• To Brain CAcert Inc. - CAcert.org Members Association - To Brain CAcert Inc. Committee Meeting Agendas & Minutes - last meeting - next meeting

---

Agenda - Committee Meeting - 2009-11-15 - 21:00 UTC & 2009-11-22 - 21:00 UTC

• 1 Preliminaries

  • 1.1 Chair opens the Committee Meeting

  • 1.2 Accept the Minutes of the last Committee Meeting

  • 1.3 Ratify the Motions made since the last Committee Meeting

• 2 Businesses - Important Note: Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Committee Meeting latest!

  • 2.1 Arbitration/Support Blockages added by Iang + Mark

    • Discuss current blockages of support, seek input of current support@, discuss how best to appoint new support engineers.

    • Additional Input: Review of work-flow, read also Board-Next-Meeting Sunday 2009-11-15 - 21:00 UTC - Input (u60)

    • Iang proposes this item 2.1 absorbs 2.9 "Support Blockages" as proposed by Mark.

    • Additional Input: "Support + Arbitration / draft of report for meeting sunday".

  • 2.2 AGM / SGM - added by Iang

    • Non additional Inputs

  • 2.3 DPA discussion meeting #4 on 20091010/11 - added by Iang

    • No additional Inputs

  • 2.4 Critical Bugs & Improvements - added by andreas

    • Case 1: Intermediate level-3 certificate is MD5-signed

      • http://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=665.

      • CAcert.org Wiki Md5 Based Hash and Security Notes

      • Additional Input: "2.4 new roots / draft backgrounder for sunday meeting"

    • Case 2: Altnames can only be assigned when in CSR - http://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=788 -> What is needed / required to fix? Who can help? Consequences, it not done or delayed?

  • 2.5 Audit - added by andreas

    • Additional Inputs: How long will it take until CAcert.org is ready for audit?

  • 2.6 Financial Information - added by Mark

    • Additional Inputs: Organise replacement signing authority from Ernestine, discussion about financial reports for FY2009, revisit board access to raw accounting material that hasn't eventuated, discuss whether m20090913.8 has been followed.

  • 2.7 Vienna Hosting - added by Mark

    • Additional Inputs: Consider acceptance of Sonance offer of hosting for non-critical infrastructure (in addition to the Swiss offer).

  • 2.8 Recovery of Documents/Hardware - added by Mark

    • Additional Inputs: Consider what action, if any, to take to recover CAcert documents and server in possession of former public officer.

  • 2.10 Infrastructure Sponsorship - Update - added by andreas

    • Additional Inputs: Infrastructure Offerings Update to Committee

  • Dropped/combined:

    • 2.9 "Support Blockages" - added by Mark - moved to 2.1 by Iang

• 3 Question Time - Important Note: Questions from CAcert.org Community Members can be added until beginning of Committee Meeting! As well questions can be asked at "Question Time", without added Question here

  • 3.1 "Why is support at c.o no longer responding?!?" added by UlrichSchroeter

  • actual state (2009-11-12) Alejandro handles some cases. It seems, that Guillaume disappeard
  • Nomination of about 20 candidates for SE i've started Nov 5th. In the meanwhile 2 motions

  • m20091108.1 by Nick Declined - 2009-11-12 00:00:02 UTC Aye|Naye|Abstain: 1|4|0

  • m20091111.1 by Philipp Pending - 2009-11-18 23:59:59 UTC Aye|Naye|Abstain: 2|0|0

  • started. One declined, one pending.
  • Why the first motion declined ? I've read no discussions, no questions? No communication ...
  • I'll propose to appoint 2-4 temporarely candidates for about 4 weeks.
  • Starting ASAP the background check on these candidates.
  • and continue with the background check with all the other candidates
  • from my candidates nominations list so probably by end of this year, we can have a working
  • support _team_ and problem solved.

• 4 Closing

  • 4.1 Confirm next Committee Meeting: Adjournment of Meeting until 22 Nov, 2009 2100UTC.
  • 4.2 Chair closes the Committee Meeting
  • 4.3 Preparation of Minutes

Minutes - Committee Meeting 2009-11-15 & 2009-11-22

1 Preliminaries

• 1.1 Markl opened the meeting at 21:02 UTC, and chaired the meeing in absence of Nick.

• 1.2 Chair moved to accept the Minutes of the last Meeting 20091010 (open component and closed component. All in favour, carried as m20091115.1.

• 1.3 Chair noted that there were no motions to ratify, and moved on.

2 Business

2.1 Arbitration / Support

• Chair opened first item of Business, "Arbitration/Support Blockages". This also combined in item 2.9 "Support Blockages". Iang entered into the record a report "Support + Arbitration / draft of report for meeting sunday".

  • Philipp opened discussion pointing at the already pending motion, which markl suggested we move and finalise during this meeting. Chair asked Guillaume for his perspective on the situation.
  • Guillaume pointed out that Alejandro had come back in to handle urgent casesand pointed out that no-one was doing support. Nick's motion derailed the intent to do interviews. Alejandro was kind enough to handle several arb cases.
  • markl, andreas, Philipp asked on the situation, and Guillaume confirmed that "right now, support@ is a blackhole." markl asked why the sudden stopping, lack of warning. iang mentioned that he's seen lots of warning from both, but there were no replacements.
  • Guillaume cited new appartment buying, commitment back to SGM, uncertainty as to direction, and complications. Markl asked what stopped the two motions in question, a20090501.1 and a20090525.2 from being done? Guillaume said that (one of) the persons could lead to problems.
  • markl commented that the proposal "delays" background checks, and that might be a long time given that two background checks from May are in the arbitration black hole. He points at solving Arbitration crisis as being something that solves support. Iang reminded that only in the last month did we start to re-address the arbitration / support issues.
  • Guillaume and Andreas discuss how many people are needed. Guillaume indicates 3, which gives 1 online and 2 spare. Markl asks about Guillaume sticking around. Guillaume does not want to deal with spam any more.
  • Somebody mentions the word spam. Ruffling of feathers ... insert long discussion. Are false positives acceptable? Can they be bounced at SMTP level? There might have been a decision to read all spam? Should be drop that decision? This isn't to do with spam?
  • Back to the policy. bypassing the policy is a bad thing. Some do not care for the background check, but it is a community policy.
  • iang: propose that we change the policy, and do the background check in the meantime. Also, there is a bug in the policy, in that if the team resigns in one go, we have no way to initiate the practice because the team leader has to do it.
  • philipp mentions that regulations may require something. DPA doesn't have it directly, but it does have a requirement to have a contract with the security people. iang points out that the SP fills that spot. iang introduces ABC as Arbitrated Background Check.
  • markl: SP gives the board oversite over the appointments of team members. How about we veto the requirement for ABC and then we do the approprate thing at board level? This is vetoing something we feel is unworkable.
  • andreas: not good at board level. Philipp: we should define the procedure, not do an ad hoc one. markl: board should be able to consider as it sees fit, it already has that power over the applicant regardless of ABC.
  • iang: actually part of that already exists because the Arbitrator has the power to define what "background check" means. It is already flexible, what we might dispute is whether it is in the right place.
  • philipp: then back to Arbitration. There have comments that investigation of Arbitration has been slow / neglected. Not philipp agrees with the complaints, but maybe the solution/bandaid applied a while back didn't do the job. And fixing Arbitration is what we need to fix.
  • iang (same) and it just takes time, patience. Philipp thinks Arbitration is a good thing. Andreas concurs. Markl points out that this means support won't be fixed just then. Ernie says the problem is arbitration, not support.
  • iang: at this stage, Guillaume and Alejandro have resigned, and support is a "black hole". Therefore the board is in charge of Support. So we just have to staff it again. And ask Guillaume if he could keep an eye out for us.
  • markl: options: drop the check; delay the check; veto the ABC in policy and revert the check back to board. Mark thinks that "delay the check" means ignoring it, or that they access the data before they are checked.
  • andreas asks, does that mean we take responsibility for them? iang, yes. Guillaume mentions at least one trusted person to know them. andreas and iang accept that, it is board anyway.
  • markl: veto the clause. iang: we can only veto the policy ... long discussion on interpretation of the veto. No consensus reached.
  • iang: if we ignore the policy, then the remedy is for someone to file dispute, but that's the core issue anyway, so if that is solved, the dispute is solved. It is meta-policy that anyone can break a policy, and then just file dispute to have the exception recognised. andreasbuerki: like the supreme court. markl: ironic. iang: perhaps ... but deliberate. This is why the policies are quite light; they only craft the basics. Any exceptions are kicked out to arbitration deliberately. (examples from SP listed, 1.2, 4.1.1.1)
  • markl: it's still a free for all on violating policy. andreas: smart but heavy load on Arbitrartors. iang: yes, this is why it is essential that arbitration works. Guillaume: so a kind arbitrator might a light ABC, put it in two parts.
  • iang: so we file and ask for QUICK ABCs. markl: so why don't we just do it? iang: because our first step is to accept Guillaume and Alejandro's resignation, then the board is in charge, then we can do it.
  • (discussion) iang moves to accept Guillaume and Alejandro's resignation, and thank them for their service. markl seconds, AYES: iang, andreas (Guillaume only), ernie (Guillaume only), markl, Philipp. ABSTAIN: Guillaume.

  • Has Alejandro resigned? Iang says yes, in effect, "many times" and definately wants out. But no formal resignation to hand. Ernestine and Andreas are now Ayes, with a yellow flag. Chair declares the motion carried as m20091115.3.

  • andreas: so we need replacements. markl: easiest way is to appoint a support officer. iang: suggest a temporary
  • markl: suggest iang. iang: suggest u60. time is limited, AGM, DRP, etc. markl: u60 is also arbitrator. iang (thinks) not such a big conflict. andreas: time available from Event job? (discussion)

  • markl: moves that iang be appointed Support Officer temporarily, to immediately propose candidates for background checks, and to recommend a suitable replacement for the support officer role ASAP. Andreas seconds. five in favour (iang abstains). Chair declares the motion carried as m20091116.3.

2.2 AGM

• 21:31 Chair opened next item of Business, "AGM"

  • Brief discussion led to this being deferred until after 2.6, 2.8. However it was not reached in this meeting.

2.3 DPA

• Chair opened next item of Business, "DPA"

  • iang: need to get moving. Either we accept the consensus of the last meeting, or we book another meeting. Whichever.
  • markl: I'd be prepared to accept the consensus at this stage, and propose that we work on a brief position statement on the private list, to adopt at the next meeting? Guillaume, andreas, philipp, iang, confirm. iang asks to agenda it for next weekend. point closed.

2.4 Critical Bugs & Improvements

• 22:36 Chair opened next item of Business, "Critical Bugs & Improvements".

  • andreas: situation is dangerous to reputation. Board is aware of security situation. Some figures entered on UZH, ETHZ. iang enters "2.4 new roots / draft backgrounder for sunday meeting" into transcript.

  • markl: this seems to be a community issue, perhaps a policy issue? it is still a theoretical attack? andreas: theory or not, we should take care of security. iang: it directly only applies if the cert is predictable, which was possible on one CA only. The real annoyance is when the browsers start dropping MD5.
  • discussion on real risk, perceived risk, reactions.
  • discussion on which is the real forum to deal with this. Policy? iang: no, the audit decision was made in 2007, it is clear we SHOULD re-issue the roots, in that the current ones are AUDIT FAIL. CPS already disowns the current roots. Policy has nothing to say, it only wants new ones.

  • discussion on the resource question. Guillaume: "a lot of time". How much? It is on the wiki under New Roots Task Force. We have the plan already. What it needs is an update, and a person to manage it. And budget. Philipp announces he has to leave the meeting. leaves 22:53.

  • question of what technically is required. Iang says complete issuance; Guillaume says without budget a quick fix only is possible. It is easier to do a non-auditable class 3 replacement, but if we do one, we may as well do the lot, because the follow-on work is the same.
  • discussion on a motion; there is one from 2007, another doesn't change anything. Andreas feels that a decision is required. Markl and iang believe the 2007 one is sufficient. But board is "leading". Markl, it needs to be translated into someone doing the groundwork, that is what we lack.
  • discussion on who does the work: proposal on the lists, policy issues, travelling, getting directors together,
  • subjectAltNames: someone needs to write a patch? that is just the start of the practical work;

  • what does this person need? Guillaume: knowing x.509 certs and coding. iang: someone who understands all the stuff on the wiki on Roots. you need a manager who's also a techie and won't get snowed by a PKI nut. I reckon that would be PD, ML, or me, to add my toot-toot

  • Chair calls "move on."

2.5 Audit

• 23:13 Chair opened next item of Business, "Audit".

  • andreas: "How long will it take until CAcert.org is ready for audit?" can anyone answer this question.

  • markl: see iang's response on board list. the question is one for the wider community.. when will *you* be ready for the audit

  • iang: audit priorities in my mind are: DRP and hosting.

  • andreas: will it be in 2010 or 2011? iang: i've never answered that question, and i don't intend to start now. Because it is tantamount to a promise to deliver. And it isn't me that is delivering the audit work, it is the community.

  • andreas: and the community is asking when.... catch 22.

  • markl: I think on the audit note though, that we are finally making progress on the board-level issues that relate to the audit, like the hosting, DPA, and arb issues.

2.6 Financial Information

• 23:16 Chair opened next item of Business, "Financial Information".

  • 2.6.1 Organise replacement signing authority from Ernestine.

  • markl asks about new copy of documents. ernie comments that will try this week or beginnning of next, it depends on when the right person is at the consulate.
  • markl: who is near a consulate. iang: I am, PD is, probably Guillaume. Nick probably not.
  • iang: do we have a view to add more directors? markl, yes, iang, yes.
  • markl prefers to leave it at that. Discussion. The end complication seems to be that we would need to create a new authority which would require physical signatures. Ernie's signature is already done? So continue with that.
  • once ernie is signed up, it is easier to add new signatories

  • 2.6.2 23:29 discussion about financial reports for FY2009.

  • markl: I think we need to proceed on the basis that we will not get anything in a timely fashion from the previous board, and I'd say we need to ask Ernie to prepare a financial report on the basis of the bank statements and the previous year's financial report alone.

  • ernie: no time last week to look at the statements (delivered last week on private list by markl). template? markl: use the 07/08 report, it will also provide opening figures.

  • ernie: I suggest to write off fixes assets from these figures. markl: I'll provide info on how it is done here shortly. But there is flexibility, no reporting obligations.

  • 2.6.3 23:38 revisit board access to raw accounting material that hasn't eventuated, discuss whether m20090913.8 has been followed.

  • markl: Regarding the raw data for the financial reports that were sent as images, we agreed it was to be sent to private list, and nothing has been seen.
  • ernie: what we have has been sent. Dan set up the paypal redirection.
  • markl: not the paypal, but the transcation histories. ernie: OK, will do, you asked for xls-files.
  • markl: we should make sanitised versions available publically, with identifying information removed.

  • iang: we should publish stuff, but I'd like to see the raw material before deciding for sure. also, i've noted that there are two opposing opinions: one is that we have to publish who are the donators, and the other is that we cannot publish who are the donators ...

  • (long discussion where people talk across each other, elided...)
  • it is not proposed to publish names of people on open websites.
  • markl: first step is the source documents. ernie: give me 10 days, then i will update the last figures.
  • markl: words to effect, I'd rather have them as is. move on.

  • 2.6.4 00:01 discuss whether m20090913.8 has been followed.

  • m20090913.8 Paypal Info for support: Treasurer send a daily email to support with details of any paypal

  • Chair asks GolfRomeo to present. Guillaume: data was sent then it stopped. (am unsure) whether a mail is supposed to be sent to support@ ?

  • markl: motion called for a daily email, so if not happening, need to talk about why.
  • ernie: (to effect of) i received a confirmation that the mails were received, guillaume has access to the mailing list. I wrote this to support 20090922, no reply seen.
  • markl: did you confirm that support had an alternate way of receiving them before stopping sending them?
  • ernie: (guillaume) never sent an answer that you don't have access to the mailing-list with the infos

  • GolfRomeo: I don't have access to the list but it is no longer my duty so...

  • ernie: you have access to the mailing-list - we have decided once, and I think dan set it up
  • markl: we agreed to the resolution on the basis that this was going to be a top priority to be sent each day, as I recall
  • iang asks what mailing list are we talking about (discussion) cacert-inc. This is the one we agreed all such things should go to.
  • markl: decision to send emails was based on privacy, it took a long time for that decision, regardless of misunderstanding, thisi s a manufactured problem because the end result is the same as when it blew up.
  • iang: "manufacturing" is easy to apply to lots of other things
  • markl: and the payment notification API hasn't happened either. presumably anyone who does support now will have the same problem. So much heated argument, and it didn't work.
  • ernie: the payment API is open issue with Christopher, he has some problem with security. The rest is working, but I have not tested it.
  • markl: either support@ needs to be back on the list, or m20090913.8 needs to be complied with.
  • ernie announces has to leave 00:20 markl: can we agree ...
  • iang enters the URL of the list archive into the transcript, there are payments posted on the list.

  • markl: moves that m20090913.8 be rescinded, and that support@cacert.org be placed on the cc-list for payment notifications directly from Paypal. Seconded iang, all in favour, chair declares the motion carried as m20091116.1.

  • guillaume announces he now has access to the list. ernie announces she will write to Dan to get the change.

2.7 & 2.10 Infrastructure Hosting Update

• 00:27 Chair opened next item of Business, "2.7 Vienna Hosting" and combines with "2.10 Infrastructure Sponsorship - Update".

  • andreas: we are translating sponsorship agreement from adfinis. wiki links entered into transcript. We will to an ORGA-assurance with them.

  • iang: is there any problem with a google-translated version? andres: yes, as it is a german contract, it needs rework. google is not helpful. but the key points are in the wiki.

Postscript

• iang: move to adjourn. Chair: let's check questions.

• 3.1. 00:27 Chair asked for questions. No one was present. Moved to adjourn meeting until next week, all in favour, carried as m20091116.2.

---

• 20091122:

  • Present: GolfRomeo, markl, ernie, andreas, iang.

  • Later: Philipp D, Nick B
• 21:00 markl re-opened the meeting and took the chair in absence of Nick.

2.7. / 2.10 Hosting for Infrastructure

• Chair opened and confirmed consensus to combine both hosting / infrastructure topics.
  • Iang reported on Vienna #1. A machine and sysadms were found. Power recovery costs of 40 euros per month were asked for. To cope with the difficulty in CAcert paying / contracting immediately, Ulrich found 2-3 assurers who were prepared to "underwrite" the deal. Sonance has the reserves to cover for now.
  • This was proposed to Board on private list. It received 3 AYES and 1 strong NAYE. As Iang has conflict of interest, being on Sonance board as well, he dropped it at that point.
  • Discussion. andreas suggests we always go for zero-cost deals. Ernie asks why they can't offer it for free. Iang responds that the 2 groups involved are both non-profits in the art / tech / hosting space, and that they are not commercial corporations. The groups put in substantial time for free, and are just asking for the power costs. Markl comments that this situation is "the same as free."
  • Markl points out that diversifying is important, CAcert needs to be independent of any one organisation. There are several unfinished proposals.
  • Iang mentioned that there are opportunities for funding after it starts, but it is not certain, and didn't wish to include it in the original proposal. The city is a good possibility. Although, to go for funding costs more than 40pm in time spent.
  • Markl asks about length of commitment. Iang response that technically it is 6 months, but this is not solid because it is within Sonance's contract, so it is almost monthly basis. Sonance billed a 6 monthly last time, twice, just to keep the transaction costs down.
  • Markl asks about paperwork. Iang says mail is sufficient, we already have a relationship.
  • Ernie: The Berne proposal is in the contract-translating stage.
  • Andreas: we'll still be paying the bill in a year's time. Iang: what's the problem with that? CAcert should be able to evaluate its needs.
  • What sort of "sponsorship Agreement" ? Iang mentions that in the past it was a logo on the website. Something will be written.
  • Mark moves that we authorise Ian Grigg to establish hosting with Sonance in Vienna in accordance with what has been documented in the Wiki, and authorise the recurring payment of 40EUR per month to Sonance for this facility. No seconds.
  • some discussion about the nature of funding: should it be "tagged" or not? funding to the city should be project related, not cost.

  • Markl moves: that we authorise Ian Grigg to establish hosting with Sonance in Vienna in accordance with what has been documented in the Wiki, and authorise the recurring payment of 40EUR per month to Sonance for this facility. Seconded andreas, 5 AYES. Chair declares the motion carried as m20091122.1

  • Philipp joins and mentions that the Vienna #2 proposal is progressing. One problem may be that the machine may not be suitable for VMs. More when it happens.

2.2. / 2.8 Recovery and AGM

• 21:48 Chair opened and confirmed consensus to combine both the AGM issue and the Recovery of Documents / Hosting in one.
  • Markl confirmed that there was no success in contact with Robert Cruikshank. Discussion moved to sending a formal letter to him. Text already circulated on private list. Markl suggest text for a motion instructing the public officer to send the letter, and another in 14 days. Include reasonable expenses.
  • Discussion circulated on postal mail, email or motion. Conclusion was a motion to send postal mail. Email can't hurt. Nick B joined at this point.

  • iang moved that: we authorise the public officer (Mark Lipscombe) to immediately send a letter requesting the documents and hardware owned by CAcert from Robert Cruikshank, ex-Treasurer and ex-Public Officer, followed by a demand letter 14 days later, and authorise reasonable expenses to recover the items. Andreas seconded, 7 Ayes. Motion declared carried as m20091122.2

  • AGM. We need to move fairly fast to get it done this year, else an extension.

  • Mark comments: An extension is at the whim of the director-general of OFT. However it is routinely granted. We only get one. We must give a final date.
  • Long discussion on whether we could make it by the end of the year. The consensus is not, as we need 4 weeks, being 1 week fair chance for rule changes, and 21 days notice for any meeting that needs rule changes. And it is minimum 14 days for AGM.
  • Nick moved that: the committee requests an extension from the Director of Fair Trading to hold their meeting any time before 28-Feb-2010; that we immediately ask for any rule change proposals to be sent to the secretary; and that we target 2009-12-28 at 2200 UTC. No seconders.
  • Discussion on period Christmas to New Year concluded that half could not make it.

  • Nick moved that: the committee requests an extension from the Director of Fair Trading to hold their meeting any time before 28-Feb-2010; that we immediately ask for any rule change proposals to be sent to the secretary; Philipp seconds, 6 AYEs, one Abstain. The motion carried as m20091122.3

  • Discussion moved to a planning date. Nick presented text of a letter to send to the membership: The committee is preparing to conduct the Annual General Meeting of the association. All members wishing to put business before the AGM should send their proposals to the secretary as soon as possible. No date has been set for the meeting yet. At the committee meeting held today, the commitee voted to request an extension from the Director of Fair Trading to hold the AGM any time before 2009-02-28.

  • Dates 20100109, 20100116, were considered.
  • Nick moved that: the committee requests an extension from the Director of Fair Trading to hold the association's annual general meeting any time before 28-Feb-2010; that we immediately ask for any rule change proposals to be sent to the secretary; and that we target 2009-12-28 at 2200 UTC. No seconds.

  • Philipp moves that: Presuming the approval of our extension request we intend to schedule the AGM for 2010-01-16 21:00UTC. Seconded iang, 7 AYEs. Chair declares it carried as m20091122.4. Nick proposed something similar, withdrawn.

Urgent Business

• 22:19 Chair asked for urgent business. Reminder of unanimous consent needed.

  • (Iang presents an FYI-not-urgent-business on support: taken control of the mailbox, reviewed all the incoming mail, and documented it. Created the Triage concept. Now need to staff it up. Done tasks and todo Tasks. End.)

  • Nick asks for Urgent Business to approve motions on new Arbitrators. Discussion. Mark demurs, commenting concerns that these people have little in way of introdiction, no understanding of how they were chosen.
  • Some discussion about the proper order of things. Motions from before the meeting are approved at the beginning of the meeting; this meeting is a continuation of last week's, so there is no new approval. Unless put forward as Urgent Business.

  • Nick presents m20091111.1. Markl states it wasn't accepted at last week's meeting, therefore does not count. Alternative was put forward and voted m20091116.3.

  • Back to topic: Mark asks if there a need for lengthy discussion on the Arbitrators / motion? If so, defer. Philipp mentions that they are all known to the community and suggested. Mark withdraws question, and confirms consensus to take question as Urgent Business.

  • iang moves that: we confirm the motions m20091121.1, m20091119.1, m20091117.1 being motions to approve Alexander P, Walter G, and Martin G as Arbitrators, with immediate effect. Seconded Philipp, 6 AYEs. Declared carried as m20091122.5.

  • Nick that m20091111.1 be confirmed, but this is not accepted as Urgent Business, and is considered not accepted. Philipp suggests that we consider remove of the motion, as Urgent Business. This also is not accepted, deferred to next meeting.
  • Chair moves to close this section, and asks for Questions from members.
  • Nick asks about whether iang's access to support tools is against policy. Iang mentions the motion to appoint, and the lack of alternate support personnel. Also, reports that this issue was discussed on Policy Group at length with the majority reporting "no breach" in that thread.
  • 22:46 Chair moves to adjourn. Seconded Iang, 3 AYEs, 1 NAY, 3 Abstains.
  • Discussion continues on meeting dates and times. No conclusions seen. Chair reminds that this is informal, end of meeting.

Decisions Reached by Motion including Update since last Committee Meeting - Overview

• m20091108.1 - Declined

• m20091111.1 - Appointing new Support Engineers

• m20091115.1 - Board approves the Minutes of the last Board Meeting

• m20091115.2 - Declined

• m20091115.3 - Accept resignation of Guillaume and Alejandro from support

• m20091116.1 - Restore support@ access to Paypal notifications

• m20091116.2 - Adjournment of meeting until 22 Nov, 2009 2100UTC

• m20091116.3 - Appoint Ian Grigg temporary Support Officer

• m20091117.1 - Alexander P as new Arbitrator

• m20091119.1 - Walter G as new Arbitrator

• m20091121.1 - Martin G as new Arbitrator

• m20091122.1 - Vienna hosting authorisation

• m20091122.2 - Recover items from previous public officer

• m20091122.3 - Seek extension of AGM from Fair Trading

• m20091122.4 - Setting of provisioning date for AGM

• m20091122.5 - Confirm arbitrator appointments

Meeting Transcript 2009-11-15

• (21:55:33) ernie: hello all
  (21:55:35) iang: are we starting in 5 minutes?  65 minutes?
  (21:55:45) snewpy: hi all
  (21:55:47) ernie: its on 5 min
  (21:55:57) snewpy: 5 minutes, I think?  it's 2055 UTC right now?
  (21:55:59) ernie: we have now wintertime
  (21:56:06) iang: right, that's what I thought
  (21:56:06) andreasbuerki: hello everybody
  (21:56:49) jmoore3rd1 [jmoore3rd@adsl-190-37-16.asm.bellsouth.net] hat den Raum betreten.
  (21:56:53) law [law@ist.der.groesste.saeufer.von.lanarena.de] hat den Raum betreten.
  (21:57:37) law: hi
  (21:57:45) andreasbuerki: hi mario
  (22:00:11) GolfRomeo: Hello
  (22:00:32) snewpy: nb: are you here?
  (22:01:58) phidelta [phidelta@091-141-093-040.dyn.orange.at] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:02:05) phidelta: Ping
  (22:02:07) snewpy: ok, being it's time, I will chair the meeting in Nick's absense
  (22:02:18) iang: perhaps we should move that VP takes the chair?  snewpy are you ok with that?
  (22:02:24) snewpy heißt jetzt markl
  (22:02:38) phidelta: No need, the rules are clear that that is the way it goes.
  (22:02:47) andreasbuerki: yep, go ahead mark
  (22:02:48) markl: I think the rules make it automatic, and someone can move to remove me if there's a prob
  (22:02:59) iang: ok
  (22:03:22) markl: I declare the meeting open, and move that we accept the minutes of the last meeting on 2009-10-10, as shown at:
  (22:03:26) markl: http://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/20091010
  (22:03:30) markl: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2009-10/msg00029.html
  (22:03:34) phidelta heißt jetzt PhilippDunkel
  (22:03:50) markl: for anyone who wasn't here, the meeting had two components, one of which was private, hence the split minutes
  (22:04:16) andreasbuerki: accepted by me
  (22:04:27) GolfRomeo: ok
  (22:04:29) ernie: yes
  (22:04:46) iang: I'm good with them.  Do we need a formal motion?  If so, move as accepted
  (22:04:53) PhilippDunkel: Aye
  (22:04:59) markl: I moved it, think someone needs to second it, and we're good to go
  (22:05:10) andreasbuerki: i second
  (22:05:17) markl: all those of that opinion, aye, against, no
  (22:05:18) markl: aye
  (22:05:25) iang: Aye (and must read more carefully...)
  (22:05:26) andreasbuerki: aye
  (22:05:37) ernie: aye
  (22:06:37) markl: next on the agenda is # 1.3. Ratify the Motions made since the last Committee Meeting, being that we don't have any motions that were provisonally approved, I think we can skip that one, and move on to business
  (22:06:38) GolfRomeo: abstain
  (22:07:24) markl: next business... 2.1. Arbitration/Support Blockages added by Iang + Mark
  (22:07:30) markl: # Discuss current blockages of support, seek input of current support@, discuss how best to appoint new support engineers.
  (22:07:31) markl: #
  (22:07:31) markl: Additional Input: Review of work-flow, read also Board-Next-Meeting Sunday 2009-11-15 - 21:00 UTC - Input (u60)
  (22:07:31) markl: #
  (22:07:31) markl: Iang proposes this item 2.1 absorbs 2.9 "Support Blockages" as proposed by Mark.
  (22:07:33) markl: #
  (22:07:35) markl: Additional Input: "Support + Arbitration / draft of report for meeting sunday". 
  (22:07:57) markl: btw, I am fine with combining the two
  (22:08:07) markl: I just didn't want to write over yours, Ian
  (22:08:15) iang: super.  for the transcript, my "report" is at https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-11/msg00075.html
  (22:08:40) PhilippDunkel: Question: there is currently a motion in progress on the support issue. Can we finalize that?
  (22:09:04) PhilippDunkel: Or should I withdraw it?
  (22:09:06) andreasbuerki: it's fine for me as well, but next time, please respect 48 hours deadline to modify agend
  (22:09:19) ernie: PhilippDunkel, think so, why not
  (22:09:24) GolfRomeo: ok
  (22:09:25) markl: I'd say just move the motion at this meeting, Philipp, perhaps after discussion?
  (22:09:31) markl: andreasbuerki: nothing was added to the agenda
  (22:09:47) andreasbuerki: agree, but changed the ranking... ;-)
  (22:09:51) iang: nod
  (22:10:20) andreasbuerki: anyhow, let's move on...
  (22:10:44) markl: Guillaume, perhaps you want to give us your perspective on what the situation is with support@ right now?
  (22:10:53) markl: as the support officer
  (22:11:13) GolfRomeo: My guess is Alejandro is taking care of urgent cases
  (22:11:18) GolfRomeo: (I hope so)
  (22:11:26) PhilippDunkel: Oh and also explain why you have been supposedly murdered (As support Officer)?
  (22:11:51) GolfRomeo: yes
  (22:11:52) andreasbuerki: hmm... but he has stated in e-mail, he has no longer interest in CAcert.org, or Im wrong?
  (22:12:44) iang: alejandro has stated that he resigns from all CM duties.  He's expressed in the past in fairly strong terms he is unhappy with continuing
  (22:12:44) GolfRomeo: Nick went wrong with the motion I proposed to do interview this week but I stopped because of the motion and lack of motivation
  (22:12:54) iang: I think it is basically up to us to find replacements for him, and pronto
  (22:13:06) GolfRomeo: So there is noone doing support@
  (22:13:10) markl: GolfRomeo: does this mean that you are not doing support at the moment?  and that Alejandro has already expressed that he doesn't want to continue?
  (22:13:39) GolfRomeo: Alejandro was kid enough to handle several arbitration cases
  (22:13:47) GolfRomeo: s/kid/kind
  (22:13:57) GolfRomeo: (more than kind)
  (22:14:22) markl: so right now, support@ is a blackhole?
  (22:14:25) GolfRomeo: and btw, thanks Alejandro
  (22:14:37) GolfRomeo: blackhole yes
  (22:14:55) andreasbuerki: of course thanks to Alejandro... but we have to solve the problem soemhow NOW
  (22:15:14) andreasbuerki: what are the options we have?
  (22:15:20) markl: GolfRomeo: you were previously working on support until very recently, right?
  (22:15:47) GolfRomeo: let's say 2 weeks ago
  (22:16:06) markl: ok, can you explain the reason(s) why you have stopped suddenly and without warning?
  (22:16:35) GolfRomeo: Nick motion
  (22:16:42) iang: In my opinion only there has been a lot of warning.  Guillaume was more or less press-ganged into doing support a long time ago, and has always wanted out.
  (22:16:57) iang: Alejandro too.  But there have never been any replacements.
  (22:17:00) GolfRomeo: not at all
  (22:17:08) GolfRomeo: I tried to remain commited
  (22:17:25) GolfRomeo: I slowed a lot with appartment buying
  (22:17:35) andreasbuerki: Sorry, I'm confused...
  (22:17:54) GolfRomeo: Alejandro replaced me then after SGM events I was helping 
  (22:18:23) GolfRomeo: but I don't see/understand where CAcert is going
  (22:18:38) GolfRomeo: The project is too complicated for the common people
  (22:18:52) GolfRomeo: (complex I mean)
  (22:19:17) markl: ok, so with that background, can someone identify the problems that stop  a20090501.1 and a20090525.2 from being completed?
  (22:19:46) iang: that would be nick's territory
  (22:19:55) GolfRomeo: I stopped because I thought the person could lead to problems
  (22:20:02) markl: the proposal kicking around proposes that we "delay" background checks on some new support people, I can't imagine how long that delay is in practice, with two background checks from May in the arbitration black hole
  (22:20:55) markl: it seems to me that solving arbitration solves support quite quickly, being that we have several ready, willing and quite likely abled people prepared to take up support@
  (22:21:26) iang: the thing is, the SGM process did slow down a lot of stuff.  And only in the last month have we started to re-address arbitration / support
  (22:21:41) GolfRomeo: You need no more than 2 people, the support@ is low
  (22:22:11) andreasbuerki: how much people would be the minimum for support, Guillaume?
  (22:22:24) andreasbuerki: in the actual situation
  (22:22:30) GolfRomeo: 2 or 3 to have 2 spares
  (22:22:41) andreasbuerki: means 5 at least?
  (22:22:51) markl: without pointing fingers in any particular direction, and without discounting the obvious hard work that our arbitrators *are* putting in, I think that our arbitrations have, quite frankly, become a joke...
  (22:22:53) GolfRomeo: no, I mean 1 is enough currently
  (22:23:13) GolfRomeo: So you need 3 people to handle including 2 spare people
  (22:23:16) andreasbuerki: ? seriously?
  (22:23:27) GolfRomeo: yes, support@ is low 
  (22:23:32) markl: ok, if one is currently enough, can we encourage you to keep doing support while we spend some time background checking these proposed replacements, Guillaume?
  (22:23:36) andreasbuerki: why spare? why not include them upfront?
  (22:23:42) markl: so that the "emergency" factor is removed
  (22:23:43) GolfRomeo: probably the lower I have known
  (22:24:30) andreasbuerki: Means for support in midterm 3 are minimum, right?
  (22:24:55) GolfRomeo: The pb I don't want to handle spam any longer... you need to read the mail (even if tag "spam" to know if the mail is real or not)
  (22:25:01) GolfRomeo: it is a waste of time
  (22:25:05) ernie: we have to calculate, that somebody could be on vacation or absent
  (22:25:12) markl: why isn't there some kind of spam filtering?
  (22:26:10) GolfRomeo: markl : there is BIT filtering but it is not enough. Probably Philipp D is right we need to move from email to another tool
  (22:26:20) iang: it's because spam filtering drops important emails ... we had exactly the same situation at sonance.  a few weeks back i added spam filtering to support, and within a week there was a lost email
  (22:26:38) markl: iang: not if done right
  (22:27:04) andreasbuerki: mark, could you help to realize it right?
  (22:27:09) markl: I doubt you'd find a publicly known support mailbox left in the world without aggressive spam filtering
  (22:27:18) iang: markl:  sure.  from memory however I recall this was a decision made in the past
  (22:27:32) PhilippDunkel: mark: have you ever done actual high volume spam filtering with emails from diverse and unknown sources. If you had, you would not make that statement
  (22:27:46) markl: PhilippDunkel: yes, I have and I do
  (22:28:07) iang: look, we're all techies, can we keep away from the techie discussion?
  (22:28:08) andreasbuerki: cool, makr, then please help and add your expertise.
  (22:28:17) andreasbuerki: makr=mark
  (22:28:25) iang: far too much detail
  (22:28:26) PhilippDunkel: And now claim that you have 0 false positives? Because that is the requirements for this channel!
  (22:28:32) markl: what if we rescind whatever previous decision said no spam filtering, and ask BIT to implement more aggressive spam controls?
  (22:28:58) markl: PhilippDunkel: 0 false positives is hardly a requirement for anything... email is not guaranteed delivery
  (22:29:26) GolfRomeo: no need to discuss a long time on this
  (22:29:31) andreasbuerki: again, mark, could you help and add your experience?
  (22:29:42) PhilippDunkel: So tell me, what percentage of false positives would be acceptable, from your point of view, for this critical channel?
  (22:29:59) markl: GR: if we reversed whatever this previous decision was, and asked BIT to implement more aggressive controls, would that enable you to continue working in the interim?
  (22:30:47) iang: I do not want to discuss spam filtering in this meeting.  That is a subject for the support guys and the techies to deal with
  (22:30:54) GolfRomeo: markl : I don't know, pb is now I have 4/5 evening busy each week
  (22:31:14) markl: PhilippDunkel: as many as is necessary to make the job practical.. and they can be rejected at the SMTP level, so that a legitimate user who is hit by a false positive can have their mail bounce, and know it wasn't delivered.. this is a non issue, and can be resolved by technical discussions afterwards
  (22:31:20) GolfRomeo: so it would be likely I would handle it once a week
  (22:31:30) markl: ok... this might be a good first step guys?
  (22:31:43) markl: it would at least turn down the emergency a bit
  (22:32:29) andreasbuerki: so, who will do what precisly?
  (22:32:31) markl: and give us some time to address the arbitration blockage, so we can add people to support the "right way"
  (22:33:06) iang: i disagree.  I believe this is about building up the team and getting fresh blood into it.
  (22:33:20) markl: well, if we agree it would be a good short term step, i would move a motion asking to implement more aggressive spam controls for support@
  (22:33:38) iang: spam is a distraction.  I'm not saying that the spam isn't happening, I'm saying the core problem is elsewhere
  (22:33:51) andreasbuerki: Ian, agree
  (22:34:02) markl: iang: I agree... but the question is how we do it and what corners we have to cut to get there... we've got a list of names of people proposed, some of which aren't terribly active, and we're proposing to ignore the security check for them
  (22:34:05) GolfRomeo: the alternate would be we send an automatic reply to the mails and ask the user to write to another email
  (22:34:07) iang: and we don't need to vote on it, because if support thinks it is a good idea, they can do it without us
  (22:34:31) iang: not ignore, delay was the wording i think
  (22:34:31) markl: iang: ah, I thought you were alluding to a previous committee decision about spam controls, that's why I was proposing we reverse it
  (22:34:56) iang: yes, i don't actually recall if it was a committee decision
  (22:35:25) markl: iang: right, but giving someone access to the material that was deemed necessary for a background check before the background check is ignoring the policy, no matter whether you call it a delay or not
  (22:35:53) markl: I personally don't much care for this concept of a background check, but we do have an accepted policy of the community
  (22:35:56) iang: markl:  see my proposal.  I propose we go ahead and also we change the security policy
  (22:36:09) markl: my *personal* preference is to do away with the need for a formal background check all together
  (22:36:15) iang: and we also do the background check in the background
  (22:37:05) iang: and, the bigger picture is if, for example, Wytze + Mendel + Stefan (?) all resign tomorrow, we have no way to initiate the practice because the team leader has to do it
  (22:37:09) iang: so there is a bug in the SP
  (22:37:16) markl: yes, agree on that point
  (22:37:24) GolfRomeo: yes a pb
  (22:37:29) PhilippDunkel: I can agree to that, the previous board sternly refused that. However we may need to consider implications. The DPA and other regulations may require something however perfunctory...
  (22:38:04) markl: the DPA doesn't have any "know your employee" stuff in it, by my recollection
  (22:38:36) iang: what i'm not sure about is what to replace BC with.  It's a long discussion.  It took us around a year just to reach the current point of placing the BC with Arbitrators in a sort of neutral and sustainable model
  (22:38:40) markl: and it acts a serious disincentive to get involved
  (22:39:47) iang: markl:  the DPA tries to solve it with a contract with the key parties.  There is a big / horrible model contract which is like the DPA itself ... from memory
  (22:40:07) iang: our approach was to place the SP in that role;  all key parties agree to SP, that is their "special contract"
  (22:40:35) markl: right now, the SP gives the board oversight of these appointments, right?  so the board is still the gateway to any appointment in accordance with the SP
  (22:40:35) iang: (although I might be getting confused with foreigners)
  (22:40:43) iang: yes
  (22:40:58) iang: BC == background check
  (22:41:13) iang: perhaps we should call it ABC for Arbitrated Background Check :)
  (22:41:19) markl: it's in draft.. what then, if we just vetoed the background check requirement, and conduct any background checks we deem necessary at the board level, as part of that approval process?
  (22:42:03) markl: we'd be vetoing what is currently an entirely unworkable aspect of the policy
  (22:42:04) andreasbuerki: I would avoid this check at board level
  (22:42:10) pemmerik [pieter@cc518889-b.hnglo1.ov.home.nl] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:42:10) PhilippDunkel: We can veto, but then we should not do checks haphazardly. I think we should then go back and define a procedure to use.
  (22:42:21) markl: I think we should not do background checks, tbh
  (22:42:28) andreasbuerki: agree, philipp
  (22:42:35) markl: but I think that the board should be able to consider an applicant, in any way it deems fit
  (22:42:41) markl: it already has that power in the policy, too
  (22:42:47) iang: markl:  actually, we've already done that
  (22:42:55) markl: because it can reject the applicant out of hand, for no reason, regardless of the background check
  (22:43:04) iang: the thing is, it's called "background check" but the arbitrator defines it how he see fit
  (22:43:11) markl: but the background check via arbitration just is not functional at the moment
  (22:43:30) iang: there is a sort of model written up somewhere, but it isn't obligatory ... so the flexibility is already built in
  (22:43:42) iang: (we might discuss where the right place for that is, another topic)
  (22:43:46) PhilippDunkel: So maybe it is time we get back to the issue we had a few weeks ago. Arbitration
  (22:43:54) markl: yes, my point is the forum for it
  (22:44:20) markl: I'm suggesting we remove it from arbitration, because it's broken and not working, and it's not really a great fit for it anyway
  (22:44:29) PhilippDunkel: There have been complaints, that Nick, while being very active has neglected his role as Arb officer. Now I'm not saying I agree, but these complaints are there.
  (22:44:50) PhilippDunkel: So I think the solution/bandaid we used then didn't really do the job.
  (22:44:52) iang: markl:  if arbitration is broken, that means we have to rewrite practically everything else
  (22:44:59) PhilippDunkel: And that's waht we need to fix
  (22:45:11) markl: yes, but we have an "emergency" in the form of support, right?
  (22:45:12) iang: so i think the solution is to fix arbitration ... which is what we are doing (just takes time) and meanwhile be patient
  (22:45:25) PhilippDunkel: BTW: I still believe Arbitration is the single best thing that has happened to CAcert
  (22:45:31) markl: so while we sort out the arbitration mess, which presumably is not going to happen by a magic resolution of this meeting, we need a way to resolve support
  (22:46:02) andreasbuerki: PD: Agree, it's some kind of supreme court for CAcert
  (22:46:04) ernie: markl, think the problem is still arbitration - not the support
  (22:46:12) iang: markl:  depends on how you look at it ... I think the emergency is more of a #1 priority for us to solve
  (22:46:14) Q [Q@dhcp-095-096-014-167.chello.nl] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:46:17) GolfRomeo: ok arbitration for background check is maybe a layer too much
  (22:46:37) iang: IMO, at this stage, Guillaume and alejandro has resigned, so as mentioned support is a "black hole"
  (22:46:37) markl: ernie: I know.. that's what I'm saying.. arbitration isn't going to be fixed in an instant, and people are saying that support needs to be fixed instantly
  (22:46:53) iang: under this case, the board is now in charge of support.  So we "just" have to staff it again.
  (22:47:03) markl: iang: right
  (22:47:11) GolfRomeo: iang : good idea !
  (22:47:13) iang: and ask Guillaume if he could just keep an eye on the new guys, and point out any blunders
  (22:47:22) ernie: markl, but how we heared now - we need new people there, but the workload isn't so much, that we need for ex. 20 people
  (22:47:27) GolfRomeo: iang : ok
  (22:47:28) markl: one way or the other, to do that quickly, we must ignore the SP... it's really just a question of how we do that
  (22:48:01) iang: ernie:  too many people on a job has never been CAcert's problem in the past :)  if there are too many, we'll find something else for them
  (22:48:24) iang: for example, I'm thinking of making it compulsory for every Senior guy to do a month in the triage team ;-)
  (22:48:39) markl: the options on the table so far are Nick's motion to do away with the check for these applicants, Philipp's motion to "delay" the checks, and my suggestion of vetoing the background check via arbitration provision of the policy, and using the existing authority in the policy for the board to consider applicants
  (22:48:48) andreasbuerki: how you define Senior guy? ;-)
  (22:48:53) GolfRomeo: please do a first sorting of support candidates and Alejandro(?) and I will be please to follow them send do the the background check
  (22:49:12) GolfRomeo: s/send/then
  (22:49:16) iang: well, I would say the motion on the table (PD's) is fine, if we augment it with a motion to send SP back to policy group to fix the ABC section
  (22:49:28) ernie: GolfRomeo, how much time you will have in the next weeks?
  (22:49:37) markl: but we're not delaying the check, we're ignoring the check for a time
  (22:49:38) iang: exactly as above, after they've done their month, they're a senior guy ;-)
  (22:49:53) GolfRomeo: ernie : not much 
  (22:50:27) markl: because the presumed point of the BC is that they are checked before access to the data, because obviously the horse has already bolted
  (22:50:32) andreasbuerki: and get a medal  ;-)@Ian
  (22:50:39) iang: "FURTHER RESOLVED, that these three individuals are sufficiently trustworthy by the board that a full background check may be delayed until manpower allows for it to be conducted by an arbitrator."
  (22:51:04) Unox [Unox@if-320-dial-up.xs4all.nl] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:51:05) iang: ok, so the wording could be tightened up but i think delay is the operative word
  (22:51:10) andreasbuerki: so means we take the responsability for them...?
  (22:51:13) iang: what we could do is put a time limit on it.
  (22:51:25) markl: but it's not delayed, we should delay their access to the data for it really to be a delay
  (22:51:38) markl: it's a polite way of saying ignore
  (22:51:40) iang: andreasbuerki:  yes, good point, I think we do take responsibility for them
  (22:51:41) andreasbuerki: Iang: yep, we have to
  (22:52:00) GolfRomeo: We have to make sure for the new 3, at least, one trusted person know him
  (22:52:07) andreasbuerki: Iang: Im rerad and take that respobsability for them
  (22:52:24) andreasbuerki: rerad=ready
  (22:52:29) GolfRomeo: s/person/people
  (22:52:35) iang: andreasbuerki:  me too.  also, we do anyway .. it's the nature of a board
  (22:52:37) markl: what's the problem with vetoing that part of the policy, so we can appoint people as we are proposing to do?  we're doing that in practice anyway, so why not call a spade a spade?
  (22:52:48) dirk_on_tour [dirk@89.244.108.89] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:52:58) markl: i think we set a more dangerous precedent by ignoring it, rather than vetoing it
  (22:53:32) markl: if we have a policy that puts us in an impossible position, like this does, we should use the right tool available to us, the veto.. rather than ignoring it because "we say so"
  (22:53:46) iang: markl:  we only retain a veto over policies.  we aren't empowered to change clauses
  (22:54:11) ernie: iang, agree
  (22:54:18) PhilippDunkel: So if we Veot the entire Security Policy goes, everything, not just that piece
  (22:54:26) iang: so what we could do is veto the entire policy, send it back to SP, and then by motion impose the entire policy *except the disputed clause* by board motion over the community.
  (22:54:36) markl: that'd be a pretty narrow reading of it
  (22:54:41) markl: # 4.6 During the period of DRAFT, CAcert Inc. retains a veto over policies that effect the running of CAcert Inc. 
  (22:55:05) PhilippDunkel: Also, I think we should use the veto power extremely sparingly. I.E.: Only i it brings us into a legal conflict and not jsut because we don't like it. That would be the worst kind of precedent
  (22:55:20) iang: hmmm, yes, the board of 2007's thinking was that was only to apply for "running of CAcert Inc" where it clashed with legal requirements
  (22:55:25) iang: this isn't really that issue
  (22:55:28) markl: but it's what we're proposing to do one way or the other
  (22:55:35) markl: we're going to ignore the policy.. the question is how we do it
  (22:55:57) iang: markl:  it's simple.  We do what we want, and the remedy of the community is to file dispute
  (22:55:59) markl: CAcert, Inc. receives money for support services, and those cannot be serviced
  (22:56:07) iang: that Arbitrator we then ask to do the  ABC
  (22:56:11) PhilippDunkel: And BTW: I interpret that as we only have veto powers if the policy affects the running of CAcert Inc. the association. But support is a community function. As is most everything else. So I am still not convinced that we even have a veto in this case
  (22:56:24) GolfRomeo: We are free to do what is necessary to keep CAcert Inc. working, better working than nothing
  (22:56:47) iang: markl:  sounds like the "US commerce clause" 
  (22:56:57) markl: CAcert, Inc. receives payments for things like password resets.. if they are not being done because the SP is causing a problem in appointing necessary staff for it, it effects the running of CAcert, INc.
  (22:57:12) andreasbuerki: At the very end Inc should serve org in my humble opinion
  (22:57:27) markl: and we are, by trying to sort out the support issue
  (22:58:04) markl: if we just ignore the policy and say "delay", someone should file a dispute.. not that it'll make a diff tho, because it'll probably be christmas 2012 before it gets arbitrated ;)
  (22:58:50) iang: markl:  that's the point;  when the arbitration problem is resolved, we no longer need to be creative with the policy.  Problem solved both ways.
  (22:59:04) markl: because we are ignoring the community's stated position, rather than using its stated position of allowing us a veto in limited circumstances
  (22:59:32) PhilippDunkel: How about this as a solution. We ask Nick to resign as president and from the board, and then ask him to do the 2 background checks immediately. Plus we have a free additional arbitrator :)
  (22:59:40) PhilippDunkel: Sound decent to anyone ? ;)
  (22:59:42) markl: lol
  (23:00:01) iang: by extension we could get 7 extra arbitrators that way...
  (23:00:04) andreasbuerki: joking PD? ;-)
  (23:00:30) GolfRomeo: Or remove the requirement to have an arbitrator to do the BC
  (23:01:24) iang: golfromeo:  i've been thinking about that too ... but tricky ... the arbitrators are our safe, independent oversighters
  (23:01:25) PhilippDunkel: I think we should be focusing on arbitration. And use the proposed motion, because 2 arbitrators (albeit inactive ones {Nick & Myslef}) have informally vetted these people already. And we can consider that as sufficient to warrant a delay
  (23:01:54) PhilippDunkel: ... in the formal background check
  (23:01:58) markl: iang: but using arbitrators for "staff" appointments is kinda shoe horning
  (23:02:20) markl: calling it a delay doesn't make it any less an ignoring of the policy tho
  (23:02:25) iang: only if you think of arbitration as "disputes".  it's a bit like asking a judge for a marriage licence
  (23:02:45) markl: right, and not many places still use judges to issue marriage licenses
  (23:03:00) PhilippDunkel: And all we are doing is waiving the "marriage license" until after consummation
  (23:03:02) PhilippDunkel: ;)
  (23:03:07) markl: most have moved to a more modern use of an executive branch agency for such things
  (23:03:16) iang: markl:  it is built in meta-policy than anyone can break a policy, and then just file dispute to have the exception recognised
  (23:03:19) andreasbuerki: again, arbitration is somehow like the supreme court and we should look at it like this
  (23:03:59) markl: iang: ironic :)
  (23:04:26) GolfRomeo: iang : let's break the rule, open a quick arbitration that allow non arbitrator to conduct background checks
  (23:04:32) iang: perhaps ... but deliberate.  this is why the policies are quite light.  they only craft the basics.  any exceptions are kicked out to arbitration deliberately
  (23:05:33) andreasbuerki: smart in one way and creating heavy potential workload on the other way ;-)@Iang
  (23:06:06) iang: Important principles of this Security Policy are:  ...... Authority -- every action is authorised by either a policy or by the Arbitrator. 
  (23:06:30) iang: andreasbuerki:  yes, this is why it is essential that arbitration works well enough.  A very big load is on its shoulders
  (23:06:35) andreasbuerki: more actions authorized, less arbitration needed
  (23:06:53) andreasbuerki: by policy I mean
  (23:07:16) GolfRomeo: So the arbitrator (if kind enough) will allow to do the lighter BC, then complete the BC later
  (23:07:22) markl: the situation we have tho, gives us a free for all on violating policy
  (23:07:26) iang: " 4.1.1.1. Authorized users:   Only System Administrators and Application Engineers designated on the Access Lists in §3.4.2 are authorized to access accounts, unless specifically directed by the Arbitrator. "
  (23:07:32) markl: because we know that an arbitration wont happen for a very long time
  (23:08:19) iang: so for example, what we could do is simply file the arbitration with Ulrich or with Mario and request them to do a quick background check over phone, and/or to rely on their past meetings.
  (23:08:40) markl: we can pick an arbitrator for arbitrations? :P
  (23:08:56) andreasbuerki: choose one out of....
  (23:09:16) markl: it's a crying shame that nb is not here to explain to us what is going on
  (23:09:22) iang: markl:  technically no, but .... well, those two happen to be most active right now, so the betting is good
  (23:09:26) markl: because it is a bit of a joke
  (23:09:39) markl: so, if that's the case ian, why don't we just do that?
  (23:09:57) markl: not delay the BC, just ask these two to expedite?
  (23:10:07) iang: well, we couldn't until tonight, coz we have to accept Guillaume's resignation, and then take up the duties ourselves
  (23:10:32) iang: but yes.  I guess now we can do it.
  (23:10:40) markl: ok, so lets have a motion accepting his resignation, appoint someone temporarily, and ask the arbs to do it quick smart?
  (23:10:53) iang: huh.
  (23:10:58) andreasbuerki: if so possible, let's dot it
  (23:11:01) markl: to be support officer?
  (23:11:24) markl: support officer needn't be a support engineer, i presume
  (23:11:31) iang: One thing at a time, I think.  Perhaps this is the time to move that we accept Guillaume and Alejandro's resignation, and thank them for their service.  I know they've put in a lot of time over the past years.  And everyone needs a change.
  (23:12:02) markl: yeah, in separate motions... i was just laying it out
  (23:12:12) markl: yes, please move it
  (23:12:12) andreasbuerki: what says Guillaume?
  (23:12:22) GolfRomeo: ok
  (23:12:37) iang: so moved:  we accept Guillaume and Alejandro's resignation, and thank them for their service.
  (23:13:06) markl: seconded
  (23:13:14) andreasbuerki: and do we have Alejandros resignation in writing?
  (23:13:15) markl: all those of that opinion, aye, against, no
  (23:13:47) iang: aye, and thanks!  Even though we've had our differences, Guillaume has been like a rock on support for a couple of years...
  (23:13:53) GolfRomeo: markl : you mean yes/no/abstain
  (23:13:57) markl: aye
  (23:14:01) andreasbuerki: in terms of Guillaume AYE from me
  (23:14:14) markl: GolfRomeo: aye = yes, no = no, abstain either say you abstain or say nothing is the same
  (23:14:15) ernie: iang, did we have the resignation from alejandro?
  (23:14:25) andreasbuerki: thx for your work Guillaume
  (23:14:31) GolfRomeo: (for more than 2 years, it is more likely to be 4 years !)
  (23:14:50) GolfRomeo: abstain on my side
  (23:15:19) iang: well, i think he's tried to resign many times ... and he definately wants out.  I don't have a paper resignation to hand, but if I'm wrong we just let him back in :)
  (23:15:39) ernie: guillaume = aye .... alejandro ? - as long we don't have his resignation - how we could accept
  (23:15:49) markl: yeah, if we're wrong, there's no resignation to accept, and it's biz as usual
  (23:15:50) andreasbuerki: I just want to avoid, that he feels kicked out
  (23:15:51) iang: golfromeo:  right indeed.  I'm more thinking about the timeframe May 2007 onwards when we finally got some visibility ... 
  (23:16:06) PhilippDunkel: Aye
  (23:16:08) markl: andreasbuerki: he's made it clear in the past he wants to get out, in any case
  (23:16:46) ernie: aye
  (23:16:48) andreasbuerki: AYE... under the condition we ask him to formally resign
  (23:16:49) markl: andreasbuerki + ernie, your vote?
  (23:17:06) markl: there's no conditions tho.. you gotta vote one way or the other, or move to amend the motion
  (23:17:07) iang: ok, so change the motion in his case to say that we accept what we believe to be his resignation, but in the event of error, we tear it up and we have to apologise
  (23:17:09) andreasbuerki: it would just be an act of politness
  (23:17:39) andreasbuerki: so it's an Aye
  (23:17:44) GolfRomeo: Alejandro postponed his resignation to be kind with CAcert community
  (23:18:05) markl: ok, i declare the motion carried
  (23:18:09) andreasbuerki: that was very nice from Alejandro
  (23:18:39) PhilippDunkel: Yes, it was. After the SGM he wanted to throw everything in, but agreed to stay until we found a replacement.
  (23:18:55) PhilippDunkel: I think that type of loyalty is very admirable
  (23:19:15) andreasbuerki: so, the replacemts we now have to put into place
  (23:19:22) markl: so probably the easiest way from here is to appoint a replacement support officer?  who can then just ask the arbitrators to get a move on with these BCs with the backing of perhaps a resolution from us?
  (23:19:25) GolfRomeo: @Philipp  : of course
  (23:19:46) markl: it also solves the problem of not having a support officer to put people forward
  (23:19:49) iang: markl:  is the motion carried?
  (23:19:58) markl: yes, above... <markl> ok, i declare the motion carried
  (23:20:35) iang: oops, apologies.  agree we could appoint a SO.  I suggest a temporary one.
  (23:20:43) markl: yes, temporary is good
  (23:20:50) markl: i'd suggest appointing Ian, if Ian agrees
  (23:20:51) iang: I would say Ulrich is the man.  At least for temporary.
  (23:21:00) PhilippDunkel: Seconded
  (23:21:23) PhilippDunkel: Seconded, Ulrich, that is
  (23:21:31) iang: well, i'd like to do it but I think my time is limited ... we've got AGM coming up, DRP to finishe etc
  (23:21:35) markl: can we have support + arb?  does that work, being that support is "in conflict"?
  (23:21:48) iang: markl: good point.
  (23:21:53) markl: I suggest appointing a support officer just to get the BCs done
  (23:21:59) markl: then appoint one of the BC'ed people to SO
  (23:22:05) markl: but we need someone we can appoint today
  (23:22:06) andreasbuerki: Does uli has the capacity to do so, beside his job as Event Leader?
  (23:22:10) markl: who we have the acceptance of
  (23:22:12) iang: i think it is not a big conflict
  (23:22:19) markl: to get things moving immediately
  (23:22:19) Uli [Administra@dslb-084-056-173-023.pools.arcor-ip.net] hat den Raum betreten.
  (23:22:28) PhilippDunkel_ [phidelta@091-141-014-220.dyn.orange.at] hat den Raum betreten.
  (23:22:39) iang: an arbitrator can also be DRO dispute resolution officer.  also this is temporary
  (23:22:58) iang: andreasbuerki:  yes, see his reports, they are the most info on the subject
  (23:22:59) markl: I don't object at all the Ulrich being appointed SO, but we need someone who can accept now, imo
  (23:23:17) iang: markl:  perhaps add voice to u60 and ask him?
  (23:23:32) markl: purely with a view to clearing up the current situation, and then replacing him with one of the actual support people
  (23:23:53) markl: the channel is not moderated, he can speak if he is here
  (23:23:57) iang: this could be a mandate:  clear up the current situation, and find a replacement
  (23:24:23) PhilippDunkel hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds).
  (23:24:25) PhilippDunkel_ heißt jetzt PhilippDunkel
  (23:24:28) markl: yes, that's what I would suggest... the temporary SO role is basically "wind up arbitration on these background checks, and recommend a new SO"
  (23:24:41) iang: u60: are you minded to take on the role of temporary SO to sort out the problems and find a replacement for us?
  (23:24:46) markl: assuming arbitration is responsive, should be a matter of a few minutes of time
  (23:25:48) markl: Ian, being that you are the most familiar with the policies and arbitration, can I talk you into accepting it on that basis?
  (23:26:37) iang: hmmm.  what do others think?
  (23:27:21) PhilippDunkel: I'm OK with you doing it, but I still think that Ulrich is the right person for that job
  (23:27:53) iang: well, in all probably I'd just do the quick executive things ... and lean on u60 for the rest
  (23:28:08) markl: iang: yes, that's what I would expect
  (23:28:10) andreasbuerki: It's Ok for me, Ian doing it. Uli has to speak for himself, freiendly speaking PD.. ;-)
  (23:28:12) iang: so it might not matter who we decide on 
  (23:28:15) markl: we just need someone to do the quicky executive stuff, asap
  (23:28:17) PhilippDunkel: As I said I's be ok witht hat
  (23:28:42) andreasbuerki: iang... sometimes we have to be precise.. ;-)
  (23:29:12) markl: ok, I move that Ian Grigg be appointed Support Officer temporarily, to immediately propose candidates for background checks, and to recommend a suitable replacement for the support officer role ASAP.
  (23:29:43) iang: abstain (if seconded)
  (23:29:44) andreasbuerki: I second that
  (23:29:48) markl: aye
  (23:29:49) GolfRomeo: ok
  (23:29:50) ernie: aye
  (23:29:53) andreasbuerki: aye
  (23:30:20) iang: ok, i accept :-)
  (23:30:28) andreasbuerki: what about PD?
  (23:30:30) markl: GR, PD?
  (23:30:42) andreasbuerki: GR said OK
  (23:30:48) PhilippDunkel: aye
  (23:30:58) markl: I declare the motion carried
  (23:31:17) markl: next agenda item... 2.2. AGM / SGM - added by Iang
  (23:31:24) iang: phew!
  (23:31:28) markl: this might not make sense unless we discuss 2.6 and 2.8 first?
  (23:31:56) iang: i'm fine with it being done after those two.
  (23:32:10) andreasbuerki: ok
  (23:32:15) ernie: ok
  (23:32:38) markl: i think we can  continue going down the list, and come back to that after 2.8, if everyone's agreeable
  (23:32:48) ernie: yes
  (23:32:51) andreasbuerki: fine by me
  (23:33:07) PhilippDunkel: fine
  (23:33:10) markl: ok... next item... 2.3, DPA
  (23:33:13) GolfRomeo: let's go
  (23:33:37) markl: do we want to perhaps consider postponing that agenda item for more pressing matters?
  (23:33:42) iang: DPA discussion.  Mostly administrative:  there is a need to get moving.  We need to either decide to accept the consensus from the last private meeting, or we need to book another meeting and talk about it.
  (23:34:21) markl: I'd be prepared to accept the consensus at this stage, and propose that we work on a brief position statement on the private list, to adopt at the next meeting?
  (23:34:36) GolfRomeo: ok
  (23:34:43) andreasbuerki: ok, sounds reasonable
  (23:34:48) PhilippDunkel: ok
  (23:34:49) iang: meeting option:  I'm fine with choosing the latter, but I'd like to ask that we book time for next week, sunday latest.
  (23:35:05) iang: I'm happy with the consensus as well.
  (23:35:08) andreasbuerki: fine by me...
  (23:35:28) andreasbuerki: I'll prepare the wiki page
  (23:35:44) markl: ok, so we can move on, and keep the meeting time in mind for deciding on our next meeting at the end of this meeting?
  (23:35:55) iang: nod, that's all there was to this point
  (23:36:08) markl: ok, great... 2.4. Critical Bugs & Improvements - added by hugi 
  (23:36:34) andreasbuerki: yep... I very dongerous situation for our reputation
  (23:36:42) markl: unless I'm misunderstanding those, Andreas, they seem like wider community discussions, perhaps in the policy group?
  (23:37:00) markl: I'm not sure what we can do at this level about those bugs
  (23:37:04) andreasbuerki: it came in by the support channel
  (23:37:31) andreasbuerki: that borad is aware about a quite dangerous security situation
  (23:37:50) andreasbuerki: and supports the efforts to fix this bug
  (23:38:07) andreasbuerki: as just postponing is not an option
  (23:38:13) markl: from the wiki page... "There are even TWO DIFFERENT X.509 CERTIFICATES WITH THE SAME MD5 HASH, but as explained in the document referenced, this cannot be exploited in a meaningful attack."
  (23:38:19) iang: for the transcript, my observations are here:  https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-11/msg00077.html
  (23:38:27) andreasbuerki: Some figures: University Zurich: UZH 25'000 Sudents and 5'000 Stuff -
  (23:38:27) andreasbuerki: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich: ETHZ 15'000 Students and
  (23:38:27) andreasbuerki: 9'000 Staff. - Total of 54'000 People and most of them have e-mail and
  (23:38:27) andreasbuerki: .... do I need more to say?
  (23:38:28) markl: this is still a theoretical attack, from what I understand?
  (23:39:01) andreasbuerki: Theory or not, we are seen as not taking care about security
  (23:39:10) iang: markl:  yes, i think it is.  i would have to go back and look at the details, but it relies on being able to predict the entirety of the certificate BEFORE it is issued.
  (23:39:36) andreasbuerki: the risk ist, that we are seen as not reliable
  (23:39:56) iang: the demo that was done could only be done on that one CA, and took around 6 weeks of trying .... the thing is, if the CA inserts a "nonce" into the cert, it is unpredictable and the attack requires a complete collapse of the hash
  (23:40:29) iang: andreasbuerki:  the real annoyance IMO is when the browsers start blocking the use of MD5
  (23:40:29) andreasbuerki: the key statement of both universites is: At the moment, we are hesitating moving our certificates to CACert.org.
  (23:40:43) markl: I'm not sure that's the case... what has been published is something we are not vulnerable to, as far as I can tell
  (23:40:56) PhilippDunkel: People you are missing the point!
  (23:41:01) andreasbuerki: we are vulnerable...
  (23:41:08) markl: but still, I don't think this is board work
  (23:41:09) andreasbuerki: tell us PD
  (23:41:10) GolfRomeo: ok, so we would need to put a random serial number or any other field with random data
  (23:41:14) PhilippDunkel: It does nopt matter 1 iota whether there is any real danger!
  (23:41:30) PhilippDunkel: The question is whether there is a perceived danger and a perceived reaction
  (23:41:38) markl: it matters that we recognize the issue, consider it, and address it, I understand that
  (23:41:41) andreasbuerki: if borad doesn't support... who will then?
  (23:41:45) markl: but again, this isn't the right forum of first choice
  (23:41:54) iang: well, more or less ... there is real risk and then there is perceived risk
  (23:42:05) markl: the right forum is the policy group, and that fails, then come to the board with it to "escalate" it
  (23:42:19) GolfRomeo: if we have a quick fix, we have to push the fix
  (23:42:21) iang: the problem is that the press can be wrong ... the perceived risk can be wrong
  (23:42:24) PhilippDunkel: If 2 major universities are "hesitant to use CAcert" for this reason and they are also potential sponsors, we should at least adress teh issue rahter than having a couple of "crypto amateurs" (us) decide whether it is important
  (23:42:39) markl: PD: I thought they are hesitant bcoz we won't put subjectAltNames in for them?
  (23:42:40) iang: markl:  no, I think it is fairly clear that we SHOULD re-issue the roots.
  (23:42:43) andreasbuerki: you fully understood the point PD
  (23:42:53) iang: in that also, audit failed the roots, and new ones were already issued
  (23:43:05) iang: the current ones are essentially unacceptable for all sorts of reasons
  (23:43:23) andreasbuerki: means we are with shot trousers
  (23:43:26) markl: iang: right, but as part of a wider decision, which MD5 collision risk is but a tiny part
  (23:43:27) GolfRomeo: @iang : yes
  (23:43:30) markl: iang: right?
  (23:43:32) iang: however, opposing that, we have a resource problem:  I don't believe we can issue roots at this point in time
  (23:43:51) andreasbuerki: what makes you beliving that?
  (23:44:02) andreasbuerki: both universities offered their help, Ian
  (23:44:09) iang: markl:  yes, I as auditor made the decision based on the lack of history from the Sydney period, and the weak conditions in Vienna.
  (23:44:27) andreasbuerki: we have to involve them insted find 10000 excuses for not doing!!!
  (23:44:38) iang: GolfRomeo:  perhaps you can tell AndreasBuerki how much work it was to issue the roots?
  (23:44:40) markl: I'd like to point out that the paper in question on colliding MD5 hashs is from March 1st, 2005
  (23:44:58) GolfRomeo: iang : I can tell we spent a lot of time
  (23:45:16) markl: issuing roots is as much, if not more, an administrative exercise, than a technical one, and we need to make mighty sure that we do it "right" this time
  (23:45:18) andreasbuerki: of course we need to know the workload for planning, so say it in terms of manpower and time
  (23:45:33) iang: markl:  right
  (23:45:36) andreasbuerki: how much is a lot and how did what?
  (23:45:39) markl: and the right place to plan that is not here
  (23:45:49) Unox hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: Unox).
  (23:45:50) PhilippDunkel: Again you are missing the point!
  (23:45:59) iang: andreasbuerki: it is in the wiki ... i think Teus documented the planning line, not sure
  (23:46:13) andreasbuerki: at least one guy, PD understands the danger
  (23:46:14) GolfRomeo: andreas : you need to make the ceremony and bring people to one place
  (23:46:30) andreasbuerki: point me the wiki page, please ian
  (23:46:39) markl: andreas: to say this is not the right place, isn't to say there's no danger
  (23:46:42) iang: markl:  true, we can't plan it here.  But we can decide here.  Although frankly, I'm not sure what we can do other than send someone else off to prepare a proposal
  (23:46:49) PhilippDunkel: The point is, we don't need to have the new roots issued by tomorrow. All we need to do is make the decision to do so and then create a group of people to come up with a solid plan. These should include the "New Roots Taskforce" as well as some outside experts.
  (23:46:52) GolfRomeo: Do we have a quick fix for the pb ?
  (23:46:59) PhilippDunkel: Then we put this on the blog, and we are done
  (23:47:10) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Roots
  (23:47:13) andreasbuerki: I don't expect this to be planed here, but to get your unconditional support!
  (23:47:23) andreasbuerki: thx Ian
  (23:47:24) markl: why don't you bring this up on the policy list, and put forward your proposal for creating that task force?
  (23:47:30) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Roots/NewRootsTaskForce   ... is more or less the index for those pages
  (23:47:34) markl: because it's *their* support you need
  (23:47:35) markl: not ours
  (23:48:07) PhilippDunkel: Something along the lines of "The board resolves that the roots need to be reissued and charges XYZ with preparing to do so"
  (23:48:33) andreasbuerki: if borad thinks it is no emergency, the others will thinkt to! Board has a leding reaponsability!
  (23:48:33) iang: PhilippDunkel:  in a sense, yes.  But who is XYZ?  It isn't me, I don't think I have time until post-AGM.
  (23:48:51) markl: PD: you were just a while ago complaining to the effect that we were usurping the community's authority.. this is the community's task thru the policy group
  (23:49:02) markl: has anyone recently made these suggestions on the policy list and been rebuked?
  (23:49:15) markl: if you have, lets hear it, and deal with it here to send the right message
  (23:49:19) iang: also, the budget for the last one was probably 1-3k spent.  (I didn't account for all of it, so not sure)
  (23:49:20) andreasbuerki: it has been requested by the support list
  (23:49:29) iang: so it can't be done until finance is resolved :)
  (23:49:31) markl: but if not, the right place to start this discussion is on the policy list
  (23:49:46) PhilippDunkel: @mark: That was one of the silliest statements yet:
  (23:49:47) PhilippDunkel: markl: PD: you were just a while ago complaining to the effect that we were usurping the community's authority.. this is the community's task thru the policy group
  (23:49:54) andreasbuerki: this spending we save on zero-cost hosting Iang ;-)
  (23:50:02) markl: it will spill over to board business when it comes time to implement it, by assigning budgets, etc, but it isn't right now
  (23:50:28) iang: markl: i don't think there is a policy question to ask:  the CPS does not recognise the current roots as auditable, so of course, the policy group agrees they have to be re-issued 
  (23:51:07) iang: but if you want to ask, we can have that debate there :)
  (23:51:21) markl: policy group at least has the right people in it
  (23:51:29) PhilippDunkel: I am getting thrown out of the place I am at in about 4 minutes. I will then move and try to rejoin in a bit. Until I can, Andreas has my proxy
  (23:51:30) andreasbuerki: And Philipp Ghuering was as well proposing:
  (23:51:31) markl: to develop a plan, build a task force, etc
  (23:51:35) andreasbuerki: The next thing we need is a decision, whether we want to issue a new
  (23:51:35) andreasbuerki: Class3 root beyond our current Class1 root, or whether we want to issue
  (23:51:35) andreasbuerki: a whole new Root certificate-structure as well.
  (23:51:59) andreasbuerki: so OK, PD
  (23:52:02) markl: these are largely technical discussions, too
  (23:52:10) andreasbuerki: agree, marl
  (23:52:10) markl: class 3 vs class 1, which attributes, etc
  (23:52:10) iang: we have most of that decided already.  we just do the plan on the Roots, I think.
  (23:52:27) iang: GolfRomeo:  do you see any reason to vary the 2008 plan tremendously?
  (23:52:41) GolfRomeo: iang : no
  (23:52:56) GolfRomeo: iang : I guess it is ok
  (23:52:59) markl: so, if there's even the slightest debate about the technical side of things, again, this isn't the place to decide it, because we don't have, nor do we need to have, the knowledge to make those decisions by ourselves
  (23:53:07) iang: my view is that *if* we have to do anything, we should do everything.  There are no short cuts
  (23:53:12) iang: so we have the plan.
  (23:53:13) andreasbuerki: markl, of course...
  (23:53:29) iang: or at the very least we have a working plan to start with, update for a year's extra thought.
  (23:53:36) andreasbuerki: so, who has the knowledge?
  (23:53:44) markl: andreas: my point in all this is I agree with you as to the need to do it, but I don't think this is the right place to start the discussion
  (23:53:53) PhilippDunkel: Ok, got to go. CU
  (23:53:54) markl: the policy and systems lists
  (23:53:55) PhilippDunkel hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: PhilippDunkel).
  (23:54:13) markl: this is a conversation that needs to be had with all the stakeholders
  (23:54:15) iang: markl:  polite reminder of spam discussion :)
  (23:54:15) andreasbuerki: agree, mark, I justr wanna have the formal support of the board
  (23:54:49) GolfRomeo: I support we do everything needed to avoid security issues
  (23:54:54) andreasbuerki: to put into place a task force
  (23:55:04) markl: iang: I didn't start the spam discussion either ;)
  (23:55:08) iang: golfromeo has some of the knowledge, having done it twice
  (23:55:15) andreasbuerki: what takes imdediate care of 665
  (23:55:24) GolfRomeo: (if we have the funds to do it, else we need to find a quick fix)
  (23:55:41) GolfRomeo: iang : yes right I can advise
  (23:55:44) andreasbuerki: if GR has time to help... higly welcome
  (23:56:05) iang: Security Policy rules over this, we'd need to check it ... the thing that I am thinking of in answer to andreasbuerki's question on "who" is that we need 2 or 3 directors in the same place to do this
  (23:56:13) GolfRomeo: Key generation is more interesting 
  (23:56:30) iang: and the thing that is missing out of the plan is how to then protect the keys.  That's a debate to have over on policy I think.
  (23:56:43) GolfRomeo: But all the material on the wiki/svn is enough to make a new ceremony
  (23:56:51) iang: (e.g., how does the board keep control of its root backup copy)
  (23:56:55) GolfRomeo: but advise is ok from me
  (23:57:01) andreasbuerki: ok... but again, I kindly ask for your fomal support by a motion
  (23:57:29) iang: andreasbuerki:  do you want a motion or a solution?
  (23:58:05) andreasbuerki: a motion, as the solution is not available
  (23:58:38) iang: a motion is easy, because the position of the prior boards going back to 2007 was that the roots must be re-issued ... we can repeat those words
  (23:58:52) markl: yeah, there is an existing mandate for this
  (23:59:16) markl: but motions do not make the work happen, someone has to do the actual work of proposing it on the right lists, etc, getting the remaining policy issues hashed out, etc
  (23:59:27) iang: yes
  (23:59:29) markl: a motion will neither help nor hinder that work, andreas, if you want to take it up
  (23:59:49) iang: and this one is quite a bit of work ... plus also requires travelling, and integrating calendars for people
  (23:59:49) GolfRomeo: yes but the pb is we *did* the key ceremony already
  (00:00:06) markl: but I would suggest taking it from a different angle, and almost putting the MD5 risk to one side, because it will get lost in endless technical arguments about whether it's a real risk
  (00:00:27) iang: GolfRomeo:  yes, but there is an issue with those keys.  personally I'd prefer to do it again.
  (00:00:35) markl: we have other, in my opinion far more important reasons to reissue the roots
  (00:00:48) pemmerik hat den Raum verlassen.
  (00:00:49) andreasbuerki: aha... even more reasons.....
  (00:01:07) GolfRomeo: iang : I understand there is the same gap we have between Sydney and Vienna
  (00:01:15) GolfRomeo: s/have/had
  (00:01:30) GolfRomeo: (lost control of the keys)
  (00:01:45) iang: yes, hence my comment on how the board looks after its copy of the root.  you got it.
  (00:02:25) markl: as to the altnames issue you raise concerning the two universities, someone probably just needs to write a patch for the system
  (00:02:39) markl: it doesn't have any policy effects, as it's only modifying the CSR
  (00:02:46) andreasbuerki: would a claas-3 replacement take less time and ressources?
  (00:02:51) iang: markl:  at least, that's the start of the practical work
  (00:02:54) markl: just needs someone technical to get it done
  (00:03:10) iang: andreasbuerki:  not in my opinion
  (00:03:12) GolfRomeo: andreasbuerki : pb you need to define the ceremony and test it
  (00:03:19) andreasbuerki: ok...
  (00:03:52) iang: although, potentially, it is easier to do a non-auditable class 3 replacement ... but even then we may as well do both ... and the work afterwards still has to be done
  (00:04:14) markl: yeah
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: According to Philipp Guehring / by e-mail:The first thing is that we need a small improvement to our software to
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: support expiring CA certificates, to avoid breaking the CRLs. (I
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: implemented half of this already, only the second half is missing). I am
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: able to do that within a week I guess.
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: The next thing we need is a decision, whether we want to issue a new
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: Class3 root beyond our current Class1 root, or whether we want to issue
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: a whole new Root certificate-structure as well.
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: Then we have to generate and deploy the new CA certificate.
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: Then we have to enable the usage of the new CA certificate in our software.
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: In the mean time, we should inform our users about the new certificate,
  (00:04:21) andreasbuerki: which they have to do correctly for Certificate-Chains.
  (00:04:43) GolfRomeo: We can use the class 3 root we made in 2008
  (00:05:05) markl: all great  questions, but all outside our mandate
  (00:05:49) markl: there doesn't seem to be consensus for a motion on this issue, and we're down to debating techie stuff again, so I propose we move on unless someone has a motion to put
  (00:05:55) iang: If you're asking whether we issue a replacement class3, or a whole new structure, I say whole structure.
  (00:06:22) GolfRomeo: iang : why don't we use the class3 cert we made last time ?
  (00:06:46) iang: because it isn't signed by the class 1, it's signed by the new root instead
  (00:06:56) andreasbuerki: As said by PD:  The point is, we don't need to have the new roots issued by tomorrow. All we need to do is make the decision to do so and then create a group of people to come up with a solid plan. These should include the "New Roots Taskforce" as well as some outside experts.
  (00:07:11) iang: although maybe I'm confused, I don';t think we made a class 3, we made a new "assured root"
  (00:07:11) markl: andreasbuerki: but we already have that decision, several times over
  (00:07:21) markl: it hasn't translated into someone doing the ground work to prepare for it though
  (00:07:35) markl: *that* is what is needed now.. people doing the work to make it happen
  (00:07:46) iang: yes
  (00:07:54) GolfRomeo: iang : yes it is not a big problem as people are less likely to use the class3 root cert anyway
  (00:08:10) andreasbuerki: as usual... it needs to be written and coded and done
  (00:08:19) markl: I honestly think if you start this conversation on the policy and systems lists, you'll get a positive response, and find a bunch of people to start help moving on it
  (00:09:04) markl: it really probably just needs someone to take the initiative to lead it... that person can be you, Andreas :)
  (00:09:06) iang: ok, that can be done.  my view is we need someone to manage the process.  and I don't see that someone.  When the someone is found, it'll move
  (00:09:18) andreasbuerki: and their is not more formal stuff needed, mark?
  (00:09:36) markl: andreas: not in my opinion.. there's an existing mandate
  (00:09:36) iang: last time it was Teus, with Guillaume doing a lot of the writing of code
  (00:09:52) andreasbuerki: what are the qualifications for *someone*?
  (00:10:08) iang: i would be happy in theory to do it, but not in practice.  no time, no budget.
  (00:10:12) markl: just needs someone to champion it
  (00:10:22) GolfRomeo: andreas : knowing X509 certs and coding
  (00:10:22) markl: to start suggesting the things that need to be done
  (00:10:25) iang: possibly in the new year.
  (00:10:28) andreasbuerki: be more precise, gentlemen... ;-)
  (00:10:32) markl: like finishing off the policy of how to handle the keys, etc
  (00:10:36) markl: it's not a precise task
  (00:10:42) markl: your job is to lead the discussion
  (00:10:53) markl: to identify what work is left to be done (policy work, patches to systems, etc)
  (00:10:56) iang: andreasbuerki:  read the pages on the wiki.  Find someone who understands all that stuff
  (00:11:12) markl: document those things, find people to take on tasks
  (00:11:17) andreasbuerki: so I could incloud the Universitiy guys, as they are assurers as well?
  (00:11:24) markl: find people who are experts in their niche, and put them to work
  (00:11:30) iang: you need a manager who's also a techie and won't get snowed by a PKI nut.
  (00:11:47) iang: I reckon that would be PD, ML, or me, to add my toot-toot
  (00:11:50) markl: can include your next door neighbour if it helps... that's the whole point, by doing this on the lists, *everyone* can help
  (00:12:03) iang: but I'm guessing we're all busy :)
  (00:12:19) markl: if you want to get the ball rolling, Andreas, I will certainly pitch in where I can, and I'm sure the others will too where time permits
  (00:12:29) andreasbuerki: no prob, Ina, I'll find people interested in the issue... ;-)
  (00:12:37) markl: you *have* our support, 100% :)
  (00:12:53) GolfRomeo: 110%
  (00:12:55) andreasbuerki: thx :-)
  (00:12:58) iang: andreasbuerki:  you have more chance of finding the uni guys to help on the root re-roll
  (00:13:03) andreasbuerki: woow... next bid... ;-)
  (00:13:05) iang: than on the patch for that fix.
  (00:13:26) markl: ok, lets move on to the next item
  (00:13:32) markl: 2.5. Audit - added by hugi
  (00:13:35) markl:     * Additional Inputs: How long will it take until CAcert.org is ready for audit? 
  (00:13:36) andreasbuerki: that is wht I'm thinking... and PG will probably help as well
  (00:13:56) andreasbuerki: yep... can anyone answer this question?
  (00:14:11) markl: I think Ian answered it perfectly in response to the same question on the board list
  (00:14:25) markl: the question is one for the wider community.. when will *you* be ready for the audit
  (00:14:27) iang: well, the audit priorities in my mind are the hosting and DRP.  We have to get the hosting sorted out so that we can more clearly work on the other things
  (00:14:35) andreasbuerki: I missed that one.... will it be in 2010 or 2011?
  (00:14:44) markl: we have our priorities to get taken care of... DPA, hosting, solving arbitration so it works
  (00:14:58) markl: and you can see the same as us the pace at which these are proceding
  (00:15:05) iang: andreasbuerki:  i've never answered that question, and i don't intend to start now
  (00:15:23) andreasbuerki: thank you Ian
  (00:15:31) andreasbuerki: point closed
  (00:15:33) iang: because it is tantamount to a promise to deliver.  and it isn't me that is delivering the audit work, it is the community
  (00:15:58) andreasbuerki: and the community is asking when.... catch 22
  (00:16:18) markl: I think on the audit note though, that we are finally making progress on the board-level issues that relate to the audit
  (00:16:27) markl: like the hosting, DPA, and arb issues
  (00:16:36) andreasbuerki: no need for more answers
  (00:16:45) markl: and if you're prepared to head up some work on getting the roots done, that'll be another big piece of the puzzle
  (00:16:48) markl: ok... next then :)
  (00:16:49) markl: 2.6. Financial Information - added by Mark 
  (00:16:53) markl:     * Additional Inputs: Organise replacement signing authority from Ernestine, discussion about financial reports for FY2009, revisit board access to raw accounting material that hasn't eventuated, discuss whether m20090913.8 has been followed. 
  (00:17:07) markl: ernie: where are you at in terms of getting a new copy of your documents?
  (00:17:57) ernie: since the first ones don't received - I will try end of this week or beginning of next week, depends when the person are there
  (00:18:30) ernie: hope the next onex will arrive - it takes me half a day to go to the consulate
  (00:18:41) ernie: it' not arround the corner
  (00:18:49) markl: must send important documents not by regular air mail :)
  (00:18:52) ernie: and I suggest we will add other people too
  (00:19:24) markl: homework for the next meeting... is anyone else near to an Australian consulate or embassy?
  (00:19:28) ernie: markl, will send by DHL
  (00:19:34) iang: yes, i am
  (00:20:03) iang: i don't know where Nick lives, but they aren't thick on the ground in the USA
  (00:20:12) iang: Guillaume probably has one in his home town
  (00:20:19) markl: yeah, very few in the US
  (00:20:27) markl: and I think only the embassy in DC does document auths
  (00:20:32) iang: and PD visits every 2nd day
  (00:20:48) GolfRomeo: iang : yes but it will also take much time
  (00:20:52) iang: is it embassy or consular business?
  (00:21:00) markl: it's consular business
  (00:21:10) iang: golfromeo:  sure, I'm not saying we should all do it.
  (00:21:11) markl: but the AU consulates in the US are weird
  (00:21:15) ernie: iang, depends what australia will have in this country
  (00:21:39) iang: anyway ... that still leave more directors
  (00:21:41) ernie: iang, if there is only a consulat, you can go there .... but first call and ask if they will do
  (00:21:54) iang: do we have a view that we should add more directors if we can?
  (00:22:03) iang: leaving aside the implementation details, which we can discuss in mail
  (00:22:12) ernie: iang, here they know this kind of confirmation very well, they have to do several times
  (00:22:13) markl: yes, I think we should
  (00:22:16) markl: at least one more
  (00:22:39) iang: I would in principle say that we should consider adding more
  (00:22:57) iang: and I'm not sure there is any reason (beyond common sense) to limit it?
  (00:23:11) ernie: iang, yes, otherwise we will have always the same problems
  (00:23:17) markl: ok, lets just leave it at that for now... if Ernestine is going to send the documents next week, we should at least have a solution, and then we can add more
  (00:23:21) markl: no sense to limit it, no
  (00:23:22) iang: I'm happy to do it, and I have the right coloured document
  (00:23:28) markl: because it's still two to sign
  (00:23:38) markl: hey Ian, you don't still hold an Australian drivers license do you?
  (00:23:54) iang: i don't hold a valid one of those ... but i have the pp
  (00:23:59) markl: ah ok
  (00:24:28) markl: ok, next part ... discussion about financial reports for FY2009
  (00:24:31) iang: and they just recently gave me a new one.
  (00:24:41) iang: hold on!  are we deciding anything here?
  (00:24:48) ernie: markl, did you hearanything from robertC?
  (00:25:31) iang: are we of the view that we are not going to add any more directors?  If we are of the view that we add more, let's just do it.
  (00:25:34) markl: iang: probably don't need to at this stage... so close to the AGM, if Ernie can get the documents here next week, and we can at least get the account operational, we can add signers after the AGM, and try and get as many of the board as possible?
  (00:25:47) iang: that's all "if"
  (00:26:05) markl: the complication is that if we move to add a signer, we're obligated to inform the bank
  (00:26:10) iang: and it is all irrelevant to the timing as far as I can see
  (00:26:22) markl: and if we do that, we have to get a new authority signed by everyone
  (00:26:39) markl: so it makes sense to get Ernie identified by the bank, so in future she can just sign the paperwork, rather than showing ID
  (00:26:43) markl: then we can add signers easily
  (00:26:55) iang: ok, but is the consular part dependent on that ?
  (00:27:03) markl: rather than now circulating the authority to each of you, and adding more round trip time
  (00:27:16) markl: somewhat, there are recency requirements, but i think it's like 6 months
  (00:27:22) markl: but I'm not sure of the precise amount of time
  (00:28:19) iang: hmm.. so you are saying that it is easier once Ernie is on?  
  (00:28:33) markl: yes
  (00:28:51) markl: because then we can circulate a fresh signing authority to everyone who wants to be a signer
  (00:28:58) markl: it's a single piece of paper that has to pass thru each signer's hands
  (00:29:00) iang: well.  i'll pick it up later, let's move on then.
  (00:29:11) markl: so it's going to be a longer process than it will be to just get Ernie on
  (00:29:26) markl: ok... discussion about financial reports for FY2009
  (00:29:41) markl: I think we need to proceed on the basis that we will not get anything in a timely fashion from the previous board
  (00:30:16) iang: should we discuss 2.8 first?
  (00:30:18) ernie: till now I haven't looked to the statements, had no time last week
  (00:30:20) markl: and I'd say we need to ask Ernie to prepare a financial report on the basis of the bank statements and the previous year's financial report alone
  (00:31:03) markl: iang: we can, but I'm not sure we have the time to wait now, either
  (00:31:16) iang: nod, I withdraw remark
  (00:31:17) ernie: If I have time during this week I will look to the statements, problem is only, if you see name .... you don't see for what - bit I think it's not very much
  (00:31:30) markl: ernie: you'll just have to work with what you've got
  (00:31:38) ernie: I know 
  (00:31:40) iang: i agree with that.
  (00:32:06) markl: if we don't have the information, not much more we can do
  (00:32:06) ernie: and finally you have only deliver a few figures to the register in australia
  (00:32:06) iang: once we see the gaps, we'll be able to do the detective work
  (00:32:28) markl: I would suggest using the FY2008 report as your template
  (00:32:43) markl: no more information than that is required for the Office of Fair Trading
  (00:32:45) ernie: i don't have FY2008 template
  (00:32:57) markl: I linked to it when you asked before, on the board list
  (00:33:03) markl: it's on the wiki, in any case
  (00:33:19) ernie: ahh this one - the report to the register .... 
  (00:33:37) markl: http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/AGM20081107?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=CAcertBalanceSheet07-08.pdf
  (00:34:22) markl: that will also provide your opening figures for the beginning of the financial year
  (00:35:18) ernie: this one I have seen - it's the summary-figures
  (00:35:48) markl: yes, that is all that is required, and we have the information necessary to do that
  (00:36:15) ernie: and I suggest to write off the fixed assets from this figures
  (00:37:07) iang: simplest possible approach to write-offs, yes
  (00:37:22) markl: umm so far as I know, we still own them.. just depreciate them at a reasonable rate.. I will provide you with information on how depreciation is calculated here shortly
  (00:37:42) markl: but we have some flexibility, because we have no tax reporting obligations, so it's mainly informational
  (00:37:42) ernie: where ? as cacert we will have acces to them
  (00:38:08) markl: 2.8 on the agenda :)
  (00:38:31) markl: ok, so on the basis that ernie has all she needs to prepare the report, we shall move on
  (00:38:32) ernie: ahh - this ones are meant
  (00:38:43) iang: nod
  (00:38:46) markl: next... revisit board access to raw accounting material that hasn't eventuated
  (00:39:26) markl: this one, Ernie, is regarding the raw data for the financial reports that were sent as images... we agreed last time that the raw information was going to be sent to the private mailing list, and I haven't seen those
  (00:40:02) ernie: what we have was going to the list
  (00:40:40) ernie: dan setup the mail from paypal - and all items you find there
  (00:40:56) ernie: other things I don't get or have seen
  (00:41:00) iang: how many mails have there been?
  (00:41:11) markl: I'm talking about the image files that you emailed us a while back
  (00:41:12) ernie: iang, I don't count
  (00:41:16) markl: containing transaction histories
  (00:41:38) markl: I had asked for them to be provided again in a format that can be edited, copied, digested, etc, and we agreed that would happen
  (00:42:08) ernie: i don't sent till now, ok will do.
  (00:42:57) ernie: you asked for xls-file ....
  (00:43:26) markl: and I think we should make sanitised versions available publicly, with any information taht identifies an individual removed..
  (00:43:34) markl: whatever raw format you have them in
  (00:44:21) iang: i think we should definately be publishing stuff .. but i'd like to see the raw material before deciding for sure
  (00:44:52) iang: also, i've noted that there are two opposing opinions:  one is that we have to publish who are the donators, and the other is that we cannot publish who are the donators ... 
  (00:45:16) markl: yes, I'm happy to prepare that with the benefit of the raw files... I will prepare a sanitised copy and circulate it for us to consider publishing it, if Ernie doesn't have time to do it
  (00:45:25) iang: i'm not asking to resolve this issue now, just noting that it might come up in the future
  (00:45:34) ernie: iang, we are not allowed to do so, not here in europe
  (00:45:55) GolfRomeo: ernie : so we don't !
  (00:46:29) iang: well, as i say, i'm not after that discussion right now
  (00:46:39) ernie: we can publish amount etc., but not names or private datas - only if you are asked and you have the written agreement of the person
  (00:46:57) markl: right.. I'm not proposing to disclose their names, but we likely have an obligation to make the information available to association members
  (00:47:32) markl: and a reminder that we do not operate under european law, our accounts are held in Australia
  (00:48:04) ernie: markl, that makes no different for people here in europe, you have to respect anyway 
  (00:48:15) markl: but a member of the association can inspect any books, including information that would disclose donor's names
  (00:48:34) markl: ernie: but in doing so, we do it out of politeness, not legal obligation
  (00:48:34) andreasbuerki: no, the obligation to disclose names to members we don't have... not to my knoweledge
  (00:48:40) ernie: markl, because people assume that the privacy will be respected, they must not read the australian law first
  (00:49:00) markl: whereas we have an obligation to make available for inspection "The records, books and other documents of the association" to members
  (00:49:09) iang: ernie:  we can't break australian law or ignore it just because some people have different ones!
  (00:49:12) ernie: markl, inspections is not the same
  (00:49:23) andreasbuerki: inspection yes.... that's it
  (00:49:44) ernie: for audit you must show - but not public on the website or give to other peoples hands
  (00:49:46) andreasbuerki: inspection upon demand....
  (00:49:57) markl: as I said above.. I don't propose to publish personally identifying information, but I am making you aware that we have legal obligations regarding availability of the information to memebers
  (00:50:16) ernie: iang, no - the law here is very clear when you act international
  (00:50:20) andreasbuerki: what you do, if a donator asks for privacy ???... no thank you?
  (00:50:38) markl: European law does not apply to CAcert Inc's financial transactions
  (00:50:52) iang: possibly, yes.  if a donator asks for privacy, this might be an attempt to manipulate
  (00:50:58) iang: oldest trick in the book :)
  (00:50:59) andreasbuerki: as said many times, the PP needs to be reworked in an International manner!
  (00:51:07) ernie: markl, but we take donations from europe - therefore we have to respect the privacy
  (00:51:25) markl: no ernie, the european law does not apply to that either
  (00:51:38) markl: as I said, I do not propose to disclose the names of donors publicly
  (00:51:39) ***GolfRomeo is a bit lost
  (00:51:45) ernie: markl, you can say no 100 times - you have to respect 
  (00:52:01) markl: but, the law is very, very, very, very clear, we must make that information available for inspection by any member of the association
  (00:52:04) ernie: markl, and don't mix up internal and external
  (00:52:05) andreasbuerki: otherwise we would have to put an european donation collecting entity between CAcert Inc. and the donator
  (00:52:19) iang: golfromeo:  my fault for bringing it up.  but we have to resolve this one day
  (00:52:39) andreasbuerki: iang: that I say since many moons!!!
  (00:52:50) markl: we respect everyone's privacy, as a matter of course, so far as I am aware
  (00:53:00) markl: europeans are not entitled to any additional special treatment in that regard
  (00:53:10) iang: andreasbuerki:  and you can say it to 100 moons :-)
  (00:53:12) markl: we should respect the privacy of a member from kenya just the same
  (00:53:27) ernie: markl, hope so
  (00:53:33) markl: but respecting privacy stops at our legal obligation to make certain information available
  (00:53:34) iang: we have to craft something that works internationally for all our members
  (00:53:54) andreasbuerki: whay do you thik I have created this page: http://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/Study/Policies/PrivacyDataProtectionStatement
  (00:54:14) markl: not to mention, an exemption exists in the dutch DPA has an exemption for exactly this, for members of an association
  (00:54:14) andreasbuerki: iang: no you start to understand
  (00:54:17) ernie: markl, but here starts the point you will not understand - you are not allowed to publish on the website, and make available for everybody
  (00:54:21) iang: and the moment we start deferring to local laws over australian laws, we open up a can of worms.  pandorra's box to the power of however many countries are listed at UN
  (00:54:43) markl: ernie: you're not listening to me.. how many times above did I say that I do not propose to publish that???
  (00:54:53) iang: andreasbuerki:  i would not have advised you to do that
  (00:55:13) markl: once again, I do not propose to publish personally identifying information about donors on our website
  (00:55:16) andreasbuerki: iang: this is not in relation to DPA
  (00:55:22) ernie: markl, ok
  (00:55:27) markl: I'm merely making you aware that we have obligations beyond politeness
  (00:55:34) andreasbuerki: and by not mentionning a problem it will not be solved
  (00:55:49) iang: that page looks all DPA to me
  (00:55:51) GolfRomeo: ok data can be accessed by CAcert members but not the general public
  (00:56:05) andreasbuerki: then take taht out iang.... no prob
  (00:56:14) andreasbuerki: tath=take
  (00:56:17) markl: GolfRomeo: right, let me paste the rule in question:
  (00:56:23) markl: 41 Inspection of books
  (00:56:23) markl: The records, books and other documents of the association must be
  (00:56:23) markl: open to inspection, free of charge, by a member of the association at
  (00:56:23) markl: any reasonable hour, and by prior arrangement.
  (00:56:38) ernie: GolfRomeo, if I remember the rules right, each member could ask for the information - and this is ok
  (00:57:02) GolfRomeo: markl, ernie : ok I am fine
  (00:57:04) andreasbuerki: that is in most law systems for associations like that
  (00:57:14) andreasbuerki: here in Switzerland as well
  (00:57:20) markl: to be clear, as the public officer, I take inspection to mean something more than physically showing up at my doorstep.  If a member sought to inspect the documents electronically, as the public officer, I would provide him with the information in question without hesitation
  (00:57:44) andreasbuerki: that is your duty, mark
  (00:57:49) ernie: markl, I understand the same under this 
  (00:57:52) iang: i propose that we do this in bite size chunks.  let's see the data first, and a proposed publication and so forth, then discuss it
  (00:58:09) markl: yes, but this kind of got sidetracked anyway, partly my fault, partly ian's fault :)
  (00:58:19) markl: the first step is we need the source documents for the images that were sent
  (00:58:20) andreasbuerki: iang: seems reasonable... 
  (00:58:20) iang: i did bring it up ;-(
  (00:58:41) markl: as I'm the one who brought it up, if Ernie is fine committing to doing that ASAP, then case closed for me for now
  (00:58:45) andreasbuerki: shame on you iang... ;-)
  (00:58:48) GolfRomeo: markl : we just have to make sure the member accepts not to publish the data on the internet
  (00:59:07) iang: i am everyone's favourite messenger, for the shooting of ...
  (00:59:17) andreasbuerki: iang: again, take out of that site wat you like, no prob with me.
  (00:59:18) ernie: ok, but give me at 10 days - then i will also update the last figures 
  (00:59:23) ernie: have to do anyway
  (00:59:37) markl: GolfRomeo: our protection there is presumably that the documents are copyright, and our internal discipline measures
  (00:59:58) GolfRomeo: markl : fine as I would expect !
  (01:00:01) markl: we need the ones that were sent originally too, but ok
  (01:00:02) andreasbuerki: copyright?
  (01:00:20) markl: don't get hung up on updating them if it prevents sending the ones that are already out there in image format, please
  (01:00:23) andreasbuerki: *have to have a look, their it stands*
  (01:00:35) ernie: ok
  (01:00:59) markl: andreasbuerki: all works have automatic copyright.. it's one of the few protections we have against someone republishing a private document
  (01:01:16) markl: ok, lets carry on... next item: discuss whether m20090913.8 has been followed
  (01:01:54) markl: there's been some talk that this motion may not have been followed
  (01:02:01) markl: m20090913.8
  (01:02:01) markl: Paypal Info for support
  (01:02:01) markl: Treasurer send a daily email to support with details of any paypal
  (01:02:01) markl: transactions for support matters
  (01:02:28) markl: GolfRomeo: being that you are the one that brought it up, would you care to speak briefly to the problem?
  (01:02:28) MathieuSimon hat den Raum verlassen.
  (01:03:13) GolfRomeo: well, I am not sure now, Ernestine sent data and stopped
  (01:03:27) GolfRomeo: (I don't care much now)
  (01:04:15) GolfRomeo: is a mail is expected to be sent to support@
  (01:04:17) GolfRomeo: ?
  (01:04:24) GolfRomeo: else we can postpone the question
  (01:04:37) markl: well the motion called for a daily email to support with any paypal txns
  (01:04:46) GolfRomeo: ok
  (01:04:47) markl: so if that hasn't been happening, I'd like for us to talk about why
  (01:05:09) ernie: When I read a mail from the week-end right, you receive the notifications - respective guillaume you have anyway access to the mail-list
  (01:05:28) ernie: this I wrote to support on the 22-sep, I never received an answer
  (01:05:44) ernie: I assume they get information, why I should do double work
  (01:05:45) GolfRomeo: (mail can get lost in the flow of spam)
  (01:06:10) markl: did you confirm that support had an alternate way of receiving them before stopping sending them?
  (01:06:13) ernie: you never sent an answer that you don't have access to the mailing-list with the infos
  (01:06:17) GolfRomeo: I don't have access to the list but it is no longer my duty so...
  (01:06:43) markl: we agreed to the resolution on the basis that this was going to be a top priority to be sent each day, as I recall
  (01:06:52) markl: and it concerns me that it wasn't taken seriously
  (01:06:52) GolfRomeo: yes right
  (01:06:57) ernie: you have access to the mailing-list - we have decided once, and I think dan set it up
  (01:07:01) markl: I voted for that as a compromise on that basis alone
  (01:07:17) iang: ernie: which mailing list are you referring to?
  (01:07:25) GolfRomeo: yes ?
  (01:07:29) ernie: where the payment-infos are going
  (01:07:48) markl: and where is that?
  (01:07:50) iang: there is a list for payment-infos?  I didn't know that
  (01:07:57) markl: nor did I
  (01:09:22) ernie: it's the inc-list, and guillaume has acces to this list
  (01:09:49) iang: ah, cacert-inc.  the one where we agreed that all such things should go to
  (01:10:03) markl: ernie: being that this was proposed as a solution before the compromise of m20090913.8, what changed to make it suitable to send the info that you fought so hard to not send to Guillaume in the first place?
  (01:10:46) markl: and, not withstanding that, Guillaume wasn't the only one doing support
  (01:10:47) iang: i see zero mails on that list?
  (01:10:53) ernie: I sent him as long we don't have this list, then I asked - because in a mail I read - they will get the infos
  (01:11:42) ernie: and since I didn'tget an answer I assume they will get, sorry I don't make work for nothing
  (01:12:06) markl: you should have taken it to the board, because the board made a decision about how the information was going to be sent
  (01:12:11) ernie: and other question, why he never asked - where my list is
  (01:12:11) GolfRomeo: so we have an unsolved pb here. Not an emergency, as I stated once, I stopped checking the password recovery fees
  (01:12:19) markl: and that decision was based on your objection to having the emails visible by anyone else
  (01:12:45) markl: sending an email and washing your hands of it was inappropriate, the email could have been lost in the sea of spam, or anything
  (01:13:47) iang: it's not entirely clear that this is any more than a case of misunderstandings ... but whatever
  (01:14:13) markl: and if the solution that could have saved the whole hour we spent aruging about it originally was suitable, then why don't we rescind that motion, and pass a new one requiring support@ get paypal emails again
  (01:14:52) iang: well, maybe.  but as newly appointed support officer, I'd ask for some time to look at that :)
  (01:15:15) markl: because regardless of whether it was a misunderstanding or otherwise, this clearly was a manufactured problem, because the end result is the same as the status quo before all this blew up
  (01:15:38) GolfRomeo: yes
  (01:16:19) iang: well, I don't think it helpful to start throwing around accusations of "manufacturing" coz I'd find it suitable to apply to lots of other things
  (01:16:23) markl: and the payment notification API stuff that was talked about hasn't come to fruition either, presumably anyone that does support@ now will have precisely the same problem
  (01:17:23) markl: it's probably not helpful, agreed... but so much heated argument went in to finding a compromise on this, it's quite frustrating that it seems to be have been for nought
  (01:17:27) ernie: mhh - this issue is still christopher's open issue - he has some problem with security - the rest will work he said, but I don't test till now
  (01:18:00) ernie: I don't know till when it is working 
  (01:18:09) iang: i sent a ping to that list.  nx8;o response, it seems not to work.
  (01:18:42) markl: so I think that either support@ needs to be put back on the cc list for Paypal notifications, or m20090913.8 needs to be complied with
  (01:18:53) iang: ( @guillaume ... could we meet up in IRC at some point so we can do some sort of handover? )
  (01:19:06) GolfRomeo: @iang : yes !
  (01:19:32) iang: not tonight unless you really have to do it tonight
  (01:19:46) iang: and send me any info.
  (01:19:47) GolfRomeo: @iang : ya later :)
  (01:20:26) ernie: sorry, but I have to leave soon - have to get up aerly
  (01:20:40) markl: can we just agree to put support@ back on the cc list for paypal and put this mess behind us?
  (01:20:43) iang: ok, i just found the right page.  there are payments on this list:  https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-inc/2009-11/thrd1.html
  (01:21:51) GolfRomeo: (I am not allowed to access the archives)
  (01:22:15) GolfRomeo: (but that's weird)
  (01:22:33) ernie: GolfRomeo, and why not?
  (01:22:35) iang: you are subscribed as    guillaume@tiebogos.fr        ... you will need your cert with that em
  (01:23:11) GolfRomeo: ok I got it
  (01:23:13) iang: anyway
  (01:23:28) GolfRomeo: (password is enough)
  (01:23:43) iang: i think i am agreed (of consensus?) that the emails go back to support@ for the time being.
  (01:24:25) markl: I move that m20090913.8 be rescinded, and that support@cacert.org be placed on the cc-list for payment notifications directly from Paypal.
  (01:24:29) GolfRomeo: As the coming support people won't be board members
  (01:25:03) iang: seconded, Aye
  (01:25:12) ernie: GolfRomeo, think so, otherwise we have a problem
  (01:25:14) markl: all those of that opinion, aye, against, no
  (01:25:21) ernie: aye
  (01:25:39) GolfRomeo: aye
  (01:25:57) andreasbuerki: aye
  (01:26:37) markl: I declare the motion carried
  (01:26:51) markl: Ernie, can you implement that ASAP please
  (01:27:19) markl: next is 2.7. Vienna Hosting - added by Mark which we can likely combine with 2.10. Infrastructure Sponsorship - Update - added by hugi 
  (01:27:29) markl: anyone have a problem with combining discussion on these two?
  (01:27:40) iang: i have no problem combining them
  (01:27:44) iang: but it is late here
  (01:27:48) andreasbuerki: nope...
  (01:27:55) ernie: markl, I will write dan a mail, he has only to setup a copy to support from paypal
  (01:27:58) andreasbuerki: most is there anyway
  (01:28:35) andreasbuerki: actually we are translating the Sponsorship Agreement with adfinis
  (01:28:47) markl: iang: did i hear a proposal to adjourn the meeting? :)
  (01:28:55) andreasbuerki: and tomorrow we will do an ORGA-Assurance with them
  (01:29:23) iang: well, i can keep going ... but ernie is out at this stage
  (01:29:25) GolfRomeo: markl : 1.30 am in Europe is fair enough
  (01:30:00) ernie: GolfRomeo, right
  (01:30:04) markl: if only Ernie is leaving, we still have a quorum, so someone would have to move to adjourn
  (01:30:13) andreasbuerki: Places to find updates are: http://wiki.cacert.org/SystemAdministration/InfrastructureHost#Switzerland and as well: https://wiki.cacert.org/Technology/Laboratory/Hardware/InfrastructureHost/Bern
  (01:30:23) GolfRomeo: markl : I guess I would also leave
  (01:30:33) GolfRomeo: (if allowed)
  (01:30:34) andreasbuerki: that is my update about 
  (01:30:36) iang: andreasbuerki:  is there any problem with sending a google-translated Sponsorship agreement to the private list?
  (01:30:52) GolfRomeo: markl : or can we give a deadline
  (01:31:17) markl: ok, what if we adjourn at this point, after asking for any questions from others?
  (01:31:33) iang: oops, right ... not sure if anyone is left :)
  (01:31:33) andreasbuerki: yes... as it is a german contract from the company what needs some rework.... so google tranlation ist not helpfull
  (01:31:38) GolfRomeo: mark : (ok)
  (01:31:46) andreasbuerki: but the key points you have in the wiki
  (01:32:11) iang: ok, I move to adjourn (unless mark already did)
  (01:32:11) markl: does anyone have any questions for the committee?
  (01:32:35) markl: lets see if any questions first, then sort out when we are meeting next to finish the hosting, the document recovery and the DPA stuff off, then adjourn
  (01:32:39) andreasbuerki: but as soon it is ready you will have it on the private list for revie
  (01:32:44) andreasbuerki: review
  (01:32:46) iang: ok
  (01:33:07) andreasbuerki: ok
  (01:33:11) markl: ok, there being no questions, I propose we meet Sunday 22 Nov, 2009 at 2100 UTC to continue this meeting.
  (01:33:16) iang: Q: are you alive?
  (01:33:18) markl: limited to the same agenda
  (01:33:25) iang: Werner: are you with us?
  (01:33:27) GolfRomeo: ok
  (01:33:46) Werner: yes, I am
  (01:33:48) andreasbuerki: ok... so I put exactly the same agenda up, mark?
  (01:34:02) iang: any questions from the membership?
  (01:34:06) markl: andreas: it'll simply be a continuation of this meeting,  Iwould think.. just adjourned until then
  (01:34:15) markl: same as if we adjourned for a tea break :)
  (01:34:34) iang: markl:  seconded
  (01:34:45) markl: all those of that opinion, aye, against no
  (01:34:47) markl: aye
  (01:34:52) iang: aye
  (01:34:53) GolfRomeo: aye
  (01:34:54) andreasbuerki: tea? thought you are an aussi... ;-)
  (01:35:00) andreasbuerki: fosters and so...
  (01:35:06) andreasbuerki: aye
  (01:35:12) markl: no one drinks fosters here, we export it only
  (01:35:37) andreasbuerki: lol... we dot that with cheese.... first quality we export...
  (01:35:43) iang: probably got the idea from the french, they keep all the best stuff and only send the rubbish out
  (01:35:57) markl: I'm putting this in to the motions system
  (01:36:03) markl: to double as a meeting notice for those who aren't here
  (01:36:23) andreasbuerki: a must!
  (01:36:31) GolfRomeo: iang : a long time ago, french traded slaves and sold rubbish :(
  (01:36:58) andreasbuerki: nasty french guys... ;-)
  (01:37:13) markl: I declare the motion carried, and adjourn the meeting until that time.
  (01:37:18) andreasbuerki: so, we are done..?
  (01:37:22) markl: yup
  (01:37:26) iang: thanks!
  (01:37:30) GolfRomeo: see you
  (01:37:36) markl: thanks guys.. have a good night
  (01:37:37) iang: ciao guys
  (01:37:37) andreasbuerki: so, cya guys... have a nice week
  (01:39:07) jmoore3rd1 hat den Raum verlassen (Leaving.).
  
  ---- END TRANSCRIPT ----

• Original Place Meeting Transcript SVN CAcer.org Website - Comment: Replace in original .txt file YYYYMMDD by the real date of the meeting and after that cancel this comment.

Meeting Transcript 2009-11-22

• (21:51:11) iang: team ... are we working exactly from the agenda of last week?
  21:55
  (21:57:04) GolfRomeo: hello, I imagine yes
  (21:57:15) andreasbuerki: hello everybody
  (21:58:32) markl: yes, from last week's agenda, being that it is that meeting, just adjourned til now
  (21:58:40) ernie: hello everybody
  (21:58:44) markl: and if there's urgent business, we can consider that at the end, like we usually would
  (21:59:18) andreasbuerki: make sense
  (21:59:59) andreasbuerki: but I don't have time for not really urgent businesses, specially without preparation
  22:00
  (22:01:05) markl: nb: you here?
  (22:01:12) GolfRomeo: I'll be off in 1 hour : I have to sleep early as I have dental surgery at 18.00 tomorrow (I need to go to work early and leave early)
  (22:01:39) markl: GolfRomeo: sounds like worth getting out of bed early for ;)
  (22:02:08) GolfRomeo: markl : ya thanks... dental care is great :(
  (22:02:53) markl: OK, being Nick isn't around, I'll chair unless someone moves an objection
  (22:03:04) iang: g4it
  (22:03:17) markl: I believe we were up to 2.7 on the agenda, right/
  (22:03:17) GolfRomeo: no pb
  (22:03:30) markl: discussing the hosting offer?
  (22:03:41) markl: from http://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/20091115
  (22:04:02) iang: yes, are you asking for an update from me?
  (22:04:04) andreasbuerki: no news from my side...
  (22:04:14) markl: well, procedure first... can we combine 2.7 and 2.10?
  (22:04:26) markl: they're pretty much the same topic, and I bet there'll be some crossover in the discussion anyway
  (22:04:33) iang: agreed, combine
  (22:04:37) markl: 2.7. Vienna Hosting - added by Mark  and 2.10. Infrastructure Sponsorship - Update - added by hugi 
  (22:04:57) andreasbuerki: fine by me
  22:05
  (22:05:25) markl: ok, cool... lets do it then... being it's first on the list, Ian, do you want to speak to the Vienna hosting?
  (22:05:59) iang: ok, typing
  (22:06:00) andreasbuerki: last weel we did the ORGA assurance process with adfinis as part of Mathieus ORGA Assurer education
  (22:06:19) andreasbuerki: otherwise, still translating and writing the contract
  (22:06:41) iang: I set up the offer to get the machine, and the system administrators.
  (22:06:45) andreasbuerki: but sysadmins are even working on the hostings stuff
  (22:06:58) iang: What was needed was the payment of 40 euros.  For that Ulrich found 2-3 people willing to underwrite the risk, given that CAcert cannot pay right now.  With that underwriting, Sonance was willing to go ahead (it has the reserves so can cover it for a while).
  (22:07:03) andreasbuerki: means, the machines are avalable to us
  (22:07:13) markl: one at a time, lets deal with the Austrian one first, Andreas, because it was first on the agenda
  (22:07:22) iang: I then proposed the deal to the board's private channel (I think) and got 3 AYEs and one NAY.
  (22:07:23) andreasbuerki: no prob
  (22:07:50) iang: as I have a conflict of interest -- i am on the board of sonance -- I can't push this much further;  with the strong NAY I was forced to stop it at that point.
  (22:08:40) iang: The deal was good because there is a lot of support here, and 40pm == 480 py is no big deal in my opinion.  We've done this before, in fact we were doing this for all of CAcert at one point
  (22:08:58) iang: So a lot of details can be finessed fairly easily.
  (22:09:10) iang: I think that's where Vienna 1 stands
  (22:09:18) andreasbuerki: and this is in my opinion wrong. we should alvis go for zero deals
  (22:09:28) ernie: if it's no big deal 480 , why they couldn't offer for free
  (22:09:30) iang: Then, Philipp Dunkel has given me private news that he also is pursuing a deal
  22:10
  (22:10:01) andreasbuerki: find funding for rack space, hardware and bandwith energy
  (22:10:02) ernie: iang, philipp is working on a free deal as I know - right?
  (22:10:38) iang: "they" is a group of non-profit artist/techies and a non-profit hosting provider ... it's not that it is a big deal, but that it is not very nice to go to another foundation and insist on promoting us like they were a big fat & happy commercial corporation
  (22:10:52) markl: I think that one of the most important things for us right now is diversity of hosting arrangements, CAcert needs to be independent of any one organization, faction or group, and sharing the hosting around goes a long way to addressing that
  (22:10:56) iang: "they" are willing to put a lot of time and work in for free ... it's just the power they don't want to subsidise
  (22:11:20) ernie: iang, philipp is working on a free deal as I know - right?
  (22:11:25) markl: and I think a 40EUR contribution towards power is the same as free, when we are receiving that from another non-profit... we are just not costing them money.. it's a big difference between that and actually "paying" for it
  (22:11:37) iang: yes, but it could take time and/or it is uncertain
  (22:11:44) GolfRomeo: 40 Euros is not so expensive
  (22:11:45) Q [Q@dhcp-095-096-014-167.chello.nl] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:12:12) iang: and there is no such thing as "free" ... there is always something going on.
  (22:12:12) andreasbuerki: maybe you will find a gallerist or art lover to pay the monthly bill
  (22:12:22) iang: i guess that's a joke
  (22:12:34) markl: there are several unfinished hosting proposals at varying stages of of the negotiating process, but most of them have been at a stage less than finished for long enough that we can probably disregard them until someone firms them up
  (22:12:57) iang: but it reads as an insult ... these people are willing to build and operate the system, and they're giving over a fairly meaty machine, including an offer to upgrade it themselves
  (22:13:01) andreasbuerki: no joke, iang
  (22:13:05) andreasbuerki: sorry
  (22:13:19) andreasbuerki: we need the money to build up new markets
  (22:13:36) iang: well, ok.  in fact that;s what i intend to do.  I don't want to speak too much about it, but once it is up and going, we actually have a good chance to get funding for this
  (22:13:49) markl: 40EUR a month is never going to be the difference between funding another project or not
  (22:14:03) andreasbuerki: it is 40 x 12
  (22:14:05) iang: as sonance is an art/tech group, and as this town is the most-heavily funded place on earth for the arts ... we have our resources
  (22:14:14) iang: but it is far better to go into the deal with stuff that is running
  (22:14:21) markl: it's 40EUR a month, on a month to month basis, so far as I understand it
  (22:14:23) andreasbuerki: it is 40 here and 40 there...
  (22:14:29) GolfRomeo: We would need to pay for the hosting anyway as we need a contract and a "retribution"
  (22:14:30) markl: is that correct, Ian, that we are not committed to any length of time by this?
  (22:14:33) iang: but, as I say, that's "future" so hard to rely on.
  22:15
  (22:15:06) iang: technically, there is a 6 month contract time, but that isn't an issue because you are going through an existing contract, which says we can put the machine in and out on a monthly basis
  (22:15:23) markl: and is there paperwork on the table for this?
  (22:15:25) andreasbuerki: no, we will pay 0 euro franc or dollar in Bern. And i promiss, no Swiss deal will ever cost 1 penny to CAcert
  (22:15:40) andreasbuerki: Please, gentlemen, become crative in fund rising
  (22:15:40) iang: as a practical matter, sonance billed cacert in 6-monthly lumps, so as to reduce the transaction costs
  (22:15:53) GolfRomeo: andreasbuerki : how reliable is the hosting ?
  (22:16:12) iang: markl:  paperwork is not needed in my opinion.
  (22:16:15) andreasbuerki: how you define reliabilty?
  (22:16:16) GolfRomeo: iang : we have a long commitment with Sonance which is good
  (22:16:24) iang: there will be emails, but that is all that is really needed
  (22:16:43) GolfRomeo: andreasbuerki : if we get problem with power down, reboot, etc...
  (22:16:49) andreasbuerki: dont take me wrong, I like Sonance... but we have to find funds for the power bill
  (22:17:01) andreasbuerki: no prob, guillaume
  (22:17:07) markl: andreas, it's not to ignore or invalidate the excellent work you have done in securing hosting in CH... but what we really need is diversity as well, and being that there are only two hosting deals on the table right now sufficiently advanced to actually make a decision on, is why I added the vienna option to the agenda
  (22:17:17) ernie: GolfRomeo, as this happens, we have the same service like a paid one
  (22:17:33) ernie: GolfRomeo, speaking for the hosting in berne
  (22:17:49) GolfRomeo: ernie : ok, I tend to trust you, so if you trust them, ok
  (22:18:05) ernie: GolfRomeo, we have it written - we must only translate
  (22:18:07) markl: iang: understood, I meant in the most loose sense of the word
  (22:18:21) andreasbuerki: mark, thats not the question, the question is to find fundings for the power bill
  (22:18:33) markl: andreasbuerki: we have sufficient funds for the power bill
  (22:18:34) GolfRomeo: ernie : at the same time, I have seen Sonance for a longer periode of time.
  (22:18:52) andreasbuerki: mark, BTW i'm the first what supports multiple hostings for various reasons
  (22:18:55) iang: i think it is a mistake to concentrate so fixedly on whether it is cost-recovery of not.  There are many aspects to the various deals.
  (22:19:18) GolfRomeo: in my mind, we need spare hosting anyway
  (22:19:21) andreasbuerki: why spend our money, if we can find somebody elese to pay it???
  (22:19:25) markl: yes, I agree... cost should only be one relatively small factor in our decisions about hosting
  (22:19:33) iang: (Also, if this results in a machine being turned off in NL, we recover some power there.)
  (22:19:34) andreasbuerki: we have to try to find this sponsor
  22:20
  (22:20:05) markl: andreasbuerki: that is independent of this offer though... we can find sponsors to help cover it after the fact
  (22:20:09) andreasbuerki: again, I go right now for Vienna hosting, but the power bill needs to be found
  (22:20:23) markl: but we have the financial ability to commit to 40EUR a month
  (22:20:31) iang: in fact, we already found 2-3 sponsors:  the assurers that were willing to throw in one or two months
  (22:20:43) andreasbuerki: yes, we have... but if no need.... why should we?
  (22:20:50) markl: but we need to
  (22:20:55) iang: because we need the servers
  (22:20:58) markl: we all just accepted that we need diversity of hosting
  (22:21:06) andreasbuerki: iand... what about other vienna organizations?
  (22:21:16) markl: we have two proposals at hand right now, Vienna and Bern
  (22:21:33) iang: we have an AGM in a month (presuming 2.2) and we will be going in with zero boxes ticked at this stage
  (22:21:34) andreasbuerki: nex swiss deal will aslo be with multiple partners for one hosting
  (22:21:50) markl: we've been putting the feelers out for some time, and different people have been working on different proposals, and the only two on the table in Europe that are "ready to go" after quite a long period of discussion are these two
  (22:22:40) nb hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
  (22:22:41) iang: andreasbuerki: there are lots of vienna orgs.  Like I mentioned, once we are up and running with a project, it is a good possibility to go for CityHall funding
  (22:23:06) andreasbuerki: Ok, but please, don't forget it  ;-)
  (22:23:16) ernie: markl, it takes time, because finally you get from personal relationships, people you know since a long time, and business is changing quick
  (22:23:31) andreasbuerki: we need the money for market building
  (22:23:34) markl: ernie: right, i understand that... but we need to make some progress here
  (22:23:37) iang: well, no that's exactly why I didn't mention it in the proposal:  it all depends.  It isn't a promise, just lots of opportunity
  (22:23:56) iang: but frankly, it is actually cheaper to pay the money.  To go for funding costs more than 40 pm :)
  (22:24:02) iang: in time
  (22:24:20) andreasbuerki: iang: Im affraid, we still will pay the bill in one year from now
  (22:24:41) andreasbuerki: but anyhow, the swiss ting is here and the techies are working on
  (22:24:42) iang: i'm afraid I see nothing wrong with that :)
  (22:24:53) markl: I dont see a problem with that either
  (22:24:54) andreasbuerki: but again, I vote for the Vienna hosting
  22:25
  (22:25:16) iang: if in a year's time, CAcert cannot evaluate its situation and cannot decide which is the best opportunity, then I think we have bigger problems than 40 euros per month
  (22:25:24) andreasbuerki: we need to birng down cost as much as possible
  (22:25:37) andreasbuerki: ok... motion
  (22:26:23) andreasbuerki: please, I second
  (22:26:34) markl: what do we need to do to get this going, Ian?  authorise you to establish this arrangement along the lines of what is documented in the wiki?
  (22:26:42) iang: i abstain from any motion :)
  (22:26:46) markl: and presumably authorise the funding
  (22:27:16) iang: yes, I would say that would be sufficient
  (22:27:29) andreasbuerki: BTW - does it need some sort of a new "Sponsorship Agreement" for the Vienna hosting?
  (22:27:41) iang: i'll write something, sure
  (22:27:56) andreasbuerki: ok... sonace with CAcert Inc, I suppose
  (22:28:09) iang: in the past deal, we put sonance logo on the cacert website, that was all.
  (22:28:21) andreasbuerki: no prob with that...
  (22:28:22) markl: ok.. I move that we authorise Ian Grigg to establish hosting with Sonance in Vienna in accordance with what has been documented in the Wiki, and authorise the recurring payment of 40EUR per month to Sonance for this facility.
  (22:28:37) andreasbuerki: they can take out of the sponsoring packes what they want
  (22:29:16) andreasbuerki: and add, that funding for power bill should be found
  (22:29:37) GolfRomeo: aye (hoping we get another hosting deal as a spare)
  (22:29:42) markl: I'm not sure that is a good thing to add... funding should be found for CAcert generally
  (22:29:55) andreasbuerki: we will have next Sunday, Guillaume
  22:30
  (22:30:01) markl: not for each little bit of infrastructure cost
  (22:30:16) GolfRomeo: andreasbuerki : ok
  (22:30:31) andreasbuerki: markl... you miss the point... sponsors give easily money, when they know what for
  (22:30:44) markl: I'm loathe to create unspecific wishes as motions
  (22:31:02) markl: and if that works for a particular sponsor, we can approach them like that
  (22:31:10) andreasbuerki: Guillaume, means the contract on the table for discussion (48 hours before on the wiki)
  (22:31:10) markl: but taking "tagged" money should be our last resort of funding, imo
  (22:31:26) GolfRomeo: andreasbuerki : good !
  (22:32:04) andreasbuerki: Iang... why sonace is not asking the munipalicity fo Vienna for power funding?
  (22:32:07) markl: when we accept money for a particular thing, we are then obligated to use it for that purpose
  (22:32:17) andreasbuerki: exactly
  (22:32:38) iang: they can and do from time to time, most all their funding comes from there
  (22:32:49) andreasbuerki: that is what bigger sponsors generally like to have
  (22:33:11) markl: so, using this as an example, lets say we solicit specific sponsorship for this 40EUR fee, and later on, sonance finds some sponsorship and waives the fee to us, we have to hand back or ask for permission to use that money differently
  (22:33:20) iang: but it has to be done in cohesive fashion ... and what we want to do is go for funding for an established arrangement ... because that has more chance of success
  (22:33:29) andreasbuerki: if you have a well defined project, it is much easier to get funds, that just " we need some money"
  (22:33:38) markl: and presumably "bigger" sponsors are able to support a larger project than 40EUR/month
  (22:33:50) andreasbuerki: no, they will not
  (22:33:52) markl: yes, but that should be for projects, Andreas
  (22:33:58) markl: not operational expenditure
  (22:34:13) markl: operational expenditure funding should come from "untied" funds, in my opinion
  (22:34:16) andreasbuerki: if you wanna learn how to do, have a look at wikipedia.org
  (22:34:26) andreasbuerki: they do it exellent
  (22:34:27) iang: right, we need to create a project around the relationships
  (22:34:39) andreasbuerki: yep@iang
  (22:34:45) iang: not just ask for the powerbill
  (22:34:45) markl: so we have the flexibility to handle infrastructure accordingly
  (22:34:59) GolfRomeo: ok
  22:35
  (22:35:22) markl: we can fund (and have funded, and will continue to fund) our operating costs out of small donations, etc, that are not tied to "someone's power bill"
  (22:35:27) andreasbuerki: so, what is the motion text... if one is needed?
  (22:35:34) markl: and then seek larger project funding for individual projects or ideas
  (22:35:46) markl: I move that we authorise Ian Grigg to establish hosting with Sonance in Vienna in accordance with what has been documented in the Wiki, and authorise the recurring payment of 40EUR per month to Sonance for this facility.
  (22:36:08) andreasbuerki: AYe
  (22:36:13) markl: need someone to second it
  (22:36:18) GolfRomeo: still aye
  (22:36:18) andreasbuerki: second it
  (22:36:21) andreasbuerki: aye
  (22:36:24) markl: aye
  (22:36:24) ernie: aye
  (22:36:56) andreasbuerki: so, we are done
  (22:37:23) markl: Ian, I presume you are abstaining?
  (22:37:26) iang: ok, thanks team, I'll pick it up and see where we're at.  There are no promises here, we need to advance all the deals ... the more the merrier.
  (22:37:30) iang: sorry, yes, abstain.
  (22:38:04) andreasbuerki: of corse the more the merrier 
  (22:38:13) markl: ok, so the other part of this agenda item.. Andreas, can you speak to the CH hosting progress?
  (22:38:42) andreasbuerki: as mentioned before... contract is in writing but everything is clear
  (22:38:57) andreasbuerki: sysadmins are even working on set-up
  (22:39:13) andreasbuerki: the deatils are known to you, see the wikipages
  (22:39:28) andreasbuerki: next Saturdy we can discuss the contract
  (22:39:32) andreasbuerki: end
  (22:39:40) PhilippDunkel [phidelta@dsl-stat-43-2.mmc.at] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:39:49) ernie: hi philipp
  (22:39:58) andreasbuerki: hi philipp
  22:40
  (22:40:03) markl: ok, so no action required at this point in time, and we'll revisit it next meeting?
  (22:40:07) markl: hi Philipp
  (22:40:09) PhilippDunkel: Sorry I'm late, I fell asleep on the couch waiting for the meeting. Thanks Ian for waking me by phone
  (22:40:13) andreasbuerki: yep, mark
  (22:40:13) ernie: markl, no action today 
  (22:40:17) ernie: required
  (22:40:37) markl: ok, now 2.2 and 2.8...
  (22:40:41) markl: 2.2. AGM / SGM - added by Iang 
  (22:40:44) markl: 2.8. Recovery of Documents/Hardware - added by Mark 
  (22:40:50) iang: PhilippDunkel:  we've been talking hosting, do you have any news about Vienna 2? or still progressing?
  (22:40:53) markl: which I believe we agreed to combine last meeting
  (22:40:59) andreasbuerki: question, instead to publish the contract on the wiki, would you prefer to get it on the private board list
  (22:41:17) andreasbuerki: oups, sorry too late
  (22:41:22) PhilippDunkel: It's progressing. Right now the problem is that I am unsure whether the machine is suitable for VMs
  (22:41:37) PhilippDunkel: As soon as I know any details I'll let you know
  (22:41:42) iang: thanks
  (22:41:50) markl: probably to the private list for now, Andreas, and once it is finalised, we can publish it
  (22:41:57) andreasbuerki: ok
  (22:43:18) iang: 2.8:  any contact with Robert Cruikshank?
  (22:43:30) markl: not for me
  (22:43:59) iang: ok, we discussed sending a letter, and there was consensus to do that.
  (22:44:25) iang: although I don't know for sure what the right thing to do here is, I'm fine with a motion to that effect, including the text itself.
  (22:44:53) GolfRomeo: iang : you already wrote a text
  22:45
  (22:45:26) markl: someone perhaps propose a motion like we authorise the public officer (me) to immediately send a letter requesting the documents and hardware owned by CAcert, followed by a demand letter 14 days later, and authorise reasonable expenses to recover the items
  (22:45:34) PhilippDunkel: I think we should fire it off. First via email, a few days later via postal-mail
  (22:45:42) markl: email has been done to death
  (22:45:49) markl: with no sign of life
  (22:46:04) andreasbuerki: so it needs legally binding communication
  (22:46:07) iang: certainly once you've put it in the post, an email copy won't hurt
  (22:46:15) PhilippDunkel: Yes, but I think at this point we are writing in a different style. Now we are saying "make contact or else..."
  (22:46:24) markl: iang: right
  (22:46:40) andreasbuerki: we have been too long too nice...
  (22:46:40) markl: but I think the time has come for something we can prove was sent and received, in the form of a registered letter
  (22:46:50) andreasbuerki: yep
  (22:46:58) iang: actually what is more likely to effect the situation than email is a link to a posted board motion .... for all to see
  (22:47:02) PhilippDunkel: Plus I think regular post from AU 2 AU only takes a day. So I think that should be OK and not a time Issue. And I think it would be OK if Mark signs it as PO
  (22:47:21) andreasbuerki: guess so
  (22:47:50) nb_ [nb@adsl-75-16-244-230.dsl.kntpin.sbcglobal.net] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:47:51) iang: yes, as long as the board is of one mind, it matters little who signs it (there may be some technicalities, but it is actions not form that matters ... IMO)
  (22:47:56) PhilippDunkel: Ok, then let's do the motion now. With the Text proposed by Ian
  (22:47:56) markl: yeah, it's probably most appropriate from the public officer anyway, because the PO is the person with the authority to hold the documents
  (22:47:58) nb [nb@delta.bebout.net] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:48:03) PhilippDunkel: Then Mark can send it tomorrow
  (22:48:11) ***nb_ here for about 45 mins
  (22:48:35) GolfRomeo: markl : ok
  (22:48:36) PhilippDunkel: @mark: agreed
  (22:48:42) andreasbuerki: hi nick
  (22:48:46) PhilippDunkel: hi Nick
  (22:48:46) ernie: hi nick
  (22:48:51) nb_: Hi everyone
  (22:48:55) GolfRomeo: hello nb
  (22:49:03) iang: Move that:  we authorise the public officer (Mark Lipscombe) to immediately send a letter requesting the documents and hardware owned by CAcert from Robert Cruikshank, ex-Treasurer and ex-Public Officer, followed by a demand letter 14 days later, and authorise reasonable expenses to recover the items.
  (22:49:16) andreasbuerki: I second
  (22:49:16) nb_: second
  (22:49:19) nb_: AYE
  (22:49:19) GolfRomeo: aye
  (22:49:21) PhilippDunkel: Aye
  (22:49:22) andreasbuerki: aye
  (22:49:23) ernie: aye
  (22:49:24) iang: aye
  (22:49:24) markl: aye
  (22:49:40) iang: very snappy :)
  22:50
  (22:50:01) PhilippDunkel: Have there been other motions today?
  (22:50:32) ernie: PhilippDunkel, for hosting in vienna
  (22:50:57) PhilippDunkel: I see someone is keeping up eith the online sytem already. Great, saves me works ;)
  (22:51:05) iang: (i've copied in private message)
  (22:51:48) markl: OK, next is the AGM
  (22:52:19) iang: OK.  I entered that, so I'll say what there is to say:  practically nothing beyond the obvious:  we need to move fairly fast if we are to call if for this year
  (22:52:27) nb_: I vote aye on the vienna hosting message FWIW
  (22:52:28) iang: else we need an extension?
  (22:52:38) markl: I think practically we need an extension now?
  (22:52:39) PhilippDunkel: Aye on Vienna Hosting
  (22:52:48) PhilippDunkel: (Voted online already)
  (22:52:50) markl: unless we hold the AGM between Christmas and NYE
  (22:53:02) PhilippDunkel: I think we should definitely call the AGM for this year if we can do so
  (22:53:06) iang: markl:  i think we may be prudent to apply for it anyway  ... i wouldn't oppose
  (22:53:16) iang: what are the conditions for it?  How long does it last for?
  (22:53:28) markl: ernie: how is the preparation for the the financial report going?
  (22:53:30) nb_: I move to apply for an extension to use if necessary
  (22:53:35) PhilippDunkel: Second
  (22:53:38) markl: there are no formal conditions
  (22:53:47) PhilippDunkel: But we should only use it if absolutely necessary
  (22:53:55) andreasbuerki: second as well... just to be on the safe side
  (22:54:00) ernie: markl, I'm already working on it, and the summary we need, we can do anyway
  (22:54:01) markl: it's at the will of a delegate of the director-general of fair trading
  (22:54:11) PhilippDunkel: So I would also ask that we hold the AGM as soon as possible
  (22:54:14) nb_: Also, can we get votes on m20091117.1, m20091119.1, m20091121.1
  (22:54:19) nb_: PhilippDunkel, i agree
  (22:54:21) markl: well, I think that we *need* it, now
  (22:54:28) pemmerik [pieter@cc518889-b.hnglo1.ov.home.nl] hat den Raum betreten.
  (22:54:29) markl: nb_: you'd have to move them as urgent business at the end of the meeting
  (22:54:32) nb_: oh ok
  (22:54:34) ***nb_ will do so
  (22:54:43) iang: markl: what is your logic?
  (22:54:55) markl: what is the notice period for the AGM?
  22:55
  (22:55:06) andreasbuerki: 21 days....?
  (22:55:11) iang: 1 week for no changes, 3 weeks for changes to rules?
  (22:55:17) iang: (memory, not reliable)
  (22:55:40) iang: but I'm assuming we want to do rule changes, so that means practically 4 weeks coz we also have to write the changes
  (22:55:44) andreasbuerki: BTW - What abour rule changes?
  (22:55:45) ernie: iang, I thought it's anyway 21 days
  (22:55:57) markl: 14 or 21 days
  (22:56:04) markl: 14 with no rule changes, 21 with rule changes
  (22:56:08) GolfRomeo: rule changes during a AGM ?
  (22:56:13) GolfRomeo: SGM ?
  (22:56:17) markl: one way or the other, soemone is going to propose a rule change
  (22:56:26) andreasbuerki: Guilaume, no present them at the AGN
  (22:56:29) markl: so practically, we're looking at 21 days
  (22:56:51) andreasbuerki: that's the reality
  (22:56:55) iang: plus a week to give people a chance to propose them
  (22:56:58) PhilippDunkel: 14 days notice (21 for Rule changes)
  (22:57:05) nb_: fwiw, if we call the meeting to be held exactly within 21 days of the call, people would have to get the rule change in the same day
  (22:57:10) iang: we don't want to call it 21+1 days ... and give people no chance
  (22:57:15) andreasbuerki: iang, right
  (22:57:16) nb_: iang, true
  (22:57:18) markl: so practically, we'd be looking at December 15 as the date if we called it today with no warning
  (22:57:41) andreasbuerki: that would be considered unfair....
  (22:57:46) markl: if we give people a week to organise their proposals, etc, that'd be 22 december
  (22:57:56) markl: which, in my opinion, is so impractically close to Christmas
  (22:58:12) PhilippDunkel: Well, how about we call the meeting for Dec 31st 21UTC, everone will be eager to waste time before midnight. So something like an AGM would be the perfect time kiulle ;)
  (22:58:26) iang: depends on which midnight :)
  (22:58:27) andreasbuerki: lol
  (22:58:31) ernie: right - my agenda before christmas are very full
  (22:58:35) nb_: i would suggest the dec 22 at 2200 utc
  (22:58:39) nb_: but i don't know who could attend
  (22:58:41) iang: half the planet will be already drunk ;-)
  (22:58:52) andreasbuerki: only half?
  (22:59:03) PhilippDunkel: @ian: That will only increase the spirit(s) of the AGM
  (22:59:11) iang: well, true, probably 3/4 of them ...
  (22:59:22) PhilippDunkel: @NB: I would really dislike to do it so shortly before Xmas
  (22:59:23) markl: I think that we're between a rock and a hard place
  (22:59:24) iang: lol... a good strategy!
  (22:59:30) markl: people are busy on the lead up to Christmas
  (22:59:31) GolfRomeo: andreasbuerki : half of the world is muslim
  (22:59:34) markl: and going away on holidays, etc
  (22:59:37) iang: markl:  yes, I think so.
  (22:59:52) andreasbuerki: right, Guillaume.... they do it hidden... ;-)
  23:00
  (23:00:00) nb_: how about 28th? 
  (23:00:06) nb_: or too soon afteR?
  (23:00:06) iang: do we know how long the extension is for?  do we have to set the date?
  (23:00:19) PhilippDunkel: So How about 2010-01-10
  (23:00:36) nb_: PhilippDunkel, how about a saturday like usual?
  (23:00:37) markl: we specify a date on the form
  (23:00:42) nb_: sundays are not good for me personally
  (23:00:42) andreasbuerki: what if we ask for additional 4 weeks, means January?
  (23:00:45) markl: we specify the latest date we want
  (23:00:53) nb_: how are saturdays?
  (23:01:01) PhilippDunkel: Well we specify 2010-06-30
  (23:01:03) andreasbuerki: no prob by me
  (23:01:04) iang: 28th is good because it is not a work day, and likely most people will be actually freeer then because the big party is on the 31st
  (23:01:12) PhilippDunkel: But that has nothing to do with when we actually hold it
  (23:01:14) markl: I think to be practical, we ask for 28-Feb-2010
  (23:01:26) andreasbuerki: lol
  (23:01:39) GolfRomeo: ok 28th
  (23:01:43) markl: we can hold it as soon as possible, but we need a buffer, because I think it's a one time thing, you can't go and ask for longer because things didn't work out
  (23:01:45) PhilippDunkel: What makes you think the 28th is not a work day?
  (23:01:53) iang: ah got it
  (23:02:01) PhilippDunkel: Are we talking 2009-12-28 ?
  (23:02:11) iang: so we aren't committed to that date, just by that date
  (23:02:14) GolfRomeo: PhilippDunkel I guess
  (23:02:19) andreasbuerki: let's become pragmatic, please :-)
  (23:02:25) markl: I'm not going to be around, for sure, between xmas and new years :)
  (23:02:27) nb_: I move the following: that the committee requests an extension from the Director of Fair Trading to hold their meeting any time before 28-Feb-2010; that we immediately ask for any rule change proposals to be sent to the secretary; and that we target 2009-12-28 at 2200 UTC
  (23:02:56) nb_: immediately send email, thus giving them a week or so to be in
  (23:03:01) markl: I think the whole point is that between Christmas and New Year is impractical for too many people
  (23:03:03) PhilippDunkel: 1 & 2 I agree, 2009-12-28 I disagree with 
  (23:03:04) nb_: ok
  (23:03:07) nb_: strike the 2009-12-28 part
  (23:03:10) iang: nick, can we separate them?  I'm fine with the first parts
  (23:03:13) nb_: I move the following: that the committee requests an extension from the Director of Fair Trading to hold their meeting any time before 28-Feb-2010; that we immediately ask for any rule change proposals to be sent to the secretary
  (23:03:19) nb_: i withdraw my first motion
  (23:03:29) PhilippDunkel: Ok then I second: move the following: that the committee requests an extension from the Director of Fair Trading to hold their meeting any time before 28-Feb-2010; that we immediately ask for any rule change proposals to be sent to the secretary;
  (23:03:38) nb_: immediately, as in send the email asking for them immediately, they don't have to be in immediately
  (23:03:47) PhilippDunkel: Aye
  (23:03:49) iang: Aye
  (23:03:50) nb_: AYE
  (23:03:50) andreasbuerki: aye
  (23:03:54) ernie: aye
  (23:03:55) GolfRomeo: abstain
  (23:03:55) markl: aye
  (23:04:31) PhilippDunkel: Ok, that takes care of the extension. But we still have to find a date.
  (23:04:40) iang: markl: does that give you all you need for the extension form?
  23:05
  (23:05:01) markl: I think we might need to modify the motion a little... "their meeting" is unclear.. it's not a committee meeting we are talking about
  (23:05:02) andreasbuerki: PD, agree
  (23:05:04) PhilippDunkel: I would suggest we aim for 2010-01-09, because it is far enough away from the holidays
  (23:05:34) iang: do you need to deliver a motion to them?
  (23:05:40) markl: we need to proceed on the assumption that it will not be approved
  (23:05:44) PhilippDunkel: Mark, I think in the context of the motion it is quite clear what Meating was meant
  (23:05:45) markl: I wouldn't be planning a date just yet
  (23:06:02) andreasbuerki: PD, to close, prefer 16. january
  (23:06:05) PhilippDunkel: That's why we have a transscript
  (23:06:17) PhilippDunkel: @mark why not go for a date?
  (23:06:17) markl: iang: I'm not sure, I haven't looked at the form
  (23:06:28) nb_: The committee is preparing to conduct the Annual General Meeting of the association.  All members wishing to put business before the AGM should send their proposals to the secretary as soon as possible.  No date has been set for the meeting yet.
  (23:06:28) nb_: At the committee meeting held today, the commitee voted to request an extension from the Director of Fair Trading to hold the AGM any time before 2009-02-28.
  (23:06:28) nb_: For the committee,
  (23:06:28) nb_: Nicholas E. Bebout
  (23:06:29) nb_: President 
  (23:06:30) markl: because if they decline to extend it, we'll have to call it in December
  (23:06:31) nb_: CAcert Incorporated
  (23:06:40) iang: ah ok.  well, I guess if we need to have another motion then we can do that when we know
  (23:06:54) nb_: is that email ok with everyone?
  (23:06:59) andreasbuerki: if we have to make it still this year, then without rule changes
  (23:07:00) iang: fine by me
  (23:07:15) iang: andreasbuerki:  good point, gives us 14 days.
  (23:07:18) markl: andreas: we don't control that though
  (23:07:20) andreasbuerki: fine by me as well
  (23:07:22) markl: anyone can propose rule changes
  (23:07:26) GolfRomeo: ok
  (23:07:34) nb_: this way, we will have given them notice, and we can call the meeting as soon as we decide on a date (given 21 day notice)
  (23:07:35) andreasbuerki: markl, right
  (23:07:38) PhilippDunkel: Nope. We could also just break the rule and live with the consequences
  (23:07:46) PhilippDunkel: Also when does our financial year end?
  (23:07:50) nb_: given them notice to propose any business to be laid before the meeting
  (23:08:01) iang: 31st June of the year
  (23:08:03) ernie: 30-JUNE
  (23:08:16) iang: (or whenever june ends :) )
  (23:08:23) ernie: iang, june has only 30 days
  (23:08:25) nb_: fwiw, i am fine with changing the text of the motion to reflect AGM instead of "heir meeting"
  (23:08:26) andreasbuerki: iang's calendar?
  (23:08:28) nb_: their meeting i mean
  (23:08:54) andreasbuerki: ok, so the motion is?
  (23:09:10) markl: andreas: the one above, it's already been voted on
  (23:09:15) nb_: I move the following: that the committee requests an extension from the Director of Fair Trading to hold the association's annual general meeting any time before 28-Feb-2010; that we immediately ask for any rule change proposals to be sent to the secretary; and that we target 2009-12-28 at 2200 UTC
  (23:09:22) nb_: andreasbuerki, the discussion was on the wording
  (23:09:26) markl: if fair trading need a copy of it, and it's not suitable, we'll be back here again next week
  (23:09:30) nb_: that i put "their meeting" instead of annual general meeting
  (23:09:36) andreasbuerki: ok
  (23:09:42) nb_: markl, oh ok, so just go with the original motion?
  (23:09:54) iang: markl:  I think we can push it faster through the voting system if necessary
  (23:09:57) markl: nb_: yeah, it's already voted on
  23:10
  (23:10:10) markl: iang: looking at the form, looks like it just needs a freeform text justification of why.. should be ok
  (23:10:20) iang: super.
  (23:10:32) Uli [Administra@p4FDCFA04.dip.t-dialin.net] hat den Raum betreten.
  (23:10:37) iang: so if we are covered with that ... can I ask:  who has an objection to 28th December?
  (23:10:38) andreasbuerki: so our public officer will take care, fine
  (23:10:49) PhilippDunkel: No, 2009.12.28 is out for me
  (23:10:52) andreasbuerki: not really iang
  (23:11:00) GolfRomeo: Dec 28th  is  fine
  (23:11:06) PhilippDunkel: Quite simply because I will be travelling that day
  (23:11:14) iang: andreasbuerki:  not really, can't make it or ... not really, no objection
  (23:11:36) markl: i object to 28th of december.. i think it''ll prove inconvenient to far too many members
  (23:11:40) andreasbuerki: i can make it, if ever needed
  (23:11:43) iang: no problem for me, I can do it.  So it seems we are split half-half on this one
  (23:11:57) iang: and taking that as an indication of the rest of the members, it might not be so good
  (23:12:04) nb_: well, we may have no choice
  (23:12:16) nb_: although hopefully it will be approved
  (23:12:24) nb_: markl, do you know if extensions are routinely approved?
  (23:12:24) markl: if the extension isn't approved, we may not have much in the way of choices, but given the choice, that week between xmas and new years should be out of consideration, imo
  (23:12:25) PhilippDunkel: We always have a choice
  (23:12:30) markl: nb_: yes, they are
  (23:12:51) nb_: good
  (23:13:25) markl: there is a $25 fee to lodge this form, I'll just seek reimbursement later for it though, rather than propose a separate motion
  (23:13:40) iang: no problem
  (23:13:41) andreasbuerki: should I sponsor this, mark?... ;-)
  (23:13:46) markl: haha
  (23:13:57) andreasbuerki: jokink, man
  (23:14:13) PhilippDunkel: The question is: "Under the presumption that extension is approved, is there a reason to not go with 01-09 or 01-16
  (23:14:45) markl: 16th would be my preference, to give people plenty of time to put forward their proposed rule changes, and have ample time for debate
  (23:14:47) andreasbuerki: I don't see one, but this means nothing
  (23:14:52) iang: i would be fine with any date ...
  23:15
  (23:15:11) andreasbuerki: 16 sounds reasonable
  (23:15:19) markl: it'll also give us the best chance of as many people as possible having returned from vacation, etc
  (23:15:22) ***GolfRomeo is off, reading logs laters
  (23:15:29) andreasbuerki: people are really back in business again
  (23:15:46) GolfRomeo: Mid junuary is a good alternate option
  (23:15:47) andreasbuerki: cya Guillaume
  (23:15:57) PhilippDunkel: So we could move: Presuming the approval of our extension request we intend to schedule the AGM for 2010-01-16 21:00UTC
  (23:15:57) GolfRomeo: later !
  (23:15:58) nb_: I move that, subject to the extension being approved, that the Annual General Meeting of this association be held on 2009-01-16 at 2200 UTC
  (23:16:10) nb_: PhilippDunkel, i think we read each other's mind :)
  (23:16:22) markl: isn't 2100UTC peoples' preferred time?
  (23:16:25) andreasbuerki: let's go for 16
  (23:16:35) PhilippDunkel: Almost. Let's do 2100 UTC
  (23:16:36) iang: second PD's motion
  (23:16:40) PhilippDunkel: That has tradition
  (23:16:40) andreasbuerki: mea
  (23:16:44) nb_: I withdraw my motion
  (23:16:46) iang: it has 21:00 instead of 22:00 :)
  (23:16:49) nb_: AYE to Philipp's 
  (23:16:50) markl: all those in favor of PD's motion, aye, against, no
  (23:16:52) iang: Aye
  (23:16:54) GolfRomeo: aye
  (23:16:54) PhilippDunkel: AYE
  (23:16:56) andreasbuerki: aye
  (23:17:02) ernie: aye
  (23:17:32) markl: aye
  (23:17:51) nb_: oops, i didn't send my email from @cacert
  (23:18:04) nb_: I'll resend it tonight and add the date of the AGM, subject to extension approval
  (23:18:13) nb_: and the deadline for business to be brought before the AGM
  (23:19:11) markl: I declare it carried (sorry, takes so long to enter votes online)
  (23:19:32) andreasbuerki: would it help, to add a wiki page for AGM Agenda? just a question?
  (23:19:35) markl: that's all the agenda items.. does anyone propose any urgent business?
  (23:19:47) andreasbuerki: no
  (23:19:50) markl: preparations for it can be discussed on the list
  (23:19:59) PhilippDunkel: Urgent Business:
  23:20
  (23:20:16) iang: Not urgent business, but just FYI slipped in:  On support:  I've got control of the mailbox.  I've reviewed all the incoming stuff, and documented it.  I've created the Triage concept.
  (23:20:16) PhilippDunkel: Aproove previous motions that were only voted via the Voting tool
  (23:20:17) Werner [Werner_Dwo@dsl72bA163.sdtnet.de] hat den Raum betreten.
  (23:20:18) markl: reminder that urgent business requires unanimous consent to be considered
  (23:20:37) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Support/Triage documents it.  Now I need to staff up the Triage Team.  https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/Support/TeamLeader has tasks done and to do.
  (23:20:49) iang: end of FYI-not-urgent-business
  (23:20:51) markl: nice work on that Ian
  (23:21:01) nb_: I ask unanimous consent to vote on the pending arbitrator motions
  (23:21:08) PhilippDunkel: Aye
  (23:21:10) markl: PhilippDunkel: you mean the three pending arbitrators?
  (23:21:15) PhilippDunkel: Yes
  (23:21:39) iang: Aye on treating this as urgent business, and Aye on the pending Arbitrators as well.
  (23:21:39) andreasbuerki: aye
  (23:21:49) nb_: Aye
  (23:22:12) markl: I'm a little concerned about this.. I'd agree if it's prefaced with someone explaining how these people are selected, I'm not so confident about voting for people with little in the way of introduction, without an understanding of how they are chosen to be put forward.
  (23:22:22) PhilippDunkel: I think we should consider this a "standing procedure" to always have the first item on every agenda be to approve things that were only decided via the WebTool
  (23:22:36) nb_: PhilippDunkel, well it wasn't "decided" yet via webtool
  (23:22:37) nb_: i think
  (23:22:38) markl: given that arbitration plays such a critical role
  (23:22:51) pemmerik hat den Raum verlassen.
  (23:23:04) markl: PhilippDunkel: we do that each time.. the reason it was not done at this meeting is it's an adjournment of the previous meeting, so it just continues where we left off
  (23:23:09) iang: PhilippDunkel:  it is normal, but this is a continuation of the last meeting
  (23:23:34) andreasbuerki: they are right, PD
  (23:23:37) nb_: iang, oh, were you going to send out the support info to us?  IIRC our motion was to go ahead and appoint javier werner and i as effective immediately, and do the background check when we can
  (23:24:08) markl: nb_: no, we didn't agree to ignore background checks
  (23:24:38) nb_: i thought we voted to defer it
  (23:24:44) iang: nb_:  I got control of the online system as of Friday and have been mostly concentrating on the Triage issue.
  (23:24:46) markl: no, it was proposed, but not accepted
  (23:24:53) PhilippDunkel: @mark: we did decide to defer them not ignore them
  23:25
  (23:25:00) iang: btw, are we agreed that this is on the table ?
  (23:25:08) nb_: WHEREAS, there is recently developing a crisis by the lack of support
  (23:25:09) nb_: engineers;
  (23:25:09) nb_: WHEREAS, this must be resolved as soon as possible;
  (23:25:09) nb_: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Werner Dworak, Javier Fernandez
  (23:25:09) nb_: Almirall and Nicholas Bebout be and hereby are appointed as support
  (23:25:09) nb_: engineers for CAcert effective immediately.
  (23:25:11) nb_: FURTHER RESOLVED, that prior to entering upon their new position, each of
  (23:25:13) nb_: them shall furnish the Secretary a signed email stating that they
  (23:25:15) nb_: understand they are bound by the Security Policy and CAcert Community
  (23:25:17) nb_: Agreement.
  (23:25:21) nb_: FURTHER RESOLVED, that these three individuals are sufficiently
  (23:25:23) nb_: trustworthy by the board that a full background check may be delayed
  (23:25:25) nb_: until
  (23:25:27) nb_: manpower allows for it to be conducted by an arbitrator.
  (23:25:29) nb_: https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20091111.1
  (23:25:30) markl: that motion was not accepted, as far as I am aware
  (23:25:47) nb_: Aye|Naye|Abstain: 4|0|0
  (23:25:47) nb_: Votes:
  (23:25:47) nb_: Philipp Dunkel: Aye
  (23:25:47) nb_: Nick Bebout: Aye
  (23:25:47) nb_: Ian Grigg: Aye
  (23:25:50) nb_: Ernestine Schwob: Aye
  (23:25:53) markl: it wasn't accepted at the meeting
  (23:26:08) andreasbuerki: but in the motion
  (23:26:15) PhilippDunkel: Which is one of the reasons why I want all previous things approved 
  (23:26:20) markl: the motion doesn't count for anything, unless it was approved
  (23:26:22) nb_: then we need to vote to confirm it
  (23:26:23) markl: we considered approving it
  (23:26:31) ***nb_ wonders why we even use the online tool
  (23:26:32) PhilippDunkel: To prevent a dumb argument like "It wasn'Ät approved at the meeting"
  (23:26:33) markl: and voted on the alternate motion of appointing ian SO
  (23:26:43) markl: PhilippDunkel: it was considered whether to approve it!
  (23:26:52) markl: that's what started the debate
  (23:26:54) nb_: markl, was a vote taken?
  (23:27:07) markl: no, an alternate resolution was put forward as a compromise
  (23:27:26) andreasbuerki: so, what is needed now?
  (23:27:28) iang: minutes do not refer to that one.
  (23:27:30) markl: https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20091116.3
  (23:27:45) PhilippDunkel: People it doesn't really matter
  (23:27:53) PhilippDunkel: this is not the topic now
  (23:28:05) andreasbuerki: agree, PD
  (23:28:08) PhilippDunkel: And we do not have unianimous consensus that this is Urgent Business
  (23:28:20) markl: PD is right
  (23:28:25) nb_: then I submit that the meeting is not finished
  (23:28:26) nb_: # 1.3. Ratify the Motions made since the last Committee Meeting 
  (23:28:30) nb_: that was on the agenda
  (23:28:33) nb_: and it was not voted on
  (23:28:41) markl: nb_: you can move it as urgent business, but the previous motion was considered
  (23:28:42) andreasbuerki: so let's do ti
  (23:28:45) markl: and thought not fit to carry
  (23:28:48) PhilippDunkel: The question before us is whether we want the approval of these Arbitrators now to become urgen business or not
  (23:28:52) nb_: ok, as president I am taking the chair
  (23:28:54) markl: we discussed it at the meeting
  (23:28:54) PhilippDunkel: Do we have consensus=
  (23:28:58) markl: nb_: you cannot do so
  (23:29:04) markl: you can move to remove me as the chair
  (23:29:10) markl: but you cannot "take it"
  (23:29:14) nb_: markl, iirc, president is chair unless they opt not to
  (23:29:15) PhilippDunkel: I move to remove mark as tghe chairt and 
  (23:29:20) markl: PD: I asked a question concerning it above
  (23:29:47) andreasbuerki: *chilling*
  (23:29:55) PhilippDunkel: The question before us is whether we want the approval of these Arbitrators now to become urgen business or not
  (23:29:55) iang: nb_:  I don't see that it makes a difference whether you are the chair or not.
  23:30
  (23:30:04) iang: you can still move the motions you want to move
  (23:30:13) markl: PhilippDunkel: did you see my question above about that?
  (23:30:17) nb_: iang, i was going to present motions remaining on the agenda which are NOT urgent business
  (23:30:34) iang: i think they're all done aren't they?
  (23:30:39) nb_: the motion to confirm decisions made on the online system
  (23:30:44) PhilippDunkel: Yes but it was totally off topic. I am not discussing the actual issue until it has become Urgent business
  (23:31:04) iang: that is at the beginning of the meeting, not the end
  (23:31:06) PhilippDunkel: Once we dicide (unanimously) that we want to discuss this then we can talk about the issue
  (23:31:11) nb_: iang, and it was never voted on
  (23:31:29) markl: well, I'm asking because if we need to have a lengthy discussion about this, then I'd like to defer it.. if you can answer me simply, we can just get on with the job
  (23:31:49) iang: there never were any motions, so it was moved as a procedureal thing
  (23:31:54) markl: nb_: it was considered.. it doesn't need to be voted on to have been considered
  (23:32:04) PhilippDunkel: These arbitrators are all known to the community and have been suggested by other arbitrators.
  (23:32:27) markl: that's all I wanted to know.. I have no problem with it being treated as urgent biz then
  (23:32:29) PhilippDunkel: I personally feel that we should probably give it a green light
  (23:32:47) andreasbuerki: so, no reason for me not to approve the new arbitrators
  (23:32:55) iang: ok, so we now have unanimous consensus to urgent business?
  (23:33:04) markl: yes, we do
  (23:33:07) andreasbuerki: to approve the arbitrators, yes
  (23:33:18) nb_: aye
  (23:33:57) andreasbuerki: I approve the arbitrators, yes and aye
  (23:34:12) markl: yeah, I'm of the same opinion as Philipp, I trust Ulrich proposing them
  (23:34:35) PhilippDunkel: Ok, then we should move to finalize the online votes an accept them as passed.
  (23:34:35) iang: ok, then move:  to confirm the motions m20091121.1, m20091119.1, m20091117.1 being motions to approve Alexander P, Walter G, and Martin G as Arbitrators, with immediate effect.
  (23:34:40) PhilippDunkel: seconded
  (23:34:42) markl: seconded
  (23:34:44) andreasbuerki: aye
  (23:34:46) iang: aye
  (23:34:48) PhilippDunkel: aye
  (23:34:50) ernie: aye
  23:35
  (23:35:11) markl: if you haven't voted on these online, can you do so now, or if you can't, say so and we can proxy a vote for you
  (23:35:19) markl: seeing as it's kind of half voted on already
  (23:35:38) andreasbuerki: I even vote befor onlne for them...
  (23:35:51) ernie: I voted already online
  (23:36:02) PhilippDunkel: Guillaume (is not here, but he voted already)
  (23:36:07) andreasbuerki: now it's double stiched
  (23:36:13) nb_: aye
  (23:36:17) markl: and i am entering a separate motion for this approval
  (23:36:33) andreasbuerki: fine by me... tripple stiched
  (23:36:41) nb_: I move that m20091111.1 be confirmed, since it was never voted on, and declare that it is not urgent business, since it should have been voted on at the meeting
  (23:36:51) markl: you need to move it as urgent business Nick
  (23:37:02) nb_: markl, it is not, it was on the agenda and was never voted on
  (23:37:05) markl: it was considered, and not thought fit to ratify, the agenda item has been dealt with
  (23:37:15) nb_: then where is the vote on that
  (23:37:26) markl: we don't need to vote on procedural issues
  (23:37:27) iang: I agree with markl.  we discussed it and reached a different conclusion
  (23:37:37) nb_: iang, which was not on the agenda
  (23:37:40) markl: we declined to deal with that motion, we reached a different conclusion, and proposed a motion based on that conclusion
  (23:37:51) markl: motions aren't on the agenda, agenda items are on the agenda
  (23:38:00) markl: motions arise out of agenda items, not the other way around
  (23:38:26) iang: the two motions that were in that agenda item are firmly inside it
  (23:38:27) nb_: then why do we use the online system if it doesn't mean anyting?
  (23:38:44) markl: nb_: we've been thru this before.. it doesn't mean anything, until it's considered at the meeting
  (23:38:45) iang: nb_ good question :)  actually it is a good tool to record what we do
  (23:38:48) PhilippDunkel: Then we should consider the following as an urgent business: Instruct Daniel to remove that motion and it's declaration as passed
  (23:39:12) PhilippDunkel: So that the record of motions and that is what the online tool is, is accurate
  (23:39:27) nb_: I object
  (23:39:31) markl: yes, good idea Philipp
  (23:39:34) PhilippDunkel: The previous board approoved it as the official record
  (23:39:35) iang: PhilippDunkel:  I agree with that, but why don't we just move it next week.
  23:40
  (23:40:07) ***nb_ wishes the committee had not scheduled meetings on sunday nights
  (23:40:11) PhilippDunkel: Because it now stands in the record as approoved. And based on that any sysadmon may give rights to people
  (23:40:15) nb_: or I would actually be there sometimes
  (23:40:32) PhilippDunkel: So I consider it urgent to prevent that 
  (23:40:45) PhilippDunkel: If we indeed did not move to do so
  (23:40:51) andreasbuerki: nb... we can still change the week day, no prb with me
  (23:40:54) iang: nb_:  there has been some thoughts ... that you were around at that time ... can you clear it up and suggest what your calendar is?
  (23:40:57) ***nb_ maintains his objection
  (23:41:04) nb_: iang, i suggested remaining on saturday nights
  (23:41:10) nb_: but the rest of the committee decided otherwise
  (23:41:14) nb_: apparently
  (23:41:27) PhilippDunkel: So Nick, you are ok with this to be part of the official record and thereby risk a leak of our most sensitive data?
  (23:41:38) markl: we're getting distracted... meeting time considerations are also not urgent business unless someone proposes it as such
  (23:41:49) nb_: fine, then I move we adjourn
  (23:41:53) markl: Philipp has asked that we treat removing the record as urgent business, all those of that opinion aye, against no.
  (23:41:55) nb_: NO
  (23:41:59) PhilippDunkel: I note my objection here, but take it that we do not have consesnus for urgent business
  (23:42:01) nb_: and iirc it has to be unanimous consent
  (23:42:13) markl: ok, Philipp's matter will not be treated as urgent business
  (23:42:15) iang: Nay.  I think we can manage it.
  (23:42:31) markl: any other urgent business?
  (23:42:40) andreasbuerki: not from my side
  (23:42:59) iang: another FYI:  last week's proto minutes are on http://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/20091115
  (23:43:12) nb_: PhilippDunkel, i think if we can't trust our assurers, then we have a bigger problem
  (23:43:23) nb_: and for that matter, shouldn't ian have had a background check
  (23:43:27) andreasbuerki: iang, yes, I saif thank you
  (23:43:28) nb_: before getting access to the system?
  (23:43:39) markl: ok, there being no other urgent business, I ask if there are any questions from members
  (23:44:16) Uli: nope
  (23:44:23) andreasbuerki: hi Uli :-)
  (23:44:27) Uli: ;)
  (23:44:31) nb_: iang, wouldn't it be against policy for you to be accessing support tools?
  (23:44:40) nb_: since you are so concerned with following policy
  (23:44:42) markl: nb_: bring it to the next meeting if you have an issue, you haven't moved it as urgent business, and therefore it's not the time for it
  (23:44:43) PhilippDunkel: Nick, although I will not bring it, you are aware that you have just opened an avenue for Part2.12
  (23:44:45) iang: nb_: indeed, a goodly question.  but this was covered by the motion to appoint me, and the fact that there were no existing Support people.
  23:45
  (23:45:15) nb_: PhilippDunkel, with what basis?
  (23:45:20) iang: nb_:  I wrote a long email on just this subject to policy group.  4 people responded, 3 said "no breach yet" and one said "breach"  ... you can follow it there.
  (23:45:55) andreasbuerki: so, maybe reaskt... some might missed it in the e-mail nirvana...?
  (23:46:00) iang: u60, you have NO questions ;-(
  (23:46:41) markl: OK, there being no questions from members, and there being no further urgent business and no agenda items remaining, I move that we adjourn the meeting.
  (23:46:41) iang: i asked on the arbitration list for an update, and was told that Werner's ABC was happening tonight.
  (23:46:51) iang: seconded
  (23:46:55) iang: and AYE
  (23:46:59) markl: all those of that opinion, aye, against no
  (23:47:01) markl: aye
  (23:47:03) nb_: I object to how we make "meaningless decisions" on the online system, and then change them at the meetings that were called despite commitee members saying they cannot be there at that time
  (23:47:04) PhilippDunkel: aye
  (23:47:05) Uli: actual not, i need a quick overview to my emails, 'cause i'm just reached @home, from weekend tour
  (23:47:08) nb_: NAYE
  (23:47:32) Werner: iang, the interview is finished,
  (23:47:45) iang: ah, you got out alive :)
  (23:47:57) andreasbuerki: take a rest Uli, cacert is a spare time project ;-)
  (23:48:29) iang: andreasbuerki:  errr..... Support Officer is looking for a replacement ;-)
  (23:48:45) andreasbuerki: change support for event?
  (23:49:07) markl: nb_: there is a time and a place to air your grievence... you had the opportunity to move it as urgent business, you refused to do so.  I suggest putting it on the agenda for, and attending, the next meeting, so we can give it the discussion it deserves, rather than interjecting at this point
  (23:49:15) iang: yeah, u60 makes it look so easy
  (23:49:20) PhilippDunkel: @NB: While committeee member should strive to attend, attendance is not mandatory. Nor is the absence of a member grounds for postponement
  (23:49:22) markl: anyone else voting on the adjournment motion?
  (23:49:50) nb_: PhilippDunkel, should the committee not strive to find a good time for people?
  23:50
  (23:50:36) PhilippDunkel: Yes it should, but any time will be bad for someone
  (23:51:04) PhilippDunkel: We have to just do the best we can and accept that we can't get it perfect every time
  (23:51:28) iang: who was it who was opposed to Saturdays?
  (23:51:35) markl: i declare it carried, with 2 ayes, 1 naye, and 3 abstentions, and declare the meeting adjourned
  (23:51:37) iang: and, is that still an issue?
  (23:51:42) andreasbuerki: we can re-evaluate an other week day, if needed...
  (23:51:54) markl: I have a prob with Saturdays, I have a standing commitment that would make my attendance quite difficult
  (23:51:55) iang: i see three Ayes
  (23:52:04) nb_: markl, same with me and sunday
  (23:52:10) PhilippDunkel: I think it was Guillaume. Tha didn't like Saturdays
  (23:52:13) iang: iang, markl, PhilippDunkel
  (23:52:42) markl: nb_: if I recall, when we discussed this, your objection was mainly to earlier meetings on Sunday?
  (23:52:55) markl: by the way, the meeting is over, so this is just informal discussion at this point
  (23:53:07) nb_: no, i stated i prefered either mid-day my time, or on another day
  (23:53:26) nb_: like something starting about 3 hrs ago would be nice
  (23:53:47) nb_: although it's a little better now that we started daylight savings time
  (23:53:55) nb_: since its a hour "earlier" for me
  (23:54:05) PhilippDunkel: Well I personally prefer Mondays between 12:30 and 14:00 CET, because that's when the kids are taking a nap. But I guess that's just tough luck.
  (23:54:28) markl: I'm struggling to find any strenuous objection from you Nick in the previous meeting minutes where we discussed Sunday meetings and times?
  23:55
  (23:55:00) nb_: it may have been in one of the email threads
  (23:55:01) nb_: not sure
  (23:55:29) nb_: i haven't been at the past few meetings because they were too late on sunday
  (23:55:30) markl: either way, I don't think until now you've made it particularly clear, other than to say you'd prefer a different time... nothing saying "I can't come at all at 2100 UTC Sunday"
  (23:55:31) PhilippDunkel: @NB: agreed. But that would mean somthing like 4:00 AM in .au, which Mark tends to dislike for some reason.
  (23:55:41) markl: PD: can't imagine why :)
  (23:56:32) nb_: what was the issue with saturdays?
  (23:56:37) markl: there are only a few sensible times for meetings with someone on almost every continent.. we're pretty much stuck at 2100UTC, but we could move it to a weekday if it worked better for the majority
  (23:56:42) PhilippDunkel: What he (Mark) doesn't seem to realize is that it is now getting on midnight here. So the same objections hold from the other end of the night.
  (23:57:25) PhilippDunkel: And what NB doesn't seem to realize is that there is no perfect time, and 21:00 UTC is probably as close to good for everyone as we will find
  (23:57:25) ernie: no weekday please
  (23:57:27) PhilippDunkel: ;)
  (23:57:30) markl: right, but it's 7am for me too, also not a particularly socialble hour of the day, but it's better than 1am for you, or 4am for me, so it's a compromise
  (23:57:37) nb_: PhilippDunkel, i suggested saturday at 2100
  (23:57:55) iang: apparently 21:00 UTC is the world wide common time for global meetings ...
  (23:58:14) PhilippDunkel: Well, I remember Guillaume objected to that strnuously, since it would interfere with his social life.
  (23:58:18) markl: there is a clear consensus for a weekend 2100UTC meeting, and Nick you're the only one with a problem with Sunday, whereas there is two or three of us with a problem with Saturday
  (23:58:29) iang: Friday?
  (23:58:45) PhilippDunkel: And I do empathize with him as he has no permanent mate that is waiting in bed and therefore has to go out to hunt ;)
  (23:58:57) markl: LOL
  (23:59:38) markl: you have a commitment that keeps you from us on Sunday Nick, or an objection to the time being unsocialble?
  (23:59:55) nb_: I have a commitment that keeps me from being here on Sunday normally
  00:00
  (23.11.2009 00:00:04) nb_: that's why i haven't been at the past several meetings
  (00:00:14) nb_: and everyone that has a problem with saturday meetings seems to just "not like it"
  (00:00:32) PhilippDunkel: So I guess we have to reconcile Nick (he is in church on sunday saving his soul) and Guillaume et al. (he is trying to procreate)
  (00:00:39) nb_: unless i'm mistaken
  (00:00:46) iang: well, no, that's Guillaume.  I think the other two have committments
  (00:00:50) nb_: oh?
  (00:01:29) markl: nb_: I have commitments that would prevent me from attending on Saturday (my Sunday morning)
  (00:01:32) PhilippDunkel: As a matter of fact I do. I usually have a meeting to Chair on Saturday night. (Zentralrat der Konfessionslosien)
  (00:01:34) iang: mark said he had a standing committment, and I think PD has something as well ... we had to get him back for that on the Innsbruck week, and the extra day would have been valuable
  (00:01:41) PhilippDunkel: (Austrian Atheist Society)
  (00:02:02) nb_: markl, oh
  (00:02:07) PhilippDunkel: I am a member of the Board there as well
  (00:03:08) nb_: or even if we could alternate meeting times
  (00:03:09) iang: i have sonance meetings every wednesday ... other than that it is fine
  (00:03:28) iang: What about on Friday?  I'm too old to consider that special :)
  (00:03:54) PhilippDunkel: Ok, between now an the AGM there are only very few meetings left.
  (00:04:15) nb_: Additional meetings of the committee may be convened by the
  (00:04:15) nb_: president or by any member of the committee.
  (00:04:16) PhilippDunkel: Let's just keep the as is for now and leave it to the next board to move if they so choose
  (00:04:26) nb_: so i'll just call one for a saturday and whoever can be here will.
  (00:04:55) iang: nb_: suits me
  00:05
  (00:05:15) PhilippDunkel: So according to Part2.21: (3) Oral or written or digitally signed email notice of a meeting of the committee must be given by the secretary to each member of the committee at least 48 hours (or such other period as many be unanimously agreed on by the members of the committee) before the time appointed for the holding of the meeting.
  (00:05:36) nb_: so what are you suggesting, that the secretary would just not send the notice?
  (00:05:54) PhilippDunkel: you want me to give notice ?
  (00:06:05) markl: if you start calling tit for tat meetings, we'll just start calling them for some time objectionable to you, Nick.. it's not the way to operate
  (00:06:05) PhilippDunkel: No I am asking whether you want me to give notice.
  (00:06:15) PhilippDunkel: I am not an obstructionist asshole.
  (00:06:21) nb_: markl, you already do call them at some time taht is objectionable to me
  (00:06:29) nb_: PhilippDunkel, yes, i will send you an email.
  (00:06:31) markl: nb_: and you didn't make that clear when we decided
  (00:06:35) PhilippDunkel: Ok
  (00:06:45) markl: nb_: and sat silently for some months without attending, without saying that you couldn't attend
  (00:06:55) nb_: markl, i'll have to look to see where i did, but i'm pretty sure i mentioned that sundays did not work
  (00:06:56) markl: then you blow in here like a hurricane, all bent out that the time doesn't work for you
  (00:07:05) nb_: may have been on one of the email lists
  (00:07:20) markl: I'll gladly stand corrected with the log saying that you wouldn't be attending Sunday meetings
  (00:07:31) nb_: ok, i'lll look for it and get back to you
  (00:07:49) markl: the only reference I can find is saying that you'd prefer a different time, and we'd *all* prefer a different time
  (00:08:33) nb_: fine. i guess we can continue this via email
  (00:08:41) nb_: since the meeting is over and several of us have left already 
  (00:08:45) PhilippDunkel: NB: don't bother. The point is that none of us considered your objections in any way strenuous enough to interpret them in this way. 
  (00:08:59) nb_: PhilippDunkel, well fine, perhaps i should have made myself more clear
  (00:09:11) nb_: I thought I had, but i guess i was wrong
  (00:09:30) PhilippDunkel: Ok. Now that you have made yourself more clear, I suggest we actually continue via email to try to find a better time,
  (00:09:40) nb_: ok
  (00:09:44) PhilippDunkel: Rather than digging through email logs
  (00:09:44) nb_ hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: Leaving).
  00:10
  (00:10:03) markl: mmkay
  (00:10:22) PhilippDunkel: Well, I guess that was a "steamed exit"
  (00:10:40) markl: doesn't have quite the same dramatic effect on irc though :(
  (00:10:55) PhilippDunkel: ;)
  (00:12:02) PhilippDunkel: I want to remind everyone of some other upcoming meetings:
  (00:12:02) PhilippDunkel: 2009-12-06 21:00 UTC
  (00:12:03) PhilippDunkel: 2009-12-20 21:00 UTC
  (00:12:03) PhilippDunkel: 2010-01-03 21:00 UTC
  (00:12:03) PhilippDunkel: 2010-01-17 21:00 UTC
  (00:12:34) Q hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds).
  (00:12:40) PhilippDunkel: These have already been called officially
  (00:12:53) markl: don't we have one on the 29th as well?
  (00:13:16) PhilippDunkel: May well be, but it was not as of yet called officially
  (00:13:20) markl: because our last one was 15/11, and this was just a continuation of that, and we decided every two weeks?
  (00:13:29) markl: which would have made the next 29/11?
  (00:13:50) PhilippDunkel: We said 1st and 3rd Sunday of the month
  (00:13:58) markl: ah
  (00:14:42) markl: 5 sundays in this month
  00:15
  (00:15:14) dirk_on_tour [dirk@89.244.106.5] hat den Raum betreten.
  (00:15:43) Werner: Dirk, alles schon rum
  (00:16:14) dirk_on_tour hat den Raum verlassen.
  (00:16:39) Werner hat den Raum verlassen.
  00:25
  (00:26:10) magu_on_tour1 [magu@g224097239.adsl.alicedsl.de] hat den Raum betreten.
  00:45
  (00:45:22) PhilippDunkel hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
  (00:45:27) PhilippDunkel [phidelta@dsl-stat-43-2.mmc.at] hat den Raum betreten.

• Original Place Meeting Transcript SVN CAcer.org Website - Comment: Replace in original .txt file YYYYMMDD by the real date of the meeting and after that cancel this comment.

---

Inputs & Thoughts

• YYYYMMDD-YourName

• Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please

---

• YYYYMMDD-YourName]

• Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please

---

Category or Categories

CategoryBoardMinutes