00:11 * cdlu pounds the GAVEL 00:14 Overfiend: and its *not* DUS thats an MJR thing 00:15 kyllikki: What office...nm 00:23 Overfiend: im da secatary 00:23 * Overfiend snaps to attention. 00:24 Board members, please state your names for the records. 00:25 Ah, hello. Somehow I got the wrong channel just a moment ago. 00:29 Guests, please /msg me your names for the records. 00:37 Jimmy Kaplowitz 00:39 Branden Robinson 00:44 David Graham 00:44 Ian Jackson 00:47 Benjamin Mako Hill 00:52 Bdale Garbee 00:54 mako! Woohoo! 00:55 mako, ah-ha! you're #2. :) 01:03 * cdlu wipes sweat from his brow 01:09 should mako take over running the meeting? 01:18 probably 01:22 mako, you able to? 01:24 well, not if he's not prepared. 01:35 true 01:36 Josh Berkus, but I'm just an observer 01:44 jberkus, observers /msg me. :) 01:44 But he should say he's ceding the duty of presiding over this meeting to cdlu. 01:48 i'm not prepared yet but if you give me a minute i can get organized 01:52 i wasn't expecting to chair 01:54 I treat the /msg log separately 01:55 So that the record doesn't reflect a vicious coup on the part of the Secretary. ;-) 02:16 http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2005-12-13.html 02:21 mako, that's the agenda for today. 02:34 right 02:54 ok.. let me also pull my mailbox 03:21 Bruce seems to have gone idle...are we quorate without him? 03:31 anyway, we are quorate. 03:31 yes 03:35 Okay, cool. 03:57 we have hydroxide, overfiend, cdlu, ianjackson, mako, and bdale. Joey hasn't said his name but is here, and Bruce is idle, but has logged in on time for the meeting. 03:59 do we have a presidents report? 04:03 mako, nope, 04:08 nor minutes. :( 04:11 mako, but there's a treasurer's report 04:16 right, 04:42 Hydroxide: we hae a treasurers report? 05:01 mako: 05:03 mako: yes 05:09 mako: sent just 5 mins before the meeting 05:13 it's attached to the agenda 05:17 I'm here. Bruce Perens 05:18 Message-ID: <20051213185437.GK24610@mail.kaplowitz.org> 05:23 mako: sorry for the short notice. the SPI mail servers are working well now so you should have it :) and yes, it's in the agenda 05:23 great 05:26 cdlu: thanks my mail hasn't synced yet i guess 05:48 * mako takes a minute to look it over 06:08 the report looks ok to me, except that I remain concerned that we still haven't resolved the "eermark to be determined" amounts 06:18 bdale: Did you get my reply to your email? 06:24 let me find the message ID 06:34 way behind on email, probably in my inbox 06:37 bdale: we are going to tackle that with MBS (the bookkeeping people). We just got our first set of reports from them quite recently. 06:58 yes, I saw the MBS reports, and they looked reasonable to me 06:58 bdale, we only have $52,000 not yet determined :) 07:08 are there any comments on the treasurers report? 07:14 looks good to me 07:16 mako, none here, I move to accept it 07:24 * bdale whacks cdlu with a stinky trout 07:24 bdale: Okay. You *do* have a response. Basically, once we've figured out MBS's current reports, we'll be offloading the historical stuff on them as well. 07:43 bdale: their reports have some weird details in them, but Branden and I will communicate with them to resolve the confusion 07:46 If we needed more than $52,000 and were able to demonstrate reasonable competence in managing money, we'd have more. We're getting there. 07:47 bdale: Jimmy and I have questions about MBS's reports, as I'm sure we'll cover ... 08:01 /win 27 08:01 ok, that should work. I'll keep nagging ritually until it's done. 08:01 BrucePerens: We *do* have more. 08:29 My point is that we're not actively raising funds. 08:40 which isn't particularly relevant 08:50 * IanJackson tries to find the treas. report. Ah, here it is. 08:51 Bruce, we don't need to. We're still taking in more than we're putting out. 08:59 On the bright side, MBS thinks we have more money than Jimmy and I do, though we also think MBS is wrong :) 09:13 Overfiend, they're counting it before their bill, we're counting it after? 09:15 unless money doubles in value simply by virtue of being placed in an investment account 09:45 cdlu: no, they have our total liabilities and equity at over $94k 09:47 BrucePerens: note that, we haven't been unsure of the earmark of newly received money for quite a while now. the problem isn't growing or applying to new funds. 09:54 Overfiend, interesting. 09:58 cdlu: which is about $24k more than Jimmy's figures. 10:07 correct, it's dealing with the ancient history that hasn't happened that I'm harping about 10:09 right, do they say where they found the extra money? 10:25 cdlu: somehow the AmEx money market account funds count twice. 10:32 ah, that'd do it. 10:39 cdlu: they also say that we have an AmEx Centurion Bank account as of December 1, 2005 10:44 bdale: My opinion is that we should prove we can keep records accurately before we go to Debian and say `please will you decree the earmark status of these funds'. 10:47 cdlu: it's odd, and Jimmy and I will either get MBS to fix the error, or have Frank Boardman apply clues to us. 10:52 which is qualitatively not true 10:53 (Because it's basically Debian we have to agree with.) 11:10 fil: Good to see you! 11:14 hi 11:15 Hydroxide: OK. I am considering that once we are on a more stable financial footing - soon - we might do some more active promotion of Free Software. So, I think we should settle earmark issues sooner rather than later. 11:15 IanJackson: which we have been doing for quite a large number of months now 11:18 Hydroxide, or it's an unqualified error. In many senses. :) 11:40 Anyway, I moved to approve the treasurer's report, never saw a second. I trust the issues will be resolved in due course through MBS. 11:46 BrucePerens: that's a separate issue. but, yes, we should resolve these issues through moving forward at a sufficient pace with MBS 11:48 IanJackson: sure, no disagreement. on the other hand, the last time I suggested we just do a 95/5 split, I was assured we had the data to do a more accurate job than that, and that's why we haven't made any progress yet. I'm happy for us to "do it right", as long is it gets done. 12:01 Does anyone think it would be a bad idea for me to forward Frank's PDFs to spi-private? 12:01 hy: Right. I think the right point would be after we have some accounts from MBS. 12:05 It might be nice if the membership could look over this stuff. 12:07 ov: Seems like a good idea to me. 12:16 * Overfiend waits for an objection. 12:19 * Hydroxide seconds cdlu's motion to approve the Treasurer's report 12:25 alright 12:28 lets vote 12:32 !vote start 12:34 Once we have finalised accounts from MBS we will have a clear idea of what our earmark question is. 12:35 !vote yes 12:36 !vote ys 12:37 !vote yes 12:37 !vote yes 12:37 !vote yes 12:42 no bolt. I'm votebot today. 12:44 !vote yes 12:48 !vote yes 12:51 !vote yes 12:58 7 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain, 1 unvoted. 13:10 !vote abstain 13:13 !vote stop 13:14 7 0 1 0 13:50 great 13:51 .. treasurer's report approved. :) 13:53 the next item is tax and bookkeeping status 13:57 anything to report jimmy? 14:04 mail forwarded. 14:06 we just said everything already 14:08 regarding MBS, that is 14:15 btw, guests that have come in since we started, please /msg me your name for the record. A few people have entered. 14:16 during the treasurer's report discussion 14:17 hey 14:25 Hi Sledge. 14:33 Sledge: http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2005-12-13.html 14:42 Overfiend: thx 14:43 Sledge: MJ Ray's resolution is farther down the agenda 14:48 we're on treasurer report 15:08 IanJackson: You need more levels in your FQDN. 15:13 mako: we've said everything during the preceding discussion, so I don't have anything more to add beyond the existing remarks on MBS. 15:18 * mako nods 15:20 alright, then moves on 15:31 in terms of perennial issues 15:38 i have nothing new to add to DCC issues 15:46 What's the status? 15:47 that's out of order, Mr. Chairman 15:49 but i'll give anyone else here an opportunity to do so 16:00 "Outstanding minutes" is the next item. 16:07 Let us please do our monthly flogging of cdly. 16:12 i think cdlu said there were no minutes? 16:12 cdlu, even. 16:20 `oooh, I feel all cdly' 16:24 (excuse me) 16:29 better than the 'seedy loo' I sometimes get. 16:34 well, I pointed out before the meeting that the minutes approved last month have not yet been -announced and posted to the website. 16:40 cdlu: Would you please try to do that? :) 16:49 I will endeavour to try. 16:55 it'll be my christmas gift to SPI :) 17:01 hehe 17:11 okay, that's it for flogging from me. 17:21 * bdale offers some coal for cdlu's stocking... 17:25 * Overfiend yields back to Chair 17:38 * cdlu discreetly rubs his bruises and gives mako a clean gavel to continue with 18:00 alright 18:02 lets move on :) 18:19 anyone have any DCC status issues? 18:21 dondelelcaro: around? 18:37 mako: Yes, I have an issue which is that we (Debian/SPI) are footdragging. 18:39 he's half a day's idle 19:25 mako, where do we stand with Debian vs DCC? DCC put out an announcement a few days ago about a release 19:31 The DCC issue as I understand is that while DCCA cured their breach in that "DCCA" no longer means anything including the mark "Debian", they continue to use Debian's Open Use Logo. 19:36 mako, have Debian and DCC come to any form of agreement? 19:37 aha 19:43 imurdock: hi 19:44 hi, bruce asked me join.. 19:50 imurdock: we're on the DCC item 19:50 AFAIK, the initial issue that was delegated to don was put to rest due to changes that DCC took on 19:50 let me recap 19:54 News stories are now referring to "DCC Alliance (formerly the Debian Common Core Alliance)" 19:54 The DCC issue as I understand is that while DCCA cured their breach in that "DCCA" no longer means anything including the mark "Debian", they continue to use Debian's Open Use Logo. 20:05 mjg59: Joy. 20:07 oh no, not this again.. 20:13 if there are new issues (which apparently some people are bothered by) don either doesn't feel that it's within his delegation to deal with or doesn't think they are an issue 20:18 that is AFAIK 20:18 i thought we had dealt with the trademark issue.. 20:22 Ironically, now that DCCA no longer means Debian, they may now be shoved into non-compliance WRT to the Open Use Logo, because it "no longer refers to Debian". 20:26 I don't think that these are new issues. I think that they're old issues that remain unfixed. 20:48 IanJackson: don said at a previous meeting that he felt that the issues had been dealt with 20:54 And I think we're being anal-retentive about this. 20:55 old issues as in we haven't dropped "debian" from the name of the thing? uh.. 21:24 As far as muzzling the press goes, I'm open to suggestions. SPI is not the Bush Administration, the American Enterprise Institute, or a Christian fundamentalist organization, so I'm not sure how we are supposed to control the press on this front. 21:27 Maybe I should be having this rant on *@lists.d.o rather than here. 21:41 could someone please summarize what we are doing wrong? 21:46 imurdock: I did so above 21:51 14:19 < Overfiend> The DCC issue as I understand is that while DCCA cured their breach in that "DCCA" no longer means anything including the mark "Debian", 21:53 Overfiend: well, the logo isn't trademarked, AFAIK, only copyrighted, so if we choose not to pursue it, there's no downside to us 21:53 they continue to use Debian's Open Use Logo. 21:56 See also what mjg59 said above. 22:04 Overfiend: therefore, I suggest we don't pursue it. 22:19 Ian: we can't control what the press says.. that knife cuts both ways :-) 22:29 imurdock: so using the open use logo was, ironically, okay when DCCA meant "Debian $foo $bar $baz", but isn't when it no longer means "Debian $foo $bar $baz". 22:30 imurdock: i don't understand why you guys just don't talk to dondelelcaro about getting a trademark license 22:33 Overfiend, why muzzle the press? Press is a good way to keep the distinction between DCC and Debian clear without anyone getting hurt. :) 22:37 Given that we had no complaints about Progeny using the Debian open use logo, I think it would be churlish to criticise the DCCA for it 22:38 regardless of what DCCA stands for, what they're working on is related to Debian, so use of the open use logo seems completely reasonable to me 22:42 They obviously have something to do with Debian. What language change do you suggest IanJackson, to make that clear without misusing Debian's logo/trademark/packages. 22:43 imurdock: You could actually have a name for your organisation. 23:01 mako: i don't know who dondelelcaro is, but i did talk to someone about it, and they basically told me "no" 23:12 imurdock: dondelelcaro == Don Armonstrong 23:12 But I think this is getting too much into my personal opinion. 23:18 imurdock: dondelelcaro == Don Armstrong 23:22 Overfiend: ah ok 23:30 What I would like is for imurdock to come and join in the discussions on the Debian lists. 23:33 imurdock: BTW, I'm just relating the complaints I've heard. 23:47 imurdock: I devolved authority for actually pursuing this upon Don. 23:50 Ian: if we renamed it "foobar", then the press would say "foobar, formerly known as the DCC Alliance, formerly known as the Debian Common Core Alliance", and you'd still be coming after me :-) 23:57 imurdock: was the issue that there were no terms under which a license would be possible or that you couldn't agree on terms? 23:57 But it looks like Don and Branden aren't as hotheaded as me on this one. 24:16 if the DCC really *is* debian, i see no reason why a trademark license wouldn't fit 24:24 guys, 'formerly known as the Debian Common Core Alliance' is a factual and descriptive statement, not subject to trademark worries 24:38 mako: i don't remember (and it may have been someone other than don i talked with about this), but iirc, the idea was pretty much dismissed out of hand 24:40 * mako nods to Hydroxide 24:45 they're not advertising themselves as 'Hi, we're the formerly known as the Debian Common Core Alliance' 24:50 that would just be damn silly :) 24:59 so they've gotten rid of the trademark issue 25:03 imurdock: well, don and branden are the only person really charged with that making tha decision on behalf of debian 25:22 * bdale just read the www.dccalliance.org front page and things it's reasonable, fwiw 25:23 whether they can use the logo or not is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue, and copyright doesn't have the rule where you lose it if you don't enforce it actively 25:25 imurdock: and i don't think greg pomerantz would have said that becuase i don't think he agrees with that course of action 25:43 mako, et al., have you seen this press release? http://newsvac.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/12/06/1914259&from=rss 25:47 imurdock: FWIW, the volume of complaints that I have seen has sharply dropped off. 25:50 so it's up to us whether we want to deal with it or not 25:54 imurdock: since DCCA renamed itself. 25:57 just let me know what we can do, and we'll do it, within reason.. i think we've bent over backwards to make you guys happy, and i'm frankly bewilded this keeps coming up 26:02 that's how they're pushing themselves. if there are any issues worth pursuing, they'd be in there. If not, it can probably be left to die. 26:04 (the issue) 26:08 imurdock: /me points at IanJackson 26:24 mako: for the record, i'm very open to a trademark license.. please pass that along to whomever 26:33 I thought it was on the agenda today just for any follow-up? 26:35 mjg59: So, to make sure I understand -- you're concerned about the press continuing to mis-expand DCCA's acronym, but *not* about their use of the Open Use Logo? 26:57 It's not just IanJackson. There are some hotheads on the mailing lists who keep harping about it. And I think they're beyond reason at this point. 27:03 imurdock: that would be easiest IMHO 27:10 mako: k 27:36 since this is taking a long time as far as discussion, I move that we shelve this issue via email and prepare a resolution for the next meeting saying what (if anything) we think is a problem regarding the DCCA's actions and what we are satisfied with in that regard 27:39 imurdock: who's in charge of marketing/PR for DCCA? 27:40 imurdock: the idea being that if you ever STOPPED being debian or working on a set of terms that we think reflect what is debian and its values, you loose the license.. but i think that's only fair 27:51 I don't think there's really the time and space for me to do justice to the situation here on IRC and nothing productive will come of the conversation. But I resent being described as `beyond reason'. 27:53 Overfiend: I would prefer the press not to do that, but I don't think we can control that. I think the use of the open-use logo is fairly reasonable, and not exceptionally different to behaviour we've accepted in the past. 27:56 We have other issues to accomplish, and since we have disagreement we won't be able to resolve it right now 28:02 mjg59: Okay. 28:02 maybe I'm a fool, but what else are the press going to do with the D in DCCA when they expand it? 28:06 Overfiend: Heather Mackenzie of Linspire and Steve Harris at Xandros share the duties, but you can go through me too 28:15 Derived distributions have often used the open use logo 28:29 * mako nods to mjg59 28:41 right. I personally think we're done with this. 28:42 imurdock: I'm wondering if it would make people feel better to have an appointed Debian delegate join Heather and Steve in sending emails to press outlets that persist in mis-expanding the DCCA acronym. 28:46 mako, can we leave this as being referred to discussion with debian about a trademark license? I don't think there's anything more for us here at SPI to worry about for the moment. 28:47 Ian: if memory serves, you've always been beyond reason :-) 28:48 alright, if people in debian still have problems with this, it sounds like dondelelcaro still has work to do 28:50 imurdock: That is probably as much as we can do to address mjg59's concern. 28:52 in any case, it's not in our court right now 28:54 fil: they'll say that it used to stand for Debian but now is only part of the DCC acronym. The press doesn't mind explaining stupid things like that, they mind explaining technical things :) 28:57 since it's not at the stage of licensing or not 29:01 so i think we should move on 29:06 cdlu: agreed 29:21 alright... 29:22 OFTC - new chair, new SPI representation (cdlu) 29:25 ok 29:26 Overfiend: i'd be very open to involving debian in the pr stuff 29:29 set up 29:30 two issues from OFTC, briefly 29:33 imurdock: sounds good, thanks. 29:34 I don't think the press should ignore the Debian relationship. We should handle it correctly. I don't feel the D needs to stand for anything but Debian. Get a license. 29:36 but how can you have an acronym that doesn't stand for anything? it's absurd 29:44 1 - ElectricElf resigned as chair, putting me in that position. 29:47 imurdock: I think we've put this restless zombie in its grave for another week/month or so. 29:58 2 - Joey has asked to step down as SPI's formal representation to OFTC's NOC after 3 years on it 30:01 Overfiend: thanks, you're a friend :-) 30:03 imurdock: thanks for showing up 30:05 if anyone wants to take on the role not already on OFTC's staff 30:12 bdale: no problem.. anything else? 30:33 cdlu: what's involved? 30:55 cdlu: why should you step down? just to add diversity? 31:07 bdale, attending our weekly NOC meetings in capacity of SPI board member who can advise OFTC without being too involved in OFTC's inner workings, basically 31:11 imurdock: There's nothing else DCCA-related on the agenda. Our meeting is open to the public, so stay if you like, but I don't think there's anything strongly demanding your continued input today. 31:19 Well not exactly asked to step down but to find a replacement if there is somebody interested in it. 31:21 mako, I'm not stepping down from anything. :) 31:21 imurdock: thanks for showing up on a moment's notice! 31:38 ok, keep me posted 31:39 bye 31:52 * Overfiend extends that same thanks to the 200 or so members of the Debian UK Society that are also here today. 31:59 :) 32:02 heh 32:04 :) 32:05 Overfiend, that would explain the record number of guests :) 32:15 mako, anyway, that's all I have on the topic of OFTC 32:18 cdlu: I can volunteer to do that, if it is really needed, and I couldn't find a better way to cooperate on SPI :) 32:30 oh good, we needed a member to volunteer 32:42 damog: are you registered as an SPI contributing member? If not, we should fix that right away. 33:02 Overfiend: I am. 33:05 Overfiend: is contributing member adequate? cdlu said "board member" above. 33:09 excellent. 33:14 bdale: oh, I missed that. 33:21 cdlu: well, congrats on the promotion :) 33:29 board<->board advisors. I can serve the role myself, but as chair it seems kind of conflicty. :) 33:34 hi guys 33:51 Overfiend: I'm not worried about it, and I trust damog to represent us and report back on any concerns that should be addressed by the SPI board. 33:53 * Overfiend doesn't see why a regular SPI contributing member can't serve as a delegate to OFTC, as long as they fulfill the requirements of the role. 34:01 bdale: my feelings exactly 34:13 bdale: I think the record shows that being a Board Member doesn't magically make one better at getting things done. 34:16 * Hydroxide would do it but is already on OFTC staff. He also doesn't see a problem with damog doing it unless cdlu objects. 34:17 do we need to vote to make the delegation official? 34:21 Like, you know, deposits, or meeting minutes. 34:26 bdale: No. 34:26 bdale, overfiend, et al., I'll bring it up at tomorrow's OFTC NOC meeting to find out if OFTC side is all ok with that. 34:31 cdlu: sounds good 34:51 cdlu: ok, good 35:01 damog, thanks 35:01 ok 35:03 mako, that's all from me 35:03 * Hydroxide moves that, assuming OFTC NOC approves it at tomorrow's NOC meeting, David Moreno Garza be delegated as SPI's representative to the OFTC NOC 35:06 * Overfiend moves that SPI nominate David Moreno Garza to be its representative to OFTC's NOC pending approval from OFTC. 35:14 * Overfiend converts his motion to a second for Hydroxide's. 35:15 * Hydroxide takes that as a second :) 35:18 alright 35:23 heh 35:27 !vote start 35:30 !vote yes 35:32 !vote yes 35:32 !vote yes 35:37 Ian just said we don't need to vote on it, but I'd vote yes. 35:42 !vote abstain 35:48 bdale: Vote anyway, it's good for solidarity. 35:54 Great. 36:00 * Overfiend waves a union card in bdale's gace 36:01 !vote yes 36:03 face, even 36:06 5Y 0N 1A 2 not voted yet 36:10 hehehe. we're a board of directors. we are enthusiasts of the sport of voting =) 36:17 cdlu: that's a majority. let's move on 36:17 OTOH, I probably can't reach Bdale's face, so I had better settle for his "gaace" 36:18 Joey, can I interpret your 'Great' to be a yes vote? :) 36:20 * bdale sighs, loudly 36:23 !vote yes foir damog 36:28 ok 36:31 cdlu: yes, I am only slow. 36:31 mako, next up? :) 36:50 Debian website copyright issues (Tommi Vainikainen) [see appendix] 36:52 formorer: (belatedly) hi. Kinda of a chaotic meeting today. 36:54 this issue has come up several times 37:09 it's a well known issue but there's nothing we can do about unless someone does a lot of work 37:17 i can try to collect the responses and follow up to that bug 37:25 in the debian BTS 37:36 Yes, it's my undertanding that without a written transfer of copyright, SPI doesn't really have a plausible claim to ownership of the copyrights in the Debian website. 37:39 Or anything else. 37:44 the issues it that because SPI has not done copyright assignemtns, we can just relicense the work 37:57 it will require *alot* of work by whoever wants to move to a new license 37:58 you mean can't, right? 38:02 * Overfiend apologizes for his contributions to confusion on that front, such as by asserting that SPI had copyright in XFree86 maintainer scripts he wrote. 38:06 bdale: yes 38:09 *can't* 38:15 I don't quite see what SPI can do about this problem. 38:55 * Hydroxide notes that it's now meetingtime+38minutes. Let's keep this brief. 38:58 right, the choices seem to be a) leave it alone, b) do a lot of work to get assignments and relicense, or c) flush it all and make people start over with a consistent license and assignments. 39:01 Certainly it's far from clear to me that it's worth the effort. 39:09 Sorry. I'm back. I don't think you need that vote. 39:12 bdale: c) is kinda already happening with wiki.debian.org. 39:13 I mean, worth it to do anything. 39:22 Overfiend: good point 39:28 people are welcome to do it 39:29 But if it is supposed to be worth it then the people who think so should go and do it. 39:29 bdale: I know some people would like to see wiki.d.o utterly replace www.d.o. 39:32 Overfiend: nobody's doing copyright assignments, and I don't know what license wiki.debian.org uses 39:36 the issue we can't do anything about it 39:37 Furthermore, this isn't SPI's decision anyway. 39:41 Bruce, once someone moves/seconds, it goes to a vote, no matter how inane. If we don't need to vote on things, people need to learn not to second them. :) 39:53 Hydroxide: no, but people can agree as part of clicking the submission form on the wiki to license their stuff under certain terms 39:55 we've discussed this before.. i'll just point the person who put this issue onto the table to the old discussion 39:59 lets move on 40:04 mako: Yes please. 40:08 good 40:11 Overfiend: true, but they're not now afaik. 40:13 Overfiend: yeah seems so, unfortunatly I missed the dcca stuff 40:14 Nessus fork project membership: OpenVAS (see also openvas.org(Tim Brown ([machine])) (resolution needed) 40:16 !vote quantum-indeterminate. 40:39 has someone made the resolution? I was busy making the PostgreSQL resolution and writing the Treasurer's report. 40:39 is tim brown here? 40:42 Oh, Nessus is the thing that went non-free recently. 40:44 Hydroxide: Maybe Nathanael Nerode can help with that, it's an issue he's been paying attention to. 40:46 is there a resolution? 40:47 [machine]: ping 40:51 mako, I don't beleive anyone has written the needed resolution to get OpenVAS in, but they've already been accepted in principle. 40:53 i'm familiar with the issue 40:54 * Maulkin is the representative of OpenVAS, apologies are sent from Tim 40:55 Overfiend: possibly. 41:14 would someone write up a resolution like the Drupal and PostgreSQL resolutions? 41:27 that's always been IanJackson's speciality. :) 41:32 Can we dust off the email voting procedure for this? 41:34 Sorry, I only just read about this. 41:36 hell, I'll do it if it'll take very loong 41:48 Does any member of the Board object to accepting OpenVAS under the same terms as we did Drupal? 41:55 Overfiend, no objections here 41:57 How about I write up a motion right now in the next 5 mins and send it round ? 42:00 That's a poor excuse for a motion. 42:02 who is the resprentative 42:10 no objection 42:10 IanJackson: sounds fine 42:11 BrucePerens: I wasn't making a motion, I was querying the Board. 42:11 Ian, if you want. we can come back to it and vote on it, doing otherstuff while you write it. 42:18 Right. 42:20 * mako nods 42:26 let's do that. 42:26 The proposal from openvas is at http://www.openvas.org/doku.php?id=proposal_for_becoming_an_spi_project 42:35 BrucePerens: I reserve the right to conduct interrogatories of my peers :-P 42:44 alright, while Ian is writing, PostgreSQL membership is also up 42:55 ewww, PHP. There went MY vote. :-P 42:56 No objection. The only time I've ever objected to these has been when we're screwed up, not the organization wanting in. 43:08 mako, jberkus is apparently here representing PostgreSQL today 43:13 hi! 43:15 jberkus: greetings 43:18 we have a resolution for PostgreSQL in the agenda and in board@ and -private mailboxes 43:20 we *do* have a resolution for postgres 43:26 jberkus: welcome to our frenetic organization 43:35 resolution: 2005-12-13.jrk.1 for eference 43:36 Nice resolution, btw, Jimmy. Thanks. 43:40 IanJackson: thanks 43:41 jberkus: and thanks for being patient with us in email! 43:45 Josh: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. 43:45 * cdlu seconds Jimmy's resolution 43:49