Inkscape Board Meeting Transcript for Friday, 2022-07-01

ted=== START MEETING ===17:00
tedOkay, let me grab the agenda.
SFC Items (ted)
Student programs (Outreachy, GSoC, etc) ( @Tav )
Developer meeting update (Mc)
Vectors update ( @ryangorley )
Infrastructure update ( @doctormo )
Administrator job process status ( @doctormo )
Current Votes Status
Next Meeting: Aug 5, 2022
< / end agenda > 😄
SFC Stuff, here is the monthly financial overview:
still has the Paypal import on his TODO so we don't have updated donations for the release.
He's also working on getting the new payment processor going, I mentioned that if we had a choice we'd prefer to get that over Paypal numbers but obviously long term we need both.
I've also updated the allocation tracking sheet here:
was an issue this month where Ryan wasn't getting reimbursed correctly. We figured out that the receipts had gone to the wrong place and got that corrected.
karenand I was working on the FSA yesterday but it was more involved than I had expected, due to comments we received from our counsel. I'll get the agreement out today!
sorry this has taken so long!
tedAh, that's in my update as well, thanks karen
Do you know if those chages are ones we're gonna have to vote on?
karented was very nice about it, I so appreciate your kindness and patience17:04
Mcpono: ah, too bad many applicants are no longer available :(17:04
karenthey shouldn't be - mostly I need to make sure I can leave out most of the changes - our template is changing, but I want to have you all agree to as few changes as are necessary to update17:04
tedK, cool. Would like to get those all done.
We'll need to hold an election after we get that out for the missing PLC seat.
Long term for dealing with the receipt issues, Pono and I have been talking about ways to avoid that happening in the future. Our current plan is to try a monthly report of the outstanding financial tickets and I plan to give an update on it at this meeting.
He's looking at what makes sense on his end, but hopefully we should have a first draft next month.
c.rogerskaren, pono, before we restart the hiring process, can you advise if there's a way to get the new hire on a payment schedule?17:06
tedI imagine there is some cruft there, so expect over the next month or two I might propose a \17:06 That's a good idea. We can definitely look into that.17:07
c.rogersWe need that sorted first. We must be very up-front about how and when the new hire can expect to be paid.17:07
ponoI was able to get a (partial) list of tickets. Need to go through and find the ones that don't mention Inkscape (RT search isn't too powerful :P). But I'll be including the list of outstanding tickets with the financial report for ted in the future.17:07
c.rogersis there a way we can access our pending tickets?17:08 Agreed. I'll check what we've done for other regular contracts and see what kind of smoothing and automating we can do.17:08
tedWe're hoping that'll make sure stuff doesn't pass through the cracks.17:08
ponoOur RT is not setup to allow users to see open tickets, which is one of the problems that ted and I were talking about. In the future, I think it'll make sense to cc the PLC list, to keep everyone roped into movement on tickets.17:09, apparently they don't have the permissions setup so that'd be easy. That'd be ideal longer term, but looking for something we can get going now.17:09
c.rogersWe were thinking of setting up a gitlab for pending tickets on our end.17:09
c.rogersmaybe treat each like an issue.17:09
c.rogersDoes that sound okay?17:09 I think that's a great idea!17:10
c.rogersIt's mainly so we can keep track, but might be handy as a resource for the SFC too.17:10
c.rogersWe know you all have a ton on your plate at any one time.17:10
ponoAnd I think if I make an account, I can be added to watch all those tickets?17:10
c.rogersAbsolutely. :)17:10
ponoSounds like a good plan.17:10
tedYeah, the problem is that they wouldn't have the SFC status in them. So I'm not sure how useful they'd be.17:10
c.rogerspono could comment the status update.17:11
tedLike if it is open for us, but closed there, there'd be no way to know.17:11
c.rogerseach gitlab issue has comments. I recommend that, and/or a checklist.17:11
c.rogersIf the issue needs a checklist.17:11
ponoThis is my user on Gitlab
c.rogersI think that may be a better way to manage expectations on both sides. make it clear what everyone expects to happen. :)17:12
ponoWe can at least give it a try :)17:12
tedSure, I still think we need the report from RT though.17:12
c.rogersCool. Should it be private access or public?17:12
scislac[m]@pono OT: That might be my favorite profile picture I've seen in a long time.17:13
ponoted, agreed. And me being able to tag the issues with our internal RT numbers will help me track them.17:13
ponoty scislac :)17:14
tedOkay, I think that's all the SFC stuff.
Next up: Student programs (Outreachy, GSoC, etc) ( @Tav )
Mcmaybe a word on the hiring stuff ?17:14
tedOr Mc17:14
c.rogersDoc's not here, but we had spoken about the hiring.17:14
tedWe have that later in the agenda, I was planning on discussing it then.17:14
c.rogersSo I can sort of stand in a bit on that one.17:14
tedHaven't seen @Tav, Mc do you know of any updates on the student programs?17:15
Mcgsoc is ongoing, so not much to report for now17:15
tedK, no issues is a good report 😄
Next: Developer meeting update (Mc)
Anything pending on the dev side of things?
Mcwe'll do a 1.2.1 sooner than anticipated, in 2 weeks17:17
tedAh, okay. There were some data loss bugs?17:18
Mcsome nasty bugs17:18
tedSucks, okay.
There was some discussion on figuring out a contract for GTK4 stuff? Is that discussion still happening or tabled?
karenOh sorry, looking at the backlog as I was juggling other stuff and I see the question about payment schedules - payment schedules are generally set by the contractors. The contract is very clear that we prefer the contractor to bill us monthly and we pay net-30. We require contractors to submit invoices within 90 days, but vastly prefer them to submit monthly.
payment is super clear in the contract.
Mcted:  mostly tabled for now, on hold for several things iirc17:22
tedkaren, part of the concern there was that someone may not be able to float a net30 for an admin type job. We were curious about options for shorter if they payment was regular.17:22
karenwe could look into paying an advance/payment up front if that's necessary to make the contract work, but the project needs to approve that and we'll see what we can do17:22
tedi.e. perhaps even part-time salaried or some such.17:23
karented, we can't make the payment terms shorter but we could do an up front payment, which would also be net-30 but that net-30 would start before the work does17:23
c.rogersThat would probably work.17:23
tedAh, okay. I think that could work, we just need to work on some language for it so that everyone understands.17:24
karenyeah the most important thing is clear comminication so everyone knows what to expect :)17:24
prkos+1 on the advance that makes it seem like fast paycheck after 1 month of work17:25
tedCool, and thanks Mc for the update on the dev stuff as well.17:25
karenyes sorry for interrupting that!17:25
tedNext up: Vectors update ( @ryangorley )
Ryan, hasn't messaged today, so if someone else has a vectors update that'd be welcome as well.
prkostomorrow is the Vectors meeting so we'll know more then17:26
tedK, Next on the list: Infrastructure update ( @doctormo )
Martin sent his condolences, but I don't know if any infrastructure issues.
But there is an interesting discussion on the SFC list about infrastructure generally.
Causes by their Github program, but discussing Gitlab as well, and options.
Mcmaybe I should look at this ml ^^17:28
tedNot sure what will pan out from that, but check that folder in your email.
Mc: Yes, it is the members-list list.
pono is the mailing list if you'd like to (individually) subscribe.17:29
tedI can find a link for you
Ah, @pono is on it! 😄
ponoI'm hoping to draw on all your expertise in not being on GitHub as we look to expand SFC offerings for infrastructure.17:30
c.rogersHaha, yea17:30
tedK, next I have the topic we've discussed a few times already 😄
Administrator job process status ( @doctormo )
ponoMartin raised a great point about not having projects replicate efforts, and so i'm looking forward to more SFC project wide discussion around what services are needed/ wanted and how it could look.17:30
tedMartin has this update: no contact from the sfc about the job posting. I'm going to ask the hiring committee to stop and wind up the hiring project. I'll put out general consensus for this over the next week and perhaps put it to a vote next week. We can revisit this when the SFC is in a better position.
And just before the start of the meeting @pono mentioned that some of the folks that have applied are no longer available.
ponoI think the newness of the project made for drawn out communication back and forth with candidates. And so I haven't heard much back given how long some things have taken.17:31
ponoI'll suggest we wind down, and try again given very few candidates are still available. Now that we've worked out what questions we want to ask them and have a better idea of the process.17:32
tedNewness of hiring?17:32
c.rogersCan the process be posted somewhere?17:32
tedK, @pono could you perhaps write a mail to the list about \17:32
ponoted, yeah. I'll also try and sync up with Martin next week as well.17:33
prkosWhat are the stats on the number of people who stopped replying? The percentage?17:33
tedOh, wow, that is higher than I thought.17:34
ponothat's supposed to be >80%17:34
karenoften hiring process takes time, the outreachy process took many months and our communication was very prompt. In the end our top candidate was still available, but two of our other candidates that were ranked highly weren't.17:34
prkoswhat caused the delays17:35
karenwhenever you have a significant process for hiring, each step adds to the delay, but it's kind of part and parcel of it17:35
prkosbecause we didn't have our 4 questions ready right away?17:35
ponoprkos, that was a part of it.17:36
c.rogersIf we could get a write-up of the entire process, then maybe we can see what happened?17:36
prkoswe have to figure in the complexity into the deadlines we publish17:37
karenso is the process just being wound up now?17:37
c.rogersI don't think three months is a time-frame most people are willing to wait.17:37
micheleI'd love to better understand all of the steps involved and the deadlines ahead of time. This way we could have had an overview of the entire process and build our deadlines accordingly, especially publishing the job posting.17:37
prkosI thought we were quick to respond and come up with the steps on our end17:37
tedYup, and I think it would be good to get the full thing written out before we do a vote on it instead of trying to figure it out after everyone has looked away.17:37
ponoAgreed. I think way the resumes trickled in made us extend the deadline and that made it hard for people to continue the process.17:37
karenanother reason I had initially suggested not anonymizing resumes is that it takes time to do it - you can anonymize the questions or exercises17:37
pono@michele That's a good idea. I'll do a write up and get it out to the board so we can have a more full plan for the next attempt.17:38
karenand get them submitted that way17:38
c.rogersYes, let's get anything extra out of the way for this next round.17:38
karenprobably there's a lot to tweak to streamline the process17:38
prkosso there were not enough resumes initially in the expected timeline?17:38
tedkaren, I think the plan is to wind down this search, and then figure out how to start a new one. We don't have an official statement on that, but it seems that's the general mood.17:38
c.rogersOr if to start a new one at all.17:39
c.rogersThat possibility has come up too.17:39
c.rogersWe'll have to vote on it.17:39
ted@prkos, I think we had a few, but then also found more places to look so decided to do that. And that partially cause confusion by changing things.17:39
pono@prkos Yes. And then the extension and anonymization process took longer.17:39
karenwhy not just republish the posting? wouldn't that be more fair to the candidates who already applied and are still around?17:39
prkoswhy not finish the process with the people who remained?17:39
karenlike republish for a short deadline?17:40, true or change the requirements/plan.17:40
c.rogersWe should not re-post anything without confidence in this next round.17:40
michele@prkos, @Tim and I can add our thoughts about our process into the notes, too.17:40
c.rogersRight now, there is not much confidence in the process, so we need to solve that first.17:40
prkosleaving people high and dry who took it seriously is really bad employer branding17:41
c.rogersMakes us look pretty bad.17:41
c.rogersSo IF we do this again, we need deadlines to be honoured.17:41
c.rogersAnd we should send out some apologies to people who applied before.17:42
ponoLearning from what went right and wrong in the last few months should give us a better idea about how to move forward. And agreed we need to honor the deadlines.17:42 agreed. I'll be writing to the candidates once we decide on how to move next.17:43
karenit would be too bad to delay things further if the current round could be saved - for part time roles, often the people left in the pool are strong and have flexibility17:43
tedK, so I think that the biggest action from this is that @pono is gonna post a lessons learned after he talks to @doctormo about it.17:43
prkoswe should always learn, but I'm not ok with treating the potential employees as guinepigs for our HR learning17:43
tedThen we can figure out how to move forward.17:43 agreed, that's not going to happen again.17:44 if only you could make it so17:44
c.rogersWe will not post anything until the entire process is spelled out, and agreed upon.17:44
c.rogersDeadlines for submissions are hard deadlines.17:45
tedGenerally, I'm sad at where we are, but I'm hopeful we can fix this and make it better.17:45
c.rogersIf we don't have enough applicants, that's our problem. We need to be fair to the people who applied on time.17:45
karenyes I agree with that17:46
prkoslets focus on finishing this round then17:46
tedOkay, next on the agenda is: Current Votes Status
The only vote outsanding is whether we want to do security keys.
Mc, do you want to continue with that? Or just drop it?
tedMc, the vote was never tallied I believe, no?17:47
c.rogersWould it be useful to have gitlab issues for each vote?17:49
Mcah, I can count the votes, but I'm not sure you voted ?17:50
c.rogersI feel like our inboxes are not adequate places to keep track of all this. :)17:50
c.rogersThis way we can close issues as votes are completed, with SFC issue numbers.17:50
c.rogersIf the SFC is involved. :)17:50
tedMc, I believe I voted \17:50
Mcoh I only have 5k emails in my inbox :p17:51
c.rogersYea, I have over 1 million haha.17:51, I'm tracking them in the git repo generally.17:51, ah awesome. Where exactly?17:51
c.rogersSo I can bookmark it. :)17:52
tedBut this is more useful:
can't find my agenda anymore, but I think our last item was the next meeting.
c.rogersI don't see any of the votes here.17:53 the gitlab)17:53
tedAh, found it: Next Meeting: Aug 5, 2022
sure why bryce called the \
c.rogers404 page17:54
tedHe has a bigger vocabulary than I do.17:54
c.rogersSounds better than \17:55, are you logged in?
Anyway, I think that's all for the meeting. We can figure out the login stuff outside. Thanks everyone!
==== END MEETING ====

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!