Committee Meeting 2010-05-01
The meeting will take place at 22:00 UTC in the IRC channel #board-meeting on the CAcert IRC network.
Feel free to add a business within the acceptance period or your question to the board below.
Prepare minutes from last meeting
put motion to accept the last meeting
- Summary of cacert-board-private list since 2010-03-22 and reason for privacy
Update action items
- Chair opens the Committee Meeting
- Who is making minutes? - Lambert - (only person not to have been asked/volunteered to do one)
Businesses Important Note: Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Committee Meeting latest!
Progress on DNS to critical added by Iang
- brief outage on weekend
some progress by Wytze.
- Wytze seems to have this under control and its this maybe policy group decision (dan)
Communication: Sending out a regular CAcert newsletter added by Mario
- Discuss general administrative questions: Do we want a newsletter?
Arbitrations/a20100309.1 was lodged to support this. As such I'm in favour (dan).
adfinis Sponsoring Agreement added by Mario
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
Question One added by Your Name Comment: Replace "Question One" by Your Question and add your Name
- et cetera
22:04. Lambert opens the meeting.
Minutes. Short discussion about minutes, were not done yet, due to misunderstanding. Ian agrees to do minutes of last meeting, Lambert will do these minutes
2.1 Progress on DNS to critical
This is a FYI: there was a DNS outage spotted, and was looked at by Wytze and PG. Wytze is on it, and looking for ways to prevent it next time. There is no need for the board to react.
Discussion follows regarding hosting our own DNS, no further action needed.
2.2 Communication: Sending out a regular CAcert newsletter
Mario would like to introduce a CAcert newsletter.
Ideas were posted at https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2010-02/msg00041.html
Discussion follows, with the following items/questions:
- do members need to subscribe to a separate list, or do we rely on account settings?
- What frequency: 4 times/year or 12 time/year?
- who will be active supporter/editor?
- what should be in it?
Mario will work out the details, will get a proposal to us, and will prepare the first email.
2.3 Adfinis Sponsoring Agreement
Item was raised by Mario, Adfinis wants to sponsor us, but it includes a contract. Questions are:
- do we need a contract?
- what should it include
- what do we promise to the sponsor?
Discussion follows, main items are:
- having a contract is a good way to protect both parties, but it should be clear what we get, and what we give in return.
- proposed contract is under CH law, and CAcert cannot enter such a contract, we use the DRP
- this sponsorship is a result of the decision by the last board, to select more locations.
- Language should be English, that's unclear now
- many other small remarks
Consensus is that the board welcomes the proposal (we need the infrastructure, the Adfinis offer is a good fit, a form of contract/agreement is ok,) but huge discussion regarding the Swiss Jurisdiction.
To avoid a huge number of emails, it is decided to create a wiki page, with comments and responses.
- Funding proposal for Ksplice: Is that Infrastructure only? ==> Yes
- Can we look for a way to add voice? It's often difficult to see if others are still typing? ==> We can try, will look at it.
Consensus to organise the next meeting on list. Meeting closed.
mYYYYMMDD.#: Motions from the meeting
(12:00:57 AM) ernie: hi everybody (12:02:12 AM) Q: Hi all (12:02:30 AM) Q: laptop is recovering, am online again (12:02:59 AM) ernie: hi lambert (12:03:40 AM) Q: Finally, I also got access to the agenda (12:03:59 AM) Q: Welcome everyone (12:04:23 AM) Q: I see Ian, Ernie, Law, Nick, and myself. (12:04:47 AM) Q: Don't see Daniel or Mark, anyone knows their status? (12:05:12 AM) iang: I don't know their status (12:06:02 AM) iang: Mark is offline / off skype. (12:06:48 AM) iang: I've pinged them in email (12:06:55 AM) Q: Did not see any response from Nick (12:07:11 AM) Q: So it seems we have only 4 of us present (12:08:59 AM) Q: Ok, I guess we'd better start, anyone wants to wait? (12:09:11 AM) iang: no, i'm fine with starting (12:09:22 AM) Q: ernie? Law? (12:09:40 AM) law: fine with starting (12:09:44 AM) ernie: ok (12:10:23 AM) Q: Who was doing the minutes at our last meeting? (12:10:35 AM) Q: I looked for them but could not find them (12:11:51 AM) Q: Was it you, ernie, or law? (12:12:12 AM) ernie: no, I don't agree to do (12:12:22 AM) Q: law? (12:12:28 AM) ernie: I have still too much timelines at the moment (12:12:33 AM) law: not that i can remember... (12:12:44 AM) iang: Ernie was suggested, but I did not see any confirmation of that (12:12:49 AM) Q: Hmm, that explains why I could not find them :-( (12:13:10 AM) Q: Ok, last time I volunteered for this meeting (12:13:27 AM) Q: but we still have to do minutes of last meeting. (12:13:38 AM) Q: I can see what I can do (12:13:47 AM) ernie: iang, I could not remenber that I agreed to do (12:14:04 AM) iang: I don't recall that you ever agreed to do it either (12:14:13 AM) ernie: iang, right (12:14:25 AM) Q: I remember I suggested it, but that you already mentioned you did not have time (12:14:31 AM) ernie: iang, but I have done rules changes and all this - you don't see here (12:14:54 AM) Q: Somehow I thought somenone else "volunteered", but I guess I was wrong (12:14:59 AM) iang: it was just this rotation idea that had turned up, ... ah I recall, that I was designated for the previous one, and in that same conversation you had been pointed out. (12:15:22 AM) iang: but I do recall you did not agree at the time :) (12:15:47 AM) Q: Ok, I will do todays minutes, Ian, can you do the minutes of last meeting? (12:16:06 AM) Q: @ernie: when will you be available for this? (12:16:09 AM) Q: Next time? (12:16:22 AM) iang: ok, I will do minutes for 20100418. (12:16:50 AM) iang: having just done the AGM minutes :-( grumble grumble (12:16:51 AM) ernie: Q, when I have finished all the declarations I have to do (12:16:59 AM) Q: ok. (12:17:13 AM) Q: Then let's start with 2.1 (12:17:24 AM) Q: Ian, go ahead (12:17:44 AM) iang: ok, not a lot to say other than the topics listed there. (12:17:52 AM) iang: there was a DNS outage spotted by Mario (12:18:14 AM) iang: we managed to get in contact with PG and Wytze ... and the thing was resolved eventually (12:18:34 AM) iang: the outage was for around an hour or two, and in some cases wasn't noticable because of caching (12:18:50 AM) Q: I read that Wytze is on it, and looking for ways to prevent it next time. Is there anything needed from the board? (12:18:53 AM) iang: the cause was never quite isolated, with both PG and Wytze pointing at the other's servers (12:19:07 AM) iang: No, there is nothing needed here. It is an information point only (12:19:17 AM) Q: Ok, any questions? (12:19:23 AM) iang: although I would raise half an eyebrow at how long it is taking. But these things take time (12:19:49 AM) law: yes, since dns is critical, why do we outsource it to go-now.at? (12:20:03 AM) iang: it's easy to talk as if you know what DNS is and how to run it ... it's much more work to do it properly :-) (12:20:03 AM) law: at least the hosting of dns servers. (12:20:34 AM) law: but maybe just bring this question better up at the sysadm list. (12:20:37 AM) iang: law: it's always been done that way ... so it required the board to agree to transfer the DNS to critical in order to shift it across (12:20:40 AM) Q: What I understood is that we run our own DNS, but the link to our servers was gone (12:21:32 AM) Q: I suggest we ask Wytze and his team to come up with a status, and a clear proposal if something has to change. (12:21:39 AM) law: i think wytze is still working on it. as understanding the technical side and seen wytzes explanations i am happy with it so far. (12:21:39 AM) iang: PG has a friend in Austria who runs a set of DNS servers. He's an Assurer, I know him a little. (12:21:43 AM) Q: Any problem with that? (12:22:07 AM) iang: it's a WIP, so we wait and support (12:22:14 AM) Q: Ok. (12:22:19 AM) law: Is he ABCd? (12:22:33 AM) Q: If no further questions I'd like to continue with 2.2 (12:22:34 AM) iang: Markus in Austria? No. (12:23:03 AM) law: what is pgs status regarding abc? (12:23:16 AM) Q: (@law: he's not currently running any critical system, so it's not needed. Let's address this when it is relevant) (12:23:34 AM) iang: Whether PG is ABC'd ? PG is not ABC'd ... but he is likely "grandfathered" under the old system (12:23:40 AM) law: dns is critical iirc. (12:23:42 AM) Q: 2.2: Communication (12:23:52 AM) iang: law: yes, we decided it so. (12:24:51 AM) Q: Law, you added this topic, can you please introduce us to your ideas? (12:25:04 AM) law: OK. As on the agenda I'd like to introduce a CAcert newsletter. (12:25:27 AM) law: Ideas have been posted earlier at https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2010-02/msg00041.html (12:25:49 AM) ernie: law, and how often you will send them? (12:26:17 AM) ernie: law, and who is writing the text? (12:26:39 AM) iang: I'm in general support of this ... the caveat being that someone has to pick up the project as editor/sender and make it happen. (12:26:46 AM) law: We will see how much we have to write. But to establish it on monthly basis would be good i think. Not spam the users, but keep them informed. (12:27:14 AM) ernie: law, didn't you think this is very often? (12:27:23 AM) iang: is it perhaps better to make it on a "casual" basis for the start? So that we build up to it? (12:27:31 AM) law: The Community should contribute here. I might to volunteer as editor to get this startet. (12:28:01 AM) iang: In general I can write some text for it, but I'm definately not volunteering for the editor / publisher role :) (12:28:02 AM) Q: law, I strongly support the idea as a principple, but as Ian states, we need either someone who has this as a task, or it will be infrequent messages (12:28:06 AM) law: maybe we can also do 4 per year... (12:28:46 AM) Q: law: 4 time/year seems a good start, not too frequent as it will irritate the members, and will drain our creative resources :-) (12:28:53 AM) ernie: Q,agree, we need somebody who is writing, who is able to write such things (12:28:54 AM) iang: how do you intend to send them out? create a cacert-announce "push" maillist? (12:29:44 AM) law: That is sth the critical teams have to say. We have the subscribers linked to the members accounts (12:29:58 AM) iang: there is already a little track record of stuff on the blog & wiki (12:30:35 AM) Q: yes, just adding a one-liner with link for every blog entry might help fill this email (12:30:52 AM) iang: law: is it necessary to get those emails out? Can we start out with a sign-up maillist? (12:31:28 AM) iang: I see the Arb is filed, but no Arbitrator has picked that one up ... not sure whether that is busyness by them or other reasons. (12:31:33 AM) Q: ian: I think it would be good to just send it out, not have people subscribe. They have the opportunity to opt-out (12:31:49 AM) law: The members already subscribed. Why should they do so again? This is user unfriendly. (12:32:47 AM) iang: well, many of them subscribed many years ago ... it will generate a flood of unsubscribe requests ... but sure, if you're willing to work through that, then that will be ok (12:33:11 AM) ernie: law, where members could "subscribe" ... (12:33:34 AM) iang: i'm not opposed to using the info in the system, necessarily. It should be up and being used, I agree with that. (12:34:26 AM) iang: (or, in Data protection principles, it should be dropped for lack of use ... but this only relates to the fact that they've signed up for notification, so this is trivial) (12:34:45 AM) iang: law: do you have time for this? (12:34:46 AM) law: ernie: there are checkboxes in the user account settings (12:34:54 AM) Q: If I can summarize the points/questions: (12:34:54 AM) Q: - subscribe to separate list, or rely on account setting (12:34:54 AM) Q: - frequency: 4*/year or 12*/year (12:34:54 AM) Q: - who will be active supporter/editor (12:34:54 AM) Q: - what should be in it (12:34:54 AM) Q: Do we have other points to add? (12:35:34 AM) iang: is there editor control? Is there censorship? (12:35:43 AM) law: I will then work out details. (12:35:47 AM) ernie: law, I looked now - see, mhh - maybe first point change to "newsletter" (12:35:49 AM) iang: Or can anyone send in something outrageous and expect to reach the audience? (12:35:56 AM) law: Board should approve the mailings. (12:36:26 AM) iang: i'd rather delegate that task to the editor, if approval is needed (12:36:53 AM) Q: @iang: I think if we assign someone, and discuss what should/could be in it, it should be fine. (12:36:53 AM) Q: This should not be a "push your private ideas" spamlist (12:37:02 AM) law: we cannot send just unapproved stuff out to all our members. (12:37:07 AM) Q: @iang: agree (12:37:26 AM) Q: @law: no, but I'm happy when you would be editor (12:37:33 AM) iang: how about we approve the first one as a board? (12:38:12 AM) Q: great idea, then take it from there (for instance give law mandate to edit all he wants (within certain boundaries :-) ) (12:38:16 AM) law: Would be best... (12:38:54 AM) Q: Right. Summary: Law will work out details, get a proposal to us, and will prepare the first mail (12:38:54 AM) iang: ok, so the task would be to create the first newsletter, present to board, and at that meeting we'll confirm the arrangments for the future (12:38:56 AM) law: wasnt there a communication policy which mentions some details there? (12:38:59 AM) Q: Do we all agree? (12:39:06 AM) iang: i agree (12:39:20 AM) law: agreed (12:39:29 AM) ernie: for me ok (12:39:42 AM) Q: Good. Looking forward to your first mail (12:39:49 AM) Q: Next, topic 2.3 (12:39:59 AM) iang: law: good point ... when we get it sorted out, it can be documented there: https://wiki.cacert.org/comma/Identity/Communications (12:40:14 AM) Q: Adfinis sponsoring agreement (12:40:51 AM) Q: This has been posted by Daniel first I think, but added to the agenda by law. (12:40:51 AM) Q: Law, please, you have the floor (12:41:30 AM) law: Yes, there were some questions raised regarding the sponsoring agreement. (12:41:49 AM) law: So the main questions are: Do we need a contract? (12:41:59 AM) law: What should the contract include? (12:42:09 AM) law: What do we promise to sponsors? (12:43:21 AM) law: I added it quite early to the agenda because it seemed to me that it needs discussion. So I did in time without having any certain intentions. (12:43:35 AM) Q: Ok (12:43:41 AM) law: So for the first question: Do we need a contract at all? (12:44:15 AM) Q: Law, don't know yet. Having a contract is a good way tom protect both parties (12:44:23 AM) Q: (tom=to) (12:44:45 AM) law: I think we do. Infrastructure is important and when it is given to us, we must have an agreement of availability. (12:44:55 AM) Q: So I don't think we can answer this without asking: what do we get, and what do we have to give in return (12:45:00 AM) iang: As a general observation, ISPs generally have a contract. This is the case with BIT and Funkfeuer as well. (12:45:39 AM) iang: However, there is not a need for CAcert to be party to that contract. This is one of the reasons why Oophaga and Sonance do their good work for us (12:45:54 AM) Q: (to be honest, If I were adfinis, I'd like a contract as well) (12:46:20 AM) iang: Indeed, it is somewhat of an intent that was developed by Teus, Jens and myself that CAcert should not enter into contracts in general for this, but should rely on local partners to do that. (12:46:56 AM) Q: @iang: I've seen the discussion around that, but I don't know if this would work in CH (12:47:09 AM) iang: for this reason, CAcert supported the startup of Oophaga, and a German equivalent that went through a few names but never quite got off the ground. The second was called secure-U (12:47:20 AM) iang: Q: why is that? (12:47:30 AM) Q: But that is even more reason to investigate what obligations we have under this proposed contract (12:48:11 AM) Q: @iang: I don't think there is an equivalent party right now (12:48:36 AM) iang: ah, ok. sure, that would slow us down (12:49:14 AM) Q: I have a few questions, not sure if anyone here can answer them (12:49:46 AM) law: In practice I do not see many problems in entering this contract. But we have to adjust parameters. (12:50:28 AM) Q: I've read that this is version 1.2, so it seems this has been negotiated already. When were the negotiations started, and was that mentioned to the board? I've never seen anything like a "heads up" (12:51:02 AM) ernie: this was already last year - and board agreed to start this (12:51:21 AM) Q: Ok (12:52:17 AM) iang: last year's board was in general pushing for the infra servers to be moved out ... but I don't recall discussion about contracts (12:52:18 AM) Q: It also seems there were drafts in German. I saw a question from Ian regarding language (12:53:13 AM) Q: What language would be leading? I think it it must be clear to everyone the leading text is English, not German (12:53:52 AM) ernie: Q, it is the language you find now in this draft (12:54:30 AM) ernie: Q, it is english and not german (12:55:21 AM) Q: Next question: I see a number of questions in the emails regarding this contract. Some of them need to be answered (like: what do we owe them) before we can vote on this. Who will work on modifying the text of the contract? (12:55:50 AM) Q: Simple example: there is a discussion about logo's (12:56:03 AM) Q: We currently have a few logo's on our main web page (12:56:16 AM) Q: I see no problem adding their logo (12:56:30 AM) Q: but it's currently unclear to me if that's all they want (12:56:46 AM) dan [firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room. (12:57:03 AM) Q: Hi Dan (12:57:24 AM) Q: We started about 50 minutes ago (12:57:26 AM) dan: hey - sorry for being late. (12:57:38 AM) Q: shall I send you the loig so far by email? (12:57:42 AM) ernie: hi dan (12:57:55 AM) iang: I think on that particular point, Dan and/or Andreas has confirmed that they just want the same "logo treatment" as the others. But the contract doesn't make that clear. (1:00:09 AM) Q: @iang: this was just an example. Because we do not have another party in between we should review the conditions with more care (1:00:56 AM) iang: Q: yes (1:01:19 AM) Q: Ok, then the question is: how do we do this? (1:01:50 AM) Q: I've seen a number of email messages going up and down, with the messages getting longer and longer (1:02:18 AM) iang: in terms of the text of the contract, writing it is just a matter of turning the "wish list" into a text ... start a wiki page (1:02:53 AM) Q: I guess that will work better than ever increasing email messages (1:03:36 AM) iang: one question: is anything being delated by the contract / lack of contract? (1:03:36 AM) Q: Dan, you were involved in setting up this contract, what do you think of creating a wiki, and discussing specific items? (1:03:55 AM) Q: (@iang: good question...) (1:04:04 AM) iang: s/delated/delayed/p (1:04:30 AM) Q: (but I think that when this started last year, a few more weeks won't harm us) (1:04:41 AM) law: I don't think so, they already delivered.+ (1:05:15 AM) dan: right - they have delivered and some substantial work has been done to set it up. Obvioulsy not complete (1:06:48 AM) Q: So am I right when I state we agree with the concept (adfinis offers some services for Infrastructure, and we agree on putting their logo on websites and all) but need to discuss the details? (1:07:14 AM) law: yes (1:07:25 AM) iang: I agree with the concept, yes (1:07:31 AM) Q: ernie? (1:08:12 AM) iang: my caution is about the contract -- whether CAcert has this contract -- and only then, what that text would say (1:08:12 AM) iang: ' (1:08:22 AM) ernie: I was part of the negotitiations - so I agree with that (1:08:30 AM) Q: ok (1:08:45 AM) Q: Dan, I assume you also agree with the concept :-) (1:08:51 AM) dan: yes (1:09:21 AM) Q: Ok, I wanted to ask a question in part 3 (question time), but like to add it here. (1:09:25 AM) ernie: iang, what should this mean - sorry, don't understand (1:10:08 AM) iang: first part: CAcert entering into a contract in Switzerland would be a first for us ... it may change our situation (1:10:56 AM) iang: for example, we have an MoU with Oophaga ... but that doesn't state Netherlands jurisdiction. We have an agreement with Sonance, and that doesn't bring us into Austria (1:11:00 AM) Q: we've seen us trying to get some things solved, but it takes too long (for instance the root issue). What I like to see is a smaller group that prepares changes, and keeps the rest of the board informed (1:11:09 AM) law: we are an international acting organisation. so we have to take this step i guess. (1:11:19 AM) ernie: iang, agreement with sonace - I have never seen one (1:11:20 AM) dan: Q: given how not well the key escrow conversations on the wiki went I'm adverse to doing it again as I'm not hopefully of it acheiving its purpose (1:11:52 AM) ernie: iang, also an informal one - I have never seen (1:12:04 AM) iang: sonance on the other hand does have a proper contract with Funkfeuer. (1:12:32 AM) ernie: iang, that was not my question (1:12:32 AM) Q: @dan: what I propose is assigning a small group (3-5) to do the preparations (1:12:55 AM) ernie: iang, and sonance only deliver 2 VM's if I understand right, not a whole server (1:13:03 AM) Q: @dan: so to avoid another slowdown (1:13:34 AM) dan: @Q could be a bit late there. anything to get it going though. (1:13:39 AM) iang: ernie: we can probably talk about sonance any time ... i just don't see it as important right now (1:13:44 AM) Q: @ernie: physical or virtual is not so relevant anymore: we need availability for both (1:14:17 AM) ernie: iang, I don't started with sonance - you are always mention in your answers (1:14:52 AM) ernie: Q, yes, but first you need hardware, before you can talk about VM's (1:15:01 AM) iang: Q: is it the point that we want to rewrite this contract? or is it the point that we want to list the things that go into the contract? (1:15:17 AM) dan: iang: speak for yourself (1:15:23 AM) dan: please don't over use we (1:16:35 AM) iang: dan: it's a question to the board, as to whether we've reached some consensus. the others can speak for themselves happily and they can easily deny those suggestions. (1:16:44 AM) Q: @iang: what do you mean? I was just stating we (=CAcert) need availability, whether it's for a physical or virtual machine. (1:17:23 AM) Q: So if we have it now without a contract, how can we be sure we keep this availability? (1:17:36 AM) Q: For me physical or virtual is equal (1:17:55 AM) iang: @Q: if we're talking about sonance ... yes, sonance is doing 1 test1 VM and has made another VM available. but so far this 2nd is unused. (1:17:56 AM) ernie: Q, :-) (1:18:39 AM) iang: if on the other hand you are suggesting that CAcert feels the need to have a contract in order to have the availability ... then sure, if the board is minded to do that, I have no objection. (1:18:59 AM) Q: @iang: Ok, so if it's curently available, and not really critical, I don't think we need to commit ourselves more than we do now (1:20:07 AM) iang: Yes, and we can (I'm told) go up to 3 VMs in total easily enough and possibly more with the current situation. (1:20:08 AM) Q: I think we need to define what availability we need. Not extremely high for a test system I guess, but we need it for critical systems (Oophaga, Bit) and probably for Infrastructure (the current proposal) (1:20:40 AM) Q: So let's see if it is so important for CAcerrt that we need a contract to have an availability giarantee (1:20:59 AM) iang: the proposal of the previous board -- not well documented I guess -- was that we wanted to get around 3 different setups so that we had the agility to move VMs around. (1:22:00 AM) dan: can I entertain the board with a couple of yes/no questions to gasp a where we are? (1:22:06 AM) Q: Can I summarize? (1:22:19 AM) Q: Dan, yes, please do, that was the reason I wanted to summarize (1:22:43 AM) dan: 1. do we need some infrastructure? (1:22:51 AM) Q: yes (1:22:55 AM) dan: yes (1:23:02 AM) law: yes (1:23:07 AM) iang: yes, probably (1:23:09 AM) ernie: till now I understand we need (1:23:27 AM) dan: 2. is this the offer of intrastruture suitable here (1:23:33 AM) dan: yes (1:23:54 AM) ernie: yes (1:23:56 AM) dan: 3. do we want a contract? (1:23:58 AM) iang: in technical terms, the offer of adfinis is fine (1:24:11 AM) law: yes to 3 (1:24:14 AM) Q: not sure, I need to rely on the opinion of the Infrastructure leader to see if it suits our need (1:24:15 AM) ernie: yes (1:24:18 AM) dan: yes (3) (1:24:43 AM) dan: 4. does juristiction matter? (1:24:49 AM) Q: to 3: prefer not, but we need something (1:24:57 AM) iang: I would say no to 3 if you mean a written contract, signed by board. *we* don't need a contract, but it is noted that the hoster probably prefers a contract. (1:24:57 AM) Q: to 4: yes (1:25:12 AM) iang: 4, yes (1:25:16 AM) dan: to 4: generally no (1:25:19 AM) ernie: no to 4 (1:25:33 AM) law: 4, yes. needs at least discussion (1:26:10 AM) dan: (feel free to add questions - I think I'm almost out) (1:26:19 AM) iang: as an extreme example, if we were to setup a contract and server in Cuba or Iran ... it might annoy some governments (1:26:32 AM) Q: Dan, the contract itself is not the issue, the issue is when it goes wrong (we do not provide enough logo, or they do not provide uptime) (1:27:00 AM) Q: @iang: let's focus on the proposal at hand, I don't think we want to host in Cuba (1:27:28 AM) Q: (although, I am willing to go there for a month to install systems :-) ) (1:27:36 AM) dan: 5 are we offering too much? (1:28:18 AM) dan: 5 (don't know) (1:28:25 AM) law: right now we are offering stuff we cannot really present right now. (1:28:29 AM) Q: at 5: Dan, I don't know yet. That's why I would like to have some items defined in more detail, or at least start with the general idea (1:28:36 AM) iang: 5 we might be, but I cannot tell for sure (1:29:06 AM) iang: 5 also, I don't have a feeling for Michael's views here, so I don't know if it is important or not to him. (1:29:12 AM) Q: like: we like to use the offer, and are willing to promote adfinis by adding their logon on the website, like we do with others (1:29:24 AM) Q: The way it's written now seems a bit open to me (1:30:05 AM) Q: Or maybe have a maximum amount of liability (1:30:08 AM) Q: or... (1:31:04 AM) iang: to some extent, I don't think it matters if we "oversupply" ... as long as the community is happy to do that (1:31:05 AM) Q: My biggest issue now is I don't want to commit to something that might harm CAcert in the end (1:31:41 AM) iang: for example, if all the ATEs get run with their logo on the warmup screen (speaking hypothetically here) then that will go a long way to meeting the value ...may even exceed it (1:31:47 AM) Q: @iang: what do you mean with "oversupply"? (1:32:03 AM) Q: ok (1:32:10 AM) iang: oversupply == deliver a value in excess of what we receive from them (1:32:39 AM) Q: I'm happy to "oversupply" as long as it does not hurt CAcert (1:33:04 AM) iang: although, we have to be minded to also treat others fairly. but that is easy if we are talking about the ATE warmup slide .. just add the extra logos (1:33:28 AM) law: we might consider having more sponsors in future. so we need to keep the contract at a level which we can also offer to others (1:33:32 AM) Q: in your example: if all our presentations would mandatory include a few slides on our sponsors, it would hurt CAcert, since people will start to ask questions (1:34:02 AM) iang: do you mean, would question CAcert's independence? (1:34:33 AM) Q: If, otoh our last slide would include the logos of our sponsors, it's no big deal (1:35:00 AM) ernie: Q, it's not mandatory (1:35:27 AM) dan: contract also is specifing last slide (1:35:35 AM) Q: @dan , ernie: in the emails it was suggested that having a logo on the web site, like our other sponsors, would satisfy their needs. Can you confirm that? (1:36:10 AM) ernie: Q, yes (1:38:01 AM) Q: Ok, I'd like to finish this topic, however, not without a clear way to progress this. (1:38:01 AM) Q: It seems we still need a few changes and clarifications, but the consensus seems that we do not mind such a contract, as long as the impact for CAcert is known and acceptable (1:38:08 AM) Q: Am I correct? (1:38:19 AM) dan: yes (1:38:30 AM) ernie: yes (1:38:39 AM) iang: i'm not part of that consensus, but I can see that the consensus exists (1:38:45 AM) Q: Iang? (1:38:46 AM) Q: ok (1:38:48 AM) Q: Law? (1:38:55 AM) law: yes (1:40:24 AM) Q: Ok. Next steps: we need work on the contract. Can we create a small group (3-5) to prepare this? Or do we need the full board to get involved? (input of all is always appreciated, of course) (1:40:43 AM) iang: I would prefer the latter, full board, full visibility. (1:41:20 AM) Q: I'd like to have it in a wiki, so that we all see what's in it. Better than all the separate emails (1:41:24 AM) iang: but, I don't see it as much of an issue, if we wikify it (1:41:35 AM) Q: Ok. (1:41:53 AM) dan: only 3-5 board members are likely to participate so i don't see much difference (1:42:24 AM) Q: Dan, Ernie, you were both involved. Can one of you handle the wiki? (1:42:43 AM) dan: ok - i will (1:43:04 AM) ernie: mhh - the sponsor had no problem to send pdf - but we must ask, if he agree to post in the wiki (1:43:06 AM) Q: I suggest we then let the editing be done by you, please email all changes you make to the board, so we can keep track (1:43:06 AM) iang: Another step ... would it be a good idea to have Michael indicate what he thinks is important? Perhaps a phone call? (1:43:33 AM) iang: ernie: why is that? (1:43:38 AM) Q: @ernie: I'm suggesting a private wiki, not for everyone (1:44:00 AM) dan: iang: lets get or own view ready before we over communicate with michael (1:44:07 AM) ernie: maybe he will not have, you have to ask both involved parties, and one is he (1:44:21 AM) law: the contract is on the public board list, so whatss the problem? (1:44:43 AM) Q: @iang: that's not uncommon for contracts: for instance a PDF is not changeable, you can always point back to the original (1:44:50 AM) dan: i'm seeing the wiki as a structured discussion - not a redraft of the entire contract (1:45:12 AM) ernie: law, pdf google will not find, wiki will be found (1:45:25 AM) Q: Ok, Ernie, can you ask Michael if he agrees? It would be the fastest way to get progress (1:45:30 AM) iang: hmmm... i thought google found PDFs these days? (1:45:50 AM) dan: ernie: think ians right ^ (1:46:00 AM) law: google also spiders pdf (1:46:29 AM) law: or is the board list archive not indexed by search engines? (1:46:31 AM) iang: this is one of those points that I dont' understand ... the agreement will be public in the end, so I don't see what is commercially sensitive about the negotiations (1:46:55 AM) iang: and I am wondering if we need to hear from Michael what his sensitivities are (1:47:34 AM) iang: we also have a duty to other sponsors to make the negotiations fair .... which probably means open (1:48:06 AM) Q: @iang: end contract will be open (1:48:40 AM) Q: But during negotiations there might be info that's seen as sensitive by them (1:49:02 AM) iang: plus .... the discussion will lead to a general framework that should be applyable to other sponsors (1:49:09 AM) ernie: Q, agree with you (1:49:35 AM) ernie: iang, somewhere is also a reason why it is so hard to find sponsors (1:49:44 AM) iang: Q: I agree with both of those points ... but I think we need to know what that info is, and what that sensitivity is (1:50:06 AM) Q: Ok, let's rephrase my question: Ernie, can you inform Michael that we will wikify the contract, to enable discussion regarding the items in it, and let him get back if he disapproves? (1:50:42 AM) ernie: Q, I will do (1:50:52 AM) Q: Good (1:51:04 AM) Q: With that I'd like to finish this topic. (1:51:28 AM) iang: can we summarise the points? (1:51:34 AM) Q: Summary: Ernie will inform Michael, Dan will set up a wiki, we send comments to Dan, and he informs us of changes (1:52:09 AM) dan: i'll sort of structure the wiki for comments properly if michael agree. we'll see how it goes from there (1:52:43 AM) Q: @iang: did I miss anything in the summary? (1:53:27 AM) iang: I would clarify that the wiki page at this stage is a list of our desires in the contract, rather than a redrafting of the contract? (1:53:49 AM) dan: ack there too (1:53:54 AM) Q: Hmm, good point (1:54:15 AM) iang: and, add, that we are all requested to contribute (1:54:22 AM) Q: Would be best to clearly define what our desires are, then later include that into the contract (1:54:37 AM) Q: Will add that as action in the list... (1:55:12 AM) Q: Anything else on this subject? (1:55:31 AM) Q: Then, question time (1:55:37 AM) iang: I don't see anything else. (1:56:04 AM) Q: I see GR, hugi, and magu. Anyone of you have questions? (1:56:49 AM) Q: I take that as a no (1:57:00 AM) Q: I have a question, is that also allowed? (1:57:10 AM) law: sure (1:57:13 AM) iang: i have on general comment, being that the Minutes for the AGM are now up in their first cut form: https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/General_Meetings/AGM-20100130/Minutes-20100130-AGM.html ... I'll add it to the next agenda for discussion. (1:57:25 AM) Q: Good, thanks (1:58:27 AM) Q: Question for Dan: your proposal for KSplice. Does that cover Infrastructure only? (1:58:36 AM) dan: ref agm minutes : why not just leave it in the membership associal forum. (1:58:58 AM) dan: Q: yes - wytze wasn't keen on it for critical - at least for now (2:00:14 AM) Q: (to be honest: I wouldn't want automatic patching for critical systems: look what a certain virus update program did... Also, all changes for critical systems, including patches, must go through approval IMHO) (2:00:19 AM) iang: dan: what do you mean? the document or the discussion? (2:00:54 AM) dan: both - i see document is already there - thanks (2:01:21 AM) iang: also, bringing in code & patching from a non-community member is quite troubling ... I'm not sure how we'd audit such a thing for critical systems (2:01:21 AM) Q: @dan, I think we have to look at it before sending out (2:01:49 AM) Q: so discussing it in a meeting seems appropriate (2:02:04 AM) Q: From there on it's the CAcert Inc Members (2:02:31 AM) iang: I thought about that a bit ... as to whether the Board should have first sight of it (2:02:46 AM) Q: Ok, that was my question for Ksplice (2:02:49 AM) Q: I have another (2:03:11 AM) iang: (Minutes of AGM) but the membership were already invited to write it anyway so it seemed to be not worth the effort of slowing things down (2:03:38 AM) Q: We currently have a IRC-only meeting. This often takes longer than needed, because we don't know if the rest is waiting or typing long sentences (2:03:54 AM) iang: or getting more coffee :-) (2:04:34 AM) Q: I propose we include a voice-channel as well, if only for synchronisation. Something like skype. (we'd need to keep the IRC for logs) (2:04:54 AM) Q: Is anyone opposed to trying this for once? (2:05:21 AM) dan: heppy to try (2:05:30 AM) iang: we used to use Skype for the "management subcommittee" meetings every week in around 2007-2008. it worked out OK, but with each additional voice added it tended to get a bit worse (2:05:50 AM) dan: what was a workable limit? (2:05:51 AM) law: could try... (2:06:18 AM) iang: Also, I think Mark and Philipp D might have some experience in this area, we should ping them for ideas (2:06:25 AM) Q: ok (2:06:39 AM) law: was it a technical or a coordination problem? (2:06:43 AM) Q: Happy to try anything, just want to get these meetings more efficient (2:06:49 AM) iang: dan: in my experience, 3-4 ... (2:06:54 AM) iang: yes, I'm happy to try (2:07:35 AM) iang: I would suggest we turn off video :-) (2:08:32 AM) Q: Yeah, you wouldn't want to see me now... (2:09:21 AM) Q: Anyone else with a question? (2:09:46 AM) Q: (see, now I have to wait, with skype you could all yell "No!") (2:10:00 AM) iang: on Ksplice (2:10:12 AM) Q: Yes? (2:10:41 AM) iang: Dan: I didn't understand the part about it being open on some distros but not on other distros? Did I understand that part wrong? (2:11:20 AM) law: what meens open? Without a fee? (2:11:32 AM) Q: to be honest, I was intrigued as well, seemed like if we switched to another Linux distro it would be for free (2:11:47 AM) dan: the code it open source. the kernel binary patches are the service that is cost driven on some distros (2:12:44 AM) Q: So it would be free if we switched distro's? (2:13:14 AM) iang: or it would be free, if we created our own patches from the open source? (2:13:14 AM) ernie: Q, ubuntu is free, debian - what most enterprises will use, is a fee for the service (2:13:29 AM) Q: (but the cost of switching existing machines is probably higher than the current fee) (2:14:00 AM) dan: i don't have the time to switch distros - espicially on the host. I barely have enough time to maintain build systems. (2:14:12 AM) ernie: http://www.ksplice.com/pricing (2:14:27 AM) iang: I certainly agree that we shouldn't be switching distros for that reason, it's not cost-effective (2:14:34 AM) Q: @iang: we'd need a lot of effort for that as well, buying would probably be cheaper, and more up-to-date (2:15:01 AM) iang: Q: certainly ... i'm just trying to understand this model, it isn't clear as yet (2:15:05 AM) Q: (I know what to vote now :-) ) (2:15:15 AM) dan: as ernie said the fee isn't that much. Noone complained about paying association late fees so I'm not sure why $120 is all of a sudden important (2:15:21 AM) iang: also, i'm trying to contrast this to our principles (2:15:36 AM) iang: one of the principles is that we use open source ... GPL preferred I guess, by many. (2:15:42 AM) dan: law: what was your objection? (2:16:01 AM) dan: it is gpl (2:16:09 AM) iang: so as long as this is all GPL ... and what we are purchasing is a service, not software, then this seems fine (2:16:17 AM) Q: @iang: it's gpl, we don't pay for the SW, but for the service (2:16:28 AM) iang: another is that some people have pushed that all the stuff should be done for free. (2:16:55 AM) law: Not sure... Maybe about spending some money. But I am about to change my vote - just got to a point where I see a real benefit. (2:16:59 AM) iang: with notable exceptions ... so this has not really become a principle as yet ... more a desired strategy (2:17:04 AM) Q: Dan, can we have an evaluation after 6 months? (2:17:22 AM) dan: we've already done a 4 month evaluation (2:18:04 AM) Q: So it's been running for 4 months now? (2:18:08 AM) dan: yes (2:18:42 AM) Q: Without informing the board? O boy, good you're not managing the critical systems ;-) (2:19:17 AM) law: Q: Are you kidding? (2:19:22 AM) Q: Ok, anything else, then I'd like to finsih with deciding the date for the next meeting (2:19:26 AM) iang: lol... (2:19:27 AM) ernie: :_) (2:19:42 AM) iang: yes, please, I would prefer the date & time question be clarified (2:19:54 AM) Q: We have a proposal from Dan to do skip the next meeting (2:20:24 AM) iang: what is the logic for that? (2:20:43 AM) dan: sort of on the proviso that a bit more email discussion occurs on some elements. just allocate the meeting time length at your own time and dedicate it to cacert (2:20:44 AM) Q: So we have the next meeting at Sunday 30 may (2:21:04 AM) dan: and as a catch up for action times. (2:21:38 AM) iang: I can't see that working ... but I guess it is up to the majority (2:21:55 AM) dan: logic is that the last few meeting have been slow to achive not much. a few more early responses could of quashed some issues earlier and quicker (2:22:25 AM) law: i see the problem that the agenda will grow with skipping meetings (2:22:39 AM) iang: well, that's potentially true. But we just saw some very long responses on the Contract issue that didn't really resolve the discussion (2:22:55 AM) ernie: to put items on the agenda, without to define a outcome, makes not much sense (2:22:56 AM) iang: so the alternate case is equally plausible (2:23:30 AM) iang: another possibility is to designate a non-meeting meeting place ... e.g., this IRC room ... (2:23:51 AM) iang: in that if we have discussions, we can simply dive in here and discuss (2:24:09 AM) iang: (I'm just throwing it out there as a suggestion, don't know if it will work) (2:24:30 AM) Q: Let's just raise hands: when if favor of skipping next meeting, please reply with May 30, otherwise reply with May 16 (2:24:38 AM) iang: May 16 (2:24:45 AM) law: may 16 (2:24:49 AM) dan: 30th (2:24:55 AM) ernie: May 30 (2:25:06 AM) iang: Chair has deciding vote :) (2:25:06 AM) Q: Hmm (2:25:43 AM) Q: So far the two-week meetings did not bring enough progress, I suggest we try and skip one (2:25:46 AM) Q: may 30 (2:25:46 AM) ernie: if items are not prepared before, and the expections are defined before (as we had in the past), the meetings are too long (2:26:11 AM) iang: may 30 it is then. (2:26:12 AM) Q: But we can discuss items, like Ian proposed, I like that as a suggestion as well (2:26:19 AM) Q: Or maybe skype more? (2:26:36 AM) Q: Then I hereby close the meeting (2:26:38 AM) iang: how about the time? 22:00 ? (2:26:56 AM) ernie: if sunday, one hour earlier normally (2:27:03 AM) law: I do not have many of you in skype. My name is lipinski.biz (2:27:14 AM) ernie: it's midnight 22 UTC at our time (2:27:48 AM) Q: Dan, you were late, is one hour earlier doable? starting at midnight on a Sunday is not good for me... (2:27:50 AM) iang: so you want UTC 21:00 to get CET 22:00 ? fine by me, but it's an early start here in Oz (2:27:51 AM) dan: 2100 is fine my me. i'll set an alarm (2:28:08 AM) ernie: or we made on saturday (2:28:41 AM) Q: :-) (2:28:41 AM) Q: Sunday, 21.00 UTC (2:28:52 AM) iang: i think it also makes sense to stick to one day ... but let's discuss that next time (2:28:55 AM) Q: And we aim for a faster meeting (2:29:09 AM) Q: Do we introduce skype as well? (2:29:10 AM) ernie: iang, we have summer-time now, means 22:00 is midnight, and for work on monday a little bit late (2:29:34 AM) iang: ok (2:29:38 AM) law: skype should be an interesting experiment (2:29:53 AM) iang: dan, what is your skype handle? (2:30:06 AM) dan: grooverdan i think (2:30:20 AM) dan: yes (2:30:34 AM) Q: Before we exchange all skype handles in public, we could also send out handles to board -private (2:31:01 AM) iang: or the key person's list (2:31:32 AM) Q: Even better! (2:32:22 AM) Q: Ok, need to go and get bsome sleep. Good thing tomorrow is Sunday... (2:32:25 AM) Q: Bye (2:32:34 AM) iang: ok, later (2:32:48 AM) dan: bye = meeting offically close (2:33:09 AM) law: cya (2:33:34 AM) ernie: bye
Original meeting transcript in SVN