09/16/09 [22:00:12]< bdale> *GAVEL* 09/16/09 [22:00:14]< bdale> [item 1, Opening] Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest board of directors meeting, which is now called to order. 09/16/09 [22:00:14]< bdale> Today's agenda and details of pending resolutions can be found on the web at: http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2009/2009-09-16.html 09/16/09 [22:00:14]< bdale> [item 2, Roll Call] 09/16/09 [22:00:14]< bdale> Board members, please state your name for the record. As we have nine board members, quorum for today's meeting is six. 09/16/09 [22:00:16]< bdale> Guests (including board advisors), please /msg your names to zobel if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this meeting. 09/16/09 [22:00:19]< Hydroxide> Jimmy Kaplowitz 09/16/09 [22:00:20]< cdlu> David Graham 09/16/09 [22:00:23]< bdale> Bdale Garbee 09/16/09 [22:00:30]< Noodles> Hydroxide: No, I don't have it. 09/16/09 [22:00:39]< Noodles> Jonathan McDowell 09/16/09 [22:00:39]< schultmc> Michael Schultheiss 09/16/09 [22:00:45]< Hydroxide> Noodles: in a few seconds you will - it's pretty easy to use if you're willing 09/16/09 [22:01:05]< bdale> linuxpoet: ? 09/16/09 [22:01:10]< linuxpoet> Joshua Drake 09/16/09 [22:01:11]< linuxpoet> sorry 09/16/09 [22:01:14]< Noodles> I think it's probably better if I have time to look at it *before* the first meeting I use it in. ;) 09/16/09 [22:01:15]< bdale> cool, quorum 09/16/09 [22:01:30]< Hydroxide> Noodles: ok :) 09/16/09 [22:01:30]< bdale> anyone else we're expecting? I know Martin sent tentative regrets. 09/16/09 [22:01:37]< schultmc> luk? 09/16/09 [22:01:47]< Hydroxide> luk_: 09/16/09 [22:01:58]< bdale> Ganneff: ? 09/16/09 [22:02:37]< bdale> given that we have quorum, I'm inclined to proceed, we'll not others if they join us later 09/16/09 [22:02:49]< bdale> [item 3, President's Report] 09/16/09 [22:02:50]< bdale> Nothing particularly exciting to report this month. 09/16/09 [22:02:50]< bdale> Next week I'll be in Portland for LinuxCon and Columbus for the Ohio LinuxFest. 09/16/09 [22:03:02]< bdale> [item 4, Treasurer's Report] 09/16/09 [22:03:02]< bdale> Michael? 09/16/09 [22:03:37]< schultmc> A routine treasurer's report is in the agenda. I'm again happy to see projects spending funds rather than continuing to hoard them. 09/16/09 [22:03:45]< bdale> agreed 09/16/09 [22:04:03]< bdale> any questions from the board? 09/16/09 [22:04:21]< Noodles> Not from me. 09/16/09 [22:04:27]< cdlu> not from me 09/16/09 [22:04:30]< bdale> [item 5, Secretary's report] 09/16/09 [22:04:47]< cdlu> in absentia 09/16/09 [22:04:48]< bdale> In Martin's absence, I'll note the one item in the agenda.. a lapsed invite. 09/16/09 [22:04:48]< zobel> Martin Zobel-Heleas 09/16/09 [22:04:58]< zobel> sorry for being late. 09/16/09 [22:05:01]< bdale> zobel: welcome! to the meeting and to your new role! 09/16/09 [22:05:10]< bdale> zobel: anything to add to your report? 09/16/09 [22:05:15]< zobel> no. 09/16/09 [22:05:28]< bdale> ok 09/16/09 [22:05:34]< bdale> [item 6, Outstanding minutes] 09/16/09 [22:05:34]< bdale> Martin? 09/16/09 [22:05:58]< zobel> Hydroxide: did you finish yours? 09/16/09 [22:06:17]< bdale> we appear to have one set to vote on, from last month 09/16/09 [22:06:43]< bdale> or not? 09/16/09 [22:06:44]< zobel> i havend seen any from Hydroxide send to secretary, so we don't have the one from last month 09/16/09 [22:06:59]< bdale> ok, I see, it's on the agenda but without a link to the draft ... never mind 09/16/09 [22:07:00]< Noodles> Yeah, they haven't been sent that I've seen either so I don't think there's anything to vote on. 09/16/09 [22:07:16]< bdale> hopefully we can have those ready by our next meeting 09/16/09 [22:07:25]< Hydroxide> sorry ... yeah I have been busy preparing a NYLUG presentation for tonight 09/16/09 [22:07:36]< bdale> [item 7, Items up for discussion] 09/16/09 [22:07:36]< bdale> [item 7.1, SPI resolution 2009-09-16.mcs.1 (Establishing an additional SPI bank account)] 09/16/09 [22:07:36]< bdale> This seems straight-forward to me. Michael? 09/16/09 [22:07:39]< Hydroxide> I'll have it by October. 09/16/09 [22:07:49]< linuxpoet> Why do we need a resolution for this? 09/16/09 [22:08:02]< bdale> linuxpoet: not clear to me either, really 09/16/09 [22:08:05]< linuxpoet> This is purely operational and falls directly under treasurer duties (I would think) 09/16/09 [22:08:06]< Hydroxide> linuxpoet: banks like to see a resolution authorizing bank account openings 09/16/09 [22:08:11]< linuxpoet> Oh 09/16/09 [22:08:12]< Hydroxide> linuxpoet: that's purely it 09/16/09 [22:08:12]< linuxpoet> o.k. 09/16/09 [22:08:13]< bdale> oh, right 09/16/09 [22:08:13]< linuxpoet> :) 09/16/09 [22:08:22]< Hydroxide> zobel: do you have the vote script? 09/16/09 [22:08:22] * cdlu moves the motion 09/16/09 [22:08:24]< bdale> ok, fair enough. any dicussion, or can we vote? 09/16/09 [22:08:26]< schultmc> linuxpoet: banks tend to require resolutions for corporate accounts 09/16/09 [22:08:29]< zobel> Hydroxide: no 09/16/09 [22:08:33]< Hydroxide> zobel: will set you up late 09/16/09 [22:08:34]< Hydroxide> +r 09/16/09 [22:08:49]< bdale> Hydroxide: will you run the votes today, then, please? 09/16/09 [22:09:06]< Hydroxide> Voting started, 7 people (zobel,hydroxide,bdale,linuxpoet,schultmc,cdlu,noodles) allowed to vote on bank account resolution. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 09/16/09 [22:09:11]< Hydroxide> yes 09/16/09 [22:09:13]< linuxpoet> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:09:13]< Hydroxide> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:09:14]< schultmc> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:09:14]< bdale> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:09:18]< zobel> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:09:18]< Noodles> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:09:18]< cdlu> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:09:23]< Ganneff> ooooh. totally missed this. :( 09/16/09 [22:09:30]< Hydroxide> Ganneff: did you sign in? 09/16/09 [22:09:37]< Hydroxide> Ganneff: this is the first vote 09/16/09 [22:09:44]< bdale> Ganneff: sign in and vote ... and we won't count you late. ;-) 09/16/09 [22:09:46]< Hydroxide> Ganneff: I can note your vote even if I didn't tell the voting script 09/16/09 [22:09:52]< Hydroxide> or zobel can 09/16/09 [22:09:52]< Hydroxide> :) 09/16/09 [22:09:58]< Ganneff> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:10:04]< cdlu> :) 09/16/09 [22:10:05]< Hydroxide> Joerg Jaspert 09/16/09 [22:10:10]< Hydroxide> Current voting results for "bank account resolution": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 09/16/09 [22:10:14]< Hydroxide> Voting for "bank account resolution" closed. 09/16/09 [22:10:17]< bdale> thanks 09/16/09 [22:10:19]< Hydroxide> CORRECTION: 8 yes, 0 abstain, 0 missing 09/16/09 [22:10:35]< Hydroxide> np 09/16/09 [22:10:40]< bdale> [item 7.2, SPI Resolution 2009-09-08.jrk.1 (Path64 as associated project)] 09/16/09 [22:10:47]< bdale> as I don't see Christopher here, Jimmy? 09/16/09 [22:10:51]< Hydroxide> any questions from people who haven't been reading email? :) 09/16/09 [22:11:02]< bdale> this one seems ok to me 09/16/09 [22:11:06]< Hydroxide> to me too 09/16/09 [22:11:14]< bdale> any discussion? 09/16/09 [22:11:30] * Hydroxide ready to vote unless there are questions 09/16/09 [22:11:43]< cdlu> it (and the next one) seem to have generated no controversy whatsoever 09/16/09 [22:11:46]< Hydroxide> ok 09/16/09 [22:11:51]< cdlu> and people have had time to complain, so I think it's fine :) 09/16/09 [22:11:52]< bdale> I agree, let's vote on them 09/16/09 [22:12:02]< Hydroxide> Voting started, 8 people (zobel,hydroxide,bdale,linuxpoet,schultmc,cdlu,noodles,ganneff) allowed to vote on Path64 resolution. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 09/16/09 [22:12:07]< Noodles> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:12:08]< Hydroxide> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:12:09]< schultmc> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:12:11]< bdale> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:12:12]< linuxpoet> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:12:15]< cdlu> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:12:17]< Ganneff> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:12:17]< zobel> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:12:23]< Hydroxide> Current voting results for "Path64 resolution": Yes: 8, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 09/16/09 [22:12:27]< Hydroxide> Voting for "Path64 resolution" closed. 09/16/09 [22:12:30]< Hydroxide> unanimously passes. 09/16/09 [22:12:38]< bdale> [item 7.3, SPI Resolution 2009-09-08.jrk.2 (OSUNIX as associated project)] 09/16/09 [22:12:46]< bdale> any discussion on this one? I'm satisfied by the SFLC response. 09/16/09 [22:12:50]< Hydroxide> as am I. 09/16/09 [22:13:03]< Noodles> Yeah, I read some of the old archives and the letter and I'm happy with SFLC response. 09/16/09 [22:13:15]< Hydroxide> ok... ready to vote? 09/16/09 [22:13:20]< bdale> I am 09/16/09 [22:13:25]< Hydroxide> Voting started, 8 people (zobel,hydroxide,bdale,linuxpoet,schultmc,cdlu,noodles,ganneff) allowed to vote on OSUNIX resolution. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 09/16/09 [22:13:29]< Hydroxide> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:13:30]< schultmc> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:13:30]< bdale> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:13:31]< Noodles> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:13:33]< linuxpoet> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:13:40]< zobel> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:13:40]< Ganneff> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:13:49]< cdlu> !vote yes 09/16/09 [22:13:51]< Hydroxide> Current voting results for "OSUNIX resolution": Yes: 8, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 09/16/09 [22:13:54]< Hydroxide> unanimously passes 09/16/09 [22:13:57]< Hydroxide> Voting for "OSUNIX resolution" closed. 09/16/09 [22:14:04]< bdale> [item 7.4, SPI Resolution 2009-09-08.dbg.1 (Contributing membership expiry)] 09/16/09 [22:14:04]< bdale> There was a bunch of discussion about this on-channel but I gather no formal amendments were proposed? 09/16/09 [22:14:04]< bdale> I generally support this resolution, but personally would prefer a ping-those-who-don't-vote alternative to the current paragraph 5. 09/16/09 [22:14:04]< bdale> David, want to add anything? 09/16/09 [22:14:24]< Hydroxide> who wants to do the honor of emailing codestr0m (CCing board@ and optionally secretary@) to notify him and request acceptance? 09/16/09 [22:14:24]< cdlu> it's generated a lot of discussion but no amendments or counter-proposals 09/16/09 [22:14:29]< Noodles> I would want to see a ping-people-after-no-vote or a 2-missed-vote-requirement. 09/16/09 [22:14:43]< bdale> Hydroxide: zobel can do that... ;-) 09/16/09 [22:14:47]< Hydroxide> bdale: ok :) 09/16/09 [22:14:51]< Noodles> I didn't propose an amendment because there seemed to be a feeling amongst the members that they didn't want it voted on this meeting but wanted more of a heads up. 09/16/09 [22:14:55]< zobel> will do, but not now. 09/16/09 [22:14:56]< bdale> zobel: I'll help if you like 09/16/09 [22:15:02]< cdlu> noodles, I'd be good with something like that, although I don't want to add any workload to membership ctte 09/16/09 [22:15:02]< bdale> sure, no huge rush 09/16/09 [22:15:08]< Hydroxide> zobel: ok. I don't think we're going to have a lapsed invitation this time :) 09/16/09 [22:15:10]< cdlu> idea is something that's easy clear and largely automated 09/16/09 [22:15:11]< jberkus> bdale, cdlu: amendments were proposeld 09/16/09 [22:15:17]< Noodles> cdlu: I think the "auto-ping" thing if it /can/ be automated is best? 09/16/09 [22:15:19]< cdlu> jberkus, changes were suggested 09/16/09 [22:15:23]< Hydroxide> jberkus: general ideas were proposed - no particular wording 09/16/09 [22:15:27]< cdlu> Noodles, likely yes 09/16/09 [22:15:29] * bdale is behind on email, as usual 09/16/09 [22:15:40]< schultmc> cdlu: if we can fix the membership app, the workload wouldn't be overwhelming 09/16/09 [22:15:52]< linuxpoet> That's on me 09/16/09 [22:15:58] * Hydroxide moves that we all try to work together and with the members to come up with an amended/alternative resolution to vote on in October, and not vote on cdlu's today 09/16/09 [22:16:00]< cdlu> schultmc, ok, well I defer to your judgement on implementation 09/16/09 [22:16:02]< linuxpoet> We have a volunteer I just to be honest have been slacking 09/16/09 [22:16:10]< cdlu> how would membership ctte like to do this? (answer on list) 09/16/09 [22:16:12]-!- MrBeige [~richard@c-76-30-67-89.hsd1.tx.comcast.net] has joined #spi 09/16/09 [22:16:12]-!- MrBeige is "Richard Darst" on #spi #debconf-team #meetbot #debian-nyc #debconf-nyc 09/16/09 [22:16:18]< bdale> cdlu: are you ok with Hydroxide's suggestion? 09/16/09 [22:16:19]< cdlu> I'd like to defer the resolution now that it's out for all to see and discuss :) 09/16/09 [22:16:27]< schultmc> cdlu: luk or I can follow up on list 09/16/09 [22:16:29]< cdlu> ya, that's fine 09/16/09 [22:16:32]< bdale> ok 09/16/09 [22:16:33]< cdlu> schultmc, great, thanks 09/16/09 [22:16:37]< schultmc> or Maulkin if he's still on the ctte 09/16/09 [22:16:46]< cdlu> I think Maulkin's busy trying to save the world 09/16/09 [22:16:50]< bdale> then we'll defer this to next month. if folks have time to stay on channel and discuss after the meeting closes, that might be productive. 09/16/09 [22:16:59]< bdale> [item 8, Any other business] 09/16/09 [22:16:59]< bdale> Do any board members have other items for discussion they would like to address briefly? 09/16/09 [22:17:13]< zobel> no 09/16/09 [22:17:16]< Noodles> We mentioned moving the day for meetings last month. 09/16/09 [22:17:26]< Ganneff> ay 09/16/09 [22:17:30]< Noodles> I think Ganneff prefered a week earlier? 09/16/09 [22:17:35]< Maulkin> Hrm? 09/16/09 [22:17:37]< cdlu> brief note, doesn't need to go on the record. OFTC will be approaching SPI about our next election soon. 09/16/09 [22:17:40]< Maulkin> What what? 09/16/09 [22:17:41]< Ganneff> or later. 09/16/09 [22:17:45]< schultmc> Not Monday or Not 1st Wednesday are fine with me 09/16/09 [22:17:53]< Noodles> I didn't like last Wednesday of the month. :) 09/16/09 [22:17:59]< Noodles> 2nd Wednesday didn't seem to upset anyone? 09/16/09 [22:18:02]< Ganneff> right. so one week earlier 09/16/09 [22:18:10]< bdale> next month, I'll be in Tokyo on the 21st, so a move to a week earlier would be good for me ... a week later and I'd still be in Japan 09/16/09 [22:18:29]< bdale> so we're talking about 14 October at 20:00 UTC? 09/16/09 [22:18:30]< Ganneff> i have on emore thing, just informational: down in .tw next week, discussion of .tw and spi and whatever they want down there. 09/16/09 [22:18:32] * cdlu is wide open 09/16/09 [22:18:32]< Noodles> I'm in California for both the 14th and 21st next month. 09/16/09 [22:18:41]< bdale> Ganneff: we'll look forward to a report 09/16/09 [22:18:46]< Noodles> Working, so I might have to miss the meeting, but I'll do my best to clear time for it. 09/16/09 [22:18:49] * Hydroxide moves to move our default meeting time, starting next month, to 2nd wednesday of the month at 20:00 UTC 09/16/09 [22:19:03]< Hydroxide> Noodles: welcome to how all of us in the US cope with the meeting time :) 09/16/09 [22:19:05]< bdale> [item 9, Next board meeting] 09/16/09 [22:19:21]< bdale> 14 October at 20:00 UTC 09/16/09 [22:19:23]< bdale> any objections? 09/16/09 [22:19:30]< linuxpoet> not here 09/16/09 [22:19:30]< schultmc> fine with me 09/16/09 [22:19:32]< Hydroxide> yay 09/16/09 [22:19:34]< Hydroxide> do it 09/16/09 [22:19:35]< Ganneff> all for it 09/16/09 [22:19:36]< cdlu> works for me 09/16/09 [22:19:41]< bdale> ok, is done 09/16/09 [22:19:42]< zobel> works for me. 09/16/09 [22:19:44]< Hydroxide> !vote unanimous 09/16/09 [22:19:46]< Ganneff> yay 09/16/09 [22:19:54]< bdale> Ok, thank you to everyone present for participating today. 09/16/09 [22:19:54]< bdale> *GAVEL*