ajhas left
jubalhhas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
jubalhhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
emushas left
emushas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
nycohas joined
Chobbeshas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
mukt2has joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
UsLhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
delehas joined
COM8has joined
delehas left
mukt2has left
COM8has left
Dele (Mobile)has joined
Chobbeshas joined
Chobbeshas left
nyco
test
Kev
toast
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Guus
donkey!
remkohas left
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
mukt2has joined
Dele (Mobile)has left
nyco_
5
Dele (Mobile)has joined
nyco_
_o/
nyco_
Ralph is not joining, excused by email
Seve
Can someone else chair today, please?
Guus
Hi guys
Guus
MattJ - are you around?
MattJ
Here
nyco_
quorum
Guusbangs the gavel
Guus
Hello, and welcome to the umptieth edition of the XSF board meeting!
Guus
1) Role call and agenda
MattJ
Here
Guus
we've established that everyone is here, but Ralph that just sent an email to apologise
Guus
as usual, the agenda is driven by our Trello board at https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
MattJ
Re. 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
Guus
does anyone want us to address anything that's not on there?
MattJ
and if we have time, we can revisit DOAP
Seve
Yes, I would also like to do that, MattJ
Guus
I have no preference either way.
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Seve
(And I do not have anything for the agenda)
Guus
Unless nyco strongly objects within the next few moments, so it shall be then.
Guus
2) Confirm minute taker
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Guus
Who would be so kind?
nyco_
I object this objection! :)
Dele (Mobile)has left
MattJ
I'll do it
delehas joined
Guus
Anyone? 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.
Guus
Thanks MattJ - if anyone that's not also taking part in the discussion would consider doing this next time(s), please!
Guus
3) Topics for decisions
Guus
3.1) Sponsorship request
MattJ
Ralph isn't here, but indicated he would rather decline this unless we can determine their relationship with XMPP
Guus
we 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?
MattJ
Also, relatedly, I just searched my inbox to find the email from Peter
MattJ
and turned up an email from someone at TheBestVPN.com to a Debian mailing list, which looked like a thinly-veiled SEO attempt
Seve
I 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"
Guus
I'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
MattJ
I 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?
Guus
I 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
Guus
Well, this guy didn't say/do anything to suggest that this is a SEO attempt.
Seve
Guus, I think we should not close the doors to any sponsors, either XMPP supporters or not, but yeah, not only SEO requests
Guus
He just offered to sponsor, and asked about the perks.
Seve
Indeed
Guus
I see no harm in pointing him at the website that lists the perks.
Based on everything I've seen so far, and the email to the Debian list, it's 99.99% likely to be SEO-related
Guus
Given that, I suggest that we reject based on the shady history of the company, and that we're reluctant to be associated to that.
Ge0rG
I suggest to drop and not to reject.
nyco_
yes, please, let's reject it
Guus
Ge0rG ?
Ge0rG
don't reply at all, that reduces the risk of long discussions.
nyco_
fine
Guus
He already sent a follow-up question. I'll try to formulate a response - that's the least we can do.
Ge0rG
people who are good at SEO are also good at sending follow-up requests
Guus
so, 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
Ge0rG
Any kind of rejection needs to be well argued based on our public policy.
Guus
I 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?
mukt2has left
Ge0rG
Writing a proper rejection will be some work.
MattJ
I 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?
Well, 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)
Guus
I'll draft a rejection reply, and share it with board.
nyco_
+1
Guus
if there's no consensus via mail, we can pick this up again next week.
MattJ
Ultimately we could provide Peter with some guidance on how to handle these himself
MattJ
Instead of every inbound SEO request ending up on Board's agenda
MattJ
which believe me, doesn't happen in any other sane organisation
Guus
given 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
MattJ
Then maybe no general action is needed, let's just ask Peter to kindly reject with a one-liner
Seve
We would need to check if he said he would forward it to Board
Guus
I'll send the one-liner.
Guus
Let's move on
Seve
Ok, thank you.
Guus
4) Commitment for the week ahead
Guus
I'm skipping over the issues with Ralph's face tagged to it, as he's not here
Guus
which leaves
Guus
4.1) GSOC '19 evaluation
Guus
Nyco, I'm seeing your name attached to that
Guus
Do 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
Guus
No 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
Guus
comms related to this is good, but not something that board is needed for.
nyco_
or we forget it
Marandahas left
nyco_
agree
Guus
do 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
Guus
I think I pinged him on that, but forgot his response, if I got any.
Guus
Ok - Is there anyone that feels an evaluation is needed?
Guus
We seem to hav had a successful gsoc?
nyco_
maybe a summary could do, as a reminder for our newsletter readers
zachhas left
zachhas joined
nyco_
(and contribute to SEO as well...)
Seve
Ideally I would like someone related to it
Guus
that's comms again 🙂
Guus
(and: fine by me)
Guus
I'm not hearing anyone particularly wanting to go over this.
nyco_
I'll try, low proba it will end up in the newsletter
Ge0rG
Aren't there blogs kept by all participants? A summary could link those.
Guus
Yeah, I intended this to be not about comms
Guus
but more around the question: do we want to organize things differently next year?
Guus
I 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.
Seve
That would require input from the people involved in it, I can't tell much, unfortunately.
Guus
5) Items for discussion
Guus
5.1) Publicize XSF financials
Guus
This is in response to a question I received from an XSF Member about the state of the XSF financials.
Guus
let me quote some stuff
Seve
Where 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?
Seve
Just to know how things went previously, etc
Guus
that was all me, to Peter
Guus
Peter responded:
> The board has never set a policy on this. If we want to open the books, it is easy enough to do.
and
> 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. 🙂
patrickhas joined
Guus
(that concludes my quoting of things)
Guus
I'd not mind taking Peter up on that offer.
Seve
That helps a lot, really
MattJ
Is backfilling a requirement?
Guus
Which 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
MattJ
I agree, I'd rather not provide Peter with more work if we can help it
nyco_
agree, it's a question of RoI
Guus
I 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.
Guus
also, I'm guessing that the work involved is light, as he already should have administation
MattJ
Guus, we make things public from today, I don't see the problem
MattJ
He said himself it will "take some time"
patrickhas left
Guus
Sure, doesn't need to happen overnight
nyco_
can we easily track the board's decisions regarding spending?
Guus
but I think it's sensible to have a complete record.
MattJ
I 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
Guus
also, he offered without being asked to.
MattJ
We're over time again and I need to prep for my next meeting
Guus
I'm not seeing this as satisfying curiosity, but as a way to be transparant as an organisastion.
Guus
Ok, can we conclude this before you go?
MattJ
I've no objection to transparency
nyco_
yep, we are fully transparent with the board, holding meetings in public...
MattJ
But I don't see that historical records are a hard requirement
MattJ
I 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
Kev
What practical purpose would historical records have, compared to current?
nyco_
trust?
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
Kev
How is a lack of trust current presenting itself?✎
andyhas left
andyhas joined
Kev
How is a lack of trust currently presenting itself? ✏
nyco_
not sure, people asking on written form?
Guus
In the interest of time, let's move this to next week
MattJ
Kev, 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 :)
nyco_
(guessing...)
Guus
Matt needs to go.
Guus
6) AOB (that are pressing?)
nyco_
nope
MattJ
I obviously haven't, but there is merit to having open historical records
Guus
7) Date/Time of next
+1w?
MattJ
wfm
nyco_
+1
Guus
do we have DST changes upon us?
Guus
(it's that time of year)
Guus
we're all on the same switchover date, I think?
Seve
Yes, we are.
MattJ
in a few weeks at least
nyco_
nope
nyco_
ah ok, not this weekend
Marandahas joined
Guus
Ok, we'll continue to use London time then, which should avoid us being affected at all
Guusbangs gavel
Guus
thanks!
nyco_
26-27th Oct
Seve
Thank you :)
nyco_
thx all!
MattJ
Thanks!
MattJ
I'll have to finish the minutes after my meetings today
Guus
Kev - I think the purpose of opening the books is to prevent a lack of trust manifesting itself.
Guus
not the other way around
Kev
Yes, 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.
emushas left
Kev
But YMMV.
Guus
I appreciate that, but a) he offered, and b) it kind of comes with the role of being a Treasurer.
Guus
it's not that I suggest we pressure him into doing things
Guus
but 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.
Guus
also, I'm happy for this to not be ready tomorrow.
Seve
I don't see any specific urgency on this, either. But I also do not expect members to request trust from Boards long time ago.
emushas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Guus
I'm envisioning this as nothing more than a simple table, right - not extensive details
Seve
I guessed so.
nyco_
anything you publish, you might have questions around it
nyco_
if not objections
Guus
then we decide to not publish anything
nyco_
hehehe
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