Agenda - Committee Meeting 2009-12-06 - 21:00 UTC
- 1.1 Chair opens the Committee Meeting
1.2 Accept the Minutes of the last Committee Meeting
- 1.3 Ratify the Motions made since the last Committee Meeting
2 Businesses - Important Note: Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Committee Meeting latest!
2.1 Claim of Gross Negligence added by Iang
2.2 Update from Support - added by Iang
2.3 Arbitration Progress - added by Iang
- Passive Arbitrators, inactive arbitrations.
2.4 Corporate Actions - added by Iang
- letter to RC, mandate, extension
2.5 Finance Progress - added by Iang
- check status
2.6 DPA - added by Iang
- question about production of motion/doco on private list, as agreed
2.7 Quality Management System - added by andreas
- coordination of various quality related tools and actions
To the Board: A blog notify hasn't been published yet that exactly states, that the TTP program is frozen right now. Please publish or order publishing an article about that motion that says, that the TTP program is frozen, asap.
m20090912.1 freezes TTP and other programmes,
m20090914.2 puts it in effect.
2.9 Miscellaneous - added by iang
- news from iang
- et cetera
3 Question Time - Important Note: Questions from CAcert.org Community Members can be added until beginning of Committee Meeting! As well questions can be asked at "Question Time", without added Question here
- 3.1 No Questions added
4.1 Confirm next Committee Meeting: Usually every 1st & 3rd Sunday of the month, 21:00 UTC.
- 4.2 Chair closes the Committee Meeting
- 4.3 Preparation of Minutes
Minutes - Committee Meeting 2009-12-06
Present: markl, ernie, andreasbuerki, iang, GolfRomeo.
Partial: PhilippDunkel, 15 minutes absence. NB, in and out.
- 21:01 Markl took the chair in the absence of NB. Agenda was posted.
2.1 Claim of Gross Negligence
21:09 Chair introduces first item of business, 2.1. Claim of Gross Negligence. Floor is handed to Iang.
- Iang comments verbatim:
It is a difficult subject. Gross Negligence is a crime, it is "criminal negligence" or that negligence that is equivalent to crime. So we have an accusation of crime against the board, or at least that is what I read.
Now, if it was just one statement that was made in the heat of the moment, this would be ok. But it is not. We have a series of statements made which raise the question of confidence. We also have some accusations of "rogue takeovers" and "messes made by Directors." So I feel that this is a repeated pattern, and there is a failure in confidence at this point. Or, to be clear, confidence was low, but maybe we cannot ignore it any more. (end)
- Floor over to Guillame, verbatim:
Yes Ian Grigg has not been elected to withdraw the systems from Ede and BIT. There is no reason to remove the systems from the .nl . And yes, starting may 2009, Ian has started to overturn the former board which he succeeded in July 2009. The former board left Ian Grigg bring most of the ideas to organize the association/project but I am afraid the project is now too complex for a team of benevolent people. And Ian stated his main goal is to remove the project from BIT/Ede, which kills a part of the current project.
markl states he is unaware of these apparent actions by Ian to "kill" that in Netherlands. Iang expresses surprise: FTR, this has never been a goal of the project, nor of me, nor of this board.
Guillaume continues: "Yes it is written in your email:
3. hosting - on advice from ex-auditor (me) it became a priority to > get all the infrastructure stuff out of BIT. This involved a fair bit > of work in analysing the offers, and developing a sense of what was a > good offer and what not. And finding new offers. (There are now 4 > proposals in various stages of completion, one has faded away.)
Guillaume: to quote you. So the former auditor dictates the board to do what he dictates to do.
- iang states that this is a different topic to the agenda item, and feels they should be addressed separately. Chair agrees it is a tangent, but admits the discussion on the basis that it might help understanding. Accepted.
iang points out: infrastructure means the non-critical systems: wiki, SVN, IRC, etc. That is not the same thing as the project.
- markl points out that the accusations are insults to the named person and to the board.
- iang points out that the hosting discussions for infrastructure systems have been going on for the life of this board, and no discussions happened over critical systems.
Guillaume: "all the infrastructure" is pretty straightforward sense and you look for hosting out of the netherlands.
iang: no, GR, we changed the name of the non-critical team a while back to "infrastructure".
- Iang comments verbatim:
21:23 PhilippDunkel joins at this point.
markl: Guillaume, you've been here for each of the discussions about hosting proposals, and they've always been about the infrastructure systems, not the critical systems -- there has never, to my knowledge, been any board level discussion about moving critical systems anywhere. Ernie concurs.
Guillaume asks: What is your position regarding Oophaga, we need to give an official statement to them. You have to make this clear else you mean Oophaga, we don't need you as well as BIT infrastructure.
iang, ernie both comment that no such request is known. Guillaume refers to the mail by Robert K of 20091127. General comments that this was not a formal request, it arrived too late for a proper response, the event has expired, and it was responded to casually by two members. Consensus is that the requirement alluded to by Guillaume is not present.
Guillaume asks: Why don't we pay them ? Iang complains that this is off-topic. Markl points out that Guillaume is as aware as anyone on that topic.
- Guillaume points out that nothing has changed since July 2009. Mark points out that the facts are being misrepresented, and built into wild accusations against the board.
Guillaume repeats: You have to make a clear statement regarding BIT/Ede hosting and the commitment of Oophaga. Killing a project this way is a gross negligence
markl, Guillaume, ernie, PhilippDunkel disagree. Markl puts the charge on Guillaume to take responsibility for the statements and reverse them.
- many repeats.
Guillaume: I am happy and I give you all my deep apologies regarding this question.
PhilippDunkel asks for a motion to this extent. Iang agrees, pointing out it is not an isolated event. Markl accepts that a public withdrawal, with clarification of his remarks to Oophaga is sufficient. Markl asks for an undertaking.
GolfRomeo: In fact, the board has just statement our official commitment to BIT/Ede/Oophaga
- iang disagrees, pointing to the fact that Guillaume just took our discussion (here above) as an official commitment. Markl suggests either an apology or a discipline complaint is lodged with the committee.
- 21:38 Nick joins at his point, but briefly.
- some discussion as to the nature of response(s) sent to Robert. Guillaume said we could have held a meeting. Iang and Nick said it seemed too casual a request. Markl agreed.
Guillaume: So again, sorry if I have misinterpretated the mail but I had a private thread with more unanswered questions.
- iang, ernie ask about "private thread". Guillaume knows people in Netherlands. Ernie, Markl point out that information of relevence to the board must be communicated.
- consensus established on a public apology by Guillaume, public withdrawal of remarks, and commitment to constructive membership and bringing issues to the board. Clarification that this appears in the minutes, but is not a motion.
- Guillaume comments that he has written an apology.
- Chair closes the item and moves to next item.
2.2 Update from Support
21:56 Chair introduces next item of business, 2.2. Update from Support. Floor is handed to Iang.
- Iang enters verbatim:
New Support Engineers: Werner Dworak is working through as SE. Faramir is in ABC.
New Triage: Joost S, Wolfgang K and Michael T are all in and working as Triage. Michael T is now in the queue for Arbitrated Background Check (ABC).
Documentation has been written under the top page of https://wiki.cacert.org/support which is being used to brief the new people.
Next steps are 1/- recruit some more Triage people, 2/- more work on Doco, 3/- investigate the ticketing system managed by Mario.
Conclusion: crisis in Support is now over; much work remains, my view is that Ulrich and I will keep working there this month, and early next year think about next steps.
- Iang enters verbatim:
PhilippDunkel offers thanks to Iang. Guillaume asks for apologies for calling Support "a mess."
2.3 Arbitration Progress
21:56 Chair introduces next item of business, 2.3. Arbitration Progress. Floor is handed to Iang.
- iang admits to being poorly prepared for this one, and defers PD's thanks! A long email from Ulrich won't be posted. Enters:
Ulrich has now reviewed practically the whole case load, and Arbs and CMs have been re-assigned and moved forward.
- Problems in the interface between Support and Arbitration are being addressed. The list cacert-disputes is primarily a hand-over list not a discussion forum.
There is one thing that has been asked of the board: what to do about inactive Arbitrators as the Board appoints Arbitrators, it probably has something to say on the retiring of inactive Arbitrators. So this is a request from Arbitration to the board to discuss this now.
- ernie and andreas comment that the process lacked documentation.
- General question as to what is defined for retiring or dropping Arbitrators. Nothing is defined.
- General view that there should be a deadline on activity. Counter-view that "how long" is too difficult to answer up-front. And that the two questions are different.
PhilippDunkel points out Nick has done a ping-check, as has Ulrich.
- andreasbuerki opines that it is a discussion for the lists, not the board. iang points out that the board appoints, so it might want a say. Markl points out Board is also appeal, so has two potential authorities.
- Nick and iang comment that a case is closed with no arbitrator. Iang remembers 30 days was discussed at TOP.
ideas are tossed around by Markl, Nick, PhilippDunkel, iang.
- Consensus moves to the DRO having to refer removals to the board.
- General consensus that the board has this responsibiliy, and the board already has the power, it just isn't written.
- search for a motion text, many posted.
- iang admits to being poorly prepared for this one, and defers PD's thanks! A long email from Ulrich won't be posted. Enters:
- 22:18 At this point, Nick leaves the meeting and hands his proxy to Markl.
- Iang introduces the topic of the DRO, removal for absence.
- markl asks how to avoid random complaints if not filtered by DRO.
PhilippDunkel introduces the topic of the DRO being elected by Arbitrators.
- Discussion. Minute writer's hands hurt. Consensus the DRO is left for another day.
- Discussion on the need for a deadline of 14 or 30 days, deadline does not survive.
PhilippDunkel moves Markl's text: The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on advice of the Dispute Resolution Officer and after considering any written or oral submissions made by the arbitrator in question. Seconded, and carried as m20091206.2.
- Discussion on the need to add a time limit. Andreasbuerki says yes. Markl opposes a motion setting a limit. Iang says we haven't experienced it yet.
PhilippDunkel is happy if the minutes to show that we will generally allow anywhere from 14 - 30 days to elapse for a response. iang agrees.
- Some discussion on a non-binding motion, but does not survive.
2.4 Corporate Actions
22:44 Chair introduces next item of business, 2.4. Corporate Actions. Floor is handed to Markl.
- mark enters verbatim:
we have received advice from the office of fair trading that they have approved the extension of time to hold the AGM, to 28th feb, 2010, as requested. I have this advice in writing.
I have sent the letter to Robert requesting return of both hardware and documents, by registered mail, on 30 nov 2010.
Ernestine has been successfully identified to Westpac, and she now has a customer number and such, but now we are waiting on the branch that the account was opened at to approve the new signature authority, which should take about another week.
I incurred expenses of AUD21.45, which I will submit to Ernestine for reimbursement, in doing all that.
- Nick opines that he should send out a mail advising people to think about rule changes and agenda items. Question as to additional signatories, no at this stage.
PhilippDunkel: we should publish the info, and decide the date. Iang: request we defer discussion until after next agenda item.
- Iang asks if second letter is ready to go out, Markl answers in affirmative, 14th.
- mark enters verbatim:
2.5 Finance Progress
22:52 Chair introduces next item of business, 2.5. Finance Progress. Floor is handed to Ernie.
- Ernie predicts the the financial statements should be ready around 15th of the month. Some transactions are not clear, but these should not prevent a summary being prepared.
- General discussion on how close to ready? Ernie: close. Markl: no particular form required.
- iang: would indicate we review the statement meeting 20th December, already called.
- Can we call the meeting before then? No consensus to call the meeting before we see the financial statement.
- Which pushes the date of a possible AGM to mid-Jan onwards.
- General feeling that we should give members plenty of time to prepare rule changes, agenda items.
- Which date, are we close to knowing? Although many dates were discussed, no consensus was reached. General feeling that some news could go out, informally.
- Separate discussion was on whether Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Consensus that the board does not need a formal process here, just ask the members. Iang posted to members list.
23:12 Chair introduces next item of business, 2.6. DPA. Floor is handed to Iang.
- iang: Issue was that we agreed to close it and have not done that.
- As customary on this issue, discussion in the private forum.
23:43 Markl moves that RESOLVED THAT, During the course of a review of CAcert's operations, we have reached the conclusion CAcert Inc's operations comply with our obligations under all data protection laws that we are subject to. Iang seconded, 6 Ayes, and one abstention. Motion carried as m20091206.3.
- markl, phidelta and iang protested at the Abstention of Guillaume. The surprise caused each to remind Guillaume of his responsibilities to the board, and that abstention indicates that Guillaume is not rising to the needs.
- Chair closed further discussion after the motion, and moved to next item. The topic rumbled on before being finally terminated.
2.7 Quality Management System
23:12 Chair introduces next item of business, 2.7. Quality Management System. Floor is handed to andreas.
- andreas entered verbatim:
Actually at Cacert.org and with involvement of Cacert Inc. there is no written / defined Quality Management System (QMS) in place, but a lot of single elements of such a system without the needed coordination.
A QMS consists of: 1. Organizational Structure - 2. Responsibilities - 3. Procedures - 4. Processes and finally, 5. Resources. All together the basis of Quality Management (QM): 1. Quality Control, Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement.
In regards to become “audit-ready”, a QMS as basis for QM is in my humble opinion recommended, as “audit-ready” means to have the quality as needed in order to pass successfully.
As said before, a lot of elements are available, but often missing detailed description and documented interrelation ship. Thus, often results in (repeated) misunderstandings, unnecessary discussions, uncertainty and doubt.
Said all that, what could we as a committee do, to improve over-all quality at Cacert.org and Cacert Inc.?
- Markl asks for fleshing out, a more concrete proposal. Andreas phrases it as a question, to think about.
Markl: I worry that we already have too many policies, groups, committees, etc that are acting as road blocks to progress. I like the idea of improving quality of our systems and processes a lot, but I think there's a lot of low hanging fruit that can be improved markedly without any additional committees, etc.
the issue here is a complicated one. CAcert is an open organisation staffed with volunteers. These organisations typically do not get into QMS ...
However, CAcert perhaps unique in this world has one area which is more or less the same thing: Audit. It is required by mozilla & Microsoft to undergo a systems audit ... which is approximately in the same ball-park and it has prepared policies and practices along the lines of the audit for the last 4 years ... so in one sense it has come a LONG way.
A recent example is the Assurance system which now has a way of co-auditing. this is a system that meets the needs of the auditor, and the contradiction that our assurers are spread across the planet. (my opinion.)
Now, audit sets a set of minimum standards ... which have to be met the problem is that if we bring in some other system, we will also have a set of forces to deal with, e.g., our famous previous agenda item was just one such force which clashed quite heavily with many things, so, bringing in a QMS or anything similar is likely to cause parallel forces heading in different directions.
And, on a more practical level, I think we have a challenge in getting activity from our community on the audit side. But at least they want that and understand what the audit is for.
andreas opined that the audit confirms our quality, but markl sees a difference in that audit is confirming we do what we say and say what we do. E.g., it might be a low quality "do" which is in contrast with QMS which tends to improve quality beyond a consistent minimum.
- andreas mentions coordination, as opposed to inventing something additional. Not another system.
- Some discussion, andreas calls a close.
- andreas entered verbatim:
00:13 Chair introduces next item of business, 2.8. a20091119.1. Floor is handed to Iang.
- Some confusion, then it is found. iang cites Arbitrator interim order:
"To the Board: A blog notify hasn't been published yet that exactly states, that the TTP program is frozen right now. Please publish or order publishing an article about that motion that says, that the TTP program is frozen, asap."
- markl points to a misunderstanding; the policy group froze TTP with the passing of Assurance Policy. The Board just passed a motion indicating it will be enforced.
iang calls for volunteers to write the blog post, PhilippDunkel steps up to the plate.
- Some discussion of whether this was an official statement. The answer is NO, as the motions are our official statements, this one was already done, and a committee member speaking for self does not make it official. But speaking should be done anyway.
We need to get away from this notion of everything having to be done by someone with a title and therefore supposed authority.
- Discussion turned to wine and beer.
- Some confusion, then it is found. iang cites Arbitrator interim order:
00:13 Chair introduces next item of business, 2.9. Miscellaneous. Floor is handed to Iang.
- iang states that he will be in AU from early March to late May, and is thinking of travel and ATE opportunities. With a nod to the need for Australians on the board, asks that we think about funding travel budget. More to follow, end of news.
- Some mild discussion on how to get effective results. Super-assurer, alternates, TTP, PoJAM. Off-agenda discussion not minuted.
- 00:30 Chair asks for comments from Members. None asked.
- Discussion continues on assurance variations.
- 00:41 Chair moves for adjournment, carried. Meeting ends.
- More discussion on assurance variations.
PhilippDunkel announces that Discontinuation of “Trusted Third Party” assurances is written and posted! Outstanding!
Decisions Reached by Motion including Update since last Committee Meeting - Overview
20091206.1 - Accept previous meeting\'s minutes
20091206.2 - Provision to remove arbitrators on advice of DRO
20091206.3 - Consideration of data protection issues
22:00 (22:01:13) markl: being it's 2100UTC... nb are you here? (22:03:01) markl: I guess we'll take that as a no... that makes me the chair again unless someone wants to move differently. (22:03:40) andreasbuerki: go ahead, fine by me (22:03:55) iang: yes, no problem with that. PD just called and said "15 minutes, heading for a wireless loc now" (22:04:07) iang: where is the agenda? (22:04:20) markl: http://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/20091206 22:05 (22:05:15) markl: Firstly, the meeting is now open, and I move that we accept the minutes of the last meeting at http://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/20091115 as true and accurate. (22:05:46) iang: second, and AYE, although note that I wrote them so my vote is suspect (22:06:01) andreasbuerki: aye (22:06:05) markl: all those of that opinion, aye, against no (22:06:06) markl: aye (22:06:08) Unox hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Remote host closed the connection). (22:06:15) Unox [Unox@if-320-dial-up.xs4all.nl] hat den Raum betreten. (22:06:28) GolfRomeo: aye (22:06:30) ernie: aye (22:06:54) markl: I declare it carried. (22:07:58) markl: sorry, takes a while to enter the votes into the online thing (22:08:18) andreasbuerki: no prob, I wouldn't do better :-( (22:08:40) markl: so far as I'm aware, there aren't any motions made since the last committee meeting, so unless I'm mistaken, we'll skip past that (22:09:21) andreasbuerki: no motion to my knowledge either (22:09:25) markl: first item on the agenda... 2.1. Claim of Gross Negligence added by Iang (22:09:28) iang: nod (22:09:43) markl: concerning Guillaume's mail at https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-11/msg00250.html, according to the agenda item (22:09:59) markl: Ian, being you added it, would you care to speak to it? 22:10 (22:10:34) iang: Yes. It is a difficult subject. Gross Negligence is a crime, it is "criminal negligence" or that negligence that is equivalent to crime. (22:10:50) iang: so we have an accusation of crime against the board, or at least that is what I read. (22:11:09) iang: Now, if it was just one statement that was made in the heat of the moment, this would be ok. But it is not. (22:11:25) iang: We have a series of statements made which raise the question of confidence. (22:11:43) iang: We also have some accusations of "rogue takeovers" and "messes made by Directors." (22:12:25) iang: So I feel that this is a repeated pattern, and there is a failure in confidence at this point. Or, to me clear, confidence was low, but maybe we cannot ignore it any more. (22:12:29) iang: (end) (22:13:06) andreasbuerki: so, what is your suggestion to do? (22:13:15) markl: Guillaume, would you like to respond? (22:13:30) ernie: what's the statement from guillaume (22:13:44) iang: andreasbuerki: I defer to chair on that for now (22:13:51) andreasbuerki: ok (22:13:59) GolfRomeo: Yes Ian Grigg has not been elected to withdraw the systems from Ede and BIT (22:14:19) GolfRomeo: There is no reason to remove the systems from the .nl 22:15 (22:15:24) GolfRomeo: And yes, starting may 2009, Ian has started to overturn the former board which he succeeded in July 2009 (22:16:57) GolfRomeo: The former board left Ian Grigg bring most of the ideas to organize the association/project but I am afraid the project is now too complex for a team of benevolent people (22:17:04) doris [firstname.lastname@example.org] hat den Raum betreten. (22:17:47) GolfRomeo: We cannot kill all what has been done in the netherlands, there is too much work and too much commitment from people there (22:18:19) markl: I'm not sure I quite follow. I'm not aware of what Ian has done (either unilaterally or through the board) to "kill" what has been done in the Netherlands? (22:18:40) GolfRomeo: And Ian stated his main goal is to remove the project from BIT/Ede (22:18:48) iang: I did? (22:18:53) GolfRomeo: which kills a part of the current project (22:19:03) GolfRomeo: Yes it is written in your email (22:19:07) iang: FTR, this has never been a goal of the project, nor of me, nor of this board. (22:19:41) GolfRomeo: 3. hosting - on advice from ex-auditor (me) it became a priority to > get all the infrastructure stuff out of BIT. This involved a fair bit > of work in analysing the offers, and developing a sense of what was a > good offer and what not. And finding new offers. (There are now 4 > proposals in various stages of completion, one has faded away.) (22:19:57) GolfRomeo: to quote you 22:20 (22:20:15) iang: But, and I feel I have to remind here, the point that is being made in this agenda item is the statements made by GR are not confidence-inspiring. My statements are somewhat different and should be addressed in a separate item. (22:20:40) GolfRomeo: So the former auditor dictates the board to do what he dictates to do (22:20:48) iang: infrastructure means the non-critical systems: wiki, SVN, IRC, etc. That is not the same thing as the project. (22:21:04) markl: I agree that it's a bit of a tangent, but it may help our understanding to flesh out the dispute somewhat (22:21:09) iang: ok (22:21:53) andreasbuerki: Guillaume, I strongly refuse to follow any dictatorship! (22:22:13) markl: but Guillaume, no one is dictating to anyone here, we're each free to vote as our conscience directs... making accusations like that is not only an insult to Ian, but also an insult to the board as a whole, as your clear implication is that we are puppets on strings (22:22:17) GolfRomeo: "all the infrastructure" is pretty straightforward sense and you look for hosting out of the netherlands. (22:22:24) iang: These hosting discussions have been going on for the life of this board. I don't believe we have ever talked about moving the critical systems. It is always about the non-critical / infrastructure. (22:23:00) iang: no, GR, we changed the name of the non-critical team a while back to "infrastructure". (22:23:08) PhilippDunkel [email@example.com] hat den Raum betreten. (22:23:10) markl: Guillaume, you've been here for each of the discussions about hosting proposals, and they've always been about the infrastructure systems, not the critical systems -- there has never, to my knowledge, been any board level discussion about moving critical systems anywhere (22:23:19) PhilippDunkel: Hi all, sorry for being late (22:23:21) GolfRomeo: What is your position regarding Oophaga, we need to give an official statement to them (22:23:30) andreasbuerki: hi PD (22:23:31) ernie: GolfRomeo, all proposals we have at the moment are not for critical system (22:23:39) markl: hi Philipp (22:23:42) ernie: hi phillip (22:24:11) GolfRomeo: You have to make this clear else you mean Oophaga, we don't need you as well as BIT infrastructure (22:24:14) iang: I have sent PD 40 lines of previous chat (22:24:16) iang: GR: who are you asking? And where is this requirement from? (22:24:53) GolfRomeo: The Oophaga board has asked for a statement to know/understand the CAcert board commitment in the project 22:25 (22:25:11) iang: I am not aware of that request? (22:25:18) GolfRomeo: All we have given is we are trying to host out of the netherlands (22:25:25) ernie: I haven't seen such a request with this words (22:25:51) GolfRomeo: iang : You have replied Robert have not enough time to reply (22:26:06) GolfRomeo: This is Robert Kocheim request (22:26:08) iang: sure, that wasn't a formal request. (22:26:30) GolfRomeo: still we have to reply sooner or later, sooner is better (22:26:33) dirk_not_at_home [dirk_astra@p4FDCB891.dip.t-dialin.net] hat den Raum betreten. (22:26:34) iang: and it was for a meeting 2 days after the request. So the request is expired. (22:26:45) GolfRomeo: easy ! (22:26:46) PhilippDunkel: I'll post the request as it came in: (22:26:47) PhilippDunkel: Hi Nick, Other board members, (22:26:47) PhilippDunkel: Oophaga will have a board meeting next monday. (22:26:47) PhilippDunkel: Please submit a simple progress overview of the progress of the CAcert project. Ernestine was kind enough to provide some info related to the transfer of the ownership of the . AU bank account (22:26:47) PhilippDunkel: Best Regards (22:26:48) PhilippDunkel: Robert (22:26:49) iang: No, we do not have to reply. If Oophaga wants to talk to us they can open channels and comment. (22:27:05) GolfRomeo: Why don't we pay them ? (22:27:19) iang: sorry, how far off track are we allowing this discussion to go? (22:27:28) PhilippDunkel: Now that to me looks neither like a formal request by Oophaga, nor about hosting or comittment. (22:27:31) GolfRomeo: this is the problem ! (22:27:41) markl: um Guillaume, have you been present at our other board meetings? Are you not aware the situation with banking? (22:27:47) GolfRomeo: This is too easy to ignore them (22:28:05) markl: Yes, lets bring it back to the topic, we're off on random flights of fancy now. (22:28:11) GolfRomeo: I am sick nothing has changed much since July 2009 (22:28:16) PhilippDunkel: As you know Ian did respond. So I don't think ignoring them is what you want to say (22:28:46) markl: Guillaume, you are actively misrepresenting facts that you *should* be familiar with, and then using them to level wild accusations against the whole board, presumably yourself included. (22:28:51) PhilippDunkel: @GR: So you are sick that nothing has changed and so you charge people with "gross negligence" rather than doing something? (22:28:59) GolfRomeo: You have to make a clear statement regarding BIT/Ede hosting and the commitment of Oophaga (22:29:23) GolfRomeo: Killing a project this way is a gross negligence (22:29:25) markl: the commitment to Oophaga exists in the agreement we have signed with them, and the only person to say *anything* about exiting from Ede is you, Guillaume (22:29:25) iang: "You" ? (22:29:36) PhilippDunkel: Whenever there is a decision made regarding Bit/Ede hosting and comittment, we will make a statement. (22:29:53) ernie: markl, see it same way 22:30 (22:30:02) markl: so maybe *you* need to go to Oophaga and say "I misrepresented the situation", to clarify... you are the only one suggesting anything of the sort (22:30:12) PhilippDunkel: However since nothing has been decided to change anything with regards to BIT, nor has anything changed regarding hosting, why do you think we need to make a statement (22:30:24) PhilippDunkel: Do you tell me every day that you are still breathing? (22:30:46) PhilippDunkel: Until I actually hear different I will go under the assumption that you are still breathing (22:31:27) GolfRomeo: Well, we have to show our commitment to BIT/Ede as Oophaga has asked. (22:31:34) markl: GR: as you know, I've supported your position on other controversial matters in the past, but you are completely out of line on this one. (22:31:54) markl: they didn't ask for that, they asked for a status update.. you are putting words into their mouth (22:32:08) iang: Oophaga hasn't asked for that. You are putting words into their mouths. (22:32:15) GolfRomeo: What is the official position of the Board regarding the relationship with Oophaga association ? (22:32:15) iang: lol... (22:32:39) markl: I assume if they think we were planning to leave, someone from Oophaga will ask "What are you planning?"... as has been made crystal clear, no one here is planning such a thing, and the only person to suggest that we are is you (22:32:42) PhilippDunkel: Guillaume: I am hereby asking you explicitely to appologize to the other board members for your accusation. Further more I request explicitely that you make a statement on you own behalf to Oophaga, stating that you were way off the reservation, and had no idea what you were talking about: (22:32:44) iang: GR: who is asking? (22:33:17) GolfRomeo: Well, so remain commited to Ede/BIT/Oophaga (22:33:42) GolfRomeo: I am happy and I give you all my deep apologies regarding this question (22:33:44) PhilippDunkel: I also request this board to consider making my request of Guillaume a formal board motion (22:33:55) andreasbuerki: I wouldn know anything else, Guillaume (22:34:03) GolfRomeo: I am sorry (22:34:22) GolfRomeo: s/so remain/so CAcert remains (22:34:50) markl: If someone has a question about our committment to Oophaga and BIT, we have appropriate ways to bring those up. This is not the way to extract that. 22:35 (22:35:09) PhilippDunkel: Ok, then I think we will accept this and assume that you will clarify your statements to Oophaga. (22:35:22) PhilippDunkel: Unless anyone objects, I think it may be time to put this unpleasantness behind us. (22:35:25) GolfRomeo: I will send a statement to Robert (22:35:27) iang: I think PhilippDunkel 's requested motion has merit. This is not an isolated event. (22:36:26) GolfRomeo: In fact, the board has just statement our official commitement to BIT/Ede/Oophaga (22:36:44) markl: PD: my person opinion is that if he is prepared to apologise and publicly withdraw his accusation and clarify his remarks about our relationship with Oophaga, and give us some kind of undertaking not to act in that manner in the future, it might be more appropriate to do it on the basis of an understanding rather than a motion (22:36:48) iang: no, now you are putting words in OUR mouths (22:38:14) PhilippDunkel: I agree in principle. However as Ian has stated this is not an isolated incident. And then the statement: "In fact, the board has just statement our official commitement to BIT/Ede/Oophaga" makes me question the earnestness. (22:38:23) GolfRomeo: My main perspective is to avoid to ruin what has been completed so far. this is way I have reacted this way as I have been unclear about this during the past weeks. (22:38:37) markl: but if this happens again, I will be the first to lodge a discipline complaint (22:38:45) iang: markl: I'm not going to fight the consensus on this one ... but look at the immediately previous remark by GolfRomeo. We have not made an official commitment, the question is not on the table. (22:38:46) ***nb will be unable to attend tonight. I was going to stay home so I could be at the meeting, but we are having our annual christmas/thanksgiving dinner (22:38:52) nb: i'll be here for a few more minutes (22:39:19) markl: Guillaume: you must understand that leveling accusations against us, especially when they are demonstrably false, is going to cause trouble (22:39:55) GolfRomeo: iang : your mail on the board list has given a strange perspective to Oophaga board then you have said : "this is too late to reply" 22:40 (22:40:10) markl: iang: yes, I agree, but I personally think the answer is either he gives a undertaking to us voluntarily, or someone lodges a discipline complaint with the committee... (22:40:51) andreasbuerki: Guillaume, might be, but if unsure, just ask before shooting ;-) (22:40:51) iang: I see, so you now wish to comment that I should not have attempted to help Robert and send that response? (22:40:52) PhilippDunkel: Well if someone asks for a formal board statement, it requires a board meeting. A board meeting cannot be called in less than 48 hours. So asking with a deadline of less than 48hours is in fact too late. (22:41:01) GolfRomeo: We need to make things clear. (22:41:11) markl: Guillaume: we're all volunteers, when someone asks for a formal report a day before, it's an unreasonable burden to comply with... an informal view was provided by a couple of board members, and that was appropriate given the circumstances (22:41:20) nb: fwiw it can be, but only if all committee members agree (22:41:35) nb: but i agreethey should give us more notice (22:41:43) GolfRomeo: PD : ok sure but we could have told we meet on sunday and will bring a reply on monday after the meeting (22:42:16) iang: nb: true, but given the casual nature of the request, I personally didn't think it worth pursuing that at the time. (22:42:28) nb: iang, yeah, i didnt either (22:42:41) andreasbuerki: Anyhow, as Robert asked I pointet him to: http://wiki.cacert.org/comma/Community/Update - and it helped him somehow (22:42:44) nb: i thought it was just a informal request (22:42:49) iang: I also think that the request was rather badly placed, and any attempt to repair the damage done by the original request could have made matters worse. (22:42:59) ernie: nb, I'm too (22:43:04) iang: (but that's just me.) (22:43:08) markl: the request was rather casual, and Robert got several informal views, which (at the risk of putting words into his mouth) he seemed to find acceptable... it appears that Guillaume may be the only one with a problem on this (22:43:46) markl: but, in a way, it still misses the point (22:43:50) GolfRomeo: So again, sorry if I have misinterpretated the mail but I had a private thread with more unanswered questions (22:44:02) iang: "private thread?" (22:44:04) andreasbuerki: Anyhow, I guess Robert knows the difference between a formal request or just "How are you guys doing?" (22:44:33) iang: Are you saying that there was information withheld from this board that might have helped us to manage this question? (22:44:36) markl: if you felt differently, Guillaume, you should have brought it up, on the list, or called for a meeting, or whatever... making crazy accusations is not one of those ways to address a problem (22:44:37) PhilippDunkel hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Remote host closed the connection). (22:44:45) ernie: GolfRomeo, private thread 22:45 (22:45:07) GolfRomeo: Well I know people from the netherlands (22:45:29) andreasbuerki: Anyhow, before shooting it is recoomended to ask for clarification (22:45:42) GolfRomeo: So we are doing clarifications (22:45:46) andreasbuerki: Guillaume, no problem with that (22:46:00) markl: right, if you are aware of something that is materially relevent that could affect the interests of the association, you understand that you have a legal obligation to disclose that, Guillaume? (22:46:21) GolfRomeo: Yes sure Mark (22:46:24) iang: I know people from the Netherlands, too. I even know nice people! Are you saying that you the nice people in the Netherlands put a request to you? (22:46:35) PhilippDunkel [firstname.lastname@example.org] hat den Raum betreten. (22:46:43) ernie: GolfRomeo, but if you give information which are not already in the minutes, you have to inform the rest of us; and if you receive information too (22:46:55) GolfRomeo: And when I mean question, I mean the commitment between CAcert and Oophaga. (22:47:19) markl: then you should bring that up, if it's an issue you become aware of (22:47:29) markl: but do it in the right way (22:47:38) andreasbuerki: or the Dutch guys just ask... formal or infomal for clarification and we will answer open and honest (22:47:55) GolfRomeo: I have brought the problem badly (I am afraid again) (22:48:15) andreasbuerki: Guillaume....yep, the shit hit the fan (22:48:35) PhilippDunkel hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Remote host closed the connection). (22:48:48) markl: so again, I think the minimum you need to do now is publicly apologise, and publicly withdraw your remarks, and make a committment to us that you will become a constructive member of the board, by bringing your issues to board meetings, rather than the manner in which you are conducting yourself lately. (22:48:51) PhilippDunkel [email@example.com] hat den Raum betreten. (22:49:11) GolfRomeo: ok (22:49:13) andreasbuerki: second marks statement (22:49:29) ernie: I'm too (22:49:37) iang: informally, yes. (22:49:46) andreasbuerki: infomally?? (22:49:53) andreasbuerki: +r (22:49:54) iang: well, it's not a formal motion 22:50 (22:50:01) andreasbuerki: ah, ok (22:50:26) andreasbuerki: as said, the statement (22:50:42) iang: so the minutes writer might record it in the minutes, but it isn't going to be entered into the online voting system. At least that's my understanding, and this is the time to clarify that. (22:50:59) markl: can we all accept that? (22:51:04) markl: iang: yes, that would be my understanding (22:51:19) PhilippDunkel: Tha would be my interpretation as well (22:51:23) iang: yes, accepted, move on? (22:51:31) andreasbuerki: yep...letŝ go (22:51:40) ernie: yes (22:52:05) markl: most importantly, Guillaume, do you agree? (22:53:45) markl: GolfRomeo? 22:55 (22:55:26) markl: so as to avoid being here all night, can we defer this item until GR returns? (22:55:31) GolfRomeo: ok (22:56:18) GolfRomeo: (was written apology statement) (22:56:23) markl: ok, next item... 2.2. Update from Support - added by Iang (22:56:28) GolfRomeo: s/written/writing (22:56:50) markl: Ian, you have a statement? (22:56:53) iang: ok, here are some quick prepared notes: (22:56:55) iang: New Support Engineers: Werner Dworak is working through as SE. Faramir is in ABC. (22:56:55) iang: New Triage: Joost S, Wolfgang K and Michael T are all in and working as Triage. Michael T is now in the queue for Arbitrated Background Check (ABC). (22:56:56) iang: Documentation has been written under the top page of https://wiki.cacert.org/support which is being used to brief the new people. (22:56:56) iang: Next steps are 1/- recruit some more Triage people, 2/- more work on Doco, 3/- investigate the ticketing system managed by Mario. (22:56:56) iang: Conclusion: crisis in Support is now over; much work remains, my view is that Ulrich and I will keep working there this month, and early next year think about next steps. (22:57:01) iang: (end) (22:57:31) markl: ok, anyone anything to add? (22:57:48) markl: I presume you're just updating us, Ian, and don't actually need anything at this stage? (22:57:49) PhilippDunkel hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Remote host closed the connection). (22:58:02) iang: correct, just an update. (22:58:13) markl: ok, next item...2.3. Arbitration Progress - added by Iang (22:58:14) PhilippDunkel [firstname.lastname@example.org] hat den Raum betreten. (22:58:31) markl: PD: wet the string, it makes the tin cans work better ;) (22:58:37) iang: hmmm... i have a long prepared note from Ulrich but it is too long to post (22:58:46) PhilippDunkel: Yeah I'm suffering from connectivitis (22:58:58) PhilippDunkel: An inflamation of the connection (22:59:04) iang: basically, Ulrich has now reviewed practically the whole case load, and Arbs and CMs have been re-assigned and moved forward (22:59:08) PhilippDunkel: I have something to add: (22:59:50) PhilippDunkel: I wish to say thanks to Ian for sorting out a mess that has been festering for almost 3/4 years within less than a month. I find that to be superb work! (22:59:55) iang: we've had a major little food fight on the purpose of the list between Support and Arbitration called cacert-disputes, but I feel that is now resolved: the list is primarily for handover of cases from Support to Arbitration, and is not a working / discussion list. 23:00 (23:00:33) iang: (actually, because of the very busy day I didn't reviw Uli (23:00:51) iang: Uli's notes and haven't aprepared statement ... so no thanks due to me!) (23:00:54) ernie: iang, I think it was, because the process wasn't clear in the past to the people (23:00:55) GolfRomeo: PhilippDunkel : I am waiting for apologies for what you call a mess (23:01:24) iang: There is one thing that has been asked of the board: what to do about inactive Arbitrators (23:01:46) iang: as the Board appoints Arbitrators, it probably has something to say on the retiring of inactive Arbitrators. (23:01:52) andreasbuerki: ernie: yep, most process are there but need improvement of documentation (23:02:02) iang: So this is a request from Arbitration to the board to discuss this now. (23:02:21) markl: I think what is missing from the current arbitration system is some kind of sense of urgency, some kind of deadline for arbitrating matters. (23:02:26) ernie: iang, inactive for how long (23:02:40) iang: ernie and others: yes, much of the process wasn't clear ... doco helps some. But it will be getting better over time because we now have a larger team. (23:02:58) andreasbuerki: are there no process defined for inactive arbitrators? (23:03:02) iang: how long is part of the question. Also, there is "arbitrations that are inactive" and "arbitrators that are inactive" (23:03:26) PhilippDunkel: There are some Arbitrators that have not responsed to pings. One was a few months ago. Then one when Nick stepped up and then one within the last few weeks (23:03:38) andreasbuerki: if nothing defined, I would say, it should be discussed on the lists (23:03:44) iang: there is no process defined. Back in 2008, Teus did do a ping check of all Arbitrators and presumably dropped a few off. Ulrich has done that over the last month, but he and Nick have not dropped any as far as I know. (23:03:59) markl: how long is indeed part of the discussion... and the answer probably varies, and could be addressed by allowing an arbitrator to decide that a particular case is a "complex case", and that increases the time allowed (23:04:10) iang: nod (23:04:26) PhilippDunkel: I think we are mixing 2 things (23:04:30) iang: another question is, what happens to a filed case that never receives an Arbitrator. (23:04:32) andreasbuerki: again... this process should be discussed on the lists and not here (23:04:34) PhilippDunkel: 1. How long may an arbotration take (23:04:51) markl: it would be a positive both for the arbitrators, because they would have a programatic way to dismiss idle cases where the respondent is MIA, but also a way to escalate cases where the arb has dropped the ball (23:04:56) PhilippDunkel: 2. What do we do with Arbotrators that have not reacted to pings in a longish period of time 23:05 (23:05:11) markl: they're not necessarily separate tho PD (23:05:11) nb: iang, a case is closed if no arbitrators take it (23:05:14) nb: it is closed as declined (23:05:15) iang: from memory, in the original TOP board meeting, the participants discussed that there was a 30 day limit on Arbitrations filings. So if no Arb in 30 days it was declined. Which does not preclude refiling. (23:05:31) iang: nb: ok, do you have a timelimit for that? (23:05:41) andreasbuerki: PD good observations, but this board is not the place to dicuss such undefined processes (23:05:43) nb: i dont think it says in DRP (23:05:54) nb: what certificate d oyou have for me iang? (23:05:58) markl: andreasbuerki: remember we're not just the board here, we're also the appeal from that process (23:06:08) nb: i meant to email you, apparently i no longer have the certificate that you and a few others have been using (23:06:12) PhilippDunkel: The point is there are several "ancient" arbitrators that may well be removed. However as the board has appointed them the board is now asked to if it wants to remove them (23:06:13) iang: andreasbuerki: the thing is, the board has a say, because it appoints the Arbitrators (23:06:27) nb: what did greg rose say? just wondering (23:06:28) iang: nb: will mail you (23:06:32) nb: if it is not private if someone can say in here (23:06:43) PhilippDunkel: That's one issue. I agree that the second issue is also important, but mixing the two may be doing us a disservice (23:06:49) markl: we appoint and presuambly remove arbitrators, but we are also the avenue of appeal, so we can execise both authorities (23:07:18) markl: the stale arbitrator issue might be as simple as a referral process? (23:07:33) andreasbuerki: appoints because it is in the policies, which are made from the community on the lists... means the policies are not thought to the end (23:07:40) markl: CM refers arbitrators who have failed for whatever reason, we consider whether to remove them (23:08:01) ***nb moves that if an arbitrator either 1) does not respond or 2) does not indicate they are interested in continuing to serve as arbitrator within 30 days of a ping, that they be stricken from the list of arbitrators unless they provide a satisfactory reason to the board to be reinstated (23:08:05) iang: andreasbuerki: Yes, the policies are not perfect / complete ... recall, the entire policy was written before the 1st case. By Greg Rose as it happens (23:08:16) PhilippDunkel: One thing we could do for example is say that: If any Arbitrator does not respond to pings for more than 6 months, the DRO may remove them from Arbitration at his discretion (23:08:26) andreasbuerki: so policies need re-work (23:08:37) PhilippDunkel: We could aslo just sa the DRO may decide to remove an Arbitrator for inactivity (23:08:52) iang: one way may be to have a convention that the Arbitrators can ask for a retirement, and the Board can approve it. (23:08:52) nb: true (23:08:52) PhilippDunkel: We could make a lot of statements here, we just have to find the right statement to make (23:08:55) markl: why not keep it simple, the DRO may refer an arbitrator who, in his opinion, is not fulfilling their role, to the board for consideration for removal (23:09:01) andreasbuerki: and our desicion about a timeframe is just aintermediate one, as long it is not in the policies (23:09:24) PhilippDunkel: I like Marks idea (23:09:35) markl: the DRO maintains discretion in deciding who to refer, to allow for holidays, leaves of absence, etc (23:09:44) markl: and it's simple, and not over-burdensome policy 23:10 (23:10:02) andreasbuerki: yep... makes sense like that markl (23:10:08) ernie: good idea (23:10:12) iang: nod, motion? (23:10:20) markl: and we already have the power to consider an arbitrator's removal (23:10:30) PhilippDunkel: Lambert & Ulrich have come up with a list of inactive Arbitrators. They may well pre presented with that purpose to the next board meeting (23:10:31) markl: and the DRO already has the power to suggest whatever he wants to whomever he wants (23:10:44) markl: so I think we don't even need anything formal here, it can just simply become practice (23:10:56) iang: that the DRO be requested to ping-check the Arbitrators from time to time, and recommend to the board that Arbitrators who are inactive be retired from the list (23:11:04) andreasbuerki: needs just to be documented.... (23:11:07) PhilippDunkel: So let's just write it into the minutes (23:11:08) markl: we don't need a separate piece of policy (in the form of a motion) to tie together policy and power that already exists (23:11:31) markl: yeah, motions aren't a doco tool, they're an excerise of power tool... minutes are our doco (23:11:52) ernie: PhilippDunkel, minutes is enough (23:12:01) iang: so are we interpreting our power to appoint as a power to retire? (23:12:07) PhilippDunkel: Today being the first meeting where we use them as such, I agree (23:12:29) iang: I'm ok with it, it just isn't written in there ... so we certainly want some consensus on this practice (23:12:49) PhilippDunkel: @IanG: exactly. And if the policy group disagrees they have a way to tell us and if someone else disagrees let them file a dispute (23:13:00) nb: I would assume the board would have power to remove if they had power to appoint (23:13:04) PhilippDunkel: (Or join the policy Group) (23:13:06) nb: unless we consider it to be like supreme court judges (23:13:08) nb: although they do too (23:13:11) nb: via impeachment (23:13:16) markl: well, it's not a big stretch... we maintain effective veto power over arbitration decisions entirely, so I'm not sure removing arbitrators on recommendation from the DRO is an unreasonable exercise of our power (23:13:21) nb: although they have to be removed for cause (23:13:29) PhilippDunkel: @NB: Think supreme court. The President may appoint but not remove. (Just a thought) (23:13:31) andreasbuerki: the supreme court are our arbitrators, nb (23:13:36) nb: PhilippDunkel, well true, (23:13:43) nb: although they have to be confirmed by the senate (23:13:58) andreasbuerki: what would be this committee (23:13:59) iang: ok, so we've established consensus on this point that the Board considers its responsibilities to include retiring Arbitrators. (23:13:59) PhilippDunkel: Yeah, but once confirmed, Removal is a bit hairy (23:14:04) nb: PhilippDunkel, yeah (23:14:13) nb: they have to be impeached by the house and convicted by the senate (23:14:17) nb: iang, agreed (23:14:23) nb: (at least by me) (23:14:29) PhilippDunkel: I agree as well (23:14:50) andreasbuerki: agree for the record 23:15 (23:15:00) PhilippDunkel: @NB: Can you get in touch with Ulrich & Lambert, since they have already prepared a list of potential candidates for the honor of retirement (23:15:17) nb: Motion: RESOLVED, that it is the sense of the committee that the committee may strike inactive arbitrators from the list of arbitrators. (23:15:17) iang: frankly, it is easier if we have a motion, for the future generation to find it: I move that the Board considers its responsibilities to include retiring Arbitrators. (23:15:19) nb: and AYE (23:15:26) markl: also agree.. being we have consensus, i think we can move on (23:15:38) PhilippDunkel: Second IanG's Motion (23:15:41) PhilippDunkel: And AYE (23:15:48) ernie: aye (23:15:50) markl: removing, rather than retiring, might be more accurate? (23:15:59) nb: markl, i would suggest my wording perhaps? (23:16:01) andreasbuerki: and this motion we can add or pooint to from the wiki... make sense (23:16:03) iang: I'm fine with either wording. (23:16:12) GolfRomeo: abstain (23:16:14) markl: well, we can remove for other reasons too (23:16:18) markl: not just inactivity (23:16:29) PhilippDunkel: @Mark: I like retiring better, since removing carries more negative connotations, that should not be at play here (23:16:29) markl: if we had a rogue arbitrator, presumably someone has the authority to remove them (23:16:38) nb: Motion: RESOLVED, that it is the sense of the committee that the committee may strike arbitrators from the list of arbitrators. (23:16:52) PhilippDunkel: Ok (23:16:59) iang: RESOLVED, that committee considers it has the responsibility to strike arbitrators from the list of arbitrators. (23:17:00) andreasbuerki: nope... give a reasons.... (23:17:02) nb: (for reasons such as inactivity, etc) (23:17:05) markl: we're pointing out our position that we believe we have the power to remove arbitrators (23:17:37) iang: RESOLVED, that committee takes up the responsibility to strike arbitrators from the list of arbitrators, where reasons are given. (23:17:46) nb: second iang (23:17:47) andreasbuerki: be caeful... that it will not percieved as dictatorship (23:17:48) nb: AYE (23:18:06) markl: how about... The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on advice of the Dispute Resolution Officer? (23:18:07) PhilippDunkel: But I would like to restrict us to doing it for inactivity rather than for rogueness. In case of rogueness, I think that should be left to an arbotration (23:18:11) andreasbuerki: reaosn as.... pleas a little bit more precise (23:18:27) nb: i must leave (23:18:34) andreasbuerki: bye nb (23:18:36) nb: and I give markl my proxy for the remainder of this meeting (23:18:38) PhilippDunkel: Bye NB (23:18:42) iang: thanks Nick! (23:18:43) PhilippDunkel: @MarkL: Better (23:18:46) ernie: bye nb (23:19:09) markl: or... The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on advice of the Dispute Resolution Officer and after considering any written or oral submissions made by the arbitrator in question? (23:19:10) GolfRomeo: PhilippDunkel :ok (23:19:22) iang: The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on duly presented advice? (23:19:32) markl: so we'll give 'em a proper hearing, to prevent a future DRO removing someone they simply don't care for (23:19:53) andreasbuerki: yep... becomes better 23:20 (23:20:25) iang: we also need to consider an absent DRO or a need to act where the DRO is protecting an Arbitrator. So I wouldn't limit it to just the DRO (23:20:49) PhilippDunkel: I like the IanG version. It widens the field of advice and gives the opportunity for the Arbitrator in question to react. (23:20:49) markl: we can replace the DRO (23:21:11) andreasbuerki: PD... but marks porposal as well... (23:21:21) markl: you want to field random "I don't like this arbitrator, please remove him?" from people other than the DRO? (23:21:22) PhilippDunkel: @AB: True (23:21:30) iang: markl: nod... (23:21:37) markl: there's the potential we become a clearinghouse for personal complaints against arbs (23:21:37) PhilippDunkel: @Mark: True (23:21:48) iang: I would say that if a non-Arbitrator / CM proposed something, it would be dismissed immediately (23:22:07) markl: and we appoint the DRO, so if the DRO was a problem, he could be replaced (23:22:07) ernie: markl, :-) this could happen (23:22:27) markl: but this is more like referring a judge to the chief justice, who in turn recommends to the attorney general to institute removal (23:22:35) PhilippDunkel: Let me jsut be off topic for a minute. (23:22:35) iang: but, also there is a benefit in giving the community a strong back door ... to remind the Abitrators of their status (23:23:02) iang: DRO: right, but we would have to do that. Which means we are facing two blockages serially. (23:23:04) PhilippDunkel: In an ideal situation, I would like the DRO to be elected by the Arbs among their own. (23:23:08) markl: iang: might it be better to develop that into a complaints mechanism for the DRO to deal with? (23:23:13) PhilippDunkel: But that's not what we have now (23:23:15) PhilippDunkel: Sight (23:23:20) PhilippDunkel: s/Sight/Sigh/ (23:23:23) markl: the DRO has more useful powers than us for reminding arbitrators of their role (23:23:29) GolfRomeo: let's ask the DRO to provide proposals for removal (23:23:31) markl: because we only have a very, very blunt instrument.. we can remove them (23:23:32) pemmerik [email@example.com] hat den Raum betreten. (23:23:36) markl: we can't do anything else (23:23:51) markl: the DRO can stop allocating cases to them, allocate different kinds of cases to them, remove them from a case, etc (23:24:03) iang: ok, so how is our feeling here.... DRO only to present, or allow a wider net? (23:24:04) markl: so the DRO should be the place where community members complain about arbitrators to (23:24:16) PhilippDunkel: @Mark: Agreed (23:24:31) markl: I agree with you about selection of the DRO, Philipp (23:24:31) andreasbuerki: agree@markl (23:24:56) GolfRomeo: markl@ok 23:25 (23:25:10) GolfRomeo: the DRO reports to the Board (23:25:15) PhilippDunkel: Can we have 2 Motions: (23:25:15) andreasbuerki: if possibel, let's avoid botlenecks and conflict of interests (23:25:20) ernie: markl, agree (23:25:38) PhilippDunkel: 1. The board remove Arbitrators upon suggestion by the DRO (23:25:43) markl: so, does this work... The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on advice of the Dispute Resolution Officer and after considering any written or oral submissions made by the arbitrator in question. (23:25:57) PhilippDunkel: 2. The board delegates the power to appoint the DRO to the collective of the Arbitrators (23:26:16) andreasbuerki: now we are in the right direction (23:26:31) andreasbuerki: I would second marl's proposal (23:26:33) markl: we need to modify policy to allow the arbs to appoint their own DRO, but perhaps we could appoint based on recommendation of the arbs? (23:26:38) PhilippDunkel: @Mark: Works for me, except there needs to be a time limit on how long we wait for arguments to be made (23:26:54) andreasbuerki: right PD (23:26:57) iang: markl: that's in effect what we have .... the arbs and anyone have to come to us to confirm (23:26:57) markl: Philipp: we can make any procedural decisions around that when necessary (23:26:59) PhilippDunkel: @Mark: No, because the board may delegate it's powers to any other group (23:27:11) PhilippDunkel: So we could delegate the appointment power to the Arbs (23:27:34) markl: we could, but what body is "the arbitrators", what decision mechanism do they use? and who represents them? (23:27:50) ernie: good question (23:27:51) andreasbuerki: PD... when the proces is clearly defined, I agree (23:28:00) markl: probably easy questions to answer, but it needs to be defined, at least by the arbitrators themselves (23:28:03) iang: ok, we seem to be moving off track (23:28:19) PhilippDunkel: Well the arbitrators are a well defined list of people. And we could specify that they need to elect with a simple majority (23:28:22) iang: all good questions, but how the DRO is appointed is not being requested by the Arbitrators at the moment (23:28:27) andreasbuerki: I don't think so iang (23:28:29) PhilippDunkel: But any case. Let's defer that for another dayy (23:28:31) markl: we seem to have consensus on resolving the removal, but not exactly on changing the appointment of the DRO... can we resolve the one that we do have consensus on? (23:28:45) iang: although it will probably come up in the AGM, where we conventionally confirm or move around the team leaders (23:29:05) iang: i say we leave the question of the appointment of DRO for another day (23:29:24) iang: and just decide on which method to remove Arbitrators (23:29:31) markl: do we have consensus on... The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on advice of the Dispute Resolution Officer and after considering any written or oral submissions made by the arbitrator in question. (23:29:38) PhilippDunkel: The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on advice of the Dispute Resolution Officer and after considering any written or oral submissions made by the arbitrator in question within a 14 day period after being notified of the proceedings by the DRO. (23:29:46) iang: or, my last: The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on duly presented advice 23:30 (23:30:06) markl: we can establish procedural rules without specifying the number of days in the original motion (23:30:08) andreasbuerki: 30 days and it's fine by me (23:30:28) iang: agree with markl on the days point (23:30:29) PhilippDunkel: @AB: Fine by me (23:30:30) markl: 14 or 30 days may be too long in many circumstances, or too short in a complicated matter (23:30:43) andreasbuerki: I support PD'sproposal... it is much more clear (23:31:11) andreasbuerki: markl: but not to remove somebody... (23:31:12) PhilippDunkel: Well any person is at liberty to ask for an extension in a complicated case. I just want it to be clear that not responding is not an option (23:31:24) markl: not responding is an option tho (23:31:29) markl: that will likely result in removal (23:31:36) andreasbuerki: agree PD, thus we need a time limit (23:31:36) markl: we would consider any submissions (23:31:49) markl: not wait for them longer than the board meeting we consider it at (23:32:04) andreasbuerki: again, I fine with PD's prposal but 30 days (23:32:09) markl: but leaving it open allows someone to present their case quickly, or slowly, given the facts of the circumstances (23:32:19) iang: I'm with markl on this. (23:32:21) markl: see, we don't have consensus on the number of days... (23:32:28) markl: and I doubt we will find one, either (23:32:30) iang: ernie, GolfRomeo ? (23:32:32) andreasbuerki: what we loos, if we do not descide in 14 days?... I say nothing (23:32:43) ernie: agree (23:32:49) iang: with whom ;) (23:32:50) nb_ [firstname.lastname@example.org] hat den Raum betreten. (23:32:54) PhilippDunkel: I would be fine with marks proposal. As long as we make it clear in the minutes (or anywhere else proper) that we frown on "No Comment" situations (23:32:55) ernie: with pd (23:33:26) markl: PD: if you're looking to protect against people not responding, as opposed to the "fair hearing" issue, that's fine, because if they didn't respond, we'd take their non-response into account (23:33:38) iang: ok, how about we make it a separate motion. Take Markl's motion, vote on that. Then a second one specifying a time limit? (23:33:41) markl: my resolution says we'd consider anything submitted, not wait until something is submitted (23:34:32) GolfRomeo: ok (23:34:38) markl: non-response from someone who wanted to carry on as an arbitrator would certainly not help their case (23:34:54) PhilippDunkel: @Mark: Ok I think we can go with that. And as long as there are resonable people on the board, we will be fine. However if someone seeks to delay claiming that we haven't heard from the person in question, I will go "seriously berserk" ;) 23:35 (23:35:18) andreasbuerki: yep.. but keep in mind, sometimes people are in hollidays or travelling (23:35:26) iang: How about: The committee considers that non-response to an act under DRP is established in 14 days. (23:35:32) markl: in my mind, the time limit would be the other way around, it would preclude us from acting sooner (23:35:39) ernie: andreasbuerki, they could say upfront (23:35:44) PhilippDunkel: @AB: I think that that is something we do need to take into account on a case by case basis (23:36:00) andreasbuerki: ok... (23:36:16) iang: "seriously beserk" meaning .. you'll respond quicker than 14 days? ;-) (23:36:26) markl: by not specifying a time limit, we have the luxury of considering it sensibly... and the community has a mechanism to deal with us if we deny an arbitrator a fair hearing (23:36:31) PhilippDunkel: Something like that ;) (23:36:38) PhilippDunkel: So I would move: The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on advice of the Dispute Resolution Officer and after considering any written or oral submissions made by the arbitrator in question. (23:36:47) iang: seconded and Aye (23:37:02) markl: all those of that opinion, aye, against, no (23:37:09) markl: aye (23:37:11) PhilippDunkel: aye (23:37:12) ernie: aye (23:37:18) GolfRomeo: aye (23:37:25) andreasbuerki: aye.... as a democrate (23:37:27) iang: nb: have you returned, and is your proxy expired? (23:37:39) nb_: aye, I am here temporarily (23:37:49) iang: thanks! (23:37:56) nb_: My proxy remains in effect in case this client drops off or I don't respond (23:38:01) nb_: I'm on my iPhone (23:38:19) andreasbuerki: Im on my kubuntu ;-) (23:38:22) iang: does anyone feel the need to move a second motion to add a time limit? (23:38:39) andreasbuerki: I feel so, yes (23:38:41) nb_: I think it should be case by case (23:39:14) PhilippDunkel: I think my threat of berserkerdom in case of abuse in either direction is sufficient for me ;) (23:39:27) ernie: :-) (23:39:34) iang: ok, I'm guessing this one is closed. Is any more to be discussed about Arbitration? (23:39:43) PhilippDunkel: However I would like the minutes to show that we will generally allow anywhere from 14 - 30 days to elapse for a response (23:39:56) andreasbuerki: PD Hopefully you live forever... ;-) 23:40 (23:40:01) markl: I think Andreas said he feels we need a motion? (23:40:14) andreasbuerki: yes (23:40:21) PhilippDunkel: @AB: I certainly hope so, but scientific investigation shows that to be exceedingly unlikely ;) (23:40:31) iang: ok, text? (23:40:51) nb_: I move that it is the sense of the board that the time for a response should be 14-30 days (23:41:09) nb_: But that is a nonbinding motion (just that that is our "sense") (23:41:16) andreasbuerki: nb's text woulöd be fine by me (23:41:23) PhilippDunkel: @NB: Good (23:41:44) markl: I think for the same reason above, we shouldn't set a fixed time limit (23:41:55) markl: it's one thing to agree amongst ourselves that we'll aim for 14-30 days (23:41:55) andreasbuerki: and as well as non-binding, but for future boards (23:42:10) markl: future boards can just revoke our motion anyway (23:42:17) iang: I think the minutes can show this debate, and the sense can be presented to the Arbitrators. (23:42:25) markl: this only binds a future board to the extent that they want to be bound by it (23:42:36) iang: but if there isn't a decision, putting a motion in might be misinterpreted (23:42:42) andreasbuerki: ok... agree on that... let's stick to this minutes (23:42:43) PhilippDunkel: In all honesty. I don't expect this to become much of an issue. As people that have been appointed Arbs are usually of sound judgement. (23:42:47) iang: I for one don't want a motion on something that we haven't experienced as yet (23:42:50) nb_: markl: My motion is not a set limit just we our saying that we think that is the general guideline (23:42:56) markl: PD, right, this is just the safety valve (23:43:25) PhilippDunkel: I would do this as Nicks statement in the minutes and no more (23:43:33) iang: nod (23:43:33) markl: nb_: but if it's not decisive, it just paints an unclear picture if we pass it as a motion (23:43:34) andreasbuerki: nb: that is ok, as it reflects the spirit (23:43:35) GolfRomeo: ok (23:43:41) nb_: iang: True (23:43:58) PhilippDunkel: Can we move on? (23:44:03) andreasbuerki: yep (23:44:25) nb_: I am fine withwithdrawing m motion (23:44:28) iang: i have no more on Arbitration, but wish to thank Ulrich for kicking some butt. (23:44:33) markl: ok... 2.4. Corporate Actions - added by Iang (23:44:38) PhilippDunkel: I second that ;) (23:44:39) iang: although we can't say that in the minutes :) (23:44:39) markl: letter to RC, mandate, extension (23:44:54) markl: I will speak to this first, as most of it seems directed at my tasks? (23:44:58) iang: yes please 23:45 (23:45:38) markl: we have received advice from the office of fair trading that they have approved the extension of time to hold the AGM, to 28th feb, 2010, as requested (23:45:46) markl: i have this advice in writing (23:46:26) markl: I have sent the letter to Robert requesting return of both hardware and documents, by registered mail, on 30 nov 2010 (23:46:54) nb_: I need to send out an email advising people to send rule change and agenda proposals (23:47:02) nb_: I'll send it out tonight (23:47:09) markl: and Ernestine has been successfully identified to Westpac, and she now has a customer number and such, but now we are waiting on the branch that the account was opened at to approve the new signature authority, which should take about another week (23:48:06) markl: I incurred expenses of AUD21.45, which I will submit to Ernestine for reimbursement, in doing all that. (23:48:10) markl: (end) (23:48:26) GolfRomeo: (great news) (23:48:53) nb_: markl: I may be planning a trip to Chicago sometime in the future and I believe there is an embassy there. Is there still a desire for other signatories too? (23:48:55) PhilippDunkel: We should publish this to the members as well and advise them formally of our intentions. And decide on a date to hold the AGM. Is 2010-01-10 still the favorite? (23:49:26) iang: PhilippDunkel: I think we should defer discussion on AGM date until after the next Agenda point on finances. (23:49:29) markl: nb_: I'd say at this point to wait until after the AGM (23:49:31) nb_: Although it may not be until after the AGM and as such is subject to the election results of course (23:49:36) PhilippDunkel: @IanG: OK (23:49:40) nb_: markl: Yeag (23:49:50) markl: did anyone have anything else to add to this agenda item? 23:50 (23:50:09) ernie: no (23:50:13) PhilippDunkel: No, other than that we should explicitely advide the membership of this (23:50:20) iang: markl: there is second letter to go out around the 14th? (23:50:29) GolfRomeo: PhilippDunkel : sure (23:50:30) PhilippDunkel: Especially due to some mails over the last weeks airing gripes about this (23:50:54) markl: I did send a mail to the board list, but yes, we should probably circulate it further than that, at least to the -members list. (23:50:57) andreasbuerki: PD I don't think so at the moment (23:51:06) nb_: Any objections to me suggesting business for the agm be sent to secretary by dec 25 or so? To allow 14 days in case we hold it on 1-10 (23:51:24) PhilippDunkel: 14 days is too little. (23:51:26) GolfRomeo: nb: ok (23:51:27) iang: it should 21 days for rule changes (23:51:27) PhilippDunkel: We need 21 (23:51:29) nb_: Or is it 21 for rule changes? (23:51:35) markl: lets discuss AGM dates when we finish discussing finance? (23:51:44) iang: yes please! (23:51:47) nb_: Ok (23:51:52) andreasbuerki: PD we should decide about the AGM date and then do an official statement (23:51:53) PhilippDunkel: Ok, let's go to the next item and rediscuss this then (23:51:54) iang: ok, we're done on corporate actions (23:52:02) markl: iang: yes, I will send another letter around then (23:52:07) iang: thanks (23:52:13) markl: ok, next... 2.5. Finance Progress - added by Iang (23:52:37) iang: this is really for ernie, whether there is any update (23:53:11) ernie: the financial statements should be ready till 15th/16th in the form like last year (details I sent to the priv-list) (23:53:36) ernie: not all positions clear, but is not important to present the financial statement in a summary (23:53:57) nb_: Well I have to leave. Mark still holds proxy and I will read minutes and compose email to members tonight probably (23:54:07) nb_: Just informal request to present business (23:54:10) iang: bye nick (23:54:15) andreasbuerki: bye nick (23:54:22) PhilippDunkel: @Ernie: Do you feel comfortable presenting this to an AGM as is? (23:54:24) PhilippDunkel: Bye NB (23:54:26) GolfRomeo: bye nick (23:54:28) nb_ hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi). 23:55 (23:55:08) markl: i think what we have even is almost enough (23:55:12) ernie: comfortable not really, but with this less transactions it's not really important for the statement to know exacly what is was (expenses) (23:55:31) markl: there's no particular form required (23:55:35) iang: 15th / 16th would suggest that if we have a meeting on weekend 20th to confirm as board (23:55:49) ernie: markl, ok (23:56:09) markl: we could basically send that excel spreadsheet to members and satisify our obligations, imo (23:56:22) andreasbuerki: 2009-12-20 is planned anyhow (23:56:53) ernie: markl, wait till 15th, then you can better read .... (23:57:20) PhilippDunkel: Ok, so we can work under the assumption that by NewYearsEve we are capable of holding an AGM? (23:57:25) ernie: markl, it's at the moment not really userfriendly (23:57:34) andreasbuerki: would make sense to send financial statement with invitation for AGM (23:57:42) iang: but if we have the meeting on the 20th, that's not enough time to reach the AGM on 10th Jan (23:57:44) PhilippDunkel: @AB: Agree (23:58:08) PhilippDunkel: Do we have to have confirmation of everthing before calling the AGM. I don't think so (23:58:10) andreasbuerki: iang: we have time until 28 of February (23:58:10) markl: I don't think we should call the date for the AGM until the finished financial report is available (23:58:27) iang: markl: I agree with that (23:58:27) andreasbuerki: agree, mark (23:58:34) PhilippDunkel: So we could call the AGM for 2010-01-10 knowing that we will be ready... (23:58:50) GolfRomeo: PhilippDunkel : good (23:58:53) andreasbuerki: PD. wait until we are ready (23:58:56) iang: i prefer to hold it in my hand before agreeing to call (23:59:06) andreasbuerki: agree iang (23:59:10) ernie: agree (23:59:11) iang: we have the extension, we are going to have to use it. What difference is one week or two? (23:59:27) markl: yeah, what if Ernie has an emergency or something, and cannot complete it in time, I think we need to be sure we have the document ready to go. (23:59:33) phidelta [email@example.com] hat den Raum betreten. (23:59:53) ernie: markl, but at this stage you have already the complete basis ...:_) (23:59:56) andreasbuerki: mark: sidemark, could you scan and digitally sing the letter from the fair traiding department and put it up to the svn for the record? 00:00 (07.12.2009 00:00:05) phidelta: Hi all I'm back fro th phone (00:00:15) markl: andreasbuerki: I don't have access to a scanner at the minute, but I will endeavour to soon (00:00:24) iang: however, with a nod to Nick, I think we could suggest to the Members that we are thinking in terms of 2nd half January ... no commitment (00:00:25) andreasbuerki: great (00:00:35) GolfRomeo: Sooner the agm is better (00:00:48) phidelta: Question: do we need the report to be polished befriend calling the agm or is it enough to have all the data (00:01:04) iang: I think we need the financial data only. (00:01:05) markl: iang: yes, if we let everyone know we're aiming for 2nd half of Jan now, it will give everyone enough time to prepare rule changes, etc, ready for the meeting call (00:01:09) GolfRomeo: iang : yes mid junuary is great (00:01:12) phidelta: @gr: agree (00:01:19) iang: we will then have 3 weeks to write the text. but that is "just us" (00:01:38) PhilippDunkel hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds). (00:02:03) iang: markl: exactly... beat the drum a little, wake people up :) (00:02:27) andreasbuerki: we should invite 4 weeks in advance, as members need time to react on rule chages, if ever (00:02:30) iang: but it also means they have to get their rule changes in *this year* .... to be save (00:02:39) markl: if we call it on the 20th, for the 10th, we will give people 13 days only between now and when we must close their agenda to prepare their business for the AGM (00:02:45) iang: s/save/safe/ (00:03:08) phidelta_ [firstname.lastname@example.org] hat den Raum betreten. (00:03:20) iang: i think the 10th is a dead number at this stage. That's why I said "second half January" (00:03:29) andreasbuerki: I would go for something like the 16 or 23 (00:03:39) markl: the agenda closes 21 days out, even for non rule changes, where a rule change is on the agenda (00:03:56) andreasbuerki: depends on rule chages, right (00:03:58) phidelta_: As my connection is getting worse. I would like to hand my proxy to Ernie in case I get disconnected. (00:04:14) ernie: aye (00:04:25) iang: phidelta_ x8;: iPhones do that to you :P (00:04:33) phidelta hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds). (00:04:33) phidelta_ heißt jetzt phidelta (00:04:42) iang: right, so I would be thinking weekend 30th Jan; end of Jan (00:04:48) iang: then there is no doubt that everyone has time (00:04:50) markl: we need to strike a balance between calling the meeting as soon as possible, and giving members ample time to contribute to that meeting 00:05 (00:05:05) andreasbuerki: markl, right (00:05:21) andreasbuerki: the y should have enough time to think about (00:05:22) phidelta: @markl: true (00:05:24) iang: but that's why I think we really need to have this discussion on the 20th December, our last meeting. (00:05:40) andreasbuerki: agrre, iang, let's do so (00:05:46) markl: yes, I think the 30/31st of Jan is the right balance, if we announce our intentions in the next couple of days, so that there is ample time to prepare, and then formally call it exactly 21 days out, to give the maximum time for ppl to get rule changes on the agenda (00:05:47) iang: last time we really got mucked up by the Elephant Rule Change ... and only 2 days to discuss it :-( (00:05:59) phidelta: I think that the 20th does not need to be our last meeting (00:06:20) iang: yes, also, reminder: we need to ask members to comment on the day: Friday / Saturday / Sunday (00:06:24) markl: why is the 20th our last meeting? (00:06:37) iang: it's not, if another is called :) (00:06:43) andreasbuerki: this time we should prepare rule chages one by one with alternatives and not one big block (00:06:46) phidelta: @markl: I can agree with the 30/31 January. (00:06:47) ernie: I think a saturday is better (00:07:03) markl: we need to open up a discussion on the members list (00:07:03) phidelta: @Ernie agreement (00:07:12) markl: to find out what day is suitable to the greatest number of people (00:07:18) iang: nick likes saturdays as well; phidelta has said that saturdays are not good? (00:07:30) iang: but I suppose we have to also defer to members' consensus on this one? (00:07:33) markl: we also should encourage any potential new members to sign up (00:07:44) iang: markl: true (00:07:46) markl: yeah, the meeting is wider than just the 7 of us.. i think we have to have a wider consensus on the day (00:07:56) andreasbuerki: true markl (00:07:57) phidelta: @mark: I disagree. Discussions about the date will just be a rat hole (00:08:19) markl: phidelta: we can ask it narrowly ... saturday 30th or sunday 31st.. which do you like? (00:08:29) pemmerik hat den Raum verlassen. (00:08:34) andreasbuerki: proposal: we propose 2 dates and people can vote about the date (00:08:41) markl: there's no third option, and in the end, it is us deciding it.. so if it turns out to be a waste of time, it's no great loss (00:08:48) pemmerik [email@example.com] hat den Raum betreten. (00:09:06) iang: I would separate it out; prefer Friday / Saturday / Sunday ... and see what happens? (00:09:09) phidelta: And we will get a bunch of different answers and awhile lot of discussion and distract from the relevant topics such as rule changes (00:09:14) iang: well, anyway ... we are getting distracted (00:09:39) iang: if there is any more? ... we should not get caught up in calendar wars :) (00:09:40) markl: i would imagine the bulk of the rule change debate will occur after the call of the meeting anyway, once the competing rule changes are on the agenda (00:09:44) andreasbuerki: so we can propose an informal vote on soemthing like limeSurvey 00:10 (00:10:02) phidelta: See if even us few can't do this without getting off topic how do you expect this to go on the larger lost (00:10:03) dirk_on_tour [dirk@p4FDCB891.dip.t-dialin.net] hat den Raum betreten. (00:10:14) andreasbuerki: lol, right PD (00:10:17) markl: but we can just do it informally, anyway... any of us can ask the question.. which day do you prefer (00:10:23) markl: and take that advice to the board meeting (00:10:27) iang: lol... (00:10:42) dirk_not_at_home hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: Leaving.). (00:10:44) markl: it doesn't need any authority from here, and we don't need to conduct a meticulous count of the results (00:10:57) markl: so being that it doesn't need anything from here either way, lets move on to the next item? (00:11:04) phidelta: Is there really a large benefit of along the members of their date preference? (00:11:30) GolfRomeo: phidelta : yes is there ? (00:11:36) andreasbuerki: it is just a democratic process, PD, that's all ;-) (00:11:47) markl: we can debate that as part of the debate over what date to hold it, which isn't happening today anyway (00:12:12) markl: next item... 2.6. DPA - added by Iang (00:12:20) phidelta: When was the last time the Swiss government asked you when you wanted to vote? (00:12:31) iang: i have just sent the email to cacert-members asking which day of the weekend. (00:12:43) ernie: phidelta, it's always a sunday :-) (00:12:56) andreasbuerki: PD... at least we can vote... ;-) (00:13:19) markl: Ian: your agenda item, you've got the floor (00:13:34) phidelta: Ian on dpa please (00:13:37) iang: DPA: I think the issue is that the board agreed last time to bring the discussion to a close, propose motions, and finish it. (00:13:44) iang: however nothing has happened. (00:14:14) iang: Now, I would like to point out I've been somewhat saturated on the Support work for the last 3 weeks, so have not been able to do it myself. (00:14:31) iang: but it is still a priority. How does this board want to move forward on it? (00:14:34) GolfRomeo: iang : I am so sad 00:15 (00:15:08) markl: what motion is being proposed? (00:15:28) iang: none, that is the point ... we reached some form of consensus in 3 or 4 meetings (00:15:32) iang: now we need the motions (00:15:58) iang: so we need a person to do this (00:16:00) iang: I'm too busy (00:16:23) markl: I move that we adjourn to a private channel for this briefly (00:16:25) iang: So, either the board tells me to go and do it and stop whining and whinging, or someone else has to do it! (00:16:32) andreasbuerki: like all of us having some work to do for food (00:16:32) ernie: markl, agree (00:16:38) markl: I have a question that cannot be addressed in here (00:16:42) iang: ok (00:16:45) andreasbuerki: ok (00:16:57) phidelta: Where (00:16:59) markl: please join #board-private 00:40 (00:42:40) pemmerik hat den Raum verlassen. (00:43:19) phidelta: Ok we are back (00:43:51) andreasbuerki: right (00:43:59) markl: I move the following motion: RESOLVED THAT, During the course of a review of CAcert's operations, we have reached the conclusion CAcert Inc's operations comply with our obligations under all data protection laws that we are subject to. (00:44:04) iang: seconded and AYE (00:44:12) markl: all those of that opinion, aye, against, no (00:44:13) andreasbuerki: aye (00:44:16) phidelta: Aye (00:44:18) ernie: aye (00:44:35) GolfRomeo: abstain 00:45 (00:45:15) markl: proxied aye for nick (00:45:34) phidelta: Please vote aye or naye on this issue (00:46:15) GolfRomeo: abstain ? (00:46:35) iang: mark's aye is assumed. he's typing it up now. (00:46:40) iang: We can move on I guess (00:46:42) markl: aye (00:46:56) markl: GR: is there a particular reason you are abstaining? (00:47:25) phidelta: On a vote on a topic that has caused so much pain I feel an abstain cannot be accepted (00:47:36) phidelta: At least by me (00:47:50) GolfRomeo: I cannot tell we comply with any data protection (00:48:12) GolfRomeo: abstain is a good option, I don't feel we are wrong with that statement (00:48:27) iang: GolfRomeo, this is a very important discussion. If you cannot back the board on this issue, then you are challenging the board. (00:48:55) phidelta: So you have not come to the same conclusion in which case you need to vote naye (00:49:01) GolfRomeo: yes sure very important, we try to comply with data protection 00:50 (00:50:10) GolfRomeo: I was part of the former board so the only option is abstain (00:50:40) phidelta: So was I. So I respectfully disagree (00:51:50) markl: I suggest you try to become more involved in your role as a board member, understanding these issues is an important part of what we do. In fact, this issue is probably the most complex and important issue we have considered thus far. Abstaining is kind of like saying "I can't be bothered with an opinion one way or the other", but having said that, I'm not going to brow beat you into a change of vote. It's been recorded, a (00:51:50) markl: nd lets move on. (00:51:56) markl: 2.7. Quality Management System - added by hugi (00:52:13) markl: andreas: your agenda item, you have the floor (00:52:14) andreasbuerki: Actually at Cacert.org and with involvement of Cacert Inc. there is no written / defined Quality Management System (QMS) in place, but a lot of single elements of such a system without the needed coordination. (00:52:14) andreasbuerki: A QMS consists of: 1. Organizational Structure - 2. Responsibilities - 3. Procedures - 4. Processes and finally, 5. Resources. All together the basis of Quality Management (QM): 1. Quality Control, Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement. (00:52:14) andreasbuerki: In regards to become “audit-ready”, a QMS as basis for QM is in my humble opinion recommended, as “audit-ready” means to have the quality as needed in order to pass successfully. (00:52:14) andreasbuerki: As said before, a lot of elements are available, but often missing detailed description and documented interrelation ship. Thus, often results in (repeated) misunderstandings, unnecessary discussions, uncertainty and doubt. (00:52:14) andreasbuerki: Said all that, what could we as a committee do, to improve over-all quality at Cacert.org and Cacert Inc.? (00:52:14) andreasbuerki: (end) (00:52:40) phidelta hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi). (00:52:51) PhilippDunkel [firstname.lastname@example.org] hat den Raum betreten. (00:53:05) PhilippDunkel: Actually, I cannot let this stand (00:53:18) andreasbuerki: feel free, PD (00:53:24) PhilippDunkel: While you (mark) may not brow beat him I intend to do that (00:53:30) markl: haha (00:53:46) PhilippDunkel: I don't care if he votes aye or nay, but an abstention I cannot tolerate on this issue (00:54:08) andreasbuerki: ah, you are still with Guillaume (00:54:10) iang: Look, can we declare the agenda -- are we moving back or forward? (00:54:21) magu_on_tour [email@example.com] hat den Raum betreten. (00:54:35) PhilippDunkel: Because it means either you (guillume) have not done your job. Or alternatively you don't have the balls to disagree (00:54:45) iang: does anyone else feel the need to discuss the abstention? 00:55 (00:55:12) PhilippDunkel: Now Guillaume: Please tell me which it is. (00:55:12) markl: and I think the record reflect one or both of those two things, but we need to move on (00:55:52) PhilippDunkel: If it's that you don't have cjones, then that's OK and we can move on. If it's that you have not done your job. Then I am happy to accpet your resignation (00:55:58) markl: you are, of course, free to persue this separately from the meeting, but we've been going three hours, and still got two agenda items left (00:56:24) PhilippDunkel: @MarkL: Ok (00:56:46) iang: I think I have to agree with markl that we need to move on. We already had the #1 item where it was made clear that either Guillaume works with the board, or he considers resigning. (00:57:25) markl: lets return to Andreas' agenda item (00:57:36) GolfRomeo: I am happy with the motion with vote abstain now, I may change my mind tomorrow it is too late to make my mind up (00:57:58) andreasbuerki: it is there... but we can postpone ti when more important discussions are needed (00:57:59) GolfRomeo: and no I am not going to resign. (00:58:55) markl: I think to consider what you are proposing, Andreas, it would need to be more fleshed out, a more concrete proposal with some actions attached. (00:59:16) PhilippDunkel: Sorry for stealing the floor. Andreas please (00:59:54) andreasbuerki: markl & PD no hard feelings.... my issue is finally a question and we should think about it 01:00 (01:00:19) andreasbuerki: it doen's need be here, but I wanted this board to make aware about the issue (01:00:21) iang: may I respond? (01:00:28) andreasbuerki: yes, please (01:00:30) markl: I worry that we already have too many policies, groups, committees, etc that are acting as road blocks to progress. I like the idea of improving quality of our systems and processes a lot, but I think there's a lot of low hanging fruit that can be improved markedly without any additional committees, etc (01:00:50) iang: the issue here is a complicated one. CAcert is an open organisation staffed with volunteers. These organisations typically do not get into QMS ... (01:01:07) iang: However, CAcert perhaps unique in this world has one area which is more or less the same thing: Audit (01:01:27) iang: it is required by mozilla & Microsoft to undergo a systems audit ... which is approximately in the same ball-park (01:01:55) iang: and it has prepared policies and practices along the lines of the audit for the last 4 years ... so in one sense it has come a LONG way (01:02:15) andreasbuerki: at the end of the day, the audit is just confirming our quality... right, iang? (01:02:39) markl: not quite... audit is confirming we do what we say and say what we do (01:02:43) andreasbuerki: I talk about cordination... not inventing somethin additional (01:02:44) iang: a recent example is the Assurance system which now has a way of co-auditing. this is a system that meets the needs of the auditor, and the contradiction that our assurers are spread across the planet. (my opinion) (01:02:45) markl: it may be a low quality "do" (01:02:53) markl: it just has to be consistent (01:03:14) iang: Now, audit sets a set of minimum standards ... which have to be met (01:03:30) iang: the problem is that if we bring in some other system, we will also have a set of forces to deal with (01:03:51) iang: e.g., our famous previous agenda item was just one such force which clashed quite heavily with many things (01:04:06) andreasbuerki: iang, no other system.... but make the system aware... (01:04:13) iang: so, bringing in a QMS or anything similar is likely to cause parallel forces heading in different directions. (01:04:22) andreasbuerki: if you want, we rename certain things (01:04:46) andreasbuerki: no t parallel.... (01:04:56) iang: and, on a more practical level, I think we have a challenge in getting activity from our community on the audit side. But at least they want that and understand what the audit is for 01:05 (01:05:35) andreasbuerki: and as more we are organized, the easier is it for everybody to understand (01:06:11) andreasbuerki: actually most understand audit = browser inclusion, but not more (01:06:34) iang: so, what is being proposed? a naming system? (01:06:50) andreasbuerki: we do a lot of things what belongs to QM... so lets them bundle... that is my aim (01:07:01) andreasbuerki: could be... why not (01:07:39) andreasbuerki: but again... no hurry... it has to grow (01:08:08) andreasbuerki: we have to become aware, what it means and to communicate it to community and public one day (01:08:25) markl: "we" is all of us (01:08:30) markl: you can communicate with the public (01:08:32) andreasbuerki: yep (01:08:45) markl: because "we" always ends up translated to "someone else" (01:08:53) iang: let me put it another way. over on the policy group we want to get a TTP written. That's probably a non-controversial statement (01:08:56) andreasbuerki: we call that TEAM (01:09:03) iang: would QMS add anything to that process? (01:09:16) andreasbuerki: TEAM means Toll Ein Anderer Machts (01:09:43) PhilippDunkel: :) (01:09:49) andreasbuerki: QMS as such not.... but it needs to be better and more open documented (01:09:56) PhilippDunkel: Translation "Super someone else will do it" 01:10 (01:10:10) andreasbuerki: ;-)@PD (01:10:34) iang: thanks PD. Right. Knowing that, what do we do ;-) (01:10:37) andreasbuerki: what I say, let's think about QMS and Qm... (01:11:10) andreasbuerki: and again... not today.... but we have to keep this in our eye (01:12:05) andreasbuerki: the successful audit is just a consequence of good quality.... or you audit bananas against bananas (01:12:48) andreasbuerki: I suggest we move to the next issue on the agenda (01:13:06) markl: ok then.. 2.8. a20091119.1 - added by Iang (01:13:49) iang: hmmm... my mind is blank! (01:14:10) markl: whilst I think the decision directed at us misses the mark completely, does someone want to volunteer to write the blog post? (01:14:16) iang: Ah: "To the Board: A blog notify hasn't been published yet that exactly states, that the TTP program is frozen right now. Please publish or order publishing an article about that motion that says, that the TTP program is frozen, asap." (01:14:26) markl: i think there's a misunderstanding... we didn't freeze the TTP (01:14:33) markl: the policy group froze the TTP program (01:14:43) iang: The Arbitrator has posted an interim order requesting us to notify the action. (01:14:53) markl: we just asked for its enforcement, but i think that subtle point has gotten lost 01:15 (01:15:03) iang: well, ok, that's a subtle point and it's been lost (01:15:11) iang: but that doesn't change the spirit of the intention (01:15:17) markl: right (01:15:33) markl: as I said above.. I think we should do what it asks anyway (01:15:41) iang: so it seems that we need to write a text on the TTP and other programmes for the blog (01:15:45) iang: any volunteers? (01:15:50) iang: TEAM? :-) (01:15:50) andreasbuerki: such stateent would be nice, if it comes from the president... (01:15:57) markl: the web pages on the main site have been updated, right? (01:16:07) andreasbuerki: right (01:16:08) markl: the president chairs meetings.. there's no magical power (01:16:15) markl: anyone can write this blog post (01:16:29) markl: anyone that is capable of logging into the blog, in fact (01:16:33) PhilippDunkel: If noone objects, I will do so now (01:16:46) markl: sold! :) (01:16:46) andreasbuerki: as long it is a board member for official statements (01:16:53) ernie: PhilippDunkel, great :-) (01:17:01) iang: PhilippDunkel: thanks! (01:17:02) andreasbuerki: Thanks PD (01:17:03) markl: we've made our official statement already, Andreas (01:17:11) markl: we make our official statements by motions (01:17:15) iang: nod, it's just a matter of explaining it. (01:17:25) markl: anyone can report on those official statements in places like the blog (01:17:47) andreasbuerki: markl.... for official blog statements a board meber is recomended... ;-) (01:17:48) PhilippDunkel: But can someone tell me the arbitration number again, because I think a20091119.1 is wrong (01:18:05) markl: ok, if PD is writing the article, problem solved and we can move on (01:18:12) andreasbuerki: yep (01:18:12) markl: no, that seems to be right, Philipp (01:18:13) u601: a20091118.1 (01:18:20) markl: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-12/msg00014.html (01:18:21) PhilippDunkel: Thanks (01:18:25) markl: at least the link goes to the right place? (01:18:33) markl: ah, linked to a different one (01:18:38) andreasbuerki: hopefully.... (01:19:09) u601: https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20091118.1 (01:19:11) markl: andreasbuerki: I think you misunderstand what I'm saying... official statements come from the board via motions, no where else... it being put on the blog is merely a reporting of that statement (01:19:35) andreasbuerki: PD... could you send the blog text as well to the main e-mail list, please (01:19:38) markl: unless we approve a specific text to post somewhere, it's not the board's work 01:20 (01:20:06) markl: writing about a motion is an informal task, unless we direct it be otherwise by agreeing on text and a place to put it (01:20:10) iang: I think the Arbitrator will be happy with an explanatory text that is not official, but points back to the official motion. (01:20:51) andreasbuerki: markl, agree, with Ian we just had once a discussion about official statements... or do you think we need a "PR_Officer" just to repeat our motion? (01:21:07) markl: yes, presumably his motivation is to make people aware, not to haggle over form (01:21:22) markl: no, i think that if we want to make a statement somewhere, we should approve that statement and make it (01:21:30) markl: we don't need yet more intermediaries and procedures (01:21:32) andreasbuerki: right, markl (01:21:56) markl: but if we choose not to make a statement, or even if we do, people can publish reports on our actions as they please (01:22:14) jmoore3rd hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds). (01:22:22) markl: we need to get away from this notion of everything having to be done by someone with a title and therefore supposed authority (01:22:23) jmoore3rd [firstname.lastname@example.org] hat den Raum betreten. (01:22:27) andreasbuerki: agree.... in the spirit of the community (01:22:46) andreasbuerki: may I offer you a beer, markl? :-) (01:22:50) markl: because it just turns everything into a exercise in mindless bureaucracy (01:22:59) markl: a nice glass of red will work better :) (01:23:18) andreasbuerki: having some Malbec here (01:23:29) markl: nice.. it's a bit early in the day to start there here yet :) (01:23:39) andreasbuerki: so, we are done on that point? (01:23:39) markl: ok, we've got a resolution on that one.. last item... 2.9. Miscellaneous - added by iang (01:23:52) markl: i'm intrigued by this one.. what you got for us Ian? (01:24:00) iang: I am confirmed as being in AU early March to late May. I am thinking of doing some CAcert events, such as ATEs, etc. Travel is however costly for me, so I'd like you to think about covering the direct travel costs. My early calculations suggest that with direct discount flights, I can go a long way for about $1k AU. Now, the reason I am thinking about this is that we may need more Australians for the future. More later on, en (01:24:00) iang: news. (01:24:24) iang: And I'm thinking about that Malbec ;-) (01:24:53) markl: iang: we can probably cover a substantial amount of ground by car, too 01:25 (01:25:20) andreasbuerki: for market building I'm always open (01:25:25) iang: I'm thinking that too. Also thinking of Adelaide, Melbourne, Tassie, Perth. Sydney can be done by car. (01:26:11) markl: I'd add to that we should start thinking about proposing some new policies for assurer seeding like this too, because we really do not have a great way to do it without 3 people any more. (01:26:26) andreasbuerki: could it be somehow cordinated, that you can meet with assurers on the spot in order to "produce" 100 assurance point assurers? (01:26:34) iang: right. I'd ask for super-assurer status, but I think I killed it already ;-) (01:27:07) markl: for instance, i could have seeded assurers in sydney, melbourne, canberra and adelaide already with a super-assurer policy (01:27:13) iang: we have had a few discussions about Assurance Parties where certain time-folding tricks cause everyone to elevate at the same time. (01:27:15) markl: instead i'm stuck issuing them 35 completely useless points (01:27:20) andreasbuerki: Oh, yes... what about the super assuer, who can award 100 trust points? (01:27:27) markl: no one can now, andreas (01:27:28) iang: dead as a dodo (01:28:03) andreasbuerki: .... bring them to life again? (01:28:03) iang: so my plan is to ask for people to show up (01:28:12) andreasbuerki: as part of the TTP? (01:28:17) iang: and there are enough Assurers in every major city for this to work (01:28:26) iang: I only need 2 others. (01:28:52) andreasbuerki: of course... we do it at our events the same: 3 x 35 (01:28:57) iang: andreasbuerki: it's whatever you can impress the policy group with, really :-) (01:29:09) andreasbuerki: lol (01:29:26) markl: yes, we need to work on some policies for sure (01:29:45) markl: i'm going to spend some time this week on drafting a TTP proposal 01:30 (01:30:09) iang: anyway, at this stage we're into wine time (01:30:22) andreasbuerki: maybe a temporary super-assurer clause will fit in, markl? (01:30:26) markl: yeah, lets finish up.. are there any questions/input from members? (01:30:46) markl: andreasbuerki: I think it'd have to be a separate policy, to avoid having one shot down because of th eother. (01:30:50) andreasbuerki: not in the agenda... maybe here? (01:31:09) andreasbuerki: maybe you are right, markl... (01:31:19) markl: both policies will require (the same) amendments to the assurance policy too (01:31:35) andreasbuerki: yep... like the PoM (01:32:21) iang: what is PoM? (01:32:36) iang: any members out there who wish to ask questions / input? (01:32:55) andreasbuerki: if I recall right, Policy on Minors.... (01:33:01) markl: PoJAM you mean? ... (01:33:03) andreasbuerki: means underaged (01:33:06) iang: oh, no that's PoJAM (01:33:15) andreasbuerki: oh, thank... you are right (01:33:18) u601: PoJAM work is mid Dec on the agenda (01:33:36) iang: Policy on Junior / Assurer Members (01:33:39) markl: I'm going to assure someone under 18 and ask for an arbitration on it, because right now, it should be possible under the current policy, so long as they have the legal power to agree to the CCA.. (01:33:47) u601: the practice doesn't fit the yet policy WIP (01:34:07) iang: actually there is no policy problem with the minors / juniors (01:34:11) andreasbuerki: whre can I find the proposal or work in progress, uli? (01:34:16) markl: sure it does, it just doesn't fit where the minor can't legally be bound to the CCA (01:34:24) iang: it is just the observation that CCA might not uphold (01:34:31) iang: right (01:34:35) markl: most jurisdictions a minor can be bound to a contract in a lot of situations (01:34:44) markl: for instance, in Australia, it's straight forward (01:34:45) u601: wiki: search for PoJAM ,-) 01:35 (01:35:02) andreasbuerki: uli... grrr... :-) (01:35:02) iang: huh .. perhaps you could brief us on that? (01:35:38) markl: NSW, and each other state, has a law specifically concerning binding minors to contracts (01:35:39) markl: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/maca1970348/ (01:36:04) ernie: markl, in CH you cann't (01:36:10) iang: although the problem is that we need a policy that works across the whole world, without creating discriminations, and without imposing the need for "regional subpolicies" like OAP (01:36:14) markl: the contract must be for the benefit of the minor.. it's a straight forward test that the CCA meets with room to spare (01:36:28) u601: https://wiki.cacert.org/PolicyDrafts/PolicyOnJuniorAssurersMembers (01:36:35) iang: ok, but to what age does that reach? (01:36:49) markl: the problem is that ignores the reality of the world we live in... i bet we can find jursidictions where 18 is not enough.. (01:37:02) iang: markl: yes (01:37:08) markl: instead of creating a PoJAM, we should require that you can't assure someone that cannot be bound to the CCA (01:37:17) ernie: iang, here in europe isn't the same age in each country (01:37:27) markl: otherwise, we need a Policy on Mentally Ill Assurers Members (01:37:39) andreasbuerki: thx uli (01:37:49) markl: and a Policy on Currently Incarcerated in Some Jurisdictions Assurers Members (01:37:50) dirk_on_tour hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: Leaving.). (01:37:50) ernie: in CH the parents have to sign the contract too (01:37:53) markl: etc etc (01:38:11) ernie: but you cann't reflect on the account (01:38:13) iang: right. which is why I preferred the idea that the Assurer become a Guardian Angel to the minor (01:38:42) markl: but then what about other classes of people who cannot legally bind to a contract? (01:39:14) markl: I think the proposed PoJAM attacks the wrong angle completely (01:39:14) andreasbuerki: some kind of godfather you mean, iang? (01:39:16) iang: well, as long as we have an Assurer / Guardian Angel, then we have that person under CCA. Who takes full responsibility in the event that the Minor / other does not (01:39:33) iang: andreasbuerki: yes, that's another good term (01:39:44) markl: the problem isn't that the member is a minor, you're trying to address the problem of a member who cannot be bound by a contract (01:39:55) iang: although perhaps we have to pick a religiously sensitive title. (01:39:56) ernie: right, you don't always see .... is there something written in the CCA that this person have legal capacity (01:39:58) markl: for which minor is not a good or even reasonable approximation 01:40 (01:40:18) iang: markl: yes. It isn't so much a question of age or laws or whatever (01:40:22) andreasbuerki: why not.... it is an older person who teaches a younger person.... (01:40:41) GolfRomeo: are we the policy list ? (01:41:12) andreasbuerki: Guillaume,,, we are just brainstorming, that's all... (01:41:14) iang: in the same sense that teachers take responsibility in classes (01:41:18) markl: Lets close the meeting, anyway, seeing as this is not a formal discussion. (01:41:20) markl: I move we adjourn. (01:41:29) GolfRomeo: markl : ok (01:41:30) iang: seconded, Aye, thanks (01:41:33) markl: aye (01:41:33) andreasbuerki: second, agree and aye (01:41:35) GolfRomeo: aye
Original Place Meeting Transcript SVN CAcer.org Website - Comment: Replace in original .txt file YYYYMMDD by the real date of the meeting and after that cancel this comment.
Inputs & Thoughts
Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please
Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please
Category or Categories