Minutes:2002 BOSC Meeting
From Open Bioinformatics Foundation
August 2, 2002 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Call to order Board members present: Hilmar, Chris, Ewan, Steven, Andrew Recognition of observers (about 21) This meeting was open to the the public. I don't know all of the people who commented, hence the question marks. Review of schedule by Ewan Treas. report by Chris Dag. See his email to the board list. Steven - asked about money owed us from Hidelberg meeting Chris - says it's about 20-30 commercial people Decided to follow up on that money - assigned to Chris (AI) Steven - asked about audit Chris, financials Jan. to Jan. year; report out next year Action item: Chris to find an accountant to audit BOSC 2003, lead by Ewan - do we want BOSC next year? if yes: - part of ISMB? - affiliated with other projects straw vote showed enthusiastic support for BOSC 2003 Lincoln suggested survey of attendees tomorrow ?? suggested too small for standalone conference Martin - price to Oz not bad Chris - but subjective impression of distance ??? - will be better Asia/Pacific input Janet - A/P can help grow the community Ewan - build a travel fund? ??? - give concrete examples of other conference sites when doing the survey ORA would be too expensive and submerged RECOMB in April in Berlin Thomas - reemphasized the international / worldwide aspect of the conference Lincoln - web meetings cut in half when moved to OZ Chris - worried about losing people for next year, re costs, esp. if using professional organization Organizing BOSC 2003, lead by Ewan Request for volunteers - all declined Request for suggestions of volunteers Ewan volunteered Elia Stupka Elia tentatively agreed this morning Doreen said she would help, but not organize Motion: Ewan nominated Elia as organizer. Andrew seconded Motion passsed by unanimous consent Motion: Ewan nominated Doreen as "BOSC 2004 organizer in waiting" Chris seconded Motion passsed by unanimous consent 2003 Hackathon, lead by Ewan Belief that hackathon helped in intergroup cohesiveness and should be repeated Andrew: What about funding? Chris: I3C, through Brian Gilman, may fund the hackathon Cost between 30 to 50 grand Jason: What influence will I3C have on the funding / what will they get out of it? Ewan: Sponser should not have influence on the scedule. May pick some attendees, write press. Hilmar: What about government funding? Ewan: Overhead is prohibitive compared to corporate sponsership. Steven: Could redirect gov't funding through a university (as was done for ISMB, using San Diego) Matthew: hackathon a great idea Lincoln: we should be able to get corporate sponsership pretty easily - great press ??? - didn't get much output / documentation / etc. Ewan: we should invite documenters Hilmar: What about a 'doc-athon'? Ewan: doc people may find the social interactions of a hackathon more useful Motion: Create a hackathon committee with Ewan as chair. Main goals are to identify funding sources and site for hackathon. Chris seconded. Motion passsed by unanimous consent Misc., lead by Ewan Chris: Interest earned by idle cash Motion: Chris Investigate ways to make interest in no-risk way to make interest. Ewan seconded. Motion passsed by unanimous consent OBF Branding Should we work on a logo? Tentative yes. Idea is to get community input for logo and get a professional organization to cleaned up. Also work on unifying web pages, etc. Hilmar: Why? Chris: Help present a more professional image Ewan: Likes O|B|F Andrew agrees. Motion by Steven that Chris can spend up to $2,000 on the branding project, with further discussion to occur. Ewan seconded. Motion passsed by unanimous consent Digital certificates BioJava wants to sign jar files May want secure web connections May want multiple certificates, eg, one for the different projects. Lincoln: certificates for web different than for jar and has its own costs. Agreed that we can ignore secure web connections. Chris: jar signing costs a few $100 a year Matthew: who has signing authority? Virus scanning of inbound and outbound mail. Ewan: Authorize Chris to look into virus scanning and digital certificates, report costs and benefits, and allow a vote on expenses over email. Andrew seconds. Motion passsed by unanimous consent Steven: relevant NIH grants, like conference grants we are a "rounding error" compared to most conferences but grant administration has overhead Another grant: PAs, as for software development should we investigate that? Probably no, but proposing the idea Andrew: what is a PA? Program announcement, interested in area, expect to spend money, doesn't guarantee funding, but encourages. Lincoln: some can be recurring Doreen: funds for technical writer or other non-developer Chris: OBF lacks in administration; what's the overhead? Lincoln (and Steven): would need to admin through a site (like CSHL) with experience in admin'ing these sorts of grants. Ewan: We direct and support groups which get the PA funding, rather than go through us. Is that feasible? Lincoln: Study sections are mostly concerned about the likelihood of success, so shouldn't be a problem Decided that Steven would encourage others to work with the OBF, but not really look for it outselves, unless it was really adventagous. No need for a motion. More enthusiastic about the NIH grant Steven: we should provide more funding to speakers Ewan suggested that Doreen look into funding, esp. long term (5 year funding) from NIH Chris offered to help Steven: Do we need a response to the ISCB open source statement found in .... ? Some statements are quite wrong, in the view of many open source people. Ewan: OBF stay away from policy influence as an organization Andrew: why bother? Steven: what about a simple statement in the minutes? Johann: Win (and others) pointed out corrections before it was published, and it still went through. Janet: would it interfere with our associations with ICMB? Lincoln: we should be a more vocal source Ewan: but we are a support organization, not leading the direction. Uncomfortable with setting the direction. Lincoln: this is a clarification of our policy Lincoln: should there be a response? No, theirs is a reponse to ours. First, check our statement to see if we agree with it. Ewan: reads statement aloud Ewan and Andrew are still comfortable. Some questions about wording. Steven clarified. Chris: we should mention this to people tomorrow, esp. those who are members, to reponse individually Lincoln: document will be used as leverage to funding agencies to justify research proposal. Eg, "this is the ISCB approved level 3 development model". Used for policy decisions. Jason: as members we should be offended, but OBF? not sure. Andrew: I haven't read this document yet. Ewan: Stay away from "journalistic ping-pong" Steven: vote was close. Be polite, but make our point (as ISCB members) known. ???: could argument from a technical level be used for leverage. Ewan and Lincoln: no Matthew: statement should say what open source means Motion by Ewan to modify statement to point to the opensource.org definition of "open source" and to confer later to clarify our position. Steven seconded. Motion passsed by unanimous consent Vote to accept minutes of last meeting. Unanimous consent. Make meeting minutes available. Question about making comments from people publically available. No one objected nor wanted to be anonymous. Mark Wilkinson wanted to assign BioMOBY copyright to OBF Consensus is that we see no problems with that ??? what about moving services to collab.net / sourceforge-style installation Ewan: suggest talking with Chris about that; don't yet need board involvement Lincoln: keep our own hardware. Yep. Steven: want to make publications at least as available as the software. Ewan: declined to accept that topic -- getting late Hilmar: How do we handle nominations for new board members? Expanding the board? Chris: we have some templates already which we could use Chris: call for suggestions (eg, from church groups and other non-profits organization Action item: Hilmar will look into this Chris proposed we adjurn. Ewan seconded. Motion passed by unanimous consent.