16:02 < Smerdyakov> OK, everyone present and participating, please say your HCoop username.
16:02 < Smerdyakov> adamc
16:02 < docelic> docelic
16:02 < leitgebj> leitgebj
16:02 < bkhl> bkhl
16:02 < ntk> ntk
16:02 < mwolson> mwolson
16:03 < Smerdyakov> How disappointing that none of the rank and file membership wants to participate.  Oh well!
16:03 < Smerdyakov> Any last minute requests to add items to the agenda at http://wiki.hcoop.net/IrcMeetings/20080419 ?
16:03 < ntk> yes
16:03 < ntk> if we have time at the end
16:03 < ntk> i thought it might be nice to suggest policy committees
16:03 < ntk> such as privacy & environmental
16:03 < ntk> but seeing as nobody is participating besides the board
16:03 < ntk> that might be relegated to something later on the list
19:36 < leitgebj> I would like to clear allowing ntk to give me access to the data center, since I am now in Brooklyn and can act as another line of on-site support.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I vote yes for leitgebj in the data center.
19:36 < mwolson> maybe people are here but just didn't know that they were supposed to say their username
19:36 < Smerdyakov> This is probably a good time to mention that I'm moving out of NYC.
19:36 < ntk> that's kind of out of order, but i agree.  either I or adam is authorized to add him to the list, it's just a matter of getting him a key and card
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I decided to quit my job, and I've taken a research job at Harvard.
19:36 < docelic> I vote yes for leitgebj in the data center, even though ntk's been there often lately
19:36 < ntk> okay
19:36 < ntk> that is news
19:36 < ntk> i might be moving out too, although i am looking for work in NYC ideally
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I can give leitgebj my keys.
19:36 < ntk> okay
19:36 < ntk> that works best then
19:36 < leitgebj> Congratulations, Smerdyakov.  Sounds like this will be a good move for you.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> It's a 60%-time post-doc position, so I will have 2 weekdays a week when I can do HCoop stuff with reckless abandon if necessary.
19:36 < ntk> yes
19:36 < Smerdyakov> But I will also be working on a start-up in that time, so no great promises.
19:36 < ntk> understood
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Until roughly June 1, I'm available almost any time for HCoop stuff.
19:36 < bkhl> Maybe you sholdn't have told us that. ;-)
19:36 < ntk> well
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk & leitgebj, should we meet up some time this weekend for key exchange?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Also, mostly off-topic, leitgebj, what brings you to Brooklyn?
19:36 < ntk> i was about to suggest that we should all get together sometime while the 3 of us are still in NYC
19:36 < leitgebj> I am driving back to the City Sunday night.  Does early next week work?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Early next week works, too, for me.
19:36 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov, I'm programming for http://outside.in, and doing systems stuff full-time.
19:36 < ntk> works for me
19:36 < ntk> is that like a company that subcontracts outsourced work from india?
19:36 < ntk> :-)
19:36 < leitgebj> :)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, we should schedule this after the meeting is over.
19:36 < ntk> alright
19:36 < leitgebj> OK
19:36 < Smerdyakov> So everyone's happy with the agenda now?
19:36 < leitgebj> Yes
19:36 < ntk> i am
19:36 < bkhl> Me too.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, then there's choosing officers.  This is probably really easy.  Does anyone object to keeping the current officer assignment?
19:36 < ntk> yes
19:36 < ntk> i think we should talk it over
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK
19:36 -!- mwolson changed the topic of #hcoop to: HCoop: Cooperative Internet Hosting | http://hcoop.net/ | Member Manual: http://wiki.hcoop.net/MemberManual | Board meeting in progress
19:36 < ntk> I definitely would be happy keeping AdamC as treasurer if he is willing, however, I was thinking of ceding 
19:36 < ntk> secretary position to Justin L, if he is willing
19:36 -!- ApM [n=jeremy@c-24-16-137-192.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #hcoop
19:36 < ntk> And I also wanted to nominate Mr. Ocelic as president
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I don't want to be treasurer, but I'm willing to keep doing it.
19:36 < ntk> hrm
19:36 < ntk> well,
19:36 < ntk> i would be willing to stay on as either secretary or treasurer, my only thought was that it might be preferable that someone as insolvent as myself NOT be treasurer, as a matter of propriety
19:36 < ntk> it might be different if i were already securely employed at this time
19:36 < docelic> I think it would be best if Adam continued to be the treasurer for this year.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, also, are you expressing a preference for docelic over me as president?
19:36 < ntk> i think that the title is kind of unfortunately chosen, but i think that there's no reason that it should stay the same from year to year and with five members on the board i don't see the need for a continued dual role, yes
19:36 < ntk> and i wish someone besides myself would chime in
19:36 < bkhl> I agree with ntk.
19:36 < leitgebj> I support ntk's preference here, and I think that some change in offices would not be a bad thing.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, are you interested in the role of hounding people to do what they said they'd do, which is the one of the main roles of the president as I see it? :)
19:36 < ntk> I am guessing that neither Bjorn nor Davor wants the treasurer position, given that it involves dealing with american banking
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I would love not to be an officer, but I'm not sure that leads to the best situation for the co-op.
19:36 < leitgebj> I can take the treasurer position, if Smerdyakov is interested in ceding it.
19:36 < ntk> although i was thinking we could switch to rabobank
19:36 < ntk> hm
19:36 < ntk> that is an idea as well
19:36 < bkhl> ntk is right about me as treasurer.
19:36 < bkhl> In addition I'm probably about as solvent as ntk at this time...
19:36 < ntk> this is why i didn't want to simply continue to have everything stay the same as default
19:36 < ntk> we have two new board members
19:36 < ntk> so it must be decided by consensus
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, a switch would be good, unless someone on the west coast becomes treasurer.  (That's the only place where our bank, Wells Fargo, has branches.)
19:36 < ntk> it would be trivial to switch banks
19:36 -!- Netsplit simmons.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: unknown_lamer
19:36 < ntk> that should not be determinative
19:36 < docelic> I am interested in it, and I wanted to take this part of work off of you Smerdyakov, so this will be an incentive to really do it.
19:36 < mwolson> hmm ... if the President is supposed to hound people, then there could be a conflict of interest if docelic takes the role
19:36 < mwolson> of sorts
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, the main overhead is presenting our official corporate identifying material.
19:36 < leitgebj> There is actually a banking cooperative in Brooklyn which I was going to look into for personal use.
19:36 < mwolson> (given that admins are amount the hound-ees)
19:36 < mwolson> s/amount/among/
19:36 < ntk> Smerdyakov: do you have a preference to the treasurer versus the secretary role, if you want to continue as an officer?  i am guessing from our experience that being treasurer is more of a PITA
19:36 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, that is a good point.
19:36 < ntk> (pain in the arse)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, yes, but at the same time, I'm used to it. :-)
19:36 < ntk> leitgebj: most credit unions, other than the National Cooperative Bank, do not allow corporate members
19:36 < bkhl> Also so much of it is your money right now. ;-)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> But I am OK with docelic as president, though sometimes we have had some communication problems.... like the Bugzilla comment I added to a bug assigned to him more than a week ago, with no response yet. ;)
19:36 < ntk> rabobank is dutch cooperative bank
19:36 < ntk> with usa branches
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, like you said, I hope the various motivations in here can prompt you to be more prompt in communication. :)
19:36 < mwolson> maybe we could split off the hounding into a separate role
19:36 < ntk> i would like to point out that hounding has nothing to do with the president's role in the bylaws, although i guess it has fallen to that
19:36 < Smerdyakov> That works, too.
19:36 < bkhl> I assume the bylaws assumes no hounding is necessary.
19:36 < ntk> "President" is president of the board, not any special executive position over the co-op
19:36 < mwolson> ok, good
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Various parties have imputed that this is my role, and expressed disapproval if I'm not doing it enough. :P
19:36 < ntk> the bylaws just say that the president presides over meetings, which is kind of tautological
19:36 < bkhl> Smerdyakov: then you should be glad to be rid of that role, no?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I am glad to get rid of as many roles as I can without leaving the co-op in a bad state.
19:36 < bkhl> Ah.
19:36 < ntk> the co-op will be fine.  all directors are equal for most all purposes anyway
19:36 < docelic> hounding basically comes down to overseering various developments in HCoop going on, and taking necessary measures to ensure progress. This has been valuable for us in the past, so we should keep that "facility".
19:36  * mwolson nominates Smerdyakov for the role of Cat-Herder
19:36 < ntk> perhaps in the next round of bylaws revisions we can change the titles of the officers
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, that's not obvious to me.  In the past, I've needed to maintain continual prodding for any progress to be made.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, even when others were assigned particular prodder roles.
19:36 < bkhl> Well, I don't think it's possible to make that work by assigning someone to do it.
19:36 < bkhl> Who will prod the prodder?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> That person has to be committed.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Eventually, that person should be paid, which helps.
19:36 < bkhl> And that has been you up til now.
19:36 < ntk> alright, it seems to me that Bjorn is not interested in being an officer, and that the roles of Treasurer and Secretary must be assigned to some subgroup of Justin, myself, and Adam
19:36 < ntk> to return to the matter at hand
19:36 < Smerdyakov> There is some additional overhead of transfering treasurerhood relating to our debit card and PayPal/Google Checkout set-ups.
19:36 < mwolson> maybe Prime Mover would be a better title ...
19:36 -!- Netsplit over, joins: unknown_lamer
19:36 < ntk> um, probably not
19:36 < docelic> I vote for keeping Adam as the trasurer for this year. Others?
19:36 < ntk> Smerdyakov: is the balance updating automated now for those who have set paypal/checkout addresses?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Also, right now, in my role as treasurer, I record new members' initial payments and also create their accounts.  Any admin can also record the payments, but docelic has said that he doesn't think that's appropriate.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, no.
19:36 < ntk> docelic: i agree if he is willing
19:36 < leitgebj> docelic, I also agree if he is willing
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I'm willing but would prefer that someone else take the role, assuming we can work out the issues I just mentioned.
19:36 < ntk> and I think that our resident grad student Justin would do as fine or better a job as secretary, if he is willing or desirous of it, as me
19:36 < ntk> well
19:36 < Smerdyakov> It sounds like, given the justification ntk has shared, the only reasonable choices for treasurer are leitgebj and I.
19:36 < docelic> Ok, so Adam remains the treasurer for now. I would like we take care of the technicalities first, and *then* change the treasurer, instead of the other way around.
19:36 < ntk> I can trust myself to be treasurer but I just think as a matter of policy our treasurer should be someone non-insolvent.  if you really don't want that role, i'd pawn off being secretary to justin and be treasurer, conditional on my resigning if it turns out that i don't get a job and end up living in a gutter somewhere
19:36 < ntk> because that would be crossing the line
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, would you be up for becoming treasurer after docelic is satisfied with "the technicalities"?
19:36 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov, yes
19:36 < ntk> hm,
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, well, is it really that big a problem, if the secretary and others run audits periodically?
19:36 < ntk> I guess it is not, with an organization our size.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, then here's my understanding of a consensus or something that might become a consensus with a little more discussion: docelic as president, me as treasurer until certain issues are resolved and then leitgebj, ntk as secretary.
19:36 < docelic> +1
19:36 < ntk> give me 15 seconds to digest that
19:36 < Smerdyakov> We should file Bugzilla bugs as we come up with action items during meetings.  I'm going to file one now about the Brooklyn meet-up.
19:36 < bkhl> How about setting a time for which we elect Smerdyakov temporary treasurer.
19:36 < ntk> leitgebj: do I understand that you are happy to be treasurer?
19:36 < leitgebj> Yes, that is fine.
19:36 < ntk> if we are going to transition him anyway, i believe it would make much more sense
19:36 < docelic> bkhl, no need to introduce unnecessary deadlines.. the role will be moved over when we're ready. you agree?
19:36 < ntk> for us to make justin treasurer NOW with an understanding that he will work with adam
19:36 < ntk> to transfer responsibilities as possible
19:36 < bkhl> That makes sense.
19:36 < docelic> Probably, yes. OK.
19:36 < bkhl> leitgebj: that works for you?
19:36 < leitgebj> bkhl, yes
19:36 < ntk> I take it Adam you would see being treasurer as a pointless chore?
19:36 < ntk> i mean
19:36 < ntk> secretary
19:36 < ntk> not treasurer
19:36 < ntk> i should rephrase that
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, I see the importance of all of the officer roles; I'd just rather not be doing them after doing most of the work behind HCoop for 6 years.
19:36 < ntk> Okay
19:36 < ntk> understood
19:36 < ntk> then I will add my +1 happily to that scheme
19:36 < ntk> do we now have a consensus? sec = ntk, treas = jsl, pres = doc?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> +1
19:36 < docelic> +-1
19:36 < leitgebj> +1
19:36 < docelic> +1
19:36 < bkhl> +1
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, huh?
19:36 < ntk> alright.
19:36 < ntk> only half an hour for the first agenda item
19:36 < Smerdyakov> What did docelic's vote mean? O_o
19:36 < ntk> 0 +- 1 + 1 = 1
19:36 < bkhl> Typo I assume.
19:36 < mwolson> 0 +- 1 + 1 = 1 +- 1
19:36 < docelic> yes, a typo.
19:36 < ntk> Adam, I will assume that our roles begin after this meeting, so you can continue to move things along
19:36 < ntk> to scheduling fyodor's decommissioning
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK.  Can anyone think of any use of fyodor that remains, beyond for members who asked for migration extensions of a week?
19:36 < ntk> No, although when we say one week I think that this should be interpreted to two or three weeks of realtime
19:36 < bkhl> How many are those and a week from when?
19:36 < ntk> before we pull the plug
19:36 < bkhl> How about making it the end of the month?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> bkhl, I think we just have aaditya for sure... a week from the old deadline.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> bkhl, dsw might not be done migrating yet.  Not sure there.
19:36 < ntk> in fact we should disable logins a good 7 days before we pull the plug, in order to catch the people who start screaming anew
19:36 < mwolson> Smerdyakov: i migrated dsw by hand the day of switching hcoop.net to deleuze
19:36 < ntk> i was just talking to brian bue, he had some issues but i think i managed to resolve them all
19:36 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, OK, thanks.
19:36 < mwolson> +1 for pulling the plug at the end of the month
19:36 < ntk> i actually have to move an old mailing list off of there myself :-/ although i think i'll just send them all a final email saying "nice knowing ya"
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Our bill from InterServer comes at around the 24th of each month.
19:36 < bkhl> Ah.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I don't think we will be ready by that time this month.
19:36 < mwolson> ntk: just file a Mailman bug and i'll get to it ASAP
19:36 < Smerdyakov> So maybe shortly before May 24?
19:36 < ntk> i agree with that
19:36 < ntk> it makes sense
19:36 < leitgebj> Sounds good.
19:36 < ntk> mwolson, will do but don't think of it as important.  i will put it as low priority
19:36 < ntk> I think we should plan on disabling logins on fyodor ~may 15th, and announce that
19:36 < mwolson> hmm ... i'd rather turn off fyodor at least a week before the next bill
19:36 < ntk> and then we can log in and wipe things out a few days later
19:36 < leitgebj> I agree with ntk's idea about disabling user logins one week before shutting down fyodor, but I think that at that time we should disable all other services as well.
19:36 < mwolson> ok, may 15 would work for me
19:36 < ntk> Yes
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK
19:36 < ntk> that is kind of what i menat
19:36 < ntk> meant
19:36 < leitgebj> OK
19:36 < bkhl> So when would we pull the plug then?
19:36 < ntk> after we have dd'd /dev/urandom to all our partitions
19:36 < ntk> which should be a couple days before our interserver deadline.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Should we try to transfer some kind of back-up of fyodor somewhere safe first?
19:36 < leitgebj> Yes
19:36 < ntk> there'd be no harm in it, if someone wants to put it on a few dvds or something.  although users may not want us indefinitely retaining stray data left on there
19:36 < ntk> such as old mail
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Saving it for a few months might be reasonable, though.
19:36 < ntk> yes
19:36 < ntk> and then incinerating it
19:36 < mwolson> dsw definitely wants us to get rid of his data on fyodor
19:36 < ntk> docelic: do you still have the old backups that you took off of fyodor or abulafia to europe way back when?
19:36 < mwolson> in a reasonably secure way
19:36 < ntk> i wouldn't feel terribly comfortable with that myself
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I've been the InterServer billing contact person, so I should probably manage canceling our account there.
19:36 < ntk> there's probably some titilating material on fyodor:/var/mail/ntk
19:36 -!- docelic [n=docelic@78.134.195.102] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
19:36 < ntk> not that it would be of interest to anyone present :-)
19:36 -!- docelic [n=docelic@78.134.199.186] has joined #hcoop
19:36 < bkhl> docelic: you missed nothing.
19:36 < ntk> :-)
19:36 < docelic> Connection problems. Alright. ;)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Any objections to my contacting InterServer billing folks after our next bill comes in, saying that we want to cancel our account at the end of the billing cycle that begins then?
19:36 < ntk> i in fact vote that we do just that
19:36 < leitgebj> +1
19:36 < bkhl> +1
19:36 < docelic> +1
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, I guess that's that.
19:36 < ntk> now, naughty users.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Now we have those pesky negative-balance members.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I want to make sure you're all familiar with the auditing tools in place on the portal, including some I added recently re: our new balance policy.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Starting from this URL: https://members.hcoop.net/portal/money?audit=1
19:36 < ntk> i find it somewhat confusing that the balances indicated include deposits, and don't match the balance on the finance summary page.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Do you all see 6 links that start with "List..."?
19:36 < leitgebj> yes
19:36 < docelic> yes
19:36 < ntk> yes
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, yeah, that's kind of confusing, but I prefer to think about things more simply.
19:36 < ntk> fair enough (for now)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, so if you follow the freezing link, you should see just justin recommended for freezing.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Let me look at the code again and remember the conditions for this.
19:36 < ntk> i say we give him a couple days and do just that
19:36 < ntk> and we can kick out everyone on the kickout list.  although you said there were only three
19:36 < ntk> i guess the rest already spoke with us
19:36 < bkhl> I guess it would be good if all these pages also listed what the current deposit is for reference, at least.
19:36 < leitgebj> The second user in the kickout list should be contacted first,  I think.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, it means that his balance is greater than the amount needed to pay for one month, but less than the amount needed to pay for two months.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, hold on, we'll get there. :)
19:36 < leitgebj> ok
19:36 < Smerdyakov> So, if we freeze such a person's account, we can retain his membership for a month without going into the red.
19:36 < ntk> yes.
19:36 < ntk> this was what we had decided at our last board meeting
19:36 < ntk> i think
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Now, I've had contact with most of the affected people in my role as treasurer.
19:36 < bkhl> That was my understanding too.
19:36 < leitgebj> sounds good to me
19:36 < docelic> to interrupt, are you folks getting tons of email to your hcoop account right now? I received 700 messages
19:36 < leitgebj> nothing here yet
19:36 < Smerdyakov> justin wants to leave HCoop but is busy with school and told me he just needs a little more time to make sure he's ready to leave.  He made a payment to last him until his planned departure date.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, nothing that SpamAssassin let through.
19:36 < mwolson> i'm not seeing tons of messages here either
19:36 < ntk> actually, i don't know why i am getting the Mail
19:36 < ntk> er, the MailMan hcoop mailing list moderator stuff
19:36 < mwolson> i'll prioritize getting mail off of deleuze onto xanadu, in hopes of keeping deleuze nice and nimble
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Well, we can deal with this later.  Doesn't seem like board meeting material.
19:36 < mwolson> true
19:36 < bkhl> Smerdyakov: I still think it's a good idea to freeze his account before kicking him out completely.
19:36 < ntk> yes, sorry
19:36 < Smerdyakov> bkhl, justin's?  You think he won't follow through on his stated schedule?
19:36 < ntk> bkhl: maybe the hosting stuff, but we need to let him log in to get stuff off righnt?
19:36 < ntk> if he already cleared up that he is leaving then there is no added incentive in getting him to pay by locking his account
19:36 < bkhl> Sure.
19:36 < ntk> so in his case i think we can leave it online up to the day it goes negative
19:36 < bkhl> Well, as long as he understands that he will be out in the cold after that.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> So now we have the members that the portal recommends kicking out.
19:36 < ntk> alright
19:36 < docelic> alright for justin
19:36 < Smerdyakov> hoan contacted me saying that he wanted out and would pay off his balance, then commenced radio silence.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> That was a week ago when I last heard from him.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> It's such a small negative amount that I should probably just remove his account, since he did ask to close it.
19:36 < ntk> that is a problem.  it would be sad to lose one of our oceania members,
19:36 < Smerdyakov> If he pays us $4 at some point, great, but no big deal if not.
19:36 < ntk> ok
19:36 < ntk> i agree
19:36 < bkhl> Me too.
19:36 < docelic> ok
19:36 < ntk> if he said he's leaving, let's boot him
19:36 < leitgebj> agreed
19:36 < Smerdyakov> chichiri and graham haven't even migrated, and they haven't responded to e-mail.
19:36 < docelic> graham went silent back then when we were trying to use setup at Cernio
19:36 < docelic> I think noone heared from him since then
19:36 < ntk> I can settle this one
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Graham's been a real annoyin' fella about this kind of thing.
19:36 < ntk> transfer enough from my balance to graham to get him up to date
19:36 < ntk> if he pays me back, that's fine.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, you have reason to believe that he still wants to be part of HCoop?
19:36 < ntk> I think he's just being busy/flaky as he is.
19:36 < ntk> not in any significant way
19:36 < leitgebj> I agree with ntk, that is my impression as well
19:36 < ntk> but i don't want to give him another reason to have a negative impression of HCoop
19:36 < docelic> +1 for 'fixing' graham for the next period
19:36 < bkhl> You mean transfer from your account to keep him on as a member, or to put him on zero?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> His negative balance is trivial enough that it wouldn't matter much if we just dropped him.
19:36 < ntk> and i would like to leave the door open to Cooperation between Cooperatives, even presently flaky and iffy ones, in the future
19:36 < ntk> it's a small sum.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> In general, it's bad for us to make exceptions on payment policies.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> We should have a good reason for making one for graham.  He doesn't need to be an HCoop member to leave open the possibility of collaboration.
19:36 < ntk> i mean $17.06.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Besides, Cernio isn't a cooperative.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> It's a name for Graham.
19:36 < ntk> neither were we prior to valentine's day of 2005.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Yup, and we didn't try to persuade anyone to work with us for reasons of "inter-cooperative cooperation" before then.
19:36 < ntk> I'm giving him $17.06.  i'll email him, if he goes negative and doesn't pay or leaves that's his business
19:36 < leitgebj> I think that in this case it is worthwhile.  Graham has been trying to make things cooperative, and he has some strong connections that may be useful to us, based on his list traffic.
19:36 < ntk> it's nothing
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, OK.  I'll add the transfer now.
19:36 < docelic> ntk, it's not only that.. I was looking at their mailing lists, and it's Graham... we had a structure even though we were not  an established non-profit
19:36 < bkhl> ntk: you write Graham about this?
19:36 < docelic> cernio isn't.
19:36 < ntk> you've paid off negative balances of people for no good reason in the past yourself.  and have had an unduly high pledge amount as well
19:36 < ntk> do not question
19:36 < ntk> :-)
19:36 < ntk> bkhl: i will email him
19:36 < ntk> Smerdyakov: thanks.
19:36 < docelic> I vote +1 for letting ntk take care of graham
19:36 < bkhl> I don't think we need to vote about what ntk does with his money.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, I did that after they were booted.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> But I just added the transfer.
19:36 < ntk> yes, with the transfer we cannot boot him.
19:36 < ntk> next person.
19:36 < ntk> our relations with cernio are not on the agenda, so let's not take that scenic overlook
19:36 < Smerdyakov> quarl is a friend of mine from grad school, and I'm kind of surprised that he's been ignoring my e-mails from my old Berkeley address.
19:36 < ntk> O_o
19:36 < docelic> and you suggest ...?
19:36  * bkhl takes a bathroom break
19:36 < Smerdyakov> We should at least disable all of his HCoop hosted stuff and see if that gets his attention.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> In general, since the new policy is new, we should probably replace kicking people out with freezing in this first round.
19:36 < docelic> +1
19:36  * bkhl back
19:36 < ntk> alright, now chichiri and ochipepe, our most delinquent members?
19:36 < bkhl> +1
19:36 < ntk> any reason not to boot them?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, general friendliness. :)
19:36 < bkhl> On our part or theirs? ;-)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Ours
19:36 < ntk> chichiri has not migrated at all
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ochipepe migrated.  On fyodor, he has one domain in Domtool, but it's expired.
19:36 < ntk> ochipepe last logged in Dec 26
19:36 < bkhl> Any other communications from him since then?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> No.
19:36 < ntk> boot 'em.
19:36 < bkhl> +1
19:36 < leitgebj> +1
19:36 < Smerdyakov> He's not yet requested any domains on the new servers, either.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> And empty public_html
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, I'm for booting, too, where this means freeze for a while first.
19:36 < ntk> so to summarize, graham is good now, hoan, chichiri, and ochipepe are booted, justin is scheduled for booting as soon as he goes negative or notifies us earlier, and quarl is frozen
19:36 < ntk> I think booting means booting
19:36 < ntk> we can leave the account
19:36 < ntk> if they want to rejoin
19:36 < ntk> for a while
19:36 < ntk> but in terms of membership it should be clear
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Leaving accounts for nuked members seems like bad policy.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> The sad thing with ochipepe is that e-mail to him bounces.
19:36 < ntk> why do we need to immediately delete frozen accounts of booted members?  what if they want data that they haven't downloaded?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I think he's not kept his e-mail forwarding with us up to date.
19:36 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov, why does it seem bad to you to let the locked accounts hang around for three months or so?
19:36 < ntk> not an uncommon scenario.
19:36 < ntk> on the contrary, i think that is good practice. people who lose data can be irate.
19:36 < ntk> seems more courteous, unless we've had a request otherwise
19:36 < Smerdyakov> There are two kinds of freezing we can envision.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> One that is just meant to get someone's attention, and still lets him use HCoop in ways that could cost us money.
19:36 < leitgebj> Yes, I think that we should in general not delete any data, unless we receive an explicit request.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Another that is just meant to save the data.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> The first kind if what I recommend for people who can only survive another month without paying.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> The second for a few months could be reasonable for people voted out of the co-op.
19:36 < ntk> Freezing to me means that you are disabling login as well as all services, yes?
19:36 < bkhl> Well, in this case that should be fine.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, you need to keep e-mail working.
19:36 < ntk> i agree, but in the second case it would be associated with also terminating membership
19:36 < ntk> whereas in the first they are still members
19:36 < ntk> yes
19:36 < bkhl> But I think it would have to depend on the amount of data.
19:36 < ntk> but we don't need to keep email working for terminated members
19:36  * leitgebj scavenges for an ac adapter to revive a laptop battery
19:36 < ntk> only for frozen delinquent members
19:36 < ntk> terminated members can email admins from some other account
19:36 < ntk> i would agree allowing any sort of service access to terminated members is a bad idea
19:36 < docelic> sure
19:36 < ntk> unless it was for a one-time transfer
19:36  * leitgebj back
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Well, OK, then I agree, as long as we have a good, objective reason for treating quarl differently from those who are booted.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> (I was proposing only freezing the others, too.)
19:36 < ntk> Smerdyakov: the only reason we have is that you are concerned for him
19:36 < ntk> which is good enough for me, if you feel it is
19:36 < bkhl> I think we can be lenient this first time and just freeze all of them for some fixed time.
19:36 < bkhl> If only to be fair.
19:36 < ntk> we've already given people a lot of time and notices
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Yeah, I'm in favor of just freezing.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, the time is irrelevant for folks who don't have working HCoop e-mail pipelines.
19:36 < ntk> i don't think we should allow chichiri and ochipepe to continue to accrue more negative balances
19:36 < ntk> Smerdyakov: how do you propose that we will ever get back in contact with them, when we have no evidence that they are using their services anymore at all?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> We know that Gmail and Yahoo routinely mark our e-mails as spam.
19:36 < ntk> i would not be opposed to very briefly freezing all of these accounts if we can decide here and now to boot the abovementioned three in a fixed period of time if they have not contacted us by then.
19:36 < ntk> so we do not need to reconvene
19:36 < ntk> BRIEF fixed period
19:36 < bkhl> A month?
19:36 < ntk> two weeks?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> One difference is that we have no evidence that ochipepe is actually hosting anything, but it can be touch to figure that out and act objectively.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I would be OK with two weeks.  That would keep them around for the next InterServer bill, but that should be it.
19:36 < bkhl> OK.
19:36 < ntk> +2weeks
19:36 < leitgebj> +1 for two weeks
19:36 < ntk> alright, so that is understood to mean freeze now, boot in two weeks if there is no communication.
19:36 < ntk> good
19:36 < docelic> +1
19:36 < Smerdyakov> And there is another issue here, which is that docelic has for a month or more been assigned the task of creating a script for easy freezing and unfreezing of members, but hasn't made any visible progress.
19:36 < ntk> does this apply to hoan also or can we at least boot him now since he is definitely leaving?
19:36 < bkhl> That is the ticket you mentioned before+?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> There is no need to boot hoan.  He quit.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> bkhl, yes.
19:36 < docelic> yes, I should work on it
19:36 < ntk> I thought his last email was ambiguous, in that he expressed an intention to quit in the future
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, not hoan.
19:36 < ntk> I don't think I have read it though.
19:36 < ntk> okay.
19:36 < ntk> I guess that was justin.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, he wanted to leave immediately, and just didn't follow through on his promise to pay off his balance.
19:36 < ntk> alright, i get you now.
19:36 < ntk> so everyone is taken care of now.
19:36 < docelic> mwolson, if you've got a minute, could you check what's happening with my email? I've received 2000 messages in the past 10 or so minutes, largely being returns to my info@company address about failed deliveries (of spam which I never sent in the first place)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> So, we need to figure out how we'll implement the freezing concretely.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, that's standard stuff.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, see my Exim filter for how to filter out bounces to addresses you'd never send from.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, (In case it's not clear, spammers often forge random To addresses.)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Er, From addresses
19:36 < docelic> sure
19:36 < ntk> i am guessing we want to change their login shell and point all their domains and public_html to some PAY UP stub
19:36 < mwolson> yeah, spammers will forge these things.  best to only accept email sent to real addresses on your domain
19:36 < ntk> and delete their crontab and kill their processes
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, right.  It should be reasonable to change their shells to /usr/local/bin/payus (which I created a while ago), nuke their Domtool directories, and maybe even clear out homedir contents beyond Maildir.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> And .forward
19:36 < docelic> Leave this to whoever will be implementing the freeze script (most probably me)
19:36 < bkhl> ntk: sounds like you have some things to add to that bug ticket.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, you agreed to do it a while ago.  If you can't handle it, you should have said so, so we could reassign and not need to deal with this complexity now.
19:36 < ntk> is this a separate domtool directory than what is in their homedir?  we don't want to be destructive of unbackedup chnages
19:36 < ntk> alright
19:36 < ntk> leave it to docelic
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, talking about fyodor there.
19:36 < ntk> but we have five users to freeze right now
19:36 < ntk> oh
19:36 < ntk> i wasn't even thinking about fyodor
19:36 < docelic> what about fyodor?
19:36 < ntk> i thought we didn't want to disturb email (not to continue this line of conversation)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, how to freeze accounts there.
19:36 < ntk> but that goes to the "two kinds of freezes" thing
19:36 < bkhl> We might want to receive mail for those accounts, but disallow reading or sending.
19:36 < mwolson> oh.  i almost forgot.  one thing that we need to think about (possibly not today) is where to put backups.  it's kind of imposing to keep putting them on megacz' server
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov, I vote against doing anything for freeze on fyodor.. if we absolutely want it, just changing people's passwords will be enough
19:36 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, I'd rather not talk about that today.
19:36 < mwolson> ok
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, no, that won't take down their hosted domains.
19:36 < docelic> yes, but they'll be taken down next month anyway
19:36 < mwolson> i'll file a bug on it instead
19:36 < docelic> so what's the problem
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, the idea is to get their attention _now_.
19:36 < ntk> yes
19:36 < docelic> did domtool1 have domain requests too, I don't remember? how about just revoking their domains?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, you would move the domain directories somewhere else.
19:36 < docelic> ok
19:36 < bkhl> docelic: ownership of domains was simply ownership of directories in /etc/domains
19:36 < ntk> can we leave this at "figure out a way to freeze accounts immediately" and move the technical discussion to after the meeting or the mailing list/bugzilla?
19:36 < ntk> i would like to finish this agenda item
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK
19:36 < ntk> dues structure for the next few months?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I just want to give a concrete number for the discrepancy between the portal's records and our bank account right now.  Let me grab a few web pages.
19:36 < ntk> ok
19:36 < ntk> i was going to update the cash audit table last night but i fell asleep
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I think our cash holdings stand at $5859.86 now.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> The portal gives the sum of all active balances as $7563.49.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> The difference is split between bastard delinquent members who were booted and some kinds of accounting errors over the years of our existence.
19:36 < ntk> probably all stuff that was supposed to be billed out to members but never was
19:36 -!- Netsplit simmons.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: Mike_L
19:36 < ntk> without being identified
19:36 < ntk> we lost Mike_L
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, oh, yeah, there's a little of that, but it doesn't cover everything.
19:36 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Mike_L
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I have a total of $683.26 for that stuff.
19:36 < ntk> I count $413 for booted members with negative balances
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, OK, that leaves $607.37.
19:36 < ntk> although there are some with positive balances also.  if they donated it, then we should zero out those accounts, otherwise we need to try to contact them.  since we have no policy otherwise we might have to turn those over to Pennsylvania eventually.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I try to have it set up so that anyone positive balance left over is meant as a donation.
19:36 < ntk> is that in our ToS?
19:36 < ntk> i don't recall that.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> No, it's a property of the protocol I use when people ask to leave.
19:36 < ntk> unless they actually tell us that explicitly, it's no good.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> They do.
19:36 < ntk> alright
19:36 < ntk> but we need to make that clear where that happens
19:36 < ntk> and we need to account for it
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I will mark it as such in the transactions.
19:36 < ntk> it would be good if we had an entry "transfer to hcoop, gift"
19:36 < ntk> something like that
19:36 < docelic> is exim's .forward file sensitive to indentation?
19:36 < ntk> no.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, can we save questions like that until after the meeting?
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov, no
19:36 < ntk> if it is exim format, as opposed to just addresses or a pipe, and it's not the first line.  the first line is also case-sensitive, but we can talk about that later
19:36 < docelic> there's only one, and you already answered m
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, so the first big question now is, how do we handle the deficit that doesn't arise from legitimate expenses of the co-op?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> In the past, I proposed to solicit volunteers to share that cost, and some people (like ntk) didn't like that.
19:36 < ntk> we can ignore it.  but in the future i think we want to build up an account
19:36 < ntk> a capital account
19:36  * Optikal__ agrees
19:36 < ntk> i do not like the solicit volunteers idea any more now than i did before
19:36 < ntk> Optikal__ who are you agreeing with?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> If we ignore it, we can get to a point where every member has a positive balance, but the co-op is in debt.
19:36 < Optikal__> ntk
19:36 < Optikal__> You
19:36 < ntk> Smerdyakov: only if we continue to make errors or have sloppy accounting
19:36 < ntk> which we should not.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> That's not true.
19:36 < ntk> in the future we really do have to move to double-entry accounting.  but not immediate future.
19:36 < ntk> Smerdyakov: only if we either continue to make errors, or if there is a "bank run" of users spending down their accounts
19:36 < ntk> or cashing out
19:36 < Smerdyakov> That's more like it.
19:36 < ntk> my impression is that we are planning on growing, not shrinking.
19:36 < ntk> and i also indicated that we should build up a capital account to provide extra cash over and above deposits.
19:36 < Optikal__> Growth isn't possible until you get rid of the sliding scale
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, so, in making sure that we keep our books straight in the future, you'll remember the deficit now and factor it in for every future audit?
19:36 < Optikal__> because it just makes the "bank run" scenario even more likely
19:36 < ntk> no.
19:36 < ntk> i don't think we need to maintain parity between our bank account and deposits, we just need to maintain liquidity, and more importantly reserves for hardware and maintenance as well as emergency expenses
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, but how can you perform audits if you don't know how the numbers are supposed to add up?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, you'll just look and say "yeah, we have enough liquidity."
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ?
19:36 < ntk> I have never known what the numbers are supposed to add up to.  when I audit, I make sure that money is coming in from users and going out to only our hosts.
19:36 < ntk> if we want to do a real audit, we need a double-entry system
19:36 < ntk> not the present system, which is unworkable for GAAP.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> There is real value in audits for single-entry systems.
19:36 < ntk> i have also tried to keep the table up and monitor changes in the deficit
19:36 < ntk> that's about it
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Where's the table?
19:36 < ntk> http://hcoop.net/board/cash.html
19:36 < ntk> needs to be updated
19:36 < Smerdyakov> That kind of accounting also won't be accurate in general without taking Google Checkout into account.
19:36 < ntk> Google checkout does not have a separate balance.
19:36 < ntk> that table only reflects cash, not not cash flow.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Fine.
19:36 < ntk> (it goes straight into our checking account, for anyone else listening)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Well, board members, what do you all think about keeping the situation so that the portal thinks we have more money than we really do?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I would be up for subtracting the whole deficit from my balance to remedy this problem.
19:36 < ntk> I wouldn't put it that way, but I think the real question is, 1) Do we maintain the current billing status quo for the near future, or 2) Do we immediately move to a fixed $ per month or a cost + fixed% per month billing scenario?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Those are real questions, but they're not alternatives to the question I'm asking.
19:36 < ntk> I am fine either way but I am in favor of moving to 2) before long, leaning towards fixed payments.  we need to build up capital reserve.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I don't think we should be discussing that yet.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I want to resolve the issue we were just discussing.
19:36 < docelic> I vote for leaving the current situation as-is, until next round of discussion
19:36 < ntk> alright, we'll answer yours first, i think that's fine.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> My proposal is: I'll e-mail hcoop-discuss asking who wants to split the deficit.  Worst case, I'll take it all out of my balance.
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov, you covering the deficit only makes sense if we can be sure there are no more errors in our accounting
19:36 < ntk> i am waiting to hear from Justin and Bjorn on this.
19:36 < docelic> and, do we know there are no errors?
19:36 < bkhl> I agree with Davor there.
19:36 < ntk> Justin being our new treasurer
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, right.  We'll watch the balances every month thereafter, which will be easier because they should match.
19:36 < leitgebj> How about we leave the deficit until we move to a flat-rate scheme, and then subtract it unilaterally from all member balances?  It is a debt of the coop, right?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, no, it isn't a debt of the co-op, really.
19:36 < ntk> I would be fine with that too!  it's just a matter where the starting point is.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, a large part of it could just be accounting mistakes by me.
19:36 < ntk> Justin: all member balances are debts of the co-op.
19:36 < ntk> they are not amounts held in trust
19:36 < ntk> your balance is how much the co-op owes you, payable on demand
19:36 < leitgebj> ok
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, it's all accounting mistakes and cases where members left without paying off their negative balances.
19:36 < ntk> it is in fact the only debt of HCoop now.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, neither seems like a traditional idea of "a debt of the co-op."
19:36 < leitgebj> good stuff to know, since I'm going to be the treasurer :)
19:36 < ntk> the "accounting mistakes" are mistakes only given that we've had a policy of maintaining cash equal to our debts
19:36 < ntk> and we currently have less cash by several hundred dollars.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, no, they're mistakes independent of that.  Perhaps you don't understand how I've meant to keep our records.
19:36 < ntk> although it's never been cash equal to our debts, it's been "cash equal to our debts minus debts of members to HCoop"
19:36 < ntk> Our records are a mess.
19:36 < ntk> There, I said it on the record.
19:36 < ntk> But they could be worse.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, I can tell you that there is no ambiguity that any discrepancy between all member balances and our bank account/online payment provider balances is a mistake, given my intended understanding of the system since the start,
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, this has nothing to do with "accounting policy"; to me, it's just common sense.
19:36 < ntk> my sister is a CPA-to-be and has expressed interest in the past of helping us clean things up in the future at some point
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Please stay on-topic.
19:36 < ntk> ok
19:36 < ntk> well I disagree that is common sense, but we can move on from here.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> So, now that I hope everyone understands that this deficit is not arising from real "expenses," what do you all think about a call for donations to cover it?
19:36 < bkhl> Let me ask this.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> (Knowing that it will all be covered donations no matter what response there is.)
19:36 < leitgebj> As you explained it to me just now, I am in favor of your proposal.
19:36 < ntk> I think saying "we haven't billed people quite enough for uncertain reasons in the past so please pony up if you will just to cover these unknown expenses" is not a great way to proceed
19:36 < bkhl> Will covering this deficit make it easer to switch to a better accounting system further on?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> bkhl, yes.
19:36 < ntk> but if you are volunteering to cover the difference, in the interest of the co-op i would still be inclined to vote for it
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, I wouldn't say "please."  I would make it clear that no one is expected to participate.
19:36 < ntk> and i'll pretend to agree that you are correct that this would make it easier to switch to a better system
19:36 < ntk> alright
19:36 < ntk> fair enough
19:36 < ntk> I agree.  it is your money
19:36 < bkhl> Me too then.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, so we have me, leitgebj, ntk, and bkhl for it.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Nothing from docelic yet this round.
19:36 < mwolson> switching to a different server.  be back in a bit
19:36 < ntk> but as far as billing from here on out, there is still a question as to whether we maintain status quo or move to a fixed or variable+% system
19:36 -!- mwolson [i=mwolson@fsf/member/mwolson] has quit ["ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)"]
19:36 < docelic> I voted for leaving the situation as-is for the moment.
19:36 < ntk> yes, that would be a No vote on this issue from docelic
19:36 < ntk> 4-1 it passes.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, the question doesn't really have to do with systems.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, it had to do with a one-time rebalancing.
19:36 -!- mwolson [i=mwolson@cpe-76-173-7-121.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #hcoop
19:36 < ntk> we don't need to argue with him
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK.  I think this would be a fine time to agree on a flat monthly fee, if we can.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> It would be per pledge unit, the way I see it.
19:36 < ntk> hum, I thought you would be opposed to that at this stage
19:36 < leitgebj> Me too
19:36 < docelic> I vote against fixed monthly fees.
19:36 < ntk> I would vote for it.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, why?
19:36 < ntk> Davor, would I read you as simply not wanting to tackle too many transitions at once and Not Fixing What Is Not Broken?
19:36 < ntk> I would be fine with that too if we don't have a chance of passing it, but if we do then I would be all in favor of doing the switch right now.
19:36 < docelic> I've always been against it, but it looks to me that path is inevitable in the long run, so I just want to postpone the issue for now. (Yes, as ntk says, I think this does not require our immediate attention, and would like to bring up a round of discussion about it later, when more pressing problems are solved)
19:36 < ntk> starting next month we won't have interserver bills, only peer1, which is $4.36 last time.  So we could make it $5 per month
19:36 < ntk> okay
19:36 < mwolson> speaking just as a member, i'd like for us to set it at $5 per month
19:36 < ntk> then we do have a disagreement, but I think that flat fees are very user-friendly
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, why are you against it in the long run?
19:36 < ntk> I would not want to set it above $5 since I have been against having entry-level rates above that.
19:36 < bkhl> I think fixed fees would really help if we are to try to grow.
19:36 < leitgebj> Also in favor of $5 a month now.  If we postpone a decision on fixed-rate today in order to not tackle too many transitions at once, I would like to set a time now to re-assess our decision very soon.
19:36 < ntk> variable fees would be less problematic if they were relatively stable and if they included a percentage margin to build up capital so we did not have artificially low rates month to month and then big amounts billed out on occasion, as we have, which has led people to complain loudly, leave, or solicit donations
19:36 < ntk> I am highly in favor of moving to $5 as the base pledge immediately.  we can tweak it later as needed, and we can consider separately later on if we want to add additional levels of service for users who are hogging resources if that becomes an issue
19:36 < Smerdyakov> By my calculations, we need at least $4.70/month, to cover Peer 1, Tech Co-op, and the yearly registered agent fee.
19:36 < ntk> ah
19:36 < leitgebj> $5.25?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> (That's using current pledge count)
19:36 < ntk> good point, so that becomes a small margin
19:36 < docelic> We definitely do not want to go over $5
19:36 < ntk> leitgebj: consider also that membership will grow,
19:36 < Smerdyakov> $5 is certainly a nice round number.
19:36 < docelic> as we've committed to staying below $5
19:36 < leitgebj> $4.99
19:36 < ntk> we've had no margin at all in the past
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, I certainly have never done that.  It's a nice goal, though.
19:36 < ntk> NO to $4.99 :-)
19:36 < ntk> let's keep it at $5.00.  if the american dollar becomes even more worthless than it is now, then I would not consider it going back on my word to raise it to $5.25 or $5.50
19:36 < ntk> the british pound is already up to US$2.00
19:36 < docelic> I'm saying, I vote against fixed dues now, and if the decision still passes, I vote against setting the rate at $5
19:36 < ntk> alright, so you would prefer to set it to $4.70 then
19:36 < Smerdyakov> If our predictable expenses are $4.70/pledge/mo., then fixing at $5/mo. gives us $51.60 surplus/mo..
19:36 < ntk> i would disagree with that also.
19:36 < ntk> a modest but not irrelevant surplus
19:36 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov, how do you feel about that surplus?  Is it comfortable enough?
19:36 < ntk> although we will need to buy a couple hard drives
19:36 < Smerdyakov> That doesn't cover, say, the last year's extra expenses from hardware purchases, etc..
19:36 < Smerdyakov> But it comes close.
19:36 < ntk> and i never got reimbursed for the xseries, although i won't talk about that until it is online and working
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, did we ever give any official board approval for making that an HCoop purchase?
19:36 < ntk> I thought that I did, on IRC at least
19:36 < ntk> but if people disagree
19:36 < ntk> then I won't throw a fit
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I asked a "we" question, meaning an official board vote, not your attention to let us use the server.
19:36 < ntk> no, I mean talking to you and davor specifically
19:36 < ntk> could be false memory syndrome
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Which is especially relevant if you want to be reimbursed for it out of HCoop balances.
19:36 < ntk> it is ONLY relevant if i expect to be reimbursed.  otherwise it is just sitting in the cabinet for no good reason
19:36 < ntk> we can talk about that later, it's not on the agenda
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I think $5/mo. is too low for our present membership base, if we don't want to do special fund-raising for surprise purchases.
19:36 < ntk> (but you don't remember talking about this before I bought it?)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, there was definitely no official agreement that it was an HCoop purchase before you bought it.  I'm not sure what happened afterward.
19:36 < ntk> i agree that it is. but I would prefer to start at $5 and try to recruit more members.  there's no reason we can't meet again in four months and raise it to $6 if necessary.
19:36 < ntk> Davor, do you have any recollection of this matter?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Yeah, OK.  How do we vote on moving to $5/mo., starting on May 1 or so?
19:36 < docelic> yes, I recall us agreeing on purchasing xSeries for hcoop
19:36 < ntk> ok
19:36 < ntk> Smerdyakov: I recall you specifically approving me buying whatever the admins agreed on
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Oh, wait.
19:36 < ntk> anyway
19:36 < ntk> let's talk about that later
19:36 < ntk> please!
19:36 < Smerdyakov> This is different from some other machine you have sitting in there!
19:36 < ntk> YES
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Sorry.
19:36 < ntk> different from Xanadu, which I donated
19:36 < ntk> and which is online now, waiting to be purposed
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Got it.
19:36 < ntk> it pings.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Here are some expenses which we've already incurred but not charged to members: http://wiki.hcoop.net/PendingExpenses
19:36 < ntk> oh great, yet another issue that needs to be resolved.
19:36 < ntk> bills, bills, bills
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I'm all in favor of moving to double entry in the future, where member payments go into their balances and each month we grab some out of each member's balance to go into a common balance.  (ntk, is that what double entry is?)
19:36 < ntk> not exactly.
19:36 < ntk> i can't possibly explain double-entry accounting now, i will refer you to wikipedia for a refresher
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Nah, I;
19:36 < Smerdyakov> 'll leave that to others. :)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> But what I suggested seems like the right thing to move to now.
19:36 < ntk> yes, i have to get my sister to explain it to me anyway
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Except that the others besides us haven't given their votes on $5/mo. now.
19:36 < ntk> it is required for GAAP which is required by basically every organization on earth
19:36 < ntk> yes
19:36 < ntk> Justin, Bjorn, what are your opinions on $5/mo
19:36 < bkhl> I think I already said I'm for it.
19:36 < ntk> Davor already said he is against it
19:36 < ntk> and Justin wanted to set it higher.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> It's just nice to get an official listing of opinions in a small area, after all the arguments have been presented.
19:36 < ntk> Justin: can you agree to set it to $5 for now?
19:36 < leitgebj> Yes, that is fine, and set a time to re-assess in a four months or so.  Unless Smerdyakov feels strongly that we should set it a bit higher now.
19:36 < ntk> I would prefer to start at $5.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, then we've approved the move to $5/mo..
19:36 < Smerdyakov> The question is what we do about the unbilled charges I've just linked.
19:36 < ntk> I have no idea what the next agenda item is
19:36 < ntk> oh
19:36 < leitgebj> Bill them. :-)
19:36 -!- Netsplit simmons.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: Chile`
19:36 < Smerdyakov> The total for them again was $683.26.
19:36 < ntk> Before we move to fixed rate?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Less than one month's Peer 1 cost.
19:36 < ntk> that's what, another $6 per member?
19:36 < Kuril> Ugh
19:36 < ntk> that's not crushing, but slightly disturbing.  we may as well do it and get it over with
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, $3.97
19:36 < ntk> okay
19:36 < ntk> right
19:36 < ntk> the pledge thing.
19:36 < ntk> yep, bill 'em out.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I would be in favor of billing it out to everyone, and letting anyone who wants write asking for an exception.
19:36 < ntk> before we move to fixed rate.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> And I would cover their balances, or other volunteers would.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Er, I would cover their shares of this one-time cost.
19:36 < ntk> that's another thing that i would object to but am going to not object to this time, especially given that we are then moving to fixed costs, so why don't we just lump that in with this "deficit" that we are covering?
19:36 < ntk> make that part of the same email
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, that would be what would be happening, in effect.
19:36 < ntk> oh, except one is opt-in and one is opt-out
19:36 < ntk> yeah
19:36 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Chile`
19:36 < ntk> i am finding these netsplits rather disruptive.  dang freenode.
19:36 < ntk> alright, Davor, Bjorn, Justin, your opinions on this please?
19:36 < leitgebj> you and Smerdyakov seem to be in agreement, so I'm in favor of what you proposed.
19:36 < bkhl> Me too.
19:36 < ntk> does our new president have any opinion?
19:36 < ntk> I take that for a no.
19:36 < docelic> I don't like this set of changes at all.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, you are really confusing me.
19:36 < ntk> The fixed-rate billing, or our procedure with respect to these one-time charges?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, the most recent vote isn't about changes.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, it's about a one-time procedure.
19:36 < docelic> yes, I know. But they're related.
19:36 < ntk> (which, I might add, really ought to have been billed out by Adam at the time they were incurreD)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, I don't agree.  We have a good subset of members who get really pissed off at unexpected charges.
19:36 < ntk> They get pissed off even more when they get lumped into one even rarer, extra big charge.
19:36 < ntk> We spoil them with these itty-bitty monthly fees
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Not if they're allowed to opt out.
19:36 < ntk> and then we get scared to bill them out
19:36 < ntk> they should not be allowed to opt out!
19:36 < ntk> these are essential expenditures.
19:36 < Kuril> is there a way to spread it out between two months?
19:36 < ntk> we have done that in the past
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Kuril almost left HCoop because of this kind of thing.
19:36 < Kuril> yes
19:36 < ntk> that is essentially what we are attempting to do continuously with fixed-rate flat billing.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> It doesn't matter if it's rational behavior (sorry, Kuril ;-).  It's just a matter of understanding how members think.
19:36 < ntk> Docelic, what is your particular objection to flat-rate billing?  I'm not sure you have really articulated it yet.
19:36 < Kuril> no offense taken
19:36 < ntk> You did says you were against the idea.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> All that really matters is that, from this point forward, we're charging flat dues that let us build up reserves.
19:36 < docelic> ntk, the flat-rate billing is always higher than what the actual costs are, and I am opposed to that. I want to have minimal monthly dues (total amount split by number of members)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> All of the problems you mention, ntk, will be gone, except for lack of compliance with bookkeeping standards.
19:36 < docelic> and in case we need to buy extra hardware or anything else,
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, not so.  The flat rate we are proposing is almost certainly below our actual costs.
19:36 < ntk> and we can adjust it up if we are not covering expenses or accruing sufficient reserves, or we can adjust it down if we accumulate excessive reserves as more members join.l
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov, not if you don't count expansion plans and hired staff
19:36 < ntk> but it should stay essentially the same from month to month other than infrequent changes, as the postal board does with postage.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, no, I only count hardware purchases, beyond the unavoidable monthly and yearly costs.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, this can include replacing failed systems.
19:36 < ntk> docelic: please finish the sentence starting "in case we need to buy extra hardware or anything else"
19:36 < ntk> because my understanding is that over time flat-rate billing will still lead to billing the same as our charges.  after all our Certificate of Incorporation requires that "the corporation does not contemplate pecuniary gain"
19:36 < docelic> Yes... so, in case we need to buy extra hardware or anything else, I consider that an unavoidable expense in that month, which is then billed to members (it enters the 'total amount' for that month)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, many of our members absolutely _hate_ that.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, again, it doesn't matter if they're thinking rationally.  We lose members over it.
19:36 < ntk> alright, that's just a fundamental difference in philosophy, and I would agree with Smerdyakov.  Kuril is just one example of this.  also it is just not fair to people who join right before or after the expense
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov, they hate any increase in cost, the same way they'd hate an immediate increase to $5 now
19:36 < ntk> those who join right before get hit with the whole thing, those who join after pay nothing
19:36 < ntk> for hardware that may last for years
19:36 < ntk> docelic: this is a relatively small increase
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, yeah, but hopefully the majority of our members over all time have yet to join, and won't know this as an "increase."
19:36 < ntk> compared to billing $4.11 one months and $23.73 the next.
19:36 < docelic> Ok we're a step back in the discussion now.. $5 flat-rate already passed, so the question for me was in fact what to do with the deficit.
19:36 < ntk> We may have to agree to disagree for now, and revisit this down the line
19:36 < ntk> alright
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, that and the unbilled normal charges, which are separate.
19:36 < docelic> I'd suggest covering it with $0.3/member which would arrive from the $5 flat-rate, but that'd take a year to cover.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, I think we did finish binding votes on both issues, but you're free to continue offering ideas.
19:36 < docelic> which I don't think is practical
19:36 < ntk> and leave nothing for hardware in the meantime
19:36 < ntk> right
19:36 < leitgebj> How long would the unbilled normal charges take to be absorbed by the membership if we move to $5 fixed, assuming the interserver charge drops soon?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, more than a year/.
19:36 < ntk> interserver will drop next montht
19:36 < ntk> we were already basing the charges on not having interserver.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, unless we get some serious membership growth or pledge increasin'.
19:36 < ntk> which hopefully we will.
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov, no... IS is $150, which is more than a dollar per member
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, what is?
19:36 < ntk> at least, membership growth.  i don't see pledge increasing as positve.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, oh, got it.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, like ntk said, we were already thinking in terms of not having InterServer.
19:36 < docelic> so if the deficit is < $700, that covers the deficit in less than half a year with IS charge taken off alone
19:36 < ntk> if we had interserver it would have to be more than $5 to break even at this point.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, maybe what you're not getting is that members are already being billed more than $5/mo. now.
19:36 < ntk> since we are charging that amount already
19:36 < ntk> yes!
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, they're only under that not including InterServer.
19:36 < ntk> just not on the same day
19:36 < Smerdyakov> So we are even cutting the effective monthly rate.  There should be no reason to complain.
19:36 < ntk> the other advantage besides having fixed bills, is that they will be at a fixed time.  people currently not only don't know what they will be charged next month, they don't even know on what days they will be charged, or how many times.
19:36 < ntk> which is another thing people have complained about
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov,  AH. Damnit I always looked at Peer1 without adding IS to the charge
19:36 < Optikal__> Don't we give them like a 3 month buffer?
19:36 < ntk> well, we require people to keep a 3-monthis deposit now
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov,  the problem is, the pledge page then doesn't include all the charges.. I was estimating a per-pledge due based on what pledges page told me
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, so no maybe you are even in favor of $5/mo.? :)
19:36 < ntk> and we have allowed people a sort of right of refusal if they wwant to quit, but anyway
19:36 < Smerdyakov> s/no/now
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov,  and so in my book they were <$5
19:36 < ntk> as thrilling as this discussion is, I would like to move on at some point shortly.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Yeah, I'm ready to refuse to acknowledge further discussion of this, since the voting is done.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> We're going to $5/mo..  We'll get donations to cover the deficit.  We'll charge everyone by pledge amount for the unbilled normal expenses, with the chance to opt out.
19:36 < leitgebj> Agreed.
19:36 < docelic> +1
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Now, about those three stale user accounts.
19:36 < ntk> that's not the same as the previous one?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, remember that jsl account you had us create?  What do you want to do there?  You definitely shouldn't have two accounts.
19:36 < ntk> what are these stale user accounts?
19:36 < ntk> oh
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, an e-mail to hcoop-sysadmin
19:36 < leitgebj> I thought that I already told davor to delete it a while ago
19:36 < leitgebj> Anyway, it can be killed
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, OK, then no problem if we delete jsl and jsl_admin?
19:36 < leitgebj> None at all
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, then someone should nuke jsl, jsl_admin, and megacz_admin.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> And then grant user megacz permission to log into any of our machines.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> This is more of an admin issue.
19:36 < ntk> but he is not in sudoersr anymore right?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I'll file a bug in some appropriate category now.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, yes.
19:36 < ntk> okay
19:36 < ntk> good
19:36 < ntk> administrativia.
19:36 < ntk> "Report whether new members' voting rights are in effect 45 days after joining, and whether the various "signalling" regarding negtive balance accounts is working properly (taking in account new members who are relieved of the balance requirements in the first month)" whatever that means
19:36 < docelic> Adam, did you check new members can't vote within 45 days?
19:36 < docelic> as for question 2) (signalling), I think that works given the page Adam pointed us to earlier, with 6 List... links
19:36 < ntk> yes
19:36 < docelic> mwolson, privmsg
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, I don't remember what I did to test the code when I implemented it.  The portal is certainly meant to be enforcing that since well before the election.
19:36 < ntk> nobody complained, and nobody voted that wasn't supposed to
19:36 < ntk> although i guess i should double-check that
19:36 < ntk> i am pretty sure we are not an illegally-constituted board right now :-)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> OK, so we are happy with this agenda item?
19:36 < leitgebj> Yes
19:36 < ntk> this is also a pretty much administrative agenda item
19:36 < ntk> maybe we can move on to the last one.
19:36 < ntk> since that is kind of a biggie.
19:36 < docelic> iirc, adam wanted to test that functionality during the elections
19:36 < docelic> Ok, here's what we have to do about the last point:
19:36 < docelic> We have xanadu (Nathan's donation) and IBM xSeries.
19:36 < docelic> 1) Nathan, what disks have to be bought to have both machines operable?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I strongly object to mixing shell server and mail server.
19:36 < ntk> I would too,
19:36 < Smerdyakov> We don't want people's pet programming projects to hang the mail server.
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov, did anyone propose that?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I think mwolson did offhand in an e-mail.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Not sure.
19:36 < ntk> and someone also mentioned that mail might be more efficient running on deleuze anyway, where storage is
19:36 < ntk> at least SMTP
19:36 < ntk> perhaps IMAP or such might be offloaded to the xseries or whatnot
19:36 < leitgebj> Deleuze is also RAID 10, which is good for imap
19:36 < ntk> yes
19:36 < Smerdyakov> We still have this issue of mail filters, which let members run arbitrary code in deleuze right now.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> We could at least change this to being "run arbitrary code on a machine that just does mail."
19:36 < ntk> my impression was that Xanadu was intended for shell.  it is more than ample for shell right now, assuming the single 30G drive is adequate.  the only improvement might be raid
19:36 < mwolson> Smerdyakov: why object to shell+email?
19:36 < ntk> the xseries needs more work
19:36 < Optikal__> Why can pet programming projects hang the mail server? Isn't there some sort of way to ensure that a certain service has all the resources required to continue running?
19:36 < leitgebj> Can we switch to another form of filters? Sieve?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, bad shell scripts can lower QoS for the mail server.
19:36 < mwolson> Smerdyakov: i think it is a good solution, given that at least one person likes to run bogofilter
19:36 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, how does that help?
19:36 < docelic> Ok, so we need one or two disks total to have both running.
19:36 < leitgebj> I don't know.  I thought someone mentioned that it might.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, in general, the idea of the shell server is that members can go crazy using it for anything (legal) that they want, without worry of breaking anyone's production sites.
19:36 < mwolson> mail definitely has to be put elsewhere than deleuze
19:36 < mwolson> no question about that
19:36 < mwolson> (delivery, that is, not IMAP)
19:36 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, even if our security or resource limiting mechanisms turn out to be buggy.
19:36 < docelic> Do you (involved in this discussion) recall my email to -sysadmin about the intended way to make a deleuze-redundant server?
19:36 < ntk> the whole point of having a separate shell server was to get irrelevant crap like compilations, irssi processes, huge emacs jobs etc off of servers running critical services
19:36 < ntk> right now at any given time there are several users running emacs, screen sessions, irc on mire
19:36 < ntk> it would be nice to get rid of that and provide a safe login playground
19:36 < ntk> emacs does use real resources, believe it or not.
19:36 < mwolson> ok, let's keep mire as shell in short term, and shell on x-series for long term.  i'm not completely attached to official shell being xanadu
19:36 < leitgebj> mwolson, would another virtual server work for delivery?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, vaguely. :)
19:36 < ntk> mwolson: what did you want the xseries to be the shell server or just not to have one?
19:36 < mwolson> leitgebj: if it's offsite, it could at best be secondary, but not primary
19:36 < ntk> no dedicated shell server anyway
19:36 < ntk> oh
19:36 < ntk> i see
19:36 < ntk> isn't the xseries a much more capable machine?
19:36 < mwolson> ntk: capable for what?  email delivery?
19:36 < ntk> for anything
19:36 < Smerdyakov> We should definitely go with the beefier machine for e-mail handling.
19:36 < ntk> xanadu is just a crappy dell
19:36 < Smerdyakov> There's a lot of spam flowing through our Exim.
19:36 < mwolson> ok, i'm fine with that
19:36 -!- ApM [n=jeremy@c-24-16-137-192.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has quit [Connection timed out]
19:36 < mwolson> so, shell on xanadu and email delivery on x-series, then?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> And I mean "our SMTP" handling, not "our e-mail handling."
19:36 < Smerdyakov> It is too bad to slow down e-mail delivery via remote AFS calls.
19:36 < ntk> on that note does anyone present have the root password for xanadu?
19:36 < mwolson> Smerdyakov: megacz says that it is actually better to do SMTP handling on a separate machine
19:36 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, great.
19:36 < mwolson> ntk: i need root pass for xanadu
19:36 < ntk> i thought i gave it to someone
19:36 < mwolson> ntk: setting it to our current sitewide root password would be ideal
19:36 < unknown_lamer> We have gigabit ethernet between machine, right? AFS over the local vlan ought to be as fast as disk access
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, I should record the cost of the xSeries on that web page.  What was it, and what date did it happen?
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Any objections to including the xSeries cost in the one-time, opt-outable cost?
19:36 -!- schemelab [n=schemela@cpe-75-187-102-204.insight.res.rr.com] has joined #hcoop
19:36 < bkhl> Not from me.
19:36 < ntk> 202.50 + 29 shipping
19:36 < docelic> no, I'd even make it non-conditional
19:36 < ntk> 2/27/08
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, I think the same reasoning applies here as for the other costs lumped in, so I don't see a reason to do that.
19:36 < ntk> I'll forward the email to admins again
19:36 < ntk> done
19:36 < ntk> agreed to above btw
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, and I didn't credit you for this yet?
19:36 < ntk> nope.
19:36 < ntk> it's chilling at the bottom of the rack, i sent an email about installing adamm's service processor in there yesterday
19:36 < docelic> Folks,  http://www.hcoop.net/~docelic/newmachine.txt 
19:36 < ntk> oh
19:36 < ntk> retracted
19:36 < docelic> my plan for the new non-shellserver machine
19:36 < ntk> i WAS credited for this
19:36 < ntk> sorry about that
19:36 < ntk> unless you just credited it now
19:36 < docelic> take a look and comment, it's the thing I posted to -sysadmin in Feb
19:36 < Smerdyakov> ntk, I did just credit it now.
19:36 < ntk> k
19:36 < mwolson> docelic: is thymus the x-series?
19:36 < docelic> whichever machine we choose to be
19:36 < docelic> I think back then in that post it referred to nathan's machine, not x-series
19:36 < docelic> but it doesn't matter
19:36 < ntk> yes, we could do that with the x-series
19:36 < ntk> mwolson: thymus was the name of xanadu for a very brief time
19:36 < ntk> after i set it up
19:36 < ntk> i can't seem to get in right now
19:36 < docelic> the only change I have now is I'd take back the suggestion to use that machine for dynamic websites even
19:36 < docelic> s/even/ever/
19:36 < docelic> the shell server can do that part of redundancy
19:36 < ntk> brb
19:36 < mwolson> docelic: i disagree with making it act us a secondary SMTP server for deleuze.  it should be the primary.
19:36 < mwolson> s/ us//
19:36 < docelic> ok, I have no opinion on that
19:36 < docelic> it's probably even better
19:36 < ntk> back
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Sounds good to me.
19:36 < mwolson> as for it taking the IP address of deleuze ... i'm not sure we would want that
19:36 < Smerdyakov> SMTP is probably our biggest resource user on deleuze.  mysql is the only other contender, and I'm not sure if it's close.
19:36 < mwolson> this is getting long.  let's move the admin items to another meeting, please.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> (Here I mean SMTP and all its appurtenances, including SpamAssassin, a biggie)
19:36 < mwolson> i have some chores and lunch to take care of
19:36 < docelic> My impression is that we all agree to the email I've sent and given the URL here
19:36 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, do you consider the basics of how to use the machines to be an admin item?
19:36 < docelic> so we can take it as the way to go, resolving other issues as we go on -sysadmin
19:36 < mwolson> Smerdyakov: yes
19:36 < Smerdyakov> docelic, except for making the new server the primary MX.
19:36 < leitgebj> docelic, yup, it all sounds good
19:36 < docelic> Smerdyakov, yes, I vote for it
19:36 < mwolson> docelic: no, i disagree
19:36 < mwolson> each point needs to be considered later
19:36 < Smerdyakov> An admin meeting to discuss this is a sound idea.
19:36 < Smerdyakov> I think it's fine for mwolson to leave now.
19:36 < docelic> OK
19:36 < ntk> I would say that I don't feel qualified to say what the new server is for, but I would like to get Xanadu up as a shell server soon, and the priority needs to be getting the xseries online and installed in the first place
19:36 < ntk> right now it needs hard drives and it needs the service processor working properly
19:36 < Smerdyakov> Shall we declare the board meeting over?  I want to talk about freezing with docelic if he is available, and I'm also wondering why leitgebj isn't in grad school anymore. :)
19:36 < mwolson> yes, please