15:00:18 <keverets> #startmeeting 
15:00:19 <hcoop-meetbot> keverets: Meeting started at 2021-12-12T15:00+0000
15:00:20 <hcoop-meetbot> keverets: Current chairs: keverets
15:00:21 <hcoop-meetbot> keverets: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
15:00:22 <hcoop-meetbot> keverets: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
15:00:28 <keverets> #topic attendance
15:00:45 <bkhl[m]> #info bkhl
15:00:45 <keverets> if you are an hcoop member and present please write "#info $hcoop_username"
15:00:55 <keverets> #info keverets
15:01:53 <keverets> unknown_lamer, layline: --^
15:01:59 <smichel17> #info smichel17
15:02:21 <layline> #info layline
15:03:19 <keverets> will give unknown_lamer another couple of minutes
15:05:22 <keverets> OK, will get going and if unknown_lamer can join at some point then we can revisit any treasurer-specific agenda points
15:05:31 <keverets> #topic agenda
15:05:39 <keverets> #info https://wiki.hcoop.net/IrcMeetings/20211212
15:05:52 <keverets> any last minute additions to the agenda?
15:06:12 <smichel17> Yes, Snowdrift.coop collaboration discussion
15:06:23 <keverets> oh, shoot. I just realized I misread unknown_lamer's availability. It was 17:00 UTC today
15:06:35 <smichel17> forgot to add it earlier
15:06:45 <keverets> My apologies, I'm not used to thinking in UTC
15:07:01 <keverets> smichel17: noted, will add that at the end of the current agenda if that's OK?
15:07:05 <smichel17> yes
15:07:44 <keverets> any other additions?
15:08:25 <keverets> #info addition of "Snowdrift.coop collaboration discussion"
15:08:42 <keverets> #topic InCorp registered agent pricing increase
15:09:10 <keverets> There was an email sent on Friday I believe: "Urgent Notification Regarding Changes to Your InCorp Service Pricing" ; did the other board members receive it?
15:09:29 <keverets> perhaps not. It went to "payment@hcoop.net"
15:10:11 <bkhl[m]> Yeah, I don't think I saw it.
15:10:12 <keverets> I'll forward it to the board. Key points are "as of January 15, 2022, we are implementing a 30% increase in our registered agent pricing - all other pricing will remain the same.", "we have created a tool in your online account to pre-purchase multiple years of service at your current rate effectively locking your current rate for up to 10 years.", "you still have the option to pre-pay additional years of
15:10:18 <keverets> service at your current rate through January 14, 2022 at midnight."
15:10:40 <keverets> forwarding the full email to the board now
15:11:23 <smichel17> What's their current rate?
15:11:23 <keverets> Let me know if you want a couple of minutes to read it, or if that summary is sufficient for discussion
15:11:46 <layline> lemme read it
15:12:24 <smichel17> I see their website says $129/year, or cheaper with a multi-year purchase (down to $87/year)
15:12:43 <keverets> smichel17: from https://wiki.hcoop.net/PendingExpenses?highlight=%28incorp%29 it was $99
15:12:54 <keverets> I'm looking for a more recent financial report
15:13:17 <layline> [finished reading the email]
15:13:25 <keverets> https://wiki.hcoop.net/HcoopBudget?highlight=%28incorp%29
15:13:32 <keverets> seems to confirm $99
15:14:09 <keverets> bkhl[m]: need more time, or ready?
15:14:40 <bkhl[m]> No, I understand, seems reasonable to pay a few years in advance.
15:14:49 <bkhl[m]> Don't know by what criteria to decide how many.
15:15:46 <keverets> from https://hcoop.net/board/meetings/2021/hcoop.20210912.1701.html (last board meeting) the balance sat at $3,938.81
15:16:59 <keverets> I'm thinking of something along the lines of 5 years of prepayment
15:17:28 <keverets> smichel17: do you have a convenient URL to add to the info?
15:17:33 <smichel17> It's not clear to me what this multi-year discount down to $87/year is
15:17:50 <layline> 5 years would be an appropriate interval for a crypto-marxist organization like hcoop ;^)
15:18:13 <smichel17> https://www.incorp.com/ lists rates on the home page, but doesn't explain terms of multi-year purchases
15:18:27 <smichel17> Just the info I shared already
15:19:12 <bkhl[m]> I guess we can decide we'll get five years, contacting them first to see if there's some discount for paying in advance?
15:19:14 <keverets> #info https://www.incorp.com/ lists "$129/year* Registered Agent Service" and "*As low as $87/year in the 50 US and DC with purchase of multi-year service."
15:19:40 <keverets> #info no more detailed information without logging in
15:20:03 <keverets> bkhl[m]: I think that's a good plan
15:21:34 <keverets> #info vote: prepay for 5 years of InCorp Registered Agent Service, after contacting them to explore additional discount for paying in advance
15:22:06 <bkhl[m]> #info second
15:22:15 <keverets> #info +1
15:22:21 <bkhl[m]> #info +1
15:22:36 <layline> #info +1
15:23:12 <keverets> #agreed contact to determine additional discount, commit to 5 years of prepayment
15:23:12 <hcoop-meetbot> keverets: Unknown command: #agreed
15:23:19 <keverets> hmm... thought that one was in there
15:23:27 <keverets> ah, well. Will touch things up later
15:23:44 <keverets> #topic Plan/timeline for handling delinquent members
15:24:12 <keverets> #info https://members.hcoop.net/portal/money shows 14 members in negative balance, 3 of which are more than 6 months past due
15:24:21 <bkhl[m]> keverets: it seems to be #accepted
15:24:22 <keverets> unknown_lamer spoke to that one on the meeting wiki page
15:24:55 <keverets> is there any action that should be taken to ensure that the dues reminders go out correctly?
15:25:05 <bkhl[m]> It seems Clinton is still working on what was decided earlier?
15:25:32 <keverets> ok, can leave it at that and speak to it a bit in the "system administration support" topic
15:26:23 <keverets> any other thoughts before moving on to the next topic?
15:28:05 <smichel17> not here
15:28:06 <keverets> #action unknown_lamer to continue his stated actions in the meeting page (ping a few more people manually)
15:28:40 <keverets> #info "Dues reminders did not go out correctly for two months"; will revisit if similar disruptions reoccur
15:28:47 <keverets> #topic mlton package update
15:29:49 <keverets> #info "with pronovic gone this is never getting done (unless another debian developer is in the coop and wants to help) and we'll just have to build mlton manually again or build a custom package (which I had issues with and gave up on at some point)"
15:29:59 <keverets> do we know of another debian developer in the coop?
15:30:55 <keverets> or are there others who are interested in helping build a custom package?
15:31:37 <keverets> looks like it's a requirement for domtool
15:31:46 <keverets> #info previous discussion at https://hcoop.net/board/meetings/2021/hcoop.2021-04-17-14.02.log.html
15:31:53 <smichel17> reads
15:33:20 <keverets> #info https://packages.debian.org/sid/mlton
15:34:01 <keverets> #info not available in Debian stable or testing
15:35:16 <smichel17> Well, we either need to find *someone* to package it, build it manually, or migrate to a different tech stack
15:35:47 <keverets> #info mlton only stretch(oldoldstable) and sid(unstable) both at 20130715-3, though mlton-compiler version 20180207-1 is in sid
15:36:43 <keverets> smichel17: ok, I don't have enough information to form a vote
15:37:14 <keverets> Does anyone else have information on how urgent this is? Are there security concerns or anything else? domtool appears to be working as-is, but is this blocking something else?
15:38:37 <keverets> ok, if not I'll follow up with unknown_lamer later to determine what next actions should be
15:38:55 <keverets> #action keverets to follow up with unknown_lamer about next actions for mlton
15:39:02 <keverets> #topic System administration support
15:39:21 <smichel17> I guess I'd like to raise another concern about unknown_lamer being the only person who knows what's going on here.
15:39:25 <keverets> unknown_lamer noted "I expect to be unable to do more than basic maintenance for at least another couple of months"
15:39:31 <smichel17> (err, that's in the mlton topic)
15:39:32 <keverets> and I have the same concern as smichel17
15:39:41 <keverets> but more generally ;)
15:39:46 <keverets> though there are a couple of other sysadmins
15:39:53 <keverets> who also seem to be very busy
15:40:03 <keverets> do we have a list of who has administrative access?
15:40:35 <keverets> Davor at least
15:40:55 <smichel17> jackhill might?
15:41:14 <keverets> #info https://wiki.hcoop.net/TaskDistribution
15:41:31 <keverets> #info seems out-of-date --^
15:42:29 <keverets> has there been a process to grant sysadmin access in the past? Or has it just been motivated members that have shown some proficiency?
15:43:38 <smichel17> From watching IRC discussions, I have the sense that most things are in a puppet config somewhere— maybe maintainers should be listed in that config, too, so it's easier to keep up to date. Of course, it also needs to be accessible; I'm not sure if anyone but admins can see it at the moment
15:43:57 <smichel17> s/maintiners/sysadmins/
15:44:36 <keverets> that would be convenient. It seems as though it's the kind of thing that could be made public via unix group membership (or whatever the kerberos equivalent is)?
15:45:31 <keverets> are there any suggestions on what can be done to help out unknown_lamer and keep the system administration role more diversified so one person doesn't get burned out handling so much?
15:46:29 <smichel17> I'm not sure what about a long-term solution, but in the short to medium term, I'd be up for helping out
15:47:41 <smichel17> Err, meaning I'm up for helping out indefinitely, so it's "long term" in that way, but it doesn't really fix the systemic problem of how we got into this situation to begin with
15:47:59 <keverets> ok, smichel17 are you ok to take the action to follow up with unknown_lamer (and any other identified system admins) to start that process?
15:48:09 <smichel17> Yes
15:48:52 <keverets> #action smichel17 to engage unknown_lamer and other system administrators to get access and contribute
15:49:13 <keverets> bkhl[m], layline: any thoughts on the above before moving on to the next topic?
15:49:28 <bkhl[m]> Nothing from me.
15:50:30 <keverets> #topic Snowdrift.coop collaboration discussion
15:50:34 <keverets> smichel17: you have the floor
15:51:12 <smichel17> I wrote out most of it the other day, so I'll copy-paste for meeting notes and anyone who wasn't around:
15:51:30 <keverets> (make use of #info to get them into the minutes :) )
15:51:45 <smichel17> #info Last week, Aaron (Snowdrift.coop cofounder) and I had a conversation with a coop consultant (who also happens to be our lawyer; long story short, she's an aligned person and we're paying for her time-as-a-lawyer and bartering for time-as-a-coop-consultant). One of the insights that came out of that discussion is that Snowdrift.coop and hcoop both occupy a niche that's otherwise pretty empty: the intersection between the cooperative and so
15:51:47 <smichel17> ftware freedom movements.
15:52:01 <smichel17> #info Relatedly, Snowdrift.coop has recently been doing some soul-searching (err, metaphorically) to try and figure out why the heck we haven't been able to get ourselves to launch yet, 8 years after the project was started. One of the things we've identified is a lack of skills: organizational (while we all like cooperative ideals, we don't have a ton of experience actually running co-ops) and technical.
15:53:05 <bkhl[m]> When you say "our lawyer" you mean Snowdrift's?
15:53:06 <smichel17> #info On the other hand, hcoop has people with those skills (particularly technical), but most of our problems are related to not having the time to do things; in our capitalist society, time == money… which, of course, is exactly the problem Snowdrift.coop is looking to solve (funding people to work on FLO stuff)
15:53:37 <smichel17> yes
15:54:48 <smichel17> #info For a long time, I've had the opinion that we're aligned orgs and maybe someday we could do something together. But this recent conversation really just "clicked" *how* similar the space we occupy is, and that each org actually might be well-positioned to help solve the other's problems.
15:55:04 <smichel17> #info I'm not sure what that collaboration might look like, but I think it's worth talking about
15:55:12 <smichel17> (fin.)
15:56:38 <keverets> That's interesting. I'm not sure what that would look like either. It seems like a difficult thing to seed when we're starved for technical resource time to start with
15:56:45 <bkhl[m]> If they want to fund projects that are about things that can be run as "public goods", then I suppose it would make sense for Snowdrift to support some of the projects we use.
15:56:48 <smichel17> One thing it might look like is hcoop being an early project of Snowdrift.coop's, once we launch
15:57:07 <keverets> If snowdrift.coop could be used to fund, say, hcoop system admin work, then it could help on both fronts
15:57:11 <smichel17> Yeah. Not directly the hcoop services, but stuff like domtool, getting mlton packaged, etc
15:57:26 <keverets> what's the state of snowdrift.coop? How close to launch is it? Is there some pre-launch state that's still beneficial?
15:57:43 <smichel17> (because Snowdrift.coop only funds public goods)
15:58:00 <smichel17> Snowdrift.coop is both incredibly close to launch and far away from it
15:58:13 <bkhl[m]> smichel17: yeah, that's what I mean by "projects we use".
15:58:23 <smichel17> d
15:58:30 <keverets> smichel17: can you be a bit more specific on what is close and what is far?
15:58:35 <smichel17> (d = +1 / thumbs up)
15:59:18 <smichel17> Technically, we have a functioning pledge mechanism, although it's hard-coded to only a single project; you can create an account, enter credit card info, and become a patron of Snowdrift.coop itself
15:59:45 <smichel17> In theory it's hooked up to Stripe to actually charge people, but we haven't run a charge yet (needs testing first)
15:59:51 <keverets> is that single project snowdrift.coop itself, or something else?
16:00:08 <smichel17> The single project is snowdrift.coop itself
16:00:13 <keverets> why was a test charge not run?
16:00:51 <smichel17> The test charge hasn't been run primarily because we've been lacking technical expertise
16:01:20 <smichel17> We haven't been able to make real development progress on the website in the several years since we ran out of funding for our then-lead developer
16:02:02 <keverets> how is the website hosted?
16:02:04 <smichel17> The site is in Haskell, which nobody on the team knows well, and there were some compile time issues that were preventing us from iterating on it (particularly the frontend)
16:02:31 <bkhl[m]> That sounds like a familiar issue. :- P
16:02:32 <smichel17> It's hosted at the Ohio State University's Open Source Lab (OSUOSL). Before the OSUOSL we were on AWS (ec2)
16:03:11 <smichel17> It's familiar, but a little different. At hcoop, we *have* people (volunteers) with the technical expertise, they just don't have time time to work on it.
16:03:41 <smichel17> At snowdrift, it's more like we have volunteers with time, but not the skills to be effective
16:04:42 <smichel17> I'm personally trying to become more knowledgeable so I can step into the tech lead role— which is part of why I'm interested in becoming an hcoop sysadmin, too; hopefully I can learn things which are relevant to helping snowdrift
16:05:25 <keverets> OK. I'm open to future collaboration, but it's not clear yet what we can do to define or encourage that. Perhaps you want to put out a request for help or mentoring with some future financial support (via the snowdrift mechanism) for those that offer it?
16:07:19 <keverets> there may be some future option of making more direct use of hcoop resources, too, but for now it seems that OSUOSL seems like a good home for it
16:07:40 <smichel17> There's other organizational issues, too, which are less concrete / harder to point a finger at (and more related to why we haven't found somebody to be the tech lead), but I think the tech barrier is the primary one for not having a functioning site at the moment
16:08:09 <smichel17> Are there folks here with a Haskell development background who might be able to provide advice?
16:08:46 <bkhl[m]> I know even less of it than SML. :-)
16:09:02 <keverets> I have some Haskell development background, but am quite rusty now (it's been several years since I last used it)
16:09:21 <smichel17> E.g. I was trying to troubleshoot build time issues the other day, and someone who could have pointed me in the right direction with regards to tooling could have saved a lot of time (https://github.com/smichel17/yesod-perf-test/issues/1)
16:09:34 <keverets> for organizational issues, copying the hcoop setup may be useful if you find this organization effective
16:10:22 <smichel17> *org/culture :P. More about how we interact than how we're formally organized, I think
16:10:46 <smichel17> We just finished (and are about to file) updated articles, then will start working on our bylaws
16:12:10 <keverets> OK. Unfortunately I have to leave soon (approximately 4 minutes). Is there something in particular you'd like to continue to explore now, or follow up after the meeting to keep the conversation going?
16:12:51 <smichel17> Follow up after the meeting is fine. I'd like to know what particular non-rivalrous things hcoop could use funding on that might make our lives easier
16:14:14 <keverets> #info general discussion of potential interaction, details will be in meeting full logs. Discussion will continue post-board meeting
16:14:22 <keverets> any other topics before wrapping up?
16:14:55 <smichel17> >
16:15:12 <keverets> (unsure what ">" signifies)
16:15:13 <smichel17> (shorthand for "I'm ready to move on")
16:15:17 <keverets> ah, ok. thanks
16:15:41 <keverets> Well, thanks for your time everyone. Hope you all have happy holidays and we'll meet again in the new year (unless something really urgent comes up)
16:15:56 <layline> cheers
16:16:16 <keverets> #endmeeting