Conversation with #board-meeting at Sat 03 Dec 2016 13:24:14 CET on dops@irc.cacert.org (irc) (13:24:14) The topic for #board-meeting is: Boardmeeting (13:24:14) Topic for #board-meeting set by FelixDoerre!felix@dogcraft.de at 20:59:58 on 2016-04-09 (13:57:45) katzazi [eva@x59cc87ab.dyn.telefonica.de] entered the room. (14:00:04) egal: hi, hello and welcome ... (14:00:36) dops1: Hi all (14:00:42) iang [iang@cpe-24-211-228-171.nc.res.rr.com] entered the room. (14:00:56) egal: good morning, ian ... (14:01:15) iang: good morning… still working on coffee here (14:01:19) egal: hopefull your coffee was good enough ... ;-) (14:01:29) egal: (okay ... is ... ;-) ) (14:01:32) iang: it’s as yet to do its job (14:01:46) egal: let's start ... i don't have too much time today ... ,-( (14:02:03) iang: oh ok . do we have a quorum? (14:02:25) dops1: yes (14:02:36) iang: Hi @dops1 super (14:02:42) iang: Open the meeting then! (14:03:45) iang: (still looking for agenda …) (14:03:54) iang: OK do we have Minutes from last meeting or any others? (14:04:19) dops1: I uploaded the transcript to https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/ CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-11-27 (14:04:55) iang: And, who is making the minutes of this meeting. OK, cool. (14:05:03) dops1: As usual :-) (14:05:28) iang: Can we get the transcripts upoloaded for all the meetings that are missing accepted minutes? (14:06:01) dops1: Sure, that's possible (if we all consider it as not too personal) (14:06:08) iang: ok, so no Minutes,just the transcript. Fine. (14:06:12) egal: hopefully both of my machine have the complete logs ... ;-) (14:06:21) dops1: I have them all... (14:06:33) egal: perfect (14:07:02) iang: Great. Any business on Private in last week? (14:07:35) dops1: no, nothing other than preparing resolutions for the AGM. That is published via the mailing lists. (14:08:00) dops1: (at least the results, and it is only 1 list) (14:08:17) iang: ok cool. my browser is being difficult again about these sites. (14:08:19) egal: hm ... do mails sent to DRO count, too? (14:08:49) iang: I’d say so, yes. We can at least note that several discussions took place with board-as-DRO. (14:09:32) iang: Including one new dispute being filed for conflict of interest. Which I’d like to add to agenda as late business. (14:09:33) egal: (there were some mails to dro ... but during the week i ran totally out of time to read them in detail ... ;-( ) (14:09:41) iang: me too (14:10:24) iang: Ok. Actions from last meeting? (14:10:57) dops1: I think all actions are still on the agenda. (14:11:16) dops1: Ah ok, not the size limit of the mailing list! (14:12:08) iang: I emailed out on that point to mailing list admin. I don’t recall a reply. (14:12:18) iang: I couldn’t find any switch in the admin site (14:13:03) dops1: Me neither, and also didn't see a reply. (14:13:37) iang: ok. So it’s an action to chase. (14:14:08) iang: OK to business. (14:14:32) iang: 1. Personal matters by dirk… not sure about this. Does this mean Personnel matters? (14:14:43) iang: As in matters relating to the people in the association? (14:15:07) iang: Personal matters ==> private matters (14:15:20) egal: last week we had in question time the status os some members questionized ... (14:15:32) iang: Personnel matters ==> human resources, etc (14:15:50) iang: Ah the latter, good. (14:16:15) egal: in a former meeting (before our time) two members were accepted, but two others were not released(?) from Inc. (14:16:18) dops1: The members who are reported as resigned in the older minutes had to be identified. (14:16:23) dops1: Did we? (14:16:33) iang: Good question. (14:16:38) egal: one of them seems to be sebastian ... (14:16:52) iang: Has anyone gone through the minutes of the times? (14:17:50) egal: (let me switch to the other machine ... ;-) ... this one looses characters after resume from suspend ... ;-( ) (14:18:36) egal: ah ... much better here ... ;-) (14:18:43) iang: that was … not one of those with “complete logs” ? (14:19:06) iang: I have no email from Sebastian indicating resignation, on a quick search (14:20:20) dops1: It is from a time of the last board, source was the minutes from 2016-01-10 . On the list of the secretary I found Wytze resigning weeks before. (14:20:35) iang: -------- Forwarded Message -------- (14:20:35) iang: Subject: m20160604.4 - Resignation of Ulrich Schroeter and Sebastian Kueppers (14:20:36) iang: Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 13:51:22 +0000 (GMT) (14:20:37) iang: Resignation of Ulrich Schroeter and Sebastian Kueppers (14:20:38) iang: Resolved, that we accept the resignations of Ulrich and Sebastian and thank them for their many years of service! (14:21:03) iang: Yes I recall Wytze resigned from association. (14:21:30) egal: MM (secretary in december last year) brough this topic up on board-private on 2015-12-23 ... (14:21:45) egal: wasn't this motion for being A ? (14:22:03) iang: Yes I think it was for roles - but that motion does not identify the roles :( (14:24:38) egal: okay ... how to continue? (14:25:04) iang: has the transcript of the meeting been checked? (14:25:24) egal: i just checked the board-private-mails) (14:25:41) egal: (and motions before april this year) (14:26:08) iang: 77 11:24 2.1.2 two members resigned their membership (14:26:09) iang: 78 11:24 this is an information for all (14:26:11) iang: :-o (14:26:21) iang: what on earth does that mean? (14:27:43) iang: OK. (14:28:03) iang: How about the board motions at the time? I can’t see the motions on my browsers. (14:29:12) egal: sebastians resignation was sent to support -- and forwarded to board-private by stefan (according to a note in support) (14:30:15) dops1: In OpenERP Wytze, Sebastian, Doris, Lambert and Nathan are logged for year 2015. (14:30:33) dops1: (motion tool is sloooooooow) (14:31:21) iang: Not in that meeting. m20160110.1 and .2 are the new members, there is no motion for acceptance of the resignation .. (14:32:06) iang: @dops1 logged as resigning from association? (14:32:41) egal: i just checked the motions before the sgm ... nothing found for the last boards time for sebastian an wytze (14:33:17) katzazi: Hi (14:33:47) dops1: ? where? (14:33:51) egal: (need to remember myself to export thmotions since then ... ; -) ) (14:35:10) katzazi: I asked that question and did not find something neither (14:35:10) iang: OK. At this stage it looks like the resignations were not processed. Still, the first part is to identify the two names that resigned. (14:35:16) egal: shall we do a motion to accept their resignation (since it was not done by the last board?) (14:35:18) dops1: Aha, that was a question, not a statement that I am logged as something... Yes, it's the membership end date set to 2015-12-31 (14:36:03) iang: I’m not sure we can accept a resignation without having the resignation to hand, and knowing who it was from … :) (14:36:10) egal: haeh? ... to a middle of the finacial year? (14:36:21) iang: And given the elapsed time we should probably check with the person whether it’s still current / expected. (14:37:06) iang: What evidence do we have that one of them was Sebastien? (14:37:27) egal: mail sent to support? ;-) (14:37:53) iang: Huh. OK. Can we forward that to board-private at least? (14:38:11) iang: I’m not sure the assoc relies on email to support in the general case … :( (14:38:50) katzazi: It requires mails to secretary for this, but possibly you could accept regardless if there is no comments fluctuations involved (14:39:05) katzazi: *conflict (14:39:12) iang: right. So it probably needs to be checked out regardless. (14:39:15) egal: okay ... i'll contact him ... (14:39:29) iang: super. So we have a mystery as to who the second person is? (14:40:00) egal: i assume, wytze ... (as far as i read the comments from dops) (14:40:09) egal: shall i contact him, too? (14:40:26) dops1: IMO it should be sufficient to check the list for secretary, and after that ignore that. Could be written on error... (14:40:26) katzazi: Wytze send something to secretary and members (14:40:48) katzazi: That he qut membership (14:41:14) iang: ok, that would have been in 2015 I suspect … and I don’t have those emails on this machine. Gotta play with backups. (14:42:15) iang: OK. Let’s leave this item on the agenda and move on. (14:42:19) egal: if it's in board/boardprivate we can use the lists-archive .. ;-) (14:42:23) katzazi: Around change of year (14:42:56) iang: 2. AGM preparation by Dirk - Financial report ready? (14:43:02) iang: How’s it going, Mr T? (14:45:52) iang: @dops1 any update on the financial report? (14:46:05) dops1: There are no major changes since Sunday. I didn't have much time. I'll continue after the meeting. (14:46:33) iang: OK. Board report - I can’t report any progress on it. (14:47:08) iang: Other reports - I’ve not seen much. We may be blocked on getting the pages up and going on the wiki. (14:47:58) dops1: Could we ask our collegues whether they can help? (14:48:05) iang: ofc (14:48:30) GuKKDevel: Wytze: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/ 2015-12/msg00028.html (14:49:28) iang: well spotted! Wytze’s resignation. (14:50:08) iang: OK - is there any motion to accept that … I only have emails from 2016–01-01 on my current machine. (14:50:45) iang: @egal, could you add Wytze to your contacts on this point? (14:50:56) egal: sure (14:51:31) iang: Back to item 2. I might have some time after this meeting, will review the pages to see what’s there. (14:51:48) katzazi: *sigh* not my Job and I am on vacation, but I can try to setup agm page (14:51:51) iang: 2.4. Payments for members done? (14:52:24) katzazi: But not today I'm at a medieval event whole day (14:52:49) dops1: no, will follow after the financial report. (14:52:53) iang: I’m not sure I follow this one … is this about whether the members are in good standing? (14:52:59) iang: OK. (14:53:18) dops1: I understand that the are to be informed about missing payments or the opposite. (14:53:33) katzazi: Iang: I don't know how to pay without a link and I am asked to pay for multiple members (14:53:43) iang: @katzazi medieval events do not normally include computers… (14:53:48) katzazi: Dops we need the link (14:54:10) katzazi: Iang that's why I have to hide myself at the moment (14:54:25) katzazi: And only am on mobile (14:54:29) iang: Ah. So, actually as the issue of payments is pressing … this might be something to do earlier. (14:54:54) iang: @katzazi … medieval events have lots of places to hide .. torture chambers are good for that job (14:54:56) dops1: @katzazi: A link pe se is not possible. Paypal needs a HTTP POST request. To be trusted it would be required to place it on a CAcert server. (14:55:22) katzazi: So far I always got a link from treasurer for payment (14:55:40) katzazi: The last one also send links to some of us (14:55:45) iang: ah ok. Is it possible to use the last one? (14:55:50) katzazi: No (14:56:00) dops1: Probably a link to a page with a "link", that's different. (14:56:04) katzazi: Only works one time (14:56:18) iang: Ahhhhhh…… cunning. But annoying now. (14:56:22) katzazi: No it was a personalised link for payment (14:56:40) iang: Is it something generated from the Paypal account logged in? (14:56:45) katzazi: Or something ... not on my machine either (14:56:59) katzazi: Possibly but from CAcert side (14:58:07) katzazi: Dops can I call you via Skype tomorrow, so we can try to figure this out? (14:58:23) iang: good idea (14:58:26) katzazi: A so that one of us could inform other members with same issue? (14:58:57) dops1: I checked my last email , indeed there is a link. (15:00:01) iang: OK … how about you two take it offline? (15:00:43) dops1: I think that this is a working sample. (15:01:12) dops1: Didn't find information about that at other places. (15:02:01) LuziusQ [smuxi@p5B02D802.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] entered the room. (15:02:44) katzazi: Dops can we figure this out tomorrow? (15:02:51) iang: yes better (15:03:07) dops1: @katzazi: yes (15:03:43) iang: Good. With the general remark that people will probably need some notice time to get paid up... (15:03:56) egal: as long as you give us an update via mail afterwards it's okay .. ;-) (15:04:18) iang: OK. Moving on. (15:04:26) katzazi: ... you want more mails from me??? (15:04:41) iang: DRO issues. Now, the first issue here is that Eva has tendered a resignation as Arbitrator. (15:04:51) katzazi: No not dro issue (15:04:59) dops1: FYI Paypal is documented here: https://www.paypal.com/us/ webapps/mpp/email-invoice (15:05:02) katzazi: Dro has no say there (15:05:22) katzazi: It's board (15:05:26) iang: I for my part would suggest we be cautious about accepting the resignation. (15:05:39) iang: Speaking as the board, on this issue. (15:05:49) iang: We as Board would want to be careful. (15:06:06) iang: @dops1 @egal what are your thoughts here. (15:06:39) katzazi: Have you reasons? (15:06:50) iang: Have I reasons for what? (15:06:58) egal: as there were a lot of mails from her in the last days ... and i had no time to read them in detail ... i cannot do a wise decision NOW ... ;- ( (15:07:14) katzazi: For being cautious about accepting (15:07:37) iang: Indeed I also have concern that in order to figure out the situation, it is necessary to read a lot. (15:08:04) iang: Also, for my part it is unclear whether (a) resigning as Arb for new cases or (b) resigning as Arb in existing cases and handover is required. (15:08:40) katzazi: Both. I asked for organising handover (15:08:47) iang: As a practical question only. I think if it is (a) then this is a matter that doesn’t need urgent consideration as Eva can simply not accept any new cases. (15:09:14) iang: OK (b). Is more complicated. As we don’t have too many active arbitrators. (15:09:30) iang: Another practical question - how many cases are we talking about ? How many as arb, how many as CM? (15:09:44) katzazi: I did not resign for cm (15:10:05) iang: aha. OK, how many active running cases as Arb? (15:10:34) katzazi: I believe less than ten ad arb and two of them are ruled, as far as I remember, can give exact number berserk later (15:10:41) iang: OK. (15:10:54) iang: @dops1 any comments? (15:11:43) dops1: The result is that there is almost no power left in arbitration. (15:12:04) dops1: So CAcert has another area where we can't move forward. (15:12:10) iang: well, no fully active arbitrators until perhaps Piet comes up. (15:12:34) dops1: But it doesn't help to not accept a resignation. (15:12:34) katzazi: He probably would resign as well :-( (15:12:35) iang: Right, Arbitration was the one of the few areas that was under some control. (15:12:45) iang: ha! Because it is too quick for him? (15:13:02) katzazi: What is too quick? (15:13:10) iang: well - why would he resign as well? (15:13:36) iang: I’m guessing because the pace of too many new cases or handovers would be overwhelming (15:14:03) katzazi: I am not sure. I explained him my reasons. He either agrees with them or does not want to be in arbitration without me for other reasons (15:14:13) katzazi: Probably (15:14:21) iang: ah. this is a good point. (15:14:30) iang: I wonder if he can explain to us your reasons? (15:14:58) katzazi: Maybe. I explained them to you twice, and to ian in even another mail (15:15:25) katzazi: I can explain them here as well (15:15:29) dops1: As arbitration is essential for our operation and was already working in emergency mode, we should think about redefining the quality of service CAcert can currently give. Software is another critical part. (15:15:41) iang: I’m not doubting that … what I’m thinking about is how to refine a lot of information down to the key parts (15:15:43) dops1: Just thinking... (15:15:56) iang: @dops1 I agree with that (15:16:45) katzazi: The crucial point is the nature of cases that are allowed against arbitrators, contrary to DRP 3.5 (15:17:45) katzazi: Arbitrators are tried to be made more liable than other members, while promised reduced liability (15:18:26) iang: OK. They should, yes. The system won’t work if the persons of the arbitrators can be harrassed as persons. (15:18:42) katzazi: Everybody makes mistakes now and again, it's now too dangerous to do rulings in current situation (15:18:43) iang: This is a basic fundamental principle of society and the law. (15:19:32) katzazi: One just cannot be sure to not do a mistake in the future (15:19:39) iang: Well, mistakes are built into the system - this is why we have appeal and we also have open disclosure of the rulings. Appeal is a hard feedback loop over mistakes and disclosure is a soft feedback loop. (15:20:11) iang: Mistakes are accepted. It is part of the responsibility of being an Arbitrator. A mistake is just absorbed into the machine. (15:21:03) iang: There is no requirement not to make mistakes. And, the only issue with a mistake should be that an appeal is possible. Currently, that is how DRP is written, as far as I can tell. (15:21:12) katzazi: As it is one has to face cases where the relief is to renounce rulings publicly and to declare to have acted unfaitly (15:21:50) katzazi: But that is not how cases seem to be accepted (15:22:09) iang: Well ok. So if there is an appeal, it is indeed permitted under the writings of “egregious, unconscionable, etc” I forget the writings right now. So in a sense, “unfair” is part of that. (15:22:30) katzazi: Any arbitrator now has to face a situation where one may not do any mistake anymore at all (15:22:45) iang: That is *not* how the system should work. (15:23:05) katzazi: But appeal is about fixing wrong using not about punishing arbitrator (15:23:05) dops1: We have some appeals. I feel that the knod as result by past disputes (in every sense) could not be resolved with more people not involved and conflicted. (15:23:23) iang: However, the system should allow some control over the mistakes because a mistake will also have people who suffer from that situation. (15:23:35) dops1: The appeals must be checked, maybe rejected or accepted. (15:23:42) katzazi: All arbs are somehow conflicted already at least partly (15:24:09) katzazi: Sure, but for rulings it's only intentional breach of duty (15:24:11) iang: Yes. Everyone is conflicted because we have too few. I think just claiming conflict of interest is not a particularly interresting cause. (15:24:14) katzazi: And i', (15:24:19) dops1: As some senior skills are required, maybe the only way out is to get some old arbitrators to help out - at least for appeals. (15:24:28) katzazi: I'm all in for it leading to punishment (15:24:46) iang: Yes … so this is where we need to discuss anther point - how to start moving on the appeals. (15:24:48) katzazi: Dops there are none (15:25:08) katzazi: I wrote some suggestions on those appeals (15:25:24) katzazi: Suggestion is to allow appeal as check on ruling (15:25:25) iang: There is currently ONE appeal only that has gone through its review by an arbitrator and has been permitted to move to the appeal panel. (15:25:41) iang: (from memory) … so the question arises - how do we stand up a panel of appeal? (15:25:51) katzazi: If this is successful allow relief against arbitrator as second case (15:26:05) egal: hm ... the question seems to be: is it allowed to appeal a ruling only or to appeal against the arbitrator ... (15:26:22) iang: You can’t appeal against an arbitrator. (15:26:28) iang: Only against a ruling. (15:26:42) katzazi: Iang: dro stated that dro selects senior arb as chair and dro and chair select the other two (15:26:54) iang: In the past? (15:26:59) katzazi: Then reject whole appeals (15:27:01) iang: Or was that DRO as this board? (15:27:07) katzazi: Alex (15:27:18) katzazi: Was dro (15:27:25) iang: Ah ok. Excellent so we have prior work to guide us. Good. (15:27:46) katzazi: He selected ted as chair for that appeal but ted is officer so not available at the moment (15:28:02) katzazi: ..... it was in the mails to yiu (15:28:26) iang: AHa. Good. So we can hunt around for someone else. THanks. Right now, it could be one of : Philipp, Alex, Lambert. Would there be any other suggestions? (15:28:40) katzazi: I (15:28:44) katzazi: Ugh (15:28:57) iang: It’s those medieval keyboards, I know … :P (15:28:58) katzazi: Lambert would be chair as it is about seniorty (15:29:15) katzazi: Seniority (15:29:35) iang: Hmmm… Did Alex say that? I would say that we shouldn’t get too hung up on imperialist notions of seniority and royalty.... (15:29:41) katzazi: Yes (15:29:51) katzazi: It's part of his rule (15:30:14) katzazi: Do I never will be chair for quite some while even if I remain arbitrator (15:30:14) iang: aha can you forward his ruling to us? (15:30:24) katzazi: Look up arb lessions (15:30:48) iang: A rule or a ruling? If it is just DRO writes a rule … then we can change that. If it’s a ruling from a case, that’s … more challenging (15:30:51) katzazi: It's 80 and 81 or something (15:31:09) katzazi: Procedure set by dro according to drp (15:31:22) iang: OK, thanks. (15:31:33) katzazi: As far as I remember, but check his case as well (15:32:00) katzazi: Well there is the other point with board as dro (15:32:22) katzazi: Arbitrators were asked to propose an alternative (15:32:47) katzazi: There was not as much activity. While mentioned more than once (15:33:23) iang: What is Ted officer of? (15:33:45) katzazi: Ian was only one who was mentioned as candidate, no objections. One comment that could be seen as yes, after ian drops out of board. (15:34:43) katzazi: Education and he does not give that up for time being, he does not want to decide which area he continues for time being according to dirk (15:34:56) iang: So … on this issue of the appeal … (15:35:51) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Training/Lesson71 (15:36:08) katzazi: I believe current discussions show that dro as board is too cumbersome (15:36:40) katzazi: Yes, that lession (15:37:04) iang: sure. But you want to change our fine egalitarian democratic principled DRO as board into the unforgiving juggernaut of me as DRO. I’m not sure that’s a good idea.... (15:37:41) iang: OK that page is in draft, and we can readily change that. (15:37:49) katzazi: Yes I want DRO to be able to do something and board as well ... arbs can speak up (15:38:41) katzazi: And to have both less directly conflicted (15:39:02) iang: ok … let’s move on. SO, let’s think about the Appeal - we have the Lesson71 above. (15:39:16) iang: Let’s consider the resignation by Eva… with a view to solving the issues first. (15:39:32) katzazi: I actually believe that an unforgiving juggernaut would be a good one for dro looking at the cases out there (15:39:39) egal: about moving on ... i'm slowly running out of time for today ... ;-( (15:39:41) iang: I do not believe we’ll find the answers today. (15:40:00) iang: But we’ve made some progress. (15:40:22) iang: Right. Move on. Thanks @katzazi …. Back to your medieval thing. (15:40:43) iang: 4. AO status - by board ? (15:40:54) iang: Is this … who can be AO and sort this out? (15:41:12) katzazi: ... better to stay here for that as well, as it comes from a ruling of mine .... (15:41:48) iang: Ah. Send some notifications, or not. (15:42:41) katzazi: No giving you time, it's not as urgent and I thought last time you said that it should be done after agm (15:43:27) iang: Deferred until after AGM is wnat @dops1 said last time - shall we do that? (15:44:01) iang: My view has already been made up … We don’t notify, the assurances are good. But we can defer this … let’s just get it recorded on the Minutes as that topic - deferred until after the AGM (15:44:46) iang: Any objections? Defer? If not, moving on. (15:44:59) iang: 5. Old board report. (15:45:01) dops1: Let's remember last problems - were that questions about the minimum requirements for ATE? (15:45:17) katzazi: Ok, then I'll move back in time (15:45:19) dops1: Let's defer it anyway... (15:45:19) iang: No movement that I know of. (15:45:44) iang: Bye… you should also remember to watch that old movie Westworld (15:45:49) iang: perils of medieval events…. (15:46:24) iang: And moving on again. 6. Status of Move of CAcert - again no news there. (15:46:48) iang: Although there was an email on that, suggesting that the Swiss possibility is easier than first thought? But little more. (15:48:16) egal: westworld i don't have on my vdr .. but futurewolrd ... ; -) (15:48:52) iang: OK …. Question time. (15:49:05) egal: next meeting? ;-) (15:49:09) iang: Any questions? We’re in with a chance of a 2 hour meeting... (15:49:30) iang: Yes let’s ….. How about we call another meeting next week. And have another go at solving this Arb/DRO/issue. (15:49:55) iang: I would suggest you call ameeting every weekend until AGM…. but that’s just me, medieval cruelty is my specialty (15:50:05) dops1: Fine so far. Do we have a chance to prepare/sort the material in advance? (15:50:20) egal: either saturday morning "ians time" for around 90 inutes ... (15:50:36) iang: which material @dops1 (15:50:59) dops1: situation and demands about Arb/DRO/issue (15:51:06) egal: ... or sunday ... (an hour or two later than today) (15:51:24) iang: Ah. Well the material in the sense of Eva’s mails is there … gotta read through it tho (15:51:28) dops1: Sunday fits also (15:51:37) iang: Up to you guys. (15:51:48) iang: I think I prefer Sunday. (15:52:32) egal: same time as today? ... so we have a chance to get a "vin chaud" after the meeting .. ;-) (15:52:41) dops1: ok (15:52:51) iang: OK - looking forward to your call .. (15:53:01) iang: I declare the meeting closed. (15:53:10) iang: Super - @dops1 you’ll upload the transcript? (15:53:21) egal: work for us for the next week: read the mails ... ;-) (15:53:22) dops1: I'll do (15:53:27) iang: Actions, yes. (15:53:30) egal: (and ... write reports ... ;-) ) (15:53:38) iang: And AGM reports…… ;-) (15:54:03) dops1: I know I know (15:54:14) egal: work for me: send final AGM-invitation until tomorrow evening ... ;-) (15:55:08) egal: (you know, that we were not able to keep 20 UTC due to the incoming mails? .. i had to move it to 20:30 UTC ... (15:56:10) egal: okay ... time to leave for today ... thanks to everybody for attending the meeting ... cu ... (16:53:10) GolfRomeo left the room (quit: Quit: GolfRomeo). (16:54:03) katzazi left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds). (19:08:48) zerkalo_ [myricae@ny1.hashbang.sh] entered the room. (19:08:48) zerkalo left the room (quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer). (19:09:42) zerkalo [myricae@ny1.hashbang.sh] entered the room. (19:09:42) zerkalo_ left the room (quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer). (19:17:13) zerkalo left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds). (19:30:03) zerkalo [myricae@ny1.hashbang.sh] entered the room. (19:50:50) iang left the room (quit: Quit: iang). (22:05:38) katzazi [eva@84-112-250-77.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] entered the room. (22:07:54) katzazi_ [smuxi@84-112-250-77.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] entered the room. (23:13:38) katzazi left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds). (23:43:05) iang [iang@cpe-24-211-228-171.nc.res.rr.com] entered the room. (23:46:26) iang left the room (quit: ). (23:56:42) iang [iang@cpe-24-211-228-171.nc.res.rr.com] entered the room. (00:12:58) katzazi_ left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds). (00:14:11) katzazi [eva@84-112-250-77.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] entered the room. (00:15:49) iang left the room (quit: Quit: iang). (00:21:48) iang [iang@cpe-24-211-228-171.nc.res.rr.com] entered the room.