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 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> 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. 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> 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 can't ) 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*