Committee Meeting 2012-12-05

The meeting will take place at 22:00 UTC in the IRC channel #board-meeting on the CAcert IRC network.

Committee Members: feel free to add a business within the acceptance period or your question to the board below. Others: add a question to the questions section.


  1. Minutes author prepares the minutes from the last meeting

  2. Minutes author prepares the action items. All action owners to update.

  3. Minutes author puts motion=m20121126.1 to accept the minutes


  1. Preliminaries
    1. Chair opens the Committee Meeting
    2. Accept the minutes from the last meeting.

    3. Who is making minutes?
    4. Chair asks whether cacert-board-private maillist includes any items that need to be disclosed to Members.

    5. Chair introduces the URL of action items to the meeting, and asks for discussion.

  2. Businesses

    Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Committee Meeting latest!

    1. Is Cancelation of Subcommittee required ?
    2. Assign special roles Michael

    3. Todo list: walk through AGM/NewBoardCheckList

    4. Finance report AGM 2012 (ongoing)
      • current state ?
      • action items ?
    5. Privacy and prior board decisions aka DPA issue
      • board to board transfer
    6. Business added by Your Name Comment: Replace "Business One" by Title of Business and add your Name

      • Additional Inputs Comment: Replace "Additional Inputs"by Description of Business, Description of Reason-Why/Purpose, Additional Comments, Additional Documents, Additional Links, if useful for other Committee Members to prepare for Committee Meeting.

    7. et cetera
  3. Question Time

    Questions from Community Members can be added until beginning of Committee Meeting! As well questions can be asked at "Question Time", without added Question here

    1. 1. Board involvement in DRP added by Iang

      1. previous policy group decision p20110108 was intended to remove Board's role in DRP appeal process. This was especially in the light of the Board being a party to a dispute that could be appealed.

      2. there are some residual references to clean up in DRP that assumed the old role of the Board as the forum of appeal:

        • (i) Change 3.5:
          • The above provisions may only be overridden by appeal process (by means of a new dispute causing referral to the Board).

          • to this:
            • The above provisions may only be overridden by appeal process.

          (i) Change 3.6:
          • Novel remedies outside the domain may be routinely confirmed by the Board by way of appeal process, in order to establish precedent.

          • to this:
            • Novel remedies outside the domain may be routinely confirmed by way of appeal process, in order to establish precedent.

          (i) Change 4.2:
          • In such a case, the community should strive to re-open the case and refer it to the board.

          • to this:
            • In such a case, the community should strive to re-open the case.

      3. Question for board: Does the board feel that it has any role to play in the appeal process? Does the board feel that it wants to retain the above text for any reason? What are those reasons?
        • Observation from AlexRobertson in view of possible meeting clash

          • Please note that these changes were discussed at some length within Policy Group and were explicitly rejected when IanG called for a vote p20121113 and the consensus at the time was that these areas warranted "further discussion".

          • For reference the arguments against the changes were...
          • DRP 3.5 refers to "liability" - as this may affect external suppliers (eg insurers) should this not stay with the board;
          • DRP 3.6 may have legal implications - one current Arbitration Case requests that "M, M, U & myself are to flagellate ourselves with a wet noodle. (Two noodles in my case, a second one for the late filing.)" - this (if granted) would almost certainly breach EU (and other areas) rules on Human Rights. Any oversight of "novel remedies" should (ideally) be external to the Arbitration team - the Board seems to be the logical place that this should happen.

          • There's also a similar issue in oversight/confirmation of "Sealing" cases (DRP 3.2)
          • DRP 4.2 is problematic either way - it's a "line of last resort" for the community and needs a "method" to provide that facility; if the clause is removed altogether it becomes a serious erosion of members' rights...

    2. Appointment of a representative to Arbitration case a20110310.1 added by AlexRobertson

      • This is an appeal case raised by the Board - it was decided at a previous meeting to postpone appointing a representative until after the new Board was installed.
    3. Question One added by Your Name Comment: Replace "Question One" by Your Question and add your Name

      • et cetera
  4. Closing
    1. Agree on date of the next Committee Meeting
    2. Chair closes the Committee Meeting


1 Preliminaries

1.1 Opening

Present: Dirk, Michael, Sven, Tomas, Werner
Meeting was chaired by Michael.

1.2 Minutes from last meeting

1.3 Minutes taker

Minutes will be taken by Werner.

1.4 Disclosure of private communication


1.5 Action Items

Reassigning the action items was postponed to next meeting.

2 Business

2.1 Is Cancellation of Subcommittee required?

As we have 3 AU residents, a subcommittee is currently no longer required, therefore cancelled. Motion carried. The old motion was m20111211.2

2.2 Assign Special Roles

Since Sven is not long Association member, he declined any job. Peter and Kevin had declined before. No one felt suited for treasurer, so all declined, but finally Michael agreed. Tomáš agreed to keep secretary, Dirk agreed to keep Vice president, so the only left for President was Werner. The motion to accept the roles was carried.

Since points 2.3 and following were late business, it was moved to accept 2.3 and the OFT part of 2.4 and to defer the rest.

2.3 New board check list

The steps were remembered and if possible immediately processed.

2.4: Financial report the OFT part

The motion to assign Kevin to process it, was carried.

3 Question time

3.1 Board involvement in DRP

It was denied that board is a very good place for appeals. So the board would be ok with such a change, but the Policy group should make its mind first.

3.2 Appointment of a representative to Arbitration case a20110310.1

This was deferred to the next meeting.

4 Closing

Next meeting will be agreed by doodle.


Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/20121205 (last edited 2012-12-26 09:30:37 by Werner Dworak)