Evergreen ILS Website

IRC log for #evergreen, 2016-08-08

| Channels | #evergreen index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary | Join Webchat

All times shown according to the server's local time.

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=c​ommit;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-R​EADME.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-pl​ugins/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/1MtJck3L6TlV1​EBpThkxuXcOLGjo8-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/1q32xE4​R1IVIPRJ3hmAzYXfek-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/evergr​een/2016/evergreen.2016-08-08-15.02.html
16:36 pinesol_green Minutes (text): http://evergreen-ils.org/meetings/evergr​een/2016/evergreen.2016-08-08-15.02.txt
16:36 pinesol_green Log:            http://evergreen-ils.org/meetings/evergree​n/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

| Channels | #evergreen index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary | Join Webchat