1 21:59:51
   2 [NickServ]
   3 Welcome to CAcert, Etienne! Here on CAcert, we provide services to enable the registration of nicknames and channels! For details, type /msg NickServ help and /msg ChanServ help. 
   4 21:59:51
   5 → Etienne has joined 
   6 22:03:44
   7 → bdmc has joined 
   8 22:04:06
   9 bdmc
  10 Darn.  Late.   My apologies. 
  11 22:04:30
  12 Are we ready to start? 
  13 22:04:45
  14 * ted is listening. 
  15 22:05:05
  16 bdmc
  17 Thank you, Ted. 
  18 22:05:46
  19 → Treasurer has joined 
  20 22:06:22
  21 → FD has joined 
  22 22:06:33
  23 Etienne
  24 Yes, bdmc, we have a quorum and about 84 minutes ;-) 
  25 22:06:43
  26 FD
  27 Hello! 
  28 22:06:51
  29 Etienne
  30 Hello everybody! 
  31 22:08:02
  32 bdmc
  33 Etienne: Actually I adjusted my calendar, so you won't need to depend on me.  I have a later meeting, though. 
  34 22:08:16
  35 Well, in that case, let me call this meeting to order. 
  36 22:08:26
  37 Etienne
  38 https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2019-09-26 
  39 22:08:43
  40 bdmc
  41 Thank you. 
  42 22:08:52
  43 Let us talk about previous meetings, first. 
  44 22:09:07
  45 Doea anybody have any questions about the Minutes for September 5th? 
  46 22:09:18
  47 Etienne
  48 There are minutes from 19th (but not from 5th). 
  49 22:09:28
  50 Treasurer
  51 Hello, unfortunately, I am still in professional meeting and I come to say a warm hello and apologize that I can't attend this one tonight 
  52 22:10:08
  53 bdmc
  54 Treasurer: Thank you, Frederic.  We will manage to survive without you. 
  55 22:10:09
  56 Etienne
  57 Treasurer, if you remain connected, you may read at the end, what happend 
  58 22:10:30
  59 Treasurer
  60 good idea 
  61 22:10:59
  62 Etienne
  63 The minutes of 19th are quiet short. Did I forget something important? 
  64 22:11:18
  65 The log file is added, so details can be found there as usual. 
  66 22:11:43
  67 FD
  68 I am not sure to understand what we talked about, when your write: "Brian, FD and Etienne will contact possible new board or team members following Brian/FD's list (resp. Treasurer's list for treasurer). As we probabely have more than 7, we will try to get teams again (e.g. finance team). " 
  69 22:11:48
  70 bdmc
  71 Etienne: As I remember from that meeting, I think that you caught the high points, eliminating the long discussions. 
  72 22:12:18
  73 Yes, there are some details missing.  I agree with Frederic. 
  74 22:13:10
  75 Etienne: Will we ever see minutes for the 5th, and would it be possible to, at least, include more details on assignments in the 19th? 
  76 22:13:47
  77 I don't know what I agreed to do in that meeting, and what I was just thinking of outside that meeting. 
  78 22:13:56
  79 Etienne
  80 2x yes. for 19th, what should be clearer? the board member list as mentionned by FD, ++? 
  81 22:14:33
  82 bdmc
  83 If someone was assigned a task, or volunteered for a task, it would be nice if there were specific notes regarding those. 
  84 22:15:17
  85 I'm afraid that my membory, while good, is very short! 
  86 22:15:40
  87 ( membory = of course, memory ) 
  88 22:15:58
  89 Etienne
  90 OK, let's move, I will re read all my notes after the week end. 
  91 22:16:04
  92 bdmc
  93 OK, moving on. 
  94 22:16:06
  95 Treasurer
  96 Etienne: the time chair closed the meeting, may be? I see periods. Do I remember Brian closing at 22h00 UTC? 
  97 22:16:18
  98 bdmc
  99 Any news in the Board or Board Private Mailing Lists? 
 100 22:16:36
 101 Treasurer: I think that it was a few minutes later. 
 102 22:17:18
 103 Not hearing anything, moving on again. 
 104 22:17:45
 105 Etienne
 106 Treasurer, sorry, but last meeting, I hadn't time stamps. 
 107 22:18:30
 108 FD
 109 In the committee mailing list, I sent copies of to mails written in response to our applicants. 
 110 22:18:42
 111 to -> two 
 112 22:18:42
 113 bdmc
 114 A Note to everybody.  You may have seen some notes in the mailing list suggesting that our Agendas are longer than the time alotted.  For that reason, I am going to skip around in the Agenda, trying to get the most urgent, and then most important, items first. 
 115 22:19:00tienne: I should be able to get you some numbers. 
 116 22:19:10
 117 We'll talk via e-mail. 
 118 22:19:43
 119 OK, so my first Business item is Agenda Item 2.2.1 -- Critical Team. 
 120 22:20:43
 121 Frederic ( FD ) and I were trying to create a list of people to give to Wytze as his future team, both local and remote. 
 122 22:21:45
 123 bdmc
 124 I came up with a list of a dozen or so, most of them remote, to add to two or three potential members that we had found before the 360K! 
 125 22:22:47
 126 bdmc
 127 We have a deadline, from Wytze, of Monday, for this.  Does this group want to discuss this, or shall I pass the list to Wytze, or??? 
 128 22:23:38
 129 ( Oh, yes.   My list was primarily composed of people who volunteered as a consequence of the 360K. ) 
 130 22:23:54
 131 FD
 132 I suggest to pass to Wytze: Tony, Erick, Pal, Brent, Mark. 
 133 22:24:15
 134 bdmc
 135 FD: Only the Local ones?  Not the Remote? 
 136 22:24:44
 137 I see Ted, Dirk and Gero here.  Please feel free to contribute. 
 138 22:25:02
 139 FD
 140 Tony (Nigeria) et Pal (Hungary) are remotely located. 
 141 22:25:04
 142 See: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2019-09/msg00184.html 
 143 22:25:26
 144 bdmc
 145 Sorry.  Working from my ( weak ) memory. 
 146 22:25:46
 147 Alright. 
 148 22:25:49
 149 Etienne
 150 I think, we should not start with too much, 5 looks good. Wytze & friends can hand over and may be give some training. The we can ad some more. And start the ABC as well. 
 151 22:26:26
 152 bdmc
 153 FD: Sorry.  I have been out all afternoon, so missed your message.   Thank you. 
 154 22:27:19
 155 Should we look at a motion, or just go ahead.  ( Do other Board Members want a motion about this? ) 
 156 22:27:35
 157 Etienne
 158 We need a motion. 
 159 22:28:29
 160 bdmc
 161 In that case, I move that Tony, Erick, Pal, Brent and Mark's names be presented to Wytze as the Board's recommendations for the future Critical Team. 
 162 22:28:40
 163 FD
 164 I second 
 165 22:28:47
 166 Etienne
 167 Policy asks a decisions and a motionn is IMHO a formal decision. 
 168 22:28:54
 169 aye 
 170 22:29:00
 171 bdmc
 172 aye 
 173 22:29:04
 174 FD
 175 yes 
 176 22:29:19
 177 Etienne
 178 objection 
 179 22:29:29
 180 bdmc
 181 Yes? 
 182 22:29:55
 183 Treasurer
 184 aye 
 185 22:29:59
 186 Etienne
 187 According to the policy, we have to decide. The team would have to suggest us. We do this too as they did not. 
 188 22:30:31
 189 bdmc
 190 Etienne: I'm sorry.  I don't understand. 
 191 22:30:36
 192 Etienne
 193 So, you should change the text "Recommendations" to something else. 
 194 22:31:20
 195 FD
 196 How may we **decide**, without having (a) interviewed the applicants and (2) having ourself the knowledge to assess the applicants deep enough, from the technical point of view? 
 197 22:32:01
 198 bdmc
 199 Etienne: Are you saying that the Board is expected to make the final decision on suitability and qualifications of the candidates? 
 200 22:32:05
 201 Etienne
 202 It is a "nomination". 
 203 22:32:49
 204 FD
 205 Can't we "nominate" later in the recruiting process, when Wytze will have said his word? 
 206 22:33:01
 207 Treasurer
 208 "decide to present"? 
 209 22:34:14
 210 Treasurer
 211 FD: makes sense 
 212 22:34:47
 213 Etienne
 214 9.1.3. Process of new Team Members 
 215 22:34:47
 216 New team members need:  
 217 22:34:47
 218 Recommendation by team leader  
 219 22:34:47
 220 Arbitrated Background Check ("ABC")  
 221 22:34:47
 222 Authorisation by Board  
 223 22:34:47
 224 The team supports the process of adding new team members. 
 225 22:35:39
 226 Apparently Crit Team is leaving the recommendation to us. 
 227 22:36:14
 228 bdmc
 229 Which is what I said in my motion that is on the table. 
 230 22:36:47
 231 Etienne
 232 (citation from Security Policy for CAcert Systems COD8) 
 233 22:37:14
 234 In that case, I withdraw the objection. 
 235 22:37:28
 236 bdmc
 237 We are recommending these people for consideration by the current Team Lead.  Those that he approves will then need to be Authorised by the Board ( and ABC process ). 
 238 22:37:44
 239 FD
 240 Fine. 
 241 22:37:54
 242 bdmc
 243 Do we have any Board Members who have not yet voted? 
 244 22:38:06
 245 those present 
 246 22:38:35
 247 Etienne
 248 The others can vote later at the vote bot. 
 249 22:38:43
 250 bdmc
 251 In that case, by my eye, the motion passes. 
 252 22:39:19
 253 Next, Item 2.3.1 -- Corporate Donors. 
 254 22:39:56
 255 Etienne
 256 We have had a potential donor, who is offering to make a monthly donation, from his company, and asks that he be credited on our website home page. 
 257 22:39:56
 258  
 259 22:39:56
 260 Related links: https://www.cacert.org (see on the bottom); from 2011; https://wiki.cacert.org/comma/Arsenal/SponsorshipOffering 
 261 22:39:56
 262 bdmc
 263 I think that we have several people who have offered donations.  This is the one that we have in the Agenda. 
 264 22:40:35
 265 Etienne
 266 https://wiki.cacert.org/CAcertInc/LogosForSale (2011) 
 267 22:40:36
 268 bdmc
 269 I also saw a page in the Wiki, under About Us, I think, regarding corporate sponsorships. 
 270 22:43:36
 271 bdmc
 272 Here it is: https://wiki.cacert.org/FAQ/AboutUs/History 
 273 22:44:05
 274 Down at the bottom.  These are the people that we currently see at the bottom of the Home Page. 
 275 22:44:08
 276 Etienne
 277 I wrote it some years ago... 
 278 22:44:42
 279 bdmc, some people asked to removed them some years ago. That was the reason to create the history page. 
 280 22:45:05
 281 bdmc
 282 OK.  Do we have any discussion regarding accepting this offer of sponsorship in exchange for "credit." 
 283 22:45:56
 284 ted
 285 Note: I'm just working on https://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=1423: "Remove logo of Open Architecture Network" 
 286 22:46:17
 287 FD
 288 The deal should be loose enough in order for the donation to remain a donation, and not a purchase of commercial space. 
 289 22:46:50
 290 Thank you for that, Bernhard! 
 291 22:47:55
 292 FD
 293 The idea of a fair deal between a corporate donor and CAcert might be like that: 
 294 22:48:15
 295 bdmc
 296 Agreed.  It should be a "sponsorship," not a sale. 
 297 22:48:25
 298 FD
 299 1. The corporate donor makes supports CAcert by a donation; 
 300 22:48:29
 301 Etienne
 302 But we could replace the 4 logos by current ones (at least when the sponsored machines are retiered) 
 303 22:49:32
 304 FD
 305 2. The corporate donor should not be tied to an aggreement making it an obligation of giving money to CAcert; 
 306 22:50:29
 307 3. The corporate donor should keep the ability to give more frequently, or less frequently, without any action in return from CAcert; 
 308 22:50:40
 309 bdmc
 310 ( During the time, and as long as the sponsor contributes, CAcert will display their logo and a link to their company, on our home page. ) 
 311 22:51:27
 312 FD
 313 4. As a "thank you" and nothing else, CAcert would then decide to make public on its front page, the fact that the corporate donor helps CAcert. 
 314 22:52:14
 315 bdmc
 316 We do not want any language regarding frequency of contributions.  Perhaps amount but no more.  So, for instance, they are offering to contribute $3600 per year, as I remember. 
 317 22:52:15
 318 Etienne
 319 Of course it's not. But companies that are generous to us (once or regularly) may be mentioned by name or logo to the public if they wish. e.g. new server of Xy 
 320 22:53:34
 321 FD
 322 Here is the proposal which we are talking about: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-inc/2019-09/msg00512.html 
 323 22:53:43
 324 bdmc
 325 Yes, but there is a lower limit.  If they donate more than, I don't know, $1000, then they are a "name" sponsor.  Less, we thank them. 
 326 22:55:28
 327 bdmc
 328 Here is the list used by another organisation that I belong to.  This is an organisation with both servers, as we do, and regular monthly meetings. 
 329 22:55:31
 330 Platinum- $2500 and up 
 331 22:55:33
 332 Single Meeting Sponsorship - $100-$300 (see below) 
 333 22:55:35
 334 Gold - between $1500 and $2499 
 335 22:55:38
 336 Silver - between $500 and $1499 
 337 22:55:40
 338 Bronze - between $301 and $499 
 339 22:56:56
 340 FD
 341 What kind of metal gets the sponsor giving $300 or less? :-) 
 342 22:57:14
 343 bdmc
 344 B-) 
 345 22:57:48
 346 They get to advertise for about 5 minutes at the meeting that they have sponsored. 
 347 22:58:24
 348 Etienne
 349 That's an approach. Personally, if there were few of them, I would be a little more flexible. Example: Someone donates a machine for 999, but that's not 1000. Stupid? Or show the logo or at least put it on the sponsor list? 
 350 22:58:27
 351 bdmc
 352 Sorry, 15 minutes. 
 353 22:58:40
 354 FD
 355 Cool, we are going to introduce commercials within the committee's meetings! :-) 
 356 22:58:54
 357 bdmc
 358 I completely agree.  We have limits, but we aren't obsessive. 
 359 22:59:25
 360 Etienne
 361 An other point: What is possible? The 4 logos are IMHO hard coded :-( The wiki is a lot easyier. 
 362 22:59:37
 363 bdmc
 364 Different type of organisation.  These are regular monthly "come out to the meeting house and learn about Linux" meetings. 
 365 23:00:17
 366 Etienne: Perhaps a prominent link on the home page, going to a page in the Wiki, displaying all of the current sponsors. 
 367 23:00:30
 368 Moving all of the existing ones there. 
 369 23:00:35
 370 Etienne
 371 Can we accept the propositions and put the logos at least on the wiki, and maybe twittr/blog? & link "Sponors" 
 372 23:01:07
 373 bdmc
 374 Since Ted is already addressing this issue, it would be a good time to do this. 
 375 23:01:37
 376 Ted: correct? 
 377 23:01:58
 378 ted
 379 Aehm... probably no. Development workflow is not ideally suited for adding and removal of logos... 
 380 23:02:11
 381 Way too much work if you ask me. 
 382 23:02:24
 383 But as we don't have anything else... 
 384 23:02:35
 385 bdmc
 386 No, I mean the change the the home page, removing all of the current logos, and replacing them with a "Sponsors" link, pointing at the Wiki. 
 387 23:02:46
 388 ( the the = to the ) 
 389 23:02:46
 390 FD
 391 And won't change the logos in place too much often... 
 392 23:02:51
 393 Having a logo on out main web site is of higher value for the sponsor. 
 394 23:03:00
 395 out -> our 
 396 23:03:02
 397 ted
 398 Ahh, yes, this sounds better. 
 399 23:03:10
 400 bdmc
 401 FD: I agree, but.... 
 402 23:03:43
 403 ted
 404 Maybe the premium sponsors get theirs on the home page... 
 405 23:04:10
 406 The rest has to live with something else (maybe not the WiKi)... 
 407 23:04:16
 408 bdmc
 409 Darn.  That other organizations do it that way.  They have the Sponsors link, but the home page has three of them, too. 
 410 23:04:19
 411 Etienne
 412 bdmc, if a consulting firm will do the audit for free, we can also put the logo on the home page! 
 413 23:04:32
 414 bdmc
 415 ABSOLUTELY! 
 416 23:05:13
 417 Etienne
 418 OK, who deals with the corporate donors? The president? 
 419 23:05:25
 420 bdmc
 421 ted: Would you prefer another page in the web site, or the Wiki? 
 422 23:05:46
 423 FD
 424 Well, are we ready to answer something to Mr. Hefczyc? 
 425 23:05:59
 426 bdmc
 427 I can definitely do that.  Do we want to do a motion for this one, specifically, or something to cover the general case? 
 428 23:06:48
 429 Etienne
 430 Maybe next meeting, so one of us can put it together, like a guideline? 
 431 23:07:21
 432 bdmc
 433 I can see us creating ( as Etienne has just said ) some kind of guideline for sponsorship, not a Policy. 
 434 23:07:40
 435 Etienne
 436 board internal, but public 
 437 23:07:55
 438 bdmc
 439 Shall I, then, just contact him, and accept his offer, or do we need to do something more formal? 
 440 23:07:56
 441 dops
 442 ted: for analysis/condideration: Can logos be embedded from another suitable location with leaner dev process? 
 443 23:08:13
 444 FD
 445 Hello Ger! 
 446 23:08:25
 447 Ger -> Gero! 
 448 23:09:22
 449 ted
 450 This is technically possible, but frowned upon, because it lowers the "security" level to the lowest level of involved pages. 
 451 23:10:04
 452 If you want to include malware , it can be done on the site with lowest security level 
 453 23:10:15
 454 So, I'd advise against. 
 455 23:10:49
 456 It may be possible to think of something a bit more complicated though... 
 457 23:11:15
 458 dops
 459 Didn't want to initiate a technical discussion in this meeting ... maybe placing on same server or databae, but somewhat in list form which only requires checking that we have safe images. 
 460 23:11:17
 461 ted
 462 Like allowing upload of a logo from the support console... 
 463 23:14:05
 464 FD
 465 Beyond corporate donors and logos, there are also for CAcert possible businesses like these ones: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2019-09/msg00171.html 
 466 23:14:58
 467 Etienne
 468 I have just learned that our data center gives us an annual discount and free services worth 5140 €. 
 469 23:15:24
 470 bdmc
 471 Aren't they on the list of sponsors? 
 472 23:15:35
 473 FD
 474 Yes they are. 
 475 23:16:59
 476 bdmc
 477 OK.  Well, this is going to take a lot more discussion regarding both procedural and technical solutions, so I think that we should move on. 
 478 23:17:24
 479 Back to my question a while ago.  Shall I just go ahead and accept this offer? 
 480 23:17:51
 481 I will take a consensus answer, instead of a formal motion. 
 482 23:17:58
 483 Etienne
 484 Yes, I think so. 
 485 23:18:55
 486 bdmc
 487 Nobody else? 
 488 23:19:04
 489 FD
 490 Are we talking about the offer of Mr. Hefczyc? It's fine with me too. 
 491 23:19:26
 492 bdmc
 493 Yes, Agenda Item 2.3.1 
 494 23:19:55
 495 I guess that we are down to three. 
 496 23:20:17
 497 OK.  I think that we have covered the Urgent.  What is Important? 
 498 23:21:06
 499 FD
 500 Not sure if it is in the agenda, but motivating "team leader" at welcoming the new comers is important. 
 501 23:21:19
 502 Etienne
 503 Can we accept Dominik W as Inc member? 
 504 23:21:28
 505 FD
 506 I see only Bernhard active on the front. 
 507 23:22:12
 508 And Brian. 
 509 23:22:28
 510 bdmc
 511 Gero has been doing some, as well. 
 512 23:22:36
 513 Etienne
 514 And some behind the front: Ales, 
 515 23:22:57
 516 new names, I never heard before are contributing on some lists. 
 517 23:23:25
 518 FD
 519 I am happy to hear about, but for instance, who takes care of the organisation assurers applicants? 
 520 23:23:33
 521 bdmc
 522 There are several new members on the Devel list.  Many new on SysAdmin. 
 523 23:23:56
 524 FD
 525 Who takes care to select and invite people to join support? 
 526 23:23:59
 527 bdmc
 528 FD: Wasn't that Alex ( the other one )? 
 529 23:24:20
 530 FD: It SHOULD probably be Dirk, but, I don't know. 
 531 23:24:37
 532 FD
 533 I saw you Etienne posting on the translation mailing list. 
 534 23:25:30
 535 Nobody wants to take over the first contact initiated by Ian Alastair with potential new arbitrators. 
 536 23:25:50
 537 bdmc
 538 OK.  I have heard a request for Agenda Item 2.1.1, and then a need for Agenda Item 2.2.x( 3? ) -- Managing the response to 360K. 
 539 23:26:01
 540 Etienne
 541 FD, can you send me the names/@ of OrgA applicants? I can do that. 
 542 23:26:14
 543 FD
 544 OK, I will. 
 545 23:26:18
 546 bdmc
 547 Etienne: They are in the spreadsheet that I sent you. 
 548 23:26:20
 549 FD
 550 Recruitment of our next Treasurer is basically stalled. 
 551 23:26:28
 552 ted
 553 One Org Assurer applicant did contact me directly. 
 554 23:26:49
 555 I'm taking care of him together with Alexander Bahlo 
 556 23:27:03
 557 Etienne
 558 bdmc: thank you, noted on my paper for Oct. 7th. 
 559 23:27:21
 560 bdmc
 561 FD: Yes, we have, perhaps, a dozen applicants, but I would like to suggest that the Board Member not be one of them, necessarily. 
 562 23:27:56
 563 Etienne: I think that ( as we are doing ) we need to address it sooner than that. 
 564 23:28:04
 565 FD
 566 Regarding sysadmin, a few started to resign from the mailing list. Brian and me are the only one to see it, being owners of the list. 
 567 23:28:34
 568 Just because they received a warm welcome from Brian, then the silence. 
 569 23:28:35
 570 bdmc
 571 Oh, am I?   I know that Gero was trying to work there. 
 572 23:29:59
 573 FD
 574 My concern with Sysadmin, is our ability to transform most of them into support team members, and Infrastructure team members. 
 575 23:30:02
 576 bdmc
 577 Should we take a moment, and list each of the departments ( roles ) and who is actively working with that group? 
 578 23:30:05
 579 Etienne
 580 I will see, what I can do before, at least starting from Sept 30th 
 581 23:30:44
 582 bdmc
 583 For Instance: 
 584 23:31:04
 585 VIP ( random people ) -- FD, Brian, Etienne ( perhaps? ) 
 586 23:31:27
 587 Treasurer: FG ( to begin with ) 
 588 23:31:45
 589 dops
 590 bdmc: I can't work on getting in contact of people, because I'm not really involved in sysadm business. Should be managed by Jan - I'm willing to help, but need some preselection/guidance in that case. 
 591 23:32:45
 592 bdmc
 593 SysAdmin ( covers Critical Team, Support, Infrastructure Admin. ) -- Should be Jan DD, Brian ( welcome message ), Gero ( mailing list ), anybody else? 
 594 23:32:59
 595 FD
 596 I tried to make an inventory here: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2019-09/msg00138.html 
 597 23:33:58
 598 bdmc
 599 dops: At the moment, I think that mostly we need to just have a "presence," letting people know that they aren't forgotten.  Also, can you subscribe the people who came later, and I told to send a message to the list, instead of trying to subscribe? 
 600 23:34:18
 601 FD
 602 Brian, you are right, However, Jan answered that he won't take the charge of dispatching people to Critical or Support. 
 603 23:35:28
 604 FD
 605 Then, basically, all our sysadmin volunteers have been parked on the related mailing list, with no leader taking care of them. 
 606 23:35:33
 607 bdmc
 608 I know.  That is why we need people from Support also involved with that mailing list.  We have also tried to send people who self-identified as Support to that team, but I don't know what success that has had. 
 609 23:35:54
 610 Support Team, that was. 
 611 23:36:24
 612 FD
 613 I never heard of anybody else at support beyond Dirk and perhaps Joost. 
 614 23:36:46
 615 bdmc
 616 That is why we need more people there, I think. 
 617 23:37:21
 618 Etienne
 619 Ales and GuKKDevel are at triage, I think and waiting for an ABC. 
 620 23:37:53
 621 FD
 622 I wanted to say, that neither Joost, nor Dirk, I am afraid, will take the lead in the recruitment process for the support team. 
 623 23:37:58
 624 bdmc
 625 Can we somehow get in touch with Dirk, and ask him how he wants to proceed? 
 626 23:38:26
 627 We have people who have volunteered to help.  I want to put them to work. 
 628 23:40:24
 629 ted
 630 IIRC the usual process for support team members is to start with triage 
 631 23:40:35
 632 Because not ABC is necessary 
 633 23:41:17
 634 bdmc
 635 That sounds reasonable, both from the ABC point and because that will give them a chance to get introduced to the system. 
 636 23:41:43
 637 FD
 638 Well, we may identify a few "meta volunteers", whom first mission would not to join a team, but to recruit other volunteers for a team. 
 639 23:42:37
 640 bdmc
 641 Are you talking about people who know a particular team, or our "raw recruits?" 
 642 23:44:37
 643 FD
 644 I am talking about our "raw and rare recruits". Some of them are "high profile/potential", being owner of their own business, for example. 
 645 23:45:31
 646 They may perhaps help us in the "triage" of the applicants, i.e. selection of the profiles and the team which they may match with. 
 647 23:45:38
 648 bdmc
 649 I think that I would rather have existing team members introduce the new volunteers to a team, and get them started. 
 650 23:46:11
 651 I don't know that any of the "new volunteers" could make that determination.  However, I have been known to be wrong. 
 652 23:46:33
 653 FD
 654 This is just time consuming, because for doing that, they need, we need, to talk to people: "what to you want", '"would you mind if", "here is the mission of the team", etc. 
 655 23:47:02
 656 to -> do 
 657 23:48:22
 658 bdmc
 659 Hmmm.  This is an interesting idea.  Anybody else with thoughts on how to handle our flood of volunteers before we lose them? 
 660 23:50:00
 661 FD
 662 Well, recruitment to Arbitration is our second most important concern, after support. 
 663 23:50:15
 664 Here, the recruitment processe depends on Mario and Lambert. 
 665 23:50:26
 666 It depends on them at 100% perhaps. 
 667 23:50:37
 668 Ian Alastair cannot do more. 
 669 23:51:01
 670 His mail was a great mail, very well written, very appealing. 
 671 23:51:19
 672 But applicants need Lambert or Mario to step in now. 
 673 23:51:32
 674 Arbitration is crucial, we know it so well 
 675 23:51:49
 676 It easily blocks all the other operations. 
 677 23:52:08
 678 ted
 679 Problem is, Arbitration should have some experience with CAcert... 
 680 23:52:11
 681 bdmc
 682 Definitely.  Most of our teams are important, but, to some extent, they all interact with Arbitration. 
 683 23:52:59
 684 ted: Agreed.  It is difficult to make "legal" decisions about our Policies, with no prior knowledge. 
 685 23:53:26
 686 ted
 687 How about trying to establish an "arbitration working grop" trying to fix the broken(?) ABC process? 
 688 23:53:28
 689 bdmc
 690 However, most of our volunteers have some experience with CAcert, being users at least, and probably more involved. 
 691 23:53:56
 692 Etienne
 693 I created for me (but can also share it) some documents, like a all-policy-book. 
 694 23:53:59
 695 ted
 696 No need to be arbitrator at all, just look at the process, what is the problem, trying to find a solution 
 697 23:54:39
 698 FD
 699 And what's about Adrian who said he would step in the frozen ABC ruling? It was one month ago, if I recall well. 
 700 23:54:47
 701 bdmc
 702 Did I hear ( read ) somewhere, that the ABC process could be ( relatively ) easily fixed if a current arbitrator just re-opened the case that broke it? 
 703 23:55:42
 704 Incidentally, folks.  We are 5 minutes to midnight. 
 705 23:56:16
 706 ted
 707 There is some ruling that the process is broken and has to be fixed by the Arbitrator homself (the one who gave the ruling). 
 708 23:56:22
 709 Etienne
 710 Andreas B, last answer 2 weeks ago, not a month. 
 711 23:56:40
 712 ted
 713 The second part is absord, but the first part should at least be thoroughly considered. 
 714 23:57:04
 715 Etienne
 716 ted, It can be understand, that this is the arbitrator of this case. 
 717 23:57:39
 718 ted
 719 IIRC this bas Benny B, who left in 2016 
 720 23:57:46
 721 Etienne
 722 (this is only from a linguistic point of view, not of Arb's view) 
 723 23:57:57
 724 FD
 725 Andreas, sorry for the typo. It was on the 31st of August. https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2019-08/msg00048.html 
 726 23:58:23
 727 Etienne
 728 and later correspondance between the secretary and A.B. 
 729 23:58:30
 730 FD
 731 Good. 
 732 00:00:25
 733 bdmc
 734 OK.  Unless somebody wants to keep on working after midnight, I think that I will have to call this off, now.  Perhaps we can continue in the Board Private mailing list, perhaps with some people CC'd, although that doesn't seem to work very well. ( the mailing list, that is ) 
 735 00:00:36
 736 Etienne
 737 If there are no more important topics, I have to leave you in a few minutes. 
 738 00:00:59
 739 FD
 740 Thank you very much. 
 741 00:01:00
 742 bdmc
 743 Can we do a quick motion about Dominik?  Or do you want to leave that one, Etienne? 
 744 00:01:14
 745 ted
 746 The blog post Brian corrected can be posted "in proxy of CAcert secretary"? 
 747 00:01:47
 748 bdmc
 749 Because it will show you as the "author?" 
 750 00:01:48
 751 Etienne
 752 or you mail it to me and the secretary will do it 
 753 00:02:19
 754 ted
 755 OK, I'll forward it to Etienne. 
 756 00:02:25
 757 FD
 758 Would you like to have the French translation of the post? 
 759 00:02:28
 760 Etienne
 761 Thank you, Ted 
 762 00:02:51
 763 FD, we do this on our own. 
 764 00:04:19
 765 FD
 766 What is the date of our next meeting? 
 767 00:04:25
 768 bdmc
 769 OK.  No new members tonight. 
 770 00:04:34
 771 One week, or more? 
 772 00:04:42
 773 Etienne
 774 10 Oct 2019 
 775 00:04:42
 776 24 or 31 Oct 2019 
 777 00:04:42
 778 AGM 30 Nov 2019 
 779 00:05:17
 780 bdmc
 781 Not the 17th? 
 782 00:05:26
 783 How about the 10th, then? 
 784 00:05:38
 785 FD
 786 the 10th suits me well 
 787 00:06:02
 788 bdmc
 789 I have a meeting immediately afterwards, but the 10th works for me. 
 790 00:06:23
 791 Etienne
 792 So, we will try another 90min meeting ;-) 
 793 00:06:47
 794 FD
 795 Good night then, 
 796 00:06:58
 797 Good afternoon Brian, 
 798 00:07:16
 799 Etienne
 800 Thank you very much and good night (resp. other meeting, bdmc) 
 801 00:07:17
 802 * ted waved goodbye. 
 803 00:07:22
 804 bdmc
 805 I hereby call us closed, and we will meet again! 
 806 00:07:28
 807 Good night, all. 
 808 00:07:50
 809 FD
 810 Bonne nuit Etienne, 
 811 Etienne
 812 Bonne nuit, Frédéric 
 813 00:08:14
 814 FD
 815 Bye Gero and Gute nacht Bernhard, 
 816 00:08:16
 817 bdmc
 818 FD: We will "talk" some more. 
 819 00:08:31
 820 multiple subjects 
 821 00:08:59
 822 Bye for now, FD, Etienne, Gero, Ted, and whoever else is here.  Have a good night. 
 823 00:09:08
 824 FD
 825 Bye. 
 826 
 827 
 828 19 Users
 829 
 830     ~GuKKDevel
 831     ~GuKKDevel_log
 832     @ChanServ
 833     bdmc
 834     decay
 835     dirk_on_server
 836     dops
 837     egal
 838     enyc
 839     Etienne
 840     FD
 841     nb
 842     nemunaire
 843     sat
 844     Skeeper
 845     ted
 846     Treasurer
 847     ynazarov
 848     zerkalo
 849 
 850 Etienne