path: root/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2011/04-28.mdwn
diff options
authorJoe Rayhawk <>2013-07-08 08:26:44 +0000
committerJoe Rayhawk <>2013-07-08 08:26:44 +0000
commit541a33ea9275cbb6bf3fbb6af1c35082e2de260f (patch)
tree5655419eed3e528a81158ff3fc1da948d96f78d5 /BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2011/04-28.mdwn
parent3f21541ed4a605da96701580fb0d37d6f94b21f9 (diff)
moin2mdwn: convert page BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2011/04-28
Diffstat (limited to 'BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2011/04-28.mdwn')
1 files changed, 333 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2011/04-28.mdwn b/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2011/04-28.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ce3f8a14
--- /dev/null
+++ b/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2011/04-28.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,333 @@
+Date is 2011-04-28, times are UTC+02.
+[[!format txt """
+23:00 <agd5f> hi everyone
+23:01 <+emmes> hey
+23:01 <stukreit> hello
+23:01 <+Bart_Massey> howdy
+23:01 <+alanc> good afternoon
+23:02 <+alanc> think we'll have plenty to talk about today
+23:02 <stukreit> yup
+23:02 <+anholt> hi
+23:03 <+alanc> mherrb sent regrets in advance, so that just leaves keithp to pipe up
+23:04 <+Bart_Massey> I'll send keithp a text.
+23:04 <+alanc> for those who haven't seen yet, GSoC projects were announced, 4 for X.Org
+23:04 <+keithp> afternoon
+23:04 <+anholt> I pinged him
+23:05 <+alanc> and EVoC got mentioned in a writeup of "where to go if GSoC rejected you" resulting in a flood of inquiries to the board, which I tried to all respond to with a form letter today since it looked like no one else had
+23:05 <+Bart_Massey> Is that why I suddenly got a bunch of requests?
+23:06 <marcheu> yeah Evoc was mentioned on the summer of code mailing list
+23:06 <+Bart_Massey> Thanks for the form letter response; I'll try to get more personal ones to anyone who managed to contact me directly shortly.
+23:06 <marcheu> Bart_Massey: there is one good project though, we can discuss it privately
+23:06 <marcheu> (for evoc)
+23:06 <+keithp> Bart_Massey: uh, not entirely necessary
+23:06 <+emmes> I thought we had 5 slots. But I think I remember that we only had 4 really good proposals.
+23:06 <stukreit> Interesting. I did not see any of these messages. Am I not on the board alias?
+23:06 <+alanc>
+23:07 <+Bart_Massey> marcheu et al: Yes, if you see any that look like we should actually take them, please let me know, as I am probably not the best judge and am defaulting to no.
+23:07 <marcheu> emmes: yes, but we had a good proposal which was not submitted (stayed in draft mode basically)
+23:07 <+emmes> thanks for answering, Alan!
+23:07 <+emmes> marcheu: ok
+23:07 <+Bart_Massey> marcheu: Why was it not submitted?
+23:07 <marcheu> Bart_Massey: the guy thought he had submitted it, but he hadn't
+23:08 <+Bart_Massey> Carol would probably fix that for you if you asked nicely, even now.
+23:08 <+Bart_Massey> Would definitely be the best plan if possible.
+23:08 <marcheu> hmm good point, I'll try to use my google-fu
+23:08 <+alanc> stukreit: didn't we get you added yet? mailman says agd5f is one of the admins for the board list, so he should be able to add you
+23:08 <+emmes> depends. if the slot is already reallocated to some other org, it isn't.
+23:08 <+emmes> trying is always a good idea, though.
+23:09 <stukreit> agd: please add me to the alias
+23:09 <+Bart_Massey> emmes: Carol has lots of things she can do; I'd definitely ask
+23:09 <agd5f> stukreit: which one?
+23:09 <stukreit> that one. What other ones are there?
+23:10 <stukreit> (lets take this offline)
+23:10 <agd5f> stukreit: ok
+23:10 <+alanc> thanks to marcheu for managing the project selection process & organizing our mentors for GSOC
+23:10 <+Bart_Massey> indeed!
+23:11 <+alanc> so michael larabel couldn't make it today, but sent XDC updates via e-mail
+23:12 <+Bart_Massey> Seems to me like he's doing great; I'd encourage anyone with concerns to contact him sooner rather than later.
+23:12 <+emmes> i'll see him personally on monday
+23:12 <+alanc> I think he needs us to give a thumbs up or down to the proposal to host at Illinois Institute of Technology for $1,369.80
+23:13 <+emmes> but I'll also send the excerpts of today's meeting to him (he's travelling right now)
+23:13 <+emmes> yes, exactly.
+23:13 <+Bart_Massey> +1
+23:13 <+alanc> which doesn't seem far off from what we've paid other venues I think
+23:13 <+emmes> +1
+23:13 <+Bart_Massey> (for funding the event)
+23:13 <stukreit> I'll catch up with him later, but is that the estimate for the whole event, or just a room rental?
+23:13 <+alanc> that's the room rental
+23:13 <+Bart_Massey> It's well within our budget, in any case.
+23:14 <+alanc> 12 September to 15 September is the dates he's proposing
+23:14 <+emmes> I think wifi is included as well afair. just catering is not.
+23:14 <+alanc> "This includes providing seating/chairs + tables for everyone + setup of WiFi. "
+23:14 <stukreit> need to work up the actual including food and any add-ons
+23:14 <agd5f> seems reasonable to me. we have to start keeping records of this stuff. when we pay for things like vendors or venues, we have to have proof that we've done our due-diligence
+23:14 <+alanc> right, but food can come later, need to reserve the venue first
+23:15 <+alanc> +1 for the venue booking
+23:15 <+Bart_Massey> alanc: Yes. If we find out something weird about the food later we can always cancel, but I find it unlikely.
+23:15 <+anholt> +1 to going ahead with IIT
+23:15 <stukreit> Is it a cancelable res? Is it a deposit?
+23:16 <+alanc> unknown, and michael isn't here to answer
+23:16 <+emmes> i'll ask him.
+23:16 <+alanc> (I believe he's supposed to be approx. 30000 feet over the atlantic right now)
+23:16 <+emmes> on the way to munich
+23:17 <+alanc> so I have 4 votes in favor of booking the IIT venue for XDC2011 for 9/12-15 - do the other 3 members want to vote yay, nay or abstain?
+23:17 <+anholt> high latency on the intel side here. (we're on some tin cans and we wish we had some string today)
+23:17 <stukreit> The ready-fire-aim approach has made it um interesting to answer the 13 pages of questions that the IRS has for us
+23:18 <stukreit> As requirement for the petition to become the organization we want to be.
+23:18 <stukreit> I will vote against this at this time
+23:18 <stukreit> -1
+23:18 <+alanc> so do we need to get more information before making these decisions? if so, can you provide that so we can get it from michael before the next meeting?
+23:18 <+alanc> i.e. is that really a request to table the decision until that information is provided?
+23:18 <stukreit> provide what
+23:18 <stukreit> I would prefer that
+23:19 <+Bart_Massey> A list of what you think we need to know.
+23:19 <+alanc> provide a list of the information we need
+23:19 <+Bart_Massey> I think Michael has provided a lot of information already; it's possible you've missed some of it because of email list issues.
+23:19 <stukreit> Start with some planning of what is needed to host a 3 day event for the expected number of people (50? 75?)
+23:19 <+keithp> sounds like we're still waiting on catering estimates
+23:19 <stukreit> Yes, that's a problem. I haven't been on the alias
+23:20 <stukreit> If someone wants to comfort me, please forward me Michaels most detailed email on the planning.
+23:20 <+Bart_Massey> There has been a *lot* of planning. The lack of catering estimates are not a show stopper IMHO: in the worst case we don't serve food at the event. Not end of world.
+23:20 <+emmes> keithp: seems michael only wanted to check catering if the venue itself is ok.
+23:20 <stukreit> I'm not assuming its not planned, I'm just responding to my lack of knowledge at this point.
+23:21 <stukreit> And talking to the lawyers for many hrs over the past week has sensitized me to the lack of records
+23:21 <+alanc> Stuart - you responded to one of his emails to board@foundation
+23:21 <+alanc> Re: XDS Location Proposal - Chicago
+23:21 <+emmes> he wrote that it's not a major issue, but quite some work to get reasonable proposals
+23:21 <+alanc> I'm assuming you've just lost the thread
+23:21 <+emmes> for the catering I mean
+23:21 <stukreit> I remember that, but there's this technical prob that I'm not seeing all the good stuff since
+23:22 <stukreit> I would like to slow this process down, and move on to the more time critical issue of the 1023, which needs to be filed tomorrow
+23:22 <+alanc> michael actually put together the most detailed proposal I've ever seen for an XDC
+23:22 <stukreit> fine and fine. forward it to me
+23:22 <+alanc> I was trying to get the quicker stuff out of the way before digging into the 1023
+23:23 <agd5f> if/when we come a 501c3, we our obligated to keeps records that prove we have made a reasonable effort to plan for and price any activities. I think michael's proposals will suffice.
+23:23 <+alanc> so lets call the XDC response favorable, but the formal vote tabled until the next meeting to get the required information
+23:23 <+Bart_Massey> We are +4 -1 on the motion to go forward. I'd prefer to just go ahead.
+23:25 <+Bart_Massey> Could the other three board members here weigh in?
+23:25 <+alanc> I didn't see votes from keithp or agd5f
+23:26 <+Bart_Massey> Sorry, right, other two board members
+23:27 <agd5f> +1 I guess
+23:27 <+emmes> stukreit: I just bounced the three most important mails from michael to you.
+23:28 <stukreit> Yes, thanks.
+23:28 <+alanc> I forwarded all of the thread that I had, including the original proposal writeup
+23:28 <+emmes> one has the reserveration confirmation included. i think that is the most important one (appart from the original proposal, for which an url is provided)
+23:29 <+Bart_Massey> So we already have the venue reserved for these dates?
+23:31 <+alanc> okay, so the vote is 5 in favor, 1 against, and keithp not voting? any more discussion or votes before we close the vote and tell michael to make the reservation?
+23:31 <stukreit> I've read thru it, it looks fine
+23:31 <+alanc> it didn't sound like it was already reserved in the mail I saw
+23:31 <+Bart_Massey> OK.
+23:32 <+alanc> stukreit: are you changing your vote to approve then?
+23:32 <stukreit> I will ask M. to name a few of the other places that he contacted, for comparison. This is something we need to start making record of.
+23:32 <+alanc> sounds reasonable
+23:32 <+Bart_Massey> I'm sure he'll be willing to do that. He's put in a tremendous amount of work so far.
+23:32 <stukreit> hmnn, be a curmudgeon or a flipflop. decisions decision. +1
+23:33 <stukreit> Yet another promise from me to followup on some thread
+23:33 <+emmes> stukreit: good point
+23:33 <+Bart_Massey> flipflop sounds more fun. flipflopflipflop :-)
+23:34 <+alanc> okay, vote is closed with 6 in favor, 0 against. emmes, please thank michael for us when you see him
+23:34 <+alanc> (I'd tell you to buy him a beer, but I don't want to spend another half hour authorizing the foundation to pay for that 8-) )
+23:34 <+Bart_Massey> indeed
+23:34 <+Bart_Massey> (to the first, not the second :-)
+23:34 <stukreit> I do have a point though. It is better for our outward appearance to plan things much more thoroughly than we have in the past. But we need to develop an attitude that planning is a good thing
+23:35 <+alanc> agd5f & stukreit: you now have the floor to discuss the 501(c)3/1023 work
+23:35 <+Bart_Massey> stukreit: planning is good, definitely
+23:35 <stukreit> ok. to start
+23:35 <+emmes> alanc: he'll get a beer from me in any case (or rather 2 or 3 or...)
+23:35 <stukreit> Does everyone have the email "Topics of Governance that arise from the 1023 Filing"
+23:36 <stukreit> Does anyone NOT have the email?
+23:36 <+emmes> ... checking...
+23:37 <stukreit> Does anyone need a minute more to read the first page?
+23:37 <+emmes> I don't remember reading the subject, but that shouldn't say anything...
+23:37 <stukreit> sent 1:34 PST
+23:37 <+alanc> it was sent about a half hour before the meeting
+23:37 <+keithp> I've got the mail.
+23:37 <+emmes> right. sorry. I have it.
+23:37 <+keithp> Bart_Massey: do you know if we have ever paid anyone for EVOC
+23:38 <stukreit> excellent question.
+23:38 <+Bart_Massey> My recollection is that we tried once, and it failed due to foreign funds transfer issues.
+23:38 <+Bart_Massey> I have no particular records on this.
+23:39 <+Bart_Massey> It seems to me like either we should close EVoC or someone besides me should take it over.
+23:39 <stukreit> Would you like to retry the payment? And is there only 1 instance of attempted payment?
+23:39 <+Bart_Massey> We have no records of who or when that even was. I may be misremembering it altogether. In any case, water under the bridge, I think.
+23:40 <+Bart_Massey> I'm really not feeling like I have time to manage it in the way it looks like it's going to need going forward.
+23:40 <stukreit> If you can find the person and make good on the promise, I think its worth doing so.
+23:41 <stukreit> Separate the one instance from your plan to do this going forward.
+23:41 <+Bart_Massey> If you'd like to dig through old Board minutes and try to figure out what happened, I'd be happy to talk to them. I'm pretty sure that no one's unhappy, or they would have contacted us again.
+23:42 <+keithp> We had one proposal from Kristof Ralovich
+23:42 <stukreit> Ok, I needed an answer to that, thanks. I would urge Bart (if you were the point person) to find the name and email of the person. Did they hold up their side of the plan?
+23:42 <+alanc> didn't he withdraw partway through?
+23:42 <+keithp> and one from Joshua Clayton
+23:43 <stukreit> Can we hold off on new proposals for now?
+23:43 <+Bart_Massey> I don't remember. I'm pretty sure Ralovich did a GSoC project at some point.
+23:43 <agd5f> well, at this point, we are telling the IRS that we haven't paid out, so if we do, we have to rewrite a lot of the 1023, so we need to sort this out today if we want to
+23:43 <+Bart_Massey> Joshua Clayton was not funded, IIRC.
+23:43 <+Bart_Massey> I think we haven't paid anyone.
+23:43 <+keithp> I don't recall ever writing any checks or doing any wire transfers, and I have no record of either as well
+23:43 <stukreit> I would like to see a message or exchange that ties this loose end.
+23:44 <+Bart_Massey> stukreit: I don't think it's going to happen at this point.
+23:44 <stukreit> right. btw, anyone who wishes, contact me about seeing all the financial activity since 2005.
+23:44 <+Bart_Massey> I'll have to admit that I'm finding it slightly ironic that our big barrier to ed nonprofit status is our one truly educational program. Sigh.
+23:44 <stukreit> Its not a barrier. We're going to say that we have not done one yet.
+23:45 <agd5f> we are also saying we plan to implement it going forward
+23:45 <+Bart_Massey> Fair enough.
+23:45 <stukreit> However, if we make the effort, we can tidy up the first attempt, and use it as a lesson for the future
+23:45 <+Bart_Massey> stukreit: I don't think it's a good lesson. :-)
+23:46 <stukreit> which is a lot of the tone of the 1023. and my signature goes to the IRS. (or I.R.S., I don't take this lightly)
+23:46 <+alanc> the lesson is clearly that making money appear is the easiest part of organizing something like GSoC & EVoC, and the rest is much harder
+23:46 <stukreit> So guys, when I hammer on you for more planning, more documentation, more comparable info on decisions, its because of this. I'll be the bad guy.
+23:47 <+Bart_Massey> Someone needs to!
+23:47 <+keithp> stukreit: that's why we keep you around
+23:47 <stukreit> So let's look at the email and go thru the 6 questions please
+23:47 <+emmes> well, it's not the only reason...
+23:47 <+emmes> stukreit: do you still require my bio, or did we settle that in the past? my brain doesn't remember...
+23:47 <stukreit> no I will not fix your computer
+23:48 <+alanc> emmes: looks like that's #4 in the list of questions
+23:48 <+emmes> yes, that's why I'm asking.
+23:48 <stukreit> Yes, we need it.
+23:48 <+emmes> ok. will do that.
+23:49 <agd5f> emmes: specifically your job title and education
+23:49 <+Bart_Massey> How do you want us to get all y'all postal addresses etc?
+23:49 <stukreit> The addendum, page 7.
+23:49 <+Bart_Massey> Shall we email them to you?
+23:49 <+alanc> what do you need for "Double check affiliations between xorg and directors" ? looks like the list of directors & officers is correct
+23:49 <stukreit> the usual way?
+23:50 <+Bart_Massey> Email it is. Working...
+23:50 <stukreit> ok, how about a vote that everyone who reviews it agrees
+23:50 <+Bart_Massey> +1
+23:50 <+anholt> agrees what? I've lost you.
+23:51 <+Bart_Massey> That the list of directors and officers is correct?
+23:51 <agd5f> alanc: we want to make sure there are no outstanding agreements between xorg (the organization) and any of it's directors
+23:51 <stukreit> that you have read the section and find it correct
+23:51 <+alanc> the lists on pg 5-8 of the addendum? +1 for it being right
+23:52 <+keithp> stukreit: looks right to me -- +1
+23:52 <+alanc> I'm not aware of any contracts or agreements other than the membership agreement, though I suppose we technically all made that agreement with the LLC
+23:52 <stukreit> We were asked from several directions whether any directors have bus relationships with each other or outside of the stated affiliations.
+23:52 <stukreit> my +1
+23:52 <stukreit> (4 more to go)
+23:52 <+anholt> ah. +1.
+23:53 <+alanc> there's certainly the whole intertwining of relationships between our employers (Oracle has agreements with Intel & AMD for instance, all 3 of which employ board members)
+23:53 <agd5f> +1
+23:54 <+emmes> +1
+23:54 <+Bart_Massey> But you as an employee have not entered into any agreements you have not disclosed, which while IANAL I think is the important thing
+23:54 <agd5f> alanc: that doesn't matter. Just between the Xorg foundation and it's directors
+23:54 <+anholt> stukreit: does "[no longer active in the organization]" just mean "doesn't have a role in the structure", or "is not a member"?
+23:54 <+anholt> page 10
+23:54 <stukreit> And in the future (further down in the email) we'll draft a conflict of interest policy.
+23:55 <+alanc> right, and I believe the bylaws explictly state we serve as individuals, not corporate reps
+23:55 <agd5f> anholt: everyone who ever was is still a member. It means no longer actively involved
+23:55 <stukreit> These are for former directors.
+23:55 <+alanc> I would expect many of those on pg. 10 is still a regular member, able to vote in elections
+23:56 <+alanc> Jim & Kevin occasionally pipe in on mailing lists or irc, haven't seen them contribute code in years though
+23:56 <+anholt> agd5f: we have an active/inactive distinction in the members list, and for example James McQuillan is "active".
+23:56 <stukreit> I was curious about it too. I'll send a message to Justin about it, because in my mind, many of those nla's could become active at any moment. sleeper hackers
+23:57 <+anholt> I hadn't looked into what sched G question 4 was about yet.
+23:57 <+Bart_Massey> I think this is making things more complicated than they need to be. AFAIK all IRS cares about is whether they're still part of governance... ?
+23:57 <stukreit> So, we need a written policy defining "active member"!
+23:57 <+Bart_Massey> I suspect all we need is to list these folks as "no longer active in X.Org governance" and call it good. Talk to Justin.
+23:58 <+anholt> Bart_Massey: thanks.
+23:58 <stukreit> bart: agreed. In general, I want to fill the remaining blanks, push the doc, and then keep it high in our minds as AI's for the board
+23:59 <+emmes> stukreit: I'll send you my bio and Egbert's address shortly.
+23:59 <stukreit> ok, so we have 7 +1's on question 1
+23:59 <stukreit> that fills in some blanks, way to go!
+00:00 <stukreit> moving on..
+00:00 <+emmes> hm, seems I don't have Egbert's address at hand :-( I'll phone him tomorrow
+00:00 <stukreit> I propose we make (2) a policy
+00:00 <stukreit> Please expedite.
+00:00 <+alanc> that we read the IRS form?
+00:00 <+Bart_Massey> Speaking of blanks, the 1023 I'm looking at in the email attachment appears to not be filled out at all. Is it just me?
+00:01 <+alanc> not just you
+00:01 <stukreit> damn, more trouble in pdf land
+00:01 <stukreit> will work on it.
+00:01 <+Bart_Massey> Will read it when I get it.
+00:01 <stukreit> If someone knows the compatibility issues wrt pdf readers, please help me offline.
+00:01 <agd5f> stukreit: whatever you did last time fixed it
+00:02 <stukreit> So "when you get it", please read the 1023. And whoever deals with the next election, please put this in the solicitation materials.
+00:02 <agd5f> but even then, the checkboxes always come up empty
+00:02 <stukreit> I don't think I can fix this right now.
+00:02 <stukreit> ok, Item (3), we just covered.
+00:02 <stukreit> Item 4
+00:03 <stukreit> and 5 both done
+00:03 <+Bart_Massey> It looks like you have a postal and email address for me. I think I'm done with 6?
+00:03 <agd5f> Does someone have Egbert's address?
+00:04 <+alanc> for Item 6, my paper mail address is already correct on pg. 5, and the lawyers should have my e-mail from the exchanges already
+00:05 <stukreit> if you haven't ever sent a message to the lawyers, please just shoot me a line so I can collect it into one. without thinking.. I like not thinking
+00:06 <+Bart_Massey> Nice. Google Contacts is down.
+00:06 <+emmes> agd5f: Egbert moved. Though it could be the same address, as it was in the same building.
+00:07 <agd5f> emmes: ok. you bio looks good. Thanks!
+00:07 <stukreit> emmes: irc says you are
+00:07 <+emmes> eek
+00:07 <stukreit> should I submit
+00:08 <+emmes> yes, please.
+00:08 <+anholt> stukreit: I agree on current set reading the 1023, but it doesn't look that relevant to me for new board member orientation.
+00:08 <stukreit> Its a poor starting point, but the lawyers specifically suggested it. Don't call it "orientation" it isnt
+00:09 <+Bart_Massey> I don't have a current address for Egbert.
+00:09 <agd5f> anholt: it's more to get a idea of what we are responsible for doing as an organization and as directors
+00:10 <+Bart_Massey> It's fine to ask new Board Members to read the document. They'll survive it somehow. :-)
+00:10 <+Bart_Massey> Should probably also ask them to read the Bylaws.
+00:10 <stukreit> +1
+00:10 <+alanc> if they did we might finally get around to updating the bylaws
+00:10 <+anholt> yeah, I don't recall even reading the bylaws to start out with.
+00:10 <+alanc> we fail at many of them
+00:10 <stukreit> Ok, the open issues for tomorrow's filing are covered.
+00:11 <+Bart_Massey> Yeah, once this current ugliness is behind us I'll start working on proposed revisions to be voted in Chicago.
+00:11 <+Bart_Massey> Help appreciated as always. :-)
+00:11 <stukreit> The rest of the email talks about issues that have come up.
+00:12 <stukreit> This is not a file-and-forget process. We are committing to establishing written procedures and documented activites.
+00:13 <agd5f> regarding reading the 1023, if we tell the IRS we keep records of X and require Y for Z, we actually have to do it
+00:14 <stukreit> ok, we're past the hour, but I really insist to the point of asking a response email that..
+00:14 <stukreit> every board member read and comment on the Governance email.
+00:14 <stukreit> Because now we have a lot of Governance to do.
+00:14 <+Bart_Massey> I have read the email and commented on it in this meeting. Surely that suffices?
+00:15 <agd5f> e.g., we said we will be using commonly accepted practices for determining the cost of vendors or venues so we have to document that we did that
+00:15 <agd5f> there are a number of similar things as well
+00:16 <+Bart_Massey> Either don't say that, or be much more specific, or be prepared to say that taking quotes and selecting from among them is a commonly-accepted practice (which is what we do and I think is)
+00:16 <agd5f> Bart_Massey: right. but they want records that we did that
+00:17 <agd5f> not just some said they did on irc
+00:17 <+Bart_Massey> Which is why we're keeping minutes on IRC
+00:17 <agd5f> *someone
+00:17 <stukreit> We need a transcript or other record that shows the work
+00:17 <+Bart_Massey> Sorry, that's how our meeting minutes are recorded.
+00:17 <+Bart_Massey> It sounds like a surefire plan for making sure no one ever does anything to me.
+00:18 <agd5f> Bart_Massey: blame the IRS then
+00:18 <+emmes> so what would be sufficient?
+00:18 <+Bart_Massey> I have worked with a lot of 501(c)3 ed nonprofits; while I'm not suggesting we be cavalier here, I will suggest that the level of documentation at these other organizations has been reasonable, and the IRS has seemed fine with that.
+00:18 <+alanc> aren't the IRC logs transcripts?
+00:20 <+Bart_Massey> alanc: I think the suggestion is that whoever claims to have gotten an estimate also needs to provide sufficient paper to prove it. Which is usually what we do. We just haven't been good at collecting that paper.
+00:20 <stukreit> bart: I don't know if that anecdotal info proves anything. In talking to SFLC which generously gives us professional advice based on their wide view of non profit corp setup,
+00:20 <stukreit> this is what we're being told
+00:20 <+Bart_Massey> We can certainly do better. I'm just concerned that we realistically aren't interested in hiring a paid staff person to handle paper, and without that the level of documentation to be required may be too high.
+00:21 <agd5f> Bart_Massey: we just have to try a little harder. We don't have to go overboard, but no one even knows if we paid on on evoc, or what some of our checks were for. so we need a little better accounting is all.
+00:21 <stukreit> So, I will go back and ask how much documentation is needed, but it is surely more than we've been doing
+00:21 <+emmes> paper as in physical paper, or are pdfs ok (like the one michael sent us)? In the later case, one additional proposal should be good enough.
+00:21 <stukreit> And I'm not an accountant, which is a wee problem
+00:21 <+Bart_Massey> The problem is that documentation isn't a question of volume: it isn't measured in those units.
+00:21 <agd5f> emmes: digital is fine
+00:22 <stukreit> I would prefer digital stuff, and have 2 people hold copies
+00:22 <+emmes> ok, I'll go ask Michael. He'll surely understand.
+00:22 <+Bart_Massey> It's that we have to be able to document later that we did things in a reasonable fashion.
+00:22 <agd5f> right
+00:22 <+alanc> he talked to multiple venues, so it sounds like just documenting the quotes he got from each
+00:22 <+emmes> yep
+00:23 <+Bart_Massey> That *doesn't*, AFAIK mean that for example we have to get multiple bids on everything we buy. It just means we have to be able to show that we weren't paying stupid money or colluding with somebody somehow.
+00:23 <stukreit> he probably did. its just that we need to collect the info.
+00:24 <stukreit> let's not worry about slippery slope issues. let's just start with the issue at hand. the next conference. I am optimistic that michael can furnish all the info we need to keep.
+00:24 <+Bart_Massey> If Michael got multiple bids and has the info handy, we'd love to have it. If all he has is the investigation he reported, this should nonetheless be sufficient. We just have to make sure his emails are archived somewhere.
+00:24 <stukreit> and going forward, we just have to be concious of this and ask ourselves if we're doing the right thing.
+00:24 <+Bart_Massey> Yep.
+00:25 <+Bart_Massey> BTW, HUGE HUGE HUGE thanks to stukreit and agd5f for finally pushing this all through.
+00:25 <+Bart_Massey> Very impressive.
+00:26 <stukreit> your welcome. when you finally get to read the filled-out 1023, you will get a sense of the completeness of the process.
+00:26 <+emmes> yes. all this paper stuff looks awfully complex to me.
+00:26 <+alanc> yes, thanks much
+00:26 <agd5f> Justin just sent the updated versions of the docs. I'll foward to the board
+00:26 <stukreit> Its not like the IRS has never seen an org like us before. We need to treat fair questions with due respect.
+00:26 <+alanc> anything else we need to discuss today?
+00:27 <stukreit> not from me.
+00:27 <+emmes> i'm fine
+00:27 <+alanc> thanks everyone for sticking around an extra half hour
+00:27 <+Bart_Massey> Bye all!
+00:27 <stukreit> bye!
+00:27 <agd5f> thanks everyone!
+"""]] \ No newline at end of file