→ FD est entré → Ted est entré → pnunn est entré Ted Hi there. There's a BBB Session at https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/b/ber-ea1-q55-gbx pnunn Morning all... FD Hello Bernhard, Hello Peter. Thank you for the BBB session. I am going to join now. → bdmc est entré bdmc Almost late! Greetings all. FD Good afternoon, Brian! bdmc I don't see Etienne, I see Frederic and Sascha, and Frederic G. pnunn Hi Brian. bdmc Sorry, Peter. Shall we get started? pnunn Lets FD Here is the link to the live note pad for writing the minutes as we talk together: https://kabendzie.ellis.siteparc.fr/s/rtNFiaCprWBsr4d I suggest to join the BBB session offered by Bernhard: https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/b/ber-ea1-q55-gbx pnunn Sorry, not going to work for me... too early for the household. bdmc As I said in my note earlier, I have half an hour, so I wanted to jump right into Agenda Item 2.1.3 FD Fine, Let's we start. egal hi ... will join bbb later ... FD Hi Dirk! Agenda is here: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2021-03-04 bdmc Bernhard ( Ted ) wants a motion, which I agree with. However, we need to discuss a few things first. FD This is point 1.3 bdmc FD: Yes, as I said, Item 2.1.3 FD OK bdmc I don't know whether we, the Board, should specify all of the parameters for this trial period, or leave it up to the people who are performing this trial. What do the rest of you think? Ted I guess it makes sense that board gives a "Go" for the test run(s). I'm very open about the details. pnunn I think we need to keep it flexible around the details. I think we can trust the people running the trial to sort that out and report back. FD Peter is right Ted No priorities about who should be checked? bdmc That was my feeling. Shall we just say "go," or make any specifications? Ted Your choice. If you don't make specification I'll feel free to do as I like... :-) FD The only one I see, is that these "new formula ABC" are not "mock ABC": after having passed them, people will actually be ABC'ed pnunn I think say go, based on the good work Ted has already done, modified with output from the trials (that is what the trials are for after all). If we start with people we are pretty sure will pass.. FD Fine. pnunn and yes, your right FD... pass the trial is still a pass.. in my book anyway. bdmc In that case, I would suggest that we say something like: I move that the Board of CAcert, Inc. recommend that Ted ( full name, probably ) perform an appropriate number of trials of the proposed new CBC ( ABC? ) process, confirming people for certain critical roles within CAcert, and report back to the Board afterwards. FD Are you OK for doing those new-formula ABC with two "examiners" working together, i.e. one cnadidate facing two CAcert members ? pnunn I think that's a good idea. bdmc I would suggest that that is one of the parameters that Ted examines during his trials. FD OK Ted Since I moved quite a bit in the direction of "decision making" two examiners/interviewers are important. (Four eyes principle) pnunn perhaps the board moves that Ted... rather than recommend? FD Another question is, except Bernhard, who is going to do these ABC examination? Do we want to restrict it to some members, or don't we? bdmc I would suggest that here, we recommend that there be no less than two examiners, but not part of the motion. bdmc Perhaps "senior" members, or even those who are already ABC? ( I'm not sure about that latter part, though. ) FD I remember that Dirk recommended to restrict to keep the privilege to do ABCs to the already ABCed members of CAcert. On my side, I wanted to favor a more flexible approach. Ted Since I'd have Dirk in mind, he's already ABC'ed. bdmc Not just Dirk, though. pnunn Two ABC'd would be a good start.. as we get more people through, it will become easier. FD i.e. I was interested in testing the new ABC as an exeminer, together with Bernhard, even not having been ABCed yet. bdmc I heard that there were several "candidate examiners," as well as candidates. FD Quoted candidates: Jan, Ales, Alexander... pnunn FD you could perhaps be there as an observer to start with? Ted I was thinking about Alexander Bahlo, though I have not asked him yet. Don't know whether he's ABCd bdmc Ted, do you have recommendations for examiners? Dirk, Alexander, others? FD I thought Alexander was named as one of our candidate to be "examined". bdmc egal: Any suggestions? Ted They should have followed the process, at least to some extent. I'd have no issues with FD. pnunn Could FD be one of the first candidates. Assuming he passes :) He could then become an examiner? FD Nice shoot. Well, it would confirm that we restrict the status of "examiner" to ABC'ed mmebers only. bdmc I was going to propose a "waiting period" for candidate to examiner. FD Would we want to do so? pnunn Why so Brian? If your ABC'd your ABC'd? bdmc I guess that I was thinking of greenhorn versus experience. And if there is a "script," there is less need for experience. pnunn With two doing the examinations, you could perhaps stipulate that atleast one has to be experienced. bdmc Getting a bit concerned about Etienne. Ted: Do you have enough to work with, so shall I formalize the motion? bdmc Everything that we have discussed here can be considered guidelines, not edicts. FD Peter: this is a good point, we may say that one has a mandatory ABC, the second one could have not an ABC yet We are ready for voting the motion, pnunn Perhaps.. I was still thinking both ABC'd... FD Ah ?! OK. bdmc FD: Yes, I was seeing his comment as regarding experience level. Ted: Have we lost you? Ted No, I'm still there. FD OK, I understand that the consensus goes rather like that: only ABC'ed members could then ABC others. bdmc Ted: Do you have enough to proceed? FD Bernhard and I are on the BBB audio channel, too: https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/html5client/join?sessionToken=be2awlanbupbh... Ted So you'd skip the motion? bdmc Ted: No, I will do the motion right now, as I leave. Ted Or do you want to start voting? Ahh, OK, yes, everything's fine with me. FD Let's go to the motion and the vote. bdmc I am trying to go back to it, and not getting there. Anybody have a good, edited copy? egal can you please give a BBB-link without the token from FD? ;-) Ted https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/b/ber-ea1-q55-gbx FD Sorry, my mistake bdmc I move that the Board of CAcert, Inc. recommend that Ted perform an appropriate number of trials of the proposed new ABC process, confirming people for certain critical roles within CAcert, and report back to the Board afterwards. Second and Vote, please pnunn Second and aye bdmc Aye FD Don't you want to add one sentence, making obvious that such passed ABC are valid, and do not need to be redone later again? bdmc pnunn: Would you please take over as Chair, and finish the meeting? I am late already. FD: If you wish to amend it that way, I will vote in favour. pnunn Certainly Brian... have a good day. Ted Bye Brian! FD yes, if we do not have time anymore. → Etienne est entré pnunn Do you want to put the amended motion FD. FD Ok, I am going to rewrite it. Hello Etienne! Etienne Hello! FD Peter is our chairman, this evening pnunn Morning Etienne.. just in time to keep the numbers alive :) FD Etienne, today the quorum is like that: Peter, you and me. We prepared a motion to recommend to Bernhard start testing the new-formula ABCes. Etienne very well FD We just have to re-write the motion. Etienne ok so bdmc and sat are just ghosts? pnunn Brian just left. He had another appointment. FD Etienne, we are here: https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/b/ber-ea1-q55-gbx @Etienne: yes, I am afraid the Sascha is not there. Brian left at the very minutes when you appeared, that was a perfect shutter timing! pnunn How's that motion going FD? FD Here it is: I move that the Board of CAcert, Inc. recommend that Ted perform an appropriate number of trials of the proposed new ABC process, confirming people for certain critical roles within CAcert, and report back to the Board afterwards. The background checks carried out during this test period will be fully valid with regard to the policies. pnunn second and aye. Etienne aye pnunn we can record bmc as aye too according to his parting comment. FD yes pnunn Brilliant... lets see where it gets too. Etienne OK, I will record it. pnunn So, that's 2.1.3 done.. lol. Now do we back track? 1.4? Anything on the maillists we need to know about Etienne? FD Do you agree to let Bernhard to decide about the first candidates to be ABCed? pnunn Yes. Etienne Yes pnunn As far as I'm concerned the Trial is in his hands. FD Fine. Etienne Nothinn from the mailing lists, I think. pnunn Minutes from 23/12/20 I move they be accepted Etienne second and aye FD yes pnunn aye Minutes from 04/02/21 I move they be accepted. Etienne second and aye pnunn aye Ted So, I'm off to do something else. If you still need me just ping me on IRC. pnunn Thanks Ted.. and thanks for the efforts so far. So... 2.1? What do we need here Etienne? More accurately 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 I guess. Etienne -> mail 31.1.2021 10:17 and resent with more details 28.2.2021 12:55 Etienne (that is about 2.2.5. Phone calls by bdmc, pnunn and FD ) pnunn OK.. I can report on one of them if we want to do that now. Etienne yes, please pnunn I made contact with Gihann Selvadurai. I did it via email in the first instance. He is happy to assist as the treasurer, as long as we don't mind him appointing an audit clerk for verification. FD Very well. pnunn I said that we would discuss it today and get back to him after the meeting. FD On my side, I contacted none of them, I just recalled now that I received the list of candidates from Etienne on the 28th of February. I will do it in the next days. pnunn OK, I will delay getting back to Gihann until you report back perhaps? FD So basically, we have no means of comparison, because no inputs neither from me, nor from Brian. pnunn That's OK, we can wait.. Etienne This is good news. In principle, we need a treasurer, then someone to keep the balance sheet, and one or two each with access to the three financial institutes. Things are looking good for Westpac: Bret, once we're out of Australia.... GRKB Frédéric Grither & ....(maybe me, as it is in Switzerland); Paypal... pnunn Yep.. I did mention that it was to be part of the Financial Team rather than a stand alone position. Do we need a motion of some sort for 1.2.2 Etienne? sorry.. 2.1.2 FD Yes, Etienne wanted to get a motion. Etienne Answer 1: if FD and bdmc will call next week. We can give an answer in a week. pnunn Sounds good Etienne. Etienne Answer 2: Yes, A motion for egal but maybe to reword better. FD Yes, you are right Etienne. I can call tomorrow, assuming I will get someone over the phone. pnunn Do we just put this all in the trusted hands of the Critical Team Lead to action. Seems like a good move to me. FD Etienne is preparing the motion. Dirk and Etienne are talking about the motion on Big Blue Button. Are you still in the early morning in Australia, Peter ? pnunn Yes... house is still fast asleep. Etienne We wait just to an answer of egal having a look just now. pnunn No problem. Just a heads up.. I have about 30 minutes left before I need to make a move. Etienne Sorry, I didnt sen the motion. Here it is: (as a draft) I move to give the Critical Team Lead approval to change Class-3-Certificates at an appropriate time after the March Board Meeting on the Signer. pnunn seconded and aye FD yes egal wait ... not: Class-3-Certificates ... but: the Class-3-Root-Certificate pnunn Thank you egal… seconded as amended, and aye. FD I move to give the Critical Team Lead approval to change the Class-3-Root-Certificates at an appropriate time after the March Board Meeting on the Signer. Etienne aye FD yes pnunn Excellent. egal remove: "on the signer" Etienne I will remove the signer in the archived motion. pnunn Thank you. egal Certificate is created on the signer .. and installed on other machines (www.cacert.org and wiki and ... afterwards) pnunn Is there anything else in 2.1? Etienne No, 2.1 is done. pnunn So.. anything else in 2.2 then? FD Well... We started together with Brian and Bernhard a recruitment process benefiting to the Software Development team. FD This is an effort to be done in parallel with renewing the ABC, because having manpower in the coding team without the ability to review and make validated the new code by a Software Engineer is a motivation breaker. FD Peter, don't you want to join us at BBB? I could give a more comprehensive explanation there, even if you do not want to speak up on the microphone. pnunn I noted the discussion about languages as well... I'm a fan of go, and could probably review code in go and nodejs. OK. FD Yes, that mail from Jan was very interesting; Jan addressed actual issues. Nice to see him with such clear ideas and proposal. Yes, that mail from Jan was very interesting; Jan addressed actual issues. Nice to see him with such clear ideas and proposals. pnunn OK, moving on then... I guess we leave 2.3 for the moment until the software teams are set up? Etienne Just wait a moment, please Agree on date of the next Committee Meeting: 1. April 2021 can this date be changed to Thursday one week before (25.3.) or after (8.4.) or one day before (Wed. 31.3.) as April 1st is a holiday pnunn Good thinking... Maybe 8.4? FD Very good. Etienne OK, 8.4.2021 pnunn Grant applications? pnunn Guys, I'm going to close the meeting.. leave you to discuss the remaining issues. Etienne Good bye Peter! Have a nice day! pnunn You too... FD Have a nice day! pnunn talk soon. ← pnunn a quitté (Ping timeout: 121 seconds) ← dops est parti du salon