13:01 < bdale> *GAVEL*
13:01 < bdale> [item 1, Opening] Welcome to today's Software in the Public
               Interest board of director's meeting, which is now called to
               order.
13:01 < bdale> Today's agenda can be found on the web at:
               http://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2014/2014-03-13/
13:01  * drycafe also attending on behalf of OBF
13:02 < bdale> [item 2, Roll Call]
13:02 < bdale> Board members, please state your name for the record.  As we
               have nine board members, quorum for today's meeting is six.
13:02 < bdale> Guests (including board advisors), please /msg your names to
               Noodles if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the
               minutes of this meeting.
13:02 < bdale> Bdale Garbee
13:02 < Solver> Robert Brockway
13:02 < Clint> Clint Adams
13:02 < Solver> totte: talk to you after the meeting :)
13:03 < bdale> I saw linuxhiker mention he's here ..
13:03 < linuxhiker> Joshua D. Drake
13:03 < Hydroxide> Jimmy Kaplowitz
13:03 < Hydroxide> (srsly)
13:03 < bdale> Noodles, schultmc, and zobel all sent at least tentative regrets
13:04 < Solver> so we need everyone else
13:04 < bdale> Ganneff ?
13:04 < Hydroxide> yeah he's the only other director
13:05 < bdale> if he shows up, we're quorate.  if not, I see no reason we can't
               handle at least 7.1 today with those assembled, though I would
               greatly enjoy his participation in that discussion.  the minutes
               votes aren't urgent, as they're purely procedural.
13:06 < bdale> I see no other voting required agenda items, fortunately
13:06 < drycafe> I would have had a question re: treasurer report
13:06 < Solver> I plan to prepare the proposal for totte's project over the
                next couple of days and ask for an email vote after review.
                for various reasons I didn't have it ready for today :(
13:06 < bdale> drycafe: ok, easiest to handle with schultmc around, but perhaps
               we can help with that too
13:07 < bdale> Solver: ah, ok, that helps me understand what's going on ..
               seems completely reasonable
13:07 < drycafe> my question is how can we as associated projects track income
                 through credit cards and wires
13:07 < drycafe> it seems they don't show up in the report
13:07 < bdale> you mean as distinct from other sources of income?
13:08 < drycafe> we were expecting a wire, but have had no notification
13:08 < drycafe> and it doesn't show as a line item either in income received
13:08 < bdale> oh, ok.  I have no useful info about that .. anyone else?
13:08 < drycafe> but the total earmarked for OBF suggests that we've actually
                 received it
13:09 < bdale> that may be because it's shown up in the account with no action
               required by the treasurer?
13:09 < Solver> would the records generated by our new bookkeepers have that
                data?
13:09 < drycafe> we've had the same with a credit card donation last year; but
                 for that one I had the receipt emailed to me so I knew
13:10 < bdale> fair question.  I don't know the answer.  I would assume there's
               a transaction record, but schultmc or one of his assistants
               would know.
13:10 < drycafe> it'd be very useful to know if and when that wire came in so
                 we don't follow up with the sponsor if they've paid
13:10 < bdale> sure.  filing this as an rt ticket sounds like a good idea.
13:11 < Solver> totte: I'm going to be doing a draft proposql right after this
                meeting (whether or not we have one).  I'll email it to you.
                once we agree we can send it for membership review and an email
                vote
13:11 < drycafe> bdale: sounds good, will do
13:11 < Hydroxide> so is it intentional that the treasurer's report which was
                   prepared for today is for November 2013?
13:11 < drycafe> would still be good to have a way to have those included in
                 the treasurers report
13:11 < totte> Solver: Splendid.
13:11 < bdale> the last one was for Oct, so I assume so
13:11 < Hydroxide> I guess that may be a schultmc quesiton, but possibly
                   someone else knows.
13:11 < Hydroxide> ah, ok. backlog, got it
13:12 < Solver> totte: sorry again for the delay.  I could offer excuses but I
                won't :)
13:12 < bdale> seemed a bit non-obvious to me, too, but whether it's just
               backlog, a consequence of some effect I don't understand, or
               what is a question I couldn't answer
13:12 < drycafe> and I don't know actually why they aren't included - is there
                 a reason to that? I emailed last year, but didn't a response
13:13 < bdale> drycafe: I hate to be this way, but with nobody other than me
               answering you and schultmc not here, this would be great stuff
               to address directly to treasurer@
13:13 < Hydroxide> bdale: it is a regression (manpower-related?) from the
                   recent norm, which was more prompt, but of course I
                   sympathize as a former treasurer who had enough backlogs
                   myself.
13:13 < Ganneff> uh, im here now.
13:13 < Solver> that's 6?
13:13 < bdale> Ganneff: thanks.  state your name for the record and we'll be
               quorate
13:13 < Ganneff> Joerg Jaspert
13:14 < bdale> [item 3, President's Report]
13:14 < bdale> Noting to report of significance today.
13:14 < bdale> [item 4, Treasurer's Report]
13:14 < bdale> I see Michael sent a report before the meeting, he's not here,
               so does anyone else have any questions or comments before we
               move on?
13:14 < Hydroxide> worth noting that the agenda has the old treasurer's report
13:14 < Hydroxide> but a corrected version was emailed out
13:15 < Hydroxide> and a minor error remained in the email version, already
                   acked by the treasurer.
13:15 < drycafe> I already stated my question. Will ask again to treasurer
13:15 < bdale> right, good, thanks
13:15 < Ganneff> (and just btw, i had regrets for today)
13:16 < bdale> [item 5, Secretary's report]
13:16 < bdale> Jonathan was called away at the last minute, so we'll move along
               unless anyone has something to offer here?
13:16 < bdale> [item 6, Outstanding minutes]
13:16 < bdale> I believe we have two sets to vote on today, but I see no
               urgency, so we can wait until next month when Jonathan will
               hopefully be available again.  Any objection?
13:16 < Ganneff> nope, sounds good
13:16 < Solver> agreed
13:16 < bdale> [item 7, Items up for discussion]
13:16 < bdale> [item 7.1, Status of SPI's support infrastructure for associated
               project services]
13:16 < bdale> I believe this agenda item was initiated by Hilmar Lapp in
               reaction to delays in handling of various DNS related requests
               for OBF.  Who wants to open the discussion?
13:17 < Ganneff> me.
13:17 < bdale> sounds good
13:17 < Ganneff> we transferred domains to spi. we (well, me) hasnt setup the
                 stuff in puppet yet, entirely my fault. not much to excuse
                 there.
13:18 < Ganneff> its lucky they arent really important, still its not good.
13:18 < bdale> is this something others can/should help with, or do you just
               need to find time?
13:18 < Ganneff> now, ill be setting them up either this evening or tomorrow,
                 its on my todo. (whenever thats done, we are out of the loop,
                 as projects get direct commit access)
13:18 < Solver> we had an offer of help on list
13:18 < Ganneff> also
13:18 < Ganneff> yes, i want to take others in as admin, for
13:19 < Ganneff> a.) its just me and schultmc and thats not enough, we are both
                 too busy
13:19 < bdale> yep
13:19 < Solver> definitely.  among our membership there are plenty of qualified
                people
13:19 < Ganneff> b.) additionally, if board wants me to, im stepping back as VP
                 (at next election if you want), so another one can step in, i
                 did a too bad job with this
13:20 < Ganneff> (vp being admin head, that is, so its for both of those areas)
13:20 < bdale> right
13:20 < bdale> so, I'm pleased that you think the rest of the DNS update can
               happen shortly so that can be put to rest
13:20 < Ganneff> and for the other domains that they plan to transfer to us,
                 its a simple way to assure it wont happen again
13:20 < Hydroxide> I should point out that VP is only admin head due to a board
                   resolution. there's no reason they have to be linked if
                   someone wants to perform one role but not the other
13:20 < bdale> I agree that getting more folks doing admin would be good, how
               should we proceed on that?
13:20 < Ganneff> we "just" have to setup the infrastructure on our side before
                 we transfer it
13:20 < Solver> Hydroxide: yes I'm wondering if we need to stick to that
13:21 < Ganneff> Hydroxide: i think thats a very good link that we shouldnt
                 give away
13:21 < Hydroxide> Ganneff: I don't care either way. I'm just saying we
                   shouldn't let the link block a willing volunteer. if it
                   stays as is, fine.
13:21 < Ganneff> whoever is admin head/vp can decide to stay outside admin and
                 just oversee, but the liunk should be there
13:21 < bdale> with respect to the VP position, I'm in no hurry to push you out
               of that chair... far more important is to get more folks
               involved in admin work, then if someone else becomes an obvious
               right choice for the leadership slot we can respond to that
13:21 < Ganneff> right
13:21 < Solver> even if VP is sysadmin manager, does it mean they must be hands
                on?
13:21 < bdale> I don't think so
13:21 < Hydroxide> agreed
13:22 < Ganneff> i dont guarantee a day i work on that, but im definitely going
                 and add willing people (so there any, i think there are)
                 before next meeting. how does that sound?
13:22 < bdale> if Ganneff wants to continue to organize the activity but others
               do much of the work, that's a fine answer if it works for
               everyone involved, for example
13:22 < Solver> presumably only contributing members can be appointed as
                sysadmins
13:22 < Ganneff> yes
13:22 < bdale> Ganneff: I think that's fine.  as mentioned, at least one person
               has volunteered, maybe you could put a message on -private
               asking for help then see who responds and what they'd be good at
               helping with?
13:23 < Ganneff> yes.
13:23 < bdale> ok, so we'll expect some progress report on that at our next
               meeting?
13:23 < Ganneff> yes
13:23 < bdale> good
13:23 < drycafe> Q: what's so bad about actually paying people for their work
                 for SPI?
13:23 < bdale> any other specifics we should discuss on this item?
13:23 < bdale> drycafe: nothing, except that we always ask for volunteers first
13:24 < Ganneff> i think none of this does really need payment, there are
                 enough volunteers.
13:24 < Solver> yes.  we have reserve funds but we don't want to burn through
                them unnecessarily
13:24 < Ganneff> ive "just" not been easy to "give away power" in adding more.
13:25 < bdale> the book keeping is an example of where it became obvious that
               the job now needs paid help, so we took action .. that could
               happen elsewhere if needed at some point
13:25 < drycafe> it's difficult (if not unfair) to obtain time commitments from
                 volunteers
13:25 < Ganneff> yes. but spi really has a low level admin need
13:25 < bdale> Ganneff: it's a big transition, to be sure, but I completely
               understand the changing demands on your time and think this is a
               great time to build up a real admin team
13:25 < Solver> every organisation has to wrestle with giving sysadmins the
                keys to the kingdom.  SPI has more reason to trust its
                membership than most companies do of trusting their employees
13:25 < Ganneff> (low level as in actual time, not neccessarily skills)
13:26 < linuxhiker> if postgresql.org can have an all volunteer staff, so can we
13:26 < Ganneff> linuxhiker: replace with debian.org and others.
13:26 < linuxhiker> Ganneff: and that is where we could run into some trouble
                    and possibly need to hire someone
13:26 < Ganneff> yes.
13:26 < linuxhiker> Ganneff: debian.org would be a good example too
13:26 < bdale> I think this is an "obvious" case of divide by 1 (or even 2) not
               being a good way to manage important processes.  building up a
               bit more of an admin team and getting the documentation in place
               that will be required to do that is a great next step.
13:26 < Ganneff> paying does give you guarantees on time. (skills depends on
                 what you pay)
13:26 < drycafe> well, except postgresql.org isn't a financial sponorship
                 organization that offers infrasturecture to associated projects
13:26 < Ganneff> still, i dont think we need it here for this.
13:27 < Ganneff> drycafe: we offer a very low set of infrastructure only.
13:27 < Ganneff> (in terms of admin again)
13:27 < wushin> Well and how you pay for help.
13:27 < drycafe> but a very important set
13:27 < bdale> so, ok, I think we have next steps identified and a commitment
               from Ganneff for some action before out next meeting
13:27 < Ganneff> si
13:27 < bdale> I'm inclined to move on?
13:27 < linuxhiker> Ganneff: but is that because of resources or because of
                    desire? I mean think about it. If we did have a dedicated
                    team (one or two people) we could offer a LOT of services
                    to our projects
13:27 < Ganneff> please keep it short, i need to lay down and rest, my blood
                 pressure is > 180 (unrelated to this)
13:28 < Ganneff> linuxhiker: can we discuss off meeting, preferably in mail?
13:28 < linuxhiker> Ganneff: absolutely
13:28 < bdale> right, I was about to suggest that
13:28 < bdale> good topic for email
13:28 < bdale> ok, moving on
13:28 < bdale> [item 8, Any other business]
13:28 < bdale> Do any board members have other items for discussion they would
               like to address briefly?
13:28 < Ganneff> .oO(i would have had if the above wouldnt have come up earlier)
13:28 < Clint> not I
13:29 < Ganneff> only reason i showed up
13:29 < bdale> Ganneff: thanks for making the effort
13:29 < bdale> [item 9, Next board meeting]
13:29 < bdale> Our next regularly-scheduled monthly meeting would be 10th April
               2014, 20:00 UTC.
13:29 < bdale> Any strong objections?
13:29 < Solver> nothing from me today
13:29 < bdale> Ok, thank you to everyone present for participating today.
13:29 < bdale> *GAVEL*