ALV May 2018/Minutes

From Technologia Incognita
Jump to: navigation, search
TechInc ALV 2018, May 17

1. Admin

1.1 Number of people present, number of proxy votes, guests?

Start time: 19:06

15 votes, Quorum set to 8

19:18 , 5 more votes added due to people entering
20 votes, quorum set to 11

No guests

1.2 Approving the notes from the previous meeting

13 yes
1 abstain
1 no

notes are approved

1.3. Finalizing agenda (any new points?)

3.7.2 after 3.1
3.1.1 after 3.1.3
3.7.3 after 3.1.5

2. Reports

2.1. Report from the board
break in money box

Piele: asks how are we proceeding? Investigating
Wizzup: we discussed in board meeting, but didn't come to a conclusion
want to discuss later in the ALV
Justa: don't know exactly what happened

scrap metal: 123.15 made by selling PCB's/metal

cmpxchg has stepped down as board-member

3. Votable points

3.1. Dispute Committee Procedures (see ALV_May_2018/Katje) (Katje)

19:18 20 votes, quorum 11

Katje: two versions
a) is version with, b) is version without possibility of co-opting
members if
it falls under the required amount of people required to handle a procedure.

The dispute procedure text is a starting point for dispute committee

- At least 3 members in committee, at most 7.
- 3 per dispute required.
- Problem if it drops below 3. Or 3 members and conflict of interest.
- Section 3 explains conflict of interest.
- With less than 3 people you have to find somebody.
In version a) dispute comittee and the board find new people.
Or in b) ALV is called.

There is a provision built in version a) that allows the general
membership to
protest against a certain choice of board/committee.

Melinda: why not have board do disputes
Katje: requirement board and dispute committee remain independent.

Bugblue: if people don't agree with co-opt. How many are required?
Katje: same requirements as for calling an ALV. (10% of membership)

Gorgabal: okay unless people want an ALV

WFK: having ALV means several weeks delay

3.7.2. Reduce terms of dispute committee to one year

Vote: one year or two years

Gorgabal: can you be re-elected
Katje: yes

Phicoh: what does abstain mean
Katje: 2 years

1 year: 15 votes

Result: Term will be one year

3.1.2. Co-opting members
Should we allow the dispute committee and board to co-opt members to fill
shortages in members, either due to recusals or lack of members.
(version a vs version b of the procedure document)

Version a) = co-opt

Webmind: I'm in favor or both
Phicoh: this is an ammendment

Version a): 11

Result: Co-opt will be allowed

3.1.3. Full procedure vote
Given the result of votes 1 and 2, vote to approve the full procedure as

Katje: one year term with co-opt

Yes: 12

Result: Dispute commitee procedure is approved and will be included with one
  year term and co-opt ammendment included.

oberoid: I can't realy see how this will work. Suppose I start a fire?
Katje: that is not a dispute
oberoid: Is it a framework?
Wizzup: It is framework for them to follow.
Katje: alice punches bob. Bob goes to dispute committe. DC ask formal or
  informal. Bob chooses 'formal'.  DC selects 3 people from within.
  And more... DC write report summarizing
  the dispute.

3.1.1. Should retention period for dispute committee records be:
a) 5 years
b) 10 years

Bugblue: comply with privacy law
Katje: says in doc, Section 12: comply with the law
Bigmac: lawsuit, you should not have deleted
Justa: impact of GDPR is not clear. Best to have an upper limit set.

Bugblue: why 5 or 10.
Katje: had to pick a number.
Bugblue: reasoning?
WFK: certain legal requirement for documents state these terms.
Katje: different aspects of the law have different requirements. Wanted to
  pick something. Picked what seemed sensible.
Bugblue: do you know what you did 5 years ago.

Majority wins. If neither, no value.

5 years : 10 votes
10 years:  4 votes

Result: Doesn't pass, no upper limit set

3.1.4. Board actions
The board shall consider the report from the dispute committee, and take
action they deem necessary based on that report and their own judgement.
All remedies must have an expiry date, all remedies must be reviewed
and all remedies must be appealable at an ALV.

Katje: gives power to the board. This text will be added to the HR.
Bugblue: don't you take away freedom
Katje: and use judgement
Bugblue: why write rules that don't change anything

Melinda: how to avoid the same situation as last year: board points to
DC and
  DC points to board
Wizzup: we now have an approved framework with the aim that this
situation will
  not occur

Piele: nothing changes except for annually and expiry date
Justa: making sure the board has a framework. To make sure the board knows
Bugblue: annual review. You have to do it. Even if makes no sense.
Stef: is review done by board?

Stef: even if rules already exist, still nice written down

Yes: 14

Result: accepted. Will be included in HR

3.1.5. Conflict with non-member (see ALV_May_2018/Katje2) (Katje)

Removed from the agenda upon request from Katje.

3.7.3. Elect dispute-committee members with 2/3 majority.

Stef: are there other ALV decisions that require 2/3 majority
Piele: Reason for this point. Dispute committee has to deal with sensitive
   information. Need for trust in persons voted in.
Stef: no we are putting dispute committee on higher standard
Piele: because they listen to everybody
Stef: some information is not shared with the board?
Piele: yes
Melinda: board doesn't deal with this kind of private matters
WKF: if we don't elect anybody then the board has to handle that
Kamitor: has to resolve currently unresolved issue. Need strong consensus
Gorggabal: not proposing clarifying
Kamitor: they may have to
Katje: 3/2 of ALV or members
Piele: ALV

Vote is about 2/3 majority of ALV required for person to be voted into

Yes: 10
No : 7
Abstain: 3

Result: Does not pass

* Start of first Closed vote procedure
** 3.2 Election of Dispute Committee Members
** 3.3 Social Media Committee Members
** 3.4 Board Elections
* Vote committee: Piele Melinda Stef

3.2. Election Dispute Committee members (closed vote)

Chotee	Yes
Kamitor	No

Result: Dispute committee consists of Chotee and WFK

3.3. Election Social Media Committee (closed vote)

Chotee	 Yes
Gorgabal Yes
Katje	 Yes
Webmind	 Yes
Bugblue	 No
Kamitor	 No
(stef is no longer available)

Result: Social Media Committee consists of Chotee, Gorgabal, Katje, Webmind

3.4. Board elections. (closed vote)
Phicoh has to step down and is up for re-election.

Phicoh	Yes

Result: Phicoh is voted onto board (again).

* End of first closed vote *

3.5. Regarding the ban (Bugblue)

3.5.1. Remove the ban (closed vote)
Options to vote: a) Yes b) No

Bugblue: It was missing, not copied from the previous agenda
Justa: It was put as a way for figure out what the ALV felt. It was not a
  votable point. This was done because it was already not on the agenda and
  could thus not be a votable point. Thus we didnt carry it over to the
  next ALV.
Bugblue: Why not put it so it is non-votable
Wizzup: The ALV re-elected board members
Bugblue: That's different
Gorgabal: I agree
Justa: After the ALV we got back in contact wih him. We didn't want to
have it
  on this ALV as a vote.
Wizzup: We promised him that in case of a point him he could be here.
Bugblue: I don't care about him, I care about the procedures
Piele: This is all because the point was not copied as statutes require.
Stef: anything you can share?
Wizzup: there is some things we can share
Piele: share info, maybe bugblue wants to retract the point
Bugblue: you put it in the internet, now eveybody knows
Justa: we admit that we made mistakes and how the decision was made.
  Upon request from him we looked at the issue. The board admits that
  went wrong. Including that we should not have published his info.
  the board concluded that the ban was justified.  The original advice from
  dispute committe is no longer relevant after board looked at the case.
Bugblue: put an apology online
Wizzup: if we get a possible court case, then it doesn't make sense to put
  up statements
Justa: one of the things that was demanded, was a text like this. The
  we got from legal advisors was that we cannot publish a text like that.
Bugblue: if you don't revoke the ban then the information stays on the
Justa: how to publish something without mentioning his name.
Melinda: keep information about ban hidden
Melinda: you were judge, jury, executioner
Wizzup: (there was/this is) no court case
Melinda: there was no procudure
Justa: we looked at it again, concluded that procedure was lacking, but
  to the same conclusion as the dispute committee.
Katje: (about publishing a decision) if you ban without informing people,
  the ban is pointless. Thus a ban must be communicated. In case of
  there is duty of care. You have to protect your members. With regards
as to
  how it was published: it has be recognized that there were mistakes.
  All measures have been taken to reduce impact. Unfortunately now with the other party has done the same. We are discussing. Are
  you standing by that.
Bugblue: banning someone is/should be last resort. You could have had a
  contract. You could have gone to court.
Wizzup: can't enforce contract
Bugblue: yes we would know
Stef: still have question is there anything you want to share.
Justa: we have been in talks. Very frustating. Hard to agree on anything to
  talk about. 3 hours phone call. Then a second call with points about first
  call. One complaint that he was not invited to the previous ALV.
  We offered that he could be at the current ALV and sent invitation.
Wizzup: we try to come to come to a situation to get consensus on an
  But he wasn't able/willing to commit to anything. He continued to look i
Bugblue: not remove the ban because of negotiation position
Wizzup: I don't care so much. If ALV wants to remove ban then remove.
  His complaint is that we didn't apologize. Also sent personal apologies
Melinda: take into consideration the personal part. He is traumatized.
Wizzup: offered to partially pay for a mediator. He initiall wanted to talk
  (only) to new board members. He did not take any offers on finding a
way to
  talk with mediator, with friends present, trusted persons....etc.
Katje: you talk about trauma. We have to look after the party who is still
  a member.
Gorgabal: can we vote?

* Second closed vote*
Counting committee:
Gorgabal Melinda Katje

Majority for: No
Result: Ban will not be removed
* End of second closed vote*

3.5.2. Apology
Issue an apology for using the techinc website as an illegal tool to make
someone look bad on the public internet
Options to vote: a) Yes b) No

Bugblue: should techinc apologize on the website
Katje: I have issues with the word illegal.
Bugblue: I want to remove the word illegal
Webmind: I read that intentional
Stef: I agree with webmind.
Bugblue: I added it there for proxy votes. Issue an apology.
Gorgabal: depending on the wording we open ourselves for legal attacks.
Bugblue: board can find suitable text
Justa: can see this as that we apology for putting his name on the internet
Katje: one of the legal demands was to publish a specific text. Maybe be
harder   in legal procedings.  The ALV may tie our hands.
Bugblue: it has started more than a year ago. You could have done something
Justa: we said we made a mistake. Within 5 days
Bugblue: mailing is closed.
WFK: I was worried about how this affects the association.
Piele: like justa was explaining, you acknoledged. You could have put it
Bugblue: the way you removed his name
Wizzup: if voted in favor, it might/will cause demand to put text from
Phicoh: proposes that apology would be place on the wiki
Bugblue: fine
WKF: legal consequences expected/anticipated.
Justa: I see no harm in restating the apology that went to the mailing
  list in a public place
Oberoid: use regret instead apology
Wizzup: let's no go there. He slammed us for that.
Bugblue: agrees with justa. Does not care how it is worded. That is up
to the

Wizzup: we can have a wording for vote:

Issue an apology on the techinc website or wiki for posting private
on a public medium

* Third closed vote *
Counting committee: Katje Stef Bigmac

Majority for: No

Result: Rejected. No appology publication forced by ALV
* End of third closed vote*

[Kamitor leaves, vote goes to gorgabal]

3.6 Budget for Power Infra (see ALV_May_2018/Bigmac) (Bigmac)

3.6.1 First vote for the 1000 euro option then for 500 euro.

Bigmac: power is unstable. Kitchen is overloaded. Server room was down
for days.
  I bought new lighting, new cable. Could be connected to current fuse box.
  Cost about 100 euro. I propose to place a new fuse cabinet there.
  Around 300 euro. But we also need more automatics. That also costs money.
  I ask for 1000 euro. 500 euro is also fine, but things will not be as

Stef: about 6 or 9 months ago I put my name on a pledge.
Bigmac: if we vote zero, then I go to the people who pledged.
Piele: obviously was to fix/improve. Calculation what is needed to get us i
  somewhere. What is it. Can you fix it with 500 euro in a proper way?
Bigmac: cable is bought. That's on me.
Piele: current fuse box is not powerful enough for cable.
Bigmac: keeping current fusebox is not enough.
Bigmac: with 500 you will be reusing the current automatics.
  Ultratux advised that they (already) needed to be replaced
Piele: So with 500 we can make it, but not ideal. With 1000 things can
be done
  properly with new material.
Katje: if we go for 1000 euro is proper. Go for 500
Bigmac: it is upto. We don't have to spend all. There is a power committee.
Piele: go for the proper way
Gorgabal: what is the current financial situation.
Wizzup: 9k or 10k on the bank. But can't spend all that money.
  We have 4k or 5k to spend.
Bugblue: so board is not against this.
Oberoid: what is the priority. Servers.
Bigmac: open a fridge and a fuse will blow
Stef: I don't care about servers
Piele: to sum it up. We have power on our control but also power from UR.
  Which was down.
Bigmac: main fuses are under our control.
WFK: apart from the fancy extra all other stuff sound like a good
Justa: I was one the first people who put power here. There is some
  undocumented power. We could put them in our fuse box but we don't
because it
  is overloaded. We have had power issues since we moved here. Making power
  better,later, is very hard. You want to do it well in one go.

1000 euro: 19 votes

Result: Accepted, 1000,- budget available.

3.7 More points regarding the dispute commitee (see ALV_May_2018/Piele)
3.7.1. Abolish dispute committee

Piele: caused a lot of problems
Wizzup: current issues with some members.
Katje: membership didn't give it any guidance. we now have procedures
Bugblue: we have an understaffed dispute committee
Webmind: it is good to have people who put in effort to deal with
conflicts in
  the space.  I object to the mention of conflict of interest
Gorgabal: wants to help out if required
Bigmac: Do you need a dispute committee
Justa: ceebase has a 'dagelijks bestuur'. Proposal from the past; but don't
  have such a thing in place now.
Bigmac: revspace doesn't have dispute committee.
Stef: argument that other space don't have it doesn't say much.
Piele: do we need it for the exception case that a conflict may arise.
Justa: if there is a conflict with the board. If there is a conflict and
  dispute committee madea mistake then there is still the board.
Katje: since October worked on procedure. Has input from 8 other people.
  Personal request: give it a chance. If it doesn't work in a year time,
  get rid of it.
Webmind: to lower the about of work for the board. There is need for
finding a
  way to deal with conficts. With the new procedures give it a chance.
Chotee: not every conflict has to go the dispute committee. The dispute
  committee is there for when people cannot solve it themselves.
WFK: I see many orgs setting things up. It is not in isolation. We are
not the
  only ones. There is a lot to do. We are making good progress.
Melinda: is the procedure going to be online. Legal significance.
Katje: is it already online
Bugblue: does techinc want to be a testbed? If there is no dispute
  then the board can ask random members to help out.
Justa: want to have the possibility for appeal.
Katje: main reason not to do that is fairness and transparency.

[Stef leaves, 18 votes, quorum 10]

Yes means abolish the dispute committee

Yes: 5
No : 13

Result: Dispute committee is not abolished.

3.7.4. Quarterly report

Piele: provide a quarterly summary of what is happening. Some
information to the
  members. By mail or any way the committee finds best.
Katje: section 9 says that reports will be given to the ALV plus updates
  to the board ongoing conflicts.

Yes: 8
No : 8
Abstain: 2

Result: no quarterly report required

4. Informal poll regardin conflict
4.1. Left over from the previous ALV:
 Informal poll proceeding legally or accepting the demands
Yes means to accept demands

Yes: 0
No : 10
Abstain: 8

Result: No

3.8 Budget for board (see ALV_May_2018/Ultratux) (Ultratux)

Voting performed on this point at this ALV to avoid being forced to plan
a next
 ALV just for this point, alone.

Yes: 3
No : 6
Abstain: 9

Result: Not accepted

5. Any other business

Bugblue: GDPR?
Wizzup: there will be something
Justa: your links were helpful
Bugblue: I will send more links

Piele: board will update on the screen

Wizzup: closes the meeting (around 22:50)