Difference between revisions of "Interim Board meeting Minutes/1 November 2004"

From GovernanceWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (flagging page with 'SAGE')
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{SAGE maybe historical}}
+
{{SAGE historical}}
 
<br style="clear: both;" />
 
<br style="clear: both;" />
 
{| class="toccolours" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin:0 auto;"
 
{| class="toccolours" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin:0 auto;"

Latest revision as of 00:09, 22 January 2006

Comment

This website is not affiliated with SAGE or the USENIX Association. The use of the term "SAGE" below is historical, and refers either to the SAGE subgroup of USENIX, or to a precursor of the organization now called LOPSA.


Prior:
25 October 2004
Interim Board meeting Minutes Next:
8 November 2004


Minutes approved: 8 November 2004

This document is a board working paper, and commercial in confidence.

Present
Geoff Halprin, Lorette Cheswick, David Parter, Trey Harris
Meeting
2004-11-01 1900 US/East
Opened
19:00 (Lorette joined 19:30)
Closed
20:38

1 REDACTION APPROVED.

Consent Agenda

  • Meeting minutes (2004-10-18) approved by consent.
  • Meeting minutes (2004-10-25) approved by consent.

Action Items

  • See action item list.

Unfinished Business

Legal Infrastrucure

  • Appleman and Lemond spoke last week.
  • USENIX POV is that 501c3 is better for USENIX.
  • It was noted that articles had been drawn up as 501c3.
  • Lemond says do c3 now (keep USENIX happy); then decide about c6.
  • {7 words redacted; business sensitivity}
  • Decision: Proceed as 501c3. Unanimous.
  • Minor changes to bylaws.
  • Will markup wiki.
  • Sparse comment on membership xfer issues.
  • No roadblocks raised.

Operations Infrastructure

  • 2/3 through proposals. Uploading to wiki.
  • Trey to send Geoff/board note on how to upload media files. (Action Point #20041101.01)

Computing Infrastructure

  • Nothing to report.

Yerkes award

  • Nothing to report.
  • Need candidates identified ASAP.
  • All board members willing to review nominations.

Outstanding Achievement Award

  • Rob and team was meeting today.
  • No report yet.

LISA Planning

  • Covered meetings under action points.
  • Atanta arrival schedule:
  • David: Sat/Sun
  • Trey: Sun
  • Geoff: Sat
  • Lorette: (Hawaii)
  • Meeting: Monday 10am East (Geoff's suite)
  • Teleconf: Monday 6pm East (with Lorette)

Memo to members

  • Sent. Currently blockeed in approval queue.
  • Just cleared by Rob.
  • Now arrived on list.

New Business

Unannounced business

Election Policy Decisions Discussion

  • Electronic voting (side note)
  • In NJ, statutes about voting have never changed.
  • Electronic votings are ok.
  • At large versus officers
  • Trey:
  • At large. (Continue sage method).
  • Key issue: Conservation of talent.
  • Better to choose leader rather than imposed.
  • Primary importance: get the talent where its needed.
  • David:
  • Agree on talent issue.
  • Don't like board choosing. Awkward, potentially devisive.
  • Get bad choice anyway (least offensive to board?)
  • Nomcom takes ego out of equation a little.
  • First meeting can divide the board.
  • Nomcom should nominate entire slate.
  • Lorette:
  • Have seen officers selected by nomcomm subset of board. Voted by board.
  • Lemond suggested at-large, with officers from there.
  • Make nomcom standing committee. Issue guidelines.
  • For at-large board.
  • Need induction training for board members.
  • Geoff:
  • Officers runoff to general?
  • Staggering just confuses things. Breaks flow.
  • Nomcomm should be standing committee.
  • Prefer at-large.
  • Need induction training for board members.
  • Vote: Elections for directors at-large. Unanimous.
  • Vote: Standing leadership committee/nomcom. Unanimous.
  • breeding talent within subcommittees.
  • maintaining induction kit, board training issues.
  • nomcom (candidate slate) as x-annual duty.
  • Lorette: mandate may be too broad.
  • Electoral threshold (plurality, etc.)
  • Trey:
  • Proportional voting (ranked order of candidates).
  • Last two SAGE elections, only top two candidates reached plurity benchmark.
  • David:
  • Intrigued, but no experience.
  • People don't really run on platforms. Popularity contest.
  • Lorette:
  • Not enough experience.
  • Don't like plurality.
  • Geoff:
  • Like proportional. (Best represents what most members want.)
  • Voting method.
  • Proportional: Trey, Lorette, Geoff.
  • Plurality: David.
  • Staggered elections.
  • Don't stagger: Trey, David, Geoff.
  • Stagger: Lorette.
  • To be decided at next meeting:
  • Term limits.
  • Bylaw amendments.
  • Size of membership quorum: 1/10 or 1/20.
  • Size of board quorum.


Meeting closed
20:38