Committee meeting - IRC log [21:54:11]   FD (f.dumas@80.82.24.20) joined the channel. [21:54:11]  Mode is +nt [21:54:46]   Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) joined the channel. [21:57:24]   Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) left IRC. (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand-crafted IRC client) [21:58:01]   Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) joined the channel. [21:59:57]   hi, hello and welcome ... [22:00:24]   good evening everybody [22:00:31]   Good evening. [22:00:57]   bdmc (bdmc@107-138-158-92.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net) joined the channel. [22:01:19]   Good evening, All.  Helps if I spell the channel correctly. [22:01:23]   Good morning Australia! [22:02:10]   MitchMaifeld (462766ae@localhost) joined the channel. [22:03:31]   Here we have the agenda: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2020-06-25 [22:04:04]   Thank you, Frederic.  I was just reading it in a different window. [22:04:32]   Shall we get started, or wait a minute or two for people to catch up? [22:05:13]   I set up a live notepad to note down the minutes in live. It is here: https://kabendzie.ellis.siteparc.fr/s/oT6fxEdaYA6neiJ [22:07:17]   Let's start? [22:08:26]   I agree. [22:08:46]   I hereby call this meeting of the Board of CAcert to order. [22:09:12]   Do I understand that FD is volunteering to take care of the Minutes for this meeting? [22:09:52]   No?  Someone else? [22:10:13]   I just saw it as a collaborative task, as we did in some of the last meeting we had with finances team and Arbitrators. [22:10:29]   Certainly. [22:10:49]   Everybody is invited to add its word in the notepad, should he want to do so. [22:10:50]   I would like to suggest a time limit ( soft ) of one hour. [22:11:19]   my limit is until midnight (2 hrs) [22:11:45]   egal: Well, you know how well we do on limits. [22:12:03]   Item 1.4 -- Anything in either of the mailing lists that needs to be discussed? [22:12:11]   okay ... let's set a limit to 1 hr ... so we're done within 2 ... ;-) [22:13:19]   Nothing heard. [22:13:42]   Item 2.1.1.1 -- ABC [22:14:20]   Our first item involves us, the Board, requesting Arbitration to suspend the ABC rules for 12 months. [22:16:31]   The talk we had today with Lambert, Ian Alastair, Etienne, Dirk, confirmed that we should ask Arbitration according to the drafted motions. The motions may have been written in a not enough precise way, because I am neither a native English speaker, nor an expert with Arbitration rules and tricks. [22:17:03]   We are here to understand the goal and meaning of these motions, to refine them, to vote them if we decide to do so. [22:17:05]   I don't see this motion in the Agenda. [22:17:42]   2.1.1.1 ... i can see it [22:17:42]   "asking Arbitration to suspend the need for performing ABC on new applicants for the next 12 months; " [22:18:07]   Sorry, I wasn't seeing that as a formal motion. [22:18:37]   That is why we are discussing each of these items. [22:19:34]   The general idea of the motions is that Arbitration could make legal something which fails to enforce our Policies, in case an Arbitrator rules that the context, environment, circumstances, actual difficulties, are a good enough reason to rule so. [22:19:58]   Why 12 months? What will be different in 12 months? [22:20:28]   We will have Arbitration reactivated. We are actively working on it. [22:21:18]   I mean, it should rather be something like "until we have N active arbitrators" or so [22:21:20]   sat: It is an arbitrary date that we picked in discussions over the past few months.  The idea is that by that time we can re-examine the situation and decide whether the ruling needs to be extended. [22:21:28]   what about "up to 12 months" or "6 to 12 months" ? [22:22:16]   Dirk, would you like to give a short feedback of the output of the three past "steering committees" which we had together with Lambert, Bernhard, Ian Alastair, Etienne, etc? [22:22:55]   hm ... Arbitration status is not on the agenda ... ;-) [22:23:27]   (nothing prepared up to now ... ;-( ) [22:23:34]   It is just a matter of explaining to Sascha the context of the motion. [22:24:00]   I can do it, but I guess you manage better than me the topic. [22:25:30]   I can take a shot at it, and others can correct me. [22:25:37]   currently we're quite low on ABCed members ... so it's not easy to fulfull our policies ... [22:26:34]   ... to have the possibility to add members (at least temporarily to one or another team the requirement for an ABC may be lowered) [22:26:35]   According to our Policies, we require a process called ABC to approve people for certain posts. [22:27:43]   What we are asking for, when the motion is submitted, is for that requirement to be waived temporarily until we can add to the number of people working for CAcert. [22:28:08]   sat: does that help at all? [22:28:38]   What is the critical threshold number of people and where is CAcert now? [22:28:54]   MitchMaifeld: good question [22:29:34]   rough figure: critical threshold : 40; by now: 20 [22:30:31]   if the question is for ABCed members it's lower ... and we're not at the minimum limit ... [22:30:37]   More or less, teams have a team leader, that's all. We need to staff our teams back. For that, we need to have our volunteers to be ABC'ed. [22:30:38]   How do people normally find CAcert and is that process expected to improve over the next 12 months (I'm thinking of Coronavirus)? [22:32:00]   May I ask who are you, Mitch? My question has no other purpose than wanting to know if we know each other. :-) [22:32:19]   I'm a self-employed engineer in Katy, Texas, USA. [22:32:28]   MitchMaifeld: It has been a combination of organic growth, people looking for us, and us going out and recruiting people, as you were. [22:32:53]   Apologies for my ignorance of the inner workings. [22:33:34]   No apologies necessary.  How else would you learn? [22:33:45]   Coming back to the motion, there is no high philosophy here: [22:33:55]   a) we need to recruit people; [22:34:12]   b) most of them need to be ABC'ed by Arbitrators [22:34:19]   In other volunteer professional organizations I belong to (everyone is short of volunteers), we try to make the value proposition to new recruits. [22:34:41]   c) We are short with Arbitrators at the moment [22:34:57]   Is ABCing a roadblock, or just not enough warm bodies coming in? [22:35:08]   d) we are on our way to put Arbitration at work again [22:35:21]   e) we need time for that [22:35:38]   MitchMaifeld: the former [22:35:45]   f) we have no time to waste, waiting for ABC's being frozen in the meantime [22:36:01]   I see. [22:36:15]   We have quite a few qualified volunteers, but no way to put them to work. [22:36:50]   g) this is why we would ask the Arbitration to waive for a limited period of time one of the obligations of our Policies, i.e. ABC for new comers. [22:37:16]   h) last argument: without doing it, CAcert cannot run its operations. [22:37:18]   I'm not against suspending ABC, I just question that we should give it 12 month and then evaluate again. [22:37:22]   If ABC was chosen as a policy for a reason, that seems risky to this engineer. [22:38:07]   We should rather ask Arbitration to rule that ABC is suspended until a defined number of X has met [22:38:58]   maybe arbitration limits ABC "somehow" so well-known long-standing mambers may do a job without ABC ... while a completely new member still needs an ABC ... [22:39:07]   Yes it is, and we discussed the pros and cons within the past three steering committees with the remaining active Arbitrators, and our output was that we should temporarily waive the Policy on ABC. [22:39:27]   but ... arbitration has to decide, board can only trigger an arbitration case [22:39:50]   Dirk you are right. [22:40:40]   you could simply keep the time to suspend open ... so arbitration can set the duration ... [22:40:40]   @Mitch: At the moment Arbitration Background Check (ABC) is frozen due to a ruling.  The Arbitrator who frozed it did it "until he change the rules", but the he left CAcert. [22:40:48]   like "for a limited time2 ... [22:41:46]   I consider such a ruling invalid [22:42:35]   @sat: the wording is different ... but ... ruling is ruling ... ;-( [22:42:44]   Mr. Arbitator could die in a car accident and never get the chance to change it [22:42:50]   so we have to live with it ... [22:43:30]   as the case is still open, the case-manager may select a new A (as the old one is not within CAcert anymore) .. [22:44:06]   Philippe said to me face to face that he would have no problem to change his ruling by now, as conditions are completely different, and members of the committee are completely different too. [22:44:13]   .. if this does not help, DRO may step in to get the A and CM of this case be replaced due to non-respondence [22:44:44]   @fd: the PD-case is a different one [22:45:23]   Asking Arbitration to suspend the ABC for a limited time gives us the possibility to go further with people willing to help during Arbitration is resolving the ABC issue. [22:45:52]   Etienne, may you say which Arbitrator were you talking about? [22:49:07]   at 20:40:40 or 20:45:23? [22:50:00]   Well, the idea for today is pushing a request to the remaining active Arbitrators, for one of them to decide to waive the burden of the ABC until let's say July 2021, in order for us, to put at work in our teams the volunteers who proposed to work with/for CAcert. [22:50:09]   Alright, folks.  Do we need some more time to discuss this? [22:51:38]   BTW, diverging from your opinion Dirk, I would prefer to suggest a deadline in the motion. It makes sure that a "temporary" situation does not become definitive, just because nothing good fixed it in the meantime. [22:52:28]   We should leave the details to Arbitration [22:52:35]   egal: would you please help me with wording?  I will propose the draft motion, and you can comment from the point of view of Arbitration. [22:52:37]   Etienne: at 20:40:40 [22:53:39]   I move that the Board of CAcert request that Arbitration waive the requirement for ABCs for the next 12 months, ending at the end of July, 2021. [22:53:46]   Not sure about some of that. [22:54:13]   aehm ... i'm not an arbitrator ... only being a case-manager due to my support-job ... ;-) [22:54:24]   Closer than most of us. [22:54:42]   But, yes, I understand. [22:55:18]   Perhaps we could add at the beginning of the motion: "Due to the current inability of Arbitration to process ABC's..." or something like that, just for giving a piece of context. [22:56:00]   hm ... does board critizise arbitration ???? [22:56:04]   FD: I see that as somewhat accusatory, or some people could take it that way. [22:56:42]   As usual, my poor ability to make clear statement in English. [22:57:04]   Your English is much better than my Polish. [22:57:24]   But you got the idea: our committee is not going to ask Arbitration to waive ABC without motivation to do so. [22:58:03]   egal: I lean towards just a simple request, no justification or history involved. [22:58:31]   In the body of the motion, we may add a few words for explaining what makes the committee to take such an unusual decision. [22:59:02]   My point was just that, nothing more. [23:03:06]   FD: I guess that I was thinking that Arbitration is well aware of the history and other factors, and, since they suggested this motion, are expecting it.  As well, you have had several meetings with them lately. [23:03:28]   The motion may look like that in French: "Compte tenu de l'absence de résolution persistante depuis plusieurs années des cas ouverts  en Arbitrage, et notamment du gel des procédures de vérification des antécédents par l'Arbitrage (ABC), et compte tenu du blocage que cela provoque dans le recrutement de volontaires dans nos équipes, le comité demande à l'Arbitrage de suspendre pour une durée de 12 mois, jusqu'à la fin de Juillet 2021, [23:03:28]   l'obligation de faire passer un ABC aux personnes nouvellement intégrées à des postes qui le réclameraient normalement." [23:03:56]   Deepl: "In view of the persistent lack of resolution for several years of the cases opened in Arbitration, in particular the freezing of background check procedures by Arbitration (CBA), and in view of the blockage that this causes in the recruitment of volunteers in our teams, the committee asks Arbitration to suspend for a period of 12 months, until the end of July 2021, the obligation to pass a CBA to persons newly integrated in positions that would [23:03:56]   normally require it." [23:04:49]   It is always easier to do it in the tongue which one manages... [23:05:52]   But, even in French, it is "complaining" that Arbitration is not doing their job, which I did not want to say.  Anybody else? [23:07:17]   FD, I understand you want it well formulated, in context, that it will still be easy to understand in 100 years. However, for reasons I have already mentioned, I would keep it short and sweet. [23:07:32]   OK. [23:07:48]   sorry, reasons that are mentionned (not by me) [23:08:29]   It is fine with me. [23:09:14]   OK.  Going back to my draft, does anybody else want to edit it? [23:09:19]   I move that the Board of CAcert request that Arbitration waive the requirement for ABCs for the next 12 months, ending at the end of July, 2021. [23:09:34]   ...for at least 12 month. [23:10:27]   sat: As we discussed earlier, we want to set a fixed time, and any needed extension can be decided next year. [23:10:31]   Sascha: you don't believe that Arbitration will work again, do you? :-) [23:10:52]   I want to believe. [23:10:59]   I like you. [23:11:24]   Let them decide themselves when it ends. [23:12:00]   Even if we ask until July, the can decide as they want. [23:12:29]   Then "for the next 12 months" should do [23:12:56]   Short and sweet. [23:13:12]   Anything else.  I will call for the vote at xx:15. [23:14:00]   I like Brian's phrasing, because it put a hard deadline. As Etienne said, Arbitration could follow our suggestion or not. [23:14:58]   So we vote for Brian's motion from 20:53 UTC? [23:15:18]   Or 21:09.  !! [23:15:41]   ok [23:15:51]   Please vote on motion "1". [23:15:59]   ready [23:16:05]   ( I suppose, to be formal, we should have a second. ) [23:16:13]   or should I second? [23:16:38]   I second and aye [23:16:49]   Aye [23:16:53]   I vote yes for your good, clear and clever motion, Brian. [23:17:04]   ( you make me blush ) [23:17:41]   after that, nobody wants to add a voice. :-) [23:17:44]   sat: was that you voting with "ok?" [23:18:10]   no, I vote now: aye [23:18:28]   I'm not on the Board, but will offer my positive. [23:18:37]   Thank you.  Etienne, any other Board Members to vote? [23:18:41]   Nice, thank you mitch! [23:20:02]   Nothing heard. [23:20:05]   BTW, could you Etienne update the page at: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/Current ? [23:20:32]   Moving on to Item 2.1.1.2 -- "The PD Ruling" [23:21:03]   votes registered at https://motion.cacert.org/motions/m20200625.1?showvotes=1, others can still vote within 3 days. [23:21:16]   This will require a similar motion to the last, asking Arbitration to set aside, or perhaps, re-decide, an earlier decision. [23:21:17]   Thank you ! [23:21:28]   if you don't feel familiar with a ruling you may trigger an appeal ... [23:22:02]   egal: How should we word this motion? [23:22:29]   "suspend," "waive," something else? [23:24:47]   The idea here was to have an easy to do move, i.e. asking Arbitration for waiving Philipp's ruling for a limited period of time, not to reverse it. The underlying rational is once again the critical and unusual situation which CAcert is facing at the moment. Otherwise, Philipp's ruling is sensible when we have enough people on board for each position and do not need to have a few of us cumulating several position in different "heads of power". [23:25:21]   FD: I like that argument. [23:25:52]   Let me try to craft that one. [23:26:16]   It is nothing more than what has been discussed with our fellow Arbitrators during the past two months or so. [23:27:21]   I move that the Board of CAcert request that Arbitration suspend the Philipp Dunkel ruling on "Two Heads of Power" for the next 12 months, ending at the end of July, 2021. [23:27:34]   I second. [23:27:54]   Any discussion, or are we ready to vote? [23:28:49]   I could add that Philipp himself considers that we do not even need to waive his ruling for working around it. [23:29:30]   Nothing heard.  Please vote on this motion -- #2. [23:29:33]   I wanted him to talk to us earlier in the week, but failed to secure his presence for the meeting we had today with Arbitrators. [23:29:33]   Aye [23:29:41]   This will end up like certain laws in Switzerland, which the parliament passes every three years "provisionally" for the next three years to avoid a referendum ;-) [23:29:50]   B-) [23:30:13]   To your motion Brian, I vote yes. [23:30:38]   aye [23:30:49]   aye [23:31:07]   Thank you all. [23:31:49]   Since we seem to have lost egal, let us move on to Item 2.2.1, the infamous PayPal.  Frederic, are you leading this one? [23:32:02]   ( Frederic = FD ) [23:32:06]   still online ... ;-) [23:32:31]   egal: shall we back up for an Arbitration report? [23:32:50]   nope ... let's continue with paypal ... [23:32:59]   Do we have to?  B-) [23:33:30]   Etienne: I guess that you have the information for this. [23:34:07]   Or is what is in the Agenda all of the information that we have? [23:34:30]   Brian, give me less then a minute to direct you to the last minutes of the Finances team on that. [23:34:57]   There's not much more to say than what's written in the wiki, except that I have to send an authorization again this weekend. Text and signatures were OK, but it was not on AFCA letter paper. [23:35:31]   Here they are: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2020-06/msg00000.html [23:36:23]   Alright.  Item 2.2.2 -- the new bank account. [23:37:30]   Same minutes apply + confirmation from Frédéric and Etienne, that the signed required red tape has been actually delivered to the Bank. BTW, which bank was chosen? [23:38:07]   I paid FDs 20 CHF and FredericG can check next week if it arrived. If yes, we will change paypal to IBAN in our communication. [23:38:43]   What about people outside of Europe? [23:38:51]   Graubündner Kantonalbank [23:39:13]   Same question as we had before for Westpac outside of Australia. [23:39:15]   For them, we need to find a new financial service provider for processing payments by card. [23:39:41]   People outside the SEPA/IBAN area: the finance team is now evaluating paypal alternatives. [23:40:01]   This is an ongoing work, please refer to the above mentionned minutes of the Finances team. [23:40:03]   I know that we discussed this a year or so ago, so it will be interesting to see new options. [23:41:10]   It has been reactivated in May 2020. Bret from Perth did a listing of two dozens of possible financial services providers. [23:41:31]   Anything more that we want to discuss about Finance, or are we ready to move on? [23:42:38]   Just one word: I do not see a lot of work from the Finances team, except from Frédéric G. our former treasurer. [23:42:51]   This is a concern for me [23:43:57]   We may call once again for a meeting of the members of the Fincances team, but if people do not deliver the work which they committed to complete, a yet another meeting could not help a lot. [23:44:35]   There is a moment when CAcet need people delivering an output, not only talking about it. [23:44:59]   Etienne: do you know anything more about this? [23:46:04]   I have to send Bret something that I promised :-( [23:46:50]   Well, Etienne, do not worry, the same applies for Christophe and for Bret himself. Frédéric G. is the one having answered already. [23:48:28]   Item 2.3.1 -- Volunteers and Applicants [23:48:36]   Who wants to talk to this? [23:49:24]   egal said, it could be pushed to next month. [23:49:43]   Thank you.  How about Item 2.3.2? [23:50:08]   (all infra) [23:50:25]   Moving on. [23:50:51]   Item 2.4.0 -- When shall we plan the AGM? [23:51:12]   As usual, it tends to be dependent on the financial reports. [23:51:38]   In which month should the AGM take place (the date can be set later)? [23:51:52]   September, October? [23:52:09]   When it is in not daylight saving time in the northern countries, it is eaysier to find a good time. [23:52:38]   That puts it very late, then.  Late October or November, as I remember. [23:53:20]   DST change last sunday in October -> November [23:53:44]   Is November OK? [23:54:56]   I suppose that it will need to be.  We are so often late to have it.  When are the Financial Reports due, end of next month? [23:57:02]   (Time: 4 minutes left) [23:58:30]   some words for infrastructure ... we do have a testserver for training ... and the luxemburg-machine is now running 24/7 ... [23:58:44]   egal: good news. [23:58:56]   in the last weeks jan and i updated several machines (see blog-post) [23:59:22]   OK, well we have reached our deadline.  Etienne has proposed that the next meeting be on the 9th of July.  Does everybody agree? [23:59:35]   yes [23:59:47]   Concur. [23:59:50]   as long as there will then be  decision for CRL server ... ;-) [00:00:22]   We will put that at the top of the Agenda, unless you want to stay up after midnight? [00:00:44]   I would prefer after the 12th of July, I am taking care of our children before that date. [00:01:25]   well ... i still do have some minutes ... but not tooo long ... ;) [00:02:15]   with respects to the CRL server, a short informal live talk could help us to understand the pros and cons. I do not see myself going through an unknown topic during one hour by keyboard. [00:02:17]   Folks, if we move the next meeting to the 16th or later, we need to take some time for Dirk's issue tonight? [00:02:52]   egal: can you accomodate that request some evening or weekend? [00:03:02]   Brian, CRL is a too long topic for now. [00:04:01]   we can discuss this server via email the next days ... and ... motions are not limited to be done on board-meetings only ... [00:04:16]   If it is ok for us, let us Dirk and me set up a short online meeting for the committee members before the 16th of July. [00:04:23]   but ... i asked for it months ago ... unfortunately without any progress from board ... -( [00:04:26]   ;-( [00:04:48]   egal: understood.  OK, let us do it that way.  Next meeting 16th? [00:05:01]   ( "In person" meeting. ) [00:05:13]   It would be more convenient for me, thank you. [00:05:31]   Anybody else with a date preference? [00:05:50]   16th should be possible ... [00:06:23]   OK, we will hold our next meeting, here, on July 16th. [00:06:35]   I hereby call this meeting complete. [00:06:45]   Good night, All. [00:06:46]   thank you. bye. [00:06:58]   @Dirk & @FD: For CRL: If we don't have an IRC meeting, voting takes 7 days (not three), but if x people vote immediately, the result can be anticipated. [00:07:06]   MitchMaifeld: and a good afternoon and evening to you. [00:07:19]   Ha, thanks.  Later, y'all. [00:07:30]   MitchMaifeld (462766ae@localhost) left the channel. [00:07:40]   Good bye, just time for breakfast in New South Wales... [00:11:40]   nemunaire (nemunaire@82-64-151-41.subs.proxad.net) left IRC. (Ping timeout: 121 seconds) [00:18:50]   bdmc (bdmc@107-138-158-92.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net) left IRC. (Quit: leaving) [00:39:27]   Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) left IRC. (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand-crafted IRC client)