Attachment 'transscript_2016-12-15.txt'


   1 19:00 <iang> HI
   2 19:01 <iang> I think Dirk mentioned he’d be a few mins late.  So we could get started with the prelims
   3 19:01 <dops> Hi
   4 19:02 <iang> On the private list - only one discussion about memberships that have been resigned and haven’t been accepted by old board.  Is all.
   5 19:03 <dops> Ok. I have a poor Internet connection here at the hotel.
   6 19:03 <iang> I have a great net here at my hotel, but nothing else is good :)
   7 19:03 <dops> Maybe it improves when I install an IRC client directly on my computer.
   8 19:03 <katzazi_> mine connection in the hotel is ok - hi
   9 19:04 <katzazi_> and the food is excellent
  10 19:04 <iang> Are there any Minutes to report?
  11 19:04 <dops> I don't have minutes ready.
  12 19:05 <iang> And who would like to make some new minutes ;-) or at least get the transcript up?
  13 19:05 <dops> Me
  14 19:05 <iang> super .. prelims done!
  15 19:06 <iang> main biz - #1 is Dirk so let’s wait for him.
  16 19:06 <iang> #2 AGM - financial report ?
  17 19:07 <dops> I sent a link to the member's list.
  18 19:07 <iang> ah thanks, I’m a bit behind
  19 19:09 <iang> Give me a mo to skim it
  20 19:09 <iang>
  21 19:09 <dops> Got it:
  22 19:11 -!- GuKKDevel1 [] has joined #board-meeting
  23 19:11 -!- GuKKDevel1 [] has quit []
  24 19:11 -!- GuKKDevel1 [] has joined #board-meeting
  25 19:12 <iang> The income is down … and current assets is right down - what are your thoughts on that?
  26 19:13 -!- GuKKDevel1 [] has quit []
  27 19:13 <dops> We need more funding. The potential from membership fees is limited, and currently the income from advertising is also low.
  28 19:13 -!- GuKKDevel1 [] has joined #board-meeting
  29 19:13 -!- GuKKDevel1 [] has quit []
  30 19:13 <iang> 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.
  31 19:14 -!- GuKKDevel1 [] has joined #board-meeting
  32 19:14 <dops> Maybe we can look after more opportunities like, but it depends on the members to use it.
  33 19:14 <dops> Last resort is asking for donations.
  34 19:14 <iang> yep ok. It’s a difficult situation.
  35 19:15 <iang> Well, we at least we have the financial report.  So we can do the meeting.
  36 19:15 <dops> By comparing the numbers donations are most significant.
  37 19:15 <dops> Password reset service shouldn't be a major base.
  38 19:16 -!- GuKKDevel1 [] has quit []
  39 19:16 <iang> Yep.  Something for a future team to look at.
  40 19:17 <iang> So we should push forward with this.
  41 19:17 <egal> hi, hello and welcome ... ;-)
  42 19:17 <iang> Do you have any areas of uncertainty?
  43 19:18 <dops> Hi egal.
  44 19:18 <dops> Now I switched to mobile connection. Way better.
  45 19:18 <iang> Or are we ready to accept the report in its current position?
  46 19:19 <egal> no ... have to read it first ... ;-)
  47 19:20 <dops> @iang: How was it done last time? IMO this is a suitable form.
  48 19:20 <iang> That looks in fine form to me.
  49 19:22 <iang> ok the other issues:  Board report - nothing much has moved there.
  50 19:23 <iang> I think I did a few tweaks to it on the weekend but not much.
  51 19:23 <iang> Eva has provided me with lots of feedback.
  52 19:23 <katzazi_> you did a lot at the weekend
  53 19:23 <egal> yep ... will need some time on saturday and sunday morning for the first months of last year ...
  54 19:24 <iang> Oh - actually … the board report - nothing from me, I was speaking abouve about the special report.
  55 19:25 <iang> 2.4. Payments for members
  56 19:25 <iang> @dops - any discovery of the members paid-up situation?
  57 19:25 <katzazi_> to reports: I started page for team reports
  58 19:26 <katzazi_> and started to add arbitration report
  59 19:26 <iang> Ah yes, good, saw that.  Very helpful.
  60 19:26 <dops> Not yet. I was busy checking the data of the basic report.
  61 19:27 <dops> That is for later on this evening.
  62 19:27 <iang> Yeah, I understand.  it’s a big job!
  63 19:27 <katzazi_> uhm maybe it would be good to tell members how you interpret the rules in general
  64 19:27 <katzazi_> so who would be paid up, as there were questions
  65 19:27 <iang> what do you mean?
  66 19:28 <katzazi_> there was a discussion raised by my explanation how to pay with paypal
  67 19:28 <iang> Oh - yes, that’s the question - who’s paid up.  I think… I’m not even sure whether I’m paid up.
  68 19:28 <katzazi_> the question is how to interpret the rules
  69 19:28 <katzazi_> especially for members who joined around SGM
  70 19:28 <katzazi_> if they are paid up when they paid around SGM or if they would have to pay a second time
  71 19:28 <katzazi_> so is payment per calendar year or per financial year
  72 19:29 <iang> ok - how many of them are they?
  73 19:29 <dops> @katzazi: I'll look into it and give an answer to that.
  74 19:29 <katzazi_> thanks dops
  75 19:29 <iang> and what dates?… ok.
  76 19:29 <katzazi_> should be about 8 members or something - just an estimate (5 joined at SGM, about 3 before SGM)
  77 19:30 <katzazi_> I refused to give an answer that anybody would consider to be official
  78 19:30 <dops> IMO it is for calender year with the due date of end of June. But I must check against the rules.
  79 19:30 <iang> indeed :) 
  80 19:31 <iang> pretty harsh on those who just paid.  Do we stick to the rules or give them an exception?
  81 19:31 <katzazi_> whoever paid is paid up
  82 19:31 <iang> If there is any exception we have to craft it as a policy.
  83 19:31 <dops> No, being late can be healed by payment. That was treated like this in the past, I think.
  84 19:32 <dops> Nobody should have a problem with that.
  85 19:32 <katzazi_> I believe committee may allow exceptions
  86 19:32 <katzazi_> but maybe that is limited to personal reasons for not being able to pay
  87 19:32 <iang> I have to switch locations… please carry on without me…
  88 19:32 -!- iang [iang@] has quit [Quit: iang]
  89 19:33 <GuKKDevel> this point should be communicated to the memberslist else there could be a big discussion
  90 19:33 <katzazi_> GuKKDevel: dops already said that he would do that
  91 19:33 <katzazi_> and this is why I asked ;-)
  92 19:35 <katzazi_> 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
  93 19:38 <dops> 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.
  94 19:38 <dops> Is delegating proxies ongoing?
  95 19:39 -!- iang [iang@] has joined #board-meeting
  96 19:39 <katzazi_> 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
  97 19:39 <egal> i got one proxy-pre-information from a member ... ;-)
  98 19:39 <iang> back I think… my net is flaky, I might be on or off...
  99 19:40 <egal> in my last mail i named the possibility of proxies and early votes ...
 100 19:40 <katzazi_> yes, but that was a long mail with a lot of repetition to former mails @egal
 101 19:41 <egal> ah ... maybe i should remember to send in proxy requests early enough ... without repeating the complete stuff ...
 102 19:42 <katzazi_> dops send a good mail before last SGMs, maybe use that ...
 103 19:42 <egal> okay ... will have to search for it ...
 104 19:44 <dops> @egal: I can search, and either let you send it, or do it myself.
 105 19:45 <egal> feel free to send it on your own ... ;-)
 106 19:45 <dops> ok
 107 19:46 <katzazi_> well if you dont sent I'll send something - last time it was usual members as well ... ;-)
 108 19:47 <dops> @katzati: I'm fine with if you want to take that, as you prefer.
 109 19:48 <katzazi_> oh I only do it if board "fails" to do it ;-)
 110 19:48 <iang> we should fail more often ;-)
 111 19:49 <katzazi_> iang: do you really want MORE mails from me? they are too long ...
 112 19:49 <iang> you need more psuedonyms ;-)
 113 19:49 <iang> preferably ones with less patience and more brevity
 114 19:49 <katzazi_> I have more - even those
 115 19:49 <iang> has anyone discussed the VoteBot question?
 116 19:50 <egal> no ... we thought, you will operate it ... ;-)
 117 19:50 <iang> well, that decision is commensurate with no voting ;-)
 118 19:52 <katzazi_> I believe we need some voting
 119 19:52 <dops> Do we know more people with bot skills, which might be available?
 120 19:52 <iang> ok - let’s move on … before my wifi blows up again.
 121 19:52 <iang> @egal … biz #1 “Membership-status of members named in last meetings/in mails”
 122 19:53 <egal> @dops ... you mean ... i should search for the source and make it run again ... as i did two years ago (or something like that)?
 123 19:53 <egal> i got an email from wytze, that he got an email from secretary around one year ago, that his inc-membership resignation was accepted ...
 124 19:54 <egal> ... but i wasn't able to find the motion for it ...
 125 19:54 <iang> ah ok so Wytze has been accepted by board.  But no motion.
 126 19:54 <egal> correct ...
 127 19:54 <egal> from sebastian i didn't get an answer ... ;-(
 128 19:56 <iang> ok.  SO this is perhaps something we don’t need to answer now.
 129 19:57 <dops> agreed
 130 19:57 <iang> Also @dops will find out more when reviews the list.
 131 19:57 <iang> Let’s move on .  #3 @egal … invoice?
 132 19:58 <egal> yep ... was sent be president of secure-u some days ago ...
 133 19:58 <iang> SO, I think routine is for treasurer to pay it, right?  It’s an expected invoice.
 134 19:59 <dops> yes
 135 19:59 <iang> OK… anything to discuss here?  Or move on.
 136 19:59 <egal> do we have to do a motion to pay the invoice?
 137 19:59 <egal> (i think, in the past we did so)
 138 19:59 <dops> Yes, we do, as it is over the limit.
 139 20:00 <iang> I thought there was a motion a long time ago to authorise the T to pay invoices to Secure-U when they look routine?
 140 20:00 <iang> But if not, ok - how much is it ?
 141 20:00 <egal> this would mean: secure-u can send ANY invoices ... ;-)
 142 20:01 <iang> Yes, but this would also mean our T can’t spot the “any invoices” ;-)
 143 20:01 <dops> I'd need some minutes to get the attachment to a place where I can open it as PDF
 144 20:01 <egal> 1314.60 euro
 145 20:02 <iang> that is a quarterly invoice?
 146 20:02 <egal> (had to grab my other notebook ... wake it up and open the pdf)
 147 20:03 <egal> 5 months traffic/power (around 80 euro each), 2 quarterly for the rack (around 453 euro)
 148 20:03 <iang> ok
 149 20:03 -!- LuziusQ [] has joined #board-meeting
 150 20:03 <egal> (around 1400 euro would be a half-year-invoice)
 151 20:04 <iang> Resolved, that Treasurer pay the Secure-U invoice for 1314.60 euro, being for 5 months traffic & power, and 2 quarters rack.
 152 20:04 <dops> Resolved, that the invoice from secure-u about EUR 1314.60 will be paid.
 153 20:04 <dops> I second Ian's proposal. aye
 154 20:04 <iang> seconded and Aye :)
 155 20:05 <iang> merge those two :)
 156 20:05 <egal> abstain ... (due to my COI as secure-u-president)
 157 20:05 <dops> you were quicker ;-)
 158 20:05 <iang> Good.  Done.
 159 20:05 -!- egal is now known as dirk
 160 20:06 <dirk> thank you ... ;-)
 161 20:06 <iang> #4 DRO.  Any new discussion here?
 162 20:06 -!- dirk is now known as egal
 163 20:06 <egal> any progress there?
 164 20:06 <egal> ;-)
 165 20:06 <iang> Is there any need to solve this before the next meeting / next board?
 166 20:06 <katzazi_> next board probably is busy with other pressing questions
 167 20:07 <katzazi_> and would have to come to the state where you are
 168 20:07 <katzazi_> so it probably would take some time if next board can work on that point in a sensible manner
 169 20:09 <iang> 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.
 170 20:09 <dops> I expect that next board could consist of very few members, and is fully busy with administration tasks.
 171 20:09 <katzazi_> there are more than one proposals? from arb-team?
 172 20:10 <iang> there is also the possibility of @katzazi_ resigning as arbitrator and becoming DRO ;-)
 173 20:11 <katzazi_> that was not a proposal from arb-team so far
 174 20:11 <katzazi_> and there is a motoin to follow the suggestion from arb-team
 175 20:11 <iang> :) 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.
 176 20:12 <katzazi_> as far as I remember that motion was proposed by ian ...
 177 20:13 <katzazi_> I understand that board should not nominate someone against the wish of that member
 178 20:13 <katzazi_> 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
 179 20:13 <katzazi_> but I think that a board in general should follow their own motions
 180 20:15 <iang> 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.
 181 20:15 <katzazi_> 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.
 182 20:16 <iang> hmmm…
 183 20:16 <egal> well ... you don't have to start DRO-actions as long as you're part of board ... ;-)
 184 20:18 <katzazi_> 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
 185 20:20 -!- katzazi_m [] has joined #board-meeting
 186 20:20 <iang> 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.
 187 20:20 <dops> We can't force someone - a proposal needs consent from the person. But this is the last chance that thsi board does anything.
 188 20:21 -!- katzazi [] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
 189 20:22 <iang> As for today, I’m not accepting the nomination, kind as it is.  Maybe after weekend.
 190 20:22 <iang> So unless there is more to discuss I’d like to move on.
 191 20:22 -!- katzazi [] has joined #board-meeting
 192 20:22 <iang> #5 Resignations in Arbitration.
 193 20:22 -!- katzazi_ [] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
 194 20:22 <iang> I’d fully understand if this also is hard to discuss today :)
 195 20:23 <katzazi> well it's somewhat related and I also have asked to discuss any reasons for the resignation in private
 196 20:24 <katzazi> but here as well I would finally like to get an answer why you refuse
 197 20:24 <katzazi> refuse to respond, that is
 198 20:24 <iang> 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
 199 20:25 <iang> Just selfish reasoning on my part… 
 200 20:25 <katzazi> uhm you board refused to answer this point multiple board-meetings, now
 201 20:25 <iang> Now, I also understand that in the interim, you don’t need to pick up any new cases.
 202 20:26 <iang> What I don’t know is whether the resignation effects existing cases or not?
 203 20:26 <katzazi> *sigh* current situation is bad as it's unclear how much I should handle any of my cases
 204 20:26 <katzazi> yes - it's explicitly about the cases that I handle
 205 20:27 <iang> OK.  Also, I think @dops and @egal have to comment on this
 206 20:27 <katzazi> maybe in some I could consider to finish something
 207 20:27 <katzazi> but some of the others also need attention in the near future - they did not get reasonable attention for quit too long :(
 208 20:28 <iang> 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.
 209 20:28 <katzazi> I'm not named in the cases that I handle
 210 20:29 <dops> I don't know a solution how to come to an arbitration team with enough working power.
 211 20:30 <katzazi> well maybe board/Inc should have stepped up in any of those cases to defend the arbitrators?
 212 20:30 <dops> 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.
 213 20:30 <iang> 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.
 214 20:30 <dops> So there might be not that big difference in practise if Eva stays away - hopefully only for a while.
 215 20:32 <katzazi> I fear that the difference regrettably is huge :(
 216 20:33 <iang> would it be responsible to act before the next board?  Or responsible to leave it to the next board?
 217 20:33 <katzazi> is there a reason to delay?
 218 20:34 <dops> @katzati: When talking about difference I mean to get around the extra troubles we face since a couple of years.
 219 20:34 <katzazi> dops I dont understand you
 220 20:35 <katzazi> but I'm only member for some years (Nov 2013)
 221 20:36 <katzazi> well I see reasons to stay
 222 20:36 <katzazi> 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
 223 20:37 <katzazi> but the issue is that this also could affect other arbitrators
 224 20:37 <iang> 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.
 225 20:37 <dops> @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.
 226 20:38 <katzazi> dops we did usual work - and the cases that are blocking the queue are not only those personal cases, it started long before that
 227 20:38 <katzazi> 28 cases were closed after SGM
 228 20:39 <dops> @katzazi: Yes, but still we are stuck on some problematic ones.
 229 20:39 <iang> That’s more than usual work.  It is all lots of good work.
 230 20:39 <katzazi> sure - I cannot do anything about those ...
 231 20:40 <iang> (I have to break off now … I don’t think I can add anything anyway …
 232 20:40 <dops> With "usual" I think of normal workload. In no sense I wanted to comment about solved cases. That is a huge effort.
 233 20:41 <dops> ... and less discussions about CoI etc.
 234 20:41 <dops> ;-)
 235 20:41 <katzazi> it was not only me, some were closed without arbitrator - but I was the only one who ruled in those cases
 236 20:42 <dops> To answer the question: I don't see reasons to not accept resignations. It's not about board to wosh things.
 237 20:43 <dops> s/wosh/wish/
 238 20:43 <katzazi> 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
 239 20:44 <katzazi> currently you don't have that arbitrator you wish for, but I remain responsible / liable / at risk
 240 20:44 <katzazi> indefinitely
 241 20:44 <katzazi> that's why I proposed an alternative approach but that is also not possible at the moment :(
 242 20:46 <katzazi> ... and I'm the one who ruled that board should not be pressed to do HR decisions within 4 weeks after installation ...
 243 20:46 -!- iang [iang@] has quit [Quit: iang]
 244 20:49 <dops> @dirk: Are you still listening?
 245 20:50 <egal> of course ...
 246 20:50 <katzazi> you lost quorum, anyway
 247 20:51 <dops> Seems so. I don't want to add creativity to procedual things...
 248 20:58 <katzazi> 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
 249 21:35 -!- iang [iang@] has joined #board-meeting
 250 21:35 <GuKKDevel> is this meeting closed?
 251 21:36 <katzazi> nobody closed it so far ...
 252 21:36 <katzazi> chair left until now ...
 253 21:41 -!- iang [iang@] has quit [Quit: iang]
 254 21:41 <dops> Yes, as it was practically closed, I declare the meeting officially closed.
 255 21:41 <katzazi> but I believe it's not really running any more
 256 21:41 <katzazi> thank you ;-)
 257 21:42 <dops> Thanks for participation. That's it from the board of 2016-04-09.
 258 21:42 <dops> A date I will never forget.
 259 21:42 <katzazi> *G* someone who remembers that date ...
 260 21:43 <katzazi> but you are probably not alone ... I also remember it

Attached Files

To 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.
  • [get | view] (2016-12-18 18:36:09, 19.8 KB) [[attachment:transscript_2016-12-15.txt]]
 All files | Selected Files: delete move to page copy to page

You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.