Committee Meeting 2016.10.19

Steve using nick's Login

Acceptance of Minutes of the previous meeting
Discussion of formal complaint in regards to the recent posts to the public list (artifactory-core).

Present: SJH, TG, JMM, NB, SM (with proxy from JMM after he left), Lemming, Russell, HF
Observing: Mitch
Apologies:
Absent:

Opened: 20:05
Closed: 23:40
Next meeting: 9 Nov 2016 2000

See: committee_meeting_2016.10.12

Status	Rejected
Moved By	SMM
Seconded By	JMM

passed without dissent

Stuart: member warnings - first line remove “(not just…)”

3: Tim's understanding was that the fiancee was annoyed and passed on information that was not Adam's position. Tim has subsequentially confirmed that information whilst delivering the apology. The previous minutes will be amended to strike this out and add a note to see the minutes of this meeting.

4.a.ii promote to numeric

points 6 to 9 should be indented.

need more context for discussion points (these were questions to be asked of Mitch not determinations).

agenda 4 c,d&e add a note to see these minutes

correspondence $8500 → $85,000.

Change section on warning about laser tube warning. Add note that there was some incorrect information that we based our discussion on.

also mention incorrect information in discussion of MK representing the space

MK and the committee agreed that the minutes of committee meeting 12/10/2016 (as amended) now have sufficient context and recognise that the incorrect information has been highlighted.

This discussion is concerning private communication between the committee and MK.

MK and the committee agreed this was not a section 20 complaint.

MOVED SH that the first warning (to Nick and Mitch) stand
seconded LEM
passed without dissent, Nick abstained

Moved SH that second (Nick & Mitch not on the same committee) stand
seconded LEM
passed without dissent, Nick and JMM (from SM) abstain

Moved SH that apology to Adam stand and not be rescinded
seconded LEM
passed without dissent,

Moved SH that the warning about the tube stand
Seconded LEM
discussion:

SH said some information was wrong. Is there other basis?
TG But we were still made to look bad
SMM suggested it was not only Mitch's communication that was problematic.
LEM as it was based on faulty information, it should not stand. As a result of that, now we are aware of the faulty information it should not stand
SMM, Hugh, RC suport LEM
Nick It was not ALL incorrect, can the rest of the information substantiate the warning?
TG we need to let it stand or reject it.
SH if we don't pass this motion, we should rescind the warning
TG if there are further concerns, bring them to the committee.

rejected unanimously

Moved SH that we rescind the warning

seconded Nick
passed without dissent.

ACTION SH to send MK a simple email indicating that the warning has been rescinded (suggested by MK and accepted by the committee)

Moved SH that the motion about Mitch not representing the space stand.

Seconded Nick
Nick support based on the fact that it was not one thing.
TG the issue with communication with Adam and Cynthia was not the only issue.
SH raises other issues about when Mitch knew the tube was ready to pick up
TG clear documentation required then we go ahead.
SH should it stand until we gather more information or rescind and raise again
TG we should rescind and address it at another meeting if there is sufficient reason.
LEM because it was based on false information that it should not stand
rejected. 1 for, 5 against SH abstained

SH moves that we rescind
seconded LEM

SH even though I abstained, the discussion was that we recind so I support it.
Nick agrees necessary and logically consistent

passed without dissent

Mitch's complaint items still outstanding (from Mitch's email) #7 (only)

LEM - we can't consult you or it would be favouritism
TG - Agrees
TG - we were operating on information we thought was true.
LEM - happy to apologise, for stress and anguish, but not on what we did on good faith.
Nick - you have the right of reply
SH - publicly announced in minutes. announce other stuff in minutes
TG - also edit the group post to announce it is rescinded.
TG & SH - also note that the previous minutes are changed.
TG disagrees wth deletion from mailing list (has issues with deletion)
SH, LEM, SMM think its a good idea.
LEM now disagrees

Moved Nick that we

post the minutes from 12/10 as amended with explanatory text describing what and why we changed
annotate the existing google group post with a header saying they're deprecated, describing the items changed, and inline descriptions of changes
post these minutes as draft

seconded SH
Mitch was invited to comment – he says that's fine
LEM, SMM we should do it
passed without dissent

broad discussion was had on items 4 and 6 and these or others will me raised at a future committee meeting if anyone considers it appropriate.

They should be agenda items before the meeting

None