XSF Discussion - 2020-02-27

marc0s: sometimes, addons such as noscript or umatrix block the files needed for renderig

since XSL is turing complete.

if you plan to do more XEP work, using the makefile in the xeps repository to build your document ( `make build/inbox/reminders.html`, assuming linux and your protoxep in `inbox/reminders.xml`) may be worthwhile

thanks jonas’ . Yes I'm aware of the Makefile, I was just wondering why it didn't work. More than probably is one of those addons, which I have both

marc0s: also I replied to your email with further instructions

jonas’: got it, thanks

> So, it would be nice to get 389 moving again. Zash: 389 is IBR after bind or what?

No

I don't get the point then

marc: what's the essence of our yesterday's discussion? Do you want to make token-IBR and PARS more distinct, and have a stronger highlight on the standalone token-IBR? Do you want to make the changes or shall I make another attempt at a PR?

And that's actually absolutely orthogonal to the pre-IBR-IQ vs. dataforms vs. ??? question

Ge0rG: wasn't the outcome that we make pars / roster subscription "more optional" in 401?

> And that's actually absolutely orthogonal to the pre-IBR-IQ vs. dataforms vs. ??? question Yes, but still an open question

marc: yes, that was the desired outcome. The question is, how we get there and who's in charge

> marc: I'm strongly convinced that under the given circumstances, pre-IBR IQ is the last hacky hack. 🤔

"least"?

marc: I'm strongly convinced that under the given circumstances, pre-IBR IQ is the least hacky hack. ✏

Zash: thanks. My keyboard seems to be eating lttrs

@‎pep.‎ memberbot PR looks good to me. But it looks like I don't have permissions ro merge

hah

MattJ, ^

plz! :)

I might not make it in 5mn, or I'll be late (on the road)

*nod*

0. Welcome

Hi! Who do we have?

Greetings! :)

! somewhat. better in a few minutes

o/

Guus?

here

Yay!

1. Minute taker

https://mensuel.framapad.org/p/9f92-2020-02-27-xsfboardweekly

hello nyco-2! Thanks

2. Team memberships

jonas’ raised this item, regarding culling the editor team from people who are not actually, well, editing.

Right

As agreed last week, I pinged each member currently listed on the editors team

Nobody asked to be removed from the team, everyone indicated they intend to contribute where they can

I understand this is probably not the outcome jonas wanted

They explicitly replied? Nice.

Yes, everyone

! here

A couple of people did say that they are ok with being removed if it is a problem

The original intention based on last week's discussion was to remove anyone who had e.g. overlooked resigning from the team

It appears nobody falls into that category

Right

If we want to actively start removing people from the team, I think that's a tougher call and would need some objective criteria or someone other than me to make that call :)

or we solve the original problem some other way, if possible

I agree. Can't the Editor team resolve that on their own?

I'd not be in favor of removing people against their will, at least not unless the matter is more pressing to jonas’ than what I assume is the case.

well editor team is in fact mostly Jonas. Even I as the latest added member is not as active

If this is a problem to be fixed, rather than an optimization (as how I currently perceive it) I'd be happy to circle back to this.

am*

let's wait for jonas’ feedback

Guus: agreed

k

I did notice that stpeter is still mentioned as Executive Director on the Members list. That should be adjusted.

Anything else on this?

not from me

3. 2020 Sponsors

Periods of activity in our case are difficult to manage, I'm with you guys on this

Regarding my commitments on this, as you probably have noticed, I have been busy with work the last two weeks, so I am taking this on for coming meeting.

what's the commitment regarding sponsors exactly?

reach out / renew?

Guus: yes, the two items in trello

that just says '2020 sponsors' 🙂 ✏

oh, sorry

No that's in the "Items for Discussions" column

yeah, just noticed it. apologies

I don't think we have anything to discuss right now

(on this)

ralphm the newsletter is not yet closed, should I add something about it?

When is the deadline?

tomrrow?

Hmm. I'll see what I can come up with.

thx

Good idea.

+1

4. Board voting process and discussions

pep. raised this on the Members list. I wasn't sure if it should be discussed now.

there hasn't been much discussion around it (!)

Dave answered on the list, I don't especially agree with all. I meant to reply

My questions are: 1) was there a trigger for this, 2) have you found this to be a problem in practice?

the trigger to me is that board is rarely managing to get all 5 in their meetings. I've been following board for as long as I'm involved in the community.

as for it being a problem, I don't want to get to that, that's why

Ok. Then I have a response.

I wonder what made board use 2 and not 3 like council

First on practice on this topic: as long as I have been on Board, I don't remember us taking any decision that was contested because of the way we handle quorum and majority on decisions.

so?

Instead, we've generally either postponed meetings to get enough people (i.e. at least 3, but preferably more).

well then let's make it a rule, what's the hold up

So I don't think there's actually a problem in need of solving. I do like the suggestion of voting on list in case of a missed meeting.

But I also have a second point.

(while we wait for Ralph's second point): Having a vote potentially pass with just 2 votes seems undesirable to me, as that might (not sure, things can be overturned by the rest of board later) open the door for abuse. Dave's suggested fix ("try to make sure it doesn't happen") is hardly an improvement, in terms of hard rules. That does not rule out this being abused somewhere in the future. Some kind of more formal fix would be better, but I do think it would be good for us to prioritize matters that are currently more pressing than this one, to be honest. I feel that lately, we've been burning a lot of fuel, but not made much progress.

(is there a time limit on making a second point? 😉 )

I've noticed I have become increasingly frustrated with having to discuss theoretical issues, like perceived gaps in our procedures, by-laws, etc. In my opinion, no organisation's rules and procedures are perfect, or could be, and the bylaws and other procedures like XEP-0001 are there as a framework to work within. We don't have to lock down everything to the letter. It takes (precious volunteer) time, that I'd like to use for persuing the goals of the XSF. Instead, these discussions are a big turn off for me, and make it less likely that I reserve additional time to do this.

I can relate to that.

I will send my thoughts over email as time is up, although I will take the advantage to say I completely understand ralphm's second point ✏

I am, of course, happy to clarify ways of working, explaining our current rules or historical stuff, but I more often also sense a desire for change as part of the clarification question, and this frustrates me.

I was typing a response, but your last message covers it

these gaps might be perceived for a reason. and I'm happy to close them, but it won't be easy if you oppose it ✏

I think clarification and docs on many things that happen in the XSF are not clear, so I appreciate efforts to try to clean this up (and it definitely is the kind of thing Board is for)

lots of things that needs clarifying

There are too many assumptions that the XSF lives with and it's extremely hard to understand all that ✏

But obviously you can go too far down that road and just chase organizational stuff for the sake of it

pep., I am asking for this reason every time it happens, not just with you. And invariably, it feels like it is all theoretical combing through the prose that make up our bylaws and other procedures, not as a real problem in need of fixing.

For what it's worth, despite probably being one of the greybeards at this point, I do feel we have institutional knowledge that isn't recorded and should be. We can go too far in chasing perfection, but I think there are probably various bits of low-hanging fruit that will help us as more people come into the community.

(Which might be slightly distinct from wanting to change bylaws and things)

Kev: I am for this, as I tried to convey above. The problem I have is my perceived urge to change things for the sake of it, not merely clarification.

And, also, I suppose, I feel that we don't have to go to extraordinary lengths in making those procedures fool proof. All of our precedures have escape hatches in case a real conflict should arise.

so what now

pep., well, I was hoping you could reflect on my point of view

didn't I?

Can you see where I am coming from?

debate overload, I have to go, please finish: https://mensuel.framapad.org/p/9f92-2020-02-27-xsfboardweekly thx! 🙂

Thanks nyco-2

fwiw I am annoyed that the excuse of volunteering is reused over and over. if you don't have time for it (and it's not a full time job, far from it) then don't apply, plus there were other candidates. I understand we have different priorities. And I think I'll leave it at that.

I _do_ believe I have plenty of time to do things for the XSF. I just don't want to spend it on, in my opinion, theoretical discussions with little value.

I'd must rather use it for starting a documentation project (something that was discussed at FOSDEM), or whatever.

much

That might be a matter of personal priorities of tasks in context of the XSF, I think. We all seem to have different priorities. ✏

I think that as board, we should work on tasks that we think are of highest priority. What we appear to be missing is consensus of what is.

pep., my task as Director and Chair is that the XSF can persue its goals, and particularly the business parts of running a coorporation. I will express my frustration about busy-work that doesn't match that task.

I suspect that some of us might even have very different priority lists.

because I'm also not trying to help the XSF with its goals obviously

anyway, this is not getting anywhere

shall we close

pep., I didn't say you are not. I really appreciate various things you have done and do. My frustration is *definitely* not with just you, either. I thought it important to express my frustration instead of throwing tables and hopefully finding a solution.

But sure, we can close the meeting.

And maybe revisit next week if needed.

5. AOB

None here

None here

none

pep., noted

I'm probably not here next week at this time, I'd appreciate if we can delay this topic another week ✏

6. Date of Next

+1W

7. Close

Thanks all!

thanks

.

,

thanks MattJ for pinging people. there is no reason to drop people who intend to contribute.