19:10:42 <smichel> #startmeeting
19:10:42 <hcoop-meetbot> Meeting started Sun Dec 16 19:10:42 2018 UTC.  The chair is smichel. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:10:42 <hcoop-meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:10:46 <unknown_lamer> actually before we start the real agenda, also technically should enter the decisions we made over email/poll into the record too, can do that super quick after roll call
19:10:59 <smichel> #topic role call
19:11:10 <keverets[m]> #info keverets
19:11:13 <unknown_lamer> #info clinton
19:11:15 <smichel> #info smichel17
19:11:17 <eronel> #info eronel
19:11:31 <docelic> #info docelic
19:11:37 <smichel> if you don't #info, it doesn't show in the log, right?
19:11:48 <unknown_lamer> smichel: it doesn't show in the summary
19:12:08 <unknown_lamer> there are full logs attached, but it's nice to have this in the minutes for quick reference
19:13:01 <smichel> Anyway, so polls were to terminate peer1 and how to get rid of hardware @peer1
19:13:18 <smichel> You want to do a mock vote or something?
19:13:21 <unknown_lamer> smichel: should #topic that
19:13:31 <unknown_lamer> smichel: nah, we just need to set a topic and I'll #info the decisions real quick
19:13:53 <smichel> #topic moving away from physical hardware
19:14:07 <smichel> fire away :)
19:14:30 <unknown_lamer> #info on 2018-11-22 the board resolved to terminate services with peer1 on or around november 23rd https://members.hcoop.net/portal/poll?id=69
19:14:56 * smichel slept ~13 hours last night and is feeling a little sluggish today
19:15:06 <unknown_lamer> #info on 2018-12-13 the board resolved to Pay Peer 1 remote hands to dismantle our rack on December 19th , Mail all hard drives to Clinton Ebadi, who will retain them for 45 days in case we need to recover data, and will then destroy the drives by physically disassembling them. , Have the drives mailed using Fedex (located in the same building as Peer 1), or UPS if it is significantly less expensive. and to
19:15:06 <unknown_lamer> Leave the remaining hardware on-site for recycling. https://members.hcoop.net/portal/poll?id=70
19:15:15 <unknown_lamer> #info  Leave the remaining hardware on-site for recycling. https://members.hcoop.net/portal/poll?id=70
19:15:26 <unknown_lamer> should be good on that
19:16:39 <smichel> Do we have an agenda of other things to discuss / Does anyone have things you'd like to put on the agenda?
19:16:42 <keverets[m]> Hrm. Looks like it's my client that disconnected. Apologies
19:16:50 <unknown_lamer> https://wiki.hcoop.net/IrcMeetings/20181216
19:17:49 <eronel> Should we tackle the agenda in reverse order?
19:18:15 <smichel> second one might make sense before 3rd?
19:18:20 <unknown_lamer> maybe just move the update-board-area to the end? may as well do a general overview of finances before doing the bill part
19:18:33 <eronel> sounds good
19:18:39 <smichel> #topic Update on financial situation and migration
19:18:52 <unknown_lamer> Alright, so ignoring the $2500 peer1 just got us with
19:19:09 <unknown_lamer> #info bank balance is $1,867.47
19:19:58 <unknown_lamer> #info Upcoming expenses: $680 for November Hosting, ~$680 (not sure what prorated amount will be) for December hosting, $150 remote hands to derack equipment, unknown (assume under $100) for mailing drives to clinton
19:20:50 <unknown_lamer> #info Leaving us $257.47 (subbing $100 for shipping), enough for upcoming january expenses assuming no one pays dues before them
19:21:19 <unknown_lamer> #info current dues are ~$550 per month, with a few members slated to be booted (and not counting additional pledges from clinton)
19:21:22 <smichel> I will be adding ~$100 before then, assuming we're able to resolve the overage charge
19:22:00 <unknown_lamer> so... ignoring the $2500 charge, we are in not too bad shape. we can afford our final peer1 expenses and next month @ DO + Linode no problem, and should begin gnawing away at the deficit
19:22:55 <unknown_lamer> but then there is the $2500 surprise bill we got from peer1, which leads us into the next topic, unless anyone wants to discuss general financial status more
19:23:26 <docelic> No particular questions/comments from my side on the above
19:23:36 <keverets[m]> Happy to move on
19:23:42 <smichel> From my perspective, it's dangerously close to 0, but there's not really much to be done about it, so it is what it is
19:23:42 <unknown_lamer> since it was migration status too--
19:23:55 <unknown_lamer> #info we have fully migrated all services from peer1 to digital ocean
19:24:05 <unknown_lamer> #info final task at peer1 will be actually power fritz down and remove hardware
19:24:35 <unknown_lamer> smichel: I will probably drop just a bit more in one last time as well, just so we have more buffer. but over the next quarter we should see our balance steadily grow
19:25:59 <smichel> When we do have more balance, I'd like to propose returning some of it to unknown_lamer
19:26:07 <smichel> You've put in a *lot* of personal money
19:26:19 <unknown_lamer> I have already paid it to the coop, so you guys can't refund me per the bylaws ;)
19:26:32 <unknown_lamer> since I am also forbidden from receiving any compensation, which I think that'd be ... I'm fine with this
19:26:53 <smichel> If you say so…
19:27:40 <unknown_lamer> my procrastination is why it took us a full year from when I realized we had to move (and really, we started discussions to move to virtualized hosting all the way back in 2016, 'tho some bits at vps providers weren't quite in place to make it feasible then)
19:27:49 <keverets[m]> Future credits applied? You may be good for next 10 years
19:27:53 <unknown_lamer> heh
19:28:08 <unknown_lamer> I am going to leave at least a full year of dues in my balance after next month ;)
19:28:27 <smichel> Any other questions / comments about migration?
19:28:31 <unknown_lamer> I'm good
19:28:39 <keverets[m]> None
19:28:43 <eronel> none
19:29:12 <smichel> Alright
19:29:31 <smichel> #topic surprise overage/bandwidth bill
19:30:11 <unknown_lamer> #info during november 2018 peer 1 charged us 2,436.27 for our 95th percentile transfer hitting 22.8Mbps ($140/Mbps less 5Mbps bundled)
19:31:26 <unknown_lamer> #info total transfer was ~950G, and we were at most exceeded 5Mbps for a few hours, potentially even less, due to an errant log copying cron and the awful resolution of the mrtg graph making the spikes invisible due to the spike from us copying our volumes offsite
19:32:28 <unknown_lamer> if you want to see what I mean, here's the view of november we have access to: https://unknownlamer.org/tmp/MRTG_2018-12.png
19:33:06 <smichel> What's the red line?
19:33:13 <unknown_lamer> three spikes are us moving databases, mail volumes, then user volumes. those took under 18h total, and they discard the top 5% samples (36h)
19:33:52 <unknown_lamer> red line is just some time marker
19:34:07 <unknown_lamer> I think it might be where the 30 days starts
19:35:28 <unknown_lamer> pretty sure it is, since we copied dbs just before and week 44 is oct 29 ->
19:35:38 <unknown_lamer> anyway
19:36:06 <unknown_lamer> they are being totally inflexible and ended up charging us the full amount, throwing us to $568 negative, despite us disabling overdrafting
19:36:33 <eronel> Can we complain to the bank that disabling it didn't work?
19:37:11 <eronel> Or was there some fine print saying that it might not take effect until some random time?
19:37:14 <unknown_lamer> I suspect it may be because it went through visa and not as a debit/check
19:37:52 <unknown_lamer> eronel: it was to take effect at the latest on Dec 14, so should have been several hours before the peer 1 charge went through... so also may have been a race condition (which cron ran first...)
19:38:36 <unknown_lamer> another annoying wrinkle: I have been using my readonly account @ wellsfargo so I can't directly modify anything... and I forgot my pin so wasn
19:38:42 <unknown_lamer> 't able to regain access
19:38:57 <unknown_lamer> and now after resetting the pin, it still won't let me... so I need to call WF today or tomorrow
19:39:24 <unknown_lamer> #action clinton will call WF and ask if visa transactions are exempt from overdraft restrictions
19:39:43 <unknown_lamer> #action clinton will call WF to try and determine why rw online banking account password still cannot be reset
19:41:09 <unknown_lamer> so, once I get online rw access back... their faq at least claims I can revoke other authorized signers and their cards there (otherwise I will have to go to the bank in person again I think)
19:41:40 <unknown_lamer> and based on old board mail, the last card peer1 had was steve killen's card from when he was treasurer... so we have the option of just killing that card this week
19:41:51 <unknown_lamer> and finally from me
19:42:26 <unknown_lamer> I complained at our "inside account manager" (lol), and supposedly billing has refunded the charge and /graciously/ given us three months to dispose of it
19:42:58 <unknown_lamer> however, the reversal has not yet gone through -- but the charge is also still pending, so they may have just reversed it and the hold will clear monday, I will update tomorrow during the day
19:43:15 <unknown_lamer> so... what does everyone want to do here
19:43:34 <unknown_lamer> I don't think we have any real recourse if they decided to be terrible people and charge us $2500 for a couple of hours of overage...
19:43:51 <keverets[m]> What are the options?
19:44:07 <unknown_lamer> well, for one I want to keep trying to get them to review it...
19:44:40 <eronel> If you can't talk to billing directly and have to keep going through the front-line support person, I don't think you will be able to negotiate.
19:45:03 <smichel> I agree we need to get in contact with billing directly, but they have not responded to our ticket in 2 weeks now.
19:45:07 <unknown_lamer> but then if they still refuse to budge, we could see if any members want to help cover it... and I would be willing to pledge any difference (but this is probably the last time I can do that... but also should be the last time it is ever needed)
19:45:55 <unknown_lamer> eronel: I have been mailing the ticket billing created and only ccing this guy... but yeah, they are hiding behind him >:O
19:47:11 <unknown_lamer> even with 90 days, we won't have the $2500 either (at most we end up with $1500 minus about $750)
19:48:01 <unknown_lamer> I have come around to the idea of revoking the card and (if possible) using a one-time funding limited proxy card to make any further payments to them at least
19:48:29 <smichel> I'm the one who's been proposing ^that
19:48:43 <smichel> As a way of mitigating the risk of overcharges and other complications
19:48:55 <unknown_lamer> I also unfortunately don't think we could take any legal action against them if they won't budge (no money to do so, and apparently their MSA says we have to take all action in washington state)
19:49:37 <smichel> So, the master services agreement also says, in the dispute resolution section,
19:49:40 <smichel> > You and Cogeco Peer 1 agree to use reasonable efforts to resolve any breach of this Agreement through good faith discussions prior to either Party taking any legal action
19:49:51 <smichel> > Such discussions will involve senior representatives nominated by each Party and, if reasonably required, ultimately include the executive management of each Party if necessary.
19:50:22 <unknown_lamer> in my last email I made sure to mention that the MSA implied we were entitled to a response and escalation if needed
19:50:49 <smichel> So, it seems to me, we can force them to have an actual discussion with us by:
19:50:57 <smichel> 1) Cancel the card so they have no way to charge us
19:51:41 <smichel> 2) Now, by the MSA, they can't take us to court without talking to us first
19:51:54 <smichel> So either they talk to us, which is all we really want for now, or they drop the charges
19:52:49 <smichel> I mean, of course they could break the MSA and take us to court anyway, but I think our email trail makes it excessively clear that we've been the reasonable ones and they've given us the cold shoulder
19:53:09 <docelic> I believe they can take to court in any case, because there would be no one to protect us from their legal action, even if during that whole procedure they would be proven wrong
19:53:21 <eronel> They also know that we can't afford to go to court.
19:53:32 <smichel> That goes both ways, though
19:53:36 <unknown_lamer> I guess, at the end of the 90 days if they don't budge, what would we do?
19:53:47 <unknown_lamer> I think we can all agree we need to push back against the charge as much as we can?
19:54:02 <smichel> If they were to take us to court, it seems like we have essentially 2 options
19:54:02 <unknown_lamer> but ... if it's pay up or they sue us...
19:54:26 <smichel> 1) Pay up, rally the members to find some money, and then we're just *done* with peer1 and don't have to worry
19:54:26 <docelic> So in my opinion we are at their mercy, and if either 1) they don't give us any better option, or 2) they don't respond at all, we will have to pay that amount
19:54:27 <eronel> Btw, do we have insurance to protect the board members?
19:54:44 <docelic> unknown_lamer, sure, we should discuss to the max. length possible with them
19:55:15 <smichel> 2) Spend our $1800 on a lawyer; if we lose, we won't have anything to pay them with anyway
19:55:21 <unknown_lamer> eronel: no insurance, but our corporate status should insulate board members (and members, as they are all also owners) from anything
19:55:35 <eronel> unknow_lamer: No, it does not.
19:56:26 <eronel> I am on another board that has educated me that if there is no insurance protection, and we get sued, then we are liable.
19:56:52 <smichel> I have a lawyer friend I could ask for advice, either unofficial or possible pro bono
19:56:57 <unknown_lamer> that is fun
19:57:09 <eronel> Therefore, it is my opinion, that if as a board it is decided that you are gong to put us at risk for going to court, I will resign right now.
19:57:26 <smichel> eronel: liable to what extent? Do you know the relevant laws?
19:57:35 <unknown_lamer> I don't want to risk any legal action; my opinion is that if they won't budge, we pass the collection plate around and I'll cover any difference
19:57:48 <unknown_lamer> but also that we should delay and attempt to negotiate as long as possible
19:58:31 <smichel> I'm willing to spend time doing research into the relevant laws if I have a place to start at
19:59:09 <unknown_lamer> also if we are indeed making board members financially liable for any lawsuits etc we should look into whatever insurance we need to insulate the board in the future
20:00:22 <smichel> eronel: would you be able to ask your other board where their information comes from, and then I can look into it?
20:00:40 <smichel> I agree we should look into insurance if we are liable
20:01:46 <smichel> And I also want to know the limits to that liability
20:02:02 <smichel> eg, I would expect us to be liable if the coop took any criminal action
20:02:17 <keverets[m]> So, actions to look into insurance, to push back as much as possible, and to formulate a backup plan if the pushing back fails?
20:03:20 <unknown_lamer> seems reasonable to me
20:04:02 <smichel> But I would be surprised if we are liable if simply don't have the funds to pay the charge -- isn't that the whole point of corporations? To separate business and personal assets?
20:05:02 <unknown_lamer> One thing, I think going to court in any way is not feasible... we realistically have no means to defend ourselves, and any defense would likely cost more time/money than just begrudgingly paying up :-\ And also feel like we'd be more likely to lose than win, and ... if there's any financial or legal liability to the board or members, that make it even worse
20:05:20 <unknown_lamer> *makes
20:05:51 <smichel> #action smichel17 will see if his lawyer friend can provide any advice (legal or informal)
20:07:08 <unknown_lamer> as far as pushing back, does it seem reasonable for me to continue requesting that they review the MRTG data and demand a direct response from billing? And if yes, how long should we keep trying before calling it...
20:07:36 <eronel> smichel: Board members are also at risk of being sued individually.
20:07:39 <unknown_lamer> 90 days is the latest they have given us to pay, so I'd say try for another 30 and if they won't budge then... they aren't going to budge, and we have to raise funds and just deal with it
20:07:39 <keverets[m]> Seems reasonable.. call mid week or early next week?
20:09:38 <unknown_lamer> keverets[m]: I'd at least want to wait until after the first, our contract ends on Dec 23 and suspect billing will be even slower the week after
20:09:53 * smichel doesn't have $2500 in the bank to pay them even if they did sue him ^_^
20:11:36 <keverets[m]> unknown_lamer: OK. First week of Jan then?
20:11:51 <smichel> that seems reasonable
20:11:57 <unknown_lamer> how about we call it on Jan 11
20:12:06 <unknown_lamer> then if needed, that is the weekend we ask members to chip in
20:12:46 <unknown_lamer> I also pledge to cover the difference between what others can put in and the full amount... hopefully not a huge amount
20:13:16 <keverets[m]> Sounds good
20:13:19 <unknown_lamer> then, I suppose... pay them by Feb 1st?
20:13:52 <unknown_lamer> eronel: it sounds like we want to look into directors and officers insurance ?
20:13:52 <smichel> Is everyone around on Jan 12th to have another board meeting where we can discuss again and make the decision officially?
20:14:10 <keverets[m]> Does this need a vote or just a note of the action?
20:14:28 <unknown_lamer> I think we should vote on this, yes
20:14:33 <smichel> Vote seems reasonable. What's the #command?
20:15:21 <eronel> unknown_lamer: yes!
20:15:22 <smichel> or is there a separate vote command?
20:15:28 <unknown_lamer> for this we have been using #info Vote: ..., then #info +1/-1 for yea or nay, and finally #action whatever the action is (we really need to add a #agreed though). also we've been trying in theory to do some minimal rules of order, one member proposes vote then another seconds before we vote
20:16:33 <smichel> Well we have 2 proposing a vote already :P
20:16:36 <unknown_lamer> so, first, I'd like to propose: The board resolves to negotiate the overage charge in good faith with peer1 through January 11th
20:17:20 <smichel> #info Vote: The board resolves to negotiate the overage charge in good faith with peer1 through January 11th
20:17:47 <unknown_lamer> I'll assume that works as a second in this case
20:17:53 <smichel> ^
20:18:07 <unknown_lamer> #info +1
20:18:09 <smichel> #info +1
20:18:15 <eronel> #info +1
20:19:07 <smichel> Can we check schedules now and set a board meeting for Jan 12th or 13th if everyone is around then?
20:19:10 <docelic> #info +1
20:20:16 <unknown_lamer> smichel: let's resolve this vote first, then works for me
20:20:19 <unknown_lamer> I should be available then
20:21:17 <keverets[m]> #info +1
20:21:36 <unknown_lamer> or if that will take a while to tack down, maybe just work on the meeting over email (I do need to go in about 20 minutes ideally, need some sunlight to scrub my deck... alarm failed to go off so didn't get a chance to this morning)
20:22:29 <smichel> Okay, so, we need someone to take on an action of looking in to liability and insurance. I'm happy to do it but would appreciate someone else joining me
20:22:43 <unknown_lamer> #action Agreed: The board resolves to negotiate the overage charge in good faith with peer1 through January 11th
20:23:04 <unknown_lamer> I don't think we need to vote on that, if anyone wants to just volunteer and #action that
20:24:29 <keverets[m]> Not sure how much help I can be from Canada. Our rules are a bit different here
20:25:32 <smichel> eronel: Could I ask you to help? You seem to have a little experience from your other board, and are more cautious, to balance out my headstrong-ness :P
20:26:41 <eronel> smichel: I can look into it.
20:27:28 <unknown_lamer> aside from that, seem reasonable to agree now that we will avoid any legal action / collections actions ?
20:27:29 <smichel> #action smichel17 and eronel will look into liability and insurance for board of directors
20:27:35 <smichel> yes
20:27:46 <smichel> vote on that?
20:28:14 <smichel> *should we
20:28:19 <unknown_lamer> I propose then: the board resolves to avoid the dispute turning into any legal or collections action, and will raise funds to pay it if peer1 refuse to negotiate
20:28:31 <unknown_lamer> it hurt my pride but... they have the position of power here :-\
20:28:42 <keverets[m]> Second
20:29:01 <eronel> #info +1
20:29:04 <unknown_lamer> #info +1
20:29:07 <unknown_lamer> err
20:29:30 <unknown_lamer> smichel: since you are the president you should #info the vote: I think (at least, iirc, that is what we have always done)
20:29:41 <keverets[m]> #info +1
20:29:43 <unknown_lamer> eventually we should write down our pseudo-rules-of-order
20:30:18 <smichel> Can we revisit this vote in the jan 12 meeting when we have more info about liabilty and what our negotiating position actually is?
20:30:58 <eronel> I think this vote indicates our intentions regardless.
20:31:20 <smichel> #info Vote: the board resolves to avoid the dispute turning into any legal or collections action, and will raise funds to pay it if peer1 refuse to negotiate
20:31:20 <unknown_lamer> I don't think my position would really change ... for me, just dealing with it is the least stressful option and I don't see us having much of a case (TECHNICALLY they have every right to bill us, our contract is clear, and unless they miscalculated the mrtg data...)
20:31:30 <unknown_lamer> #info +1
20:31:36 <smichel> #info +1
20:31:39 <eronel> #info +1
20:31:49 <smichel> I'm not saying we will change it, I just want to review the decision
20:32:04 <unknown_lamer> we can always amend or reverse the decision by a vote
20:32:05 <smichel> ie, for now, if push comes to shove, we pay, but we'll talk about it again next meeting
20:32:39 <unknown_lamer> but I think it's good to make our current intentions clear, also when we inform members of what we're planning this gives them something to go on
20:32:42 <smichel> (obviously, I also voted +1; I think it's the right choice since we don't really *know* our legal footing atm)
20:33:12 <keverets[m]> #info +1
20:34:23 <unknown_lamer> #action agreed: the board resolves to avoid the dispute turning into any legal or collections action, and will raise funds to pay it if peer1 refuse to negotiate
20:34:40 <unknown_lamer> were there any other things we wanted to tack down now ?
20:36:32 <smichel> unknown_lamer: From the info I have, I'm not sure the charge is legit. The 95th percentile is 36h and you said our migrations were over for 18h. Then you've said the logs couldn't have been taking up more than 1h, so how does that put us over?
20:36:38 <docelic> #info +1
20:37:20 <smichel> Anyway, we can discuss that later since we're near out of time, ready to move on to final topic?
20:37:32 <unknown_lamer> smichel: since I can't see all of the data ... there are probably other quick spikes to just above 5Mbps and in total it all added up to where the 22Mbps samples (they are ordered highest use -> lowest use before the discarding) were the 95th
20:38:08 <unknown_lamer> but a sane human being would run the numbers, see we're at 5Mbps or lower probably at the 94th percentile (or maybe even 94.somethingth) and just throw the bill out or charge us a fraction of it
20:38:32 <smichel> My point is just that I'd like to see proof before blindly accepting the full charge
20:38:42 <smichel> And yes, have a human look at it
20:38:45 <unknown_lamer> unfortunately it appears peer1 billing are not normal sane people, assuming they have even bothered to look at it and aren't just straight up ignoring us
20:39:10 <smichel> Anyway, ready to move to last topic?
20:39:13 <unknown_lamer> smichel: right, I will keep pushing as hard as I can without being unprofessional until our give-up date
20:40:28 <unknown_lamer> works for me, I think agreeing on a date to give up, that we will avoid this turning into a legal action against us, and that we'll look into director/officer insurance is reasonable for this
20:40:43 <smichel> #topic update board pages
20:40:53 <unknown_lamer> it looks like keverets[m] updated /board today ?
20:41:04 <keverets[m]> I updated
20:41:06 <unknown_lamer> also I updated BoardArea with last few elections a couple of nights ago
20:41:23 <keverets[m]> Is there more to change?
20:41:24 <unknown_lamer> or rather, nuked that and just transcluded the HcoopElections page that's linked from the welcome page
20:41:42 <smichel> #info There are two pages about the board that were out of date: https://hcoop.net/board/ and https://wiki.hcoop.net/BoardArea
20:41:48 <unknown_lamer> we need to gather us meeting minutes is the main thing I think
20:41:49 <keverets[m]> Last few chnages haven't been committed to darcs
20:42:23 <keverets[m]> #action keverets to collate meeting minutes
20:43:05 <unknown_lamer> keverets[m]: for darcs I think just committing all changes at once is fine... fine grained revisions don't seem critical imo
20:43:16 <unknown_lamer> "update" :-D
20:43:53 <smichel> I don't think there's anything to vote on for this, just that action
20:44:10 <unknown_lamer> yeah, I can't see anything else critical
20:44:30 <unknown_lamer> 'tho I'm wondering... do we need to have our IRS 990-N forms posted publicly like that
20:44:52 <unknown_lamer> something we can discuss on the list ... I think we should look into whether we can make some of that available only to members
20:45:42 <unknown_lamer> mostly just the 990-Ns and any yearly reports with PA, since they do kind of have our EIN on them
20:46:01 <keverets[m]> When are those due?
20:46:16 <unknown_lamer> #action clinton will check if there is any legal reason we can't move IRS and state filings to a private members only area, and update the board
20:46:28 <unknown_lamer> once we find out if they need to be public, can discuss if they should
20:46:30 <smichel> Or at least redact them
20:47:01 <unknown_lamer> keverets[m]: 2018 will be due by april 15th, we need to file with PA this year with last year's director update
20:47:18 <unknown_lamer> it's kind of funky because AFAIK we have to file in jan for that ... with the last year's change in directors
20:47:40 <unknown_lamer> e-postcard can be filed right after jan 1
20:47:49 <unknown_lamer> so we should to get it out of the way
20:48:02 <smichel> We really ought to have a better organized list of all the stuff we need to do to keep the coop running
20:48:02 <unknown_lamer> keverets[m]: one thing I just noticed ... secretary address still has terpri's address
20:48:18 <unknown_lamer> smichel: we have the BoardDirectorDuties page, which is a reasonable template
20:48:26 <unknown_lamer> also the postcard and pa filing is all documented
20:48:59 <smichel> I guess also better processes then; the documentation doesn't mean much if we don't look at it :P
20:49:05 <keverets[m]> I'm starting to run low on time. What else needs to be discussed/decided?
20:49:15 <smichel> Nothing that I can think of
20:49:16 <unknown_lamer> I am good on what we've decided today
20:49:36 <smichel> anyone else have last-minute agenda items? Otherwise I'll end the meting
20:49:43 <unknown_lamer> eronel: docelic: ^^
20:49:45 <docelic> All good here.
20:50:23 <eronel> looks good
20:50:32 <smichel> #endmeeting