XSF Discussion - 2019-11-06

I need to put some time aside to carefully read all of the very many applications.

It's been a long time that we had that many candidates. I'm eagerly awaiting the results.

It's great to see so many people step up!

Exciting stuff, indeed. And all good candidates, too.

Great candidates! The best candidates!

With infinite wisdom

Sorry, I should get that quote right

With great and unmatched wisdom.

yea I think this is the hardest time I ever had voting, making me do actual work...

:D

maybe we’ll have to do the tie breaking thing again, that was fun

That was weird

It was. It'd be nice to pick the random source ahead of time in case we need it.

I'd be happy with that

Speaking of process, what about delaying the inauguration to a date some weeks after the vote?

that would give old Board and old Council a chance to properly transfer everything to new B & C

Ge0rG, you want 423 to be handled by this council? :P

I'm not personally against it anyway, propose something?

pep.: didn't I just propose that?

I suppose it's up to Board to decide that

yeah that's what I meant

But maybe members?

pep.: Board surely can delegate that to members. Or kindly ask Alex to add it to the pending vote.

I don't think Board can decide that. I think New Board and Council takes office the moment Alex gives the formal results of the voting.

Is this governed by the bylaws or XEP 1 or something else?

Zash, Bylaws. We could change that, but only by adding it to the voting for the meeting (and we could, bylaws allow that even during the meeting, which we've had to do before).

sure

You can change the bylaws with no warning?

No double vote by separate member meetings?

ugh, TIL members' quorum is 1/3. And a vote can pass with a majority of that quorum, that is 1/6 + 1 of members?

we don't even have very many members.

Still

If we word it like "starting on the 1st of the calendar month one month after the vote", we would get January 1st for a vote in November.

Right. We can entirely change bylaws with the votes of about 5 users.

which would remove the ambiguity between the "2019 Council" and "2020 Council"

IIRC, we have something about tie-breaks which reduce the needed votes by 1, in effect.

dwd: Well, kinda. We'd need a majority of the quorum, which is based on the number of people who're present or proxy voted, and we usually have a decent number of proxy votes, so doing it with 5 members in practice would be hard, I think?

Kev, Yes, but if you hit the mimimum all the way.

(It's 9 incidentally)

§4.5, Election and Term. At each annual meeting of Members, the Members shall elect Directors to hold office until the next succeeding annual meeting, in accordance with the procedure defined in Section 3.12 of these Bylaws. Each Director shall hold office for the term for which he or she is elected and until his or her successor shall have been elected and qualified or until his or her earlier resignation, removal or death.

This doesn't say specifically when?

Ah, that's right. See §3.8, second para.

So proxy voters, in effect, vanish from the meeting after they cast their initial vote, but we still keep quorum and a majority of those remaining (ie, present) is all that's needed.

Unless one considers the proxy to still be live, and in effect held by Alex, in which case Alex can in all practical sense do whatever he wants.

But last time we had to do weird shit in the AGM, I think we used that second para to mean the proxy voters had left the meeting.

... and then used a vote on §4.4 to resolve a tie, since we hadn't any other solution at the time.

§3.4 Notice "if the Member has consented to receipt of notices via electronic transmission."

lol

"Please Alex send me notices via snail mail"

I don't want your fancy electronic mails

hmm is that really 9 members btw? `jq '.members[].name' data/members.json | wc -l` says 53. * 1/6 that's 8.8 so 9? + 1

9 would be a majority.

A majority is not "more than half"?

Ah, right

nvm

As I say, you just need 18 to vote on anything, then usurp the quorum in the meeting and do whatever you like with a majority of those who showed up. Normally about 5.

Indeed

And 5 as a majority is generous, for annual meetings

dwd: we are missing you over in council@

we don't keep records on who shows up, and we don't verify the Ids ;-)

Although do we have a process for how stuff gets onto the Agenda?

Alex, true. It's not like we verified JIDs even :p

(during board/council meetings for example)

I used to when I was chairing, FWIW.

Quickly check everyone's popups were the right people.

you can't verify the council JIDs from the web logs.

I used to ask for additional agenda items when I announce the meetings. But I think I stopped doing that because nobody asked for adding items

Technically it is an annual meeting, and could be used for more than "just" voting council and board

pep.: agreed

It's quite normal for random organizations here to set the roadmap and budget on such meetings

And that the member meeting agenda has to be annouced waaaaaay in advance

And that the agenda has an item for "was this announced properly?" and if the answer is no then the entire meeting is invalid

If we're considering doing this, I'd strongly prefer any additional agenda items to be handled to be declared well in advance of the meeting.

§3.2 "A meeting of the Members shall be held annually at such time as the Board of Directors may determine".

Zash, here you go, "way in advance"

And as previously mentioned, changes to the bylaws usually require approval on two consecutive member meetings

And §3.4 Notice says 10 to 60 days

Do note that the members can call for a special meeting at any time, too.

Although the requirement for that is kinda prohibitive :)

"when requested in writing by not less than ten percent (10%) of all members entitled to vote at the meeting"

That's 6 members?

Yep.

Do we have 6 members who can remember how to write? :)

And to where?

Right. Can we add an agenda item for the next annual meeting then (this month)

Might as well use it

To remove this restriction

Alex, ^. Or should I formally send something somewhere?

I'd say "in writing" could be the members@ list, since that's what we use for formal communications.

Maybe we can just be more explicit

pep.: I did not follow the whole discussion, I joined late and don'tr have the full history. Need to browse the logs, can you point me to it?

Just the last bit with stpeter

Requiring more than one member is sane tho

To reword/make more explicit the bits in §3.3 of the bylaws "or when requested in writing by not less than ten percent (10%) of all members entitled to vote at the meeting"

The "in writing" part

Post to members@ seems fine to me

Ok. Now I have to think of wording..

Can we also not just have PRs/MRs for that..

where is the source of truth for the bylaws? xmpp.org?

Can I just send a PR on github and get it approved by members during a meeting?

Apparently wherever around 5 members gather :)

moparisthebest, no it needs to be announced

This opens all sorts of fun possibilities

I will object to anything that's only done on Github

Zash, not "only"

I think council members should have to wear robes and wizards hats during meetings

(Although I'd really like to have a tracker be used more prominently, it doesn't have to be github)

pep.: Post to members@ or similar.

stpeter, Alex, do you have the answer to my question above btw, is this online document on xmpp.org the source of truth for our bylaws?

Yes it is.

k

(Sorry, I am in another meeting on another computer, attention is limited as always.)

no worries :)

moparisthebest [17:29]: > I think council members should have to wear robes and wizards hats during meetings That sounds like a proposal for our bylaws.

Does a VLC hat work too?

it was, I plan to rope 4 more members into agreeing with me at the council/board election meeting Ge0rG

That’s the closest thing I have.

sure Link Mauve I'll amend my proposal then

Link Mauve: you have a pylon hat?

A VLC hat.

I'm strictly against that. Only wizard items should be allowed. Otherwise, somebody will try to get in wearing a horny yak mask or something.

There are pictures of me wearing it on the Internet.

what about "Council members MUST wear robes and pointed hats during meetings" ?

Link Mauve: lies! I've entered "link mauve wearing a vlc hat" into the search box, and the closest thing I got was an Underage Gypsy weddings in Russia

moparisthebest, a council member could have somebody point at their hat and qualify?

I'm fine with it pep.

Ge0rG, I didn’t say they were indexed by your search engine. :p

Link Mauve: so they are on the darknet?

I was on the boat this picture has been taken from: https://kodi.tv/sites/default/files/article/field_image/vlc-tower.jpg

pep.: https://xkcd.com/2225/ !

Zash, :D

Has the Docker hub build problem resolved itself?

What do you mean?

The build time getting faster?

That's editors (jonas mostly) pushing themselves

No

I mean, I thought it wasn't working at all

For whatever value of "it"

Something something Docker hub mumble

Docker hub is quite often returning 50x

Maybe that was just that

"Section 3.12 Matters Submitted to a Vote. Any matter that may properly come before the Members may be submitted to the Members for a vote at an annual or special meeting upon request signed or approved by not less than five percent (5%) of the Members of the Corporation."

Do I need 5% of the members to agree to correct a typo in the bylaws? :-°

(probably.)

That's a pretty long sentence.

Is it the special meeting that needs the 5% to approve or the matter?

The matter I'd say, because the special meeting is 10%

add parenthesis plz

I'd need 5% of members to agree first

So if I add agenda items, we'll need at least 18 people to show up during that annual meeting. That's going to be fun

(and probably not happening)

Or did I understand that dwd said earlier that all proxy votes counted as members leaving the meeting didn't affect quorum, hence the number "5" popping up

(as per 3.8 paragraph 2)