11:59 <+   mattst88> | antarus: did you get an email from opencollective about 10 minutes ago?
11:59 <+   mattst88> | did Gentoo not reply to something from opencollective?
12:06 <@    antarus> | yes, and yes
12:11 <+   mattst88> | are you fucking kidding
12:12 <@    antarus> | nope
12:13 <+   mattst88> | are you going to make some kind of announcement?
12:14 <+   mattst88> | that seems appropriate, especially given the upcoming trustee election
12:14 <@    antarus> | I think you may be misreading the email
12:14 <@    antarus> | this was like "we applied, they asked a bunch of questions, we failed to respond in a timely manner, they rejected our application"
12:15 <+   mattst88> | that is my understanding
12:16 <+   mattst88> | my understanding is also that it has been your promise for the last few years to join a foundation and dissolve the foundation
12:16 <+   mattst88> | and after last year you basically said "this time for sure!"
12:17 <+   mattst88> | join an umbrella, I should say
12:18 <@    antarus> | yup
12:20 <+   mattst88> | so are you going to make an announcement about the status?
12:25 <+   mattst88> | antarus: ^
12:34 <+  dilfridge> | antarus: given that you repeatedly ran on the ticket of joining an umbrella and badly failed, I expect you not to run this time.
12:34 <+  dilfridge> | everything else would just be a bad joke
12:37            --> | ulm [~ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm] has joined #gentoo-trustees
12:37            --- | ChanServ sets modes [#gentoo-trustees +v ulm]
12:41 <+   mattst88> | robbat2: any comment from you?
12:41 <+   mattst88> | prometheanfire, soap?
12:41 <+   mattst88> | Anarchy?
12:42 <@       soap> | I wasnt involved with any of this, since my expectation was I'd just vote for it once we had everything lined up
12:43 <@prometheanf> | I wish it was handled better as well, wasn't involved for a few reasons but also would have voted on it once lined up
12:53 <    antarus> | mattst88: the status of..our application? The Foundation?
12:53 <@    antarus> | dilfridge: you are of course entitled to your opinion.
12:55 <+   mattst88> | antarus: the application and the fact that y'all apparently didn't respond
13:19 <    robbat2> | mattst88: last I heard we had sent them questions and didn't get answers back
13:20 <@    robbat2> | yep, my inbox shows that Alec responded on Jan 4th, with answers to their questions, and asked questions in return
13:20 <@    robbat2> | and then I see no further responses from OpenCollective; just automated stuff us getting access to the system
13:21 <+       ajak> | so what are they saying we didn't respond to them about?
13:21 <+   mattst88> | (and why doesn't that match antarus' understanding of the situation?)
13:21 <@    robbat2> | it doesn't say; just an automated response with "> No further response on application."
13:22 <@    robbat2> | antarus: can you confirm that the mail of Jan 4th did in fact go to them?
13:22 <+       ajak> | right, so my question is directed at whoever should know
13:22 <@    robbat2> | there was a draft version, and I recall discussing it, and thought it had been sent
13:22 <+       ajak> | if alec doesn't know then maybe it's an error, but he seems to know
13:23 <+   mattst88> | are the rest of the trustees not on the CC list?
13:23 <@    robbat2> | which CC?
13:23 <@    robbat2> | the rejection mail went to:
13:23 <@    robbat2> | To: trustees@gentoo.org                                                                                                                                      
13:23 <@    robbat2> | Message-ID: <de7f22e9-faed-6af0-147f-ca70e561b6da@opencollective.com>  
13:23 <@    robbat2> | alec's mail was to trustees@, Message-ID: <CAAr7Pr9TQS5hxcoL+Rco6Nxoy94N2oBmAsc0wqyhPmCz5mCv9A@mail.gmail.com>
13:24 <+       ajak> | it went to other members of the group individually (so, council)
13:24 <+   mattst88> | robbat2: I meant antarus' mail responding to opencollective's questions
13:25 <@    robbat2> | that was trustees@
13:25 <+   mattst88> | it doesn't seem that any of the other trustees are aware of the status of any of this :(
13:26 <@    robbat2> | prometheanfire: can you confirm in your mail, Jan 4th, that you have CAAr7Pr9TQS5hxcoL+Rco6Nxoy94N2oBmAsc0wqyhPmCz5mCv9A@mail.gmail.com ?
13:26 <@    robbat2> | and I'd like to hear alec's confirmation that the final version was sent to opencollective
13:26 <@    robbat2> | but it sounds like a communications problem more than a real problem
13:30 <@    robbat2> | i want to get the finances completed ahead of the AGM this year again; but I expect they will continue to show we are fiscally responsible, and are managing despite sponsors having financial/organization changes/troubles
13:31 <@    robbat2> | electrical power is bumpy here today, so i'm going to vanish for now
13:46 <@    antarus> | no oone responded to the draft
13:46 <@    antarus> | and I never sent it
13:51 <+   mattst88> | so for the third time, are you going to make an announcement?
14:00 <+       ajak> | i do think a status update would be prudent
14:45 <@    antarus> | I hear you on the request for an announcement
14:46 <@    antarus> | I'm not ready to commit to one at this specific moment
14:46 <@    antarus> | doesn't mean one won't happen
14:47 <+   mattst88> | okay. just letting you know, it's either you send something, or I will
14:47 <@    antarus> | I do appreciate someone caring.
15:00 <@prometheanf> | robbat2: I do have that message ID
15:01 <@prometheanf> | 'Subject: Re: Gentoo Linux wants to be hosted by Open Collective Foundation'
15:19 <+   mattst88> | prometheanfire: was the email sent to opencollective?
15:21 <@prometheanf> | I only see to trustees@
15:34 <@    antarus> | Right, I never sent the draft reply to opencollective
16:25 <+   mattst88> | antarus: you never sent a 2021 or 2022 presidents letter, did you?
16:40 <@    robbat2> | sent how? AGM does show a 2021 letter: https://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/President's%20Letter%202021.pdf
16:41 <@    robbat2> | 2022 letter: https://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/President's%20Letter%202022.pdf
16:43 <+   mattst88> | robbat2: 2019 and 2020 were sent to gentoo-nfp
16:44 <+   mattst88> | jun 12 last year, in this channel
16:44 <+   mattst88> | 13:30 <+   mattst88> | you should mail the president's letter to the mailing list
16:44 <+   mattst88> | 13:32 <@    antarus> | the 2021 letter you mean?
16:44 <+   mattst88> | 13:32 <@    antarus> | will do
16:45 <    robbat2> | mattst88: based on your discussions here, are you planning to run for the foundation? (so I can ensure you're nominated)
16:45 <+   mattst88> | I asked Google last year (or maybe the year before) for permission, and never got a response back
16:45 <+   mattst88> | I should email them again
16:46 <+   mattst88> | but I was kind of hoping to retire from Council and focus on stuff that's more fun
16:47 <+   mattst88> | but tbh, asking like once a year for people to send a goddamned email really shouldn't be the bar you have to clear to be a trustee
16:48 <@    robbat2> | why do you need to ask Google? Alec's time as a trustee and working for Google certainly overlapped
16:50 <+   mattst88> | ffs, looks like that mail was sent long enough ago that it's been auto-deleted
16:50 <+   mattst88> | let me see if I can find the document that lead me to believe I needed approval
16:51 <+   mattst88> | in any case, I'm not super interested. I just want people to do things they've repeatedly promised to do
16:53 <+   mattst88> | for my future self, the go link is go/opensource/education/board-service
16:53 <@    robbat2> | you can chase them to do it, vote against them (if there are enough candidates), or run against them (if there aren't enough candidates)
16:53 <+   mattst88> | I understand, and I've certainly done more than my fair share of chasing
16:53 <@    robbat2> | i'd say i'm disappointed we dropped the ball; but certainly not surprised by it
16:55 <+   mattst88> | but this is kind of where these conversations repeatedly end up -- no one does anything, people are rightly upset, and then there's the response of "well, you could run for Trustee" or "you don't have to be a trustee to do X, Y, and Z"
16:55 <+   mattst88> | but it really misses the core point that we already have people that have agreed to do precisely these things
16:56 <+   mattst88> | IMO this is akin to people not committing a fix for a package while they wait for some AWOL package maintainer who hasn't committed in months to respond to the bug
16:56 <+   mattst88> | where they would have just pushed their fix and moved on with life if the package had been maintainer-needed@
16:56 <+   mattst88> | we assume y'all are doing something. anything.
16:56 <@    robbat2> | and that's why I need to find time to write the GLEP for maintainer-timeout on packages
16:56 <+   mattst88> | and it takes active effort on our part to figure out if any of that is taking place
16:57 <+   mattst88> | because y'all don't have meetings
16:57 <+   mattst88> | and when there were no meetings or meeting minutes posted to the foundation wiki page, I had to repeatedly ping people to even figure out what was going on
16:57 <+   mattst88> | not that I could have edited the page anyway since it's in the foundation namespace
16:59 <+   mattst88> | (this was bug 801124 FWIW)
16:59 <   willikins> | https://bugs.gentoo.org/801124 "Document that monthly meetings no longer happen"; Documentation, Project-specific documentation; RESO, FIXE; mattst88:trustees
16:59 <+   mattst88> | robbat2: no, please don't spend any time on that
16:59 <+   mattst88> | the most important things that you can do for Gentoo is infrastructure and dissolving the foundation
17:02 <+   mattst88> | the google document I mentioned earlier says
17:02 <+   mattst88> | > All foundation board appointments must be cleared by opensource-foundations@google.com before acceptance.
17:03 <@    robbat2> | does it distinguish between being appointed to a board and elected to one? 
17:04 <@    antarus> | I presume I mostly ignored those requirements when I was employed (not saying you should!)
17:05 <+   mattst88> | I feel pretty confident that the distinction between appointed and elected isn't the critical thing
17:05 <+   mattst88> | the document goes on about reminding you that you have legal obligations, potential conflicts of interest, etc
17:06 <@    antarus> | practically speaking there is little to no accountabillty for this position
17:06 <@    antarus> | members run unapposed, no one else runs, etc..
17:07 <@    antarus> | is that not great? Sure.
17:07 <@    antarus> | Could things be worse? Sure. Previously the board did even less and we almost lost all our assets.
17:07 <+   mattst88> | so then please don't run if you have no intention of fulfilling your obligations and requirements
17:08 <+   mattst88> | this attitude of "meh, it could be worse" is just absolutely farsical
17:08 <+   mattst88> | if you don't want to do the work, just don't run
17:08 <@    antarus> | I don't think 'having no intention' is the same as what happened
17:08 <@    antarus> | but I take your point
17:09 <+   mattst88> | and on the no accountability aspect -- y'all stopped having meetings!
17:09 <+   mattst88> | apparently none of you even remembered what the status of the application was
17:10 <+   mattst88> | maybe a meeting once in a while might jog your memory?
17:13 <@    antarus> | Shall I just mark thep foundation as maintainer-needed then?
17:14 <@    antarus> | (to use your earlier analogy.)
17:14 <@    antarus> | *the*
17:15 <+   mattst88> | yes
17:16 <+   mattst88> | abso-fucking-lutely yes
17:17 <+   mattst88> | in practice, I think that means that every one of the trustees should step down
17:19 <+       sam_> | it's far better to not run than to run and not do anything, especially with this nonchalant attitude whenever anybody asks about it
17:19 <+       sam_> | the detached thing gets old
17:24 <@    antarus> | I mean I do not really agree with that characterization
17:24 <@    antarus> | we filed taxes, bought stuff, there is a nitrokey agreement for v3 keys, etc.
17:25 <+       sam_> | i wasn't aware of an agreement for nitrokey
17:25 <+       sam_> | I don't see it in bug 801499
17:25 <   willikins> | sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/801499 "Approach Nitrokey for Nitrokey 3 upgrade"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; sam:trustees
17:26 <@    antarus> | ah sorry, 'in the works'
17:26 <@    antarus> | its not signed or anything
17:27 <@    antarus> | anyway, my point being we didn't do 'nothing'
17:27 <@    antarus> | that being said I already rotate out
17:28 <@    antarus> | so I hope we find more motivated candidates