XSF Discussion - 2018-03-29

  1. Zash


  2. Holger


  3. Ge0rG


  4. edhelas


  5. Guus snorts

  6. Martin


  7. ralphm


  8. ralphm bangs gavel

  9. ralphm set the topic to

    XSF Board Meeting | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

  10. ralphm

    0. Welcome and Agenda

  11. ralphm

    Who do we have and do you have something to add to the agenda?

  12. pep.

    Kev, in the intro of im-ng, s/has progressed/have progressed/

  13. pep.

    oops, sorry

  14. Martin

    I'm here. I don't have anything to add.

  15. Guus


  16. ralphm

    MattJ, nyco?

  17. MattJ


  18. ralphm

    1. Board prios.

  19. ralphm

    Guus, you wanted to say something on this I believe.

  20. Guus

    I motion that we no longer plan for a dedicated priorities-meeting.

  21. Guus

    if we really thought that it would be valuable, it would have happened by now.

  22. Guus

    we're 3 months in our 1 year term. Prio definition should be completed or no longer attempted.

  23. MattJ

    Is it blocking progress on any front?

  24. ralphm

    I don't think it does.

  25. Guus

    We're holding other things, waiting for it.

  26. Guus

    I dedicated a lane in trello for that.

  27. Guus

    (the right most)

  28. ralphm

    Right, that's blocking in the other direction

  29. Guus

    I think we should consider this one failed, and start to put the limited amount of effort that we can spare on different things.

  30. ralphm


  31. ralphm

    I can agree

  32. Guus

    (that came out funny - hope you understood my meaning)

  33. MattJ

    I'm fine with that. Personally it's not taking any time from me, except for the minutes every week we spend discussing it

  34. Martin

    I'm of the same view as MattJ

  35. MattJ

    and I don't feel it's especially required for anything I'd like to see done this year

  36. ralphm

    It would seem the motion carries.

  37. Guus

    (which reminds me: we need a minute taker)

  38. MattJ

    Indeed. I just realised... did I volunteer last week?

  39. ralphm

    Guus: oh, good one.

  40. Guus

    MattJ, I think you did. Want to redeem yourself by being it this week? 😉

  41. ralphm

    Yes, MattJ

  42. MattJ

    Sure, I'll do this one and last

  43. Guus weazles his way out of things.

  44. ralphm


  45. MattJ

    Sorry about that

  46. Guus

    no worries

  47. ralphm

    2. Bus factor

  48. Guus

    Peter, are you here?

  49. Guus

    (he mentioned via mail that he wanted to try being here for this)

  50. ralphm

    I don't see him in here.

  51. Guus

    ok, to bad.

  52. Guus

    Anyways, there is a bit of background in the Trello card

  53. ralphm

    Sure, but we discussed that last week?

  54. Guus

    In short: Peter is the only person that is authorized to manage our bank account.

  55. Guus

    It would be good to add a second person, in case something happens to Peter.

  56. Guus

    Peter came up with two solutions

  57. Guus

    (excuse the copy/paste)

  58. Guus

    1. There is a manual form that someone can fill out to become a signer on the account, however that would not enable online banking access. My thought is that we could ask our long serving and highly reliable Secretary if he would do this.

  59. Guus

    2. For online banking access, someone needs to show up in person. I could arrange this with Thomas Muldowney or Dave Smith (emeritus members of the XSF who live near me and are reliable people), so that they could step in on a temporary basis if needed.

  60. ralphm

    Let's do them one by one

  61. ralphm

    (because they're not exclusive)

  62. Guus

    I have had a chat with the Secretary (highly reliable) - he is willing.

  63. ralphm

    Solution #1

  64. ralphm

    I'm +1

  65. Guus


  66. MattJ


  67. Martin


  68. ralphm

    For the record, this is about Alexander Gnauck being additional signer.

  69. ralphm

    Ok, that's agreed.

  70. ralphm

    Then option 2.

  71. MattJ

    To be clear though, this would enable Alex to carry out what operations exactly? (does it 100% solve the original problem?)

  72. ralphm

    In case Peter would not be able to, Alex could perform operations on the bank account

  73. ralphm

    except, apparently, online banking

  74. Guus

    This would allow Alex to show up in person at the bank and act as it's owner/manager. It likely does not give him online banking privileges (unsure)

  75. ralphm

    Which is what Option 2 is about.

  76. Guus

    for me, it is a 100% solution to the problem of us loosing all bank account access, in case of Peter becoming unavailable.

  77. Guus

    (worst case, we need to stick him in a plane).

  78. ralphm


  79. MattJ


  80. Guus

    As for #2, I'm -1.

  81. MattJ

    Works for me

  82. ralphm

    So you are saying that we wouldn't need to add someone for just the online banking access.

  83. Guus

    ralphm: I don't believe we do - certainly not to resolve the 'bus factor' issue.

  84. ralphm

    With no other directors in the US, this would need to be somebody else. I have no objections to Peter's suggestions, but I can understand if you do.

  85. Guus

    It's not a personal matter regarding the persons that were put forward by Peter, by the way. I just like, in general, to limit the access to our bank account. I thnk that's even more important when people do not have an affiliation with the XSF any more.

  86. MattJ

    I'm on the fence about this one

  87. MattJ

    Ideally I think we ought to be in the position where someone has online access (other than Peter), but I also feel it's awkward if that person is not actively involved with the XSF

  88. Guus

    as far as I'm concerned, we're only tackling the issue of Peter becoming permanently unavailable here. I do not interpret this issue as 'lightening the load' for Peter. I think no such request came from Peter, and I don't see a need to be able to speed up bank account-related business.

  89. MattJ

    It's nothing to do with trust, but practicality

  90. ralphm

    Arguably they do have an affiliation (as emeritus member, which is a recognised affiliation described in our bylaws), but I get your feeling.

  91. ralphm

    Guus: indeed

  92. Martin

    I agree with Guus

  93. ralphm

    Ok, so #2 is rejected.

  94. MattJ


  95. Guus

    Did we drop the name of Alex? He's here.

  96. Guus


  97. Guus

    (tag, you're it.)

  98. ralphm

    The Board asks the Treasurer to add Alexander Gnauck as an additional signer to our bank account.

  99. ralphm

    3. Financing

  100. ralphm

    Guus: did you also happen to touch upon this with Peter?

  101. Guus

    No, I dropped the ball on that one.

  102. Guus

    I'll get to it before our next meet.

  103. ralphm


  104. Alex

    ya, I am here, just reading

  105. ralphm

    Alex: thanks

  106. ralphm

    Maybe we should start next meeting with this item.

  107. Guus

    the finance item, that is?

  108. Guus

    works for me.

  109. MattJ


  110. ralphm

    4. Membership survey

  111. ralphm

    MattJ, it looks like your name is on this.

  112. MattJ

    Yeah. I wrote up my notes last week and I think I was going to send them out with the minutes but forgot both

  113. MattJ

    I sent an email earlier today, so maybe we can discuss it next week if there's remaining time (unless you all had a chance to review already)

  114. Guus

    The draft that you sent earlier today looks fine for me (maybe make a nice Google Form out of it). One question: how exactly are we going to process the responses into action for board?

  115. MattJ

    or just reply with feedback on the list and maybe I can iterate on it ahead of next week

  116. MattJ

    Guus, yeah, I was thinking of Google Forms

  117. ralphm

    I think Google Form is a good idea, works quite well for our dinner signups

  118. ralphm

    Ok, comments on list.

  119. MattJ

    I think we can just go over the responses during a meeting - I'd be happy to take on the task of providing a summary

  120. ralphm


  121. Guus


  122. MattJ

    I mean, discuss what actions, if any, come from the responses

  123. ralphm


  124. ralphm

    5. AOB

  125. ralphm


  126. Guus

    Can we clean up the right-most lane of Trello a bit?

  127. ralphm

    Oh, right, that scrolled out of view

  128. Guus

    I think two cards can be archived?

  129. Guus

    and perhaps put the remaining one on a todo list again?

  130. ralphm

    We need to discuss what to do with the role of Executive Director in general. Peter was not convinced we need one, but it is an official role defined in our Bylaws.

  131. ralphm

    Let's put that on for after the Financing discussion

  132. Guus

    I'm happy to discuss that. Let's put it on the agenda.

  133. Guus


  134. MattJ

    I think the only thing blocking a proper search is defining the requirements of the role

  135. ralphm


  136. ralphm


  137. MattJ

    which is something we should be able to do

  138. ralphm

    The survey item is already covered

  139. ralphm

    and the priorities card can be archived, I think, given the above.

  140. ralphm

    makes sense?

  141. Guus


  142. Guus

    my thoughts exactly, but didn't want to act on my own.

  143. MattJ


  144. Martin

    Makes sense to me

  145. ralphm

    I think I'd summarize our priorities as "get our things back in order" (running this company) and afterwards we can rediscuss direction.

  146. MattJ


  147. ralphm

    All right.

  148. ralphm

    6. Date of Next

  149. ralphm


  150. Guus


  151. MattJ


  152. ralphm

    7. Close

  153. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  154. ralphm bangs gavel

  155. Martin

    Thanks ralphm

  156. MattJ


  157. Guus

    Thank you

  158. Guus

    that was nice and productive.

  159. ralphm set the topic to

    XSF Discussion | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

  160. ralphm

    Guus: indeed!