Instant Messaging Freedom, Inc.

Transcript for the 2007-05-15 Board Meeting

Times listed are EDT.

(20:15:53) seanegan: The first annual meeting of the board of directors of Instant Messaging Freedom, Inc is called to order.
(20:17:17) seanegan: Quorum call shows that Luke Schierer, Ethan Blanton, Evan Schoenberg, Nathan Walp, and myself Sean Egan are in attendance. Mark Doliner and Mark Spencer are absent.
(20:17:47) seanegan: The chair apologizes for not sending an agenda beforehand.
(20:18:12) seanegan: First item on the imaginary agenda is the president's annual report.
(20:18:27) bleeter left the room.
(20:19:29) seanegan: Our legal obligations are, to the best of our knowledge, entirely resolved until May 4th 2008, at which date we are no longer allowed to refer to "Gaim," even in reference to it being the former name of Pidgin.
(20:21:04) Vorondil entered the room.
(20:21:07) seanegan: Our non-profit application is not yet filed with the IRS, although it is mostly complete. We have (I believe) 24 months from the date of formation in which to file, but we aim to file before our taxes are due, which is in October. In either case, the attorneys feel no rush.
(20:21:36) seanegan: Everything else is great.
(20:21:54) seanegan: The chair recognizes the treasurer to give an annual report.
(20:22:02) mark.doliner entered the room.
(20:22:20) elb: We have, as of May 9, 2007, $7,996.64 in our account
(20:22:52) elb: We have taken in $15,000, of which $3,000 was held for Adium Summer of Code mentors, and disbursed to them
(20:23:07) elb: we have spent $3,090.96 on artwork
(20:23:25) elb: we have spent $26 on wire fees
(20:23:56) elb: we have spent $103.87 on the setup of our credit card processing system, for such time as we are able to accept donations
(20:24:05) elb: we have spent $7.63 on postage
(20:24:28) elb: lastly, we have spent $775 on legal fees for incorporation and the settlement with AOL LLC
(20:24:31) elb: that is all I have
(20:24:59) seanegan: Thank you. Does the vice president have anything to report?
(20:25:06) mark.doliner: Nope
(20:25:15) seanegan: Does the secretary have anything to report?
(20:26:42) seanegan: lschiere: Does the secretary have anything to report?
(20:26:42) lschiere: The Secretary has looked into the cost of a second Server. DVLabs is unable to offer us anything other than a second vhost right now, due to temporary power constraints. Kevin's company has an offer of a server more than adequate for our needs, for $80/month + a link/logo on the webpage footer. They would be donating bandwidth to do that. I am unable to find Kevin's email with the details of the machine right now though.
(20:27:00) luke: This is substantially less than ServerBeach or other reputable commercial hosting would offer
(20:27:40) luke: RLaager's company would not be able to match that, they would be mroe like $200/month, but Rlaager would need to get a firm quote from his boss
(20:28:03) evands: lschiere: Could you explain which the purposes for which we're interested in a second server?
(20:28:21) luke: The advantage of a second server woudl be to to offload the trac load, which is, despite the changes we have made, still the most significant load on the server
(20:28:29) evands: (these were mentioned on devl, but I think they're worth mentioning now)
(20:28:48) luke: splitting hte load would make it easier to survive a /. or other major news post without gooing down
(20:29:06) luke: and would also, on a daily basis, make it easier to enable functions that have currently been disabled, such as donations, to avoid extra load
(20:29:14) luke: or the trac mtn integration
(20:29:38) luke: the trac mtn integration alone makes this worth considering, because even without it, trac is pulling significant cpu time
(20:29:43) luke: and enabling it costs far more
(20:30:53) luke: The disadvantages are that it woudl be another machine to maintain, and that it would cost
(20:31:14) mark.doliner: luke: Do you know if there are any bandwidth limitations from Kevin's company?
(20:31:23) luke: There are.
(20:31:35) luke: It woudl be rate limited to approximately 10kbit/sec
(20:32:02) luke: which is more than we pulled on SF on a daily basis not counting downloads, mailing lists, or commits
(20:32:17) seanegan: The chair proposes that the secretary continue to investigate the best solution to manage our server resources and report back to the board with the best solution.
(20:32:37) elb: second
(20:32:48) seanegan: All those in favor say 'aye'.
(20:32:51) mark.doliner: Aye
(20:32:52) elb: aye
(20:32:55) faceprint: aye
(20:33:00) evands: aye
(20:33:01) luke: abstain.
(20:33:13) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(20:33:27) luke: The Secretary records 4 votes, 1 abstention, and no nays
(20:33:49) luke: s/4 votes/4 ayes/
(20:33:59) siege@pidgin.im entered the room.
(20:34:21) luke: that concludes my report btw
(20:35:10) seanegan: Thank you, Luke.
(20:35:17) seanegan: The chair proposes that the vice president continue to look into the possibilities of selling Pidgin tee-shirts and other merchandise, following up on http://developer.pidgin.im/wiki/Merchandise
(20:35:24) ***lschiere seconds
(20:35:31) seanegan: All those in favor say 'aye.'
(20:35:34) faceprint: aye.
(20:35:35) lschiere: aye
(20:35:35) elb: aye
(20:35:42) mark.doliner: Sounds good to me, aye
(20:35:51) evands: aye, it'd be foolish not to
(20:36:02) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(20:36:19) lschiere: The Secretary records unanimous ayes
(20:36:50) ZeeGeek entered the room.
(20:37:18) seanegan: The chair proposes that the president looks into creating a proper website at http://imfreedom.org to hold information relative to our organization, such as records, bylaws, etc.
(20:37:33) ***lschiere strongly seconds
(20:37:34) elb: second
(20:37:41) seanegan: All those in favor, say 'aye.'
(20:37:43) lschiere: aye
(20:37:44) elb: aye
(20:37:46) mark.doliner: Aye
(20:38:05) mark.doliner: It'd be neat if we could find a talented volunteer to whip up something simple...
(20:38:11) faceprint: aye
(20:38:41) evands: Perhaps a post to the Pidgin devl list after the meeting would give rise to a volunteer
(20:39:03) evands: if nobody in attendance is interested
(20:39:26) lschiere: the Secretary motions that the chair give thanks in a footer to DVLabs for our current hosting and to Blend for the webpage work they've donated
(20:39:43) lschiere: in the form of a logo/link
(20:40:05) seanegan: the chair motions that lschiere waits until one resolution is cleared before starting a new one, thank you very much ;)
(20:40:11) seanegan: All those opposed say nay.
(20:40:31) faceprint: i'm confused...what's the current motion
(20:40:43) seanegan: Creating imfreedom.org
(20:40:48) seanegan: evands has not yet voted.
(20:41:10) lschiere: the current motion is for an imfreedom.org webpage. the volunteer stuff is otu of order, as its not phrased as an amendment
(20:41:19) ***seanegan bangs gavel
(20:41:24) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(20:41:24) evands: sorry, aye
(20:41:40) ZeeGeek left the room.
(20:41:49) ***lschiere records 5 ayes and 1 late vote (also aye)
(20:41:50) evands: I was pondering the next. I'm in full agreement regarding imfreedom.org
(20:42:23) seanegan: The chair requests that members abstain from speaking until recognized by the chair. The floor will be open to other business at the meeting's end.
(20:43:42) seanegan: Sweet.
(20:45:06) seanegan: As our goal is to promote freedom in instant messaging, I propose that we start an open discussion on a mailing list about the best ways that our corporation can do this, to then be discussed at the next meeting of directors.
(20:45:23) lschiere: point of information: which list?
(20:46:01) seanegan: devel@pidgin.im would be most appropriate, although clearly not totally appropriate.
(20:46:25) seanegan: If the motion is seconded, the chair can open the floor to discussion.
(20:46:31) elb: second
(20:46:53) seanegan: The floor is open for discussion
(20:47:26) evands: A new mailing list would be most appropriate but would have the least possible audience
(20:47:46) mark.doliner: I agree, I think using devel@pidgin.im is a good idea
(20:47:52) luke: one thought would be to create a discussion@imfreedom.org list, but yes, the limited audience would be a concern. If we did the new webpage first, we could request suggestions there
(20:47:58) seanegan: Everyone is recognized :)
(20:47:59) evands: Does anyone think that creating a new list for such discussion would be better than carrying it out on devel@pidgin.im, which would reach a larger audience?
(20:48:35) faceprint: i'd like a clairification on the use of Gaim after may of next year: the penalty for an individual using the term would be a potential lawsuit against that person, and would not endanger IMFreedom, or the Pidgin, Finch, or Adium projects, correct?
(20:48:50) elb: I think an open discussion is not only warranted, but desirable; however, I think we should make some effort to scope the discussion. There already seems to be confusion about the possibility that IM Freedom, Inc. intends to somehow control Pidgin development.
(20:48:52) seanegan: Nathan, the floor is open for discussion of the present issue.
(20:49:24) faceprint: gah, sorry, got confused again
(20:49:26) evands: I would like to encourage Adium developers to be participants in the discussion and in related discussions; doing so would be easiest on a new, dedicated list, scoped for general instant messaging freedom discussions and not discussion of instances of that freedom
(20:49:26) luke: elb: abating such confusion is a necessary activity
(20:49:37) mark.doliner: seanegan: I'm wondering what kind of feedback you're looking for? The question "how can we make IM more free?" seems a bit open-ended
(20:49:57) seanegan: "how can we turn money into IM freedom?"
(20:51:03) mark.doliner: Hmm, ok
(20:52:27) elb: This is a good way to ask the question; I think we should pose that question, and make it clear that it is a) not money to guide or control Pidgin development, and b) a decision which will have to ultimately rest with the board of directors of IM Freedom, Inc.
(20:53:22) seanegan: It seems the board is favorable to creating a new mailing list hosted on imfreedom.org for purposes of public discussion of the affairs of Instant Messaging Freedom, Inc.
(20:53:43) seanegan: Does anyone have a suggested name?
(20:53:45) faceprint: and that we move the board@ list there, as it would be a more appropriate location
(20:53:55) seanegan: Nathan, the board@ list is hosted there.
(20:54:06) faceprint: wow...i apologize
(20:54:13) elb: projects@, perhaps?
(20:54:19) evands: I suggest discussion@imfreedom.org
(20:54:25) lschiere: both work for receiving, they got out as @imfreedom.org
(20:54:25) evands: for general discussion
(20:54:32) seanegan: I second discussion@imfreedom.org
(20:54:33) ***lschiere seconds discussion@
(20:54:47) elb: i also prefer discussion@ to projects@
(20:54:52) seanegan: Any comments on discussion@imfreedom.org?
(20:55:03) mark.doliner: The name of the list seems good to me, but I'm still not sure I have a preference on using that verse using devel@pidgin.im
(20:55:23) evands: Would it be out of line to joke that we should discuss whether it should have its emails prefixed with [imfreedom-discussion]?
(20:55:25) lschiere: mark.doliner: evands comment about involving adium developers seems persuasive to me
(20:55:50) salinasv entered the room.
(20:55:56) mark.doliner: lschiere: Oh I missed that, thanks
(20:56:00) ***seanegan bangs gavel at evands!
(20:56:20) evands: *makes conciliatory gestures at seanegan*
(20:56:24) ***mark.doliner looks at seanegan's bright green inflatable gavel and chuckles inwardly
(20:56:29) seanegan: Motion to vote on creating a new public list at discussion@imfreedom.org
(20:56:33) evands: seconded
(20:56:54) seanegan: All those in favor say aye
(20:56:56) mark.doliner: aye
(20:56:56) faceprint: aye.
(20:56:57) lschiere: aye
(20:56:59) evands: aye
(20:57:03) elb: aye
(20:57:11) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(20:57:21) ***lschiere records unanimous ayes
(20:58:11) evands: Chair, I request the floor to make a proposal
(20:58:26) seanegan: request DENIED, punk!
(20:58:42) evands: (hmph, I thought that was the right magic phrase.)
(20:58:53) seanegan: I take that back. The chair recognizes Evan Schoenberg
(20:58:57) evands: Motion to ask the president to email devel@pidgin.im and adium-devl@adiumx.com inviting parties interested in constructive discussion of instant messaging freedom, outside the scope of specific projects' development and implementation, to join discussion@imfreedom.org once it has been created
(20:58:58) lschiere: apparently the chair has other ideas on the next
(20:59:12) ***lschiere seconds evands's motion
(20:59:51) seanegan: The floor is open to comments on the motion.
(21:00:23) evands: Clarification: 'once it has been created' refers to the timing of the outgoing message. There is no reason to ask people to join a list which will be created in the future.
(21:00:35) seanegan: Acknowledged.
(21:00:42) seanegan: All those in favor, say 'aye.'
(21:00:44) lschiere: aye
(21:00:44) faceprint: aye
(21:00:46) elb: aye
(21:00:52) mark.doliner: aye
(21:01:32) evands: Point of information: does one vote on one's own motion?
(21:01:40) lschiere: typically yes
(21:01:42) seanegan: You may.
(21:01:44) evands: aye
(21:02:04) seanegan: The chair, though, typically abstains from voting except to break ties.
(21:02:14) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(21:02:38) seanegan: The chair asks for confirmation that the treasurer no longer requires the floor.
(21:03:05) elb: confirmed
(21:04:26) seanegan: Next point of business is director and officer elections. Currently all positions are up for re-election, and no position is opposed. Does anyone wish to nominate someone for a director or officer position at this time?
(21:05:09) lschiere: nominations can be made by /msg if you do not have voice
(21:05:35) seanegan: Motion to re-elect all directors and officers to their current positions.
(21:05:40) elb: second
(21:05:54) CWAL entered the room.
(21:05:56) CWAL left the room.
(21:05:58) seanegan: all those in favor of reelecting all directors and officers to their current positions say 'aye.'
(21:06:03) elb: aye
(21:06:04) lschiere: aye
(21:06:04) evands: aye
(21:06:07) mark.doliner: aye
(21:06:16) faceprint: aye
(21:06:24) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(21:07:40) seanegan: Does any director have business to bring before the board?
(21:07:49) ***lschiere requests the floor
(21:07:56) seanegan: The secretary has the floor.
(21:07:57) lschiere: (for a motion)
(21:08:33) ***lschiere moves that future board meetings have a published adgenda no less than 1 week in advance posted to discussion@imfreedom.org for public comment before we vote on a given issue
(21:09:38) seanegan: Does anyone second the motion?
(21:09:44) evands: Point of information: Would issues not in the published agenda then be excluded from discussion?
(21:09:56) lschiere: only from vote
(21:10:29) ak10864 left the room.
(21:10:43) ak10864 entered the room.
(21:11:00) seanegan: Last call for a second.
(21:11:06) mark.doliner: I think having a published agenda is a good idea, but I think we should keep open the possibility of voting on random stuff on the spur of the moment
(21:11:41) seanegan: Perhaps what Mark meant was "I second and move to ammend? ;)"
(21:12:33) mark.doliner: I second and move to ammend
(21:12:33) faceprint: i second and move to amend
(21:12:51) seanegan: The vice president has the floor
(21:13:37) seanegan: Actually, strike that.
(21:14:01) seanegan: Let's discuss the first motion first, and then ammend it.
(21:14:35) lschiere: On previous votes, we used cabal for discussion then voted in board. We had a week's lapse between proposal and vote
(21:14:36) mark.doliner: I don't see a need to force ourselves to put issues on the agenda in order to vote on them at a board meeting
(21:14:48) mark.doliner: It seems like it'd be cumbersome
(21:14:48) lschiere: I *think* but am not sure, that we actually required that of ourselves when we set up board@
(21:16:07) elb: Luke's proposal would require follow-up meetings at least one week after an existing meeting, to cover any new agenda items, if we wanted agenda items to be handled only at board meetings
(21:16:17) evands: With meetings as a common occurrence, or a rolling discussion such as on a mailing list, that proposal makes a lot of sense
(21:16:20) seanegan: The chair suggests that he will do his best to create a proper agenda before a meeting, but that it perhaps should not be legistlated. Also, if a meeting is properly announced, and a quorum of the board is willing to vote on an issue, there should be no need to artificially delay one week.
(21:16:29) elb: however, we have the option of handling the voting on any items which are brought up at the meeting and require a vote by email
(21:16:41) seanegan: Voting on mailing lists makes sense for a week, because we need to make sure everyone gets a chance to read it.
(21:16:52) evands: but.. the rest of my thought is fully mirrored by elb's comments above.
(21:18:07) seanegan: Is there a motion to ammend that we not require all issues to be published at least one week before voting?
(21:18:28) mark.doliner: Yes, I motion to amend that we not require all issues to be published at least one week before voting?
(21:18:40) mark.doliner: s/?//
(21:18:48) seanegan: Is the motion seconded?
(21:18:48) lschiere: my concern is that right now, we bring something up, and its easy for us to vote on it before those not board members have a chance to comment, particularly if we aren't paying attention to /msg or devel@c.p.i at that moment
(21:19:21) seanegan: That being the motion to ammend.
(21:20:19) seanegan: or amend, if you're picky about spelling.
(21:20:30) lschiere: what is the amendment at this point? I'm confused
(21:21:04) evands: Let's state the proposal in its entirety, superseding previous statements.
(21:21:21) seanegan: The amendment is to remove the requirement that only issues on the agenda may be voted on.
(21:21:53) lschiere: query: that would leave of the motion only the requirement of the published agenda?
(21:22:01) seanegan: Correct
(21:22:57) elb: second
(21:23:27) evands: query: Is the published agenda simply a good faith effort at structure for the meeting, then, with no impact on actual discussion?
(21:23:49) seanegan: evands: A much needed one! Look at me bumbling around up here!
(21:24:01) evands: seanegan: I didn't intend that to be a critique!
(21:24:09) seanegan: The floor is open to discussion about the amendment.
(21:24:27) evands: 'simply' in this context means "nothing more than" with no judgement call, and I agree that such an effort would be worthwhile
(21:24:55) lschiere: It would mean that anything not on the agenda could only be discussed as "new business"
(21:25:00) elb: The amended motion would ensure that we at least know what is "old business" versus "new business", what is scheduled to be discussed, and what will be discussed when said scheduled material is finished
(21:25:00) lschiere: (and possibly voted on)
(21:25:37) evands: So with an agenda, all scheduled material is first discussed; once that is complete, any new business may be discussed and, given a quorum, voted upon.
(21:25:39) evands: Correct?
(21:25:45) lschiere: that is my understanding
(21:27:28) seanegan: Does anyone have any other comments about the amendment?
(21:28:56) seanegan: The present proposal is to amend Luke's proposal to remove the requirement that all issues up for vote be included on an agenda at least one week prior to the vote.
(21:29:22) ***lschiere moves that said amendment be accepted
(21:29:23) seanegan: After voting on the amendment, we will vote on the original proposal, with or without the amendment as appropriate.
(21:29:43) seanegan: All those in favor of the amendment say aye
(21:29:46) lschiere: aye
(21:29:48) mark.doliner: aye
(21:29:55) elb: aye
(21:29:58) evands: aye
(21:30:08) faceprint: aye
(21:30:17) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(21:30:34) seanegan: Would the secretary please state the current proposal, in its amended form?
(21:31:11) lschiere: In amended form, the current proposal is that there be a published agenda no less than one week prior to the meeting
(21:31:42) seanegan: Are there any comments about the proposal?
(21:31:52) mark.doliner: I think it rocks!
(21:31:56) ryanbarrett left the room.
(21:32:00) evands: This sounds totally absolutely awesome!
(21:32:19) seanegan: Motion to vote on the amended proposal.
(21:32:23) evands: seconded
(21:32:33) seanegan: All those in favor say aye.
(21:32:36) evands: aye
(21:32:36) mark.doliner: Aye
(21:32:39) ryanbarrett entered the room.
(21:32:40) elb: aye
(21:32:40) lschiere: aye
(21:32:43) faceprint: aye
(21:32:49) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(21:33:00) seanegan: Do any other members have business to bring before the board?
(21:33:27) ***lschiere requests the floor
(21:33:37) seanegan: The secretary has the floor.
(21:34:26) ***lschiere motions that any proposal dealing with more than $100 outlay not be voted on except by email
(21:35:29) seanegan: Motion acknowledged. Does anyone second the motion?
(21:35:41) elb: second, and move to amend
(21:36:10) seanegan: The treasurer has the floor
(21:37:12) elb: I would like to amend the motion to read "Any proposal dealing with more than $100 in total outlay (one-time or recurring) shall be voted on only by email, with one week of notice, or in a board meeting, having been present in the agenda published one week ahead of time."
(21:37:42) ***lschiere is confused by that wording
(21:38:12) seanegan: The chair requests clearer wording :)
(21:38:18) elb: one second
(21:39:58) elb: Any proposal dealing with the expenditure of more than a total of $100 (either as a one-time cost, or the sum of recurring expenditures), must be proposed at least one week before votes are collected. It may either be proposed for an email vote with one week of notice, or proposed for vote at a board meeting, provided that the text of the proposal is present in the meeting agenda one week in advance.
(21:40:19) ***lschiere seconds amendment
(21:40:30) seanegan: Does anyone have any comment on the ammendment?
(21:40:53) lschiere: That is a better execution of my intent with the original motion
(21:41:12) elb: I agree with the purpose (as I perceive it) of Luke's proposal, which is to ensure that all outlays of any moment are known about and voted on publically
(21:41:29) evands: I second the proposal
(21:41:31) seanegan: The purpose of the current amendment is to allow such expenses to occur outside of e-mail, yet remain such that there is proper time to discuss the proposal before hand.
(21:41:53) seanegan: evands: It's already been seconded ;)
(21:41:56) elb: however, the amended motion is intended to capture this idea, while still allowing discussion and vote at a board meeting if so desired
(21:42:00) evands: Apologies, I missed that.
(21:42:17) ***lschiere moves to vote on the amendment
(21:42:32) seanegan: Is the motion to vote on the amendment seconded?
(21:42:39) mark.doliner: Second
(21:42:53) seanegan: All in favor of introducing the amendment say aye.
(21:42:54) mark.doliner: Aye
(21:42:55) lschiere: aye
(21:43:04) elb: aye
(21:43:04) evands: aye
(21:43:10) faceprint: aye
(21:43:14) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(21:43:28) seanegan: The present proposal is: Any proposal dealing with the expenditure of more than a total of $100 (either as a one-time cost, or the sum of recurring expenditures), must be proposed at least one week before votes are collected. It may either be proposed for an email vote with one week of notice, or proposed for vote at a board meeting, provided that the text of the proposal is present in the meeting agenda one week in advance.
(21:43:38) seanegan: Are there any comments about the proposal?
(21:44:18) seanegan: Motion to vote on the proposal.
(21:44:21) faceprint: second
(21:44:21) lschiere: seconded
(21:44:22) evands: seconded
(21:44:27) seanegan: All those in favor say aye.
(21:44:28) mark.doliner: Aye
(21:44:28) lschiere: aye
(21:44:29) faceprint: aye
(21:44:30) elb: aye
(21:44:58) evands: aye
(21:45:03) seanegan: The ayes have it.
(21:45:17) seanegan: Does any director have business to bring before the board?
(21:45:21) ***lschiere surrenders the floor
(21:45:36) seanegan: The board recognized Ethan Blanton
(21:45:42) seanegan: The chair, that is.
(21:45:49) seanegan: And recognizes, that is
(21:46:24) elb: I would like to make a motion that the following information be put on the IM Freedom web page, when it is ready:
(21:46:50) elb: 1) A statement clarifying that IM Freedom, Inc. does not direct the day-to-day development of Pidgin, libpurple, Adium, or any libpurple-related project.
(21:47:49) elb: 2) A statement that any funds donated to IM Freedom, Inc. in no way entitle the donator to any special privileges or control over the activities of IM Freedom, Inc. or the disbursement of their donation.
(21:48:24) elb: 3) Information regarding the public mailing list, discussion@imfreedom.org, and the archives of board@imfreedom.org (as appropriate).
(21:49:12) elb: 4) A regularly updated statement on the activities being pursued by IM Freedom, Inc. as discussed on discussion@ and voted on by the board.
(21:49:17) elb: (end motion)
(21:49:23) lschiere: seconded
(21:49:30) seanegan: Any comments regarding the motion?
(21:49:54) lschiere: #2 requires, legally, that we refund any directed donation after we achive 501c status
(21:50:17) lschiere: because a directed donation can legally only be used for the purpose the person donating directs
(21:50:30) lschiere: (I've seen this happen with Churches)
(21:50:35) faceprint: have we accepted any directed donations?
(21:50:41) elb: #2 we may wish to discuss in the future -- in particular, I can see, once we put up bounties, that individuals may wish to donate for a particular bounty
(21:50:50) evands: Are we planning not to accept donations toward particular project bounties?
(21:52:11) lschiere: we need to discuss how bounties are to be handled, so as to avoid appearing to direct the development of a libpurple project
(21:52:32) elb: bounties are not on the table now, they are an issue we will have to discuss in their own time
(21:52:40) lschiere: right
(21:52:42) faceprint: perhaps we should amend #2 to simply state that donations do not earn anyone control over the board?
(21:52:44) evands: I think #2 overlaps with bounties
(21:53:02) elb: evands: yes, but this can always be amended later, once bounties actually exist
(21:53:16) elb: (oops, I think I only get to comment twice)
(21:54:32) evands: I propose to amend part 2 of the motion under discussion to read: A statement that any funds donated to IM Freedom, Inc. in no way entitle the donator to any special privileges or control over the activities of IM Freedom, Inc. or the disbursement of their donation, excepting if IM Freedom, Inc. or an accepted third party has agreed that such funds will be used for a specific purpose
(21:54:53) seanegan: Motion acknowledged. Is there a second?
(21:56:09) seanegan: Last call for a second.
(21:57:10) seanegan: The motion to amend is dead.
(21:57:51) seanegan: Is there a motion to vote on the original motion: that the following information be put on the IM Freedom web page, when it is ready:
1) A statement clarifying that IM Freedom, Inc. does not direct the day-to-day development of Pidgin, libpurple, Adium, or any libpurple-related project.
2) A statement that any funds donated to IM Freedom, Inc. in no way entitle the donator to any special privileges or control over the activities of IM Freedom, Inc. or the disbursement of their donation.
3) Information regarding the public mailing list, discussion@imfreedom.org, and the archives of board@imfreedom.org (as appropriate).
(21:58:09) seanegan: Or does anyone have any further comment on the present motion?
(21:58:09) ***lschiere moves to vote
(21:58:36) evands: (original motion also includes:
4) A regularly updated statement on the activities being pursued by IM Freedom, Inc. as discussed on discussion@ and voted on by the board.)
(21:58:39) faceprint: wasn't there a #4?
(21:58:48) seanegan: My apologies
(21:59:48) seanegan: Is the motion to vote seconded?
(21:59:48) mark.doliner: I second the motion to vote
(21:59:48) faceprint: i second the motion to vote (with #4)
(21:59:48) seanegan: All those in favor of the proposal say 'aye'
(21:59:49) elb: aye
(21:59:53) faceprint: aye
(21:59:54) lschiere: aye
(21:59:55) mark.doliner: Aye
(21:59:59) evands: aye
(22:00:11) seanegan: The 'ayes' have it.
(22:01:02) seanegan: Is there any other business to be brought before the board?
(22:01:50) seanegan: Going once
(22:02:24) seanegan: twice
(22:03:22) seanegan: The chair thanks everyone for coming here tonight, and apologizes for the shakiness of our first shot at this.
(22:03:50) seanegan: The secretary should write up minutes and introduce them at the next meeting.
(22:04:01) lschiere: willdo
(22:04:11) seanegan: Which will be at a date to be discussed on board@pidgin.im
(22:04:23) seanegan: Motion to adjourn.
(22:04:26) faceprint: second
(22:04:31) ***seanegan bangs gavel
(22:04:38) seanegan: The meeting is adjourned.
(22:04:43) mark.doliner: Sorry for being late!
(22:04:48) evands: Seconded
(22:04:52) elb: thanks, guys
(22:05:02) faceprint left the room.
(22:05:03) seanegan: I've lifted the moderator flag
(22:05:04) evands: Thanks everyone, particularly to Sean as chair for leading the meeting
(22:05:29) seanegan: So if anyone wants to stay around to be grilled by the peanut gallery, they're free to do so
(22:05:59) luke: that's mostly happened in devel@c.p.i in real time
(22:06:01) elb: I will be here for at least a short while
(22:06:04) luke: for those who *joined*
(22:06:18) luke: I'll see any backlog, but I won't be around to respond
(22:06:54) evands: I'm to sleep; a long summer of work begins tomorrow morning. I'd missed the memo of devel@c.p.i, though I should have guessed and joined
(22:08:03) siege@pidgin.im left the room.
(22:08:59) boardroom@conference.pidgin.im: seanegan has set the topic to: Boardroom of Instant Messaging Freedom, Inc. | No meeting scheduled