SPI Board Meeting September 2007

  1. <Ganneff> [item 1, Opening] Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest
  2. <Ganneff> board of directors meeting, which is now called to order. Today's agenda
  3. <Ganneff> and details of pending resolutions can be found on the web at:
  4. <Ganneff> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2007/2007-09-19.html
  5. <Ganneff> [item 2, Roll Call]
  6. <Ganneff> Board members, please state your name for the record. As we have nine board
  7. <Ganneff> members, quorum for today's meeting is six. Guests, please /msg your names
  8. <Ganneff> to Maulkin if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this
  9. <Ganneff> meeting.
  10. <Ganneff> Neil, please update us on known and tentative regrets.
  11. <Maulkin> Neil McGovern
  12. <Ganneff> Joerg Jaspert
  13. <schultmc> Michael Schultheiss
  14. <linuxpoet> linuxpoet: Joshua D. Drake
  15. <cdlu> David Graham
  16. <zobel> Martin Zobel-Helas
  17. <luk> Luk Claes
  18. <Maulkin> Quorum
  19. <jberkus> Josh Berkus
  20. <Ganneff> [item 3, President's Report] - no Bdale, no report.
  21. <Maulkin> Regrets from Joshua D. Drake (which is now null)
  22. <Ganneff> [item 4, Treasurer's Report]
  23. <Ganneff> schultmc: have fun
  24. <schultmc> jberkus and I have hired an intern to help us get caught up on data entry
  25. <schultmc> no formal report at this time - should be coming soon though
  26. <jberkus> credit cards are up to date, working on checks
  27. <Ganneff> ok. more to come or next item?
  28. <schultmc> next item
  29. <Ganneff> [item 5, Secretary's report]
  30. <Ganneff> maulkin: your time
  31. <Maulkin> Nothing to report here.
  32. <Ganneff> good
  33. <Ganneff> [item 6, Outstanding minutes]
  34. <Ganneff> Again for Neil
  35. <jberkus> I haven't seen any notice of minutes
  36. <Maulkin> Once again, I'm afraid I don't have any sets to present. I'll try and get these done shortly.
  37. <Ganneff> ok, so lets skip it.
  38. <Ganneff> [item 7, Stuff for discussion]
  39. <Ganneff> 2007-09-19.jdd.1 - Review and determination of transaction providers
  40. <Ganneff> i guess thats linuxpoet s floor now
  41. <linuxpoet> Are there any questions? I thought it was hashed out fairly well on -private
  42. <jberkus> can I have a link to the final version?
  43. <luk> I don't really like the at least every 12 months with volunteers
  44. <linuxpoet> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2007/2007-09-19.html
  45. <jberkus> luk: we can pay an intern
  46. <schultmc> that's the agenda - the resolution isn't linked
  47. <cdlu> schultmc, as the person most directly affected by the resolution, what do you think?
  48. <Maulkin> Personally, I'm not happy approving it when there hasn't been the work done anyway.
  49. <linuxpoet> schultmc: yes it is
  50. <jberkus> looks good to me
  51. <jberkus> schultmc: yes, it is
  52. <Ganneff> schultmc: it is
  53. <schultmc> ah, is now
  54. * schultmc just refreshed
  55. <jberkus> schultmc: I can have Frannie do a lot of the legwork
  56. <luk> I would rather go for 'at least every 12 months if at all possible'
  57. <Maulkin> Is there a degree of urgency to have this resolution passed before the review is completed?
  58. <linuxpoet> Maulkin: I have already stated that I am willing to help
  59. <schultmc> as long as jberkus or I aren't required to do the work ourselves I'm fine with it
  60. <schultmc> I agree that a periodic review should be done
  61. <Maulkin> linuxpoet: That wasn't my point.
  62. <zobel> i ack with luk here
  63. <linuxpoet> Maulkin: well my point is, in my opinion it shouldl have been in place since the inception of this corporation
  64. <linuxpoet> The fact that it isn't is bad news imo
  65. <linuxpoet> or something like it anyway
  66. <linuxpoet> Anyway, I am more than willing to put my fair share of time in, and if we have an intern to help that is even better because I can work with that individual
  67. <luk> I think it's good to have these reviews, but it's bad to make them absolutely obligatory
  68. <luk> IMHO
  69. <Maulkin> linuxpoet: 21:07 < luk> I would rather go for 'at least every 12 months if at all possible'
  70. <Maulkin> Want to incorporate that, or not?
  71. <Ganneff> soo, do we want to vote on this now or do we select "more discussion on lists"?
  72. <linuxpoet> Maulkin: I am confused
  73. <Maulkin> ok: basics :)
  74. <linuxpoet> Maulkin: my says at least every 12 months
  75. <Maulkin> You can incorporate that into your resolution or not.
  76. <cdlu> linuxpoet, it's the "if at all possible" bit that's important here
  77. <Maulkin> If you do, we just vote on the resolution
  78. <Maulkin> If not, someone can propose that as an amendment.
  79. <linuxpoet> I do not find that required, as the board can always call a vote to defer
  80. <luk> bad
  81. <Maulkin> If it passes, we vote on the amended version. If not, the original.
  82. <cdlu> luk, want to move the amendment?
  83. <Maulkin> Basically: do you want to amend your resolution to include that?
  84. * linuxpoet thinking
  85. <cdlu> linuxpoet, if you consider it a friendly amendment then we can put it right to a vote and dispose of it. does it hurt your resolution's purpose?
  86. <RichiH> if everyone agrees that periodic is good and some/one think it is bad to go for mandatory every year, couldn't 12 month be the target and 24 months a hard requirement?
  87. <linuxpoet> cdlu: My concern is simple, the amendment opens the door for, "I couldn't get to it..."
  88. <linuxpoet> which seems to happen quite a bit
  89. <jberkus> if it's a resolution, it justifies the treasurer paying for it
  90. <cdlu> linuxpoet, there's no mechanism to enforce the occurence of the review anyway, so not having that there won't create a condition where it'll automatically happen.
  91. <Maulkin> Ok. Should we just do them seperately?
  92. <luk> and if it is not done, there should be very good reasons otherwise it would have been possible...
  93. <cdlu> jberkus, if funding is included in the resolution it does.
  94. <linuxpoet> cdlu: The first review of financial providers shall be completed and documented by December 31st, 2007 and then at least within every 12 months thereafter.
  95. <cdlu> or the funding falls within the treasurer's $100/month budget
  96. <jberkus> cdlu: um, the treasurer has only $100 per month?
  97. <cdlu> unless something changed?
  98. <cdlu> "reasonable necessity" for tax filing, and $100/month general operating is what I recall.
  99. <cdlu> Maulkin, yes, if we do them separately we'll actually get to a vote. :)
  100. <linuxpoet> I believe the resolution is satisfactory. If it doesn't pass. It doesn't pass but I believe I have taken into account all reasonable language and have provided several drafts of modifications. Based on those considerations, plus the fact that I am more than willing to participate in the work itself, I believe we should go to vote.
  101. <jberkus> um, if what cdlu's saying is correct, then we need a resolution increasing the treasurer's budget
  102. <Ganneff> jberkus: in a different meeting :)
  103. <linuxpoet> Ganneff: why
  104. <linuxpoet> Ganneff: why not just propose a monthly increase to 500.00 and vote
  105. <jberkus> yeah, but I can't pass linuxpoet's resolution if we can't pay for it
  106. <jberkus> linuxpoet: I think it should be a % of revenue
  107. <Ganneff> linuxpoet: cos we dont have a resolution for it
  108. <cdlu> jberkus, move an amendment authorising reasonable funding for the function of the resolution
  109. <linuxpoet> jberkus: uhmmm can you pay the intern for the other work as well?
  110. <jberkus> linuxpoet: maybe
  111. <jberkus> linuxpoet: your resolution needs funding
  112. <linuxpoet> jberkus: move an amendment
  113. * Maulkin moves to vote on luk's amendment
  114. <jberkus> I move that the resolution include the amendment:
  115. <jberkus> "The Treasurer is authorized to spend any reasonable funds to complete this review."
  116. <linuxpoet> I am fine with the jberkus ammendment
  117. <Ganneff> i second all of those moves (ie - vote on luks, then jberkus amendment), so we can get on with it. :)
  118. <Maulkin> ok.
  119. <zobel> mh, what defines reasonable?
  120. <luk> lol
  121. <linuxpoet> zobel: it is a common contractural term, meaning exactly that... reasonable
  122. <Maulkin> Voting started, 8 people (maulkin,ganneff,schultmc,linuxpoet,cdlu,zobel,luk,jberkus) allowed to vote on Amend 2007-09-19.jdd.1 to include 'at least every 12 months if at all possible'. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
  123. <cdlu> !vote yes
  124. <Ganneff> !vote yes
  125. <Maulkin> !vote yes
  126. <linuxpoet> !vote no
  127. <jberkus> !vote no
  128. <schultmc> !vote yes
  129. <luk> !vote yes
  130. <zobel> !vote yes
  131. <Maulkin> Current voting results for "Amend 2007-09-19.jdd.1 to include 'at least every 12 months if at all possible'": Yes: 6, No: 2, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 ()
  132. <Maulkin> Voting for "Amend 2007-09-19.jdd.1 to include 'at least every 12 months if at all possible'" closed.
  133. <Maulkin> Amendment passes
  134. <Ganneff> good. next.
  135. <Maulkin> ok. this is 'as amended', with the inclusion of the 'reasonable funds' clause
  136. <Maulkin> Voting started, 8 people (maulkin,ganneff,schultmc,linuxpoet,cdlu,zobel,luk,jberkus) allowed to vote on Approve 2007-09-19.jdd.5.lc.1 (as amended) - Review and determination of transaction providers. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
  137. <jberkus> !vote yes
  138. <schultmc> !vote yes
  139. <Maulkin> !vote yes
  140. <linuxpoet> !vote yes
  141. <cdlu> !vote yes
  142. <Ganneff> !vote yes
  143. <luk> !vote yes
  144. <Ganneff> jftr and possible new people: no vote needed on jberkus amendment, as linuxpoet did like it.
  145. <Ganneff> zobel: your turn
  146. <zobel> !vote abstain
  147. <Maulkin> Current voting results for "Approve 2007-09-19.jdd.5.lc.1 (as amended) - Review and determination of transaction providers": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 1, Missing: 0 ()
  148. <Maulkin> Voting for "Approve 2007-09-19.jdd.5.lc.1 (as amended) - Review and determination of transaction providers" closed.
  149. <Maulkin> Passes
  150. <Ganneff> yay, we are done with item 7 then. thanks!
  151. <Ganneff> [item 8, Next board meeting]
  152. <Ganneff> Wednesday 17th Oct, 2007 - 20:00 UTC
  153. <Ganneff> thank you all for attending, have fun elsewhere now :)
  154. <linuxpoet> before gavel
  155. <cdlu> linuxpoet, gavel dropped. what did you have? :)
  156. <Maulkin> Go ahead
  157. <cdlu> oh wait, it hasn't yet. nm.
  158. <zobel> Maulkin: can we please have an announcement for the next meeting more than 24h before the meeting?
  159. <linuxpoet> I don't want to get into a discussion as that can happen on -private but I wanted to throw the idea of a associative project committee out there
  160. <linuxpoet> similar to the membership committee
  161. <Ganneff> cdlu: it has.
  162. <cdlu> ok
  163. <linuxpoet> other than that... I am good, great meeting folks! :)
  164. <slef> Is Wednesday 17 October the third Friday?
  165. <luk> Maulkin: can we have a quick discussion about membership/bylaws?
  166. <cdlu> slef, wednesday
  167. <Ganneff> slef: whats that for a broken q?
  168. <cdlu> slef, we're meeting wednesdays now
  169. <zobel> slef: no. we moved meetings to Wednesday IIRC.
  170. <cdlu> as a result of the new board's availability chart results :)
  171. <Ganneff> is wed [...] fri?. hm. :)
  172. <slef> Someone update http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/meetings please?
  173. <linuxpoet> Website needs to be updated
  174. <slef> zobel: I missed that, due to the late announcements.
  175. <slef> and lack of draft minutes or logs
  176. <schultmc> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/meetings has been updated
  177. <zobel> slef: sorry, i just send the announcement as an "emergency solution" as there was non sent by Maulkin in time.
  178. <slef> Please can draft minutes or logs be uploaded/linked or mailed? I thought that used to happen.
  179. <Ganneff> slef: if the one doing it isnt totally busy in rl, sure.
  180. <slef> zobel: no probs. Thanks, as I'd've missed it again otherwise, then posted something very grumpy to -private again.
  181. <slef> schultmc: thanks
  182. <linuxpoet> I have something :)
  183. <Ganneff> oh my. to make the little scotsman happy: *gavel* :)