1 07:34 -!- katzazi [email@example.com] has joined #board-meeting 2 08:27 -!- WernerDworak [Werner@p54B1E33E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #board-meeting 3 08:51 -!- StefanT [smuxi@p5B3B8F34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #board-meeting 4 08:52 -!- INOPIAE [firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #board-meeting 5 08:59 -!- katzazi [email@example.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds] 6 09:14 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+o INOPIAE] by felix 7 09:14 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+o StefanT] by felix 8 09:14 -!- INOPIAE changed the topic of #board-meeting to: Board Meeting 2016-02-28 10:00 UTC | https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-02-28 9 09:16 -!- INOPIAE changed the topic of #board-meeting to: Board Meeting 2016-02-28 10:00 UTC| the channel is moderated for voice to board member only | https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-02-28 10 09:18 -!- katzazi [firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #board-meeting 11 09:41 -!- dops [email@example.com] has joined #board-meeting 12 09:54 -!- Anonymous947ReinhardMutz [5485561a@localhost] has joined #board-meeting 13 09:55 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+o Anonymous947ReinhardMutz] by StefanT 14 09:55 -!- Anonymous947ReinhardMutz [5485561a@localhost] has left #board-meeting  15 09:55 -!- ReinhardM [5485561a@localhost] has joined #board-meeting 16 09:56 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+o ReinhardM] by StefanT 17 10:00 <@ReinhardM> hello to everybody 18 10:00 <@StefanT> Good Morning 19 10:00 <@INOPIAE> good morning 20 10:00 <@ReinhardM> welcome to our todays board meeting 21 10:00 <@felix> hi 22 10:01 <@ReinhardM> I hereby open the board meeting 23 10:01 <@ReinhardM> do we have a quorum? 24 10:01 <@ReinhardM> Jurgen cannot attend 25 10:01 <@ReinhardM> we are 4 board members 26 10:01 <@ReinhardM> so we have a quorum 27 10:01 -!- alex [firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #board-meeting 28 10:02 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 1.2 Accept the minutes from the last meeting. 29 10:02 <@ReinhardM> any coments? 30 10:03 <@StefanT> Minutes are OK from my side 31 10:03 <@ReinhardM> I move to accept the minutes from the last meeting 32 10:03 <@StefanT> second & aye 33 10:04 <@INOPIAE> aye 34 10:04 <@ReinhardM> ACK & AYE 35 10:04 <@felix> aye 36 10:04 <@ReinhardM> carried 37 10:04 <@ReinhardM> next topic 38 10:04 <@ReinhardM> Who is making minutes? 39 10:05 <@INOPIAE> I will do the minutes 40 10:05 <@ReinhardM> Thank you, Marcus 41 10:05 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 2.4 Chair asks whether cacert-board-private maillist includes any items that need to be disclosed to Members. 42 10:06 <@INOPIAE> I do not see any points. 43 10:06 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 2.5 Chair asks whether cacert-board maillist includes any business items that aren't on the agenda yet. 44 10:08 <@INOPIAE> I do not see any points. 45 10:08 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 2.6 Chair introduces the URL of action items to the meeting, and asks for discussion. 46 10:10 <@ReinhardM> soory, i just see a type writing error 47 10:10 <@ReinhardM> topic are correctly numbered 1.4 and 1.5 48 10:11 <@INOPIAE> The motion m20160209.1 Move to change all PayPal donations buttons and payment sites of CAcert - including these on the main website www.cacert.org - to EUR currency. was carried. Software already created a fix bug 1411 which is already deployed to the test server. 49 10:11 <@ReinhardM> thanks 50 10:11 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 2. Businesses 51 10:12 <@ReinhardM> Lucas Werkmeister 52 10:12 <@ReinhardM> lucas asked for membership 53 10:12 <@INOPIAE> I recieved 2 seconds for Lucas Werkmeister. So we can vote on the application. 54 10:13 <@ReinhardM> I move to accept the application of membership from lucas 55 10:13 <@StefanT> aye 56 10:13 <@INOPIAE> second & aye 57 10:13 <@ReinhardM> aye 58 10:13 <@felix> aye 59 10:13 <@ReinhardM> motion carried 60 10:14 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.2 Karl-Heinz Gödderz 61 10:14 <@ReinhardM> Karl Heinz asked for membership 62 10:14 <@INOPIAE> I only recieved 1 second for Karl-Heinz Göddertz. In this case the formal requirements are not met. I will put the request on the agenda again when the formal requirements are given. 63 10:15 <@ReinhardM> I saw only one email who seconded his application 64 10:15 <@ReinhardM> ACK 65 10:15 <@StefanT> Ack 66 10:16 <@felix> ack... 67 10:16 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.2. status root re-sign 68 10:17 <@ReinhardM> current status is that we agreed on a date. 69 10:18 <@ReinhardM> the required persons will be available. 70 10:20 <@ReinhardM> We have a location for the public part and will perform an ATE at that location after the public part is done. 71 10:20 <@ReinhardM> It will happen during March 12th after noon. the exact dates and times will be published within the next days. 72 10:21 <@INOPIAE> The location will be somewhere near the datacenter in Ede, NL. 73 10:21 <@ReinhardM> any comments? 74 10:22 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.3 risk analysis hardware 75 10:22 <@INOPIAE> In the course of the risk analysis for the hardware I asked the critical team about their expectation of a possible failure. 76 10:22 <@INOPIAE> At the present stage I see that there is the need to replace the hardware for the critical servers within the next 2 years. 77 10:22 <@INOPIAE> We should discuss with the critical team about a time schedule for the replacement. 78 10:23 <@ReinhardM> We have to make a plan for the budget 79 10:23 <@INOPIAE> ... and a possible funding 80 10:24 <@ReinhardM> and a timetable. 81 10:26 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.4 status investigation committee 82 10:27 <@ReinhardM> I saw two emails of members of cacert who refused to cooperate with the invetigation committee. 83 10:28 <@ReinhardM> I have no further information. 84 10:28 -!- Anonymous391 [5065e36a@localhost] has joined #board-meeting 85 10:30 <@ReinhardM> I send an email "constitution of investigation committee" on Febraury, 16th. 86 10:30 <@ReinhardM> Board is waiting for some information from the investigation committee. 87 10:31 <@ReinhardM> The committee members are talking with each other. 88 10:32 <@ReinhardM> We don't have any more information. We do not influence the committee in any way. 89 10:32 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.5 personal matters 90 10:32 <@ReinhardM> 2.5.1 Ian Grigg 91 10:33 <@ReinhardM> We decided during the last board meeting to discuss the email subject "elephants" in this meeting. 92 10:33 <@ReinhardM> Yesterday I saw an email from Ian Grigg saying that he does not want board to discuss any personalities regarding his person. 93 10:34 <@ReinhardM> Dear Ian, e NEVER discuss personal matters in the public! 94 10:34 <@ReinhardM> But emails send out to the public may be discussed publicly. 95 10:34 <@ReinhardM> That is a difference. 96 10:35 <@ReinhardM> Lets start with that email. 97 10:37 <@ReinhardM> We will give links to the email we discuss. So everybody may read. And we will discuss every email in detail. At the and of boards discussion Ian may answer from the floor 98 10:38 <@ReinhardM> link to the archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-02/msg00000.html 99 10:41 <@ReinhardM> His first email about elephants was Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-01/msg00010.html 100 10:41 <@ReinhardM> He saiud 101 10:41 <@ReinhardM> He said: "The problem is much more difficult than that. There is a herd of elephants crowded into one small room." 102 10:42 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Elephant #1. The people who control the board now have (a) conducted a long-running campaign against Arbitration." 103 10:42 <@ReinhardM> That statement is absolutely wrong. He is not able to give any facts. 104 10:44 <@INOPIAE> You mean the campaign against arbitration? 105 10:46 <@INOPIAE> I can see where Ian give any facts for his claim. 106 10:46 <@INOPIAE> can/cannot 107 10:48 <@INOPIAE> To my knowledge there has been a few disputes and appeals against 2 arbitrators or their rulings. 108 10:49 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Which leads to Elephant #2 - CAcert is now in deadly embrace. Arbitration is no longer in effect, and cannot stop Board, and CAcert Inc is no longer legitimate, and can no longer act." 109 10:49 <@ReinhardM> Again no reasons given. Just feelings. 110 10:52 <@INOPIAE> I see only his personal view but I cannot follow his thoughts. 111 10:52 <@ReinhardM> Just to make it clear to everybody: There is NO board motion to seek assistance at court and there is no board motion who brings anybody to a hearing at some prosecutor in NSW. That are the facts! 112 10:53 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Elephant #3. As there is no effective arbitration, there is no longer any protection at law for the activities of the members - of both the community and the Association members. Which means that we're thrown backwards all the was to 2006 - you are liable for any mistakes you make before any court. This is in essence why many have pulled back, downed tools ("on strike"), resigned." 113 10:53 <@ReinhardM> That is a conclusion as some outcome of his personal feling. 114 10:54 <@ReinhardM> Again, no facts, no collection of evidence etc.pp.. 115 10:56 <@INOPIAE> I have the feeling that Ian does not oversees the DRP and the underlying legal requirements that have been logged with the OFT. 116 10:56 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Elephant #4. Because the board has breached, the SGM has to replace the board." 117 10:57 <@ReinhardM> No facts again. IMHO it sounds a little bit like "ex cathedra". 118 10:59 <@INOPIAE> So far I only see that Ian tries to push a SGM from around Christmans and so far nobody really picked up his request. 119 11:00 <@ReinhardM> May be. Who knows but Ian himself? 120 11:01 <@INOPIAE> One thing I see is that he is claiming that someone should do something but he is not stepping in to take over responsibility. 121 11:02 <@ReinhardM> I like to introcude another email. 122 11:02 <@ReinhardM> Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2015-12/msg00004.html 123 11:02 <@ReinhardM> Just to remember: Our last AGM was held on November 22th, in 2015. 124 11:03 <@ReinhardM> This email was written on Decmeber 09th in 2015. That is 2 weeks after the constitutional meeting of this board which happened on 2015-11-28. 125 11:03 <@ReinhardM> cite: "The Board, and CAcert Inc, has no power to lock out Arbitrators, as obviously if it did, it would. Arbitration would be powerless. The time has come for members to choose. The board? Or the policies and Arbitration? You can't have it both ways." 126 11:04 <@ReinhardM> These words may be seen as to prepare a split of CAcert in 2 parts. 127 11:06 <@ReinhardM> Ian send this email to many people not only members of CAcert Inc. 128 11:08 <@INOPIAE> From my point of view we do have a board that is following the statutes and policies of CAcert. The facts given by Ian is his assumption that board does not follow the rules. 129 11:09 <@ReinhardM> Yes, it is his personal assumption what is a very politely descriptin of "given wrong statments". 130 11:09 <@ReinhardM> letcs continue 131 11:09 <@ReinhardM> Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00013.html 132 11:10 <@ReinhardM> cite: "There is no permission for the board to conduct a star chamber. This is anathema to our culture." 133 11:15 <@ReinhardM> That is his answer to a note from board: "Please keep in mind that such an investigation is setup to give all affected parties the opportunity to work together afterwards." 134 11:15 <@INOPIAE> First of all board does not set up a star chamber. Board set up an investigation committee that should see if board was right to suspend arbitrators. This is an audit action as a third party is overlooking the case and has to come to a indepented statement. 135 11:17 <@ReinhardM> Right, the implementation of such a committe is an audit action. We ask independant people if we - board - interprete the facts correctly and if our actions do match our statutes and the acts. 136 11:20 <@INOPIAE> Another point is that board has the power to but parts of his actions under a privacy seal. In this case this was done to give the investigation committee the change to be independent. see Statues of Inc. 23 B 2 137 11:20 <@ReinhardM> s/change/chance/ 138 11:21 <@ReinhardM> correct hint of statutes rule 23 139 11:22 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00025.html 140 11:22 <@ReinhardM> cite: "In one filing, Juergen M. Bruckner has destroyed CAcert's arbitration." 141 11:23 <@ReinhardM> That is a serious accusation, isn't it? 142 11:27 <@INOPIAE> Ian does not give no evidence what so ever was filled at the office of the Public Prosecuter of Vieanna. Hi comes directly to his assumption that it must be a "Criminal court". 143 11:27 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Mr Bruckner and the members of the board in approval filed into CRIMINAL COURT in Austria against not only Eva, not only Philipp, but also his critic Iang, me, *and* his critic Alexander, long standing and independent arbitrator." 144 11:28 <@ReinhardM> That is a false and defamatory statement against my person. I never went to any court in this world and filed into criminal court against any member of CAcert, Inc as well as community. 145 11:30 <@ReinhardM> But if Ian continues his slanderous actions times may change and I have to fresh up my mind. Who knows? 146 11:32 <@ReinhardM> next Email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00029.html 147 11:32 <@ReinhardM> cite: "By putting Arbitrators into criminal court, CAcert Inc and its board have now breached DRP 2.1 and 3.5 as well." 148 11:33 <@ReinhardM> Again no memerb of CAcert at large in his capacity as arbitrator is ever put into criminal court. 149 11:33 <@ReinhardM> s/memerb/member/ 150 11:34 <@ReinhardM> next Email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00033.html 151 11:34 <@ReinhardM> cite: "what is now apparent is that the board of CAcert is in fatal conflict of interest with our Arbitration Forum and our community. We have: attempts to change Arbitration ex-jurisdiction; purported "suspensions" of Arbitrators who are active in cases; unspecified filings in criminal court for unspecified motives; the inclusion of opponents in attacks; running of "star chamber" investigations; shutdown of open disclosure; a belief that Board cannot 152 11:37 <@ReinhardM> sorry, once again, cite: "what is now apparent is that the board of CAcert is in fatal conflict of interest with our Arbitration Forum and our community. 153 11:37 <@ReinhardM> We have: attempts to change Arbitration ex-jurisdiction; purported "suspensions" of Arbitrators who are active in cases; unspecified filings in criminal court for unspecified motives; the inclusion of opponents in attacks; running of "star chamber" investigations; shutdown of open disclosure; a belief that Board cannot be controlled by Arbitration; re-interpretations of rulings, etc etc." 154 11:38 <@INOPIAE> Who has the power to control board? To my knowledge the power lies with the members of the Inc. repesented by the AGM oand not with any arbitrator. 155 11:38 <@INOPIAE> oand/and 156 11:41 <@ReinhardM> All I see are unspecified accusations. No facts, 157 11:42 <@ReinhardM> next Em,ail Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00035.html 158 11:42 <@ReinhardM> cite: "As the board and CAcert Inc are now creating liabilities and risks for all users by acting against the Arbitration on a concerted, united front, they are acting against the community's interests. It is therefore time for an SGM to replace the board, not only to protect the community, but to protect the members of the committee. 159 11:42 <@ReinhardM> We have done this before, once in around 2009, from memory. And in 2007, the board collapsed because of similar conflicts between board and community. 160 11:43 <@ReinhardM> We will need: * a demand for an SGM * resolutions * a timetable * a board. 161 11:43 <@ReinhardM> If you are happy to help support a call for SGM, please say AYE. We can get to work on a demand for SGM and a set of resolutions." 162 11:43 <@ReinhardM> That email was written in Dec 2015, 24th. 163 11:46 <@INOPIAE> So far I do not see any really progress from this mail up to now. 164 11:47 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2015-12/msg00109.html 165 11:47 <@ReinhardM> cite: "In other news - the process to call for an SGM to change the board has been started." 166 11:49 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00056.html 167 11:49 <@ReinhardM> cite: "I wouldn't say that "complete disregard" is entirely accurate - they have accepted some things. I wonder if "persistent disrespect" is a better term?" 168 11:51 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-01/msg00010.html 169 11:51 <@ReinhardM> cite: "The board has lost legitimacy since its first meeting, but here is the latest ridiculous thing going on." 170 11:52 <@StefanT> no facts, no reasons again 171 11:52 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-01/msg00016.html 172 11:53 <@ReinhardM> cite: "If the members of the secret court are reading these mails - please contact me and I will brief you on the dangerous situation that the board has entered you into." 173 11:53 <@ReinhardM> threatening members ... 174 11:55 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-02/msg00000.html 175 11:55 <@ReinhardM> cite: "In my recent email to members list, I outlined the 4 elephants I saw in the room. #3 below is that there is no longer any arbitration in effect .... 176 11:56 <@ReinhardM> So, it seems that people haven't really understood this. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people need to understand. Let me draw it out for you. Sorry, it's long and utterly utterly painful." 177 11:56 <@ReinhardM> That is the email we started with this morning. 178 11:58 <@ReinhardM> That email is very long but again, no facts! 179 11:58 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2016-02/msg00000.html 180 11:58 <@ReinhardM> cite: "If you doubt arbitration, you doubt CAcert. It doesn't get any simpler." 181 12:01 <@INOPIAE> cite from that mail "iang, never an arbitrator. Too much responsibility. " 182 12:03 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2016-02/msg00006.html 183 12:06 <@ReinhardM> cite: "iang, please note this is not a definitive recording. Nor reliable. I welcome criticism and correction. I especially welcome facts more than I welcome complaints, wailings and grumblings." 184 12:06 <@ReinhardM> he mentioned 16 points (rumors) and ended up with this. 185 12:07 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-02/msg00009.html 186 12:08 <@ReinhardM> cite: "So we're setting up a fork. Either we declare CAcert Inc culpable, in which case it also is terminated before CCA and we have to resolve the corporation and distribute the assets, *or* we declare it innocent, in which case we can carry on. Either way, we have spoken, and the liabilities are therefore solidified one way or another. Without resolving on this point, we may set ourselves up for law suits in the future - the point here is to close of 187 12:08 <@ReinhardM> Note also that these resolutions aren't binding on arbitration. But they are highly informative. As I say, these are just ideas. Please hack in." 188 12:09 <@ReinhardM> sorry, once again for completeness: 189 12:09 <@ReinhardM> cite:"cite: "So we're setting up a fork. Either we declare CAcert Inc culpable, in which case it also is terminated before CCA and we have to resolve the corporation and distribute the assets, *or* we declare it innocent, in which case we can carry on. 190 12:10 <@ReinhardM> Either way, we have spoken, and the liabilities are therefore solidified one way or another. 191 12:10 <@ReinhardM> Without resolving on this point, we may set ourselves up for law suits in the future - the point here is to close off damaging options whichever way we go. 192 12:10 <@ReinhardM> Note also that these resolutions aren't binding on arbitration. But they are highly informative. As I say, these are just ideas. Please hack in." 193 12:13 <@StefanT> I interprete this as call for fork. 194 12:14 <@INOPIAE> Is he really calling a fork? In this case he should ask himself when he will follow the requirements of our rule 6 of the Statues. 195 12:14 <@INOPIAE> Rule 6 Membership and Conflict of Interest 196 12:17 <@ReinhardM> I want to point out that a SGM in the past has discussed emails with similar topics. 197 12:18 <@ReinhardM> I do not want to discuss their problems but the given solution. 198 12:18 <@ReinhardM> A commitment was given: 199 12:18 <@ReinhardM> > Publicly making these types of statements without verifying the facts 200 12:19 <@ReinhardM> > is unacceptable and prejudicial to the association, and cannot be 201 12:19 <@ReinhardM> > justified by a right of free speech or democratic discussion. 202 12:19 <@ReinhardM> > By the number of them it cannot be said that they are not willful, 203 12:20 <@ReinhardM> > especially  that proves his willfulness to harm the association. 204 12:20 <@ReinhardM> Given these facts, the committee can no longer tolerate these types of 205 12:21 <@ReinhardM> unsubstantiated statements , either on CAcert mailing lists, or in public mailinglists, 206 12:21 <@ReinhardM> we see no alternative other than expelling him from the association. 207 12:21 <@ReinhardM> end of cite 208 12:22 <@ReinhardM> A hint for the floor: You can read these words in the documentation of the SGM 20110508, https://wiki.cacert.org/SGM/SGM20110508 209 12:25 <@ReinhardM> I think that we have to come to an end with this disastrous communication. 210 12:26 <@ReinhardM> I propose to enter in the procedure following rule 12 of our statutes and start with the exppelling of Ian G from our association. 211 12:27 <@INOPIAE> I cannot see Ian present. If you are present please make yourself visible so we can grant you voice access to the channel. 212 12:30 <@INOPIAE> I see no response so lets continue. 213 12:31 <@ReinhardM> I move to enter the procedure following rule 12 of the statutes of CAcert Inc. to expell Ian G from CAcert Inc. 214 12:31 <@INOPIAE> second & aye 215 12:31 <@felix> aye 216 12:31 <@StefanT> aye 217 12:31 <@ReinhardM> aye 218 12:32 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.5.2 Guillaume Romagny 219 12:33 <@ReinhardM> Once again we respect his wish and will not discuss any private items! But we will discuss published emails. 220 12:34 <@ReinhardM> email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00024.html 221 12:34 <@ReinhardM> cite: "A nightmare, it is for the worst." 222 12:35 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00057.html 223 12:36 <@ReinhardM> cite: "note: the CAcert community (at large) exists by itself with its rules made by consensus, even if it has no legal personality." 224 12:36 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-01/msg00000.html 225 12:37 <@ReinhardM> cite: "What I understand from the email from Board to Eva, the Board is abusing the power granted by the members doing: 226 12:37 <@ReinhardM> - willful misconduct, - constraint, - threat, in order to remove the voice of Arbitration and so the CAcert community at large." 227 12:38 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-01/msg00039.html 228 12:38 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Let's be realistic, the answer of the survey is YES 100%, CAcert Inc. now includes Kim Jong-un as a member of our Web-of-Trust. " 229 12:39 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-02/msg00010.html 230 12:39 <@ReinhardM> cite: "The 2015 CAcert Inc Board may have hijacked the legal entity of the association. 231 12:39 <@ReinhardM> & leave CAcert Inc legal person to die by itself with the consequences granted to some of the foolish 2015 Board members." 232 12:39 <@ReinhardM> any comments? 233 12:41 <@ReinhardM> I see that guillaume has nothing learned from the SGM in 2011. 234 12:42 <@ReinhardM> He repeats wrong statements and could easily verify that his given statements were wrong. 235 12:44 <@ReinhardM> And he used a wording offensive insulting members. 236 12:44 <@ReinhardM> Is this the communication style of CAcert? 237 12:45 <@INOPIAE> It should not be that way. 238 12:45 <@StefanT> i am tired to hear insults from him 239 12:46 <@ReinhardM> The SGM of 20110508 confirmed a ruling from the board at that time. 240 12:46 <@ReinhardM> ruling, cite: 241 12:46 <@ReinhardM> "the ruling of the board includes two things: 242 12:47 <@ReinhardM> 1) the messages were inappropriate (no facts, could easily have been checked/verified) 243 12:47 <@ReinhardM> 2) the ruling: he's not allowed to do this again, and will be expelled if he does." 244 12:48 <@ReinhardM> It is important to see that there is no time period given. So that ruling is in place today. 245 12:48 <@ReinhardM> I inho would expect that in any controversial discussion only real facts are mentioned and participants do not insult or offend each other. 246 12:49 <@ReinhardM> that is normal behaviour. 247 12:49 <@ReinhardM> s/inho/imho/ 248 12:49 <@StefanT> i mean his behavior stands direct against the ruling from the SGM 249 12:50 <@ReinhardM> any comments? 250 12:51 <@INOPIAE> no 251 12:53 <@ReinhardM> I move to execute the ruling from SGM20110508 which means to expell Guillaume R. from CAcert Inc. immediately. 252 12:54 <@INOPIAE> second & aye 253 12:54 <@StefanT> aye 254 12:54 <@felix> aye 255 12:54 <@ReinhardM> motion carried. 256 12:55 <@ReinhardM> Guillaume R. is expelled from CAcert Inc. 257 12:55 <@ReinhardM> next topic 3. Question Time 258 12:55 -!- mode/#board-meeting [-m] by INOPIAE 259 12:56 <@ReinhardM> any questions from the floor please? 260 12:56 -!- INOPIAE changed the topic of #board-meeting to: Board Meeting 2016-02-28 10:00 UTC | https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-02-28 261 12:56 < katzazi> what precautions are you taking that the public part of the root-resigingn will not be disturbed? 262 12:56 < LambertHofstra> I have previously asked for a description of the "investigative committee¨ mission but have not seen any. The only thing I see is CAcert members who complain because they need to work with a committee that requires them to not inform other members. And at the same time they dont know what the committeeś mission is. 263 12:56 < LambertHofstra> Can the board please explain in simple terms why said committee is installed and what the mission is? 264 12:56 < katzazi> and how will you take care that there will not be a time pressure from the following AGM? 265 12:56 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: it changes every time board speaks about it 266 12:56 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: the committee itself is asked to check if we were allowed to voices expressions 267 12:57 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: I was told in a prior statement that the investigation committee will explain me its authorisation and that board will not do so 268 12:57 < katzazi> in a prior board-meeting 269 12:58 < katzazi> about the risk evaluation: why was there no making public of the according risk-evaluation if it was send to board-private? 270 12:58 < katzazi> something like this would be a relevant document 271 12:58 < LambertHofstra> katzazi: letś wait for the answer from bvoard to your question first 272 12:58 < alex> katzazi: this would mean in my opinion this investigation commitee is a secret star chamber 273 12:58 < katzazi> about investigation committee: The committee asks about if there was a criminal filing related to what they should discuss or not 274 12:59 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: board does not answer, we may just ask questions 275 12:59 < katzazi> it was like this all the time in quesiton time 276 12:59 < katzazi> since this board is board 277 12:59 < LambertHofstra> We can ask questions but no one answers? 278 12:59 < katzazi> yes 279 12:59 < LambertHofstra> Thatś interesting! 280 12:59 < katzazi> if you are lucky you get an answer at the next meeting 281 12:59 < katzazi> or are told that the investigation committee will answer 282 12:59 < katzazi> or that rule 14 applies 283 12:59 < LambertHofstra> Ok, I have a few mkore 284 13:00 < katzazi> me as well, so I am just writing them 285 13:00 < katzazi> how else but "there was a criminal case filed" can the filing with the prosecutor be interpreted 286 13:00 < LambertHofstra> Another question to the board: Could you please describe how you see the different roles of the policy group, the arbitration group, the CAcert community, CAcert Inc. and the board? 287 13:00 < LambertHofstra> Background: it is now unclear to me what the status of arbitration is, did the board suspend some of the arbitors? Can the board do that? 288 13:00 < katzazi> and if it was interpreted incorrectly, why were we never informed about this mis-interpretation, as a lot of people seemed to understand it like this? 289 13:01 < dops> @board members: Are you willing to answer questions here, or if not, where? 290 13:01 <@ReinhardM> @ <LambertHofstra>: You raise many questions and we want to answer them all. 291 13:01 < katzazi> why do you think that you can expell someone without the process of rule 12? The last process was terminated so a new process is required to expell someone 292 13:02 < LambertHofstra> @reinhardM thanks please do 293 13:02 < WernerDworak> Dops, if Evan would stop, board would be able to answer the questions 294 13:02 < katzazi> also: how do you conclude that Ian has to be expelled, if last time there was only a set to moderation and this was regarded as a harsh treatment 295 13:02 <@ReinhardM> 1. question investigation committee 296 13:02 < katzazi> ReinhardM: maybe you should allow us to ask questions when the topics are discussed ... 297 13:03 < katzazi> WernerDworak: last times we were not able to write when board answered 298 13:03 < katzazi> so we had to write our questions in one go 299 13:03 <@ReinhardM> We see that 2 arbitrators are acting willfully against our rules. My personal opinion may be right or wrong, right? 300 13:04 < katzazi> your personal opinion does not matter more than the personal opinion of anybody else 301 13:04 < katzazi> the ruling of an appeal pannel would be the relevant one 302 13:04 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: is that a question to me? 303 13:04 <@ReinhardM> So I must find a way to check, what way to go is the best. And therefor I and all of the board seek adivice with an investigation committee. 304 13:04 < katzazi> but why did you act prior to that? 305 13:04 < katzazi> or claim to have acted 306 13:05 <@ReinhardM> We already said that there are personal matters and therefor some and really a few issues are not published. And we want to give all members all information. 307 13:05 <@ReinhardM> We will give all information. thre are no secrets. 308 13:06 <@ReinhardM> Currently we wait for the invetigation committe to give a first statement. 309 13:06 < katzazi> why are Philipp and me not informed about the issues? 310 13:06 < LambertHofstra> @reinhardM: I would assume that a clear mission for that investigation committee and the mandate given to them would be public? 311 13:06 < katzazi> why did the committee not get the information about all the issues only examples? 312 13:07 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: no it is secret without the motion and explanation to make it secret 313 13:07 < katzazi> and the mission was changed at least 4 times to my knowledge 314 13:07 < dops> So here is my question regarding complaint against prosecutor, which came to my attention in this email: 315 13:07 < dops> https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00025.html 316 13:07 < dops> I quote: 317 13:07 < dops> " - the complaint which was filed on 2015-12-10 at the office 318 13:07 < dops> of Public Prosecutor of Vienna against Ian Grigg, Eva 319 13:07 < dops> Stoewe, Alexander Robertson, Philipp Dunkel et al. 320 13:07 <@ReinhardM> @ Lambert: We wait for the committment of the investigation committee to publish the names of all of them. 321 13:07 < dops> This case is pending at the prosecutor's office, and 322 13:07 < dops> several additional information have been filed since that." 323 13:07 < dops> Reinhard wrote in this board meeting (quote): 324 13:07 < dops> "There is NO board motion to seek assistance at court and there is no board motion who brings anybody to a hearing at some prosecutor in NSW." 325 13:07 < dops> "I never went to any court in this world and filed into criminal court against any member of CAcert, Inc as well as community." 326 13:07 < dops> This doesn't say something about these imaginable combinations (no offense, my intention is to get rid of such interpretations, if possible): 327 13:07 < dops> #1 Reinhard might have been gone to _prosecution_ (instead of court) 328 13:07 < dops> #2 Another person might have been gone to court (or prosecution), e. g. Juergen who was mentioned in the quoted email above. 329 13:07 < dops> Now to make it clear 100% the question to every single board member: 330 13:07 < dops> Do you know or heard something about anyone filing something against prosecution or court anywhere in the context of CAcert Inc. or community? 331 13:07 < dops> Please all answer honestly with "no" or "yes", to stop all rumours, which are damaging. 332 13:09 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: I do not need names, I would like to understand what the committee needs to investigate and what their mandate is. It seems to me that that is possible without mentioning names? 333 13:09 < alex> dear board, so far i don't remember you have stated what is the order for the commitee to investigate. so if you are already waiting for 1st results, it is a secret start chamber, what before you have said it is not so. please tell us then what is the order for the investigation commitee 334 13:10 < WernerDworak> Hello all, plese more discipline. Ask one question after the other and wait for the answers. Else the board is not able to answer them in a decent way 335 13:10 <@ReinhardM> @ dops: I never filed any dispute against some member of cacert at large to put such a member into a hearing at court or prosecutor. 336 13:10 < katzazi> WernerDworak: can you ask board to tell us that all quesitons will be answered before they mute again? 337 13:10 < alex> WernerDworak: before after raising questions voice was stopped, it was impossible to discuss. this is the first time. 338 13:11 < WernerDworak> Again. One after the other. Else it cannot work 339 13:12 < BenBE> dops @ 14:01: Given the number of questions being asked here nearly simultanously it probably takes some time for them to get things written. Let's be patient for a moment. 340 13:16 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: just for my understanding: are you still working on an answer to my question or is the answer that you wait for the results? 341 13:17 <@INOPIAE> katzazi @ 13:55 "what precautions are you taking taht the public part of the root re-signing will not be disturbed?" 342 13:17 <@INOPIAE> First of all your question implies that someone plans to disturbe the procedure. 343 13:17 <@INOPIAE> Second next week the procedure for the public part will be published. This will also give the guideline of behaivor and the sanction if they are broken. 344 13:19 < dops> @BenBE: I am aware of that and can wait a little. Thought that all questions are to be collected first. 345 13:19 < katzazi> INOPIAE: it could be someone arriving and asking where to drop a bag or whatever 346 13:20 < LambertHofstra> @INOPIAE: for critical actions like a resign you need to prepare for incidents and either be prepared to address them or have a back-out plan. Both should ensure critical data is not exposed. 347 13:20 < LambertHofstra> So from my point of view itś a legitimate question 348 13:20 < katzazi> will there be an active arbitrator? 349 13:23 < BenBE> katzazi: I'm not sure I can follow you there. Why would we need one present? 350 13:23 <@INOPIAE> @LambertHofstra: Within the public part thes software needed for the root re-sign is prepaed. After the software is ready to be iused. 1 Access enginer, 2 critical admins and the innternal auditor will enter the data center to do the resigning there. So there will be no problem with private information to be exposed to the public. 351 13:24 < katzazi> why the auditor? 352 13:24 < katzazi> he does not have an ABC 353 13:24 < alex> BenBE: if you want to have sanctions if your guidelines are broken, then you'd need arbitration to rule on this. 354 13:24 < katzazi> BenBE: to be ready for authorisation of sanctions or necessary steps if something gets wrong and possible oversight of security actaions? 355 13:27 <@INOPIAE> THe basic procedure is laid out here: https://wiki.cacert.org/Roots/Class1ResignProcedure 356 13:29 <@INOPIAE> This information is open to the public for at least 5 month. The secureity relevant action have been discussed with the involved teams. 357 13:29 <@INOPIAE> To my knowledge they saw no security relevant points. 358 13:30 <@ReinhardM> @ dops: court assistence: If individuals seek assistance at some court because of injurities, insultings or whatsoever, it is not a business of CAcert. 359 13:30 <@INOPIAE> TSofztware installed a root that was re-signed with the given procedure on the test-server. 360 13:30 <@INOPIAE> Anybody is welcome to test it there. 361 13:31 <@ReinhardM> @ Lambert: Please allow that I write you an email answering all of your questions. 362 13:31 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: sure, please do 363 13:32 <@INOPIAE> The re-sign procedure has been executed last August and the resulting roots have been tested. Including some fixes required for compatibility (visible in the source of the re-sign utility) have been implemented on the test server for everyone to check. 364 13:32 < katzazi> INOPIAE: was there another test-run with those fixes? 365 13:33 < BenBE> katzazi: Yes, there have been two work around an issue with libnss. 366 13:33 < katzazi> where are those testruns documented? 367 13:34 < BenBE> s/two work/two too work/. 368 13:34 < dops> @ReinhardM: I read the statement as "If there were seekings for assistance, they address personal topics (as defamation etc.)." - can you acknowledge that? 369 13:34 < BenBE> katzazi: Currently in documentation between Software and Crit. 370 13:34 < BenBE> s/documentation/communiction/ 371 13:35 <@ReinhardM> @dops : we have to take care for the business of CAcert 372 13:35 < katzazi> ReinhardM: can we get a short answer to LambertHofstra questions? 373 13:37 <@ReinhardM> @ dops: regarding defamatory statements: everyone has the right to seek assistence e.g. ask a lawyer etc.pp. We have no working instruments at hand to direct people to do or not to do some- or anything. 374 13:38 < LambertHofstra> or file an arbitration case 375 13:38 <@ReinhardM> We discussed the email from IanG in detail and you have all links to read. 376 13:38 < katzazi> why were you disclosing mails from members list? 377 13:39 < katzazi> instead of answering there for example? 378 13:41 <@ReinhardM> please close the chat 379 13:42 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+m] by INOPIAE 380 13:42 <@ReinhardM> thank you 381 13:42 <@ReinhardM> board will answer all raised questions per email. 382 13:43 <@ReinhardM> Please understand that we all have limited time available. Some of us must leave now. 383 13:43 <@ReinhardM> The next meeting is planned to take place on April, 10th. 384 13:43 <@INOPIAE> again 10:00 UTC 385 13:43 <@ReinhardM> there might be a board meeting in 2 weeks but we have no agreed date for this. 386 13:44 <@ReinhardM> there is plenty of work to do. CEBIT, CLT2016, Root-resign etc.pp. 387 13:44 <@INOPIAE> 2016-04-10 is fine with me 388 13:45 <@ReinhardM> We might find a date during some week and will publish this per emai as usual. 389 13:45 <@StefanT> OK 390 13:45 <@ReinhardM> Thansk to all who attended todays board meeting. 391 13:45 <@ReinhardM> last topic 392 13:45 <@ReinhardM> 4. Clsoing 393 13:46 <@ReinhardM> I hereby close todays board meeting. 394 13:46 <@StefanT> Good Bye 395 13:46 <@ReinhardM> Good Bye. 396 13:46 <@INOPIAE> bye 397 13:46 -!- StefanT [smuxi@p5B3B8F34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has left #board-meeting  398 13:46 -!- ReinhardM [5485561a@localhost] has left #board-meeting  399
Attached FilesTo refer to attachments on a page, use attachment:filename, as shown below in the list of files. Do NOT use the URL of the [get] link, since this is subject to change and can break easily.
You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.