19:00 HI 19:01 I think Dirk mentioned he’d be a few mins late. So we could get started with the prelims 19:01 Hi 19:02 On the private list - only one discussion about memberships that have been resigned and haven’t been accepted by old board. Is all. 19:03 Ok. I have a poor Internet connection here at the hotel. 19:03 I have a great net here at my hotel, but nothing else is good :) 19:03 Maybe it improves when I install an IRC client directly on my computer. 19:03 mine connection in the hotel is ok - hi 19:04 and the food is excellent 19:04 Are there any Minutes to report? 19:04 I don't have minutes ready. 19:05 And who would like to make some new minutes ;-) or at least get the transcript up? 19:05 Me 19:05 super .. prelims done! 19:06 main biz - #1 is Dirk so let’s wait for him. 19:06 #2 AGM - financial report ? 19:07 I sent a link to the member's list. 19:07 ah thanks, I’m a bit behind 19:09 Give me a mo to skim it 19:09 https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/FinancialReport/2016 19:09 Got it: https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/FinancialReport/2016 19:11 -!- GuKKDevel1 [androirc@xdsl-78-35-167-81.netcologne.de] has joined #board-meeting 19:11 -!- GuKKDevel1 [androirc@xdsl-78-35-167-81.netcologne.de] has quit [] 19:11 -!- GuKKDevel1 [androirc@xdsl-78-35-167-81.netcologne.de] has joined #board-meeting 19:12 The income is down … and current assets is right down - what are your thoughts on that? 19:13 -!- GuKKDevel1 [androirc@xdsl-78-35-167-81.netcologne.de] has quit [] 19:13 We need more funding. The potential from membership fees is limited, and currently the income from advertising is also low. 19:13 -!- GuKKDevel1 [androirc@xdsl-78-35-167-81.netcologne.de] has joined #board-meeting 19:13 -!- GuKKDevel1 [androirc@xdsl-78-35-167-81.netcologne.de] has quit [] 19:13 as in, any hint as to the area that is falling the most? I’m just wondering because I guess the question might come up. 19:14 -!- GuKKDevel1 [androirc@xdsl-78-35-167-81.netcologne.de] has joined #board-meeting 19:14 Maybe we can look after more opportunities like booking.com, but it depends on the members to use it. 19:14 Last resort is asking for donations. 19:14 yep ok. It’s a difficult situation. 19:15 Well, we at least we have the financial report. So we can do the meeting. 19:15 By comparing the numbers donations are most significant. 19:15 Password reset service shouldn't be a major base. 19:16 -!- GuKKDevel1 [androirc@xdsl-78-35-167-81.netcologne.de] has quit [] 19:16 Yep. Something for a future team to look at. 19:17 So we should push forward with this. 19:17 hi, hello and welcome ... ;-) 19:17 Do you have any areas of uncertainty? 19:18 Hi egal. 19:18 Now I switched to mobile connection. Way better. 19:18 Or are we ready to accept the report in its current position? 19:19 no ... have to read it first ... ;-) 19:20 @iang: How was it done last time? IMO this is a suitable form. 19:20 That looks in fine form to me. 19:22 ok the other issues: Board report - nothing much has moved there. 19:23 I think I did a few tweaks to it on the weekend but not much. 19:23 Eva has provided me with lots of feedback. 19:23 you did a lot at the weekend 19:23 yep ... will need some time on saturday and sunday morning for the first months of last year ... 19:24 Oh - actually … the board report - nothing from me, I was speaking abouve about the special report. 19:25 2.4. Payments for members 19:25 @dops - any discovery of the members paid-up situation? 19:25 to reports: I started page for team reports 19:26 and started to add arbitration report 19:26 Ah yes, good, saw that. Very helpful. 19:26 Not yet. I was busy checking the data of the basic report. 19:27 That is for later on this evening. 19:27 Yeah, I understand. it’s a big job! 19:27 uhm maybe it would be good to tell members how you interpret the rules in general 19:27 so who would be paid up, as there were questions 19:27 what do you mean? 19:28 there was a discussion raised by my explanation how to pay with paypal 19:28 Oh - yes, that’s the question - who’s paid up. I think… I’m not even sure whether I’m paid up. 19:28 the question is how to interpret the rules 19:28 especially for members who joined around SGM 19:28 if they are paid up when they paid around SGM or if they would have to pay a second time 19:28 so is payment per calendar year or per financial year 19:29 ok - how many of them are they? 19:29 @katzazi: I'll look into it and give an answer to that. 19:29 thanks dops 19:29 and what dates?… ok. 19:29 should be about 8 members or something - just an estimate (5 joined at SGM, about 3 before SGM) 19:30 I refused to give an answer that anybody would consider to be official 19:30 IMO it is for calender year with the due date of end of June. But I must check against the rules. 19:30 indeed :) 19:31 pretty harsh on those who just paid. Do we stick to the rules or give them an exception? 19:31 whoever paid is paid up 19:31 If there is any exception we have to craft it as a policy. 19:31 No, being late can be healed by payment. That was treated like this in the past, I think. 19:32 Nobody should have a problem with that. 19:32 I believe committee may allow exceptions 19:32 but maybe that is limited to personal reasons for not being able to pay 19:32 I have to switch locations… please carry on without me… 19:32 -!- iang [iang@12.238.61.12] has quit [Quit: iang] 19:33 this point should be communicated to the memberslist else there could be a big discussion 19:33 GuKKDevel: dops already said that he would do that 19:33 and this is why I asked ;-) 19:35 one way or the other, members would have to pay in about half a month, anyway (if they would not quit, which IS a possibility after AGM) ... so the difference is probably not as huge 19:38 To summarize: Member need and will get information in advance to the meeting if not paid up, for the meeting the information is essential anyway. 19:38 Is delegating proxies ongoing? 19:39 -!- iang [iang@12.238.61.12] has joined #board-meeting 19:39 proxies: I decided if nobody else sends something about that, that I would send something today - but it's better if it comes from board 19:39 i got one proxy-pre-information from a member ... ;-) 19:39 back I think… my net is flaky, I might be on or off... 19:40 in my last mail i named the possibility of proxies and early votes ... 19:40 yes, but that was a long mail with a lot of repetition to former mails @egal 19:41 ah ... maybe i should remember to send in proxy requests early enough ... without repeating the complete stuff ... 19:42 dops send a good mail before last SGMs, maybe use that ... 19:42 okay ... will have to search for it ... 19:44 @egal: I can search, and either let you send it, or do it myself. 19:45 feel free to send it on your own ... ;-) 19:45 ok 19:46 well if you dont sent I'll send something - last time it was usual members as well ... ;-) 19:47 @katzati: I'm fine with if you want to take that, as you prefer. 19:48 oh I only do it if board "fails" to do it ;-) 19:48 we should fail more often ;-) 19:49 iang: do you really want MORE mails from me? they are too long ... 19:49 you need more psuedonyms ;-) 19:49 preferably ones with less patience and more brevity 19:49 I have more - even those 19:49 has anyone discussed the VoteBot question? 19:50 no ... we thought, you will operate it ... ;-) 19:50 well, that decision is commensurate with no voting ;-) 19:52 I believe we need some voting 19:52 Do we know more people with bot skills, which might be available? 19:52 ok - let’s move on … before my wifi blows up again. 19:52 @egal … biz #1 “Membership-status of members named in last meetings/in mails” 19:53 @dops ... you mean ... i should search for the source and make it run again ... as i did two years ago (or something like that)? 19:53 i got an email from wytze, that he got an email from secretary around one year ago, that his inc-membership resignation was accepted ... 19:54 ... but i wasn't able to find the motion for it ... 19:54 ah ok so Wytze has been accepted by board. But no motion. 19:54 correct ... 19:54 from sebastian i didn't get an answer ... ;-( 19:56 ok. SO this is perhaps something we don’t need to answer now. 19:57 agreed 19:57 Also @dops will find out more when reviews the list. 19:57 Let’s move on . #3 @egal … invoice? 19:58 yep ... was sent be president of secure-u some days ago ... 19:58 SO, I think routine is for treasurer to pay it, right? It’s an expected invoice. 19:59 yes 19:59 OK… anything to discuss here? Or move on. 19:59 do we have to do a motion to pay the invoice? 19:59 (i think, in the past we did so) 19:59 Yes, we do, as it is over the limit. 20:00 I thought there was a motion a long time ago to authorise the T to pay invoices to Secure-U when they look routine? 20:00 But if not, ok - how much is it ? 20:00 this would mean: secure-u can send ANY invoices ... ;-) 20:01 Yes, but this would also mean our T can’t spot the “any invoices” ;-) 20:01 I'd need some minutes to get the attachment to a place where I can open it as PDF 20:01 1314.60 euro 20:02 that is a quarterly invoice? 20:02 (had to grab my other notebook ... wake it up and open the pdf) 20:03 5 months traffic/power (around 80 euro each), 2 quarterly for the rack (around 453 euro) 20:03 ok 20:03 -!- LuziusQ [smuxi@p5B02D802.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #board-meeting 20:03 (around 1400 euro would be a half-year-invoice) 20:04 Resolved, that Treasurer pay the Secure-U invoice for 1314.60 euro, being for 5 months traffic & power, and 2 quarters rack. 20:04 Resolved, that the invoice from secure-u about EUR 1314.60 will be paid. 20:04 I second Ian's proposal. aye 20:04 seconded and Aye :) 20:05 merge those two :) 20:05 abstain ... (due to my COI as secure-u-president) 20:05 you were quicker ;-) 20:05 Good. Done. 20:05 -!- egal is now known as dirk 20:06 thank you ... ;-) 20:06 #4 DRO. Any new discussion here? 20:06 -!- dirk is now known as egal 20:06 any progress there? 20:06 ;-) 20:06 Is there any need to solve this before the next meeting / next board? 20:06 next board probably is busy with other pressing questions 20:07 and would have to come to the state where you are 20:07 so it probably would take some time if next board can work on that point in a sensible manner 20:09 i’m not sure of any progress per se. There are some proposals on the table. I’m not advancing them because at least one has my name on it. 20:09 I expect that next board could consist of very few members, and is fully busy with administration tasks. 20:09 there are more than one proposals? from arb-team? 20:10 there is also the possibility of @katzazi_ resigning as arbitrator and becoming DRO ;-) 20:11 that was not a proposal from arb-team so far 20:11 and there is a motoin to follow the suggestion from arb-team 20:11 :) saved…. For my part I’m not that keen to advance it before a new board comes in, and I’m not that keen to advance it while I’m on the board. 20:12 as far as I remember that motion was proposed by ian ... 20:13 I understand that board should not nominate someone against the wish of that member 20:13 I also would agree that if board believes that arb-team did it's suggestion on missing or wrong information to ask for another round to consider the proposal 20:13 but I think that a board in general should follow their own motions 20:15 yes well. all these things might be true. But I’m not willing to follow Arbitration’s suggestions while they invovle the board and me. Others might. 20:15 m20160921.1: Resolved, in order to fulfil any responsibilities that DRP imposes on board, we will accept a proposal by a majority of active arbitrators for their choice of DRO. 20:16 hmmm… 20:16 well ... you don't have to start DRO-actions as long as you're part of board ... ;-) 20:18 it is a motion from this board - there may be reasons to not follow it, but I believe in that case board has to provide reasons 20:20 -!- katzazi_m [katzazi@x590fed76.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #board-meeting 20:20 well these are all good too, and will be even better when the next board comes in and has these reasons and motions in front of it. 20:20 We can't force someone - a proposal needs consent from the person. But this is the last chance that thsi board does anything. 20:21 -!- katzazi [katzazi@x590fed27.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds] 20:22 As for today, I’m not accepting the nomination, kind as it is. Maybe after weekend. 20:22 So unless there is more to discuss I’d like to move on. 20:22 -!- katzazi [smuxi@x590fed76.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #board-meeting 20:22 #5 Resignations in Arbitration. 20:22 -!- katzazi_ [smuxi@x590fed27.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20:22 I’d fully understand if this also is hard to discuss today :) 20:23 well it's somewhat related and I also have asked to discuss any reasons for the resignation in private 20:24 but here as well I would finally like to get an answer why you refuse 20:24 refuse to respond, that is 20:24 well. “We” don’t refuse. Board hasn’t refused. It’s all my fault - I just advised that it’s not good to accept this because then we’ll be left without any active arbitrators 20:25 Just selfish reasoning on my part… 20:25 uhm you board refused to answer this point multiple board-meetings, now 20:25 Now, I also understand that in the interim, you don’t need to pick up any new cases. 20:26 What I don’t know is whether the resignation effects existing cases or not? 20:26 *sigh* current situation is bad as it's unclear how much I should handle any of my cases 20:26 yes - it's explicitly about the cases that I handle 20:27 OK. Also, I think @dops and @egal have to comment on this 20:27 maybe in some I could consider to finish something 20:27 but some of the others also need attention in the near future - they did not get reasonable attention for quit too long :( 20:28 I actually don’t think you should have to resign in order to concentrate on cases where you are named. We sould be handling that in some sense or other. 20:28 I'm not named in the cases that I handle 20:29 I don't know a solution how to come to an arbitration team with enough working power. 20:30 well maybe board/Inc should have stepped up in any of those cases to defend the arbitrators? 20:30 But I also see problems. The cases where arbitrators are conflicted and our appeals must be solved to be able to get back to "usual" work. 20:30 So, the new case for conflict of interest naming the board - I’d just file a board brief saying that we deal with conflicts all the time, and that it isn’t sufficiient to just name a conflict - one has to point to some implications that are real and/or evidence etc. 20:30 So there might be not that big difference in practise if Eva stays away - hopefully only for a while. 20:32 I fear that the difference regrettably is huge :( 20:33 would it be responsible to act before the next board? Or responsible to leave it to the next board? 20:33 is there a reason to delay? 20:34 @katzati: When talking about difference I mean to get around the extra troubles we face since a couple of years. 20:34 dops I dont understand you 20:35 but I'm only member for some years (Nov 2013) 20:36 well I see reasons to stay 20:36 but the point is that I don't see enough protection to do this at the moment - and I don't know if it will become better 20:37 but the issue is that this also could affect other arbitrators 20:37 yes it’s a fundamental issue. ANd it can only be handled by holistically looking at all the cases and seeing where the pain is in a general sense. 20:37 @katzazi: The "backlog" from personal motivated cases ist still blocking CAcert. My main goal would be to have that cases and appeals finished, resulting in "usual" work for arbitration. 20:38 dops we did usual work - and the cases that are blocking the queue are not only those personal cases, it started long before that 20:38 28 cases were closed after SGM 20:39 @katzazi: Yes, but still we are stuck on some problematic ones. 20:39 That’s more than usual work. It is all lots of good work. 20:39 sure - I cannot do anything about those ... 20:40 (I have to break off now … I don’t think I can add anything anyway … 20:40 With "usual" I think of normal workload. In no sense I wanted to comment about solved cases. That is a huge effort. 20:41 ... and less discussions about CoI etc. 20:41 ;-) 20:41 it was not only me, some were closed without arbitrator - but I was the only one who ruled in those cases 20:42 To answer the question: I don't see reasons to not accept resignations. It's not about board to wosh things. 20:43 s/wosh/wish/ 20:43 the current situation is extremely unsatisfying - I remain responsible for the cases but because of resignation request cannot do anything to them - and I don't know when something will happen, probably somewhere next year 20:44 currently you don't have that arbitrator you wish for, but I remain responsible / liable / at risk 20:44 indefinitely 20:44 that's why I proposed an alternative approach but that is also not possible at the moment :( 20:46 ... and I'm the one who ruled that board should not be pressed to do HR decisions within 4 weeks after installation ... 20:46 -!- iang [iang@12.238.61.12] has quit [Quit: iang] 20:49 @dirk: Are you still listening? 20:50 of course ... 20:50 you lost quorum, anyway 20:51 Seems so. I don't want to add creativity to procedual things... 20:58 anyway. Better not to start with 7day motions about something like this, when board changes in between, was confusing enough around last SGM. Better not start something like this about resignation of an arbitrator 21:35 -!- iang [iang@12.238.61.12] has joined #board-meeting 21:35 is this meeting closed? 21:36 nobody closed it so far ... 21:36 chair left until now ... 21:41 -!- iang [iang@12.238.61.12] has quit [Quit: iang] 21:41 Yes, as it was practically closed, I declare the meeting officially closed. 21:41 but I believe it's not really running any more 21:41 thank you ;-) 21:42 Thanks for participation. That's it from the board of 2016-04-09. 21:42 A date I will never forget. 21:42 *G* someone who remembers that date ... 21:43 but you are probably not alone ... I also remember it