SPI Board Meeting September 2007
- <Ganneff> [item 1, Opening] Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest
- <Ganneff> board of directors meeting, which is now called to order. Today's agenda
- <Ganneff> and details of pending resolutions can be found on the web at:
- <Ganneff> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2007/2007-09-19.html
- <Ganneff> [item 2, Roll Call]
- <Ganneff> Board members, please state your name for the record. As we have nine board
- <Ganneff> members, quorum for today's meeting is six. Guests, please /msg your names
- <Ganneff> to Maulkin if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this
- <Ganneff> meeting.
- <Ganneff> Neil, please update us on known and tentative regrets.
- <Maulkin> Neil McGovern
- <Ganneff> Joerg Jaspert
- <schultmc> Michael Schultheiss
- <linuxpoet> linuxpoet: Joshua D. Drake
- <cdlu> David Graham
- <zobel> Martin Zobel-Helas
- <luk> Luk Claes
- <Maulkin> Quorum
- <jberkus> Josh Berkus
- <Ganneff> [item 3, President's Report] - no Bdale, no report.
- <Maulkin> Regrets from Joshua D. Drake (which is now null)
- <Ganneff> [item 4, Treasurer's Report]
- <Ganneff> schultmc: have fun
- <schultmc> jberkus and I have hired an intern to help us get caught up on data entry
- <schultmc> no formal report at this time - should be coming soon though
- <jberkus> credit cards are up to date, working on checks
- <Ganneff> ok. more to come or next item?
- <schultmc> next item
- <Ganneff> [item 5, Secretary's report]
- <Ganneff> maulkin: your time
- <Maulkin> Nothing to report here.
- <Ganneff> good
- <Ganneff> [item 6, Outstanding minutes]
- <Ganneff> Again for Neil
- <jberkus> I haven't seen any notice of minutes
- <Maulkin> Once again, I'm afraid I don't have any sets to present. I'll try and get these done shortly.
- <Ganneff> ok, so lets skip it.
- <Ganneff> [item 7, Stuff for discussion]
- <Ganneff> 2007-09-19.jdd.1 - Review and determination of transaction providers
- <Ganneff> i guess thats linuxpoet s floor now
- <linuxpoet> Are there any questions? I thought it was hashed out fairly well on -private
- <jberkus> can I have a link to the final version?
- <luk> I don't really like the at least every 12 months with volunteers
- <linuxpoet> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2007/2007-09-19.html
- <jberkus> luk: we can pay an intern
- <schultmc> that's the agenda - the resolution isn't linked
- <cdlu> schultmc, as the person most directly affected by the resolution, what do you think?
- <Maulkin> Personally, I'm not happy approving it when there hasn't been the work done anyway.
- <linuxpoet> schultmc: yes it is
- <jberkus> looks good to me
- <jberkus> schultmc: yes, it is
- <Ganneff> schultmc: it is
- <schultmc> ah, is now
- * schultmc just refreshed
- <jberkus> schultmc: I can have Frannie do a lot of the legwork
- <luk> I would rather go for 'at least every 12 months if at all possible'
- <Maulkin> Is there a degree of urgency to have this resolution passed before the review is completed?
- <linuxpoet> Maulkin: I have already stated that I am willing to help
- <schultmc> as long as jberkus or I aren't required to do the work ourselves I'm fine with it
- <schultmc> I agree that a periodic review should be done
- <Maulkin> linuxpoet: That wasn't my point.
- <zobel> i ack with luk here
- <linuxpoet> Maulkin: well my point is, in my opinion it shouldl have been in place since the inception of this corporation
- <linuxpoet> The fact that it isn't is bad news imo
- <linuxpoet> or something like it anyway
- <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
- <luk> I think it's good to have these reviews, but it's bad to make them absolutely obligatory
- <luk> IMHO
- <Maulkin> linuxpoet: 21:07 < luk> I would rather go for 'at least every 12 months if at all possible'
- <Maulkin> Want to incorporate that, or not?
- <Ganneff> soo, do we want to vote on this now or do we select "more discussion on lists"?
- <linuxpoet> Maulkin: I am confused
- <Maulkin> ok: basics :)
- <linuxpoet> Maulkin: my says at least every 12 months
- <Maulkin> You can incorporate that into your resolution or not.
- <cdlu> linuxpoet, it's the "if at all possible" bit that's important here
- <Maulkin> If you do, we just vote on the resolution
- <Maulkin> If not, someone can propose that as an amendment.
- <linuxpoet> I do not find that required, as the board can always call a vote to defer
- <luk> bad
- <Maulkin> If it passes, we vote on the amended version. If not, the original.
- <cdlu> luk, want to move the amendment?
- <Maulkin> Basically: do you want to amend your resolution to include that?
- * linuxpoet thinking
- <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?
- <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?
- <linuxpoet> cdlu: My concern is simple, the amendment opens the door for, "I couldn't get to it..."
- <linuxpoet> which seems to happen quite a bit
- <jberkus> if it's a resolution, it justifies the treasurer paying for it
- <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.
- <Maulkin> Ok. Should we just do them seperately?
- <luk> and if it is not done, there should be very good reasons otherwise it would have been possible...
- <cdlu> jberkus, if funding is included in the resolution it does.
- <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.
- <cdlu> or the funding falls within the treasurer's $100/month budget
- <jberkus> cdlu: um, the treasurer has only $100 per month?
- <cdlu> unless something changed?
- <cdlu> "reasonable necessity" for tax filing, and $100/month general operating is what I recall.
- <cdlu> Maulkin, yes, if we do them separately we'll actually get to a vote. :)
- <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.
- <jberkus> um, if what cdlu's saying is correct, then we need a resolution increasing the treasurer's budget
- <Ganneff> jberkus: in a different meeting :)
- <linuxpoet> Ganneff: why
- <linuxpoet> Ganneff: why not just propose a monthly increase to 500.00 and vote
- <jberkus> yeah, but I can't pass linuxpoet's resolution if we can't pay for it
- <jberkus> linuxpoet: I think it should be a % of revenue
- <Ganneff> linuxpoet: cos we dont have a resolution for it
- <cdlu> jberkus, move an amendment authorising reasonable funding for the function of the resolution
- <linuxpoet> jberkus: uhmmm can you pay the intern for the other work as well?
- <jberkus> linuxpoet: maybe
- <jberkus> linuxpoet: your resolution needs funding
- <linuxpoet> jberkus: move an amendment
- * Maulkin moves to vote on luk's amendment
- <jberkus> I move that the resolution include the amendment:
- <jberkus> "The Treasurer is authorized to spend any reasonable funds to complete this review."
- <linuxpoet> I am fine with the jberkus ammendment
- <Ganneff> i second all of those moves (ie - vote on luks, then jberkus amendment), so we can get on with it. :)
- <Maulkin> ok.
- <zobel> mh, what defines reasonable?
- <luk> lol
- <linuxpoet> zobel: it is a common contractural term, meaning exactly that... reasonable
- <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.
- <cdlu> !vote yes
- <Ganneff> !vote yes
- <Maulkin> !vote yes
- <linuxpoet> !vote no
- <jberkus> !vote no
- <schultmc> !vote yes
- <luk> !vote yes
- <zobel> !vote yes
- <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 ()
- <Maulkin> Voting for "Amend 2007-09-19.jdd.1 to include 'at least every 12 months if at all possible'" closed.
- <Maulkin> Amendment passes
- <Ganneff> good. next.
- <Maulkin> ok. this is 'as amended', with the inclusion of the 'reasonable funds' clause
- <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.
- <jberkus> !vote yes
- <schultmc> !vote yes
- <Maulkin> !vote yes
- <linuxpoet> !vote yes
- <cdlu> !vote yes
- <Ganneff> !vote yes
- <luk> !vote yes
- <Ganneff> jftr and possible new people: no vote needed on jberkus amendment, as linuxpoet did like it.
- <Ganneff> zobel: your turn
- <zobel> !vote abstain
- <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 ()
- <Maulkin> Voting for "Approve 2007-09-19.jdd.5.lc.1 (as amended) - Review and determination of transaction providers" closed.
- <Maulkin> Passes
- <Ganneff> yay, we are done with item 7 then. thanks!
- <Ganneff> [item 8, Next board meeting]
- <Ganneff> Wednesday 17th Oct, 2007 - 20:00 UTC
- <Ganneff> thank you all for attending, have fun elsewhere now :)
- <linuxpoet> before gavel
- <cdlu> linuxpoet, gavel dropped. what did you have? :)
- <Maulkin> Go ahead
- <cdlu> oh wait, it hasn't yet. nm.
- <zobel> Maulkin: can we please have an announcement for the next meeting more than 24h before the meeting?
- <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
- <linuxpoet> similar to the membership committee
- <Ganneff> cdlu: it has.
- <cdlu> ok
- <linuxpoet> other than that... I am good, great meeting folks! :)
- <slef> Is Wednesday 17 October the third Friday?
- <luk> Maulkin: can we have a quick discussion about membership/bylaws?
- <cdlu> slef, wednesday
- <Ganneff> slef: whats that for a broken q?
- <cdlu> slef, we're meeting wednesdays now
- <zobel> slef: no. we moved meetings to Wednesday IIRC.
- <cdlu> as a result of the new board's availability chart results :)
- <Ganneff> is wed [...] fri?. hm. :)
- <slef> Someone update http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/meetings please?
- <linuxpoet> Website needs to be updated
- <slef> zobel: I missed that, due to the late announcements.
- <slef> and lack of draft minutes or logs
- <schultmc> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/meetings has been updated
- <zobel> slef: sorry, i just send the announcement as an "emergency solution" as there was non sent by Maulkin in time.
- <slef> Please can draft minutes or logs be uploaded/linked or mailed? I thought that used to happen.
- <Ganneff> slef: if the one doing it isnt totally busy in rl, sure.
- <slef> zobel: no probs. Thanks, as I'd've missed it again otherwise, then posted something very grumpy to -private again.
- <slef> schultmc: thanks
- <linuxpoet> I have something :)
- <Ganneff> oh my. to make the little scotsman happy: *gavel* :)