[11:22:01] [connected at Wed Jan 11 11:22:01 2023]
[11:22:01] [I have joined #xf-bod]
[11:22:06] <Lyude> there we go :)
[11:22:17] <danvet> alyssa, brutal
[11:23:01] <Lyude>  anyway - so what's the plan with EVoC?
[11:23:26] <Lyude> it sounds like we might want to have someone on the board dedicated to helping out with this sort of thing again
[11:23:33] <Lyude> ( tlwoerner , siqueira ?)
[11:24:38] <danvet> oh for evoc can we just first approve the internship?
[11:24:41] <tlwoerner> hello X bod
[11:24:43] <danvet> we fumbled a bit too hard on that one
[11:24:52] <Lyude> danvet: it hadn't already been? yeah of course
[11:24:56] <danvet> also I figured out why the proposal didn't go through, list had a 40kb message limit
[11:25:03] <Lyude> Oh.
[11:25:06] <Lyude> Well that explains that
[11:25:13] <danvet> Lyude, maybe I missed the vote again, I'm good at these :-/
[11:25:19] <danvet> but yeah that should be fixed now
[11:25:35] <tlwoerner> danvet: 41kb?
[11:25:46] <danvet> :-)
[11:25:50] <danvet> I set it to unlimited
[11:25:58] <tlwoerner> w00t!
[11:26:02] <danvet> let's rely on all other smtp to filter the obvious issues :-)
[11:26:05] * tlwoerner loves unlimited anything
[11:26:11] <danvet> (I guess fd.o has a server size limit for the worst)
[11:26:37] <danvet> Lyude, but yeah I guess we should vote on this
[11:26:47] <Lyude> yeah I just checked my email and I don't see a vote
[11:26:49] <danvet> apparently student simply worked for free, which isn't great
[11:26:55] <Lyude> no it's not :(
[11:27:13] <Lyude> It's a +1 from me, alyssa mfilion rg3igalia anholt ?
[11:27:16] <danvet> +1
[11:27:24] <alyssa> this the rusticl one?
[11:27:34] <danvet> antonio something
[11:28:06] <danvet> i.e. yes
[11:28:08] <alyssa> +1
[11:28:17] <rg3igalia> +1
[11:28:28] <Lyude> hm. also daniels btw foundation.x.org seems to be down
[11:28:46] <Lyude> oh
[11:28:49] <Lyude> weird nevermind
[11:28:50] <Lyude> seems fine now
[11:28:57] <daniels> glad to be of service :)
[11:29:28] <daniels> but perhaps whilst we're here, a relevant topic is the evergreen 'we need to find more admins with more time / less burnout from having done it for 19 years' one
[11:30:31] <Lyude> I guess that's 4 votes, don't we need 5 though?
[11:30:43] <Lyude> i can probably poke folks for the last vote
[11:30:51] <danvet> Lyude, yours is deciding if we're split
[11:30:59] <Lyude> ah ok, then +1 from me then :P
[11:31:00] <danvet> so 4 including you is enough
[11:31:18] <Lyude> cool then it's approved :), does someone want to let them know
[11:31:36] <Lyude> And daniels - yeah, I'm trying to remember what we came to the conclusion of last year when talking about this with SFC
[11:31:44] <danvet> oh on fdo admins, should probably throw a thank you dinner or something if we haven't done that for 22 already
[11:32:21] <daniels> I'm quite well fed; thanks would be not being pinged about machines being down or networks being rubbish :)
[11:32:27] <Lyude> danvet, alyssa - any chance y'all remember what the answer was on getting a sysadmin?
[11:32:44] <daniels> (unsure if bentiss is malnourished or not)
[11:33:15] <alyssa> Lyude: I think Bradley said SFC may be able to help once we're in-SFC
[11:33:20] <alyssa> but I don't remember the details
[11:33:36] <Lyude> lright. daniels jfyi, that's basically been my big hope for getting more admins
[11:33:58] <daniels> good to know there's a plan :) lmk how I can help as ever
[11:34:13] <Lyude> otherwise i may ask bentiss how kubernetes does things so I can reset stuff sometimes :P
[11:34:15] <Lyude> yeah sure thing
[11:34:48] <Lyude> ok, alyssa, SPDX RFC?
[11:35:08] <alyssa> right
[11:35:34] <alyssa> There's some interest in using SPDX comments in Mesa, in place of the full MIT license boilerplate
[11:36:45] <alyssa> Off the bat I see some benefits (the license copy/paste game has a small but nonzero effect on productivity and willingness to split up source files) and some drawbacks (there are at least 5 distinct MIT licenses in tree and it's unclear if it's kosher to collapse them)
[11:37:17] <alyssa> Furthermore some parts of Mesa have already switched (especially Google's subtrees, e.g. venus)
[11:37:45] <alyssa> So from a consistency POV, it would be nice to figure out if this is something we're comfortable with
[11:38:00] <Lyude> alyssa: do each of the different MIT variants not have their own SPDX tags (? unsure what you would call them)
[11:38:01] <alyssa> I spoke to SFC about this briefly before Christmas, who raised some specific concerns about this
[11:38:48] <alyssa> and asked that we hold off on making any decisions until we can meet with them about this (January 15th was the cited date for when their holiday frenzy ends)
[11:39:13] <danvet> yeah from the kernel discussion there was definitely some annoyed people
[11:39:21] <danvet> who laughed at the legal review work lf has done
[11:39:23] <alyssa> nod
[11:39:27] <danvet> and insisted the full headers be kept
[11:39:29] <danvet> but
[11:39:31] <danvet> a) I have no idea
[11:39:39] <danvet> b) not a lawyer myself
[11:39:46] <danvet> I'm not sure we want to make any recommendation here
[11:39:48] <alyssa> nodyeah
[11:39:50] <alyssa> I don't have a good handle on the issues at play, SFC probably does.
[11:40:00] <danvet> if sfc makes one, I guess we could just point at that as "hey maybe you want to head that"
[11:40:04] <alyssa> *nod*
[11:40:30] <danvet> my personal opinion is a bit that aside from making license compliance scripting easier for big companies I don't see a point
[11:40:41] <danvet> and it still has the issue that if it's wrong, you might have a problem
[11:40:44] <alyssa> nod
[11:40:50] <alyssa> it's the boilerplate that gets me personally
[11:41:00] <danvet> I guess just a nice checkbox for checkbox counting people
[11:41:13] <danvet> yeah that makes sense
[11:41:13] <alyssa> added friction when splitting up files etc
[11:41:30] <danvet> yeah
[11:41:43] <alyssa> there are some short NIR passes where the license header is literally half the file
[11:42:07] <alyssa> having a license identifier instead would be a lot less obnoxious, if there is a kosher way to do it
[11:42:31] <alyssa> (whether SPDX or otherwise)
[11:43:31] <alyssa> anyway, if people agree in principle that this is a useful direction for Mesa (and potentially other fd.o projects, nothing really Mesa specific here) ... then I'd like some non-empty subset of us to meet with SFC later this month to get their takes
[11:43:47] <mfilion> sorry I didn't see the time, for some reason thought the meeting was in 15 minutes. oops.
[11:44:00] <Lyude> (BTW, was afk for a moment because I was going through the board moderation queue. looks like someone from nasa is playing the "supply chain? :3" game
[11:44:12] <alyssa> Lyude: oh you got that email too? :P
[11:44:18] <Lyude> oh other people got it?
[11:44:31] <alyssa> I got one that was addressed to me and anholt, inexplicably
[11:45:00] <alyssa> if people think SPDX is all silly, well, I can drop it. so far have spent a couple hours of preliminary investigation and that's it, I'm not invested in it
[11:45:15] <Lyude> is it actually from nasa? I was going to respond to tell them "no, there's no security benefit in doing that, yes I've seen 'the news', no - people typosquatting on python packages with no proof anyone's actually using them  is not evidence of a security risk
[11:45:25] <alyssa> i think so, yes
[11:45:39] <danvet> alyssa, I think it makes sense
[11:45:56] <danvet> I just also think we shouldn't do any recommendations ourselves and on the record offload this all to sfc
[11:46:03] <alyssa> Yeah, that's valid
[11:46:05] <danvet> also I'm happy to sit in there, maybe I learn what the concern is
[11:46:17] <danvet> *in that meeting with sfc I mean
[11:46:35] <Lyude> alyssa: anyway yeah I was going to say leave it to SFC on that one
[11:47:08] <alyssa> Lyude: yep -- RFC here was more about setting up the meeting with SFC (happy to arrange that) since I didn't want to go against the board on this
[11:47:45] <danvet> +1 on that
[11:47:53] <danvet> but I don't think we need a vote really :-)
[11:48:12] <alyssa> (Also don't want to go against SFC, assuming we'll be joining soon. Like, if we switch everything to SPDX, and SFC independently publishes a "Don't Use SPDX" blog post, well, that's not great optics for either of us.)
[11:48:17] <Lyude> alyssa: yeah that's fine with me! do you want to poke karen and ask about it?
[11:48:57] <alyssa> I had discussed this was bradley, was going to poke him after this if people were in favour
[11:49:33] <Lyude> I'd say just go ahead with it
[11:49:49] <alyssa> ac
[11:49:50] <alyssa> k
[11:50:08] <Lyude> I think that's basically it for the meeting everyone
[11:52:03] <danvet> Lyude, elections?
[11:52:26] <danvet> I don't even know whom we volunteered for chair
[11:55:53] <Lyude> oh hfdfd thank you for reminding me
[11:56:04] <Lyude> sorry, I'm very tired today ;_;
[11:56:11] <mfilion> I think rg3igalia for the chair with me helping out?
[11:56:46] <Lyude> danvet: yeah, I am pretty sure we voted on it last time. let me look at the logs
[11:56:51] <Lyude> or did we
[11:57:19] <mfilion> yeah I just scrolled up and re-read the discussion
[11:57:30] <Lyude> Board discussed who will be on the elections committee this year, mfilion and
[11:57:31] <Lyude> Ricardo volunteered
[11:57:43] <danvet> rg3igalia, so updates?
[11:59:00] <danvet> rg3igalia, https://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections/#electionprocess
[11:59:12] <danvet> I guess we'll cover this next time around again?
[11:59:13] <mfilion> probably none, we haven't chatted about it since the last meeting a month ago
[11:59:20] <mfilion> yeah let's do next time
[11:59:34] <mfilion> rg3igalia ping me when you have some time so we can take a look
[11:59:37] <danvet> well should get it going or we'll end up voting in summer or something :-)
[12:04:52] <mfilion> We'll get it going by end of the month
[12:10:54] <tlwoerner> it's too bad i'm not on the board, i wouldn't mind taking the spdx thing on and even generating the patches
[12:11:17] <tlwoerner> switching to spdx tags could be a good way to see what parts of the code are being actively maintained vs otherwise
[12:11:55] <tlwoerner> ask people to switch their code, any code not switched by <date> does on the chopping block?
[12:12:53] <tlwoerner> my understanding is that spdx defines specific strings, one can't simply pick the wording of their choice. choices exist for, say, MIT 3-clause vs MIT 4-clause
[12:13:25] * anholt here now
[12:20:45] <Lyude> also anyone have an issue with me telling this person from nasa "hey we're not a supply chain also requiring contributors identities is bad for these reasons etc.?"
[12:22:03] <danvet> Lyude, imo just drop the license on them or something
[12:22:24] <danvet> the entire "at your own risk and no liability" is kinda meant like it's written
[12:22:45] <danvet> and maybe tell them that if they're using open source, they should have a process somewhere internally to handle these risks
[12:23:20] <danvet> this just looks like a lost employee to me
[12:24:07] <daniels> danvet: I wouldn't drop the license on them, because despite any disclaimer, you are essentially liable for any advice you provide
[12:24:44] <daniels> 'we are not qualified nor compelled to answer these questions, please seek support elsewhere' is the answer you want
[12:25:05] <danvet> ah right
[12:25:33] <danvet> Lyude, ^^
[12:38:48] <danvet> Lyude, I typed a reply to reine with links
[15:16:57] <danvet> Lyude, tlwoerner who's going to reply to antonion that's it's all approved and apologies for the delay and need to sort out payment with anholt ?
[15:22:45] <tlwoerner> ideally someone from the board?
[15:22:55] <tlwoerner> danvet: ^
[15:36:13] <Lyude> danvet: I can do it if you need
[15:38:29] <danvet> yeah if you can
[15:38:36] <danvet> otherwise I'll try to not forget tomorrow or so

[19:17:45] [disconnected at Wed Jan 11 19:17:45 2023]