X.Org BoD meeting minutes 2016-08-18

[Peter Hutterer]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:01:33PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> I think you are one of the better board directors that we have had over 
> the years, and it pains me to do this. I do not know why you decided to 
> write this email like that, but you have given me no other option now 
> but to reply.

hint: if you accuse people of various things for years, they may become less
inclined to show you the patience you think to deserve.

> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:16:26PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:13:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:31:40PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sorry, but I thought we were finally, slowly, moving away from the 
> > > > rampant nepotism that is the post-xfree86 fork X.org.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure that of the current board 5 out of 8 were never involved
> > with xfree86... you're living in the past whenever you bring up xfree86.
> 
> As you know, i am quite well aware that 5 out of 8 were not around when 
> the fork happened, i actually was the first to nominate 2 of those 5, 
> and i have been pretty busy with nominating fresh blood over the years. 
> But the fact that these people were not around then is not relevant, 
> part of the mindset still seems to linger on and that is exactly what i 
> wanted to point out here.

*WHAT* mindset?

it's great that you know, but I don't know what you're referring to. Unlike
you, I've actually spent 3+ years on the board. So pardon me for saying that
I have slightly more insight what the board does than whatever goes on in
your head. Our meetings are public, you could've joined anytime and
helped/steer things. The one mindset we have is that we all wish we had more
time (and experience/skill/whatever) to deal with board-related matters.

> Plus, as far as living in the past goes, you guys are still deciding on 
> money that was donated in the past, you are still trying to fix the 
> domain issue, and i thought that you guys generally had started working 
> on making the X.org foundation not be a relic from the past. Reminding 
> the directors of the X.org foundation that they are doing something that 
> would've been common in the past, something that i expected that they 
> would be doing different in the present, that kind of deserves a 
> different answer, don't you think?

Surprisingly, handling stuff that requires approval from both sides ...
requires approval from both sides. I'm not sure why you think that without
your "reminders" we wouldn't be aware of the various issues that we're 
facing. Just because we're not telling you personally doesn't mean we're
oblivious about it.

> > > > and who of the board knows 
> > > > exactly what type of coverage he would've given this event? Whereas we 
> > > > know that LWN will only cover 4-5 talks, at best.
> > 
> > The links you yourself posted above are coverage of 6 talks...
> 
> I count 20 talks in XDC2015 shedule, and I counted 6 which was labelled 
> by the X.org board of directors (which consists of 8 individuals) as 
> "essentially the XDC proceeedings". I think i am tad closer numerically, 
> even though i am just a lone person with no mandated responsibility in 
> this matter.
> 
> Plus, whether this a typo, an oversight, or exaggeration is not really 
> relevant, the message stays the same.
> 
> But if you really want to talk numbers, then let's talk numbers:
> How many articles do you expect Sebastian to write so that the board 
> will support them like the board is supporting other online and linux 
> media?
> 
> I do not know about you, but the fact that i felt compelled to ask the 
> above question, to further clarify the insanity of this situation to 
> you, tells me that there is something fundamentally wrong here. Is the 
> board really paying LWN so that it posts some articles about an X event 
> are posted there? 

did you read Egbert's reply that explained why we accepted LWN's request but
not this one? It answered the question, so I'm not sure why you feel the
need to re-ask this, the answer won't change.

> If so, is there a correlation between the amount paid 
> and the articles written? 

the reimbursement is for travel costs alone. I cannot remember a time when
we paid for anything but travel costs alone.

> This is an extremely slippery slope, and 
> always has been, and i am glad that Sebastian exposed this.

I'd worry much more about us dictating to a travel-sponsored press
representative on how many or which articles they need to write. Doing so
runs the danger of invalidating the coverage itself for claims of
bias/pressure/etc and eroding any trust in the foundation or the board.

> > > Another topic of this board meeting was that donations are now possible. 
> > > How on earth is the board going to convince anyone that the money 
> > > donated to the X.org Foundation is going to be used fiarly and 
> > > effectively, when favouritism and nepotism still are this prevalent?
> > 
> > Throwing words like this around is easy. How about do you something
> > productive and define what you would consider "fairly and effectively".
> > Define what "comprehensive" coverage would mean in the context of XDC. You
> > can always complain if we don't follow your definitions/recommendations but
> > until then we would have something useful to work with.
> 
> I have not been mandated to deal with this, i already am going out of my 
> way to point out the abundantly clear issues with this press situation. 
> I am also a single person, I am speaking for myself, and I am not 
> speaking for an organization with a greater purpose. Similarly, I am not 
> deciding on donations made by a few big corporations in the past, and i 
> am not about to sollicite for new donations.

Here's a hint: if you have questions, ask them. If you have suggestions,
make them. Leave out accusations of nepotism, dictatorship, and whatever
else you've accuse me of over the years.

> What i expect the X.org Foundation directors to do is to discuss what i 
> brought up, and to come up with a fair solution and a satisfactory 
> response. All i see from you now is trivial deflections.

Egbert explained why the decision fell this way. You apparently chose to
ignore it. There was even more detail in the IRC log.

> Let me have a stab at this, just as a suggestion, as something the board 
> might actually consider to resolve this rather awkward press situation. 
> I know that the board members will go out of their way to provide a 
> completely different solution that was not at all related to what libv, 
> aka, the prince of darkness, stated. But i have seen time and time again 
> how that worked out, not only with the board.
>
> Here goes, regardless:
> * The board will not go back on its previous agreed support for LWN and 
> Jake Edge for XDC2016, but it will require that XDC2016 articles are not 
> behind the subscription wall.

LWN articles are free after one week and for that time can be accessed
through SubscriberLinks which I think we've published last year over G+ and
Twitter (I did not check, but that's the plan for this year anyway).

> * The board will support Sebastian as well, and kindly ask to make the 
> coverage broad. Sebastian lives in germany, so his flight should be 
> relatively cheap (even though it might have become more expensive due 
> to this nonsense already).

Egbert's explanation still stands.

> * The board might or might not recommend that Sebastian his talk is 
> accepted for XDC2016, even though i think that this should not be forced 
> or required. (I personally think that we all would like to learn a bit 
> more about getting more and broader coverage for our software projects).

The meetings state that his reimbursement was denied as press-related
coverage, with further approval pending the acceptance of his talk. 

I believe this year was the first one where talks had to be rejected due to
a overly full schedule. Sebastian's talk wasn't the only one rejected. If
you want to be in control of which talks get accepted, ask to be on the
paper committee (which is not the board btw, although it is made up of two
board members this year and one of which is the organiser of the XDC itself)

> * The board either comes up with a solid set of requirements for press 
> funding using money donated to the X.org foundation, in such a way that 
> competition is possible, or, decides to stop funding the press 
> altogether for the future.

We've been discussing the "solid set of requirements" already but a) it's
most likely too late for this year's XDC and b) it turns out that it's hard
to put things like this into writing if you're not a lawyer, especially when
there's the tricky situation of the conference organisers also being board
members (yes, we're aware of this issue. without you having to remind us).
There's a reason why laws are terrible to read.

Cheers,
   Peter