2025-12-08 20:00:06 schultmc [item 1, Opening] 2025-12-08 20:00:06 schultmc Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest Board Meeting, which 2025-12-08 20:00:06 schultmc is now called to order. Today's agenda can be found on the web at: 2025-12-08 20:00:08 schultmc https://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2025/2025-12-08/ 2025-12-08 20:00:10 schultmc [item 2, Roll Call] 2025-12-08 20:00:13 schultmc Directors, please state your name 2025-12-08 20:00:14 milan Milan Kupcevic 2025-12-08 20:00:15 schultmc Guests, please /msg your names to fungi if you wish your attendance to be 2025-12-08 20:00:18 jconway Joe Conway 2025-12-08 20:00:18 schultmc recorded in the minutes of this meeting. 2025-12-08 20:00:20 schultmc . 2025-12-08 20:00:21 fungi Jeremy Stanley 2025-12-08 20:00:21 mappx Katie McMillan 2025-12-08 20:00:23 schultmc fungi, do we have any regrets? 2025-12-08 20:00:25 schultmc Michael Schultheiss 2025-12-08 20:00:26 <-- borden_ (~borden@99.209.53.2) has quit 2025-12-08 20:00:27 fsf forrest fleming 2025-12-08 20:00:43 fungi yes, i erceived regrets from borden and fsf, though they may be partially present 2025-12-08 20:00:48 fungi received 2025-12-08 20:01:00 --> borden_ (~borden@99.209.53.2) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 20:01:11 schultmc That's quorum - others may join if they're available 2025-12-08 20:01:18 borden_ Borden Rhodes 2025-12-08 20:01:21 schultmc [item 3, President's Report] 2025-12-08 20:01:21 schultmc Martin, Héctor and I worked with our auditor to get our 2024 2025-12-08 20:01:21 schultmc financial statements audited. We are also worked with the auditing firm 2025-12-08 20:01:21 schultmc on filing our New York State and Federal annual filings. We received 2025-12-08 20:01:21 schultmc a 6 month extension for the time to file and the filings were 2025-12-08 20:01:23 schultmc completed by the November 15, 2025 deadline. The audit report and filings 2025-12-08 20:01:26 --> Amy_ (~oftc-webi@pool-108-45-90-188.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 20:01:26 schultmc will be published on the Treasurer page on our website shortly. 2025-12-08 20:01:28 schultmc 2025-12-08 20:01:31 schultmc . 2025-12-08 20:01:33 schultmc Jesusalva[m]: Anything to add? 2025-12-08 20:03:02 --> borden__ (~borden@2607:f2c0:e385:ffe2:4ff:8d8:57c1:30a2) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 20:03:10 Jesusalva[m] Jonatas L Nogueira 2025-12-08 20:03:18 Jesusalva[m] Nothing to add, sorry 2025-12-08 20:03:26 schultmc [item 4, Treasurer's Report] 2025-12-08 20:03:26 schultmc zumbi is unavailable. 2025-12-08 20:03:26 schultmc . 2025-12-08 20:03:26 schultmc The treasury team is continuing to process reimbursements and payments. If 2025-12-08 20:03:26 schultmc there is an urgent need (i.e. other than NET 30) please let 2025-12-08 20:03:28 schultmc treasurer@rt.spi-inc.org know 2025-12-08 20:03:33 --> jericson_ (~oftc-webi@2607:fb91:434:493:450e:d5a8:fe3e:1adc) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 20:03:34 schultmc [item 5, Secretary's report] 2025-12-08 20:03:36 schultmc fungi? 2025-12-08 20:03:40 fungi This is a final reminder to directors to complete your 2025 conflict of interest forms and send them to the secretary address before the end of the year, please. In reviewing the secretary inbox I see that we're still missing them for fsf, jconway, milan, and zumbi (I'm also working with mappx to redo hers with the expected Conflict Disclosure Form). 2025-12-08 20:03:40 fungi EOF 2025-12-08 20:04:04 mappx Thanks for your help btw 2025-12-08 20:04:16 fungi you're welcome 2025-12-08 20:04:46 jconway is there an SOP to create this form? I seem to recall it took some esoteric process to create 2025-12-08 20:05:07 jconway (and why do we need to redo it annually?) 2025-12-08 20:05:19 Jesusalva[m] Because N-PCL says so 2025-12-08 20:05:30 Jesusalva[m] (New York Laws) 2025-12-08 20:05:55 Jesusalva[m] But I think there's a SOP in the repository 2025-12-08 20:05:57 fungi there's a text-based exhibit at the end of the conflict disclosure policy inside the board-private repo on gitlab, copy that into e-mail and fill out the blanks, then send the result to the secretary inbox 2025-12-08 20:06:32 fsf and pgp sign? 2025-12-08 20:06:48 fungi there's a readme in the same folder explaining how to sign the form with an openpgp key, but i doubt that's strictly required and a lot of folks don't seem to bother 2025-12-08 20:06:57 <-- Amy_ (~oftc-webi@pool-108-45-90-188.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has quit (Quit: Page closed) 2025-12-08 20:07:26 schultmc [item 6, Outstanding minutes] 2025-12-08 20:07:26 schultmc The minutes for 2025-11-10 are outstanding. They may be 2025-12-08 20:07:26 schultmc reviewed at: 2025-12-08 20:07:28 schultmc https://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/minutes/2025/2025-11-10/ 2025-12-08 20:09:20 fungi shall i call for a vote or are there any concerns/objections? 2025-12-08 20:09:32 schultmc no concerns here 2025-12-08 20:09:52 fungi looks like we potentially have everyone except zumbi, so 8 directors this time 2025-12-08 20:10:00 fungi Voting started, 8 people (borden_,fsf,fungi,jconway,Jesusalva[m],mappx,milan,schultmc) allowed to vote on Accept meeting minutes for Monday 10 November 2025. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 2025-12-08 20:10:04 fungi !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:10:04 milan !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:10:05 schultmc !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:10:07 jconway !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:10:09 mappx !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:10:09 borden__ !yes 2025-12-08 20:10:22 <-- borden_ (~borden@99.209.53.2) has quit (Ping timeout: 480 seconds) 2025-12-08 20:10:45 fungi fsf? Jesusalva[m]? 2025-12-08 20:11:00 borden__ !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:11:17 Jesusalva[m] !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:11:18 --> fsf_ (~fsf@76.168.180.111) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 20:11:57 fsf_ apologies 2025-12-08 20:11:59 Jesusalva[m] Sorry, multitasking + reading the minutes =/ 2025-12-08 20:12:52 fungi fsf_: voting or abstaining on accepting https://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/minutes/2025/2025-11-10/ ? 2025-12-08 20:12:54 fsf_ !vote abstain 2025-12-08 20:13:02 <-- fsf (~fsf@00029520.user.oftc.net) has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 2025-12-08 20:13:05 fungi Current voting results for "Accept meeting minutes for Monday 10 November 2025": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 1, Missing: 0 () 2025-12-08 20:13:13 fungi Voting for "Accept meeting minutes for Monday 10 November 2025" closed. 2025-12-08 20:13:22 schultmc [item 7, Items up for discussion] 2025-12-08 20:13:23 schultmc [item 7.1, Resolution 2025-12-08.jln.1: SPI Policies Framework] 2025-12-08 20:13:28 schultmc Jesusalva[m]: ? 2025-12-08 20:14:50 Jesusalva[m] We were advised against making contractor rules a board resolution, but our bylaws are defased and do not have the concept of policied 2025-12-08 20:14:56 Jesusalva[m] * policies 2025-12-08 20:15:32 Jesusalva[m] This resolution adds some minimal groundwork for policies, in an effort to keep SPI more modern and transparent, while respecting our bylaws constraints 2025-12-08 20:16:01 Jesusalva[m] Ideally, a new Bylaws should be issued and this concept incorporated on it, but on the meanwhile this will have to do. 2025-12-08 20:16:51 Jesusalva[m] A policy is essentially a document on how an officer, officers or committee acts, so it's more transparent, but retaining flexibility in changes 2025-12-08 20:18:02 Jesusalva[m] Let me know if there are questions or concerns. 2025-12-08 20:18:36 borden__ sorry, I missed a bit of the thread. Can you remind me what the objection was to making this a board resolution and who made it? 2025-12-08 20:18:43 borden__ *who objected 2025-12-08 20:19:15 Jesusalva[m] Legal counsel objected 2025-12-08 20:19:33 fungi counsel suggested that officers should be able to make contractor hiring decisions without having to block on board votes 2025-12-08 20:20:27 fungi so an upcoming topic on the agenda adds a policy about that, but this resolution is about setting the ground rules for adding policies 2025-12-08 20:20:58 borden__ As I suspected. Thank you for confirming. 2025-12-08 20:21:26 Jesusalva[m] Yes. This also adds some formality, transparency and predictability on some decisions officers take ex officio 2025-12-08 20:23:32 Jesusalva[m] (I have nothing else to comment; as we gain experience I expect these ground rules to evolve alongside the policies themselves) 2025-12-08 20:25:01 fungi is everyone still reviewing the copy from their inbox, and are there objections or are we ready to call a vote? worth noting the next 4 agenda items are policies that use this framework and would need to be voted on to adopt 2025-12-08 20:26:09 schultmc I've reviewed the resolution and am ready to vote. 2025-12-08 20:26:14 borden__ I don't see a problem with codifying the process at the board level. Yes, it somewhat restricts the officers, but there's so much overlap between the two the distinction seems somewhat arbitrary 2025-12-08 20:26:22 schultmc For future votes it may be helpful to have the item linked from the agenda 2025-12-08 20:26:55 borden__ I'm ready to vote 2025-12-08 20:26:56 fungi in the past, resolutions weren't often uploaded to the website before the meeting, but i can try to do that in the future if it helps 2025-12-08 20:27:48 fungi borden__: my understanding is that it is actually less restrictive for officers than the current situation, which is why we keep having the board vote on decisions they ought to be able to make directly 2025-12-08 20:28:36 * milan is ready to vote 2025-12-08 20:28:40 fungi Voting started, 8 people (borden__,fsf_,fungi,jconway,Jesusalva[m],mappx,milan,schultmc) allowed to vote on Resolution 2025-12-08.jln.1: SPI Policies Framework. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 2025-12-08 20:28:44 fungi !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:28:47 milan !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:28:51 schultmc !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:28:54 mappx !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:28:54 fsf_ !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:28:55 borden__ !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:29:04 Jesusalva[m] !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:29:06 jconway !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:29:18 fungi Current voting results for "Resolution 2025-12-08.jln.1: SPI Policies Framework": Yes: 8, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 2025-12-08 20:29:31 fungi Voting for "Resolution 2025-12-08.jln.1: SPI Policies Framework" closed. 2025-12-08 20:29:57 schultmc [item 7.2, SPI Privacy Policy] 2025-12-08 20:30:15 fungi i suggest we table this one to the january meeting or vote asynchronously by e-mail, because the actual policy content only made it to my inbox today 2025-12-08 20:30:42 mappx I second that 2025-12-08 20:30:56 Jesusalva[m] I think we sent it months ago, then forgot, then it resurfaced. But I second it nonetheless 2025-12-08 20:31:02 Jesusalva[m] It's not something to be taken so lightly 2025-12-08 20:31:29 fungi yeah, i mainly would be abstaining if we voted today because i want to have some time to go over it 2025-12-08 20:31:49 schultmc [item 7.3, SPI Independent Contractor Hiring Policy] 2025-12-08 20:31:50 fsf_ same 2025-12-08 20:33:09 Jesusalva[m] Note this policy will apply to all contractors who get an additive, be it to extend duration or to receive the inflation correction in their rates 2025-12-08 20:33:45 borden__ RE: 7.2: Can someone remind me what compliance we're trying to achieve with the privacy policy? I have some familiarity with Canada's privacy laws, but GPDR is the big one that everyone's trying to appease 2025-12-08 20:37:30 fungi Jesusalva[m]: on the contractor hiring policy, did you get Perdu's questions in e-mail from november 26? i never saw any responses to those 2025-12-08 20:38:08 Perdu I think he said he included the suggestions, didn't he? 2025-12-08 20:38:35 fsf_ i must go - apologies. happy holidays! 2025-12-08 20:38:40 Perdu Yes, in here on dec 3rd 2025-12-08 20:38:57 fungi ah okay, so not included in the e-mail copies the board received 2025-12-08 20:39:09 fungi (or that the secretary received) 2025-12-08 20:39:12 <-- fsf_ (~fsf@76.168.180.111) has quit (Remote host closed the connection) 2025-12-08 20:39:22 Perdu I may be wrong, maybe Jesusalva[m] can confirm first 2025-12-08 20:40:17 Jesusalva[m] Yes 2025-12-08 20:40:35 Jesusalva[m] Although I couldn't actually send the written as amended version 2025-12-08 20:40:36 fungi oh, it was in the separate stf contractor agreements thread? 2025-12-08 20:40:48 Jesusalva[m] Nor did I change those only questioned 2025-12-08 20:40:56 Jesusalva[m] Wait, stf is a different can of worms. Two, actually 2025-12-08 20:41:46 fungi yeah, i'm looking for an updated contractor hiring policy addressing Perdu's questions, and not finding it 2025-12-08 20:42:53 fungi not in the "Things for the Next Board Meeting" thread anyway, if it's buried in another one then i'd love a pointer 2025-12-08 20:44:32 fungi so unless i'm overlooking something, it seems like the one secretary and board received is not the final version, in which case we probably ought to table the vote on this for now too? 2025-12-08 20:44:56 Jesusalva[m] I only did wording changes 2025-12-08 20:45:44 Jesusalva[m] Those which are actual questions I didn't modify 2025-12-08 20:46:59 Jesusalva[m] Eg. "could this line be an issue for open source software?" 2025-12-08 20:47:04 Jesusalva[m] I didn't change it 2025-12-08 20:47:24 fungi so references to human resources and legal departments, for example, remain in the final version? 2025-12-08 20:47:49 Jesusalva[m] Yes, right now these tasks are with the VP though 2025-12-08 20:48:07 Jesusalva[m] But I plan in splitting it a bit 2025-12-08 20:48:28 Jesusalva[m] So I kept the department wording, so I can start sharing this load with other directors as well 2025-12-08 20:48:47 Jesusalva[m] (and changing to committee would only make it worse) 2025-12-08 20:49:06 Jesusalva[m] Only policy-member missing line about technical details and the many typo fixes, iirc, were modified 2025-12-08 20:49:11 fungi okay, if we were to vote on and approve this today, what's the process for getting it up on the website? should i upload the version we're voting on and then we vote on and amend with the corrections later? 2025-12-08 20:50:18 fungi or do we vote on the version the board received, and then i wait to upload the corrected version? 2025-12-08 20:50:19 Jesusalva[m] Should be fine. The correction wouldn't really need a vote either, only a communication to Board and the opportunity to object 2025-12-08 20:51:17 Jesusalva[m] The idea is that the first version and full rewrites get a fuller appreciation, but changes only give an opportunity for objections then apply without further bureaucracy 2025-12-08 20:52:48 Jesusalva[m] So it's actually a good test case imo 2025-12-08 20:53:06 Jesusalva[m] Can you therefore have a vote on the currently sent version? 2025-12-08 20:53:47 Jesusalva[m] The amendments are minor, so we can do them with the new framework 2025-12-08 20:53:49 --> Kassia (~oftc-webi@189.6.37.139) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 20:53:54 fungi Voting started, 7 people (borden__,fungi,jconway,Jesusalva[m],mappx,milan,schultmc) allowed to vote on Adopting the SPI Independent Contractor Hiring Policy. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 2025-12-08 20:54:07 schultmc !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:54:13 fungi !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:54:14 borden__ !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:54:14 Jesusalva[m] !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:54:14 milan !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:54:18 mappx !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:54:18 jconway !vote yes 2025-12-08 20:54:32 fungi Current voting results for "Resolution 2025-12-08.jln.1: SPI Policies Framework": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 2025-12-08 20:54:41 fungi er, no 2025-12-08 20:55:04 fungi Current voting results for "Adopting the SPI Independent Contractor Hiring Policy": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 2025-12-08 20:55:17 fungi Voting for "Adopting the SPI Independent Contractor Hiring Policy" closed. 2025-12-08 20:56:04 fungi i'll upload the original version and then we can amend with corrections later 2025-12-08 20:56:23 fungi that way we'll have revision history in git too 2025-12-08 20:57:27 <-- borden__ (~borden@2607:f2c0:e385:ffe2:4ff:8d8:57c1:30a2) has quit (Quit: Leaving) 2025-12-08 20:57:50 --> borden (~borden@2607:f2c0:e385:ffe2:4ff:8d8:57c1:30a2) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 20:58:21 fungi with fsf and now borden gone, i think we're still quorate for the remaining votes, though only barely 2025-12-08 20:58:28 borden I'm back 2025-12-08 20:58:34 borden Signing in, Borden Rhodes 2025-12-08 20:58:36 fungi oh, sorry thanks 2025-12-08 20:58:36 jconway I have 2 minutes then I have to drop 2025-12-08 20:58:58 schultmc [item 7.4, SPI Membership Policy] 2025-12-08 21:00:07 Jesusalva[m] Mostly tried to document how fungi and I were accepting requests 2025-12-08 21:00:19 Jesusalva[m] And formalize other things 2025-12-08 21:00:41 <-- jconway (~jconway@162-239-31-113.lightspeed.dybhfl.sbcglobal.net) has quit (Quit: Leaving) 2025-12-08 21:01:20 --> fsf (~fsf@00029520.user.oftc.net) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 21:01:35 <-- jericson_ (~oftc-webi@2607:fb91:434:493:450e:d5a8:fe3e:1adc) has left #spi 2025-12-08 21:01:47 borden Which document is this and when did we get it? 2025-12-08 21:02:11 <-- fsf (~fsf@00029520.user.oftc.net) has quit (Remote host closed the connection) 2025-12-08 21:02:38 fungi borden: in that same "Things for the Next Board Meeting" message from Jesusalva[m] on 2025-11-23, the attachment called policy-members.mdwn 2025-12-08 21:04:04 fungi the message contained the framework resolution and 4 policies as attachments, though one of the policies (policy-privacy.mdwn) was truncated and missing its content 2025-12-08 21:07:12 * milan is ready to vote 2025-12-08 21:08:01 borden Thank you. In general, if we're going to have voting and non-voting memberships, the standards for admission into CM should be fair, objective and transparent. The current wording (which I know has been the always existed wording) is too subjective and political. 2025-12-08 21:08:20 Jesusalva[m] Yes, I tried to make it more clear actually 2025-12-08 21:08:23 borden ... at least for my liking 2025-12-08 21:08:37 Jesusalva[m] But it depends a lot on subjective assessment 2025-12-08 21:08:47 Jesusalva[m] Which is why it has a manager and a committee 2025-12-08 21:09:05 fungi i guess this raises a process question: should we adopt a policy which matches the current practice and guidance, then alter it in-place to make it better? or try to get it right before adopting, leaving effectively the same status quo until then? 2025-12-08 21:09:37 fungi the end result is the same either way 2025-12-08 21:09:47 Jesusalva[m] A better question: Who, besides myself, will be part of the committee? 2025-12-08 21:10:11 schultmc I can help with the committee 2025-12-08 21:10:53 borden I'm all in favour of a 70% solution now than a 100% solution never. I was just providing my opinion that the criteria should be based on something other than feels. In an ideal world (which this is not), it should be "You've met X of the Y criteria for inclusion, welcome to CM". 2025-12-08 21:10:59 fungi i regret that i've had less time to help with it since becoming secretary. ideally though this would be something we'd get non-officers and newer board members involved in 2025-12-08 21:11:23 borden If it's FOT, the committee should only need one person on it. 2025-12-08 21:11:41 Jesusalva[m] It doesn't require to be a board member, actually 2025-12-08 21:11:47 fungi true 2025-12-08 21:12:01 fungi it just ends up falling to us because of a lack of volunteers 2025-12-08 21:12:47 fungi also at least when i was helping with it, there was quite a bit of work involved in trying to vet the claims made by applicants, matching up the addresses in their applications with evidence they linked, and following up with them to get clarification or address mismatches 2025-12-08 21:12:50 borden and, not implicating anyone here, if it's largely based on subjective criteria, such a position will most appeal to people with a political axe to grind. 2025-12-08 21:12:58 Jesusalva[m] Borden, My idea would be, if it's subjective, let a manager (1 person) decide and appeal to all members (3~5 persons ideally) deliberate as collegiate. Except more flexible than that 2025-12-08 21:13:36 Jesusalva[m] So you can consult others whenever, and distribute the cases among all members 2025-12-08 21:14:51 --> b_ (~Borden@2607:f2c0:e385:ffe2:6888:f047:492a:c590) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 21:14:57 <-- b_ (~Borden@2607:f2c0:e385:ffe2:6888:f047:492a:c590) has quit 2025-12-08 21:15:33 --> b_ (~Borden@2607:f2c0:e385:ffe2:6888:f047:492a:c590) has joined #spi 2025-12-08 21:15:51 b_ This is still Borden Rhodes. IRC's being rather disagreeable to me today 2025-12-08 21:16:22 Jesusalva[m] It's already 18:15 here 2025-12-08 21:16:52 Jesusalva[m] I suggest we put it to vote as is, then see what the end result is, and if it's not favorable, we chat about how to improve it and resubmit next meeting 2025-12-08 21:17:06 schultmc +1 2025-12-08 21:17:11 mappx +1 2025-12-08 21:17:15 milan +1 2025-12-08 21:17:18 fungi Voting started, 6 people (borden,fungi,Jesusalva[m],mappx,milan,schultmc) allowed to vote on Adopting the SPI Membership Policy. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 2025-12-08 21:17:23 fungi !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:17:26 milan !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:17:26 schultmc !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:17:28 mappx !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:17:43 b_ !vote yes (borden) 2025-12-08 21:18:17 Jesusalva[m] !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:18:19 fungi Current voting results for "Adopting the SPI Membership Policy": Yes: 6, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 2025-12-08 21:18:30 schultmc [item 7.5, SPI Reimbursement Policy] 2025-12-08 21:18:40 fungi Voting for "Adopting the SPI Membership Policy" closed. 2025-12-08 21:18:58 Jesusalva[m] I'll be honest, I had a meeting with Hector about that one. 2025-12-08 21:19:55 -- borden is now known as Guest33162 2025-12-08 21:19:56 -- b_ is now known as borden 2025-12-08 21:20:05 fungi i take it he gave some unofficial approval of the draft? 2025-12-08 21:21:04 fungi i'm kind of hesitant to vote on that policy without his buy-in, so knowing that up front will help 2025-12-08 21:21:44 Jesusalva[m] Yes, or at least I hope so. But schultmc can double check if it reflects current practices 2025-12-08 21:21:45 Jesusalva[m] Same, fungi 2025-12-08 21:21:51 Jesusalva[m] He didn't ask for any changes, only mentioned what he plans for RT in the future 2025-12-08 21:22:08 Jesusalva[m] It should reflect current practices to the best of my knowledge, but I would prefer if Schultheiss could confirm 2025-12-08 21:22:13 <-- Guest33162 (~borden@000327ec.user.oftc.net) has quit (Ping timeout: 480 seconds) 2025-12-08 21:23:01 borden I'm confused, why can't people get their expenses approved before spending them and simply set a policy in line with allowable charitable expenses? 2025-12-08 21:23:49 fungi to some extent, this policy is preapproval of certain classes of expenses 2025-12-08 21:24:14 Jesusalva[m] Yes, that's current practice. Although treasury asked to set a deadline to submit these requests 2025-12-08 21:24:22 borden Like, in a normal contractor relationship, the contractor is responsible for all their expenditures and can only invoice the customer for the agreed rate plus any other clauses 2025-12-08 21:24:25 Jesusalva[m] Getting a two years old reimbursement request is... 2025-12-08 21:24:27 Jesusalva[m] ... 2025-12-08 21:24:38 borden expense reimbursement is only relevant in an employment relationship 2025-12-08 21:25:15 schultmc many of the expenses are volunteers spending on behalf of an associated project 2025-12-08 21:25:16 Jesusalva[m] That's another issue 2025-12-08 21:25:21 borden I'm not saying that this policy is bad, it just strikes me as an extra mile of red tape that can be handled more elegantly 2025-12-08 21:25:21 fungi borden: this is for things like community members attending their community's conference and getting their costs comped by the conference's funds, i believe 2025-12-08 21:25:43 Jesusalva[m] I don't mind people paying for a project and getting reimbursement as they didn't use an SPI card 2025-12-08 21:25:47 Jesusalva[m] (we had a long discussion about that) 2025-12-08 21:26:16 Jesusalva[m] But some people want to sign contracts by themselves and then want us to pay as if we were a party to the contract 2025-12-08 21:26:20 fungi borden: we're talking about hundreds or thousands of community members and volunteers making small reimbursement requests, less about established contract relationships (which the policy says are excluded and handled separately) 2025-12-08 21:26:33 Jesusalva[m] fungi, 80% of reimbursement requests are that, indeed 2025-12-08 21:26:47 Jesusalva[m] Then some equipment reimbursements 2025-12-08 21:26:52 Jesusalva[m] Anda few troublesome requests 2025-12-08 21:28:11 Jesusalva[m] And indeed you're right 2025-12-08 21:28:26 Jesusalva[m] Established contracts are a different policy 2025-12-08 21:28:41 Jesusalva[m] That's for food expenses, travel, hotel, taxi 2025-12-08 21:28:48 fungi "This policy is for reimbursement requests only; it does not apply to invoices, contracts, use of corporate debit/credit cards." 2025-12-08 21:29:16 Jesusalva[m] Occasional expenses which for some odd reason couldn't be invoiced directly to SPI 2025-12-08 21:29:21 Jesusalva[m] (As an exception) 2025-12-08 21:29:22 borden I guess that wording is a bit ambiguous, since people would need to submit invoices, contracts, receipts, etc., to get money 2025-12-08 21:30:15 Jesusalva[m] No contracts 2025-12-08 21:30:16 Jesusalva[m] Contracts aren't reimbursable 2025-12-08 21:30:32 Jesusalva[m] Receipts, mostly 2025-12-08 21:32:19 Jesusalva[m] We can ask zumbi to clarify this later 2025-12-08 21:32:26 Jesusalva[m] Is this the last agenda item, fungi? 2025-12-08 21:32:42 fungi other than identifying the january meeting date, afaik 2025-12-08 21:32:54 fungi i'm okay with voting on this and then working with zumbi to get adjustments made 2025-12-08 21:32:59 schultmc yes, I don't have anything further other than AOB 2025-12-08 21:33:54 Jesusalva[m] schultmc, what do you think about the policy? We can hold off on it if you prefer, and you're the most qualified of us to ask for a rescheduling. Problem is that we're often having to amend past year books 2025-12-08 21:34:04 Jesusalva[m] Due to untimely reimbursement requests 2025-12-08 21:34:37 schultmc It seems reasonable to me as a policy. Any issues can result in a revision of the policy 2025-12-08 21:35:07 Jesusalva[m] +1 2025-12-08 21:35:10 fungi Voting started, 6 people (borden,fungi,Jesusalva[m],mappx,milan,schultmc) allowed to vote on Adopting the SPI Reimbursement Policy. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now. 2025-12-08 21:35:15 borden !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:35:15 fungi !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:35:17 schultmc !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:35:20 mappx !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:35:21 milan !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:35:25 Jesusalva[m] !vote yes 2025-12-08 21:35:27 fungi Current voting results for "Adopting the SPI Reimbursement Policy": Yes: 6, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 () 2025-12-08 21:35:30 schultmc [item 8, Any other business] 2025-12-08 21:35:31 schultmc Anything to discuss? 2025-12-08 21:35:32 fungi Voting for "Adopting the SPI Reimbursement Policy" closed. 2025-12-08 21:35:42 fungi i have nothing 2025-12-08 21:35:56 Jesusalva[m] No, all my aobs became a policy 2025-12-08 21:35:56 milan none here 2025-12-08 21:36:00 borden move to adjourn until 12 January @ 20:00 UTC 2025-12-08 21:36:04 schultmc [item 9, Next board meeting] 2025-12-08 21:36:04 schultmc The next board meeting is scheduled for: January 12, 2026 at 2000 UTC. 2025-12-08 21:36:05 schultmc Any objections? 2025-12-08 21:36:16 schultmc wfm 2025-12-08 21:36:21 milan wfm too 2025-12-08 21:36:23 fungi i can make that 2025-12-08 21:36:26 mappx wfm