1 Conversation with #board-meeting at Sun 27 Nov 2016 14:58:05 CET on 2 email@example.com (irc) 3 4 20:59:58 on 2016-04-09 5 (15:00:04) egal: hi, hello and welcome ... 6 (15:00:15) dops1: Hi 7 (15:00:21) iang: hello 8 (15:00:31) iang: how are we all? 9 (15:00:45) iang: we have a quorum within the minute - outstanding :) 10 (15:01:33) kalidriz is now known as piet 11 (15:02:06) iang: Anyone want to take the Chair? 12 (15:02:26) egal: the vice-president usually does ... ;-) 13 (15:02:34) iang: darnit. 14 (15:02:39) egal: (as long as the president is not there ...;-) ) 15 (15:03:12) iang: OK. Meeting opened. Do we have minutes to accept? 16 (15:04:02) iang: And, who would like to make minutes? Not me, the Chair is too 17 rocky... 18 (15:04:41) dops1: No - not time. I can take the minutes for this meeting, but I 19 can't say when I will have time to write it. 20 (15:04:57) iang: ok. 21 (15:05:02) grendl: hello 22 (15:05:31) iang: Perhaps we can at least get the transcript up so we don’t lose 23 it? 24 (15:05:45) iang: My client doesn’t save enough of the transcript for a long 25 meeting, for some reason. 26 (15:06:16) iang: Hi @grendl 27 (15:06:45) katzazi: dirk_on_server should have transcripts ;-) 28 (15:06:51) egal: i can sent it later via unsigned and unencrypted mail ... ;-) 29 (15:07:07) dops1: The transscripts are there (but should not be published in 30 this very very rough form) 31 (15:07:13) iang: well, post it on the wiki? 32 (15:07:38) egal: btw: normall both machines, "egal" and "dirk_on_server" are 33 logging ... ;-) 34 (15:07:40) dops1: Ah you mean the IRC transcript? Sure, that's possible. 35 (15:08:10) iang: Yep - the IRC log or transcript. I’d call it the transcript 36 myself… 37 (15:08:15) iang: Are there any outstanding actions to report? 38 (15:08:33) katzazi: yes from my side 39 (15:08:43) iang: ah - go ahead! 40 (15:08:48) dops1: I am still working on the financial report ;-) 41 (15:09:08) katzazi: I once had the action item to propose a rule change for 42 rule 16. I asked it to be added as special resolution to next AGM 43 (15:09:26) iang: OK, I saw that, cool. 44 (15:09:54) katzazi: (I also send a lot of mails as requested in last meeting by 45 DRO, not sure if that counts as action item) 46 (15:10:34) iang: Yep, saw them too :) so that amounts to another item - lots of 47 reports sent to the board’s private list concerning cases. 48 (15:10:58) iang: I spent most of yesterday responding to them. 49 (15:11:42) iang: Is there anything else on the board mailing list to report? 50 (15:12:21) katzazi: explanation for secretary? 51 (15:13:35) dops1: Should one mention the resignaton, or not? 52 (15:13:43) egal: yep ... this was sent to members, too (as far as i know) ... 53 so there is no need to add a new item (we may handle it during agm prepartions) 54 (15:15:07) dops1: I mean this email: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/ 55 cacert-board-private/2016-11/msg00047.html 56 (15:15:19) iang: Resignation? I noticed that @katzazi told me we’re not doing 57 that 100 times…. To which I am still saying OK OK OK... 58 (15:15:56) iang: There are a lot of difficult cases that have to be worked 59 through. My ideas didn’t help much :) 60 (15:16:36) dops1: The words are clear. But maybe we could be informed in 61 private if we should take it not that serious. 62 (15:16:55) iang: So it’s back to the drawing board as they say in English. I 63 think I can see some of the issues. But they are complicated. And speak to 64 changes in DRP. Which aren’t easy to get thru. 65 (15:18:06) katzazi: I don't understand the first comment from ian after 66 the link 67 (15:18:13) katzazi: but I just confirmed that it is meant seriously 68 (15:18:36) katzazi: and it's not about DRP changes 69 (15:19:19) iang: Well, the topic is serious. The cases have built up over time 70 and it needs some care to get them under control. And it is unfair to put all 71 that load on one person … Piet might be able to help in the future, but we need 72 more help on cases. 73 (15:19:55) katzazi: Piet cannot take those at the moment as long as he is under 74 my supervision he is conflicted 75 (15:20:16) iang: Anyway, regardless of the pain, and importance, we’re off 76 agenda, so let’s move on. 77 (15:20:49) iang: Business #1. AGM prep - @egal? 78 (15:24:16) egal: sorry ... was away for a minute or two ... ;-( 79 (15:24:36) egal: Financial report ready? 80 (15:24:36) egal: Board report? 81 (15:24:36) egal: Other reports? 82 (15:24:49) egal: Payments of members done? 83 (15:25:01) egal: i added these questions in our wiki ... 84 (15:25:21) iang: How are we doing on the Financial Report? 85 (15:25:24) egal: i have to send out the AGM-invitaion by today ... 86 (15:26:05) dops1: No, the financial report is not ready yet. A report about 87 payment status will follow right after that. 88 (15:26:17) dops1: I see a lot of payments via Paypal, though. 89 (15:26:21) iang: Yes to invite. 90 (15:26:22) katzazi: dops1: can you send links os that we can pay? 91 (15:26:51) katzazi: I've asked for that more than once but never got one 92 during last or current fy 93 (15:26:58) iang: I guess that the financial report comes first. Soon after a 94 reminder to those who haven’t paid… I have no idea what my status is. 95 (15:27:07) dops1: It should be possible to create a paypal link with EUR 96 currency .. I'll have a look into that. 97 (15:27:37) katzazi: because if you don't allow time for payment, the AGM 98 may be invalid 99 (15:27:38) dops1: To get a link included in the official web pages is hardly 100 possible in a short time frame in the current situation. 101 (15:28:01) dops1: IMO people don't depend on a link. 102 (15:28:09) katzazi: regrettably I've written something like that in my 103 deliberations ... not thinking about current situation back then 104 (15:28:13) iang: Board reports - this is going to be hard - when there is a 105 split board term, the early term is often hard to report on because the 106 replacement board is conflicted on reporting on the earlier term. 107 (15:28:18) dops1: All payment methods are possible, including setting a 108 transaction up on its own in Paypal. 109 (15:28:51) katzazi: then inform members about that dops1 110 (15:29:28) katzazi: especially the new ones 111 (15:30:05) dops1: ok, will do 112 (15:31:29) katzazi: iang: SGM told you to explicitly report on that part - so I 113 believe your idea of conflict does not apply 114 (15:32:26) iang: Yes, I was just thinking that. The two parts are likely 115 equivalent. The conflict still remains, but something should be done. 116 (15:32:44) iang: s/two parts/two tasks/ 117 (15:33:30) iang: On other reports - I guess we’re all aware that we will have a 118 very short report this year. But something is better than nothing. 119 (15:34:20) katzazi: arbitration did a report - Policy will follow when there is 120 a page 121 (15:34:26) iang: @katzazi are you able to provide something for arbitration? 122 (15:34:34) iang: Ah good, already done! OK. 123 (15:34:56) iang: Arbitration is probably the best working area right now. 124 (15:35:11) egal: i'm working from the support, events and software-site 125 ... 126 (15:35:12) iang: (much as it might not seem so within :) ) 127 (15:35:57) iang: @egal I know … but it seems harsh to spread you (and others so 128 thin) and expect a report as well... 129 (15:36:37) katzazi: note: arbitration and policy report mostly to community and 130 use that page as it is convenient for everybody 131 (15:36:44) iang: nod 132 (15:38:02) katzazi: I believe support is also working ok ... today the 6 months 133 deadline about that runs out 134 (15:38:13) katzazi: if I calculated correctly 135 (15:38:31) iang: Aha. Remind us what that is about? I had this sinking feeling 136 in my mind yesterday that we were forgetting something… 137 (15:39:01) katzazi: the deadline to provide enough staff to support area else 138 that area would have to be closed down 139 (15:39:15) katzazi: was in a ruling 6 months ago 140 (15:39:25) dops1: Off topic: How many people are active nowadays? 141 (15:39:50) egal: for the support deadline (even if it's not on the todays 142 agenda) i'll send in a new ABC-request by today ... 143 (15:39:51) iang: ok, so let’s add this as a late business item. Talk about it 144 now or at the end? 145 (15:40:09) katzazi: there was one ABC entered, one person is constantly active 146 and there is perspective of another ABC as egal just wrote 147 (15:40:56) katzazi: (public support ml should also be mentioned as they support 148 that team quite well) 149 (15:40:59) egal: the first ABC was done, but up to now no decision up to now 150 (15:41:34) iang: ah, nice, that sounds like good progress. 151 (15:43:03) katzazi: good enough to just meet the minimal requirements of the 152 ruling, but that's all that was "expected" or demanded 153 (15:43:07) egal: but back to AGM-issues here ... ;) 154 (15:43:29) iang: Well, ok. But that was an important digression :) 155 (15:43:39) iang: Anyway, any more to report on AGM? 156 (15:45:39) egal: there is one special resolution up now ... 157 (15:46:09) egal: sent in by eva some time ago ... 158 (15:46:33) egal: will there be another one from us/one of us? 159 (15:46:51) iang: It is a change to the rules, right? I saw that and briefly 160 looked at it. 161 (15:47:11) katzazi: yes - I will not place my heart on that - if it fails it 162 fails 163 (15:47:23) katzazi: it was requested so I did that 164 (15:47:25) iang: According to the recent ruling it has to be worded exactly… as 165 a special resolution. 166 (15:48:00) katzazi: the secretary has to check that and inform me possibly in 167 time if that is not the case, yes 168 (15:48:05) iang: Another from us - are you referring to the Dunkel suggestion? 169 (15:48:24) egal: i don't know ... i'm asking only ... ;-) 170 (15:48:43) katzazi: I would like to learn about that as well 171 (15:49:38) iang: OK. So what I know is that there is a suggestion. That there 172 be a special resolution. That, in the event that there aren’t 3 AU members on 173 the board, the association resolves to place the association into suspension 174 and proceed to wind it up under the control of a special committee. 175 (15:50:16) iang: The point of this is that if we haven’t got the proper board, 176 then PO and/or existing AU members probably have to report to OFT that this is 177 the situation. 178 (15:51:09) iang: Now, once reported, it is then in the hands of the OFT. This 179 is unlikely to be entirely helpful to us. *However* if we have already moved to 180 place the organisation into a track towards winding up, then at least we have a 181 hand in it. 182 (15:51:49) iang: It takes a while to wrap ones head around the logic. It 183 appears as though we want to wind it up … but we don’t. It only happens when 184 danger strikes because we haven’t got the AU members. 185 (15:51:53) egal: how much time do we have then? weeks? months? 186 (15:52:16) iang: Well. That is an unknown. But I would suggest in terms of a 187 year. 188 (15:52:44) dops1: @iang: Thanks for your information and clarifying the 189 intention. In written words other wise it could be rapidly misunderstood. 190 (15:53:20) iang: The thing is, even getting the OFT to deliberate is likely to 191 take 3 months. The OFT runs O(100k) associations. With a small staff. 192 (15:54:00) katzazi: as far as I understand this it's to a) protect 193 remaining helping AU-members AND b) about do it in a controlled manner - as we 194 plan to eventually move over, anyway, correct? 195 (15:54:03) egal: which menas, that we have around a year (more or less) to 196 "move" CAcert Inc. somewhere or create something new to keep the CAcert 197 community running ... correct? 198 (15:54:05) iang: So they won’t be fast. And they won’t want to work against 199 members of the association. So they are likely to want to work with the 200 situation and with anyone who is working correctly. 201 (15:54:41) iang: well, it is in part to protect the AU members. It is also in 202 part to create a controlled crash landing, as an expression. 203 (15:55:06) katzazi: (my glider teacher told me that every landing is a 204 controlled crash) 205 (15:55:11) iang: The AU members are mostly protected if they notify the OFT of 206 the fact that the association is in trouble. 207 (15:55:51) egal: ... and to keep CAcert in a controlled status is to protect 208 all members ... 209 (15:56:28) iang: Right. 210 (15:58:14) katzazi: will there be such a resolution? 211 (15:58:17) iang: So, if it goes into a difficult situation, there are 212 legalities about control. Technically the board of control has difficulties 213 passing motions. In a challenge in court, it could be argued that any motion of 214 the board was not well founded. 215 (15:58:42) iang: So we’d then have the difficulty that accepting CCAs, 216 confirming existing CCAs, etc would be difficult. 217 (15:58:54) egal: you're refering to board during the suspension? 218 (15:59:40) katzazi: iang: question about that, the association rules say that 219 any issue with setting up board does not negate their done decisions 220 (16:00:44) katzazi: would that be relevant or would it be about not being right 221 persons and by this the question how it was set up is irrelevant? 222 (16:00:51) iang: I’m referring to any board that is ill-formed due to technical 223 issues (would also include insolvency issues). The board has to act as a 224 properly formed association. If the association is not in good standing then it 225 enters a grey area. 226 (16:02:14) iang: So, that is one issue … but by far the greater issue is having 227 the OFT on side. If they are on side then a lot can be done. If they are not on 228 side … if the association is listed as being not in good standing, then 229 anything can be challenged. 230 (16:03:34) iang: It is like (but not for same cause) a company in bankrupcy - 231 at that point, once filed in court, the court is the controller of the company 232 and the company’s board cannot sign cheques, make contracts, deliver goods. All 233 of it has to be handled by the court. Which typically changes strategy entirely 234 and starts selling off the assets. 235 (16:04:50) iang: Which is normally difficult because creditors are yelling and 236 screaming for their money … we don’t have that issue so it will not be so 237 noisy. But we do have the issue that CAcert Inc will no longer be in control of 238 its destiny. 239 (16:05:16) iang: So the Dunkel resolution moves to place a special committee in 240 charge of the destiny, ahead of the OFT having to do it for it. 241 (16:06:04) katzazi: uhm can you name material difference to the proposal of 242 Benedikt at last AGM? 243 (16:06:08) iang: If the OFT accept that, then we’re back in control. “In 244 theory.” In practice, it doesn’t change the basic facts, it just means that 245 someone has to carefully unwind. 246 (16:06:15) egal: will this committee elected/nominated/... then during the AGM 247 or later by SGM? 248 (16:06:20) iang: I do not recall the proposal of Benedikt - text? 249 (16:06:48) katzazi: it was about "create subcommittee to perform move" (more or 250 less in short) 251 (16:07:03) iang: @egal I don’t know the answer to that - I suspect that depends 252 on however the Special resolution is written. 253 (16:07:11) iang: Oh, no. 254 (16:08:27) iang: That was assuming that CAcert Inc was in good standing and 255 could organise the move happily. Also, it was assuming that the board could 256 hand power to do that task - in practice it could not. Only the association can 257 do that. In practical terms, the fault was that only a special resolution could 258 deal with that power, not an ordinary resolution 259 (16:09:03) katzazi: ok, you can name material differences :) 260 (16:09:28) iang: … and normally a special resolution has to have a concrete 261 plan to approve, whereas there was no plan. It was more like “create a secret 262 committee to come up with a secret plan to move CAcert’s assets to a secret 263 location…” 264 (16:09:49) iang: It didn’t say those words, but it was written to permit that 265 to happen. 266 (16:09:53) katzazi: I would not sign that interpretation 267 (16:10:26) iang: Are you saying that the previous board would not have set up 268 secret meetings, secret plans, and done secret things? (a) 269 (16:10:37) katzazi: but no reason to discuss that old resolution. There is a 270 ruling about that. 271 (16:10:58) iang: Sure. 272 (16:11:21) iang: So, …. I am not proposing the motion. Just trying to interpret 273 it. 274 (16:11:26) katzazi: no I would say that the subcommittee as such would not have 275 been secret ;-) 276 (16:12:08) iang: ;-) 277 (16:12:38) iang: If someone wants to write it, fine. I can help with 278 wordsmithing but I don’t think it helps if I write it and propose it. 279 (16:12:50) katzazi: why not? 280 (16:13:09) iang: People will just assume the worst. 281 (16:13:51) iang: I’m conflicted - I can fly to Australia “any time” and form a 282 secret committee of australians and sway the OFT with my accent and and and …. 283 (16:14:11) katzazi: how are you conflicted? 284 (16:14:56) katzazi: so what would you suggest who would enter something like 285 this ... within the next hours? 286 (16:14:58) iang: beats me. But apaprently some thought I had flown to Australia 287 in order to meet with the Australians and do nefarious deals. 288 (16:15:37) iang: Well. I think it is probably worth trying. It’s a special 289 resoltion … so it needs 75% of the vote. So it has to actualy win on its own 290 merits. 291 (16:16:17) iang: It is not as if writing it is going to convince the 292 membership, they will be naturaly disinclined to go with it. 293 (16:16:36) egal: within in the next hours i need the wording of the motion 294 itself ... to add it to the agenda and send the mail ... 295 (16:16:56) iang: But as members we need to be aware and think forward. So 296 certainly someone could propose this path. 297 (16:17:02) egal: ... o fill a wiki-page with details/... is another task ... ; 298 -) 299 (16:17:52) katzazi: so who do you think should write and propose within hours? 300 (16:18:21) iang: I don’t know. I don’t think anyone has a free few hours. For a 301 start we’re all working on this meeting. 302 (16:19:00) iang: What do people here think of the idea? 303 (16:19:17) katzazi: I will not have a stable connection later because of 304 travelling - but I would support any such resolution that would be there 305 (16:19:32) katzazi: but I just cannot guarantee from a technical point to be 306 able to enter it 307 (16:20:02) iang: ok. @egal @dops ? 308 (16:20:14) iang: @dops1 309 (16:20:36) iang: Any others want to comment? It’s a big issue! 310 (16:21:31) dops1: I'm in favor of preparing a special resolution. 311 (16:22:05) katzazi: I believe it's worth a try and better than the 312 alternative, especially if it is worded conditionally 313 (16:22:11) dops1: But it reduces time I should dedicate to ... you know 314 (16:22:18) egal: okay ... we should then prapre a wiki-page later to expain 315 this to our members ... 316 (16:22:23) iang: it’s got to be notified by Secretary 3 weeks in advance … what 317 is the date of the AGM? 318 (16:22:37) katzazi: no egal mail communication, speak with members 319 (16:22:56) egal: 2016-12-28, 20:00 UTC was the agreement ... ;-) 320 (16:23:17) egal: this means: 4.5 hours left (around) 321 (16:23:31) katzazi: wiki probably as well, but some push-communication is 322 better than pull-communication in this regard ;-) 323 (16:23:32) iang: Ah, so if it was written today and onto the wiki, it could be 324 notified as late as 7th December? 325 (16:23:49) egal: nope ... 326 (16:24:02) egal: special resolutions have to be sent in by today ... 327 (16:24:04) katzazi: it has to be done today 328 (16:24:45) iang: what am I missing .. it has to be notified to members by 3 329 weeks, right? 330 (16:25:10) egal: dampned typo ... 331 (16:25:14) egal: 2016-12-18 332 (16:25:22) iang: oooooooo… right :) 333 (16:26:00) iang: ok today. Well, perhaps after this meeitng then. 334 (16:26:30) egal: the wiki-page to explain the resolution can be changed later 335 ... as long as the resolution is not changed (as far as i know ... ;-) ) 336 (16:26:40) iang: perhaps we should try and move fast thro u remaining items. 337 (16:26:42) iang: yes. 338 (16:26:45) katzazi: I would suggest that due to time it is written and entered 339 by Ian but supported by others - he is the native speaker after all, even with 340 correct accent 341 (16:26:56) iang: ug :( 342 (16:27:16) egal: ACK to katzazi ... ;-) 343 (16:27:58) iang: Anyway. I shall pass by that remark without notcing….. 344 (16:28:04) iang: Let’s move on. 345 (16:28:16) iang: 2. DRO issues (status) by Ian… not sure how that got added for 346 me! 347 (16:28:25) iang: I don’t think I can summarise but I can list off some 348 comments. 1. lots of reviews of older/stalled cases and ones without adequate 349 CM/Arb representation have been posted by @katzazi 350 (16:28:54) iang: 2. @katzazi posted earlier that Piet is helping. 351 (16:30:02) iang: 3. It seems like what is happening is this: a lot of work has 352 been done cleaning up cases, and now we’ve got through the “easy” ones and what 353 is left is the “hard” ones. So there aren’t any easy answers… 354 (16:30:21) dops1: FYI We invited for 2016-12-18 UTC, but yes, 21d before gives 355 us just a few hours. 356 (16:30:23) iang: But that’s just my feeling … @katzazi can explain it better. 357 (16:30:53) dops1: s/invited/moved/ 358 (16:30:59) katzazi: what was done in the past was that a multitude of 359 unnecessary cases were withdrawn from support/software/board 360 (16:31:06) iang: thanks … let’s keep on topic for now tho. 361 (16:32:15) katzazi: piet and me are working to get those handled correctly - it 362 will probalby get easier with a ruling that piet is working on but that's 363 up to him - it will be possible regardless 364 (16:32:40) katzazi: that would cover about 10% of the open cases or something 365 (16:33:00) katzazi: also piet and me already have handled a multitude of cases 366 since we picked up arbitration 367 (16:33:41) katzazi: what piet and I could not do so far is to do anything about 368 those cases where recently resigned arbitrators / CMs were sitting - beside of 369 those where I was CM. 370 (16:34:16) katzazi: then there is a multitude of personal or comparable cases 371 where I am placed to be conflicted 372 (16:34:32) iang: ok. is there any specific recommendation that board as or not 373 as DRO can help? 374 (16:34:34) katzazi: as named as party - I would claim to be named incorrectly 375 at least in one case 376 (16:35:09) iang: Are these cases where CM/Arbs are present? Or cases where CM/ 377 Arbs are not present? 378 (16:35:22) katzazi: yes - DRO can help to get CM/A resolved where there 379 currently are resigning ones named 380 (16:35:38) katzazi: well ... I just resigned 381 (16:36:10) iang: so you’re no longer in conflict ;-) 382 (16:36:26) iang: more seriously … 383 (16:36:38) katzazi: no - I now can act as respondent - one of the reasons for 384 resigning 385 (16:37:37) iang: in email there were several cases described. However what we 386 lack is specific recommendations. Now, obviously it is hard to make 387 recommendations when also involved. But we have to do what we can do. 388 (16:38:12) iang: So if you could provide us with more specific recommendations 389 that might speed us up on it. 390 (16:38:24) katzazi: you had asked on a summary - without saying for what you 391 wanted the summary, just that you wanted a list of those cases 392 (16:38:33) iang: Otherwise we have to gain your understanding of the cases… and 393 that’s going to be hard/impossible/… 394 (16:38:50) iang: Ah ok. Well, I asked for a summary … and assumed that I could 395 solve it :) didn’t work out that way. 396 (16:39:51) katzazi: to be honest, any recommendation from my side really would 397 have some element of conflict included 398 (16:40:24) katzazi: I am usually good to move such stuff out of my mind when 399 thinking about cases but I will not be able to do that for all cases 400 (16:40:40) iang: Anyway. Conscious of time. If there is anything you need right 401 now, from us, here, say so or else I think I have to be brutal and claim 402 Chair’s privilege to move on. 403 (16:40:49) katzazi: if you acknowledge that I can try to do something 404 (16:40:50) iang: OK, let’s take it to email. 405 (16:41:04) iang: I acknowledge that you are conflicted with far too many cases. 406 Please try. :) 407 (16:41:19) iang: Independence is a state of mind - not an objective fact. 408 (16:41:28) katzazi: I know - just commented that ;-) 409 (16:41:54) iang: Excellent. We’ve had our agreement for this year ;-) so I’ll 410 move swiftly to point 3. 411 (16:42:00) iang: AO (status) by board. 412 (16:42:03) iang: anyone? 413 (16:42:38) egal: currently not ... we're AO ... ;-) 414 (16:42:52) iang: If no-one has antyhing to say on this topic, I’m more than 415 happy to defer. 416 (16:43:00) egal: and last time we postponed one AO-thing ... 417 (16:43:15) iang: Altho … I fear @katzazi had something to say about AO in a 418 ruling … is that relevent? 419 (16:43:38) katzazi: can be deferred if eventually handled and not forgotten 420 (16:43:44) egal: it was the question of informing some members or nt ... 421 (16:43:47) iang: There was one comment that AO has to decide whether to send 422 some notifications that certain Assurances were done under a cloud. 423 (16:43:50) iang: My view is not. 424 (16:44:00) iang: If the assurances are good, then that’s it. They stand. 425 (16:44:25) iang: The assurances are not the people. 426 (16:44:41) iang: (But, the people are the assurances ;-) according to a paper 427 I’m writing ;-) ;-) ) 428 (16:45:10) egal: if there is/are questions by the affected members support can/ 429 should answer them and explain ... 430 (16:45:46) iang: Does support need anything from board as AO right now? 431 (16:45:58) egal: only the decision ;-) 432 (16:46:15) egal: dops? 433 (16:46:33) dops1: What do you need from my side? 434 (16:46:36) iang: Can’t do the decision until know what the choices are, and the 435 topic. 436 (16:47:44) egal: 16:43 < iang> There was one comment that AO has to decide 437 whether to send some notifications that certain Assurances were done under a 438 cloud. 439 (16:47:48) katzazi: question to answer was if the assurees of the assurances 440 done by those members who ware declared not to be assurer by a ruling in 441 a20151125.1 should be informed about the fact that their assurers were not 442 really assurer at the time of the assurance ornot 443 (16:48:18) katzazi: as there was another ruling that for the time being those 444 assurances should stand 445 (16:48:21) katzazi: in same case 446 (16:48:32) katzazi: (I hope I remembered number correctly) 447 (16:49:58) katzazi: um assurees of the assurances after that ruling done by 448 those members under the ruling 449 (16:50:24) katzazi: not all of them only those after the ruling that they are 450 no assurer any more 451 (16:51:13) katzazi: but as I said - can be deferred if not forgotten - no 452 specific time pressure 453 (16:51:20) egal: "any more" or "at that time" ? 454 (16:51:47) katzazi: "after that ruling" 455 (16:52:20) katzazi: in one case "and before getting assurer status back" 456 (16:53:14) iang: I can write a motion against a notification if you like … not 457 sure I can write a motion for the notification ;-) 458 (16:53:15) egal: @dops ... what is your opinion to this? 459 (16:55:03) dops1: My opinion is that we can deal with it after the AGM. Sorry - 460 we, or at least I, must prioritize. 461 (16:55:40) egal: currently no notification ... okay ... ;-) 462 (16:55:44) egal: next item? ;-) 463 (16:55:50) iang: super 464 (16:56:03) iang: 4. Old board by dirk 465 (16:56:03) iang: Report to be created 466 (16:56:16) iang: Yes, Report to be created, no progress to report as yet. 467 (16:56:21) iang: (that I know of) 468 (16:56:46) egal: you wanted to to it, ian, as far as i remember ... ;-) 469 (16:57:53) iang: me?? 470 (16:58:11) iang: I admit I wrote a special resolution to that effect, but I 471 didn’t want to do it… 472 (16:58:43) egal: @iang ... we should know, that we have to create the report 473 ... no matter if we're still in board after the AGM or not ... 474 (16:58:43) iang: the old Chinese curse comes to mind … be careful what you wish 475 for. 476 (16:59:19) iang: ... 477 (17:00:24) katzazi: iang in that case: I told you so 478 (17:01:33) iang: :-( well 479 (17:01:52) iang: I still see little to report. Not a lot to say. Can we “defer 480 (17:02:31) egal: i'm adding this to every agenda since the SGM ... ;-) 481 (17:04:05) iang: and no doubt until the AGM. Moving right along ... 482 (17:04:18) iang: 5. Status of Move of CAcert Inc. 483 (17:04:33) iang: Anyone anything on that? 484 (17:04:56) egal: i don't think we have any progress here since the last 485 meeting ... ;-( 486 (17:05:13) katzazi: I believe it was not noted here that on PolG a discussion 487 on a policy proposal for Cabinet was started ... had no time to answer for some 488 while, though 489 (17:05:13) iang: I’ll solve 4. for you if you solve 5. for us ;-) 490 (17:05:14) egal: (you wanted to have it as a last item for every boardmeeting 491 since SGM ;-) ) 492 (17:05:43) katzazi: I believe it to be a step to allow for the move ... 493 (17:06:00) katzazi: at least it was not globally rejected so far ... 494 (17:07:01) iang: I can’t see anything happening before the AGM. So I’d suggest 495 we concentrate on the AGM. Until then. 496 (17:07:09) katzazi: in theory I am working on some further details requested by 497 Ian ... but had to focus on more urgent things like GM minutes or AMG rulings, 498 first 499 (17:07:19) egal: i'm sure the discussion will start again after i send out 500 the AGM-invitation (as long as somebody prepars the special resolution ... ;-) 501 ) 502 (17:07:38) iang: ah ok. Good. Then something to report next meeting ;-) 503 (17:07:49) iang: OK, let’s push on. 504 (17:08:09) egal: (who will send the SR? .. ian? dops?) 505 (17:08:12) iang: Late business posted in Question time - 506 (17:08:27) iang: Not me. I might provide some words… 507 (17:09:30) iang: I will try and capture what the idea was … but I’m not 508 particularly keen on it myself :( Up to the membership. 509 (17:09:50) iang: Late Business 1. When will motion m20161119.5 be executed? - 510 by Eva 511 (17:10:18) iang: Neitehr of my browsers can read the motions site any more … :( 512 because of the renegotiation bug. 513 (17:10:29) katzazi: it's the motion about list size 514 (17:10:39) iang: Ah that one. ok. 515 (17:10:48) katzazi: iang: I cannot see motions as well, I only do blind links 516 in my rulings as well ;-) 517 (17:11:04) katzazi: would have to use chrome but don't like that browser 518 (17:11:09) egal: is a list-admin able to change it? 519 (17:11:29) egal: (i'm not an admin/manager for this list) 520 (17:11:29) katzazi: egal: the modertors / admins 521 (17:11:37) katzazi: I blieve that would currently be ian or dops 522 (17:11:39) dops1: Chromium on Linux is wrking for me, Chrome an Windows was 523 also (at least a few weeks ago) 524 (17:11:53) katzazi: as only those and peter and ben or something like this are 525 admin of that list 526 (17:12:36) katzazi: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/info/cacert-members 527 (17:12:42) katzazi: it's the owners who can do those settings 528 (17:12:48) iang: I am not an admin for the cacert-members list as far as I know 529 (17:12:48) dops1: If it can be done via GUI then probably I am allowed. 530 (17:12:58) iang: But is it a setting in the website or an internal thing? 531 (17:13:01) katzazi: iang: you are owner 532 (17:13:19) iang: oh :( 533 (17:13:19) katzazi: I believe it is a setting that can be done in the wiki 534 (17:13:58) egal: wiki? web ... 535 (17:14:18) katzazi: egal: see the links some lines above? 536 (17:14:45) iang: OK - if you can point me where, I will do it. I can’t see it 537 in one look. 538 (17:14:48) iang: Next. 539 (17:14:54) egal: you wrote "wiki" 540 (17:15:06) katzazi: iang: are you available via irc later the day? 541 (17:15:21) katzazi: I would have to search for it and have to focus on getting 542 on the train, first 543 (17:15:26) iang: Fine. 544 (17:15:38) dops1: Probably not a setting in the website .. could find something 545 related. 546 (17:15:39) iang: I can look later too. 547 (17:15:44) iang: Moving on. 548 (17:15:56) egal: next meeting? 549 (17:16:29) iang: Late Business #2: Was the following executed? - by Eva 550 (17:16:30) iang: The agenda of board-meeting 2016-01-10 mentions: 551 (17:16:31) iang: 1. Personal matters 552 (17:16:32) iang: 1. accept the membership application of Janis Streib and Neal 553 Oakey 554 (17:16:33) iang: 2. two members resigned their membership" 555 (17:16:43) iang: (next meeting - I suggest we call if for next Sunday, same 556 time same place. 557 (17:17:03) egal: nope ... not possible for me ... ;-( 558 (17:17:03) iang: @katzazi this is only about the resignation, part 2. above, 559 right? 560 (17:17:09) katzazi: yes 561 (17:17:17) iang: In the minutes only the first part is covered.. 562 (17:17:17) iang: According to our association rules 7(2) resignation of 563 membership: 564 (17:17:26) iang: A member of the association may resign from membership of the 565 (17:17:27) iang: association by giving to the secretary written or digitally 566 signed 567 (17:17:28) iang: email notice to resign. On acceptance of the resignation, the 568 (17:17:29) iang: member ceases to be a member. Acceptance may only be delayed 569 (17:17:30) iang: under rule 11." 570 (17:17:42) iang: There, that’s the entire thing. Short answer is …. I don’t 571 know :) 572 (17:18:26) iang: First question - who are the two members in question? 573 (17:18:28) egal: janis and neal are in my list ... 574 (17:18:45) katzazi: I don't know - board should know 575 (17:19:09) dops1: The members are in the OpenERP database. 576 (17:19:13) katzazi: secretary should be able to see who resigned back then 577 (17:19:16) iang: OK, so let’s add this to the agenda of next meeting, and do 578 some investigsation? 579 (17:19:21) dops1: Who resigned - I don't know... 580 (17:19:31) katzazi: mail would have to be send to secretary 581 (17:20:07) iang: We need to look at the emails to secretary. at that time. And 582 possibly to board or members if they were being loose. 583 (17:20:17) egal: yep .. but secretar is a forward only adress ... ;-( 584 (17:20:26) iang: where does it forward to? 585 (17:20:55) katzazi: effectively to board-private but it's called otherwise 586 - as far as I know 587 (17:21:20) iang: OK, so we can ALL look in board-private … 588 (17:21:35) egal: just looking ... 589 (17:22:02) iang: ok, while doing that - is everyone happy and thrilled with 590 another meeting this time next week? Or…. 591 (17:22:09) egal: no ... 592 (17:22:19) egal: i will have no time during the day on sunday ... 593 (17:22:36) iang: the saturday? 594 (17:22:53) egal: we can do an early one on saturday ... but not too long ... ; 595 -) 596 (17:22:59) dops1: I am available. 597 (17:23:11) dops1: For a meeting on the next weekend. 598 (17:23:44) egal: what is the earliest time for you, ian? ;-) 599 (17:25:20) iang: argghhh… 600 (17:25:27) iang: 0800 is doable 601 (17:25:56) katzazi: egal: what about in the evening, if oyu are not available 602 over day? 603 (17:26:05) egal: what's the time now on your site? 604 (17:26:31) iang: my time is 1126. Sunny, 23 degrees ;-) 605 (17:27:06) dops1: One possible resignation is here: https://lists.cacert.org/ 606 wws/arc/cacert-inc/2015-12/msg00013.html (Wytze) 607 (17:27:31) dops1: @Ian: Which timezone, or which time in UTC? 608 (17:27:40) egal: the other one seems to be sebastian ... 609 (17:27:41) katzazi: what degrees? 610 (17:27:46) dops1: or is it 1126 now? 611 (17:27:59) iang: I am in ECT or New York time 612 (17:28:03) katzazi: its 1126 now for him 613 (17:28:17) iang: OK, I put the heady responsibility of choosing the next 614 meeting on @egal…. 615 (17:28:49) iang: and close the meeting! Thank you all for your patience
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.