1 → FD est entré
   2 
   3 → Ted est entré
   4 
   5 → pnunn est entré
   6 
   7 Ted
   8 
   9 Hi there.
  10 
  11 There's a BBB Session at https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/b/ber-ea1-q55-gbx
  12 
  13 pnunn
  14 
  15 Morning all...
  16 
  17 FD
  18 
  19 Hello Bernhard, Hello Peter.
  20 
  21 Thank you for the BBB session. I am going to join now.
  22 
  23 → bdmc est entré
  24 
  25 bdmc
  26 
  27 Almost late! Greetings all.
  28 
  29 FD
  30 
  31 Good afternoon, Brian!
  32 
  33 bdmc
  34 
  35 I don't see Etienne, I see Frederic and Sascha, and Frederic G.
  36 
  37 pnunn
  38 
  39 Hi Brian.
  40 
  41 bdmc
  42 
  43 Sorry, Peter.
  44 
  45 Shall we get started?
  46 
  47 pnunn
  48 
  49 Lets
  50 
  51 FD
  52 
  53 Here is the link to the live note pad for writing the minutes as we talk together: https://kabendzie.ellis.siteparc.fr/s/rtNFiaCprWBsr4d
  54 
  55 I suggest to join the BBB session offered by Bernhard: https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/b/ber-ea1-q55-gbx
  56 
  57 pnunn
  58 
  59 Sorry, not going to work for me... too early for the household.
  60 
  61 bdmc
  62 
  63 As I said in my note earlier, I have half an hour, so I wanted to jump right into Agenda Item 2.1.3
  64 
  65 FD
  66 
  67 Fine,
  68 
  69 Let's we start.
  70 
  71 egal
  72 
  73 hi ... will join bbb later ...
  74 
  75 FD
  76 
  77 Hi Dirk!
  78 
  79 Agenda is here:
  80 
  81 https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2021-03-04
  82 
  83 bdmc
  84 
  85 Bernhard ( Ted ) wants a motion, which I agree with. However, we need to discuss a few things first.
  86 
  87 FD
  88 
  89 This is point 1.3
  90 
  91 bdmc
  92 
  93 FD: Yes, as I said, Item 2.1.3
  94 
  95 FD
  96 
  97 OK
  98 
  99 bdmc
 100 
 101 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?
 102 
 103 Ted
 104 
 105 I guess it makes sense that board gives a "Go" for the test run(s). I'm very open about the details.
 106 
 107 pnunn
 108 
 109 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.
 110 
 111 FD
 112 
 113 Peter is right
 114 
 115 Ted
 116 
 117 No priorities about who should be checked?
 118 
 119 bdmc
 120 
 121 That was my feeling. Shall we just say "go," or make any specifications?
 122 
 123 Ted
 124 
 125 Your choice. If you don't make specification I'll feel free to do as I like... :-)
 126 
 127 FD
 128 
 129 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
 130 
 131 pnunn
 132 
 133 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..
 134 
 135 FD
 136 
 137 Fine.
 138 
 139 pnunn
 140 
 141 and yes, your right FD... pass the trial is still a pass.. in my book anyway.
 142 
 143 bdmc
 144 
 145 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.
 146 
 147 FD
 148 
 149 Are you OK for doing those new-formula ABC with two "examiners" working together, i.e. one cnadidate facing two CAcert members ?
 150 
 151 pnunn
 152 
 153 I think that's a good idea.
 154 
 155 bdmc
 156 
 157 I would suggest that that is one of the parameters that Ted examines during his trials.
 158 
 159 FD
 160 
 161 OK
 162 
 163 Ted
 164 
 165 Since I moved quite a bit in the direction of "decision making" two examiners/interviewers are important. (Four eyes principle)
 166 
 167 pnunn
 168 
 169 perhaps the board moves that Ted... rather than recommend?
 170 
 171 FD
 172 
 173 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?
 174 
 175 bdmc
 176 
 177 I would suggest that here, we recommend that there be no less than two examiners, but not part of the motion.
 178 
 179 bdmc
 180 
 181 Perhaps "senior" members, or even those who are already ABC? ( I'm not sure about that latter part, though. )
 182 
 183 FD
 184 
 185 I remember that Dirk recommended to restrict to keep the privilege to do ABCs to the already ABCed members of CAcert.
 186 
 187 On my side, I wanted to favor a more flexible approach.
 188 
 189 Ted
 190 
 191 Since I'd have Dirk in mind, he's already ABC'ed.
 192 
 193 bdmc
 194 
 195 Not just Dirk, though.
 196 
 197 pnunn
 198 
 199 Two ABC'd would be a good start.. as we get more people through, it will become easier.
 200 
 201 FD
 202 
 203 i.e. I was interested in testing the new ABC as an exeminer, together with Bernhard, even not having been ABCed yet.
 204 
 205 bdmc
 206 
 207 I heard that there were several "candidate examiners," as well as candidates.
 208 
 209 FD
 210 
 211 Quoted candidates: Jan, Ales, Alexander...
 212 
 213 pnunn
 214 
 215 FD you could perhaps be there as an observer to start with?
 216 
 217 Ted
 218 
 219 I was thinking about Alexander Bahlo, though I have not asked him yet. Don't know whether he's ABCd
 220 
 221 bdmc
 222 
 223 Ted, do you have recommendations for examiners?
 224 
 225 Dirk, Alexander, others?
 226 
 227 FD
 228 
 229 I thought Alexander was named as one of our candidate to be "examined".
 230 
 231 bdmc
 232 
 233 egal: Any suggestions?
 234 
 235 Ted
 236 
 237 They should have followed the process, at least to some extent. I'd have no issues with FD.
 238 
 239 pnunn
 240 
 241 Could FD be one of the first candidates. Assuming he passes :) He could then become an examiner?
 242 
 243 FD
 244 
 245 Nice shoot.
 246 
 247 Well, it would confirm that we restrict the status of "examiner" to ABC'ed mmebers only.
 248 
 249 bdmc
 250 
 251 I was going to propose a "waiting period" for candidate to examiner.
 252 
 253 FD
 254 
 255 Would we want to do so?
 256 
 257 pnunn
 258 
 259 Why so Brian? If your ABC'd your ABC'd?
 260 
 261 bdmc
 262 
 263 I guess that I was thinking of greenhorn versus experience.
 264 
 265 And if there is a "script," there is less need for experience.
 266 
 267 pnunn
 268 
 269 With two doing the examinations, you could perhaps stipulate that atleast one has to be experienced.
 270 
 271 bdmc
 272 
 273 Getting a bit concerned about Etienne.
 274 
 275 Ted: Do you have enough to work with, so shall I formalize the motion?
 276 
 277 bdmc
 278 
 279 Everything that we have discussed here can be considered guidelines, not edicts.
 280 
 281 FD
 282 
 283 Peter: this is a good point, we may say that one has a mandatory ABC, the second one could have not an ABC yet
 284 
 285 We are ready for voting the motion,
 286 
 287 pnunn
 288 
 289 Perhaps.. I was still thinking both ABC'd...
 290 
 291 FD
 292 
 293 Ah ?! OK.
 294 
 295 bdmc
 296 
 297 FD: Yes, I was seeing his comment as regarding experience level.
 298 
 299 Ted: Have we lost you?
 300 
 301 Ted
 302 
 303 No, I'm still there.
 304 
 305 FD
 306 
 307 OK, I understand that the consensus goes rather like that: only ABC'ed members could then ABC others.
 308 
 309 bdmc
 310 
 311 Ted: Do you have enough to proceed?
 312 
 313 FD
 314 
 315 Bernhard and I are on the BBB audio channel, too: https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/html5client/join?sessionToken=be2awlanbupbh...
 316 
 317 Ted
 318 
 319 So you'd skip the motion?
 320 
 321 bdmc
 322 
 323 Ted: No, I will do the motion right now, as I leave.
 324 
 325 Ted
 326 
 327 Or do you want to start voting?
 328 
 329 Ahh, OK, yes, everything's fine with me.
 330 
 331 FD
 332 
 333 Let's go to the motion and the vote.
 334 
 335 bdmc
 336 
 337 I am trying to go back to it, and not getting there. Anybody have a good, edited copy?
 338 
 339 egal
 340 
 341 can you please give a BBB-link without the token from FD? ;-)
 342 
 343 Ted
 344 
 345 https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/b/ber-ea1-q55-gbx
 346 
 347 FD
 348 
 349 Sorry, my mistake
 350 
 351 bdmc
 352 
 353 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.
 354 
 355 Second and Vote, please
 356 
 357 pnunn
 358 
 359 Second and aye
 360 
 361 bdmc
 362 
 363 Aye
 364 
 365 FD
 366 
 367 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?
 368 
 369 bdmc
 370 
 371 pnunn: Would you please take over as Chair, and finish the meeting? I am late already.
 372 
 373 FD: If you wish to amend it that way, I will vote in favour.
 374 
 375 pnunn
 376 
 377 Certainly Brian... have a good day.
 378 
 379 Ted
 380 
 381 Bye Brian!
 382 
 383 FD
 384 
 385 yes, if we do not have time anymore.
 386 
 387 → Etienne est entré
 388 
 389 pnunn
 390 
 391 Do you want to put the amended motion FD.
 392 
 393 FD
 394 
 395 Ok, I am going to rewrite it.
 396 
 397 Hello Etienne!
 398 
 399 Etienne
 400 
 401 Hello!
 402 
 403 FD
 404 
 405 Peter is our chairman, this evening
 406 
 407 pnunn
 408 
 409 Morning Etienne.. just in time to keep the numbers alive :)
 410 
 411 FD
 412 
 413 Etienne, today the quorum is like that: Peter, you and me.
 414 
 415 We prepared a motion to recommend to Bernhard start testing the new-formula ABCes.
 416 
 417 Etienne
 418 
 419 very well
 420 
 421 FD
 422 
 423 We just have to re-write the motion.
 424 
 425 Etienne
 426 
 427 ok
 428 
 429 so bdmc and sat are just ghosts?
 430 
 431 pnunn
 432 
 433 Brian just left. He had another appointment.
 434 
 435 FD
 436 
 437 Etienne, we are here: https://conference.germanywestcentral.cloudapp.azure.com/b/ber-ea1-q55-gbx
 438 
 439 @Etienne: yes, I am afraid the Sascha is not there.
 440 
 441 Brian left at the very minutes when you appeared, that was a perfect shutter timing!
 442 
 443 pnunn
 444 
 445 How's that motion going FD?
 446 
 447 FD
 448 
 449 Here it is:
 450 
 451 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.
 452 
 453 pnunn
 454 
 455 second and aye.
 456 
 457 Etienne
 458 
 459 aye
 460 
 461 pnunn
 462 
 463 we can record bmc as aye too according to his parting comment.
 464 
 465 FD
 466 
 467 yes
 468 
 469 pnunn
 470 
 471 Brilliant... lets see where it gets too.
 472 
 473 Etienne
 474 
 475 OK, I will record it.
 476 
 477 pnunn
 478 
 479 So, that's 2.1.3 done.. lol. Now do we back track?
 480 
 481 1.4? Anything on the maillists we need to know about Etienne?
 482 
 483 FD
 484 
 485 Do you agree to let Bernhard to decide about the first candidates to be ABCed?
 486 
 487 pnunn
 488 
 489 Yes.
 490 
 491 Etienne
 492 
 493 Yes
 494 
 495 pnunn
 496 
 497 As far as I'm concerned the Trial is in his hands.
 498 
 499 FD
 500 
 501 Fine.
 502 
 503 Etienne
 504 
 505 Nothinn from the mailing lists, I think.
 506 
 507 pnunn
 508 
 509 Minutes from 23/12/20
 510 
 511 I move they be accepted
 512 
 513 Etienne
 514 
 515 second and aye
 516 
 517 FD
 518 
 519 yes
 520 
 521 pnunn
 522 
 523 aye
 524 
 525 Minutes from 04/02/21
 526 
 527 I move they be accepted.
 528 
 529 Etienne
 530 
 531 second and aye
 532 
 533 pnunn
 534 
 535 aye
 536 
 537 Ted
 538 
 539 So, I'm off to do something else. If you still need me just ping me on IRC.
 540 
 541 pnunn
 542 
 543 Thanks Ted.. and thanks for the efforts so far.
 544 
 545 So... 2.1? What do we need here Etienne?
 546 
 547 More accurately 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 I guess.
 548 
 549 Etienne
 550 
 551 -> mail 31.1.2021 10:17 and resent with more details 28.2.2021 12:55
 552 
 553 Etienne
 554 
 555 (that is about 2.2.5. Phone calls by bdmc, pnunn and FD )
 556 
 557 pnunn
 558 
 559 OK.. I can report on one of them if we want to do that now.
 560 
 561 Etienne
 562 
 563 yes, please
 564 
 565 pnunn
 566 
 567 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.
 568 
 569 FD
 570 
 571 Very well.
 572 
 573 pnunn
 574 
 575 I said that we would discuss it today and get back to him after the meeting.
 576 
 577 FD
 578 
 579 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.
 580 
 581 pnunn
 582 
 583 OK, I will delay getting back to Gihann until you report back perhaps?
 584 
 585 FD
 586 
 587 So basically, we have no means of comparison, because no inputs neither from me, nor from Brian.
 588 
 589 pnunn
 590 
 591 That's OK, we can wait..
 592 
 593 Etienne
 594 
 595 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...
 596 
 597 pnunn
 598 
 599 Yep.. I did mention that it was to be part of the Financial Team rather than a stand alone position.
 600 
 601 Do we need a motion of some sort for 1.2.2 Etienne?
 602 
 603 sorry.. 2.1.2
 604 
 605 FD
 606 
 607 Yes, Etienne wanted to get a motion.
 608 
 609 Etienne
 610 
 611 Answer 1: if FD and bdmc will call next week. We can give an answer in a week.
 612 
 613 pnunn
 614 
 615 Sounds good Etienne.
 616 
 617 Etienne
 618 
 619 Answer 2: Yes, A motion for egal but maybe to reword better.
 620 
 621 FD
 622 
 623 Yes, you are right Etienne. I can call tomorrow, assuming I will get someone over the phone.
 624 
 625 pnunn
 626 
 627 Do we just put this all in the trusted hands of the Critical Team Lead to action. Seems like a good move to me.
 628 
 629 FD
 630 
 631 Etienne is preparing the motion.
 632 
 633 Dirk and Etienne are talking about the motion on Big Blue Button.
 634 
 635 Are you still in the early morning in Australia, Peter ?
 636 
 637 pnunn
 638 
 639 Yes... house is still fast asleep.
 640 
 641 Etienne
 642 
 643 We wait just to an answer of egal having a look just now.
 644 
 645 pnunn
 646 
 647 No problem.
 648 
 649 Just a heads up.. I have about 30 minutes left before I need to make a move.
 650 
 651 Etienne
 652 
 653 Sorry, I didnt sen the motion. Here it is: (as a draft)
 654 
 655 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.
 656 
 657 pnunn
 658 
 659 seconded and aye
 660 
 661 FD
 662 
 663 yes
 664 
 665 egal
 666 
 667 wait ...
 668 
 669 not: Class-3-Certificates ... but: the Class-3-Root-Certificate
 670 
 671 pnunn
 672 
 673 Thank you egal… seconded as amended, and aye.
 674 
 675 FD
 676 
 677 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.
 678 
 679 Etienne
 680 
 681 aye
 682 
 683 FD
 684 
 685 yes
 686 
 687 pnunn
 688 
 689 Excellent.
 690 
 691 egal
 692 
 693 remove: "on the signer"
 694 
 695 Etienne
 696 
 697 I will remove the signer in the archived motion.
 698 
 699 pnunn
 700 
 701 Thank you.
 702 
 703 egal
 704 
 705 Certificate is created on the signer .. and installed on other machines (www.cacert.org and wiki and ... afterwards)
 706 
 707 pnunn
 708 
 709 Is there anything else in 2.1?
 710 
 711 Etienne
 712 
 713 No, 2.1 is done.
 714 
 715 pnunn
 716 
 717 So.. anything else in 2.2 then?
 718 
 719 FD
 720 
 721 Well...
 722 
 723 We started together with Brian and Bernhard a recruitment process benefiting to the Software Development team.
 724 
 725 FD
 726 
 727 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.
 728 
 729 FD
 730 
 731 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.
 732 
 733 pnunn
 734 
 735 I noted the discussion about languages as well... I'm a fan of go, and could probably review code in go and nodejs.
 736 
 737 OK.
 738 
 739 FD
 740 
 741 Yes, that mail from Jan was very interesting; Jan addressed actual issues. Nice to see him with such clear ideas and proposal.
 742 
 743 Yes, that mail from Jan was very interesting; Jan addressed actual issues. Nice to see him with such clear ideas and proposals.
 744 
 745 pnunn
 746 
 747 OK, moving on then... I guess we leave 2.3 for the moment until the software teams are set up?
 748 
 749 Etienne
 750 
 751 Just wait a moment, please
 752 
 753 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
 754 
 755 pnunn
 756 
 757 Good thinking...
 758 
 759 Maybe 8.4?
 760 
 761 FD
 762 
 763 Very good.
 764 
 765 Etienne
 766 
 767 OK, 8.4.2021
 768 
 769 pnunn
 770 
 771 Grant applications?
 772 
 773 pnunn
 774 
 775 Guys, I'm going to close the meeting.. leave you to discuss the remaining issues.
 776 
 777 Etienne
 778 
 779 Good bye Peter! Have a nice day!
 780 
 781 pnunn
 782 
 783 You too...
 784 
 785 FD
 786 
 787 Have a nice day!
 788 
 789 pnunn
 790 
 791 talk soon.
 792 
 793 ← pnunn a quitté (Ping timeout: 121 seconds)
 794 
 795 ← dops est parti du salon