Gentoo Archives: gentoo-commits

From: "Roy Bamford (neddyseagoon)" <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: gentoo-commits@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/foundation/en/minutes/2008: august2008.txt
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:50:52
Message-Id: E1KaGMH-0002vM-Ga@stork.gentoo.org
1 neddyseagoon 08/09/01 20:50:45
2
3 Added: august2008.txt august2008.txt and updated index.xml
4 to match Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon)
5 Log:
6
7
8 Revision Changes Path
9 1.1 xml/htdocs/foundation/en/minutes/2008/august2008.txt
10
11 file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/foundation/en/minutes/2008/august2008.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
12 plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/foundation/en/minutes/2008/august2008.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
13
14 Index: august2008.txt
15 ===================================================================
16 21:00 * NeddySeagoon calls the meeting to order - roll call, tsunam and fmccor. wltjr said he would not attend
17 21:00 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, you had to vote in a trustee election as well
18 21:00 * fmccor here
19 21:00 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, wakey wakey
20 21:00 < musikc|laptop> i honestly dont recall if i did or not
21 21:01 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: I'm around =)
22 21:01 <@NeddySeagoon> heh. OK we are quorate ... lets go. Agenda is in /topic
23 21:01 <@fmccor> rane or Jorge would know --- they were the election officials.
24 21:01 <@NeddySeagoon> I think we can skip Introductions
25 21:02 <@NeddySeagoon> So, Actions From the Last Meeting...
26 21:02 <@NeddySeagoon> Gentoo Foundation Banking - tsunam
27 21:02 <@NeddySeagoon> care to say a few words ?
28 21:02 <@tsunam> paypal finally removed the old bank accounts. Need to check with them and see if there's anything the need now to unlock the account fully
29 21:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Does our paypay work ?
30 21:03 <@tsunam> we can accept donations
31 21:03 <@tsunam> can't send out
32 21:03 <@NeddySeagoon> paypal*
33 21:03 <@tsunam> currently
34 21:03 <@tsunam> they've been less then helpful in working with me on this :(
35 21:03 <@NeddySeagoon> do we owe anyone anything ?
36 21:04 <@tsunam> just trustee's some money
37 21:04 <@tsunam> wltjr 10-20 bucks he's not asked for yet, and me for the lawyers fee's still
38 21:04 <@NeddySeagoon> Needs fixed then, we don't want to mix our own and Foundation funds
39 21:05 <@NeddySeagoon> What about a bank account ?
40 21:05 <@tsunam> Last I heard was that the bank we wanted to go to was an online bank but required someone in new mexico to sign
41 21:05 <@tsunam> that was for compass was my understanding
42 21:06 <@fmccor> I didn't know they needed anyone to go there. Hm.
43 21:06 <@tsunam> I'll have to reread the thread, but I could of sworn someone said that it was a requirement
44 21:07 <@NeddySeagoon> Please tsunam. Do you have the cheque for our funds from Grant ?
45 21:07 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: still with grant
46 21:07 <@tsunam> he doesn't want to pass it on until the bank account is setup
47 21:07 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Have you asked for it ?
48 21:07 <@tsunam> sort of a chicken and the egg thing...
49 21:08 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: aye
50 21:08 <@NeddySeagoon> Don't we need it for opening the account ?
51 21:08 <@tsunam> I've asked for it and that was the response I got
52 21:08 <@fmccor> Yeah. Bank probably wants funds to set up an account. :(
53 21:08 <@tsunam> *nods*
54 21:08 <@tsunam> again assumes that check is still good
55 21:08 <@NeddySeagoon> So, fix paypay and use some of those funds
56 21:09 <@tsunam> assuming they don't want a working bank account *laughs*
57 21:09 <@NeddySeagoon> heh.
58 21:09 <@fmccor> Grant could cash it and write another.
59 21:09 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, are you going to have time to get onto this ?
60 21:11 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: honestly, unknown. I can look into compass again see if I was mistaken about needing to be in nm for it
61 21:11 <@NeddySeagoon> You have an incentive, we owe you money.
62 21:11 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, if we don't need to go to NM, can you open an account too ?
63 21:11 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: should be able to if no need to go to nm
64 21:12 <@tsunam> as its just filling out paperwork
65 21:12 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Care to estimate a date for checking the thread and applying for an account if no travel is needed ?
66 21:13 <@fmccor> They have an on-line site. Might not need to check the thread.
67 21:13 <@tsunam> two weeks out
68 21:13 <@NeddySeagoon> Thats our next meeting - deal!
69 21:13 <@fmccor> That's fine with me.
70 21:14 <@NeddySeagoon> Next - Trustees and Foundation Article For the GMN - NeddySeagoon
71 21:14 <@NeddySeagoon> I've done a bit, fmccor has done a bit, tsunam ?
72 21:14 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: working on it
73 21:15 <@NeddySeagoon> Should we leave this until we are up to strenght. A sort of meet the new Trustees too, or should we run it with 3 and a vacancy list ?
74 21:16 <@fmccor> We could do it in pieces, or would you rather make it one dedicated GMN issue?
75 21:16 <@tsunam> I'd rather have all the slots filled
76 21:16 <@fmccor> Otherwise, I'd leave it, I think.
77 21:16 <@tsunam> before that
78 21:17 <@NeddySeagoon> Lets fill all the slots first then
79 21:17 <@fmccor> Yes.
80 21:17 <@NeddySeagoon> Next ... Trustees and Councillors - NeddySeagoon to Add Clause to draft bylaws
81 21:17 <@NeddySeagoon> I've done that, its ugly but its there
82 21:18 <@fmccor> Where? I must have just read over it.
83 21:18 <@NeddySeagoon> No individual shall serve as a Gentoo Foundation Trustee and Gentoo Council Member concurrently
84 21:19 <@NeddySeagoon> under Article V Trustees
85 21:19 -!- fragalot [n=services@gentoo/user/FamousToaster] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
86 21:19 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, ^^
87 21:19 <@fmccor> I must be looking at an out-of-date version.
88 21:20 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, see the link in /topic
89 21:21 <@NeddySeagoon> Next ... International Licencing For Gentoo Merchandise
90 21:21 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, you were going to check with our lawyers
91 21:22 <@fmccor> I'm blind I guess.
92 21:22 <@fmccor> OK.
93 21:23 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, ^^
94 21:23 <@fmccor> First, our trademarks lawyer is pro bono and always has been and always will be. When we get our funds in shape, we should spend a little money ($200)
95 21:24 <@fmccor> to get the address right on them.
96 21:24 <@NeddySeagoon> Agreed
97 21:24 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ^^
98 21:24 <@fmccor> Second, as I said, this lawyer knows as much about internal licensing agreements I do.
99 21:24 <@tsunam> hmm
100 21:24 <@tsunam> the 200 dollars or?
101 21:24 <@NeddySeagoon> internal/international ?
102 21:24 <@tsunam> ah okie
103 21:25 <@fmccor> international. :)
104 21:25 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, yes - to fix our trademarks
105 21:25 <@tsunam> we've started it already for the international
106 21:25 <@tsunam> so might as well finish it properly
107 21:26 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, for the avoidance of doubt, do you agreed to spending $200 to fix our trademarks ?
108 21:26 <@fmccor> She was going to check around with the firm to see if they could do it pro bono and let me know if they could. I haven't heard anything.
109 21:26 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: yep
110 21:26 <@NeddySeagoon> thanks
111 21:26 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, Is it polite to ask whats happening ?
112 21:27 <@fmccor> Renat had a couple other leads, so I'll get back with him and chase them down (he knows some people who actually do that sort of thing)
113 21:27 <@NeddySeagoon> Ah ok.
114 21:27 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, contact with Renat for the next meeting ?
115 21:28 <@fmccor> I haven't had a chance to, but it's on my list. He should be back at Harvard, so it's just a matter of how quickly he responds.
116 21:28 <@fmccor> I'll start on that after the holiday on Monday.
117 21:28 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, thats out of our control ... but you can do your bit before the next meeting ?
118 21:28 <@fmccor> Yes.
119 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> ok
120 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> Next ... Open Bugs Assigned to Trustees
121 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> 177966 Clarify Foundation page on external entities (on hold for bylaws)
122 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> Nothing to add
123 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> 217511 The Gentoo Store is Out of Date - musikc
124 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, your turn to say a few words please
125 21:30 <@NeddySeagoon> !bug 217511
126 21:30 < Willikins> NeddySeagoon: https://bugs.gentoo.org/217511 "The Gentoo Store is Out of Date"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; NEW; neddyseagoon@g.o:trustees@g.o
127 21:30 < musikc|laptop> dberkholz is pr lead and has not had time to address the request about PR assisting
128 21:30 < musikc|laptop> if you check devaway his wife is having a baby so i do not wish to push him at this time
129 21:31 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I understand he is going to be busy
130 21:31 < musikc|laptop> he should be back around next week
131 21:32 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, He will be a wreck - the sleepless nights just starting
132 21:32 < quantumsummers|c> any interest in new t-shirt designs?
133 21:32 < musikc|laptop> you're so encouraging :-P
134 21:32 <@NeddySeagoon> Can we ask anyone else in PR ?
135 21:33 < quantumsummers|c> perhaps a design contest
136 21:33 < musikc|laptop> pr is ... a small group at present
137 21:33 < musikc|laptop> when is the next trustee meeting?
138 21:33 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, Sure - lots of things. We need to get CDs into the store. We pulled 2006.0 a few months ago
139 21:34 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop 14 or 15 of September, depending if we go to Mondays as others wanted
140 21:35 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, The problem is running the store and keeping it current
141 21:35 < musikc|laptop> ok, i can either get information from dberkholz or draft something up on my own as i do not think he'd take issue with that.
142 21:35 < musikc|laptop> the day of the week will be an issue for me depending on the time of day
143 21:36 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop 19:00 UTC. we are spread over 8 time zones
144 21:37 < musikc|laptop> for now that is noon my time and that i can work
145 21:37 <@NeddySeagoon> ok. For the next meeting then.
146 21:38 <@NeddySeagoon> Item 4. Move #gentoo-trustees away from freenode ?
147 21:38 < musikc|laptop> ill poke you or tsunam for more details offline, can come up something within 2 weeks
148 21:38 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, ok
149 21:38 <@NeddySeagoon> Don't delegate to tsunam :)
150 21:38 <@NeddySeagoon> Item 4. Move #gentoo-trustees away from freenode ?
151 21:38 < musikc|laptop> nah, not delegate, ask questions
152 21:39 <@fmccor> I'd rather not move unless you have a reason to.
153 21:39 <@NeddySeagoon> This came in after a Gentoo developer was klined
154 21:39 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: I think moving parts of #gentoo away from freenode without everyone is seperating the organization not strengthing it =/
155 21:39 <@fmccor> tsunam, agreed
156 21:40 <@NeddySeagoon> I don't think we should move either, unless the rest of Gentoo decides to. That seems to have dies down now
157 21:40 <@fmccor> Doesn't matter much to me where we are, but we should all be the same place.
158 21:40 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, agreed
159 21:40 <@NeddySeagoon> Anyone want to add anything ?
160 21:41 < quantumsummers|c> not I
161 21:41 < musikc|laptop> i had a question about the conflict of interest bit. why is it a conflict to care about legal/accounting AND technical?
162 21:41 <@tsunam> I would like to add that I continue to be dismayed by what occured and wish it be known that I'd like to see gentoo move away from freenode
163 21:41 <@fmccor> musikc|laptop, Where?
164 21:41 < musikc|laptop> oh hell, ya i agree with tsunam. sorry thought it was general question time.
165 21:42 <@fmccor> No, we're just getting to the fun part. :)
166 21:42 <@NeddySeagoon> OK now the bit you have all been waiting for 5. Adoption of draft Foundation Bylaws
167 21:42 <@fmccor> Is version 7 the correct one?
168 21:42 * tsunam points to musikc|laptop's question
169 21:43 <@NeddySeagoon> The latest draft of the bylaws are at http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/FoundationBylawsProposed_7.xml
170 21:43 <@tsunam> can we address that first before working on the bylaws quickly
171 21:43 * musikc|laptop figures its viewed as not a relevant question
172 21:43 <@fmccor> Where did you mean conflict of interest?
173 21:43 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I can't think of an issue just now unless its a council application for funds and the trustees voting on it
174 21:44 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon amended article V to say you cant be on both, i asked tsunam why and he said likely a conflict of interest. im wondering why.
175 21:44 < musikc|laptop> iirc wolf is the only person who was on both and i dont recall anyone having an issue with that so why now? what has changed?
176 21:45 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, it says you can't be on both. Consider what whould happen if the trustees were a subset of council
177 21:46 <@NeddySeagoon> council asks for funding or something,, council votes for it
178 21:46 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, again, someone was on both in the past and it was never an issue. what has changed that made it an issue?
179 21:47 <@NeddySeagoon> maybe a circumstance did not arise in the past for it to become an issue
180 21:47 < musikc|laptop> wouldnt the person who thinks its a good idea still think its a good idea whether they proposed it or someone else did?
181 21:47 <@fmccor> It's probably not. This just makes sure.
182 21:47 <@NeddySeagoon> Consider what whould happen if the trustees were a subset of council. council asks for funding or something,, council votes for it
183 21:47 < quantumsummers|c> NeddySeagoon's point regarding the board v. council COI is valid, the trustees of a foundation are usually extra-organizational, though a council person can sit as an officer
184 21:47 < musikc|laptop> i dont see the sense and am seeking that fmccor
185 21:48 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, but they arent a subset?
186 21:48 < musikc|laptop> it sounds like we're saying we dont trust people
187 21:48 <@fmccor> No, we're a completely separate entity.
188 21:48 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Not today they are not but if people were allowed to serve on both, it could happen
189 21:48 < quantumsummers|c> this separation is standard in npos
190 21:49 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, as the devs and/or foundation votes ppl in wouldnt the community be voting for whom they wanted?
191 21:49 < musikc|laptop> so shouldnt we let the community make that decision?
192 21:49 <@NeddySeagoon> The council and foundation were set up as seperate entities. How would you keep them seperate ?
193 21:49 < musikc|laptop> i just dont see the point if other than to say 'we cant trust people to make good decisions in the best interest of gentoo'
194 21:49 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Its a segregation of duties issue I think
195 21:49 < quantumsummers|c> this is generally considered a legal issue
196 21:49 <@fmccor> musikc|laptop, when we are here doing what we are doing right now, we are not part of gentoo at all.
197 21:50 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, and thats why i said foundation votes
198 21:50 < musikc|laptop> i like the right to vote for who i think is best for the role
199 21:50 < musikc|laptop> and instead am being told that one person is not capable of doing two things
200 21:50 < musikc|laptop> which i do not believe, otherwise i wouldnt want that person doing either thing if they were not capable
201 21:51 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, The council is 7 people and the Trustees 5. The original intent of seperation would be lost.
202 21:51 < musikc|laptop> it seems like a restriction of our options for reasons of 'what if' and the what if has never happened, even when there was over lap so i do not see the need to make the change at present
203 21:52 <@NeddySeagoon> I don't see it as a change. The Foundation has never had bylaws yet, so they can't be changed
204 21:52 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, no the original intent was to have council focus on technical direction and trustees on legal/accounting. that doesnt change just b/c one person could be capable of doing both or else we as the community have voted very poorly if one person was only capable of one position yet we voted them in for both
205 21:52 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, it is a change when you are restricting who i can vote for a role
206 21:53 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, If someone wants to swap thats fine.
207 21:53 < musikc|laptop> i think there are qualified people on trustees and council presently that could do very well both teams, but you are saying that a person is only capable of doing one.
208 21:54 < musikc|laptop> it is an artificial limitation and a removal of my rights to vote who i think is best suited for any role
209 21:54 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Nope. Its not about capabilities
210 21:54 < quantumsummers|c> it is reasonable, however, to simply disallow the Council president from being a trustee for the term
211 21:54 <@NeddySeagoon> Its segregation of duties
212 21:54 < musikc|laptop> how is it about capabilities?
213 21:55 < musikc|laptop> again, you are telling me that i cannot find one person capable of being BOTH a trustee and a council person and i disagree, it is my right to vote for whom i feel is the best fit
214 21:56 < musikc|laptop> the segregation of duties is done by having two teams, however it is a limitation to say that a person must be segregated physically, that a person cannot have business sense and technical sense, or that cannot be trusted to use both wisely
215 21:56 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, you may nominate who you like. They must choose which body they serve on
216 21:56 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, i feel you miss my point entirely. yes i may vote for who i like, but now for ONE team only
217 21:57 <@fmccor> Consider, suppose the council asks the foundation for funding, or something. The conflict arises if there is a council member on the board.
218 21:57 < musikc|laptop> given how few people even run for trustees you are removing possible and capable people from the selection if they wish to also serve in the technical direction.
219 21:57 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Its not a new point. It was dicussed at the last meeing and the action was placed on me to update the bylaws draft, which I have done.
220 21:58 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, the notion of conflict of interest here is silly imo. a person already thinks a certain way, so you're saying that they would think differently if they were on both teams or that YOU cannot trust someone to make a rational decision b/c he was involved in the desire for something as well as the means to say yes i agree with my desire?
221 21:58 < musikc|laptop> its foolhearty at best
222 21:58 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, so again my original response to tsunam is accurate, that my question is not relevant, that being because you have already decided?
223 21:59 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I propose that the bylaws are adoped as written and reviewed prior to the Feb 2009 Trustee Election
224 21:59 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, I'll so move if you like.
225 21:59 < quantumsummers|c> the simple compromise here is to allow councilors to have seats on the board of trustees, while disallowing the council pres from sitting on the board. there is precedent for this, as well as NeddySeagoon's complete separation. However, it is generally considered bad practice to allow an executive director ( i.e. council pres.) to be on the board.
226 21:59 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, The trustees decided at the last meeting, not me personally
227 22:00 <+jmbsvicetto> I see I forgot your meeting again :|
228 22:00 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, i didnt say you personally, you in the sense of trustees.
229 22:00 < musikc|laptop> so if i understand correctly the trustees do not wish to hear my concern with this any longer?
230 22:00 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, thank you for the clarification
231 22:00 <@fmccor> quantumsummers|c, Right now it's better to go with what we have.
232 22:01 <@fmccor> quantumsummers|c, We can always amend if a case can be made.
233 22:01 < quantumsummers|c> I agree, merely pointing out options
234 22:01 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, are my questions and comments not a case made or just not deemed worthy?
235 22:02 < musikc|laptop> a perfect case is... it worked in the past. Gentoo is the proof of concept.
236 22:02 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I hear your concern. There will be no elections until Feb 2009, so we have a chance to change the bylaws if needed. In practice, we are after a moving target, so I see bylaws updates happening at least twice a year to start with
237 22:02 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, so i must wait until new trustee elections to hope i can vote for someone who isnt already on council, thus sacrificing the technical direction of gentoo for the legal one?
238 22:03 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Past performace is no indicator of future performace
239 22:03 < quantumsummers|c> could start a bug regarding this specific issue, then update the bylaws before the election
240 22:03 < musikc|laptop> and random 'what ifs' are no indicator of future performance
241 22:04 < musikc|laptop> quantumsummers|c, i thought it made sense to discuss it before it went into action instead of trying to revoke something after the fact
242 22:04 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Nope, the bylaws can be changed quite quickly, once we have some
243 22:04 < musikc|laptop> http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/bylaws.xml
244 22:04 < musikc|laptop> are those not bylaws?
245 22:04 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, they were never adopted - so No, they are no
246 22:04 <@NeddySeagoon> not*
247 22:05 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, thank you for clarifying
248 22:05 <@NeddySeagoon> np
249 22:06 < musikc|laptop> so i seem to understand that you would rather fix something after the fact then correct it before it bec omes the fact?
250 22:06 < quantumsummers|c> musikc|laptop: I agree there needs to be discourse on this subject, but I understand the immediate necessity of adopting bylaws for legal reasons
251 22:06 < musikc|laptop> so remove that one part and implement the rest. it is one sentence that appears thrown in anyways.
252 22:07 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, The bylaws as adopted will never be perfect. Its a moving target which it why its taken several years to get here. Yes. I prefer something imperfect rather than nothing
253 22:07 < musikc|laptop> there is no discussion prior or after the sentence that explain it, just a matter of fact statement that i ask be removed so we can visit the topic
254 22:08 < musikc|laptop> what is the harm about commenting out one sentence?
255 22:08 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Lets ask fmccor and tsunam
256 22:08 <@fmccor> Discussion was last meeting, don't recall how much.
257 22:08 < quantumsummers|c> this may be a good time for a vote of the trustees with a provision for future re-consideration of the issue (a bug)
258 22:08 < musikc|laptop> i disagree and trustees seem to be saying 'we can change it later' but im asking that we just comment out one sentence and discuss whether it should be added later
259 22:08 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, please leave them as proposed.
260 22:09 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ??
261 22:09 <@tsunam> sec
262 22:09 <@tsunam> someone was at the door
263 22:09 <@tsunam> reading scroll back
264 22:10 <@tsunam> so suggestion is to remove the can't be trustee and council?
265 22:10 <@NeddySeagoon> yes
266 22:10 < musikc|laptop> i ask that it be commented out and the remaining implemented
267 22:10 < musikc|laptop> id like to discuss the matter further as though NeddySeagoon and fmccor tried to explain i cannot understand the why
268 22:10 <@tsunam> hmm
269 22:11 <@tsunam> I'd rather get something implemented...if it takes removing that to get it then yes
270 22:11 <@fmccor> It doesn't take that.
271 22:12 <@fmccor> The three of us are going to vote on the proposal.
272 22:12 < musikc|laptop> as i understand it, fmccor and NeddySeagoon do not trust people to make the right decision for two teams, only being capable to do what is right for one team.
273 22:12 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Its only we three that vote on it. No changes are required. I would like us all to be in favour though
274 22:12 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Its not a trust issue at all
275 22:13 < quantumsummers|c> its a legal issue
276 22:13 <@tsunam> I'd prefer it to stay, but then it also potentially limits who can be a trustee and we all know its already hard to find people who are willing to bet trustee's
277 22:13 < musikc|laptop> i dont see how its a legal issue
278 22:13 < musikc|laptop> i work for a large public company and people on our executive board are also on our board of directors
279 22:13 <@fmccor> tsunam, It limits it by 7 out of the entire Foundation. :)
280 22:14 <@NeddySeagoon> Would someone propose a motion on the proposed bylaws please
281 22:14 < quantumsummers|c> right, but is the CEO on the board of trustees, musikc|laptop?
282 22:14 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, you yoursle wanted to be on both
283 22:14 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, 6. There is a councilor who is not a Foundation member
284 22:14 < musikc|laptop> quantumsummers|c, who is our CEO in Gentoo?
285 22:14 <@fmccor> And it was a mistake.
286 22:14 < quantumsummers|c> that would be the council pres
287 22:15 < musikc|laptop> quantumsummers|c, there is no council president iirc
288 22:15 < quantumsummers|c> equiv to executive director, thought that was vaiper
289 22:15 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, Gentoo has a huge separtation between the distro and the foundation
290 22:15 < musikc|laptop> nope, they are all listed as member
291 22:15 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, I move we accept the bylaws as proposed in http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/FoundationBylawsProposed_7.xml
292 22:15 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, thank you
293 22:15 < quantumsummers|c> NeddySeagoon: this I know, and agree with a strong separation
294 22:16 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ^^
295 22:16 < Philantrop> quantumsummers|c: vapier isn't even a council member. :)
296 22:16 < quantumsummers|c> :)
297 22:16 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, why did you run for both if you felt you couldnt do both?
298 22:16 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: that's updated now?
299 22:16 < musikc|laptop> why did you wait until after you were not elected for council to make this decision?
300 22:16 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, No - the wording stands
301 22:16 <@tsunam> k
302 22:17 < quantumsummers|c> are the trustees in agreement?
303 22:17 <@tsunam> I think so
304 22:17 < musikc|laptop> quantumsummers|c, yes
305 22:17 <@fmccor> I vote yes.
306 22:17 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, care to second the motion so we can vote
307 22:17 <@tsunam> oh lucky me
308 22:17 < musikc|laptop> though fmccor has not answered by question why it was ok for him to be a trustee and to attempt to be council
309 22:17 <@tsunam> seconded
310 22:17 <@NeddySeagoon> Vote
311 22:17 <@tsunam> aye
312 22:17 <@fmccor> Yes.
313 22:18 <@NeddySeagoon> yes
314 22:18 <@tsunam> musikc|laptop: that's something you'd have to ask ferris
315 22:18 < musikc|laptop> i did, he's ignoring the question though ive asked it twice now
316 22:18 <@NeddySeagoon> The motion that bylaws as proposed in http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/FoundationBylawsProposed_7.xml has been passed
317 22:18 < quantumsummers|c> congrats
318 22:18 <@NeddySeagoon> We have bylaws!
319 22:19 < musikc|laptop> so what is good for the goose (fmccor) is not good for the gander (the rest of gentoo)
320 22:19 < quantumsummers|c> bubbley for everyone
321 22:19 <@fmccor> musikc|laptop, Someone nominated me and I accepted. Afterwards, I was told that was a mistake.
322 22:19 < musikc|laptop> but you ran
323 22:19 < musikc|laptop> you never withdrew?
324 22:19 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I was nominated and declined
325 22:19 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, yes, but fmccor did not
326 22:19 < musikc|laptop> he ran
327 22:19 <@tsunam> aye
328 22:20 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, true.
329 22:20 <@NeddySeagoon> One more item before AOB
330 22:20 <@NeddySeagoon> Treasurers Report for FY ending 30 June 2008 tsunam
331 22:20 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, last time we heard that there was a problem
332 22:20 <@tsunam> aye
333 22:21 <@tsunam> I misread some numbers and screwed up the reports :(
334 22:21 <@NeddySeagoon> fixed now ?
335 22:21 <@tsunam> I've more been dealing with paypal for the bank accounts that took a number of tries then doing the updated documentation which I need to get done
336 22:21 <@tsunam> yes its fixed now, I need to review them and make sure they are all correct
337 22:22 <@tsunam> can say that we've had a number of large donations this year from various events/projects our developers have been involved with
338 22:22 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, is this our internal accounts or the stuff we have to file with the IRS ?
339 22:22 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: internaly/501* status info
340 22:22 <@tsunam> as we need to publish quarterly reports
341 22:22 <@NeddySeagoon> yep
342 22:22 <@tsunam> to maintain the NFP status for any group
343 22:22 <@tsunam> no matter the type of NFP
344 22:23 <@NeddySeagoon> Ah - ok
345 22:23 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, are you needing some help, or are you coping ?
346 22:23 <@tsunam> can cope with this
347 22:25 <@NeddySeagoon> And our yearly IRS filing ?
348 22:26 <@tsunam> that'll be beginning of next year, need to see what I need to file out
349 22:26 <@tsunam> what info is required
350 22:27 <@tsunam> my understanding is that its one form
351 22:27 <@NeddySeagoon> You are closer to it than me
352 22:27 <@tsunam> being in the US and all *nods* :-P
353 22:27 <@fmccor> Should we have an accountant for this sort of thing?
354 22:27 <@NeddySeagoon> When will we be able to see the quarterly reports ?
355 22:28 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, thats being worked
356 22:28 <@fmccor> Good, I thought so.
357 22:28 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ^^
358 22:29 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: can't give exactly when on the quarterly as it is over 2 years to update
359 22:29 <@tsunam> so I want to be very sure of my numbers
360 22:30 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, can we see some ?
361 22:30 <@tsunam> I'll try and get some up this week
362 22:30 < quantumsummers|c> tsunam: have you tried using gnucash for this?
363 22:30 < quantumsummers|c> it will do automated reports
364 22:30 <@tsunam> quantumsummers|c: its more a matter of getting the info out of paypal...
365 22:31 < quantumsummers|c> tsunam: I see, ouch
366 22:31 <@tsunam> I've used gnucash and kmymoney2 for this sort of stuff personally but its still decent effort and lots of people to thank
367 22:32 < quantumsummers|c> indeed
368 22:32 <@tsunam> and no easy way to automate it from the csv's etiher I tried that for a while
369 22:32 <@tsunam> but yes I'll get something going
370 22:34 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ok ... It will be on the agenda for the next meeting until the action is complete
371 22:34 <@tsunam> k
372 22:35 <@NeddySeagoon> Item 7 Any other business
373 22:35 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ?
374 22:35 <@tsunam> I got none
375 22:35 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, ?
376 22:35 <@fmccor> Two administrative ones.
377 22:35 <@NeddySeagoon> on you go
378 22:36 <@fmccor> 1) For technical reasons, NeddySeagoon and I need to add Chairman and vice-Chairman to our titles ---
379 22:36 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, Why?
380 22:36 <@fmccor> Otherwise, if we ever have a separate president, that person presides.
381 22:36 <@fmccor> Thus ---
382 22:37 <@NeddySeagoon> You mean if we have an officer president ?
383 22:37 <@fmccor> Board meetings are run by the chairman, but but if none, then by the president.
384 22:37 <@fmccor> Yes. It's to keep control of the board.
385 22:37 <@NeddySeagoon> I understand
386 22:38 <@fmccor> Certainly not an immediate issue, but one not to lose sight of.
387 22:39 <@NeddySeagoon> I would be good to split off the officer roles the trustees have been doing, get more business admin on board
388 22:39 <@fmccor> That was what my point was about.
389 22:40 <@NeddySeagoon> Lets hold it over to the next meeting.
390 22:40 <@NeddySeagoon> what was your second point ?
391 22:41 <@fmccor> Timing on secretary and filling up to full strength.
392 22:41 <@fmccor> I don't know when the next GMN will be is why I ask.
393 22:42 <@NeddySeagoon> I want to make an announcement at the next meeting. Its been unfortunate there was no Aug GMN
394 22:42 <@fmccor> Fair enough.
395 22:42 <@NeddySeagoon> but we can't wait for the GMN
396 22:42 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, Is that it ?
397 22:42 <@fmccor> I think so, yes.
398 22:43 <@NeddySeagoon> Last item ... 8. Open floor
399 22:43 <@fmccor> rane always has something. :)
400 22:45 <@fmccor> Oh, we need to update the actual bylaws page.
401 22:46 <@fmccor> And remove "draft" from the home page. :)
402 22:46 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, is that an offer ?
403 22:46 <@fmccor> I can do it, I think.
404 22:46 <@NeddySeagoon> I need to learn to use CVS
405 22:46 <@fmccor> The proposal does not have a date in it; I can put today's date in or you can.
406 22:47 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, It should be todays date as its today the bylaws were adopted
407 22:47 <@NeddySeagoon> You can fix it
408 22:48 <@NeddySeagoon> Any more for Open Floor
409 22:48 <@fmccor> Right. That's just the bit in the sidebar.
410 22:48 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor yes
411 22:48 < quantumsummers|c> are the trustees planning on further recruitment of officers beyond secretary?
412 22:49 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, Its not been formally decided but my view is yes.
413 22:49 <@fmccor> I hope so.
414 22:50 <@NeddySeagoon> We needed the trustees to do both roles while there were no bylaws but now we have ground rules, we can look at getting officers from outside the developer pool
415 22:50 < quantumsummers|c> very good
416 22:50 <@fmccor> membership pool. :)
417 22:51 < quantumsummers|c> thank you
418 22:51 -!- Arfrever [n=Arfrever@gentoo/user/arfrever] has joined #gentoo-trustees
419 22:51 < quantumsummers|c> I have a meeting with CPAs starting tuesday
420 22:51 < quantumsummers|c> *meetings*
421 22:52 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, good luck
422 22:52 < quantumsummers|c> thank you
423 22:52 <@NeddySeagoon> Any more for Open Floor ?
424 22:53 * fmccor is working on bylaws now --- wait around for 5 minutes or so, and I can say updated (then wait 15 minutes more to see if it worked)
425 22:53 < quantumsummers|c> when is the next meeting?
426 22:54 * quantumsummers|c grabs his calendar...
427 22:54 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, tsunam Do you prefer 14 or the 15 September for our next meeting ? (Sun or Mon ?)
428 22:56 <@fmccor> Or, maybe not. The update complains about lots of xml problems
429 22:56 <@fmccor> Prefer the 15th
430 22:57 <@tsunam> that's my birthday =/
431 22:57 < quantumsummers|c> yo tsunam, mine's the 11th, happy b-day in advance
432 22:57 <@tsunam> quantumsummers|c: same to you
433 22:57 < quantumsummers|c> :)
434 22:57 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, 14th then ?
435 22:59 <@fmccor> Sure.
436 23:00 <@NeddySeagoon> DONM 14 Sep at 19:00 UTC
437 23:00 <@NeddySeagoon> Its a Sunday
438 23:01 <@tsunam> k
439 23:02 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, I'm going to need some help, because This shows many xml errors when I try to commit.
440 23:02 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, I did it in xmlcopy editor
441 23:02 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, after the meeting
442 23:03 <@NeddySeagoon> If thats the end of Open Floor, the meeting is closed
443 23:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Meeting Closed
444 23:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Thank you everyone
445
446
447
448 1.1 xml/htdocs/foundation/en/minutes/2008/august2008.txt
449
450 file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/foundation/en/minutes/2008/august2008.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
451 plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/foundation/en/minutes/2008/august2008.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
452
453 Index: august2008.txt
454 ===================================================================
455 21:00 * NeddySeagoon calls the meeting to order - roll call, tsunam and fmccor. wltjr said he would not attend
456 21:00 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, you had to vote in a trustee election as well
457 21:00 * fmccor here
458 21:00 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, wakey wakey
459 21:00 < musikc|laptop> i honestly dont recall if i did or not
460 21:01 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: I'm around =)
461 21:01 <@NeddySeagoon> heh. OK we are quorate ... lets go. Agenda is in /topic
462 21:01 <@fmccor> rane or Jorge would know --- they were the election officials.
463 21:01 <@NeddySeagoon> I think we can skip Introductions
464 21:02 <@NeddySeagoon> So, Actions From the Last Meeting...
465 21:02 <@NeddySeagoon> Gentoo Foundation Banking - tsunam
466 21:02 <@NeddySeagoon> care to say a few words ?
467 21:02 <@tsunam> paypal finally removed the old bank accounts. Need to check with them and see if there's anything the need now to unlock the account fully
468 21:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Does our paypay work ?
469 21:03 <@tsunam> we can accept donations
470 21:03 <@tsunam> can't send out
471 21:03 <@NeddySeagoon> paypal*
472 21:03 <@tsunam> currently
473 21:03 <@tsunam> they've been less then helpful in working with me on this :(
474 21:03 <@NeddySeagoon> do we owe anyone anything ?
475 21:04 <@tsunam> just trustee's some money
476 21:04 <@tsunam> wltjr 10-20 bucks he's not asked for yet, and me for the lawyers fee's still
477 21:04 <@NeddySeagoon> Needs fixed then, we don't want to mix our own and Foundation funds
478 21:05 <@NeddySeagoon> What about a bank account ?
479 21:05 <@tsunam> Last I heard was that the bank we wanted to go to was an online bank but required someone in new mexico to sign
480 21:05 <@tsunam> that was for compass was my understanding
481 21:06 <@fmccor> I didn't know they needed anyone to go there. Hm.
482 21:06 <@tsunam> I'll have to reread the thread, but I could of sworn someone said that it was a requirement
483 21:07 <@NeddySeagoon> Please tsunam. Do you have the cheque for our funds from Grant ?
484 21:07 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: still with grant
485 21:07 <@tsunam> he doesn't want to pass it on until the bank account is setup
486 21:07 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Have you asked for it ?
487 21:07 <@tsunam> sort of a chicken and the egg thing...
488 21:08 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: aye
489 21:08 <@NeddySeagoon> Don't we need it for opening the account ?
490 21:08 <@tsunam> I've asked for it and that was the response I got
491 21:08 <@fmccor> Yeah. Bank probably wants funds to set up an account. :(
492 21:08 <@tsunam> *nods*
493 21:08 <@tsunam> again assumes that check is still good
494 21:08 <@NeddySeagoon> So, fix paypay and use some of those funds
495 21:09 <@tsunam> assuming they don't want a working bank account *laughs*
496 21:09 <@NeddySeagoon> heh.
497 21:09 <@fmccor> Grant could cash it and write another.
498 21:09 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, are you going to have time to get onto this ?
499 21:11 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: honestly, unknown. I can look into compass again see if I was mistaken about needing to be in nm for it
500 21:11 <@NeddySeagoon> You have an incentive, we owe you money.
501 21:11 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, if we don't need to go to NM, can you open an account too ?
502 21:11 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: should be able to if no need to go to nm
503 21:12 <@tsunam> as its just filling out paperwork
504 21:12 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Care to estimate a date for checking the thread and applying for an account if no travel is needed ?
505 21:13 <@fmccor> They have an on-line site. Might not need to check the thread.
506 21:13 <@tsunam> two weeks out
507 21:13 <@NeddySeagoon> Thats our next meeting - deal!
508 21:13 <@fmccor> That's fine with me.
509 21:14 <@NeddySeagoon> Next - Trustees and Foundation Article For the GMN - NeddySeagoon
510 21:14 <@NeddySeagoon> I've done a bit, fmccor has done a bit, tsunam ?
511 21:14 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: working on it
512 21:15 <@NeddySeagoon> Should we leave this until we are up to strenght. A sort of meet the new Trustees too, or should we run it with 3 and a vacancy list ?
513 21:16 <@fmccor> We could do it in pieces, or would you rather make it one dedicated GMN issue?
514 21:16 <@tsunam> I'd rather have all the slots filled
515 21:16 <@fmccor> Otherwise, I'd leave it, I think.
516 21:16 <@tsunam> before that
517 21:17 <@NeddySeagoon> Lets fill all the slots first then
518 21:17 <@fmccor> Yes.
519 21:17 <@NeddySeagoon> Next ... Trustees and Councillors - NeddySeagoon to Add Clause to draft bylaws
520 21:17 <@NeddySeagoon> I've done that, its ugly but its there
521 21:18 <@fmccor> Where? I must have just read over it.
522 21:18 <@NeddySeagoon> No individual shall serve as a Gentoo Foundation Trustee and Gentoo Council Member concurrently
523 21:19 <@NeddySeagoon> under Article V Trustees
524 21:19 -!- fragalot [n=services@gentoo/user/FamousToaster] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
525 21:19 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, ^^
526 21:19 <@fmccor> I must be looking at an out-of-date version.
527 21:20 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, see the link in /topic
528 21:21 <@NeddySeagoon> Next ... International Licencing For Gentoo Merchandise
529 21:21 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, you were going to check with our lawyers
530 21:22 <@fmccor> I'm blind I guess.
531 21:22 <@fmccor> OK.
532 21:23 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, ^^
533 21:23 <@fmccor> First, our trademarks lawyer is pro bono and always has been and always will be. When we get our funds in shape, we should spend a little money ($200)
534 21:24 <@fmccor> to get the address right on them.
535 21:24 <@NeddySeagoon> Agreed
536 21:24 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ^^
537 21:24 <@fmccor> Second, as I said, this lawyer knows as much about internal licensing agreements I do.
538 21:24 <@tsunam> hmm
539 21:24 <@tsunam> the 200 dollars or?
540 21:24 <@NeddySeagoon> internal/international ?
541 21:24 <@tsunam> ah okie
542 21:25 <@fmccor> international. :)
543 21:25 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, yes - to fix our trademarks
544 21:25 <@tsunam> we've started it already for the international
545 21:25 <@tsunam> so might as well finish it properly
546 21:26 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, for the avoidance of doubt, do you agreed to spending $200 to fix our trademarks ?
547 21:26 <@fmccor> She was going to check around with the firm to see if they could do it pro bono and let me know if they could. I haven't heard anything.
548 21:26 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: yep
549 21:26 <@NeddySeagoon> thanks
550 21:26 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, Is it polite to ask whats happening ?
551 21:27 <@fmccor> Renat had a couple other leads, so I'll get back with him and chase them down (he knows some people who actually do that sort of thing)
552 21:27 <@NeddySeagoon> Ah ok.
553 21:27 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, contact with Renat for the next meeting ?
554 21:28 <@fmccor> I haven't had a chance to, but it's on my list. He should be back at Harvard, so it's just a matter of how quickly he responds.
555 21:28 <@fmccor> I'll start on that after the holiday on Monday.
556 21:28 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, thats out of our control ... but you can do your bit before the next meeting ?
557 21:28 <@fmccor> Yes.
558 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> ok
559 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> Next ... Open Bugs Assigned to Trustees
560 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> 177966 Clarify Foundation page on external entities (on hold for bylaws)
561 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> Nothing to add
562 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> 217511 The Gentoo Store is Out of Date - musikc
563 21:29 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, your turn to say a few words please
564 21:30 <@NeddySeagoon> !bug 217511
565 21:30 < Willikins> NeddySeagoon: https://bugs.gentoo.org/217511 "The Gentoo Store is Out of Date"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; NEW; neddyseagoon@g.o:trustees@g.o
566 21:30 < musikc|laptop> dberkholz is pr lead and has not had time to address the request about PR assisting
567 21:30 < musikc|laptop> if you check devaway his wife is having a baby so i do not wish to push him at this time
568 21:31 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I understand he is going to be busy
569 21:31 < musikc|laptop> he should be back around next week
570 21:32 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, He will be a wreck - the sleepless nights just starting
571 21:32 < quantumsummers|c> any interest in new t-shirt designs?
572 21:32 < musikc|laptop> you're so encouraging :-P
573 21:32 <@NeddySeagoon> Can we ask anyone else in PR ?
574 21:33 < quantumsummers|c> perhaps a design contest
575 21:33 < musikc|laptop> pr is ... a small group at present
576 21:33 < musikc|laptop> when is the next trustee meeting?
577 21:33 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, Sure - lots of things. We need to get CDs into the store. We pulled 2006.0 a few months ago
578 21:34 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop 14 or 15 of September, depending if we go to Mondays as others wanted
579 21:35 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, The problem is running the store and keeping it current
580 21:35 < musikc|laptop> ok, i can either get information from dberkholz or draft something up on my own as i do not think he'd take issue with that.
581 21:35 < musikc|laptop> the day of the week will be an issue for me depending on the time of day
582 21:36 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop 19:00 UTC. we are spread over 8 time zones
583 21:37 < musikc|laptop> for now that is noon my time and that i can work
584 21:37 <@NeddySeagoon> ok. For the next meeting then.
585 21:38 <@NeddySeagoon> Item 4. Move #gentoo-trustees away from freenode ?
586 21:38 < musikc|laptop> ill poke you or tsunam for more details offline, can come up something within 2 weeks
587 21:38 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, ok
588 21:38 <@NeddySeagoon> Don't delegate to tsunam :)
589 21:38 <@NeddySeagoon> Item 4. Move #gentoo-trustees away from freenode ?
590 21:38 < musikc|laptop> nah, not delegate, ask questions
591 21:39 <@fmccor> I'd rather not move unless you have a reason to.
592 21:39 <@NeddySeagoon> This came in after a Gentoo developer was klined
593 21:39 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: I think moving parts of #gentoo away from freenode without everyone is seperating the organization not strengthing it =/
594 21:39 <@fmccor> tsunam, agreed
595 21:40 <@NeddySeagoon> I don't think we should move either, unless the rest of Gentoo decides to. That seems to have dies down now
596 21:40 <@fmccor> Doesn't matter much to me where we are, but we should all be the same place.
597 21:40 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, agreed
598 21:40 <@NeddySeagoon> Anyone want to add anything ?
599 21:41 < quantumsummers|c> not I
600 21:41 < musikc|laptop> i had a question about the conflict of interest bit. why is it a conflict to care about legal/accounting AND technical?
601 21:41 <@tsunam> I would like to add that I continue to be dismayed by what occured and wish it be known that I'd like to see gentoo move away from freenode
602 21:41 <@fmccor> musikc|laptop, Where?
603 21:41 < musikc|laptop> oh hell, ya i agree with tsunam. sorry thought it was general question time.
604 21:42 <@fmccor> No, we're just getting to the fun part. :)
605 21:42 <@NeddySeagoon> OK now the bit you have all been waiting for 5. Adoption of draft Foundation Bylaws
606 21:42 <@fmccor> Is version 7 the correct one?
607 21:42 * tsunam points to musikc|laptop's question
608 21:43 <@NeddySeagoon> The latest draft of the bylaws are at http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/FoundationBylawsProposed_7.xml
609 21:43 <@tsunam> can we address that first before working on the bylaws quickly
610 21:43 * musikc|laptop figures its viewed as not a relevant question
611 21:43 <@fmccor> Where did you mean conflict of interest?
612 21:43 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I can't think of an issue just now unless its a council application for funds and the trustees voting on it
613 21:44 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon amended article V to say you cant be on both, i asked tsunam why and he said likely a conflict of interest. im wondering why.
614 21:44 < musikc|laptop> iirc wolf is the only person who was on both and i dont recall anyone having an issue with that so why now? what has changed?
615 21:45 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, it says you can't be on both. Consider what whould happen if the trustees were a subset of council
616 21:46 <@NeddySeagoon> council asks for funding or something,, council votes for it
617 21:46 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, again, someone was on both in the past and it was never an issue. what has changed that made it an issue?
618 21:47 <@NeddySeagoon> maybe a circumstance did not arise in the past for it to become an issue
619 21:47 < musikc|laptop> wouldnt the person who thinks its a good idea still think its a good idea whether they proposed it or someone else did?
620 21:47 <@fmccor> It's probably not. This just makes sure.
621 21:47 <@NeddySeagoon> Consider what whould happen if the trustees were a subset of council. council asks for funding or something,, council votes for it
622 21:47 < quantumsummers|c> NeddySeagoon's point regarding the board v. council COI is valid, the trustees of a foundation are usually extra-organizational, though a council person can sit as an officer
623 21:47 < musikc|laptop> i dont see the sense and am seeking that fmccor
624 21:48 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, but they arent a subset?
625 21:48 < musikc|laptop> it sounds like we're saying we dont trust people
626 21:48 <@fmccor> No, we're a completely separate entity.
627 21:48 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Not today they are not but if people were allowed to serve on both, it could happen
628 21:48 < quantumsummers|c> this separation is standard in npos
629 21:49 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, as the devs and/or foundation votes ppl in wouldnt the community be voting for whom they wanted?
630 21:49 < musikc|laptop> so shouldnt we let the community make that decision?
631 21:49 <@NeddySeagoon> The council and foundation were set up as seperate entities. How would you keep them seperate ?
632 21:49 < musikc|laptop> i just dont see the point if other than to say 'we cant trust people to make good decisions in the best interest of gentoo'
633 21:49 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Its a segregation of duties issue I think
634 21:49 < quantumsummers|c> this is generally considered a legal issue
635 21:49 <@fmccor> musikc|laptop, when we are here doing what we are doing right now, we are not part of gentoo at all.
636 21:50 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, and thats why i said foundation votes
637 21:50 < musikc|laptop> i like the right to vote for who i think is best for the role
638 21:50 < musikc|laptop> and instead am being told that one person is not capable of doing two things
639 21:50 < musikc|laptop> which i do not believe, otherwise i wouldnt want that person doing either thing if they were not capable
640 21:51 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, The council is 7 people and the Trustees 5. The original intent of seperation would be lost.
641 21:51 < musikc|laptop> it seems like a restriction of our options for reasons of 'what if' and the what if has never happened, even when there was over lap so i do not see the need to make the change at present
642 21:52 <@NeddySeagoon> I don't see it as a change. The Foundation has never had bylaws yet, so they can't be changed
643 21:52 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, no the original intent was to have council focus on technical direction and trustees on legal/accounting. that doesnt change just b/c one person could be capable of doing both or else we as the community have voted very poorly if one person was only capable of one position yet we voted them in for both
644 21:52 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, it is a change when you are restricting who i can vote for a role
645 21:53 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, If someone wants to swap thats fine.
646 21:53 < musikc|laptop> i think there are qualified people on trustees and council presently that could do very well both teams, but you are saying that a person is only capable of doing one.
647 21:54 < musikc|laptop> it is an artificial limitation and a removal of my rights to vote who i think is best suited for any role
648 21:54 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Nope. Its not about capabilities
649 21:54 < quantumsummers|c> it is reasonable, however, to simply disallow the Council president from being a trustee for the term
650 21:54 <@NeddySeagoon> Its segregation of duties
651 21:54 < musikc|laptop> how is it about capabilities?
652 21:55 < musikc|laptop> again, you are telling me that i cannot find one person capable of being BOTH a trustee and a council person and i disagree, it is my right to vote for whom i feel is the best fit
653 21:56 < musikc|laptop> the segregation of duties is done by having two teams, however it is a limitation to say that a person must be segregated physically, that a person cannot have business sense and technical sense, or that cannot be trusted to use both wisely
654 21:56 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, you may nominate who you like. They must choose which body they serve on
655 21:56 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, i feel you miss my point entirely. yes i may vote for who i like, but now for ONE team only
656 21:57 <@fmccor> Consider, suppose the council asks the foundation for funding, or something. The conflict arises if there is a council member on the board.
657 21:57 < musikc|laptop> given how few people even run for trustees you are removing possible and capable people from the selection if they wish to also serve in the technical direction.
658 21:57 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Its not a new point. It was dicussed at the last meeing and the action was placed on me to update the bylaws draft, which I have done.
659 21:58 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, the notion of conflict of interest here is silly imo. a person already thinks a certain way, so you're saying that they would think differently if they were on both teams or that YOU cannot trust someone to make a rational decision b/c he was involved in the desire for something as well as the means to say yes i agree with my desire?
660 21:58 < musikc|laptop> its foolhearty at best
661 21:58 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, so again my original response to tsunam is accurate, that my question is not relevant, that being because you have already decided?
662 21:59 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I propose that the bylaws are adoped as written and reviewed prior to the Feb 2009 Trustee Election
663 21:59 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, I'll so move if you like.
664 21:59 < quantumsummers|c> the simple compromise here is to allow councilors to have seats on the board of trustees, while disallowing the council pres from sitting on the board. there is precedent for this, as well as NeddySeagoon's complete separation. However, it is generally considered bad practice to allow an executive director ( i.e. council pres.) to be on the board.
665 21:59 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, The trustees decided at the last meeting, not me personally
666 22:00 <+jmbsvicetto> I see I forgot your meeting again :|
667 22:00 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, i didnt say you personally, you in the sense of trustees.
668 22:00 < musikc|laptop> so if i understand correctly the trustees do not wish to hear my concern with this any longer?
669 22:00 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, thank you for the clarification
670 22:00 <@fmccor> quantumsummers|c, Right now it's better to go with what we have.
671 22:01 <@fmccor> quantumsummers|c, We can always amend if a case can be made.
672 22:01 < quantumsummers|c> I agree, merely pointing out options
673 22:01 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, are my questions and comments not a case made or just not deemed worthy?
674 22:02 < musikc|laptop> a perfect case is... it worked in the past. Gentoo is the proof of concept.
675 22:02 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I hear your concern. There will be no elections until Feb 2009, so we have a chance to change the bylaws if needed. In practice, we are after a moving target, so I see bylaws updates happening at least twice a year to start with
676 22:02 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, so i must wait until new trustee elections to hope i can vote for someone who isnt already on council, thus sacrificing the technical direction of gentoo for the legal one?
677 22:03 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Past performace is no indicator of future performace
678 22:03 < quantumsummers|c> could start a bug regarding this specific issue, then update the bylaws before the election
679 22:03 < musikc|laptop> and random 'what ifs' are no indicator of future performance
680 22:04 < musikc|laptop> quantumsummers|c, i thought it made sense to discuss it before it went into action instead of trying to revoke something after the fact
681 22:04 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Nope, the bylaws can be changed quite quickly, once we have some
682 22:04 < musikc|laptop> http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/bylaws.xml
683 22:04 < musikc|laptop> are those not bylaws?
684 22:04 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, they were never adopted - so No, they are no
685 22:04 <@NeddySeagoon> not*
686 22:05 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, thank you for clarifying
687 22:05 <@NeddySeagoon> np
688 22:06 < musikc|laptop> so i seem to understand that you would rather fix something after the fact then correct it before it bec omes the fact?
689 22:06 < quantumsummers|c> musikc|laptop: I agree there needs to be discourse on this subject, but I understand the immediate necessity of adopting bylaws for legal reasons
690 22:06 < musikc|laptop> so remove that one part and implement the rest. it is one sentence that appears thrown in anyways.
691 22:07 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, The bylaws as adopted will never be perfect. Its a moving target which it why its taken several years to get here. Yes. I prefer something imperfect rather than nothing
692 22:07 < musikc|laptop> there is no discussion prior or after the sentence that explain it, just a matter of fact statement that i ask be removed so we can visit the topic
693 22:08 < musikc|laptop> what is the harm about commenting out one sentence?
694 22:08 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Lets ask fmccor and tsunam
695 22:08 <@fmccor> Discussion was last meeting, don't recall how much.
696 22:08 < quantumsummers|c> this may be a good time for a vote of the trustees with a provision for future re-consideration of the issue (a bug)
697 22:08 < musikc|laptop> i disagree and trustees seem to be saying 'we can change it later' but im asking that we just comment out one sentence and discuss whether it should be added later
698 22:08 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, please leave them as proposed.
699 22:09 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ??
700 22:09 <@tsunam> sec
701 22:09 <@tsunam> someone was at the door
702 22:09 <@tsunam> reading scroll back
703 22:10 <@tsunam> so suggestion is to remove the can't be trustee and council?
704 22:10 <@NeddySeagoon> yes
705 22:10 < musikc|laptop> i ask that it be commented out and the remaining implemented
706 22:10 < musikc|laptop> id like to discuss the matter further as though NeddySeagoon and fmccor tried to explain i cannot understand the why
707 22:10 <@tsunam> hmm
708 22:11 <@tsunam> I'd rather get something implemented...if it takes removing that to get it then yes
709 22:11 <@fmccor> It doesn't take that.
710 22:12 <@fmccor> The three of us are going to vote on the proposal.
711 22:12 < musikc|laptop> as i understand it, fmccor and NeddySeagoon do not trust people to make the right decision for two teams, only being capable to do what is right for one team.
712 22:12 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Its only we three that vote on it. No changes are required. I would like us all to be in favour though
713 22:12 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, Its not a trust issue at all
714 22:13 < quantumsummers|c> its a legal issue
715 22:13 <@tsunam> I'd prefer it to stay, but then it also potentially limits who can be a trustee and we all know its already hard to find people who are willing to bet trustee's
716 22:13 < musikc|laptop> i dont see how its a legal issue
717 22:13 < musikc|laptop> i work for a large public company and people on our executive board are also on our board of directors
718 22:13 <@fmccor> tsunam, It limits it by 7 out of the entire Foundation. :)
719 22:14 <@NeddySeagoon> Would someone propose a motion on the proposed bylaws please
720 22:14 < quantumsummers|c> right, but is the CEO on the board of trustees, musikc|laptop?
721 22:14 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, you yoursle wanted to be on both
722 22:14 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, 6. There is a councilor who is not a Foundation member
723 22:14 < musikc|laptop> quantumsummers|c, who is our CEO in Gentoo?
724 22:14 <@fmccor> And it was a mistake.
725 22:14 < quantumsummers|c> that would be the council pres
726 22:15 < musikc|laptop> quantumsummers|c, there is no council president iirc
727 22:15 < quantumsummers|c> equiv to executive director, thought that was vaiper
728 22:15 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, Gentoo has a huge separtation between the distro and the foundation
729 22:15 < musikc|laptop> nope, they are all listed as member
730 22:15 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, I move we accept the bylaws as proposed in http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/FoundationBylawsProposed_7.xml
731 22:15 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, thank you
732 22:15 < quantumsummers|c> NeddySeagoon: this I know, and agree with a strong separation
733 22:16 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ^^
734 22:16 < Philantrop> quantumsummers|c: vapier isn't even a council member. :)
735 22:16 < quantumsummers|c> :)
736 22:16 < musikc|laptop> fmccor, why did you run for both if you felt you couldnt do both?
737 22:16 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: that's updated now?
738 22:16 < musikc|laptop> why did you wait until after you were not elected for council to make this decision?
739 22:16 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, No - the wording stands
740 22:16 <@tsunam> k
741 22:17 < quantumsummers|c> are the trustees in agreement?
742 22:17 <@tsunam> I think so
743 22:17 < musikc|laptop> quantumsummers|c, yes
744 22:17 <@fmccor> I vote yes.
745 22:17 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, care to second the motion so we can vote
746 22:17 <@tsunam> oh lucky me
747 22:17 < musikc|laptop> though fmccor has not answered by question why it was ok for him to be a trustee and to attempt to be council
748 22:17 <@tsunam> seconded
749 22:17 <@NeddySeagoon> Vote
750 22:17 <@tsunam> aye
751 22:17 <@fmccor> Yes.
752 22:18 <@NeddySeagoon> yes
753 22:18 <@tsunam> musikc|laptop: that's something you'd have to ask ferris
754 22:18 < musikc|laptop> i did, he's ignoring the question though ive asked it twice now
755 22:18 <@NeddySeagoon> The motion that bylaws as proposed in http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/FoundationBylawsProposed_7.xml has been passed
756 22:18 < quantumsummers|c> congrats
757 22:18 <@NeddySeagoon> We have bylaws!
758 22:19 < musikc|laptop> so what is good for the goose (fmccor) is not good for the gander (the rest of gentoo)
759 22:19 < quantumsummers|c> bubbley for everyone
760 22:19 <@fmccor> musikc|laptop, Someone nominated me and I accepted. Afterwards, I was told that was a mistake.
761 22:19 < musikc|laptop> but you ran
762 22:19 < musikc|laptop> you never withdrew?
763 22:19 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, I was nominated and declined
764 22:19 < musikc|laptop> NeddySeagoon, yes, but fmccor did not
765 22:19 < musikc|laptop> he ran
766 22:19 <@tsunam> aye
767 22:20 <@NeddySeagoon> musikc|laptop, true.
768 22:20 <@NeddySeagoon> One more item before AOB
769 22:20 <@NeddySeagoon> Treasurers Report for FY ending 30 June 2008 tsunam
770 22:20 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, last time we heard that there was a problem
771 22:20 <@tsunam> aye
772 22:21 <@tsunam> I misread some numbers and screwed up the reports :(
773 22:21 <@NeddySeagoon> fixed now ?
774 22:21 <@tsunam> I've more been dealing with paypal for the bank accounts that took a number of tries then doing the updated documentation which I need to get done
775 22:21 <@tsunam> yes its fixed now, I need to review them and make sure they are all correct
776 22:22 <@tsunam> can say that we've had a number of large donations this year from various events/projects our developers have been involved with
777 22:22 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, is this our internal accounts or the stuff we have to file with the IRS ?
778 22:22 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: internaly/501* status info
779 22:22 <@tsunam> as we need to publish quarterly reports
780 22:22 <@NeddySeagoon> yep
781 22:22 <@tsunam> to maintain the NFP status for any group
782 22:22 <@tsunam> no matter the type of NFP
783 22:23 <@NeddySeagoon> Ah - ok
784 22:23 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, are you needing some help, or are you coping ?
785 22:23 <@tsunam> can cope with this
786 22:25 <@NeddySeagoon> And our yearly IRS filing ?
787 22:26 <@tsunam> that'll be beginning of next year, need to see what I need to file out
788 22:26 <@tsunam> what info is required
789 22:27 <@tsunam> my understanding is that its one form
790 22:27 <@NeddySeagoon> You are closer to it than me
791 22:27 <@tsunam> being in the US and all *nods* :-P
792 22:27 <@fmccor> Should we have an accountant for this sort of thing?
793 22:27 <@NeddySeagoon> When will we be able to see the quarterly reports ?
794 22:28 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, thats being worked
795 22:28 <@fmccor> Good, I thought so.
796 22:28 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ^^
797 22:29 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: can't give exactly when on the quarterly as it is over 2 years to update
798 22:29 <@tsunam> so I want to be very sure of my numbers
799 22:30 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, can we see some ?
800 22:30 <@tsunam> I'll try and get some up this week
801 22:30 < quantumsummers|c> tsunam: have you tried using gnucash for this?
802 22:30 < quantumsummers|c> it will do automated reports
803 22:30 <@tsunam> quantumsummers|c: its more a matter of getting the info out of paypal...
804 22:31 < quantumsummers|c> tsunam: I see, ouch
805 22:31 <@tsunam> I've used gnucash and kmymoney2 for this sort of stuff personally but its still decent effort and lots of people to thank
806 22:32 < quantumsummers|c> indeed
807 22:32 <@tsunam> and no easy way to automate it from the csv's etiher I tried that for a while
808 22:32 <@tsunam> but yes I'll get something going
809 22:34 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ok ... It will be on the agenda for the next meeting until the action is complete
810 22:34 <@tsunam> k
811 22:35 <@NeddySeagoon> Item 7 Any other business
812 22:35 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ?
813 22:35 <@tsunam> I got none
814 22:35 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, ?
815 22:35 <@fmccor> Two administrative ones.
816 22:35 <@NeddySeagoon> on you go
817 22:36 <@fmccor> 1) For technical reasons, NeddySeagoon and I need to add Chairman and vice-Chairman to our titles ---
818 22:36 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, Why?
819 22:36 <@fmccor> Otherwise, if we ever have a separate president, that person presides.
820 22:36 <@fmccor> Thus ---
821 22:37 <@NeddySeagoon> You mean if we have an officer president ?
822 22:37 <@fmccor> Board meetings are run by the chairman, but but if none, then by the president.
823 22:37 <@fmccor> Yes. It's to keep control of the board.
824 22:37 <@NeddySeagoon> I understand
825 22:38 <@fmccor> Certainly not an immediate issue, but one not to lose sight of.
826 22:39 <@NeddySeagoon> I would be good to split off the officer roles the trustees have been doing, get more business admin on board
827 22:39 <@fmccor> That was what my point was about.
828 22:40 <@NeddySeagoon> Lets hold it over to the next meeting.
829 22:40 <@NeddySeagoon> what was your second point ?
830 22:41 <@fmccor> Timing on secretary and filling up to full strength.
831 22:41 <@fmccor> I don't know when the next GMN will be is why I ask.
832 22:42 <@NeddySeagoon> I want to make an announcement at the next meeting. Its been unfortunate there was no Aug GMN
833 22:42 <@fmccor> Fair enough.
834 22:42 <@NeddySeagoon> but we can't wait for the GMN
835 22:42 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, Is that it ?
836 22:42 <@fmccor> I think so, yes.
837 22:43 <@NeddySeagoon> Last item ... 8. Open floor
838 22:43 <@fmccor> rane always has something. :)
839 22:45 <@fmccor> Oh, we need to update the actual bylaws page.
840 22:46 <@fmccor> And remove "draft" from the home page. :)
841 22:46 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, is that an offer ?
842 22:46 <@fmccor> I can do it, I think.
843 22:46 <@NeddySeagoon> I need to learn to use CVS
844 22:46 <@fmccor> The proposal does not have a date in it; I can put today's date in or you can.
845 22:47 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, It should be todays date as its today the bylaws were adopted
846 22:47 <@NeddySeagoon> You can fix it
847 22:48 <@NeddySeagoon> Any more for Open Floor
848 22:48 <@fmccor> Right. That's just the bit in the sidebar.
849 22:48 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor yes
850 22:48 < quantumsummers|c> are the trustees planning on further recruitment of officers beyond secretary?
851 22:49 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, Its not been formally decided but my view is yes.
852 22:49 <@fmccor> I hope so.
853 22:50 <@NeddySeagoon> We needed the trustees to do both roles while there were no bylaws but now we have ground rules, we can look at getting officers from outside the developer pool
854 22:50 < quantumsummers|c> very good
855 22:50 <@fmccor> membership pool. :)
856 22:51 < quantumsummers|c> thank you
857 22:51 -!- Arfrever [n=Arfrever@gentoo/user/arfrever] has joined #gentoo-trustees
858 22:51 < quantumsummers|c> I have a meeting with CPAs starting tuesday
859 22:51 < quantumsummers|c> *meetings*
860 22:52 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, good luck
861 22:52 < quantumsummers|c> thank you
862 22:52 <@NeddySeagoon> Any more for Open Floor ?
863 22:53 * fmccor is working on bylaws now --- wait around for 5 minutes or so, and I can say updated (then wait 15 minutes more to see if it worked)
864 22:53 < quantumsummers|c> when is the next meeting?
865 22:54 * quantumsummers|c grabs his calendar...
866 22:54 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, tsunam Do you prefer 14 or the 15 September for our next meeting ? (Sun or Mon ?)
867 22:56 <@fmccor> Or, maybe not. The update complains about lots of xml problems
868 22:56 <@fmccor> Prefer the 15th
869 22:57 <@tsunam> that's my birthday =/
870 22:57 < quantumsummers|c> yo tsunam, mine's the 11th, happy b-day in advance
871 22:57 <@tsunam> quantumsummers|c: same to you
872 22:57 < quantumsummers|c> :)
873 22:57 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, 14th then ?
874 22:59 <@fmccor> Sure.
875 23:00 <@NeddySeagoon> DONM 14 Sep at 19:00 UTC
876 23:00 <@NeddySeagoon> Its a Sunday
877 23:01 <@tsunam> k
878 23:02 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, I'm going to need some help, because This shows many xml errors when I try to commit.
879 23:02 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, I did it in xmlcopy editor
880 23:02 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, after the meeting
881 23:03 <@NeddySeagoon> If thats the end of Open Floor, the meeting is closed
882 23:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Meeting Closed
883 23:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Thank you everyone
884
885
886
887 No
888
889
890 No
891
892
893 No
894
895
896 No
897
898
899 No
900
901
902 No
903
904
905 No
906
907
908 No