File contents

19:02 < bdale_gprs> *GAVEL*
19:02 < schultmc> [item 2, roll call] Board members, please state your name for the record.  As we have nine board members, quorum for today's meeting is six.  I note for the record that regrets have been received from Jimmy Kaplowitz
19:02 < bdale_gprs> [item 1, Opening] Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest
19:02 < bdale_gprs> board of directors meeting, which is now called to order.  Today's agenda
19:02 < bdale_gprs> and details of pending resolutions can be found on the web at:
19:02 < bdale_gprs> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2006/2006-11-21.html
19:02 < bdale_gprs> [item 2, Roll Call]
19:02 < bdale_gprs> Board members, please state your name for the record.  As we have nine board
19:02 < schultmc> heh
19:02 < bdale_gprs> members, quorum for today's meeting is six.  Guests, please /msg your names
19:02 < bdale_gprs> to Maulkin if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this
19:02 < bdale_gprs> meeting.
19:02 < bdale_gprs> I note that regrets have been received from Jimmy Kaplowitz.
19:02 < iwj> Ian Jackson
19:02 < bdale_gprs> Bdale Garbee
19:03 < jberkus> Josh Berkus
19:03 < cdlu> David Graham
19:03 < Maulkin> Neil McGovern
19:03 < Overfiend> Branden Robinson
19:03 < schultmc> Michael Schultheiss
19:03 < cdlu> quorum
19:03  * Maulkin prods Joey 
19:04 < Maulkin> I guess not.
19:04 < bdale_gprs> has my stuff ever made it through, or am I hopelessly lagged?
19:04 < Maulkin> bdale_gprs: 19:02 :)
19:04 < schultmc> bdale_gprs: it did eventually
19:04 < bdale_gprs> ok.  since we have quorum, let's move along
19:04 < bdale_gprs> [item 3, President's Report]
19:04 < bdale_gprs> I've had several interesting discussions with representatives of current and
19:04 < bdale_gprs> potential associated projects in person (particularly at LW-UK) or by email
19:04 < bdale_gprs> and IRC in the last month, but nothing from those conversations is ready for
19:04 < bdale_gprs> board action at this time.
19:04 < bdale_gprs> Greg Pomerantz and I have exchanged several emails since our last board
19:04 < bdale_gprs> meeting.  I missed a chance to talk to him last night by phone due to not
19:04 < bdale_gprs> seeing his email invitation until this morning, but he's engaged and reviewing
19:05 < bdale_gprs> our list of open questions.  I regret not having his inputs for this meeting,
19:05 < bdale_gprs> but hopefully I'll have an update for the board by email this week.
19:05 < bdale_gprs> [item 4, Treasurer's Report]
19:05 < bdale_gprs> Josh, you have the floor.
19:05 < jberkus> bdale: comment on your report: I would like us to have the completed Associated Projects HOWTO
19:05 < jberkus> online before we accept anyone else
19:05 < jberkus> and for the record, LedgerSMB and OpenOffice.org are both pending us getting stuff togehter
19:06 < bdale_gprs> jberkus: understood and agreed
19:06 < jberkus> now, Treasurer's report
19:06 < jberkus> I did a fairly extensive writeup online:
19:07 < jberkus> http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/treasurer-s-report-11-2006.html
19:07 < jberkus> no need to rehash it here
19:07 < jberkus> the one thing that didn't make my report is that based on feedback we may want to revisit the 5% rule
19:07 < jberkus> as our way of allocating SPI funds
19:07 -!- sladen [paul@starsky.19inch.net] has joined #spi
19:07 < jberkus> for some kind of modified rule
19:08 < jberkus> we will discuss this on e-mail
19:08 < jberkus> LedgerSMB should be ready to data entry next week
19:08 < jberkus> volunteers appreciated
19:08 < bdale_gprs> good.  thanks, by the way, both for your continued work to get our books up to date, and for the discussion of the last day or two regarding the 5% rule
19:08 < jberkus> done
19:08  * cdlu echos bdale
19:08 < Overfiend> I have a question
19:08 < iwj> jberkus: Well, we could so some kind of per-transaction fee but that starts to make small donations unattractive.  But yes, email is good.
19:08 < bdale_gprs> Overfiend: ask
19:09 < Overfiend> sure...did we mail our 990 in to the IRS via a trackable method?
19:09 < aj> jberkus: q: what sort of volunteering for ledgersmb data entry is possible
19:09 < iwj> jberkus: What bdale said: thanks a lot.  You've been doing great work.
19:09 < bdale_gprs> iwj: I like the percentage with cap idea, personally, but more discussion than we want to have here today will be required to get it right
19:09 < jberkus> Overfiend: return reciept
19:09 < iwj> bdale_gprs: Right.
19:09 < Overfiend> jberkus: okay...so we know they've actually got it?
19:09 < jberkus> not until I get the receipt, but then we will
19:09 < Overfiend> okay
19:09 < bdale_gprs> ok, thanks Josh
19:09 < bdale_gprs> [item 5, Outstanding Minutes]
19:09 < bdale_gprs> Neil, what do you have for us today?
19:10 < Overfiend> jberkus: well, once you do, congratulations on your alchemical victory, going where no SPI Treasurer has gone before
19:10 < Overfiend> jberkus: :)
19:10 < jberkus> note that we've had no repsonse on our change-of-address
19:10 < jberkus> so that might be an issue
19:10 < Maulkin> I have one set of minutes for approval this month, October 17th, 2006; they're available at
19:10 < Maulkin> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/corporate/meeting-minutes/2006/board-meeting-october-17th-2006.html
19:10 < Maulkin>  
19:10 < Overfiend> jberkus: yeah, neither Mike nor I have seen anything yet
19:10 -!- Colin [~colin@81.111.45.55] has joined #spi
19:10 < schultmc> i sent it certified and verified they received it
19:10 < bdale_gprs> any discussion before we vote on the minutes?
19:10 < Maulkin> If there's no comments,
19:10  * Maulkin moves to vote
19:10 < Ganneff> ajs question was missed
19:11  * cdlu seconds motion to vote
19:11 < Maulkin> Ganneff: ?
19:11 < aj> jberkus: q: what sort of volunteering for ledgersmb data entry is possible
19:11 < Ganneff> 20:09:10 <aj> jberkus: q: what sort of volunteering for ledgersmb data entry is possible
19:11 < jberkus> aj: data entry of donations and expenses for the year
19:12 < aj> jberkus: physical records -> ledgersmb, or trasncription from pdf/spreadsheet, or?
19:12 < Ganneff> who can volunteer? anyone? or just contribuing members?
19:12 < jberkus> I'd like to confine it to the board for accountability reasons
19:12 < jberkus> this is our accounting system
19:12 < Ganneff> k
19:12 < jberkus> well, and sysadmins
19:12 < bdale_gprs> jberkus: need for geographic location?
19:12 < jberkus> nope, it's web
19:12 < jberkus> let's take this to board@ or chat after the meeting
19:12 < aj> tnx
19:13 < Maulkin> Can this be done on-list? :)
19:13 < bdale_gprs> ok, cool.  any volunteers, please contact Josh directly outside this meeting 
19:13 < bdale_gprs> Maulkin: I think we're ready to vote on minutes
19:13 < Maulkin> Voting started, 6 people (ijw,bdale_gprs,jberkus,cdlu,overfiend,schultmc) allowed to vote on Accept minutes from October 17th, 2006. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
19:13 < cdlu> !vote yes
19:13 < schultmc> !vote yes
19:13 < Overfiend> !vote abstain (I was not present)
19:13 < Maulkin> !vote yes
19:13 < bdale_gprs> !vote yes
19:13 < jberkus> !vote yes
19:13 < iwj> !vote yes
19:13 < Maulkin> iwj ?
19:13 < Maulkin> Current voting results for "Accept minutes from October 17th, 2006": Yes: 4, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 2 ( ijw  overfiend )
19:13 < Maulkin> Voting for "Accept minutes from October 17th, 2006" closed.
19:13 < Overfiend> bah
19:14 < Maulkin> Well, that failed
19:14 < aj> Maulkin: you can't vote?
19:14 < Overfiend> nice regex!
19:14 < iwj> I've turned into ijw!
19:14 < Maulkin> I'll redo that :)
19:14 < Overfiend> !vote abstain
19:14 < iwj> They did that too me at the Ubuntu allhands meeting too.
19:14 < iwj> I had to edit my badge.
19:14 < Maulkin> Vote passes with yes: 6, abstain: 1
19:14 < Overfiend> iwj: maybe they're biased against gender-neutral pronouns
19:14 < Joey> !vote yes
19:14 < Maulkin> And a Joey :)
19:14 < cdlu> <Joey> Martin Schulze :)
19:14 < Joey> *grr*
19:15 < bdale_gprs> Maulkin: so, it appears to me that the vote passed even if the script failed?
19:15 < Joey> Sorry folks, DSL went down right when I wanted to vote, just before I hit [enter]
19:15 < Maulkin> bdale_gprs: yes, sorry :)
19:15 < iwj> bdale_gprs: Right.
19:15 < Overfiend> Joey: the bot didn't know you were present, so your vote wouldn't have been recognized anyway
19:15 < Overfiend> Joey: see "Voting started" above
19:16 < schultmc> the script didn't include Maulkin either
19:16 < Maulkin> Vote passes with yes: 7, abstain: 1
19:16 < Overfiend> hmmm, point
19:16 < Maulkin> Cause I forgot to type my name
19:16 < cdlu> Maulkin, careful, we're dangerously close to losing our meeting to a vote on minutes. :)
19:16 < Overfiend> So that's a feature, not a bug.
19:17 < Overfiend> The bot is programmed to coax Joey out of his Patrick McGoohan impression.
19:17 < Maulkin> It passed, I'm done on this section :P
19:17 < iwj> bdale_gprs: Please gavel people on to the next item.
19:18 < cdlu> schultmc, please take over... this is silly.
19:18 < Overfiend> schultmc: Our gallant young President has been struck down in his prime.  Can you fill in?
19:18 < bdale_gprs> ok, let's move along then
19:18 < bdale_gprs> [item 6, Items up for Discussion]
19:18 < bdale_gprs> [item 6.1, Further on Debian trademark in Spain (Resolution 2006-04-03.jfsp.1)] Action on this remains pending input from Greg.  Anyone else have anything to add on this item today?
19:18 < bdale_gprs> Overfiend: ?
19:18 < bdale_gprs> anyone have anything to add on 6.1, or do I move along?
19:19 < Overfiend> bdale_gprs: you got eaten by lag...sorry
19:19 < cdlu> has anyone spoken to Greg?
19:19 -!- mc [many@mc.netop.oftc.net] has joined #spi
19:19 < Overfiend> cdlu: see Bdale's President's Report
19:19 < jberkus> bdale_gprs: what's the holdup on this?  it's embarassing
19:19 < Overfiend> above
19:19  * bdale_gprs moves his phone and gets more bars.  better?
19:19 < bdale_gprs> cdlu: I've spoken to him, no advice on the spain issue yet
19:19 < jberkus> Debian has money, maybe we should just pay an attorney
19:19 < iwj> bdale_gprs: Does he now know about this spain thing ?
19:19 < cdlu> ok
19:19 < iwj> As in, have you mentioned it ?
19:19 < iwj> Does he know we've been trying to get an answer for months ?
19:20 < bdale_gprs> iwj: it was part of a list of questions pending his input I reminded him of by email over the weekend
19:20 < iwj> bdale_gprs: Did you speak to him on the phone at all ?
19:20 < iwj> Give us some feedback here ...
19:20 < bdale_gprs> iwj: he replied with an invite for a phone call to catch up last night that I didn't see until today
19:20 < iwj> Ah.
19:20 < iwj> Err, did you do anything about this last weekend ?
19:20 < iwj> I mean, before last weekend.
19:21 < bdale_gprs> my bad for being last-minute-ish catching up with him before the meeting, but I'm not yet sure why he hasn't responded to the initial query back in April, since he should have had it and several pings since
19:21 < Overfiend> April(!)
19:21 < iwj> Yes, it's mystifying.
19:21 < bdale_gprs> Overfiend: note the resolution date
19:21 < iwj> Maybe we should have a rota.
19:21 < jberkus> um, I think that we need to look at getting a paid attorney
19:21 < iwj> For pinging him.
19:21 < jberkus> or paying Greg
19:21 < iwj> Possibly.
19:22 < iwj> This kind of thing eats money quite quickly though.
19:22 < Overfiend> or pre-authorize Greg to call some or all Board members at any time
19:22 < Joey> before paying "any" attorny we should consider paying Greg.
19:22 < jberkus> because it seems that Greg does not have enough pro-bono time to take care of all of our advice issues
19:22 < bdale_gprs> I got enthusiastic when he engaged on one of our lists recently, then he went quiet again which is why I sent him the ping this weekend hoping for some answers before today
19:22 < jberkus> Joey: sure, unless we need a specialist
19:22 < Joey> ack
19:23  * Overfiend seconds Joey.  Greg does have the virtue of being intimately familiar with Debian and Free Software issues, which is still a real minority characteristic among practicing attorneys.
19:23 < iwj> So what are we going to do right now ?
19:23 < bdale_gprs> I think we need to figure out how much of this is that he's not plugged in to our communication streams and/or pending request list vs how much he does or doesn't have time
19:23 < aj> (i'd apprecaite advice from SPI board and/or US folks on having Debian pay an attorney and/or how much are appropriate fees etc)
19:23 < iwj> Bdale is going to return Greg's call and also ask whether having Greg do some non-pro-bono work would help ?
19:23 < linuxpoet> Might I suggest that we pay Greg a retainer not to exceed $n dollars
19:24 < Overfiend> Bdale proposed following up again this week, with an email to the Board, see Bdale's President's Report above.
19:24 < linuxpoet> Specifically for the purpose of pursuing whatever it is you guys want
19:24 < jberkus> aj: we'll find that out
19:24 < Overfiend> did people flood-ignore Bdale's report?
19:24 < aj> jberkus: thanks
19:24 < bdale_gprs> yes, I repled to Greg's invite already today apologizing for not seeing it until this morning and asking when I should call him today/tomorrow
19:24 < jberkus> Josh notes that if Greg is unavailable even for $$ PostgreSQL has a trademark attorney who discounts
19:24 < bdale_gprs> Overfiend: perhaps.  it wasn't very exciting, after all...  ;-)
19:24 < bdale_gprs> jberkus: noted, thanks
19:25 < iwj> OK.  If we don't hear from Bdale by the weekend I will make a note in my diary to chase it personally.
19:25 < Overfiend> bdale_gprs: yeah, except it answered questions people have been frantically asking about *since* then... :-/
19:25 < bdale_gprs> ok.  I don't like leaving this unresolved yet again, but I don't see anything else we can do on this item today.
19:25 < jberkus> iwj: note that it's a major holiday in the US
19:25 < Joey> jberkus: Good to know.
19:25 < iwj> When should I time out ?
19:25 < bdale_gprs> jberkus: true, that's why I'm on a mountaintop in West Virginia connected by laggy GPRS...  ;-)
19:25 < jberkus> iwj: Tuesday?
19:26 < bdale_gprs> iwj: Wed a week from tomorrow
19:26 < iwj> Right.
19:26 < iwj> Noted for the 29th.
19:26 < Overfiend> 29 November, 1700 UTC?
19:26 < bdale_gprs> ok, let's move along
19:26  * Maulkin nods
19:26 < bdale_gprs> [item 6.2, Resolution 2006-11-21.jmb.1 - Removal of OpenVAS as an associated project]
19:26 < bdale_gprs> Josh, you have the floor.
19:27 < jberkus> Sure, openvas.org is down and shows no signs of going back up
19:27  * Overfiend seconds.
19:27 < jberkus> we can't contact the liason
19:27  * Maulkin notes that his messages to Tim haven't had a reply
19:27 < jberkus> question: some board members were going to try ...
19:27 < cdlu> based on that information I am prepared to approve this resolution
19:27 < jberkus> ah, that was the question
19:27 < Maulkin> :)
19:27 < bdale_gprs> anyone from OpenVAS happen to be here today?
19:27 < schultmc> Maulkin is from OpenVAS iirc
19:27 < Maulkin> Tentitively, me
19:27 < Overfiend> heh
19:27 < iwj> Right.
19:28 < Maulkin> But I'm not a liason
19:28 < Maulkin> I have root on the box where it's hosted, but that's down
19:28 < bdale_gprs> ok, any further discussion before we vote?
19:28 < cdlu> Maulkin, simple question: is OpenVAS dead? :)
19:28  * Overfiend moves to clean Maulkin's OpenVAS ears out with a cotton swab
19:28 < Joey> ... but you could let us know if the project still exists or not, no?
19:28 < jberkus> we had a last-minute suggestion that we amend the resolution with a line explaining what we'll do if we receive money for them
19:28 < iwj> Note that Josh has an edit to that resolution:  `4. Further donations received for OpenVAS, if any, will be held and not deposited until the donor can be contacted for disposition'
19:28 < iwj> Which I'm sure is uncontroversial.
19:28 < jberkus> yes, that
19:28 < Overfiend> Joey: volunteer projects seldom go formally defunct; they just kinda wither
19:28 < Maulkin> AFAICT, there's been no activity at all recently
19:28 < iwj> So are we ready to vote on the amended version ?
19:28 < bdale_gprs> I am
19:28  * schultmc is
19:29 < Joey> Overfiend: Ack, it's a process, but members should notice
19:29 < jberkus> yes
19:29 < Maulkin> hang on...
19:29 < Overfiend> Joey: the exceptions are flameouts due to volatile personalities and/or deliberate implosion designed to try to screw someone else over
19:29 < Overfiend> Joey: agreed
19:29 < Maulkin> Right, ready
19:29 < Maulkin> Proposal and second? :)
19:29  * cdlu proposes
19:29  * schultmc seconds
19:29  * Overfiend re-seconds
19:29 < cdlu> (with amendment)
19:29 < Maulkin> Voting started, 8 people (iwj,bdale_gprs,jberkus,cdlu,overfiend,schultmc,joey,maulkin) allowed to vote on Resolution 2006-11-21.jmb.2 - Removal of OpenVAS as an associated project (amended). - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
19:29 < Overfiend> er
19:29 < Overfiend> wait
19:29 < iwj> !vote yes
19:29 < Maulkin> Ok...
19:29 < cdlu> overfiend, ?
19:29 < Overfiend> sorry, I missed the last part
19:30 < jberkus> !vote yes
19:30 < schultmc> !vote yes
19:30 < Maulkin> !vote yes
19:30  * cdlu holds his vote until Overfiend expands his 'wait'
19:30 < Overfiend> I object to the progress of the vote
19:30 < bdale_gprs> Overfiend: ?
19:30 < Overfiend> I withdraw my re-second
19:30 < Joey> Err...
19:30 < Overfiend> "held and not deposited"
19:30  * Joey objects as well.
19:30 < Overfiend> I've taken enough heat for holding checks too long
19:30 < Joey> I'd like to year Maulkin's opinion on it first.
19:30 < Overfiend> I do *NOT* want to start doing it on purpose
19:30 < iwj> Overfiend: It's fail safe in this case.
19:30 -!- nemith [~bennetb@nemith.netop.oftc.net] has joined #spi
19:30 < Overfiend> besides, it leaves the donors in the lurch, not the member project
19:30 < linuxpoet> Checks are only good for a certain period of time.
19:30 < Joey> Overfiend: Don't try to turn into me, it doesn't work.
19:30 < jberkus> Overfiend: um, if we get a check for OpenVAS, and OpenVAS is not an AP, we *can't* deposit it
19:31 < sladen> "held and not distributed" perhaps?
19:31 < linuxpoet> I suggest returning all checks
19:31 < cdlu> overfiend, if we approve it without the amendment, then the default reaction should be to decline the donations for a project we don't support correct?
19:31 < cdlu> so can we safely vote for the original version?
19:31 < Overfiend> cdlu: yes
19:31 < bdale_gprs> good point
19:31 < Maulkin> Joey: Well, I'm of the opinion it's dead. We can reverse it if OpenVAS gets a second lease of life.
19:31 < Overfiend> just send the checks back
19:31 < Joey> Ok.
19:31 < Joey> then I'm in favour
19:31 < Joey> !vote yes
19:31 < bdale_gprs> how do we deal with electronic donations?
19:31 < Overfiend> it's *probably* a void point given the total lack of recent donations
19:31 < aj> linuxpoet, overfiend: ack
19:31 < jberkus> we have to do the new amendment and re-vote
19:31 < iwj> Sometimes donations will come automatically.
19:31 < Overfiend> bdale_gprs: harder to cope with -- cross that bridge if it ever shows up?
19:31 < cdlu> overfiend, do you remove your objections to the vote, or should we restart? :)
19:31 < iwj> Eg, NFG.
19:32 < Overfiend> cdlu: since we're back in discussion, yes
19:32 < Overfiend> I made my protest, we can return to procedure
19:32 < Maulkin> Current voting results for "Resolution 2006-11-21.jmb.2 - Removal of OpenVAS as an associated project (amended)": Yes: 5, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 3 ( cdlu  overfiend  bdale_gprs )
19:32 < Maulkin> Voting for "Resolution 2006-11-21.jmb.2 - Removal of OpenVAS as an associated project (amended)" closed.
19:32 < bdale_gprs> I think we understand the desired spirit, but I'd like to see text before I vote
19:32 < cdlu> !vote yes
19:32 < Overfiend> eh?
19:32 < Maulkin> R[cancelled]
19:32 < cdlu> heh
19:32 < jberkus> Amendment: 4. Further donations received for OpenVAS, if any, will be returned or refunded to the donor.
19:32 < Overfiend> cdlu: now you're just *trying* to confuse me :)
19:32 < cdlu> Overfiend, you answered Yes to an either/or question. :)
19:32 < bdale_gprs> jberkus: ok, that works
19:32  * Overfiend seconds jberkus's new amendment.
19:32 < jberkus> the "refunded" covers NfG
19:33 < iwj> jberkus: We'll lose some processing costs, then, won't we ?
19:33  * cdlu moves to vote on jberkus' amendment
19:33 < cdlu> iwj, low risk
19:33  * schultmc seconds
19:33 < Overfiend> jberkus: we won't have their addresses so it'll still be tricky -- but like I said, cross that bridge...
19:33 < jberkus> iwj: we're not going to receive any, so I'm not going to worry about it
19:33 < iwj> OK
19:33 < Maulkin> Can we vote yet?
19:33 < cdlu> Maulkin, move/second for vote on amendment to resolution
19:33 < iwj> But we'll use this as a template.
19:33 < bdale_gprs> let's vote
19:33 < jberkus> yes
19:33 < cdlu> which should make it clearer
19:33  * Overfiend is cool with proceeding to a vote
19:33 < iwj> I suppose we can improve it next time.
19:33 < Maulkin> Voting started, 8 people (iwj,bdale_gprs,jberkus,cdlu,overfiend,schultmc,joey,maulkin) allowed to vote on Resolution 2006-11-21.jmb.3 - Removal of OpenVAS as an associated project (amended,amended). - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
19:33 < schultmc> !vote yes
19:33 < iwj> !vote abstain
19:33 < bdale_gprs> !vote yes
19:33 < jberkus> !vote yes
19:33 < Maulkin> !vote yes
19:33 < Overfiend> !vote yes
19:33 < cdlu> !vote yes
19:33 < Maulkin> Joey: ?
19:34 < iwj> NB that this means unfortunately the minutes will have to show us doing a weird thing where we pass one and then pass an amended version.
19:34 < iwj> (Otherwise my vote doesn't make sense.)
19:34 < Overfiend> no, I objected to the first as being out of order, or something
19:34 < cdlu> yes, a point of order in all but name :)
19:34 < Overfiend> I was asked to vote for the USA PATRIOT act without having time to read it first.
19:34 < Overfiend> Or something.
19:34 < bdale_gprs> Overfiend: I think iwj doesn't want his abstain to go un-explained
19:34 < cdlu> I move that all board members be sent a copy of Robert's Rules and be forced to learn thim.
19:34 < cdlu> them
19:34 < Overfiend> bdale_gprs: ah, okay.
19:35  * Overfiend redacts.  <Overfiend> Point of order, I didn't know what I was doing when I seconded that.
19:35 < bdale_gprs> cdlu: please don't.
19:35 < iwj> Overfiend: It wasn't out of order.  You just happened to notice something which was raised and then discussed.
19:35 < linuxpoet> *cough*
19:35 < Maulkin> Current voting results for "Resolution 2006-11-21.jmb.3 - Removal of OpenVAS as an associated project (amended,amended)": Yes: 6, No: 0, Abstain: 1, Missing: 1 ( joey )
19:35 < Maulkin> Voting for "Resolution 2006-11-21.jmb.3 - Removal of OpenVAS as an associated project (amended,amended)" closed.
19:35 < Maulkin> (bored of waiting)
19:35 < jberkus> can we finish the vote?   Joey?
19:35 < bdale_gprs> ok, thanks
19:35 < bdale_gprs> let's move along
19:36 < bdale_gprs> [item 6.3, Resolution 2006-11-18.dbg.mjs.1 - Open Source Initiative domain]
19:36 < bdale_gprs> David, you have the floor.
19:36 < cdlu> ok, item 6.3 - resolution 2006-11-18.dbg.mjs.1, as amended by Michael Schultheiss
19:36 < cdlu> Rationale: Former SPI project, the Open Source Initiative has requested that its domains (opensource.org and opensource.net) be turned over to their own 501c3.
19:36 < cdlu> In the past there has been some discussion of this being an unfavourable thing to do due to OSI's governance structure.
19:36 < cdlu> I put it to the board that the governance structures of other 501(c)3 non-profits is none of our business and that we have a responsibility to turn these domains over to OSI at the earliest opportunity. I am not willing to postpone this vote as I believe it is an issue that should be settled for once and for all.
19:36 < cdlu> </cdlu>
19:36 < iwj> Can I suggest that as this is contentious we should finish the discussion on email which is hot at the moment ?
19:36 < schultmc> amended by me and Joey Schulze
19:36 < cdlu> schultmc, either way... as amended. :)
19:36 < jberkus> I also move for postponement.  Joey has raised a prior board resolution which I have not had time to read
19:36 < Overfiend> iwj: that's kinda contrary to the final sentence of the proposed resolution, no?
19:36 < iwj> It would also help make sure that the maximum number of board members turn up.
19:37 < cdlu> iwj, 8 of 9 are here
19:37 < xzilla> OSI owns the trademark for open source doesnt it ?
19:37 < jberkus> at the least, we'll have to mention the prior resolution in this one
19:37 < bdale_gprs> iwj: your concern is noted, but my last check of email an hour or so ago didn't suggest to me that there was hot discussion?
19:37 < Maulkin> xzilla: no
19:37 < cdlu> xzilla, no, there is no such trademark - it expired and is public domain.
19:37 < jberkus> xzilla: there is no trademark
19:37 < Overfiend> xzilla: no
19:37 < aj> xzilla: OSI considers it untrademarkable
19:37 < iwj> aj: So do we.
19:37 < jberkus> bdale: I got mail at little as an hour ago
19:37 < bdale_gprs> jberkus: ok, then I'm not current.
19:38 < bdale_gprs> jberkus: can you summarize?  
19:38 < iwj> This item was put on the agenda on Friday at 0823Z.
19:38 < Overfiend> xzilla: the TM process was started while OSI Board Members were still at SPI, IIRC, then 3/4ths of the SPI Board quit and founded OSI, but didn't properly transfer "ownership" of the pending registration to OSI, and Bruce Perens's action to do so might not have been completely...kosher.
19:38 < cdlu> is anyone not clear on the issues?
19:38 < iwj> Err, wrong message, sorry.
19:38 < jberkus> bdale_gprs: basically that there may be history and/or prior resolutions which the new board members are not aware of
19:38 < Overfiend> xzilla: the issue was then not pursued by either OSI or SPI with the USPTO, so the USPTO canned the application
19:39 < iwj> Even later: 1532Z on Saturday.
19:39  * schultmc is aware of the history and prior resolutions
19:39 < iwj> With 25 messages I think that's controversial.
19:39 < iwj> We should give the discussion time to die out.
19:39 < Overfiend> xzilla: that's my understanding, but iwj is the only person here who was on the SPI Board at the time, and the only one with continuity back that far
19:39 < iwj> That way we can avoid having to have the substantive conversation here.
19:39 < xzilla> Overfiend: ah...ok. OSI still claims the trademark though... 
19:39 < iwj> Which would be heated and a waste of everyone's time.
19:39 < cdlu> is there any seconded motion on the floor?
19:40 < Overfiend> xzilla: AIUI, that is a meaningless statement, and I say that in a strictly literal sense.
19:40 < cdlu> if not, I move to vote on the resolution.
19:40 < iwj> I move to postpone.
19:40 < cdlu> people have their choice of seconds.
19:40 < jberkus> I second the postponement
19:40 < iwj> And vote next meeting.
19:40 < Overfiend> xzilla: a dead mark cannot be owned under U.S. trademark law
19:40 < aj> xzilla: OSI have an "OSI" trademark, not "open source (tm)"
19:40 < iwj> I move that we vote on the postponement.
19:40 < cdlu> maulkin, vote on postponement?
19:40  * cdlu will not give his consent
19:40 < Maulkin> hang on a sec
19:40 < bdale_gprs> given the dicussion, I believe we should postpone a vote
19:40 < Joey> I also move that we postpone this 
19:40 < iwj> cdlu: That sounds like a second.
19:40 < xzilla> Overfiend: understood... but if they dont own the trademark, then they have no legal right to the domain, meaning we could just reditect it to spi and tell them to go register osi.com 
19:40 < iwj> xzilla: Order!
19:40 < Overfiend> xzilla: er, but aj does have a point, but the "OSI" mark has never been in dispute between SPI and OSI, Inc., nor do we own any domains relevant to the mark "OSI"
19:41 < iwj> Mr Chairman, please call the vote.
19:41 < iwj> Overfiend: Order!
19:41 < Maulkin> Voting started, 8 people (iwj,bdale_gprs,jberkus,cdlu,overfiend,schultmc,joey,maulkin) allowed to vote on Postpone Resolution 2006-11-18.dbg.mjs.1 until next Board Meeting. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
19:41 < iwj> !vote yes
19:41 < Overfiend> sorry
19:41 < jberkus> !vote yes
19:41 < bdale_gprs> my concern, though, is that if we postpone a vote, are we going to carry the discussion through to conclusion in time to vote next time, or are we going to defer forever?
19:41 < cdlu> !vote no
19:41 < Maulkin> !vote no
19:41 < schultmc> !vote no
19:41 < jberkus> the postponement is until next month
19:41 < Overfiend> bdale_gprs: the latter's been working for the 4 years I've been with the SPI Board...
19:41 < bdale_gprs> Overfiend: define 'working'?
19:41 < Overfiend> for some values of "working" :)
19:41 < iwj> bdale_gprs: Yes, we will vote next time and we'll have had the email discussion died down by then
19:42 < Overfiend> !vote yes
19:42 < iwj> Joey ... ?
19:42 < jberkus> I really don't understand the rush
19:42  * Overfiend isn't all caught up on the mail
19:42 < bdale_gprs> ok, so the current vote is a vote to postpone the vote on this resolution until the Dec 2006 meeting?
19:42 < iwj> bdale_gprs: Right.
19:42  * Maulkin tries to cound votes
19:42 < Overfiend> jberkus: some SPI folks feel the issue is an albratross.
19:42 < bdale_gprs> !vote yes
19:42 < jberkus> Joey: vote!
19:42 < Maulkin> Current voting results for "Postpone Resolution 2006-11-18.dbg.mjs.1 until next Board Meeting": Yes: 4, No: 3, Abstain: 0, Missing: 1 ( joey )
19:42 < Overfiend> hah, if Joey votes no then this will fail due to a tie Board vote for the second time in a row
19:42 < Joey> !vote yes
19:42 < Maulkin> Current voting results for "Postpone Resolution 2006-11-18.dbg.mjs.1 until next Board Meeting": Yes: 5, No: 3, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 ()
19:42 < Maulkin> Voting for "Postpone Resolution 2006-11-18.dbg.mjs.1 until next Board Meeting" closed.
19:43 < iwj> Great.
19:43  * cdlu rolls eyes
19:43 < bdale_gprs> ok.
19:43 < jberkus> let's automatically calendar that for next meeting
19:43 < iwj> Hopefully we can do the vote in 3 minutes next month.
19:43 < Maulkin> Resolution 2006-11-18.dbg.mjs.1 postponed until next Board meeting
19:43 < Overfiend> the last time this got jammed up, Bruce didn't show up to advocate his own issue
19:43 < cdlu> iwj, sure, once you realise that we're not in a position to tell other organisations what they can and can not do.
19:43 < jberkus> Overfiend: yes, but that's no longer relevant
19:43 < iwj> cdlu: Order!
19:43 < jberkus> hey, I thought we moved this to e-mail?
19:43 < bdale_gprs> let me be very clear about this.  I'd like to close this issue one way or another, once and for all.  I will not tolerate another postponement, so please, everyone on the board continue to discuss and be ready to vote on the resolution a month hence.
19:43 < Overfiend> iwj: er, shouldn't the meeting chair be doing that?
19:44 < iwj> (or: You mean once you realise that a bunch of <insult insult> can't <insult> <insult>)
19:44 < iwj> Overfiend: But he's not.
19:44 < bdale_gprs> [item 6.4, Outstanding items requesting comment from the DPL]
19:44 < bdale_gprs> aj, I believe item 1 may now be moot given the Sun announcement regarding GPL Java?
19:44 < bdale_gprs> Items 2 and 3 are on the list I've asked Greg to comment on.
19:44 < bdale_gprs> Items 4 and 5 were for the treasurer.
19:44 < bdale_gprs> I don't believe any further discussion is required here today?
19:44 < aj> iwj: so ask him to
19:44 < Overfiend> iwj: take 2 cards for raising a point of order during a point of order :-P
19:44 < Maulkin> heh
19:44 < jberkus> items 4 and 5 depend on the data entry now
19:44 < bdale_gprs> aj: any comment on the GPL Java vs item 1?
19:44 < aj> bdale_gprs: i don't believe so; the stuff covered by the DLJ isn't GPLed yet, and i don't think will be in time for etch
19:45 < bdale_gprs> aj: ok, I'll add it back to my list of stuff to talk to Greg about, then
19:45 < Overfiend> Sun hasn't actually done *any* code dumping yet, have they?
19:45 < jberkus> no
19:45 < Overfiend> it's still vapor-licensed?
19:45 < aj> bdale_gprs: either way, we need an answer on that ASAP
19:45 < jberkus> there's an enormous process 
19:45 < bdale_gprs> ok, I haven't been following the details, since Java isn't really my thing
19:45 < Maulkin> aj: I assume even if it's "We don't know"
19:45 < iwj> Can we take that offline ?
19:45 < aj> there's some code out there already
19:45 < aj> Maulkin: yes
19:46 < bdale_gprs> so 1,2,3 are on my list for Greg, 4,5 pending data entry and jberkus process.  done for today.
19:46  * Maulkin nods
19:46 < bdale_gprs> [item 7, Next board meeting]
19:46 < bdale_gprs> Neil, I presume this will be here on Tuesday, December 19th, 2006 at 19:00 UTC?
19:46 < Overfiend> "this"?
19:46 < Maulkin> Tuesday, December 19th, 2006 19:00 UTC #spi 
19:46 < Overfiend>    December 2006    
19:46 < Overfiend> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
19:46 < Overfiend>                 1  2
19:46 < Overfiend>  3  4  5  6  7  8  9
19:46 < Overfiend> 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
19:46 < Overfiend> 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
19:46 < Overfiend> 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
19:46 < Maulkin> Unless everyone gets notified differently
19:46 < Overfiend> 31
19:46 < Overfiend> if this inteferes with someone's holidays, please say so now
19:46 < bdale_gprs> it shouldn't
19:46 < cdlu> 19th is fine.
19:47 < jberkus> I'll be on holiday, but I can dial in
19:47 < bdale_gprs> Ok, thank you to everyone present for participating today.  Until next time!
19:47 < bdale_gprs> *GAVEL*