*** Starting logfile /home/branden/misc/etc/spi-meeting.2003.01.07 IRC log started Tue Jan 07 15:02:19 2003 *** Value of LOG set to ON 03:02PM|*** Starting logfile /home/branden/misc/etc/spi-meeting.2003.01.07 03:02PM|*** Value of LOG set to ON ok An actual board meeting. EanSchuessler: take here away! shall we use the same method as last time? *#* Mode change +m on channel #spi by wiggy I hereby call this official and operational SPI meeting to order! do I have a voice? *#* wiggy has changed the topic on #spi to agenda is at http://www.spi-inc.org/~wichert/agenda *#* Users on #spi: *#* @Diziet @EanSchuessler @Manoj @Overfiend @Schuessi @wiggy azeem bdale brother cdlu Clint CosmicRay dieman *#* ElectricElf gcc- Hydroxide ibid ja lan migus mihtjel Noodles pj0tr tbm tina tytso *#* weasel yp17 *#* wiggy has changed the topic on #spi to agenda is at http://www.spi-inc.org/~wichert/agenda ; msg EanSchuessler if you want to say something so he can hand out voices as needed Tue Jan 7 21:03:26 CET 2003 Errr... Unfortunately I'm not to up to date on voicing people so maybe we can just maintain order naturally. /mode #spi +v /mode +v non-moderator-nickname to give voice oh, whoops, yeah, listen to wiggy and -v to take it away Ah. Well, thats easy enough. * EanSchuessler loads up latest agenda. - Roll call. present Actually, let's type our names for convenience in the record. Ean Schuessler present. PRESIDENT, huh-m-huh, huh Branden Robinson present. Manoj Srivastava, present Ian Jackson, present Wichert Akkerman, present *#* Mode change -m on channel #spi by wiggy can everyone do that please? *#* _rene_ (~rene@stan.ping.de) has joined channel #spi Clint Adams, present wiggy: what does that do? John Goerzen, present Peter Palfrader, present David Graham, present Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, present David B. Harris, present. Michael Banck, present Overfiend: remove moderation so everyone can talk Pierre Machard, present *?* Channel -m does not exist. Bill Allombert, present Bdale Garbee, advisor from Debian and contributing member Scott Dier, present. Rune Broberg, present (at times) Peter Makholm, present Martin Michlmayr, advisor, present wiggy: I tried, got no client feedback at all. <_rene_> Rene Engelhard, cont. memb., present is that everyone? Overfiend: must have worked, my first try was blocked and second got through For anyone who missed what we are doing, we are calling roll. Please type your full name. This includes contributing members and even just plain visitors. Tina Gasperson, just plain visitor Are we all done then? All right. Let's move on. *#* Mode change +m on channel #spi by wiggy *** Approving minutes of last meeting I'm a touch confused. Are these the December 17th minutes? they were already approved *#* dtype (~dtype@dtype.org) has joined channel #spi Ok, that's what I thought. *#* Mode change +o dtype on channel #spi by wiggy stupid bitchx reset itself at some point and hopped back to default server aha. So, December 17th minutes are already approved. Any comments? No? Ok, let's move on. *#* dtype is now known as DrewStreib *** Report from the treasurer Okay, that's me. 18 Ns Jan 07 Branden Robinso ( 145) [Spi-private] Treasurer report for 7 January 2003 19 Ns Jan 07 Branden Robinso ( 145) Treasurer report for 7 January 2003 it has been sent to spi-private, since it contains account balances and stuff I move we thank Branden and accept his report. I welcome followup questions, though I realize few will have had time to read it. * EanSchuessler looks it over. since I sent it about 5 minutes before the meeting was convened. I don't have any questions. Also, we should thank Branden for his hard work. I think we can probably leave the questions for the next meeting, or just email ? No need to wait about while everyone reads it thoroughly. do we have any from the contributing members? Overfiend: wrt to account ownership, how about transfering that to you? Diziet: I agree wiggy: I'm already an "owner" of all 3 accounts Diziet: definately. you can have more than one person with "signing authority" or whatever. The question is whether we drop Nils now, or later. Overfiend: ok, in that case we should have nils removed imho Overfiend: thanks for the continued hard work on a less than appealing task. Ean: yeah, at least you guys don't get paper cuts :) I don't care about Nils - he's not going to defraud us. But I'll take Branden's call. ORDER * Overfiend snaps to attention Not to be rude, but I can see that Branden's report is cause for a spectrum of discussions. Let's take those up on the list. Ean: can I add something? absolutely Since I realize folks didn't have a fair chance to review the report before the meeting started, I welcome questions to be submitted to spi-private in reply to that mail. I will attempt to answer them in my next report. Super. likely in immediate reply as well Are there any questions specific to the contents of Branden's current report. Corrections, etc. ? Great. Then let's vote on Ian's proposal to accept the minutes. * Overfiend yields the floor. Oops. Hold a sec. question, i'm late, but not sure if officially _here_ (as wasn't at beginning of meeting). I'm still OK to vote, correct? DrewStreib: yes, you're here now DrewStreib: yes. you're here. *#* Signoff: weaselTM (Client Quit) *#* Users on #spi: *#* @Diziet @DrewStreib @EanSchuessler @Manoj @Overfiend @Schuessi @wiggy azeem bdale brother cdlu Clint CosmicRay *#* dieman ElectricElf gcc- Hydroxide ibid ja lan migus mihtjel Noodles pj0tr tbm tina *#* tytso weasel yp17 _rene_ Bdale has a comment on the treasurer's report. bdale: yes? Hrmph. I'm doing something wrong.. *#* Mode change +v bdale on channel #spi by wiggy wiggy: thanks * EanSchuessler mumbles. Overfiend: I wonder if you have a split of balance showing Debian's assets right now? bdale: in short, no Overfiend: ok, thanks, next time. well EanSchuessler: thanks I need to elaborate. because I cannot come up with an answer in any timeframe without some premises decided. Overfiend: "no" is sufficient for now, no need to hold up the mtg well, I'll keep it to one sentence. SPI has never, to my knowledge, officially adopted a policy of how to divide up the cash in the AXP Cash Management account where almost all of the money is. Previous Treasurers did not leave good enough records for me to know how much is Debian-specific and how much is SPI's. sorry, that is 2 sentences Previous minutes discuss a "5%" rule, and I recommend that interested parties review old minutes for this discussion. That is all. Hmmmm. bdale: your input on this matter is, IMO, essential. * bdale suggests the board discuss this and determine an answer before the next meeting? MINUTES: Make sure to add a note requiring discussion of Debian's finances on the list. Also discuss establishing a Treasurer's committee with it's own list. * bdale will be happy to participate in said discussion, but thinks it too much to tackle right now in this meeting * EanSchuessler agrees. bdale: I agree. Hopefully we can work something out. we'll work something out. Any other comments on the treasurer's report? *#* Mode change -v bdale on channel #spi by wiggy No? * wiggy presses next Very well. I repeat Ian's motion that we accept the report. * Overfiend abstains. * EanSchuessler votes YES I vote in favour, clearly. lets wait for the actual call for votes :) * DrewStreib waits. * wiggy votes in favour * Overfiend abstains early, and abstains often. * DrewStreib votes in favor. can we assume manoj dropped of the net? * EanSchuessler nudges manoj with Drew here, we're still at quorum, right? Overfiend: yes i believe so, yes. mark Manoj as abstaining and move on then, IMO * EanSchuessler wacks Manoj. Ok, Manoj abstains by virtue of absence. 4 for and 2 abstain? Mr Secretary? *#* Signoff: Manoj (Read error: Connection timed out) Ah. motion accepted I would say The treasurer's report is accepted. Next. the secretary can record the votes from the IRC logs when he preps the minutes, I do not think it is necessary to hold up the proceeding unless there is evident confusion nevermind :) Oh joy. *** New board members can I introduce this one? Please do./ I would like to ask people to read http://www.wiggy.net/spi/2003-01-06.wta.2 wiggy: do you want to copy some of the key elements into the IRC log? wait, no, sorry, wrong resolution uh that's the bylaws one oh... Yipe. let's not spill blood before we have to >;-) * EanSchuessler stops pretending to know which proposal is which by date. http://www.wiggy.net/spi/2003-01-06.wta.1 is the correct one sorry about that Have you mailed that out ? If not please do so. Diziet: yes, yesterday to both the board and spi-general * Diziet finds it. [inappropriate remark] sauce probably shitcanned it :-P whoops as discussed in the previous meeting we want add members to the spi board I assume the board can choose any way to elect new members at the moment? (independent of bylaw changes to happen later?) this resolution explains the method we would like to use to implement that DrewStreib: yes Drew: we can certainly elect new members in accordance with the existing bylaws Damn, I should have replied to that motion saying the time periods are too short. Diziet: you can do so now IMO they're plenty Doubling them would help. we already have a set of candidates modulus typographical fixes I'm happy to second the proposed resolution as-is You miss out if you're on holiday for a week ? so I don't see why doubling the first period would help Diziet: only when it's a week in Diziet time :-P Diziet: please subscribe to spi-general and read the archives since December 1st we have no shortage of candidates qualified ones, even But if they happen to be away when we send out the call, they'll miss out. * EanSchuessler is reading in several places at once. the current list of candidates is: Bruce Perens, Clint Adams, Craig Small, David Graham, Jimmy Kaplowitz, Mako Hill, Rik van Riel Diziet: oh well. You're saying this 7 days has already started then ? Diziet: same is true if it's a month, or a year. Diziet: no Diziet: no Yes, but people are less likely to be away for 14 days than 7. Diziet: *cough& we'll be seeding the list with people who volunteered earlier Then we don't have any `official' candidates nominated according to this process yet. Your motion doesn't say that. and add seven extra days for more volunteers wiggy: technically we'll have to re-solicit self-nominations, Diziet is right about that ORDER however, I Dieman has requested the floor. *#* Mode change +v dieman on channel #spi by wiggy Hi, I'm Scott Dier, in case anyone missed the begenning. * DrewStreib looks away. Is there a reason a previous suggestion to have short position papers on the spi website wasn't included in this resolution? I think the resolution needs more work :-(. (sorry) it is a technicality which I didn't feel was required Thanks Scott. Ok, so we have two points... I disagree with Diziet, and agree with what I think Wichert is saying. The timeframe should be extended and position papers should be posted publicly from the candidates. the burden is on the candidate to prove his mettle by proactively posting a bio and/or discussion of issues germane to SPI I don't see either of those requests as show stoppers. EanSchuessler: me neither, I just don't think they're essential Overfiend: we can certainly post positions if they are provided. how about: * over a period of one week (7 days) candiates can nominate themselves, Any submitted position papers and bios of the candidates will be published on the SPI website. We must also say who organises, makes random administrative decisions, acts as returning officer, etc. * Overfiend seconds that not what Diziet said Diziet: "returning officer"? oh, the person who tabulates the ballots right? Diziet: this falls on the tasks of the secretary as I see it We can extend the first period to two weeks to ask candidates to officially re-volunteer, I have no objection to that The motion should say so. How about: The Secretary shall act as returning officer, issue calls for nominations, tabulate votes, etc. So add a clause that says the SPI Secretary shall serve as election manager yeah, what Diziet said * Overfiend seconds that, too --The Secretary shall act as returning officer, issue calls for nominations, and tabulate votes. Voting will done using the Condorcet method with Cloneproof/Schwartz Sequential Dropping. wiggy: You accept my proposed amendment, then. Good. wiggy: sloppy wording but I can pick over that later if need be not important for this meeting I have updated the text online And change nomination period to 14 days. Let's keep in mind that this is neither a re-election of board officers nor are we establishing a permanent method for handling board elections. ean: True. This is a one time event designed to reconstitute the board. Diziet: any objections to voting for the resolution as it is currently drafted? More permanent arrangements could be made in a by-laws committee if one existed. :) wiggy: point of order wiggy: let's look back at the two requests. let's vote specifically on Diziet's 14 day amendment Let's get the position statements in there too. ok consensus vote? Ean: that was not objected to * wiggy abstains wiggy: to be clear, what are we voting on? Ean: technically it can be rammed in by acclamation (sp?) abs: extending the period of the nomination phase to two weeks s/abs/ean/ Ean: I suggest you call for votes on Diziet's amendment to extend the nomination period to 14 days. since this resolution isn't yet voted on, do we need to vote on ammendments to it? Drew: yes wiggy: do you accept the amendment to 14 days ? Does anyone object to it ? Drew: _Robert's_ says you vote on amendments before the resolution itself ORDER Diziet: I would like to go with the board majority, I don't particularly care either way Drew: that way you know what you're passing *#* robster (~rob@hades.robster.org.uk) has joined channel #spi ov: Yes, indeed, but we don't need to vote if no-one objects. (Assuming I have a second.) VOTE: Amend diziet's proposal to include the 14 day nomination period. I vote in favour, obviously. * Overfiend votes NO * DrewStreib votes in favor. VOTE: Amend wichert's proposal to include Ian's 14 day nomination period. Sorry. GRRRRRR * EanSchuessler votes in favor. * Overfiend votes to smack Ean for confusing things * wiggy abstains majority is in favour though sorry. * wiggy edits * Overfiend still votes no but it carries 2 weeks isn't really too long for something this important. text updated with 4 weeks we'll have the new board members just in time for the next meeting DrewStreib: no, I'll vote for it either way. I just think we de facto used most of last month as a nominating and discussion period. DrewStreib: on -general the irc format doesn't seem particularly conducive to efficiency Overfiend: new board members is a big deal. let's not rush it. EanSchuessler: can you please call for votes on the resolution as it stands now? wiggy: what about position statements as per Scott's request? is there a current list of members which is very up to date, and which will have voting privileges? EanSchuessler: that was already accepted by acclamation EanSchuessler: already merged ok. cdlu has some comments. DrewStreib: yes, the members.spi-inc.org system 03:35PM| how about: 03:35PM| * over a period of one week (7 days) candiates can nominate themselves, 03:35PM| Any submitted position papers and bios of the candidates will be 03:35PM| published on the SPI website. 03:35PM| We must also say who organises, makes random administrative decisions, acts as returning officer, etc. 03:35PM|* Overfiend seconds that *#* Mode change +v cdlu on channel #spi by EanSchuessler Ok, I'd just like to say I think the extra week is ... more time Joey put out a call for nominations in November there have already been several weeks. Thanks *#* Mode change -v cdlu on channel #spi by EanSchuessler the issue is official nominations Again, I'd just like to put things in perspective. nominations made previously are not valid in this process unfortunately We have a board that is apparently operational for the time being. Either way, this puts things in time for the next meeting. We've voted, can we move on to the whole resolution as amended ? I will mail the previous nomimations to invite them to re-nominate Yeah, cdlu and I are clearly in the minority, let's move on. let's vote on the whole resolution before the vote, could I see a pointer the the current membership list? We're adding board members, which is serious, and I would like to see us not do it in the Cabal(tm) style. modulo typo fixups DrewStreib: yes, the members.spi-inc.org system DrewStreib: contributing members, all members, just the Board, what? Do I have to have an account in this thing to see the membership list ? whoever will have voting power for the new board members Diziet: you should already have one Diziet: you might have read access to the psql database but please keep these technicalaties for later Drew: AIUI, all contributing members have a vote. That includes the entire Board by definition. ORDER Let's get a vote here. EanSchuessler: well, Drew wanted us to shelve that until he found out who has a vote. Point of order What ov said I'm fine now. My question is answered. okay OK VOTE: Accept Wichert's board nomination and election procedure with the time frame modification. Yes * Overfiend votes YES * EanSchuessler votes in favor. although I'd like a more public posting of membership at some point if we could. * wiggy votes in favour * DrewStreib votes in favor. DrewStreib: noted. Drew: might want to mail tbm about it Martin Michlmayr he's still chair of the membership committee and implemented most of the tech The motion passes. Next. *** Resolution 2002-12-17.wta.1: Charter for the bylaws committee can I introduce this one again? Please do. eh? http://www.wiggy.net/spi/2003-01-06.wta.2 right isn't that version more recent? okay Oh... sorry. working from the agenda. *#* Signoff: maxx (Quit: n8) this is the result from the discussion at the last meeting and further discussions within the board and on spi-general wiggy: I like that resolution, but might want to request an addition of a review of the guidelines for membership, since if we are giving membership more power, we want to be clear on what constitutes membership, and how it is gained. or something like that in correct english DrewStreib: we can suggest that to the ctte the 'guidelines' on spi-inc.org are pretty shaky at best once it exists WTF wiggy: neither ean nor I can voice people, the ops are fucked up hm? who do you want to voice? please voice dieman devoice. oh *#* Mode change -v dieman on channel #spi by wiggy * Overfiend slinks off in stupidity * wiggy gives overfiend a cluecookie OK, how about we insert new iii. Review and clarification of the guidelines for granting contributing membership. (and renumber iii to iv) i'd like that so done Ok, we have a comment from Bdale. *#* Mode change +v bdale on channel #spi by EanSchuessler I'm in favor of that as long as it isn't bolted to "don't you touch the quorum rules" amendment * bdale reminds the board that months ago there was discussion leading to recollection that all Debian developers were de facto contributing members, but no action has been taken yet to programmatically give them that status in the db as far as I know. ov: I withdraw the thing about the quorum rules. Diziet: oh, okay. ORDER bdale: that is but one of many things about membership I think it would be great to clear up. * bdale thinks it's crystal clear Wooo. bdale: well, hang on a second it's just that no action was taken in response to the board's discussion bdale: we can grab the debian.org account database and merge that into the spi members system there may be Debian members who choose NOT to be SPI contributing members Err, from what I recall this is a kettle of fish with the Debian members. Right. Overfiend: that was part of the previous discussion, review it but that was the reason we did not do that bdale: IIRC, we didn't want to auto-sub Debian developers to mailing lists, etc. no, we had a solution involving waiving the automatic mailing list subscription * DrewStreib notes that this also causes some confusion as to the election of new board members this month? Which members list is authoritative? bdale: there was specific discussion around this. bdale: All Debian developers are eligible for contributing membership, and sign up is fast and easy. bdale: I do not think there is any disenfranchisement going on at all. Let's hold here for a second. bdale: what contrary perception do you have?> EanSchuessler: sorry bdale: This is, frankly, your decision. bdale: If you feel you have the authority to declare such a thing then we can take action on it. EanSchuessler: I thought it was decided long ago, but apparently no action was ever taken. [shrug] I move: we resolve that Debian developers may become contributing members, and vote in the election, if they choose (if this is not already clear). EanSchuessler: true. If forcibly-memberized Debian Developers howl at SPI for spam, we can just direct them to Bdale :) Diziet: that is already true bdale: However, if you are making this decision as Project Leader without a General Resolution then that is your decision. bdale: will that satisfy you ? I don't know if you want to make that decision here and now. Overfiend: the previous discussion was that we'd grant immediate contributing member status, but not auto-subscribe them to lists. bdale: hmm, that does sound familiar I don't suppose anyone has a URL handy. EanSchuessler: my interpretation was that no decision was needed, since this grant of status was part of the intent with the original formation of SPI. I think making people automatically members of something is a very dodgy thing to do. with the 14 day amendment for the nomination period, though, isn't there plenty of time to resolve this in email? fwiw, this is why I wanted to see a membership list. :) ov: Hence my motion. bdale: can you instruct debian dsa to work with us in order to get the necessary acount databases synced? * Overfiend suppresses a rueful snicker. Almost. bdale: you and I see it that way but I clearly recall some Debianers that DID NOT want to be part of SPI. Not that they had any sensible reason for it. wiggy: I tried once, happy to try again. What Ean said. bdale: you'll have to succeed if you want debian developers to vote in spi votes EanSchuessler: my position was that they *were* contributing members of SPI, and we just had a db sync problem. well, fine, get DSA to enable it it takes two to do this bd: I think you're mistaken. we just need read access to db.debian.org's ldap setup including pw hash ok, I didn't mean to entirely derail the discussion, I just wanted this considered in light of the questions of who is and is not a voting member. This is all going to go hideously wrong if we get into a dire political doom with some kooky Debian developers who think we're taking away their freedom by making them members, in the middle of our board elections ! We have some other Debianers who would like to comment on this situation. Diziet: that doesn't really matter. Let Bdale direct DSA to do this; in the meantime we can try and fish out the decision that says "YES, AUTOMATIC MEMBERSHIP BUT NO MAILING LIST SUBSCRIPTION" and pull the trigger based on whether or not we find that. for all I know, the resolution was in one of the sets of minutes we never approved :-P :-P :-P let ean hand out voice here ORDER (thanks wichert) *#* Mode change +v weasel on channel #spi by EanSchuessler It's not necessarily a good thing to add all DDs as SPI-members. It can make getting valid votes harder: The quorum for a vote by the membership shall be set at 35% of eligible voters so if we have lots of members that don't care about SPI thats bad. thank you. noted *#* Mode change -v weasel on channel #spi by EanSchuessler Please let us _not_ automatically do some kind of mass membership thing. Some people get very upset _not because of mailing list subs_ but just because they think they're being dragooned into some kind of conspiracy. *#* Mode change +v CosmicRay on channel #spi by EanSchuessler I was going to say what weasel did; thanks. gah. a quorum of voting members? we definitely need a bylaws review! *#* Mode change -v CosmicRay on channel #spi by EanSchuessler automatic eligibility seems a lot more sane than automatic subscription bdale: a quorum of ELIGIBLE members that's usually how quorum is defined. same definition is operant in the Debian Constitution I must go now, I'm afraid. I trust someone else will propose my paragraph about veto vs approval of the bylaws committee procedures. Yes, I agree with Drew. ok especially when we're talking about a legal organization so lets keep things just as they are ok. never mind, then. I'll draft an announcement to d-d-a reminding people of their right to join SPI as contributing members and vote in the upcoming elections, and consider this issue closed. Bdale, if you're concerned about this then I think you just need to put some encouraging words on debian-devel and get Debianer's to go through the sign up process. *#* Diziet is now known as Diz|away Yes, agreed. bdale: I think that's a good idea. Diziet: oh, let's just get this voted on quickly here. bdale: it should be up to the individual developer to exercise this right or not hmm, my SPI Treasurer hat slipped off, there I can live with that. thanks for your attention. * Overfiend staples it back to his head Or, wait, have we voted? No. We need to vote. Diziet: are you gone? * wiggy tries to lookup that veto vs approval thing if we lose Diziet, we lose quorum. we need Diziet for the bylaws vote * EanSchuessler bangs his head with the gavel. Dammit. Do we still have quorum? if Diziet is gone, no. Not if he is abstaining. ... That's dicey. DAMN! * EanSchuessler hops around. * EanSchuessler kicks Diz|away Ean: wait, we have a contrary opinion. Please give cdlu voice. *#* Mode change +v cdlu on channel #spi by EanSchuessler quorum rules don't specify that members have to stay for the whole meeting, just that they have to show up at least nothing I can find says they have to stay thanks righ, I was just rereading that *#* Mode change -v cdlu on channel #spi by EanSchuessler it seems we can vote it's hair-splittling and lawyery, but I'm for it :) (yay Sure. Yes. It just makes an otherwise uncontestable vote somewhat contestable. vote vote vote vote vote vote only if someone contests it. ) And since this was the motion that Martin was vetoing it makes it sticky. if more vote in favor than a majority of a quorum, having another person here wouldn't change the outcome of the vote, anyway. what are we voting on, again? DrewStreib: you may count on that. Overfiend: Resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2 bdale: that seems certain, only Joey opposed it Diziet says he dropped the amendment I objected to. If that is true, my vote is no problem. *#* Diz|away is now known as Diziet yay *#* Manoj (~user@12.105.243.45) has joined channel #spi Hooray! Hooray! MANOJ! double yay OK very quickly you have two minutes except Manoj isn't up to speed :-/ Diziet: what was that veto thing you mentioned? I couldn't find it let's vote anyway Manoj: we're voting to establish the bylaw committee. don't need manoj on this if he wants to abstain I suggested changing a paragraph to This committee shall operate openly in view of the public. The committee itself shall determine reasonable procedures for transacting its business, both for its operations and decisionmaking. (The board reserves the right to veto or modify those procedures.) Diziet: that's already in in response to a suggestion from John Goerzen. * Overfiend seconds that Right, ok that's fine then. wiggy: is that in the version on the web? Overfiend: yes ah, yes sorry, didn't reload the page VOTE: Accept Resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2 with the modifications discussed and agreed to in the log of this IRC session. * Overfiend votes YES yes * wiggy votes yes * EanSchuessler votes YES * DrewStreib votes in favor. Manoj: http://www.wiggy.net/spi/2003-01-06.wta.2 if you have time, which you may not Right, I'll go again now. Thanks. *#* Diziet is now known as Diz|away Super. Thanks Ian. *#* Mode change -v bdale on channel #spi by EanSchuessler * wiggy suspects manoj is a ghost Aha. Well, the motion carries anyway. *#* Mode change +o Manoj on channel #spi by wiggy lets give manoj a voice I was reading the resolution ;-) Manoj is missing context anyway, if it were me I'd be nervous about voting for it Ah.. Well, then will wait a sec. * Manoj votes in favour I was reading the resolution ;-) Wiggy: the URL contains all "modifications discussed and agreed to in the log of this IRC session.", right? * wiggy pop the champagne Hmm. I wonder if I have voice Manoj: yes we can hear you wiggy: ? Manoj needs to know for sure what he is voting on. Overfiend: yes okay, good. Someone run down the agreed to modifications. theyu they're all there I read the web page at http://www.wiggy.net/spi/2003-01-06.wta.2, and I vote in favour of that resolution this can finally really happen * Overfiend is just proud that we're not like the horrendous U.S. Congress, which passed the USA Patriot act when most of its members HADN'T EVEN READ THE DAMN THING The motion carries. Hooray! Next. EanSchuessler: I like how you use a different phrase each time to say the same thing ;-) Overfiend: schizophrenia has its benefits. If no one objects I would like to table "Copyright assignment (Martin Michlmayr)" to discussion on the list since we are over our hour limit. Oops. hold on. yeah, I have no clue what that's about anyway * Overfiend seconds what Ean just said Should we assign someone to chair the by-law committee? *#* gcc[a] (~gcc@gcc.oper.oftc.net) has joined channel #spi * wiggy seconds EanSchuessler: we can do that offline please Ean: probably best to do it here I disagree we don't want another contrarian veto * Overfiend coughs "Joey" Agreed. Manoj: How busy are you these days. :) heh we need to get that stupid veto rule off the by laws Manoj: they're not IN the by-laws Manoj: this is your big chance. just the email voting resolution EanSchuessler: well, my kitchen is going to be removed, and a new one put in, in the next month Manoj: Yipes. Manoj: less time to eat, more time to do SPI work ;-) * Overfiend suggests that David Graham and John Goerzen as potential committee chairs cdlu notes that we could elect a temporary chair who builds the committee. s/that // Overfiend: you forget what contractors do to expenses and quality of work wehen no one is around to suprvise yes. David Graham == cdlu, John Goerzen == CosmicRay Do we have a volenteer for a temporary chair? Manoj: I was kidding. I know what a headache it is. EanSchuessler: uh, better unmoderate the channel they have no voices Hydroxide would like the flow. *#* Mode change +v Hydroxide on channel #spi by EanSchuessler floor... I'm willing to serve on the bylaws committee, either as chair or as a regular member. I do have a sufficiently legalistic mind, I'd like to think :-) *#* Joy (joy@pork.gkvk.hr) has joined channel #spi Super. Thanks. *#* Mode change -v Hydroxide on channel #spi by EanSchuessler * Overfiend suggests that anyone else seeking this position nag Ean now for a voice Manoj: Would you have time to build the committee and then hand it off? No! He'll fill it with Raul Millers! *#* Mode change +v CosmicRay on channel #spi by EanSchuessler (sorry) :) I also seek the position. I am quite interested in reforming the system, ridding it of the current problems. Sorry to focus on Manoj, but I'm familiar with his Debian-Policy work. EanSchuessler: I may, if we can wait until I get home My mind is sufficiently paranoid for the task :-) thanks, done Thanks John. but I have full confidence in cosmicray EanSchuessler: oh, I was just kidding. I think Manoj would make a great chair, temporary or permanent. *#* Mode change -v CosmicRay on channel #spi by EanSchuessler I'm also familiar with CosmicRay. me too Ok. *#* Mode change +v CosmicRay on channel #spi by EanSchuessler I would be happy to be co-chair CosmicRay: What do you think. You have the time then? I do, and I would be pleased to lead this effort. I can also run the votes, seeing that the same mechanism as is used for Debian votes Manoj: not quite the same wiggy: do we need a vote on this one? Ean: that would be tricky EanSchuessler: no fairest way would be Condorcet Super. I suggest Ean just nominate a person Hey, watch this. and woe betide anyone who objects wiggy: close enough (given the new flexibility of the vote taking mechanism) I would think now watch him nominate doogie :-P lets see if we can get a no-contest from board members. would simplify things if we didn't need a vote. Drew: yeah, that's what I was trying to say Manoj: lets talk about that later * EanSchuessler points the magic vice president wand at CosmicRay and says "poof! you chair the bylaw committee". Great. Done. EanSchuessler: please nominate someone excellent * Overfiend seconds that, doesn't object, and whatever else needs to be done to register concurrence Eh? wow, that stung :-) cool no objections here * wiggy seconds second we seem to have a winner shall we poof a couple members on it as well? that would be good by unanimous consent. The honor is now CosmicRay's to squander. :) Yes, agreed. who will be the board member on board? manoj? I would be happy to be on board if Manoj is unwilling to serve, never mind Awesome. i second manoj, and don't object, etc. Seconded. * Overfiend seconds that * wiggy seconds Great. Now, back to copyrights. Did we get some seconds on tabling that to email? i'll second tabling it we all seconded that I do to, if I didn't propose it. Great. Tabled. also, should we poof hydroxide to cmte now? do we need to? can I add something quick about the bylaws cmte? * Manoj is confused whther it is the british sense of tabling it or the american, since they are diametrically opposite s/tabled/shelved/ see earlier resolutions what Manoj said we should say shelved, as those Brits are ass-backwards about it CosmicRay can do it at his leisure. Manoj: yes, we should get that straight. I'd like the board (or someone) to consider whether to create a mailing list or two (one public, one for cmte people only) for discussion next meeting? that's it. CosmicRay: please ask admin@spi-inc.org CR: put the request in email will do, thanks. what wiggy said ie joy and me didn't know whom to ask Right... It's Miller time fellas (and fellettes). don't forget the date for the next meeting Your next official SPI meeting will be at Feb 4, 19.00 UTC. we should revise the standing resolution since it says 20.00 UTC, IIRC no, it says 20.00 i'll change my crontab to say 1900 then it says 19.00 (doh) oh I typoed that last meeting All done? damnit, 1900 UTC is always 1900 UTC, who screwed us by saying 2000? Daylight Savings Freaks. all done EanSchuessler: I have no more business for the Board. so far, by all that is wonderfull, I am not scheduled to be yanked away then Then by the power vested in me by Richard Stallman's beard I hereby close this official SPI meeting. May God have mercy on your code. *#* Mode change -m on channel #spi by wiggy * EanSchuessler crosses himself. Amen. heh Can anyone (tbm?) shortly explain what the Copyright Assignments is all about? * cdlu volunteers for By-law committee Ean: I'd rather bad coders were sent bodily to Hell, without mercy, personally.. oh *#* Joy is now known as GeorgeBush *#* Mode change -ooo Diz|away Overfiend EanSchuessler on channel #spi by wiggy *#* Mode change -ooo Manoj Schuessi DrewStreib on channel #spi by wiggy Thank you, God bless you... wiggy: can you explain the voting system you're planning to use please? * dieman isn't pedantic enough for a by-law committee. *#* GeorgeBush is now known as Joy ...someone... * cdlu doesn't know quite how Condorcet works IRC log ended Tue Jan 07 16:29:01 2003