16:00 < bdale> *GAVEL* 16:00 < bdale> [item 1, Opening] Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest board of directors meeting, which is now called to order. 16:00 < bdale> Today's agenda and details of pending resolutions can be found on the web at: http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2009/2009-02-11.html 16:00 < bdale> [item 2, Roll Call] 16:00 < bdale> Board members, please state your name for the record. As we have nine board members, quorum for today's meeting is six. 16:00 < bdale> Guests (including board advisors), please /msg your names to Hydroxide if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this meeting. 16:00 < bdale> I believe we have regrets from Martin and Neil? 16:00 < cdlu> David Graham 16:00 < linuxpoet> Joshua D. Drake 16:00 < schultmc> Michael Schultheiss 16:00 < Ganneff> Joerg Jaspert 16:00 < bdale> Bdale Garbee 16:00 < Hydroxide> Jimmy Kaplowitz 16:00 < Hydroxide> bdale: correct 16:00 < bdale> cool, quorum reached 16:00 < bdale> luk_: ? 16:01 < schultmc> bdale: today's agenda is at http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2009/2009-03-18.html 16:01 < bdale> oops 16:01 < bdale> sorry about that 16:01 < luk_> Luk Claes 16:01 < bdale> un-edited cut'n'paste error 16:01 < bdale> cool, everyone expected is now here... let's proceed 16:01 < bdale> [item 3, President's Report] 16:01 < bdale> I mentioned briefly last month that I was running for a seat on the Linux Foundation board representing individual affiliates. Congratulations to Tim Golde 16:01 < bdale> n was elected as a new board member, and Larry Augustin who was re-elected to another term. 16:01 < bdale> I expect to attend both the CELF Embedded Linux Conference and LF Collaboration Summit in San Francisco next month. 16:01 < bdale> [item 4, Treasurer's Report] 16:01 < bdale> Michael? 16:02 < schultmc> A report for February 2009 was sent out and is included in the agenda 16:02 < schultmc> Several contributing members have expressed concern over the relatively large bank balance SPI has currently 16:02 < bdale> schultmc: was I correct in my assertion about the general reserves line in email? 16:03 < schultmc> bdale: yes, if I recall correctly 16:03 < bdale> good 16:03 < Hydroxide> seemed right to me too 16:04 < schultmc> Regardless of SPI's own reserves, the associated projects should be encouraged not to build up reserves but instead use the funds that have been donated for their intended purpose 16:04 < bdale> for the benefit of those here who didn't see the email exchange, I pointed out that only about 32k of the total is SPI's, the rest is held in trust for associated projects 16:04 < bdale> schultmc: agreed 16:04 < linuxpoet> agreed 16:04 < jello> why does SPI require such a large reserve? 16:04 < schultmc> That's all I have, unless there are questions 16:04 < linuxpoet> jello: we don't "require" 16:05 < bdale> there was a point in time when SPI was nearly out of cash, and needed to spend some money on things like financial record keeping assistance and tax reporting 16:05 < jello> then why not reduce the 5% fee, if it's not required _at this time_ 16:05 < bdale> we can discuss that, preferably in email, and come to a resolution 16:06 < jello> fair enough 16:06 < linuxpoet> bdale: agreed 16:06 < bdale> any other questions about the financial report? 16:06 < linuxpoet> I just want to say I am happy that we are getting them regularly now, good work. 16:06 < cdlu> I would argue that a large financial reserve is not a bad idea to keep for SPI anyway, in the event of legal trouble or anything that requires a rapid outflow of a lot of cash. 16:07 < bdale> cdlu: yes, that's been my position too, but I'm happy to have some reasoned discussion on the topic possibly leading to a resolution 16:07 < bdale> let's just not try to deep-dive on it here 16:07 < cdlu> sure 16:07 < bdale> schultmc: thanks from me, too, for the good work on getting reports out each month... *very* appreciated! 16:07 * cdlu seconds 16:07 * Hydroxide agrees 16:07 < bdale> [item 5, Secretary's report] 16:07 < bdale> Jimmy? 16:07 < Hydroxide> nothing to add to what's in the agenda. I'll be glad to take any questions. 16:08 < bdale> I have none. anyone else? 16:08 < cdlu> not I 16:08 < bdale> [item 6, Outstanding minutes] 16:08 < bdale> Jimmy, we have several sets to vote on today? 16:08 < Hydroxide> yes 16:08 < Hydroxide> regarding minutes, I'm happy to say that I've caught up on all the backlogged minutes from my term as Secretary! :) I'll do the remaining few details for the March 2008 minutes before the April meeting as well as check in with Martin regarding the June-August 2008 minutes. 16:08 < bdale> woot! 16:09 < linuxpoet> Cool. 16:09 * bdale appreciates the progress being made 16:09 < Hydroxide> so we have Dec 2008 through Feb 2009 to vote on today 16:09 < Hydroxide> do you want to do them individually or en masse? 16:09 * cdlu reminds Hydroxide that the first year as secretary is always good, and the second year is always bad 16:09 < cdlu> who wants the job in july? :) 16:09 < Hydroxide> cdlu: I'm not planning to continue as secretary, no worries :) 16:09 < schultmc> Hydroxide: individually - I was absent for January 2009 16:09 < Hydroxide> schultmc: ok 16:10 < Hydroxide> Voting started, 7 people (bdale,hydroxide,cdlu,linuxpoet,schultmc,ganneff,luk_) allowed to vote on Approve December 2008 minutes. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 16:10 < cdlu> !vote yes 16:10 < schultmc> !vote yes 16:10 < luk_> !vote yes 16:10 < Hydroxide> !vote yes 16:10 < linuxpoet> !vote yes 16:10 < Ganneff> !vote yes 16:10 < bdale> !vote yes 16:10 < Hydroxide> Current voting results for "Approve December 2008 minutes": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 16:10 < Hydroxide> Voting for "Approve December 2008 minutes" closed. 16:10 < Hydroxide> unanimously passes. 16:10 < Hydroxide> Voting started, 7 people (bdale,hydroxide,cdlu,linuxpoet,schultmc,ganneff,luk_) allowed to vote on Approve January 2009 minutes. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 16:10 < cdlu> !vote yes 16:10 < Ganneff> !vote yes 16:10 < luk_> !vote yes 16:10 < bdale> !vote abstain 16:10 < schultmc> !vote abstain 16:10 < Hydroxide> !vote yes 16:11 * louis_to abstains 16:11 < Hydroxide> linuxpoet: ? 16:11 < linuxpoet> !vote yes 16:11 * linuxpoet was reading 16:11 < Hydroxide> no problem 16:11 < Hydroxide> Current voting results for "Approve January 2009 minutes": Yes: 5, No: 0, Abstain: 2, Missing: 0 () 16:11 < Hydroxide> Voting for "Approve January 2009 minutes" closed. 16:11 < Hydroxide> Voting started, 7 people (bdale,hydroxide,cdlu,linuxpoet,schultmc,ganneff,luk_) allowed to vote on Approve February 2009 minutes. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 16:11 < Ganneff> !vote yes 16:11 < Hydroxide> !vote yes 16:11 < bdale> !vote yes 16:11 < luk_> !vote yes 16:11 < cdlu> !vote abstain 16:11 < linuxpoet> !vote yes 16:12 < schultmc> !vote yes 16:12 < Hydroxide> Current voting results for "Approve February 2009 minutes": Yes: 6, No: 0, Abstain: 1, Missing: 0 () 16:12 < Hydroxide> Voting for "Approve February 2009 minutes" closed. 16:12 < Hydroxide> all approved. yay. 16:12 < bdale> and we'll address the ones Martin is working on next time? 16:12 < Ganneff> the march one seems to be ready? 16:12 < Hydroxide> to whatever extent he makes progress on them, yes. or else I'll start to catch up. 16:12 < Ganneff> besides its non-html-ified look 16:13 < Hydroxide> Ganneff: I have to do one or two tasks regarding that, like dig up the text of a resolution 16:13 < cdlu> registered guests not listed apparently 16:13 < Hydroxide> Ganneff: so I'll have that one for April 16:13 < Ganneff> well fine. 16:13 < bdale> ok, let's defer for next time 16:13 < Hydroxide> yes 16:13 < bdale> moving right along... 16:13 < bdale> [item 7, Items up for discussion] 16:13 < bdale> [item 7.1, Resolution 2009-03-18.mcs.1 - Update Ameriprise's owner list] 16:13 < bdale> Michael? 16:13 < schultmc> this is fairly routine and is necessary to reflect changes in our board makeup and inform Ameriprise of those changes 16:14 < bdale> looks fine to me 16:14 < bdale> any discussion? 16:14 * cdlu read it and is prepared to vote 16:14 * Hydroxide seconds the call to vote 16:14 < Hydroxide> Voting started, 7 people (bdale,hydroxide,cdlu,linuxpoet,schultmc,ganneff,luk_) allowed to vote on Resolution 2009-03-18.mcs.1. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 16:14 < schultmc> !vote yes 16:14 < bdale> !vote yes 16:14 < Hydroxide> !vote yes 16:14 < Ganneff> !vote yes 16:14 < luk_> !vote yes 16:14 < cdlu> !vote yes 16:15 < linuxpoet> !vote yes 16:15 < Hydroxide> Current voting results for "Resolution 2009-03-18.mcs.1": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 16:15 < Hydroxide> Voting for "Resolution 2009-03-18.mcs.1" closed. 16:15 < Hydroxide> passed. 16:15 < bdale> great 16:15 < bdale> [item 7.2, Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1.iwj.1: OpenWRT as associated project] 16:15 < bdale> Jimmy? 16:15 < bdale> oops, another icky typo 16:15 * bdale whacks himself ... sorry 16:16 < bdale> oh 16:16 < Hydroxide> this one has been discussed a bunch on the list. I agree that many of this resolution's flaws mentioned there are valid, but I still think it's workable enough to approve 16:16 < Hydroxide> if anyone from OpenWRT is here, please speak up 16:16 < bdale> maybe not... what's with the rsolution suffix? is this an iwj modification of a jrk proposal? 16:16 < schultmc> bdale: yes 16:16 < bdale> ok 16:16 < Hydroxide> bdale: really it's a jrk modification of a iwj modification of a jrk proposal 16:16 < Hydroxide> bdale: but I didn't want to get too unwieldy 16:16 * linuxpoet laughs 16:17 < bdale> ok, in future, just increment the suffix number and don't do this concat thing, makes my brain hurt 16:17 < Hydroxide> heh 16:17 < luk_> what nick names do the OpenWRT people use, anyone an idea? 16:17 < Hydroxide> we should standardize resolution numbers anyway - sometimes punctuation has been inconsistent 16:17 < Hydroxide> glp is Gregers Petersen, but he's not here 16:17 < Hydroxide> I *hope* he's on spi-general but I dunno 16:17 < cdlu> hydroxide, there is a resolution defining resolution titles 16:17 < cdlu> erm, designations 16:17 < cdlu> check under 2001 :) 16:18 < Hydroxide> cdlu: I will :) later though 16:18 < bdale> so, to summarize my contributions to previous discussion. I support adding OpenWRT as an associated project. I don't like the complexity of (5) in the current resolution and the ripple effect it has on the rest of the resolution, and would prefer a single identified contact. 16:18 < luk_> right, is also what I'm thinking 16:18 < Hydroxide> we could just make Gregers Petersen the identified contact 16:18 < linuxpoet> I too support adding OpenWRT however I do not like the way the resolution reads 16:18 < Hydroxide> since we've never heard from Andy Boyett 16:18 < linuxpoet> Hydroxide: I don't think we can do that without talking to OpenWRT though can we? 16:19 < luk_> sure we can, they have to accept or deny anyway 16:19 < bdale> we can resolve anything, OpenWRT has the option of not accepting the invite and asking us to try again, right? 16:19 < Hydroxide> linuxpoet: dunno. would anyone object to passing it as is and then requiring them to figure out a single identified contact, which we would then specify via an amended resolution? 16:19 < Hydroxide> or we can just specify Gregers 16:19 < Hydroxide> since he's the only one we've heard from at all 16:19 < bdale> I'd prefer the latter, I think. 16:20 < linuxpoet> I am not in favor of passing the resolution unless it has a single contact 16:20 * schultmc also prefers the latter 16:20 < Ganneff> i would vote against the current thing 16:20 * luk_ also prefers the latter 16:20 < bdale> seems like we're approaching a concensus 16:20 < Hydroxide> one sec, let me pull up an email... 16:20 < cdlu> hydroxide, proper procedure here would be to vote to have #5 and #6 amended (you can make the actual changes after the meeting) to reflect a single representative 16:20 < cdlu> and then vote on the amended (or not) resolution 16:20 < bdale> want me to so move? 16:20 < cdlu> we don't need to amend it in advance as long as the instruction to make it for a single contact is clear 16:20 < cdlu> bdale, sure, and I so second. 16:20 < Hydroxide> wait 16:21 * cdlu turns blue 16:21 < Hydroxide> I replace my proposal with Ian's proposal here: http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2009-March/002737.html and then replace "Andy Boyett and Gregers Petersen" with "Gregers Petersen", then make appropriate grammatical changes 16:21 < Hydroxide> (s/have been/has been/ and s/liaisons/the liaison/) 16:21 < cdlu> correct, and append clause #6 to not say everyone, 'cause there's only one 16:22 < cdlu> but those are trivial changes and don't need us to argue over wording 16:22 < cdlu> imo 16:22 < linuxpoet> I could live with that 16:22 < Hydroxide> cdlu: in the version at the URL I gave it's the usual wording 16:22 < cdlu> works for me :) 16:22 < Hydroxide> and I'll number it 2009-03-18.jrk.1 16:22 < bdale> Hydroxide: I'm ok with your proposal to use that version with only Gregers as contact 16:22 < cdlu> shall we vote on the amendment or is it friendly? :) 16:22 < Hydroxide> just for consistency with schultmc's which was submitted in advance 16:23 < Hydroxide> it's friendly 16:23 < cdlu> 'k 16:23 < Hydroxide> ready to vote? 16:23 < bdale> so I move we vote 16:23 < linuxpoet> second 16:23 < Hydroxide> seconded 16:23 * cdlu thirds 16:23 < Ganneff> 4th 16:23 < Ganneff> :) 16:23 < Hydroxide> Voting started, 7 people (bdale,hydroxide,cdlu,linuxpoet,schultmc,ganneff,luk_) allowed to vote on Resolution 2009-03-18.jrk.1. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 16:23 < linuxpoet> !vote yes 16:23 < cdlu> !vote yes 16:23 < Ganneff> !vote yes 16:23 < bdale> !vote yes 16:23 < schultmc> !vote yes 16:23 < Hydroxide> !vote yes 16:23 < luk_> !vote yes 16:23 * cdlu loves voting on unwritten resolutions. It's like town council. :) 16:23 < Hydroxide> cdlu: at least it's clearly specified 16:24 < Hydroxide> cdlu: in the log of this meeting 16:24 < cdlu> yep 16:24 * linuxpoet would rather vote on unwritten versus unread :P 16:24 < bdale> Hydroxide: I assume you'll notify Gregers of the invitation? 16:24 < cdlu> linuxpoet, hahah 16:24 < Hydroxide> bdale: yes 16:24 < Hydroxide> Current voting results for "Resolution 2009-03-18.jrk.1": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 16:24 < Hydroxide> Voting for "Resolution 2009-03-18.jrk.1" closed. 16:24 < Hydroxide> yay. 16:24 < Hydroxide> they're approved. 16:24 < Ganneff> linuxpoet: what, we have to read something? 16:24 < bdale> [item 8, Any other business] 16:24 < bdale> Do any board members have other items for discussion they would like to address briefly? 16:24 < linuxpoet> I have a couple of things 16:25 < slef> cdlu: town councils here aren't allowed to do that ;) 16:25 * cdlu is still available for hire if anyone wants him... but other than that, no. :) 16:25 < cdlu> slef, here they do it all the time. the city clerk sits there and frantically writes all the resolutions as the meeting progresses. :) 16:25 < linuxpoet> I requested calling out to members for help with the membership application. I have heard no grumblings one way or another. Thoughts? 16:25 < Hydroxide> linuxpoet: I don't object, though keep membership@s-i.o and admin@s-i.o in the loop 16:25 < cdlu> who's membership ctte these days? 16:25 < Hydroxide> linuxpoet: (admin@ handles sysadmin stuff) 16:25 < schultmc> cdlu: schultmc, Maulkin and luk 16:26 < cdlu> k 16:26 < bdale> anything else? 16:26 < Hydroxide> linuxpoet: and board@ preferably, though not necessarily on every email 16:26 < linuxpoet> I also wanted to know the status of the new web site 16:26 < Hydroxide> linuxpoet: unchanged since last meeting. we've all been otherwise occupied unfortunately. 16:26 < linuxpoet> O.k. that is all I have. 16:26 < bdale> [item 9, Next board meeting] 16:26 < bdale> I believe our default would be Wednesday, April 15th, 2009. That date is ok for me, but We need to decide on 19:00 vs 20:00 UTC. Any strong opinions? 16:27 * Hydroxide notes that the EU will be on summer time by then 16:27 < Ganneff> 20utc 16:27 < linuxpoet> When did we do it then? 16:27 < linuxpoet> err now 16:27 < Ganneff> dont care about idiotic time moves please 16:27 < Hydroxide> linuxpoet: it's currently 20:00 UTC. 16:27 < linuxpoet> O.k. I am good with 20:00 16:27 < bdale> 20:00 works fine for me 16:27 < bdale> any strong objections? 16:27 < cdlu> not from me 16:27 < Hydroxide> I think someone did who isn't here 16:27 < Hydroxide> but, tough luck to them :) 16:27 < linuxpoet> snooze you lose 16:28 < bdale> right 16:28 < Hydroxide> yes 16:28 < schultmc> 20:00 works for me although I occasionally have conflicts at 21:00 16:28 < cdlu> yes, people who can't make it to meetings have a lot of trouble arguing their case for different times. :) 16:28 < Hydroxide> 20:00 is fine with me 16:28 < Hydroxide> cdlu: zobel has a pretty good reason this time, which he told me privately 16:28 < bdale> ok, then let's do 15th April at 20:00 UTC 16:28 < Hydroxide> but, yes 16:28 < Ganneff> cdlu: they now get it an hour different in their local time :) 16:28 < bdale> I know zobel's reason for today, too, and agree it's a good use of his time 16:28 < cdlu> can we move to abolish DST? :) 16:28 < bdale> Ok, thank you to everyone present for participating today. 16:28 < bdale> *GAVEL*