Board meeting Minutes/6 February 2006

From GovernanceWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Prior:
30 January 2006
Board meeting Minutes Next:
13 February 2006



Minutes approved: 13 February 2006

Present
Tom Perrine (chair), Matthew Barr, Trey Harris, Doug Hughes, Andrew Hume, Chris Palmer, David Parter, Stephen Potter, Pat Wilson (note taker), Sam Albrecht
Opened
20:05 Eastern Time
Closed
21:22 Eastern Time

Consent Agenda

Consent agenda approved.

Action Items

Board Committees

  • Development Committee (Wilson/Potter)
    • Wilson - Work on proposals for potential sponsors - not done
  • Partnership and Liason Committee (Perrine)
    • Perrine- Write another note to the Advisory Council as soon as biz plan first draft complete - still pending
  • Leadership Committee (Greg Rose)
  • Policy Committee (Harris)
    • Harris, Hume, Wilson - draft a liaison charter and policy. Placeholder created on wiki for Liaisons to other organizations policy.
  • Communications Committee
    • Palmer -- Fix the problems with the postcard and revisit information requested - in progress

Will ask the same questions on the postcard as we do on the web

  • Membership Committee
    • Harris, Albrecht - membership kit - in progress
    • Harris, Albrecht - Decide on whether to send out hard copy of Code of Ethics. - Done
    • REPORT FROM ALBRECHT - Stationary ordered, pins being wrapped in bubble wrap, hard-copy Code of Ethics ordered, membership card design done - some discussion of whether we want to put 2006 on it, President's letter drafted, still good for commitment date of 20 Feb/goal date of 13 Feb.

Program Committees

  • Conference Planning Committee (Wilson/Perrine)
    • Palmer - canvass BBLISA for Boston Linux Expo booth volunteers - call issued
    • Barr, Perrine, Wilson - present several possible scenarios for LOPSA training events - in progress

Parter notes that we should also step up work on non-LOPSA events at which we wish to have a presence.

  • Technical (Online) Services (Hughes/Parter)
    • Albrecht, Hughes - extend member database: Ready for use. Still a lot of reconciliation to do
    • Parter - add verisign credit card processing: Done.

In general, the preference is for payment to be made via credit card rather than PayPal - this will be made more explicit.

ACTION ITEM: Albrecht, Barr, Parter to define an expedited member registration process for use at SCALE.

  • Content Services Committee (Palmer/Potter)
    • Palmer, Potter - Contact other LISA '05 content contributors with hosting offer - in progress
    • Barr - Write book club announcement for Palmer wordsmithing - announcement sent

We have the first volunteer editor in chief, and another person has been identified for this role as well. Cat Okita has volunteered for security content.

Non-Committee

  • Financial
    • Parter - Integrate on-line merchant account into the website (see verisign above) - Done
    • Hume - Present draft financial policies for Board approval. - no action
    • All - Approve an outside CPA prepare LOPSA 2005 tax return (estimated cost of $250) in lieu of a formal review or audit of the books. - Done
      • REPORT FROM ALBRECHT - Here's the CPA's info: Faktorow, Barnett & Brunner, LLC, 100B Centre Boulevard, PO Box 730, Marlton, NJ 08053-0730, phone #856-810-2160, fax#856-810-2165, Jeff Barnett is our main contact. Cost will be $250.00
  • Albrecht:
    • Give a plausible estimate of fully loaded member cost - in progress
      • REPORT - Should have next week after all stationary, certificate, mailing costs are in hand.
    • Draft letter of agreement for LOPSA-AH 2006 work. - not done
  • Barr:
  • Harris:
    • Put an item on this agenda regarding how the Membership Committee would like to proceed regarding membership drives — see wiki for Membership drive doc - on hold pending fully loaded member cost

Some concern regarding lack of coordination with respect to joint USENIX/LOPSA projects and the re-emergence of SAGE was expressed; Hume will send a query to Alva Couch (USENIX Board LOPSA liason)

  • Hughes:
  • Hume:
    • Review minutes and provide a list of redactions pertaining to SAGECom that may now be restored - not done
  • Palmer:
  • Parter:
  • Perrine:
  • Wilson:
  • All:
    • Flesh out charges/specifications for 90 day services listed at projects - in progress

Standing Reports

  • Treasurer's report

It was agreed that there's too much latency in various processes to have bank balances each week; this item will be made monthly, and occur during the 2nd week of every month only. Emergent issues will be brought up on an as-needed basis.

  • Membership report
    • 278 members with online accounts
    • 31 members without online accounts
    • 309 total (+9 from last week)
    • 10 pending (-3 from last week)
  • Online report

Project progress

Wilson expressed concern about feeling out of touch regarding project status.

ACTION ITEM: Hughes to speak with the volunteer coordinator (Hans Kugler) regarding setting up some regular reporting methods.

Currently:

  • jobs-board project has made some small progress (installation of a drupal module)
  • web-forwarding and mail-forwarding are moving forward
  • events calendar has been started. Local groups might want to post their meetings there.

Code of Ethics review committee charge

MOTION by Parter, seconded by Hume to adopt the charge to the Code of Ethics review committee as amended. Passes


The SAGE Code of Ethics was adopted by USENIX/SAGE in 2003. It is intended that the Code of Ethics should be broad enough to not need frequent revision, but strong enough to serve the Profession, individual Practitioners and system administration organizations.

After the separation of USENIX and LOPSA, LOPSA approached USENIX about use of the Code of Ethics. USENIX and LOPSA both understand that the Code gains value as it is adopted by more organizations representing a larger audience, and for each organization to create their own Code diminished the value of all Codes. USENIX approved the de-branding and renaming of the Code as the System Administration Code of Ethics. Concurrent with that action, USENIX invited LOPSA to:

  • become an equal signatory to the Code, gaining full copyright privileges
  • perform the official Code of Ethics review

To take into account any deficiencies found in the Code after adoption, and to adapt to changing circumstances, a two-year review was mandated at the time of adoption, with the expectation that future reviews every four years would be appropriate. It is not intended that this review entail a major rewriting of the Code of Ethics. If the review comittee feels that a major rewrite is necessary, it should provide an explanation in the submitted recomendations, but not undertake that task.

The Code of Ethics Review Comittee is charged with organizing the review of the System Administrator Code of Ethics:

  • Appropriate attention should be paid to publicity, both for the sake of an informed review involving our members, and as an opportunity for publicity and raising awareness in the broader sysadmin community and perhaps even further (managers, etc). Publicity should be coordinated with the SAGE Communications Committee.
  • Discussion with the community should include a public event at LISA 2005 and online discussions, using SAGE online resources and others as deemed appropriate by the committee
  • In furtherance of the goal of increasing the value of the Code, the Committee should approach additional organizations for input.
  • The Committee is not charged with redrafting the Code in its entirety. If the Committee believes this necessary, it should make a recommendation to the Board, but should not proceed.
  • A report and recommendations (separate from the report) should be submitted to the Board no later than Feb April 1, 2006:
    • The report should document review activities, level of participation, and any other information about the review process as determined to be appropriate by the review committee
    • The Recommendations should address:
      • any proposed changes in the text of the Code of Ethics
      • future review schedule (tenatively set for 4-year cycle after the initial 2-year review)
      • a list of any other organizations that may be potential signatories
      • any other recommendations from the review committee
  • The budget for this activity is up to $100. If additional funds are needed, the Committee must seek approval from the Board in advance.


New Business

MOTION by Harris, seconded by Palmer: Approve redaction of 9 January 2006 minutes. Passes

MOTION by Harris, seconded by Potter: Approve additional redaction of 16 January 2006 minutes. Passes

Harris holds 23 January 2006 and 30 January 2006 minutes for redaction.

Notes/announcements

Adjournment

MOTION to adjourn by Harris, seconded by Potter. Adjourned at 21:22 ET.