| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 06:36 |
|
gsams joined #evergreen |
| 07:22 |
|
JBoyer joined #evergreen |
| 07:25 |
|
agoben joined #evergreen |
| 07:33 |
|
ericar joined #evergreen |
| 07:56 |
|
kmlussier joined #evergreen |
| 08:24 |
|
mrpeters joined #evergreen |
| 08:30 |
|
maryj joined #evergreen |
| 08:39 |
|
mmorgan joined #evergreen |
| 08:49 |
|
JBoyer joined #evergreen |
| 08:56 |
|
Dyrcona joined #evergreen |
| 09:00 |
|
bos20k joined #evergreen |
| 09:02 |
|
JBoyer joined #evergreen |
| 09:06 |
JBoyer |
Dyrcona, if you have some time to look over some basic NCIPServer changes I've pushed 2 working branches. The other change we're using is a bit specific so I haven't pushed it yet, but I'm hoping I'll have time to make it more generically useful. |
| 09:07 |
JBoyer |
And mmorgan, if there's anyone that would like to try out a new NCIPServer branch that returns barcodes (when possible, not 100% of the time), and / or makes local ILS NCIP holds work just like any other hold, those branches should be stable enough to do some testing with. |
| 09:08 |
Dyrcona |
JBoyer: I'll have a look. I've got some things to clear up this morning, first. |
| 09:08 |
JBoyer |
(We will be testing all of that here, of course, but we only have 2 libraries set up with NCIP at the moment.) |
| 09:09 |
JBoyer |
Dyrcona, there's no rush, just wanted to let you know. (There's not an LP project to post things to, is there?) |
| 09:10 |
Dyrcona |
JBoyer: I don't think there is. S'pose someone (me?) could make one. |
| 09:11 |
JBoyer |
I'll give it a shot since I've got 2-3 things to put in it already. |
| 09:13 |
Dyrcona |
Can you make me a co-owner or admin or whatever of it, please? |
| 09:25 |
Dyrcona |
So, I'm hearing from someone here that brick_ctl.sh stopped working somewhere around 2.4/2.5.... Is that true and/or have changes been made to it since then? |
| 09:27 |
|
yboston joined #evergreen |
| 09:29 |
JBoyer |
Dyrcona, you never had much choice in that regard. ;) I modeled it on the SIPServer setup, and you and I are the drivers and security team in total at the moment. |
| 09:29 |
Dyrcona |
JBoyer++ |
| 09:29 |
JBoyer |
Well, leads. there's not a "drivers" team. |
| 09:29 |
Dyrcona |
And something else for me to blog about. :) |
| 09:29 |
Dyrcona |
As for brick_ctl.sh changes guess I can compare what's installed against the source code.... |
| 09:30 |
Dyrcona |
My gut tells me that brick_ctl.sh should still work but something else in the environment here changed to cause the apparent breakage. |
| 09:33 |
|
mrpeters joined #evergreen |
| 09:44 |
mmorgan |
Dyrcona: brick_ctl.sh stopped working for us with a previous release as well. Not sure of which one atm. |
| 09:47 |
tsbere |
Fun with MARC: Pretty quotes broke our vandelay import. |
| 09:50 |
dbs |
Pretty unicode quotes, or pretty win1252 quotes? I think I can guess... |
| 09:52 |
csharp |
@blame pretty quotes |
| 09:52 |
pinesol_green |
csharp: pretty quotes broke Evergreen. |
| 09:52 |
* dbs |
will also try to take a look at the added content unicode corruption situation again (maybe this week?), our Cz friends have provided a ton of useful info |
| 09:53 |
dbs |
between the xslt perl module's docs and Encode.pm's behaviour changes, I bet we can narrow it down pretty definitively |
| 09:57 |
tsbere |
dbs: I just know that in OCLC dumps the closing double pretty quote is the same character as the MARC "end of record" character, so the record gets "split" >_> |
| 09:59 |
Dyrcona |
GIGO! |
| 10:02 |
|
mmorgan1 joined #evergreen |
| 10:05 |
tsbere |
On a different note, I have found an interesting situation regarding lost items, overdues, and backdating... |
| 10:06 |
tsbere |
Lost item voids overdues, lost item is checked in from a book drop, the overdues are restored with a new entry, and then the backdate voids the restored overdues |
| 10:07 |
Dyrcona |
Sounds 'bout right. :) |
| 10:15 |
tsbere |
And now "staff manually clearing two days of overdues on a still checked out item caused xact_finish, but not checkin_time or stop_fines, to be set, so overdues kept accumulating but not showing up in the patron's summary" |
| 10:18 |
bshum |
Dyrcona: mmorgan: For the channel, I'll point out https://bugs.launchpad.net/opensrf/+bug/1286248 and http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=commit;h=5e4d60cacabafccb0c1c11ccb4565f8d5251df7e where brick_ctl.sh was adapted to support the new osrf_control actions instead of osrf_ctl.sh (the old way) |
| 10:18 |
pinesol_green |
bshum: [evergreen|Galen Charlton] LP#1286248: remove references to osrf_ctl.sh - <http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=commit;h=5e4d60c> |
| 10:18 |
pinesol_green |
Launchpad bug 1286248 in Evergreen "remove deprecated script osrf_ctl.sh" [High,Fix released] |
| 10:19 |
|
mmorgan joined #evergreen |
| 10:19 |
bshum |
So if you had an earlier incarnation installed, you'd have to copy back over the newer brick_ctl.sh to get the updated options. Elsewise, newer OpenSRF/Evergreen wouldn't work using the original brick_ctl.sh from before. And it's not automatically installed as part of the regular installation process. |
| 10:55 |
Bmagic |
I am struggling to get ejabberd to accept connections from opensrf on xenial. Anyone else hit this wall? |
| 10:56 |
bshum |
Bmagic: Yeah, did you change the password encryption method? |
| 10:56 |
Bmagic |
I dont remember doing that |
| 10:56 |
Dyrcona |
That's probably it. |
| 10:56 |
Bmagic |
oh, which, on opensrf or ejabberd? |
| 10:57 |
Dyrcona |
ejabberd |
| 10:57 |
Dyrcona |
We documented that, didn't we? |
| 10:57 |
bshum |
Bmagic: This is my generated copy of OpenSRF README from master -- https://evergreen-ils.org/~bshum/OpenSRF-README.html#_configure_the_ejabberd_server |
| 10:57 |
bshum |
Yeah we did, but it's only in Master, not in any release |
| 10:57 |
bshum |
Waiting for gmcharlt to make 2.5-something OpenSRF :) |
| 10:58 |
gmcharlt |
indeed; I'll cut it later this week |
| 10:58 |
Bmagic |
sweet, I'll give this a whirl |
| 10:58 |
bshum |
Bmagic: It's the step for Ubuntu 16.04 where we change auth_password_format to "plain" which is a major hack, but it gets you back on track. |
| 10:58 |
bshum |
If you already registered the accounts |
| 10:58 |
bshum |
You'll need to de-register them first |
| 10:58 |
bshum |
Then stop ejabberd, make the auth change, then re-register the accounts |
| 10:58 |
bshum |
So that their passwords get stored plainly |
| 10:59 |
bshum |
Someday, it'll be "better" if we can teach OpenSRF to work with the more secure values I guess |
| 10:59 |
Dyrcona |
I suppose another hack would be to teach the Perl XMPP code in OpenSRF to use different password formats. |
| 11:00 |
Dyrcona |
Or is that not Perl....? |
| 11:00 |
Bmagic |
that was it! |
| 11:00 |
Bmagic |
ty all |
| 11:00 |
* Dyrcona |
doesn't remember. |
| 11:00 |
Dyrcona |
yw. |
| 11:00 |
Dyrcona |
bshum++ |
| 11:00 |
Bmagic |
bshum++ Dyrcona++ |
| 11:00 |
Bmagic |
Im trying to get evergreen to run in containers |
| 11:00 |
* Dyrcona |
mumbles something about not enough hours in a day..... |
| 11:01 |
bshum |
Bmagic: Like what kind of container? |
| 11:01 |
Bmagic |
docker |
| 11:01 |
bshum |
Once upon a time there was a guy working on Docker |
| 11:01 |
Bmagic |
any sort of results? |
| 11:02 |
bshum |
http://irc.evergreen-ils.org/evergreen/2013-09-13 |
| 11:02 |
bshum |
jbfink was the one then |
| 11:03 |
bshum |
There's some chatter in the irc logs about what he was having issue with in those days |
| 11:03 |
|
Christineb_away joined #evergreen |
| 11:03 |
bshum |
You may or may not find it helpful |
| 11:04 |
Bmagic |
thanks! |
| 11:05 |
Bmagic |
I think I am making some headway |
| 11:08 |
Dyrcona |
Bmagic: That's good. Do you think these containers would be useful in production or just for "kicking the tires?" |
| 11:08 |
Bmagic |
the dream is it will be production |
| 11:08 |
Bmagic |
That's what I am trying to figure out |
| 11:09 |
Bmagic |
I can't think of any real reason why it wouldn't work |
| 11:13 |
Dyrcona |
I can't either, but I don't know all that much about containers. |
| 11:15 |
Bmagic |
Other than the difference in the way you would manage the servers, and administrative access to the shell |
| 11:50 |
Dyrcona |
JBoyer: On the NCIPServer LP setup, it might be a good idea to make a bug wranglers team to be the bug supervisor as was done with Evergreen. |
| 11:51 |
|
brahmina joined #evergreen |
| 12:03 |
JBoyer |
Dyrcona: reasonable, I didn't see that going through the setup. Done. |
| 12:29 |
|
jvwoolf joined #evergreen |
| 12:34 |
|
mrpeters joined #evergreen |
| 12:34 |
|
maryj joined #evergreen |
| 12:40 |
|
collum joined #evergreen |
| 13:09 |
Dyrcona |
So, cstore, pcrud, and reporter-store fail to start. My first thought was database credentials, but I checked opensrf.xml and the db credentials work..... |
| 13:10 |
tsbere |
Dyrcona: Maybe a fm_IDL.xml issue? |
| 13:10 |
Dyrcona |
I'll check... |
| 13:11 |
Dyrcona |
Well, off the bat, the two copies are different.... |
| 13:12 |
tsbere |
Well, that is to be expected, as one has been modified with translation placeholders |
| 13:13 |
Dyrcona |
Oh. These two are meant to be different? openils/conf/fm_IDL.xml && /openils/var/web/reports/fm_IDL.xml |
| 13:13 |
tsbere |
Well, for translation purposes, yes |
| 13:14 |
tsbere |
Though copying the conf one to the reports one gets you "they can be the same" but sans translations |
| 13:15 |
Dyrcona |
OK. |
| 13:15 |
* Dyrcona |
installs libxml2-utils |
| 13:19 |
Dyrcona |
xmllint says nothing about /openils/conf/fm_IDL.xml but complains about entities not being defined in /openils/var/web/reports/fm_IDL.xml. |
| 13:19 |
* Dyrcona |
thinks that might be "normal." |
| 13:20 |
tsbere |
Sounds normal to me |
| 13:22 |
Dyrcona |
Hmm... I wonder where logs are going. Don't appear to be on the syslog server or /openils/var/log, so must be /var/log/syslog..... |
| 13:22 |
tsbere |
Dyrcona: Some field name issues may be involved in the IDL, which XML tools won't be able to see. Assuming the IDL is the issue at all, of course. |
| 13:22 |
Dyrcona |
Right. |
| 13:23 |
Dyrcona |
I just figured I'd check the xml for "correctness" 'cause that's easy. :) |
| 13:25 |
Dyrcona |
/var/log/messages is not useful: Shows services starting then says exiting, but no reason. |
| 13:26 |
Dyrcona |
Ah! Found it in syslog. |
| 13:26 |
Dyrcona |
Aug 8 13:02:16 util open-ils.pcrud: [ERR :12964:osrf_application.c:156:] Failed to dlopen library file oils_pcrud.so: libdbdpgsql.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory |
| 13:26 |
tsbere |
Ahhh |
| 13:26 |
tsbere |
That would imply that the IDL is a bad direction to be going in ;) |
| 13:27 |
Dyrcona |
Yeah, have to modify ld conf. |
| 13:27 |
* Dyrcona |
makes sure the dbdpgsql is installed first. |
| 13:27 |
Dyrcona |
Someone else set this up. |
| 13:35 |
Dyrcona |
That's better. Looks like they're talking to the database, now. |
| 13:35 |
Dyrcona |
tsbere++ |
| 13:53 |
csharp |
@marc 020 |
| 13:53 |
pinesol_green |
csharp: The ISBN assigned to a monographic publication by designated agencies in each country participating in the program. The field may include terms of availability and canceled or invalid ISBNs. It may be repeated for multiple numbers associated with the item (e.g., ISBNs for the hard bound and paperback manifestations; ISBNs for a set as a whole and for the individual parts in the set). (1 more message) |
| 13:53 |
csharp |
@more |
| 13:53 |
pinesol_green |
csharp: (Repeatable) [a,c,z,6,8] |
| 13:53 |
csharp |
@marc 022 |
| 13:53 |
pinesol_green |
csharp: The ISSN, a unique identification number assigned to a continuing resource. (Repeatable) [a,y,z,2,6,8] |
| 13:53 |
csharp |
@marc 024 |
| 13:53 |
pinesol_green |
csharp: A standard number or code published on an item which cannot be accommodated in another field (e.g., field 020 (International Standard Book Number), 022 (International Standard Serial Number) , and 027 (Standard Technical Report Number)). The type of standard number or code is identified in the first indicator position or in subfield $2 (Source of number or code). (Repeatable) [a,c,d,z,2,6,8] |
| 13:58 |
dbs |
csharp: don't trust that marc info, it's missing subfield $q which is where you can put "Hardcover" etc for ISBNs, instead of infecting $a |
| 13:58 |
dbs |
(suggests that pinesol's marc database is at least 3 years old, as $q was added in 2013) |
| 13:59 |
bshum |
Older than that probably |
| 14:00 |
bshum |
2008 |
| 14:00 |
bshum |
https://github.com/code4lib/supybot-plugins/commits/master/edsu-plugins/MARC |
| 14:01 |
Dyrcona |
Yeah, but the MARC records using $q are still in the minority. |
| 14:02 |
|
rfrasur joined #evergreen |
| 14:02 |
dbs |
unless of course you have a trigger that automatically splits on a space after a valid ISBN in $a and pushes the remainder into $q :) |
| 14:03 |
csharp |
dbs: thanks! - I was just looking for a pointer before digging into LOC docs :-) |
| 14:03 |
csharp |
berick! https://morbotron.com/ |
| 14:13 |
Dyrcona |
No, I won't fall into that trap, csharp. ;) |
| 14:17 |
berick |
csharp++ |
| 14:17 |
Dyrcona |
csharp: https://morbotron.com/img/S05E15/586319.jpg |
| 14:18 |
Dyrcona |
:) |
| 14:18 |
Dyrcona |
csharp++ |
| 14:18 |
Dyrcona |
And yay! Simple2zoom is working again. |
| 14:27 |
berick |
chasing bugs https://morbotron.com/gif/S10E05/1055555/1059308/ |
| 14:38 |
csharp |
Dyrcona++ berick++ |
| 14:44 |
|
terran joined #evergreen |
| 14:48 |
|
tspindler joined #evergreen |
| 14:50 |
|
dbwells_ joined #evergreen |
| 14:50 |
|
jeff___ joined #evergreen |
| 14:50 |
rfrasur |
tspindler, I'm gonna have to miss the meeting. Is there anything specific that I can answer/give feedback on before I go? |
| 14:50 |
|
gmcharlt joined #evergreen |
| 14:51 |
|
phasefx_ joined #evergreen |
| 14:52 |
rfrasur |
terran, do you know of anything? |
| 14:52 |
tspindler |
rfrasur: did you have any comments about the conflict of interest policy? |
| 14:53 |
|
Stompro joined #evergreen |
| 14:53 |
|
pinesol_green joined #evergreen |
| 14:54 |
Stompro |
tsbere, are you going to respond to Joan's question about htime sorting? |
| 14:55 |
|
rgagnon joined #evergreen |
| 14:55 |
Stompro |
I was going to try and respond, but if you are already working on it I'll hold off. |
| 14:55 |
rfrasur |
My only comment is that they're going in the right direction. I was satisfied with the comments made previously |
| 14:55 |
tspindler |
thanks |
| 14:55 |
tsbere |
Stompro: Wait, there was a sorting question in there? I thought it was a timing issue, and I don't know without looking at the code. |
| 14:56 |
rfrasur |
I know that's not particularly detailed feedback. |
| 14:57 |
tspindler |
ROG taskforce meeting in 5 minutes |
| 14:57 |
terran |
rfrasur: I had two questions I was going to ask - 1) conflict disclosure form - I thought we'd talked about not using that type of form because it would be too difficult to maintain, and instead we'd rely on an annual signed acknowledgement and announcement of potential conflicts prior to each topic |
| 14:57 |
Stompro |
tsbere, She is wondering what htime is counting from, it looks to me like it is the last checkout at home. |
| 14:57 |
rfrasur |
terran: I agree with that. And we did talk about that |
| 14:57 |
tspindler |
terran: yes, miker also brought that up |
| 14:58 |
rfrasur |
About using the annual signed acknowledgement. |
| 14:58 |
tsbere |
Stompro: As I just aid, I don't know without looking at the code. If you are looking at the code then you are more informed than I am ;) |
| 14:58 |
tsbere |
er, said |
| 14:58 |
rfrasur |
Was was #2, terran? |
| 14:58 |
rfrasur |
s/was/what |
| 14:58 |
terran |
rfrasur: and 2) quorum - one other coi doc said that members with conflicts could still count towards forming a quorum, but this one says they cannot |
| 14:59 |
terran |
rfrasur: I think there might be times when we couldn't form a quorum of people without a coi |
| 14:59 |
rfrasur |
They should be able to count towards a quorum. A quorum just says that a vote can happen. Not who is going to vote aye or nay. |
| 14:59 |
rfrasur |
In that case, they'd abstain, but still count toward the quorum. |
| 14:59 |
terran |
I agree |
| 15:00 |
rfrasur |
And I agree that both of those things should be updated to say that. |
| 15:00 |
miker |
right, that's my recollection of the consensus |
| 15:00 |
rfrasur |
Okay, I'm record. Gotta jet. Available via email tomorrow and to infinity and beyond or something. |
| 15:00 |
terran |
Ciao |
| 15:02 |
tspindler |
#startmeeting Rules of Governance Taskforce |
| 15:02 |
pinesol_green |
Meeting started Mon Aug 8 15:02:20 2016 US/Eastern. The chair is tspindler. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. |
| 15:02 |
pinesol_green |
Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. |
| 15:02 |
pinesol_green |
The meeting name has been set to 'rules_of_governance_taskforce' |
| 15:02 |
tspindler |
Roll call first with info |
| 15:02 |
tspindler |
#info tspindler is Tim Spindler, C/W MARS |
| 15:03 |
terran |
#info terran is Terran McCanna, PINES - Georgia Public Library Service |
| 15:03 |
rgagnon |
#info rgagnon is Ron Gagnon, NOBLE |
| 15:03 |
collum |
#info collum = Garry Collum, Kenton County Public Library |
| 15:04 |
tspindler |
#topic Rules of Governance Update |
| 15:04 |
miker |
info miker is Mike Rylander, ESI |
| 15:04 |
tspindler |
Terran I thought we would start with your document and go to the conflict of interest last |
| 15:04 |
miker |
#info miker is Mike Rylander, ESI |
| 15:05 |
tspindler |
terran: any comments? |
| 15:05 |
terran |
Link for reference: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MtJck3L6TlV1EBpThkxuXcOLGjo8-GnkfKw180ALo3M/edit?usp=sharing |
| 15:06 |
tspindler |
It looks straight forward to me. |
| 15:06 |
terran |
The first change I'm suggesting is to remove the date which I don't think is necessary there. |
| 15:06 |
terran |
The second change adds a little text for clarity. And the third change just updates the board list. |
| 15:07 |
tspindler |
Any comments from the floor? |
| 15:07 |
collum |
I like the addition of the git repo address. |
| 15:08 |
rgagnon |
Makes sense to me. |
| 15:08 |
collum |
Everything looks good. |
| 15:08 |
miker |
+1 from me |
| 15:08 |
terran |
Everyone please check your names - I see a typos with Sharon's location already |
| 15:08 |
terran |
Librries = Libraries |
| 15:09 |
tspindler |
#info Taskforce will proofread Terran's suggestion and we can present changes to the board at the next meeting |
| 15:10 |
tspindler |
#topic Conflict of Interest Policy |
| 15:10 |
tspindler |
I think I would like to take this one section at a time. |
| 15:10 |
tspindler |
Link for reference https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q32xE4R1IVIPRJ3hmAzYXfek-PyWSbnmjGtal8xihmA/edit |
| 15:11 |
tspindler |
Paragraph for purpose |
| 15:11 |
tspindler |
Any suggestions on the purpose paragraph |
| 15:12 |
miker |
note: unless you have edit rights, you won't see all changes (or any comments) |
| 15:12 |
tspindler |
miker: is there a way I can make those visible? |
| 15:13 |
miker |
I don't believe so, without granting write access. folks can request it and the owner can grant |
| 15:13 |
tspindler |
send me tjspindler gmail.com a request and I can give you access |
| 15:14 |
collum |
Should 'Evergreen Board' be 'Evergreen Oversight Board' wherever it appears? |
| 15:14 |
|
jvwoolf left #evergreen |
| 15:14 |
tspindler |
It should be whatever it is in the governance doc |
| 15:15 |
miker |
collum: agree with you |
| 15:15 |
* miker |
searches and replaces |
| 15:15 |
tspindler |
#action tspindler will update conflict of interest document to ensure it says Evergreen Oversight Board instead of Evergreen Board |
| 15:16 |
|
webmind joined #evergreen |
| 15:16 |
collum |
Possibly put ("Board") after the first instance. |
| 15:16 |
tspindler |
or miker will |
| 15:16 |
miker |
sorry ... gdocs just makes it too easy :) |
| 15:16 |
* miker |
steps away from the keyboard |
| 15:16 |
tspindler |
#info no changes for purpose |
| 15:16 |
tspindler |
Next section there are asome comments |
| 15:17 |
tspindler |
on "Defining a Conflict of Interest for an Evergreen Oversight Board Member" |
| 15:17 |
tspindler |
The third bullet was vague especially languate as it relates to compete. |
| 15:17 |
terran |
Are we skipping "Board Member Obligations"? |
| 15:18 |
tspindler |
sorry missed that section |
| 15:18 |
tspindler |
any concerns about board member obligations |
| 15:18 |
tspindler |
I received no comments on that |
| 15:18 |
terran |
Just a typo - I think "charitable" has a space in it, unless it's just my monitor |
| 15:19 |
rgagnon |
Is it really competing with what the EOB does, or other ILS and related vendors? |
| 15:19 |
tspindler |
no space on my screen |
| 15:19 |
tspindler |
on to the "defining a conflict..." |
| 15:19 |
miker |
rgagnon: tspindler's suggested change is: a for-profit enterprise that offers the same services as the Evergreen Oversight Board |
| 15:20 |
tspindler |
#No recommended changes to the Board member oblications |
| 15:20 |
tspindler |
How do others see the third bullet? |
| 15:21 |
terran |
I'm not really convinced that we need to mention the SFC at all in the COI... |
| 15:21 |
|
ericar_ joined #evergreen |
| 15:21 |
miker |
terran: I tend to agree |
| 15:21 |
tspindler |
we can yank it, it would take some more word smithing in some places |
| 15:21 |
terran |
Going back to the previous section, if we were taking the best interests of the SFC into account, that would mean that we would never consider other options |
| 15:21 |
miker |
which, also, makes the third bullet basically moot |
| 15:22 |
miker |
because the EOB doesn't offer any services :) |
| 15:22 |
tspindler |
miker: I was force fitting language, what do others think about getting rid of the bullet |
| 15:22 |
miker |
terran: that's a useful point |
| 15:23 |
tspindler |
getting rid of this "An Evergreen Oversight Board Member (or his or her family member) is engaged in a substantial capacity or has a material financial interest in a for-profit enterprise that competes offers the same services as with the Evergreen Oversight Board or the Software Conservancy Project." |
| 15:23 |
terran |
I'm good with getting rid of bullet #3. |
| 15:23 |
collum |
I think we can get rid of it. |
| 15:23 |
miker |
IMO, if language feels forced, or of no real relevance for the EOB specifically, I think we leave that language out |
| 15:23 |
rgagnon |
I don't think the point is competing with the Oversight Board, I think it's competing with the project the Board is overseeing. |
| 15:24 |
terran |
What if we changed the last sentence of the previous section to something like, "All decisions made by Evergreen Oversight Board Members are to be made solely on the basis of a desire to promote the best interests of the Evergreen software and greater Evergreen community." |
| 15:24 |
tspindler |
#action: tspindler will remove the third bullet stating "An Evergreen Oversight Board Member (or his or her family member) is engaged in a substantial capacity or has a material financial interest in a for-profit enterprise that competes offers the same services as with the Evergreen Oversight Board or the Software Conservancy Project." |
| 15:24 |
miker |
rgagnon: competing with Evergreen? |
| 15:26 |
tspindler |
terran: are you talking about adding that under Board Member Obligations? |
| 15:26 |
terran |
tspindler: yes, changing the existing last sentence that currently mentions the sfc |
| 15:27 |
terran |
Sorry for jumping back to it when we'd already closed that topic |
| 15:27 |
tspindler |
Board Obligations would now read: "Evergreen Oversight Board Members each have a duty to protect Evergreen and its board from violating State and USA federal law and to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Board members serve the public interest and are to have a clear understanding of Board's charitable mission. All decisions made by Evergreen Oversight Board Members are to be made solely on the basis of a desire to promote |
| 15:28 |
tspindler |
Do we need the 4th and 5th bullets also? |
| 15:30 |
tspindler |
to tell you the truth, I'm not sure how much any of the bullets do for the policy |
| 15:31 |
collum |
It seems like you would fall under the SFC's policy if #4 applied to you. |
| 15:31 |
collum |
as opposed to the EOB's |
| 15:32 |
rgagnon |
tspindler: There does seem to be quite a bit of overlap. |
| 15:32 |
tspindler |
collum: is you refer to tspindler or miker? |
| 15:32 |
terran |
I think bullets 1 and 2 are useful for clarity, I don't think the rest are particularly useful for us |
| 15:33 |
collum |
tspindler's question on the 4th and 5th bullets. |
| 15:33 |
miker |
#2 mentions, specifically, a transaction, which is good IMO. I'm for getting rid of the rest, but #1 isn't too far off topic |
| 15:35 |
collum |
I agree. I'm for getting rid of 3-5. |
| 15:35 |
miker |
so, really, yeah. we could get rid of the list and just create a paragraph that captures the "contractual relationship" from #1 and the "monetary transaction from 2 |
| 15:35 |
terran |
I'm not sure if the SFC needs to be mentioned in these either |
| 15:35 |
tspindler |
Ok, I could work on a paragraph with miker and rgagnon to include bullets 1 and 2 |
| 15:35 |
tspindler |
remove the rest. |
| 15:36 |
collum |
terran: true |
| 15:36 |
tspindler |
terran: I think we could go through and remove refrences to the SFC as suggested earlier throughout the document |
| 15:36 |
rgagnon |
+1 |
| 15:36 |
miker |
terran: probably, actually, since they're the ones that sign the contracts... |
| 15:36 |
miker |
but, we can mention them by reference as the parent fiscal agent of the EOB |
| 15:37 |
tspindler |
maybe one sentance somewhere that recognized the SFC as the parent fiscal agent |
| 15:37 |
terran |
Our decisions don't need to be based on what is good for them, though. |
| 15:37 |
miker |
tspindler: aye, yes |
| 15:37 |
miker |
terran: right |
| 15:38 |
miker |
beyond protecting their tax exempt status |
| 15:38 |
terran |
I like the paragraph that follows the bullets. Sometimes the appearance of a conflict can be as damaging as an actual conflict. |
| 15:38 |
tspindler |
#action tspindler, rgagnon, miker will look at a paragraph incorporating bullets 1 and 2 under "Defining a Conflict of Interest for an Evergreen Oversight Board Member |
| 15:38 |
tspindler |
" |
| 15:38 |
tspindler |
#action tspindler will remove remaining bullets under "Defining a Conflict of Interest for an Evergreen Oversight Board Member |
| 15:38 |
tspindler |
" |
| 15:39 |
tspindler |
#action tspindler will add a sentence recognizing the SFC as a parent fiscal agent and remove other references to the SFC |
| 15:40 |
tspindler |
are you ready to move on to the next section or is there more for this section? |
| 15:41 |
miker |
I'm ready to move on |
| 15:41 |
tspindler |
Next section is -- General Policies for Evergreen Oversight Board Members |
| 15:41 |
tspindler |
Any suggestion here? |
| 15:42 |
terran |
Looks fine to me. We don't have any paid employees, but theoretically we could some day. |
| 15:42 |
tspindler |
probably need to remove the disclosure a form language since we are discussed not doing that form |
| 15:42 |
terran |
agreed |
| 15:43 |
terran |
For the "disclosure and abstention when conflicted" should we be more specific about declaring it at the beginning of each relevant topic in the meetings like we'd talked about before? |
| 15:43 |
tspindler |
#action tspindler will remove language refering to - Evergreen Oversight Board Conflict Disclosure Form |
| 15:43 |
terran |
And maybe add something in place of the conflict disclosure form to mention signing the COI acknowledgement annually? |
| 15:44 |
tspindler |
yes, I can do that about annual acknowlegement |
| 15:44 |
tspindler |
I think it might be good to clarify on disclosure and abstention so it is for specific topics not the entire meeting |
| 15:45 |
miker |
re "disclosure", I think what's there is fine. we don't want to have to touch this each time our process changes and evolves |
| 15:46 |
tspindler |
rgagnon and collum: do you think the Disclosure and Abstention when Conflicted lanuguage is good as is? |
| 15:46 |
miker |
unless anyone sees an opportunity for confusion... |
| 15:47 |
terran |
Oh, I see it's clearer under the "conflict resolution" section - I think it should be prior to any discussion as well as action or transaction |
| 15:47 |
collum |
Sorry, I was reading it through closely. It looks good. |
| 15:47 |
tspindler |
np |
| 15:47 |
|
rgagnon joined #evergreen |
| 15:48 |
tspindler |
it seems some details might be addressed in the next section |
| 15:48 |
tspindler |
ok lets look at the last section - Conflict Resolution Procedures for Evergreen Oversight Board Members |
| 15:49 |
rgagnon |
tspindler: Looks OK |
| 15:50 |
rgagnon |
tspindler: Sorry, I was responding to the prior question on Disclosure... |
| 15:50 |
terran |
I would like it to read "Prior to any Board or Board Committee discussion or action on..." |
| 15:50 |
miker |
terran: well, unless, of course, the discussion uncovers a conflict |
| 15:51 |
terran |
Sure, but it's better to have the discussion with any known conflicts clear rather than having that done at the end of a discussion |
| 15:52 |
tspindler |
I don't see an issue with Terran's suggested change related to - Prior to |
| 15:53 |
miker |
how about, "...action on a matter or transaction involving a *known* conflict of interest..." |
| 15:54 |
tspindler |
seems fine to me |
| 15:54 |
collum |
sounds good |
| 15:54 |
terran |
That's fine. Any additional conflicts uncovered during the discussion would then be disclosed prior to the action. |
| 15:55 |
miker |
+1 |
| 15:56 |
tspindler |
sounds good. is there any more on that first item - Disclosure of Conflict When Present. |
| 15:56 |
tspindler |
if not lets then look at - Disclosure of Conflict When Absent |
| 15:56 |
collum |
Possibly have something in the next sentence - 'having a conflict of interest or becomes aware of a conflict of interest' |
| 15:57 |
terran |
EOB staff? Is that referring to board members or people employed by the board? |
| 15:58 |
tspindler |
it is really leftover language from SFC, i'm not sure how applicable it is |
| 15:59 |
miker |
I don't see the use of keeping it, TBH |
| 15:59 |
miker |
if you're not there, you can't act in conflict |
| 16:00 |
tspindler |
Yeah, it might be good to just get rid of the sentences from -- If board members are aware th...st for purposes of disclosure. |
| 16:00 |
terran |
tspindler: I agree we can strike that sentence |
| 16:01 |
terran |
tspindler: I think we should keep the "Such disclosure shall be reflected in the minutes of the meeting." though |
| 16:02 |
rgagnon |
Agree |
| 16:02 |
tspindler |
terran: agrree also |
| 16:02 |
tspindler |
updated my suggested change |
| 16:02 |
tspindler |
I don't see why we need to worry about disclosing things when absent |
| 16:03 |
terran |
I don't either |
| 16:03 |
collum |
agree |
| 16:03 |
rgagnon |
True, unless you're afraid of lobbying outside the meeting. |
| 16:04 |
terran |
rgagnon: I hadn't thought of that |
| 16:04 |
tspindler |
i see your point but not sure if it is still worth keeping it in |
| 16:05 |
rgagnon |
Also, true. |
| 16:05 |
terran |
I'm 50-50 |
| 16:05 |
|
bmills joined #evergreen |
| 16:05 |
miker |
I don't think it's worth keeping |
| 16:05 |
collum |
I don't either |
| 16:05 |
tspindler |
ok next section - Participation in Discussions and Votes Regarding Conflicted Matter |
| 16:06 |
tspindler |
we are going past an hour, do you want to continue or maybe everyone could put their comments on the google doc and we could resolve it via email? |
| 16:06 |
terran |
I don't think we could have board members abstain from reading the pre-vote discussions since we meet in irc |
| 16:07 |
terran |
I vote to continue |
| 16:07 |
rgagnon |
terran: Agree, not sure that makes sense. |
| 16:07 |
collum |
continue |
| 16:07 |
rgagnon |
continue |
| 16:07 |
miker |
continue |
| 16:07 |
collum |
The last sentence is probably not necessary. Of course they can read the minutes and/or logs. |
| 16:07 |
tspindler |
ok we continue, I really don't see the point of this seciton |
| 16:08 |
terran |
I thing abstaining from discussion is okay |
| 16:08 |
miker |
we already say they must abstain from discussion above, though |
| 16:08 |
miker |
in "disclosure when present" |
| 16:08 |
miker |
hrm |
| 16:09 |
miker |
no we don't ... thought we did |
| 16:09 |
miker |
it's in Disclosure and Abstention when Conflicted |
| 16:09 |
terran |
We could incorporate it there and get rid of this paragraph then |
| 16:10 |
miker |
I think Disclosure and Abstention when Conflicted covers it, but we could repeat it in Disclosure of Conflict When Present if anyone feels it bears repeating |
| 16:10 |
tspindler |
I think the paragraph beginning "Disclosure and Abstention when Conflicted. " is adequate |
| 16:11 |
rgagnon |
Agree |
| 16:11 |
collum |
Me, too. |
| 16:11 |
terran |
that just refers to the decision - should we change that to "discussion or decision"? |
| 16:12 |
terran |
Or do we want to allow discussion as long as there is disclosure? |
| 16:12 |
tspindler |
i think it is worth adding discussion |
| 16:12 |
rgagnon |
+1 |
| 16:12 |
tspindler |
so it reads "shall refrain from participation in any discussion or decision on such matter. |
| 16:12 |
miker |
+1 |
| 16:13 |
collum |
+1 |
| 16:13 |
tspindler |
ok sounds like there is agreement |
| 16:14 |
tspindler |
this seems to duplicate language also "Participation in Discussions and Votes Regarding Conflicted Matter. |
| 16:14 |
miker |
terran: do you want to move your highlighted string up to the Disclosure and Abstention when Conflicted section? |
| 16:15 |
terran |
sure |
| 16:15 |
tspindler |
ok |
| 16:15 |
miker |
I think then we can kill Participation in Discussions and Votes Regarding Conflicted Matter and Participation in Votes Regarding Conflicted Matter |
| 16:15 |
terran |
Agreed |
| 16:16 |
tspindler |
agreed |
| 16:16 |
collum |
Also agree |
| 16:16 |
rgagnon |
Agree |
| 16:16 |
miker |
and clarify the Quorum paragraph to state that it's per issue before the board, not meeting quorum |
| 16:16 |
miker |
you guys! we're getting stuff done! :) |
| 16:16 |
miker |
tspindler++ # dragging us all along |
| 16:17 |
terran |
tspindler++ yes! |
| 16:17 |
tspindler |
thanks |
| 16:17 |
tspindler |
i am concerned about even a statement of quorum, in my experience, with other organizations, I have not seen a COI where it affects quorum issues? |
| 16:17 |
terran |
"shall not be determining" pains me |
| 16:17 |
rgagnon |
Shouldn't the abstainer count toward the quorum? Or else it could dip below the required number. |
| 16:18 |
tspindler |
rgagnon: that is my concern also |
| 16:18 |
terran |
I think we should allow everyone present to count toward the quorum. |
| 16:18 |
rgagnon |
terran: Agreed. |
| 16:18 |
tspindler |
remove "Conflicted Persons Cannot Establish Quorum. |
| 16:18 |
rgagnon |
+1 |
| 16:18 |
terran |
+1 |
| 16:19 |
miker |
+1 |
| 16:19 |
collum |
+1 |
| 16:19 |
tspindler |
now on to -- Managing an Officer's Conflict of Interest |
| 16:19 |
terran |
Isn't that section redundant? |
| 16:19 |
tspindler |
this seems to duplicate some other statements above |
| 16:19 |
terran |
Unless perhaps it is talking about decisions made outside of meetings? |
| 16:20 |
miker |
right |
| 16:20 |
rgagnon |
terran: I think you are right. |
| 16:20 |
tspindler |
if that is the case, it is not clear |
| 16:21 |
collum |
I think so. The last two words clarify the paragraph. |
| 16:21 |
miker |
well, it's talking about things we don't have right now ... like autonomous directors with budgets |
| 16:21 |
terran |
What if we changed it to "Managing Conflict of Interest Outside of Meetings" |
| 16:22 |
tspindler |
terran + |
| 16:22 |
rgagnon |
+1 |
| 16:22 |
terran |
That would go for all members, not just officers |
| 16:22 |
collum |
+1 That would clarify it a bit sooner. |
| 16:23 |
miker |
well, that's a different thing, I think, than the SFC's use for this |
| 16:23 |
miker |
not bad, mind, just different |
| 16:23 |
terran |
right |
| 16:23 |
tspindler |
I think the last seciton" Confidentiality of Conflict Disclosures" is good. I just removed the refrence to the SFC |
| 16:24 |
terran |
How about "If an Evergreen Oversight Board Member is involved in a decision, matter or transaction on behalf of the Board in which he or she has a conflict of interest..." |
| 16:24 |
miker |
I'd like to strike the whole last clause. |
| 16:24 |
miker |
I think we should protect all confidential information |
| 16:24 |
rgagnon |
terran: +1 |
| 16:25 |
miker |
terran: +1 to the above suggestion as well |
| 16:25 |
rgagnon |
miker: Agree to protect all confidential information. |
| 16:26 |
terran |
miker: Also agree on confidential info |
| 16:26 |
tspindler |
reword the confidentiality statement? |
| 16:26 |
tspindler |
do you want it real simple ? |
| 16:26 |
terran |
And change "Officer" in the last one to "Board Member"? |
| 16:27 |
miker |
tspindler: I think just killing the final clause entire is enough |
| 16:27 |
|
MrPants joined #evergreen |
| 16:28 |
tspindler |
terran: i think we can replace any reference to officer and make sure it says board member throughout the document |
| 16:28 |
tspindler |
there may be some other statements that say office |
| 16:28 |
tspindler |
do others want to kill the the section on confidentiality? |
| 16:28 |
miker |
how about that? |
| 16:29 |
miker |
tspindler: oh, sorry, by clause I meant sentence clause :) |
| 16:29 |
tspindler |
i see |
| 16:29 |
tspindler |
+1 |
| 16:29 |
rgagnon |
The way it is edited now looks good. |
| 16:30 |
terran |
Looks good to me |
| 16:31 |
tspindler |
Ok for the signature, I replaced a section with something we used at C/W MARS. This would be simply an affirmation that the board member signs and so we have a record that they acknowledge receiving COI |
| 16:32 |
rgagnon |
tspindler: looks good |
| 16:32 |
miker |
+1 |
| 16:32 |
terran |
I like it. Is there a reason to use "charitable" versus "non-profit"? |
| 16:33 |
tspindler |
It was supplied by our attorney ;) |
| 16:33 |
terran |
;) |
| 16:33 |
|
miker joined #evergreen |
| 16:33 |
|
graced joined #evergreen |
| 16:33 |
|
Shae joined #evergreen |
| 16:34 |
tspindler |
ok, what i can do is make a clean copy and send out the link for everyone's review |
| 16:34 |
terran |
How about a preliminary line/paragraph before it explaining that it needs to be signed annually - we had discussed at the annual meeting - ? |
| 16:34 |
tspindler |
#action tspindler will create a clean copy and send link for comments |
| 16:34 |
tspindler |
terran: yes i think that would be good |
| 16:35 |
terran |
Thank you for all of your work on this, Tim! |
| 16:35 |
|
jyorio joined #evergreen |
| 16:36 |
rgagnon |
tspindler: ++ |
| 16:36 |
tspindler |
ok, i'll have something done tomorrw for everyone to review and comment on |
| 16:36 |
terran |
tspindler++ |
| 16:36 |
miker |
tspindler++ |
| 16:36 |
collum |
tspindler++ |
| 16:36 |
tspindler |
thanks for all your work |
| 16:36 |
tspindler |
#endmeeting |
| 16:36 |
pinesol_green |
Meeting ended Mon Aug 8 16:36:55 2016 US/Eastern. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) |
| 16:36 |
pinesol_green |
Minutes: http://evergreen-ils.org/meetings/evergreen/2016/evergreen.2016-08-08-15.02.html |
| 16:36 |
pinesol_green |
Minutes (text): http://evergreen-ils.org/meetings/evergreen/2016/evergreen.2016-08-08-15.02.txt |
| 16:36 |
pinesol_green |
Log: http://evergreen-ils.org/meetings/evergreen/2016/evergreen.2016-08-08-15.02.log.html |
| 16:37 |
|
tspindler left #evergreen |
| 17:13 |
|
mmorgan left #evergreen |
| 17:39 |
dbs |
huh, damn, after trying an upgrade to current master I'm running into a problem displaying records due to unapi.bre confusion: http://pastebin.com/DPBRihNP |
| 17:40 |
dbs |
still have to dig further to see how many variants of unapi.bre I now have. |
| 17:41 |
dbs |
Oh fun, one that includes slimit hstore as a param, and a second that includes slimit public.hstore. heh. |
| 17:46 |
dbs |
fanastic, all of the unapi functions are thusly duplicated. I must have messed that up nicely :( |
| 18:05 |
dbs |
a few (dozen) judicious DROP FUNCTION statements and we're de-duped. weird. |
| 18:40 |
|
gsams_ joined #evergreen |
| 21:21 |
|
dbwells_ joined #evergreen |
