1 bdmc
   2 Greetings Kim.  Not sure where everybody is, because I think that this is the correct time. 
   3 21:01:07
   4 KimNilsson
   5 Yes, just ticked into the 20:00 UTC minut/hour 
   6 21:01:14
   7 and not 20:01 
   8 21:01:17
   9 now 
  10 21:01:18
  11 sorry 
  12 21:01:18
  13 Etienne
  14 Hello bdmc, Kim, egal, mcr 
  15 21:01:21
  16 bdmc
  17 B-) 
  18 21:01:40
  19 mcr
  20 I am here. 
  21 21:02:02
  22 I have just sent an email to board private, which is a draft motion. I will attempt to put it on the wiki now.  Or does it go on the voting system? 
  23 21:02:05
  24 bdmc
  25 KimNilsson: I am expecting a telephone call from a government office, which is why I asked you to fill in. 
  26 21:02:17
  27 KimNilsson
  28 Aha 
  29 21:02:33
  30 Etienne
  31 https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2022-02-03 
  32 21:02:41
  33 egal
  34 salue 
  35 21:03:11
  36 bdmc
  37 mcr: "all of the above"  ( Ultimately it will show up in "Votes," but originates in the Minutes. 
  38 21:04:54
  39 KimNilsson
  40 Alright, as suggested by Brian, bdmc , I'm ok with taking the chair for this meeting, unless someone else really wants to do it? (I'll give you 10s to think about it, as I'm expecting a resounding silence). 
  41 21:05:19
  42 mcr
  43 I'm good with that. 
  44 21:05:57
  45 KimNilsson
  46 then I'll call the Committee Meeting 2022-02-03 open, at 20:06 UTC. 
  47 21:06:25
  48 Is anyone logging for minutes? 
  49 21:06:50
  50 Or able to edit the wiki/document live? 
  51 21:08:07
  52 bdmc
  53 I have a log running. 
  54 21:08:14
  55 Etienne
  56 me too. 
  57 21:08:29
  58 mcr
  59 Not able to edit wiki. 
  60 21:08:38
  61 So perhaps someone could post my motion. 
  62 21:09:03
  63 KimNilsson
  64 OK, then we're good with logging  from here, and someone with edit access will have to insert the minutes after the meeting. 
  65 21:09:37
  66 1.3 Does cacert-board-private or cacert-board maillist includes any items that need to be disclosed to Members. 
  67 21:09:46
  68 ? at the end there. 
  69 21:10:29
  70 mcr
  71 not as far as I know.  I would prefer my motion get onto the wiki, and be edited. 
  72 21:10:35
  73 KimNilsson
  74 I'd say that Michael's mcr motion that was sent to the private list should be mentioned. Is someone going to be able to put it in today's agenda? 
  75 21:10:53
  76 bdmc
  77 I am doing it. 
  78 21:11:03
  79 KimNilsson
  80 bdmc: thank you 
  81 21:11:35
  82 mcr
  83 I am asking it to be posted. 
  84 21:11:52
  85 KimNilsson
  86 bdmc: <= Brian will post it. 
  87 21:11:53
  88 mcr
  89 I did not send it to the public list, because I prefer that the final text of the motion be what people see in the archive. 
  90 21:13:08
  91 KimNilsson
  92 1.4 I move to accept the minutes of the committee meeting of 6st January 2022. 
  93 21:13:46
  94 bdmc
  95 Second 
  96 21:14:34
  97 Etienne
  98 https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2022-01-06#Minutes 
  99 21:14:37
 100 aye 
 101 21:15:09
 102 mcr
 103 aye 
 104 21:15:13
 105 bdmc
 106 aye 
 107 21:15:40
 108 KimNilsson
 109 thank you 
 110 21:15:59
 111 2.2 Quick Infos 
 112 21:16:28
 113 Etienne
 114 Six infos this month. Any questions? 
 115 21:17:00
 116 KimNilsson
 117 1 & 6 not related? 
 118 21:17:32
 119 Etienne
 120 No, 1 = en.wikipedia.org ; 6 = wiki.cacert.org 
 121 21:17:40
 122 KimNilsson
 123 gotcha 
 124 21:18:01
 125 mcr
 126 So EUR account is opened, that's great. 
 127 21:18:08
 128 What was repaired?  How/when did it break? 
 129 21:18:39
 130 Etienne
 131 It was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo slow to save for month. 
 132 21:18:55
 133 And now: one second ;-) 
 134 21:19:36
 135 KimNilsson
 136 ok, cool for anyone with edit access ;-) 
 137 21:20:32
 138 Etienne
 139 Edit access is on the way, what I heard. 
 140 21:20:33
 141 bdmc
 142 Attention:  Please refresh your Agenda. 
 143 21:21:33
 144 KimNilsson
 145 thanks Brian - Michale - motion is in agenda 
 146 21:22:02
 147 mcr
 148 refreshed. 
 149 21:22:05
 150 KimNilsson
 151 Ok, anyone with wikipedia skills, and deep knowledge of cacert, please try to help out with the wikipedia page, so it's not suggested for deletion again. 
 152 21:22:23
 153 Moving on. 
 154 21:22:37
 155 2.3 Finance team DRAFT - Michael 
 156 21:22:38
 157 bdmc
 158 "Someone" ( or ones ) need edit access to Wikipedia. 
 159 21:22:52
 160 mcr
 161 Hmm. bdmc, I guess I'd have liked to have the word principal retained in the motion. 
 162 21:23:06
 163 bdmc
 164 mcr: Easily solved. 
 165 21:23:24
 166 mcr
 167 why do I have August 5 minutes open. Hmm. 
 168 21:23:48
 169 yeah, that's the link at the top of the agenda. 
 170 21:24:38
 171 KimNilsson
 172 mcr: the link to the Google Doc? Yes, seems that's not been used for taking live minutes in a very long time 
 173 21:25:36
 174 mcr
 175 yeah, so we should remove it :-) 
 176 21:25:49
 177 KimNilsson
 178 I've mentioned it a few times.Or use it. Either way. :-) 
 179 21:25:57
 180 mcr
 181 bdmc are you editing the motion now? 
 182 21:26:42
 183 KimNilsson
 184 Especially since it seems that editing the wiki live, collaboratively is not possible in this reailty 
 185 21:27:38
 186 So, using a Google Docs for live minutes is (would be) supereasy. 
 187 21:28:31
 188 but, I don't know who owns the doc, so we can be let in. 
 189 21:28:53
 190 mcr
 191 anyway...  is there any discussion about the motion? 
 192 21:29:43
 193 → FD est entré 
 194 21:29:59
 195 mcr
 196 So. 
 197 21:30:29
 198 1) new ERP is waiting for nexterp to get loaded correctly.  It unclear to me where/when/if this has occured.  Frederick was managing that. 
 199 21:30:48
 200 bdmc
 201 mcr: I have made some edits, but need your feedback before I commit. 
 202 21:31:23
 203 mcr
 204 2) I am waiting for access to the GRKB accounts so that I can connect paypal to it, and initiate the transfers. 
 205 21:31:26
 206 3) MOTION. 
 207 21:31:32
 208 original motion: Given that CACERT has more than 12K EU in it's accounts, it is hereby  moved that a program of equipment renewal be started in 2022, to be  completed by the end of 2023. 
 209 21:32:13
 210 proposed change: Given that CACERT has more than 12K EU in it's accounts, it is hereby moved that a program of equipment renewal be started in 2022, to be  completed by the end of 2023.  This is motion to support the idea in principal. There will need to be many details worked out, and those plans will come back to the board for approval. 
 211 21:32:45
 212 I wrote a longer email to the board-private ten minutes before meeting. 
 213 21:33:33
 214 KimNilsson
 215 So, anyone have suggestions on how to rephrase the idea, so we can put it to a vote? 
 216 21:34:09
 217 Michael is typing away. 
 218 21:34:23
 219 bdmc
 220 I rather like the original motion, in that it is a proposal for a plan, not a detailed commitment. 
 221 21:34:45
 222 mcr
 223 I am adding to the motion, to keep the detail here. 
 224 21:34:47
 225 egal
 226 i would skip the "completed by he end of 2023"-part ... 
 227 21:35:13
 228 as this gives more pressure on infrastructure and critical-team than necessary ... 
 229 21:35:17
 230 KimNilsson
 231 Yes, keep the wording short and to the point, with not too much detail, but perhaps with a reference that details will come? Or that not necesary? 
 232 21:35:44
 233 mcr
 234 I'm okay with removing that, but I'm also concerned that things can just carry away.  Since we need to do budgeting for 2023, 2024, 2025...etc. we need to establish the baseline for the cost. 
 235 21:36:15
 236 That is, our first "yearly" cycle of hardware renewal is to complete in two years, the intent is that then, we'd be replacing 1/3 to 1/4 of equipment every year. 
 237 21:36:17
 238 egal
 239 no matter, if critical or non-critical hardware needs to be replaced, the hard- and software needs to be tested before ... 
 240 21:36:31
 241 .. which will take time and manpower ... 
 242 21:36:51
 243 mcr
 244 Of course. That's why it needs to be make before break.      Additionally, I propose to do this work from the outside to inside. 
 245 21:36:56
 246 FD
 247 Perhaps we could be more specific, stating that we agree to acquire in 2022 on new 2U enterprise class server + 1 new gigabit managed switch ? Regarding the new rack, didn't we better consider to make Secure-U gently fade out in 2022 and CAcert to keep the existing MoU being re-signed (for the same rack cabinet?) 
 248 21:36:57
 249 mcr
 250 So least critical systems first. 
 251 21:37:08
 252 KimNilsson
 253 Still, some type of outer timeline needs to be established. No? 
 254 21:37:42
 255 bdmc
 256 FD: That's the kind of detail that I don't want to put in the original Motion of Principal. 
 257 21:37:44
 258 mcr
 259 FD, the reason the motion is in *principal* is because we need to work out the inventory of systems and services. 
 260 21:37:55
 261 FD
 262 OK. 
 263 21:38:06
 264 egal
 265 about replacing hardware: jandd and i are thinking about replacing the signers ... and i'm thinking about replacing sun3/sun4 by pi4-machines ... 
 266 21:38:25
 267 and later on the firewalls by faster ones ... 
 268 21:38:43
 269 Etienne
 270 So, the motion just support JanDD and egal plans ;-) 
 271 21:39:01
 272 bdmc
 273 egal: So, innermost first, then outer.   B-) 
 274 21:39:12
 275 KimNilsson
 276 egal: There's no way to test hardware before it is purchased and delivered. And that should be possible toe date? 
 277 21:39:19
 278 egal
 279 the MoU is between CAcert Inc. and secure-u ... there is no MoU needed after secure-u faded out ... 
 280 21:39:21
 281 KimNilsson
 282 "to date" 
 283 21:39:41
 284 egal
 285 the contract between secure-u and BIT is a normal hosting-contract 
 286 21:40:05
 287 KimNilsson
 288 aaaaaand now we dove straight into details that shouldn't be in the motion, or even discussed today 
 289 21:40:32
 290 mcr
 291 The detail on transferring or starting a new cabinet, or... is a detail that I didn't want to get into yet. 
 292 21:40:37
 293 egal
 294 @kim it's not testing hardware before purchased/delivered ... but it should get some "stress-test" before it get's installed in the rack 
 295 21:40:40
 296 mcr
 297 That's a reason I wrote "end of 2023"... 
 298 21:40:49
 299 KimNilsson
 300 ^^^ 
 301 21:41:00
 302 egal
 303 and that's why i would skip the "end of 2023"-part ... ;-) 
 304 21:41:27
 305 KimNilsson
 306 So, in two years it's not possible to replace a piece of the existing system? 
 307 21:42:04
 308 mcr
 309 Kim, yes, it could be that we replace something in 2024.  But, in general, we should do our financial planning such that we are replacing systems approximately every 4 years. 
 310 21:42:52
 311 egal
 312 does it really make sense to replace ALL hardware every 4 years? ... 
 313 21:43:17
 314 mcr
 315 can this go to a vote now?  Is there a seconder? 
 316 21:43:36
 317 are there further amendments to what I wrote above. 
 318 21:43:38
 319 KimNilsson
 320 Current wording of the motion: "MOTION: Given that CACERT has more than 12K EU in it's accounts, it is hereby moved that a program of equipment renewal be started in 2022, to be completed by the end of 2023." 
 321 21:43:51
 322 mcr
 323 And: "Given that CACERT has more than 12K EU in it's accounts, it is hereby moved that a program of equipment renewal be started in 2022, to be  completed by the end of 2023.  This is motion to support the idea in principal. There will need to be many details worked out, and those plans will come back to the board for approval." 
 324 21:43:51
 325 Etienne
 326 No, that does not make sense. But mcr says right: he wants to budget that way. And hopefully we never exhaust the budget. 
 327 21:44:24
 328 mcr
 329 I think that we have machines that are as old as ten years now. 
 330 21:44:36
 331 I know that we also have some that are newer. 
 332 21:44:50
 333 Kim asks if I think that all hardware needs to be replaced within two years. 
 334 21:45:24
 335 No.  What I am suggesting is that all services migrate to newer hardware over that time.  But that might leave hardware freed up to be: test systems, debug systems, spares, .... 
 336 21:45:28
 337 Etienne
 338 So we are voting on the principle now. Then will be a plan. Then step by step. 
 339 21:45:48
 340 bdmc
 341 mcr: I just saw something and may be misunderstanding.  Is this program to only last 2022 and 2023? 
 342 21:46:05
 343 egal
 344 use the old machines for test/debug/spare makes absolutely now sense ... 
 345 21:46:17
 346 use the old machines for test/debug/spare makes absolutely no sense ... 
 347 21:46:38
 348 as nearly everything could done on virtual machines ... 
 349 21:46:42
 350 mcr
 351 bdmc, the reason I've said 1.8 years of time... It could even be that we go until the 2023 AGM if someone likes, is a financial planning decision. 
 352 21:46:54
 353 no sense? 
 354 21:47:08
 355 egal
 356 as long as we differ between critical and noncritical hardware ... 
 357 21:47:14
 358 mcr
 359 if the old machines are really really so old, then yeah, let's get rid of them. 
 360 21:47:34
 361 I totally want that critical/noncritical hardware distinction. 
 362 21:48:00
 363 Okay, so how about this: 
 364 21:48:01
 365 bdmc
 366 mcr: I was wondering whether this was to be an on-going program, rather than a one-shot deal. 
 367 21:48:09
 368 egal
 369 but it's possible to test the critical stuff on virtual servers in infrastructure environment (of course: without the critical database and certificates) 
 370 21:48:43
 371 i would prefer to start a hardware-replacement-program in 2022 ... but ongoing ... 
 372 21:48:44
 373 mcr
 374 Given that CACERT has more than 12K EU in it's accounts, it is hereby moved that a program of ongoing equipment renewal be started in 2022.  Critical services to be migrated to new hardware by the end of 2023.  This is motion to support the idea in principal. There will need to be many details worked out, and those plans will come back to the board for approval. 
 375 21:49:12
 376 egal
 377 no ... 
 378 21:49:12
 379 bdmc
 380 egal: Agreed, given the way that the world has changed in the past decade. 
 381 21:49:28
 382 mcr
 383 Given that CACERT has more than 12K EU in it's accounts, it is hereby moved that a program of ongoing equipment renewal be started in 2022.  This is motion to support the idea in principal. There will need to be many details worked out, and those plans will come back to the board for approval. 
 384 21:49:39
 385 egal
 386 as we would need reviews for the critical environment ... and this could be the bottleneck ... ;-( 
 387 21:50:04
 388 KimNilsson
 389 egal: 2023 is now removed. 
 390 21:50:21
 391 Current motion: Given that CACERT has more than 12K EU in it's accounts, it is hereby moved that a program of ongoing equipment renewal be started in 2022.  This is motion to support the idea in principal. There will need to be many details worked out, and those plans will come back to the board for approval. 
 392 21:50:37
 393 egal
 394 yep ... last motion proposal looks way better ... ;-) 
 395 21:50:40
 396 KimNilsson
 397 Does that wording look ok to everyone. 
 398 21:50:42
 399 Etienne
 400 I understand it like this: First we establish a principle: (renew hardware). From this follows the budget for the treasurer. Then the planning takes place. And there Critical and Infra have to have a say. Whether it will be 2023 or later is not so important in my opinion, if it corresponds to the needs and the plan. 
 401 21:51:04
 402 bdmc
 403 Etienne: true 
 404 21:51:07
 405 → FD|PC2 est entré 
 406 21:51:22
 407 bdmc
 408 You understand the same way that I do. 
 409 21:51:55
 410 KimNilsson
 411 OK, so, bdmc you put it in the agenda, and I'll ask for a vote in a sec. 
 412 21:52:19
 413 bdmc
 414 One ( or two ) minutes. 
 415 21:52:37
 416 KimNilsson
 417 yes , I mean CAcert "seconds" ;-) 
 418 21:54:38
 419 bdmc
 420 B-)    Reload your Agendas. 
 421 21:55:10
 422 Correct? 
 423 21:55:32
 424 mcr
 425 correct! 
 426 21:56:56
 427 KimNilsson
 428 I hereby move that a program of ongoing equipment renewal is started, in accordance with the wording of the adminded motion: Amended motion: Given that CAcert has more than 12K EU in its accounts, it is hereby moved that a program of ongoing equipment renewal be started in 2022. This motion is to support the idea in principal. There will need to be many details worked out, and those plans will 
 429 21:57:02
 430 come back to the board for approval. 
 431 21:57:41
 432 mcr
 433 I second. 
 434 21:57:49
 435 bdmc
 436 Aye 
 437 21:58:20
 438 FD
 439 yes 
 440 21:58:54
 441 KimNilsson
 442 Etienne: ? 
 443 21:59:10
 444 Etienne
 445 aye 
 446 21:59:17
 447 KimNilsson
 448 Thank you. 
 449 21:59:36
 450 I was made aware of a finance question. Please, ask away. 
 451 22:00:23
 452 bdmc
 453 ( Item 2.3.1 ) 
 454 22:00:49
 455 mcr
 456 FD what is the state of nexterp? 
 457 22:01:06
 458 kanban thing was on nextcloud, not nexterp :-) 
 459 22:03:17
 460 KimNilsson
 461 OK, then it seems we can move on. 
 462 22:03:20
 463 2.4 OpenID Connect (Brian) 
 464 22:03:57
 465 Update point... any progress since last, if not, we'll move on? 
 466 22:04:10
 467 bdmc
 468 Several of us had a meeting regarding the requirements and progress of this project.  Unless anyone here wants to volunteer, 
 469 22:05:09
 470 I would like to look outside for the few volunteers needed to update and complete the necessary documentation and anything 
 471 22:05:13
 472 mcr
 473 brb. bathroom. 
 474 22:05:25
 475 bdmc
 476 else that we find necessary.   On the other hand.... 
 477 22:05:44
 478 KimNilsson
 479 I sat in on the meeting. Jan did a great presentation of how it will/could work, and what he had already done. 
 480 22:05:51
 481 bdmc
 482 ( We haven't had a lot of success finding other people outside of this group. ) 
 483 22:06:57
 484 bdmc
 485 Agreed.  A lot of work has already been done, which puts us far ahead of where we might have been. 
 486 22:07:40
 487 KimNilsson
 488 I said I'm available to do some enduser documentation, when we have a working demo, so all the steps can be done as an enduser. 
 489 22:07:48
 490 bdmc
 491 To me, the biggest current requirement is documentation.  Some already exists, but more is needed. 
 492 22:08:17
 493 FD
 494 @Michael. The pre-production server is available at rum.abilit.eu. The NextERP LXC container is not yet deployed. 
 495 22:08:42
 496 bdmc
 497 Thank you.  As Jan said, and I agree, there are at least three different audiences to be served. 
 498 22:09:24
 499 FD: mcr is not currently present. 
 500 22:10:03
 501 KimNilsson
 502 He'll probably see the highlight, when he gets back. 
 503 22:10:46
 504 bdmc
 505 Any questions?   Do you want me to expand on anything? 
 506 22:10:58
 507 KimNilsson
 508 Nope, that's good for now. 
 509 22:11:08
 510 mcr
 511 backj. 
 512 22:11:16
 513 FD, thanks for the detail.... 
 514 22:11:33
 515 KimNilsson
 516 2,5 Future of secureU e.V. (slated as "discussion") 
 517 22:11:40
 518 Etienne
 519 secureU e.V. is an association in Germany (e.V. = registered association) that owns the CAcert servers on behalf of CAcert. The board of SecureU is also considering dissolving this association. Of course in close consultation with CAcert. What consequences would this have for us? Advantages? Disadvantages? What possibilities do we see? 
 520 22:11:58
 521 I have spoken to Dirk. SecureU consists mainly of three board members, all of whom want to resign. Now that CAcert Inc is in Europe, the need for SecureU is no longer compelling. We believe there are three possibilities (not all equally good): [1] The Inc board is also SecureU board. (how does this work with people who do not live in Germany? simple or complicated with the authorities? clarify!) [2] Dissolve SecureU, bequeath server and money to Inc. Can we, as a Swiss association, take over the contract without any problems? clarify!) [3] The current board of directors remains pro forma and the Secretary/Treasurer/President of Inc form the management of SecureU. Once a year, a general assembly will be held by correspondence. (this is rather meant in case [1] and [2] are complicated or impossible). On the part of SecureU, mid-year is envisaged. 
 522 22:11:58
 523 It would be best to have one representative from Inc and one from SecureU to follow up and report regularly. At the moment, the discussions have taken place: Secretary (Inc) and egal (SecureU). - egal may correct me. 
 524 22:12:55
 525 egal
 526 nothing to correct ... 
 527 22:13:11
 528 mcr
 529 Etienne, okay. 
 530 22:13:28
 531 egal
 532 on secure-u site you may contact mark overmeer ... as he is our contact-person regarding BIT ... 
 533 22:13:51
 534 mcr
 535 mark overmeer is the SecureU contact for BIT. 
 536 22:13:53
 537 bdmc
 538 I see number 1 as the preferred alternative, if German associations may have "foreign" Board Members. 
 539 22:13:54
 540 mcr
 541 Did I get that right? 
 542 22:14:16
 543 CAcert could acquire SecureU? 
 544 22:14:27
 545 I'm not clear that this is (1). 
 546 22:14:28
 547 FD
 548 If possible, let's go to the simplest way, i.e. option #2, organising with Mark Overmeer the requiered changes in the aggreement with BIT in Ede. 
 549 22:14:37
 550 mcr
 551 FD, I mostly agree. 
 552 22:15:07
 553 Etienne
 554 Therefore the suggestion to clarify 1 and 2 in more detail and then report back here. 
 555 22:15:44
 556 KimNilsson
 557 Yes, that should be an easy decision. 
 558 22:15:49
 559 bdmc
 560 egal: I see that as more complicated, financially, because at present SecureU owns the hardware, correct? 
 561 22:16:13
 562 Etienne
 563 1 would be de facto subsidiary, 2 would be absorption. 
 564 22:16:23
 565 FD
 566 Which benefit do see to option #1, Brian ? Not arguying, just interested by your point of view. 
 567 22:16:24
 568 mcr
 569 The hardware is effectively obsolete and has no value, so it's really the contract with BIT that matters. 
 570 22:16:55
 571 egal
 572 @bdmc correct ... previously oophaga owned the hardware, which was bought bei secure-u for one symbolic euro when signing the new contract to BIT 
 573 22:17:07
 574 bdmc
 575 OK, so then the only asset that SecureU can lay claim to is the contract.   ?? 
 576 22:17:59
 577 Etienne
 578 If it is easier to register foreigners as board members in Germany than in the Swiss commercial register, then this is a good option. 
 579 22:18:00
 580 bdmc
 581 In that case, yes, I agree, dissolving SecureU appears to be the way to go. 
 582 22:18:36
 583 Etienne
 584 But maybe none of both is needed (depends on the dutchs). 
 585 22:20:05
 586 egal
 587 let "somebody" talk to mark overmeer regarding BIT requirements for the contract to BIT ... and we can talk about it on the next meeting ... 
 588 22:20:13
 589 Etienne
 590 Should the secretary continue to clarify and negotiate with SecureU or should someone else do it? 
 591 22:20:41
 592 bdmc
 593 I support the Secretary continuing this job, as long as he is willing. 
 594 22:21:16
 595 Etienne
 596 I other are willing coding, reviewing, documentating... ;-) 
 597 22:21:41
 598 mcr
 599 I am happy to be involved in the talk with Mark. 
 600 22:22:03
 601 FD
 602 Regarding talking to Mark, I would be happy to be involved, too. 
 603 22:23:29
 604 Etienne
 605 OK, I will get in touch with FD and mcr. 
 606 22:23:49
 607 KimNilsson
 608 Good, this means there's a process forward. 
 609 22:23:51
 610 mcr
 611 Thank you. 
 612 22:23:57
 613 FD
 614 Thank you Etienne, 
 615 22:24:10
 616 KimNilsson
 617 2.6 Background Check 
 618 22:24:37
 619 BGC for Kim and Sascha is initated. - Who's rolling with that? 
 620 22:24:46
 621 mcr
 622 what does it mean that it's initiated? 
 623 22:26:20
 624 FD
 625 I though that Petet and Gero (Software development, code review) were to two first to be background checked by Bernhard/DIrk/Jan? 
 626 22:26:25
 627 Etienne
 628 A backgroundcheckerduo accepted to backgroundcheckk them. 
 629 22:26:44
 630 KimNilsson
 631 Ok, so names in agenda are wrong? 
 632 22:28:05
 633 Etienne
 634 I heard, that Ted and Jan will check Kim and Sascha. 
 635 22:28:51
 636 KimNilsson
 637 So back to mcr's question... what does initiated mean? Nobody has reached out to me. 
 638 22:29:54
 639 KimNilsson
 640 If Bernhard/Dirk/Jan are expecting to do Peter and Gero, then the agenda shouldn't go too far ahead. 
 641 22:30:50
 642 Last meeting it was nly suggested a few names, with Peter & Gero definitely higher priority than me. 
 643 22:31:33
 644 mcr
 645 Are the steps on the web site/wiki?  Do we need a diagram? I'd be happy to draw a diagram if someone will tell me as they go through each step. 
 646 22:32:02
 647 FD
 648 Well, I have nothing against Peter, Gero, Matthias, Kim and Sascha going to BCC all by the same train. 
 649 22:32:37
 650 KimNilsson
 651 https://wiki.cacert.org/NewBackgroundCheck 
 652 22:34:37
 653 FD
 654 @Michael; no complicated procedure here: we schedule a common date and time for the intervievers and the interviewee, the BCC is passed, then the candidate delivers to the board the reports he recived from the interviewers. I committed to be the one helping by scheduling the interviews for Peter and Gero, together with Bernhard, Jan or Dirk. 
 655 22:35:32
 656 Etienne
 657 Perhaps it is more diplomatic to first thank them for their willingness and then ask how some of us can help/contribute to ensure that there are more background checkers soon to relieve them and speed up the procedure. 
 658 22:35:43
 659 KimNilsson
 660 FD: So is the BGC done according to, or at least in the spirit of, the wiki page I linked? 
 661 22:36:15
 662 egal
 663 @FD as i told etienne during our phonecall: if a board-member does the BCC, he can't cast a vote as a board-member ... as this would be a conflict of interest ... 
 664 22:36:56
 665 bdmc
 666 Similarly if he is a candidate. 
 667 22:37:13
 668 egal
 669 correct 
 670 22:37:27
 671 KimNilsson
 672 egal & bdmc - yes, stands to reason. So, some planning on who does what and when is necessary. 
 673 22:37:53
 674 But that might be easier whence a few more have gone through BGC? 
 675 22:38:34
 676 Anyway, is there any more info on this point? 
 677 22:39:00
 678 FD
 679 @Dirk: I don't see the causal link. 
 680 22:39:30
 681 mcr
 682 okay, so... great.  It is initiated... so there date needs to be set... I'll look forward to the report? 
 683 22:40:24
 684 KimNilsson
 685 FD: the board member could do a BGC "for a friend", and skip all the important parts, and then also vote that the BGC is accepted. 
 686 22:41:28
 687 KimNilsson
 688 I'm thinking regardless who performs the BGC, it should be voted on by other people. 
 689 22:42:10
 690 Just to avoid the potential conflict egal is mentioning. 
 691 22:42:34
 692 FD
 693 Anyone can do a background check "of convenience". I still don't see the causal link. But I propose to discuss it verbally, rather than cluttering up the chat room with this topic. 
 694 22:43:01
 695 KimNilsson
 696 Thank you. Moving on. 
 697 22:43:26
 698 2.7 New CSR software (Ted), 2.7.1 to Ted's knowledge there was no progress with this software in 2021. He don't expect any progress in 2022. 
 699 22:43:35
 700 Etienne
 701 No news since January. 
 702 22:43:47
 703 KimNilsson
 704 thank you. 
 705 22:43:50
 706 2.8 Software reviews (Brian) 
 707 22:44:34
 708 Etienne
 709 There is a new landing page for voulnteers. To put as a link in e-mails, etc. to avoid that we will be overhelmed by e-mails... 
 710 22:44:37
 711 https://wiki.cacert.org/NewBackgroundCheck 
 712 22:44:52
 713 mcr
 714 so, what is the action required from the board on this topic? 
 715 22:45:12
 716 bdmc
 717 Unfortunately, we are still waiting ( technically ) for the BGC process.  Only technically, because I have been told that these people don't need the check. 
 718 22:45:13
 719 Etienne
 720 Could you please have a look and check if to wording is OK? 
 721 22:45:36
 722 bdmc
 723 Etienne: How does this page relate? 
 724 22:46:55
 725 Etienne
 726 e.g. as a link in the CCA-Mail to 380 000 where we will also ask for help. We cannot answer 20000 e-mails. So we need a kind of self service entrance landing page for volunteers. 
 727 22:47:41
 728 KimNilsson
 729 Etienne: Doesn't feel relevant to 22:43 < KimNilsson> 2.8 Software reviews (Brian) 
 730 22:47:51
 731 egal
 732 but then you should give the correct landing-page-link ... ;-) 
 733 22:47:53
 734 bdmc
 735 Etienne: How the the NewBackgroundCheck instruction page relate to volunteers? 
 736 22:48:07
 737 ( How does ) 
 738 22:48:13
 739 mcr
 740 is there a board action relating to NewBackgroundCheck? 
 741 22:48:19
 742 or can we move on? 
 743 22:49:06
 744 KimNilsson
 745 As BGC was just an info point, there shouldn't need to be an action. So I moved on. 
 746 22:49:27
 747 Etienne
 748 bdmc: this is not 6 Background Check, but 8.2. Review 
 749 22:49:33
 750 KimNilsson
 751 2.7 had no updates. so moved on. 
 752 22:49:42
 753 Etienne: yup, but we're not there yet. 
 754 22:49:54
 755 AHA, now i'm with you. 
 756 22:50:12
 757 Was expecting the response to come from Brian, so got confused. 
 758 22:50:35
 759 https://wiki.cacert.org/engagement 
 760 22:50:52
 761 FD
 762 It is possible that Etienne wanted to show us instead the page he had written on the Wiki, to welcome newcomers. And that he copied and pasted instead the page on the bacground checked by the community. 
 763 22:50:54
 764 mcr
 765 there are many edits that I would make to that page, but ... 
 766 22:50:55
 767 Etienne
 768 As there was nothing about Software (just xxx), I expected that there will be nothing from Brian - sorry. 
 769 22:51:00
 770 KimNilsson
 771 This is 2.8.2 Wiki review of https://wiki.cacert.org/engagement 
 772 22:51:20
 773 mcr
 774 many small edits. 
 775 22:51:51
 776 bdmc
 777 KimNilsson: As did I. 
 778 22:52:50
 779 Etienne
 780 As the CCA mail will not be sent this month, maybe you prefer to have a look and make small edits when all have wiki edit access? 
 781 22:52:50
 782 KimNilsson
 783 Etienne: sorry for the confusion. 
 784 22:53:01
 785 bdmc
 786 mcr: Yes, I have made a few, but ( darn, I was about to say "have at it" ) -- perhaps we can exchange e-mail. 
 787 22:53:29
 788 mcr
 789 @Etienne that would be great. 
 790 22:54:06
 791 Etienne
 792 OK: Homework for all: look at https://wiki.cacert.org/engagement - it will come again in a few weeks. 
 793 22:54:20
 794 KimNilsson
 795 Having such a landing page is great, and yes, it might be fun to help out make it welcoming. 
 796 22:54:34
 797 bdmc
 798 Etienne, etc.  Do the necessary people have access to manage the Wiki? 
 799 22:54:46
 800 KimNilsson
 801 No, not all board members have edit access. 
 802 22:54:49
 803 mcr
 804 okay, I got four more minutes. 
 805 22:54:53
 806 bdmc
 807 Does everybody here have Edit access? 
 808 22:55:00
 809 egal
 810 in theory we could send the CCA-mailing at any time ... but as sun2/www.cacert.org has only one working HDD and one firewall is currently out of order i would prefer to send it after both is working again as expected 
 811 22:55:01
 812 KimNilsson
 813 NO 
 814 22:55:18
 815 bdmc
 816 The first question was regarding the people who GIVE access. 
 817 22:55:32
 818 KimNilsson
 819 I do not have edit access to the wiki. Neither does michael. 
 820 22:55:57
 821 bdmc
 822 I know.  Somebody, Etienne?, was supposed to be getting managment access. 
 823 22:56:16
 824 egal
 825 since monday or tuesday my wiki-access is working again ... i'm in contact to ales ... so (hopefully) it will be done during the weekend ... 
 826 22:56:21
 827 Etienne
 828 I told Ales to ask to Dirk to give support the rights to manage this. 
 829 22:56:54
 830 KimNilsson
 831 bdmc: true, see that now - yes, it was decided that also Secretary was given management/admin access of wiki. 
 832 22:57:21
 833 Etienne
 834 (egal's wiki access is working again thanks to JanDD and while doing this he discovered the solution of the speed issue as well) 
 835 22:57:22
 836 egal
 837 (my wiki-access using certificate was not possible since weeks ... and password-reset was not working ... ;-( 
 838 22:57:57
 839 ... which jandd fixed some days ago ... so i was able to reset my password ... and then enable certificate login again) 
 840 22:58:38
 841 KimNilsson
 842 Good, so there's hope of more people gaining both admin and edit access in the near future. 
 843 23:00:08
 844 KimNilsson
 845 Last item on the agenda. 3. Question time. Let's start by officially agreeing on the next meetings. 
 846 23:00:14
 847 3. March 2022 
 848 23:00:20
 849 mcr
 850 works for me. aye! 
 851 23:00:35
 852 Etienne
 853 OK 
 854 23:00:37
 855 FD
 856 @Etienne: This kind of complicated convolution is exactly what has been blocking us for years. We discussed this with Dirk yesterday. Why can't Dirk just give the writing rights without asking Etienne to ask Ales, to ask Dirk. We really need to adopt a different mindset. We are killing ourselves slowly with this kind of behaviour. 
 857 23:00:42
 858 bdmc
 859 Agreed 
 860 23:01:37
 861 egal
 862 as i explained before ... we need more application admins ... 
 863 23:01:48
 864 no matter if it's for wiki, otrs, mantis, ... 
 865 23:02:24
 866 FD
 867 Sure, but please in parallel give access rigths to Kim and Michael, don't you want ? 
 868 23:02:25
 869 egal
 870 (it's not being root on the machines, but knowing the software) 
 871 23:03:07
 872 jandd and I have admin-rights on many machines without having knowledge of the software itself ... ;-( 
 873 23:03:20
 874 KimNilsson
 875 Thank you. The meeting after that. 7. Apr (Maundy Thursday is on 14th) 
 876 23:03:43
 877 FD
 878 I am quite sure that I received write access right to Wiki from you, Dirk. 
 879 23:04:16
 880 KimNilsson
 881 Is 7 April fine with everyone? 
 882 23:04:25
 883 egal
 884 yep ... while doing support and being wiki-admin ... and having access to wiki ... ;-) 
 885 23:04:44
 886 Etienne
 887 FD, you are right. The problem at the moment is that formally Dirk should ask Dirk if Dirk should tell Dirks he may, .... And I can understand why he insists on certain formalities so that it doesn't appear that Dirk is doing everything on his own without following any rules. If there is someone else in each post and not always the same three, we can look to this - we have to look to this. 
 888 23:05:03
 889 egal
 890 (which is working since beginning of the week ... but i will not have time before weekend ... ;-( 
 891 23:05:22
 892 bdmc
 893 KimNilsson: Agreed. 
 894 23:05:42
 895 mcr
 896 April 7 is good! 
 897 23:05:43
 898 FD
 899 I am against insisting on such formalities. Again, we are killing ourselves playing such a mock game. 
 900 23:06:10
 901 egal
 902 hey ... we're bound to our rules ... the question is how we're able to bend them without breaking them ... ;-) 
 903 23:06:20
 904 KimNilsson
 905 Good, last date on the agenda is incorrect. First Thursday of May is the 5th. 
 906 23:06:51
 907 So I suggest we say that the meeting shoud be on the 5th of May. 
 908 23:06:59
 909 And the agenda be corrected to that. 
 910 23:07:02
 911 Etienne
 912 OK for Thu 5.5. 
 913 23:07:10
 914 bdmc
 915 Good with me. 
 916 23:07:10
 917 egal
 918 and in the last some years i'm bending a lot of rules ... while i try not to break ;-) 
 919 23:08:00
 920 KimNilsson
 921 alright, that was all the items on the agenda. If there an addional not yet discussed topic for today? 
 922 23:08:19
 923 bdmc
 924 egal: I really don't want to break you!  B-) 
 925 23:08:34
 926 FD
 927 @Dirk, @all: It is not a question of respecting the rules. We have two of us who have been asking for months to have write access to the Wiki. We have one of us who can give such write access. We have talked about this together in person. No email exchange is necessary. Let's just do it. 
 928 23:08:54
 929 KimNilsson
 930 If not, that's it for this time. Leaving a 60s delay before shutting it down. 
 931 23:09:09
 932 egal
 933 @fd: for a quite long time my wiki-access was not working ... 
 934 23:09:16
 935 how should i then add members? 
 936 23:09:55
 937 Etienne
 938 FD: As I told today, JanDD repaired the wiki some days ago. Before egal was locked out :-( 
 939 23:10:28
 940 egal
 941 since jandds repair i can login again ... 
 942 23:10:35
 943 FD
 944 @Dirk, @ Etienne, @ all: I suggest nothing more than opening up write access to Kim and Michael now, without waiting for further emails. 
 945 23:12:32
 946 bdmc
 947 Good night, All! 
 948 23:12:41
 949 egal
 950 wait ... 
 951 23:12:48
 952 KimNilsson
 953 I'm just officially ending the planned meeting now. 22:10 UTC. (meeting end logged here) 
 954 23:12:49
 955 egal
 956 what about remote assurances? 
 957 23:13:08
 958 do we have any progress in discussion? 
 959 23:14:18
 960 bdmc
 961 egal: From what I have seen ( nothing lately ) the discussion has stalled. 
 962 23:14:23
 963 KimNilsson
 964 Everyone who has talked about it agrees that it's a good idea. It has been mentioned in the policy-group, I think. And it needs to be dscussed further there, but I haven't heard anything more. 
 965 23:14:54
 966 egal
 967 hm ... okay ... any plans to bring it up again in policy group? 
 968 23:15:02
 969 to get a decision there? 
 970 23:15:28
 971 bdmc
 972 I guess that the Policy group doesn't need to have solutions to the technical problems, just "modify" the Policy. 
 973 23:15:49
 974 KimNilsson
 975 sounds reasonable 
 976 23:15:52
 977 bdmc
 978 I will write a message today or tomorrow. 
 979 23:15:57
 980 egal
 981 i'm only talking about policy ... not software ... ;-) 
 982 23:16:07
 983 bdmc
 984 Other people are welcome to join. 
 985 23:16:59
 986 egal
 987 as soon as there is a policy, software could be updated (in this case by adding a new entry for the type of assurance ... 
 988 23:17:07
 989 ... or more ... (depending of the policy) 
 990 23:17:08
 991 KimNilsson
 992 egal: yup 
 993 23:17:50
 994 bdmc
 995 I will get something written, but not before morning ( for you all ). 
 996 23:18:33
 997 KimNilsson
 998 bdmc: you get the ball, and we can kick it down the road 
 999 23:18:43
1000 "get the ball rolling..." duh 
1001 23:19:10
1002 night time here now - y'all have a good one - cya 
1003 23:19:26
1004 bdmc
1005 OK, so a recommendation for reduced points per assurer, adding some "marker" for type of assurance, anything else? 
1006 23:20:17
1007 egal
1008 "Face2Face" vs. "RemoteAssurance" or "VideoAssurance" ... there are several other types of accurances in our database 
1009 23:20:23
1010 KimNilsson
1011 Location, should be the same word used for all remote assurances. 
1012 23:20:35
1013 egal: exactly, something like that 
1014 23:20:45
1015 egal
1016 (one of these is "Administrative Increase" for the first 25 assurances you do 
1017 23:21:43
1018 bdmc
1019 egal: Each of the first 25, or after 25? 
1020 23:23:35
1021 egal
1022 check your points on www.cacert.org ... ;-) 
1023 23:23:50
1024 (for each assurance you do you get 2 pts) 
1025 23:24:14
1026 bdmc
1027 Anyway, this has gone on long enough, so you will see my message in Policy Group. 
1028 23:24:29
1029 egal: That was too long ago!   B-) 
1030 23:25:03
1031 egal
1032 for every 5 assurances you gave you're able to give the applicate 5 more points ... until you reach 35 pts .. ;-) 
1033 23:25:38
1034 bdmc
1035 I may not have had that, because I came in on the Thawte program. 
1036 23:28:02
1037 FD
1038 Guys, I wish you a good night (for you Dirk, Kim, Etienne) and a good evening to you, Brian. See you soon, 
1039 23:28:03
1040 egal
1041 @bdmc: check your points ... ,-) 
1042 23:28:25
1043 Etienne
1044 good night 
1045 23:28:58
1046 bdmc
1047 egal: I will, thank you. 
1048 23:29:06
1049 Good night all. 
1050 23:29:13
1051 egal
1052 good night ... 
1053 23:29:18
1054 ← FD est parti du salon  
1055 23:38:59
1056 ← FD|PC2 est parti du salon