2009 Meetings Meetings of the Full Board from 2009.

Meeting - 2009.01.17 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Board of Directors Meeting started: 16:05 Meeting ended: 18:30 Next Meeting: 16:00 Sat 01/24/2009 Attending: J., Maureen, Bekah, Andy, Van, Greg Agenda: Brief update on J.'s trip to Orlando Sympathetic groups in AIAA Astrosociology Non-profit contacts at MIT create new project for J. that may or may not pertain to Mach 30 Update on Incorporation Paperwork Discuss and if possible consense on Articles of Incorporation (including stated purpose) Discuss what needs to be done to complete Bylaws and Consensus Process -> goal is to hand off bulk of this work to task force Address Staff versus Officers Question At this stage of the game, it turns out we should be focusing on officers of the Board rather than staff titles (which is what we assigned at previous meeting), so we should look at what changes we want to make in titles to get back in line with where we should be Initial discussion on early funding strategies Incorporating, etc requires that we pay fees to the state we may want to have legal council review our work which would also cost money (note, alternatively, we could hire legal council to prepare and file all of the paper work, but that would be much more costly) Discussion: Brief update on J.'s trip to Orlando Met a Chief Scientist from Orbital who was intrigued by our ideas, J. is still in contact over email AIAA Space Colonization TC may overlap with our goals, J. is in conversation about potentially joining the TC Met a PhD student MIT who is passing word around MIT and who is introducing J. to the founder DevelopSpace.net J.'s new side project - Cartoon series to "sell" the history of early space flight to kids (9-12); Does this fit into Mach 30? Not at present. J. will pursue outside of Mach 30. Astrosociology Institute

Asside from Greg, started talking to retired Systems Engineering Prof again who is interested in our efforts and rapid development process Asside from J., sounds like a good reason to prep a Mach 30 presentation (J. would also present to thesis committee to discuss PhD studies related to Mach 30) - Greg and J. to get together this week to discuss Update on Incorporation Paperwork Articles of Inc - need to discuss the purpose and initial directors "hasten" - lots of support for this "entry by private enterprise" Maureen is concerned that this prevents us from going into space ourselves "entry for all"? Van - too restrictive? Bekah - should it be more inclusive? Andy - open to going to new phrase, but not as worried about restriction Greg - purpose should be broad, but should clearly define what we are trying to do - real goal to promote entry by other industries into space J. - to J, private enterprise leads to economic interest, necessary to promote real movement into space Maureen, "and space travel for all" hand off word smithing task force -> start with excercise brainstorm Mach 30 activities to give boundaries to "purpose task force" - bold = space faring, italics = overlap, underline = want to include, crossed out = out of bounds building space ships creating tools for others to build space ships create and promote open design practices have a museum of space flight - fits into promoting space culture create and promote creative management processes (engineering - design and production) run a theme park have space stations have bases on the moon go to mars have an educational institution to train engineers in real engineering (not just math, social skills, budgets, leadership) - as covered by create and promote creative management processes gettting kids excited about space - promote space culture promoting a space culture get everyone excited about space (public, the government, schools) - repeat of above asteroid tracking/space cartography/space object tracking/space weather tracking build space colonies hosting engineering contests (space) explore the solar system develop FTL drive(s) live with technologies for space flight on the ground to test them out develop necessary ground systems to support space flight provide facilities/labs for small entities to use in support of their research (engineering by capacity, space use first) R&D into alternative fuels (space)

building a super collider develop a space elevator develop promotional merchandise (does not affect purpose statement) "developing with mature technology, not creating basic science" google has a nice sample mission/purpose statement to reflect on Finance discussion need incorporation task force to prepare budget and short list for how to fund in prep for a board meeting about it

Meeting - 2009.01.24 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Board of Directors Meeting started: 16:15 Meeting ended: 18:20 Next Meeting: Feb 28, 2009 at 16:00 Attending: J., Maureen, Greg, Andy, Bekah Agenda: Continue work on Incorporation Paperwork Discuss and if possible consense on Articles of Incorporation (including revised purpose) Discuss what needs to be done to complete Bylaws and Consensus Process -> goal is to hand off bulk of this work to task force Address Staff versus Officers Question At this stage of the game, it turns out we should be focusing on officers of the Board rather than staff titles (which is what we assigned at previous meeting), so we should look at what changes we want to make in titles to get back in line with where we should be Initial discussion on early funding strategies Incorporating, etc requires that we pay fees to the state we may want to have legal council review our work which would also cost money (note, alternatively, we could hire legal council to prepare and file all of the paper work, but that would be much more costly) Discussion: Incorporation Paperwork Articles of Incorporation Revised purpose/mission statement based on last week's discussion: "To hasten the advancement of humanity into a spacefaring civilization through sustainable leadership, open design practices, and a bias toward mature technology." -- agrement to move forward with this Initial Directors to be listed on articles will be J., Greg, and Maureen Statutory Agent: J. Effective date: date of filing

Call for formal consensus on articles of incorporation, all approve By-Laws and Consensus Rules On qurorum size - Bekah wants to make sure the quorum is not everyone (would never be able to get everyone together all the time) and is not set too small (does not want too small a group to have too much power) Maureen (and others) expressed that we should probably leave out the Exec Committee clause References to majority votes will be addressed by Task Force (changed to formal consensus) Task Force should also review entire by-laws to ensure appropriateness and to bring any specific areas of concern to the attention of the full board Initial discussion on early funding strategies When to hire a lawyer... Greg is comfortable with the condition of the Articles of Inc, and feels comfortable filing them as is Maureen is torn, previous experience she and J spent more than we would have liked, but this is different enough that some guidance might be good Bekah mentioned asking Vicki to look at things Greg - there may be resources available through his benefits at work Andy is ok moving forward with the Articles... J. is generally ok filing Articles, but would be very uncomfortable consensing on the other material without legal review In review, everyone is ready to file the Articles (assuming money is available), but will get legal review of future corp docs Where to get money Greg has offered to supply the filing fee for Articles ($125) as a donation Andy - what needs to happen? We file articles, then by laws and consensus (to be reviewed by lawyer) Maureen - the articles and by-laws establish us as a corp, then we can apply for 501(c)3; Maureen also appreciates Greg's offer, and thinks we should take him up on it, but we need to move forward pretty quickly with budget and fundraising plan Andy - guessing we need around $1000 to get started, does that sound reasonable? J. - proposes the Incorporation Task Force prepare both a budget and a fundraising plan (short term, and longer term) to bring back to the Board and that the Board accept Greg's donation of the filing fee (to be documented by a written receipt of the gift) - approved by formal consensus (Maureen, Andy, Bekah, J. approve; Greg stood aside because it directly involved his money) Scheduling due dates for current work Incorporation Task Force Projects due to the Board on Feb 28, 2009 Prepare Draft Bylaws Prepare Draft Consensus Process Prepare Draft Budgets (short and long term) Prepare Draft Fundraising Plans (short and long term)

Meeting - 2009.04.19 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Board of Directors

Agenda: Review the Incorporation Task Force's first draft of the Bylaws document read each section of the template explain the blanks filled in by the task force summarize the decisions made and review reasoning of the task force Discuss the issues that came up while writing this draft, and seek legal advice to solve them Are staff members allowed on the board of directors? Are Board Members allowed to become staff members How much detail is needed to descrbe the consensus selection of board members Should we make US citizenship a requirement for board membership? Describe the initial steps for documenting consensus rule Meeting started: 14:15 Meeting ended: 16:45 Next Meeting: 4/26/09 @ 15:00 Attending: J., Mo, Greg, Van, Andy, Bekah (6/6) Discussion: Quick announcement: Mike has regretfully resigned from the Board, but still wants to find a way to participate everyone understood that, and appreciated Mike being up front about his availability J and Mike will talk later about other opportunities to participate so, we need to find a Treasurer what are we looking for in a Treasurer? someone with a background in non-profit accounting/bookkeeping (familiar with grants and non-profit financial reporting or is interested in learning and already knows bookkeeping and tax issues) Review the Incorporation Task Force's first draft of the Bylaws document Article 2.2 - per material from book, expanded on mission, important to have adequate box to cover work we plan on doing Article 3.1 - we no longer have 7, is that the correct lower number? currently have 6, should it be 5 or 6? Greg - going to need a new person anyway to fill Treasurer, so going to have 7 Bek - but do we want to feel too much pressure to fill seat? Mo - are we being short sighted, in a year we may be hitting the upper limit instead test for what people want: 5,6,7? Mo - 7, but fine with 6 Andy - 6 or 7 fine, may be over thinking issue Bek - agree with Andy, and 5 does seem too low (6 or 7 is fine) Van - agreed, overthinking - 5 too few, 6 or 7 fine J - 7, understands desire for 6 but prefer 7 Greg - agree with J leaving it at 7 Article 3.4.e - check with lawyer to see if Telegraphing includes email Article 3.8 Andy - likes Sunday better

Bek - agrees, but what about working on Sunday? Mo - leaning toward Sunday no objections to moving it to Sun Article 3.12 Andy - want to recognize that this is a big step, it really commits us to using consensus in the Board (but is all for this way) Mo - wants to honor that J and Mo have lots more experience working with consensus and are both making decision in full awareness J - let us check on who has worked in consensus Van - discussed in Eng Ed Greg - not a big point in military Bek - not formally, but current job tries to listen to all parties Andy - not much Greg - wants to make sure we have sufficient training in consensus for new members to get up to speed Andy - in the fullness of time, develop training Mo - thinks it need to be by the end of the year, and expects to fall in large part on herself Bek - offered to help with print materials Andy - when would this happen? Mo - maybe when we have groups of 3 or 4 new participants that need training (warning, this is all off the top of our heads); but this needs to be taken seriously, and should happen in person; need to decide who participates (maybe whole board?) J - should take training material for a test drive with current board (esp in light of differential in experience of current board in consensus) Mo - we should talk to Greg's sister to seek guidance in putting the training together Article 4.2 - does this mean officers do not need to be board members J - Is it a problem for officiers to not be board members? Bek - do we want to address this (name some that have to be?) J - propose we wait to address this as part of the discussion for consensus process Mo - want to see why we would want to have officers who were not members of the board Greg - what are differences between members of the board, directors of the board, officers of the corp, and staff positions J - I think member of the board is the same as a director of the board J - might be more clear if we look at each of the primary positions Bek - does Sec have to be board member? Andy - wants to discuss the question of membership in detail Mo - it is not uncommon for Sec and Treasurer to be on stafff instead of the board (by way of experience in other orgs) Finished through Article 4

Meeting - 2009.04.25 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Board of Directors

Agenda: Continue to review the Incorporation Task Force's first draft of the Bylaws document read each section of the template explain the blanks filled in by the task force summarize the decisions made and review reasoning of the task force Discuss the issues that came up while writing this draft, and seek legal advice to solve them Are staff members allowed on the board of directors? Are Board Members allowed to become staff members How much detail is needed to descrbe the consensus selection of board members Should we make US citizenship a requirement for board membership? Describe the initial steps for documenting consensus rule Meeting started: 15:05 Meeting ended: 17:10 Next Meeting: 5/10/2009 @ 1500 Attending: J, Mo, Greg, Bekah, Andy Discussion: Maureen has potential leads on a treasurer and a lawyer she has a contact at work in accounting realm, and the firm encourages their young professionals to get involved in the community Maureen has sent this contact an email about Mach 30 and what we are looking for, so we will see if someone is interested Maureen also has a friend that is a lawyer and knows someone who may be able to help in Cinci, a letter of intorduction has been sent and Mo will follow up this week Began review at Article 5 Article 9 Greg - should we address conflict of interest more broadly? Especially how it deals with volunteers? J - I agree that we should acknowledge this in policy, but I believe this goes in the Policy Handbook(s) Mo - should we check with the lawyer about what to do with this? Will ask the lawyer for clarification on this Mo - will the need to recude ourselves in terms of conflict of interest trigger quorum issues? Completed review Discuss the issues that came up while writing this draft, and seek legal advice to solve them the TF wants board approval to seek legal guidance now, and the questions better framed so we can discuss them in the board in a meaningful way Mo - does anyone have concerns about this proposed process? Andy - would like to clear some things up first Mo - right, but some of these issues it is unclear how to even discuss this Andy - can work with that Mo - and this would still come back for further review by the board J - may even have to get guidance on how to set goals and limits on the work of the Task Force to prepare draft language

Andy - that all makes sense Mo - has a lead through personal contacts on a possible lawyer Bek - is there a group that helps non-profits with legal issues? Mo - not sure, so far only found unrelated orgs; need lawyer from Ohio since Mach 30 is ohio corp J - sounds like, everyone is on board with moving forward this way (yes around the room) J - then we need to find the lawyer and proceed there Big thanks to the Task Force for all their hard work to date Describe the initial steps for documenting consensus rule Mo - very box building question: how does the Board feel about emergency out clauses in the consensus clauses?(sometimes groups need/use rules to temporarily suspend consensus to get over rough spot) Bek - likes the idea of including something Mo - true, but sometimes people will use these rules inappropriately; would personally prefer to have it, but want it to be a burden to use to dissuade premature usage Andy - what does J think? J - mostly agrees with Mo; in particluar do not want the system to be abused, but also recognize there are unresolvable conflicts, and may need process to get out of corners Bek - don't want the process to be no consensus, oh move onto other process, and then people game the system Mo - don't want to get into no win scenario Greg - having hard time imagining scenario J - imagine working on the budget, which requires consensus Mo - and someone decides to block unless their position is met (instead of working within the process) Andy - needs more time discuss J - I think Mo and I need to prepare for this discussion

Meeting - 2009.05.09 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Board of Directors Agenda: Revisit decision to incorporate Mach 30 as a non-membership organization Continue discussion of an "escape clause" for consensus rules Meeting started: 16:05 Meeting ended: 17:30 Next Meeting: June 7 @ 1500 (one week early) Attending: J., Mo, Andy, Bekah, Greg, Van Discussion:

Incorporating as a non-membership organization Andy had mentioned previously asked for a brief review of this decision Andy - what is a membership organization? Maureen - In membership organizations, becoming a member confers very specific rights and responsibilities (in particular members have certain decision making authority, such as electing the Board of Directors, approving large decisions like budgets). Members have the capability to drastically alter the direction of the organization. NoLo book recommended being non-members org unless mission specifically requires membership Andy - That all makes sense Van - so non-membership is the current consensus J - well it is the recommendation of the Inc Task Force J - are there any other questions or concerns? (none) Consensus "escape clause" Background web info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making Maureen - at the end of the last Board meeting, Mo brought up the question of whether to have an "escape clause" (if following the full process cannot reach consensus how to move past block), but we were not prepared to fully discuss this last time now working on it again Maureen - want to go back to a more basic conversation about consensus (in particular difficulties involved), and then cover how some other groups have set up their "escape clause" Reviewed Criticisms from Wiki Article Van - under the impression that we were going with a more "super-majority" system Mo - under the impression that we were going to go with a full consensus process, though there are systems that sit somewhere between (for instance "consensus - 1") Mo - Escape clause is partly about balancing not wanting to let one person hold the group hostage, but also respecting legitimate input from one person who is working from a place of good faith to help keep a "bad" decision from being made Mo - want to explore comfortable boundaries for "escape clauses" and basic consensus framework Andy - the criticisms all seem to make sense, and believes that the group can and should be aware of this Mo - it is also important to recognize that important contributions can be shared inappropriately (yelling, rudeness, etc) and the group can miss the important content and the flip side good communicators can get frivilous objections paid attention to = consensus can lean in the favor of good communicators (so facillitators need to be particularly attentive for this) Van - is there a way to put in a process to delay the decision if there is a block so people (including the blocker) can work on a new agreement Mo - actually that is one of the options that some groups use (Mo recommends this one as a quality option) Mo - other options (can mix and match) blocking for personal reasons is not allowed (as opposed to the values of the group); can be somewhat unwieldy can make a list of formal reasons to block; but could miss an important reason until too late can require more than one (set number in rules) people to require block (usually 2 or 3 to block) can have no escape clause some groups have an expulsion clause for unacceptable blocking (usually repeats); the

rest of the bylaws provide for a way to implement removal of a board member, so this is also somewhat superfluous Mo - should the Task Force also consider something like a super majority (for example 75% could override the block)? - no favor for this Mo: summary - sounded like there was a lot of support for blocking party must participate in working on solution to resolve the block (yes); also sounded like the "explusion for over blocking" was already covered in rules for removal of board members (should go in the list of decisions that require formal consensus), working without an escape clause might work now but probably need "escape clause" to secure future, one person equals block (all agreed) On list of formal reasons for blocking Greg - would want to have guidelines around blocking J - recall that facilitators should provide opportunities for feedback during the decsion making process Mo - and it is the responsibility of group members to provide concerns and questions early and often Greg - that is more what I was talking about Mo - and some of this is about training which is coming Andy - and group culture Mo - so want to provide guideline for blocking in the most appropriate way, but not hearing desire to have a limited list of reasons to block (agreed) Mo - so we want an escape clause, but blocker has responsibilty to particpate in resovling the conflict and if they won't then block can be overriden Mo - is there anything else from the last meeting about the escape clause that people want to discuss Greg - no (and no others) Bonus topic - Hacker spaces J.'s blog mach 30 gives overview of hacker spaces So, there have been past discussions on what Mach 30 hq look like (Van - Starfleet) Reviewed hackerspaces and "insanely connected skunk works" Van - there could be opportunities to set up spaces at universities Andy - and school money Greg - also discussed the idea that all Mach 30 spaces could have telecon setups to supprot inter-space projects Van - and could have a way to advertise projects and spaces and locations Greg - some of that is on hacker space wiki J - also talked about "membership" could get you access to all mach 30 spaces Andy - so does that imply mach 30 has dues Greg - as needed to support operating the spaces, and other benefits Mo - too soon to really talk about this, but it could be a form of mission driven income to support other programs J. - so the question is should we and do we have the resources to start doing this Bek - don't we need money before we spend money? Could look for donations of spaces, so don't necessarily need to spend large sums to get started Andy - other question is priority; could be great grass roots way of getting our name out (esp to our main demographic) Mo - sees how it could be a distraction, but thinks it could be moral boosting activity J - so sounds like there is enough interest to make a more formal agenda item about this as setup for a possible taskforce Greg - also good to know that there are other folks in Dayton interested in starting a Dayton

Hacker Space

Meeting - 2009.06.07 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Board of Directors Agenda: Introduce Missy to the full board & decide with her input how to best incorporate her into the organization Update on finding a lawyer Hacker Space update and decisions on next steps Meeting started: 15:05 Meeting ended: 16:30 Next Meeting: 7/12/09 @ 15:00 Attending: J., Maureen, Missy, Greg, Bekah, Van, and Andy Discussion: Introduce Missy Introduced Board Members (in Dayton, Bristol, and Blacksburg) and Missy, round robin style Missy works for Bradyware (an accounting firm in Dayton), she is a CPA (second career), does mostly audits of nonprofits Missy is intersted in experiencing the process of starting a nonprofit (this will be her first time, but has wealth of resources to seek guidance through office) Maureen - want to make sure that Missy has the opportunity to participate at the level she wants to but still not feel pressure to over commit Missy - don't need to be on the Board, but is happy to do so J - I expect that the short term (next several months) we would be looking at a higher demand for work (finishing incorporation paperwork, etc), tapering into mostly board meetings, managing books, and helping with the budget Missy - that would work for her J - call for consensus on asking Missy to join the Board - all agree no stand asides or blocks J - quick review of the consensus process Update on finding a lawyer Missy - knows people at Generation Dayton, and had a lunch with a lawyer who is a member Got some names of nonprofit lawyers in Dayton One of which is a big name regionally Really looking for a more beginning lawyer who can learn form the experience Missy will email the lawyers she got names of and ask them if they know anyone who fits the bill Hacker Spaces and Dayton Diode

J - Hacker spaces = place for tech oriented people to come together to work on single or group projects J - this is something that might be a useful way to organize Mach 30 volunteers to work on Mach 30 projects J - met with Dayton Diode founder, offered access to Mach 30 facillitators to help with initial community meetings Greg - has been participating on the Dayton Diode group, investigating level of interest in the group Greg - feels there is enough interest to hold a community meeting Several - want to ensure equal collaboration between Mach 30 and Dayton Diode, need to be careful of Mach 30 level of leadership in Dayton Diode process Mo - what is next Greg - can offer a facillitator as the next step J - second that Mo - so let's extend that offer to Joe, including offer of co-marketing of the community meeting Inc Task Force update Greg - so we should meet as full TF J - I would say we should get together and go over what needs to happen to complete the bylaws and 501c3 application; move forward as possible, bring needs and/or results to Board at next Board meeting Maureen to organize date and time for Task Force Meeting (rest of TF send conflicts between now and July 12)

Meeting - 2009.07.12 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Board of Directors Agenda: Updates from Inc Taskforce (501c3 paperwork, consensus rules) Update on hackerspace work (first public meeting of Dayton Diode held, J and Mo attended) Update on finding a lawyer (Missy and Mo) Initial discussion on developing a marketing plan (Goals, tie-in with fundraising, and what marketing team needs in way of support) Meeting started: 15:05 Meeting ended: 17:00 Next Meeting: Aug 9 @ 15:00 Attending: J., Mo, Missy, Greg, Van, Andy, Bekah Discussion: Updates from Inc Taskforce Consensus Policy (J and Mo) - see new page on the Mach 30 website, under the bylaws;

scoping of the 7 sections has begun - questions or comments feel free to send to us (best way would be to post comment on the page). Looking to make this clear for people new to consensus, so please ask any questions that come to mind. IRS form for 501c3 status (form 1023) (Missy and Greg) - Missy has reviewed Greg's first pass through the form. There are a few areas that need to be addressed (narrative on activities, financial info - important area to tackle next, fundraising activities and action plans for those activities, compensation plans - see bylaws, Article 9). Underlined material represents mostly new work and needs input from the Board. There are some estimates on budget for Aurora. Update on hackerspace work exploring idea of hackerspaces as part of making open design work there is a dayton hackerspace starting up (Dayton Diode) J and Mo offered to facilitate for dayton diode, and this offer was accepted First meeting had diverse group of ages and experiences showed up (10-15 people attended) The group had good experience with the meeting style as facilitated, and worked on list of tasks to accomplish to get started and set regular business meetings (see Dayton Diode wiki for details) J and Mo will continue to participate and faciliate for the forseeable future Found some interest in Mach 30 from individuals that attended the meeting - may indicate that hackerspaces would be good place to lok for supporters in the future Update on finding a lawyer Missy - met with an attorney and got two names of big non-profit attorneys in Dayton; emailed those, and no response. Talked to the Dayton Bar, they do not do referrals for pro bono work. Only other group to contact specializes in pro bono work for criminal cases. What about looking for someone to pay? - would start with small fee for initial meeting to find out how much the rest of the work would cost. Maureen - talked to first year law student at UD, and UD has a law clinic and an organization that helps graduates get first position out of school. Not certain, but this may be a way to find the type of person we are looking for. J - if the UD contacts do not pan out, it will be time to find someone to pay Missy will get referral from Bar for paid assistance, and Mo will follow up with UD contacts Initial discussion on developing a marketing plan Start of new discussion. Will probably discuss goals of the marketing plan, tie-in with fundraising, and what marketing team needs in way of support Greg - will this go to task force? - J: probably a standing committee Andy - actions (goals, budget, getting marketing team together, and setting up initial meeting) Goal/Call to action get Mach 30 name recognition, raise supporters, fundraising, something else? Mo - 3 different goals and 3 plans: name recognition, fundraising, and Aurora (2 parts: fundraising and participants); need to be sure to have different messages for the different target audiences Andy - need to remember to make sure different messages are sync'ed up Van - how does need to funding to support Aurora affect marketing Aurora Bek - can help develop marketing material handbook for internal use, we have done much of the pre-work for generating marketing material regarding the organization; remember that each element of campaign needs to have an action we want audience to take Mo - the internal marketing handbook is an important tool Greg - another goal: increasing participation in Mach 30 (volunteers)

Andy - this should be one of our calls to action Andy - these are all good goals, but it would help to prioritize them Mo (and others) - increase participation = call to action of name recognition goal Andy - that leaves three good and substantial goals Mo - agrees, this is a good place to start (Greg ditto) J - can we execute all three goals now? Mo - follow up: there is a difference between planning for all three and executing these goals J - in the past we have discussed using the first project as a way of earning name recognition, do we want to discuss that at all? Andy - little bit of chicken and egg; proposes name recognition to base of supporters, then use Aurora to go to next level Andy - we have new, cool idea which is note worthy, Aurora will represent big note worthy event; need call to action to really ignite the fire; why should press publish our stories Greg - in other words, what is the sense of urgency? -- the end of shuttle and the gap? Mo - also need to have a meaningful way for people to participate Bek - could call people to have personal fund raising events to raise money for Mach 30; what about atheletic events ("The Space Race", run, walk, 5k, etc?), could put together packages to help organizers Andy - or the Obama house party type ideas (raise money and support) Andy - is there work that could be done? Greg - has a list in his blog (lots of it is technical), but it is a start of actionable items Mo - just getting people to blog about space on mach30.org to get increased content and traffic Andy - remember the book idea for list of space ships, what about making this a user generated project Van - consider encouraging groups to put together sounding rockets budget Andy - can work with wide scale of budgets Mo - need to get into habit of setting a budget for marketing (Greg ditto) Van - how do we go from where we are to fundraising event Andy - news stories (for instance in Pop Sci) are free, but may not get run, internet, targeting universities (especially engineering programs) Mo - some money would still help for covering prints, advertising, etc J - does budgeting for an amount beyond our ability to self fund help us get that money? Mo - yes Missy - can start fundraising by looking for seed money; majority of money usually comes from donors vs events (events have costs associated with them). Maybe first pass is to look for seed money to get going. Mo - that is a good idea Missy - need to target people that have money and who would be interested in the mission J - can the committee take it from here? Andy - probably yes Greg - there is a draft budget for Aurora in the team docs for Aurora Marketing Team members

Andy, Mo (wants to move from Inc TF to marketing), Greg (would like to time permitting especially in reference to Inc TF), Bek Andy will send out invites for initial meeting of Marketing Team, Andy and J will get together to setup Marketing Team group on mach30.org

Meeting - 2009.08.09 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Board of Directors Agenda: Update from Task Forces and committees Discuss potential for holding a retreat in the neaer future Conduct the "Assets Inventory" Meeting started: 15:08 Meeting ended: 17:15 Next Meeting: Sep 13, 2009 @ 15:00 Attending: J, Greg, Missy, Bekah, Andy, Van Discussion: Task Force(s) / Committee(s) update: Inc. Task Force Bylaws (Consensus Policy) - draft outline is posted as an appedix to the bylaws page everyone should read through the document template and provide comments IRS form 1023, list of 10 items for requiring additional work: narratives, compensation, intelectual property, fundraising, Compensation is an issue that might be too soon to know what it's going to look like Recruiting a lawyer - request sent to the Dayton Bar Assn. (non-pro-bono work) $25 for initial meeting to get an estimate of work involved and sense of the laywer's capability Marketing First meeting will be organized this week. Plan to review the marketing related activitiy of the July Board meeting. Good idea to review the Organization's Mission documentation (in airset?) Retreat discussions Topics: Facilitation and Consensus training Mach 30 organiational Goals discussion Staff member vs Board member level work and responsibilities Review of the Acquisition/System Engineering process Timing: Van might have conflicts in the September timeframe but October is better.

Sept 26-27 works for Missy, Andy, Rebekah, Greg, Columbus day (10-11 Oct) is another viable option. J will check with Mo Retreat planning: Andy, Bekah maybe but not sure, Greg is able to help plan Van: Will goal planning done by the marketing committee overlap with Goals discussion of the retreat? Marketing team will look 5 years or less, and Retreat will cover longer term strategic goals Conduct Assets Inventory Values, Vision, Mission- Values that we hold and associate with your organization Entrepreneurial spirit, foster that in others Respect for others and their work Develop the culture of open-source, sharing ideas and time&energy sustainable leadership transparency preference for mature technology How would the world be different when you are done? Greg - safe sustained access to space for everyone J - when common people can take vacations to Tranquility Base (like they go to Smithsonian now) Bekah - when there is a Starbucks in space (a starbucks on every asteroid) Van - pass Missy - when there are many open design projects (in many fields), and there is recognition that open design is a valuable process for engineering and design of products/technology What is the mission of the org safe, sustained, reliable, routine access to space also see bylaws and articles for previous work What are ongoing programs/projects develop a community - supporting Dayton Diode Aurora - developed goals/mission/requirements for reusable human rated launch vehicle Development of sourceforge for open design - tbd What are core competencies? Group facilitation background (J, Mo) Aerospace engineers on the board (J, Van, Greg) Group development and organization (Mo) Marketing/PR (Andy, Bekah) Finance (Missy) Art production/Graphic design (Bekah) Web development (J, Van) Strong professional network How will you measure effectiveness number of open design projects on the sourceforge for space production of flying hardware as the result of mach 30 projects companies using the results of projects in their biz media coverage/presence level of excitement about space space exploration stats - number of flights, number of people in space, number spacecraft, (number of starbucks in space ;) level of acceptance of open design as a method (needs refinement) - market share?

Do you attract media visibility? not yet, have not engaged the media yet Key quals of Board and Staff Van - BS from VT Aerospace Eng, currently MS student at VT in Ocean Engineering Bekah - BA in Fine Arts (painting and Digital Art), has held art shows in local galleries Andy - will earn BA in Mass Comm focus in PR, minor in history; Chariman of Marketing and Comm Committee at First United Methodist Church in Bristol, TN Greg - BS Aerospace Engineering from Texas A&M, currently MS student in Astro Engineering at AFIT; Program Manager for R&D programs at AFRL and other Air Force facilities Missy - BS in Management and Info Systems, BS in Accounting; CPA J - MS in Space Systems Engineering from AFIT, currently PhD student in Space Systems Engineering at AFIT; served for several years as a member of the facilitation team at Shadowlake Village, have experience in open source softeware (as user) Mo - MFA in Arts Administration from VT; worked with the Orchestra Forum and currently works for DTMA Have board members received recognition for their talents or contributions? J - DAGSI PhD fellowship Greg - commendation medal and achievement medals for program management work Mo - scholarship/fellow at VT for MFA What percentage of the board members make contributions to the org? 14% (1 member) How long has the org existed? established in 2006 incorporated in 2009 How does your work differ from other similar groups? compare us to Planetary Society, Mars Society, etc - those groups focus on advocacy and trying to convince the gov to expand space exploration (lobbying); and we are set up to be a conduit for volunteers to do the work themselves compare us to X Prize - they are also encourage people to participate directly in space exploration, but we go further and encourage people to openly share their tools, techniques, and designs what recognition has your org received? not yet name the instituions that support your work corps - Phoenix Integration has agreed to sponsor web site hosting on our new web server How many individuals pay dues or make contributions? none yet How diversified is your financial base? tbd Greg - now might be a good time to check back in with Mike G to see if he is available to help with some fundraising work

Meeting - 2009.09.13 - "Board of Directors"

Committee Name: Board of Directors Agenda: Reports from committees: Marketing and Incorporation Discussion on Mach 30 Capacity Heading check for Mach 30 work in the remainder of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 Meeting started: 15:05 Meeting ended: 17:00 Next Meeting: Oct 11, 2009 @ 15:00 Attending: J., Mo, Greg, Bekah, Missy, Andy, Van Results: Draft Strategic Plan for 2010 Discussion: Reports from committees: Marketing Props to Bek for taking minutes at Marketing meeting Marketing Team had some discussion about capacity in their meeting; don't really have capacity to do a lot right now, but want to prepare plan so team is ready to go when capacity becomes available Reviewing scope marketing plan should have, then will work on plan (start with a skeleton, then fill it in - phone calls ad needed) Goal is to have marketing plan in ~3 months Really going to work to keep the scope of this limited to Marketing (specifically not going to let Strategic Plan creep in) - but it would be good to prepare at Board level a Strategic Plan Greg - so, this work will not include development of the fundraising plan J - the board has started discussing fundraising at the last meeting, more to come at the Board level Incorporation J - talked at the beginning of the meeting about setting focus of the TF to be on completing incorpration by next ISPCS (10/21/2009) Missy - has reviewed the 1023 form again, and has some material on conflict of interest, info on Board members, board compensation, questionaire on business/family relationships; Greg is working on the narrative Have an appointment for initial consult with a lawyer (9/23) J - drafted about 1/2 of the consensus policy, Maureen is still editing J - also have a cash gift of $500 to start a checking account, I will open that on Mon 9/14/2009 Mo - who should be signatories? - traditional to have Pres, VP, and Treasurer all have signing power Missy - should probably start with 2; can name person at account setup, and 2nd person can come later to get setup J - 2nd signature should be on formal inc docs

Mo - should be Greg agreement with Greg being 2nd signature on checking account Andy - what bank? Greg - no real national banks here, so will go with a regional one J - I have used National City in the past - no problems in group Discussion on Mach 30 Capacity J - so what brought this up for me was the simultaneous committee meetings and some members reporting a lack of time to do more work at Mach 30 Mo - also need to consider the amount of work that has "chicken-and-egg" problems that need to be worked on at the same time in order to smoothly move forward, but there is no way to do this quickly - "I don't know how Mach 30 can move any faster, and that is frustrating" - and that is before doing the "real" projects Greg - now that is getting to the heart of it Greg - goes back to recruiting, need to make sure we have a clear vision and work for new people to work on and make contributions Mo - it is tempting to just make lists, but without a "plan" it is something of a crap shot; regular progress checks need a bar to measure against (aka - the plan) Mo - want to make sure that every step we take is 100% committed to our mission Missy - agree, we all have outside jobs so time is precious Greg - ok, got it now Mo - and probably real place to work is somewhere in between (reconizing that this is a balance between Mo's and Greg's positions) J - reminds me of the Steve Jobs quote "The perfect is the enemy of the good" - I would think what we have is not enough, but a pretty narrative plan is too much - what about a 2 level deep bulleted list (that is headings and 1 level of sub-points) for next 6-12 months? - strong agreement Mo - it would be useful to hear from people about how they are feeling in terms of work load Missy - Mach 30 work is not too taxing now, but had hoped to have the 1023 done by beginning of the year because too busy from Jan - May Andy - feel a little overwhelmed these days, need to cut back some for now (new job, school starting, etc); J - did the work on Marketing seem sustainable? - answer: think so Missy had to leave, Van joined Bekah - similar place to Andy, can't devote a whole lot of time right now, feels Marketing committee work is doable Greg - not quite sure yet, just about to start MS work; so far been ok J - probably right at the edge of my personal capacity, some of my work (school and Mach 30) stretches my skills, don't know what to do though Greg - had talked about when committees can work more independently, is this the time to discuss that more? Mo - this is probably another place where the Strat Plan comes into play, but there is probably some work like that, the Marketing Committee comes to mind (there are even some folks on mach30.org that may be able to help) Mo - right now, keeping head above water, and right now, ready to go, but after a full day of work, not so much. plus Oct is a crazy month at work, so not going to have a lot of time for the next month Van - this level of work is sustainable for now, school is not overwhelming for the time being; would have time for technical committee work J - so, looks like we either need to be able to quit our day jobs, or we need to find a way to bring in more people Mo - yes, in fact really need to work on "Building structure" - incorporation work, funding,

and volunteers (really getting into strat planning) Heading check for Mach 30 work in the remainder of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 J - summarized mission to goals (spacefaring civilization, needs routine access to space, so we need Aurora) J - what stands between us and doing Aurora? I see three things Incorporation work (501c3, incorporation paperwork, build capacity, funding) Open Design support systems (web site for sharing designs and work, open design licenses, etc) ITAR policies (open design space presents national security challenge) Mo - so our top level goal is to (in 12 months) launch the Aurora contest, and to do that need to do Incorporation work done, Open design work, and ITAR challenges - J, yes Greg - earlier, Mo mentioned we should consider working on a technical project as well J - I would say that supporting open design work would count as being on mission Mo - true, but maybe not "space" enough Greg - we should get people together to start building the larger Mach 30 community J - I like what Greg said about building community, not just technology J - I would say adding "Community Building" is a good 4th bullet to strat plan J - then with an eye towards launching the Aurora program, the 4 bullets above would constitute the top level part of the strat plan Mo - what about saying then the goal for the strat plan is to announce the Aurora contest officially at the 2010 ISPCS? Greg - that may depend, but could set as a goal and check it out quarterly J - straw poll: Mo - yes, Bek - pass, Greg - (not much tech left, more capacity) - tentatively ok, Andy - like the sounds of it - may need to reeval, Van - sounds good - what about ITAR (not addressed yet), J - would support this, but recognize it will be a stretch J - will create Strat Plan page and link to it from these minutes

Meeting - 2009.10.11 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Full Board Agenda: Present findings from initial meeting with Anne Thompson (attorney with Gudorf Law group) Discuss our way ahead for getting an affordable Legal review Review draft consensus process Strategic planning (time permitting) Meeting started: 15:05 Meeting ended: 17:00 Next Meeting: October 11, 2009 Attending: J., Mo, Missy, Van, Greg, Andy, Bekah Pre-meeting notes:

(Greg) These comments were recorded from our initial meeting with Gudorf Law group. Some items below are questions that were asked, some items are summarized from the answers to a given question. I have tried to include some basic context whenever possible. Who will be our consensus facilitator for difficult and controversial decisions? What happens if this person cannot fulfill the "neutral moderator" role? Would we hire a person from an external agency? Answer: Plan to work toward having more board members trained in facilitation to improve chances of having neutral facilitator internally; failsafe would be seeking outside facilitator when needed Action Item: Describe the organizational structure of Mach 30. Context- when working with other organizations what will agreements look like if they are with external stakeholders? Will it require a board level member from that organization? Answer: It depends, and will be on a caseby-case basis. It will be different for long-term partnerships vs. short term funding projects. Where will we get our funding? Answer: 1) Private Donors and 2) Fund raising campaigns by volunteers. Context- we will try to keep operating expenses low by having a mostly volunteer workforce (note: engineering programs' costs primarily driven by employee costs). Action Item: How will you reach out to get volunteers? ... (and similarly) How can you ensure that the individuals that volunteer actually have the skills? much less all of the necessary skill sets to accomplish these projects? ... should think about this at Board level Action Item: Using a term from the Open-source community: "commiters" (as in source code in repositories) How does this term apply to Mach 30 processes? ... Related issue - ensuring volunteers can also deliver material on time when it is important Look for ITAR guidence in cities with space-centric populations like Mojave, Houston, Orlando, Washington DC. Context: How are you going to work out the underlying issues with US Dept of State? Anne recommends pushing hard on the IRS form 1023 because that may take more than 1 iteration back and forth with "the service" (IRS). Don't get bogged down in this administrative paperwork and never actually make it to your mission. Context: The goal is to have the first submission turned in by the end of Dec. 2009 and be able to announce the Aurora Program at an annual new space conference like ISPCS in October 2010. Cost for future lawyer advice: Expect a letter through the mail in the next week outlining the "reduced hourly rate" and consider participation in a Corporate Council program with a flat annual fee once we're more established. Discussion: initial meeting with lawyer went in to initial consult (9/23) expecting to meet for about 30 min, but wound up discussing Mach 30 with Anne for about 90 min there were lots of questions back and forth (notes above summarize the discussion) received letter of engagement (9/29), rates were higher than we may have preferred (Missy indicates this is probably a good discount) Greg's take away - very impressed by level of detail and engagement during the meeting J - also very impressed with the meeting, thinks Anne Thompson would be able to help us with what we need path forward on legal assistance Maureen - are concerns re: cost about value of the service or how much we can afford: really about what we can afford general sense, need to move forward, the question becomes how much it will really cost and how to pay for it Maureen - there is also a value in "paying for valuable services"

J - can ask Anne for an estimated cost for the by-laws then question is, how to raise any addtional needed funds Maureen - just launched a pledgie drive for work, and it is showing real promise; could use this as a test drive of fundraising at Mach 30 (should get budget first to set goal) - send out request to board members' contacts, and to mach30.org website members Van - how is this different from just using paypal? - answer: incorporates social media, and fundraising processes Bekah - is there a donate now button on mach30.org? - answer: not yet but there could be Andy - like the idea of separating the ask for money from the main content of mach30.org Maureen - in the future, that may not be possible, but for now it is a very good point Greg - should be sure to report this in 1023 and include it in fundraising plan J - so, is there support for setting up a "need a lawyer pledgie campaign" based on estimated cost = yes Maureen - can the marketing committee review the copy? (yes: Andy, Bekah, Greg), and want to check that people will be comfortable asking their "networks" for donations (yes, the group will try) Bekah - may be able to get a sample email invitation to donate put together (Greg ditto'ed this, and can send out his letter) Greg - will this earmark the money? Maureen - there are two options at pledgie: 1) goal based (when you reach the goal, campaign closes), 2) open ended - choice 1 can build excitement Greg - want to make sure if there is enough excitement, want to capture excess funds J - in the interest of simplicity, let's start with one campaign and build form there (redirect to new campaigns) so going with this firm, going to get an estimate for the bylaws, and start a pledgie campaign review consensus policy section 2 stakeholder - can this include organizations in the consensus process? - probably not, but what to do about organizations as "stakeholders" as they relate to this process? appreciative inquiry - tbd, and is there a flip side of appreciative inquiry that should be defined in section 2 section 3 greg - final sentence: have you considered making that stronger => requirement instead of encourage Maureen - good point, but concerned about authoritarianism Van - "should"? Andy - re: over all feeling - an example would help to understand what this will really mean Maureen - at present, the Board is managing th marketing plan, if we had a staff marketing manager while that was still the case, we would invite that staff member to be included as a participant in the consensus decision regarding the marketing plan Greg - if we were forming a partnership with an outside organization, a representative from the other org would be included in our decision process (including right to block) in the devlopment of the partnership terms Andy - comfortable with the idea, but want to make sure there is training (especially for people from outside that might work in different ways) to ensure the process will work J - it is also worth noting that we have a culture of transparency in our meetings that helps newcomers learn how to participate Greg - this relates back to the last sentence, maybe more than just familiarize, we will

provide training? Section 4 Maureen - worth noting, none of these involve non-board members, would have to elevate a decision and decide to invite to get guest participants J - at least for now, we may learn that certain decisions should be included and add to the list, so we will have to wait and see how this plays out if necessary, could meet to wrap up this material the last weekend of Oct, otherwise will continue at Nov board meeting

Meeting - 2009.11.15 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Full Board Agenda: Reports Update on Lawyer (J.) Update on Pledgie campaign (Mo) Report from impromptu Inc TF Meeting on 11/08 Website: Licensing and Terms of Service (J.) Continue review of Consensus Policy Time Permitting: Continue Work on Strategic Planning (start with elements of community building) Meeting type/How called: Regular/Rescheduled by Greg Moran Notice: Email Location: Phone bridge Meeting started: 15:10 Meeting ended: 17:15 Next Meeting: Regular Dec Meeting Attending: Greg, Missy, Maureen, J., Bekah, Andy Discussion: Reports Update on Lawyer (J.) sent in letter of engagement and email for estimated cost for bylaws review received initial reply that estimate would be forthcoming no more emails and I have sent a reminder email without response (J. will call this week) Update on Pledgie campaign (Mo) per last meeting, going to run a pledgie campaign to fund legal review of bylaws (still

do not have estimate on legal costs) Mo drafted pledgie campaign (Greg and Bekah edited draft) campaign is broken into general campaign, and lawyer campaign - there have been discussions on expanding legal campaign to cover corp material and other legal material (open design licenses, ITAR, etc) first question: how do we want to approve final draft of campaign J - board previously approved running the campaign, and language is probably decision for the Marketing Committee Mo - there are some suggestions that may not be improvements, how to resolve those? Bekah/Andy - these are suggestions, as long as noone has expressed major concerns, make best decision on new language Mo - then will send out revised version to Marketing for final approval over email second question: how to work the two campaigns together Greg - based on rates, we could put together our own estimate, and get the campaign going Mo - thinks the pitch for the general campaign is stronger than the legal campaign Bekah - why not just have a general campaign? Mo - the way it is setup now is there are two campaigns (legal would be subcampaign of the main campaign) J - is there a problem re-using significant portions of the general campaign text Missy - re-use would only be visible for the duration of the smaller campaign anyway Mo - so sounds like we should re-use the what/who is Mach 30? Mo - what order should this be in? Greg - depends on who our audience is (if we send it to people who know us, put ask first, if general public put who first) Bekah - if you go to pledge site, you likely know what the cause is, so ask first is answer? Mo - yes Mo - last question, general fund or corp lawyer fund Andy - ask for what we need now, can use general fund for other legal needs later J - plus, can always run additional campaigns for other needs Mo - do we also want to add call to action for lawyers to help us instead of give money general sense is yes Mo - so going to set target without specific estimate, re-use some text, going to hook up paypal to checking account, then launch campaign mo - does anyone need assistance putting their emails to contacts put together? Bekah - would like to see sample again Greg - when do we plan on sending this out? Mo - could be ready next week (need rest of board to be sure to reply to emails from Mo on this project quickly to keep things moving forward) Report from impromptu Inc TF Meeting on 11/08 greg, Mo, and J went ahead and used last week's time for a TF meeting looked at 1023 (specifically narrative) did quick review of minutes from meeting Bekah - will review minutes, and what do we need to know at this meeting

Mo - take away is that the three of us did a lot of potentially influential work, need to open that work up to feedback from the rest of the board to make sure we are on the same page J - then we will take this up at next board meeting as an agenda topic Greg - this was very strategic level work Bekah - how exciting we are doing that kind of work Andy - ditto Website: Licensing and Terms of Service (J.) J - current copyright/TOS are boilerplate, would like to open them up some (should this be web team level work?) Mo - if this is going to be CreativeCommons, and inline with Mach 30 values, then go forth, if there is something out of the box that comes up, bring it back agreement around this J - will report back on what has been updated at next meeting Continue review of Consensus Policy reviewed work from last time (through section 4) def of appreciative inquire = good strengthening language on participants being familiar with process = good def of stakeholders - definition is probably correct - confusion was around participant vs stakeholder (decisions are made by participants, which should represent the major stakeholders) section 5 no questions/comments section 6 Greg - will underlined text stay in final draft? J - no section 7 stuck on how to override block (specifically when is it allowed) too specific may enable people to "game" the decision and out wait a block but may be hard to know if due diligence is being done, so some guidance may be good Greg - not sure having a number of tries is fair Mo - what about instead of number of meetings it was period of time? J - what time sensitive decisions? Greg - what about setting any limits at the time of the block? Bekah - that could work Greg - blocker would be asked to help set any limits Mo - that is interesting, it implies the blocker is working from good intentions which is good Bekah - assume honorable intentions, get honorable actions (most of the time) Mo - still somewhat concerned the heat of the moment is a hard place to work like this Bekah - what if there was 24 hours to set the limits

Meeting - 2009.12.20 - "Board of Directors" Committee Name: Full Board

Agenda: Reports Missy's Resignation (J) Website Licensing/ToS (J) Pledgie Campaign (Mo) Response from the Lawyer (J) Continue Work on Consensus Policy Review Strategic Planning Work done by Inc Task Force Meeting type/How called: Regular/Regularly Scheduled Rescheduled Notice: Email/Phone Location: Phone bridge Meeting started: 15:05 Meeting ended: 16:00 Next Meeting: 01/10/2010, 15:00, phone bridge Attending: J, Mo, Andy, Greg, Van Discussion: Reports Missy's Resignation (J) J forwarded an email from Missy stating her intention to resign J sent reply acknowdging her resignation and thanking her for all of her help J - thinks we should pick up on looking for new board member starting in Jan Mo - if you see someone over the holidays that might be interested, feel free to test the waters Greg - how does it work when we are short a member J - looks like we are still held to the old quorum, this meeting will be last at less than 6 unless we drop below 6 members Website Licensing/ToS (J) updated (C) to a creative commons attribution working on a TOS that will tie back to the new licensing terms Mo - need to define when people are writing for themselves (at which point they still own their work) and when they are writing on behalf of Mach 30 (like a staff position) where Mach 30 then holds the rights; but in either case, the work is licensed under CC-By license and attributed to Mach 30. Note, when poster still holds rights, they should not need to attribute to Mach 30 for reuse, but when Mach 30 strictly holds rights, even poster needs to attribute to Mach 30. Andy - can we put this on a future agenda to continue discussing? J - yes, and I will not implement the new TOS until this has been discussed more Pledgie Campaign (Mo) update on Pledgie campaigns for general funding and legal expenses we were fairly close to posting something, but then asked Daryn W. (who Mo went to grad school with Mo), and based on his feedback, doing some aditional work

the new work is a series of targeted writings to various constituences writing is under way (Bek and Mo have drafts, J and Greg have not started yet) Mo is working on how to tie this together into unified landing page Greg - thinks as soon as we get a few of the constituencies represented in writing, we should go ahead and launch campaign Mo - agrees (perfect is the enemy of the good), not sure if we should have multiple campaigns still Mo - also concerned that there is no longer a clear path forward and that could get it bogged down Greg - agreed Mo - thinks people who have writing should get writing drafted and posted and then there should be a marketing team meeting to work out how to proceed Greg - agreed, but do we need to have writing first? Mo - that may just be personal preference, but having the content will make it easier to do the work; as the person leading the process, there are one or two more variables can I can handle by myself Greg - likes the idea of laying out some structure first, so people can just plug in their work when they are ready, and can help J - I can also help to smooth over rough edges Mo - is it cool with the rest of the Board for J, Mo and Greg to meet to do some work on layout of the landing page? Andy - thinks Bek will be ok not being involved in that step, and is also ok letting that part go Response from the Lawyer (J) did hear back from lawyer she quoted an estimate for just the bylaws, not the consensus policy, @ 2 hours of her time J has not replied to this last note yet Greg - thinks we need the full price Andy - is this estimate or set in stone? J - estimate Mo - is torn, price is probably reasonable, and need someone to do it correctly, but, not happy at how long it took her to get back to us Greg - there are other lawyers Andy - this is pretty typical of his previous experience with lawyers, so not sure we will get any better process with someone else J - thinks we need to move forward in order to get some progress J will email lawyer about addtional cost of consensus policy and see where it takes us Continue Work on Consensus Policy at previous meeting, last set of concerns around the "escape clause" Mo drafted new language Van - so two people blocking are not overridable Mo - correct Greg - like how it is written Andy - ditto Van - agreed J - so, looks ready to show to the lawyer (after removing underlined notes) Andy - we need ot have a formal approval at some point J - agreed, my thought was once we were done with legal review, we would approve this throught a Formal Consensus Andy - good, just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page

J - and if Bekah has any concerns, please let us know Review Strategic Planning Work done by Inc Task Force