Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17

Well, this one was a pain to summarise, thanks to lots of good,
relevant questions about the treasure. I hope I haven't misreported
anyone's meaning, but the full log is at the bottom if you want it.

I'm optimistic about the treasurer's reports and the two resolutions
passed, but I'm really disappointed by the apparent adoption of "aob".
That is a further departure from the proper order of business (roll
call, minutes, reports, old business, new business, welfare,
adjournment). In the words of "Making Meetings Happen" by Robert
Burns: AOB "is a minefield ticking away beneath the surface of the
agenda, ready to explode when everyone is tired and ready to go. [...]
If something is worth discussing, it should specifically appear on the
agenda."

HIGHLIGHTS

<Ganneff> Today's agenda and details of pending resolutions can be
found on the web at:
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2008/2008-09-17.html

[item 2, Roll Call]
<zobel> Martin Zobel-Helas <luk__> Luk Claes
<linuxpoet> Joshua D. Drake <Maulkin> Neil Mcgovernm
<schultmc> Michael Schultheiss <Hydroxide> David Graham has sent regrets
<Ganneff> Joerg Jaspert <Hydroxide> Jimmy Kaplowitz

[item 3, President's Report]
<Ganneff> None.

[item 4, Treasurer's Report]
<schultmc> http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/2008-09-17-draft-report.html/view
is a draft report. I'm currently working with Josh Berkus to get the
outstanding credit card donations imported. Josh is also documenting
his process so I can run reports ad hoc.

<schultmc> [It will be non-draft] as soon as the credit card info has
been input I anticipate that data to be available in the next few
days. [It covers the] start of the data entry system until today -
expenses are current as of today, donations via check as end of
august. all data is on treasurer.spi-inc.org. the net column is an
approximation of balances. it's approximate since the credit card
donations haven't been imported yet

<schultmc> [the real amount of money projects have with us will be
available] as soon as the credit card data has been input I'll
generate a proper report. [on -private within two weeks] should be
doable

[item 5, Secretary's report]
<Hydroxide> Neil is still working on the minutes for the meetings
during which he was secretary, up to and including the August meeting.
I'll be responsible for minutes starting this meeting.

[item 6, Outstanding minutes]
<Maulkin> None from me I'm afraid, I hope to get these for next meeting.

[item 7, Stuff for discussion]

* schultmc initially proposed Tux4Kids join SPI when Sam Hart was
still involved [but] that process stalled since T4K needed different
things at the time

<kendrick> so a little history. Tux4Kids is participating in Google
Summer of Code this year. Towards the end, we discovered that payments
to mentor orgs are made as a lump sum to each org. anyway, since i was
admin of Tux4Kid's participation in GSOC, i figured i'd end up taking
the lump sum, which i plan to disperse to the other mentors. that
would cause a big tax hit for me. so in looking for solutions, i
noticed some of the other mentor orgs participating in GSOC were part
of SPI (hi, josh) so decided to look into joining tux4kids is not
currently a non-profit. a friend org, OSEF, is also not currently a
non-profit, i think. and SPI looks like a very good fit. we're busy
trying to develop edu software (and manage projects, maintain
websites, do PR, etc. etc.) so having one more thing to do (taxes,
finances, etc.) would be a big burden I personally have a long history
in Tux4Kids and linux orgs. i co-founded the LUG in my town, and now
(nearly 10 years later) continue to run it. I've been working, mostly
non-stop, on Tux Paint since mid-2002

<Hydroxide> voting results for "Tux4Kids as associated project": Yes:
7, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 ()

<Hydroxide> making a statement in support of this event was proposed
via email by slef on -general a couple of weeks ago, and he proposed
the text in the agenda one week ago. it speaks for itself and doesn't
really need slef here to explain it, which is why it's still on the
agenda in his absence.

<linuxpoet> I think there is a question as to whether we want to be an
activist organization

<luk__> well I think we can make an exception for software patents, no?

<schultmc>
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/1998-11-16.iwj.2 is
already a statement on software patents (and other IP)

<Hydroxide> voting results for "Statement on World Day Against
Software Patents": Yes: 5, No: 0, Abstain: 2, Missing: 0 ()

[item 8, Next board meeting] Wednesday, 15th October 2008 - 19:00 UTC

<Ganneff> right. aob (could we put it in agenda please?) for future.

<Hydroxide> Ganneff: sure, will do.

<linuxpoet> 1. PostgreSQL is having their West conference Oct 10-12th
in Portland :) Anyone West of Denver please join us
http://www.pgcon.us/

<linuxpoet> 2. I know we have a new deadline for finance finalization
but I would like it noted for the record that the PostgreSQL Project
is getting increasingly agitated at the continual delays.

TIMED LOG

20:00:08 <Ganneff> *BANG*
20:00:09 <Ganneff> [item 1, Opening] Welcome to today's Software in the Public Interest board of directors meeting, which is now called to order. Today's agenda and details of pending resolutions can be found on the web at: http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2008/2008-09-17.html
20:00:11 <luk__> Luk Claes
20:00:15 <Ganneff> [item 2, Roll Call]
20:00:15 <Ganneff> Board members, please state your name for the record. As we have nine board members, quorum for today's meeting is six. Guests, please /msg your names to Hydroxide if you wish your attendance to be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.
20:00:15 <Ganneff> Hydroxide: please update us on known and tentative regrets.
20:00:16 <zobel> Martin Zobel-Helas
20:00:20 <luk__> Luk Claes
20:00:21 <linuxpoet> Joshua D. Drake
20:00:21 <Maulkin> Neil Mcgovernm
20:00:22 <Ganneff> luk__: too early.
20:00:23 <schultmc> Michael Schultheiss
20:00:25 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: agenda is correct - David Graham has sent regrets
20:00:26 <Ganneff> Joerg Jaspert
20:00:30 <Hydroxide> Jimmy Kaplowitz
20:00:48 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: MJ Ray also can't be here, which is only worth noting since one of the agenda items was drafted by him.
20:00:55 - Sledge!steve(at)lump(dot)einval(dot)com has joined #spi
20:01:13 <Ganneff> we seem to have quota, lets go on.
20:01:19 <luk__> I was only too early because it kept ringing :-)
20:01:27 <Ganneff> [item 3, President's Report]
20:01:28 <Ganneff> None.
20:01:28 <Ganneff> [item 4, Treasurer's Report]
20:01:28 <Ganneff> schultmc: have fun
20:01:36 <schultmc> http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/2008-09-17-draft-report.html/view is a draft report
20:01:51 <linuxpoet> allow a moment for viewing please
20:01:58 <schultmc> I'm currently working with Josh Berkus to get the outstanding credit card donations imported
20:02:00 <Ganneff> schultmc: when is it scheduled to be non-draft?
20:02:11 <schultmc> Josh is also documenting his process so I can run reports ad hoc
20:02:19 <schultmc> Ganneff: as soon as the credit card info has been input
20:02:27 <Hydroxide> schultmc: what time period does this report cover?
20:02:29 <schultmc> I anticipate that data to be available in the next few days
20:02:47 <Hydroxide> schultmc: (it's an income/expense statement, not a balance statement)
20:03:09 <schultmc> Hydroxide: start of the data entry system until today - expenses are current as of today, donations via check as end of august
20:03:33 <linuxpoet> Question in regards to financials
20:03:39 <schultmc> linuxpoet: go ahead
20:03:41 <Hydroxide> schultmc: hrm. not a very useful time period, unless it happens to have started on January 1, 2008 or similar.
20:03:46 <linuxpoet> are we in control of the data yet? (as in not being hosted by personal servers)
20:03:51 <schultmc> yes
20:04:00 <schultmc> all data is on treasurer.spi-inc.org
20:04:15 <linuxpoet> O.k. I have questions about that but I can ask after meeting
20:04:20 <schultmc> ok
20:04:31 <Ganneff> more on this topic?
20:04:36 <linuxpoet> I have one more item
20:04:39 <Ganneff> go
20:04:56 <linuxpoet> I am trying to understand this income/expense statement. Am I correct in that it doesn't actually have balances
20:05:03 <linuxpoet> because it doesn't reflect my knowledge of PostgreSQL's finances
20:05:13 <schultmc> the net column is an approximation of balances
20:05:16 <Hydroxide> linuxpoet: it's not a balance sheet, as I said
20:05:29 <schultmc> it's approximate since the credit card donations haven't been imported yet
20:05:31 <Hydroxide> schultmc: but it only takes into account transactions since the start of the data entry system, right?
20:05:44 <Hydroxide> schultmc: it hasn't been added to pre-existing balances ('retained earnings' or similar)
20:05:46 <schultmc> Hydroxide: yes
20:05:50 <Hydroxide> (though that's a non-profit term)
20:05:59 <Hydroxide> *not a non-profit term
20:06:15 <luk__> normally one begins with a starting balance, so the approximation might not be very good?
20:06:51 <Hydroxide> schultmc: I appreciate all the re-working of the treasurer infrastructure since I yielded the post, but we do seem to have lost some of the regularity and completeness of the reports since then.
20:06:56 <Ganneff> so this is not the real amount of money projects have with us?! when/where/do we get a report with that info?
20:07:34 <schultmc> as soon as the credit card data has been input I'll generate a proper report
20:07:43 <Hydroxide> schultmc: whether you considered the numbers in my treasurer's reports accurate or not, please try to get some approximation of that set of information. (optionally minus some of the detail at the sub-project level)
20:07:56 <Ganneff> schultmc: on -private within two weeks a good timeframe?
20:08:06 <schultmc> Ganneff: yes, that should be doable
20:08:12 <schultmc> Hydroxide: that's my goal
20:08:23 <Ganneff> everyone ok with it? more question for this topic? more to say (schultmc?)
20:08:31 <Hydroxide> schultmc: I'll also send status request in a week to see if you're still making progress, ok? (it's taken a while)
20:08:41 <schultmc> Hydroxide: sure
20:08:45 <Hydroxide> cool
20:09:07 <Ganneff> nothing more?
20:09:19 <Ganneff> [item 5, Secretary's report]
20:09:19 <Ganneff> Hydroxide: your time
20:09:31 <Ganneff> i guess none as in agenda?
20:09:41 <Hydroxide> well
20:09:46 <Hydroxide> I'll just mention one thing
20:10:05 <Hydroxide> Neil is still working on the minutes for the meetings during which he was secretary, up to and including the August meeting
20:10:13 <Hydroxide> I'll be responsible for minutes starting this meeting
20:10:20 <Ganneff> fine.
20:10:27 <Hydroxide> that's about it in that regard.
20:10:34 <Ganneff> [item 6, Outstanding minutes]
20:10:34 <Ganneff> Again for Hydroxide. Or well, Maulkin.
20:10:58 <Hydroxide> who isn't here. as of some time in the last 24 hours, he said they were coming along "slowly", but didn't report any ready yet
20:11:13 <Maulkin> None from me I'm afraid, I hope to get these for next meeting
20:11:18 <Hydroxide> oh, hi there
20:11:21 <Maulkin> I am here! :)
20:11:23 <Ganneff> so the agenda is wrong?
20:11:36 <Hydroxide> <Maulkin> Neil McGovern
20:11:48 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: what's wrong? it says they're outstanding, not that they're ready for approval
20:11:57 <Ganneff> well, lets go on.
20:11:58 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: none of them are links and none have text
20:12:03 * Hydroxide nods
20:12:05 <Ganneff> [item 7, Stuff for discussion]
20:12:05 <Ganneff> We seem to have 2 items here, "Resolution 2008-09-17.mcs.1: Tux4Kids from Michael" and then "Statement supporting the World Day Against Software Patents from MJ Ray".
20:12:20 * kendrick perks up
20:12:29 * Hydroxide suggests that schultmc or kendrick talk about the first one
20:12:54 <kendrick> sure
20:13:06 <Ganneff> go
20:13:12 * schultmc initially proposed Tux4Kids join SPI when Sam Hart was still involved
20:13:17 <kendrick> so a little history. Tux4Kids is participating in Google Summer of Code this year
20:13:27 <schultmc> that process stalled since T4K needed different things at the time
20:13:27 <kendrick> towards the end, we discovered that payments to mentor orgs are made as a lump sum to each org
20:13:56 <kendrick> schultmc: i'm sure tux4kids still needs a lot of the same things as it did back then, but that's another issue. :)
20:14:27 <kendrick> anyway, since i was admin of Tux4Kid's participation in GSOC, i figured i'd end up taking the lump sum, which i plan to disperse to the other mentors. that would cause a big tax hit for me.
20:15:03 <kendrick> so in looking for solutions, i noticed some of the other mentor orgs participating in GSOC were part of SPI (hi, josh) so decided to look into joining
20:15:33 <kendrick> tux4kids is not currently a non-profit. a friend org, OSEF, is also not currently a non-profit, i think. and SPI looks like a very good fit.
20:16:16 <kendrick> we're busy trying to develop edu software (and manage projects, maintain websites, do PR, etc. etc.) so having one more thing to do (taxes, finances, etc.) would be a big burden
20:16:25 * Hydroxide makes minor clarifications to the Tux4Kids line item in the agenda
20:16:36 <kendrick> should we refresh that page, Hydroxide?
20:16:45 <Hydroxide> not important, no
20:17:01 <Hydroxide> anyway, sounds like your needs are indeed a good fit for SPI
20:17:28 <kendrick> i personally have a long history in Tux4Kids and linux orgs. i co-founded the LUG in my town, and now (nearly 10 years later) continue to run it.
20:17:35 <kendrick> i've been working, mostly non-stop, on Tux Paint since mid-2002
20:18:05 <Ganneff> now. sounds all good and fine, and it seems we dont hate tux4kids, so how about we go on and vote about it?
20:18:26 <kendrick> and i'm also a glutton for more work, so i've offered to be the 'decision maker' for T4K, with David Bruce (head of one of the other T4K projects) as an assist.
20:18:26 * Hydroxide seconds
20:18:36 <kendrick> and noone seemed to care, and hey. looks like you're voting
20:18:44 <Hydroxide> kendrick: I think we're ready to vote. yes. it has been discussed via email, after all. :)
20:18:51 <kendrick> (strike that -- people ENCOURAGED me be the desicionmaker :) )
20:19:07 <kendrick> Hydroxide: good point. :) i'll shut up now.
20:19:07 <Hydroxide> Voting started, 7 people (ganneff,schultmc,hydroxide,luk__,linuxpoet,zobel,maulkin) allowed to vote on Tux4Kids as associated project. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
20:19:11 <schultmc> !vote yes
20:19:14 <Ganneff> !vote yes
20:19:17 <Hydroxide> !vote yes
20:19:17 <linuxpoet> !vote yes
20:19:18 <zobel> !vote yes
20:19:22 <Maulkin> !vote yes
20:19:42 <Hydroxide> luk__: ?
20:19:54 <Hydroxide> going once...
20:19:57 <luk__> !vote yes
20:20:00 <Hydroxide> Current voting results for "Tux4Kids as associated project": Yes: 7, No: 0, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 ()
20:20:04 <Hydroxide> Voting for "Tux4Kids as associated project" closed.
20:20:04 <Hydroxide> it passes.
20:20:08 <linuxpoet> Welcome aboard
20:20:11 <kendrick> (won't someone think of the children?)
20:20:16 <Maulkin> Welcome schultmc :)
20:20:17 <zobel> kendrick: welcome
20:20:19 <Ganneff> welcome tux4kids, if you accept it
20:20:21 <Maulkin> err... =ken
20:20:23 <Maulkin> bah
20:20:24 <kendrick> :)
20:20:27 <Hydroxide> kendrick: for the record, do you accept the invitation to join as per the framework linked from the resolution text?
20:20:31 <schultmc> Maulkin: thanks? :)
20:20:42 <Ganneff> now, the other point, Statement supporting the World Day Against Software Patents
20:20:45 <kendrick> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2004-08-10-iwj.1 ?
20:20:47 <Ganneff> who wants to speak?
20:20:50 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: one sec
20:20:51 <linuxpoet> Ganneff: hold
20:20:57 <kendrick> yes, i accept
20:21:09 <Hydroxide> kendrick: cool. that was primarily for the record so that the invitation didn't lapse, etc
20:21:09 <Ganneff> there. now, who wants to speak? :)
20:21:23 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: I'll just say one or two things since slef isn't here
20:21:24 <linuxpoet> let me do a quick review again
20:21:30 <Ganneff> Hydroxide: go
20:22:01 <Hydroxide> making a statement in support of this event was proposed via email by slef on -general a couple of weeks ago, and he proposed the text in the agenda one week ago
20:22:11 <linuxpoet> Ok I read it
20:22:20 <Hydroxide> it speaks for itself and doesn't really need slef here to explain it, which is why it's still on the agenda in his absence
20:22:38 <Hydroxide> any comments, wishes to vote, etc?
20:22:55 <linuxpoet> Yes
20:23:06 <Ganneff> well. i say we should vote.
20:23:08 <linuxpoet> I think there is a question as to whether we want to be an activist organization
20:23:47 <Hydroxide> linuxpoet: that's definitely a relevant question. do any other board members or non-board attendees have thoughts on that?
20:24:12 <Hydroxide> linuxpoet: we already do have a stated position opposed to software patents as per the resolution which MJ references in his second preamble paragraph
20:24:12 <Ganneff> difference to proposed text?
20:24:37 <linuxpoet> Right but my question isn't really relevant to software patents (which I concur are bad)
20:24:58 <linuxpoet> Its about aligning ourselves in a political manner and thus representing ourselves as an activist organization versus an educational one
20:25:04 <linuxpoet> *shrug*
20:25:26 <luk__> linuxpoet: well I think we can make an exception for software patents, no?
20:25:28 <Hydroxide> anyone else have thoughts or motions? I'd like to hear from at least one or two other board members
20:25:33 <Hydroxide> (such as luk__ )
20:25:52 <schultmc> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/1998-11-16.iwj.2 is already a statement on software patents (and other IP)
20:25:59 <Ganneff> i think its ok to support this anti-patent stuff (and already proposed to vote on this, thats unchanged) :)
20:26:07 <Hydroxide> personally, I have no problem with us taking stances on issues directly related to free software
20:26:24 <Hydroxide> especially when it isn't related to specific legislation or politicians
20:26:51 * Hydroxide points out that anyone can cause a vote on the statement by seconding it
20:26:56 <Hydroxide> (seconding Ganneff's call to vote)
20:26:59 * Maulkin seconds
20:27:01 <Hydroxide> ok
20:27:23 <Hydroxide> Voting started, 7 people (ganneff,schultmc,hydroxide,luk__,linuxpoet,zobel,maulkin) allowed to vote on Statement on World Day Against Software Patents. - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
20:27:25 <Maulkin> !vote abstain
20:27:30 <linuxpoet> !vote abstain
20:27:35 <Ganneff> !vote yes
20:27:38 <Hydroxide> !vote yes
20:27:41 <luk__> !vote yes
20:27:47 <schultmc> !vote yes
20:27:54 <zobel> !vote yes
20:27:59 <Hydroxide> Current voting results for "Statement on World Day Against Software Patents": Yes: 5, No: 0, Abstain: 2, Missing: 0 ()
20:28:02 <Hydroxide> Voting for "Statement on World Day Against Software Patents" closed.
20:28:08 <Hydroxide> it passes.
20:28:21 <Ganneff> fine. lets go on.
20:28:23 <Ganneff> [item 8, Next board meeting]
20:28:23 <Ganneff> Going with third Wed of months it should be on Wednesday, 14th October 2008 - 19:00 UTC i think
20:28:26 <luk__> Hydroxide: I guess you take care of the press announcement?
20:28:30 <Hydroxide> who wants to work with me to draft the news release and notice to members?
20:28:33 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: one sec
20:28:39 <Ganneff> Hydroxide: sure.
20:28:49 <Hydroxide> luk__: I'll be responsible for making sure it happens, yes
20:28:59 <Hydroxide> I guess we can talk about this another time. just contact me if you're available to help.
20:29:04 <luk__> Ganneff: it's Wed *15*th
20:29:13 <Ganneff> ok. right
20:29:20 <Ganneff> Going with third Wed of months it should be on Wednesday, 15th October 2008 - 19:00 UTC i think
20:29:27 <Hydroxide> yes. and Daylight Saving / Summer Time will not have changed at all in US/EU
20:29:30 <Ganneff> anyone against this?
20:29:32 <Hydroxide> *US/EU/CA
20:29:35 <linuxpoet> Works for me at this time
20:29:36 * Maulkin sends tentative regrets
20:29:37 <Hydroxide> works for me
20:29:50 <schultmc> works for me
20:29:52 <Maulkin> I have a council meeting at 6 UK time, and if it's on, it's unlikely I'll make it
20:29:54 <Hydroxide> Maulkin: please email me too
20:29:58 <Ganneff> thanks everyone for attending, now:
20:29:59 <Maulkin> ack.
20:29:59 <Hydroxide> Maulkin: to state that
20:30:01 <Hydroxide> k
20:30:01 <Ganneff> *GAVEL*
20:30:03 <linuxpoet> Ganneff: hold
20:30:09 * Maulkin thanks ganneff
20:30:12 <linuxpoet> Ganneff: you forgot the final remarks segment
20:30:27 <Ganneff> right. aob (could we put it in agenda please?)
20:30:30 <Ganneff> for future.
20:30:34 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: sure, will do.
20:30:43 <Ganneff> linuxpoet: go, secretary: please include it in a log later.
20:30:48 <linuxpoet> O.k. I have two things
20:31:00 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: I'm still logging.
20:31:11 <linuxpoet> 1. PostgreSQL is having their West conference Oct 10-12th in Portland :) Anyone West of Denver please join us http://www.pgcon.us/
20:31:46 <linuxpoet> 2. I know we have a new deadline for finance finalization but I would like it noted for the record that the PostgreSQL Project is getting increasingly agitated at the continual delays.
20:31:51 <linuxpoet> That is all.
20:32:05 <Ganneff> anyone else something to add?
20:32:17 <Hydroxide> linuxpoet: noted for the record.
20:32:23 <linuxpoet> ty
20:32:24 <luk__> nope
20:32:30 <Ganneff> *GAVEL* (now really)

Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

Hi.

MJ Ray wrote:
> I'm optimistic about the treasurer's reports and the two resolutions
> passed, but I'm really disappointed by the apparent adoption of "aob".

Being a non-native english speaker, I have to ask:

Am I right that "AOB" is short for "Any Other Business", refering to
discussions that deal with topics that have not been set on the agenda of
the meeting?

Bye, Mike

>> I'm optimistic about the treasurer's reports and the two resolutions
>> passed, but I'm really disappointed by the apparent adoption of "aob".
> Being a non-native english speaker, I have to ask:
> Am I right that "AOB" is short for "Any Other Business", refering to
> discussions that deal with topics that have not been set on the agenda of
> the meeting?

Yes, and should (IMO) be used for things that don't need lots of discussion or
especially a vote, so mainly what linuxpoet did - some kind of
announces/invites.

--
bye, Joerg
<ftpbot> cron.daily time, unlocking: slave_NEW
<mhy> ftpbot: oh bugger off, slave_NEW isn't affected by dinstall :-)
<tomv_w> bugger off, sonst gibt es zoff!
<tomv_w> for the bilinguists

Joerg Jaspert <joerg(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> >> I'm optimistic about the treasurer's reports and the two resolutions
> >> passed, but I'm really disappointed by the apparent adoption of "aob".
[...]
> > Am I right that "AOB" is short for "Any Other Business", refering to
> > discussions that deal with topics that have not been set on the agenda of
> > the meeting?
>
> Yes, and should (IMO) be used for things that don't need lots of discussion or
> especially a vote, so mainly what linuxpoet did - some kind of
> announces/invites.

Well, shouldn't linuxpoet's second point have been in the treasurer
report discussion? Then maybe the board could have done more to
address it, if felt necessary. Is last-minute point-making about the
treasury really the sort of thing that should be under AOB?

Small non-vote things like the PG West conference announcement could
be included in one of the reports, which would still take less than a
minute (msg the president or secretary if you want to be really formal
about it), put such news higher up the meeting and avoid opening the
AOB hole.

AOB hasn't appeared on SPI agendas since 1998. I feel that's good and
healthy, so I'm disappointed by this back-sliding. None of the board
stood on a ticket that included hiding stuff from members by allowing
last-minute unannounced business, did they? In fact, Joerg Jaspert
*promised* not to disturb SPI's decision making.

Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:11:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please don't permit AOB at meetings.

In my opinion, that is too high a bar. I think that AOB should likely
be rare, but it may need to be included anyway, because sometimes
things happen that are surprising, and the Board does need to make
decisions in such cases.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please don't permit AOB at meetings.

We've been down this road, we've had this argument. AOB is important for
the function of the board and banning it is an utterly useless and
counter-productive artificial barrier.

- -
David "cdlu" Graham - cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca
Guelph, Ontario - http://www.cdlu.net/

David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> We've been down this road, we've had this argument. AOB is important for
> the function of the board and banning it is an utterly useless and
> counter-productive artificial barrier.

I don't understand why it is important. Why can the matters raised in
AOB not be dealt with in an identical way informally or by email to
the lists ?

AOB mustn't be allowed to contain formal decisions because that avoids
membership scrutiny.

AOB shouldn't contain reports or invitations or the like because these
should be made in whole paragraphs by email so that they are presented
to everyone in a coherent and intelligible way (and so that they leave
a coherent and intelligible record). IRC logs are not a coherent and
intelligible record and digesting them into meeting minutes is a
tedious task for which we (unsurprisingly) persistently lack effort.

AOB shouldn't contain ad-hoc discussions of matters which haven't yet
been raised before because these are very time-consuming: no-one
really knows what's going on and everyone has to sit around while
explanations are typed in and questions answered.

Of course there are sometimes things which need to be done urgently.
So I think it would be fine to rename AOB to `Emergency Business'.
Normally there would be no emergency business to transact.

Ian.
(who can no longer make the regular board meeting time)

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> I don't understand why it is important. Why can the matters raised in
> AOB not be dealt with in an identical way informally or by email to
^^^^^^^^^^
I should expand on this.

If the only reason why these things need to be talked about on IRC at
the meeting is because that's when everyone is there, then it does not
need to be part of the meeting.

I would have no problem at all if the meeting were to be closed and
then the channel was used for informal discussions of new issues,
working out of details, and so forth.

The purpose of an item being on the meeting's agenda is to our
governance structures of it, record that that has taken place, and to
allow any decisions to be taken. If there is no need for the board to
be formally notified at that time, and no need for a formal decision
by the board, then there is no need for the business to be formally
part of the meeting.

Of course that will typically mean that the item in question will have
to be properly notified to the board and membership via some other
route. For example, an email to the lists.

Ian.

David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
>
> We've been down this road, we've had this argument.

Oh, and: we had this argument and you lost the vote. Resolution
2007-01-16.iwj.5 was the result. It was approved at the February 2007
meeting, with four in favour, three abstensions and only you voting
against.

Ian.

On 11513 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:

> AOB hasn't appeared on SPI agendas since 1998. I feel that's good and
> healthy, so I'm disappointed by this back-sliding. None of the board
> stood on a ticket that included hiding stuff from members by allowing
> last-minute unannounced business, did they? In fact, Joerg Jaspert
> *promised* not to disturb SPI's decision making.

I don't see AOB as any kind of disturbing SPIs decision making at all.

> Please don't permit AOB at meetings.

If someone has something small to mention he wants to know board and attending
people, right after all the normal agenda points are done is *the* place
for it.
If, in this case, one of the two comments should have been done earlier
- well, discuss with the one who did them.

--
bye, Joerg
* HE wants applicants to write about the sex life, to make
debian-newmaint more interesting

> David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
>>
>> We've been down this road, we've had this argument.
>
> Oh, and: we had this argument and you lost the vote. Resolution
> 2007-01-16.iwj.5 was the result. It was approved at the February 2007
> meeting, with four in favour, three abstensions and only you voting
> against.

The relevant resolution is:

http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2004-10-15-iwj.1

Which is, in whole, an anullment of resolution:

http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2003-09-09-iwj.1

The resolution you reference is:

http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2007-01-16-iwj.5.html

Which does not preclude AOB, specifically exempting emergency business
without qualifying it.

- -
David "cdlu" Graham - cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca
Guelph, Ontario - http://www.cdlu.net/

David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> The resolution you reference is:
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2007-01-16-iwj.5.html
>
> Which does not preclude AOB, specifically exempting emergency business
> without qualifying it.

It does preclude AOB of non-emergency business because it requires
that both reports and draft resolutions be notified in advance and put
on the agenda. Ie, anything that is a formal notification to or
decision by the board.

Emergency business is a complete red herring. Unless you're saying
that the matters that were considered under AOB at the last meeting
were emergencies ?

Ian.

MJ Ray wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <joerg(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
>>>> I'm optimistic about the treasurer's reports and the two resolutions
>>>> passed, but I'm really disappointed by the apparent adoption of "aob".

> AOB hasn't appeared on SPI agendas since 1998. I feel that's good and
> healthy, so I'm disappointed by this back-sliding. None of the board
> stood on a ticket that included hiding stuff from members by allowing
> last-minute unannounced business, did they? In fact, Joerg Jaspert
> *promised* not to disturb SPI's decision making.
>
> Please don't permit AOB at meetings.

We have been doing AOB at meetings since at least my 3rd meeting. I
specifically requested it in fact. It makes things a lot easier on
everyone when something simple needs to be pointed out for the record
but doesn't need a lot of discussion. I don't see us stopping AOB at
this time.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> We have been doing AOB at meetings since at least my 3rd meeting. I
> specifically requested it in fact. It makes things a lot easier on
> everyone when something simple needs to be pointed out for the record
> but doesn't need a lot of discussion. I don't see us stopping AOB at
> this time.

What AOB has been transacted ? How will these `simple things' that
are `pointed out' `for the record' be made visible to the membership
in general ? Which `record' do they end up in ? What if they are in
fact not `simple' ? These are rhetorical questions, of course - the
answers are:

AOB items aren't made visible to the membership in general. AOB items
are are recorded only in the IRC logs which do not constitute a
readily accessible or comprehensible record. If an AOB item is
complicated or controversial the membership will find out about it by
backscatter if we are lucky or too late if we are not.

In theory these items ought to be rewritten into the minutes but in
practice this usually happens only a very long time afterwards, or not
at all. And there is no feedback mechanism that prevents AOB from
being used inappropriately or which ensures that the resulting poor
communications are addressed.

Ian.

Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> AOB items aren't made visible to the membership in general.

Really? I know about epsilon's worth of US corporation governance, but
here in Finland all AOB items are noted in the minutes.

I agree with Joerg and Joshua that AOB is *the* place for news and
notifications that don't require long discussions. Granted, with SPI
using mailing list for almost all the traffic, it is usually smarter
to send those news or notifications to -board (and perhaps to
-private/-general as well). AOB is more pertinent for meetings between
people who don't use email extensively.

--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *

Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:11:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
>
> In my opinion, that is too high a bar. I think that AOB should likely
> be rare, but it may need to be included anyway, because sometimes
> things happen that are surprising, and the Board does need to make
> decisions in such cases.

What "surprising" thing has ever happened to SPI that couldn't have
fitted into the normal notice period, or at least have been appended
to an officer report before the meeting started (in the case of
announcements)?

It seems bloody difficult to get SPI moving in less than a *month* at
the moment, so I'm rather sceptical that there are things SPI will
react to in less than a week, let alone 30 minutes. Even when
SPI-held property was under threat, it took many months (2006-04 to
2007-01). I feel AOB will be used for exactly the sort of late
point-making that happened this meeting. Nothing is best as AOB.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

David Graham <cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
>
> We've been down this road, we've had this argument. AOB is important for
> the function of the board and banning it is an utterly useless and
> counter-productive artificial barrier.

Where was this argument? SPI hasn't had AOB for ages, it isn't in the
normal order of business and seems excluded by the promised notice
timetable. If the argument was hidden away on -board, please
summarise it.

"Important" seems clearly not true. There are many boards in all
sorts of organisations that do not have AOB. In my experience, the
ones without AOB at their meetings (my webmaster cooperative, my
village council, the local NHS Primary Care Trust and others) function
better than the ones which allow AOB (my old company, the regional
cooperative council and others). I think the reasoning is similar to
the argument for the suggested Ontario "Open Meetings Law".

Yes, having no concealing agenda item is an artificial barrier, but an
agenda is an artificial construct too. I believe people will
generally take the route of least work, which is to raise things in
AOB even when it would be better for members to put it on the agenda.
PG's dissatisfaction with the accounts would have been better in the
treasurer report discussion and PGCon's announcement would have been
more use on the agenda - it will be on minutes that won't be published
until after the conference has finished!

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

Kalle Kivimaa <killer(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> > AOB items aren't made visible to the membership in general.
>
> Really? I know about epsilon's worth of US corporation governance, but
> here in Finland all AOB items are noted in the minutes.

That's only in the *minutes* - not visible in advance and members will
have no notice until the minutes are published. According to
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes that means we would soon find
out what items happened in February (which I believe are approved but
unlinked), far too late to influence things like SPI elections.

I know that I've been emailing the meeting logs in 2008, but they're
unofficial and not linked from the main website, I doubt many members
are reading spi-general and you shouldn't expect me to do this
forever. The board really ought to be capable of publishing routine
communications efficiently, but even if they do, it's usually going to
be a month before the minutes are published in the normal manner.

Actually, I'm near disbelief that SPI still doesn't have a coherent
website or send emails on time, but maybe you knew that from my
election promises. All of the main reasons people don't join SPI are
our misfiring marketing, really. See
http://www.news.software.coop/spi-meeting-tonight-and-why-people-dont-join-spi/44/

What are the board doing to fix this? Burying stuff under AOB?!?

> I agree with Joerg and Joshua that AOB is *the* place for news and
> notifications that don't require long discussions.

*Reports* are the place for low-discussion no-decision items. Using
AOB for news or notifications is silly due to the publication-lag.

> [..] AOB is more pertinent for meetings between
> people who don't use email extensively.

Which isn't really the case here, is it?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:01:36 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

> Kalle Kivimaa <killer(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> > Really? I know about epsilon's worth of US corporation governance, but
> > here in Finland all AOB items are noted in the minutes.
> That's only in the *minutes* - not visible in advance and members will
> have no notice until the minutes are published. According to
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes that means we would soon find
> out what items happened in February (which I believe are approved but
> unlinked), far too late to influence things like SPI elections.

Sounds more like a problem with publishing minutes than with the
contents of meetings.

(FWIW: "Allfälliges" (AOB) is a perfectly normal last topic for
meetings IME.)

Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
`- NP: Tracy Chapman: Subcity