Jun 14 14:00:01 *GAVEL* Jun 14 14:00:01 [item 1, Opening] Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest board of directors meeting, which is now called to order. Jun 14 14:00:01 Today's agenda and details of pending resolutions can be found on the web at: http://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2012/2012-06-14/ Jun 14 14:00:10 [item 2, Roll Call] Jun 14 14:00:10 Board members, please state your name for the record. As we have nine board members, quorum for today's meeting is six. Jun 14 14:00:10 Guests (including board advisors), please /msg your names to Noodles if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this meeting. Jun 14 14:00:17 Michael Schultheiss Jun 14 14:00:18 Bdale Garbee Jun 14 14:00:19 Robert Brockway Jun 14 14:01:20 Noodles, Ganneff ... Jun 14 14:01:36 Clint Jun 14 14:01:43 Clint Adams Jun 14 14:02:42 I don't see linuxpoet on channel 21:02 #spi: < Ganneff> rrright. where is the meeting? Jun 14 14:03:18 Hydroxide? Jun 14 14:03:44 well, that might explain part of it Jun 14 14:03:49 yep Jun 14 14:03:51 yeah, cool, splitsville 21:04 #spi: < Noodles> Where's the network? 21:04 #spi: < Ganneff> avoiding the meeting 21:06 #spi: < schultmc> wee 21:07 #spi: * Clint raises an eyebrow. 21:07 #spi: < bdale> ok, let's try this again: 21:07 #spi: < bdale> [item 2, Roll Call] 21:07 #spi: < bdale> Board members, please state your name for the record. As we have nine board members, quorum for today's meeting is six. 21:07 #spi: < bdale> Guests (including board advisors), please /msg your names to Noodles if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this meeting. 21:07 #spi: < Clint> Clint Adams 21:07 #spi: < schultmc> Michael Schultheiss 21:07 #spi: < Solver> Robert Brockway 21:07 #spi: < bdale> Bdale Garbee 21:07 #spi: < bdale> Ganneff, Noodles, Hydroxide .. ?? 21:07 #spi: < Ganneff> Joerg Jaspert 21:07 #spi: < Noodles> Jonathan McDowell 21:08 #spi: < bdale> yay! 21:08 #spi: < bdale> thanks for being her, splits and all 21:08 #spi: < Ganneff> (i dont even havbe item 1) 21:08 #spi: < bdale> here, even 21:08 #spi: < bdale> [item 3, President's Report] 21:08 #spi: < bdale> Nothing particularly interesting to report. 21:08 #spi: < bdale> [item 4, Treasurer's Report] 21:08 #spi: < bdale> Michael? 21:08 #spi: < schultmc> boo - i needed a few more minutes to finish the treasurer's report 21:08 #spi: < Noodles> I don't have item 1 either. 21:08 #spi: < schultmc> the april report is in the agenda 21:08 #spi: < Clint> item 1 was http://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2012/2012-06-14/ Jun 14 14:09:02 may report is pending and will be completed shortly after the meeting - apologies for the delay Jun 14 14:09:17 schultmc: thanks for letting us know, anything unusual we should note? Jun 14 14:09:24 nothing of note Jun 14 14:09:30 ok Jun 14 14:09:35 [item 5, Secretary's report] Jun 14 14:09:35 Jonathan? Jun 14 14:11:02 Noodles: there? Jun 14 14:11:08 I guess not Jun 14 14:11:48 cdlu: fix OFTC 21:12 #spi: < Noodles> Did they disappear again or are we waiting for schultmc? 21:12 #spi: * yp17 fell alone 21:12 #spi: < bdale> yp17: did it make a sound? 21:12 #spi: < Clint> Noodles: [item 5, Secretary's report] 21:13 #spi: < Noodles> Nothing from me. 21:13 #spi: < bdale> ok 21:13 #spi: < Noodles> Though I note the election is coming up. 21:13 #spi: < Noodles> Which might be AOB. 21:13 #spi: < bdale> yeah, let's handle it then 21:13 #spi: < bdale> [item 6, Outstanding minutes] 21:13 #spi: < bdale> Jonathan, I believe we have two sets to vote on? 21:13 #spi: < Noodles> Yup. Last month wasn't quorate, but I wrote it up anyway. 21:13 #spi: < bdale> works for me 21:14 #spi: < Noodles> I have Clint,schultmc,Solver,bdale,Ganneff,Noodles as here? Is that correct? No Hydroxide? 21:14 #spi: < bdale> correct 21:14 #spi: < yp17> was there anything in item 4 on your side ? 21:14 #spi: < cdlu> Clint, sorry, I am only an advisor now; all I can do is recommend that it be fixed. ;) 21:15 #spi: < bdale> yp17: schultmc reported May report will be out later today, nothing unusual 21:15 #spi: < Noodles> Voting started, 6 people (clint,schultmc,solver,bdale,ganneff,noodles) allowed to vote on Meeting minutes for 12th April 2012. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 21:15 #spi: < Noodles> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < Clint> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < bdale> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < Solver> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < Ganneff> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < schultmc> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < Noodles> Current voting results for "Meeting minutes for 12th April 2012": Yes: 6, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 21:15 #spi: < Noodles> Voting for "Meeting minutes for 12th April 2012" closed. 21:15 #spi: < Noodles> Voting started, 6 people (clint,schultmc,solver,bdale,ganneff,noodles) allowed to vote on Meeting minutes for 17th May 2012. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 21:15 #spi: < Noodles> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < schultmc> !vote abstain 21:15 #spi: < Ganneff> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < Clint> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < bdale> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < Solver> !vote yes 21:15 #spi: < Noodles> Current voting results for "Meeting minutes for 17th May 2012": Yes: 5, No: 0, Abstain: 1, Missing: 0 () 21:15 #spi: < Noodles> Voting for "Meeting minutes for 17th May 2012" closed. 21:16 #spi: < bdale> thanks 21:16 #spi: < bdale> [item 7, Items up for discussion] 21:16 #spi: < bdale> [item 7.1, Resolution 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project)] 21:16 #spi: < bdale> This is carried over from last month since we failed to meet quorum. 21:16 #spi: < bdale> Technically, a vote isn't necessary, but it has been our custom to mark such occasions with a formal resolution in the past. 21:16 #spi: < bdale> Does this require any discussion, or can we move directly to a vote? 21:16 #spi: < Ganneff> move 21:16 #spi: < Solver> I think it is pretty straight forward 21:16 #spi: < Noodles> Seems fine to me. They want it. 21:16 #spi: < schultmc> I think we can go to a vote 21:16 #spi: < schultmc> I do need to follow up with them on the financial transfer 21:16 #spi: < schultmc> but that shouldn't affect the vote 21:16 #spi: < Noodles> Voting started, 6 people (clint,schultmc,solver,bdale,ganneff,noodles) allowed to vote on Resolution 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project). - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 21:16 #spi: < Clint> !vote yes 21:16 #spi: < Solver> !vote yes 21:16 #spi: < schultmc> !vote yes 21:16 #spi: < Ganneff> !vote yes 21:16 #spi: < bdale> !vote yes 21:16 #spi: < Noodles> !vote yes 21:16 #spi: < Noodles> Current voting results for "Resolution 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project)": Yes: 6, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 21:16 #spi: < Noodles> Voting for "Resolution 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project)" closed. 21:17 #spi: < bdale> schultmc: yes, please handle the logistics as needed with them 21:17 #spi: < bdale> [item 7.2, Resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project) 21:17 #spi: < bdale> Robert? 21:17 #spi: < Solver> ok... 21:17 #spi: < Solver> so as you know there was a concern raised by Ian Jackson about the wording of the proposal 21:18 #spi: < Solver> my position is that the concern relates to the wording of the template, not this proposal 21:18 #spi: < bdale> I agree 21:18 #spi: < Solver> i believe the concern over the wording should not effect the vote on this proposal at all 21:18 #spi: < bdale> it would be ok to suggest an amendment to fix the wording, though, if you wish 21:18 #spi: < schultmc> he sent mail to -general today that suggested a re-wording of some of this resolution 21:19 #spi: < Solver> if the wording is an issue we will need to go and fix all of the old resolutions anyway 21:19 #spi: < Clint> have there been situations before where we've declared someone an authoritative decisionmaker when they weren't? 21:19 #spi: < bdale> in the past, we've even word-smithed in these meetings, though I discourage it because it's slow 21:19 #spi: < Solver> I am cautious about making up wording on the spot or under time pressure 21:19 #spi: < Noodles> We've liked to have some defined way we can tell who's the decision maker for the project. 21:19 #spi: < bdale> Solver: I disagree with the notion that fixing means we have to go backwards in time, it's ok to fix forward and live with what's there until/unless it causes a problem 21:19 #spi: < Noodles> Like a mention on the official website or some easy way we as an organisation can verify what the project wants. 21:20 #spi: < Solver> there was little discussion on the mailing list aspect of the resolution 21:20 #spi: < Clint> also "consensus" is misspelled 21:20 #spi: < bdale> so we have three choices. vote on it as currently worded. fix the wording here and vote the amended resolution. table until next month when hopefully we'd have fixed text. opinions? 21:21 #spi: < Solver> Clint: ok can we fix the spelling in the offical version 21:21 #spi: < Clint> i oppose rushing 21:21 #spi: < Solver> I don't want ffmpeg to be disadvantaged on what is in effect a wider problem 21:21 #spi: < jcristau> Clint: it should be spelled "liason"? 21:21 #spi: < bdale> is the ffmpeg project under time pressure to accept a donation or anything like that? 21:21 #spi: < Clint> jcristau: ttb 21:21 #spi: < Solver> saste: is there a time pressure on the ffmpeg project? 21:22 #spi: < saste> bdale: not that i know, but of course the soon the better for us 21:22 #spi: < saste> considering that we'll need some time to correctly setup all the stuff (website and all) 21:22 #spi: < bdale> saste: put differently, is it ok if we defer until next month's meeting actually voting the resolution? 21:22 #spi: < saste> i'm not against 21:22 #spi: < bdale> I see no objections to the association at all, this is just a question of getting the text right 21:23 #spi: < bdale> Solver: ok, this is your resolution, what would you like to do with it? 21:23 #spi: < Solver> is there a concern about the use of the mailing list in the resolution? I had expected that to get discussed on list but it wasn't 21:23 #spi: < Solver> Ian Jackson's concern is about a different part of the resolution 21:23 #spi: < Clint> i am not concerned about the mailing list either 21:24 #spi: < saste> yes, also please state it clearly what we (ffmpeg) need to do in order to fix the application text, and if we need to fix the governance structure anyhow 21:24 #spi: < bdale> ok, a few comments 21:25 #spi: < bdale> in an ideal world, projects would have a well-defined process for determining who speaks authoritatively for the project, and our resolutions would just reference that 21:25 #spi: < Solver> bdale: I had hoped to proceed with it today 21:25 #spi: < bdale> when there is no such well defined process already in place, we end up codifying more in the resolution than we necessarily want to 21:25 #spi: < Solver> but only if the board is ready to proceed 21:25 #spi: < Clint> saste: consider what would have happened if ffmpeg were an spi associated project when the libav thing occurred 21:25 #spi: < Solver> the mailing list component did make me wonder 21:26 #spi: < Solver> I reviewed other resolutions 21:26 #spi: < Solver> and concluded it wasn't so different to Arch Linux which, IIRC, references a group of developers 21:26 #spi: < bdale> yes, we've approved various forms in the past 21:27 #spi: < Solver> if the only problem is the use of the wording "authoritative decision maker" then I would hope that we pass the resolution and find a systemic fix later (assuming the wording is a problem, which isn't established) 21:27 #spi: < bdale> I personally would vote to approve the resolution as written, but am comfortable waiting until next month if that would yield better text everyone can feel good about *and* we're not overly inconveniencing the project, by which I mean making it impossible for them to accept a known inbound donation or something like that 21:28 #spi: < bdale> how do others feel? should we just call a vote? 21:28 #spi: < schultmc> we have accepted donations prior to a pending association 21:28 #spi: < bdale> yes, we have, though we try not to when we don't need to 21:28 #spi: < schultmc> right 21:29 #spi: < bdale> is there any discussion about substantive issues related to associating ffmpeg? 21:29 #spi: < Noodles> I don't think I have any concerns about them as an associated project. 21:30 #spi: < Noodles> I'd prefer something firmer for the process of knowing who we talk to, but not enough to vote against it as it stands. 21:30 #spi: < bdale> if not, then I think we should call a vote and let folks either accept the wording as it's there or vote against it, knowing it'll be back next month in that case. make sense? 21:30 #spi: < Solver> bdale: agreed 21:30 #spi: * Clint nods. 21:30 #spi: < Noodles> So vote? 21:30 #spi: < bdale> lets 21:30 #spi: < Noodles> Voting started, 6 people (clint,schultmc,solver,bdale,ganneff,noodles) allowed to vote on Resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project). - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 21:31 #spi: < Clint> !vote no 21:31 #spi: < Solver> !vote yes 21:31 #spi: < Ganneff> !vote yes 21:31 #spi: < bdale> !vote yes 21:31 #spi: < schultmc> !vote yes 21:31 #spi: < Noodles> !vote yes 21:31 #spi: < Noodles> Current voting results for "Resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project)": Yes: 5, No: 1, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 21:31 #spi: < Noodles> Voting for "Resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project)" closed. 21:31 #spi: < bdale> ok 21:31 #spi: < Solver> thanks everyone 21:31 #spi: < Solver> I'll follow up on other business about that wording... 21:32 #spi: < bdale> thanks .. if you'd take the lead on a template update, I'm happy to help 21:32 #spi: < Solver> thanks. as per what I said on list, I will refer it to SFLC (I have not done so yet but will within a couple of days). that's all I was going to put in other business on that topic, anyway 21:33 #spi: < bdale> Noodles: since saste is on channel, want to do the official invite now? 21:33 #spi: < Noodles> saste: As you can see we have voted to accept ffmpeg as an SPI associated project. Do you wish to accept on behalf of the project? 21:33 #spi: < saste> Noodles: yes i do 21:33 #spi: < bdale> cool. saste, welcome to SPI! 21:33 #spi: < Noodles> You'll need to send me (secretary@spi-inc.org) a logo and some blurb for you /projects/ page. 21:34 #spi: < saste> thank you 21:34 #spi: < bdale> [item 8, Any other business] 21:34 #spi: < bdale> Do any board members have other items for discussion they would like to address briefly? 21:34 #spi: < Solver> yes one thanks 21:34 #spi: < bdale> Noodles: let's talk election 21:34 #spi: < Noodles> As mentioned earlier, that's coming up. 21:34 #spi: < saste> and i told, we're open to suggestions related to the decision process and all 21:34 #spi: < Noodles> Michael and I are up for re-election. 21:34 #spi: < saste> and we're aware that it has some open problems which should be addressed 21:34 #spi: < Ganneff> Whats with linuxpoet? 21:34 #spi: < Noodles> I've asked zobel to run the voting; I'm not sure if I'm going to stand for re-election or not but that makes things easier. 21:35 #spi: < Ganneff> should we ask him if he wants to step down - or intends to come back active? 21:35 #spi: < Ganneff> (like, attending any meeting?) 21:35 #spi: < Solver> Ganneff: yes that seems reasonable 21:35 #spi: < bdale> Ganneff: yes, I think we should ping him about continued interest, since his recent string of meeting attendance fails is affecting out ability to meet quorum 21:35 #spi: < Ganneff> who? 21:35 #spi: < bdale> our, even 21:35 #spi: < Clint> is Bruce the only similar case? 21:35 #spi: < bdale> perhaps I should do that myself? 21:36 #spi: < Noodles> bdale: Either you or I should do it I think. 21:36 #spi: < bdale> Noodles: which would you prefer? 21:36 #spi: < Noodles> I'm happy to drop him a mail and ask what his status is. 21:36 #spi: < bdale> thanks .. feel free to CC me and/or rest of board 21:37 #spi: < bdale> so we need to wine and dine you and Michael to make sure you intend to continue, so noted 21:37 #spi: < Solver> indeed :) 21:37 #spi: < bdale> the other big issue is scrubbing the contrib member list? 21:37 #spi: < Noodles> In terms of the election nominations open on 1st July, so anyone who's observing and thinking about running should bear that in mind. 21:37 #spi: < bdale> right 21:37 #spi: < Noodles> There's been no progress on that unfortunately (list scrubbing). 21:37 #spi: < bdale> sounds like we'll have 2 or possibly 3 positions to fill, and I'd love to have an actual meaningful vote 21:38 #spi: < Solver> so did we contact everyone who didn't vote? 21:38 #spi: < Solver> which i understand is the first step in the scrubbing process 21:38 #spi: < Noodles> Solver: No. 21:38 #spi: < Noodles> Because of the sheer numbers involved making manual processing of the responses a bigger task than expected. 21:38 #spi: < Solver> is it now too late to do that before the election? 21:39 #spi: < bdale> I don't think so 21:39 #spi: < Noodles> I don't think the election really impacts it much. 21:39 #spi: < bdale> we haven't opened nominations yet, and the process has until we start to vote to be completed 21:39 #spi: < Solver> ah ok 21:39 #spi: < Solver> just rereading that resolution.. 21:39 #spi: < bdale> well, it goes to the question of what constitutes quorum for the election, but we don't tend to have trouble making quorum 21:40 #spi: < bdale> there's concern we could get to that point if we don't scrub, but... 21:40 #spi: < Noodles> We're nowhere near that point for a board election. 21:40 #spi: < bdale> ok, so let's take the scrubbing discussion to email and not sweat it here 21:41 #spi: < yp17> How many new contrib memeber were added last year ? 21:41 #spi: < bdale> so we're opening nominations on 1 July, zobel will administer the logistics to avoid any issues with Noodles as a candidate. any other election issues? 21:41 #spi: < Hydroxide> gah. moving day at the office and spi meeting day clashed worse than planned. soery guys. did yoy make quoeum? 21:41 #spi: < bdale> yes 21:41 #spi: < bdale> now in AOB 21:41 #spi: < Hydroxide> (am on phone, yay typoes) 21:41 #spi: < Hydroxide> cool 21:41 #spi: < bdale> nothing heard, so I assume our election discussion is complete 21:41 #spi: < Solver> bdale: I have one item when you are ready 21:42 #spi: < bdale> Solver: go 21:42 #spi: < Solver> I just wanted to check on the status of the financial information that we need to provide to debian. this was going to be aised last time but we were inquorate 21:42 #spi: < Solver> *raised 21:43 #spi: < bdale> schultmc ? 21:43 #spi: < Solver> I have a suggestion about how to resolve that if it is still outstanding 21:43 #spi: < bdale> I've heard nothing more 21:44 #spi: < schultmc> i'm in the process of gathering the info 21:44 #spi: < bdale> schultmc: any sense of when this will be completed? 21:44 #spi: < schultmc> their auditor requested a subset of the data that I can provide more immediately 21:44 #spi: < Solver> schultmc: thanks. I appreciate the work load a treasurer gets put on them 21:44 #spi: < schultmc> the full data can most likely be provided by the end of june 21:45 #spi: < bdale> ok .. if you need help, please say so 21:45 #spi: < schultmc> will do 21:45 #spi: < bdale> [item 9, Next board meeting] 21:45 #spi: < bdale> Our next regularly-scheduled monthly meeting would be 12th July 2012, 20:00 UTC, which falls during Debconf week. 21:45 #spi: < bdale> Any strong objections? 21:46 #spi: < Solver> that's fine by me. 21:46 #spi: < Noodles> Fine with me. 21:46 #spi: < Clint> i can't make it 21:46 #spi: < schultmc> ditto 21:46 #spi: < schultmc> (fine with me) 21:46 #spi: < Ganneff> i dont care 21:46 #spi: < Solver> I rarely have conflicting appointments at 6am :) 21:46 #spi: < bdale> ok, date and time stand 21:46 #spi: < bdale> Ok, thank you to everyone present for participating today. 21:46 #spi: < bdale> *GAVEL*