MattJWe have a board meeting in 1h40m... would appreciate someone to step up as minute-taker ahead of time so we don't spend half the meeting on that again
MattJI have most of a bot implemented, but not going to suggest we rush to use it this week (it needs a little more polish)
MattJAnswering the discussion from last night, no, the bot does not summarize discussions - many organisation minutes do not, and only record actual motions and other things explicitly requested to go on the record
MattJSo the bot does this, but with links to the discussion logs of each topic
MattJWhich seems a fine compromise to me
MattJSummarizing discussions accurately is one of the hardest tasks of minute-taking
MattJWe have the advantage that all our discussions are already in text form and recorded
pep.probably most important
pep.the whole point of minutes to me is for people not to have to read the logs
MattJI'd rather let people see the outcome, and give them access to the raw data, rather than filtering through some other person
MattJIt's very easy for someone to introduce accidental bias this way (related problem: we don't explicitly approve minutes currently)
pep.well yes that's why approving minutes is necessary
ZashStandard practice afaik is to have one minute taker and two to verify and sign off on the minutes.
MattJWe can't even find one person to write the minutes :)
MattJand this has been going on for years
MattJThey aren't going to magically appear - and we've tried alternatives (thanks nyco) where everyone collaborates on them, that didn't really work either though
jonas’I’ll be stuck in a work meeting until 15:00Z, sorry
pep.MattJ: I was on the pad helping nyco a bit. maybe if we'd all done so..
MattJSure, maybe if many things
MattJIf we collectively think that's the solution, I'm not opposed to trying it again
jcbrandIMO, the XSF should consider paying for certain roles/positions that we continuously struggle to get volunteers for (touchy subject I know)
pep.jcbrand: I agree
jcbrandOr provide some other kinds of incentive, but I can't imagine what... swag?✎
jcbrandOr provide some other kind of incentive, but I can't imagine what... swag? ✏
pep.either that, or board takes responsability for it and we all contribute (we've agreed about one way to do this last week but there might be others)
MattJPersonally I strongly feel that a bot is the best approach
MattJI think I'm alone in that though
SeveMattJ: I'm with you on this, I agree on all you have said
jcbrandSomeone needs to write a bot then
MattJAs above, I have one almost completed (but not ready to use this week)
MattJand I'm not going to attempt to push it on the group if everyone else is against it
jcbrandYou could just enable it silently and then show everyone the awesome minutes that it takes
jcbrandand then bask in glory
MattJYeah, have pondered that :)
flowjcbrand, do we have enough income to pay someone? how much could we pay someone? do we have someone who manages our funds?
ZashThe IETF, while a fair bit larger than the XSF, does hire out administrative tasks to a company.
SeveWe have the raw data, and the outcome with the bot. It is perfect, less layers to access to what has happened. I have nothing more to say to what it has been already said by MattJ. I see it as a perfect fit.
Guus(Don't have time to read back, but I have no strong feelings either way about using a bot)
MattJHopefully by next week I'll have the bot polished off and some docs written, and then I'll propose that we switch to it
jcbrandflow: Last I heard there are funds, although the XSF could definitely make more of an effort to woo sponsors
jcbrandThe point is not to make someone rich or to provide a full-time job, but to at least make the task more palatable
flowjcbrand, we sure have funds, but what can be spend on reappearing payments? also I think before we can seriously consider payming someone, we should look for a treasurer, cause I am not sure if PSA has the time to take care of that
MattJDid I mention I'll be offering the bot for a small fee?
jcbrandIf it's a once-off fee, then it's better than paying a human to do it
jcbrandflow my understanding is that the XSF has been sitting on cash for year, not really doing anything with it✎
Guusflow we do have a treasurer, Peter.
jcbrandflow my understanding is that the XSF has been sitting on cash for years, not really doing anything with it ✏
flowGuus, I know, but only beause of our search for a new treasurer did not yield any results.
GuusI have no inclination to dismiss his work or to assume that he's not able to perform in that role.
pep.Guus: i'm sure that's not what flow is saying ✏
Guusno, we searched for a new Executive Officer (which was also Peter). We never searched for a new Treasurer, afiak.
flowGuus, no, not at all, but I think that peter would actually be happy if someone else would fill that role
MattJWas just typing what Guus said
flowGuus, we searched for a treasurer in 2015: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2015-July/008117.html
GuusI did not know that. But, since, Peter was asked to stand for another year repeatedly, and has never objected or mentioned he'd prefer someone else took over.
flowI'd speculate that this caused by a mix of it being currently not that mutch work (I assume) and the expectation that there is no one to step in
GuusHey, if he does want someone else to take over, I'm perfectly happy to search for someone else. I'd just not postpone any other activity in the assumption that we need to refill the Treasurer role, as the person that's currently in that role did not give any indication that that's relevant.
flowMy suggestion would be to ask peter of he is still willing to act as treasurer if we increase the workload
Guusright, we're more aligned than it initially appeared to me. 🙂
GuusI don't think Peter will be silent if the work load becomes more than he's happy with.
MattJI'll just prep another plugin for the bot in that case ;)
ZashHeh, I was going to suggest that. Bots are better with numbers after all :P
MattJYes, Lua has great floating point support
MattJWhat could go wrong?
pep.fwiw I have suggested going through SPI before (to handle finance, and they also provide legal council etc.), to stpeter at least, maybe that's something we can think about
MattJActually that would be something I could get behind if necessary
pep.They don't do minute taking yet
GuusI wonder how much autonomy we give up by going through a party like SPI. I have yet to look into that deeper.
SeveHello, all good?
MattJ(or is this a week he sent apologies?)
Guusdid he? I missed it if he did.
MattJOk, I can step up if ralphm is absent
MattJ0) Role call
MattJLet's start with
MattJ1) Topics for decisions
MattJ1.1) Reevaluate the process for accepting XEP contributions
MattJLooks like https://trello.com/c/Y4Bfcnr3/399-reevaluate-the-process-for-accepting-xep-contributions from jonas’
MattJ(I'll send out minutes after the meeting)
GuusJonas asks if we got legal council on the necessity of the (CLA) process.
GuusI do not know.
SeveHate to say this but neither do I
GuusI was involved in setting up the CLA bot, but only because it was a pending issue ('to-be-done')
pep.What was before github?
GuusI've looked back in my personal mail archive, but couldn't find much of a motive for this.
pep.And how did people agree to the IPR
Guusno, that was on github.
MattJI think it was implicit before Github
pep.I'm asking about before github
MattJNot sure if the editor kept any records, not that I'm aware (but stpeter would know)
MattJNone of us are lawyers, though in my experience a lawyer's opinion on something like this tends to usually just be an opinion and "maybe"
SeveWho can we reach to resolve "Q1"? (Actually confirm if we can ignore that step from the process)
GuusI think we'll not get an answer with the people in this meeting. 🙂 Let's find someone who was involved at the time?
MattJObviously having an explicit ack from the contributor is good for our records, should an issue arise
MattJIf we don't have that, I can see it being problematic if there ever was a dispute
pep.jonas’ and I can go through standard discussions about switching to github and we may find why/who decided
pep.But getting hints from someone who knows would be good
pep.MattJ, sure but ACKs can take different forms
GuusI'm only now reading the rest of Jonas' question
MattJI'd be fine with any alternative to the bot if that's what we want
Guusit was below a fold in trello
jonas’13:39:04 pep.> And how did people agree to the IPR
jonas’13:39:44 MattJ> Not sure if the editor kept any records, not that I'm aware (but stpeter would know)
I kept records for all users which did it via email
MattJAlso, I may not be up to date on the latest on this thread, but I think we may not necessarily be moving off Github anyway?
jonas’(there were one or two cases since I became editor which were handled via email)
MattJjonas’, thanks, good to know
jonas’MattJ, clabot is a blocker for moving off gitlab, and I’m swaying towards "do a hybrid solution as a testballoon, long term Gitlab primary"✎
jonas’MattJ, clabot is a blocker for moving off github, and I’m swaying towards "do a hybrid solution as a testballoon, long term Gitlab primary" ✏
MattJI'd be more comfortable if we kept an explicit IPR acknowledgement from contributors about IPR, I'm absolutely fine with any solution for that
pep.As an editor I'd also prefer if we didn't have two venues as a long term goal
GuusI think that getting clarification from a lawyer on this is both costly and time-consuming.
GuusI'd suggest to find a way to not make this issue a blocker for other editor-process improvements.
jonas’ok, so let’s skip the "did we get counsel" and move on to "what do you think about my proposed alternatives"
jonas’(please read the card until the bottom :))
MattJI'm fine with the proposed alternatives
jonas’Q2 specifically :)
MattJAs you say, this is all info made public on contribution anyway
SeveI like that is based on git
MattJLawyers hate it ;)
MattJGDPR issues, if someone wanted to be forgotten
jonas’I’d like to have Board-ack on the option in Q2. Though we could also find a way to make the list non-public if board is uncomfortable with having a blatant list of PII world-readable on gitlab
MattJBut I consider that a rare enough event that we can cross that bridge when/if we ever need to
pep.Yeah.. I'm happy with sign-off but I'd like legal council tbh. It's not like we hadn't had contributions from companies with money in the past that could actually use this against us
jonas’note that right for deletion is guarded by technical feasibility, only the right to rectification is unconditional.
MattJIf anything, part of the acknowledgement should be that their info will be public in our repos
MattJSo make that explicit, and I'm in
jonas’maybe Board can make a motion on that :)
jonas’and then I’ll do things
GuusI don't want to vote on things now.
GuusI desperately want more feedback on this
jonas’(and I’m back in my $work meeting)
Guusat least from (seniors in the) community, and possibly legal council.
MattJWhat exactly concerns you?
GuusI don't like changing things that I'm unsure of why they were put in place in the first place.
MattJCLAs are quite common
Guusas pep. hinted, legal repercussions _might_ be severe.
MattJand their purpose is well understood
MattJI don't understand
MattJThere are two questions here... 1) do we need a CLA? 2) how do we process the CLA?
MattJMy answers are (1) yes (2) however we want to
SeveI just see moving from confirming on an email to a commit message? (excluding the clabot)
MattJclabot is not mandated by lawyers
MattJMost won't even know what it is
MattJIt's just a convenient thing someone made
pep.My answers are (1) maaaybe? and (2) We should get legal council to confirm that method is fine
MattJSo if you're concerned about moving away from that, I don't think that's justified
GuusRight - I'm a lot less uncomfortable if we're not discussing the necessity of a CLA.
MattJI'm quite sure we didn't get legal counsel on whether clabot was acceptable
GuusI'm happy to use another technical ways to replace clabot.
Guus(to do the exact same thing, record the CLA)
MattJPlenty of other orgs do CLAs through other means, some insist on written signed forms
pep.MattJ, re clabot, being a commonly used service I'd hope they have had legal council themselves, or they've been put to the test already.
MattJMany lawyers will probably will tell you that's necessary
MattJYou only have to convince a court that someone had agreed to the IPR terms
pep.I think I can draw a parallel to security here. Put as many resources to protect against what you think you'll have to face✎
MattJIf we don't have any process, and it's implicit, I think that's very hard
pep.I think I can draw a parallel to security here. Put as much resources to protect against what you think you'll have to face ✏
MattJIf we have any kind of paper trail, then we're good
MattJ(and paper includes email in this case)
MattJe.g. that's one concern - if we migrate off Github do we lose the CLAs of previous contributors?
MattJOk, we're approaching full time
Guuscla-assistent lets you export them, if memory serves
MattJLooks like we don't have enough to vote on, but maybe folks can think about this issue more and we can vote next week
KevFWIW, as I remember the history here, we used to assert that just having submitted a commit was sufficient (that the contribution to the repo itself was enough). A prior board decided there had to be an explicit step added, so an explicit step was added.
pep.Guus, I'm curious to know if an export is sufficient in court. Or if cla-assistant signs it or something
SeveKev, thank you
KevI think that's about the extent of what happened. I don't *believe* the Board got counsel, but I might be wrong.
MattJOk, I don't see anything else on the agenda that's new, pressing, or that we'd have time to discuss, so I propose we close here
MattJ2) Time of next
SeveThank you MattJ !
SeveIt really helps to know that, thank you Kev
KevIt's just my migraine-addled memory, I wouldn't take it as gospel :)
KevI mean, the first part is definitely (as sure as I can be) right. We used to just assert that by contribuing a XEP that said in it (once XSL was applied) that it was owned by the XSF that meant the author was assigning ownership to the XSF, and it was definitely decided to change that because it wasn't deemed safe.
KevThe details of the decision process during the change are a bit fuzzier for me.
Steve Killehas joined
jonas’that was useful as a guideline
jonas’The rough consensus that we do want a process which gets us an affirmative ACK is already important to me. Replacing CLAbot as a tool I don’t think is a problem in general, since it can’t do any magic either.
jonas’We’ll find a similarly powerful replacement for the GitLab platform, the process I outlined would be an example of that.
jonas’regarding exporting the "signatures" of cla-assistant, I don’t think that’s of much use since they’re tied to github users, which is not quite a thing on GitLab ;)
jonas’though I guess we can restore some manually (and I’d be happy to) for the common contributors so they don’t have to go through the hassle; in the end, the cardinality of authors is rather low
pep.jonas’, they're useful though as a proof that existing contributors have ACK'd
ZashAssuming it's only a one-time thing maybe that's okay as a way to test that it's not too annoying then?
jonas’Zash, what would be okay?
jonas’(dangling reference in "that's okay as a way")
Zashin-reply-to: "though I guess we can restore some [clabot signatures] [...] for the common contributors so they don’t have to go through the hassle"
jonas’Zash, so you would not do that to check with the common contributors if the process looks alright?
pep.Yeah I'm also fine with re-signing. It's only a one-time thing anyway
pep.It's one less (legally?) error-prone thing for editors to do as well
Zashjonas’, I got the impression that we might find a replacement clabot thing. if that turns out too annoying to subject previous contributors to, then isn't it too annoying?
jonas’good point you make
KevOf the barriers that might be present in moving to gitlab purely for me, I wouldn't think going through the CLABot process again that problematic (assuming it was no harder than the current one).
Kev(Other aspects might be, but not that one)
Zashor "if that turns out so annoying that it's worth it to try to export previous data, then"
Zashvacation mode. brain turned off.
pep.disregarding of whether we want to restore ACKs, do we not have to keep an export?✎
pep.disregarding whether we want to restore ACKs, do we not have to keep an export? ✏
Zashcould argue that it's implied in the merging of the PR
pep.It was already decided to go with explicit ACK (and I agree with that)
Zashif you assume in good faith that the bot did its job
jonas’I’d still want an export for safety
pep.Though I'm not sure I understand your sentence, Zash
jonas’if github folds, we don’t have a record of what happened in the PR