GuKKDevel_log @ChanServ bdmc decay dirk_on_server dops egal Etienne FD nb nemunaire SkarmoutsosV Skeeper ted ynazarov zerkalo 21:58:57 bdmc Good Evening, you three. 21:59:17 * ted wonders... 21:59:34 * bdmc what??? 21:59:51 FD Good afternoon, Brian ; good evening Bernhard. 21:59:57 Etienne Hello bdmc! A little bi early, your evening ;-) 22:00:01 bdmc ted: I'm afraid that I have been neglecting you. 22:00:20 → dops has joined 22:00:22 FD Bonsoir Etienne, 22:00:25 bdmc I was talking about your evening, Etienne. Maybe Night would be more accurate. 22:00:47 Incidentally, Etienne. What happened to the 8th? 22:02:42 Etienne Oh, gosh, I sent the inivtation for the 8th, came back from holliday on the 7th and tought, the meeting would be on the 15th. But you proved, that CAcert runs also without the secretary and did good wrk. 22:04:02 bdmc We missed you, but the Frederics and I had a productive session anyway. I suppose that we should formally start this thing. 22:04:27 FD https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2019-08-29 22:04:51 Etienne The agenda includes topics from priority 1b (for next week). 22:05:17 with priority 1b 22:06:12 bdmc OK. Let me call this meeting to order. 22:07:03 I am relatively flexible on time. Anybody want to get to bed before midnight? 22:07:28 * ted nods. 22:07:44 bdmc OK. One vote for less than two hours. 22:07:45 ted . Or better, around midnight 22:08:57 bdmc We have minute from July 25th and, that's odd. I don't remember a formal meeting on the 8th. Let's do the 25th first. Any discussion before we vote to accept the minutes from July 25th? 22:10:03 Etienne Did you read the sentences written in bold? 22:10:13 bdmc There was quite a lot that happened in that meeting, so we can pause while people read those minutes. 22:10:38 Etienne, the one about Brian? 22:11:01 Etienne one of the, yes, another for all of us. 22:12:16 bdmc In that other item, you are referring to Agenda item 2.3.4? It is still on the Agenda, and will be discussed tonight. 22:12:56 Everybody had time for the minutes of July 25th? May I have a motion to accept those minutes? 22:14:06 Etienne i moove too "Accept the minutes from board meeting of 25 July 2019" 22:14:28 bdmc I will second. All in favour? 22:14:34 FD yes 22:14:47 bdmc aye 22:15:01 → SkarmoutsosV has joined 22:15:35 bdmc Well, there's an unfamiliar user ID. 22:15:59 I guess that we are it, Frederic, aren't we? 22:16:27 FD I beg your pardon? 22:16:35 bdmc OK, moving on to the "minutes" for August 8th. 22:16:46 FD: The only ones who are voting. 22:17:07 Etienne I moove to "Accept the minutes from board meeting of 8 August 2019" 22:17:38 FD Well, there are no minutes, as there was no meeting. 22:17:42 bdmc Since August 8th was not held as a formal meeting of the Board, I do not think that minutes are necessary or appropriate. What do the rest of you think? 22:18:05 Moving on. 22:18:13 Etienne There are kind of minutes: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2019-08-08#Minutes 22:18:19 FD I just wrote a short description of what happened and what we did. These are not "minutes". 22:18:39 Etienne Thank you in any case, FD. 22:18:44 bdmc Anything on the mailing lists that we need to discuss outside the regular Agenda? 22:19:12 FD I guess everything important from the mailing lists is already on the agenda. 22:19:59 bdmc Item 2.1.1 -- AGM -- I thought that we had already agreed on a date. So, which shall it be? 22nd or 29th? 22:20:36 Or do we want to poll the Board Members, or even all CAcert Inc Members? 22:21:38 bdmc We could send an e-mail message to all paid members, asking their preference. 22:21:47 Etienne Not Inc, maybe board and selected from Teams. 22:22:17 OK, and most from Ink will not answer - so it will be board and team ;-) 22:22:34 bdmc Well, remember that we do want to get as many members as possible in attendence. 22:22:40 Etienne (sorry, my spelling today is too strange) 22:23:16 If you agree, I will send a doodle to board, teams ans Inc, decision to be taken on 05 Sept? 22:23:58 bdmc I guess that I didn't see it needing anything that formal, although counting vots via e-mail may be tedious, too. 22:24:39 Any idea of Doodle's limit on number of people? 22:25:07 Etienne No, not, I will check before. 22:25:23 FD "With a free account, you can invite up to 49 participants" Google was my friend. https://help.doodle.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012048714-Invitation-limits 22:25:32 bdmc I have always seen it used for very small groups of people. 22:26:00 Hmmm. 49. How many paid members do we have today? 22:26:04 Etienne That means that 90% of inc members can answer. I do not think that so much will do. 22:26:50 bdmc OK. But from FD's answer, it sounds as if the limit is on the number of people that we contact, not the number who respond. 22:27:21 FD Correct. I failed to find better answer on Doodle's help pages. 22:27:48 bdmc Wait. We can send out an e-mail message with a link. We don't tell Doodle until they respond, correct? 22:27:48 Etienne I will not send it with doodle and they keep our adresses. I will send the lin with our mail. 22:28:13 bdmc Right. That should work. 22:28:32 FD @Etienne: teh link to Doodle's pool? 22:28:50 Etienne yes. tonight. 22:28:56 FD Fine, 22:29:11 bdmc I think that the procedure would be for Etienne to create a question, and then send a link to that question for people to answer. 22:29:33 Etienne yes 22:29:39 FD Great. 22:30:06 Etienne 2.2.1? 22:30:08 bdmc OK, moving on again. Item 2.2.1 -- I skipped 2.1.2 because the Agenda has a note. 22:30:17 Etienne It was my fault after Ted said it was possible without Arb to go back to Arb. Now we have a case and it doesn't go on. The time is pressing. Request: We send "Big Mail" as "Small Mail" to all who agreed to get news as long as Wytze is still active without Ruling. To all others we can still write later, if Arb still allows it. 22:31:07 FD 2.2.1. Basically waiting for Mario processing the request, right? 22:31:09 bdmc Didn't Wytze say that he was OK with sending the letter to everybody? Yes, I know that you asked Arb. 22:31:49 Etienne Wytze was OK, but can we send it now, when Mario took it and we no not have any news for weeks? 22:32:02 bdmc ted: ??? 22:32:12 * ted sighs deeply. 22:32:19 bdmc Etienne: I suspect that you are correct, but.... 22:32:22 ted It would not look very good... 22:32:30 bdmc I agree, unfortunately. 22:33:09 Etienne But sending only to the people that agreed to get informed from time to time? Ted? 22:33:31 ted I'd see no problem there 22:33:47 What other use is it to agree to receive news? 22:34:23 bdmc So, yes. Let us do that, Etienne. Send a message to the "short list," and we will continue. OK, here we go again. Moving on. Item 2.3.2 ( yes, I know that I skipped one. ) 22:34:28 Etienne So, my proposition is: "Newsletter" to those whoo agreed now and "Information" to the rest wehn Arb agrees. later. 22:34:50 ted Sounds like a plan. 22:35:00 bdmc What is the difference? What do you intend to put in the "Newsletter?" 22:35:28 Etienne The same, but we have to do it before 1st of Sept, as Wytze is available only until then :-( 22:35:56 bdmc OK. So, yes. Get that out as quickly as possible. 22:35:57 Etienne Well, I ad one sentene "you agreed to receive....." 22:35:59 FD May I add a word on 2.2.1 ? 22:36:07 Etienne please 22:36:13 bdmc Certainly. 22:36:16 FD 2.2.1 We would better to send two times the mailing, the second delayed by ~5 days. First mail: a short one, as a teaser, to wake up somehow people. Second one, what you already prepared, Etienne. People are a lot more responsive when having being teased, than after receiving a cold call. 22:36:58 bdmc FD: The only issue with that is the September 1st deadline that Etienne mentioned. 22:37:07 Etienne FD, can you send me a draft within 24 hrs? 22:37:21 FD Within 16hrs. 22:37:24 Etienne OK 22:37:47 bdmc Great, thank you both. 22:37:55 OK. Item 2.3.2 22:38:23 FD What happened with 2.3.1 :-) 22:39:08 bdmc FD, Frederic and I worked on the submission to the Linux Foundation's Community Bridge web site on the 8th, and I submitted it to them that day. Since then, I have periodically logged in to their 22:39:55 FD 2.3.1 i related to Linux Australia. Yet another Linux. :-) Looks to me like a quick win, an easy to get grant. 22:40:32 bdmc site and been told that it was "pending review" ( or pending approval ) Today, I wrote them a note on their "tech support" and asked whether there was anything that we could do to help. I will report on results. 22:41:58 FD 2.3.2 Are we expecting something more from the Linux Foundation than just to be referenced on the Community Bridge page? 22:41:59 bdmc Back to 2.3.1 -- FD, we haven't really talked about that submission recently. Do you think that we have enough ( or can easily create enough ) to satisfy them? 22:42:29 FD Yes I do. 22:42:30 bdmc 2.3.2 -- I don't THINK that they give money directly. 22:42:53 FD: do you want to try to get together some time in the next few days? 22:43:05 FD Yes, sure. 22:43:25 bdmc Also, have you subscribed to the "grants" mailing list? 22:44:07 FD What is it? Yet another mailing-list @c.o. ? 22:45:12 bdmc No, the one from Linux Australia where they receive and consider grant applications. I will forward you recent messages from other applicants. 22:46:39 FD Ok 22:46:42 bdmc FD: I am wide open from now through the weekend. First thing in the way would be Monday afternoon ( 14 UTC ) for a couple of hours. ) You can suggest times for us. 22:46:42 FD 2.3.2 Should I go ahead with Julian Gordon and Trishan de Lanerolle (both from the Linux Foundation) and ask for some more support than just being pinned on a main page ? 22:47:21 bdmc Certainly. That sounds like a good idea. Have you mentioned them before? I may have missed that. 22:47:59 FD 2.3.2 Which kind of support ? (financial, technical, organizational management?) 22:48:42 bdmc Definitely the first, possibly the second, perhaps even the third. 22:49:26 FD You're not an annoying person. :-) 22:51:48 bdmc OK, folks. Are we enough done with 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 to move on? 22:54:13 bdmc I guess so. Item 2.3.3 -- Open Technology Fund. 22:55:01 I was looking over FD's application document before this meeting started, and will get that to him shortly after we are done. 22:57:54 bdmc FD: You asked about the "U.S. Government Contract requirements." In general, as I understand, they own everything that is created or developed with their money. 22:58:54 FD Nothing like that here. 22:59:30 They mainly want to make us fly on US airlines, should we have to buy air tickets with their money. 23:00:11 (Fly America Act of 1974) 23:00:15 bdmc Agreed. So we don't, or we fly places that the US Airlines don't go. 23:00:24 Etienne ;-) 23:00:40 FD Correct. 23:00:45 Etienne Are there some American Airlines flying to Murwillumbah? 23:01:20 FD There is also a clause related to “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations" 23:01:32 I copy - paste it: 23:01:39 bdmc FD: That was the part that I was talking about. 23:01:44 FD Contracts or agreements for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work shall provide for the rights of the Federal Government and the recipient in any resulting invention in accordance with 37 CFR part 401, “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts, and Cooperative Agreements,” and any implementing regulations issued by the awarding agency. 23:02:12 I saw nothing which could hurt CAcert, as basically, we are open-source already. 23:02:50 bdmc Agreed. Also, I don't know how much "new development" we would be doing with their money. It's a possibility, though. 23:03:22 FD Hope to make our user interface all new, bright and shiny. :-) 23:03:51 Etienne Agree with you. 23:04:00 bdmc True. I don't know how much "creative effort" would be involved there. Depends on your definition. 23:04:13 ( as in "new invention" ) 23:04:30 OK, move on? 23:04:47 FD The agreement framwork is available for downloading here: https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/gitbook-28427.appspot.com/o/assets%2F-LCZqCJLmuG9RsuA-qL... 23:05:19 bdmc Yes, that's a sample contract, isn't it. I was reading that earlier. 23:06:00 FD Yes. Oddly enough, we would have to enter into contract with Radio Free Asia. 23:06:26 bdmc I thought that that was one of their projects, just a sample. 23:06:59 FD Radio Free Asia seems to be the proxy of the US Congress, in regards to matters piloted by the Open Technology Fund. 23:07:17 bdmc Interesting. OK, I guess. 23:10:51 bdmc OK. Do we want to discuss Item 2.3.4 tonight, or move on? 23:11:14 Etienne we can move on 23:11:41 FD I see 2.3.4 very much linked to Linux Australia grant application. 23:11:53 bdmc OK. Nothing to report on 2.4, since it is very closely tied to Item 2.3.1. 23:12:06 Item 2.5.1 -- Critical Team 23:12:33 FD Correct, that is what I wanted to say. 23:12:48 Etienne I also see the following possibility: 23:12:48 - provisional Critical Team with a BC (background check but not of 23:12:48 arbitration). Of course these people have to be registered at Arb for ABC 23:12:48 immediately. That's against the policies, but Arb doesn't work either. 23:12:48 That's why nobody can take action against us ;-) 23:12:48 - How was Arb created in the beginning? From nothing. Maybe we have to 23:12:48 build a new Arb with new people? Maybe an old Arb will help us as a 23:12:48 consultant? 23:12:48 - Then immediately new ABC, etc. and everything again policy-compliant! 23:13:13 bdmc I don't know of anybody who has reponded to our requests for help. 23:13:37 FD There is nobody left. 23:14:35 bdmc ted: There was one who didn't think that he was technically suitable. Did you two find a role for him, or is that still outstanding? 23:14:44 Etienne I asked two people (this week). They are good sys admins, one onn tour around the world for >5 years and working remote and the other retired. They would be new to CAcert, but very serious. I am waiting for answers. 23:15:03 ted You mean Marek? 23:15:10 FD @Brian: you are talking about Marek, yes. 23:16:23 bdmc ted: yes 23:16:23 ted I found no role for him, that's probably his own job. I proposed Arbitrator. 23:16:57 Etienne +1 23:17:04 ted I guess he could also do a job in Software, but to what use without Critical team? 23:17:24 FD @Bernhard: Marek is a PHP dev. No role for him, really? 23:17:44 @Bernhard: OK. 23:18:39 ted He mentioned the Arbitrator himself, but I'm still not sure if it was serious... 23:19:28 FD @ Brian: we tried to schedule a conf. call with Marek and all four of us. 23:19:40 bdmc ted: should one or more of us "push?" 23:20:13 FD No, Marek wants to join. Time for a face to face talk. 23:20:20 ted In which direction? 23:22:22 bdmc If he want Arbitration, then that direction. I am sure that you would take him for anything he offered. 23:22:28 ( want = wants ) 23:22:53 FD And software development, too. 23:23:47 bdmc But as Ted says, at the moment, that is lesser priority, although it can be done by "anyone" ( or almost ) no matter what other work they do. 23:23:50 ted No need to exclude Software development, there the formal requirements are lower (just do some work). 23:24:14 Etienne We are short in people every where, so we take them where they want. So they are motivated. 23:24:51 bdmc Exactly. 23:24:57 FD BTW, may we decide about a schedule to invite Marek to a welcome talk ? Bernhard, you said you could next week after 19:00 CEST, am I right? 23:26:49 ted My Skype installation is currently unusable. Probably would need reinstallation. 23:27:48 FD We are not talking about Skype. We are talking about whereby.com/cacert, aren't we? 23:27:56 bdmc FD: I've forgotten. Is free Zoom only 1:1? 23:28:48 Oh! Whereby.com == appear.in. fooled me 23:28:54 FD whereby.com/cacert is for 4 concurrent persons to talk together in real time (mic + cam) in the same "meeting space" 23:29:08 want to give a try now? 23:29:18 Etienne free zoom unlimited 1:1 and 40 min groups https://zoom.us/pricing 23:29:50 why not 23:30:31 bdmc Etienne: Sorry, I meant only two participants. I see that it is up to 100. 23:30:46 So that gives two alternatives. 23:30:57 FD We are online there 23:31:02 bdmc In our price range. 23:31:20 I do not have sound or video, so won't join you. 23:33:01 FD Brian, it works great for us ! 23:33:52 bdmc OK, folks. We have less than half an hour. Do you have any preferences for Agenda items that we MUST get to tonight? We have about half of the Agenda left. 23:35:21 Etienne I thik it is only software. 7,1 is important. 23:38:02 bdmc OK. Any other votes? 23:38:55 ted OK, back from Video chat... 23:39:10 FD Yes, the vote related to Bernhard application as an Organisation Assurer 23:39:29 (point 2.5.2) 23:41:27 bdmc Is that Ted, or some other Bernhard? 23:41:42 ted It's most probably me. 23:42:22 FD We are talking about Bernhard "Ted" Fröhlich 23:43:14 https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2019-08/msg00015.html 23:43:19 bdmc OK. Item 2.5.2, since we are here already. 23:43:32 May I hear a motion that we may vote on? 23:43:40 Etienne "Considering that there is currently no Org Assurer Officer, I request that Board confirm Bernhard F as an Org Assurer after he meets all requirements." 23:43:57 FD I second 23:44:19 Etienne aye 23:44:24 FD aye 23:44:45 Etienne (after should be as - bad translation) 23:45:46 Etienne bdmc? 23:46:02 bdmc Hmmm. Do you mean the after at the end? "as he meets all requirements." ??? 23:46:20 Etienne yes 23:46:27 ted Just out of curiosity, what are the reqiurements for Org Assurers? 23:46:28 bdmc OK. No problem. Aye 23:46:40 NOW he asks. B-) 23:47:15 Any other items, or shall we jump ahead to 7.1? 23:47:25 ← SkarmoutsosV has quit (Connection closed) 23:47:27 Etienne You are a senior assurer. You found a mentor to introduce and back you during the first case(s). 23:47:43 That is, what I know. 23:47:46 ted Ahh, Great. :-) 23:48:20 FD May I receive same approval from committee members at point 2.9? 23:48:47 ted I did assume something like that, but have not looked it up yet. 23:48:59 bdmc FD: That can be after 7.1. 23:49:12 FD Thank you. 23:49:18 bdmc Sorry, folks. I meant 2.7.1. 23:50:00 OK. All I see here, is a letter from the Board. Am I correct? 23:50:22 ( take that comma out ) 23:50:31 Etienne "The committee expresses thanks to JanDD for the great work in updating Infrao02 and many containers with the help of Wytze." 23:50:40 FD I second. 23:50:43 Etienne aye 23:50:47 FD yes 23:51:03 bdmc "Infra02" or "Infrao02" ?? 23:52:05 Etienne My spellchecker is allready sleeping, it's 23:51 here ;-) 23:52:28 bdmc I understand. I am trying to finish quickly. 23:52:45 OK. I will say a conditional Aye, with the provision that the name is correct. 23:53:42 Unless anyone else has anything urgent, I think that it is time to agree on when we three shall meet again. ( except that we are not the three witches from the Scottish Play. ) 23:53:50 I would like to vote for next week. 23:54:32 Etienne Maybe bug 775 before his anniversary? 23:54:41 FD Good ! 23:54:53 its 10th anniversary ! 23:55:36 bdmc So, next week, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel? 23:55:54 FD This is fine for me. 23:56:09 Etienne Yes. And I hope that until then FD will also be into the voting system. 23:56:39 bdmc Let us hope that we get more participation, then, too. 23:56:41 Etienne I contactet JanDD during this meeting about this. bdmc 's and my votes are allready registered. 23:56:49 bdmc ( not hope -- plan for ) 23:56:57 FD Should I do something specific to get into? 23:57:28 Etienne waiting for Jan's answer. Usually, he is quick during day times. 23:57:47 bdmc You should be able to "slash join #vote" and it works. 23:58:32 Etienne So, FD and I will look for teaser and small mail, bdmc will correct the English tomorrow in the early morning american time. Then I will get in touch with Wytze. 23:58:53 FD I would like to come back on 2.5.1, may I ? 23:58:59 bdmc Sounds like a plan. 23:59:06 FD: Go ahead. 23:59:24 Etienne bdmc: the new one: https://motion.cacert.org/motions/ 23:59:56 FD, yes, please 00:00:10 FD Etienne exposed the possibility to call technically skilled persons, not having been ABCed yet 00:00:22 I received a positive answer too, from Johan Bloemberg. Not known at CAcert, but willing to help. He wrote: "thanks for the invitation. I guess this is a volunteering job? At the moment I'm too busy in my spare time to dedicate much time to side projects, I just moved and already have some project I'm working on. But if you ever need local hands-on for a short project feel free to contact me, I can probably spare a day or 2 in the weekends occasionally. " 00:00:54 bdmc Etienne: Interesting. It appears that I can read items, but how do I do more? 00:02:03 FD Should we go more broadly a t approaching sys admins in the Lede area, wanting to help at the Critical Team, even if they heve no previous record track with CAcert? 00:02:15 Etienne Yes, that is my Plan B (A=ABCed; C=collect the access password and wait): Take new people and start the ABC imediately at Arb. During the waiting time, the could/should start. 00:03:13 bdmc Do we still have somebody who can act as "Senior?" 00:03:20 Etienne This are "relaxed rules" to keep CAcert running during a time, Arb is understaffed and ABC frozed. 00:03:55 FD Very good. I love relaxed rules. Well, I may then start to recruit actively. 00:04:41 Etienne If I remember well, Wytze and Co are willing to overhand it correctly to their successors. 00:05:03 ted But we should take into account that critical team is, as the name says, quite critical for CAcert, as the only one having access to the database. 00:05:18 (sorry, a bit late) 00:05:36 bdmc I would like someone who has a real connection to CAcert to be the "manager" of the Critical Team, even if we have outsiders doing most of the work. 00:06:48 Etienne You are right, ted. I am not saying to take jusst someone from the street. We can also do a Comitee's Background Check until the real ABC is back. This is to avoid that CAcert will die do to missing ABC. 00:07:05 bdmc: +1 00:07:13 ted Agreed. 00:07:44 Just to keep in mind that some of the rules also make some sense... 00:08:07 bdmc OK. Well, we are after midnight. Go on, or finish in e-mail or next week's meeting? 00:08:37 FD OK for finihsing on next week meeting. 00:08:39 ted I'll be off now 00:08:43 Etienne So we won't be audit ready. But once the crisis has been overcome, it can be dealt with properly. 00:08:50 Thank you ted 00:09:13 FD Bye Bernhard, a new Org Assurer of ours ! 00:09:14 Etienne OK finishing on 05 Sept 20 UTC 00:09:58 bdmc Thank you all. I hereby declare this meeting over, and wish you all a good night. 00:10:49 FD Good afternoon, Brian, Gute Nacht to all others. 00:10:58 Etienne Thank you and good night! bdmc, you well hear from me soon. 00:11:12 ← ted has quit (Client exited) 00:11:28 ← bdmc has quit (Quit: leaving) 00:12:49