Minutes of the board meeting of April 13, 2020
"philip.chimento--- via foundation-announce" <[email protected]> Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:08:04 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnome.foundation.announce |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHbXgc1WYVeEiyCxzgWvV9XkjN8xe6eLYb7Ap+r-Nm7_AKB+fg@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============2829164398534997996==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dbb12c05a7b3d43b"
--000000000000dbb12c05a7b3d43b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Wiki location: https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20200413
= Meeting of the GNOME Foundation Board of Directors, 13 April 2020, 14:30
UTC =
== Attending ==
* AllanDay
* BrittYazel
* FedericoMenaQuintero
* NeilMcGovern
* PhilipChimento
* RobMcQueen
== Regrets ==
* CarlosSoriano
* RosannaYuen
* TristanVanBerkom
== Missing ==
== Agenda ==
* Approve minutes of 23 and 30 March
* WebKitGTK contracting
* Pass responsibility for conference approvals to staff
* Turn the release team into a committee
== Minutes ==
* Approve minutes of 23 and 30 March
* Not everyone has read them. Deferred until next meeting.
* WebKitGTK contracting
* Neil: We are approaching the release of GTK4. Part of the work that
will need to be done to enable apps to use GTK4 is to port WebKitGTK, which
is currently a GTK3 framework. Multiple companies were asked to bid.
* Philip notes that he has a potential conflict of interest, due to his
employment by Igalia who are a candidate to undertake the work. [Philip
leaves the call.]
* It is agreed that Philip should be excluded from this discussion.
* Britt: What are the chances of this WebKitGTK work being done without
a contract?
* Neil: It would probably take a number of years for it to be done by
the community. We want to move to a model where GTK releases regularly,
and this would delay it.
* Rob: Is the Foundation planning to use this large expenditure as a
fundraising opportunity?
* Neil: Yes, along the lines of making a match fundraiser.
* Britt: Have you asked any other of the GTK stakeholders (Elementary)
about helping pay for this kind of work?
* Neil: I can talk to them.
* Neil: Christian Hergert asked for this work to be done.
* '''VOTE''': approve the spend of USD 40,000 for the contract to port
WebKitGTK to GTK4
* +1 unanimous
[Philip rejoins the meeting]
* Pass responsibility for conference approvals to staff
* Allan: We'd like to broaden the definition of who can make the
decisions for conference approvals, so it's not just the board, but the
Foundation. A draft policy has been shared with the board members. The
basic idea is moving the board away from doing operational stuff, and this
is one of the operational matters that comes up most often. As members of
the board, we will be able to stay updated.
* Britt: The only real change is that we no longer vote to approve these
events?
* Neil: What used to happen is that the board ran the call for bids,
reviewed the bids, and decided which one to accept. This change would mean
the Foundation does all that, which can include the board, but doesn't have
to.
* Allan: The one thing we might still end up voting on is spending
approval, if the budget for a conference exceeds Neil's spending powers.
The board will still engage with events by voting on the budget and the
Foundation's strategy.
* Philip: I'm in favour of this because members of the board are not
necessarily qualified to review bids.
* Allan: These days we have a staff member helping local teams put
bids together. It made more sense for the board to approve bids when that
was not yet the case.
* Britt: Does this need to be voted on?
* Neil: There is a conference policy that the board voted on, so
changing it in this way would also need to be voted on.
* Neil: Can we replace "on discourse.gnome.org" in the draft with "in
public" or something similar?
* Allan: OK. The idea was to mandate that it had to be announced in
some high-traffic place.
* '''VOTE''': Pass responsibility for conference approvals to staff
(draft shared with the board)
* +1 unanimous
* '''ACTION''' - Allan to update the wiki page.
* Turning the release team into a committee
* Allan: We've been talking about this for a while, but recently we also
had one issue that we delegated to the release team, asking them to take
the responsibility for a technical decision. Do we think it would be a good
idea for the release team to be a general engineering committee?
* Britt: I don't disagree with the idea of a committee that makes
technical decisions, but it doesn't necessarily need to be the release team.
* Allan: Why do you think they should be separate?
* Britt: It seems to me the release team sets the schedule for the
GNOME releases, which is not a power of the board to begin with, so we are
not actually delegating anything to them.
* Neil: The release team are exercising the power of authorizing the
GNOME trademark, by determining what software is and isn't GNOME.
* Britt: But wouldn't that be elevating all the rest of their
responsibilities to the level of the board?
* Rob: I understand the concern, but I think the responsibility of
determining what is GNOME is an important legal responsibility of the
Foundation, and I think it's the main activity of the release team;
everything else follows from there. I'm not sure you can separate it.
* Britt: It means that to join the release team, you now have to be
voted in by the board. This could be seen as a power play.
* Philip: I see it in the opposite way; the current situation is that
someone who is unknown to the board or the Foundation can join the release
team and receive the power to exercise the Foundation's trademarks. This
seems like a mistake to me.
* Rob: Furthermore, the release team appoints themselves.
* Britt: Would the current release team approve of this?
* Allan: I've talked to them and they're okay with it.
* Federico: Answering the first question, a general engineering
committee is a question of governance. I think this is something we should
help the community work through.
* Allan: I feel that we should say that the release team have
jurisdiction over technical questions, because through the power of
deciding what is and isn't GNOME, they effectively already do. We could
rename them to the Engineering and Release Committee.
* Britt: I am fine with this idea, but I would rather if we broaden
the scope of the release team and have their name reflect it. They would
become a sort of technical steering committee.
* Philip: I agree with delegating technical responsibilities to the
release team that they effectively already have, but creating an
engineering committee or steering committee is a governance question, as
Federico said. I don't think the board can take that step without
discussing it with the community and making clear what problems a steering
committee would solve.
== Actions ==
* '''Allan''' - Update the wiki page to reflect the new responsibility for
conference approvals (Done:
https://wiki.gnome.org/action/info/Foundation/Conferences?action=diff&rev2=12&rev1=11
)
--000000000000dbb12c05a7b3d43b
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Wiki location: <a href=3D"https://wiki.gnome.org/Foun=
dationBoard/Minutes/20200413">https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minute=
s/20200413</a></div><div><br></div><div>=3D Meeting of the GNOME Foundation=
Board of Directors, 13 April 2020, 14:30 UTC =3D</div><br>=3D=3D Attending=
=3D=3D<br><br>=C2=A0* AllanDay<br>=C2=A0* BrittYazel<br>=C2=A0* FedericoMe=
naQuintero<br>=C2=A0* NeilMcGovern<br>=C2=A0* PhilipChimento<br>=C2=A0* Rob=
McQueen<br><br>=3D=3D Regrets =3D=3D<br><br>=C2=A0* CarlosSoriano<br>=C2=A0=
* RosannaYuen<br>=C2=A0* TristanVanBerkom<br><br>=3D=3D Missing =3D=3D<br><=
br>=3D=3D Agenda =3D=3D<br><br>=C2=A0* Approve minutes of 23 and 30 March<b=
r>=C2=A0* WebKitGTK contracting<br>=C2=A0* Pass responsibility for conferen=
ce approvals to staff<br>=C2=A0* Turn the release team into a committee<br>=
<br>=3D=3D Minutes =3D=3D<br><br>=C2=A0* Approve minutes of 23 and 30 March=
<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Not everyone has read them. Deferred until next meeting.=
<br><br>=C2=A0* WebKitGTK contracting<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Neil: We are approa=
ching the release of GTK4. Part of the work that will need to be done to en=
able apps to use GTK4 is to port WebKitGTK, which is currently a GTK3 frame=
work. Multiple companies were asked to bid.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Philip notes =
that he has a potential conflict of interest, due to his employment by Igal=
ia who are a candidate to undertake the work. [Philip leaves the call.]<br>=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* It is agreed that Philip should be excluded from this discus=
sion.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Britt: What are the chances of this WebKitGTK work =
being done without a contract?<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Neil: It would prob=
ably take a number of years for it to be done by the community.=C2=A0 We wa=
nt to move to a model where GTK releases regularly, and this would delay it=
.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Rob: Is the Foundation planning to use this large expen=
diture as a fundraising opportunity?<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Neil: Yes, al=
ong the lines of making a match fundraiser.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Britt: Have y=
ou asked any other of the GTK stakeholders (Elementary) about helping pay f=
or this kind of work?<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Neil: I can talk to them.<br=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Neil: Christian Hergert asked for this work to be do=
ne.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* '''VOTE''': approve the spend=
of USD 40,000 for the contract to port WebKitGTK to GTK4<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0* +1 unanimous<br><br>[Philip rejoins the meeting]<br><br>=C2=A0* Pas=
s responsibility for conference approvals to staff<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Allan:=
We'd like to broaden the definition of who can make the decisions for =
conference approvals, so it's not just the board, but the Foundation. A=
draft policy has been shared with the board members. The basic idea is mov=
ing the board away from doing operational stuff, and this is one of the ope=
rational matters that comes up most often. As members of the board, we will=
be able to stay updated.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Britt: The only real change is =
that we no longer vote to approve these events?<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Ne=
il: What used to happen is that the board ran the call for bids, reviewed t=
he bids, and decided which one to accept. This change would mean the Founda=
tion does all that, which can include the board, but doesn't have to.<b=
r>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Allan: The one thing we might still end up voting o=
n is spending approval, if the budget for a conference exceeds Neil's s=
pending powers. The board will still engage with events by voting on the bu=
dget and the Foundation's strategy.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Philip: I'm i=
n favour of this because members of the board are not necessarily qualified=
to review bids.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Allan: These days we have a staff=
member helping local teams put bids together. It made more sense for the b=
oard to approve bids when that was not yet the case.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Brit=
t: Does this need to be voted on?<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Neil: There is a=
conference policy that the board voted on, so changing it in this way woul=
d also need to be voted on.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Neil: Can we replace "on=
<a href=3D"http://discourse.gnome.org">discourse.gnome.org</a>" in th=
e draft with "in public" or something similar?<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0* Allan: OK. The idea was to mandate that it had to be announced in s=
ome high-traffic place.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* '''VOTE'''=
;: Pass responsibility for conference approvals to staff (draft shared with=
the board)<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* +1 unanimous<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* =
'''ACTION''' - Allan to update the wiki page.<br><b=
r>=C2=A0* Turning the release team into a committee<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Allan=
: We've been talking about this for a while, but recently we also had o=
ne issue that we delegated to the release team, asking them to take the res=
ponsibility for a technical decision. Do we think it would be a good idea f=
or the release team to be a general engineering committee?<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0=
* Britt: I don't disagree with the idea of a committee that makes techn=
ical decisions, but it doesn't necessarily need to be the release team.=
<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Allan: Why do you think they should be separate?<=
br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Britt: It seems to me the release team sets the sc=
hedule for the GNOME releases, which is not a power of the board to begin w=
ith, so we are not actually delegating anything to them.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0* Neil: The release team are exercising the power of authorizing the =
GNOME trademark, by determining what software is and isn't GNOME.<br>=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Britt: But wouldn't that be elevating all the res=
t of their responsibilities to the level of the board?<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0* Rob: I understand the concern, but I think the responsibility of deter=
mining what is GNOME is an important legal responsibility of the Foundation=
, and I think it's the main activity of the release team; everything el=
se follows from there. I'm not sure you can separate it.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0* Britt: It means that to join the release team, you now have to =
be voted in by the board. This could be seen as a power play.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0* Philip: I see it in the opposite way; the current situation is =
that someone who is unknown to the board or the Foundation can join the rel=
ease team and receive the power to exercise the Foundation's trademarks=
. This seems like a mistake to me.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Rob: Furthermor=
e, the release team appoints themselves.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Britt: Wo=
uld the current release team approve of this?<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Alla=
n: I've talked to them and they're okay with it.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* =
Federico: Answering the first question, a general engineering committee is =
a question of governance. I think this is something we should help the comm=
unity work through.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Allan: I feel that we should s=
ay that the release team have jurisdiction over technical questions, becaus=
e through the power of deciding what is and isn't GNOME, they effective=
ly already do. We could rename them to the Engineering and Release Committe=
e.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* Britt: I am fine with this idea, but I would ra=
ther if we broaden the scope of the release team and have their name reflec=
t it. They would become a sort of technical steering committee.<br>=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Philip: I agree with delegating technical responsibilities t=
o the release team that they effectively already have, but creating an engi=
neering committee or steering committee is a governance question, as Federi=
co said. I don't think the board can take that step without discussing =
it with the community and making clear what problems a steering committee w=
ould solve.<br><br>=3D=3D Actions =3D=3D<br><br><div>=C2=A0* '''=
;Allan''' - Update the wiki page to reflect the new responsibil=
ity for conference approvals (Done: <a href=3D"https://wiki.gnome.org/actio=
n/info/Foundation/Conferences?action=3Ddiff&rev2=3D12&rev1=3D11">ht=
tps://wiki.gnome.org/action/info/Foundation/Conferences?action=3Ddiff&r=
ev2=3D12&rev1=3D11</a>)</div><div><br></div></div>
--000000000000dbb12c05a7b3d43b--
--===============2829164398534997996==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
foundation-announce mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-announce
--===============2829164398534997996==--