ALV March 2018/Minutes
ALV minutes 2018-03-17
Start: Opening 14:15
Agenda
1. Admin
1.1. Number of people present, number of proxy votes, guests? 1.2. Approving the notes from the previous meeting 1.3. Finalizing agenda (any new points?)
2. Reports
2.1. Report from the board 2.2. Financial report 2017 2.3. Report from the Kascontrolecommissie 2.4. Appointing new kascontrolecommissie 2018. 2.5 Approving the financial report 2.6. Budget 2018
3. Votable points
3.1. E-mail poll procedure 3.2. Online presence
4. Ban
4.1. Board presents developments regarding ban of T
4.2. Informal vote regarding confidence in the board
5. Elections
5.1. Board Elections 5.2. New members for dispute committee
6. Ban discussion
6.1. Informal poll unbanning T
6.2. Informal poll proceeding legally or accepting the demands from T
7. Dispute commitee 7.1. New Dispute Commitee Procedure 7.2. New members for dispute committee
8. Any other business
1
-
Wizzup taking notes. ALV voted to extend the max ALV time by an hour.
1.1 ---
People present: 20 (quorum is 11)
1.2 ---
18 people approve the notes 2 abstain
Notes are approved
1.3 ---
There will be a slight reordering of the ALV agenda, due to things that came up relatively recently. The modified agenda is at the top of this document.
2 -
2.1 ---
There is a white box on the wall that makes it easier for people to dump cash/payments from the jar. This also made it easier to document the sources (inflow). Justa states that he is waiting for someone else to take over the administrating/analysis of the drink orders and cash flow.
2.2 ---
Wizzup explains the report.
2.3 ---
Piele: We sat down two fridays ago with the treasurer, we looked at the mutations coming in and out. There were a lot, and we did not check all of the mutations individually. The 42 deductions from the bank account were checked, these were mainly payments for the drinks, payments for the rent. We concluded that these numbers added up, and no anomalies were found. From the money that went into the account, there were a few remarkable parts: Rent return from UR and the film crew money. We also looked at the invoices corresponding to the rent. We found that one invoice in form was missing, the rent for February, which Wizzup noted in the documentation presented to the committee. We suggested to Wizzup to also get that invoice. After that we advised the treasurer to break down the equity a bit more, to give us a clearer picture of our current situation. After we say down last wednesday with the treasurer, the kas controle committee approves the notes and would suggests the members to relieve the treasurer of the responsibility. (Kascontrole commissie = Piele, Meridion.
Kascontrole: - piele: last wednesday/friday, past year. bankstatements, total, mutations. 943 statements, 80 pages, not individually checked - 42 decudtions: payments for drinks, rent etc - no anomalys found - 1700 back, EUR 400 filmcrew - invoice rent of feb 017 was missing, needs to come from UR: actionpoint wizzup - kascontrole approves - piele proposes discharge 2017, with note to continue p - Bas W (meridion) and Peter T (piele) were kascontrole commissie - 19 votes approved, 1 abstained
Samll question: oberoid: buffer effect revbank - box next to bowl great idea, maikel, piele, oberoid - katje: explains about slips importance on note with envelope
Maarten: asks about drinks difference last year
2.4 ---
Oberiod stands up to be part of the financial committee in 2018. As does webmind. Gorgabal does as well.
Yes: 18 Abstain: 2
2.5 ---
The report is accepted.
Yes: 19 Abstain: 1
2.6 ---
piele: budget before end of year next time please look at 15.2 of our statues (needs to be mailed out earlier) (last month of previous year) maikel notes that he likely won't vote for it with the 2.5k in there.
vesna: asks for 2k5 budget how - did we get to 2.5? Answer is rough estimate, but also based on our current state. pieie: no insurance fees in expenses
Board states that it is planning to arrange the insurance this year.
Yes: 19 Abstain: 1
3. Votable points - 3.1. E-mail poll procedure
Piele and some others note that the text was "tl;dr", suggests that we as members vote on a general idea and then suggests that the board can change the mechanism over time. Justa doesn't want that, because he wants the members to approve the specific mechanism so people won't comment afterwards that the "board" just "decided" something. Wizzup notes that if people want the procedure to be defined by others and not have to bother with it, they can do that with the current procedures. Brett notes that such a procedure has been helpful in other instances where he was in a board Katje notes that comparably the procedure is relatively simple. Justa gives tl;dr of the procedure, that is what people asked for.
Maikel asks why we don't have a "dagelijk bestuur" to take care of this, instead of the polling.
Chotee: We have to decide things, sometimes on a short notice (camera crew for example). We did not have any means. But it's not an alv thing and a short term thing.
Piele: members@ is currently opt-in. Justa: One of the expressly stated intentions was to make it a list that everyone should be on. Piele: So the board will enforce this? That every member is on the list? What about non-members? Justa: We never felt that non-members on there could be an issue. Piele: So can non-members then also vote? Justa: Yes, so we need to figure out that who of the people who respond is actually a member. Piele: Have you looked into open source software for this? Justa: Yes, look at the mail. Most tools require a certain amount of trust.
Votes:
Minimum period (multiple of 24 hour)
A1. 3 -- 6 Yes A2. 4 -- 5 Yes A3. 5 -- 9 A4. 6 -- 8 A5. 7 -- 8
B. Yes: 10: Abstain: 2 No: 8
Reject (10 out of 20 is not a majority)
C. Yes: 11. Abstain: 1. No: 8
Accepted
D. Yes: 18. Abstain: 2. No: 0
Accepted
E. Yes: 16. Abstain: 1. No: 3
Accepted
3.2. Online presence
Chotee explains his point.
There are various questions regarding the point:
* How many people should be on that group, and should they be added dynamically? * Political question is brought up again -- are we not in that way 'embracing' the platforms?
Yes: 13 Abstain: 0 No: 7
Accepted
Initial group: Chotee, gorgabal, Katje, webmind, stef
If anyone is going to vote no for them as a whole, we will need to hold an individual/blind vote at the end
Yes: 13 Abstain: 4 No: 3
Individual vote at the end. (Notetaker note: in this case, at the next ALV)
4. Ban - 4.1. Board presents developments regarding ban of T
- This part was not on the live pad, and not everything that was said was
caught (as with the rest of the notes, really), but here specifically because there was so much cross talk and the person taking notes was also actively taking part in the conversation. Mea culpa. **
- Mattronix is invited to join the discussion as a non-member
- We're getting extra mails while discussing the subject
Justa asks people to be careful when sharing the information, stating that the information that we compiled now was done on very short notice, and do not intend to share this information now.
Justa reads the three page summary to the members. Justa reads the emails from T that arrived today.
Maarten & Stef: Always get a lawyer involved
Maikel: Board needs to be more aware of emotions, and have someone vet replies since some comments come off passive-agressive.
Katje: <Comment on text, some legal insight>
Justa: reads some text from the 'concept dagvaardiging', specifically
Melinda: States that the board could have done a better job, but it's not terrible it was the first conflict like this. Melinda wonders if it would not have been to start with a clean sheet, first lift the ban.
Justa/Wizzup answer some of Melinda's questions.
Maikel: (Missed it)
Phicoh: His recent story that it was about self defense is a new story and validates a part of Dina's story. He never gave us any of this information.
Vesna: Although I am in favour of the ban that happened, and I am relatively ok with how it went, but it would be a good idea to add a term to the ban.
Piele: And we can do that now, add a term to it
Stef: I think it is not OK if we decide that an assault is a 1 year bannable offense. I don't think this is ok, and would be setting a bad precedent
Justa: If this happens again, there would be a lot of lessons learned.
Gorgabal: There are two things being discussed, one is the legal part, the second is that a part of our community is being wronged.
Justa: What we are trying to ascertain is what the right way to go would be. (Shows two different papers) of how it can go.
Wizzup: We're running out of time for the ALV. Maybe extend the time for the ALV?
Piele: We can't add points because people who proxy vote cannot vote on this. We also decided that the ALV has a certain ending time.
4.2. Informal vote regarding confidence in the board
<Running out of time, there do not seem to be a lot of people in favour of an informal vote, just continuing with the board elections. Will schedule a next ALV soon.>
On IRC, 1 reader of the pad (pochenk)suggested that other readers of the pad to identify themselves (voluntarily)
5. Elections
==
5.1. Board Elections
Einstein and Bakboter join. Quorum is now 12.
All board members running have been (re)elected: Wizzup, cmpxchg, Katje, DrWhax.
We ran out of time. ALV closed, informal discussion continues. Official topics (dispute committee, dispute procedure) will continue at the next ALV.
- ALV ENDED WITH FOLLOWING POINTS REMAINING:**
5.2. New members for dispute committee 6. Ban discussion 6.1 Informal poll unbanning T 6.2 Informal poll proceeding legally or accepting the demands from T 7 7. Dispute commitee 7.1 7.1. New Dispute Commitee Procedure 7.2 7.2. New members for dispute committee 8. Any other business
