Re: Minutes of the board meeting of March 13, 2019

2019-06-03 Thread Philip Chimento via foundation-list
Hi,

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:51 AM Benjamin Berg 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 18:37 -0700, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:55 AM Benjamin Berg 
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 18:08 -0700, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:11 AM Benjamin Berg <
> benja...@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 22:30 -0700, Philip Chimento via foundation-
> > > > > list
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >* Philip: Everyone please read this, we'll discuss it again
> in the
> > > > > > next meeting. As suggested in Allan's comments, I can split the
> parts
> > > > > > that are more of interest to Foundation members into a wiki page.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the proposed policy fully available to foundation members for
> review
> > > > > and/or as a reference at this point in time?
> > > >
> > > > It's not a policy. It's an informal guideline for the board members,
> > > > suggesting what standards the minutes should meet, and a procedure
> > > > for approving the minutes of the previous meeting at the start of
> > > > each meeting.
> > > >
> > > > […] The remaining board guideline part is honestly not going to be
> > > > very interesting unless you like parliamentary procedure, but will be
> > > > put on a wiki page as well when the board members agree on it.
> > >
> > > And I am very much interested in reviewing those. We had longer
> > > discussions in the relevant tickets and so far I had not gotten the
> > > impression that the Board has addressed the issue of missing meeting
> > > minutes adequately. I do have a real hope that these documents will
> > > improve the situation a lot for the future, and I am very much
> > > interested in doing a review. Ideally before the Board votes on them.
> >
> > Sure, I have pinged people about it to get things moving again. I
> > personally am going on vacation tomorrow and will check what the
> > progress is when I get back next week. The goal is to put both online
> > before the end of the board term.
>
> Thanks. I am looking forward to seeing the actual document(s), as it is
> much easier to talk about this once everyone has the full information.
>

The explanatory wiki page:
https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard#General_information_on_meeting_minutes

The guidelines that I am proposing to the board to adopt in the future:
https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/Guidelines

> But just to be clear, it's not a policy, and I don't believe the
> > board is planning to vote on it. The wiki page is an explanatory wiki
> > page which we will be happy to answer questions about, but is not
> > going to represent any change from the status quo. The other document
> > is basically a guideline for the board saying "approve the previous
> > meeting's minutes at the start of each meeting, define a procedure by
> > which corrections are to be made, and make sure to delegate the
> > publishing of the minutes to someome else if the secretary hasn't
> > been able to do it by then." As a fairly minor procedural change to
> > the board meetings, it's not something we'd seek review or input on.
>
> To be honest, the above explanation makes the situation more confusing
> to me. I simply can't make much sense of it, partially because I cannot
> map it to my experiences[1] and partly because it does not answer the
> questions that I have about this topic.
>
> Benjamin
>
> [1] I have been involved with various bodies primarily in the
> university and student council context. I have also worked on different
> bylaws and rules of procedures over the years (and reviewed state law
> in Germany). I believe I did learn quite a bit about good practices
> during that time even if it will not directly map to an anglo-saxon
> system.
>
> To be specific as to why I am struggling. My expectation would be that
> approving minutes is a mandatory procedure for the Board. And
> introducing such a procedure requires a vote. In contrast you seem to
> be handling it purely as a non-binding guideline which seems odd to me.
>

I will try to explain my understanding. I think it's accurate to say that
so far, minutes are approved by unanimous consent, since the directors all
have access to the draft minutes before they are published and have the
opportunity to comment on them. In the case where something is written
incorrectly, the other directors do propose corrections to me. However, in
my previous experience on boards of volunteer organizations, just like you
I have only encountered organizations where the board formally approved the
previous minutes as the first item on the agenda in each meeting. I believe
it is good practice for the board to approve the minutes more formally.

It's not my intention to compel all future GNOME Foundation boards to
follow this particular guideline that I am currently proposing. For one
thing, I expect that we may try out some of the things in this guideline,
and find that they don't work 

Re: Minutes of the board meeting of March 13, 2019

2019-05-24 Thread Benjamin Berg
Hi,

On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 18:37 -0700, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:55 AM Benjamin Berg  
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 18:08 -0700, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:11 AM Benjamin Berg  
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 22:30 -0700, Philip Chimento via foundation-
> > > > list
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >* Philip: Everyone please read this, we'll discuss it again in the
> > > > > next meeting. As suggested in Allan's comments, I can split the parts
> > > > > that are more of interest to Foundation members into a wiki page.
> > > > 
> > > > Is the proposed policy fully available to foundation members for review
> > > > and/or as a reference at this point in time?
> > > 
> > > It's not a policy. It's an informal guideline for the board members,
> > > suggesting what standards the minutes should meet, and a procedure
> > > for approving the minutes of the previous meeting at the start of
> > > each meeting.
> > > 
> > > […] The remaining board guideline part is honestly not going to be
> > > very interesting unless you like parliamentary procedure, but will be
> > > put on a wiki page as well when the board members agree on it.
> > 
> > And I am very much interested in reviewing those. We had longer
> > discussions in the relevant tickets and so far I had not gotten the
> > impression that the Board has addressed the issue of missing meeting
> > minutes adequately. I do have a real hope that these documents will
> > improve the situation a lot for the future, and I am very much
> > interested in doing a review. Ideally before the Board votes on them.
> 
> Sure, I have pinged people about it to get things moving again. I
> personally am going on vacation tomorrow and will check what the
> progress is when I get back next week. The goal is to put both online
> before the end of the board term.

Thanks. I am looking forward to seeing the actual document(s), as it is
much easier to talk about this once everyone has the full information.

> But just to be clear, it's not a policy, and I don't believe the
> board is planning to vote on it. The wiki page is an explanatory wiki
> page which we will be happy to answer questions about, but is not
> going to represent any change from the status quo. The other document
> is basically a guideline for the board saying "approve the previous
> meeting's minutes at the start of each meeting, define a procedure by
> which corrections are to be made, and make sure to delegate the
> publishing of the minutes to someome else if the secretary hasn't
> been able to do it by then." As a fairly minor procedural change to
> the board meetings, it's not something we'd seek review or input on.

To be honest, the above explanation makes the situation more confusing
to me. I simply can't make much sense of it, partially because I cannot
map it to my experiences[1] and partly because it does not answer the
questions that I have about this topic.

Benjamin

[1] I have been involved with various bodies primarily in the
university and student council context. I have also worked on different
bylaws and rules of procedures over the years (and reviewed state law
in Germany). I believe I did learn quite a bit about good practices
during that time even if it will not directly map to an anglo-saxon
system.

To be specific as to why I am struggling. My expectation would be that
approving minutes is a mandatory procedure for the Board. And
introducing such a procedure requires a vote. In contrast you seem to
be handling it purely as a non-binding guideline which seems odd to me.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Minutes of the board meeting of March 13, 2019

2019-05-23 Thread Philip Chimento via foundation-list
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:55 AM Benjamin Berg 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 18:08 -0700, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:11 AM Benjamin Berg 
> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 22:30 -0700, Philip Chimento via foundation-
> > > list
> > > wrote:
> > > >* Philip: Everyone please read this, we'll discuss it again in the
> > > > next meeting. As suggested in Allan's comments, I can split the parts
> > > > that are more of interest to Foundation members into a wiki page.
> > >
> > > Is the proposed policy fully available to foundation members for review
> > > and/or as a reference at this point in time?
> >
> > It's not a policy. It's an informal guideline for the board members,
> > suggesting what standards the minutes should meet, and a procedure
> > for approving the minutes of the previous meeting at the start of
> > each meeting.
> >
> > […] The remaining board guideline part is honestly not going to be
> > very interesting unless you like parliamentary procedure, but will be
> > put on a wiki page as well when the board members agree on it.
>
> And I am very much interested in reviewing those. We had longer
> discussions in the relevant tickets and so far I had not gotten the
> impression that the Board has addressed the issue of missing meeting
> minutes adequately. I do have a real hope that these documents will
> improve the situation a lot for the future, and I am very much
> interested in doing a review. Ideally before the Board votes on them.
>

Sure, I have pinged people about it to get things moving again. I
personally am going on vacation tomorrow and will check what the progress
is when I get back next week. The goal is to put both online before the end
of the board term.

But just to be clear, it's not a policy, and I don't believe the board is
planning to vote on it. The wiki page is an explanatory wiki page which we
will be happy to answer questions about, but is not going to represent any
change from the status quo. The other document is basically a guideline for
the board saying "approve the previous meeting's minutes at the start of
each meeting, define a procedure by which corrections are to be made, and
make sure to delegate the publishing of the minutes to someone else if the
secretary hasn't been able to do it by then." As a fairly minor procedural
change to the board meetings, it's not something we'd seek review or input
on.
-- 
Philip
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Minutes of the board meeting of March 13, 2019

2019-05-23 Thread Benjamin Berg
Hi,

On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 18:08 -0700, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:11 AM Benjamin Berg  
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 22:30 -0700, Philip Chimento via foundation-
> > list
> > wrote:
> > >* Philip: Everyone please read this, we'll discuss it again in the
> > > next meeting. As suggested in Allan's comments, I can split the parts
> > > that are more of interest to Foundation members into a wiki page.
> > 
> > Is the proposed policy fully available to foundation members for review
> > and/or as a reference at this point in time?
> 
> It's not a policy. It's an informal guideline for the board members,
> suggesting what standards the minutes should meet, and a procedure
> for approving the minutes of the previous meeting at the start of
> each meeting.
> 
> […] The remaining board guideline part is honestly not going to be
> very interesting unless you like parliamentary procedure, but will be
> put on a wiki page as well when the board members agree on it.

And I am very much interested in reviewing those. We had longer
discussions in the relevant tickets and so far I had not gotten the
impression that the Board has addressed the issue of missing meeting
minutes adequately. I do have a real hope that these documents will
improve the situation a lot for the future, and I am very much
interested in doing a review. Ideally before the Board votes on them.

Benjamin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Minutes of the board meeting of March 13, 2019

2019-05-15 Thread Philip Chimento via foundation-list
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:11 AM Benjamin Berg 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 22:30 -0700, Philip Chimento via foundation-list
> wrote:
> >* Philip: Everyone please read this, we'll discuss it again in the
> > next meeting. As suggested in Allan's comments, I can split the parts
> > that are more of interest to Foundation members into a wiki page.
>
> Is the proposed policy fully available to foundation members for review
> and/or as a reference at this point in time?


It's not a policy. It's an informal guideline for the board members,
suggesting what standards the minutes should meet, and a procedure for
approving the minutes of the previous meeting at the start of each meeting.

Allan suggested at the time splitting it into two parts, since some parts
were more interesting as a reference for GNOME Foundation members. Federico
is working on splitting it and putting the reference part in a wiki page.
The remaining board guideline part is honestly not going to be very
interesting unless you like parliamentary procedure, but will be put on a
wiki page as well when the board members agree on it.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Minutes of the board meeting of March 13, 2019

2019-05-15 Thread Benjamin Berg
Hi,

On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 22:30 -0700, Philip Chimento via foundation-list
wrote:
>* Philip: Everyone please read this, we'll discuss it again in the
> next meeting. As suggested in Allan's comments, I can split the parts
> that are more of interest to Foundation members into a wiki page.

Is the proposed policy fully available to foundation members for review
and/or as a reference at this point in time?

Benjamin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Minutes of the board meeting of March 13, 2019

2019-05-14 Thread Philip Chimento via foundation-list
Wiki location: https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20190318

= Foundation Board Minutes for Monday 18 March 2019, 15:30 UTC =

== Attending ==

 * AllanDay
 * NeilMcGovern
 * RosannaYuen
 * PhilipChimento
 * NuritziSanchez
 * RobMcQueen
 * FedericoMenaQuintero
 * CarlosSoriano

== Regrets ==

 * KatGerasimova

== Agenda ==

 * GINA 2019
 * Sri's email about investing in documentation
 * Travel sponsorship policy
 * Guidelines on meeting minutes, approvals, and confidentiality
 * Request to act as a fiscal agent for Mallard

== Minutes ==

 * GINA (GNOME In North America) 2019
   * This is a general poll of directors on the relative importance of
organizing a GINA conference this year, especially relative to LAS (Linux
Application Summit).
 * It is also desirable regarding our nonprofit status to maintain
active events in the United States.
   * Allan: It's important to me that GINA happens organically, that there
isn't an event organized that no-one is interested in going to. Maybe we
should research what interest there is in North America.
 * Rosanna: When we first organized GNOME.Asia, there was no interest
in it; we created interest by having an event that started and grew a
community, as opposed to GUADEC where we invite an existing community. For
GINA we should figure out what mix we need in order to make it successful.
 * Rob: The question before the board now is whether that's something
we want to prioritize this year.
 * Allan: Do we prioritize LAS or GINA?
   * Federico: LAS is primarily a conference for developers, we can see
the GINA proposal as jump-starting a community including non-developers.
   * Allan: We also have to think of maintaining what we already have; if
we don't do an event, does this make the North American community wither
away? Do we need some investment in the short term to maintain interest?
What if instead of thinking of "an event for the whole continent", we try
for local communities, i.e. the Boston Summit helped form a community in
the East Coast.
   * Federico: I know someone who organized a Linux conference in Mexico
for several years, stopped, and now wants to start again. If I ask him
about organizing a GNOME conference, the first question will be if he can
get sponsorship. What would be our budget for such an event?
 * Neil: Yes, we would need a proposal for what is being organized.
There are a number of options.
   * Nuritzi: Neil, what's your feeling on the resources for this? If we
allocate resources to a GINA conference, then will that take resources away
from LAS?
 * Neil: It really depends on the scope of the two events. If GINA is a
more hackfest-like event, or if LAS basically organizes itself without too
much input from Foundation staff, then it's quite feasible with the
resources we have. It's also possible that it won't be.
   * Rob: It sounds like we want to give resources to LAS, and then ask for
proposals from elsewhere in the USA. For example, have a smaller scale
regional event, another "East Coast summit" for example.
   * Rosanna: There hasn't been any push from the community on this; people
in the USA are happy to travel. But while advisory board members can offer
us space, it's not space that we are lacking, just people power to organize
things.
 * Allan: That's why I'd like to do some research on the amount of
interest in such an event. Maybe we'll find out that there are people
interested.
   * Nuritzi: This year LAS would need a lot more input from the
Foundation, because of the co-hosting.
   * Carlos: We are talking of organizing conferences, but that seems like
the last step in community building. We should start small, with hackfests.
 * Nuritzi: That relates to what Rosanna said about the Foundation
fostering a community in Asia partly by organizing a conference there.
 * Rosanna: If you're trying to target users as well as developers,
then a hackfest isn't the right way to do that.
 * Carlos: Release parties or such might work for users.
 * Federico: Maybe we should make it easier for people to have smaller
gatherings. For example, Meetup allows people to do that. Could we have a
section in Discourse for people to announce local gatherings?
   * Nuritzi: Summarizing, it sounds like we are not planning to prioritize
having a large North American event this year, but we will encourage
fostering a community through smaller events with a future GINA in mind.
We'll try to gauge interest with a survey.
 * Neil: If we have a bit more information about what we want to
research with the survey, then the Foundation may be able to help put it
together.
   * Carlos: Nuritzi, you mentioned that you need more resources for LAS
right now. What exactly?
 * Nuritzi: Keeping the conversations around logistics going with KDE,
right now I'm the only one in these conversations.
 * Rob: Have we stated our intention publicly around LAS? Maybe we can
publicize it and get someone from the