*** Starting logfile /home/branden/misc/etc/spi-meeting.2003.01.07 IRC log started Tue Jan 07 15:02:19 2003 *** Value of LOG set to ON 03:02PM|*** Starting logfile /home/branden/misc/etc/spi-meeting.2003.01.07 03:02PM|*** Value of LOG set to ON ok An actual board meeting. EanSchuessler: take here away! shall we use the same method as last time? *#* Mode change +m on channel #spi by wiggy I hereby call this official and operational SPI meeting to order! do I have a voice? *#* wiggy has changed the topic on #spi to agenda is at http://www.spi-inc.org/~wichert/agenda *#* Users on #spi: *#* @Diziet @EanSchuessler @Manoj @Overfiend @Schuessi @wiggy azeem bdale brother cdlu Clint CosmicRay dieman *#* ElectricElf gcc- Hydroxide ibid ja lan migus mihtjel Noodles pj0tr tbm tina tytso *#* weasel yp17 *#* wiggy has changed the topic on #spi to agenda is at http://www.spi-inc.org/~wichert/agenda ; msg EanSchuessler if you want to say something so he can hand out voices as needed Tue Jan 7 21:03:26 CET 2003 Errr... Unfortunately I'm not to up to date on voicing people so maybe we can just maintain order naturally. /mode #spi +v /mode +v non-moderator-nickname to give voice oh, whoops, yeah, listen to wiggy and -v to take it away Ah. Well, thats easy enough. * EanSchuessler loads up latest agenda. - Roll call. present Actually, let's type our names for convenience in the record. Ean Schuessler present. PRESIDENT, huh-m-huh, huh Branden Robinson present. Manoj Srivastava, present Ian Jackson, present Wichert Akkerman, present *#* Mode change -m on channel #spi by wiggy can everyone do that please? *#* _rene_ (~rene@stan.ping.de) has joined channel #spi Clint Adams, present wiggy: what does that do? John Goerzen, present Peter Palfrader, present David Graham, present Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, present David B. Harris, present. Michael Banck, present Overfiend: remove moderation so everyone can talk Pierre Machard, present *?* Channel -m does not exist. Bill Allombert, present Bdale Garbee, advisor from Debian and contributing member Scott Dier, present. Rune Broberg, present (at times) Peter Makholm, present Martin Michlmayr, advisor, present wiggy: I tried, got no client feedback at all. <_rene_> Rene Engelhard, cont. memb., present is that everyone? Overfiend: must have worked, my first try was blocked and second got through For anyone who missed what we are doing, we are calling roll. Please type your full name. This includes contributing members and even just plain visitors. Tina Gasperson, just plain visitor Are we all done then? All right. Let's move on. *#* Mode change +m on channel #spi by wiggy *** Approving minutes of last meeting I'm a touch confused. Are these the December 17th minutes? they were already approved *#* dtype (~dtype@dtype.org) has joined channel #spi Ok, that's what I thought. *#* Mode change +o dtype on channel #spi by wiggy stupid bitchx reset itself at some point and hopped back to default server aha. So, December 17th minutes are already approved. Any comments? No? Ok, let's move on. *#* dtype is now known as DrewStreib *** Report from the treasurer Okay, that's me. 18 Ns Jan 07 Branden Robinso ( 145) [Spi-private] Treasurer report for 7 January 2003 19 Ns Jan 07 Branden Robinso ( 145) Treasurer report for 7 January 2003 it has been sent to spi-private, since it contains account balances and stuff I move we thank Branden and accept his report. I welcome followup questions, though I realize few will have had time to read it. * EanSchuessler looks it over. since I sent it about 5 minutes before the meeting was convened. I don't have any questions. Also, we should thank Branden for his hard work. I think we can probably leave the questions for the next meeting, or just email ? No need to wait about while everyone reads it thoroughly. do we have any from the contributing members? Overfiend: wrt to account ownership, how about transfering that to you? Diziet: I agree wiggy: I'm already an "owner" of all 3 accounts Diziet: definately. you can have more than one person with "signing authority" or whatever. The question is whether we drop Nils now, or later. Overfiend: ok, in that case we should have nils removed imho Overfiend: thanks for the continued hard work on a less than appealing task. Ean: yeah, at least you guys don't get paper cuts :) I don't care about Nils - he's not going to defraud us. But I'll take Branden's call. ORDER * Overfiend snaps to attention Not to be rude, but I can see that Branden's report is cause for a spectrum of discussions. Let's take those up on the list. Ean: can I add something? absolutely Since I realize folks didn't have a fair chance to review the report before the meeting started, I welcome questions to be submitted to spi-private in reply to that mail. I will attempt to answer them in my next report. Super. likely in immediate reply as well Are there any questions specific to the contents of Branden's current report. Corrections, etc. ? Great. Then let's vote on Ian's proposal to accept the minutes. * Overfiend yields the floor. Oops. Hold a sec. question, i'm late, but not sure if officially _here_ (as wasn't at beginning of meeting). I'm still OK to vote, correct? DrewStreib: yes, you're here now DrewStreib: yes. you're here. *#* Signoff: weaselTM (Client Quit) *#* Users on #spi: *#* @Diziet @DrewStreib @EanSchuessler @Manoj @Overfiend @Schuessi @wiggy azeem bdale brother cdlu Clint CosmicRay *#* dieman ElectricElf gcc- Hydroxide ibid ja lan migus mihtjel Noodles pj0tr tbm tina *#* tytso weasel yp17 _rene_ Bdale has a comment on the treasurer's report. bdale: yes? Hrmph. I'm doing something wrong.. *#* Mode change +v bdale on channel #spi by wiggy wiggy: thanks * EanSchuessler mumbles. Overfiend: I wonder if you have a split of balance showing Debian's assets right now? bdale: in short, no Overfiend: ok, thanks, next time. well EanSchuessler: thanks I need to elaborate. because I cannot come up with an answer in any timeframe without some premises decided. Overfiend: "no" is sufficient for now, no need to hold up the mtg well, I'll keep it to one sentence. SPI has never, to my knowledge, officially adopted a policy of how to divide up the cash in the AXP Cash Management account where almost all of the money is. Previous Treasurers did not leave good enough records for me to know how much is Debian-specific and how much is SPI's. sorry, that is 2 sentences Previous minutes discuss a "5%" rule, and I recommend that interested parties review old minutes for this discussion. That is all. Hmmmm. bdale: your input on this matter is, IMO, essential. * bdale suggests the board discuss this and determine an answer before the next meeting? MINUTES: Make sure to add a note requiring discussion of Debian's finances on the list. Also discuss establishing a Treasurer's committee with it's own list. * bdale will be happy to participate in said discussion, but thinks it too much to tackle right now in this meeting * EanSchuessler agrees. bdale: I agree. Hopefully we can work something out. we'll work something out. Any other comments on the treasurer's report? *#* Mode change -v bdale on channel #spi by wiggy No? * wiggy presses next Very well. I repeat Ian's motion that we accept the report. * Overfiend abstains. * EanSchuessler votes YES I vote in favour, clearly. lets wait for the actual call for votes :) * DrewStreib waits. * wiggy votes in favour * Overfiend abstains early, and abstains often. * DrewStreib votes in favor. can we assume manoj dropped of the net? * EanSchuessler nudges manoj with Drew here, we're still at quorum, right? Overfiend: yes i believe so, yes. mark Manoj as abstaining and move on then, IMO * EanSchuessler wacks Manoj. Ok, Manoj abstains by virtue of absence. 4 for and 2 abstain? Mr Secretary? *#* Signoff: Manoj (Read error: Connection timed out) Ah. motion accepted I would say The treasurer's report is accepted. Next. the secretary can record the votes from the IRC logs when he preps the minutes, I do not think it is necessary to hold up the proceeding unless there is evident confusion nevermind :) Oh joy. *** New board members can I introduce this one? Please do./ I would like to ask people to read http://www.wiggy.net/spi/2003-01-06.wta.2 wiggy: do you want to copy some of the key elements into the IRC log? wait, no, sorry, wrong resolution uh that's the bylaws one oh... Yipe. let's not spill blood before we have to >;-) * EanSchuessler stops pretending to know which proposal is which by date. http://www.wiggy.net/spi/2003-01-06.wta.1 is the correct one sorry about that Have you mailed that out ? If not please do so. Diziet: yes, yesterday to both the board and spi-general * Diziet finds it. [inappropriate remark] sauce probably shitcanned it :-P whoops as discussed in the previous meeting we want add members to the spi board I assume the board can choose any way to elect new members at the moment? (independent of bylaw changes to happen later?) this resolution explains the method we would like to use to implement that DrewStreib: yes Drew: we can certainly elect new members in accordance with the existing bylaws Damn, I should have replied to that motion saying the time periods are too short. Diziet: you can do so now IMO they're plenty Doubling them would help. we already have a set of candidates modulus typographical fixes I'm happy to second the proposed resolution as-is You miss out if you're on holiday for a week ? so I don't see why doubling the first period would help Diziet: only when it's a week in Diziet time :-P Diziet: please subscribe to spi-general and read the archives since December 1st we have no shortage of candidates qualified ones, even But if they happen to be away when we send out the call, they'll miss out. * EanSchuessler is reading in several places at once. the current list of candidates is: Bruce Perens, Clint Adams, Craig Small, David Graham, Jimmy Kaplowitz, Mako Hill, Rik van Riel Diziet: oh well. You're saying this 7 days has already started then ? Diziet: same is true if it's a month, or a year. Diziet: no Diziet: no Yes, but people are less likely to be away for 14 days than 7. Diziet: *cough& we'll be seeding the list with people who volunteered earlier Then we don't have any `official' candidates nominated according to this process yet. Your motion doesn't say that. and add seven extra days for more volunteers wiggy: technically we'll have to re-solicit self-nominations, Diziet is right about that ORDER however, I Dieman has requested the floor. *#* Mode change +v dieman on channel #spi by wiggy Hi, I'm Scott Dier, in case anyone missed the begenning. * DrewStreib looks away. Is there a reason a previous suggestion to have short position papers on the spi website wasn't included in this resolution? I think the resolution needs more work :-(. (sorry) it is a technicality which I didn't feel was required Thanks Scott. Ok, so we have two points... I disagree with Diziet, and agree with what I think Wichert is saying. The timeframe should be extended and position papers should be posted publicly from the candidates. the burden is on the candidate to prove his mettle by proactively posting a bio and/or discussion of issues germane to SPI I don't see either of those requests as show stoppers. EanSchuessler: me neither, I just don't think they're essential Overfiend: we can certainly post positions if they are provided. how about: * over a period of one week (7 days) candiates can nominate themselves, Any submitted position papers and bios of the candidates will be published on the SPI website. We must also say who organises, makes random administrative decisions, acts as returning officer, etc. * Overfiend seconds that not what Diziet said Diziet: "returning officer"? oh, the person who tabulates the ballots right? Diziet: this falls on the tasks of the secretary as I see it We can extend the first period to two weeks to ask candidates to officially re-volunteer, I have no objection to that The motion should say so. How about: The Secretary shall act as returning officer, issue calls for nominations, tabulate votes, etc. So add a clause that says the SPI Secretary shall serve as election manager yeah, what Diziet said * Overfiend seconds that, too --The Secretary shall act as returning officer, issue calls for nominations, and tabulate votes. Voting will done using the Condorcet method with Cloneproof/Schwartz Sequential Dropping. wiggy: You accept my proposed amendment, then. Good. wiggy: sloppy wording but I can pick over that later if need be not important for this meeting I have updated the text online And change nomination period to 14 days. Let's keep in mind that this is neither a re-election of board officers nor are we establishing a permanent method for handling board elections. ean: True. This is a one time event designed to reconstitute the board. Diziet: any objections to voting for the resolution as it is currently drafted? More permanent arrangements could be made in a by-laws committee if one existed. :) wiggy: point of order wiggy: let's look back at the two requests. let's vote specifically on Diziet's 14 day amendment Let's get the position statements in there too. ok consensus vote? Ean: that was not objected to * wiggy abstains wiggy: to be clear, what are we voting on? Ean: technically it can be rammed in by acclamation (sp?) abs: extending the period of the nomination phase to two weeks s/abs/ean/ Ean: I suggest you call for votes on Diziet's amendment to extend the nomination period to 14 days. since this resolution isn't yet voted on, do we need to vote on ammendments to it? Drew: yes wiggy: do you accept the amendment to 14 days ? Does anyone object to it ? Drew: _Robert's_ says you vote on amendments before the resolution itself ORDER Diziet: I would like to go with the board majority, I don't particularly care either way Drew: that way you know what you're passing *#* robster (~rob@hades.robster.org.uk) has joined channel #spi ov: Yes, indeed, but we don't need to vote if no-one objects. (Assuming I have a second.) VOTE: Amend diziet's proposal to include the 14 day nomination period. I vote in favour, obviously. * Overfiend votes NO * DrewStreib votes in favor. VOTE: Amend wichert's proposal to include Ian's 14 day nomination period. Sorry. GRRRRRR * EanSchuessler votes in favor. * Overfiend votes to smack Ean for confusing things * wiggy abstains majority is in favour though sorry. * wiggy edits * Overfiend still votes no but it carries 2 weeks isn't really too long for something this important. text updated with 4 weeks we'll have the new board members just in time for the next meeting DrewStreib: no, I'll vote for it either way. I just think we de facto used most of last month as a nominating and discussion period. DrewStreib: on -general the irc format doesn't seem particularly conducive to efficiency Overfiend: new board members is a big deal. let's not rush it. EanSchuessler: can you please call for votes on the resolution as it stands now? wiggy: what about position statements as per Scott's request? is there a current list of members which is very up to date, and which will have voting privileges? EanSchuessler: that was already accepted by acclamation EanSchuessler: already merged ok. cdlu has some comments. DrewStreib: yes, the members.spi-inc.org system 03:35PM| how about: 03:35PM| * over a period of one week (7 days) candiates can nominate themselves, 03:35PM| Any submitted position papers and bios of the candidates will be 03:35PM| published on the SPI website. 03:35PM| We must also say who organises, makes random administrative decisions, acts as returning officer, etc. 03:35PM|* Overfiend seconds that *#* Mode change +v cdlu on channel #spi by EanSchuessler Ok, I'd just like to say I think the extra week is ... more time Joey put out a call for nominations in November there have already been several weeks. Thanks *#* Mode change -v cdlu on channel #spi by EanSchuessler the issue is official nominations Again, I'd just like to put things in perspective. nominations made previously are not valid in this process unfortunately We have a board that is apparently operational for the time being. Either way, this puts things in time for the next meeting. We've voted, can we move on to the whole resolution as amended ? I will mail the previous nomimations to invite them to re-nominate Yeah, cdlu and I are clearly in the minority, let's move on. let's vote on the whole resolution before the vote, could I see a pointer the the current membership list? We're adding board members, which is serious, and I would like to see us not do it in the Cabal(tm) style. modulo typo fixups DrewStreib: yes, the members.spi-inc.org system DrewStreib: contributing members, all members, just the Board, what? Do I have to have an account in this thing to see the membership list ? whoever will have voting power for the new board members Diziet: you should already have one Diziet: you might have read access to the psql database but please keep these technicalaties for later Drew: AIUI, all contributing members have a vote. That includes the entire Board by definition. ORDER Let's get a vote here. EanSchuessler: well, Drew wanted us to shelve that until he found out who has a vote. Point of order What ov said I'm fine now. My question is answered. okay OK VOTE: Accept Wichert's board nomination and election procedure with the time frame modification. Yes * Overfiend votes YES * EanSchuessler votes in favor. although I'd like a more public posting of membership at some point if we could. * wiggy votes in favour * DrewStreib votes in favor. DrewStreib: noted. Drew: might want to mail tbm about it Martin Michlmayr he's still chair of the membership committee and implemented most of the tech The motion passes. Next. *** Resolution 2002-12-17.wta.1: Charter for the bylaws committee can I introduce this one again? Please do. eh? http://www.wiggy.net/spi/2003-01-06.wta.2 right isn't that version more recent? okay Oh... sorry. working from the agenda. *#* Signoff: maxx (Quit: n8) this is the result from the discussion at the last meeting and further discussions within the board and on spi-general wiggy: I like that resolution, but might want to request an addition of a review of the guidelines for membership, since if we are giving membership more power, we want to be clear on what constitutes membership, and how it is gained. or something like that in correct english DrewStreib: we can suggest that to the ctte the 'guidelines' on spi-inc.org are pretty shaky at best once it exists WTF wiggy: neither ean nor I can voice people, the ops are fucked up hm? who do you want to voice? please voice dieman devoice. oh *#* Mode change -v dieman on channel #spi by wiggy * Overfiend slinks off in stupidity * wiggy gives overfiend a cluecookie OK, how about we insert new iii. Review and clarification of the guidelines for granting contributing membership. (and renumber iii to iv) i'd like that so done Ok, we have a comment from Bdale. *#* Mode change +v bdale on channel #spi by EanSchuessler I'm in favor of that as long as it isn't bolted to "don't you touch the quorum rules" amendment * bdale reminds the board that months ago there was discussion leading to recollection that all Debian developers were de facto contributing members, but no action has been taken yet to programmatically give them that status in the db as far as I know. ov: I withdraw the thing about the quorum rules. Diziet: oh, okay. ORDER bdale: that is but one of many things about membership I think it would be great to clear up. * bdale thinks it's crystal clear Wooo. bdale: well, hang on a second it's just that no action was taken in response to the board's discussion bdale: we can grab the debian.org account database and merge that into the spi members system there may be Debian members who choose NOT to be SPI contributing members Err, from what I recall this is a kettle of fish with the Debian members. Right. Overfiend: that was part of the previous discussion, review it but that was the reason we did not do that bdale: IIRC, we didn't want to auto-sub Debian developers to mailing lists, etc. no, we had a solution involving waiving the automatic mailing list subscription * DrewStreib notes that this also causes some confusion as to the election of new board members this month? Which members list is authoritative? bdale: there was specific discussion around this. bdale: All Debian developers are eligible for contributing membership, and sign up is fast and easy. bdale: I do not think there is any disenfranchisement going on at all. Let's hold here for a second. bdale: what contrary perception do you have?> EanSchuessler: sorry bdale: This is, frankly, your decision. bdale: If you feel you have the authority to declare such a thing then we can take action on it. EanSchuessler: I thought it was decided long ago, but apparently no action was ever taken. [shrug] I move: we resolve that Debian developers may become contributing members, and vote in the election, if they choose (if this is not already clear). EanSchuessler: true. If forcibly-memberized Debian Developers howl at SPI for spam, we can just direct them to Bdale :) Diziet: that is already true bdale: However, if you are making this decision as Project Leader without a General Resolution then that is your decision. bdale: will that satisfy you ? I don't know if you want to make that decision here and now. Overfiend: the previous discussion was that we'd grant immediate contributing member status, but not auto-subscribe them to lists. bdale: hmm, that does sound familiar I don't suppose anyone has a URL handy. EanSchuessler: my interpretation was that no decision was needed, since this grant of status was part of the intent with the original formation of SPI. I think making people automatically members of something is a very dodgy thing to do. with the 14 day amendment for the nomination period, though, isn't there plenty of time to resolve this in email? fwiw, this is why I wanted to see a membership list. :) ov: Hence my motion. bdale: can you instruct debian dsa to work with us in order to get the necessary acount databases synced? * Overfiend suppresses a rueful snicker. Almost. bdale: you and I see it that way but I clearly recall some Debianers that DID NOT want to be part of SPI. Not that they had any sensible reason for it. wiggy: I tried once, happy to try again.