21:03 #spi: < Ganneff> *BANG*
21:03 #spi: < Ganneff> [item 1, Opening] Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest board of directors meeting, which is now called to order.
21:03 #spi: < Ganneff> Today's agenda and details of pending resolutions can be found on the web at: http://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2012/2012-03-08/
21:03 #spi: < Ganneff> [item 2, Roll Call]
21:03 #spi: < Ganneff> Board members, please state your name for the record.  As we have nine board members, quorum for today's meeting is six. Guests (including board advisors), please /msg your names to Noodles if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.
21:03 #spi: < Ganneff> Noodles: any regrets?
21:03 #spi: < Clint> Clint Adams
21:03 #spi: < Noodles> Hydroxide and schultmc.
21:03 #spi: < Ganneff> Joerg Jaspert
21:03 #spi: < zobel> Martin Zobel-Helas
21:03 #spi: < Solver> Robert Brockway
21:03 #spi: < Noodles> Jonaathn McDowell
21:03 #spi: < zobel> Noodles: typo in your RN
21:03 #spi: < Noodles> I know but I figure we all know what I meant and I won't get it wrong in the minutes.
21:03 #spi: < Noodles> Jonathan McDowell
21:03 #spi: < schultmc> Michael Schultheiss
21:04 #spi: < Noodles> Quorum.
21:04 #spi: < Ganneff> we mixx bdale, as always linuxpoet. well, lets go on.
21:04 #spi: < Ganneff> xx? ss
21:04 #spi: < Ganneff> [item 3, President's Report]
21:04 #spi: < Ganneff> Agenda looks like there is none, and Bdale is out anyways, so next
21:04 #spi: < Ganneff> [item 4, Treasurer's Report]
21:04 #spi: < Ganneff> Thats for Michael
21:05 #spi: < schultmc> report was just added to the agenda and emailed out
21:05 #spi: < schultmc> it's pretty standard - nothing of note
21:05 #spi: < Ganneff> noone with comments?
21:06 #spi: < Ganneff> [item 5, Secretary's report]
21:06 #spi: < Ganneff> Jonathan?
21:06 #spi: < zobel> schultmc: any tax stuff we need to take care of?
21:06 #spi: < Noodles> Nothing from me to report.
21:07 #spi: < schultmc> zobel: our annual report is due may 15 (or august 15 if we file for an extension) - it's in progress
21:07 #spi: < Ganneff> [item 6, Outstanding minutes]
21:07 #spi: < Ganneff> Noodles: I think we have one set to vote on?
21:07 #spi: < Solver> which report is that?  to NYS?
21:07 #spi: < schultmc> s/report/filing/
21:08 #spi: < Noodles> Voting started, 6 people (clint,ganneff,zobel,solver,noodles,schultmc) allowed to vote on Minutes for Thursday, 9th February 2012 meeting. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
21:08 #spi: < schultmc> Solver: IRS form 990
21:08 #spi: < Ganneff> !vote yes
21:08 #spi: < Noodles> !vote yes
21:08 #spi: < schultmc> !vote yes
21:08 #spi: < Clint> !vote yes
21:08 #spi: < Solver> !vote yes
21:08 #spi: < zobel> !vote yes
21:08 #spi: < Noodles> Current voting results for "Minutes for Thursday, 9th February 2012 meeting": Yes: 6, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 ()
21:08 #spi: < Noodles> Voting for "Minutes for Thursday, 9th February 2012 meeting" closed.
21:08 #spi: < Ganneff> good
21:08 #spi: < Ganneff> [item 7, Items up for discussion]
21:08 #spi: < Ganneff> Nada, it seems...
21:08 #spi: < Ganneff> [item 8, AOB]
21:08 #spi: < Ganneff> Anyone anything?
21:08 #spi: < Noodles> I did look at the membership cleanup stuff.
21:08 #spi: < schultmc> Solver: NYS filing is also due at approximately the same time and is also in progress
21:08 #spi: < Solver> schultmc: ah cool thanks
21:09 #spi: < Noodles> I produced the list of members who hadn't voted and started to draft a mail (which cdlu has commented on) but the number of people involved (300+) made me think that having a way for them to indicate continued interest in the web interface might be a good plan.
21:09 #spi: < Ganneff> Noodles: so, how many less will we have when you are done?
21:09 #spi: < Noodles> We had less than 25% turnout for the election.
21:10 #spi: < schultmc> there was a way to indicate interest several years ago
21:10 #spi: < Ganneff> cdlu: go
21:10 #spi: < schultmc> I haven't found the bit of code that handles that
21:11 #spi: < cdlu> hi guys, sorry I haven't got the draft in yet 
21:11 #spi: < cdlu> imo we don't want to use any other system besides voting
21:11 #spi: < cdlu> because we can't push bylaw amendments without people voting
21:11 #spi: < cdlu> our amending formula really sucks so making sure only people who will vote can vote will be important to the success fo this project
21:11 #spi: < cdlu> thanks
21:11 #spi: < cdlu> is all.
21:11 #spi: < Noodles> That's fine, this is just about cleaning up the voting list first.
21:11 #spi: < Solver> cdlu: I'll touch base with you on that soon.  I still want to help but have been busy in real life
21:11 #spi: < cdlu> me too. Am working a by-election (=12/7s).
21:12 #spi: < Noodles> It may be that 3 people will reply and that'll be easy to do by hand, but I don't feel like processing 100+ "I'm still interested" emails by hand.
21:12 #spi: < Noodles> But I'm not a PHP person so I haven't got round to trying to understand the web membership stuff.
21:13 #spi: < Ganneff> so, to get on, we need someone willing (and with time) to dig through that (old) code?
21:13 #spi: < Noodles> Ideally, yes.
21:13 #spi: < Clint> or perhaps a clever mail filtering script instead
21:13 #spi: < schultmc> got to go - e-mail me if you need anything else from me
21:13 #spi: < Ganneff> and then probably a mass mail to tell people "we kick you unless you click over there once"
21:13 #spi: < Noodles> Yeah, doing it by mail is still a fallback.
21:13 #spi: < Ganneff> Clint: want to create such a thing?
21:14 #spi: < Clint> i'm not sure i'll have time, but maybe
21:14 #spi: < Solver> well the by-law vote would occur at the same time as the election so we've got, what, 3 months
21:14 #spi: < cdlu> noodles, isn't upgrading from non-contrib to contrib membership semi-automatic now? as in, just a matter of approving? contrib membership expiry is to ensure that contrib members conform to our definition of contributing membership, not their own, so the bureaucracy of approval might be prudent.
21:14 #spi: < Ganneff> can we leave it with Noodles/clint driving it til next meeting, and then either have it done :) or see whats still missing to finish this run?
21:14 #spi: < cdlu> so if we just expire people they can reapply, no form needed.
21:15 #spi: < Noodles> cdlu: We said we'd contact people who hadn't voted and give them 4 weeks to respond.
21:16 #spi: < cdlu> ok, but my point is they can respond through normal channels as opposed to any special system. and there's no time limit that way. just imo.
21:16 #spi: < Ganneff> though somehow a "you didnt vote, you are non-contrib. want to be contrib again? click there" seems nice to. less work involved, i think
21:16 #spi: < Solver> schultmc: did you get a chance to get any ideas for local bookkeeprs?
21:16 #spi: < Noodles> Ganneff: I was thinking "You didn't vote, we'll make you non-contrib until you click here within the next 4 weeks".
21:16 #spi: < Noodles> Which fits what we voted on.
21:16 #spi: < Solver> Ganneff: yes that seems like a fairly painless approach
21:17 #spi: < Ganneff> Noodles: yeah, just a bit more work up front
21:17 #spi: < Clint> does the db track last login?
21:18 #spi: < Noodles> I don't believe so.
21:18 #spi: < Clint> scrap that idea then
21:19 #spi: < Solver> well we could draft a new resolution to streamline the process if necessary
21:19 #spi: < Ganneff> it tracks a "lastchange", but thats probably not too helpful
21:19 #spi: < Solver> but that wouldn't occur until next meeting probably
21:20 #spi: < Ganneff> right, i think this will take longer than it should for this meeting. can we have people continue it outside and report back to list or next meeting?
21:21 #spi: < Solver> yep, let's take it up on the general list
21:21 #spi: < schultmc> Solver: other than thinking about it very generally, not yet - I'll work on it this month
21:21 #spi: < Ganneff> anyone else with an AOB?
21:21 #spi: < Solver> nothing else from me
21:22 #spi: < Noodles> Oh, I had a thought.
21:22 #spi: < Ganneff> [item 9, Next board meeting]
21:22 #spi: < Ganneff> Next board meeting: Thursday, 12th April, 2012, 21:00 UTC
21:22 #spi: < Ganneff> Err, yes, I have a comment there: That makes it go to 2300 in CEST, which plain sucks. Can we go 20:00 UTC?
21:22 #spi: < Noodles> Daylight savings time.
21:22 #spi: < Noodles> Yeah, 20:00 UTC keeps real time the same for everyone except Solver?
21:22 #spi: < Solver> yep that's fine
21:22 #spi: < Solver> I don't mind gettnig up early for it
21:23 #spi: < Ganneff> i note the 2000 utc for now, if someone other freaks out, we have lists still :)
21:23 #spi: < Ganneff> *GAVEL*