Difference between revisions of "Board of Directors Meeting - September 30 2014"

From SoylentNews
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Protected "Board of Directors Meeting - September 30 2014" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
Line 1: Line 1:
[21:19] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ you want to chair?<br />
[21:19] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ you want to chair?<br />
[21:19] <+matt__> k.<br />
[21:19] <+matt__> k.<br />

Latest revision as of 21:39, 11 October 2016

This page is a log from IRC or the (now defunct) forums.

[21:19] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ you want to chair?
[21:19] <+matt__> k.
[21:19] <+matt__> Issue 1: Officer nominations.
[21:19] == Bytram|away has changed nick to Bytram
[21:19] <@mrcoolbp> okay, what are our options for officers?
[21:20] <+matt__> Assistant Treasurer was discussed at our last meeting, iirc
[21:20] == matt_ [~4c76b3cf@Soylent/Staff/Management] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
[21:20] <@mrcoolbp> lol
[21:20] == matt__ has changed nick to matt_
[21:20] <+matt_> much better :)
[21:20] <+matt_> I believe that Bytram wanted some time to consider the nomination.
[21:20] == Strat_ [~d07e3056@208.126.ul.uq] has joined #staff
[21:20] * Bytram was having comm issues, too. here.
[21:21] <+Bytram> yes, and I appreciate having the opportunity to think it over.
[21:21] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ I believe that's correct, bytram did you get to consider your nomination?
[21:21] <@mrcoolbp> oh
[21:21] <+Bytram> I am flattered to have been nominated.
[21:21] <+Bytram> I have discusssed it with some people and at this time, must politely decline the invitation...
[21:22] <@mrcoolbp> I understand
[21:22] <+matt_> Bytram, understood :)
[21:22] <+Bytram> however, I will gladly continue to assist in any way I can.
[21:22] <@mrcoolbp> okay
[21:22] <+NCommander> Did we have another nomination?
[21:22] <@mrcoolbp> well, I'd like to have an odd number of members, so since I only have one other nomination, I'm not sure where that leaves us
[21:23] <+matt_> are there any other nominations for officers? the main purpose would be to have someone to officially help mrcoolbp with any of the items on his large todo list.
[21:23] <+matt_> mrcoolbp, keep in mind that officers need not be board members.
[21:23] <@mrcoolbp> is @juggs around = )
[21:23] * mrcoolbp smiles sliley
[21:24] <+Bytram> matt_: ISTR there are protections mentioned in the bylaws; do those apply equally for board members as well as officers?
[21:24] <@paulej72> he was in soylent just a few minutes ago
[21:24] <+matt_> Bytram, that is correct. Officers are indemnified for actions taken in good faith on behalf of the corporation.
[21:25] <+Bytram> thanks... and the same/equal protections for board members?
[21:25] <+NCommander> Bytram, corporate veil is the legal term to know here
[21:25] <+matt_> Bytram, the indemnifications of the officers are detailed in the appropriate board action by which they are elected.
[21:25] <+Bytram> thanks.
[21:26] <@mrcoolbp> okay, well getting me an assistant is a secondary priority for me. Another thing we wanted to do eventually was expand the board to 5 memebers, I don't think we have an avenue to pursue that currently, let's defer this again to next meeting
[21:26] * mrcoolbp moves to defer
[21:26] <+NCommander> second
[21:26] <+matt_> aye!
[21:26] <@mrcoolbp> aye!
[21:26] <+NCommander> neat
[21:26] <+matt_> Issue 2: Follow-up on SoylentNews Policy Document - Updates:
[21:26] <+matt_> Bytram, i believe that this was your issue?
[21:27] * NCommander scanned and signed it!
[21:27] <+Bytram> yes, thanks.
[21:27] <@mrcoolbp> Okay, as per not having an assistant I haven't made any progress on this personally
[21:27] <+Bytram> many thanks to crutchy for his suggestions and comments.
[21:27] <@mrcoolbp> ^^
[21:27] <+Bytram> the main question I have at this point lies with copyright,
[21:27] * juggs is here - sorry went afk for a few
[21:27] <+Bytram> especially sith respect to stories.
[21:27] <+Bytram> say user foo submits a story.
[21:28] <+Bytram> the editor looks at it, likes it exactly as it is.
[21:28] <+Bytram> editor pushes it to the main page.
[21:28] <+Bytram> who owns the copyright?
[21:28] <+NCommander> Honestly, I think the solution here is going forward, everything has to be put under a CC license
[21:28] <+TheMightyBuzzard> the user. you can't transfer ownership of copyright, only assign rights.
[21:29] <+NCommander> Probably CC BY-SA
[21:29] <@mrcoolbp> yeah and put a disclaimer on the submission page
[21:29] <+NCommander> TheMightyBuzzard, actually, yes you can */2 cents*
[21:29] <@mrcoolbp> (juggs: no prob)
[21:29] <+Bytram> the mental conflict I was facing was wrt the notice when a user submits a *comment*
[21:29] <@mrcoolbp> Bytram: this may be answered by issue #5
[21:30] <@mrcoolbp> if you are worried about infringement
[21:30] <@mrcoolbp> at least partially
[21:30] <+Bytram> possibly... just two more quick things to finish the thought, if I may?
[21:30] <+matt_> issue #5 is a good one. i do think that it would be good to have a clear statement of who owns the copyright to submissions if we don't have one already.
[21:30] <@mrcoolbp> sure
[21:30] <+Bytram> comments: "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. "
[21:31] <+Bytram> and, wrt journal entries, I'm assuming those are also owned by the submitter; can probably use the same text as for comments.
[21:31] <+Bytram> k, that's it.
[21:31] <+NCommander> So, here is my 2 cents
[21:31] <+NCommander> While having comments owned by who posted them is nice in theory, it does create future headaches
[21:32] <+NCommander> For instance, if we ever wanted to release (pat of) the database freely, we don't own the copyright nor have a license to do so
[21:32] <@mrcoolbp> interesting
[21:32] <+matt_> NCommander, i wonder if that isn't somewhat intentional, as the poster may not have intended their comment to be so released...
[21:32] <@mrcoolbp> .
[21:33] <+Bytram> also, it provides some *protections* for us, should someone post something "troublesome"
[21:33] <+NCommander> matt_, doesn't stop someone from scraping them out of the database
[21:33] <+TheMightyBuzzard> should put some legalese in there stating that the user retains full rights but licenses us to use said comment in any form we see fit in the future.
[21:33] <+NCommander> Pipedot already proved it was technically possible
[21:33] <+Bytram> like the entirety of some copyrighted document.
[21:33] <+Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: excellent point.
[21:33] <+NCommander> matt_, I rather put it to a community vote, and anything we do will *not* be retroactive
[21:34] <@mrcoolbp> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[21:34] <+matt_> sounds good.
[21:34] <@mrcoolbp> okay, someone note that down
[21:34] <+NCommander> If the database/content/etc. is CC, then the community has the means to fork in a way thats a *lot* cleaner than what we did w/ /.
[21:34] <+TheMightyBuzzard> we need to mark the final comment under the old rules then and save that information
[21:34] * NCommander looks at the chair
[21:34] <@mrcoolbp> hah
[21:34] <+NCommander> TheMightyBuzzard, not hard, we can do it at the CID< and allow users to retroactively release their old comments
[21:34] <+Bytram> we would need some proper legalese... the submitter gives SOylentNews PBC, etc. a non-exclusive, worldwide, license to publish blah blah blah
[21:35] <+NCommander> Bytram, wikimedia has a pretty sane form for that
[21:35] <+NCommander> Since they release everything CC BY-SA
[21:35] <@mrcoolbp> yeah that should do it then
[21:35] <+Bytram> I'
[21:35] <+Bytram> I'm not a legal beagle, but want to make sure we get the right wording when we do decide to go live with it.
[21:35] <+matt_> NCommander, do you want to run a story on the site suggesting the change and see how many pitchforks come out?
[21:36] * NCommander shivers
[21:36] * mrcoolbp grabs blanket
[21:36] <+NCommander> I do think we've released the idea before witout the community ripping our heads off
[21:36] <+Bytram> there's also the matter of the copyright notice for the wiki and twiki.
[21:36] <+NCommander> Bytram, wiki I think is CC BY-SA already
[21:37] <+TheMightyBuzzard> i do have one thing to add here before we move on. we need to register a DMCA agent soonest or we get very few protections as a service provider.
[21:37] <+NCommander> Bytram, yup: Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike unless otherwise noted.
[21:37] <+Bytram> yes, agreed. but I'm unsure whether that was by *intention* or by default.
[21:37] <+NCommander> TheMightyBuzzard, that too
[21:37] <@mrcoolbp> TheMightyBuzzard: that's issue #5
[21:37] <+matt_> TMB, that's issue#5 ;)
[21:37] <@mrcoolbp> haha ninja-ed
[21:37] <+matt_> hah!
[21:37] <+TheMightyBuzzard> teach me to read first
[21:37] <+NCommander> Bytram, intentional default? Lets us use the stuff on it freely
[21:38] <+Bytram> and, if someone comes at us for a copyright violatio0n bcause someone posted a violating item on there, are we protected?
[21:38] <+Bytram> that leads to the need for a DMCA notice, too.
[21:38] <@mrcoolbp> Bytram, yup #5
[21:38] <+matt_> Bytram, you had a number of sub-items for issue #2. would you like to discuss any others?
[21:38] <+Bytram> btw, I can't seem to put my hand to the agenda list; could someone pls post the link here?
[21:38] <+matt_> http://wiki.soylentnews.org/wiki/Issues_to_Be_Raised_at_the_Next_Board_Meeting
[21:38] <+Bytram> matt_: thank you!
[21:39] <+Bytram> matt_: looking/thinking
[21:40] <@mrcoolbp> I think the plan was for me to go through this, tighten up a few screws, and send to staff for review, I have not done that yet
[21:40] <+Bytram> have a mental block right now; I decline for the moment, but please ask again at the end.
[21:40] <+Bytram> on second thought
[21:41] <+Bytram> I have the genral areas roughed out where I see the need for certain items to be stated on the site.
[21:41] <+Bytram> But, I lack the legal knowledge on how to phrase things, as well as full knowledge of what we actually *want*
[21:41] <+Bytram> those are the stumbling blocks for me on Issues 2*
[21:42] <+NCommander> Feel free to poke my brain for legal wording crap
[21:42] <+Bytram> thanks!
[21:42] <+Bytram> that leaves what do we WANT in the way of protections.
[21:42] == mythterj [mythterj@txl.ORG] has joined #staff
[21:42] <+Bytram> I'd rather not tie up a board meeting with the minutia
[21:43] <+Bytram> maybe, send out an e-mail to board? staff? with each section in turn, and solicit feedback?
[21:43] <@mrcoolbp> bytram, that was my plan
[21:43] <+Bytram> I'm open to suggestions at this point; I just saw a need and wanted to get the ball rolling.
[21:44] <@mrcoolbp> Bytram: you've done some great work there, I just need an hour or two to give it a thourough read-through and I haven't gotten to it
[21:44] <@mrcoolbp> my apologies everyone
[21:44] <+matt_> TODO: mrcoolbp, review site policy document and send out to staff when ready.
[21:44] <+matt_> shall we move on?
[21:45] <@mrcoolbp> I think so
[21:45] <@mrcoolbp> I don't think we can finish this now
[21:45] <+matt_> Issue 3: We should buy quickbooks for accounting (and abandon GNU cash as this was always meant to be an interim measure)
[21:45] <@mrcoolbp> I vote yes
[21:45] <+Bytram> mrcoolbp: we're a group of volunteers and sometimes the world does not permit the priorities we'd like to give the site; I understand!
[21:45] <+matt_> mrcoolbp, any idea how much this would cost?
[21:45] <@mrcoolbp> $150 I think
[21:45] <+Bytram> I've not loked into it, lately, but ISTR there are
[21:46] <+Bytram> additional "modules" that might cost extra
[21:46] * Bytram has no idea if we'd need them, or the cost.
[21:46] <+matt_> sounds reasonable to me (and a very good idea to get this done before year's end)
[21:46] <+Blackmoore> Sadly i will also agree. Quickbooks is most likely something an accountant will want us to have
[21:46] <+Bytram> is there anyone here who has used quickbooks before?
[21:46] <+NCommander> matt_, ACK
[21:46] <+NCommander> We've got money
[21:46] <+NCommander> lets spend it
[21:46] <+TheMightyBuzzard> Bytram, yes but not in the past ten years.
[21:46] <+NCommander> :-)
[21:46] <@mrcoolbp> lol
[21:46] <+matt_> Bytram, i have. it takes some getting used to.
[21:47] <+NCommander> I've used Quicken, which uses a fair number of the same UI stuff
[21:47] <+NCommander> and I know how to do accounting
[21:47] <+Blackmoore> I did some back in prehisotic times
[21:47] <+Bytram> great!
[21:47] <+matt_> All those in favor of mrcoolbp buying a copy of quickbooks:
[21:47] <@mrcoolbp> Aye!
[21:47] <+matt_> Aye!
[21:47] <+NCommander> ^- what they said
[21:47] <+matt_> Resolved!
[21:47] <@mrcoolbp> yay
[21:47] <+matt_> Issue 4: How much copyright content may be legally reproduced in a story summary? Some summaries contain copypasta of copyright material from commercial news sites. Do we need a scripty to scan and flag any summary, comment, journal or wiki article that reproduces more than a certain percentage of linked content? Something like MIN(10%,100 words) seems pretty safe. There could be a whitelist of sites (such as Wikipedia) that could be excluded from scanning. This is possibly not a board-level issue but I'm n
[21:47] <+matt_> etc. :)
[21:47] <+NCommander> Oh boy
[21:48] <+NCommander> So, disclaimer on this one
[21:48] <+NCommander> We're a US corporation, US Fair Use laws apply
[21:48] <+NCommander> Please remember that during this discussion
[21:48] <+NCommander> kthxbye
[21:48] <+matt_> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
[21:48] <+TheMightyBuzzard> Means, being a news organization, basically anything necessary for us to properly tell a story is fair game.
[21:48] <+NCommander> matt_, note, fair use in the US is different than the rest of the world.
[21:49] <+matt_> as usual, that wikipedia page is very U.S.-centric :)
[21:49] <@paulej72> /. has the same types of stories as we do and it has not been an issue there
[21:49] <+Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: seems to hinge on the word *necessary*
[21:49] <+Bytram> paulej72: that we know of.
[21:49] * mrcoolbp notes Quickbooks is actually $249.95
[21:49] <@mrcoolbp> = (
[21:49] <+Bytram> besides that run-in they had with the c of scientolgy
[21:49] <+Bytram> and ISTR there was a problem with msft
[21:49] <+TheMightyBuzzard> nod nod. good rule of thumb is try not to copy an entire article unless it's only two paragraphs.
[21:50] <+matt_> in a nutshell, courts decide fair-use on a case-by-case basis :/
[21:50] <+matt_> TMB, agreed.
[21:50] <+Bytram> and it coests quite a bit to get their opinion
[21:50] <+Bytram> best to not get to that point
[21:50] <+Bytram> one thing
[21:50] <+NCommander> mrcoolbp, the fuck O_o;
[21:50] <+TheMightyBuzzard> well, we are a public corporation. eventually we WILL be sued.
[21:50] <+NCommander> Er
[21:50] <+NCommander> ****
[21:51] <@mrcoolbp> NCommander: do you want to re-vote that = )
[21:51] <+Bytram> it's also important, I would think, to try and clearly note the source when we ARE copying something verbatim
[21:51] <+matt_> TMB, technically, we are a private corporation :)
[21:51] <+TheMightyBuzzard> public in the sense of interacting... rather than what matt_ ninja'd me on
[21:51] <@mrcoolbp> public-facing
[21:51] <+TheMightyBuzzard> yeah, them
[21:51] <+Bytram> ^^^
[21:51] <+NCommander> Honestly, as long as we're not copy and pasting large swatches of articles
[21:51] <+NCommander> i.e., it doesn't look like one of my posts
[21:52] <+NCommander> We should be fine
[21:52] <@mrcoolbp> heh
[21:52] <+NCommander> ANd if someone's legal department comes knocking, THEN we cross that bridge
[21:52] <+TheMightyBuzzard> we can even use, dum dum dum, pictures if we like.
[21:52] <@mrcoolbp> sure, the goal is to have a lawyer if we need it
[21:52] <+matt_> NCommander, are you ok with the new quickbooks price that mrcoolbp mentioned above?
[21:52] <@mrcoolbp> or money for a lawyer
[21:52] <@mrcoolbp> $249.95
[21:52] <@mrcoolbp> quickbooks ^
[21:53] <+Bytram> plus s/h, tax, etc.?
[21:53] <+NCommander> matt_, it sucks, but yeah
[21:53] <+NCommander> I don't think we're getting around that
[21:53] <+Bytram> I propose that we
[21:53] <+Bytram> authorize mrcoolbp obtain a copy with a total cost not to exceed, say, $300
[21:53] <@mrcoolbp> all in favor of ^
[21:53] <+Bytram> anything more than that would require separate approval, and
[21:54] <+Bytram> of course, if he can get a better price, go for it.
[21:54] <+matt_> Aye!
[21:54] <@mrcoolbp> Aye!
[21:54] <+Blackmoore> Aye
[21:54] <+NCommander> Aye
[21:54] <@mrcoolbp> I'll look around a bit
[21:54] <+matt_> Resolved: mrcoolbp is authorized to buy quickbooks up to a maximum of $300.
[21:54] <@mrcoolbp> okay, so we are still on #4
[21:54] <@mrcoolbp> right?
[21:54] * NCommander has a note to attach to Quickbooks
[21:54] <@mrcoolbp> oh
[21:54] <+NCommander> It should be licensed to the corp, and not mrcoolbp himself
[21:54] <+NCommander> So we can move the seat around as needed
[21:54] <@mrcoolbp> absolutely
[21:55] <+matt_> correct.
[21:55] <+Bytram> nod nod
[21:55] <+NCommander> Just wanted to make that clear :)
[21:55] <+Blackmoore> Aye
[21:55] <@mrcoolbp> thanks
[21:55] <@mrcoolbp> (Blackmoore: you don't have to vote = )
[21:55] <+matt_> getting back to issue #4:
[21:55] <@mrcoolbp> ^^^^
[21:56] <+Bytram> though I like the *idea* of an automated system for discerning the amount of duplication...
[21:56] <+matt_> is the consensus that we allow the editors to use their discretion up until the point that we receive a complaint from a copyright-holder?
[21:56] <+matt_> ...and then reassess?
[21:56] <+NCommander> Yeah
[21:56] <+Bytram> coding it is non-trivial
[21:56] <+NCommander> THere's not way to code something like that
[21:56] <+TheMightyBuzzard> i suggest a policy of best judgment and run anything questionable by laminatorx
[21:56] <+NCommander> Or more specifically
[21:56] <+NCommander> If I could code something like that, I'd be really rich
[21:56] <+Bytram> ^^^
[21:56] <@mrcoolbp> TheMightyBuzzard++
[21:57] <+NCommander> In the entirity of /.'s history, I think they only ever had issues when people commented and posting the test of Scienologies OT3
[21:57] <+NCommander> *text
[21:57] <+Bytram> NCommander: I remember that one, but ISTR there was an issue with msft, too.
[21:57] <+Bytram> but, I cannot at all recall the specifics
[21:57] <+NCommander> Bytram, regardless, /. been around 20 something years, and never been stuck in a major legal battle on this front that we're aware of
[21:58] <+Bytram> yes, that we are aware of.
[21:58] <+Bytram> wait a sec
[21:58] <+Bytram> I take that back
[21:58] <+Bytram> I *DO* recall cmdrtaco mentioning on a couple of occasions mentioning
[21:58] <+Bytram> having to do battle with lawyers
[21:58] <+NCommander> Which is why we are raisng money to have a lawyer available if we need it
[21:59] <+Bytram> to keep the site as open and freeeflowing as it was.
[21:59] <+NCommander> But I'm not going to go absolute bonkers until we get there
[21:59] <+matt_> this discussion is actually related to issue #5:
[21:59] <+Bytram> I have not problem with having a lawyer,just making sure we are all coming from the same place.
[21:59] <+matt_> Issue 5: We need a Service Provider Designation of Agent to Receive Notification of Claims of Infringement in order to shelter us from legal action in the event of a DMCA notice (see: 1 and 2)
[21:59] <@mrcoolbp> probably end up being me, ug.
[21:59] <@mrcoolbp> = )
[22:00] <+TheMightyBuzzard> could be laminatorx if you really don't want it.
[22:00] <+matt_> mrcoolbp, if you want, i can volunteer for this one.
[22:00] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ that would be fine by me sir.
[22:00] <@mrcoolbp> not going to volunteer LamX
[22:00] <+Bytram> my sense is that matt_ has a better handle on the legal consequences and ramifications of any response we might make.
[22:01] <@mrcoolbp> matt_: have you read the attached links? Your contact will be posted publicly
[22:01] <+matt_> so, basically, we just send in a form to the US Copyright Office designating the official point of contact for takedown notices...
[22:01] <@mrcoolbp> and like $40 bucks or something I think
[22:01] * Bytram nominates Bender
[22:01] * mrcoolbp can't remember
[22:01] <+matt_> mrcoolbp, well, considering that the corporation's address is my address, i don't think i have much left to hide :)
[22:01] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ tru, so yah, send in the form, small fee, and list contact info
[22:02] <+matt_> mrcolbp, it's approximately $105 + $35
[22:02] <@mrcoolbp> oh,
[22:02] <+NCommander> Honestly, can't we put the address as our RA?
[22:02] <+NCommander> Or failing that, matt_'s?
[22:02] <+NCommander> His is public anyway due to it being on the articles of incorporation
[22:02] <+matt_> ^^
[22:02] <@mrcoolbp> NCommander: the address might be able to be our RA
[22:02] <+matt_> mrcoolbp, they would just forward it to me anyway ;)
[22:03] <+Bytram> RA == Resident Agent?
[22:03] <+matt_> registered agent
[22:03] <@mrcoolbp> aye
[22:03] <@mrcoolbp> er that
[22:03] <+Bytram> ah. thanks!
[22:03] <@mrcoolbp> anyway, matt_ that would be great if you could volunteer, seems to make sense as to your last point
[22:03] <@mrcoolbp> as for # 4, I think we will have a better idea after we get #2 wrapped up
[22:04] <+matt_> All in favor of matt_ registering as our DMCA Agent?
[22:04] <@mrcoolbp> Aye!
[22:04] <+matt_> Aye!
[22:04] <+NCommander> Aye
[22:04] <+matt_> Resolved!
[22:04] <@mrcoolbp> sweet
[22:05] <+matt_> TODO: matt_, register as DMCA Agent
[22:06] <@mrcoolbp> okay, so I think we'll need to revisit everything else, do we have anything further matt_ ?
[22:06] <+matt_> so, that brings us to the end of the wiki agenda. i had two outstanding issues from the last meeting.
[22:06] <@mrcoolbp> please
[22:06] <+matt_> 1. getting mrcoolbp access to the BoA account.
[22:06] <@mrcoolbp> would require us paying more
[22:06] <@mrcoolbp> or sharing a loging
[22:06] <@mrcoolbp> login
[22:06] <+NCommander> We could have gone with Wells Fargo :-P
[22:06] <+NCommander> *ducks*
[22:07] <+Bytram> mrcoolbp: how much "more" are we talking about here?
[22:07] <+NCommander> Oh, on that note
[22:07] <+TheMightyBuzzard> nah, i gave up liking them when they quit running stage coaches
[22:07] <+NCommander> I will be able to get validated at a BOA in November
[22:07] <+matt_> Bytram, $15/month or a higher average balance to avoid the fee.
[22:07] <+matt_> NCommander, nice!
[22:07] <+NCommander> ... I think we can approve $15/month :-P
[22:07] <+Bytram> matt_: thanks. at this point, that's a not-insignificant chunk of change
[22:08] <+matt_> NCommander, do you think that a shared login would be ok for now.
[22:08] <@mrcoolbp> NCommander: I'm hesistant to add more monthlies, one-timers is something else,
[22:08] <+matt_> our banking transactions are all very traceable...
[22:08] <+NCommander> matt_, as long as it doesn't violate some BOA thingy
[22:08] <@mrcoolbp> hrm
[22:08] <+matt_> none that i'm aware of.
[22:08] <+NCommander> I rather not get our account locked up
[22:08] <+NCommander> Then we can share an account
[22:08] <+Bytram> perhaps with a caveat?
[22:09] <+Bytram> only one person is authorized to perform transactions? the other can review?
[22:09] <@mrcoolbp> Bytram: I have a card for transactions, I would only use to view account
[22:09] <@mrcoolbp> if else, I'll check here or pester matt to do so
[22:09] <+matt_> k. mrcoolbp, shall we coordinate this between ourselves?
[22:09] <+Bytram> that allows access, for both, but retains a trail of who did what, even though two people would technically have benn able to do something with the login
[22:09] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ yes
[22:10] <@mrcoolbp> Bytram: agreed, nicely said
[22:10] <+Bytram> thanks
[22:10] <+matt_> item 2: take necessary steps to get wildcard cert.
[22:10] <@mrcoolbp> ah yes
[22:10] <+Bytram> umm, what was the decision on 1?
[22:10] <@mrcoolbp> bytram, we deffered
[22:11] <+matt_> Bytram, that we would share a login for now, and that mrcoolbp and I would coordinate this.
[22:11] <+Bytram> okay, tahnks.
[22:11] <@mrcoolbp> oh wait, you mean that ^
[22:11] <+Bytram> and, at this point, only matt_ is authorized to perform transactions with the login?
[22:11] <+NCommander> (brb, 2 minutes)
[22:11] <@mrcoolbp> right
[22:12] <@mrcoolbp> NCommander: k
[22:12] <+matt_> Bytram, both mrcoolbp and i are signers on the account, so we can both perform transactions.
[22:12] <@mrcoolbp> (with cards)
[22:12] <+matt_> we both have debit cards.
[22:12] <+Bytram> but mrcoolbp can still use the debit card, as necessary/authorized.
[22:12] <@mrcoolbp> yup
[22:12] <+Bytram> okay, thanks!
[22:12] <@mrcoolbp> matt, Bytram meant through the login
[22:12] <+matt_> ah.
[22:12] <+Bytram> ^^^
[22:13] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ so the idea is you want to try to migrate the whois right?
[22:13] <+matt_> so, to recap the plan from our last meeting:
[22:13] <+Bytram> btw, it been almost an hour in; any thoughts of a "bio break" for, say five minutes?
[22:13] <@mrcoolbp> Bytram: go
[22:14] <+Bytram> k, back soon.
[22:14] <+matt_> basically, as a temporary solution, we can _authorize_ SoylentNews PBC to apply for and obtain certificates for the domains, even without a transfer.
[22:14] == Blackmoore has changed nick to blackmoore|afk
[22:14] <@mrcoolbp> right
[22:14] * NCommander is back
[22:15] <+matt_> to do this, we just need me to write a letter to NC authorizing it, which i can do by this weekend.
[22:16] <+NCommander> matt_, I think so?
[22:16] <+NCommander> Ugh, we'd probably have to deal with the register and see what they want
[22:16] <+NCommander> WHich is irritating as ****
[22:16] <+matt_> although not strictly necessary, i do think that it would be a good idea to change the whois, simply because having it as "Peter Walsh" is not good...
[22:16] <+TheMightyBuzzard> sounds too easy for something that's been a sticking point this long. how can we further complicate it so it takes another month?
[22:16] <+NCommander> I'll finish the OV sometime this week
[22:16] <+NCommander> TheMightyBuzzard, I'll fire myself into the sun
[22:17] <+Bytram> back
[22:17] <+matt_> NCommander, I propose that we list you as the "Administrative Contact" for the domains, which, combined with my letter, should be all the CA could reasonably require.
[22:18] <+NCommander> Sorry, I had an internet failure
[22:18] <+NCommander> matt_, that should work
[22:18] <+Bytram> sonds good to me.
[22:18] <@mrcoolbp> ack
[22:18] <+Bytram> s/sonds/sounds/
[22:18] <+matt_> if it doesn't we can just try something else :)
[22:18] <@paulej72> speeking of the domains, can we set *.soylennews.com to point to soylentnews.org
[22:18] <@mrcoolbp> ^^^
[22:18] <+Bytram> ^^^
[22:18] <+matt_> ^^^
[22:18] <+Bytram> we had a user comment to that effect.
[22:19] <+NCommander> I think we own that domain
[22:19] <+NCommander> So yeah
[22:19] <@paulej72> matt has the access to that
[22:19] <+Bytram> well, it does have the same Peter Walsh
[22:19] <+matt_> the zone file is on linode, right?
[22:19] <+matt_> or is it using the gandi zone file?
[22:20] <@mrcoolbp> linode
[22:20] <@paulej72> only for .org
[22:20] * mrcoolbp thinks
[22:20] <@paulej72> .com must be on gandi
[22:20] <+matt_> ok, we should be able to fix that.
[22:20] <@mrcoolbp> hmm
[22:21] <+Bytram> paulej72: it is...
[22:21] <+Bytram> Connecting to COM.whois-servers.net...
[22:21] <+Bytram> Connecting to whois.gandi.net...
[22:21] <+Bytram> Domain ID: 1845913633_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
[22:21] <+Bytram> Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.gandi.net
[22:21] <+Bytram> Registrar URL: http://www.gandi.net
[22:21] <+Bytram> Updated Date: 2014-03-10T20:23:57Z
[22:21] <+Bytram> Creation Date: 2014-02-09T01:50:26Z
[22:21] <+Bytram> Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-02-09T01:50:26Z
[22:21] <+Bytram> Registrar: GANDI SAS
[22:21] <+Bytram> Registrar IANA ID: 81
[22:21] <+Bytram> Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@support.gandi.net
[22:21] <+Bytram> Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +33.170377661
[22:21] <+NCommander> eek
[22:21] <+NCommander> Use a pastebin
[22:21] <+Bytram> sry.
[22:21] <@mrcoolbp> lol
[22:21] <+matt_> this was the last item that i had for the board meeting, so if there are no other items, we could adjourn and get to fixing that
[22:21] <+Bytram> matt_: I've got two thinkgs
[22:21] <@mrcoolbp> I"m good with that
[22:21] <@mrcoolbp> oh
[22:22] <@mrcoolbp> Bytram you have the floore
[22:22] <+Bytram> thanks
[22:22] <+Bytram> 1.) we have users who are in a positon to provide addiotnal funding, but no way to provide it to us easily
[22:22] <@mrcoolbp> they can buy additional years
[22:22] <+Bytram> is there a reason why wee could not, say, let someone pay for our hosting for one month?
[22:22] <@mrcoolbp> = )
[22:23] <@mrcoolbp> bytram: they can just buy 20 years subscription
[22:23] <+Bytram> and add something on the homepage saying "Hosting for this month provided by: foo"
[22:23] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ I'm not sure on this ^
[22:23] <+TheMightyBuzzard> That we could actually do. Call it selling a vanity space on the site.
[22:23] <+Bytram> so, it's not a "donation" so no legal problems, there. and they are getting something for the payment.
[22:23] <+Bytram> nod nod
[22:24] <+Bytram> if someone wants to pay for the whole year, well, smile!
[22:24] <+matt_> Bytram, indeed. it would be a form of advertisement.
[22:24] <+Bytram> ding ding ding
[22:24] <@juggs> that sounds good if the legalities allow
[22:24] <@mrcoolbp> ^
[22:24] <+matt_> i doubt that the community would object (don't quote me on that :)
[22:24] <+Bytram> juggs: that was my main concern, but I can't hitnk of any legal holes in it.
[22:24] * mrcoolbp quotes you on that
[22:24] <+Bytram> !grab matt_
[22:25] <+TheMightyBuzzard> oh some of them would object to being given $20 but mostly not
[22:25] <@paulej72> we can put a meesage in the footer
[22:25] <@juggs> Bytram, me either, I'm hardly concious of UK corp regs let alone US stuff
[22:25] <+matt_> would we be ok with the front page saying: "This month's hosting brought to you by: Microsoft Corporation"?
[22:25] <@mrcoolbp> uh, not if it's at the bottom
[22:25] <@mrcoolbp> = )
[22:26] <+Bytram> make it a new option on the user settings page to show/hide the "advert"
[22:26] <@mrcoolbp> hah
[22:26] <+NCommander> I want to make sure we're not skirting stuff on donations
[22:26] <+NCommander> */2 cents*
[22:26] <@juggs> premium price for above the fold info box, less for a footer :D
[22:26] <@mrcoolbp> NCommander: yeah that's a big "if"
[22:26] <+TheMightyBuzzard> NCommander, we are but only in the way that thousands of other companies have already paved the way for.
[22:26] <@mrcoolbp> NCommander: but if it's billed as Ads, then, meh, right?
[22:26] <+Bytram> from what I've seen so far, if we rely solely on donations, we're not going to last the year.
[22:27] <@mrcoolbp> bytram: actually, if we keep at the pace we are going, we'll be fine
[22:27] <@mrcoolbp> bytram, our goal includes a lot of one-time startup stuff
[22:27] <+Bytram> and, as to the question as to whether I'd object to a notice saying "brought to you by MS", I'd really not mind.
[22:27] <@mrcoolbp> bytram: http://wiki.soylentnews.org/wiki/Finances
[22:27] <@mrcoolbp> $3,600 for server hosting for one year
[22:28] <@mrcoolbp> we are at $2,040 right now
[22:28] <+Bytram> yes, but if someone comes up with the funding for the hosting, that frees up money for lawyers, etc.
[22:28] <@mrcoolbp> absolutely
[22:28] <+matt_> we should be clear in the policy doc. about our stance on editorial independence (i.e., independence from advertisers' influence)
[22:28] <+Bytram> matt_++ yes, indeed.
[22:29] <@mrcoolbp> someone note that please
[22:29] <+matt_> Bytram, until you start seeing a lot of pro-MS stories being posted :)
[22:29] <+Bytram> meh
[22:29] * Bytram is an editor. =)
[22:29] <+TheMightyBuzzard> helps that our editors aren't paid. hard to corrupt someone until you pay them.
[22:29] * Bytram unchecks the [ ] display check box
[22:30] <+Bytram> what MS stories?
[22:30] <+Bytram> =)
[22:30] <@mrcoolbp> Bytram: what was item #2?
[22:30] <+Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: exactly.
[22:30] <+Bytram> yeah, hodl on
[22:30] <@mrcoolbp> we are running later than matt_ was hopoing
[22:30] * Bytram is trying to remember
[22:30] * matt_ slaps himself awake
[22:31] <+Bytram> oh, the policy doc says that board meetings are listed in the "Site News" box at least a week in advance of the meeting.
[22:31] * NCommander injects matt_ with coffee
[22:31] <+Bytram> just want to make sure, when we come up with the next meeting date/time
[22:31] <+Bytram> that we update that.
[22:31] <+Bytram> that's it.
[22:31] <+NCommander> TheMightyBuzzard, I've got 10000 Phillipian Pesos ready to bride the editoral team
[22:31] <+NCommander> and a few million dong if more motivation is required
[22:32] <@mrcoolbp> bytram: I thought we were doing that, I even changed everything (I think) when I had to push it forward due to issues outside my control)
[22:32] <+TheMightyBuzzard> so, you could probably buy laminatorx a beer then?
[22:32] <+Bytram> no comment
[22:32] <+Bytram> I didn't see the notice appear until a couple days ago.
[22:32] <+matt_> TheMightyBuzzard, how goes the work on accepting bitcoin?
[22:32] <@mrcoolbp> ^&
[22:32] <+Bytram> anyway that was the 2nd point./
[22:32] <+TheMightyBuzzard> matt_, it's ready for the 14.10 rollout as of today.
[22:32] <@mrcoolbp> Bytram: got it, thanks
[22:32] <+matt_> nice!
[22:32] <@mrcoolbp> yay!
[22:32] <+Bytram> np
[22:33] <+TheMightyBuzzard> tested it with live bitcoin on dev today, NCommander is now a sub on dev until 2017
[22:33] <+NCommander> I am?
[22:33] <+NCommander> Neat.
[22:33] <@paulej72> the question you should now have is when will 14.10 be ready :)
[22:33] <+Bytram> paulej72: when will 14.10 be ready?
[22:33] * NCommander defers that to paulej72 since I haven't managed to do any dev work this cycle
[22:33] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ can you check BoA to see if there are some new $0.01 transacs ?
[22:33] <+matt_> checking...
[22:34] <@paulej72> depends what we want to add to it?
[22:34] <+TheMightyBuzzard> technically we could roll it out any time we like but it's going to be kind of thin right now.
[22:34] <+Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: there's nothing wrong with having a "thin" update; all the better to isolate problems when a bigger one comes along
[22:34] <+matt_> mrcoolbp, none yet.
[22:34] <+NCommander> TheMightyBuzzard, kinda thin?
[22:34] <@mrcoolbp> = /
[22:34] <+NCommander> Honestly, I don't mind if its a thin update
[22:35] <+NCommander> 14.08 was very late, and was a big update
[22:35] <+matt_> mrcoolbp, last transaction: $209.52 transfer from paypal on 9/30.
[22:35] <@mrcoolbp> k
[22:35] <@mrcoolbp> matt_ current balance?
[22:35] <+Bytram> what is ready to go out in 14.10? I ask as I've been tied up with outside stuff a bit and haven't done much QA work.
[22:35] <+TheMightyBuzzard> i'd like to get like two or three more issues cleared first. call it a 14.10.08 instead of 14.10.01.
[22:35] <+TheMightyBuzzard> but that's entirely up to you and pj
[22:35] <+matt_> mrcoolbp, $1969.61
[22:35] <@mrcoolbp> k
[22:35] <+NCommander> Bytram, honestly, I think the only thing going in is bitpay support
[22:36] <+NCommander> whcih will give us money, which is a valid reason to release an update :-)
[22:36] <+TheMightyBuzzard> some bug fixes but mostly yeah
[22:36] <+Bytram> agreed on getting money being a good enough reason.
[22:36] * TheMightyBuzzard shrugs
[22:36] <+Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: I've got a couple minor bugs to report that could go in, too.
[22:36] <+TheMightyBuzzard> .01 it is then
[22:37] <+TheMightyBuzzard> or as near as is feasible.
[22:37] <+Bytram> mostly typos/capitalization etc.
[22:37] <+TheMightyBuzzard> Bytram, catch me in the morning. i likely wouldn't remember now even with a sticky note on my forehead.
[22:37] <+Bytram> same as in the past, roll it out on the weekend when things are quieter?
[22:37] <+TheMightyBuzzard> probably. pj?
[22:38] <@paulej72> yes weekend
[22:38] <@mrcoolbp> TheMightyBuzzard: there are 4 1-cent transacs in bitpay, nothing in the account yet
[22:38] <+Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: /me has an early morning at work; would prolly be thurs am sometime
[22:39] <+matt_> ok, any other business for the board meeting?
[22:39] <+TheMightyBuzzard> mrcoolbp, they won't do a transfer of less than $20
[22:39] <@mrcoolbp> ah
[22:39] <+TheMightyBuzzard> which works out really nice with our price point
[22:39] <@mrcoolbp> = )
[22:39] <@mrcoolbp> okay, well I think we can adjourn now, though I'm not sure matt has time for the whois migration
[22:39] <+NCommander> I'm not up to it
[22:40] <+NCommander> Sorry
[22:40] <+NCommander> matt_, I can send you my information for it
[22:40] <@mrcoolbp> NCommander: just setup a time you can be online when he does it
[22:40] <+matt_> well, i won't be able to get that letter together until the weekend, so perhaps we should get it all taken care of then?
[22:40] <@mrcoolbp> just in case
[22:40] <+matt_> NCommander, will you be around this weekend?
[22:41] <+NCommander> ++
[22:41] <+NCommander> I can try and get OV done by then
[22:41] <+Bytram> hmmm, an idea...
[22:41] <+Bytram> subscription is currently $20/year
[22:41] <+Bytram> what if we announced that there was an increase coming in one month where it goes up to $25/year?
[22:41] <+Bytram> that would pull some in quicker from those who have been procrastinating?
[22:41] <+Bytram> no prob. thought I'd mention it.
[22:41] <+NCommander> (organization verification)
[22:41] <+Bytram> that's all I've got.
[22:41] <+Bytram> if we can decide the date/time of the next meeting within 5 minutes, we'll have finished the meeting in 90 minutes.
[22:41] <@mrcoolbp> lol
[22:42] <@mrcoolbp> let's go with 2 weeks from today, 6 or 7pm ?
[22:42] <@mrcoolbp> Oct 14
[22:42] <+matt_> either time is fine for me.
[22:43] <+NCommander> matt_, possibly
[22:43] <+NCommander> matt_, discuss in private
[22:43] <+matt_> k.
[22:44] <+NCommander> matt_, if you could join #chillax :-)
[22:44] * mrcoolbp moves to adjourn
[22:44] <+matt_> seconds
[22:44] * NCommander thirds
[22:44] <+matt_> All in favour of adjourning?
[22:44] <@mrcoolbp> Aye!
[22:44] <+matt_> Aye!