1 Committee meeting - IRC log
   2 
   3 [21:54:11]   FD (f.dumas@80.82.24.20) joined the channel.
   4 
   5 [21:54:11]  Mode is +nt
   6 
   7 [21:54:46]   Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) joined the channel.
   8 
   9 [21:57:24]   Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) left IRC. (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand-crafted IRC client)
  10 
  11 [21:58:01]   Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) joined the channel.
  12 
  13 [21:59:57]  <egal> hi, hello and welcome ...
  14 
  15 [22:00:24]  <sat> good evening everybody
  16 
  17 [22:00:31]  <FD> Good evening.
  18 
  19 [22:00:57]   bdmc (bdmc@107-138-158-92.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net) joined the channel.
  20 
  21 [22:01:19]  <bdmc> Good evening, All.  Helps if I spell the channel correctly.
  22 
  23 [22:01:23]  <Etienne> Good morning Australia!
  24 
  25 [22:02:10]   MitchMaifeld (462766ae@localhost) joined the channel.
  26 
  27 [22:03:31]  <FD> Here we have the agenda: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2020-06-25
  28 
  29 [22:04:04]  <bdmc> Thank you, Frederic.  I was just reading it in a different window.
  30 
  31 [22:04:32]  <bdmc> Shall we get started, or wait a minute or two for people to catch up?
  32 
  33 [22:05:13]  <FD> I set up a live notepad to note down the minutes in live. It is here: https://kabendzie.ellis.siteparc.fr/s/oT6fxEdaYA6neiJ
  34 
  35 [22:07:17]  <FD> Let's start?
  36 
  37 [22:08:26]  <bdmc> I agree.
  38 
  39 [22:08:46]  <bdmc> I hereby call this meeting of the Board of CAcert to order.
  40 
  41 [22:09:12]  <bdmc> Do I understand that FD is volunteering to take care of the Minutes for this meeting?
  42 
  43 [22:09:52]  <bdmc> No?  Someone else?
  44 
  45 [22:10:13]  <FD> I just saw it as a collaborative task, as we did in some of the last meeting we had with finances team and Arbitrators.
  46 
  47 [22:10:29]  <bdmc> Certainly.
  48 
  49 [22:10:49]  <FD> Everybody is invited to add its word in the notepad, should he want to do so.
  50 
  51 [22:10:50]  <bdmc> I would like to suggest a time limit ( soft ) of one hour.
  52 
  53 [22:11:19]  <egal> my limit is until midnight (2 hrs)
  54 
  55 [22:11:45]  <bdmc> egal: Well, you know how well we do on limits.
  56 
  57 [22:12:03]  <bdmc> Item 1.4 -- Anything in either of the mailing lists that needs to be discussed?
  58 
  59 [22:12:11]  <egal> okay ... let's set a limit to 1 hr ... so we're done within 2 ... ;-)
  60 
  61 [22:13:19]  <bdmc> Nothing heard.
  62 
  63 [22:13:42]  <bdmc> Item 2.1.1.1 -- ABC
  64 
  65 [22:14:20]  <bdmc> Our first item involves us, the Board, requesting Arbitration to suspend the ABC rules for 12 months.
  66 
  67 [22:16:31]  <FD> 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.
  68 
  69 [22:17:03]  <FD> We are here to understand the goal and meaning of these motions, to refine them, to vote them if we decide to do so.
  70 
  71 [22:17:05]  <bdmc> I don't see this motion in the Agenda.
  72 
  73 [22:17:42]  <egal> 2.1.1.1 ... i can see it
  74 
  75 [22:17:42]  <Etienne> "asking Arbitration to suspend the need for performing ABC on new applicants for the next 12 months; "
  76 
  77 [22:18:07]  <bdmc> Sorry, I wasn't seeing that as a formal motion.
  78 
  79 [22:18:37]  <bdmc> That is why we are discussing each of these items.
  80 
  81 [22:19:34]  <FD> 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.
  82 
  83 [22:19:58]  <sat> Why 12 months? What will be different in 12 months?
  84 
  85 [22:20:28]  <FD> We will have Arbitration reactivated. We are actively working on it.
  86 
  87 [22:21:18]  <sat> I mean, it should rather be something like "until we have N active arbitrators" or so
  88 
  89 [22:21:20]  <bdmc> 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.
  90 
  91 [22:21:28]  <egal> what about "up to 12 months" or "6 to 12 months" ?
  92 
  93 [22:22:16]  <FD> 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?
  94 
  95 [22:22:55]  <egal> hm ... Arbitration status is not on the agenda ... ;-)
  96 
  97 [22:23:27]  <egal> (nothing prepared up to now ... ;-( )
  98 
  99 [22:23:34]  <FD> It is just a matter of explaining to Sascha the context of the motion.
 100 
 101 [22:24:00]  <FD> I can do it, but I guess you manage better than me the topic.
 102 
 103 [22:25:30]  <bdmc> I can take a shot at it, and others can correct me.
 104 
 105 [22:25:37]  <egal> currently we're quite low on ABCed members ... so it's not easy to fulfull our policies ...
 106 
 107 [22:26:34]  <egal> ... to have the possibility to add members (at least temporarily to one or another team the requirement for an ABC may be lowered)
 108 
 109 [22:26:35]  <bdmc> According to our Policies, we require a process called ABC to approve people for certain posts.
 110 
 111 [22:27:43]  <bdmc> 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.
 112 
 113 [22:28:08]  <bdmc> sat: does that help at all?
 114 
 115 [22:28:38]  <MitchMaifeld> What is the critical threshold number of people and where is CAcert now?
 116 
 117 [22:28:54]  <sat> MitchMaifeld: good question
 118 
 119 [22:29:34]  <FD> rough figure: critical threshold : 40; by now: 20
 120 
 121 [22:30:31]  <egal> if the question is for ABCed members it's lower ... and we're not at the minimum limit ...
 122 
 123 [22:30:37]  <FD> 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.
 124 
 125 [22:30:38]  <MitchMaifeld> How do people normally find CAcert and is that process expected to improve over the next 12 months (I'm thinking of Coronavirus)?
 126 
 127 [22:32:00]  <FD> May I ask who are you, Mitch? My question has no other purpose than wanting to know if we know each other. :-)
 128 
 129 [22:32:19]  <MitchMaifeld> I'm a self-employed engineer in Katy, Texas, USA.
 130 
 131 [22:32:28]  <bdmc> MitchMaifeld: It has been a combination of organic growth, people looking for us, and us going out and recruiting people, as you were.
 132 
 133 [22:32:53]  <MitchMaifeld> Apologies for my ignorance of the inner workings.
 134 
 135 [22:33:34]  <bdmc> No apologies necessary.  How else would you learn?
 136 
 137 [22:33:45]  <FD> Coming back to the motion, there is no high philosophy here:
 138 
 139 [22:33:55]  <FD> a) we need to recruit people;
 140 
 141 [22:34:12]  <FD> b) most of them need to be ABC'ed by Arbitrators
 142 
 143 [22:34:19]  <MitchMaifeld> In other volunteer professional organizations I belong to (everyone is short of volunteers), we try to make the value proposition to new recruits.
 144 
 145 [22:34:41]  <FD> c) We are short with Arbitrators at the moment
 146 
 147 [22:34:57]  <MitchMaifeld> Is ABCing a roadblock, or just not enough warm bodies coming in?
 148 
 149 [22:35:08]  <FD> d) we are on our way to put Arbitration at work again
 150 
 151 [22:35:21]  <FD> e) we need time for that
 152 
 153 [22:35:38]  <bdmc> MitchMaifeld: the former
 154 
 155 [22:35:45]  <FD> f) we have no time to waste, waiting for ABC's being frozen in the meantime
 156 
 157 [22:36:01]  <MitchMaifeld> I see.
 158 
 159 [22:36:15]  <bdmc> We have quite a few qualified volunteers, but no way to put them to work.
 160 
 161 [22:36:50]  <FD> 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.
 162 
 163 [22:37:16]  <FD> h) last argument: without doing it, CAcert cannot run its operations.
 164 
 165 [22:37:18]  <sat> I'm not against suspending ABC, I just question that we should give it 12 month and then evaluate again.
 166 
 167 [22:37:22]  <MitchMaifeld> If ABC was chosen as a policy for a reason, that seems risky to this engineer.
 168 
 169 [22:38:07]  <sat> We should rather ask Arbitration to rule that ABC is suspended until a defined number of X has met
 170 
 171 [22:38:58]  <egal> 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 ...
 172 
 173 [22:39:07]  <FD> 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.
 174 
 175 [22:39:27]  <egal> but ... arbitration has to decide, board can only trigger an arbitration case
 176 
 177 [22:39:50]  <FD> Dirk you are right.
 178 
 179 [22:40:40]  <egal> you could simply keep the time to suspend open ... so arbitration can set the duration ...
 180 
 181 [22:40:40]  <Etienne> @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.
 182 
 183 [22:40:48]  <egal> like "for a limited time2 ...
 184 
 185 [22:41:46]  <sat> I consider such a ruling invalid
 186 
 187 [22:42:35]  <egal> @sat: the wording is different ... but ... ruling is ruling ... ;-(
 188 
 189 [22:42:44]  <sat> Mr. Arbitator could die in a car accident and never get the chance to change it
 190 
 191 [22:42:50]  <egal> so we have to live with it ...
 192 
 193 [22:43:30]  <egal> as the case is still open, the case-manager may select a new A (as the old one is not within CAcert anymore) ..
 194 
 195 [22:44:06]  <FD> 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.
 196 
 197 [22:44:13]  <egal> .. if this does not help, DRO may step in to get the A and CM of this case be replaced due to non-respondence
 198 
 199 [22:44:44]  <egal> @fd: the PD-case is a different one
 200 
 201 [22:45:23]  <Etienne> 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.
 202 
 203 [22:45:52]  <FD> Etienne, may you say which Arbitrator were you talking about?
 204 
 205 [22:49:07]  <Etienne> at 20:40:40 or 20:45:23?
 206 
 207 [22:50:00]  <FD> 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.
 208 
 209 [22:50:09]  <bdmc> Alright, folks.  Do we need some more time to discuss this?
 210 
 211 [22:51:38]  <FD> 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.
 212 
 213 [22:52:28]  <sat> We should leave the details to Arbitration
 214 
 215 [22:52:35]  <bdmc> 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.
 216 
 217 [22:52:37]  <FD> Etienne: at 20:40:40
 218 
 219 [22:53:39]  <bdmc> 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.
 220 
 221 [22:53:46]  <bdmc> Not sure about some of that.
 222 
 223 [22:54:13]  <egal> aehm ... i'm not an arbitrator ... only being a case-manager due to my support-job ... ;-)
 224 
 225 [22:54:24]  <bdmc> Closer than most of us.
 226 
 227 [22:54:42]  <bdmc> But, yes, I understand.
 228 
 229 [22:55:18]  <FD> 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.
 230 
 231 [22:56:00]  <egal> hm ... does board critizise arbitration ????
 232 
 233 [22:56:04]  <bdmc> FD: I see that as somewhat accusatory, or some people could take it that way.
 234 
 235 [22:56:42]  <FD> As usual, my poor ability to make clear statement in English.
 236 
 237 [22:57:04]  <bdmc> Your English is much better than my Polish.
 238 
 239 [22:57:24]  <FD> But you got the idea: our committee is not going to ask Arbitration to waive ABC without motivation to do so.
 240 
 241 [22:58:03]  <bdmc> egal: I lean towards just a simple request, no justification or history involved.
 242 
 243 [22:58:31]  <FD> In the body of the motion, we may add a few words for explaining what makes the committee to take such an unusual decision.
 244 
 245 [22:59:02]  <FD> My point was just that, nothing more.
 246 
 247 [23:03:06]  <bdmc> 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.
 248 
 249 [23:03:28]  <FD> 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,
 250 
 251 [23:03:28]  <FD> l'obligation de faire passer un ABC aux personnes nouvellement intégrées à des postes qui le réclameraient normalement."
 252 
 253 [23:03:56]  <FD> 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
 254 
 255 [23:03:56]  <FD> normally require it."
 256 
 257 [23:04:49]  <FD> It is always easier to do it in the tongue which one manages...
 258 
 259 [23:05:52]  <bdmc> But, even in French, it is "complaining" that Arbitration is not doing their job, which I did not want to say.  Anybody else?
 260 
 261 [23:07:17]  <Etienne> 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.
 262 
 263 [23:07:32]  <FD> OK.
 264 
 265 [23:07:48]  <Etienne> sorry, reasons that are mentionned (not by me)
 266 
 267 [23:08:29]  <FD> It is fine with me.
 268 
 269 [23:09:14]  <bdmc> OK.  Going back to my draft, does anybody else want to edit it?
 270 
 271 [23:09:19]  <bdmc> 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.
 272 
 273 [23:09:34]  <sat> ...for at least 12 month.
 274 
 275 [23:10:27]  <bdmc> sat: As we discussed earlier, we want to set a fixed time, and any needed extension can be decided next year.
 276 
 277 [23:10:31]  <FD> Sascha: you don't believe that Arbitration will work again, do you? :-)
 278 
 279 [23:10:52]  <sat> I want to believe.
 280 
 281 [23:10:59]  <FD> I like you.
 282 
 283 [23:11:24]  <sat> Let them decide themselves when it ends.
 284 
 285 [23:12:00]  <Etienne> Even if we ask until July, the can decide as they want.
 286 
 287 [23:12:29]  <sat> Then "for the next 12 months" should do
 288 
 289 [23:12:56]  <sat> Short and sweet.
 290 
 291 [23:13:12]  <bdmc> Anything else.  I will call for the vote at xx:15.
 292 
 293 [23:14:00]  <FD> I like Brian's phrasing, because it put a hard deadline. As Etienne said, Arbitration could follow our suggestion or not.
 294 
 295 [23:14:58]  <sat> So we vote for Brian's motion from 20:53 UTC?
 296 
 297 [23:15:18]  <bdmc> Or 21:09.  !!
 298 
 299 [23:15:41]  <sat> ok
 300 
 301 [23:15:51]  <bdmc> Please vote on motion "1".
 302 
 303 [23:15:59]  <FD> ready
 304 
 305 [23:16:05]  <bdmc> ( I suppose, to be formal, we should have a second. )
 306 
 307 [23:16:13]  <FD> or should I second?
 308 
 309 [23:16:38]  <Etienne> I second and aye
 310 
 311 [23:16:49]  <bdmc> Aye
 312 
 313 [23:16:53]  <FD> I vote yes for your good, clear and clever motion, Brian.
 314 
 315 [23:17:04]  <bdmc> ( you make me blush )
 316 
 317 [23:17:41]  <FD> after that, nobody wants to add a voice. :-)
 318 
 319 [23:17:44]  <bdmc> sat: was that you voting with "ok?"
 320 
 321 [23:18:10]  <sat> no, I vote now: aye
 322 
 323 [23:18:28]  <MitchMaifeld> I'm not on the Board, but will offer my positive.
 324 
 325 [23:18:37]  <bdmc> Thank you.  Etienne, any other Board Members to vote?
 326 
 327 [23:18:41]  <FD> Nice, thank you mitch!
 328 
 329 [23:20:02]  <bdmc> Nothing heard.
 330 
 331 [23:20:05]  <FD> BTW, could you Etienne update the page at: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/Current ?
 332 
 333 [23:20:32]  <bdmc> Moving on to Item 2.1.1.2 -- "The PD Ruling"
 334 
 335 [23:21:03]  <Etienne> votes registered at https://motion.cacert.org/motions/m20200625.1?showvotes=1, others can still vote within 3 days.
 336 
 337 [23:21:16]  <bdmc> This will require a similar motion to the last, asking Arbitration to set aside, or perhaps, re-decide, an earlier decision.
 338 
 339 [23:21:17]  <FD> Thank you !
 340 
 341 [23:21:28]  <egal> if you don't feel familiar with a ruling you may trigger an appeal ...
 342 
 343 [23:22:02]  <bdmc> egal: How should we word this motion?
 344 
 345 [23:22:29]  <bdmc> "suspend," "waive," something else?
 346 
 347 [23:24:47]  <FD> 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".
 348 
 349 [23:25:21]  <bdmc> FD: I like that argument.
 350 
 351 [23:25:52]  <bdmc> Let me try to craft that one.
 352 
 353 [23:26:16]  <FD> It is nothing more than what has been discussed with our fellow Arbitrators during the past two months or so.
 354 
 355 [23:27:21]  <bdmc> 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.
 356 
 357 [23:27:34]  <FD> I second.
 358 
 359 [23:27:54]  <bdmc> Any discussion, or are we ready to vote?
 360 
 361 [23:28:49]  <FD> I could add that Philipp himself considers that we do not even need to waive his ruling for working around it.
 362 
 363 [23:29:30]  <bdmc> Nothing heard.  Please vote on this motion -- #2.
 364 
 365 [23:29:33]  <FD> 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.
 366 
 367 [23:29:33]  <bdmc> Aye
 368 
 369 [23:29:41]  <Etienne> 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 ;-)
 370 
 371 [23:29:50]  <bdmc> B-)
 372 
 373 [23:30:13]  <FD> To your motion Brian, I vote yes.
 374 
 375 [23:30:38]  <Etienne> aye
 376 
 377 [23:30:49]  <sat> aye
 378 
 379 [23:31:07]  <bdmc> Thank you all.
 380 
 381 [23:31:49]  <bdmc> 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?
 382 
 383 [23:32:02]  <bdmc> ( Frederic = FD )
 384 
 385 [23:32:06]  <egal> still online ... ;-)
 386 
 387 [23:32:31]  <bdmc> egal: shall we back up for an Arbitration report?
 388 
 389 [23:32:50]  <egal> nope ... let's continue with paypal ...
 390 
 391 [23:32:59]  <bdmc> Do we have to?  B-)
 392 
 393 [23:33:30]  <bdmc> Etienne: I guess that you have the information for this.
 394 
 395 [23:34:07]  <bdmc> Or is what is in the Agenda all of the information that we have?
 396 
 397 [23:34:30]  <FD> Brian, give me less then a minute to direct you to the last minutes of the Finances team on that.
 398 
 399 [23:34:57]  <Etienne> 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.
 400 
 401 [23:35:31]  <FD> Here they are: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2020-06/msg00000.html
 402 
 403 [23:36:23]  <bdmc> Alright.  Item 2.2.2 -- the new bank account.
 404 
 405 [23:37:30]  <FD> 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?
 406 
 407 [23:38:07]  <Etienne> 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.
 408 
 409 [23:38:43]  <bdmc> What about people outside of Europe?
 410 
 411 [23:38:51]  <Etienne> Graubündner Kantonalbank
 412 
 413 [23:39:13]  <bdmc> Same question as we had before for Westpac outside of Australia.
 414 
 415 [23:39:15]  <FD> For them, we need to find a new financial service provider for processing payments by card.
 416 
 417 [23:39:41]  <Etienne> People outside the SEPA/IBAN area: the finance team is now evaluating paypal alternatives.
 418 
 419 [23:40:01]  <FD> This is an ongoing work, please refer to the above mentionned minutes of the Finances team.
 420 
 421 [23:40:03]  <bdmc> I know that we discussed this a year or so ago, so it will be interesting to see new options.
 422 
 423 [23:41:10]  <FD> It has been reactivated in May 2020. Bret from Perth did a listing of two dozens of possible financial services providers.
 424 
 425 [23:41:31]  <bdmc> Anything more that we want to discuss about Finance, or are we ready to move on?
 426 
 427 [23:42:38]  <FD> Just one word: I do not see a lot of work from the Finances team, except from Frédéric G. our former treasurer.
 428 
 429 [23:42:51]  <FD> This is a concern for me
 430 
 431 [23:43:57]  <FD> 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.
 432 
 433 [23:44:35]  <FD> There is a moment when CAcet need people delivering an output, not only talking about it.
 434 
 435 [23:44:59]  <bdmc> Etienne: do you know anything more about this?
 436 
 437 [23:46:04]  <Etienne> I have to send Bret something that I promised :-(
 438 
 439 [23:46:50]  <FD> Well, Etienne, do not worry, the same applies for Christophe and for Bret himself. Frédéric G. is the one having answered already.
 440 
 441 [23:48:28]  <bdmc> Item 2.3.1 -- Volunteers and Applicants
 442 
 443 [23:48:36]  <bdmc> Who wants to talk to this?
 444 
 445 [23:49:24]  <Etienne> egal said, it could be pushed to next month.
 446 
 447 [23:49:43]  <bdmc> Thank you.  How about Item 2.3.2?
 448 
 449 [23:50:08]  <Etienne> (all infra)
 450 
 451 [23:50:25]  <bdmc> Moving on.
 452 
 453 [23:50:51]  <bdmc> Item 2.4.0 -- When shall we plan the AGM?
 454 
 455 [23:51:12]  <bdmc> As usual, it tends to be dependent on the financial reports.
 456 
 457 [23:51:38]  <Etienne> In which month should the AGM take place (the date can be set later)?
 458 
 459 [23:51:52]  <bdmc> September, October?
 460 
 461 [23:52:09]  <Etienne> When it is in not daylight saving time in the northern countries, it is eaysier to find a good time.
 462 
 463 [23:52:38]  <bdmc> That puts it very late, then.  Late October or November, as I remember.
 464 
 465 [23:53:20]  <Etienne> DST change last sunday in October -> November
 466 
 467 [23:53:44]  <Etienne> Is November OK?
 468 
 469 [23:54:56]  <bdmc> 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?
 470 
 471 [23:57:02]  <Etienne> (Time: 4 minutes left)
 472 
 473 [23:58:30]  <egal> some words for infrastructure ... we do have a testserver for training ... and the luxemburg-machine is now running 24/7 ...
 474 
 475 [23:58:44]  <bdmc> egal: good news.
 476 
 477 [23:58:56]  <egal> in the last weeks jan and i updated several machines (see blog-post)
 478 
 479 [23:59:22]  <bdmc> OK, well we have reached our deadline.  Etienne has proposed that the next meeting be on the 9th of July.  Does everybody agree?
 480 
 481 [23:59:35]  <sat> yes
 482 
 483 [23:59:47]  <MitchMaifeld> Concur.
 484 
 485 [23:59:50]  <egal> as long as there will then be  decision for CRL server ... ;-)
 486 
 487 [00:00:22]  <bdmc> We will put that at the top of the Agenda, unless you want to stay up after midnight?
 488 
 489 [00:00:44]  <FD> I would prefer after the 12th of July, I am taking care of our children before that date.
 490 
 491 [00:01:25]  <egal> well ... i still do have some minutes ... but not tooo long ... ;)
 492 
 493 [00:02:15]  <FD> 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.
 494 
 495 [00:02:17]  <bdmc> Folks, if we move the next meeting to the 16th or later, we need to take some time for Dirk's issue tonight?
 496 
 497 [00:02:52]  <bdmc> egal: can you accomodate that request some evening or weekend?
 498 
 499 [00:03:02]  <FD> Brian, CRL is a too long topic for now.
 500 
 501 [00:04:01]  <egal> we can discuss this server via email the next days ... and ... motions are not limited to be done on board-meetings only ...
 502 
 503 [00:04:16]  <FD> 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.
 504 
 505 [00:04:23]  <egal> but ... i asked for it months ago ... unfortunately without any progress from board ... -(
 506 
 507 [00:04:26]  <egal> ;-(
 508 
 509 [00:04:48]  <bdmc> egal: understood.  OK, let us do it that way.  Next meeting 16th?
 510 
 511 [00:05:01]  <bdmc> ( "In person" meeting. )
 512 
 513 [00:05:13]  <FD> It would be more convenient for me, thank you.
 514 
 515 [00:05:31]  <bdmc> Anybody else with a date preference?
 516 
 517 [00:05:50]  <egal> 16th should be possible ...
 518 
 519 [00:06:23]  <bdmc> OK, we will hold our next meeting, here, on July 16th.
 520 
 521 [00:06:35]  <bdmc> I hereby call this meeting complete.
 522 
 523 [00:06:45]  <bdmc> Good night, All.
 524 
 525 [00:06:46]  <sat> thank you. bye.
 526 
 527 [00:06:58]  <Etienne> @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.
 528 
 529 [00:07:06]  <bdmc> MitchMaifeld: and a good afternoon and evening to you.
 530 
 531 [00:07:19]  <MitchMaifeld> Ha, thanks.  Later, y'all.
 532 
 533 [00:07:30]   MitchMaifeld (462766ae@localhost) left the channel.
 534 
 535 [00:07:40]  <Etienne> Good bye, just time for breakfast in New South Wales...
 536 
 537 [00:11:40]   nemunaire (nemunaire@82-64-151-41.subs.proxad.net) left IRC. (Ping timeout: 121 seconds)
 538 
 539 [00:18:50]   bdmc (bdmc@107-138-158-92.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net) left IRC. (Quit: leaving)
 540 
 541 [00:39:27]   Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) left IRC. (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand-crafted IRC client)
 542