Apache Logo
The Apache Way Contribute ASF Sponsors

This was extracted (@ 2018-04-19 02:10) from a list of minutes which have been approved by the Board.
Please Note The Board typically approves the minutes of the previous meeting at the beginning of every Board meeting; therefore, the list below does not normally contain details from the minutes of the most recent Board meeting.

2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | Pre-organization meetings

Discussion Items

11 Apr 2018

 A. Informal discussion of priorities

 The goal of this session was to make sure that issues important to
 different members of the board get our collective attention in the near
 term.  Each board member provided one or more items for consideration.
 We did not make any decisions or discuss any of these items in detail.
 We agreed that substantive discussion and decision-making should happen
 on ASF lists and/or regularly scheduled ASF Board meetings.  Here is a
 summary of items mentioned by individuals.  All items were agreed to be
 important and in many cases, board members referred back to items
 already raised.

 Ted:      Fundraising strategy, direction and operations

 Rich:     Providing better support for volunteers involved in community
           development. We keep repeating that we want things to be
           volunteer-led, volunteer-driven, but more enablement support is
           needed.  Running small events and attending others requires some
           financial support that we should consider providing from the

 Shane:    Keeping communication focused, getting to decisions and documenting
           what the decisions are.

 Betrand:  Finding the right balance between paid and volunteer resources.
           Refining and settling on the model for how volunteer officers are
           going to manage paid resources.

 Phil:     Getting a clear delineation of what is policy, what is best practice,
           what is required at the ASF.
           Information transparency - balancing privacy and confidentiality
           needs with the need to provide members access to foundation data,
           decision-making and agreements

 Brett:    Focus on volunteer and PMC enablement.
           Long-term plan for executive leadership.
           Need to get to consensus on where the need is for paid assistance and
           what the options are in each case.
           Keeping and enhancing our culture.
           Getting out of negativity.

 Isabel:   Finding out earlier and preparing better for changes in volunteer roles.
           Enablement and community involvment
           Getting the right messages out, the right stories told, to improve
           acculturation of new volunteers and communities at the ASF

 Roman:    Agree with all points above, esp. policy definition, paid vs unpaid
           roles, enablement.

 Mark:     Agree with all points above.  On acculturation, consider ways to get
           "Success at Apache" or similar material disseminated to podlings in

 We concluded with a brief discussion on how / when to run votes at
 Board meetings and how to make sure that all decisions and outcomes of
 discussion items get either captured direcly in the minutes or people
 take actions to publish or update relevant documents.

21 Mar 2018

    A. Review /board/policies page for use

    We have a simple yet comprehensive single page list of all services
    available to PMCs, and policies required of PMCs by the board. The
    board should agree to remove the DRAFT markers and use this page to
    help improve board<->PMC shared expectations.

    @Shane: discuss this proposal on board@ for the next board to take up.

 B. Appoint Matt Sicker to the position of Assistant Secretary

    Matt has volunteered to help Secretary, and since early March, has been
    filing incoming documents. Craig would like the board to formally
    recognize his contributions by appointing him Assistant Secretary,
    replacing Sam Ruby. Thanks to Sam for his dedicated service in this role.

    The board appoints Matt Sicker to Assistant Secretary, relieving Sam

21 Feb 2018

    A. Ratify /board/policies page

    We have a simple yet comprehensive single page list of all services
    available to PMCs, and policies required of PMCs by the board. The
    board should agree to remove the DRAFT markers and use this page to
    help improve board<->PMC shared expectations.

 B. Finalize member meeting date - 3/20-3/22

 C. 5-Year Strategic Plan for the Apache Software Foundation


   Our mission is to support the creation and distribution of Open Source
   software at no charge under the Apache License, as per our Bylaws. To
   this end we provide project spaces and resources for like-minded
   communities to flourish, produce and release software under our legal

   We are strongly attached to our projects' independence from any external
   influences, be they corporate, organizational or otherwise. This allows
   us to provide a neutral space for our communities.

   As a Foundation we do not have a technical strategy, we delegate that to
   our projects.

   The Foundation is managed and directed by its Members, who are
   individual volunteers, as opposed to companies or organizations, who
   cannot be Members of the Foundation nor take a direct role in our

   We help our communities understand and practice the Apache Way, a
   collection of best practices for collaboration and project
   sustainability that we document and clarify on an ongoing basis.

   Our community members act as individuals and their rights and
   responsibilities are based their merit, defined by what they
   individually do in project communities, not on any external affiliation,
   title, or degree they may have, nor on their contributions to other
   projects or organizations.

   We provide very reliable and highly automated core infrastructure
   services to our projects and encourage them to use some external
   non-core services in addition to that, based on their specific needs,
   when that helps keep our own services simple and focused. For
   durability, all our critical data and services are managed or mirrored
   on systems that we fully control.

   Our marketing and outreach is focused on activities that directly
   support our mission, along with fundraising-related activities that help
   find and retain the sponsors on which our operations depend.

   We provide legal and brand management services to our projects based on
   demonstrated needs, and define branding guidelines to help our projects
   benefit from the strong Apache brand in an appropriate way.

   We welcome new projects via our Incubator, where experienced Mentors
   help them learn to operate as an Apache community and project.
   Incubation is where communities are defined, so we put a strong emphasis
   on guidance during the incubation phase to preserve our core values as
   the Foundation grows.


   1. Ensure that the services that the ASF offers to project communities
      are clearly defined and can be reliably delivered in a manner that
      meets their expectations.

   2. Improve our success for identifying, attracting, welcoming and
      developing “like-minded communities” that will be successful at the

   3. Effectively scale our operations and governance processes in such a
      way that the ASF continues to be a light-process, light-governance,
      largely decentralized organization whose central operations serve
      projects in a manner consistent with the way PMCs are expected to
      serve their communities.

   4. Ensure the financial soundness of the ASF over the term of the plan
      and establish the foundation for long-term stability.

   ASF Services - Infrastructure

   The ASF currently provides infrastructure services to project
   communities including mailing list, website and scm hosting, Issue
   trackers and a range of build and deployment tools.  Many projects now
   use GitHub and other “external” providers for some of these services.
   Infrastructure services overall account for more than 80% of the total
   ASF expense budget.  Increasingly, project communities have
   infrastructure requirements that strain the capabilities of the ASF.  We
   have, broadly speaking, three choices on how to plan the evolution of
   ASF infrastructure services:

   1. Limit incoming project communities to those with needs that we can
      already service and plan using a simple growth forecast.

   2. Provision for the demands of projects with unusually large needs and
      increase budget forecasts accordingly.

   3. Encourage more use of externally provided services by project

   We believe that 3. Is the best option, using a simple growth forecast to
   project expenses and effective governance and mentoring to ensure that
   using externally provided services does not in any way present barriers
   to entry to projects or reduce transparency, inclusiveness and diversity
   in project decision-making.  This requires that we make clear to project
   communities the limitations of the services that they can expect from
   the ASF and support and enable them to secure necessary infrastructure
   support externally.  We must also ensure that policies and practices for
   using external services do not result in any loss of independence,
   transparency or inclusiveness among ASF project communities.  The ASF
   Directed Sponsorship program should be considered as a first option for
   projects in need of support beyond what ASF infrastructure provides.
   From an infrastructure budget planning perspective, this means that we
   can use conservative forecasts, based on simple project-count based
   models.  Moreover, we do not believe that limiting infrastructure
   expense growth should be a consideration in our strategy for managing
   inflow into the Incubator.  In other words, we do not intend to use
   Incubator inflow limitation as a strategy for infrastructure cost

   ASF Services - Marketing, Publicity and Brand Management

   Services in this category are provided both at the foundation level and
   to individual projects. To date, our focus has been primarily on
   effectively responding to queries and press events, managing our ASF
   public presence and supporting projects communities in promoting
   achievements and events.  We can expect the demand for these currently
   provided services to scale over the next 5 years commensurately with the
   growth in projects.

   A challenge that has been identified as critical to our plan is the need
   to ensure that the communities that we attract and welcome into the ASF
   really are “like-minded” in the sense that they contribute positively to
   the evolution of the Apache Way.  There are two things that we should
   plan to do to improve the effectiveness of community marketing and
   development at the ASF:

   1.  Move from a mostly passive, “see what comes our way” approach to
       project community marketing to a more proactive and strategic
       approach Move to a selective intake model
   2.  Improve training and communication on the Apache Way

   These items will require marketing and publicity resources beyond what
   we have in place today.  In addition to continuing strong contribution
   by volunteers,  we should plan, therefore, to increase our investment in
   ASF marketing and communications.  Both of these items will also require
   more focus from the Board and the ASF membership on developing our
   outreach, selection and mentoring practices.

   ASF Services - Conferences and Community Development

   The ASF has traditionally held annual conferences, often on multiple
   continents.  We believe that these conferences contribute to our mission
   in (at least) two ways.  First, they provide a venue for ASF volunteers
   to meet face-to-face.  In some cases, this is the only venue in which
   ASF volunteers get to meet one another in person.  Secondly, conferences
   can be used to generate interest in Apache project communities.  ASF
   conferences have had two operational challenges.  First, they have
   generally lost money in recent years.  This has contributed to the
   second challenge, which is that it is difficult if not impossible to run
   high-quality conferences using all volunteer resources.  To put it
   simply, if the conferences made money, commercial providers would run
   them for us.  They do not make money.

   We plan to run an experiment in 2018, using ASF funds to remove the
   profitability constraint from ASF conferences.  If this experiment is
   successful, we may agree on an annual subsidy that VP, Conferences can
   plan to use to make up the difference between what ASF conferences cost
   to produce and the revenue that they generate.

   ASF-level conferences are not the only events that our communities use
   to collaborate in-person.  We believe that individual or group
   project-level events also contribute to our mission and we should
   support them.  In some cases, project communities ask for and receive
   support from commercial entities for project events.  We want to
   encourage this type of support and we want the process for enabling it
   to be as simple and easy as possible for both the communities and the
   sponsoring organizations.  Given that not all project communities will
   be able to find the funds for events that will benefit them, we will
   agree on an annual budget to cover project-specific community
   development initiatives.  That budget will be administered by the
   Community Development PMC.

   ASF Services - Legal

   ASF is fortunate to have pro bono legal counsel available that meets
   most of our legal advice and representation needs.  The exception to
   this is trademarks-related costs, which we are no longer able to acquire
   as a pro bono service.  We need, therefore, to develop a strategy and
   budget for this expense.

   ASF Processes - PMC lifecycle

   We believe that the processes for onboarding new communities via the
   Incubator (or direct to TLP) channels are fit for purpose and can
   continue to scale.  We also believe that the core oversight processes
   for operating PMCs can continue to serve the needs of the foundation
   over at least the next five years.  Finally, we believe that the Attic
   provides an effective means for retiring no longer viable projects.  In
   each of these cases, however, we hope to make significant progress over
   the next 5 years improving our implementation and execution (without
   necessarily introducing new PMC lifecycle phases or governance
   processes).  Specifically, we hope to:

   1. Improve the community mentoring and understanding of Apache Way
      processes during the incubation process

   2. Improve the success rate for podlings entering the Incubator.  Here
      “success” means timely graduation and evolution to become healthy
      TLPs. We would like to reduce the time podlings spend in the
      Incubator, as much as possible. Either by graduating them quickly, if
      they are found to be a good fit for the ASF, or by failing them
      quickly if they're not a good fit.

   3. Reduce the need for Board intervention in PMC affairs

   As the ASF scales, the ability for the Board and members with long
   experience to engage with Incubator podlings and TLPs is becoming an
   effective growth rate limiter.  We need to either reduce the growth
   rate, increase the speed with which new members can become effective
   mentors, or improve processes and built-in controls so that the
   objectives above are achieved without depending on increased ad hoc
   interventions.  Our aim is actually to decrease the need for
   intervention in communities by ASF members not already substantively
   engaged in those communities.

   Our planning assumption is that the rate of new projects entering the
   Incubator will continue to grow according to the trend of the last three
   years.  We do not expect the percentage of initial inquiries that lead
   to entering podlings to decrease, but we hope to improve the
   effectiveness of the outreach, intake and incubation processes.  In
   other words, our aim is not to be “more rigorous” in allowing podlings
   into the Incubator, but rather to get a more-likely-to-succeed mix
   entering the funnel and improving mentoring and access to resources for
   podlings.  We do not intend to artificially throttle the flow into or
   out of the Incubator, but we will focus on improving mentoring and the
   availability of active and engaged mentors is likely to become a
   constraint to the growth rate.  Regarding outreach, we believe that
   investments in planned and structured marketing to help attract good
   prospective communities is important and our intention is to make these

   ASF Processes - Governance

   As the ASF scales, our flat, direct-oversight governance model will
   continue to face challenges.  Over the next 5 years, we expect to need
   to make some changes in how governance works, but our goal is to, as
   much as possible, hold onto the basic model that exists today wherein
   the only recognized organizational entities are PMCs, the Board, the
   Membership, committers, the Officers and committees responsible for ASF
   operations.  In other words, we do not intend to insert organizational
   layers such as groups of PMCs or different levels among Directors or
   within the membership.  We will continue to encourage TLPs that verge on
   becoming “umbrellas” to split into multiple projects so that PMC members
   can be expected to provide oversight to full project communities.

   We expect the PMC reporting schedule to scale manageably over the next 5
   years.  The Board currently reviews approximately 80 reports per month
   today and we expect that number to grow to approximately 100 by 2023.
   Reviewing such a large number of reports may become difficult for
   Directors and the amount of time taken in monthly meetings to give
   attention to reports needing attention will become challenging.  We
   believe that we are already facing challenges giving sufficient time and
   Director attention to strategic topics.  We have been able to scale to
   our current TLP count through innovations such as the rotation schedule
   itself, the Whimsy agenda management tool, the shepherd model and
   improvements in the reports themselves.  We are going to need to develop
   additional innovations to enable us to continue to scale while providing
   strong oversight and foundation-level governance.  Our plan is to focus
   on process and tooling innovations to enable us to continue to scale,
   rather than inserting layers or detaching the board from project-level
   oversight.  In addition, we hope to improve cohesion and consistency
   among the Board and the membership in applying Apache Way principles to
   practical problems.  Better definition of the principles, illustrated in
   examples, will need to be developed to support this objective.

   The relationship between the Board and the Officers and Committees
   responsible for ASF operations needs to continue to evolve from direct,
   sometimes ambiguous, management to strategic direction, oversight and
   approval of actions requiring approval by the Board.  We have made
   progress recently getting roles and responsibilities better defined, but
   we still have work to do in this area.  Over the next 5 years, we expect
   to develop a Board - Officers operating model that is as well-defined as
   the Board - PMC model in place today (which will itself evolve and
   improve).  Similarly to the model with PMC Chairs, our objective is for
   the Board to provide high-level oversight but to delegate operational
   responsibilities to Officers.

   The relationship between the Board, PMCs and ASF officers responsible
   for security, brand management and trademarks needs to be better defined
   and managed.  In some cases, VPs responsible for these areas are
   empowered to make demands of PMCs on behalf of the foundation.  We have
   not been sufficiently clear what the scope and bounds of this authority
   are.  We will address this ambiguity in 2018 and improve the model over
   the next 5 years.  As a guiding principle, our objective is to
   communicate (and take input on) PMC requirements effectively so that the
   need for Officer intervention is rare.  Moreover, we aim to limit the
   requirements themselves to the minimum necessary to ensure that the core
   interests of the PMCs and the Foundation are protected.

   To promote healthy inflow of new ideas and connection with project
   communities, we will also explore means to ensure that more members have
   the opportunity to serve in Director and Officer roles.

   ASF Budget and Finance - Finance operations

   The ASF has effectively outsourced core financial operations to an
   organization management firm.  This has been a key element in our
   ability to manage our growth and improve the quality and comprehension
   of our financial controls and reporting without taking on paid staff to
   manage these functions.  The Treasurer role, which had become
   intractable for a volunteer to execute responsibly, has now become an
   oversight role that is being effectively managed by volunteers
   (Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer).  We do not anticipate the need to
   change this arrangement over the next five years.

   ASF Budget and Finance - Financial Analysis and Planning

   The rigor and regularity of ASF financial planning and analysis
   activities is improving and over the next 5 years, we expect to evolve a
   set of leading and durable practices.  Currently, we have annual
   processes to determine the coming year’s budget and to update the 5-year
   outlook.  We will continue both of these practices.  Focus for the next
   year (2018) will be ensuring strategic alignment between both the
   financial plan and the goals and priorities of the Foundation.  The 2018
   budget will conform overall to the 5-year plan in this document, but
   lines may be modified to reflect consensus on priorities discussions
   among the membership.  Revision of the 5-year plan will begin
   immediately following finalization of the 2018 budget and this cadence
   will continue over the next five years with improvements each year in
   proactive planning and discussion so that the budget and 5-year plan
   update processes are less about tactical tradeoffs and debates over
   individual lines and more about officer analysis and discretion applied
   to make practical decisions consistent with agreed upon strategies.
   Starting in 2018, we will also introduce a quarterly financial review,
   which will extend and deepen the analysis included in monthly
   Treasurer’s reports.  This review will be open to the membership and
   executed asynchronously.

   ASF Budget and Finance - Fundraising

   The financial plan presented below shows an increase from the 2017
   expense budget of $1.2MM  to $2.3MM in 2023.  This presents a big
   challenge for ASF fundraising.  At the same time, the role, VP
   Fundraising, is becoming difficult for a single volunteer to handle.
   Outsourcing fundraising operations to our organization management
   partner has helped but it is hard to see the current model as
   sustainable and capable of meeting the increased demands that we
   anticipate over the next 5 years.  Therefore, we are planning to invest
   significantly over the next 5 years in fundraising assistance.  This
   assistance will take one or more of the following three forms:

   1. Additional services provided by our organization management partner

   2. Addition of paid fundraising staff

   3. Engagement of a partner specializing in fundraising

   In 2018, our focus will be on exploring the first option and expanding
   the leverage of Board members and other members in fundraising
   activities.  If by year-end 2018, we are meeting or exceeding
   fundraising goals and VP, Fundraising has become a volunteer-manageable
   position, we will limit any additional investment to 1. along with
   marketing / communications in support of fundraising activities.  If by
   mid-year 2018, we have not achieved the current budget plan and / or the
   challenges have become intractable, we will begin exploration of options
   2. and 3.

   In 2017, we made good progress getting better definition on practical
   and legal aspects of the sponsorship program.  We arrived at a set of
   sponsor benefits that accurately reflect what the ASF can currently
   provide and what different sponsorship levels entitle sponsors to.  We
   believe that in order to significantly expand the potential sponsor base
   and to ensure consistent renewals, we need to define some more
   compelling benefits for ASF sponsors.  Several ideas have been discussed
   in this area, but we have yet to achieve consensus on specific
   improvements.  Defining and implementing these improvements will be a
   key focus for us over the next several years.   At a minimum, we will
   formally review and consider modifications to the program as part of the
   strategic plan refresh each year.

   In 2017, we began a partnership with a company providing digital and
   payment processing services to promote and manage individual donations.
   This partnership has been successful.  Most importantly, we have the
   beginnings of an individual donor relationship management system.  We
   expect that as our donor base grows and we better manage communications
   with individual donors, we will be able to grow individual contributions
   at a rate equal to or exceeding the growth in revenue from the
   sponsorship program.  This will require continued focus on ASF marketing
   and communications and effective outreach and management of individual
   donor relationships.   In 2017, we executed one fundraising drive aimed
   at soliciting individual contributions.  In 2018, we will do this at
   least twice and in subsequent  years, we will increase the frequency
   contacts with existing and prospective individual donors, leveraging our
   marketing, fundraising and finance operations partners to plan and
   execute campaigns.

   ASF Budget and Finance - External Partnerships

   We considered a proposal in 2017 to form a revenue-generating joint
   venture, managed via a separate legal entity.  The proposal was to
   partner with a commercial company to produce ASF-certified training
   materials, with a portion of the revenue returned to the ASF.  The Board
   rejected this proposal.  It is important to note, however, that we did
   not conclude that no commercial partnership returning revenue to the ASF
   could ever be approved.  The proposal was rejected because it would in
   our estimation make misleading use of ASF brands and also “pick winners”
   inconsistently with our principles.  We hope to consider alternative
   proposals to fairly, honestly and consistently with our principles raise
   revenue for the ASF.  As noted above, conferences have not been a source
   of positive income for us in the recent past, but they are an example of
   a commercial activity that can be done consistently with our principles.
   We hope to define at least one new revenue stream resulting from
   commercially valuable activities that contribute to our mission over the
   next five years.  The current 5-year financial plan does not include any
   revenue projections from these activities.

   ASF Budget and Finance - 5-year Financial Plan

   Details (with updated numbers) of the 5-year financial plan are
   presented below.  In aggregate, we expect expenses to grow from $1.42MM
   in FY 2018 to $2.2MM in FY 2023.  Income is projected to grow from
   $1.23MM to $1.91MM over the same period.  This will result in our
   FY18 cash reserve of $1.77MM being reduced to $1.16MM by the end of
   FY 2023. The plan, as currently formulated also does not include the
   increments in funding suggested above for Community Development, nor
   does it separate a legal defense reserve.

   Budget lines currently forecast to have the largest increases are
   fundraising (515% increase) brand (152%), and publicity (113%).  The
   largest component of our expense base, infrastructure, is forecast to
   increase by only 34%.  The increase in fundraising is justified by the
   commensurate forecasted increase in income from donations, which is
   currently forecast at 57%.  In absolute terms, the fundraising increment
   is $237k per year, which is expected to return (a portion of) the
   forecasted increase of $690k per year in total donations.  We should be
   able to improve that ratio.

 D. FY23 budget

                               FY18    FY22    FY23
      Total Public Donations    111     135     220
      Total Sponsorship       1,084   1,500   1,665
      Total Programs             28      28      28
      Interest Income             4       4       4
                               ----    ----    ----
      Total Income            1,227   1,667   1,917

      Infrastructure            818     868   1,099
      Program Expenses           27      27      27
      Publicity                 182     352     387
      Brand Management           89     141     225
      Conferences                60      12      60
      Travel Assistance          50      79      25
      Treasury                   49      51      61
      Fundraising                46      53     283
      General & Administrative  118     139      44
      Chairman's Discretionary   10       0      10
                               ----    ----    ----
      Total Expense           1,418   1,722   2,211
        Net                    -212     -55    -294
        Cash                  1,767     595   1,261

     * Units are in thousands of dollars US.
     * FY18 income/expense represents budget authorization, not actuals
       FY18 Cash, however, represents current (conservative) projections
     * FY22 column is for informational purposes only

17 Jan 2018

 1. The Board's 2018 vision statement

 The following vision statement is proposed for approval by the
 Board, to be published on our Foundation blog and used as a basis
 for our 5-year plan:

 Our mission is to support communities that create and distribute
 Open Source software at no charge under the Apache License, per our
 Bylaws. To this end we provide (virtual) space and resources,
 including mentoring, for project communities to flourish, produce
 and release software under our legal umbrella.

 We are strongly committed to our projects' independence from any
 external influences, be they corporate, organizational or otherwise.
 This allows us to provide a neutral space for our communities.

 As a Foundation we intentionally do not define a technical strategy;
 that is determined by our projects. The Foundation's goals center on
 communities, as opposed to technologies.

 The Foundation is managed and directed by its Members, who are
 individual volunteers. Companies or organizations cannot be members
 of the Foundation, nor take a role in the governance of our

 We help our communities understand and practice the Apache Way, a
 collection of practices for collaboration and project sustainability
 that we document and clarify on an ongoing basis.

 We expect our community members to act as individuals. Their rights
 and responsibilities are based solely on their merit, defined by
 what they individually do in project communities, not on any
 external affiliation, title, or degree they may have, nor on their
 contributions to external projects or other organizations.

 We provide very reliable and highly automated core infrastructure
 services to our projects. We allow projects to use external non-core
 services based on their specific needs, allowing our own services to
 remain simple and focused. For durability, all our critical data and
 services are managed or mirrored on systems that we fully control.

 Our marketing and outreach is focused on activities that directly
 support our mission, educate the public about Apache projects and
 the Apache Way, and help attract the types of communities for which
 our Foundation is a good home.

 Our fundraising-related activities help find and retain the sponsors
 and donations on which our operations depend. We seek donations from
 corporations and individuals who support our mission.

 We provide legal and brand management services to our projects based
 on demonstrated needs, and define branding policies and best
 practices to help our projects benefit from the strong Apache brand
 in an appropriate way.

 We welcome new projects via our Incubator, where experienced mentors
 help them learn to operate as Apache communities and projects.
 Incubation is where communities are defined, so we put a strong
 emphasis on guidance during the incubation phase to promote
 self-governance and preserve our core values as the Foundation

 The board adopts this mission statement as proposed by general

 @Sally: review the mission statement for publication

 2. Budget

 With the lay-off of the EA, the bottoms up five year projections now
 show a modest positive balance. This likely is understated for the
 following reasons:

 1. Even conservative projections show us doing better than projected
 for FY18. While much of that was due to FY17 timing issues, it still
 represents an increased amount in the bank.

 2. The model the projections use is a linear change (mostly growth)
 in expenses and revenue by category. While there may be some
 offsetting expenses we will need to incur without an EA, this amount
 is unlikely to equate to the amount projected.

 The budget worksheet has been updated to reflect the above.

 3. Call-in number changes

 The dial in number for future meetings may change. Do we still need
 a toll-free US number?

 @Sam: pursue an alternative board conference call strategy

20 Dec 2017

* Five Year budget projections

15 Nov 2017

* Sponsor communications

 * ApacheCon North America: Discuss willingness to front $100k seed
   money to produce an event. Discuss what we might be willing to
   invest ("lose") each year in the interest of outreach and

 * Five Year budget projections

 * Sponsor communications

 Postponed until next month

 * ApacheCon North America: Discuss willingness to front $100k seed
 money to produce an event. Discuss what we might be willing to
 invest ("lose") each year in the interest of outreach and promotion.

 Tentative plans to co-locate ApacheCon EU 2018 with Buzzwords

 Board approves a one time $100K budget increase for conferences,
 additional years will be considered in the five year budget plan.

 * Five Year budget projections

 Phil and Sam to produce a draft in the upcoming weeks.

16 Aug 2017

 A. Appointment of Chairman

 At the face-to-face meeting in June, succession of the chair was
 discussed and Phil Steitz agreed to accept the position.
 By general consent, Phil Steitz is appointed Chairman.

 B. Appointment of Vice Chairman

 By general consent, Jim Jagielski is appointed Vice Chairman.

 C. Article about Apache OpenOffice https://lwn.net/Articles/729460/

 Bertrand: do we want AOO to make public statements about the level
 of activity on the project?

 Rich: it would be good for them to make a public statement

 Chris: no strong opinions about this, but this is not the normal way
 the board interacts with PMCs

 Ted: the issue is the difference between user activity level (downloads)
 and code activity level

 Shane: most of our projects have technical users but AOO users won't
 necessarily know e.g. that security questions may an issue in
 the future

 Bertrand: maybe we should ask them to publish a blog post about the
 status of the project

 Brett: what is our objective? discourage downloads?

 Ted: is either a blog or a disclaimer going to accomplish the

 Bertrand: we should have a public statement to make people aware

 Jim: no matter what we do, some people will want more. we should go
 public; ask the PMC to make a statement of direction so end users
 understand what is happening with the project

 @Jim: follow up with the PMC to get a public statement out

21 Jun 2017

 A. Vice Chairman role

 Phil Steitz has been proposed to replace Brett as chair, and would
 like to have a transition, starting by taking the role of Vice

 The board appointed Phil Steitz to the role of Vice Chair.

15 Jun 2017

    A. Apache in 5 years

    Ross: Expect to see growth greater than now. e.g. Microsoft sees
    the importance of open source. The Linux Foundation, the Eclipse
    Foundation, and Apache all face challenges.

    Phil: Demand for Apache products will continue. We need to
    maintain what we are doing. The bigger problem is managing
    what we are doing. We still need to absorb the growth we have
    already seen.

    Rich: The challenge is to find the next generation of people
    to keep the organization running as it has been.

    Ross: We see today the github generation. Young people think
    Apache is old-fashioned.

    Jim: The Linux Foundation is driving what people think of as
    open source. We need to teach our members and outsiders who
    we are. We need to take our leadership position seriously.

    Phil: We need to start thinking about the context of what
    we accept into Apache. The industry cannot survive on instant
    gratification. Apache strength is in collaboration. We should
    not try to attract people based on immediate gratification.
    Rather, we should try to attract engineers who "get it".

    Ross: We should change expectations of new members. For example,
    don't just vote +1 if you're not willing to help. And members
    should vote or leave.

    Kevin: Should we consider charging a membership fee to discourage

    Ted: The incubator is where we should instill values. It takes
    three or so releases before most projects "get it". Incubation
    should be six months to a year.

    Shane: How do we get projects to understand what Apache is?
    We need both members and podlings to understand.

    Phil: Should we consider dividing the membership? Roy's advice
    is to include everyone in membership who "has a stake" in the
    foundation by contributing. But not all members contribute to
    the ongoing foundation operations, just to their own projects.
    So we now have a big growth in membership.

    Chris: The symptom is a lot of inactive members.

    Ross: One problem is that members are not expected to do anything.
    They show up at the incubator and mentor projects without
    understanding themselves what Apache is. At this point we
    probably don't even know most of the proposed members.

    Tom: How do we get new members to successfully onboard? Should
    we make new members attend a webinar?

    Shane: We do need to set expectations for new members. It's
    obviously not enough just to send them email with links.

    Jim: We are failing to instill our values into people during
    the incubation process.

    Bertrand: We could ask members to actively mentor existing
    projects, not just wait until there is some crisis.

    Brett: We cannot make expectations equal requirements.

    Ted: Perhaps we should charge the IPMC with after-graduation

    Rich: We tried to have Community Development take that task and
    got pushback.

    Jim: The incubator is an experiment that has failed to produce
    projects that really get "The Apache Way".

    Possible Action Items:

    Develop a new member onboarding process with expectations
    Provide active mentoring for new projects

 B. Managing growth

    Greg: We will need to forecast resource requirements for projects.
    Maven tried at one point to keep a copy of every project, but
    infra did not have resources for that. Maven needs to request
    resources from the board.

    Ross, Kevin: This might be an opportunity for directed sponsorship.
    A PMC needs to ask for this; the board has already approved the

    Greg: A large number of INFRA tickets are for new podlings.
    Graduating projects also creates work. Infra is working on reducing
    technical debt, primarily reducing owned hardware.
    There is some work migrating projects to the Attic.
    The plan is to reduce owned hardware and migrating to the cloud.
    We expect automation of tasks related to new podlings and TLPs
    to be in place within three years.
    The current spend is $5K per project per year, but expect this
    to drop a bit in the future.

    Sam: Operations prefers bottom-up forecasting but the board
    wants to do top-down forecasts.

    Possible Action Items:

    Communicate the option for directed sponsorships to PMCs

 C. Fundraising plans

    Including review re: Proposal to License Assets of the Foundation

    Kevin: You have all seen the proposal to license assets of the
    foundation to a for-profit corporation which would give us
    income for continued operations. We are prepared to update it
    based on feedback from the board and outside counsel. The proposal
    is a compromise between charity and business.

    Brett: One issue is that vendor neutrality is key to how Apache
    operates, and we don't want to compete with businesses. Rather,
    we create opportunities for businesses to exist.

    Kevin: Competitors can all work on the same Apache projects.
    Apache is vendor-neutral but we think the new corporation could
    compete with others.

    Ted: If there is money to be made, this implies that a third
    party cannot compete with Apache. We are concerned about Apache
    competing with our supporters.

    Phil: Apache's core principle is non-compete. We provide an open
    platform for developing projects.

    Ross: This proposal will negatively affect our current sponsors.

    Jim: We have tried to avoid blessing any third party with the
    Apache brand.

    Phil: Transparency is a showstopper. Using the Apache brand while
    Apache did not produce the product violates transparency.

    Ted: If the proposed corporation really only takes marginal
    business (that others don't want) then is there really a business
    opportunity for the proposed corporation?

    Kevin: Is there anything in the proposal that can be changed
    in order to make it more acceptable?

    Ross/Phil/Jim/Brett: Probably not.

    Ross: A PMC could develop training materials using "directed
    sponsorship" funding, and the resulting materials would be
    available to anyone.

 D. Follow up plans

    Kevin: Sponsorship of Apache is a bargain. We have not changed
    sponsorship fees in 15 years. Time to increase them.

    Brett: We should try to improve the sponsorship renewal process.

    Bertrand: One thing to look at is to take Travel Assistance out
    of the budget and have it be strictly sponsored.

    Kevin: Fundraising is looking at having a "sponsorship drive".

    Sally: The "Apache Ambassador" program has started. This program
    gives sponsors an "executive" contact within Apache. It looks like
    this program is adequately staffed at the moment. The ambassadors
    should make regular contact with our sponsors.

    Possible Action Items:

    Increase sponsorship fees after giving current sponsors the
    opportunity to renew at current levels

    Take TAC out of budget and make it a sponsored project

    Improve sponsor renewal process

17 May 2017

    A. Select a replacement for VP, Legal

    With the resignation of Marvin Humphrey from VP, Legal Affairs,
    two candidates have stepped forward: Chris Mattmann and Roman

 B. Consider creating board-pmcs@ list

 C. F2F logistics in VA

 A. Select a replacement for VP, Legal

 With the resignation of Marvin Humphrey from VP, Legal Affairs, two
 candidates have stepped forward: Chris Mattmann and Roman

 The board appreciates that two very strong candidates for the
 position have volunteered to serve. The board came to the consensus
 that Chris Mattmann should be the next VP, Legal Affairs.

 Voting will be recorded on Resolution 7E.

 B. Consider creating board-pmcs@ list

 Several issues were raised:

 The board@ list is often used to discuss topics that while are
 relevant to the operation of the board, are not relevant to the
 majority of the subscribers.

 The board@ list is often used to discuss topics that should not be
 discussed widely and sometimes devolve into free-for-all rants.

 The board@ list should be used to solicit feedback from PMC chairs
 but in its current usage, is ineffective.

 There is consensus that splitting the board@ list into at least two
 lists is advisable: one for official board business; and one for

 The members@ list also suffers from a similar issue.

 @Brett: take the discussion to the board@ list (!) and recommend a

 C. F2F logistics in VA

 Dinner on June 14 will be scheduled near the meeting venue.

 Breakfast on June 15 will be arranged at the meeting venue.

 All attendees should update their travel plans in f2f-2017.txt.

19 Apr 2017

 A. Board meeting in May

 B. F2F Agenda

27 Feb 2017

    A. FY22 Budget

    The following inputs have been collected as input to the board.
    See the President's report for context and associated request.

                                    FY17 Min FY22     FY22 Max FY22
       Total Public Donations         89       90      110      135
       Total Sponsorship             968      900    1,000    1,100
       Total Programs                 28       28       28       28
       Interest Income                 4        4        4        4
                                   -----    -----    -----    -----
       Total Income                1,089    1,022    1,142    1,267

       Infrastructure                723      868      868      868
       Program Expenses               27       27       27       27
       Publicity                     141      273      352      540
       Brand Management               84       92      141      218
       Conferences                    12       12       12       12
       Travel Assistance              62        0       79      150
       Treasury                       48       49       51       61
       Fundraising                     8       18       23       23
       General & Administrative      114       50      139      300
                                   -----    -----    -----    -----
       Total Expense               1,219    1,390    1,693    2,199

     Net                            -130     -369     -552     -933

     Cash                          1,656      290     -259   -1,403

     1) Units are thousands of US dollars
     2) Cash projections are based on linear change in budgets for FY18-FY21


 First, a clarification that the first column is the approved budget for FY17
 and the next three columns are possible fy22 budgets:

 Second column is minimal FY22 budget
 Third column is “nominal”, linearly projecting the FY17 budget to FY22
 Fourth column is if we expand the services in many areas

 Jim: looks like brand management and publicity are the most malleable parts

 Sam: there are several areas that could be changed

 Jim: we should try to see what a reasonable budget should be and then see
 if we can adapt sponsorship to match our needs; thinking we could really
 get more sponsorship

 Sam: but e.g. should we even have a TAC?

 Marvin: Those areas (TAC etc) are investments that we believe are wise,
 but which we might choose not to make in slim times

 Ross: some of the expanded publicity could lead to more sponsorship

 Marvin: going for minimal budget also implies shutting down incubator

 Jim: we should go for the middle column and see if we can figure out how
 to get there

 Shane: we should set a target about halfway between the minimal and
 expanded budget

 Bertrand: could we consider a really minimal “survival” budget?

 Jim: that was supposed to be the minimum column

 Sam: survival is a bit less than the first column; would prefer not to
 pursue survival budget

 Brett: it’s worthwhile to try to be ambitious about the budget; at least
 meet the nominal budget

 Sam: recommend a f2f meeting in March to resolve direction on fundraising;
 maybe in Washington or Boston; with a follow-on meeting in Miami

 Sam: sounds like we have consensus to try to strive for the nominal budget
 and see if we can achieve income to meet it

18 Jan 2017

    A. There seems to be an unmet need for documentation of overall ASF
    policy.  Either a single page, or a small set of pages, authored
    and maintained by the board would be helpful.  Ideally this list
    would be light on details and heavy on pointers.

    The consensus of the board is that this is worthwhile to pursue.

 B. Role of Brand Management as it relates to PMCs.  Do we empower PMCs
    to do what is best for their communities, and let a thousand flowers
    bloom, even to the point where we allow actions that may limit our
    abilities to enforce our marks?  Or do we treat Brand as a core part of
    our unique Apache model for community, and require consistency in
    approach across all PMCs and third parties, even if it means denying
    use of marks to friendly third parties in ways that would benefit

    More specifically:

      1) Is the Trademark Policy a policy or a set of best practices?

      2) Are PMCs the wrong tool for trademark enforcement?

    The board has previously concluded that brand management has the
    authority to set branding policy for the foundation and for PMCs
    (Minutes: July 16, 2014).

    PMCs may request exceptions to policy, and such exceptions are to be
    publicly documented. In addition to this policy, Brand Management
    provides best practices for PMCs to handle branding issues.

    The board concludes that PMCs are a valid means for trademark enforcement,
    and are responsible for handling all external branding issues they become
    aware of. PMCs may request assistance from Brand Management as required.
    However, Brand Management does not unilaterally handle branding issues.

 C. Discussion of Brand Management during the December meeting raised a
    question about whether a Director who serves as VP, Brand Management
    would have a conflict of interest by participating in the discussion.

    The Board concludes that Directors who also serve as non-compensated,
    volunteer officers are not presumed to have a conflict of interest
    when discussing or voting upon topics related to their officer
    role(s), aside from their own appointment or continuance as an

21 Dec 2016

    A. Role of Brand Management as it relates to PMCs.  Do we empower PMCs
    to do what is best for their communities, and let a thousand flowers
    bloom, even to the point where we allow actions that may limit our
    abilities to enforce our marks?  Or do we treat Brand as a core part of
    our unique Apache model for community, and require consistency in
    approach across all PMCs and third parties, even if it means denying
    use of marks to friendly third parties in ways that would benefit

      1) Is the Trademark Policy a policy or a set of best practices?
      2) Are PMCs the wrong tool for trademark enforcement?

      1) Can a PMC decide that it is OK for a third party to make use
         of an ASF Mark in their product name?
      2) Can a PMC decide that it is OK for the only attribution to the ASF
         for use of a mark to appear in a link in a small font at the
         bottom of a page?
      3) Can a PMC decide that it is Brand Management's job to contact
         a third party who is making use of the PMC's name; or even to
         decide that no contact is necessary?

 Brand Management Discussion

 Marvin: it’s a policy, but a bit too verbose; can use improvement,
 but brand owns it

 Mark: it’s a policy but can have exceptions; enforcement must be
 delegated to PMCs with advice from VP Brand.

 Can a PMC unilaterally decide policy on their own? No.

 Sam: if there is an exception to policy should PMCs have to get
 approval from VP Brand?

 Mark: if PMC wants to act outside the policy they need to work with
 VP Brand.

 Brett: likes consistency; there's a good example in the way the
 press PMC handles publicity policy

 Chris Mattman: in regard to specifics: yes, yes, yes, as long as
 decisions are documented on archived list

 the last decision on board was PMCs should take a more active role,
 so this looks like a change from best practice to policy

 Sam: this wasn’t a change; there has always been a policy

 Brett: PMCs should still be very involved but it is a policy; there
 should be minimal burden on PMCs but the policy gives them teeth
 against bad actors; think of it as not to be holding PMCs to rules,
 but helping them

 Chris Douglas: there was a recent dispute with VP Brand from the
 October report about Hadoop China conference; VP Brand was
 dissatisfied with how Hadoop is managing the brand

 there are still lots of people showing up to work on hadoop, so who
 is negatively affected the way we are managing? how is hadoop PMC
 failing the mission?

 trademark enforcement is not something that engineers will do well;
 the value of a particular brand is limited

 Jim: what I see is that the public perception is there is an elite
 group of vendors who can make use of Hadoop marks but others cannot,
 and this is not a defensible situation

 for marks to be valuable they have to be protected;

 we must remember we are a 501c3 and must abide by our charter. so,
 we can enforce a tight policy where all vendors are playing on level
 field (good) or we show favoritism to some vendors, or we could lose
 the brand (both of which would be a bad outcome)

 this is potentially a slippery slope so needs to be tightly
 controlled and defended

 Bertrand: the web page with Brand policy is IMO too detailed and
 impossible for us to accept as policy as a whole.

 my suggestion would be to replace that page with a minimal list of
 "atomic" numbered items that the board can review to decide which
 items are policy and which ones are best practices only

 Sam: would like at least General question 1 answered as soon as
 possible, preferably today unless more talk might change peoples'

 Brett: leaning toward deferring a vote on whether brand has a policy
 or not; should come to agreement and have a resolution to vote on
 next board meeting

 AI Sam: lead the discussion offline and prepare another resolution
 to vote on for next meeting

 B. Appointing an Assistant Treasurer

 Kevin McGrail had the position of Assistant Treasurer before taking
 a leave; now that he is back, by acclamation the board reappointed
 him to the position.

19 Oct 2016

 A. Executive Officer Appointments

 Sam appointed as President, replacing Ross.

 Ross appointed as EVP, replacing Rich.

 Sam steps down as Director. Rich named as his replacment.

 Rich named to a new position: VP, Conferences.

21 Sep 2016

 A. Appointing a Vice Chairman

 Greg Stein is relinquishing his Director and Vice Chairman roles.
 Discussion of appointment of a new Vice Chairman.

 With Greg's resignation from the Board, there are two vacancies:
 Director and Vice Chair.

 After analyzing the results of the last board election, Sam Ruby was
 the person who would have been elected if one of the nine had not
 accepted the position. Therefore, the board proposed to appoint Sam
 to the board.

 With one abstention, the board appointed Sam Ruby to the board by a
 vote of a majority of Directors present.

 Chris Mattmann volunteered to serve as Vice Chair.

 With one abstention, the board appointed Chris Mattmann to the
 position of Vice Chair by a vote of a majority of Directors present.

 B. Appoint other executive officer replacements as needed

 With the naming of Greg Stein to the position of Infra
 Administrator, and his subsequent resignation from the board and
 from his position as Vice Chair, there will be a period of
 reorganizing the duties of the executive staff. With this in mind,
 no other changes will be made at this time.

17 Aug 2016

 A. Executive VP responsibilities

 B. Status of Infrastructure Lead

 C. Paid support for other areas and impact on fundraising

 Please refer to this month's President's report for background
 information for this discussion.

 A. Executive VP responsibilities

 Can we increase responsibilities of EVP role?

 Jim: seems Rich’s heart is in ApacheCon so it makes more sense to
 have someone to take more of Ross’s responsibilities and have Rich
 focus on conferences

 Ross: While Rich is focused on conferences, he has been very
 involved in other issues. Biggest concern is workload, and need
 people who can step up.

 Chris: Maybe it’s time to create a VP, Conferences role

 Ross: But we want to move away from the ApacheCon model to
 project-focused conferences

 Rich: One concern is the relationship between conferences and brands

 Marvin: Is there an issue with reporting relationships for

 Ross: There should not be confusion. The buck stops at the VP; the
 President (or EVP) is only there to unblock issues

 Jim: Foresees EVP getting more involved in sponsors and fundraising,
 hiring infra

 @Ross: Prepare a proposal for VP, Conferences

 @Jim: Prepare a proposal for EVP role

 B. Status of Infrastructure Lead

 Ross: Operations vs. Infra: should not have both paid management

 Tom: focus now is on back filling staff that we have lost

 Brett: What does infra look like going forward?

 Chris: What happened to the Infra Lead Search Committee? Didn’t go

 Ross: The Infra Lead didn’t get much traction. We’re looking now at
 Infra Lead as specifically technical. We need to hire senior
 technical infrastructure staff

 Chris: Adding more infrastructure doesn’t make sense without
 strategy for solving the VP Infra position

 Ross: We are backfilling contractors but still intend to hire
 technical infra lead. Still have a problem with liaison between
 infra and projects

 Marvin: Pleased with efforts to staff infra

 Chris: Also pleased with backfilling progress

 @Chris: Kick off discussion on @members for VP Infra

 @Brett: Make sure discussion progresses in time for next board

 C. Paid support for other areas and impact on fundraising

 Brett: Do we have a model for infra going forward?

 Chris: I just don't feel that as an ASF member or community member
 that I know exactly what the direction is for infra, and strategy,

 Ross: There are proposals on the table that are being discussed. But
 they are not formal enough to vote on at the moment.

 Jim: Maybe we can prioritize based on immediate need (e.g. TAC is
 time sensitive)

20 Jul 2016

@Tom: Virtual will help with recruiting infra staff.

15 Jun 2016

 A. Craig proposes that the board appoint Sam Ruby to the position of
 Assistant Secretary.

 The board appoints Sam Ruby to the office of Assistant Secretary.

 B. Jim wishes to discuss the OSI Affiliate program

 Jim: a few years back, Jim was on the OSI board; ASF thought it
 might make sense to join OSI but didn't match OSI who were trying to
 establish themselves. OSI is now trying to refocus on community
 aspects and now sees affiliates as helping.

 Jim volunteers to continue discussion with OSI.

 Chris: ok

 Marvin: will we have to opt out or opt in to OSI decisions?

 Jim: OSI will notify affiliates before taking action affecting them.
 In fact, ASF can help redefine affiliate interaction

 Mark: will OSI expect affiliates to pay dues?

 Jim: no dues for affiliates.

 Mark: what are benefits to ASF?

 Jim: gives ASF more opportunity to promote The Apache Way; up to now
 projects might not be steered to ASF

 @Jim: continue to work with OSI and report to the board next month

18 May 2016

 A. Executive Officer Appointments

 The board reaffirms the existing officers with the exception of
 Treasurer; Ulrich Stärk is named as the new treasurer and the role
 of Assistant Treasurer is now vacant. The role of Assistant
 Secretary remains vacant.

 Ross encouraged all officers to make as much use of Virtual as

20 Apr 2016

A. Timing of Executive Officer Appointments

16 Mar 2016

    A. Self Service and Infrastructure

    An outstanding JIRA issue against the infrastructure "self service"
    application was unilaterally assigned to the Whimsy PMC without
    consultation, and another was initially closed as WONTFIX, triggering a
    larger discussion that ended up on board@.  Included in that discussion
    was a comment by the current VP of Infrastructure that he would be open
    to the infrastructure team "tak(ing) responsibility for Whimsy the
    service", and as a part of that impose a release discipline upon the
    Whimsy PMC.

    Meanwhile, an ASF member legally changed her name.  She and the
    secretary were able to reflect that change in our records and on the
    site without any assistance by paid contractors.  New committers were
    given accounts based on a highly automated process whereby the
    infrastructure staff run scripts that access requests stored as
    structured data in svn.  This data was placed in svn by a tool that was
    originally part of whimsy and essentially jointly owned by the whimsy
    PMC and the infrastructure team.

    This suggests a different division of responsibility:

    1) The infrastructure team (consisting of contractors and volunteers)
       maintain control over master copies of ASF data resources, including
       but not limited to: Subversion, Git, LDAP, and mailing lists.
       Some of these resources may be mirrored (in some cases,

    2) Groups (such as PMCs and the secretarial team) are given access
       control rights to resources that they can manage.  Where this is not
       directly practical for security or other reasons (e.g., the new
       account example above), tools that process authenticated requests
       stored in an open format will be developed and deployed.

    3) Multiple tools ("let a thousand flowers bloom") that make use of
       the access described above may be developed.  One can imagine a
       future where the Perl scripts that PMC chairs use today are phased
       out in favor of Syncope and/or Whimsy.  Or an alternate future where
       a separate VM is provisioned for ssh use by pmc chairs to run these
       scripts.  Decisions made by the infrastructure team to maintain or
       discontinue the current "self serve" (id.apache.org) tool can be
       made either in consultation with, or entirely independent of, those
       made by other PMCs.

    Anti-patterns to watch out for: (1) requiring PMCs to issue JIRA requests
    to select features for their projects, (2) requiring users to use a
    particular user interface to make a request, without providing
    authenticated users access to the underlying data, and (3) tools
    deployed without runbooks or other documentation on how they work.

 Now seems to be an opportune time to discuss how infra can implement
 self-service as a strategy. Sam will work with Ross as infra

 B. Another month when there appears to have been a number of PMCs that
    didn't report, needed reminders and/or reported late. Not sure of
    the cause, even less sure of the solution. But it seems to be
    an increasing problem...?

    Some stats:
      * https://whimsy.apache.org/board/missing-reports
      * of the 13 missing PMC reports this month; 3 of those PMCs missed
        the previous month (and one of those is heading to the attic);
        additionally 1 was not accepted the previous month
      * 3 PMCs proactively stated that they will be reporting next month

17 Feb 2016

    A. Over the last few months I've noticed a drastic decrease in the number
    of reports submitted on-time, or at all. What's going on? Are the board
    reminders going out?

    Historical data:

    For this month:
      Initial reminders were sent Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:01:36 +0000
      Final reminders were sent Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:27:17 +0000

    There was a problem in prior months where getting the chairs email
    addresses from LDAP would fail; Sebb and Sam addressed the LDAP
    reliability problems, and Brett changed the address used for chairs
    to the $availid@apache.org address, avoiding the need for LDAP
    entirely.  This problem is thought to be solved.

    Reminders are still only being sent to PMCs, i.e, not to executive
    officers and additional officers.  They are also still being sent
    via a web interface instead of a cron job.

    These would be excellent tasks for somebody wishing to get more
    involved in the Whimsy project :-).  A draft script for sending
    reminders can be found at http://s.apache.org/GZD.  Deployment info
    is at https://github.com/apache/whimsy/blob/master/DEPLOYMENT.md

 B. Synapse. What happened and relationship with
    and what we need to (possibly) watch out for.

    There was a prior discussion of this matter on the trademarks list.
    That discussion seemed to die off after this post:

 C. Updating VP Infrastructure Role
    After reviewing as many opinions and proposals as possible I have come
    to the conclusion that none of the options for moving the VP Infra
    responsibilities to a third party can be considered "small reversible
    steps". Furthermore, contrary to my initial recommendation to the board
    I am not convinced that any of the outsourcing options currently
    available are optimal for the foundation.

    I remain convinced that, at some point in the future, our
    infrastructure operations will require a full time management role.
    However, I do not think that time is now. Below I outline the current
    VP Infra job description (drawn up in consultation with David as VP
    Infra and most of the infrastructure staff). I have classified each
    task as either STAFF, VP or PRESIDENT to indicate where I propose each
    should land. This results in splitting the current VP role three ways:
    paid STAFF (and where possible contractors), PRESIDENT and VP (who
    remains a volunteer VP Infrastructure). Items marked VP/STAFF are
    expected to require significant oversight from the VP but can be
    delegated to STAFF.

    The intention is to split the role into "doing" (STAFF), "planning" (VP)
    and "HR" (PRESIDENT). Note, it is expected that the majority of the
    PRESIDENT responsibilities can be outsourced to a support organization
    though no negotiations have taken place at this time.

    * Set and manage annual infra budgets [VP/STAFF]
    * Approve infra purchasing decisions, including contract
      negotiation and renewal with suppliers [VP/STAFF]
    * Set medium- to long-term strategy for ASF Infra services in
      response to community demands (Critical, Core and Standard
      services) [VP]
    * Implement the defined strategy for ASF Infra (Critical, Core and
      Standard services [STAFF]
    * Define SLA targets [VP]
    * Track against SLA targets and report at https://status.apache.org/sla
    * Allocate resources (people's time) to ensure tickets are dealt
      with in a timely way in addition to completing assigned project
      word [STAFF]
    * Balance job assignments and project schedules to ensure the
      necessary work is completed while fun new stuff is progressed
    * Ensure projects are either provided with everything they need as
      a service, or (wherever possible) are provided compute resources
      to self-host [STAFF]
    * Encourage collaboration between projects who are self-managing
      the same/similar services [VP/STAFF]
    * Set or advise on appropriate ASF policy as requested [VP]
    * Monitor project adherence to appropriate ASF policies (e.g.
      release management, version control, service use), addressing
      issues of concern and escalating to the appropriate officer
      wherever necessary [STAFF]
    * Be the voice of the community within infra operations [VP]
    * Be the voice of the infra team for the ASF President and thus the
      Board and our Members (e.g. board reports) [VP]
    * Manage infra staff with respect to performance and work
      environment [PRESIDENT]
    * Negotiate contract renewals with infra contractors/staff
    * Recruit infra staff as needed [PRESIDENT]

    After initial discussion in this board meeting I will take this proposal
    with appropriate modifications to the board@ list for fine tuning. At
    this point the search of a replacement VP and expansion of Staff duties
    can be commenced.

 Re: A. Late/missing board reports

 @Brett: Should we add another reminder to tardy projects the Monday
 before the meeting?

 Re: B. Synapse issue

 Jim: there has been a lot of contention between Axis and Synapse and
 it doesn't seem to be resolved in a good way

 Sam: there is a significant trademark issue with wso2-synapse; they
 have forked the project and taken our trademark and the fork does
 not even implement the same API

 Jim: I'm expecting to hear from WSO2 that since synapse has retired
 we want to take the trademark

 Shane: how are the company and project working together?

 Also, cloudstack has been forked; this situation needs to be

 Re: C. VP Infra plan

 Sam: Overall, good work; perhaps change the set strategy and define
 SLA to ratify strategy and SLA instead?

 Ross: good change.

 Brett: looks like more responsibility for staff; could we bring up
 someone from infra for leadership role?

 Ross: with current structure it might be risky to promote an
 existing infra contractor; the best option for outsourcing would
 probably cost an extra $100K per year; the good news is that we are
 in a healthy situation with regard to cost

 Brett: we should be sensitive to the effect on staff

 Henri: job description-wise; I would expect to see a ‘travel
 required’ or not

 Ross: I will add this to the job requirements

 Shane: I would like to see us put as much as possible on public web
 site to get feedback from stakeholders and show other organizations
 "how we do things here"

 Ross: the meeting minutes are public

 Shane: but people outside the board meeting attendees won’t see how
 we handled this issue

 Ross: I’m focused on getting it done, not necessarily publishing it;
 feel free to take this discussion to a different venue

 David: good for Ross to take on some personnel management tasks
 interim; there is lots of menial work to do but needs to line up with
 long term goals; I'm looking forward to seeing who gets recruited for the
 new role

 Ross: "self elected" senior team member caused problems in the past;
 what we are looking for is more like a "project lead" than a manager
 for keeping projects on track; I'll take this forward with more
 discussion on board@

20 Jan 2016

    A. Discuss options for Infrastructure management.
    With the imminent retirement of the current VP Infrastructure we need to
    decide how to proceed in the near future. The easiest path is to simply
    replace David with a new volunteer VP. However, as discussed in the past
    this course of action is not considered sustainable due to the heavy
    workload. Other options previously considered include:

    * Employ a full time infrastructure manager
    * Employ a full time Executive Director (infra management + additional
    * Outsource all infra services to a third party provider
      - not-for-profit
      - for profit
    * Outsource critical infra services to a third party provider whilst
      keeping non-critical services in-house and volunteer managed
    * Creating a separate company to manage our infra services

 This discussion item is intended to allow us to:
    a) Refresh our memories of previous findings for each of the above
    b) Identify any other options that should be explored
    c) Agree to rule out some of the above options
    d) Provide a preliminary recommendation from the Presidents office
    e) Agree on a time frame in which the board will receive a final
       recommendation from the Presidents office, and subsequently seek
       to approve an action

 A. Discuss options for Infrastructure management. With the imminent
 retirement of the current VP Infrastructure we need to decide how to
 proceed in the near future. The easiest path is to simply replace
 David with a new volunteer VP. However, as discussed in the past
 this course of action is not considered sustainable due to the heavy
 workload. Other options previously considered include:

 * Employ a full time infrastructure manager * Employ a full time
 Executive Director (infra management + additional duties) *
 Outsource all infra services to a third party provider -
 not-for-profit - for profit * Outsource critical infra services to a
 third party provider whilst keeping non-critical services in-house
 and volunteer managed * Creating a separate company to manage our
 infra services

 This discussion item is intended to allow us to: a) Refresh our
 memories of previous findings for each of the above options b)
 Identify any other options that should be explored c) Agree to rule
 out some of the above options d) Provide a preliminary
 recommendation from the Presidents office e) Agree on a time frame
 in which the board will receive a final recommendation from the
 Presidents office, and subsequently seek to approve an action

 Ross: we need to make a timely decision on the replacement of our
 current VP, infrastructure. Bertrand: at some point we will probably
 need a full time operations manager. Ross: maybe at some time but
 not now. Brett: could the existing contractors handle the extra
 work? Ross: management of the contractors needs a different person
 in the role. Rich: the job is easily over 20 hours per week. Chris:
 this is potentially a high-burnout job. Shane: even if we use a
 third party service, we still need to manage them. Ross:
 communication with PMCs is still needed Jim: we need a job
 description to see what all is required and to see whether some
 duties might be changed to make it less burnout-prone @Ross: create
 a job description Ross: we are investigating outsourcing with a few
 third parties, including Virtual, and creating our own corporation.
 Ross: looks like we need both inside VP, Infrastructure to liaise
 with PMCs, and outsource infra services. Time frame: one month!
 @Ross: Prepare a plan to transition infra

18 Nov 2015

    A. Discuss whether or not incoming podlings and direct to TLP projects may
    consider having canonical repository outside of ASF infrastructure.

 B. Very much related to the previous discussion item, Sam would like
    to propose, as an experiment, that the Whimsy PMC be permitted to
    propose and explore with the Infrastructure team to have bidirectional
    flows with GitHub, with the following conditions to be in place
    for the duration of the experiment:

      1) The infrastructure team has in place "pushevent" GitHub hooks that
         will notify the committee (via the commits@ mailing list) of all
         such events.  Included in these emails will be an identification of
         the "pusher".  This mailing list will continue to be archived, and
         serve as a push log.

      2) Ability to "push" to either repository will be limited to
         ASF members.

      3) Pull requests will only be accepted for individuals with an ICLA
         on file.

   Sam believes that the above is more than sufficient to ensure that
   we can identify an appropriate ICLA to cover all commits.  Additionally,
   he notes that there are no known (or expected) downstream consumers
   of Whimsy.  He further notes that majority of Whimsy PMC is expected
   to attend this board meeting.

   Sam's summary, in the hopes that this will focus discussion:

   Jim and Sam generally agree on what data must be captured for provenance
   reasons. Greg feels less is required, and Roy even less.

   Greg proposes repository immutability as a mechanism for implementing
   this requirement, and Jim agrees. Bertrand notes that this is an
   implementation detail. While clearly a viable choice (and workable for
   many, including all projects that have chosen SVN), imposing this on all
   projects (particularly Git ones) is something that David and Sam feel is
   as workable as the 18th amendment to the US Constitution (Prohibition).

   Greg proposes formalizing the requirement in the form of a board
   resolution. While Sam feels that it is time to take action, he is
   ambivalent about doing so in that form; despite this, Sam has proposed
   an alternate form of Greg's resolution that retains all the requirements
   but omits the implementation. Roy feels that both resolutions should be
   tossed in favor of providing a set of directions. What Sam would prefer
   is to green-light experiments (small, reversible steps) which will give
   us more experience and data.

   Draft resolutions (an an accompanying FAQ for the second one) can be
   found at: http://s.apache.org/ZWZ

 Discussion on 8A. Canonical repositories outside ASF infrastructure

 Greg is opposed to allowing canonical repositories outside ASF Chris offers
 that provenance is the major issue regardless of where the code is stored
 Brett thinks that "canonical" needs to be defined or we need to use another
 word to describe the intent; even though initial pushes are somewhere else,
 ASF needs to know the source of all changes Sam notes that "repositories
 outside ASF infrastructure" is already the practice, apparently in
 disregard for policy Jim thinks that svn is canonical but github reflects
 reality Sam states that projects are building releases outside asf and then
 putting stuff back into asf svn and changing history, making the tracking
 of changes difficult Shane thinks that we need to make a resolution to fix
 this Greg is not ready to vote on a resolution Chris agrees we are not
 ready to vote today Jim compares this situation to using LGPL; we need to
 take action where practice conflicts with policy; the fact that projects
 are doing it is not a change to policy; they are ignoring policy. But how
 to address it: make it clear what the policy is, and communicate to PMCs.
 Chris agrees with Jim; folks are clear on LGPL because it’s well
 communicated but there is no clear guidance on use of github; although
 we’ve made some guidance on github; pmcs are not willfully violating policy
 Jim is concerned when the use of github puts us at risk Chris states that
 we’re not trying to solve the problem for expert users, but for incoming
 users (and new PMCs) that don't necessarily know the policy David thinks
 that PMCs understand the policy but think it’s obsolete because of github;
 and by the way, github plans to deprecate some features that we depend on
 to implement our policy Jim says that is's hard to grok distributed
 (github) version control driving policy decisions. We should focus on
 canonical repository; policy cannot be obsolete just because of new
 technology David says the policy as written refers only to svn; there is no
 distributed vc system mentioned Brett proposes to continue discussion on
 board list and perhaps consider a resolution for next month once there has
 been sufficient discussion of the issue and proposed solution David
 observes that infra needs more guidance on how to proceed with git Ross
 agrees on the need to resolve current infra git situation Action item Ross
 to focus a new board thread on resolving current infra git situation

 Discussion on 8B Proposal for Whimsy PMC to explore ways of using git and svn

 Sam would like to do more thinking and exploring how to use git and svn
 together Ross agrees if we change the discussion to “limited experiment”
 Chris supports the "limited experiment" Jim supports the "limited
 experiment" Rich is concerned that other PMCs might think “why not our
 project too” but “limited” will help defuse this issue David supports the
 experiment; infra needs real feedback real soon Sam proposes to put whimsy
 on a monthly schedule while the experiment runs and will give Ross
 information for the report Brett confirms that the sense of the board is to
 let the Whimsy limited experiment begin

19 Aug 2015

    A. Discuss preventive and punitive actions to take against current
    member abusing mailing list privileges.

 B. Discuss revisiting the ASF bylaws to determine whether or not the 2008
    interpretation of the requirements of the phrase "affirmative vote of a
    two-thirds majority of the members of the corporation" was correct,
    and/or whether any adjustment of the bylaws is in order.
    http://s.apache.org/dsG - see 12:07:26, 12:09:50, and 12:10:03 PM.

 @Jim work with counsel to review the bylaws and propose changes (if
 necessary) to clarify how to apply "two-thirds majority" when counting

17 Jun 2015

 Use of Apache Trademarks in marketing materials for non-Apache products
 potentially being blocked by our lack of registration in geographic

 There is an organization that has received cease-and-desist in another
 country for marketing materials that reference Apache projects. The
 company that has issued the cease-and-desist has registered Apache
 trademarks in that country.

 The organization is a significant sponsor of Apache. Long term, if they
 cannot market their association with Apache, Apache may get less support.

 Ross: "If you market your product without mentioning Apache, you are not
 affected by this issue."

 Shane: "You should be able to mention Apache in your advertising. Apache
 should attempt to protect our marks, especially in countries that have a
 first-to-file trademark law."

 @Ross @Shane discuss how to move this issue forward

20 May 2015

 Executive session entered at 11:33 AM.

 The Board unanimously agreed to require moderation of one ASF Member's
 emails to internal lists for a period of 90 days, due to repeated
 violation of the Foundation’s Code of Conduct.

 Executive officer appointments:

 Chairman Brett Porter
 Vice Chairman Greg Stein
 President Ross Gardler
 Executive Vice President Rich Bowen
 Treasurer Chris Mattman
 Assistant Treasurers Kevin A. McGrail and Jan Iversen
 Secretary Craig L Russell
 Assistant Secretary not filled at this time

 Executive session exited at 12:04 PM.

22 Apr 2015

 Greg will take responsibility for tracking action items from board meetings.

 Executive Officer appointments will be postponed until the next board meeting.

18 Mar 2015


   Here is the budget I propose the outgoing board recommends to the
   incoming board for vote in April:

   Total income:         897,750 (up $750 from FY15 budget)
   Infrastructure:        593,500 (down from $776,216 in FY15 budget)
   Programme expenses:      7,500 (up from $6000 in FY15 budget)
   Publicity:             124,000 (no change)
   Brand Management:       39,250 (down from $75,375 in FY15)
   Conference support:      7,500 (down from $12,500 in FY15)
   TAC:                    45,000 (down from $50,000 in FY15)
   Treasury Services:      49,200 (no change)
   General& Admin:        115,550 (up from 113,807 in 2015)
   ===================    =======
   Total Expense:         981,000
   Net Income:            -83,250

   Any time a PMC requests registering their trademarks in the U.S. the
   registration will be approved.  But if there are extraordinary legal or
   filing costs, the PMC will need to justify it.

   The key point is that the PMCs take the lead to register the marks.

18 Feb 2015

 Mark: Trademarks are a valuable asset for ASF. Trademark rules vary
 by country. Virtually all countries protect rights only through registration.
 Many unsavory people register other peoples' trademarks as a
 business. Risks are most often on ASF users, not ASF per se.
 As a practical matter, projects need to select brands that are available.
 Open source has "won the war" and is now ubiquitous. Now there are
 lawsuits based on GPL interpretation by people who are just trying to
 make money from the legal process, not community policing as we
 have seen in the past.

 Jim: Need to balance the cost versus benefit of registration.

 Shane: Looks like the "sweet spot" of registration is somewhat more
 than we are doing now. But consider that a third party has registered
 our Hadoop trademark in China.

 This is not a direct legal risk to Apache, although it could well
 prevent us from using the Hadoop name in China.  Similarly, it may hurt
 downstream users relying on the Hadoop ecosystem, and in the long run it
 likely will hurt Apache Hadoop if the project loses support and/or future
 contributions from those users.

 Jim: Once a trademark is registered, we are then required to police it
 more vigorously.

 Mark: ASF is required to police brands regardless of registration (or not).
 If ASF doesn't have the money, users may well contribute to registration costs.

 Ross: Users are represented by PMCs. We need to make sure that
 PMCs step up, with foundation support.

21 Jan 2015

Looks like March 24-26 would be a good time for the meeting.

15 Oct 2014

 Greg: discuss Kevin's proposal to contract services to third party
 Ross: possible down side: knowledge of how infrastructure works would transfer outside foundation
 David: would make it difficult to move away from third party in future
   don't know how much it would cost so can't estimate cost effectiveness
   might affect volunteers if third party would be responsible for performance of volunteers
 Kevin: has experience with combination paid staff/volunteer
   bigger issue: don't want to run afoul of labor laws
 Ross: two kinds of infra: core and other; perhaps outsource only core
   preparation underway to clean up SLAs for contractors
 Greg: good direction
 Ross: more discussion with Kevin will follow
 Greg: concerned about legal contractor status
 Kevin: foundation has outgrown infra as was set up years ago
 Ross: need to continue this discussion
 Tom: Virtual can also provide some services

 Action: Greg to coordinate response.

18 Jun 2014

 Executive officer appointments:

 The current slate of executive officers continues until such time as a
 change is needed.

16 Apr 2014

* Directed sponsorship

 Ross reviewed a small number of concerns with directed sponsorship:
   accounting overhead; somewhat less of an issue assuming we contract out
     some accounting tasks
   neutrality of PMC; mitigated if the PMC is very diverse and sponsors
     similarly diverse

 Ross mentioned that there are no specific proposals at the moment

 Ross proposed thinking about these four categories of items that could use
 directed sponsors:
 1. Items that don't cost much and are broadly applicable to many projects
 2. Items that don't cost much but apply to only a few projects
 3. Items that have high cost and apply to only a few projects
   directed sponsorships would mostly apply here
   would need to be managed closely by pmc
 4. Items that have high cost and are broadly applicable to many projects

 Ross suggested his thinking for category 4 above:
   Perhaps we should look at outside organizations to support some of
   these, e.g. Linux Foundation

 Shane: We should provide higher level of services for our projects, using
 either inside or outside funding
   We can do this more easily with pmcs that know what they need

 Roy: we're ahead of ourselves with regard to accounting overhead issues
 since we do not yet have help
   Don't see a need to break out into four categories
   Prefer to think about categories:
     1. pmc can do by themselves;
     2. pmc needs help with e.g. publicity
   If need is identified, projects could identify people to work directly
   with marketing/publicity

 Ross: No problem with this approach for marketing/publicity
   The bigger issue is with infrastructure; maintaining different systems
   for many projects Infrastructure is not set up to provide much more than
   what they currently do

 Roy: Running infra at this level would need major increase in budget and
   support system

 Chris: Is the open office special fund relevant?
   The project has some money earmarked for travel assistance

 Ross: This was a special case; OO project had this money before joining
   No additional funding is being accepted but can only spend based on the
   original intent of the donation

 Ross: I will continue to work with cloudstack on concrete proposals for
 infrastructure and marketing
   I will put together a broader plan for identifying ASF wide policies for
   board approval
   These policies will be informed by the ongoing discussions in various
   locations of the ASF

 Roy: If pmc really wants to market they can set up groups inside the project
   As long as pmc is deciding what to work on, they have the ability to do it
   Also, projects can ask for additional resources in marketing

 Ross: Prospective sponsors have asked for accountability for donations

 Chip: The Cloudstack project is looking for diversity of sponsors to help
   with infrastructure and marketing

19 Feb 2014

 A. Select a date for the Annual Members Meeting

 What availability do other directors and executive officers have?

 Last week in May would be one year since the last meeting.

 Ross prefers *not* the first week of June.

 No holidays are in conflict from Tuesday through Thursday of prospective weeks.

 May 27 through May 29 is the tentative date.

18 Dec 2013

 The budget needs to be updated to include estimated trademark registration

 Roy: Is trademark registration really necessary?
 Shane: In many cases of policing our trademarks, it's a lot easier to get
   potential infringing uses resolved if the trademarks are registered.
 Roy: We would need to make sure that the names actually are able to be
 Shane: Brand awareness is an important part of community development.
 Roy: We can address new registrations without proactively registering all
   of our existing marks. There are a few marks that may be worthwhile but
   not a large number.
 Doug: Registering important marks will save a lot of trouble in the future.
 Roy: Estimates may be low for costs of registration, considering challenges
   brought by commercial interests.
 Shane: The plan is to ask PMCs whether they want their marks registered. If
   there are many objections, we would need to make a decision whether to
   change the name.

 The discussion will continue on the board mail list.

16 Oct 2013

    A. Status of audit

    Jim volunteered to help if needed.

 B. Status of Email to PMCs re: TCK availability (ASF policy)

   Sam will work on this.

 C. Special meeting for member elections

    In some years a special meeting has been called, primarily to allow
    for the election of new members more than once a year. November marks
    six months since the annual meeting, so a suitable time to hold a
    mid-year meeting would be mid-December, or mid-January. We have not
    held one since January 2011.

    There are pros and cons. On the upside, it allows new members to be
    elected sooner, and may reduce the volume of voting required at the
    annual meeting.  However, it does require some time and effort from
    our volunteer members, and particularly the executive officers.

    I'm interested in whether the Board feels this would be valuable to
    conduct this year, and if so what their availability is for those

   Most of the people on the member watch list have been elected.
   Time is getting short to plan a meeting to avoid the holidays.
   Suggest asking members@ for guidance.

19 Jun 2013

 A. Revisit officer appointments

 The board entered Executive Session 11:45 to discuss officer appointments
 The board exited Executive Session 12:57

 The board made the following appointments:

   Chairman of the board: Brett Porter
   Vice Chairman: Greg Stein

   President: Ross Gardler
   Executive Vice President: Rich Bowen

   Secretary: Craig L Russell
   Assistant Secretary: James Carman

   Treasurer: Chris Mattmann
   Assistant Treasurer: Sam Ruby

15 May 2013

 Greg to send out a general note to cover missing information (such as
 dates of last release and dates of last change to PMC composition) in

 Hadrian asked for a clarification on what information needs to be
 generated or produced for an audit.  The board directed Hadrian to work
 with Chris and Jim, and suggested that we make available whatever records
 we have to the auditor that he selects.

20 Feb 2013

 Umbrella projects have been problematic in the past and the board
 wants to ensure that projects are aware of the dangers.

 AI Ross: prepare and review with the board a memo to PMCs
 with the board's concerns.

19 Dec 2012

 A. Clarify the board's position on emeritus PMC members: are PMCs
 expected to ask the board to remove them from PMCs, or do they
 formally stay on the PMC and are just considered emeritus by
 their community.

21 Nov 2012

    A. Special Members Meeting [Doug]

    Should we have a special members meeting soon, to elect new
    members?  We held our last annual meeting in May.  Arguably we
    should have had a special meeting this month, six months later.
    We could try to have one next month, in December, but with
    holidays that would be difficult.  So the next practical time
    is probably January, just four months before the nominal time
    of our next annual meeting.  Given this, my instinct is to not
    have a special meeting this year and aim to have our annual
    meeting again in May.  How do others feel?

    The main reason for a mid-year meeting is to elect new members.
    There have not been many new member nominations, so the consensus
    is that we should cancel the mid-year meeting.

 B. [Greg] After seeing Hadoop (finally!) combine their committer
    lists, I would like to have the Board make a recommendation
    that PMCs should never have partitions in the commit lists for
    code under their purview. Each community/PMC member is
    responsible for all that code, so why should any partitions
    exist, denying a member the ability to act?

    The board can strongly recommend this as best practice. Incubator
    is one exception, although the incubator seemed to be moving in the
    direction of a single incubator commit privilege. Labs is another
    possible exception.

    @Greg: prepare a draft memo to PMCs regarding project partitioning.

19 Sep 2012

       a. Drafting resolution(s) to formally move various officers under
       the President rather than reporting to the board.

 Will continue to discuss on the board mailing list.

28 Aug 2012

   A. Set deadline for receipt of OSI Affiliate Agreement.

   Apache became an affiliate of OSI in 2011 with the expectation that
   the role of affiliate would be more clearly defined. Since then,
   there has been very little progress on defining the roles.
   At minimum, affiliates need to be involved, and ideally approve,
   public policy positions of OSI.

   There can be advantages to Apache from an affiliation with OSI.
   For example, OSI can make statements regarding public policy that
   Apache would endorse, but as a 501(c)(3) charity, cannot.

   Once the formal affiliate role is defined, Apache should appoint a
   VP, OSI to manage the relationship.

   In order to move the affiliate process along, we should make a
   request to OSI to formalize the affiliate program by the face-to-face
   meeting of OSI in November.

 B. Further discussion on travel budgeting. Ref: Larry Rosen's suggestion
   to make this a President's function.

   This is a good idea. Jim and Ross agreed to draft a policy for
   approval by the board. Interim, requests for travel should be sent
   to president@ for approval.

   Jim and Ross will draft the policy for travel.

 C. Executive Director (ED)

   Roy: We need to manage contractors (infra, press, apachecon); we
   might consider hiring an ED.

   Many, possibly most, foundations delegate running the foundation
   to an ED. The ED sets policy and implements the policy with minimal
   direction from the board. Apache is on the other end of the
   continuum, with the board very involved in setting policy, and
   volunteers taking responsibility for running operations.

   Jim, as President, would like to take more responsibility, such
   as: manage books to pass an audit; manage contractors; manage
   fundraising; manage contractors in different countries.

   Greg would want ED to be a member to avoid not understanding how
   Apache works. Consider growth; once we have a 6th contractor, we
   should consider an ED. Basically the foundation runs smoothly
   day-to-day, but what happens with unusual situations that come up?

   Greg suggests we cannot delegate more to Jim because he isn't paid.
   Perhaps an ED could be better at managing people as a paid employee.

   Bertrand offers that looking at what we envision the ED doing,
   it seems like a COO or Director of Operations title would be more

   Sam doesn't see the problem; we have plenty of member/volunteers
   to cover the tasks that need to be done. In future, if we run out
   of bandwidth, we can reconsider.

   If the board agrees to create an ED position in future, we would
   probably look at someone who executes the strategy set by the board
   and members, not at someone who sets the direction of the foundation,
   as an ED might be expected to do.

   Meanwhile, we will create an operations@ mail list to discuss
   non-project items needing President attention or coordination,
   and make President responsible for concom, press, infra,
   fundraising, bookkeeping, trademark, travel assistance board reports.

   This brings the President's role closer to an ED/COO role, and
   should help delegate some or all of our operations management tasks
   to a hired ED should the need arise.

 D. Infra

   The board would like infra to make it easier for new committers
   to understand how it works and to set expectations, e.g. setup for
   podlings; setup for graduation; how to request service (JIRA ticket,
   IRC, email to infra, infra-private, infra-dev?)

   Sam's preference is for JIRA for most items that aren't already

The board meeting was recessed at 12:05 and reconvened at 12:53.

 Afternoon Guests Present:

     Kevin A. McGrail

 E. ApacheCon

   As discussed on concom, the goal is to get as many Apache committers
   to attend as possible, with a financial exposure of 20,000 - 30,000 EUR.
   SAP requested a focus on getting university student attendance.

   The first sponsor is lined up, with other potential sponsors expressing
   interest. There are variable costs of approximately 220 euro per head,
   for meeting space and food. No evening events are currently organized,
   but more sponsors == more events.

   The venue can handle 450 but local hotels are limited to 250

   Thus far, 8 committers have bought tickets.

   It looks like with 150 subsidized tickets, Apache's exposure is
   25,000 euro assuming that no tickets are sold at full price and we
   get no sponsors.

   Should concom be disbanded? At least wait until ApacheCon NA is done.

   Prepare an omnibus resolution for September board meeting changing
   status of PMC's identified above as President's committees.

 F. Apache OpenOffice podling needs some guidance

   The board feels that the AOO PPMC is not yet operating as a PMC
   should. The concerns are primarily with the ability of the PPMC to
   self-police its members' behavior on-list. Ross will draft a note
   to ooo-private with board's concerns.

   AOO has requested releasing binaries as official Apache releases.
   Flex has also requested signed binaries.

   Roy suggests: (P)PMC approves a source release. Infra then can build
   and sign binary releases. The board may approve this if properly

   Jim will send a message to committers@ regarding binaries signed by

   Sam will make committers@ archived publicly with a public URL for
   each message.

15 Aug 2012

       A. ApacheCon EU status
       Review the list of open issues and discuss whether any board action
       is needed.

    B. Audit
       Discuss whether we should fund an audit or a review this year.

 Hadrian has come forward with a few potential items to do this year.

 There is no strong requirement for an audit, but a review of procedures
 will help us decide whether we are doing things right and correct any
 deficient procedures.

 Jim: It is time to do an audit. We have never had a full review of the
 books, and it's a minor financial hit.

 Sam: Suggest a limit of $15,000 for an outside auditor to review the books.

 Doug: The board wants Hadrian to proceed with Jim (President) as the contact.

20 Jun 2012

 A. What terms would we find acceptable for renewing the Stand-Alone
 TCK Licence Agreement with Oracle America, Inc.?

 Daniel Kulp is discussing the contract renewal with Lance
 Andersen of Oracle Corp.

 One concern is the requirement to re-test on the current
 release of the TCK.

 Another concern is the requirement to continue to test on
 the TCK even if the project no longer implements the

 Apparently, the existing TCKs that we already have can
 continue to be used for "maintenance" purposes. So it may
 not be urgent to sign the contract extension.

 Lance notes that many projects have not notified Oracle as
 to self-certification of passing the TCK.

 Daniel is willing to continue to be the contact with
 Oracle, and to serve as VP, TCK if necessary.

16 May 2012

 8a. The DC BarCamp has raised some questions around how sponsorship
 for small events is collected and bills paid.

 Discussion: Rather than having sponsors contribute to conferences, some
 sponsors were asked to contribute to ASF directly and then ASF covered
 some conference event costs. This appears to be a directed donation
 that in the past, was disallowed. Is this a valid approach for conferences?

 Roy: as long as it's an Apache event, this is appropriate. Prefer to have an
 "Apache person" specifically tasked with running the event.

 Greg: Tim Williams is running the event. He is an ASF Member. In future,
 makes sense to have an Apache person in charge.

 Roy: The Apache responsible person must be an officer or employee of
 the Foundation.

 Greg: Nick Burch as VP Concom should be responsible for handling this
 for future events.

 Provisional approval for accepting targeted donations for Concom for
 small Apache-sponsored events.

 Concom to propose a policy for approval by the board.

 Jim: will take responsibility to communicate with VP Concom.

18 Apr 2012

 a) Audit activities and plans?

 This was discussed during the review of the treasurer's report.

     b) Expectations regarding source code releases
        (see question in Incubator report).

 AI Roy: update the guidance for releases and communicate to all committers.

21 Mar 2012

    A. Appoint a new Director to fill the empty board seat

    Daniel Kulp was appointed to fill the empty board seat.

 B. Naming Noirin Plunkett as Assistant Treasurer.

    Sam would like to offload some of the workload.

 C. Audit plans?  Or plan for a plan?

    There is no legal requirement for annual audits based on ASF annual revenues.

    Usually the audit committee is chaired by the Treasurer.

    Audit done by a smaller accounting firm would be $10K; larger firms would charge $20k - $30K.

    Hadrian volunteered to start by looking at the books.

15 Feb 2012

 A. Treasurer position

 Sam is appointed to the Treasurer position, by Unanimous Vote
 of the directors present.

 The office of Assistant Treasurer is vacated, by Unanimous Vote
 of the directors present.

24 Jan 2012

    A. Apache Open Office Extensions site and SourceForge offer
    Discuss this (from Ross Gardler on board@) unless already done.

    The aoo pmc wants to arrange for hosting of ooo extensions now on
    the oo.o site.

    Extensions include templates and dictionaries, which are not
    necessarily licensed to Apache.

    Infra is willing to host a metadata site but not a download site,
    due to bandwidth issues.

    Sourceforge has volunteered to host a site, giving root access to
    authorized ppmc folks.

    Downloads from sourceforge have advertising, which pays for running
    the service.

    Apache.org domains should not have advertising on them.

    Advice from board: proceed with sourceforge; can host extensions on
    sourceforge.org domain; ok for non-apache download site to have
    advertising; continue to work on a long term solution.

 B. Termination of VP, JCP

    AI Jim: discuss with Geir, prepare a resolution for termination for
    February 2012.

 C. How is the calendar supposed to work?  There is a Feb 9th item in
    the calendar.  Is the EA tasked with sending out reminders?

    Jim and Melissa are working to add items to the calendar. The plan
    was for Melissa to manage the items on the calendar, not to remind
    folks. But Melissa can set up reminders on request.

    Should the calendar be publicly available? Not now, as there are
    private items included. If we want the calendar to be public, we
    will need to have a separate calendar. But the calendar is intended
    for the use of the board so it's not clear why the calendar should
    be public, except that's what Apache usually does.

    Access to the calendar is by secret url, that can be changed at
    will. Security by obscurity. Any member should be able to get the
    secret url on request to Melissa.

21 Dec 2011

    A. 990 tax disclosures for 2007-1010
    On the members list, Bill Rowe notes that those are still missing
    from http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/

    The Treasurer role should make sure that the IRS 990 forms are
    posted to the public web site.

 B. Annual report - where do your donations go?
    Are we planning to have such a report for 2011?

    Beyond any legal requirements, Apache's Annual Report should be
    useful as a marketing document.

 C. How do we improve invoicing and bill payment timeliness?
    We've had issues for months getting bills paid on time using
    the normal procedures, including an invoice being sent very
    late to get the ~$20k GSoC funds.  Who can improve this?

    AI: Bertrand discuss with Sally how to get her invoices
    submitted in the appropriate place in svn.

16 Nov 2011

 Timeliness of reports remains an issue.  Jim to request that board
 reports be submitted and entered into SVN one week earlier.

 Roy and Bertrand discussed the announcement by Adobe that they will
 be contributing Flex. This lead into a discussion as to whether or
 not the ASF has resources to assist with Incubation, and whether or
 not we should be more proactive board/member effort to ensure that
 incubating projects succeed.  No actions were assigned.

26 Oct 2011

 A. Invitation for ASF to join OSI as Affiliate

 This discussion was deferred to the face-to-face meeting.

 B. Verify Daniel's payments are setup correctly for Nov 1

 AI Jim: follow up with Geir and Noirin

 C. Discuss legal preparation for registration of Apache mark

 This discussion was deferred to the face-to-face meeting.

 D. Discuss executive summary in board reports (unless already
    clear from board@ list).

 Several board members are dissatisfied with the volume of material
 that they need to digest for each board meeting. Others are fine
 with the status quo but are willing to entertain changes. No changes
 were proposed nor agreed.

21 Sep 2011

 Should we use part of the Vancouver board meeting to reflect on
 our goals and strategies for foundation-level activities
 (public relations, trademarks management, outreach, finances etc.)?

 Should we plan for a face-to-face meeting within a short time
 after each annual board election? Perhaps use OSCON as a venue.

 We should start planning the board face-to-face in Vancouver.
 AI Doug: prepare the draft agenda.

17 Aug 2011

 A. Future uses of the openoffice.org domain and brand.
 In particular, what kinds of licenses will we allow to be
 hosted on this highly trafficed domain? (starting the discussion)

20 Jul 2011

    A. Do we require a nofollow attribute on links to external websites
    on our project's sites? We have a recommendation from Jim as PRC chair
    here: http://s.apache.org/prc_nofollow but no policy AFAIK.

    Shane and Serge are working on a proposal:

    Discussion will continue on the trademark mailing list.

 B. Should the Board hold a face-to-face meeting prior to
    ApacheCon?  If so, when and where?

    Agreement to "pencil in" the week of September 28th in the LA area.
    Brett and Bertrand (as the Directors with the farthest to travel) to
    verify over the course of the next week that these dates are workable.

 C. Is it time to reassign credit cards?

    General consensus is that it is.

    AI: Sam to work with Wells Fargo to do all of the necessary
    deactivations, reactivations, reassignments, and requests for cards.

15 Jun 2011

   A. PMC Brand requirements followup and tracking.

   There was a general discussion about reporting requirements of projects
   with regard to branding. Board members need to review all project reports
   and it's a burden to review multiple paragraphs on each project. There
   must be a better way for Shane to track progress without burdening every
   board member.

   AI Shane: work on a proposal to track status

 B. Git @Apache: good progress has been made but should we make
    a decision about making it a first-class citizen? Might need budget
    for manpower and/or equipment.

   AI Jim: follow up with infra on git status

19 May 2011

A. Sonatype's failure to publicly acknowledge Maven trademark (Doug)

20 Apr 2011

 New VP Apache Infrastructure

 Discussion as to what this role should be. Front line interaction with
 vendors? Oversight and approval? Part time? Full time?
 The discussion will continue on the infrastructure mail lists.

 Date for May Meeting: 18 or 25 May?

 Doug will resolve this offline.

 Did we announce our new members already? Blog post?

 There is a draft blog announcing new members but it's not published.
 AI Bertrand: work with Sally to publish the blog.

16 Mar 2011

A. Trademark protection strategies (executive session @ end of meeting)

16 Feb 2011

 A. Define organizational ownership of trademark policy.

 It appears we are getting closer to consensus that the VP, Trademarks
 is responsible for setting policy and the PMC's are responsible for
 implementing said policy. Some details remain to be discussed.

19 Jan 2011

 A. Define organizational ownership of trademark policy.
 Several officers appear to have differing opinions of who sets definitive
 trademark policy for the ASF.
 The main issue for now is whether the VP, Trademarks or individual PMC's
 are responsible for trademark policy and enforcement.
 The discussion was deferred until the next meeting.

15 Dec 2010

 A. Board expectations of PMCs managing their own brands and marks.

 This item was tabled for the next meeting.

17 Nov 2010

 A. Brand Management budget for graphic designer to improve our image.

 There are two issues: First, our main graphic mark, the feather, needs major
 work to make it suitable for many purposes: web, print materials,
 and branded items. Second, the new cms-based web site is live but needs
 continued attention.

 Roy suggests that a competition is usually the approach for an open source
 project to get graphic design help.

 Shane agreed to plan and run a competition but if not successful would
 like to pay for the services of a graphic talent.

02 Nov 2010

    A. Maven trademark issues

    Jim did attempt to call Wayne on Tuesday... will try again with Wayne's
    cell phone.  Shane recapped the previous conversation in which
    Sonatype's CMO requested details supporting the assertion that the ASF
    truly owned the mark, and they were provided.  Shane emphasized how
    important it is that the PMCs are involved in this discussion.  Jim
    mentioned that Maven is not the only PMC in which we are working
    through these issues.  Brian indicated that this is a legacy issue
    where the guidelines in the past were not as clear as they are now.
    Philip indicated that the new CMS will enable us to enforce consistent
    trademark usage in headers and footers across the entire site.

 B. Java 7 vote responses

    Doug suggested that any press release include information which
    identify what actions Oracle could take to get us to stay.  Geir
    indicated that the condition is a unencumbered TCK for Java 6.  Geir
    indicated that he would produce a Q&A.

    Bertrand suggested that now that we just got elected in, it would be a
    good time for a blog post which thanks people for their support and
    uses the opportunity to lobby the new and remaining JCP SE/EE Executive
    Committee members to vote against the umbrella JSR for Java 7 unless it
    comes with JCK terms that we can live with.  Geir to draft a call to
    action and revisit the exiting FAQ by Thursday, with the plan to post
    on Monday.

 C. Java-related issue (Sam)

    [executive session]

20 Oct 2010

 A. Public statement about Harmony

 IBM has announced that it is reducing its involvement in Apache
 Harmony in favor of increasing its involvement in OpenJDK.

 The board agreed that this is a serious setback for the project
 but the future of the project is in the hands of the Harmony PMC,
 which has the full support of the board regardless of what direction
 the PMC wants to take.

 B. Public statement about Oracle's decision on the TCK's FOU

 The board discussed ASF's response to the crisis in the JCP now
 that Oracle has made it clear that it is prepared to negotiate a
 JCK license for the Apache Harmony project only if it includes a
 Field Of Use restriction.

 Discussions among the members as to the foundation's response to this
 have surfaced myriad possible responses, from abandoning the Harmony
 project, quitting the JCP, quitting Apache's JCP Executive Committee
 seat, abandoning existing Apache Java projects, to suing Oracle.
 The effects on other Apache projects have also been called into question.

 The board reiterated its commitment to all Apache Java projects
 that implement Java specifications. There is nothing being considered
 that would require any Apache project to stop what it is doing based
 on the JCP crisis. Projects that currently license TCKs will continue
 to do so. If maintenance leads for JSRs propose to change the terms of
 license for existing TCKs then Apache will vigorously lobby against
 these changes. New projects will continue to be considered on their
 merits and on the appropriateness of the proposed licenses.

 In a word, existing projects are not in any danger.

22 Sep 2010

 The board went into executive session for 10 minutes.

 Regarding the Microsoft petition for certiorari that has been
 circulating on the internet:

 As Vice President, Legal Affairs, Sam has the authority to speak for
 the foundation. It is likely that he will represent the ASF to agree to
 support Microsoft in the petition.

11 Sep 2010

    A. Needs, outlook, and plans for legal resources in general.

    There is a need for legal resources for such items as contract review
    (e.g. employment, services), intellectual property issues, and corporate

    There is no consensus among the board that there is a need for
    a General Counsel at this time.

 B. Move the time slot for the board meetings, either just for the Sept
    22nd meeting, or as a permanent change.

    Third Wednesday of each calendar at noon Pacific will be changed to
    10:00 Pacific (not GMT as daylight savings is not a GMT concept)
    for all board meetings until changed.

 C. Discuss director thoughts on when & how the ASF should take public
    positions on advocacy items (patents, licenses, whatever)

    Once Apache takes an extreme public position, it's very difficult to
    change as time goes on. Apache as an organization doesn't generally
    advocate for specific behavior with regard to software development,
    but does exhibit a well-organized and well-justified model for this

    With regard to policy statements, e.g. on software patents, patent
    lawsuits, licenses; where there is board consensus on important issues
    it is appropriate to take public advocacy positions. The board does
    not see any such issues at present.

    With regard to defense of Apache policies and practices, the board
    will actively defend Apache policies and practices, and the people who
    implement them.

 D. How can we balance the budget while preparing to approve EA expenses.

    Executive Assistant position is out for bid although it is not in the
    current budget. Once a suitable candidate is approved, the budget will
    be amended to include the cost. In any event, the budget should be
    updated mid-year (November).

21 Jul 2010

    A. Executive Officer appointments process and timeline.

    Shane suggests we define the process at July meeting; work on board@
    to find any potential candidates/discuss issues; vote on appointments
    at August meeting.

    Candidates identified to date:

      1. Chairman:
         Jim Jagielski
         Sam Ruby

      2. President:
         Jim Jagielski
         Sam Ruby

      3. Secretary:
         Craig L Russell

      4. Asst. Secretary:
         Sam Ruby

      5. Treasurer:
         Geir Magnusson, Jr.

      6. Asst Treasurer:

      7. Executive Vice President:
         Greg Stein

 Jim to split to a separate slate of candidates into a separate file
 and notify members, encouraging members to volunteer for any slot with
 the exception of Chair.

 B. Hiring EA - discuss and appoint new Admin search chair to drive

    Unless the new board chooses to not hire an EA, we need to appoint
    someone to drive the process (as Sander is not able currently).

    Consensus is that EA need not be a member or committer. Most don't
    see this as important, Henri suggests that it might actually be
    better to hire from a non-committer.

    Jim to start the process of hiring an EA based on the job
    description that Sander produced.

 C. Appointing a General Counsel / Organizing Legal Affairs

    To better utilize our pro bono counsel time, there is a suggestion
    to appoint a General Counsel to better manage legal questions.
    The suggestion is that Larry Rosen be appointed, and he has
    already indicated that he would be most willing to accept.

   Some concern about establishing a General Counsel, significantly
   less concern about having Larry simply replace VP, Legal Affairs
   roles. Larry would like to see VP, Legal Affairs continue. What
   Larry wants to stop is people going to different lawyers and getting
   different answers. What the board wants is to have a VP Legal
   Affairs setting policy, and the General Counsel be tasked with
   implementing and coordinating the execution of those policies.

 D. New Monthly Board Meeting time

 Start time for meeting OK for everyone?  We could move it anywhere from
 zero to three hours earlier in the day.

 Survey of directors normal time zones:

   +1 CET - CH    - Bertrand Delacretaz
   +1 CET - CH    - Noirin Shirley
   -5 EST - US MA - Shane Curcuru
   -5 EST - US MD - Jim Jagielski
   -5 EST - US NC - Sam Ruby
   -5 EST - US VA - Greg Stein
   -8 PST - US CA - Doug Cutting
   -8 PST - US CA - Roy Fielding
   -8 PST - US WA - Henri Yandell

   -5 EST - US MD   Philip M. Gollucci

    Discussion deferred to board@.

 E. Planning Potential F2F Board meeting

    If we want to repeat last year's great F2F, when/where?

    F2F: rough plan, early September in Boston, will continue discussion
    on with a Doodle poll.  Officers will be allowed to attend, but will
    are unlikely to get any travel assistance.

 New meeting time item tabled.

16 Jun 2010

 Shane noted that the brand management needs to address the issue of
 projects, such as subversion, which come to the ASF with
 pre-existing marks.

 The board will collectively monitor the release plans for Forrest.

19 May 2010

 A. Review Apache Project Branding Guidelines


 Doug: I applaud your efforts. I think the draft looks good. As far
 as enforcing and rollout: perhaps we can ask each project to report
 (as a part of their normal reporting cycle) as to whether or not
 they are conforming to the policy.

 Brett: I expect the most controversial part is the TM on the logos.

 Shane: If we take our trademarks seriously, we should have a TM on
 the logo.

 Shane: we are also revising the feather to include various formats
 and sizes, and will be requesting that each project migrate to any
 updated version as time permits in the future.

 Jim: my takeaway is that the board is behind the direction: continue

 Roy: we have traditionally avoided lawsuits, and TM's make us look
 corporate. Overall, I'm not thrilled, but am willing to go along.

 Doug: the lack of TM's has caused confusion in the past, and a TM's
 will help us socialize this

 = = =

 B. www.eclipselabs.org is neat. can we get one?

 Eclipselabs is for third parties, seems to be a good idea. Greg to
 pursue it. The name will need to be changes so as to not conflict
 with the existing labs.apache.org. Something like
 contrib.apache.org. Longer term, the lack of support for git is an
 issue that would need to be worked.

 = = =

 C. What to do about Santuario.

 Santuario is in the process of writing up a resolution naming a new
 chair. Jim proposes that we give them one more month. Jim to follow

 = = =

 D. What to do about iBATIS.

 First question to be resolved: have they ever produced an Apache release,
 and is there anybody interested in continuing at the ASF. If there are
 releases which were not approved by the PMC, those links need to be
 removed. If there is a release, then the ASF certainly would retain the
 name, it not the ASF may consider abandoning further use. Doug to inquire
 on the public dev list.

 = = =

 E. Setting date for annual members meeting/board elections?

 Tentative date proposed: July 13th and 15th.

21 Apr 2010

A. Setting date for annual members meeting/board elections?

17 Mar 2010

 A. Jim would like to re-introduce the idea of a paid EA.

 Tabled until a RFP is available to be discussed. Sander (and
 possibly Greg) to develop a report. Discussion should not wait until
 next meeting but rather occur on list as the budget is imminent.

20 Jan 2010

* HALO contract (up for renewal end of February)
 * PayPal account access for Serge, possibly other transaction info, and
   hosted Quickbooks
 * This timeframe still OK for board meetings?

 General agreement on getting Serge access to PayPal data.

 Geir prefers svn for quickbooks. Serge indicated that hosted access
 was only a nice to have.

 Next board meeting will be two hours earlier.

16 Dec 2009

 A. Appropriate use of theapacheway.com

 Shane acquired the domain a year and a half ago, and started using
 it 2 months ago. Shane doesn't see this as an issue, but others have
 raised it as such.

 Roy: as long as you are using it for Apache stuff, there is no
 conflict at all, furthermore as an officer of the ASF you are
 authorized to publish official positions as you see fit.

 Justin is a bit more concerned about commercial site for selling

18 Nov 2009

 A. Set a date/time for the next members meeting. Jim proposes Jan 2010.

 Deferred to the list.

 B. Discussion of having the ASF create a replacement for the JCP.

 Deferred to the list.

 C. Scheduling of officer appointments

 Agreed that scheduling officer appointments a few months after board
 elections is a guideline but not a hard requirement.

01 Nov 2009

   Justin informed the board that he has appointed Philip M. Gollucci
   to VP, Infrastructure, replacing Paul Querna.

 A. Restructuring the PRC?

    Jim indicated that he would like to discuss this one first.

    Shane would prefer to meet with the people involved at ApachCon and to
    be given an opportunity to present their proposal at the next board
    meeting in November.

    Jim would prefer to give some guidance so that the PRC doesn't produce
    recommendations that the board would not be predisposed to accept.

    Shane intends to present resolutions at the next board meeting to
    dissolve the PRC and to create new, smaller committees, and he believes
    that this will likely meet with the board's approval.

    Sander asked if we really need a committee, wouldn't an officer do?
    Noirin feels that such an approach would squelch discussion.

    Many (including Roy, Sander, Justin) felt that committees don't respond
    in a timely fashion, and this is necessary for matters such as PR.

    Doug argued that trademark approval and website presence are two
    distinct tasks, the former can be modeled after how the current Legal
    Affairs Committee approaches problems.

    Justin argued that trademark issues are somehow "softer" and more
    subjective than legal issues.  Sam pointed out that legal policy issues
    are often very subjective.

    Greg asked whether reorganization would solve the problem.  Sander
    indicated that historically, the overlap in personnel was nearly 100%.
    Sam stated that he didn't believe that reorganization will solve
    anything, the fundamental issue is personality issues.

    Geir suggested that Shane delegate.  Greg and Roy indicated that board
    committees can't delegate.  Jim and others discussed how it could work,
    with the VP of PRC having oversight.  Justin was concerned that this
    created a new level of oversight.  Greg feels that we have learned from
    the umbrella projects in the past.  Jim and Sander felt that flowing
    the coordination of, e.g., sponsorship and communication, through
    the board wouldn't be timely.

    Justin indicated that delegating the creation of the budget would have
    addressed a number of the issues we had in the approval of the budget
    last go around and suggested that going forward that groups like the PRC
    propose initial drafts of budgets.

    Sander is particularly concerned about the time sensitivity of PR issues.
    Roy indicated that the way to solve this is to not have PR be done by a
    committee.  Jim named an individual who would be excellent at this.

    Roy suggested that the board create the organization structure, and let
    Shane staff it.  Shane felt that it would be more efficient if the people
    who staffed it provided input first.  Doug suggested that the board
    should provide a first draft.  Justin feels that the board already has
    the input it needs to make a decision.

    Shane noted that there are other items on the agenda, and suggested that
    we move on.  Sander made it clear that this needs to be solved by the
    November meeting.  Shane agreed to this deadline.

 B. Subversion contribution

    Greg asked if the board would be OK with PR prior to acceptance.  Justin
    indicated that it was important as it would allow the ASF more control
    over the message.  Doug and Geir felt uncomfortable with setting
    precedent.  Sam asked if there was a general policy for granting such
    objections?  Noirin feels uncomfortable with the board imposing this.
    Roy noted that this is an exception that might make sense in general for
    large, well known, and preexisting open source projects.  Sam asked whether
    SpamAssassion could have fallen under such a criteria, and Greg, Justin,
    and Noirin concurred.

    The board agrees that the proposed contribution of Subversion to the ASF
    would be such a significant event, but leaves it to the Incubator to
    decide if a waiver is appropriate as the board does not want to interfere
    with the workings of the incubator.

 C. Budget

    Justin/Paul requested $18K to cover converting Gavin's sysadmin position
    from a part time to a full time position.  Geir asked why this was a
    surprise, and Paul confirmed that this has ended up being a larger task
    than was originally anticipated.  Greg asked what the year to year
    commitment would be.  Essentially this makes the sysadmin personnel
    budget to be approximately $150K a year. Sander asked whether there will
    likely be another request in six months to a year for yet an additional
    half-person.  Paul indicated that he didn't think so.  Sander is
    concerned about burn-out.  Greg asked whether this was an indication that
    we did not have the right people for the job, or whether the job is
    simply too big, and the general consensus was that the nature of the job
    requires this level of effort.

 D. Future of ApacheCon?

    Noirin asked what does the board want?

    Geir noted that Hadoop World was larger than ApacheCon.  Roy felt that was
    weird as he felt that ApacheCon contained Hadoop, and therefore should
    draw more people.  Others felt that event focus was a feature to some

    Noirin would like to see Concom running project-specific conferences like
    Hadoop World, and focused multi-project conferences (for example, "Lucene
    & Friends"), in conjunction with project communities.  Noirin believes
    that ApacheCon does bring in both money and contributors.

    Noirin noted as an issue that PMCs don't know whether or not they need to
    get ConCom's approval when running events using ASF project names, so
    they don't.

    Justin indicated that he has a problem with third parties running
    conferences centered around Apache software.  Doug sees this similar to
    third parties shipping our code, which the ASF not only allows but
    encourages, and therefore not a concern.

    Justin indicated that he felt that the Hadoop PMC was involved with
    Hadoop World based on the fact that a significant percentage of the
    Hadoop PMC members presented at Hadoop World.  Justin reiterated
    displeasure with the notion of PMCs being involved in conferences
    concerning Apache software without involving ConCom.

    Noirin asked for an up or down vote: keep ApacheCon in the current form
    or can it?  Straw poll: 3 to 3.

    Noirin rephrased the poll to see if the board supported the notion of a
    have a broad spectrum conference at all?  Straw poll: 4 to 3.

    Doug asked if there was interest in running more focused conferences?
    Straw poll: 6 to 0.

    Roy feels that the ASF should not be in the business of producing
    conferences -- preferring the existing model where conference companies
    produce conferences and the ASF contracts with these companies.

    Justin notes that events creates confusion about sponsorships.  Some
    companies prefer to sponsor the foundation, others prefer to sponsor
    individual events, some are OK with splitting.

    Jim suggested that the ASF should invest more of the ASF sponsorship
    money towards conferences organization, etc.  Doug felt that was risky.

    Jim is sure that we can (and have before) easily find companies to help
    us produce very focused (1 or 2 ASF project related) conferences (eg:
    (Apache) Hadoop World), so that doesn't seem to be an issue. The main
    issue is what how to best support those ASF projects that lack a "sugar
    daddy" company (or companies) that will pick up the ball and do that kind
    of event. Does the ASF have any responsibility or desire to help *those*
    ASF projects? If so, then the only way he can see that happening is via us
    continuing an ApacheCon-like event for their benefit.

    Jim doubted that companies that produce conferences would continue to be
    interested in Apache-wide conferences.  Roy noted that this solves the
    sponsorship issue -- e.g., there would be no confusion between
    contributing to Hadoop World vs the ASF.  Justin continues to be
    concerned with third parties creating conferences around ASF software.

    Sander is concerned that if we don't have an ApacheCon, we will lose the
    benefit of cross-pollination.  Geir asked if the cross-pollination is
    measurable?  Noirin indicated that she has a lot of anecdotes.  Geir
    asked if the ASF could do a summit or such instead of having talks, and
    Noirin asked how many people were planning on coming to the upcoming
    Apache retreat, and got a few non-committal answers; the conclusion being
    that structured conferences with prepared talks seem to be more effective
    for the ASF in terms of attracting a diverse set of participants.  She
    also noted that broader focused events historically have attracted a
    greater percentage of female participation than more tightly focused

 E. Officer appointments

    This previously was deferred to December, but Greg made a proposal that
    the board set up the expectation at the next election that future boards
    will have a F2F each August, and would appoint Exec Officers in
    September.  He further proposed that the current board plans to make
    officer appointments at the next board meeting in November, after issuing
    a call for officer nominations to members@.

    Jim agreed.  I could not gauge the sentiment of the room as the group was
    in the process of preparing to adjourn, but I did not hear any
    objections to either proposal.

 F. Executive Director/Assistant?


 G. Mission/Vision of ASF?


21 Oct 2009

 PRC reorganization looks like it is converging on the mailing list.
 Originally, it was decided to table item 7E, but during discussion
 Geir suggested that the board simply vote on 7E. The conclusion was
 that it makes sense to replace the VP of PRC now independent of
 whether or not the PRC eventually (or even imminently) gets

 Potential board meeting during ApacheCon (Wed, Thu afternoon?)... if
 this does happen, Sam notes that he will not be available to minute
 the meeting as he will be at the W3C face to face. Some concern over
 deviating from the tradition of board meetings being open to members,
 Roy clarified that that was not a requirement and should not stand in
 the way of getting things done.

 Some discussion about logistics of scheduling a board meeting, to
 minimize confusion if there is a need trying to round up all nine
 directors. Actual scheduling deferred to the F2F.

23 Sep 2009

 Location for the board get-together on 11/1 will be at Napa Valley,
 Doug to reconfirm availability of the location.  Jim to arrange
 for travel from Oakland.

 General discussion about the Membership input about Board Members
 (outside of the Chairman) not being Officers. No consensus.

 Reappointment of Officers deferred to December (after the F2F). The
 board decided not to appoint new officers, and by general consent
 reaffirmed the current officers appointment through December.

19 Aug 2009

 Brett is fine with the current board meeting time, but would appreciate
 it being later.

 Greg will be moving to the US, and is OK with the time moving, and notes
 that we do have callers from Europe.

 Jim agrees with moving forward 2 hours (noon, West coast time).

 Greg suggests 6 hours (7pm east coast)

 Jim asked if anybody is opposed to a six hour push?

 Greg suggests a polling tool

 Jim would prefer picking a time now.

 Jim indicated that we will test out a 4 hour push

 The date of the next meeting will discussed on the mailing list.

 Greg requested that we settle on a date within a week or so.

 As to board meeting, Jim suggested Boston, Justin suggested October
 10th and 11th; Roy indicated that he may have a conflict with those
 dates. Jim asked about the 17th and 18th. Roy indicated that he
 can't do anything after the 8th of October. Roy suggested ApacheCon,
 Brett and Jim agreed. Jim noted that having it at ApacheCon
 encourages directors to attend ApacheCon.

 Justin asked if we want to lock in the 31st in Oakland.

 Jim indicated that plans to start reporting on W3C activities next month.
 Both Sam and Jim plan to attend the TPAC in November.

15 Jul 2009

    A. Who will be at OSCON next week?
    Will be there: Justin, Greg, Henri, Paul, Sander.  Geir may show up.

 B. Any interest in 'board' retreat?
    +1's from Shane, Greg, Justin.
    Greg suggests US
    Roy offers his conference room in Newport Beach
    Jim suggested September
    Discussion will continue on board@

20 May 2009

 Scheduling of next ASF Members Meeting: Suggested June 30/July 2;
 discussion will continue on board@.

15 Apr 2009

 A. Budget

 There was a discussion about someone managing the sponsors.  A concern
 was raised by Geir on that.  J. Aaron mentions we dropped the ball on
 keeping sponsors up to date, and following up with them.  We lost
 sponsorship dollars in the past, which alone warrants doing this.  It
 was remarked that skill-set between an executive assistant and someone
 managing sponsorship is not expected to overlap.

 Jim takes the action item to kick off budget discussion on list.

18 Mar 2009

 We noted that the NYTimes article on Hadoop does not contain the
 word "Apache". PRC to work with the PMC chair on how to deal with
 PR. Perhaps a Webinar is appropriate? Perhaps a web page of
 instructions as a first step?

18 Feb 2009

 Geir to follow up with HLShip concerning the removing of PMC members
 from the auth list for Tapestry apparently without any discussion on
 the PMC list.

   - - -

 Jim noted that the secretary assistant position contract is up for
 renewal, and indicated he had not had the opportunity yet to sync up
 with the SA on the current scope of work.  Bill expressed concerns about
 the compensation rate, status of historical record scanning and
 oversight.  Jim asked if the board believed the position should still
 be continued, and received no objection.

 Justin pointed out that a three month renewal would be sufficient while
 the scope of work is reevaluated in light of the new EA position.  Bill
 further offered that if substantial historic archives remain to be
 scanned, that this might be outsourced to Office Max, Kinkos, etc to be
 completed in a short timeframe at reasonable cost.

 Justin pointed out that, based on the Treasurer boxes that he sent to
 Sam last year, some of those materials may be hard to outsource the
 bulk scanning of as they are all in varying paper sizes and formats.

 Jim stated his plan to contact that SA, reevaluate the scope of work and
 renegotiate a corresponding contract for a period which will allow for
 a one month overlap between the SA and EA.

   - - -

 We confirmed that until a budget is in place, Executive Officers may
 authorize expenses up to $5K without prior approval.

21 Jan 2009

* ApacheCon contract/budget review (limited to 10 minutes)
 * Treasurer and tax filing situation
 * ApacheCon website, (too) strong dependency on Aaron

 ApacheCon budget does not include Halo. We expect the profit to be
 steady, but flat in the future given the economic climate. For the
 complexity this reduces in dealing with sponsors alone, this is
 worth. If we bring this in house, we might consider merging this
 with the person that we are already considering for keeping our
 books. Instead of asking Sponsors to target a certain part of their
 funds to the conference and a separate part to the Foundation,
 sponsorship rates would go up.

 The ApacheCon website is not on ASF hardware.

17 Dec 2008

* Is there a further update to the complaint of encumbered code being
 checked into POI's repository?

 None noted.

19 Nov 2008

 We discussed whether there was a perceived or actual requirement to have
 an ASF member in each of our PMCs.  While it is something we tend to look
 for, it is not by any means a hard requirement.  If there is not an ASF
 member in a PMC, the board often looks for a member to volunteer to
 monitor the mailing lists.  Another way to address this, strongly
 encouraged by the board, is for members to look at new PMCs as an
 opportunity to nominate new members.  Jim will include words to this
 effect in the invitation to the next members meeting.

 Wrowe to close out contract with the executive assistant

17 Sep 2008

* SpamAssassin is requesting that the current "intent for use"
 trademarks ("SPAMASSASSIN" and "POWERED BY SPAMASSASSIN") be filed
 as "actual use" trademarks.  Larry Rosen has volunteered to do
 the necessary filing.  The board approved the expense (expected
 to be less than $500).

20 Aug 2008

 What should official and published Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

 Sam agreed to include a summary of discussions that occur during the
 formation of the agenda into the minutes, and in fact had already
 updated the previous minutes with his understanding of what that
 might look like.

 Full and unedited archived discussions will be maintained in an
 archived_agendas directory in svn.

 Jim to review the updated and annotated minutes.

16 Jul 2008

 On September 1st the current contracts for Executive Assistant and
 Secretarial Assistant expire, which means that we should have resolutions
 in place by the August meeting if we want to renew either or both of
 the contracts.  Prior to that point, we should discuss whether we want
 to reduce, modify, or expand these roles.

 Should we issue credit cards for the Executive V.P. and/or the V.P.,
 Apache Infrastructure?  And if so, what should the credit limits be?

 Credit Card discussion was tabled to the mailing list

 Planning to attending OSCON: Aaron, Justin, Geir, Sam, Greg

25 Jun 2008

 The Audit committee intends to seek outside help, and may need to
 require funding to do so. No concerns were raised.

16 Apr 2008

A. The date for ASF Members Meeting was confirmed to be June 3-5.

19 Mar 2008

 Henri will not be attending ApacheCon EU.  Sam's attendance is
 doubtful at this time.

 The VP of Legal Affairs reiterated that resolving the 3rd Party Licensing
 policy is being pursued by the Legal Affairs Committee and requested
 that discussion be directed to legal-discuss.  No objections were

20 Feb 2008

    A. Brett Porter wants to make a request of the board regarding the
    Maven repository. Brett will be available during the meeting
    to inform and discuss this.

 B. Justin Mason called the board's attention to a patent claim by
    Trend Micro towards Barracuda Networks. Some background is
    available at http://taint.org/2008/01/29/215108a.html

    Justin asked about an official statement from the ASF which
    resulted in a short discussion on the board list. Henning
    volunteered to bounce this "officially" to legal for discussion
    to find out whether we should have / have / don't have an
    official opinion about this.

16 Jan 2008

 Sam presented the following for discussion: "Reciprocal" licenses and
 Scripting languages

    This isn't so much a legal issue as a policy issue, so I'd appreciate
    feedback from the rest of the board.

    For compiled languages, reciprocal clauses in licenses like MPL
    and CDDL are a key differentiator from licenses like BSD and the
    Apache License, Version 2.0.  For scripting languages, this isn't
    as burdensome, or potentially even relevant at all.

    But there is another difference that may be relevant to some, and
    that is that the Apache License is sublicensable.  Including in
    a distribution, or otherwise having a dependency on MPL licensed
    source code (for example: FCKEditor by Cocoon) prevents the
    package as a whole from being transparently sublicenced, something
    that is a core value of our business friendly licence.

    I see two ways of looking at this issue.  One is that such licenses
    do not prevent us from licensing our works under the license of our
    choice, so it should be allowed, if properly labeled.  The other
    is that it is yet another step down the slippery slope that erodes
    the foundation's core values.

 In the interest of time, further discussion was directed to the board@
 mailing list.

19 Dec 2007

* Third party licensing. What's the status? This was asked at the Members

 Sam promised a status update at the next meeting.

17 Oct 2007

    A. ASF Members Meeting - set date and time.

    Based on discussion on members@, Sam to double check and announce
    the date for this meeting.  At the present time, Dec 11-13 looks
    like the most likely candidate.

 B. Set Time and Place of next board meeting in Atlanta.

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 14th over lunch.

19 Sep 2007

 We discussed what an action item is.  A request was made that
 everybody who sees something that specifically requires tracking
 call out said items.

29 Aug 2007

    A. Role of infrastructure

    Various input, not all consistent or coherent:

      * great job, need a solaris zone for new services
      * we need to do a better job organizing volunteers
      * more use of sandbox/asylum
      * infra role mixes policy vs resources
      * dim's idea of using yahoo boxes for sandboxes
      * a smaller number of services, well supported is better than a
        large number of services spottily supported
      * unpaid volunteers without a track record are presumed to being
         prone to disappear.  Products like MoinMoin, JIRA and others
         tend to be used beyond expectations, so sandboxes don't solve
         the problem.  Sandbox takes a lot of time.  More machines can
         be ordered, but people can't be.
      * need and don't have an infrastructure roadmap
      * we need a way to "grow" new volunteers
      * happy with three 9's.  hiring people makes us lose volunteers
      * self fulfilling prophesy: pushing away volunteers, and using that
        to justify the need to hire
      * need two realms, one at 3 nines, another at a higher level
      * need a volunteer to help coordinate

 B. When to schedule next board meeting. Is Sept 19th too soon?

    We decided to hold the meeting on Sept 19 as originally planned.

01 Aug 2007

    A. New ASF/JCP Policy, including action/reaction schedules and timeframes.
    The intent is to come up with a clear policy, standards by which the
    ASF will continue to participate in the JCP, changes required for that
    participation and our course of action if such changes are not


   1) We will vote "NO" on any vote for a JSR led by a spec lead we feel
      is out of compliance with the JSPA

   2) We will vote "NO" on any vote for a JSR where the spec lead won't
      commit to a FOU-free TCK licenses (for that JSR)

   3) We will vote "NO" for any final vote where the presented TCK
      license terms aren't FOU-free (for that JSR)

   4) We will move that the ECs adopt the following statement:

      "TCK licenses must not be used to discriminate against or
      restrict compatible implementations of Java specifications
      by including field of use restrictions on the tested
      implementations or otherwise.  Licenses containing such
      limitations do not meet the requirements of the JSPA, the
      agreement under which the JCP operates, and violate the
      expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be
      openly implemented."

   5) We agree that additional publicity at this time would hamper
      efforts towards a successful resolution.

18 Jul 2007

    A. A request by the newborn Quetzalcoatl project to use the simplified
    subdomain python.apache.org raised the question of using external
    names.  This is similar to concerns about java.apache.org by the
    Jakarta project (unacceptable due to Sun's trademark concerns), or
    perl.apache.org for the modperl project.  A request to the PSF
    provided the appropriate permissions, so the project has requested
    that they might use this subdomain name, but there are apparently
    concerns by some directors yet to be resolved.

 Beyond the guidelines discussed in the review of the Quetzalcoatl,
 the board requests that further discussions should be between the project
 and Justin.

09 Jul 2007

 A. New ASF/JCP Policy, including statements on NDAs, FOUs,
 as well as action/reaction schedules and timeframes. The intent
 is to come up with a clear policy, standards by which the ASF
 will continue to participate in the JCP, changes required for
 that participation and our course of action if such changes
 are not implemented.

 The board discussed the perceived and real NDA requirements on our
 committers, EC and EG representatives.

 These break down into four classes of restrictions, and the corresponding
 board positions.

 * NDA of contracts and contractual discussion

   There was some concern expressed over the private nature of these
   discussions being both unnecessary and reducing our options for
   addressing differences; but overall the board was willing to let
   these discussions continue in private, as all other parties in the
   JCP are doing.

   Geir identified that at least one reference license for the TCK should
   be shared prior to the conclusion and approval of a JSR, and recent
   commentary by other EC members appears to share this position.

   Geir identified that we have permission to share the (final) contracts
   with any 'interested party', although these would not necessarily be
   published on the website.

 * NDA of the Specification Development Process

   The Board determined that today, the ASF encourages but otherwise has
   no opinion on open specifications development processes vs. closed
   development processes.  It was pointed out that perfectly reasonable
   specifications have come from a single individual or closed groups,
   just as perfectly irrational specifications have come from open groups.

   As such - the ASF will continue to put forward EG representatives to
   either open or closed specification development bodies outside of the
   ASF.  This does not change the policy that all ASF development
   discussions occur on open lists, here.

   The Board reserves the possibility of revisiting this policy in future
   years.  The important point, the ASF Board does not seek to impose a
   specific methodology on outside, non-ASF efforts.

 * NDA to Use the TCK

   The Board is concerned about the burden and additional paperwork that
   we require of our committers to obtain the ASF's copy of TCKs and
   other reference material.  Some of these works are under commercial,
   non-open license terms.  As such, we will investigate if the NDA
   agreement is redundant, and if there are other/better ways to
   inform our committers of their responsibility under the material's
   own license, without additional obligations.  The Board remains
   concerned about the possible burdens that are imposed by these TCKs,
   and will work to achieve fewer burdens on the users of TCKs and
   reference material through the JCP processes in creating open source
   implementations of the specification.  As such, the ASF will seek
   a change the JCP establishing a date beyond which there will be no
   new TCKs created with NDA requirements.

 * NDA of the TCK Results

   The Board was informed there is a great deal of confusion over the
   exact restrictions imposed on the TCK results, and the ability of
   committers to discuss these matters over public development lists.
   Geir has taken an action item on this to write up the actual
   constraints on the use of the TCK results, so that the scope of the
   actual restrictions are better understood by the community, and so
   that no unnecessary secrecy is applied to development discussion.
   This will be posted to the JCP area of the ASF website.  The Board
   understands that the net result of the reasonable interpretation of
   the TCK Usage license does not result in NDA obstacles to open source

 * Copyright of .dtd/.xsd files and other Reference Material

   As an additional action item, the Board will research the scope of
   pieces of reference material which have been committed to ASF
   repositories, and to whatever extent possible, will try to provide
   guidance on the use of these materials on the JCP area of the ASF
   website.  Examples are files from the Spec Lead that contain
   confidentiality or other absurd clauses, when compared the
   requirement of their use in implementing the public, published

25 Apr 2007

    A. Continued absence of reporting from VP of ConCom

    The board expressed its continued concern over the
    lateness or absence of ConCom reporting. Ken indicated
    that he is working on "rearranging" how ConCom operates
    to alleviate this problem (other ConCom members will
    be various conference "leads", for example).

 B. Set date of Annual Members Meeting to June 5 - 7, 2007.

    Jim suggested the dates of June 5 - 7, 2007 for the annual
    ASF Members Meeting, based on feedback from the membership.
    The board approved these dates. Jim will notify the membership
    and start the process of arranging the meeting.

17 Jan 2007

 A. Patent clause FAQ

 The status of the Patent Clase FAQ was discussed, specifically
 the entry below:

   Q: If I own a patent and contribute to a project, and, at the time
   my contribution is included in the project, none of my patent's
   claims are subject to Apache's Grant of Patent License, is there a
   way any of that patent's claims would later become subject to the
   Grant of Patent License solely due to subsequent contributions by
   other parties who are not licensees of that patent.

  A. No.

 The board expressed no concern with the above clarification.
 Cliff was to pass this along to our lawyers for comments and

25 Oct 2006

 A. The board discussed whether it made sense to scheduled a Special
 Members meeting for the express purpose of allowing for new
 members to be nominated and elected. Jim proposed the week of
 December 3rd. Jim will query the membership and gauge whether one
 is warranted or not.

20 Sep 2006

    1. The Maven Foundation

    Jason van Zyl is a respected member, and no longer works for Mergere,
    but has set up a separate fundraising effort for Maven infrastructure.
    Is this something the ASF should fund?  What role should the Maven
    PMC have in this operation?

    The board had a few concerns with the above, not least of which
    was the trademark issue: Maven is a trademark of the ASF
    and the Maven Foundation would be confusing at least and
    infringing and the most. There was also concern on the potential
    confusion and damage it could create within the Maven project
    as well. Since Jason did not attend the board meeting, although
    he was expected, Henri was to contact him regarding the board's
    curiosity regarding the foundation.

 2. Patent FAQ

    Doug Cutting drafted the following for the board to vote on:

    Q: If my company owns a patent and contributes to a project,
    and, at the time our contribution is included in the project,
    none of our patent claims are subject to Apache's Grant of
    Patent License, is there any way any of those patent claims
    would later become subject to the Grant of Patent License
    solely due to subsequent contributions by other parties?

    A.  No.  Patent claims subject to the Grant of Patent License
    are determined at the time of the patent holder's contribution.
    If, when you contribute to a project, your patent claims are
    necessarily infringed as a result of your contribution, then
    those patent claims are subject to the Grant of Patent License
    (even if your patent issues or is acquired later).  But, if
    your patent claims are necessarily infringed only after a
    subsequent contribution by another party, the other party's
    contribution will not cause your patent claims to be subject to
    the Grant of Patent License.

    It was noted that the above was not in a format for
    the board to vote on, but it was discussed none-the-less.
    Doug was upset that the issue was still being debated, instead
    of a vote being held on it. Some directors were less than
    clear on what exactly was being asked, since the Answer seems
    to answer 2 questions, somewhat related but different. It was
    also agreed that despite claims that the above would be
    "limited" in scope, a board vote on it would make it a much
    more general policy, not something specific. Greg stressed that
    the board would be much more pro-active in following and addressing
    the discussion on the board list for this issue.

16 Aug 2006

 Ken noted that ApacheCon Asia was, by all initial counts,
 a big success. He will have more information within a month or

19 Jul 2006

*  Scope of CLA patent Grant
    (refer to discussion on legal@ and board@)

 The main point of the discussion involved the concept of
 whether "the work" refers to the project as a whole and
 as a growing entity or to the codebase as it exists
 at that point in time. The concerns whether patent
 issues are set at the time of contribution or
 continue as additional code and contributions (either
 from the original contributor or others) are made
 to a project. Cliff reported that he is still seeking
 clarification and will provide an update to the
 board at the next meeting.

27 Jun 2006

Tabled due to time constraints.

26 Apr 2006

    A. Annual Members Meeting

    As reported in his report, Jim queried the membership regarding
    member meeting dates and formats. Based on the little feedback
    provided, the board decided to have a IRC-based members meeting,
    set for either June 13-15 (primary) or June 6-8 (secondary). Jim
    was to close the loop with the membership, obtain feedback and
    then officially schedule the meeting.

 B. Copyright dates in source files

    As noted in Cliff's report, this issue is currently being
    worked on. It was noted that it is against ASF policy,
    as well as simply wrong, to change Copyright dates when the
    files/codebases have not undergone "substantial" or
    "significant" change.

 C. OSI Membership Model

16 Nov 2005

A. Replacement for Jim on Audit Committee

26 Oct 2005

 A. Apache Geronimo

 B. Set date for Annual ASF Member's Meeting @ ApacheCon.
    Proposed date: Dec. 11, 2005 (Sunday evening)

    Action Item: Greg to direct Jim to make Sunday evening official

 C. Courier Service

    Action Item: Justin and Greg to send plan by next board meeting.

 D. Infrastructure search committee candidate funding

21 Sep 2005

    A. Budget


    It was recommended that the review of the budget continue on the
    board@ mailing list. Further discussion would be held at
    a special board meeting, set for September 29, 2005.

 B. Copyright notices

    Discussion on Copyright notices was tabled, but it was agreed
    that discussion could start and continue on the board@
    and licensing mailing lists.

 C. Apache Geronimo project

    There was significant discussion on the problems within
    the Geronimo project. The general consent was that there
    was an undue amount of tension and non-ASF-like behavior
    within the project. There was additional discussion
    on whether matters were improving, getting worse or staying
    even. Some directors indicated their beliefs that matters
    were not getting better and that direct action was required
    to avoid Geronimo declining any further. It was reported by
    the current Geronimo PMC chair that, in his opinion,
    Geronimo had "turned around" and was starting to get
    better. This resulted in discussion on how the board should
    best proceed. It was agreed that this discussion should
    be continued at a special board meeting, scheduled for
    September 29th, 2005.

 D. Retain counsel to review our 501(c)3 legal status

    Justin indicated his desire that the ASF proceed with
    retaining counsel to review and ensure our 501(c)3
    status. The board agreed that this was required, and
    Justin was tasked with further investigation into this
    matter. A status update was to be provided on September
    29, 2005.

17 Aug 2005

    A. Copyright notices

    The Board is to create a Resolution detailing our
    position on this issue. Justin volunteered to craft
    this resolution.

 B. Retain counsel to review our 501(c)3 legal status

    Justin volunteered to take the time to review this
    issue and determine the course of action.

28 Jul 2005

 A. Require 3 PGP signatures for a release, ensuring 3 votes from
 a PMC.

 Conclusion of this discussion was that it was too much of an
 extra burden on the projects to make this a requirement.

22 Jun 2005

    A. Hire a sysadmin

    Justin will have two proposals to the board by our July 1st meeting:
       - Hiring a sysadmin on to our staff.
       - Outsourcing all infra@ activities to a third-party company.

    Discussion has started on infra@ for formulating these job descriptions.

    Discussion Item A, Hire a sysadmin, was tabled.

 B. Outsource bookkeeping

    Per Jason, EFF retains Silk, Adler, & Colvin for their 501(c)3 matters.
    Specifically, Rosemary E. Fei: http://www.silklaw.com/bios/fei.cfm

    Discussion Item B, Outsource bookkeeping, was tabled.

 C. BXA guidelines

    [gstein: 10 minute max]

    What is our policy?
    Who should committers contact?
    How does this apply to third-party software?  (such as OpenSSL)

    See Will Rowe's posts to board@.

    Discussion Item C, BXA guidelines, was tabled.

 D. Distribution of third-party software from ASF infrastructure

    [gstein: 10 minute max]

    What is our policy?
    Less restrictive licenses?
    More restrictive licenses?

    Discussion Item D, Distribution of third-party software from ASF
    infrastructure, was tabled.

18 May 2005

 Geir asked the board if it had any concerns regarding his
 continued position as the ASF contact for the JCP. Geir's
 concern was mostly if his change in employment association
 would cause the ASF any undue concern.

 The board expressed its confidence that Geir could,
 and should, continue in his JCP role, assuming that he has
 sufficient time to adequately fulfill those duties.

27 Apr 2005

    A. J2SE Project

    Geir noted that he had sent an Email to member@ regarding
    the possibility of the ASF taking on a new project to
    create a compatible, open-source implementation of the
    Java Runtime Environment, allowing for a "complete" open
    source stack.

 B. Fair Use of Java Specifications from Sun.

    This item was tabled.

23 Feb 2005

 Greg indicated his desire to add the Executive Director discussion
 to next month's Board agenda.

19 Jan 2005

    A. Discussion was held on the means to increase cooperation between FSF
    and ASF. It was noted that the ASF received no  action items from the
    conf call with FSF that was held on 11th Jan.  The following were
    noted as main topics in the discussions.
             - Help Kaffe/Classpath's Free JVM initative
             - Ability to use LGPL in Apache projects
             - Ability to use Apache code in GPL/LGPL projects

 B. Discussion was held on lobbying as it pertains to 501(c)3 and whether
    it made sense for the ASF to elect also 501(h) (or friends) status.
    It was agreed that 501(h) was not appropriate or required for the
    ASF,  nor did it really benefit the ASF in any way.

 C. Discussion was held asking all employed committers to get a CCLA on file
    from employer.  It was noted that it is really the responsibility of
    the individual contributor to ensure that their CLA is valid, and
    to check with their employer if they have any doubts.  Although the
    ASF welcomes corporate CLAs, they ASF will not currently require
    them.  Instead, committers will be periodically reminded of their
    responsibilities per the CLA on a semi-annual basis.

15 Dec 2004

    A. LGPL: next steps

    The board verified that there was a rough consensus that Brians draft
    letter to the FSF was the right next step.  Brian therefore had
    sent the letter to the FSF on the ASF's behalf.

 B. Conferences and ConCom

    It was reported that it was still too early to report on the
    full results of ApacheCon 2004, held last month, but that the
    event did appear to make a profit.  However, the $25,000 bounced
    check to the ASF did not alleviate the board's growing concern
    and unease with Security Travel.  There are also some reports
    of speakers not being paid and/or reimbursed.

    The board further discussed the difficulties we would face if
    Security Travel was not chosen as the organizer. Some of the
    issues would be: the time taken in searching for a new
    producer, trying to forge a new working relationship, and
    possibly trying out the new producer with a small conference or
    involving them with the ApacheCon Europe effort.

    ConCom is discussing internally the basic question "What Is, Or
    Should Be, ApacheCon." Some suggested considerations were the
    size of the conference, the pricing structure, and target
    audience(s) of the conference.

    The board spent some time in executive session discussing
    our contract details with Security Travel.

14 Nov 2004

 A. Conferences and ConCom

 The board expressed its extreme displeasure with the work
 done by Security Travel regarding ApacheCon.  There was
 debate on whether the board should restrict ConCom from
 renewing any contract or agreement with ST.  The general
 consent was that this restriction was not going to be
 placed, but that the board withheld the right to do so.
 The ConCom was tasked with "determining the look, feel
 and direction of ApacheCon" and submitting that to the
 board.  The ConCom was further tasked with coming up
 with creative new ideas regarding what we want ApacheCon
 to be (ie: what is the major focus of ApacheCon? A
 revenue source? A community building effort? etc...)

20 Oct 2004

 There was continued dicussion regarding the LGPL and
 the depth at which an ASF project/codebase can require
 it.  There was also continued discussion on how the LGPL
 is interpreted in a Java environment and whether such
 basic Java concepts as extending a Class or implementing
 an Interface marks the essential LGPL distinction between
 using a function and being "based" on it.

22 Sep 2004

    A. Visibility of CLAs

    Desired action: a decision on "how far" visibility reaches.
    Members, officers, committers, and/or the public.  Possible
    alternative: delegate this decision to the incubator.

    This discussion item was tabled.

 B. Backlog of legal issues

    Desired action: establishment of a legal committee/project
    which frequently reports to the board.

    * Intalio agreement for OpenORB
    * CLA amendment from U of Memphis
    * J2EE SATCK agreements?
    * Apache trademarks?
    * response to JBoss letter received October 31, 2003
    * D&O Insurance?
    * Response to EMC letter dated August 24, 2004
    * Converting currently documents (CLA, CCLA) to PDF format

    Recommended set of actions arrived at by Robyn Wagner, Greg
    Stein, and Brian Behlendorf:

    * Invite Robyn to board@ (and possibly board-private@)
      Non-privileged communication amongst ASF members.

    * Rename legal@ to legal-internal@, limiting membership to
      Board and Robyn only, for attorney-client privilege.
      Potentially invite other trusted legal advisors.

    * Encourage the use of community@apache.org for discussions
      related to legal issues that do not require special privilege
      or limitation to ASF members. Turn off licensing@, move
      discussion to community@.

    * Create a shell account for Robyn, with apmember group access,
      and access to all CVS and SVN repositories.  Give her
      instructions on access and time to get acquainted with

    * Status and work items to be managed via the
      foundation/legal/STATUS file rather than an issue tracker or
      other means.

    The fact that our bias is to head towards maximal internal
    transparancy to ASF members was expressed, and the above is
    intended to balance that with the legal concept of attorney/
    client privilege.  Robyn will also be at ApacheCon.

    This discussion item was tabled, but will be discussed
    on the mailing list.

 C. More rigorous application of CLA

    The issue of provenance for contributions is becoming more
    and more visible.  Contributions directly from committers
    are already covered, since we have ICLAs from them.  However,
    contributions received through the mailing lists or the
    bug databases are still an issue we should consider.  For
    the bug databases, which require signin in order to make a
    submission, a click-through page could be added saying 'you
    click on this then you agree to <terms>' could be added.
    What end-goal do we want, and how much effort do we want to
    devote to it?

    This discussion item was tabled, but will be discussed
    on the mailing list.

 D. Expectations of committers dealing with contributions

    More on the whole CLA issue.. are committers who are going
    to commit a contribution responsible for determining whether
    the contributor has filed an ICLA?

    This discussion item was tabled, but will be discussed
    on the mailing list.

 E. Copyright notices on imported files

    We need to determine what needs to be done with regard to
    copyright notices in imported files (such as the Derby
    sources), and in files or contributions originating outside
    the ASF in general.  Perhaps changing the [IC]CLA forms to
    assign copyright rather than licensing it, or changing the
    copyright notice we add to apply to the project rather than
    the individual file (Jennifer's suggestion), or ...

    This discussion item was tabled, but will be discussed
    on the mailing list.

 F. Confirming that the current stance on @author tags as
    per Greg's email message of February is still appropriate
    (Recommend strongly that @author is avoided; but leave it to
    each PMC to make the final call with their respective

    This was confirmed.

 G. Normalisation of document location
    Some entity (the incubator?) should be responsible for the
    normative versions of documents, and references should
    point there.  For example, multiple projects seem to have
    their own copies of the CLA forms, which are out of synch
    with the actual approved ones.

    This discussion item was tabled, but will be discussed
    on the mailing list.

18 Aug 2004

    A. Visibility of CLAs

    Desired action: a decision on "how far" visibility reaches.
    Members, officers, committers, and/or the public.

    Discussion Item 6 A, Visibility of CLAs, was tabled.

 B. Corporate CLAs

    It appears that there may be incomplete understanding of what
    the current CCLA requires of the ASF.  It imposes burdens on
    the Foundation that did not apply before.

    Jennifer Machovec, legal council for IBM, was invited to
    participate in a discussion over the current versions of
    the Corporate CLA and recommended changes to it, mostly
    as related to the Derby code donation, as well as to basic
    enhancement and protection.  The revised Corporate CLA
    was to list all employees authorized to contribute code
    as well as the individual projects to which they can
    contribute to.  Jennifer noted that the suggested changes
    provided an "irrevocable donation of code" in any and
    all circumstances, even if the employee had made a

    It was remarked that this would place the ASF under additional
    administrative burdens, monitoring and matching CVS commits
    against the list.  It also tends to move the ASF further and
    further away from the core concept of a "relationship" which
    the ASF has been built on, that of the ASF with regards to
    the individual.  It was remarked that the ASF's "web of trust"
    extends between the ASF and the individual contributor, and,
    at least in the opinion of some directors, that is as far
    as it needs to be.

    It was further discussed that the proposed changes would,
    in the minds of several directors, make the development
    environment with the ASF less healthy and organic, but
    placing restrictions on which projects people could work
    on.  The CLAs were supposed to open the doors for people
    to contribute, rather than close or restrict them.

    Jennifer stated that, in her opinion, this was leaving
    the ASF in a risky position and could leave it open to
    "problems" in the future.  The board's position was that
    taking authority and ownership over controls that should
    really be placed by the individual him/herself or between
    an employee and employer was likely more dangerous and
    risky.  In essence, the ASF works with people who have
    exhibited a high level of trust, and that we can therefore
    trust them to do the right thing.  And if they don't, it
    isn't something that the ASF has monitored or controlled,
    so the impact to us directly is much smaller;  taking on
    those responsibilities opens us up to more risk.

    It was correctly noted that the present Corporate CLA and
    v2 of the Apache License are incompatible.  Jennifer
    stated that she would take our comments under review
    and try to work up another revision.

 C. Derby code drop

    The Derby code is ready to be uploaded to the Apache
    repository, but the legal documents need to be sorted out
    first.  In addition, it appears that an export-control
    form will need to be submitted before the code can be
    published from our site.

    Discussion Item 6 C, Derby code drop, was tabled, mostly
    due to the issues and topics discussed in 6 B.

21 Jul 2004

 Due to time limitations, all discussion items were tabled.

 A. J2EE TCK License Update

 B. Non-disclosure for membership

 C. D&O Insurance

 D. Policy for CLAs and non-committers

23 Jun 2004

 Consideration of discussion items was tabled until after committee
 reports were reviewed.

 Discussion returned after Committee Reports at 12:04 PDT

 A. Status of formal response to JBoss

 Greg will have response reviewed by Robin, and Geir will continue
 to augment URLs with contents of URLs in the document.  Sam and
 Geir are in favor of publicly posting the document once
 reply is sent.

 B. Status of TCK J2EE license

 Geir continues to work with Sun.  Plan is to post on Sunday on
 Geronimo site the existing NOTICE if not resolved with Sun (or
 the new NOTICE if resolved.)   If not resolved, Sam has requested
 that a note to some effect indicating ASFs problems with the NOTICE,
 and one or more examples of our proposed solutions.

 Geir has requested a status review before doing that in the event
 that progress is being made.  Will follow up with email on board
 list at the time if appropriate.

 C. Should we pursue Directors and Officer's Insurance?

 Greg noted that historically, the opinion was that it wasn't worth
 it.  Sam asked that the issue be revisited.  Plan is to do
 independent research to find out what other non-profits do,
 figure out a order-of-magnitude cost, and revisit the issue
 in the June meeting.

26 May 2004

    A. Status of formal response to JBoss

    As previously mentioned, some legal issues had been tabled
    until after the election of the board. Now that this has been
    done, these issues will be resolved. Greg noted that at present,
    only himself was authorized to contact Robyn regarding legal
    work to be done on behalf of the ASF. To avoid any potential
    "bottlenecks," Geir and Brian was also added to the "approved"
    list of ASF contacts for Robyn.

    After this discussion, Geir reported that he would finish
    his draft of the response, ensuring that all references are
    actually part of the response (ie: no links), which would
    then be submitted to the board and Robyn for review.

 B. Status of TCK J2EE license

 C. Status of proposed CLAs

 D. Schedule for regular meetings

    The current schedule is (generally) the third Wednesday of
    every month. Sometimes it is altered to the fourth Wednesday,
    as detailed in cvs:committers/board/calendar.txt.

    Question: should this scheduling remain?

21 Apr 2004

    A. Discussion: Gluecode

    A short discussion on Gluecode took place but there were no
    actions necessary.

 B. Discussion: PR/Marketing

    The draft Marketing/PR plan (CVS board module
    'apache-marketing.txt') was discussed.  Note that file is ASF
    Confidential since it discusses a private arrangement with

    Greg talked about Susan and how it would be nice to make our
    relationship with her official so she is able to take necessary
    actions for PR and marketing purposes.  It was generally agreed
    to be a good idea to promote the purpose and direction of the
    ASF to give foundation credibility and visibility.  It was also
    thought that this will help with fundraising efforts.  While it
    would be good to have a VP level marketing position at some
    point it was proposed to make Susan a marketing director (no
    signatory, but a point person) possibly as soon as next month.

 C. Discussion: audit stuff

    There was a small discussion on the difference between having a
    CPA and someone who could sign off on an audit about
    Sarbanes-Oxley.  Chuck to work out what the ASF needs.

 D. Discussion: JBoss response

    The status of the JBoss response was discussed; the response
    has yet to be sent.

 E. Discussion: CLA update?

    There was a small discussion about the status of the proposed
    new CLA and concern that the progress of it had been stalled.
    Sam Ruby took an action to check on the status of this and work
    out what will be required to make the new CLA official.  The
    PMCs also need a reminder to be sent for pending CLAs.

 F. Discussion: Best Practices?

    This item was tabled for future discussion.

 G. Discussion: Ken Coar's request to use the Apache trademarks

    Ken mentioned that he would like to use the Apache trademarks
    on items from CafePress to be made available to members for
    cost price.  The board will write a proposal to be approved by
    the board later which will give Ken the non-exclusive rights to
    use Apache trademarks on items sold to ASF members at cost for
    one year.

17 Mar 2004

    A. Discussion: Policy for Third-Party Code in Apache Releases

    There has been too much confusion over what may be included
    in a source code or binary distribution of an Apache release
    from apache.org.  Below is a proposed policy to be
    publicly posted to address this confusion.  The board would
    also need to set a date for conformance to this policy.

    1. If anything is unclear or in doubt, bring your questions to
       licensing@apache.org.  Better to ask early than late or

    2. Source distributions must be under the terms of the Apache
       License.  Source distributions may include third-party
       software under other licenses, but those licenses must not
       place requirements or restrictions on the code, even those
       subsets of code, that go beyond those of the Apache license.

    3. Binary distributions may include third-party libraries that
       allow for redistribution in combination with code under the
       Apache License.  The existance of any library whose
       copyright terms go beyond that of the Apache License *must*
       be prominently mentioned in the LICENSE file accompaning the
       binary distribution (appended after the Apache License), and
       all requirements of the licenses of the third party code
       must be followed with respect to attribution, labelling, et

    4. It is the responsibility of all developers to be aware of
       the licenses on included code, to follow those requirements,
       and make those requirements clear to the recipients of their

    The board approved the above "talking points" regarding
    third-party code in Apache releases.  Notice will be
    sent to members@.

 B. Set a date for the annual Members meeting (in May)

    May 18th was sent for the date of the Annual ASF Members Meeting,
    to be held via irc.

17 Dec 2003

Discussion: code imports directly into projects vs incubation (e.g. maven-wagon and ws-fx)

 A discussion was had on how codebases arrive at the ASF.  Last
 year, the Board created the Apache Incubator Project to deal
 with these incoming codebases, primary to ensure that the
 proper IP guarantees have been made, and also to ensure that
 any community arriving with the code is aware of ASF processes
 and requirements.

 However, there are many cases where codebases happen to have
 been elsewhere by ASF committers, which makes it much easier to
 "bring the code [into the ASF]". The Board is crafting
 guidelines for when a codebase can be directly imported and
 verified by a PMC, and when it is required to use the Incubator
 for that process. Information will be posted to
 general@incubator.apache.org when those guidelines have been

16 Jul 2003

Discussion: PHP licensing

 As noted in the Chairman report, Greg had not yet had this
 discussion with the PHP Group, but would be doing so within
 the next week or so.

25 Jun 2003

Discussion: what does it mean to be an ASF Member? [Jim]

 The discussion was again initiated on the members@apache.org
 mailing list, and has again show the depth and width of
 what it means to various people. The discussion will be
 allowed to continue, free-style, for another week or
 so, and which point Jim will draft up a list of some sort
 detailing what appears to be the main value points. This
 will be presented to members@ at which point, we will start
 including community@ into the discussion as well. Outside
 perceptions can be quite illuminating.

25 Jun 2003

Discussion: publishing [to ASF Members] of the vote counts

 The board decided that in the interest of openness and in order
 to better explain the workings of STV, the vote and the tally
 record for the board election should be published. (The
 secretary notes that on reflection it was not clear whether
 this applied to previous board elections or just the most
 recent one). Jim will be asked to action this.

 It was decided that the results of new member elections should
 not be published, as the potential new members are not notified
 in advance and so could be caused needless embarassment in the
 event of non-election or a subsequent refusal of membership.

25 Jun 2003

Discussion: low voter turnout

 It was noted that only around half the members actually voted,
 which could cause problems reaching quorum as the size of the
 ASF increases. It was observed that it would take a change of
 the bylaws to enable non-attending members to be forcibly
 declared emeritus, but that this could be done when it became
 necessary to do so, and is not needed pre-emptively. It was
 decided in any case to contact members who have not
 participated in ASF business recently to see if they would
 prefer to voluntarily go emeritus. No-one in particular took
 this action, however.

25 Jun 2003

Discussion: voting and election of the Board

 The board decided that the voting was valid, and hence the
 election of the board as shown in the Members Meeting Minutes
 should stand.

 It was independently discussed whether there should be a revote
 anyway, in light of various members misunderstanding of the
 system and other misgivings, but it was decided that there was
 not sufficient cause to justify the time and effort required to
 stage a revote.

21 Mar 2001

Discussion of things we need to do to advertize 501(c)(3) status

This was already discussed during the Treasurer's report, item 4B.

28 Feb 2000

Discuss our usability policies for the various bits of artwork currently "owned" by the ASF

This was tabled in the interests of time.

28 Feb 2000

Discussion about pro/con of becoming 501(c)(3)

See 4B/Treasurer's report.