Attached is the transcript of the March 2009 LOPSA Live session. The legal summary occupied the majority of the time with some mention of upcoming events and both calls for and offers to be volunteers to help.
Also included inline here for easier reading in a browser.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:00:39] <Hydroxide> ETA: nowish!
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:00:39] <pck> Welcome everyone
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:00:56] <pck> I'm your Vice President, Philip Kizer
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:01:09] <pck> and we're back with another installment of LOPSA Live!
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:01:44] <pck> for normal beginning announcements, in the upcoming events category we have:
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:01:55] <pck> OSCON 2009
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:02:15] <pck> we'll have a booth there in the Expo Hall July 22 and 23
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:02:30] <pck> more info on the Expo details are available here: http://en.oreilly.com/oscon2009/public/content/expo-hall
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:02:32] <lopbot> Title: Expo Hall: OSCON 2009 - O'Reilly Conferences, July 20 - 24, 2009, San Jose, CA
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:03:06] <pck> and I'd also like to ask anyone that plans to be there or wants to join us to stop on by
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:03:27] <pck> even better if you want to help out and help manage the booth, just send a note to board@lopsa.org
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:04:42] <andrew__> we back?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:04:47] <pck> for the bigger news of the day we now have your President: Trey Harris
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:05:10] <Trey> Thank you, Philip
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:05:36] <Trey> As you may know, LOPSA announced last week the settlement of the lawsuit originally filed in 2006 by Association Headquarters against the USENIX Association, in which USENIX sued LOPSA, and LOPSA countersued against USENIX. You can read LOPSA'S press release at http://lopsa.org/settlement.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:05:36] <lopbot> Title: LOPSA Announces Settlement of Lawsuits | League of Professional System Administr ..., sent 6d 6h 2m 39s ago by nonrandom in #lopsa
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:06:04] <Trey> Please understand that I'm limited in what I can say about the settlement. The agreement provides that the terms of the settlement are to remain confidential and will not be disclosed except in certain limited circumstances.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:06:35] <Trey> Settling the lawsuit means that we can return our focus to our mission to serve system administrators. This lawsuit was an enormous distraction and time sink for us, and it's very good to put it behind us and move on.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:06:49] <Trey> The LOPSA Board approved the settlement unanimously, and I am personally very happy about how things turned out. I freely admit that the requirement for nondisclosure is not in line with the openness and transparency that LOPSA has always strived for, but all parties agreed to this in order to complete the settlement.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:07:19] * Hydroxide congratulates Trey and the board on reaching the settlement.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:07:34] <Trey> Although we were and are confident in our case if it had gone to trial, there are always risks in litigation, the expense and time commitment for all sides would have been substantial, and the distraction from our mission would have continued and even intensified.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:08:14] <Trey> At the same time, I can certainly understand why some LOPSA members might be uncomfortable with simply trustegg
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:08:17] <Trey> oops
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:08:34] <Trey> ... trusting me and the Board that the litigation was handled correctly and that the settlement was appropriate and fair.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:09:04] <Trey> For this reason, I'm announcing today that I have formed an independent review panel of LOPSA members to provide our membership with an independent review of LOPSA's handling of this matter. We are taking this important step to maintain our tradition of transparency while at the same time complying with the terms of the settlement agreement.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:09:50] <Trey> I have named Andrew Hume, formerly LOPSA Secretary-Treasurer and USENIX President, to chair this panel. He will select the remaining members of the panel, to be drawn from LOPSA members who are not Board members and were not involved in the case.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:09:52] <asm2home> Um, Trey, the lawsuit took up *WAY* too much of LOPSA's time and energy. Why not just be happy it's done and move on?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:10:17] <Trey> I have given him free reign to select the panel, but I have asked that he include at least one member who has never worked in an official capacity for LOPSA, in order to ensure an independent perspective. The panel will be given access to me, the Board, and our attorneys, if necessary, and will review the settlement under a strict nondisclosure agreement (NDA) preventing disclosure of the settlement terms to anyone outside of LOPSA in accordance ...
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:10:23] <Trey> ... with the agreement.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:10:30] <asm2home> What's the panel going to accomplish? Say the Board did a bad job:? How will that help?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:10:46] <Trey> Once the panel's review is completed, they will report to the membership their analysis of our performance in the handling of the lawsuits, whether they feel the settlement was appropriate and fair for LOPSA, and any lessons the organization should learn from the experience.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:11:06] <Trey> asm2home: A sort of post-mortem, as is good to do after any unfortunate situation of this magnitude
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:11:17] <Trey> Their report will not disclose any details of the settlement, so as not to violate the NDA and the settlement agreement, and will be reviewed by our attorneys to ensure compliance, but otherwise the panel will be free to report as they see fit.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:11:35] <Trey> If the report is not unanimously signed by the panel, minority report(s) will be released as well, under the same terms outlined above.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:11:39] <asm2home> I disagree: I think this is the equivalent of throwing good money after bad.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:12:23] <Trey> asm2home: please hold on, you'll have a chance to ask questions of either Andrew or me in a moment.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:12:29] <asm2home> OK.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:12:42] <Trey> Members will be given an opportunity to present questions to the panel, both during and after their review, but the specific terms of the agreement will remain confidential.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:13:01] <Trey> I have taken this action, not because I feel that there is anything to investigate, but because I wish to mitigate, and hopefully dispel, any concerns that might come from the membership due to the confidentiality clause.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:13:16] <Trey> I would like to reiterate that our attorneys' representation was provided without any cost to LOPSA and that they did not in any way benefit from the settlement of this matter. I believe that their excellent efforts on our behalf made an enormous difference in the outcome, and for that I'm deeply grateful to Eric Stieglitz and David Abrams of Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman for their work.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:13:43] <Trey> Andrew Hume is on the channel. He has yet to interview any parties or see any of the documents, but he can say a few words about his plans for the process as he sees it. Andrew?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:13:52] <andrew__> thanks trey.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:14:08] <andrew__> i had a prepared statement, but let me cut it short:
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:15:03] <andrew__> because the agreement harms teh transparency that LOPSA normally runs under, it seems fair to have an independent assessment of what went down.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:15:26] <andrew__> in addition, i believe strongly intrying to learn lessons from expensive happenings.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:15:46] <andrew__> this is not a longwinded nor expensive thing; just a review.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:15:49] <andrew__> over to try.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:16:12] <andrew__> over to trey, i meant
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:16:15] <Trey> :)
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:16:23] <Trey> Thank you, Andrew.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:16:25] <cat-xeger> I guess I'm just missing the point of throwing more energy into it. It's over -- a review won't change anything.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:16:31] <Trey> Candidates for the Board elections, upon receipt and confirmation of NDA, will receive copies of the settlement contract for their review.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:16:46] <Trey> I am sorry that I cannot answer any specific questions about the settlement. If there are any other questions, I will take them now.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:17:00] <allbery_b> cat: when Trey announced the settlement in-channel, a number of people extressed discontent at the details being secret.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:17:05] <asm2home> No question, but a statement . . .
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:17:07] <allbery_b> expressed
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:17:45] <Trey> asm2home: go ahead?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:17:47] <asm2home> Speaking *not* "for" the Leadership Council, but as a member of that Council, I think this is a grievous waste of volunteer time. . . .
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:18:00] <andrew__> i know i want to ask the usenix board if they learned anything from this debacle; so why not ask the same of lopsa?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:18:08] <cat-xeger> Certainly -- however afaict, all this will gain is somebody else saying "the settlement happened, we can't change anything, here's our opinion"
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:18:10] <allbery_b> given that we're a sysadmin organization, I would not be at all surprised to find that response is common among the membership
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:18:27] * ski98033 agrees. The board is elected and I really do not want to be second guessing them on any event or decision
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:18:28] <asm2home> The suit dragged us down, and precious little got done. We have enough trouble getting people to do thing that move us forward; after all, look at how few candidates are running in the election. . . .
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:18:29] <Hydroxide> cat-xeger: "...and here's what we can learn from next time"
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:18:51] <asm2home> I think this will only hurt us more than it can ever possible help us. But what's done is done.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:19:03] <asm2home> (I'm done, too.)
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:19:13] <Hydroxide> ski98033: how do you expect to know whether they should be re-elected, or what promises to ask them? [note I have no reason to think that anything wrong was done - just speaking generally about members' ability to oversee their board]
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:19:14] <Trey> Please... I have asm2home and then cat-xeger, then pck will queue questions
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:19:31] * Hydroxide shuts up in the interest of an orderly meeting
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:19:53] <Trey> First, let me respond to the question of additional waste of money and volunteer time.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:20:38] <Trey> I don't believe there will be any real expenditure of money. Perhaps a few documents will be fedexed, perhaps some conference call time is used, but the money spent by the organization for the review should be de minimis
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:20:54] <asm2home> (I didn't say anything about money, just time.)
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:21:43] <Trey> As for volunteer time, I asked Andrew to chair the panel--Andrew does not currently have volunteer responsibilities. The panel he pulls together will not have any other responsibilities currently for LOPSA either, merely be concerned members
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:21:45] * ENOMAD raises his hand to speak in turn.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:22:17] <Trey> Again, the point is for the panel to be independent of LOPSA's leadership
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:23:37] <Trey> As to nothing being changeable at this point, I would agree, but like a post-mortem of an outage, which one cannot change because it's in the past, the important thing is what lessons can be learned to prevent a future occurrence, or if one cannot do so, make the handling of a future occurrence more efficient or have a better outcome
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:24:01] <asm2home> Trey, I don't mean to be rude, but you're repeating yourself.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:24:35] <cat-xeger> Are we expecting to have more lawsuits, then?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:24:38] <Trey> one moment
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:26:21] <Trey> cat-xeger: no, we're not
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:26:44] <Trey> cat-xeger: but a lawsuit is an eventuality any corporate entity must be prepared for
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:27:19] <asm2home> If we don't start doing a hell of a lot more to grow the org, there isn't going to be a LOPSA to sue!
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:28:21] <Trey> and this did very much immobilize us as an organization. Was that just to be expected, because we're such a young organization we couldn't afford to dedicate resources (i.e. by spending money) to the response and instead had to use Board members? Or is there something else we should have done early on to have enabled us to respond in a way that did not distract us from programs?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:28:55] <cat-xeger> Either way, I'd like to hear something about what lopsa's doing -separate- from lawsuit related activities, to grow.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:29:24] * pck nods in agreement
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:29:25] <allbery_b> (a) young organization (b) [REDACTED] struck specifically while we're still vulnerable. next?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:29:26] <cat-xeger> It's over now, and shouldn't be holding us back -- where are we going?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:29:44] <pck> though we do have a few more in the question queue: ski98033 had a question/comment?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:31:06] <ski98033> I guess I was thinking that the board was elected to run lopsa and I see no reason for a review that may take up energy we could spend elsewhere
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:31:32] <ski98033> although if they feel it is necessary, go ahead and do it
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:32:04] <pck> ENOMAD: you were in the queue next
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:32:08] <ENOMAD> I am concerned about a board that is afraid/unwilling to do things because they're being second-guessed by the membership every time something important (real or imagined) happens. I want a board to do what it's elected to do - lead. A board that feels they have to talk to the membership about every decision isn't a board. I am opposed to this oversight as a slippery slope and ask that it not happen.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:32:36] <ski98033> said much more eloquently than me
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:32:58] <Trey> ENOMAD: Thank you. Let me respond to that with this:
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:33:53] <Trey> LOPSA operates transparently. Our decisions and outcomes are visible to the membership We have not in the past done anything like this because if a member wanted to know what we had done, they only needed to look.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:34:32] <Trey> Here, in one of the largest activities we've ever undertaken, it's bound by legal secrecy
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:35:44] <lois> I have a comment.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:36:02] <Trey> Several members asked the question, "how do I know that you did the right thing? I would like to see the settlement for myself to make that determination"
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:36:31] <ENOMAD> Trey: I understand and appreciate that. I also realize that there are executive session issues that can not be legally transparent....
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:36:33] <Trey> Legally, unlike all our other activities, we can't accommodate that request. This review panel is the best compromise we and our attorneys could find.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:36:41] <nonrandom> It would probably be useful for future boards to know if there are certain actions they might take to avoid both lawsuits and getting bogged down. To the extent that that is true and the review process doesn't distract the new board, it could be a useful thing.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:37:01] <ENOMAD> Sometimes the board just can't tell us things. Are we going to have an oversight committee deciding if every executive session decision is "the right one"?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:37:15] <ENOMAD> all of a sudden we have an un-elected second board acting as a star-chamber for the first one.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:37:33] <asm2home> ENOMAD, I thought that's what Moose, Mario, Bill and I were? :-)
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:37:54] <Trey> ENOMAD: no. But this is not the equivalent of every executive session. This was a settlement to litigation that took almost the entirety of the Board term just now ending
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:38:19] <Trey> The membership has very little insight into what was, not by our choice certainly, our major activity.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:38:20] <andrew__> * i have a comment
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:38:35] <Trey> Andrew? Then Lois.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:38:38] * Hydroxide should probably mention in-channel that he raised his hand via /msg to pck a bit earlier
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:38:46] <pck> hydrox was first
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:39:05] <Trey> The Andrew, and then Hydroxide, then Lois.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:39:09] <Hydroxide> ok
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:39:15] * ENOMAD is still unhappy about this but yields the floor
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:39:32] <andrew__> my intent is NOT to second-guess; nor act as a star chamber. it is simply to review
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:39:40] <andrew__> in a constructive way.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:39:45] <andrew__> o-o
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:40:05] <Trey> Thanks, Andrew. Hydroxide?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:40:45] <Hydroxide> Thanks. I'm not yet active in volunteering in LOPSA, but I'd like to start. I highly value transparency, and confidentiality about large things that affect LOPSA greatly would turn me away, while a report like this would motivate me to help in other areas
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:41:02] <Hydroxide> confidentiality is often important, but not when it substitutes for member oversight on major matters
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:41:25] <Hydroxide> I have no need for second-guessing where those who care can examine the situation after the fact, but without some sort of ability to evaluate board performance, elections are meaningless
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:41:42] <Hydroxide> thanks very much for addressing this concern, and more importantly for getting what I expect is a good result for LOPSA
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:41:50] <Hydroxide> I look forward to pitching in going forward in many areas.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:41:54] <Hydroxide> (done)
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:42:09] <Trey> Thank you. Lois?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:42:15] <lois> I think that in a situation like this we are not doing this just for those of you who are here - who are closely connected and interested. We would do this for the person who is looking at us from outside. For the person who has no reason to trust the elected leadership that she or he does not know and did not vote for.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:42:34] <lois> That's it
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:42:45] <pck> thanks, lois
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:42:53] <pck> cat-xeger had another comment/question
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:42:56] <Trey> Thank you Lois.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:43:56] <cat-xeger> I'd like to move on from the lawsuit related discussion, and hear about what the board -is- going to do -- I don't agree with wasting time on the review, since we either trust the board to do the right thing, or don't -- ut that's not as important as where we're going next.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:44:21] <cat-xeger> Surely a review of the lawsuit results isn't the only thing on the books.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:44:37] <pck> thank you as well, cat-xeger
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:45:08] <pck> there is a big item coming up that Trey will describe (as mentioned: elections)
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:46:06] <pck> FYI: Time to end of meeting: 14min
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:46:06] <Trey> When I said the litigation had taken up most of the Board term, I was not kidding. Elections are coming up in two weeks.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:46:37] * Hydroxide has to leave, thanks everyone, and will read scrollback. &
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:46:46] <cat-xeger> I don't believe you were kidding -- but like an ex-, it's time to move past.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:46:47] * mhalligan raises his hand.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:46:53] <Trey> The Leadership Committee, chaired by moose, has nominated a slate of candidates
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:47:56] <Trey> If you have not previously voted in LOPSA elections, we use the single transferrable vote system--every member gets a single vote, that can be spread among multiple candidates. They allocate that vote by ranking the candidates on their ballots.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:48:19] <Trey> The first nine candidates who meet the treshold are elected.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:48:45] <Trey> Voting is done online, and will commence on... oops, my notes... someone help me? Is it June 8?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:49:05] <Trey> Yes, June 8.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:49:44] <Trey> We will have some turnover and fresh voices as several current Board members are not running for re-election
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:50:35] <Trey> We'll have announcements coming shortly about how candidate questions will work--at the very least there will be an email forum and we may do a #lopsa-live like event for the candidates.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:51:13] <Trey> To go back to cat-xeger's question:
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:52:35] <Trey> There are some in-house items on our stack that we are taking care of--things like getting the group health insurance program publicized, continuing educational programs, fixing some of the issues we've had with the membership database and notifications of member expiration, problems with the jobs board, etc.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:53:46] <Trey> It would be inappropriate for an outgoing Board to obligate a new Board to programs with only a month or so left in their term. So we'll be doing whatever we can on infrastructure and already in-flight items that we can between now and then.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:54:05] <Trey> And the new Board will be readying its agenda prior to being seated in July.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:54:32] <pck> Lois has some activity info, too that might apply
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:54:43] <cat-xeger> So it wouldn't be unreasonable to summarize the answer to the question as "nothing will be forthcoming until July"
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:54:48] <lois> Thanks Philip
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:55:10] <lois> Just a quick note that the edu committee has been meeting on IRC and conference call regularly and I would like to welcome our new member Scott Orr.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:55:43] <lois> We are continuing to work on preparing for Olf
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:55:59] <dparter> OLF and OLFU
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:56:13] <lois> right Ohio Linux Festival in October
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:56:19] <lois> that was all
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:56:42] <Trey> cat-xeger: that would be a true statement insofar as you mean new programs when you say 'growth'. but I'd rather summarize it as nothing especially visible, but some very important infrastructure and back-office work
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:57:13] <Trey> we want to leave the new Board with a clean deck to operate from, with as few hanging items left as possible.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:57:41] * allbery_b raises hand
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:57:45] <pck> mhalligan has also been waiting patiently for a question
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:57:59] <pck> you're up, and we have 2 mins, so we'll type fast
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:58:12] <mhalligan> quick question.
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:58:38] <mhalligan> How are we doing? Metrics-wise .. are we being successful? I think we're 3 years into this now. Have we taken over the world?
[Wed 2009/05/27 16:59:00] <mhalligan> forgive me if this was already covered, I came in late.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:00:14] <Trey> mhalligan: no, that wasn't asked yet.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:00:21] <pck> sorry guys: looks like we'll be running a little long, I'll extend this 10 mins
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:00:33] <Trey> spp: Stephen? Can you respond on financials?
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:00:50] <pck> for those that have to leave, I'll remind you that a full transcript will be posted on http://lopsa.org/
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:00:58] <mhalligan> I'm more curious about how many members we have than our financials
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:01:08] <mhalligan> but knowing where the financials are is interesting too
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:01:23] <spp> as far as our financial position goes, we've been improving
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:02:23] <spp> we've been able to move to a full cash basis for our expenses, and even decrease our outstanding debt
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:02:37] <mhalligan> and one other part of that question .. How can we help? I'll be hitting several conferences this summer, and would be glad to spread the word, and if we can get non-profit booths, I'm happy to man them .. like at HostingCon in DC
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:04:06] <pck> Thanks for the financial side, spp
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:04:44] <pck> on members, I believe we've been fairly flat but I haven't seen the numbers recently enough, but your suggestions is an excellent one
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:05:09] <pck> in case you weren't here when I mentioned it at the beginning, we'll be at OSCON and looking for people to help out there
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:05:17] <mhalligan> oscon in SF?
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:05:40] <Trey> The membership is flat or a bit down for the quarter, but we had a few problems with the member expiration reminder system that we are working out. Any member that did not renew because of this problem will have the membership retroactively extended at no cost to them
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:05:40] <pck> if you have any other conferences or training sessions you suggest we try and gain a present at that's good for us as well
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:05:45] <mhalligan> do we have a publicity committee/person? someone where I can say "hey, I'm going to be at these 6 conferences this year .. can I help out at any of them?"
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:07:05] <Trey> That's a fantastic idea, mhalligan.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:07:23] <Trey> For now, please email board@ with that
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:07:26] <mhalligan> ok
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:07:31] <mhalligan> thanks for entertaining my questions :)
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:07:32] * dparter notes that most of us don't get to go to that many conferences :-/
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:07:40] <Trey> We have a conference committee, but they should have an email address for things like this.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:07:41] <lois> The edu commitee could use tht info too
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:08:16] <pck> and I believe the queue contains allbery_b now
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:09:11] <allbery_b> Trey has said a couple times that he wants to leave a clean slate for the next board. It occurs to me that if that's SOP, it will be difficult to have any long term projects
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:09:51] <Trey> allbery_b: not exactly, thanks, let me try to clarify
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:10:11] <Trey> What is inappropriate is not committing to projects that outlast a single Board term
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:10:45] <Trey> It's starting new projects and comitting to them immediately prior to a new Board term.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:10:55] <Trey> You have to make commitments that will bind future Boards
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:11:16] <Trey> But you want to avoid doing so when you don't have time to make any forward momentum on them at all
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:11:18] <allbery_b> ok, that makes a bit more sense, but you mentioned stuff like the jobs board that have been pending for a while
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:11:25] <Trey> That would cause a very bad precedent
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:11:49] * CaseyBea has to leave, thanks the board for the good meeting - and wants to simply ask that all members be publically notified of how to (possibly) partake of the aforementioned 'review panel', thank you.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:11:52] <Trey> allbery_b: Oh, I'm sorry, that was an example of something we *will* be tackling between now and then. I'm sorry if it made it sound like it was the other
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:12:12] <Trey> dparter: you wanted to add something?
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:12:25] <allbery_b> no, I understood that as something to be cleaned up before the nexxt board... but it's not a *new* item, really
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:13:10] <dparter> I just wanted to clarify, but I think Trey did clarify -- we aren't scared to take on long-term projects, it is just the situation right now isn't the time to launch anything new. We are cleaning up and doing houskeeping on things like the jobs board, and the Edu committee is working on OLF/OLFU and SCaLE for next year
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:13:41] <Trey> allbery_b: right. but for sake of argument... if we decided the current jobs board was not fixable and we wanted to replace it, that would be a decision the current Board might make. Contracting with some new company to replace it effective after the new Board takes office would *not* be appropriate.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:14:03] <allbery_b> ah, ok
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:14:50] <Trey> Thanks.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:15:04] <Trey> One last question that was put on the wrong channel, but I'll answer it here
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:15:32] <Trey> The question was what is the litigation and settlement's financial impact to LOPSA?
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:16:08] <Trey> I cannot answer that specifically, insofar as I can't discuss terms of the settlement.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:16:35] <Trey> However, we are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit by federal and New Jersey law.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:16:51] <Trey> That requires certain reporting requirements. We will abide by those.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:17:37] <Trey> pck: That's all I have.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:17:43] <pck> Thank you for the comments, questions and participation.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:17:57] <pck> That really all we have time for (and then some) for today, but as always:
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:18:16] <pck> send suggestions, questions, ideas (conferences/etc), to board@lopsa.org
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:18:30] <pck> watch http://lopsa.org/ for upcoming info and activities
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:18:31] <lopbot> Title: League of Professional System Administrators |, sent 5m 27d 1h 39m 1s ago by pck in #lopsa-live
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:18:42] <Trey> Thank you all.
[Wed 2009/05/27 17:18:43] <pck> and the transcript will be posted some time tonight
delicious
digg
technorati