Committee Meeting 2016-02-28

The meeting will take place at 10:00 UTC in the IRC channel #board-meeting on the CAcert IRC network.

Committee Members: feel free to add a business within the acceptance period or your question to the board below. Others: add a question to the questions section.


  1. Preliminaries
    1. Chair opens the Committee Meeting
    2. Accept the minutes from the last meeting.

    3. Who is making minutes?
    4. Chair asks whether cacert-board-private maillist includes any items that need to be disclosed to Members.

    5. Chair asks whether cacert-board maillist includes any business items that aren't on the agenda yet.

    6. Chair introduces the URL of action items to the meeting, and asks for discussion.

  2. Businesses

    Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Committee Meeting latest!

    1. new members
      1. Lucas Werkmeister
      2. Karl-Heinz Gödderz
    2. status root re-sign
    3. risk analysis hardware
    4. status investigation committee
    5. personal matters
      1. Ian Grigg
      2. Guillaume Romagny
    6. Business added by Your Name Comment: Replace "Business One" by Title of Business and add your Name

      • Additional Inputs Comment: Replace "Additional Inputs"by Description of Business, Description of Reason-Why/Purpose, Additional Comments, Additional Documents, Additional Links, if useful for other Committee Members to prepare for Committee Meeting.

    7. et cetera
  3. Question Time

    Questions from Community Members can be added until beginning of Committee Meeting! As well questions can be asked at "Question Time", without added Question here

    1. Question One added by Your Name Comment: Replace "Question One" by Your Question and add your Name

      • et cetera
  4. Closing
    1. Chair closes the Committee Meeting


  1. Preliminaries
    • Attendees: Marcus Mängel, Reinhard Mutz, Stefan Thode, Felix Dörre

    • Chair opens the Committee Meeting
      • 10:01 <@ReinhardM> I hereby open the board meeting
      • accept minutes
        • 10:03 <@ReinhardM> I move to accept the minutes from the last meeting
          Seconded by Stefan, Carried with 4 aye


      • Who is making minutes?
        • Marcus is taking the minutes
      • Chair asks whether cacert-board-private mailing list includes any items that need to be disclosed to Members.
        • no items to disclosed
    • Chair asks whether cacert-board mailing list includes any business items that aren't on the agenda yet.

      • no items to be added
    • Chair introduces the URL of action items to the meeting, and asks for discussion.

      • no items to be added
  2. Businesses
    1. New members
      1. accept the membership application of Lucas Werkmeister
        • 10:13 <@ReinhardM> I move to accept the application of membership from lucas

          m20160228.2 Seconded by Marcus Carried with 4 aye

      2. accept the membership application of Karl-Heinz Gödderz
        • 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.
    2. Status of root resign
      • The root re-sign is scheduled for 2016-03-12 st the datacenter in Ede, NL.
    3. risk analysis hardware
      • Board got aware that the server need to be replaced in the future. Board will discuss the current needs with the critical team and will set up a schedule for the replacement including plans for funding.
    4. status investigation committee
      • Board send an email "constitution of investigation committee" on 2016-02-16 to the members of the committee and is waiting for an answer.
    5. personal matters
      1. Ian Grigg
        • Reinhard stated a series of claims against Ian and board discussed each topic. For details see the attached transcript. This took from 10:33 until 12:27. At the end of the discussion board asked if Ian is present to give him the chance to give his own statement to the fact. There was no response from Ian.
          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.

          m20160228.3 Seconded by Marcus Carried with 4 aye

      2. Guillaume Romagny
        • Reinhard stated a series of claims against Guillaume misbehaving and insulting board or board members. Board discussed the matter and decided to execute the ruling from SGM20110508.
          12:53 <@ReinhardM> I move to execute the ruling from SGM20110508 which means to expell Guillaume R. from CAcert Inc. immediately.

          m20160228.4 Seconded by Marcus Carried with 4 aye

  3. Question Time
    • 12:56 < katzazi> what precautions are you taking that the public part of the root-resigingn will not be disturbed?
      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.
      12:56 < LambertHofstra> Can the board please explain in simple terms why said committee is installed and what the mission is?
      12:56 < katzazi> and how will you take care that there will not be a time pressure from the following AGM?
      12:56 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: it changes every time board speaks about it
      12:56 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: the committee itself is asked to check if we were allowed to voices expressions
      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
      12:57 < katzazi> in a prior board-meeting
      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?
      12:58 < katzazi> something like this would be a relevant document
      12:58 < LambertHofstra> katzazi: letś wait for the answer from bvoard to your question first
      12:58 < alex> katzazi: this would mean in my opinion this investigation commitee is a secret star chamber
      12:58 < katzazi> about investigation committee: The committee asks about if there was a criminal filing related to what they should discuss or not
      12:59 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: board does not answer, we may just ask questions
      12:59 < katzazi> it was like this all the time in quesiton time
      12:59 < katzazi> since this board is board
      12:59 < LambertHofstra> We can ask questions but no one answers?
      12:59 < katzazi> yes
      12:59 < LambertHofstra> Thatś interesting!
      12:59 < katzazi> if you are lucky you get an answer at the next meeting
      12:59 < katzazi> or are told that the investigation committee will answer
      12:59 < katzazi> or that rule 14 applies
      12:59 < LambertHofstra> Ok, I have a few mkore
      13:00 < katzazi> me as well, so I am just writing them
      13:00 < katzazi> how else but "there was a criminal case filed" can the filing with the prosecutor be interpreted
      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?
      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?
      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?
      13:01 < dops> @board members: Are you willing to answer questions here, or if not, where?
      13:01 <@ReinhardM> @ <LambertHofstra>: You raise many questions and we want to answer them all.
      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
      13:02 < LambertHofstra> @reinhardM thanks please do
      13:02 < WernerDworak> Dops, if Evan would stop, board would be able to answer the questions
      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
      13:02 <@ReinhardM> 1. question investigation committee
      13:02 < katzazi> ReinhardM: maybe you should allow us to ask questions when the topics are discussed ...
      13:03 < katzazi> WernerDworak: last times we were not able to write when board answered
      13:03 < katzazi> so we had to write our questions in one go
      13:03 <@ReinhardM> We see that 2 arbitrators are acting willfully against our rules. My personal opinion may be right or wrong, right?
      13:04 < katzazi> your personal opinion does not matter more than the personal opinion of anybody else
      13:04 < katzazi> the ruling of an appeal pannel would be the relevant one
      13:04 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: is that a question to me?
      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.
      13:04 < katzazi> but why did you act prior to that?
      13:04 < katzazi> or claim to have acted
      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.
      13:05 <@ReinhardM> We will give all information. thre are no secrets.
      13:06 <@ReinhardM> Currently we wait for the invetigation committe to give a first statement.
      13:06 < katzazi> why are Philipp and me not informed about the issues?
      13:06 < LambertHofstra> @reinhardM: I would assume that a clear mission for that investigation committee and the mandate given to them would be public?
      13:06 < katzazi> why did the committee not get the information about all the issues only examples?
      13:07 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: no it is secret without the motion and explanation to make it secret
      13:07 < katzazi> and the mission was changed at least 4 times to my knowledge
      13:07 < dops> So here is my question regarding complaint against prosecutor, which came to my attention in this email:
      13:07 < dops>
      13:07 < dops> I quote:
      13:07 < dops> "   - the complaint which was filed on 2015-12-10 at the office
      13:07 < dops>     of Public Prosecutor of Vienna against Ian Grigg, Eva
      13:07 < dops>     Stoewe, Alexander Robertson, Philipp Dunkel et al.
      13:07 <@ReinhardM> @ Lambert: We wait for the committment of the investigation committee to publish the names of all of them.
      13:07 < dops>     This case is pending at the prosecutor's office, and
      13:07 < dops>     several additional information have been filed since that."
      13:07 < dops> Reinhard wrote in this board meeting (quote):
      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."
      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."
      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):
      13:07 < dops> #1 Reinhard might have been gone to _prosecution_ (instead of court)
      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.
      13:07 < dops> Now to make it clear 100% the question to every single board member:
      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?
      13:07 < dops> Please all answer honestly with "no" or "yes", to stop all rumours, which are damaging.
      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?
      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
      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
      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.
      13:10 < katzazi> WernerDworak: can you ask board to tell us that all quesitons will be answered before they mute again?
      13:10 < alex> WernerDworak: before after raising questions voice was stopped, it was impossible to discuss. this is the first time.
      13:11 < WernerDworak> Again. One after the other. Else it cannot work
      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.
      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?
      13:17 <@INOPIAE> katzazi @ 13:55 "what precautions are you taking taht the public part of the root re-signing will not be disturbed?"
      13:17 <@INOPIAE> First of all your question implies that someone plans to disturbe the procedure.
      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.
      13:19 < dops> @BenBE: I am aware of that and can wait a little. Thought that all questions are to be collected first.
      13:19 < katzazi> INOPIAE: it could be someone arriving and asking where to drop a bag or whatever
      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.
      13:20 < LambertHofstra> So from my point of view itś a legitimate question
      13:20 < katzazi> will there be an active arbitrator?
      13:23 < BenBE> katzazi: I'm not sure I can follow you there. Why would we need one present?
      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.
      13:24 < katzazi> why the auditor?
      13:24 < katzazi> he does not have an ABC
      13:24 < alex> BenBE: if you want to have sanctions if your guidelines are broken, then you'd need arbitration to rule on this.
      13:24 < katzazi> BenBE: to be ready for authorisation of sanctions or necessary steps if something gets wrong and possible oversight of security actaions?
      13:27 <@INOPIAE> THe basic procedure is laid out here:
      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.
      13:29 <@INOPIAE> To my knowledge they saw no security relevant points.
      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.
      13:30 <@INOPIAE> TSofztware installed  a root that was re-signed with the given procedure on the test-server.
      13:30 <@INOPIAE> Anybody is welcome to test it there.
      13:31 <@ReinhardM> @ Lambert: Please allow that I write you an email answering all of your questions.
      13:31 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: sure, please do
      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.
      13:32 < katzazi> INOPIAE: was there another test-run with those fixes?
      13:33 < BenBE> katzazi: Yes, there have been two work around an issue with libnss.
      13:33 < katzazi> where are those testruns documented?
      13:34 < BenBE> s/two work/two too work/.
      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?
      13:34 < BenBE> katzazi: Currently in documentation between Software and Crit.
      13:34 < BenBE> s/documentation/communiction/
      13:35 <@ReinhardM> @dops : we have to take care for the business of CAcert 
      13:35 < katzazi> ReinhardM: can we get a short answer to LambertHofstra questions?
      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.
      13:38 < LambertHofstra> or file an arbitration case
      13:38 <@ReinhardM> We discussed the email from IanG in detail and you have all links to read.
      13:38 < katzazi> why were you disclosing mails from members list?
      13:39 < katzazi> instead of answering there for example?
      13:41 <@ReinhardM> please close the chat
  4. Closing
    • Date of next meeting
      • scheduled for sunday 2016-04-10 10 UTC
      13:46 <@ReinhardM> I hereby close todays board meeting.

transscript of the meeting

Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-02-28 (last edited 2016-03-23 18:17:27 by MarcusMängel)