(11:59:57) egal: hi, hello and welcome ...
(12:00:02) piers: hi everyone! how many board members are present?
(12:00:29) dops: Hi
(12:00:37) iang: Hi everyone
(12:00:46) egal: at least 4 ... we have a quorum ... ;-)
(12:00:56) alex: hello everybody
(12:00:58) piers: great
(12:00:59) iang: Excellent
(12:01:12) piers: Let's begin
(12:01:23) piers: I think we have minutes from the last meeting?
(12:01:48) egal: letz me check ...
(12:01:52) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/
MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-04-24#Minutes
(12:02:16) piers: I propose a motion to accept the minutes
(12:02:23) egal: yep ... quite long ... have to read them (and match to my
meeting log ...)
(12:02:36) iang: I second the motion!
(12:03:01) katzazi_: Just for your notice. I was asked if I agree with the
parts I brought up, I did not agree
(12:03:32) iang: which section?
(12:03:52) katzazi_: You asked me ian, we discussed it
(12:04:43) katzazi_: I currently do jot have access
(12:05:10) iang: I don’t have recollection of that discussion, so if it is to
be discussed here, you’ll have to present it.
(12:05:28) katzazi_: It was s
(12:05:32) katzazi_: In skype
(12:06:13) katzazi_: Gero should know about it as well
(12:06:35) katzazi_: I can present it later, but not at the moment, I am not at
home
(12:06:40) piers: i'd rather we postponed discussing the minutes until
they can be amended to eva's satisfaction
(12:06:56) iang: ok
(12:07:10) dops: aye
(12:07:16) piers: anyone volunteer to take the minutes today?
(12:07:22) dops: I can do it
(12:07:26) piers: thanks!
(12:07:37) iang: Technically we have a motion before us to vote on the minutes,
but I’m happy to vote NAYE and allow it ito lapse :)
(12:07:41) piers: anything from cacert-board private to be revealed?
(12:08:29) dops: I didn't see anything.
(12:08:38) piers: sorry ian, yes you are right, i'll vote NAYE
(12:09:02) egal: or don't cast a vote now and leave the motion open (7
days)
(12:09:51) iang: Discussion Re: New Arbitrator?
(12:09:58) katzazi_: You got a ruling that confirmed that interference of arb
cases (or at least one) was stopped successfully
(12:11:11) piers: is this something we should discuss as part of the business?
(12:12:05) katzazi_: And no costs for investigation commitee has to be paid
(12:12:45) iang: I’m not sure of the question being asked. It’s vague. All I
can say is that we hope new Arbitrators are brought on with most speed.
(12:13:17) piers: hang on everyone, let's not depart from the agenda!
(12:13:27) piers: right now it's "preliminaries"
(12:13:29) katzazi_: The question is if you add that arbitrator or not
(12:14:12) iang: Oh ok. Then let’s get that added to the business of the board.
But please propose the board agenda item.
(12:14:16) katzazi_: Until then we cannot continue the training
(12:14:24) iang: Why not?
(12:14:31) katzazi_: He needs acess
(12:15:02) katzazi_: There was already some training without access
(12:15:08) iang: Are you saying you only have access as a fully approved
arbitrator, and can’t do training without access, and can’t have an untrained
arbitratOor? Sounds like catch 22.
(12:15:14) katzazi_: No
(12:15:22) piers: Eva, please wait until the Questions session to discuss this
further, ok?
(12:15:33) iang: ok
(12:15:37) katzazi_: Ok
(12:15:41) piers: Thanks.
(12:15:44) piers: next item
(12:16:01) piers: actions - are there any outstanding that we should discuss?
(12:16:41) iang: Dirk has posted minutes for 1st meeting to the private board
list.
(12:17:29) piers: i read them - seemed good to me - thanks dirk!
(12:17:39) iang: (which is an action point in last week’s meeting.) So should
we put it on the agenda for next week to approve or vote now?
(12:17:49) egal: did them yesterday late night ... they probably need some
overview ... that's why i didn't add them to the meeting up to now
(12:18:10) piers: on the agenda for next week then
(12:18:10) ***egal wants to have at least a second view on it ...
(12:18:25) piers: anything else on the actions list?
(12:18:32) iang: ok fine!
(12:18:41) egal: next week? ... okay ... will not be online next week ...
(12:19:03) piers: next meeting anyway, may not be next week
(12:19:03) iang: Eva has reported no costs for “investigation committee”
(12:19:28) piers: good news
(12:20:03) iang: That leaves a few items, minutes writer can just carry them
across?
(12:20:23) piers: good
(12:20:26) piers: moving on
(12:20:38) katzazi_: I also proposed the rule change but have to move it to the
wiki
(12:21:00) piers: item 2.1 "parts A,B,C" - ian?
(12:22:29) iang: Ah that. Yes, so we’ve all read the document by now I hope.
(12:23:11) egal: "the document" refers the next/background of A, B, C-motions
... correct?
(12:23:17) iang: IMHO the foundation of argument in that document is poor to
non-existent. There is no citing of clauses, no indication of which statutes
were broken, nor laws, and no presentation of evidence of any form.
(12:23:23) egal: s/next/text/
(12:23:53) iang: it is the document “board-private20151206.txt” in the handover
package.
(12:26:15) iang: The PD accusation is especially odd because it relates to duly
ruled decisions of an arbitrator. I’m pretty sure I’ve read that ruling
multiple times, and I can only say that IMHO the interpretation of Reinhard is
not reasonable.
(12:26:37) iang: Therefore I conclude that the motions were badly done. And
should be reversed.
(12:26:42) iang: discussion?
(12:27:38) piers: do we need to reverse all their motions one by one - or can
we just declare all motions of the previous board as void?
(12:27:55) iang: (oh, and that isn’t to discuss the potential for interference
with arbitrator, nor the contradiction/conflict of PD’s ruling on 3 heads of
power, nor the suppression the evidence.)
(12:28:22) iang: I would do it one by one because there are three motions that
were duly passed as A, then B, then C. From memory.
(12:28:33) iang: We should cite those directly.
(12:28:37) piers: ok
(12:29:05) piers: i'm also happy to make them public
(12:29:20) iang: yep - that motion went through
(12:29:25) iang: So we need a motion
(12:30:28) iang: How about: Resolved, that the Part A, ref PD, motion of
previous board be overturned in full for fault of particular clauses and fault
of evidence.
(12:30:58) piers: seconded and AYE
(12:31:17) dops: aye
(12:31:42) iang: Aye
(12:32:06) egal: aye
(12:32:08) piers: i declare the motion carried
(12:32:13) piers: next?
(12:32:41) iang: Found it - https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?
motion=m20151206.17 - Can we have that CC’d into the motion.
(12:32:58) egal: cc'ed or provide a link in the motion
(12:33:29) iang: Resolved, that the Part B, ref ES, motion of previous board be
overturned in full for fault of particular clauses and fault of evidence.
https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20151206.18
(12:33:35) dops: I'll add the link
(12:33:41) piers: seconded and AYE
(12:33:49) dops: aye
(12:33:53) egal: aye
(12:34:14) iang: Aye.
(12:34:17) piers: i declare the motion carried
(12:34:20) piers: next?
(12:34:52) iang: Resolved, that the Part C, ref AS, motion of previous board be
overturned in full for fault of particular clauses and fault of evidence.
https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20151206.19
(12:34:58) piers: seconded and AYE
(12:35:03) egal: DA instead AS ..
(12:35:25) dops: aye (with correction from Dirk)
(12:35:38) piers: aye (with correction)
(12:35:47) egal: abstain (... obviously ... ;-) )
(12:36:37) egal: (would have voted aye, but DA is referencing me .. therefore:
abstain)
(12:36:43) piers: ian?
(12:37:02) iang: Aye. DA. Not sure who AS is :)
(12:37:08) piers: i declare the motion carried
(12:37:25) piers: i think we can now move on to 2.2
(12:37:31) egal: yes and now ...
(12:37:53) piers: ABCs - Arbitrated Background Checks - ian?
(12:38:11) egal: A,B,C is not "everything" ... we have a lot more work to do
according the last board ...
(12:38:55) iang: Well, the original topic was posted quite some time ago, but
ran into opposition on the basis of interference with Arbitration. I am not
clear nor keen to carry on this so I’m happy to drop the entire topic for now.
(12:38:58) egal: we should all remember it ... even if it's not on today
agenda)
(12:40:05) iang: @egal ok - but can we put it on the agenda? I for one am not
able to divine the everything so easily, juggling multiple crises elsewhere. I
think it is age that stops my mind remembering everything...
(12:40:36) piers: everyone happy to drop 2.2 for the time being?
(12:40:49) dops: I'm fine with dropping that topic. If necessary we can come
back to it if it is more urgent.
(12:41:05) piers: ok
(12:41:08) ***egal agrees to dops
(12:41:15) piers: next item
(12:41:33) piers: 2.3 Application for membership from Kim Nilsson
(12:41:56) dops: Is running as motion m20160514.1
(12:42:32) piers: so it is, with three AYE so far
(12:42:40) piers: moving on then
(12:42:58) egal: 4
(12:42:59) iang: maybe egal could vote on that then ;-)
(12:43:07) iang: ha!
(12:43:16) piers: item 2.4 Scope of Internal Audit - ian?
(12:43:54) iang: Yes - internal auditor posted an incident report on the
activities of CAcert Inc. This related to how the SGM was conducted, from
memory.
(12:44:11) iang: Now, I was surprised by this … it seems a long way away from
the audit of the CA.
(12:44:41) iang: Question for us as committee is what is the scope of internal
audit - is it directed to preparing for an audit of the CA, or is it “over the
whole of CAcert community” ?
(12:45:07) piers: i thought it was just the CA
(12:45:10) iang: Obviously there can be no hard and fast line. But some things
are rather hard to justify as helping the CA’s audit.
(12:45:32) iang: second question is what is the relationship of audit to
dispute resolution?
(12:46:09) iang: Can auditor post an incident and expect people to follow those
directions? Or is this more an issue of the DR? This is quite a touchy subject
of course given recent events… So there is room for many interpretations.
(12:46:26) piers: sounds like the purview of the policy group?
(12:46:59) katzazi_: Internal audit is not named in any policy
(12:47:23) iang: Now, on the first question, I can declare a historical
anecdote which is that I as auditor back in 2006 watched the board collapse,
and after 2 incidents where the board had engaged in difficult manouvers, I
moved to take over the control of the association by telling the board that all
future decisions were to be passed through me.
(12:48:09) iang: Board collapsed soon after that event, and we worked for
several months to put a new board in place. But point remains that an auditor
can exert pressure by one means or other.
(12:48:50) iang: Right, so and again - internal audit is not a policy thing,
nor a well-recognised CA requirement. It is assumed to be “preparation for CA
audit” but that’s only an assumption.
(12:50:21) iang: One thing that we did manage during my time as auditor was
that the auditor was also subject to dispute resolution. SO the answer could be
that any difficulties found by internal auditor should be filed as disputes for
action?
(12:50:51) iang: On the first question, I’d prefer if the efforts were focussed
to preparation for CA / RA audit.
(12:51:14) iang: I suppose there is also a 3rd question - whether internal
auditor desires to continue in that role.
(12:51:25) katzazi_: Currently the internal auditor does two things. Audit and
incidents. Which are near to DR according to our SP.
(12:51:27) dops: I agree about the focus.
(12:53:37) iang: How about: Resolved, that the role of internal audit is to
prepare for CA/RA audit, to liase with an appointed auditor, and to advise
board on progress. Any incidents may be reported, but serious issues should be
filed as disputes into our forum of arbitration, in alignment with the customs
and policies of the community.
(12:54:35) piers: seconded and AYE
(12:54:46) katzazi_: This is what he does
(12:55:56) katzazi_: The question is where starts "serious"?
(12:56:16) dops: What means "liase"?
(12:56:24) dops: (don't know the word)
(12:56:26) iang: For the most part, yes. But that last incident was tantamount
to creating a new forum of dispute resolution.
(12:56:51) iang: Liase: Communicate with on the expectation that this is the
primary relationship of communication.
(12:57:04) katzazi_: Ian, was its subject "serious"? I don't think so
(12:57:19) iang: It was serious in that it was directing someone to act.
(12:57:38) katzazi_: He always direct.
(12:57:48) dops: @Ian: thanks
(12:57:50) katzazi_: Is anything with direction serious?
(12:57:56) iang: He is always direct? Or he always directs?
(12:58:13) katzazi_: He always directs
(12:58:31) iang: Well, that is part of the question - does internal auditor
have the power to direct?
(12:59:01) iang: The above motion does not give him the power to direct. It
does place disputes into DR. So if there is a policy breach then there is a
clear path.
(12:59:29) katzazi_: He sometimes files disputes but always directs board
(12:59:40) katzazi_: Or proposes actions to board
(13:00:18) iang: right - the latter. It is always fine to propose actions to
anyone. But direct? This is … more difficult. For that we have DR. Also, for
directions we want to make sure they are focussed on the topic area.
(13:01:18) katzazi_: He only proposed in the incident you mentioned
(13:03:06) piers: in that case ian's motion should be ok?
(13:03:19) katzazi_: I do not see what it does
(13:03:22) dops: The section "corrective actions" in an incident report is
always some kind of direction, correct?
(13:04:10) iang: The issue here is that people are asking Internal Auditor to
investigate the voting practices of the association. For that (1) it is a long
way away from the CA/RA audit, and (2) we already have dispute resolution.
(13:04:51) dops: yes, I neither have a clue how this issue can be resolved via
incident processing.
(13:05:21) katzazi_: How does the motion address this?
(13:06:10) katzazi [katzazi@89.204.155.125] entered the room.
(13:06:39) iang: @dops right. The incident asserts that there are violations in
voting procedures and then directs “corrective actions”. I think this is really
association business, not audit business. And for that we have dispute
resolution.
(13:07:26) dops: @iang: I agree.
(13:07:59) iang: I will note however that Internal Auditor also mentions that
committee should confirm the conclusions … and file a dispute. I just don’t see
the point in having multiple investigative committees running around doing the
same thing.
(13:10:16) iang: @dops @egal do you still need to discuss / think about this?
(13:10:24) iang: we can change the text of the motion … or?
(13:11:01) dops: I feel more the need to express that internal business of the
association should not be focus of audit. I don't want a motion to look like a
prohibition of actions. That would not be a good motivation.
(13:11:55) iang: I agree. And, as history of 2006 showed, no hard and fast rule
should be set.
(13:12:56) iang: The motion isn’t intended to rule out an incident focussing on
the actions of the association’s SGM. It is meant to set a topic. Then, and
particular given incident should then draw a line back to that role.
(13:13:10) katzazi_ left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds).
(13:13:44) iang: (In the incident in question, it is made clear in Sections 3,
4 that there is no danger to the CA…)
(13:13:52) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Audit/Incidents/i20160410.1
(13:15:05) iang: If people need more time, we can defer. It’s probably late in
Oz, and we should move on…
(13:15:15) dops: ok, with this explanation the intention is clear.
(13:16:42) iang: well, I understand that the language might make that difficult
to perceive and subtleties might be misunderstood. There isn’t meant to be a
solid order in there - I use “should” in the IETF fashion.
(13:16:52) piers: so, vote? or defer?
(13:17:30) iang: We could of course have an issue where the internal auditor is
investigating an incident about arbitration … hypothetically … and filing
dispute might be the precise incident.
(13:18:18) dops: Then vote please, or continue the vote. AYE
(13:18:27) katzazi: There is such an audit / incident
(13:18:39) iang: So in that context, filing dispute to ask why filed disputes
aren’t working makes no sense. In such a context, “should” means that the
internal auditor has some leeway if it can be justified.
(13:18:52) katzazi: It lead to the ABC ruling
(13:19:09) iang: @egal?
(13:19:30) ***egal is reading ... ;-)
(13:21:30) iang: well, I have a novel to get back to as well ;-) we have three
votes?
(13:21:39) piers: yes
(13:21:48) piers: I declare the motion carried
(13:21:57) piers: next item
(13:22:20) piers: item 2.5 Move of CAcert Inc (continuing)
(13:22:40) iang: I don’t have ownership of this item. I think it is for all of
us to start moving on it. Having said that, to repeat what was said earlier...
(13:23:40) iang: Piers & Kevin are only in it until the AGM which is … within
months. Maybe November by averages. After that we are not only back to trouble
with Australian members, we are also back to the situation that CAcert Inc
itself is likely to be wound up if we don’t get moving.......
(13:24:47) iang: I can say that I also am not in a position to “do the work” to
move CAcert Inc to a new jurisdiction.
(13:25:11) dops: I doubt that an exact timeline will succeed. But it might help
to have one as orientation.
(13:26:04) dops: The we can soon define the date for the next AGM as big
milestone.
(13:26:13) iang: I agree with that. Which leaves us squeezed. So perhaps the
way to move forward is to simply start cataloguing the assets and disposeing of
thing?
(13:26:17) katzazi: The vote on PolG alone takes 4 weeks
(13:26:19) iang: s/thing/them/
(13:26:46) iang: this process might be akin to the “living will” process that
banks are being tortured with these days ...
(13:28:56) iang: If that helps, we could simply set up a table of all the
assets and in the columns relate who they go to and how they are transferred.
(13:29:16) dops: I am not sure that I understand the background. Assets means
money, not control about servers, It think.
(13:29:24) dops: s/It/I/
(13:29:50) dops: If we can gain time by making banks happy, sure, why not.
(13:29:51) iang: I include “everything” as assets. In this context at least.
(13:30:26) iang: So, there is “the CA” and also “the RA” … there is the CCA.
(13:31:07) iang: The CCA is an asset because CAcert Inc is a counterparty to
everyone’s CCA. If CAcert Inc is wound up, that party needs to be replaced /
transferred or something.
(13:31:26) dops: yes, that includes the CCA, with policy group, mailing to the
community etc.
(13:31:56) iang: Any way, I can make such a table.
(13:32:26) iang: If I make such a table, can we then consider it next meeting
and get kicking on things? Find people to do these works?
(13:33:05) piers: that seems like sensible progress, shall we move on?
(13:33:15) dops: I assume that we have big interest. So the challenge might to
organise all this.
(13:33:50) iang: yes, big challenge. This is why I point out, the australians
won’t be standing at AGM.
(13:34:09) iang: This is not something the board can deal with.
(13:34:18) dops: Sorry ,I mean the first challenge is to organiue discussions.
(13:34:38) iang: This is all of community - everyone is going to have to
participate. If not, bad luck I guess.
(13:34:52) egal: this table ... can we do it online so everybody can put items
on it ... so nothing will be missed?
(13:34:53) katzazi: There is phoenix
(13:35:04) piers: CAcert will be without the statutory Public Officer as of
Kevin's resignation
(13:35:39) katzazi: He resigned? Why is nobody informed?
(13:35:43) iang: Maybe we should make the board agenda item as the last item
each time and open it to entire community … so that we aren’t encouraging
people to think “board will do this” ?
(13:35:53) iang: He will resign at forthcoming AGM.
(13:36:15) egal: @katzazi ... he will resign at AGM as far as i know ...
(13:36:25) iang: phoenix - yes. should we discuss it all there? (I am not sure
I am on that list.)
(13:36:46) egal: phoenix is open for everybody ... ;-)
(13:36:46) katzazi: You are
(13:36:54) iang: @chair - move on to next item?
(13:36:58) piers: ok
(13:37:08) piers: item 2.6 Key Persons List - ian
(13:38:16) iang: Um - I gather the Key Persons List has been sent from Marcus
to Dirk. But there is a problem with this that I don’t understand.
(13:38:29) iang: So I’d ask @egal to explain the problem.
(13:38:40) egal: marcus sent me the list without contacting me first.
(13:39:10) iang: why is that a problem?
(13:39:15) egal: there are some names on this list, which should be removed
from my site (deadline is today)
(13:39:44) egal: (why did he disclose the personal data of these persons when i
should delete it?)
(13:39:47) dops: What is the practical value of the key persons list? I saw
concerns about being outdated, or not suitable.
(13:40:09) egal: and ... why do I (personally) have to take care of the KPL ?
(13:40:15) katzazi: It is required in the SP
(13:40:41) piers: didn't marcus send it to "The Secretary" - so no need to
ask first perhaps?
(13:40:49) iang: yeah - my view was that we’ve always had problems, nobody
seems to have succeeded in getting it under control. SO maybe the problem here
isn’t us but is the inability of the people to manage this process ==> simplify
the process.
(13:41:38) egal: there are names on this list of non-Inc-members ... so why has
CAcert Inc. secretary to maintain this list?
(13:41:53) katzazi: The problem is the requirement if encryption that some see
(13:42:24) katzazi: It was added by last board
(13:42:37) egal: motion?
(13:42:50) iang: well - the list is mandated by a community policy ==> effects
the community not the association.
(13:43:08) katzazi: Not sure about motion, they changed the process in the wiki
(13:43:10) iang: it’s just that the board / executive has to manage it.
(13:43:15) iang: wiki page?
(13:43:31) katzazi: No access, follow the SM.
(13:43:42) katzazi: Can give it later
(13:43:57) egal: (there is no motion about the KPL added by last board)
(13:44:11) katzazi: A prior board placed the organisation of the kpl by someone
outside if board
(13:44:25) iang: The last board added a requirement to have the list encrypted?
Oh ok. That makes sense, but doesn’t make it any easier to manage.
(13:44:42) katzazi: Actually I am still responsible according to the motions
(13:44:45) egal: as far as i know the KPL could be maintained by ANY person
being on this list
(13:45:08) piers: isn't the key persons list needed in an emergency - bit
hard to use if encrypted!
(13:45:35) katzazi: But arbitrators were removed from kpl by the process change
of last board
(13:45:41) iang: @katzazi I would say that is how it should be - board is too
useless because it changes so quickly. We should have someone outside the board
who can manage the list.
(13:45:54) katzazi: Piers, yes. My argument.
(13:46:35) iang: so we have two issues - whether the list has been handed over
(albeit badly, but … whatever) … and how to manage it going into the future.
(13:46:39) katzazi: I volunteer to do it again if I am added again and it does
not have to be encrypted
(13:46:58) iang: Would it be an idea to say that the arbitrators should manage
the list?
(13:46:59) piers: we love volunteers :-)
(13:47:23) katzazi: But if someone else does it I am happy as well. Less work
(13:47:51) dops: What kind of personal data is in it? Names, roles, address/
coomunication data? Something else?
(13:48:01) iang: I would like to establish that the board does not manage the
list - but we might need an institution to handle it so it is also long lived
(13:48:07) katzazi: Ian currently arbs are NOT on that list.we were removed
(13:48:22) iang: Being on the list != who manages the list. Two different
topics.
(13:48:54) katzazi: We should be on the list according to.SP/SM
(13:49:40) iang: Oh well, then the person managing the list should be directed
to keep the list according to SP/SM and if that says add the arbitrators then
that should be done too.
(13:49:50) katzazi: If you give it to a team nobody feels responsible. If you
hand it to a person you can address that person
(13:49:57) iang: ok
(13:50:13) piers: do we need a motion?
(13:50:40) iang: Resolved, that Eva manage the Key Persons List according to SP
/SM.
(13:50:55) piers: Seconded and AYE
(13:51:03) dops: aye
(13:51:06) iang: Aye
(13:51:14) egal: aye
(13:51:25) piers: i declare the motion carried
(13:51:30) piers: next item
(13:51:37) piers: item 3 Question Time
(13:52:04) egal: which means: i will remove the names requested by RM and MM
and send it (encrypted) to eva
(13:52:30) iang: “names requested by RM and MM” ?
(13:52:53) dops: I don't think that the key persons list must be encrypted. SP
says "contact information". But people could be asked whether they agree.
(13:52:54) iang: as Eva is now managing the list, you could ask her to remove
them.
(13:53:03) egal: RM and MM requested their data to be wiped out from this liste
(maybe more)
(13:53:17) iang: Then Eva should do that.
(13:53:22) katzazi: Dirk and me can discuss the handover
(13:53:27) iang: Yes.
(13:53:45) egal: Rm asked about keeping the domain cacert.tips ...
(13:54:21) iang: that was weird. This is not board business as far as I can
see. Fine for question time I suppose. But I see nothing for board to do.
(13:54:21) dops: I don't see a need to support a dozen of top level domains.
(13:54:35) egal: (he will not keep it, but asked, if he should give it back to
the registrar or we (CAcert community) want to have it
(13:54:56) iang: there was a move away from any centralised decision making
here by creating a “conservatory” approach. The community decides for itself
what domains they want to keep.
(13:55:13) dops: ok
(13:56:13) dops: So we can forward the request (without personal data of
course) to the cacert list.
(13:56:25) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Domains
(13:56:42) egal: okay ...
(13:57:16) piers: any other questions?
(13:57:38) iang: 7. if you decide to release the domain, you agree to offer it
to the Community for takeover first.
(13:57:54) iang: So Reinhard should be posting to community list. Asking board
to do his post for him is … crazy.
(13:58:03) katzazi: Piers you asked to discuss new arbitrator, now
(13:58:15) piers: go ahead
(13:58:23) iang: ah yes
(13:58:32) katzazi: Ian seems to have questions, not mr
(13:58:43) katzazi: *me
(13:59:05) iang: the question is, what is the decision that board needs to
take?
(13:59:33) katzazi: I just want to be able to continue the training if he is
allowed to join the team, which is your decision.
(13:59:47) katzazi: To add him to the team.
(14:00:20) katzazi: According to CCA that is done by Inc.
(14:00:29) dops: You can assume support from board. What is required to be able
to continue?
(14:00:48) iang: So, the request is that Piet be added to the arbitration team?
Or appointed as arbitrator?
(14:00:53) katzazi: You could make conditions or whatever
(14:01:04) katzazi: Yes
(14:01:30) iang: well, (a) we should do the same as what others have done. And
(b) there is a move to make sure that the board not be a bottleneck so how can
we move forward on that?
(14:02:01) katzazi: He cannot be an full arb at the moment but he can be added
I'm training or something
(14:02:26) iang: Or should we retain that oversite? this is a tricky topic
because of recent events, and is probably best conducted over at policy group.
(14:02:29) katzazi: You are the bottleneck for 3 weeks niw
(14:03:01) katzazi: So we have to wait longer
(14:03:14) katzazi: Even as CCA place this with inc
(14:03:26) iang: Is there a notion that someone can be a member of the team
without being an Arbitrator? Or is membership of the team equivalent to being
an Arbitrator?
(14:04:33) katzazi: Case managers ate part of the team
(14:04:46) katzazi: DRO is part of the team
(14:04:55) piers: surely arbitrator training doesn't need board approval -
only appointment?
(14:05:03) katzazi: Arbs in training are part of the team
(14:05:06) iang: OK so you want him added to the team without being made an
arbitrator. Fine.
(14:05:12) katzazi: He does piers
(14:05:22) katzazi: We all needed it for years
(14:05:53) katzazi: We were added as arbs and DRO decided on ending training
(14:05:54) iang: I do not recall that board approved training in my time.
(14:06:18) katzazi: DRO does that
(14:06:21) iang: Ah - added as arbs, yes. Because an Arbitrator can hear a case
and deliver a ruling. That is an important step. But to the team? No.
(14:06:40) katzazi: ... So training will stop.
(14:06:57) katzazi: Infra does not give access
(14:07:10) iang: aha! Infra won’t give access because?
(14:07:23) katzazi: No further arb until next board
(14:07:32) egal: ah ... okay ... infra waits for OK by board to grant access
need for training ... correct?
(14:07:53) piers: ah it's about access - surely then we can propose a
motion appointing "an arbitrator-in-training" - will that do?
(14:08:10) iang: that makes some sort of sense. Does the access involve being
able to read the private part of the recorded rulings?
(14:08:37) katzazi: We need All accedd
(14:08:48) katzazi: Including the option to rule
(14:09:06) katzazi: Under supervision of another arb
(14:09:33) katzazi: That is how it is done
(14:09:42) iang: ok. This is a more complicated motion.
(14:10:09) katzazi: Like if you train for drivers license you need to be able
to try it, eventually
(14:10:24) iang: Right - but this is not apparent to outsiders.
(14:10:33) iang: Unless standing before the learner drivers...
(14:11:08) katzazi: Well, I better wait for the next board with this request,
will be faster
(14:11:26) iang: Resolved, that Piet be appointed Arbitrator-in-training, be
given access to the Arbitration tools, and be supervised by Eva for remaning
training until she determines he is ready to be proposed to Board for full
appointment.
(14:12:25) dops: We are in the questions agenda item. Take it as ad-hoc motion.
(14:12:32) katzazi: There is a prior board motion that puts training and end of
training in the hands of the teams
(14:12:38) katzazi: Or team leads
(14:12:43) dops: The name is Piet Starreveld, I assume.
(14:12:48) katzazi: Dirk was on that board
(14:13:01) piers: What exactly do you want us to do here Eva?
(14:13:03) iang: ok, what is that motion?
(14:13:16) katzazi: No access ;-)
(14:13:52) katzazi: It was because of arbitrators in training but given for all
teams
(14:13:53) iang: you have no access to the motions system? Can you tell us the
month?
(14:14:18) katzazi: I am on a mobile device and not at home
(14:14:30) katzazi: No. Probably 2014
(14:14:36) iang: @egal do you know which motion this was?
(14:14:39) katzazi: In spring
(14:15:19) piers: the board wants to help arbitration every way it can, but is
is still not clear to me exactly what the board can do apart from something
like Ian's proposed motion above
(14:15:35) egal: possibly 20140330.9 (advise all teams to think about training
process)
(14:15:44) katzazi: But we could work with such kind of motion, as he currently
does not fulfil the formal requirements
(14:15:59) piers: so we can't help then?
(14:16:02) egal: possibly 20140330.8 (team leaders to manage training)
(14:16:23) katzazi: However also other arbs will be involved in the training
(14:16:46) piers: well, propose a motion that bwill satisfy your requirements
(14:17:55) iang: I would reject those motions for this context as not being
sufficiently clear to cover Arbitration.
(14:18:16) iang: Arbitration as a separate head-power should not be treated as
“teams”
(14:18:30) katzazi: I can live with Ian's proposals for the moment so that
we can continue but I may ask to adjust it to something more appropriate in the
future
(14:18:55) piers: sounds like a working proposition!
(14:18:59) piers: shall we vote?
(14:19:08) katzazi: Make it an action item for me to update it
(14:19:10) iang: that would be excpellent.
(14:19:36) dops: update Ian's proposal for the motion?
(14:19:46) iang: if we hear seconders to the motion: Resolved, that Piet be
appointed Arbitrator-in-training, be given access to the Arbitration tools, and
be supervised by Eva for remaning training until she determines he is ready to
be proposed to Board for full appointment.
(14:19:58) piers: seconded and AYE
(14:20:01) iang: Aye
(14:20:20) dops: We should not vote here, because we are in questions and it is
not on the agenda.
(14:20:32) iang: What I would like to see is a new motion that establishes the
entire process for this.
(14:21:23) iang: Well, technically we can simply vote to add other business. I
would rather do that and move on.
(14:21:27) piers: we want Eva to be able to continue training right away surely
/
(14:21:49) dops: ok, if it is possible like this, that AYE and AYE
(14:22:00) dops: s/that/then/
(14:22:01) iang: Resolved, that Piet be appointed Arbitrator-in-training, be
given access to the Arbitration tools, and be supervised by Eva for remaning
training until she determines he is ready to be proposed to Board for full
appointment. And, we agree to accept this item as other business.
(14:22:20) piers: seconded and AYE
(14:22:25) katzazi: Ian, add ab action item for me to come up with an improved
motion
(14:22:44) iang: @egal we would like a unanimous for that one … other business!
(14:22:46) dops: Piet is Piet Starreveld. AYE
(14:23:12) iang: And AYE from me.
(14:23:27) piers: @egal?
(14:23:43) iang: I have to dive off now. Minutes writer - please add my action
point to create a table of assets and nag me on it :)
(14:23:45) egal: aye
(14:23:56) dops: @iang: I'll do
(14:23:59) piers: i declare the motion carried
(14:24:04) iang: :)
(14:24:21) piers: bye ian!
(14:24:30) iang: thanks all!
(14:24:39) dops: next meeting?
(14:24:42) egal: see you ...
(14:24:45) piers: next item 4 Date for next committee mtg
(14:24:53) egal: not next week ... will be on the move within NL
(14:25:07) egal: saturday in 2 weeks is possible, sunday not
(14:25:17) piers: i'd like to continue using the doodle site to arrange
our meetings
(14:25:39) piers: Gero - can you set up one for the next 2 weeks?
(14:26:04) dops: ok.
(14:26:33) piers: thanks!
(14:26:47) piers: I declare the meeting closed