Agenda - Committee Meeting 2010-03-06 22:00 UTC
- 1.1 Chair opens the Committee Meeting
1.1b Apologies: Iang may not be able to make the meeting, proxy to Lambert.
1.2 Accept the Minutes of the last Committee Meeting
- 1.3 Progress on agreed ACTION items
- 1.3.1 Outstanding From 2010-02-02
write up Oophanga letter response for President Lambert's signature
contribute to discussion on Board/Community goals on board email list
reiterated in 20100221 meeting
Get automatic sending bit on the key persons list that I said I'd do ages ago.
reiterated in 20100221 meeting
Pay Ian (old audit debt related) and Oophanga
Westpac to change to a single signatory to sign payments in accordance with AGM rule change.
reiterated in 20100221 meeting
revisit more signatories once current mess is sorted out
lodge finance papers with Office of Fair Trading
deliver firmly worded letter to former public officer
Write up AGM minutes
AGM rule changes to Office of Fair Trading
Association rules on svn and wiki
- 1.3.2 Outstanding From 2010-02-21
Provide progress on financial lodgement and other post AGM Public Officer duties
Provide statement of future direction to board list
news on payments, payment facilities, signatories, bank statements
letter to former public officer
write up heading of board-private-list from last meeting 20100221 to the prior one
Find out from US bankers whats required to open an account
Examine willingness and legalities of using other organisations to provide alternate payment mechanisms
advised its not legal to do this
Prepare summary of payment options / investigation for association
Access control in OTRS (support system) needs to be defined
Report on Compliance of OTRS with SP
Propose Walter (??) as Events Officer as out of band motion
Triage personell not covered by ABC - revisit on policy list
Keypersons list, finish the excel spreadsheet and emailing it out
letter to Oophanga to include access team transfer
discuss team leadership with access team
Get key contacts distributed automatically for DR
Contribute towards root escrow / recover discussion
Wikify the proposals and root escrow procedures by 20100228
Comment and report on the key escrow proposals by a week after Daniel writes them up
Comment and discuss COI procedures
Write up minutes of 20100221
- 1.4 Summary of Board Private list since 20100221
- 20100304 SE-Team Members - proposed staffing changes
- 20100226 Oophanga letter thoughts
- 20100226 Old financial comments from prior board revisited
- 20100224 a20100113.1 ABC of Joost Steijlen - results in for review
- 20100224 CAcert PR material available / Oophanga reminder
2 Businesses - Important Note: Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Committee Meeting latest!
2.1 p20100306 Policy Officer makes minor adjustments added by Iang
2.2 Determine Root escrow and recovery mechanism - added by Daniel Black
- Outcome is to decide a mechanism. Previous meeting action items required a review of proposals.
Iang as I may not be at meeting, comment added: I do not think we are ready to make a choice this meeting. The choices are not so well developed, and I don't see a consensus on the cacert-root list.
Dan If they are not well developed we need to ask questions to develop them further. cacert-root list is letting the board decide and I've probably lead them this way
2.3 Support - added by Iang
- team changes requested by Michael Tänzer
- Add Joost Steijlen
- Remove Martin Schulze
- team changes requested by Michael Tänzer
2.4 Events Officer - added by Iang
- From last meeting (21:12:18) propose Walter (???) as Events Officer replacing Ulrich
2.5 Revoke CoI between Board and Arbitration - added by Daniel Black
- Previous board motion m20090914.1 required board members revoke their Arbitrator status.
- Uli presented that Arbitration needs staff and 2 arbitration board members are currently prohibited from helping in the 60 cases queued up.
- I propose that we overturn this motion to allow the participation of board members in arbitration and let the DRP rule as far as prohibiting involvement in cases of a CoI
2.6 Infrastructure Team Leader - added by Iang / Daniel
Previous notes that were'nt received in time for formal meeting item.
- " so we should talk about formally recognizing this team and formally recognizing Daniel's work in the past as defacto team leader"
2.7 Infrastructure movement out of Ede - added by Iang
Previous notes "Board's task to confirm that the infrastructure team is tasked with getting out of Ede, and onto the new servers."
- 4.1 Confirm next Committee Meeting: Usually every 1st Saturday of the month at 22:00 UTC and 3rd Sunday of the month 21:00 UTC.
- 4.2 Chair closes the Committee Meeting
- 4.3 Preparation of Minutes
Minutes - Committee Meeting 2010-03-06
Present: Ernestine, Daniel, Mario (had connection interruption), Ian (passively) and Lambert (away from 22:55 to 00:03). Nick joined at 22:49.
Lambert held a proxy for Ian.
- Lambert chairing the meeting determined a quorum and opened the meeting. Chair backed up by Daniel.
Accept the Minutes of the last Committee Meeting
- Daniel noted the minutes have been finished in a rush and he might have missed something.
- Moved by Lambert, seconded by Mario. Carried.
- Progress on agreed ACTION items
- Outstanding From 2010-02-02
- Mark: write up Oophanga letter response for President Lambert's signature.
- Mark was not there as well as last meeting. Daniel will contact him.
- Lambert tried to contact Mark but did not get a response
- Daniel assumed Mark being overloaded and asked whether this should be taken off his hands.
- Agreed first to contact Mark to check whether he is not nearly finished by now.
- Mario mentioned remembering on one of the last meeting it was agreed to contact Oophaga informally and send them the annual report while finishing the formal reply. Lambert to call Oophaga and tell them that they will be informed soon.
- Ernestine mentioned Ian spoke with Oophaga in December or Janurary.
- Lambert noted we need to follow up and referred to an email sent by Teus.
- contribute to discussion on Board/Community goals on board email list. reiterated in 20100221 meeting.
- Lambert did not see any substatial progress on this yes.
- Daniel and Ian did some posts.
- Not much followup either by community and board.
- Mario has just gone abroad and will try to catch up with the lists.
- Ernestine mentioned to get an overview where we are we need somehow feedback from the people.
- Daniel stated we only need a board view and the community will object/state their view if they think we are wrong. We sort of need this to complete the Oophaga letter.
- Lambert suggested for all to come up with one or two items to look at and then to decide a priority and a timeline
- Ernestine noted that we would need a list auf the running projects and their status
- Daniel liked to have a quick status report of them on every board meeting
Lambert agreed and said independent of status we need to have a 50.000 feet idea of where we want to be in 6-12 months
- Ernestine asked whether there is an actual list of all officers
- Dan mentioned the officers wiki page, but did not knew whether it was current. Ernestine said it was not.
- Lambert noticed that the overview was lost and asked for a volunteer to sort out officers, projects and status.
- Ernestine will start a wiki page and ask people to complete.
- automatic sending bit
- Dan explained: was the key persons email list - to send contact details out automaticly to baord/arbitratiors/admins to facilitate DR. He is still waiting on Nick to compile the list of contacts. For Daniel low priority unless he gets the list of contacts.
- Lambert mentioned a rather small list. Dan said it was partially complete now and Nick was finished with it.
- Mario said we might need Nicks feedback for this.
=> Waiting for Nick to complete the list.
- Nick: I still have the emails that were sent to me, the spreadsheet i had basically done was lost when my hard drive crashed. but i have it almost re-constructed from the emails. hopefully i can finish and upload it to the list tomorrow
- Mark: Pay Ian (old audit debt related) and Oophanga.
- Ernestine had no record on these payments had been done. Mentioned that Mark can do payments alone now.
- Ian: not received any payment.
- Mark: Westpac to change to a single signatory to sign payments in accordance with AGM rule change.
- Dan to ask Mark and report back if Mark to not give a status. Mario to mail Nick.
- Agreed on other action items of Mark being deferred to next meeting.
- Ian: Write up AGM minutes
- Ernestined thinks Ian already started.
- Daniel mentioned we can get any member to write the minutes if Ian has not time.
- Ian: not started yet.
- Mark: write up Oophanga letter response for President Lambert's signature.
- Outstanding From 2010-02-21
- Lambert skipped the first four as they were already discussed.
- Mario had sent a summary of the board-private-list to the public readable board list just an hour before the meeting.
- Find out from US bankers whats required to open an account
- Nick is not there. Ask him again.
- Nick later was asked to post info to the list.
- Ian: Examine willingness and legalities of using other organisations to provide alternate payment mechanisms
- Answer was given. No questions.
- Lambert: Prepare summary of payment options / investigation for association
- Lambert: First email sent, need to follow up. No further info.
- Support TL: Access control in OTRS (support system) needs to be defined
- Ernestine: but regarding OTRS and other systems we have to sep. system by itself and process of the data-process/datahandling
- Lambert: question is: is OTRS part of the critical systems, and does SP apply? Short summary: is not part of critical systems, and SP does not apply. L to Ian: is that correct, and do we need a vote here?
- Daniel: board can decide what's critical or not
- Ernestine: as long we don't have a overview about the setup, we cann't vote
- Daniel: If we need more info, ask on the list.
- Daniel: there was some outstading items for Support leader - lets get an update next meeting on OTRS
- Agreed to move OTRS to next meeting.
- Questions on OTRS: Groups, Roles, Permissions. Not basically on OTRS, more on data, process and procedures.
- Nick: Role based. SE have SE role and can see SE informationen (basically support@). Triage can see incoming mail and move it into other queues.
- Ernestine: but it depends how you have done the setup regarding to the policy, how the processing is. Further discussions on the list.
- Dan: didn't seem much on root escrow discussion
- Ernestine: people on vacation till next week ...
- Outstanding From 2010-02-02
- p20100306 Policy Officer makes minor adjustments
- Daniel: i'm thinking this is take note of community work which is good
- Ernestine: Who is Policy Officer? Was the last one Philipp D.?
- Daniel: I'm thinking Philipp D.
- Ian: PD is documents officer. Policy Officer was never appointed.
- Daniel: so now that there is a reponsibility declared by the policy group we need to fill it?
- Ian: that's what the vote asks for, in a way. if not, it falls back to board.
- Daniel: want to ask the policy group for volunteers?
- Determine Root escrow and recovery mechanism
- Daniel: critera is up - few proposals are there. was an action item from last meeting to review the items here.
- Lambert: Seems to me this is not yet covered in enough detail, but I also see a lack of progress.
- Daniel: security manual section 9 clearly said this procedures is a board responsibility so we shouldn't be depending on the community to fill it out for us.
- Lambert: It's a responsibility of the board, but that does not mean we have to do all the work. we do have to understand the options and make the final decision though.
- Daniel citing "This section is managed by the Board."
- Lambert: A "manager" normally makes it happen, but dos not do the work him/herself.
- Daniel: we're not showing a lot of management here. limited leading discussion, limited decisions, limited criteria
- Ernestine: some answers will come from the people on the list next week - they are away
- Daniel: lets make sure we have all the questions clearly ready for them.
- Ernestine: right, think finally we must present a proposal, otherwise we will not have a decision wihin reasonable time.
- Ernestine thanks Daniel and Ian for doing a good job here and his effort.
- Support team changes requested by Michael Tänzer
- Ernestine: could we agree to hear more about the people - not only the name. from all people we are asking who they are, if I should say to somebody yes or no - I should know a short summary.
- Mario: Joost should be well known. Regarding b. see private list.
- Lambert: Joost is known. Martin was not able to do the work as requested
- Daniel: thinking that Joost has a background check done and is keen to do the position and is recommended by those doing the position and that gets and aye from me
- In futuer get more details on names proposed to board.
- Add Joost Steijlen
ABC of Joost: https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20100113.1
- Remove Martin Schulze
- Lambert moved to accept the changes as requested by Michael Tänzer, seconded by Mario.
- Events officer
- Lambert: I don't see Walter's last name. Can anyone fill us in?
- Mario: I think it is Walter Güldenberg
- Ernestine: did anybody ask walter, did he accept
- Daniel: ian probably did and yes. lets leave that as ian's action item to propose it fully.
- Revoke CoI between Board and Arbitration
- Daniel: was derived form uli's question last meeting. they feel impeeded by the board taking two arbitartores and the current rulling prohibiting dual hats.
- Ernestine: think not it is a problem, as long not the board is involved.
Daniel: i don't see a COI for the majority of cases and the abitrator rules have COI clauses so they don't rule over the board they are sitting on. so i propose that we overrule m20090914.1 and let our board/arbitrators work themselves in as many ways possible
- Mario: I am also in favour of overturning the motion.
- Lambert: I move the arbitrators come with a proposal explaining what cases can be picked up by arbitrators that are currently board members. i don't think we need to decide on the arbitrators proposal. (one thing to consider: arbitrators that are board members should first focus on board, then on arbitration. so I don't think they will have much time to do arbitrations)
- Daniel: so in the interested of saving everyones time -lets not ask arbitarors to write a proposal then we as a board don't need to review it.
- Mario: I thinkany individual should decide their timeline for himself...
- Lambert move to overturn motion m20090914.1, seconded by Mario.
- Infrastructure Team Leader
- Daniel: all in favour of inflicing pain and suffering on making me an infrastructure team leader officially?
- Mario: Fine for it by now. But we need to have more discussions on more seperation (e.g. stricter policy on email/otrs)
- Moved to email discussion.
- Lambert moved to assign Daniel as Infrastructure team leader, seconded by Mario.
- Lambert: And thanks dan for the work so far.
- Infrastructure movement out of Ede
- Lambert: First, let me make it clear to everyone, this is not about the critical systems. These will stay in Ede. It is about the infrastructure systems.
- Daniel agreed this was a goal, but has not done much in the last month.
- Daniel: brian mostly and I was getting infrastructure standards setup so hopefully maintaince down the track is easier. was going to look at the vienna option when it came though. at the moment we have adfinis in swiss that has two servers. i still have to work our IP requirements. but its mainly waiting on me to fix up adfinis to a standard where it I can move stuff. other infra can go off the same standards when they come through.
- Ernestine: where is the server in vienna now located? saw some post regarding "moving".
- Mario: I think it is still sonance. Afaik is was just from one machine to another in the same rack. (Ian confirmed that this machine is still hosted by Sonance at Funkfeuer).
- Ian: vienna #2 is searching for some parts; not sure which colo it is located in
- Daniel: i don't think i can handle more that 3 locations (bit, vienna #, adfinis) so please slow down here
- p20100306 Policy Officer makes minor adjustments
- Question time
- No questions.
- Lambert noticed meeting take a lot of time and much time is spent on action items.
- Mario proposed to communicate more via email.
- Lambert: I think that with a bit more preparation we could do these meetings in half the time, or have double the discussions in the same time
- Daniel: lets cover them as a any quesitons on action items and move on. - i'm was mainly keeping it there for tracking
- Agreed on having action items updated before the meetings so they can be handled faster.
- Lambert also noted that when moving to the next item not everyone is ready.
- We will try to improve in future by waiting a short while before moving on. If someone has something to add put in a quick stop.
Confirm next Committee Meeting: 2010-03-21 21:00 UTC.
- Chair closes the Committee Meeting
- Preparation of Minutes
- Mario agreed to write these minutes.
- Ernestine Mentioned meet-bot would make writing up minutes easier.
- Nick to install meet-bot.
- Lambert noticed meeting take a lot of time and much time is spent on action items.
Ask Mark about his outstanding items
Board/Community Goals - get an overview
Board/Community Goals - come up with one or two items to look at and then to decide a priority and a timeline
Board/Community Goals - 6-12 month position statement
Status report of current projects
Status report of current officers
Root Escrow/Recover - ask questions needed to evaluate methods
Install Meetbot for next IRC meeting
Email list (members) about US banking options
Synopsis of Meeting Contents
- Letter to Oophaga has high priority but could not be handled within the meeting properly since Mark, who is working on it, was not there.
- Definition of access control to OTRS system is being documented
- p20100306 mentioned an policy officer which seat is currently not filled. Policy group should bring one up.
- Root escrow and recovery mechanism: Some discussion happened, more soon when some people return from vacation.
- Joost Steijlen was accepted as a support team member. Martin Schule was removed from Support.
- Accepting Walter as new Events Officer was deferred until a proper proposal is brought up.
- Board members now are allowed to serve as arbitrator again, as long as board in not involved.
- Daniel now officially is Infrastructure team leader.
- Infrastructure team is working on bringing up new systems at new locations. Note: This is not about the critical systems. These (primary the web, database and signing server) will stay in Ede, Netherlands. There is not plan about moving critical systems out of BIT in Ede.
Decisions Reached by Motion including Update since last Committee Meeting - Overview
m20100308.1: Accept the Minutes of the last Committee Meeting from 2010-02-21
m20100309.1: Move to accept the support team changes as requested by Michael Tänzer.
m20100309.3: Moved that Daniel is assigned as Infrastructure team leader
Logs are UTC+1 timezone.
23:02 < Q> And who is here? 23:02 < law> me 23:03 < Q> no Nick? 23:03 < law> nb? 23:03 < ernie> Q, mark is also not here 23:03 < dan> me is also here 23:03 < Q> So I count Ernie, Dan, Law, and myself 23:03 < ernie> Q, ian said before 23:03 < ernie> Q, he is maybe not here 23:04 < Q> Well, at least we have 4, so we seem to have a quorum, right? 23:04 < law> Ian just timed out, maybe he joins in back later 23:04 -!- iang [email@example.com] has joined #board-meeting 23:04 < Q> Same Internet downtime as myself :-) 23:05 < Q> Ok, I'd like to start then 23:05 < Q> I open the meeting 23:05 < Q> We have Ernie, Dan, Law, Ian, and myself, is that correct? 23:05 < law> iang: You take part in the meeting? 23:06 < iang> maybe, passively, I'm sick :-( 23:06 < dan> ow 23:06 < dan> lets continue... 23:06 < Q> @iang: Travelling sickness? 23:07 < law> Wish you to get better soon! 23:07 < ernie> iang, hope you feel better soon 23:07 < iang> Q: no, picked up something in CeBIT .. travel probably made it worse, 23:07 < Q> So we miss Nick and Mark, 23:07 < Q> I'd like to start with item 1.2, minutes. 23:08 < Q> I move we accept the minutes 23:08 < iang> so i leave my proxy with Lambert, and will be in & out 23:08 < law> second 23:08 < ernie> aye 23:08 < law> aye 23:08 < dan> accept (but only just) 23:08 < Q> @dan: why? 23:08 < dan> i just completed it in a rush and could of missed things. 23:09 < Q> ok 23:09 < dan> acceptable - there's a log there anyway 23:09 < Q> Ok, I declare it carried 23:09 < Q> Let's move to 1.3, open items 23:09 < law> hold on 23:10 < Q> @law: yes? 23:10 * dan holds to my nice warm cup of tea 23:10 < law> I just saw 2 ayes. Dan needs either to vote aye, naye (or abstain) 23:10 < dan> aye then 23:10 < Q> aye fom me 23:11 < Q> ah, and aye from Iang :-) 23:11 < Q> ok now? 23:11 < law> yes :) 23:11 < Q> Ok, carried, move to 1.3 23:11 < Q> item 1: letter to oophaga 23:12 < ernie> mark is not here, what we do? 23:12 < Q> I have tried to contact Mark, but did not get any response 23:12 < dan> appears mark is overloaded - want to take that one off his hands? 23:12 < Q> Who ha talked to Mark recently? 23:12 < law> Has there been sent an informal mail to oophaga after the last (or the one before) to oophaga? 23:13 < ernie> Q, he was also last time not here 23:13 < law> ... the last meeting ... 23:13 < dan> i'll take an action time to phone him after the meeting 23:13 < Q> law: not that I know of, that's why I wanted to contact mark 23:13 < dan> s/time/item/ 23:13 < Q> dan: phone Mark? 23:13 < ernie> Q, with people from oopahaga Ian has spoken ... the prof I think 23:14 < ernie> Q, but this was in Dec or Jan 23:14 < dan> Q: after the meeting I will phone him 23:14 < Q> ernie: yes, but we need to follow up, see for instance the email from Teus regarding being at NLUUG 23:14 < law> Iirc we agreed to sent an informal mail containing a reference to the annoal report and announce a response which already should have been sent by now. 23:15 < dan> law: that's my recollection too - did anyone do it? 23:15 < Q> I think it's important to keep Oophaga informed, so I'll contact them 23:15 < Q> if there are no objections that is 23:15 < ernie> Q, if mark sent this mail ? could not rember that he said something 23:16 < Q> Mark was going to create a draft, that I was to send to Oophaga 23:16 < ernie> Q, what you will tell them? or only informal "contact" to keep them happy 23:16 < law> I guess if a mail was send the board should have received a copy... 23:16 < Q> Have not heard from Mark since 23:16 < Q> law: yes 23:16 < dan> i'd rather we contacted them twice informally and appear disorganised than not contact them and appear disorganised and rude 23:17 < law> agreed 23:17 < Q> Ok, can we summarize as: 23:17 < Q> Dan will call Mark 23:17 < Q> I will call Oophaga, and tell them they'll be informed soon 23:17 < ernie> ok 23:17 < dan> good 23:17 < law> ok 23:17 < dan> ok ref formal letter can we take that off mark? 23:18 < Q> I'd like to wait for Mark's answer 23:18 < Q> Maybe he's already at 80% 23:18 < dan> ok - i'll report back after i contact him 23:18 < Q> So, can we decide after you talked to him? 23:18 < Q> Good. 23:18 < Q> Next 23:19 < Q> Ok, : discussion on community 23:19 < law> but maybe it would be a good idea to have someone appointed for backup. Getting this solved soon seems important to me 23:19 < Q> We need to start this, have not seen any substantial progress yet 23:20 < dan> ian and i did some posts 23:20 < Q> @law, that's why I'll contact them directly, independent of the answer 23:20 < ernie> dan, right 23:20 < Q> dan: yes, but not much follow-up 23:20 < Q> from the rest of the board 23:20 < Q> or the communitry 23:21 < ernie> but to get a overview where we are, we need somehow a statusreport from the people 23:21 < law> I will try to catch up with the lists asap. Have just gone abroad this week and hopefully now getting more time to catch up. 23:21 < dan> er both - but only really need a board view - the community will object/state their view if they think we're wrong 23:22 < dan> we sort of need this to complete the oophaga letter 23:22 < Q> I suggest we all come up with one or two items to look at, then decide on a priority and timeline 23:22 < Q> Would that work? 23:22 < ernie> and we also need a list of the projects / running, status 23:23 < dan> and have a quick status report of them every board meeting 23:23 < Q> ernie: agree, but independent of status we need to have a 50.000 feet idea of where we want to be in 6-12 months 23:23 < ernie> did we have somewhere am actual list of all officers 23:24 < dan> there was a officer's wiki page - don't know of its currency 23:24 < ernie> Q, right, but I think the prios we know ... :-) 23:25 < ernie> dan, last time I looked, it wasn't up to date ... 23:25 < ernie> but I'm not sure if I looked to the right list ... 23:25 < Q> Seems to me we have no clear overview. Do we have a volunteer to sort out and summarize back to the board 23:25 < Q> ? 23:25 < dan> of officers? 23:26 < Q> officers, projects, status 23:26 < ernie> officers and different people in charge 23:27 < ernie> I will start I wiki-page and ask people to complete 23:27 < Q> Thanks! 23:27 < ernie> somewhere we have everything, but you don't find a overview 23:27 < Q> Anything else to add to this item? 23:28 < dan> nothing here 23:28 < Q> No, then I'd like to continue with action 3, automatic sending bit 23:28 < dan> to add 23:28 < Q> Dan, can you explain this item? 23:29 < dan> was the key persons email list - to send contact details out automaticly to baord/arbitratiors/admins to facilitate DR 23:30 < dan> still waiting on nick to compile list of contacts though 23:30 < Q> What is the status? 23:30 < Q> ok 23:30 < dan> status - to me low pri until i get contact details 23:30 < ernie> dan, didn't have philippD also this list? 23:31 < Q> I noticed there is a list, and also a spreadsheet with names, but it's on the server, and the spreadsheet is small (two names) 23:31 < dan> its partially complete now - nick said he'd finished - its even in teh action items of last meeting though it goes back before then 23:31 < Q> I wished I had the full list on my computer 20 minutes ago when my Internet broke down 23:31 < ernie> Q, there was a longer list last time (old board) 23:31 < law> I think we need nicks feedback to proceed here... 23:32 < Q> Ok. 23:32 < dan> yes! 23:32 < Q> Btw. who's making minutes? 23:32 * dan done two lots so far and passes 23:33 < Q> Ernie? Law? 23:33 < ernie> mhh, if somebody install meet-bot I could help in the future :-) 23:33 < law> OK, I can do it. 23:33 < Q> Law: thanks! 23:33 < ernie> meet-bot makes life easier 23:33 < dan> action nick - install meet-bot? 23:34 < Q> Can we enter in the minutes that we're waiting for Nick to complete the list? 23:34 < Q> ernie: meet-bot? 23:34 < ernie> why not, you have done minutes quicker, 23:35 < dan> take recording of minutes and action items as done 23:35 < Q> ok. Anything to add to this item? 23:35 < dan> ACTION nick to install meet-bot 23:35 < ernie> dan, hope he will do this time, I asked him already last year :-) 23:36 < Q> Let's move to next action. Ernie, do you know if Ian and Oophaga have been paid? 23:36 < dan> key persons list was from last year too 23:36 < ernie> Q, no 23:36 < ernie> Q, but could ask oophaga, no problem 23:36 < Q> Can you explain what's blocking payments? 23:36 < ernie> Q, don't know, mark can do alone now 23:36 < law> We should mail Mark and Nick personally to get a status and timeline regarding their action items! 23:37 < Q> Dan, can you ask about this as well when you talk to Mark? 23:37 < dan> yes 23:37 < Q> Anything to add here? 23:37 < ernie> iang, you are here? did you get payment? 23:38 < Q> Next: Single signatory: I think we have to wait for Mark. Dan, can you ask this as well? 23:38 * dan notes the point of a action list being there bfore the meeting is so it could be rougly filled out before the meeting too 23:38 < dan> ok 23:38 < dan> ref signatory 23:39 < law> please give a refirm report of marks status if he cannot do by himself soon. Is it ok if I write an email to nick? 23:40 < dan> freedom to write all emails granted to law :-p 23:40 < Q> Agree 23:40 < ernie> dan, right :-) 23:41 < Q> The remaining actions for Mark from 2010-02-02 must wait until next time (less urgent for now). Agreed? 23:41 < law> agreed 23:41 < dan> yes 23:41 < ernie> yes 23:41 < Q> Write up AGM minutes, by Ian. Any status here? 23:42 < ernie> I don't have one, but I think ian started already, didn't he say something once 23:42 < dan> i gave him a log a few days before last meeting - if ian doesn't have time we can get any member to write it - happy to provide logs there 23:43 < Q> I did send Ian a log of the meeting as well, he mentioned he was going to do it 23:43 < dan> good next item.... 23:43 < Q> I'll ask him again, and otherwise search for a volunteer 23:43 < Q> Moving to actions from 2010-02-21 23:43 < dan> ACTION ^ ( just to make seaching logs for action items easier) 23:44 < Q> I'll skip the first4, have been discussed 23:44 < Q> next: Law: you wrote a summary, right? 23:44 < law> yes. jut posted to board list in the last hour. 23:44 < Q> ok, done 23:45 < Q> US bankers: Nick's not here, I'll ask him again 23:45 < Q> Next: legalisties of using other organisations for payments. Has been answered by Ian. Any questions here? 23:46 < dan> no 23:46 < ernie> no 23:46 < iang> ernie: I can not see any payment made over the last few months 23:47 < Q> Next: payment options: I've sent my first email, need to follow-up. No further info 23:47 < iang> agm minutes: not started as yet 23:47 < ernie> iang, mhh, we need mark for an answer here 23:47 < Q> Ian: the OTRS system. Can you provide status? 23:48 < dan> it was sent to the baord list 23:48 < iang> Q: see report 23:49 * nb here now 23:49 < Q> Has everyone seen it? 23:49 < ernie> but regarding OTRS and other systems we have to sep. system by itself and process of the data-process/datahandling 23:50 < Q> question is: is OTRS part of the critical systems, and does SP apply? Short summary: is not part of critical systems, and SP does not apply 23:50 < Q> Iang: is that correct, and do we need a vote here? 23:50 < Q> (hi nick) 23:51 < dan> board can decide what's critical or not 23:51 < nb> RE: Key persons list 23:51 < ernie> Q, as long we don't have a overview about the setup, we cann't vote 23:51 < dan> if we need more info ask on the list 23:51 < ernie> dan right 23:51 < nb> I still have the emails that were sent to me, the spreadsheet i had basically done was lost when my hard drive crashed 23:51 < nb> but i have it almost re-constructed from the emails 23:52 < nb> hopefully i can finish and upload it to the list tomorrow 23:52 < dan> there was some outstading items for Support leader - lets get an update next meeting on OTRS 23:52 < Q> law: can you add the feedback from Nick to that corresponding action? 23:52 < Q> dan: agree, let's move OTRS to next meeting 23:52 < ernie> Q, regarding OTRS we postpone till we have more info about the setup and datahandling process 23:53 < Q> We all seem to agree on this :-) 23:53 * nb will see about installing meetbot, i know it is packaged for fedora, but do not know about for debian 23:53 < nb> what kind of questions about the setup of otrs? 23:53 < nb> i may be able to answer some 23:53 < ernie> groups, roles, permission 23:53 < Q> well, for one: what data is stored in OTRS 23:53 < dan> nb: its not about otrs per say - its about data/process/procedures 23:54 < nb> oh ok 23:54 < nb> ernie, basically everything is controlled by "roles" in otrs 23:54 < nb> which means that SE's have the SE role and can see SE information (basically all of support@) 23:54 < nb> triage can see incoming mail and move it into other queues 23:55 < ernie> nb, right, but it depends how you have done the setup regarding to the policy, how the processing is 23:55 < ernie> nb, we will discuss on list 23:55 < nb> ernie, ok 23:55 < Q> (guys, I have a small issue: my dog needs a short walk, I can get out and be back in less than two minutes, or clean up later. 23:55 < Q> Who can take chair?) 23:55 < dan> i''ll take it 23:56 < Q> ok, I'm off, 23:56 < dan> ok - next few action items - accept them as not done and carry them forwards 23:57 < dan> didn't seem much on root escrow discussion - another agenda item - over it there 23:57 < ernie> dan, people on vacation till next week ... 23:57 < dan> CoI discussion was from uli's questions needs to still be done 23:57 < nb> Oh, I do have some info of banking 23:58 < dan> any more action item questions? 23:58 < nb> dan, would this be the appropriate time? 23:58 < nb> sincei t was an action item? 23:58 < dan> nb: put it on list - can't really present anddiscuss in this time frame 23:58 < nb> oh ok 23:59 < dan> law - thanks for private list summary - heaps better than mine 23:59 < dan> (ref 1.4) ^ 23:59 < dan> ok - business - 2 23:59 < dan> 2.1 p20100306 Policy Officer 23:59 < dan> i'm thinking this is take note of community work which is good 00:00 < dan> was there more info/questions here? 00:00 < ernie> no, but who is policy-officer 00:00 < ernie> was the last one philippD 00:00 < dan> i'm thinking phillip d 00:00 < ernie> did he ever resign? 00:01 < law> hi. back. seems to be internet outage day today 00:01 < dan> not from that position 00:01 < ernie> ok, then I'm up-to-date :-) 00:01 < dan> law: on 2.1 - policy officer stuff 00:01 < iang> PD is documents officer 00:01 < dan> good clarification - thanks iang 00:01 < iang> s/documents/documentation/ 00:02 < dan> anything else regarding this 2.1 item iang? 00:02 < ernie> who was last policy-officer? 00:02 < iang> never been appointed 00:02 < dan> i'm not sure there was one 00:02 < ernie> because I thought it was pilipp 00:02 < ernie> did we need one? 00:03 < Q> Back 00:03 < dan> iang: so now that there is a reponsibility declared by the policy group we need to fill it? 00:03 < dan> Q: (2.1) 00:03 < iang> dan: that's what the vote asks for, in a way 00:04 < iang> if not, it falls back to board 00:04 < dan> iang: want to ask the policy group for volunteers? 00:05 < ernie> let us think about, and speak next time about this issue 00:05 < dan> ok ernie 00:05 < iang> agree with defer ... dan: i doubt that could work 00:06 < dan> any more 2.1 items? 00:07 < dan> ok - 2.2 - Determine Root escrow and recovery mechanism 00:07 < dan> critera is up - few proposals are there 00:08 < dan> was an action item from last meeting to review the items here. 00:08 < Q> Seems to me this is not yet covered in enough detail, but I also see a lack of progress 00:08 < dan> right - have you asked for more detail? 00:09 < Q> To be honest, no 00:09 < dan> i agree that there are bits of all proposals that lack detail 00:09 < Q> have been busy with things outside CAcert... 00:09 < dan> unless any objection ACTION item is for all to review level of detail in root escrow proceedures and criteria 00:10 < Q> agree 00:10 < dan> security manual section 9 clearly said this procedures is a board responsibility so we shouldn't be depending on the community to fill it out for us 00:11 < Q> Hmm, not sure. It's a responsibility of the board, but that does not mean we have to do all the work 00:11 < Q> we do have to understand the options and make the final decision though 00:12 < dan> "This section is managed by the Board." 00:12 < Q> right. "managed" 00:12 < Q> A "manager" normally makes it happen, but dos not do the work him/herself 00:12 < dan> we're not showing a lot of management here. limited leading discussion, limited decisions, limited criteria 00:12 < ernie> dan, some answers will come from the people on the list next week - they are away 00:13 < dan> ok - lets make sure we have all the questions clearly ready for them. 00:13 < ernie> dan, right, think finally we must present a proposal, otherwise we will not have a decision wihin reasonable time 00:14 < Q> dan: agree 00:15 < dan> ok - probably can move on - 2.3 back to Q in chair 00:15 < ernie> dan, think you have done here a good job 00:15 < ernie> dan, btw - thank you for the effort 00:15 < ernie> and to ian 00:15 < Q> agree, this is rather important 00:15 < Q> ok, 2.3 00:16 < Q> Michael requested team changes 00:16 < Q> Any questions? Otherwise I move we approve the requested changes 00:16 < ernie> Q, could we agree to hear more about the people - not only the name 00:16 < Q> ernie: what is it you're looking for? 00:17 < ernie> from all people we are asking who they are, if I should say to somebody yes or no - I should know a short summary 00:17 < ernie> we asked from people in the past too - in the wiki is ok 00:18 < ernie> he can do afterwards, no porb 00:18 < ernie> *problem* 00:18 < law> Joost should be well known. Regarding b. see private list. 00:18 < ernie> law, you maybe know, I don't - only the name 00:19 < Q> ok. Joost is known. Martin was not able to do the work as requested 00:19 < ernie> regarding the second name I read ... 00:19 * dan thinking that Joost has a background check done and is keen to do the position and is recommended by those doing the position and that gets and aye from me 00:19 < ernie> dan, I think he has done, but where you can find .... 00:20 < ernie> I don't will know "everything" about the check, but whe it was done, then say it 00:21 < ernie> anyhow, we could move on - but some process how this changes will be done will be nice, not only two names 00:21 < Q> ernie: ABC of Joost: https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20100113.1 00:22 < ernie> ok 00:22 < Q> Ok, I move we accept the changes as requested by Michael Taenzer 00:22 < dan> aye 00:22 < ernie> aye 00:22 < law> second & aye 00:23 < ernie> Q, thank you 00:23 < Q> aye 00:24 < Q> I declare it carried 00:24 < Q> 2.4 00:24 < Q> Events officer 00:24 < ernie> we had already above ... 00:24 < Q> I don't see Walter's last name. Can anyone fill us in? 00:24 < Q> ernie: did I miss something? 00:24 < law> I think it is Walter G√ºldenberg 00:25 < ernie> Q, this line ***Propose Walter (??) as Events Officer as out of band motion 00:25 < ernie> did anybody ask walter, did he accept 00:25 < dan> ian probably did and yes. 00:26 < dan> lets leave that as ian's action item to propose it fully 00:26 < Q> ok, next: COI between board and Arbitration 00:26 < Q> Daniel, can you comment? 00:27 < dan> was derived form uli's question last meeting 00:27 < dan> they feel impeeded by the board taking two arbitartores and the current rulling prohibiting dual hats 00:28 < ernie> think not it is a problem, as long not the board is involved 00:28 < dan> i don't see a COI for the majority of cases and the abitrator rules have COI clauses so they don't rule over the board they are sitting on 00:29 < dan> so i propose that we overrule m20090914.1 and let our board/arbitrators work themselves in as many ways possible :-) 00:29 < ernie> dan, agree 00:29 < law> I am also in favour of overturning the motion 00:29 < Q> I move the arbitrators come with a proposal explaining what cases can be picked up by arbitrators that are currently board members 00:30 < dan> as a board lets allow this to happen. then the arbitarors are free to manage themselves 00:31 < Q> dan: please explain? 00:32 < dan> i don't think we need to decide on the arbitrators proposal 00:32 < Q> (one thing to consider: arbitrators that are board members should first focus on board, then on arbitration) 00:32 < Q> (so I don't think they will have much time to do arbitrations) 00:33 < Q> With that I support dan's proposal. 00:33 < dan> ok - so in the interested of saving everyones time -lets not ask arbitarors to write a proposal then we as a board don't need to review it. 00:33 < Q> I move we overturn motion m20090914.1 00:33 < law> I thinkany individual should decide their timeline for himself... 00:33 < law> second & aye 00:33 < Q> aye 00:33 < dan> i think we have all here in favour of overturning it 00:34 < dan> aye here too 00:34 < ernie> aye 00:34 < Q> I declare it carried 00:34 < Q> 2.6: infrastructure team leader 00:35 < dan> all in favour of inflicing pain and suffering on making mean infrastructure team leader officially? 00:36 < law> So this is only a motion to fix the defacto state? 00:36 < dan> yep 00:36 < Q> I move we assign Dan as Infrastructure team leader 00:36 < law> Fine for it by now. But we need to have more discussions on more seperation (e.g. stricter policy on email/otrs) 00:36 < law> second & aye 00:36 < dan> abstain 00:36 < Q> aye 00:37 < ernie> aye 00:37 < Q> I declare it carried 00:37 < dan> happy to talk about email/otrs policy later offline 00:37 < Q> And thanks dan for the work so far 00:37 < ernie> law, this issue we move to list - for further discussion 00:38 < Q> Next, 2.7, move of infrastructure out of Ede 00:38 < law> agree, list is better for this. 00:38 < Q> First, let me make it clear to everyone, this is not about the critical systems 00:38 < dan> i'd pretty much agreed this was a goal - aven't done much in the last moth though 00:38 < Q> These will stay in Ede 00:39 < dan> yes 00:39 < Q> It's about the Infrastructure systems 00:39 < law> So, what is this item about? Just for Dan to give a status update? 00:39 < ernie> btw, where is the server in vienna now located? 00:39 < ernie> saw some post regarding "moving" 00:40 < law> I think it is still sonance. Afaik is was just from one machine to another in the same rack. Iang should know better. 00:40 < Q> Dan, can you give us a status update what systems we're talking about, where they are right now, and what the plans are? 00:40 < ernie> law, location of the server ... think not the will have in the offices there 00:40 < ernie> *they* 00:41 < dan> it ok - at the moment we have adfinis in swiss that has two servers 00:41 < law> Doing some more guessing it is funkfeuer 00:41 < iang> law: correct, it was change of machine, not location 00:41 < law> but everyting just from catching this up from discussions. 00:41 < dan> brian mostly and I was getting infrastructure standards setup so hopefully maintaince down the track is easier 00:42 < dan> was going to look at the vienna option when it came though. 00:42 < law> iang: So ftr the vienna location is still Sonance hosted by/at Funkfeuer? 00:42 < iang> yes 00:42 < dan> yes it is 00:43 < dan> it will leverage of existing work. 00:43 < dan> afaik i still have to work our IP requirements. 00:43 < iang> vienna #2 is searching for some parts; not sure which colo it is located in 00:44 < dan> but its mainly waiting on me to fix up adfinis to a standard where it I can move stuff. other infra can go off the same standards when they come through 00:45 < Q> Ok, so what's the question with item 2.7? Do we need to make a decision, or is this a FYI? 00:45 < dan> i don't think i can handle more that 3 locations (bit, vienna #, adfinis) so please slow down here 00:45 < law> I do not see anything to vote on.. 00:46 < dan> ians idea in the email was to reaffirm this - i'm impartial - was going to do it anyway 00:46 < Q> ok. I think we've covered item 2.7 then :-) 00:47 < Q> Question time. 00:47 < Q> Anyone? 00:48 < Q> If no one has a question, there is something I'd like to ask. I've noticed these meetings take a lot of time, and it's my impression we could do these a bit more efficient 00:48 < nb> aye to overturning m20090914.1 00:48 < Q> Thanks Nick 00:49 < Q> I'd like to propose a more formal approach. We for instance spend far too much time on action items 00:49 < Q> But we need to go through them 00:50 < law> I think we should communicate more via email to make the meetings easier. 00:50 < Q> I think that with a bit more preparation we could do these meetings in half the time, or have double the discussions in the same time 00:50 < ernie> Q, action items we can do the remarks also before in the wiki 00:50 < Q> Am I the only one with this opinion? 00:50 < dan> lets cover them as a any quesitons on action items and move on. - i'm was mainly keeping it there for tracking 00:50 < ernie> so we can move the open things to next time 00:51 -!- jmoore3rd1 [JohnMoore@adsl-176-166-45.asm.bellsouth.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds] 00:51 < ernie> and handle where we have to discuss 00:51 < ernie> dan, agree 00:51 < Q> ernie: good suggestion, would save a lot of time 00:51 -!- jmoore3rd [JohnMoore@adsl-190-41-209.asm.bellsouth.net] has joined #board-meeting 00:52 < Q> OTOH we need to go through them to make sure there is progress 00:52 < dan> assigned members can update us if there's issues 00:52 < Q> So let's make sure we have the items updated before the meeting 00:52 < dan> please 00:52 < law> Since we do not need to vote on anything, have the chair decide which items to address? 00:53 < Q> Another thing I noticed is switching to the next item 00:53 < Q> I notice I sometimes go to the next item, bit not everyone is already there 00:54 < Q> Can we think of a way to make sure we all agree to go to the next item? 00:54 < law> I have to apoligize here. I often do late comments. 00:54 < Q> It's not a personal comment :-) 00:55 < dan> i think a next item call followed by 30s is enough 00:55 < ernie> :-) 00:55 < Q> As chair I have to wait until everyone finished, but I never know 00:55 < Q> Dan: that would be nice :-) 00:55 < dan> rather than putting a response a quic ''stop' and then go on 00:56 < Q> ok. Enough on my question. 00:56 < Q> Any other questions? 00:56 < dan> so the chair should go quickly and the rest say stop when they need to input 00:56 < ernie> agee 00:56 < law> I have no problem if moved to the next item. Should I/we abstain from commenting on previous items if something comes up late? 00:56 -!- iang [firstname.lastname@example.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:56 < Q> (waiting for 30 seconds now) 00:57 < Q> Ok. I'd like to confirm the next meeting 00:57 -!- iang [email@example.com] has joined #board-meeting 00:57 < dan> 21 march 2100? 00:58 < dan> time 2100 not year :-) 00:58 < Q> That would be Sunday March 16, 21.00 UTC 00:58 < ernie> lol 00:58 < ernie> yes 00:58 < Q> We now started at 22.00 UTC, but we agreed it was to be 21.00 UTC 00:58 < Q> What would be the time? 00:59 < ernie> Q, sunday one hour earlier 00:59 < law> Sat 22, Sun 21. We had I think... 00:59 < ernie> saturday 22:00 00:59 < Q> Ok, net meeting Sunday March 16, 21.00 UTC 00:59 < Q> The meeting is closed 00:59 < Q> (net=next) 00:59 < dan> i see 16 march as a tuesday ? 01:00 < law> Mach 21 I think... 01:00 < Q> dan: what year? 01:00 < dan> thanks law - March 21 01:00 < dan> this year 01:00 < ernie> mhh - 16th .. couldn't be :-) 01:01 < ernie> dan, we have 21st 01:01 < dan> anyone got mark phone number off hand? 01:01 < ernie> no, I dont have 01:01 < Q> Hmm, my paper agenda says march 16 is Tuesday..... 01:02 < dan> just email - needs to take other 1/2 out to breakfast 01:02 < dan> i may have it already - i'll need to dig for it though 01:03 < law> I will do the minutes. cu 01:03 < dan> i'm off - you can work out the date system - i'll turn up at the presecribed time 01:03 < dan> thanks law 01:03 < ernie> Q, yes, but the 16th is not in two weeks .. 01:05 < Q> So next meeting: Sunday March 21st, 21.00 UTC 01:05 < ernie> yes 01:07 < nb> dan, i think i do
Original transcript is located in SVN.
Category or Categories