16:59:02 #startmeeting 16:59:02 Meeting started Wed Oct 9 16:59:02 2013 UTC. The chair is lucas. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:59:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 16:59:11 #topic roll call 16:59:12 hi! 16:59:18 here 16:59:39 i am here too. 16:59:40 oi 16:59:49 * zack is around-ish 17:00:58 ok, I'm not sure if we are expecting someone else, so let's start 17:01:01 #topic next meeting 17:01:07 proposal is: 17:01:08 $ date -ud @1382547600 17:01:08 Wed Oct 23 17:00:00 UTC 2013 17:01:17 (two weeks from now) 17:01:20 * highvoltage is here too 17:01:35 might not be there. not sure now. 17:01:36 k 17:01:51 * RichiH will be busy at linuxcon.eu, but yah 17:01:58 rafw: would any other (close) option be better for you? 17:02:24 no, i have plan to go to a conference in Luxenbourg. 17:02:30 But i am not sure now. 17:02:41 I will do my best to attend. 17:02:57 rafw: ok, if you want to drop by Nancy on your way there for a beer, just ping me ;) 17:03:09 oki :) 17:03:18 #agreed next meeting date -ud @1382547600 17:03:26 #topic DPL todo list 17:03:47 since I have live updates to http://people.debian.org/~lucas/todo.txt, I didn't copy/paste it to the agenda 17:04:20 so, I've posted the binary-throw-away (and source-only) upload summary to -helpers 17:04:29 not sure if you wanted to discuss that now or later on as action item 17:04:43 either way, it's done, and it looks like the next action in the DPL todo list has already been updated 17:04:55 the private part is 1 item, + 20 mails (10 threads) 17:05:15 yes 17:05:38 the dak call for help went out in the DPL bits. we will see. 17:05:47 seen that, thanks 17:05:58 I would have liked to have "easy tasks for beginners" in them, but apparently there's no such thing with dak ;) 17:06:06 *sadness* 17:06:31 the big question about the TODO list is: is something missing? 17:07:11 I think that we should also use those meetings to make sure that important things happening in the dark corners of Debian are noticed 17:07:22 (you don't need to answer now, of course) 17:07:34 lucas: getting rid of money if debconf13 really needs to get rid of it? 17:07:45 - [lucas] deal with DC13 surplus 17:07:47 it's in it 17:07:57 ah, i grepped for debconf 17:07:58 sorry 17:07:59 I guess I've some info about the debbugs http submision, as it's based on a script of mine 17:08:04 but I need to look up the link 17:08:27 ah yes. we discussed that with asheesh at debconf, and I didn't look for the link again 17:08:37 zack: do you mind if I #action that to you? 17:08:42 * paultag sits down 17:08:43 lucas: sure, go ahead 17:08:54 I've been involved in some mail exchanges post-debconf 17:09:01 #action zack find status of debbugs submissions over HTTP 17:09:59 #topic new topics 17:10:09 (let's also discuss new topics if you have any) 17:10:27 so, I've an idea I've been thinking about on and off: a (periodic) survey of debian developers (and maintainers maybe) to discover how many of them are paid to do debian work 17:10:42 I think it's important to know that, as it's related to our common "independence" claim 17:10:55 OTOH, having a survey which only asks that specific question seems a bit silly... 17:11:12 so if others have idea of what kind of useful information we could use to know from DDs, I'm all ears 17:11:15 we would probably think of more questions 17:11:18 (this is nothing high priority, of course) 17:11:42 lucas: yes, the (meta- :))question is what we need to know of DDs to better drive debian? 17:11:51 that we don't know yet, that is 17:11:56 a (bi-)yearly survey may be nice, but it needs someone to do and to evaluate 17:12:11 RichiH: yep 17:12:16 regarding paying DDs, it would be nice to distinguish between "employer knows I'm working on Debian during working hours and doesn't mind" and "contributing to Debian is part of my day job" 17:12:32 "How much time do you spend working on Debian Project related tasks?" 17:12:37 zack: surely debian would still be independent even if all its developers were paid to work on it? (or am I misunderstanding the issue?) 17:12:48 highvoltage: it depends 17:12:56 if they're all working for different companies, arguably yes 17:12:59 highvoltage: not if they were paid by the same company, for example 17:13:02 (that's the linux kernel model basically) 17:13:09 if not, what lucas said 17:13:14 I'd be really surprised if the latter would be the case :) 17:13:30 highvoltage: I won't be surprised to find that a high percentage of dds working on debian work for canonical, for instance 17:13:33 it was a common fear in early canonical times 17:13:46 it would be interesting to know how high that percentage is, though 17:14:18 I know lots of folk at canonical and I don't think there are more than a dozen DDs employed there 17:14:27 we'll see :) 17:14:42 highvoltage: but early on, it was a migh higer percent 17:14:43 lucas: I can take an action to draft a first list of interesting "things" we might want to know, if you want me to 17:14:46 type of employer / field would be interesting too. e.g. using the linked in categories 17:14:50 highvoltage: so it was assumed that % would continue 17:14:58 paultag: yep, but a lot has changed in recent years 17:15:24 (like being less desktop centric, for better or worse) 17:15:25 highvoltage: that's perception, and I agree with you, but data is something else 17:15:26 #action zack to draft questions for a survey of DDs 17:15:32 paultag: in the beginning, canonical pretty much hired any dd that was interested 17:15:47 "biggest problems one sees in Debian" would be an interesting question, too 17:15:50 (it's more "things we want to know" to begin with, questions come later ,but ok, just nitpicking :)) 17:15:53 zack: *nod*, yes it will be interesting what the data says 17:16:04 zack: can you bounce those off of me as well? i think it's important to have a good set of questions if we bother people in general 17:16:19 (not saying you can't come up with good questions) 17:16:40 RichiH: sure, and no worries, I'm definitely not going to start mailing people before several rounds with this group 17:16:52 we will also need a realistic (and efficient) scheme to go through feedback 17:18:35 ok, anything else? 17:19:03 (not from me) 17:19:21 neither 17:19:24 nope 17:19:52 ok 17:20:02 #topic Action items from last meeting 17:20:20 #topic ** TODO bgupta to follow up to TO email thread and cc dpl-helpers@ 17:20:38 *** Done. Probably need to expand the conversation? Discussion needed. 17:21:01 so, I think that the most important question is: what do we want to do with this definition 17:21:18 if we answer that one, it'll be easier to know what to write, and with how many details. 17:21:37 do we have a working draft somewhere? 17:22:05 (also, I note that the definition is in the constitution, what we want is probably something more like "minimal requirements" to be listed, or something such) 17:22:24 I remember having commented on list, but I've no idea whether the comments were addressed (even ditching them, of course :)) or not 17:22:48 yes. one of the goal should be to clarify what we expect, so that people creating an organization with the aim of becoming a TO at some point know what to expect 17:23:08 ack 17:23:32 not really, the last mail of the thread is http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/dpl-helpers/2013-September/000095.html 17:23:47 (not really = we don't really have a working draft) 17:23:51 (AFAIK) 17:24:19 zack: from your POV, which organizations are currently TO? 17:24:29 we don't the thread is all.. without a kinda goals of this I can't really know which way to go. 17:24:38 I guess that's a question best asked to tbm, but certainly SPI, FFIS, debian.ch 17:25:00 and debian france looks good to become one 17:25:04 that list alligns with what auditors said when I asked them awhile back. 17:25:07 there's a list at https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations, that includes SPI, FFIS and debian.ch 17:25:26 however, I'm not sure if debian.ch is really officially one 17:25:29 (I cleaned that wiki page up based on the feedback from auditors) 17:25:37 oh, I knew that page, but didn't notice the split between TO and others up to now 17:25:49 the distinction on that page matches my intuition 17:25:50 lucas: why not? 17:25:53 nor if it meets all of the obvious requirements, e.g. access to bank listings 17:26:14 lucas: well, we don't have access to SPI bank accounts either 17:26:28 that's not a reason for not putting that in requirements :) 17:26:35 oh, sure :) 17:26:41 I'm just saying that I don't see much of a difference 17:26:55 and I guess what you mean is "access without mediation to bank accounts" 17:27:05 on that front I think FFIS is the only one that qualifies 17:27:17 mediation would be OK, I think, especially if automated 17:27:37 agreed 17:28:04 OTOH, as a treasurer of a non-profit (not related to software) I feel their pay, it's not necessarily easy to implement that 17:28:14 so I guess some periodic disclosure would be enough 17:28:21 maybe set a minimum period, e.g. quarterly? 17:28:42 quarterly + on demand, maybe 17:28:51 make sense 17:29:15 one of the ultimate goals of auditor@ is to be able to expose a "Debian budget". and if we can't consolidate info from various TOs at the same time, it's quite hard to do 17:29:29 When I tackled the TO definition, I was of the mind to make it useful for organizations thinking about persuing TO status, as well as useful to the project on having some level of consistency going forward on considering new TOs. 17:29:32 of course, it might be that auditor@ should just do some double-accounting 17:29:34 requiring regular disclosure and leaving the method up to the TO would make sense, no? 17:30:38 lucas: the more stringent requirement is being able to answer the typical DPL question "how much (non-committed) money do we have *now*?" 17:30:51 because for the debian budget, that has a cadence too, and quarterly would be more than enough 17:30:55 zack: but I wonder if it should be a question for auditor@, not TOs 17:30:57 most organizations publish only yearly budgets 17:31:10 lucas: I lost you, which question? 17:31:16 lucas: auditor can't do this without support from TOs 17:31:27 "how much non-commited money do we have *now*?" 17:31:41 why not ask auditor@ for what they can work with and have them come up with requirements? 17:31:55 bgupta: I'm actually not so sure. auditor@ is supposed to see all transactions 17:32:12 lucas: it depends on the level of freedom that TOs have 17:32:13 bgupta: for some of them, not having an aggregated view really sucks, sure 17:32:28 it is possible for auditor to answer that question only if TOs have zero freedom in using money 17:32:38 lucas: isn't there some sort of accounting software in use that keeps track of funds/costs? 17:32:39 (which is a possibility, of course) 17:33:02 highvoltage: it's not a problem of software :), but yes, there are aplenty, debian auditors use ledger-cli 17:33:27 zack: so what's the problem? couldn't they get the balance(s) from there? 17:33:37 processes are the problem 17:33:41 ah 17:33:42 each TOs have their own 17:33:50 and you need to integrate those with debian (auditor's) one 17:33:52 highvoltage: as i understand it "how to get the data in there" 17:34:25 zack: why not ask TOs to come up with an export that imports into ledger-cli cleanly? 17:34:40 RichiH: tbm has been writing several of those importers 17:34:50 ok 17:34:55 zack: could we require TOs to have a separate Debian bank account, and notify auditor@ if they decide to use that bank account for something? 17:35:04 I think we need centralization at one place of debian assets. Would that be possible ? 17:35:23 rafw: no, that's part of the fun ;) 17:35:26 :) 17:35:28 lucas: sure, we can, but that comes with a cost. I guess it would be enough to have separate earmarks (which is what debian france plans to do, IIRC) 17:35:31 anyway, to move forward 17:35:37 rafw: Not really, and I don't necessarily thing it's needed. 17:35:44 I think the requirement for being a TO should be vetted by auditors, at the very minimum 17:35:49 but we need a draft to start with 17:36:01 zack: note that bgupta is part of auditor@ now 17:36:09 ah, right! 17:36:18 zack the issue so far is the drinitial draft I proposed to auditors incited no feedback 17:36:29 ping, maybe? 17:36:36 s/drinitial/initial/ 17:36:44 and too bad I didn't realize that, as I've met tbm in Paris a few days ago 17:36:54 bgupta: don't take it personal :) 17:37:06 yeah, I talked to him too. he feels bad about behind on auditor@ stuff 17:37:32 ok 17:37:33 bgupta: but is that the draft commented upon? 17:37:46 if so, it would be great if you could integrate (or maybe rebuke) my comments 17:37:56 bgupta: I currently have four outstanding items for auditor@: reimbursement procedures/RT, TO def, comments on DC13 surplus, hug as auditor@ 17:37:59 ok will do… 17:38:12 great, thanks! 17:38:19 bgupta: or maybe just hack the current wiki page based on feedback + discussion today? 17:38:20 #action bgupta respond to TO draft thread 17:39:06 #action start wiki page for collaborating on TO definition 17:39:27 (err forgot to say bgupta on that second one) 17:39:46 #action bgupta improve https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor/Organizations based on TO definition discussions 17:39:57 (I think that it could go to that page) 17:40:16 ok, moving on 17:40:16 ** TODO bgupta confirm the final stored currency for debian.ch paypal account 17:40:19 *** Asked. Waiting for answer. No discussion needed. 17:40:23 Wait 17:40:28 I got an answer 17:40:36 or at least the start of one 17:42:00 CHF is the current default.. they can send other currencies to other orgs that have paypal accounts.. Debian.ch does have the ability to store USD and EURO bank balances, but currently when "withdrawing" from Paypal they can only do so in "home currency" of CHF. hug is investigating options. 17:43:19 e.g. for OPW we'll be able to send USD straight to Gnome's paypal in USD. 17:43:42 (Assuming that the money goes to Gnome Foundation 17:43:53 for OPW, we might want to transfer from DC13 17:44:03 sure.. 17:44:35 ok, thanks for digging into this 17:44:44 #topic ** TODO RichiH to look into the status of the press team, and advise lucas on how to update the current delegation 17:45:05 lucas: you have the mails cc, should i summarize for the benefit of the logs? 17:45:21 I propose to move that point to email, as it's still under discussion with the press team 17:45:46 there's a suggestion to reduce the requirements for sending press releases, and have something similar to dda 17:45:54 correct 17:46:20 (pabs and Maulkin agree on that) 17:46:33 there's also a vibe of maybe dismantling -press as a group and relying on =publicity and individual DDs 17:46:35 FWIW, that doesn’t scale with http://www.debian.org/News/ 17:46:47 which is a tad meh, but that's what it feels like 17:47:04 taffit: right 17:47:24 taffit: maybe folding in with -publicity could make sense; i never got why there are two teams 17:47:37 but if, as a project, we don't manage to do something, there's not much we can do about it 17:47:38 or lucas could send a call for help 17:47:45 yes, that could be tried 17:47:57 #action lucas to include call for help for press team in next bits 17:48:06 RichiH: fwiw, one of the two is authorized (by the DPL) to answer press inquiries "signing" as Debian Project, the other team is not 17:48:20 (then we might debate whether that's needed/useful or not, of course) 17:48:43 zack: i think it's useful to have a trusted person who can speak for debian 17:48:59 but if that hinges on one single person with a backup of DPL, that's not ideal 17:49:12 part of that trust implies that they will not abuse that 17:49:21 right, so that's "we need a functional press team" argument, which I agree with 17:49:30 we could make the DPL part of press@, as a last resort option, and use the press team as a group of people that (1) can advice on writing press releases; (2) help with the publishing, e.g. www.d.o 17:49:30 but it's unrelated to "we don't need a press/publicity" distinction 17:49:31 Do we get many press inquiries? 17:49:42 jftr, i will be split between here and #debconf15-germany in nine minutes 17:49:55 bgupta: i don't have hard numbers, but it does not appear to be that way 17:50:27 and there's another argument in addition to press inquiries, which are press releases; they are old style, but they are sort of needed in occasions like big sponsoring/agreement from company foo 17:50:34 because companies are old style in this respect 17:50:43 anyway, I'm off in a few minutes as well 17:50:45 lucas: leader@ can be on press@, but that increases your load so.. 17:51:08 yeah, but also motivation to offload this ;) 17:51:36 What will happen in the mean time — e.g. who will take care of the upcoming point release announcements — is not settled AFAIK, maybe the RT should be made aware. 17:51:42 My sense is that one approach could be to fold the two teams together, allow DPL to ask new team to write responses press inquires, but have DPL retain final "signature" authority for those responses. 17:52:33 I'll think about this and reply by email; I'd like to move one to the other topics 17:52:44 #action lucas to follow-up on press team issues 17:52:49 bgupta: that might work, I agree 17:53:05 #topic ** TODO RichiH to add Debian logins to http://www.debian.org/intro/organization.en.html 17:53:16 started locally, not finished 17:53:22 #action RichiH to add Debian logins to http://www.debian.org/intro/organization.en.html 17:53:47 #topic DONE stuff 17:53:57 (please drop the end s/\.en\.html$/ of www.d.o URLs ;) 17:53:59 I'm going to copy/paste, stop me if things need further discussion 17:54:14 taffit: in that case it makes sense to have it 17:54:24 no it doesn’t, really 17:54:29 ** DONE rafw to investigate whether anti-harrassement should be added to www.d.o/contact 17:54:32 ** DONE zack/paultag [binary-throw-away uploads] find relevant thread(s), write quick summary 17:54:33 stop 17:54:35 see http://deb.li/3NPsz 17:54:38 ** DONE rafw to summarize status of debian-events on dpl-helpers@ 17:54:40 need input from lucas on future directions 17:55:10 regarding anti-harassement, I need to put something sensible on the website still. 17:55:21 ok, will action that 17:55:40 #action rafw add something sensible about anti-harrassement on the website 17:55:51 I will read the consitution and try to find info about the spirit. 17:56:01 + regarding event team 17:56:02 lucas: i know two people who were on the anti-harassemnt team during dc13 17:56:08 maybe ask those for input? 17:56:11 i did 17:56:14 k 17:56:35 (is that info public? i.e. who is on those aliases) 17:56:54 regarding event team, the thing is it is more or less a one person team. 17:57:02 yes, www.debian.org/intro/organization 17:57:21 RichiH: nope, i wrote to antiharassement@d.o 17:57:23 yah, event@ seems very dead when you consider recent ml traffic 17:57:25 ah ok 17:57:44 yes, i spoke to Arne who is the main contributor to the team. 17:58:01 He say to me he doesn't need help as somebody will start helping. 17:58:02 but 17:58:23 rafw: rhalina will be around for the dc15 meeting, should i ask to join here? 17:58:29 I don't thing that two people team is really a team. 17:58:35 I talk to her as well. 17:58:43 She offer to help later. 17:59:06 I wrote to Lucas a summary in french. 17:59:21 to be honest i am not sure what to do next. 17:59:36 yes, I still need to think about it 17:59:54 I've accumulated a small backlog of email during the last few days :( 18:00:03 for me the problem is: if you want to have a list of next debian event ... atm you can't. 18:00:22 I mean a gloval list up to date. 18:00:27 global. 18:00:27 * zack gotta go, bbl 18:00:35 zack: bye 18:00:39 zack: bye, thanks for coming! 18:00:47 zack: later 18:00:54 (I need to go quite soon too. max 10 mins) 18:01:09 other remaining items are: 18:01:12 ** DONE bgupta to explore legal issues around accepting cryptocurrency donations 18:01:15 mail sent to SFLC, waiting for reply 18:01:18 ** DONE lucas write call for helps to be included in next bits from DPL, for debbugs, dak, d-i 18:01:21 done, except for d-i where nobody replied. 18:01:22 ** DONE lucas check status of DC13 surplus 18:01:25 now waiting for input from DC13 treasurer on what is possible 18:01:28 ** DONE RichiH to review email about debian.* and send it to SFLC 18:01:30 mail sent to SFLC, waiting for reply 18:01:54 for d-i, it's not clear that it desserves a call for help, really. it would be nice if there was more activity, but it's far from dead, and not blocking atm 18:02:41 actually, for DC13, the status is more "waiting for people to send requests for money" 18:02:41 d-i : debian-installer ? 18:02:44 yes 18:02:52 ok 18:03:30 regarding DC13: for info we get the money from the last sponsor a few day ago. 18:03:46 lucas: Quick note, I'd like to add an item that I will be exploring: Making a self hosted Debian donation page that largely allows people to donate directly from a webian page. (webian = www.d.o) 18:04:15 rafw: was it sent to SPI or DC13? 18:04:26 lucas: nope to DC13. 18:04:30 bgupta: making that easier and more seamless makes sense 18:04:35 rafw: do you know the amount? 18:04:51 yes, it is CHF 12'000 for NE.ch 18:05:11 rafw: do you know if it's counted in the current surplus of CHF 38k, or in addition to that? 18:05:31 lucas: I dont know 18:05:38 ok, I'll ask hug 18:05:53 bgupta: thanks a lot for working on that, that's indeed very important 18:05:56 I guess it is inculded fur that is only a guess. 18:06:18 #action lucas check whether NE.ch was already counted in the surplus 18:06:37 #action bgupta investigate how to make a donations page on www.d.o 18:07:01 bgupta: do you have something more to say on that, besides "it will be a challenge"? :) 18:07:40 I don't think it will be too bad.. will need to recruit a web dev though. (Gonna start without paypal support for now) 18:08:00 ok 18:08:10 anything else? 18:08:56 ok, thanks a lot to you all for attending 18:08:59 I'll post the minutes 18:09:02 #endmeeting