(no *GAVEL* -- zv)
20:00 < schultmc> [item 1, Opening]
20:00 < schultmc> Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest Board Meeting, which 
20:00 < schultmc> is now called to order. Today's agenda can be found on the web at: 
20:00 < schultmc> https://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2024/2024-06-10/
20:00 < schultmc> .
20:00 < schultmc> [item 2, Roll Call]
20:00 < schultmc> Directors, please state your name
20:00 < schultmc> Guests, please /msg your names to zv if you wish your attendance to be
20:00 < zv> Zach van Rijn
20:00 < jconway> Joe Conway
20:00 < schultmc> recorded in the minutes of this meeting.
20:00 < jesusalva> Jonatas L. Nogueira
20:00 < schultmc> .
20:00 < fungi> Jeremy Stanley
20:00 < schultmc> zv, do we have any regrets?
20:00 < zv> no regrets today
20:00 < schultmc> .
20:00 < schultmc> Michael Schultheiss
20:00 < milan> Milan Kupcevic
20:01 -!- WildX [~Wilpy@2a00:23c7:dc90:af01:3d82:be3f:cc69:61d] has joined #spi
20:01 < schultmc> That's quorum - we can move on and others can join if they're available
20:01 < schultmc> [item 3, President's Report]
20:01 < schultmc> Thank you to SPI Director Jonatas L. Nogueira for helping track outstanding tasks.
20:01 < schultmc> .
20:01 < schultmc> Continued thanks to SPI Vice President, Stephen Frost, for handling contracting 
20:01 < schultmc> with SPI's contractors. Stephen continues to do a fantastic job working with our 
20:01 < schultmc> contractors and legal counsel.
20:01 < schultmc> .
20:01 < zumbi> Hector Oron Martinez
20:01 < schultmc> </done>
20:02 < schultmc> [item 4, Treasurer's Report]
20:02 < schultmc> zumbi?
20:02 < zumbi> one sec
20:03 < zumbi> A lot of effort to finalize auditor requested data, so they can proceed with audit for 2023. SPI is now available as a fiscal sponsor option at GitHub, coordinated with sysadmin on transferring several Debian domains to SPI, released monthly reports, coordinated with associated projects about best practices to process payments for events, then there are pending payments which we plan to clear as soon as some 
20:03 < zumbi> of the treasurer accounts are rebalanced, in one or two weeks the queue should be clear. If you have any other urgent matter, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thanks to all members supporting treasurer activities.
20:03 < zumbi> .
20:03 < fsf> Sorry for the delay : Forrest Fleming
20:04 < schultmc> [item 5, Secretary's report]
20:04 < schultmc> zv?
20:04 < zv> Any remaining Board members who have not submitted an up-to-date
20:04 < zv> Conflict of Interest form will receive a direct email after this
20:04 < zv> meeting requesting as much. Thanks for your prompt cooperation!
20:04 < zv> .
20:04 < zv> Face-to-Face meeting proposals will be sent to board@ imminently.
20:04 < zv> </>
20:04 < schultmc> [item 6, Outstanding minutes]
20:04 < schultmc> The minutes for the 2024-05-13 meeting require approval.
20:04 < schultmc> They are available at https://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/minutes/2024/2024-05-13/
20:05 < fsf> ]/vote_start Meeting minutes for Monday 2024-05-13:schultmc,zv,jconway,fsf,jesusalva,fungi,milan,zumbi
20:05 < zv> Voting started for Meeting minutes for Monday 2024-05-13; vote with !vote $choice..
20:05 < milan> !vote yes
20:05 < jconway> !vote yes
20:05 < fsf> Voting started, 8 people (schultmc,zv,jconway,fsf,jesusalva,fungi,milan,zumbi) allowed to vote on Meeting minutes for Monday 2024-05-13. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
20:05 < fungi> !vote yes
20:05 < zv> !vote yes
20:05 < schultmc> !vote yes
20:05 < zumbi> !vote abstaim
20:05 < jesusalva> !vote yes
20:05 < jconway> !vote yes
20:05 < fsf> !vote yes
20:05 < zumbi> !vote abstain
20:05 < milan> !vote yes
20:06 < fsf> Current voting results for "Meeting minutes for Monday 2024-05-13": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 1, Missing: 0 ()
20:06 < fsf> Voting for "Meeting minutes for Monday 2024-05-13" closed.
20:06 < schultmc> [item 7, Items up for discussion]
20:06 < schultmc> Nothing on agenda
20:06 < schultmc> .
20:06 < schultmc> [item 8, Any other business]
20:06 < schultmc> Anything to discuss?
20:06 < jesusalva> Yes, a few AOB for today's meeting. Six items from my side, lettered from A to F.
20:06 < jesusalva> A. MPI Forum group wants to know SPI policy for conference proceedings (if SPI strictly require open proceedings) as they're being overcharged for making open proceedings. The details are all on email or https://gitlab.com/spi-inc/board-private/-/issues/16
20:06 < jesusalva> * I don't know how to answer them. Help explicitly requested.
20:07 < zv> jesusalva: for posterity, please copy each point here, since Debian Paste links do expire.
20:07 < zv> thanks
20:08 < jesusalva> No problem zv. Now hoping someone present can answer this question D:
20:08 < schultmc> I don't know if we have a specific policy on procedings but as a general rule we would likely lean towards open procedings.
20:08 < jesusalva> See the link if you want MPI's exact words
20:08 < schultmc> MPI Forum and other industry groups are likely different from other conferences our associated projects hold
20:10 < schultmc> I would say open procedings are strongly preferred but wouldn't want to create a policy that causes undue financial hardship for an associated project.
20:11 < schultmc> Perhaps there could be a future date where the procedings are made open at a reduced rate?
20:11 < fungi> i think the main concern is that acm is reselling the proceedings for profit, which means the charitable donations paying for the conference are indirectly creating a product for resale, but in theory it also does provide some benefit to the project and the organization profiting off the proceedings is more of a side effect of that
20:13 < fungi> if the primary goal of funding the conference is to produce these (for profit) proceedings then that's a problem, if it's just a secondary artifact offsetting the cost of holding the conference then it's less concerning
20:13 < jesusalva> So to answer them that it is strongly preferred, and if they can find open proceedings at a reasonable price they should do so, but if it can't be done at all, then SPI won't put any undue financial burden on them ─ they may go ahead with closed proceedings?
20:13 < schultmc> https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/funding does mention organizations that help with funding procedings
20:14 < schultmc> jesusalva: that seems reasonable to me. The issue mentions doubling the cost of attendance to pay the open procedings fee
20:14 < schultmc> that seems excessive
20:14 < zv> can we (SPI) budget to fund/support projects who pursue open proceedings? vote on each case by case?
20:15 < fungi> jesusalva: also the middle-ground of "eventually open" proceedings, if such a thing exists
20:15 < schultmc> zv: that's a potential solution
20:16 < jesusalva> I think their conference is in September ─ I can also add that option to the message, suggesting them to ask for SPI to fund it on a future meeting (also include the agenda inclusion deadlines)
20:16 < zv> jesusalva: i'd hold off making that suggestion yet, we'd want to discuss internally if/how that could work
20:16 < fungi> i would be in favor of that possibility as well. open proceedings do provide a greater public benefit, after all
20:18 < jesusalva> More like signaling that if they can afford to wait until July's AGM and don't find a suitable open proceeding option, we can discuss internally and vote during the AGM
20:18 < jesusalva> i.e. July 14
20:19 < jesusalva> (In case they have enough spare time in their deadline to we discuss this and it apply to them)
20:20 < jesusalva> I don't think discussing this today, right now in AOB, would be prudent.
20:20 < fungi> just a reminder, we're 20 minutes in and you had 4 more items for aob ;)
20:20 < jesusalva> Yes, I'll go ahead then.
20:20 < jesusalva> B. There is ticket 7349 about migrating some stuff to Stripe to reduce a bit the donation processing fees (about 0.15%). It currently seems stale, or at least, not updated. Do anyone on board knows well how to operate Stripe? This normally is something done during F2F meetings but we're too close to elections, so worth asking here.
20:20 < jesusalva> * If 0.15% is not substantial enough and everyone is swapped with work, I can also remind about this again after July's AGM.
20:21 < jesusalva> This one is non-urgent, it just been stale for a couple months and would be prudent to make sure it is not overlooked.
20:21 < schultmc> I have some stripe experience but it's normally integrated with a shopping cart system, crm, etc, which SPI doesn't currently have
20:21 < zv> that's $15 on a $10k transaction, which I feel is not worth the effort at the moment?
20:22 < jconway> seems hardly worth it
20:22 < jesusalva> Yes. schultmc: Do you want to look at ticket 7349 later? Not worth the effort at the moment, you just don't want to overlook it as fees do tend to stack up
20:23 < schultmc> yes, I'll take a look but agree it doesn't seem worth the effort to rush it through
20:23 < jesusalva> C. Books have been closed, but some questions remained to be sorted out: 1. Martin made a question a while ago (May 3rd) about SPI policy for lawyer fees - Snow-Man can you/did you answer? 2. Was ARDC refund already paid or was there any unexpected and unforeseen issue along the way? 3. Did Wesnoth receive their trademark donation receipt, and did the question regarding how to register it in the books got solved?
20:23 < jesusalva> 1. is at https://gitlab.com/spi-inc/board-private/-/issues/15 ; and 2. is at https://gitlab.com/spi-inc/board-private/-/issues/2 while 3. is ticket 7287. Given the three points are yes/no questions, I put them in a single bullet point.
20:24 < schultmc> ARDC refund is in progress - unforseen issues due to problems with bank systems. I should have the refund processed this week.
20:24 < jesusalva> Snow-Man seems absent, so I'll ask him about the lawyer fees later
20:26  * jesusalva is asking this in AOB exactly because after the audit, if SPI procedure is different from the one Martin informed, it'll not be really possible to apply retroactively
20:26 < jesusalva> Incidentally, I think point 3 was taken by tbm, who also doesn't seem to be present. So I'll move on
20:26 < schultmc> I don't think we have a defined procedure and would defer to the attorney or CPA for guidance.
20:26 < jesusalva> D. Postgresql has some really specific question about how to reimburse their conference. It requires either the treasurer, or an officer with capacity to make payments, to answer. zumbi, will you remain dealing with this (or do you want to delegate, I know you're stretched thin)?
20:27 < jesusalva> schultmc: Yes, the question was if "foreign lawyer" expenses are invoiced against project or SPI General Funds
20:28 < jesusalva> Martin informed he was going to assign to General Funds and justified why. He asked Snow-Man and copied the board though, and I didn't saw any reply on it.
20:29 < jesusalva> (So either Stephen replied and forgot to copy the board, or didn't reply at all :p )
20:29 < zumbi> jesusalva, if someone takes it up is fine, otherwise I'll look it up when I get to it.
20:31 < jesusalva> That's satisfactory to me. I'll keep going, I'm almost done.
20:31 < jesusalva> E. Some of the projects which joined recently~ish have their own domains. Should we ask in spi-projects if they want to transfer the domains to SPI as well? I'm tracking this on https://gitlab.com/spi-inc/board-private/-/issues/8 as I know it is better to make as a batch than individually. I can coordinate with Perdu if this is desired.
20:31 < jesusalva> * I thought that asking in spi-projects if any (other) project is interested would be a more optimal use of our time and limited resources. Perdu also volunteered to send the message.
20:32 < zv> For context, the idea here is to batch any transfers to reduce the administrative burden on our end, not to proactively encourage projects to transfer domains.
20:32 < zumbi> SPI offers the service upon request, why should we contact projects directly?
20:32 < zumbi> ah! got it zv, thanks!
20:33 < zv> I would let this be and have projects reach out to us directly if they want to do this. Jonatas is asking because at least one project was inquiring about how to transfer.
20:33 < fungi> it could in theory apply to less recently added projects too, so a general reminder and a request for transfers by a certain date for ease of batching seems reasonable
20:34 < jesusalva> Yes, pretty much.
20:35 < jesusalva> So if another project(s) wants to do it, we can do all of them in one go rather than doing the same thing several times
20:36 < jesusalva> If that's fine to go ahead, then I only have one last AOB point.
20:38 < schultmc> sounds good to me
20:38 < jesusalva> F. As discussed a few months ago, I also made a template for getting an additional contractor to aid with "board tasks" (in hopes to improve SPI efficiency). I don't expect elections to disrupt anything; the draft is currently with Martin and progressing steadly (albeit slowly). I shared with the board in case any one wants to comment later.
20:38 < jesusalva> </done>
20:40 < zumbi> Thanks
20:41 < jesusalva> I have nothing else on AOB. Finally.
20:41 < zv> going once..
20:42 < zv> twice....
20:42 < schultmc> [item 9, Next board meeting]
20:42 < schultmc> The next board meeting is scheduled for: July 8, 2024 at 2000 UTC.
20:42 < schultmc> Any objections?
20:42 < jconway> nope
20:42 < fungi> sounds good to me
20:42 < jesusalva> July 8 or 14?
20:42 < zv> 8?
20:42 < jesusalva> Alright
20:42 < fungi> 8 would be the second monday
20:43 < jesusalva> None from me
20:43 < milan> wfm
20:43 < schultmc> 2nd monday is our standard meeting date. The bylaws say the AGM is held on the first day of July
20:43 < schultmc> we've typically held the AGM at our normal July date iirc
20:44 < jesusalva> Yes, using a rather odd device from the Bylaws, I'm aware
20:44 < jesusalva> 8th wfm
20:44 < schultmc> yet another bylaws quirk that should be resolved
20:45 < schultmc> *GAVEL*