Date is 2015-07-24, times are UTC+10.

--- Day changed Fri Jul 24 2015
06:59 < mupuf> good morning gentlemen! (sounds roughly the same as vietnam)
06:59 < whot> good morning
06:59 < danvet> good evening
07:01 < whot> marcoz: you made it! :)
07:01 < marcoz> hi whot   woohoo!
07:02 < marcoz> mupuf:   but you gotta have the rigth inflection! :)
07:02 < marcoz> hi danvet 
07:03 < agd5f> hi
07:04 < mupuf> marcoz: hard to convey that through IRC
07:04 < marcoz> mupuf: I have faith in you,  you coulud figure out how
07:06 < whot> robclark: huh, good question, not sure. 
07:07 < robclark> hi
07:07 < robclark> well, anyways, should be easy..  the wiki I might need some sudo or for someone to make snapshot for me..
07:09 < mupuf> whot: so, should we start the meeting?
07:09 < whot> mupuf: yep, sorry. we'll do the expo thing after
07:09 < mupuf> keithp, egbert: Ping
07:10 < whot> mupuf: they're both on holidays, iirc
07:10 < mupuf> oh, right
07:10 < mupuf> I remember
07:10 < whot> alright, agenda is quite small again, bylaws, evoc and expo migration. anything I forgot?
07:12 < robclark> expo section short ;-)
07:12 < whot> heh
07:12 < mupuf> XDC?
07:12 < whot> oh, right. it's almost august
07:13 < whot> mupuf: want to start with the bylaws?
07:15 < mupuf> whot: sure
07:15 < mupuf> sorry, closed the irc client accidentally while pluging my scree
07:15 < mupuf> n
07:15 < mupuf> so, as agreed upon, I deleted the article about officers
07:16 < mupuf> wait, cue the commit log
07:16 < mupuf>
07:17 < mupuf> then I also made explicit that recuring meetings did not need the 21-day notice that is currently specified in the bylaws
07:17 < mupuf> that is just stupid
07:17 < mupuf> "Regular meetings are excluded from this requirement provided the next meeting date is made public at the end of the meeting directly preceding it."
07:17 < robclark> yeah
07:17 < mupuf> Please review the wording
07:18 < robclark> s/Regular/Recurring/?
07:18 < mupuf> that's a loooong sentance 
07:18 < mupuf> Sounds good
07:19 < robclark> maybe something like "Recurring meetings are excluded from this requirement provided the next meeting date is made public at the end of the preceding meeting."
07:20 < whot> if you're polishing that, you can also fix the "agenda must be sent the day before" or whatever it is, we haven't done that in years
07:20 < mupuf> whot: well, that sounds like a sane requirement, but yeah, it is annoying
07:21 < mupuf> and we all suck at it
07:21 < whot> indeed
07:21 < whot> the main issue is it's just more email noise, and most of the items come up the day before
07:22 < mupuf> right
07:22 < mupuf> robclark: I am taking your sentance
07:22 < whot> anyway. you also mentioned upping the max to 3 ppl from the same company?
07:23 < robclark> k
07:23 < mupuf> yes, since we apparently had the problem a few times
07:24 < whot> I think only once, but I may misremember
07:24 < mupuf> For those who were not here 24h ago, here is the discussion I had with alanc:
07:25 < mupuf> so, what is the opinion of everybody on the topic
07:26 <+alanc> I thought we hit it early, when keithp, jg & paul anderson were all elected from HP, then a few years ago with Intel
07:26 < mupuf> I understand the reasoning, we need diversity
07:26 <+alanc> maybe when keithp, anholt, & cworth were all at Intel?
07:26 < mupuf> and 4 would be too much
07:26 < danvet> yeah 3 from the same still seem reasonable imo
07:26 < mupuf> but given the shortage of contributors
07:27 < mupuf> err, potential board directors
07:27 < marcoz> worst case we'd have all board members from 3 companies
07:27 < danvet> mupuf, yeah with 3 we could volunteer one more intel if needed, we have some ;-)
07:27 < mupuf> hehe
07:27 <+alanc> there was more fear of vendor agendas in the early days, given some past experience with consortiums - but that's never seemed to be a problem in X.Org since most of our employers don't care enough about the things the board votes on
07:28 <+alanc> splitting technical decisions away from the board helped a lot with that too
07:28 < robclark> 4 is defn too much..  I think we should somehow prefer <=2 if given sufficient avail candidates from other companies... no idea how I'd word that..
07:28 < robclark> heh, there is that
07:29 < mupuf> robclark: oh, like accepting 3 if there are other candidates, even with less votes?
07:29 < mupuf> sounds risky too
07:29 < robclark> hmm
07:30 < marcoz> i think putting a conditional like that in the bylaws isn't a good idea
07:30 < mupuf> agreed
07:30 < robclark> yeah, like I said I'd have no idea how to even word that sort of thing..
07:31 < robclark> I guess just keep it simple and change to 3 then
07:31 < whot> ok, looks like we're mostly in agreement, can I get a yay/nay from everyone here?
07:31 < agd5f> yeah.  gotta be careful with the wording.  some company could theoretically convince candidates not to run so that it gives the appearance of only candidates from one company being available.  I doubt any company would do that with respect the the xorg board, but...
07:32 < mupuf> whot: where did you see anything related to the agenda being sent 1 day in advance?
07:32 < robclark> yay
07:32 < whot> mupuf: Conduct of Meetings, first \item
07:33 < mupuf> yay
07:33 < danvet> yay on max 3
07:34 < mupuf> whot: So, you are advocating for taking down the entire section?
07:34 < whot> oops, yes, in case that wasn't clear, yay/nay on changing to 3 max per company
07:34 < marcoz> yay
07:34 < mupuf> agd5f, whot: votes?
07:35 < whot> yay
07:35 < marcoz> having a specified agenda in advance seems like a good idea, maybe just me.  past experience with companies with meetings going awry
07:35 < whot> mupuf: not sure yet, I'll see how to reword it and send you a patch
07:36 < mupuf> ok, up for discussion at the next meeting then?
07:36 < agd5f> nay
07:36 < agd5f> nay on max 3 that is
07:37 < agd5f> yay on the agenda change
07:38 < mupuf> agd5f: can you explain your reasoning for the nay?
07:38 < mupuf> I am genuinely curious
07:39  * danvet too
07:39 < danvet> whot, isn't that entire meeting section about votes by all members?
07:39 < danvet> or do I look at the wrong section
07:39 < agd5f> mupuf, no reason in particular.  I feel like 2 has worked out ok.
07:39 < mupuf> agd5f: ack!
07:40 < mupuf> danvet: Conduct of Meetings
07:40 < whot> danvet: huh, yeah, sorry. ECOFFEE
07:40 < danvet> but we might want to fix that too ...
07:40 < danvet> we had much longer voting than 24h
07:41 < whot> ok, so we have 5-1 yay/nay for this, egbert and keith are missing. I guess we can ask them and reconsider, 5-3 would require more discussion, 7-1 would be ok to proceed IMO
07:42 < mupuf> yes, let's wait and not rush it
07:42 < danvet> +1
07:42 < robclark> sounds good
07:42 < whot> and note that this is only whether we put it into the bylaws, it doesn't take effect until the member vote
07:42 < whot> mupuf: anything else by-law related?
07:42 < mupuf> whot: can you propose a patch for the voting part?
07:42 < mupuf> I think we are good, thanks!
07:42 < whot> will do
07:43 < whot> ok, let's move on, EVoC has run into struggles, marcoz do you know any updates here?
07:43 < marcoz> stukreit: you online?
07:44 < marcoz> the problem is our student doesn't have a bankaccount.
07:44 < marcoz> I have no updates myself. I do not know if stukreit does
07:45 < stukreit> I'm here
07:45 < danvet> mupuf, isn't your patch for the notice for regular mtgs also only in the section about full member mtgs?
07:45 < danvet> the only thing I found about board mtgs essentially says we can do our own rules, as long as reasonable mtg summaries emerge somehow
07:45 < mupuf> danvet: yes
07:46 < danvet> mupuf, did we ever have regular member meetings?
07:46 < mupuf> there is a section called "Conduct of Meetings"
07:46 < stukreit> I'm still concerned about the person from Cameroon. Has anyone vetted her(?) identity?
07:47 < mupuf> stukreit: we said we should ask her to have a bank account of her own
07:47 < robclark> marcoz, I suppose it is worth checking what GSoC and OPW and others do?
07:47 < whot> not that I'm aware of, unfortunately. other than that she's applied multiple times already (OPW, EVoC). don't think she tried GSoC
07:47 < robclark> but requiring their own back acct seems sane
07:47 < whot> vetting identities of new contributors is hard
07:48 < danvet> do we split the evoc payment like gsoc?
07:48 < stukreit> <waiting untill the topic rolls back to this>
07:48 < danvet> mupuf, but that's about member meetings too ...
07:48 < marcoz> stukreit: has she followed up with you on getting an acct?
07:48 < mupuf> danvet: well, it is unclear
07:48 < danvet> stukreit, sorry I guess I can discuss this with mupuf offline
07:48  * danvet just confused really
07:49 < stukreit> not yet.  I'm raising the concern due to the failure of Nyah Check last year
07:49 < mupuf> well, we should not use the nationality as a way of failure concern, right?
07:49 < marcoz> it's a valid concern. it didn't even cross my mind to ask her about it before it got this far
07:49 < marcoz> i'll be updating the evoc page 
07:50 < danvet> yeah bank account in own name is imo sensible requirement
07:50 < whot> danvet: yes, we split the payments iirc
07:50 < robclark> I guess at minimum, lack of an own acct should == defer payment until we see some patches, or something like that..
07:50 < marcoz> and of course I seem to have forgotten my password. ugh
07:50 < danvet> otherwise if we split the payout I'd be ok, but I'm also gullible ;-)
07:50 < danvet> robclark, yeah that would work too
07:50 < stukreit> Yes, I'd like to have a good proof of contribution before any payment.
07:51 < mupuf> or her own bank account, fair enough
07:52 < danvet> btw for next time around should we have a requirement that there's a (trivial) patch merged from the student already?
07:52 < mupuf> danvet: Yeah, like I asked for the GSoC?
07:52 < danvet> opw has that, and I'd be happy to guinea-pig i915.ko for oddball checkpatch fixes
07:52 < danvet> mupuf, yup
07:52 < marcoz> danvet:  that's an existing requirement.  be abel to show you've contributed to some project though not necessarily xorg
07:53 < stukreit> has that requirement been met by this candidate?
07:54 < danvet> marcoz, do you mean "Applicants can show they know the process of upstreaming a patch" from the gsoc page?
07:55 < marcoz> lemme check the emails, but yes, she's been contributing for a while
07:55 < danvet> maybe we should clarify that, "know" doesn't imply "did"
07:55 < marcoz> danvet:  no, it's much more direct
07:56 < robclark> I guess if there is some history of contribution, I'm less concerned about the bank acct situation..
07:57 < robclark> I mean, less likely to be some drive by "send-me-money-pls-then-bye"..
07:57 <+alanc> bank account in own name is easy in north america & europe, not as easy in all parts of the world
07:57 < danvet> marcoz, can't find it, at least not on evoc/gsoc pages on
07:57 < stukreit> I would disagree: It is problematic to send money to a random account that has no connection with our activities
07:58 < robclark> what does GSoC and OPW require?  That seems like a good enough precedent..
07:58 < whot> iirc OPW requires at least one patch to be sent to the project
07:59 < robclark> (I mean in terms of bank acct)
07:59 < marcoz> danvet: We discussed it in previous board meetings but I prob didn't update the wiki to state it (i haven't been able to edit pages for a long time.).   
07:59 < agd5f> here's the gsoc:
08:00 < agd5f> looks like bank account or they send you a pre-paid mastercard
08:00 < danvet> marcoz, easy to fix, what should I put onto ?
08:00 < danvet> and just checked, she has one patch in piglit merged by brian
08:02 < marcoz> thx danvet. #1  - Applicants can show proof of university attendence, either immediately preceeding session, or immediately following session.
08:02 < stukreit> How about strengthening the requirement to push changes for the EVOC project at hand before receiving first installment?  One failed payment is enough to bear before learning our lesson.
08:03 < marcoz> #2 - Applicants must have a financial account, either checking or savings, in their name, that is capable of wire transfers ( stukreit  can prob word that better)
08:04 < stukreit> I am on the GSOC mailing list. They occasionally see failed projects due to dissappearance/accepting other jobs etc.  We don't have enough reserves to handle many of those.
08:04 < marcoz> note, we've run over our timelimit. I have another meeting to get to
08:04 < marcoz> can we continue offline?
08:04 < stukreit> marcoz:  hat sentence is good. How about a minor edit "in their own name" ...
08:04 < marcoz> sounds good
08:05 < agd5f> yeah those look good
08:05 < marcoz> also, by 1st payment are you talking about the upfront stipend or the mid-term payment?
08:05 < whot> 1st payment is just 500, right? so it's not as devastating to the reserves
08:05 < stukreit> The "upfront".  Propose we rename this to "first"
08:06 < stukreit> It is more annoying when its your own hand that wrote out the figure.
08:06 < whot> but I agree with marcoz, we should take this offline, we're over the time
08:07 < danvet> ok edited both gsoc and evoc pages a bit, pls scream if it's bad
08:07 < danvet> also made it clear that we expect an upstreamed patch as demonstration for understanding how it's done
08:08 < whot> thanks
08:08  * danvet makes that a "simple patch"
08:08 < danvet> just in case it scares someone away
08:08 < whot> that's all we (well, I) have time for today, if you want to keep this running I'll add it to the irclogs afterwards
08:08 < danvet> gtg no sleep time over here
08:08 < whot> but at least I gotta go
08:08 < danvet> *now
08:09 < stukreit> grammar:  The first sentence should read: "..X.Org has been..."
08:09 < whot> thanks for attending, see you all in two weeks
08:11 < robclark> k, cya
08:12 < mupuf> danvet: ok!
08:13 < mupuf> danvet: well, one could reword it into : At least a simple patch