21:00 < tbm> *GAVEL*
21:01 < tbm> [item 1, Opening]
21:01 < tbm> Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest Board Meeting, which is now called to order.
21:01 < tbm> Today's agenda can be found on the web at: http://spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2017/2017-03-13/
21:01 < tbm> [item 2, Roll Call]
21:01 < tbm> Directors, please state your name
21:01 < tbm> Guests (including board advisors), please /msg your names to spectranaut if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.
21:01 < schultmc> Michael Schultheiss
21:01 < tbm> Martin Michlmayr
21:01 < xnox> Dimitri John Ledkov
21:01 < zobel> Martin Zobel-Helas
21:01 < spectranaut> Valerie Young
21:02  * xnox wonders if people are confused about daylight change in the US, but not Europe
21:02 < zobel> before we start
21:02 -!- spectran1ut [~spectrana@c-71-204-162-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #spi
21:02 < luca> Luca Filipozzi
21:02 < luca> there is only one timezone: Zulu
21:02 < zobel> spectran1ut: why is 2017-03-13.vy.1 for vote for this meeting?
21:02 < tbm> zobel: let's talk about it when we come to that point
21:03 < tbm> several people missing.  I can't remember if there were any regrets. spectran1ut?
21:03 < zobel> tbm: well, the agenda says vote. i would like to know if we can fix the agenda first.
21:03 < spectranaut> no regrets that I got
21:03 < zobel> shall i ping Ganneff by txt message?
21:03 < xnox> zobel, we don't have to vote, if we don't want to.
21:03 < xnox> or we can vote to post-pone till next meeting.
21:03 < tbm> So who's missing? tridge, Ganneff, Hydroxide
21:04 < tbm> zobel: yes please
21:04  * schultmc can sms hydroxide
21:04  * xnox goes to put the kettle on
21:04 < zobel> we do have quorum, right?
21:04 < tbm> yes
21:05 < zobel> texted Ganneff
21:05 < schultmc> sms'd Hydroxide
21:05 < zobel> lets wait 4min, then lets proceed?
21:06 < Ganneff> Joerg Jaspert
21:06 < zobel> \o/
21:06 < tbm> let's proceed.  they can join later
21:06 < tbm> [item 3, President's Report]
21:06 < tbm> We had a productive face-to-face meeting in New York a few weeks ago.
21:06 < tbm> I'd like to thank everyone who attended for taking the time to attend
21:06 < tbm> and participate.
21:06 < tbm> We made a lot of progress in defining priorities and next steps.  I hope
21:06 < tbm> we can keep the momentum going to implment what we discussed.
21:07 < tbm> [item 4, Treasurer's Report]
21:07 < zobel> the new reports for the full year are linked from the agenda.
21:07 < schultmc> I'd like to thank zobel and xnox for their tremendous effort in streamlining the treasurer processes.
21:07 < xnox> updated reports for 2016 have been published; currently working on closing the 2016 books and tieing up loose ends.
21:08 < zobel> the only thing missing for last year, is closing the books, i hope xnox can help with that.
21:08 < schultmc> we've signed up for a new NYC based address and phone number and I'm in the process of updating all of our accounts to reflect the new address
21:08  * xnox two borks in favor
21:09 < luca> have we received any mail, yet?
21:09 < tbm> I'm happy to see the progress with the reports but I'm wondering if we should mark them as "draft" until we're sure they are final
21:09 < luca> can we send ourselves a couple of pieces of mail (one non-cheque; one cheque)?
21:09 < schultmc> not that I've seen - I still need to setup the forward from our Indianapolis PO box to the NYC mail server
21:09 < tbm> they have been updated several times already which imho doesn't give a good impression to people not aware of the work behind the scenes.
21:09 < schultmc> I can send some test mail before setting up the forward
21:09 < luca> re mail: great
21:10 < zobel> all i want to do now from my side is to open a ticket for Ganneff to set up a webserver with htbasic auth for the project to see the list of transactions (register) per moth per project.
21:10 < luca> re reports: agree mark as draft
21:10 < xnox> they are draft, as they are not year end accounts. I was hoping to publish closing balances summary & opening balances summary, when we close the year off.
21:10 < tbm> xnox: I don't think that's obvious to people outside the board.
21:10 < xnox> plus i guess it will only be really closed, once we do the form filing?!
21:10 < xnox> ack.
21:11 < zobel> can we proceed?
21:12 < tbm> [item 5, Secretary's report]
21:12 < spectranaut> nothing to report
21:12 < tbm> [item 6, Outstanding minutes]
21:12 < luca> !vote
21:12 < xnox> haha
21:12 < tbm> It says Monday, 12th December 2016
21:12 < tbm> any questions?
21:13 < tbm> I'm fine with voting
21:13 < spectranaut> I'll start vote
21:13 < spectran1ut> Voting started, 7 people (tbm,schultmc,zobel,luca,xnox,spectranaut,ganneff) allowed to vote on Meeting minutes for December 12 December 2016. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
21:13 < Ganneff> !vote yes
21:13 < tbm> !vote yes
21:13 < luca> !vote yes
21:13 < zobel> !vote yes
21:13 < schultmc> !vote abstain
21:13 < spectranaut> !vote yes
21:14 < xnox> !vote yes
21:14 < spectran1ut> Current voting results for "Meeting minutes for December 12 December 2016": Yes: 6, No: 0, Abstain: 1, Missing: 0 ()
21:14 < spectran1ut> Voting for "Meeting minutes for December 12 December 2016" closed.
21:14 < tbm> [item 7, Items up for discussion]
21:14 < tbm> [item 7.1 Review detailed plan for reimbursement streaming]
21:15 < tbm> Whose item is this?
21:15 < luca> re 7.1, i agree the action item is mine
21:15 < luca> (thanks for the prodding, Valerie)
21:15 < luca> i don't have it ready to discuss
21:15 < luca> i need clarification on two questions
21:15  * xnox recalls to have signed up to do stuff w.r.t. reimbursement too
21:15 < luca> (a) a response from Ganneff to the email to board re Assistant System Administrators
21:16 < luca> (you can reply to the list)
21:16 < luca> (b) a response from members present whether we are proceeding with the RT approach or the BonitaSoft approach (since at least zobel tried it)
21:16 < luca> i can proceed with the high level plan without an answer to (a), at this point; but would like a response to (b)
21:16 < luca> .
21:17 < schultmc> aiui we were going with the RT approach due to familiarity
21:17 < Ganneff> a) will happen soonish, next few days, ive not yet managed to write it without cursing.
21:17  * xnox has no opinion on (a); have not yet tried BonitaSoft I would be happy with either - as i'm sure work needs to be done to make the process nice irrespective of the tech in use.
21:19 < spectranaut> I second xnox -- happy to help and don't have preference
21:19 < luca> hearing no strong voices for BonitaSoft, I'll go with what we said at the meeting: RT
21:19 < spectranaut> when did zobel try bonita soft?  was this discuss at f2f or in email?
21:19 < zobel> i played a bit with bonitasoft while sitting at the airport. looks nice, but in general, someone who can work with a bit of bootstrap.js can do most of that too without the high-level software stack behind bonita.
21:19 < luca> thanks; looking forward to Ganneff's reply for (a)
21:19 < zobel> spectranaut: at the airport on sunday
21:19 < luca> i'm done with 7.1 and commit to having a draft ready within 7d
21:19 < zobel> and i chatted with luca on this channel while doing
21:20 < luca> .
21:20 < tbm> any other comments?  sounds like we can move on
21:20 < luca> spectranaut: i'd like it minuted that a previous agenda item about my proposing mail forwarding services, etc. was addressed and implemented at the f2f meeting
21:20 < tbm> please send further feedback (if any) to the board list
21:21 < tbm> [item 7.2 Review plan for seeking external advice for 2017 financial audit]
21:21 < tbm> I believe that one's mine
21:21 < tbm> I have not had time since the face-to-face but I expect to have time soon.
21:21 < luca> zobel has reminded me that I was to poke some former UBC ECE colleagues about their RT interest
21:21 < tbm> My current thinking is that before we seek external advice we should go
21:21 < tbm> ahead and docment our current workflow and policies properly.  I'll do
21:21 < tbm> some research on policies we should create.  Once this is formalized a
21:21 < tbm> bit, we can get external advice.
21:21 < luca> now that I have (b) answerd, I'll do that this week
21:21 < tbm> I'll put together a plan with some more details and next steps.
21:21 < zobel> tbm: great.
21:22 < tbm> [item 7.3 Resolution 2017-03-13.vy.1: Adopt Scottish STV for Board Elections]
21:22 < tbm> as zobel said, I don't think we're ready to vote on this
21:22 < tbm> but we should talk about it
21:22 < spectranaut> I added this to the agenda because the draft looked good and was heavily discussed
21:22 < luca> i'd like to thank Ian for his thoughtful work on this topic
21:23 < spectranaut> we can hold off voting if we think it should be discussed more?
21:23 < luca> per the f2f, it's to be formally presented in MAR and voted on in APR
21:23 < xnox> original timescale was for ian to have first draft ready by about now; and for people to debate and incorporate feedback until april.
21:23 < spectranaut> oh sorry -- I forgot
21:23 < xnox> however, ian was very quick on producing the draft; and the motion was expensively debated back last summer; and now.
21:23 < luca> i expect that there's been enough mailing list exchange for us to vote now but i'd like to follow what we said we'd do
21:24 < xnox> and most active participants have voiced their concerns and their feedback has been incorporated.
21:24 < Ganneff> it wont hurt to wait
21:24 < Ganneff> there isnt a vote immediately coming up
21:24 < xnox> indeed, sticking to the original schedule may look nicer.
21:24 < xnox> thus I'd like to call to postpone this vote until next meeting.
21:24 < spectranaut> ok -- will move to next meeting agenda
21:24 < tbm> are we happy with the current resolution or do we want to request any changes?
21:25 < xnox> i am happy with it, and have no outstanding request for any changes.
21:25 < zobel> Ganneff: yes, but we still need to get the voting algorith implemented into the voting system before the next board election.
21:25 < zobel> i read that is a no-op, but still
21:27 < luca> what xnox said
21:27 < Ganneff> it sounds good to me. next please?
21:27 < zobel> proceed?
21:27 < tbm> [item 8, Any other business]
21:27 < tbm> I'd like to discuss pending domain transfers
21:27 < tbm> Ganneff: can you tell us what the process is to follow to get domains transferred?
21:28 < zobel> i would like to ask, if someone sent the pending questions to mishi?
21:28 < Ganneff> it depends a little on the tld, but in general its
21:29 < Ganneff> "get an authcode / unlock the domain / make it possible to transfer it". "have it valid for more than a month at time of transfer" "give hostmaster@spi the data". and then its us asking our main registrar if they like to sponsor it (most are sponsored right now). if not, or if the project wants to spend money, we go to the other and put it in
21:30 < tbm> ok, so in the case of Open MPI, it sounds like they should renew it first
21:30 < tbm> and then initiate the transfer
21:30 < Ganneff> also, if the project uses dnssec or wants a split between us holding the domain and them admins doing the day-to-day dns admin (zone level), then its also the other registrar
21:30 < tbm> are we ready to accept it if they do that soon?
21:30 < Ganneff> we dont have so much on it. one mail to the one registrar or them saying they have project budget, and off it goes
21:30 < Ganneff> so yes
21:31 < tbm> I believe Open-ZFS were also waiting for us
21:31 < Ganneff> we could think of always using the spi 5% money and generally pay for the domains, most are way cheap
21:31 < tbm> is that still pending?
21:31 < Ganneff> then that step is a little shorter. (also, the main registrar would like some website linking from our side over to them with some "thanks" note)
21:32 < tbm> yeah, we should create a thank you page
21:32 < Ganneff> ive got to look again whats open, i havent had more than an hour or two (non-work) pc time in the last week due to some deadlines
21:33 < tbm> ok
21:33 < tbm> as to zobel's question, I think I took that action item.  I intend to do it this week, hopefully tomorrow.
21:33 < spectranaut> was a thank you page brought up in a previous meeting or discussion? I have a vague memory..
21:33 < Ganneff> yes
21:33 < zobel> tbm: thx
21:33 < Ganneff> board list, meeting
21:33 < Ganneff> (old board, btw, with bdale still on)
21:34 < tbm> anything else?
21:34 < Ganneff> ah, one more thing to the ns:
21:34  * bdale waves
21:34 < luca> i'd like us to take the f2f action items track them somehow
21:34 < Ganneff> most projects run their own ns, which is simple - some are with us, in that case of course we need their zone data
21:34 < luca> either via RT tickets or as "ongoing items" in board meetings
21:35 < tbm> luca: agreed. maybe spectranaut can email the list and then we can include it in our regular meetings in the future
21:35 < spectranaut> I'd be happy to
21:35 < Ganneff> we can give porojects commit rights to adjust their zones without needing to pipe it through us admins
21:35 < Ganneff> have it with some.
21:35 < tbm> Ganneff: ok, thank's good to know
21:36 < tbm> can we get this documented? :)
21:36 < luca> tbm: that's how DSA handles things for Debain; SPI owns the Domain at gandi and DSA are admins on the domain
21:36 < Ganneff> sorry, the last line got garbled. some interference. cable problems i guess
21:36 < Ganneff> :)
21:36 < tbm> ok, sounds like nothing else
21:37 < tbm> [item 9, Next board meeting]
21:37 < tbm> The next board meeting is scheduled for: April 10, 2017, 20:00 UTC
21:37 < Ganneff> the important point for spi has always be the seperation that spi keeps the domain. rest is up to the project
21:37 < tbm> Any objections?
21:37 < tbm> *GAVEL*
21:37 < Ganneff> (which is one thing to look out for in role overlaps in future)