-- Sun Mar 30 093758 2014 --
WernerDworak Hello all.
alex-uk Good Morning Werner
WernerDworak I see Alex and Etienne. Is Dirk there or only his server But I am missing Michael and Jrgen.
EtienneRuedin Good morning
INOPIAE Micheal is on the way
jmbruckner good morning
WernerDworak Fine, then we can start.
WernerDworak 1.2 Can we accept the minites from the last meetig
WernerDworak Who moves, who seconds
jmbruckner second and aye
WernerDworak aye
alex-uk aye
WernerDworak Michael Etienne
NEOatNHNG sorry I need a minute to read them
WernerDworak And interwined 1.3
NEOatNHNG aye for  the minutes
WernerDworak I know I was very late with the previous minutes. Can you accept tem
alex-uk Propose and aye
WernerDworak 1.2 is carried
WernerDworak second to 1.3
jmbruckner second and aye
WernerDworak Michael Etienne
EtienneRuedin aye
WernerDworak 1.4 Who can make the minutes of today
alex-uk I can do it
NEOatNHNG I want to replace It was grumbled that the PR manager does not do the best work and is rather lazy by It was grumbled that the PR manager does not do the best work and is rather inactive
WernerDworak Thank you, Alex
WernerDworak Michael, no objection
NEOatNHNG with the modification aye
alex-uk Modification aye
WernerDworak Will you do it Elese I do it later
WernerDworak 1.3 is carried
WernerDworak 1.5 Mails from Board private. What shall we discuss in which way
NEOatNHNG doen
NEOatNHNG done
NEOatNHNG we should discuss the request for exclusion
NEOatNHNG question is whether there are reasons to do so in private, I dont see any
WernerDworak Sice I regard the case of Domikik rather delicate, we should carefully decide what we will discuss open and what in a private board session
NEOatNHNG the question is if we need to discuss the delicate parts or if we follow the proposal to refer the case to arbitration
alex-uk Or if we follow the proposal at all!
jmbruckner i thing we should refer this case to arbitration
NEOatNHNG if we follow the proposal then we can stay public otherwise I agree that we should go private
WernerDworak As you have seen, Dominik can act very rash and angry, so iprefer private where we do not need to balabce every word twice
alex-uk Propose we delay until next meeting
alex-uk to allow time for discussion
WernerDworak You may be right that we do not provess it at all in Board but transfer it to arbitration
katzazi_ i can only guess what you are discussing
katzazi_ but you have time constraints if i'm right
WernerDworak Alex, I assume we should react rather fast, so I prefer Arbitration
NEOatNHNG alex-uk if we refer to arbitration then there's no reason to discuss details in board, otherwise we need to give nik time for statement and so forth anyway
EtienneRuedin I saw only one e-mail from him, but when I red it, Ithink, we should take a fast way.
WernerDworak Indeed. So I move we refer this case to Arbitration.
jmbruckner i second this move
alex-uk Who refers Board or original requestee
WernerDworak I think board can do
WernerDworak What do you think
katzazi_ you cannot force someone to refere something
alex-uk Board can - question is whether board should act on this - the request was rather drastic
NEOatNHNG Second and Aye - because it's a dispute concerning the community rather than the association
WernerDworak I assume a drastic request is no problem. Arbitration can then decide milder measures
alex-uk No - request was to remove from .inc membership
alex-uk so it's not the community.
NEOatNHNG alex-uk yes but the reasons referred to where community matters
WernerDworak There has several request. Alex, I am not sure if you have all informatin
WernerDworak Hello Ben, fine you are there
BenBall hi sorry im late
alex-uk One specifically is Board business, others were (I think) dealt with in arbitration already. I think the only outstanding one is the .inc removal
WernerDworak Ben, we are considering to refer the case of Dominik, see board private, to arbitration
alex-uk Hi Ben
WernerDworak Who can do the Inc removal Board or Arbitration or both
BenBall I think Arbitration is fair. But the discussion about role positions is probably for board to review.
NEOatNHNG that had to be done by board in the end but we do have arbitration as a place to resolve disputes in the inc rules
WernerDworak Michael,, fine
NEOatNHNG BenBall do you mean accepting the resignations
WernerDworak I heard voices to remove Dominik even from Community membertship. Does this go way to far or can this be considered
alex-uk It is probably a Board decision to remove .inc membership but that is open to challenge
katzazi_ the only one who can remove community membership is arbitration
katzazi_ according to cca
alex-uk I think it is a dangerous step
NEOatNHNG Ok let's put it that way if we don't hear arbitration my vote to remove dominik would be naye
alex-uk Community membership is not the issue here, it was specifically .inc membership
WernerDworak So I suggest that Arbitration investigetes the case an finally suggest to board to remove Dominik from Inc.
alex-uk I would be opposed to removal from .inc
BenBall Dominik - Arbitration with an urgent appointment is needed. 
BenBall of an arbitor
katzazi_ there are two arbitrators ready to pick up the case
alex-uk at least by board. SGMAGM is better
WernerDworak I see no problem to call a SGM if needed
alex-uk SGM puts it in the hands of .inc - they are the people who should decide
jmbruckner i think we shouldnt put that to an agmsgm
katzazi_ do you really want such an open discussion - while you were discussing to handle it privatly in the beginning
WernerDworak I suggests Arbitration investigates the case and then board or better a SGM devides
NEOatNHNG alex-uk if the inc membership was removed every time a community member did something wrong in the community that would put a lot of pressure on the members as opposed to non-members, so really this is a community matter
alex-uk Hey - I actually oppose this...
WernerDworak Ok, then Arbitration.
alex-uk However a request was made
NEOatNHNG Werner the rules require that board decides and if the person objects then the SGM decides about the case
jmbruckner yes arbitration
alex-uk I agree with Micheal here...
NEOatNHNG but if really someone wants to deal with it in board wihtouth arbitration the i suggest to put up a motion now
WernerDworak Michael, true. But the question is, shall we lna a Inc removel or not
NEOatNHNG Werner 
WernerDworak So I move that board does nothing at present and Arbitration invstigates the case. Depending on the outcome of Arbitration we cosider the following steps
NEOatNHNG second & aye
jmbruckner second and aye
WernerDworak aye
alex-uk abstain
EtienneRuedin aye
WernerDworak Carried.
NEOatNHNG we should notify nik of the step though
NEOatNHNG anyone who want s to write the notification
WernerDworak Are any other mails from board private we should discuss of reveal here
NEOatNHNG Second thing for nik
jmbruckner and we should also inform the claimant
NEOatNHNG I move to accept Dominik George's resignation as Support Engineer
jmbruckner second and aye
alex-uk Second and aye
NEOatNHNG aye
WernerDworak I think some neutal person like Etienne or Jrgen could write to Dominik
WernerDworak aye
WernerDworak Carried
EtienneRuedin I can do it, if someone who knows more gives me some more details
jmbruckner great Etienne!
WernerDworak Etienne, thank you. I can gice you that informatio
BenBall aye
NEOatNHNG EtienneRuedin just tell the parties that we have received the requests and decided to refer them to arbitration. Ideally don't reveal the other party's name to nik to reduce the heat
WernerDworak Are any other mails from board private we should discuss or reveal here
WernerDworak 1.6 Are there items from the board mailing list we should discuss here
alex-uk From Eva - Subject late business for next bord meeting
alex-uk From Eva Stwe estoewe@cacert.org
alex-uk Date 29032014 0933
alex-uk To cacert-board@lists.cacert.org
alex-uk Dear board,
alex-uk I was waiting for the agenda-page [1] to show up on the board-meeting
alex-uk page, because I wanted to add a business. However it did not appear.
alex-uk I now realised that the page for the next meeting [2] was already there,
alex-uk only not linked to the agenda-page, where I was waiting for it. But in
alex-uk the meantime we are within the last 48h before the meeting, where
alex-uk businesses may not be added anymore, so I'm too late to add it, now.
alex-uk My business is
alex-uk Define that officers are responsible for the training of their teams and
alex-uk may (or even have to) make according decisions, if issues are detected
alex-uk in this regard. To define training-processes may be advised.
alex-uk My comments
alex-uk As the arbitrator of a20140305.1 [3] I informed an officer about some
alex-uk possible training issues of members of his team. The officer asked me to
alex-uk rule on a retraining, because he does not think he has the authority to
alex-uk do so himself.
alex-uk While I clearly have the authority to order retraining as an arbitrator
alex-uk (see DRP 3.6 [4]) I'm not a member of said team and I do not have the
alex-uk expert knowledge to classify training issues or sensible trainings. Such
alex-uk decisions should be up to the officers, in general.
alex-uk Also the idea that arbitration being the one authority who may order
alex-uk (re-)trainings is a bad idea (think about critical team, software, ...).
alex-uk Training issues should be fixable before an incident occurs that causes
alex-uk a dispute so that arbitration can rule on it. A lot depends on our teams
alex-uk being well trained.
alex-uk Training is also one of our principles, where we declare If we accept
alex-uk someone in a role, we train, we test, and we support them. The training
alex-uk is provided for free. [5]
alex-uk As there have been comparable discussions regarding another team
alex-uk recently, this may be a general issue. So I ask board to clarify this point.
alex-uk [1]
alex-uk httpswiki.cacert.orgBrainCAcertIncCommitteeMeetingAgendasAndMinutes
alex-uk [2]
alex-uk httpswiki.cacert.orgBrainCAcertIncCommitteeMeetingAgendasAndMinutes20140330
alex-uk [3] httpswiki.cacert.orgArbitrationsa20140305.1
alex-uk [4] httpswww.cacert.orgpolicyDisputeResolutionPolicy.php
alex-uk [5] httpssvn.cacert.orgCAcertprinciples.html
alex-uk -- mit freundlichen Gren  best regards Eva Stwe CAcert Assurer CAcert Arbitrator & Case Manager CAcert.org - Free Certificates E-Mail estoewe@cacert.org
alex-uk Sorry just started using Thunderbird and copypaste are odd
katzazi_ you could have linked the mail - as it was on a public list ;-)
katzazi_ but you saved me some work to explain myself again, tanks )
NEOatNHNG Oh on private there was also some stuff concerning arbitrators in trining
BenBall yes
alex-uk It was my error in not putting the link up for which I apologise
WernerDworak Never mind
WernerDworak Eve, I generally agree that preferavly training should be handled inside the team.
alex-uk I move that we add Eva's request to todays business.
BenBall second and aye
NEOatNHNG aye
WernerDworak For that we have 1.6. Soit is done
jmbruckner aye
WernerDworak aye
alex-uk aye
WernerDworak carried
WernerDworak I just advance to 2.1 and
WernerDworak move to accept all late business
alex-uk Propose and aye
NEOatNHNG aye
WernerDworak aye
jmbruckner aye
BenBall aye
EtienneRuedin aye
WernerDworak carried
WernerDworak So, back to evas issue in 1.6
alex-uk Should deal with business in order - Eva's issue becomes 2.4
WernerDworak Eve, I generally agree that preferably training should be handled inside the team. But in this case Alex as DRO would have to decide over Alex as arbitrator in training. How can we resolve this
WernerDworak Shall we discuss it now or later as 2.4
alex-uk Eva is NOT talking about arbteam here - that is currently in hand
alex-uk should be as 2.4
WernerDworak Anything els to discuss from board mailing list
WernerDworak 1.7 Are there any action items to regard
WernerDworak I see nothing. So I go to 2.2 Update Subvommittee. Any news
NEOatNHNG Nope
WernerDworak So we come to 2.3 Move CAcert Inc. to another country
WernerDworak Jrgen, how is the starte
WernerDworak state
alex-uk I'm waiting on votes being called for policy change to CCA
jmbruckner Bylaws in german are finished as draft and are discussed on a private Mailing List
WernerDworak Are there more steps we can do now I assume not.
jmbruckner not at the moment
WernerDworak Can we stat if the German version of the bylaws is ready of do we need the English version too just at the start
BenBall I would like to see both versions for transparency
alex-uk Ditto
jmbruckner no, were far from that
WernerDworak Is there anything more to 2.3 at the moment
NEOatNHNG I would prefer if we had a somewhat stable version first, there are a few issues that need ironing out
WernerDworak True
WernerDworak 	Is there anything more to 2.3 at the moment or can we go to 2.4
WernerDworak So we go to 2.4 team training
jmbruckner Ben and Alex .. should i mail you the current version of ther german bylaws
alex-uk Please, Jurgen 
jmbruckner okay will do the next two days, Ben as well
BenBall yes please
jmbruckner okay
NEOatNHNG To 2.4 I would regard the team leader in the position to order retraining of team members in hisher own team
EtienneRuedin @jmbruckner can you send the bylaws also to me, please
jmbruckner oh yes sure Etienne
WernerDworak Michaek, I agree
alex-uk There's the wider issue of defining what the training is, how it's done, and possibly how it finishes. Again, team-leader's responsibility
WernerDworak I assume yes
katzazi that should be a team issue
katzazi as teams are quite differing - i do not think that one can define this globaly
NEOatNHNG Note this is a whole different issue than team members in training status.
WernerDworak At least in Support this worked well
alex-uk Someone should be accountable
katzazi team leader is responsible for teams
WernerDworak I assume for a ready team member, the team leader sould be not resposiblr or only in a minor way. For a team member in training the team leader should be mostly responsible
NEOatNHNG I see it that way Team members when they are appointed by board are full team members, however the team leader may and should if he sees reason to do so order that team members take some training in form of lessons, ATEs and such
katzazi 
katzazi yes neo
katzazi team members should also be provided with training options and possibilities
katzazi our princilples tell us to do so
NEOatNHNG This does not void the capability of the team member in any way, if there are reasons to take such measures they are to be handled the same as resignations and such and to be referred to the entity that can add or remove people from the team
alex-uk That makes sense - team leader is responsible for process if training but presumably can assign specifics within the team...
NEOatNHNG unless there is a approved regulation that defines a process for such an in training status
katzazi (for example CATS)
WernerDworak In Support we have the distinction of triage and SE. I assume in other team this is mostly unknown. Bot there has been a similar suggestion for arbitation
alex-uk There is no defined or approved process for training in arbitration at this time - everything is somewhat ad-hoc - I'm dealing with this currently as DRO
BenBall I would expect we would tie position in team to completion of training. The process should be defined by each team, be consistent and transparent for that team, and approved by Board. Once approved it there should be a transition time for members to achieve the requirements. Changes to the requirements should be developed by the team leader with their team, and sent to board for approval.
BenBall as to if this is something for Board to mandate or for a policy to be written i don't know... 
katzazi ben how should I get training as arbitrator if i cannot do arbitration
katzazi to be cm is not the same as to act as arbitrator
katzazi for example
NEOatNHNG BenBall training can start before assigning the role by board. assigning to the team should happen after initial training
BenBall Arbitration - I would expect that a small training program would be written and a small assessment ...  like sample arbitrations (think open book exam)
BenBall I agree that it is up to the teams to define... 
katzazi there are the lessons and magu had a good idea to do some pre-training
WernerDworak Michael, do you mean. ther is some initial trainig, then shehe is approved and then the main training starts
BenBall but once it is defined then it applies to all.
NEOatNHNG yes
WernerDworak Michael, this looks sensible to me
katzazi i'm thinking about crtiical only appointed persons should get access
katzazi but they should get some training in this position
alex-uk One has to have the authority - perhaps all initial appointments should be as in training with a later confirmation as in the full role....
katzazi our principles tell us to provide training in a position as well
katzazi i do not see why there has to be a need to reappoint someone
BenBall perhaps for sensitive areas Board approves the person to be admitted to the team, they then pass the requirements and then be appointed.
katzazi board will mostly not have the expert knowledge to see if someone is qualified or not 
katzazi or trained well
BenBall nope
WernerDworak I assume Michaels proposal works for the criticals as well. First they do simple tasks an later more na more abnitious tasks
alex-uk confirmation  reappointment
katzazi this always has to be a dicissioin by the people who actually know about the job
katzazi which is not board
BenBall the team leader makes the recommendation once the person is competetant.
katzazi that is not a good idea because it only covers initial training
katzazi currently we have issues with missing re-training
alex-uk Precisely, ben
alex-uk I'm not sure how effective any training was regarding the issue you are raising....
BenBall there is nothing stopping a team requiring annualbiannual reviews or exams or whatever is appropriate. Boards job is to define an overall process, not the specifics of the team.
BenBall and to ensure a teams process is transparent and consistently applied.
katzazi so board should only appoint to team and not say anything about training status of team members
NEOatNHNG I move Team members when they are appointed by board are full team members, however the team leader may and should if he sees reason to do so order that team members take some training in form of lessons, ATEs and such. This does not void the capability of the team member in any way, if there are reasons to take such measures they are to be handled the same as resignations and such and to be referred to the entity that can add or remove p
katzazi in any way
alex-uk Second and aye
NEOatNHNG aye
WernerDworak aye
jmbruckner aye
dirk_on_server aye
WernerDworak carried
BenBall aye
WernerDworak More points to 2.4
WernerDworak 3.0 Question time
WernerDworak Any more questions
katzazi i also added the proposal to advice team members to define training-processes
katzazi I also have a question
WernerDworak Go on
katzazi for what 2.4 or 3.0
WernerDworak As you like
katzazi well i do not see the current problem with most teams to define something and the EO just proposed some re-training ideas to the team i was refering to with the business
katzazi EO = education officer
katzazi so maybe it would be a better idea to include him some more in such discussions or to point teams more to the education team for advice regarding training
NEOatNHNG I move that we advise all teams to think about training processes and if necessary define and document them
katzazi good idea
alex-uk second and aye
WernerDworak Second and aye
NEOatNHNG aye
BenBall aye
EtienneRuedin aye
WernerDworak carried
katzazi thank you )
jmbruckner ayes
WernerDworak Any more to 2.4 Any more to 3.0
alex-uk It might be worth having a team leader mailing list...
katzazi i do not have any more for 2.4
magu_cic what for alex-uk
magu_cic i you like to discuss with TL use a CC party
magu_cic siif
WernerDworak Alex, do you think this mailing list should be open or close Please consider in some teams one person id formally tram leader but another one practically leads the team
katzazi i cannot think of anything that i have to discuss as polO with ALL team leaders - as teams are quite different  - sure i may have to discuss stuff with each one in other contextes but that is something else
alex-uk probably closed, and could include deputiessection leaders etc
alex-uk Such a list could help in sharing good practice and what actually works
katzazi i cannot think what policy good practices can help in new roots and escrow team or audit team or critical team
katzazi or what good practices in arbitration can help me to organise policy team
jmbruckner a team-leader-list CANNOT be a public list!!
INOPIAE As TL I do not see any need for a mailing list.
WernerDworak I agree with Eva that the teams are quite different, so there is little in common. Therefore I doubt the usefullness of such a mailing list or whatever
NEOatNHNG alex-uk we try to keep team leaders as representative of their team so such discussions should be with all teams as a whole
katzazi agree with INOPIAE
INOPIAE juergen ack
magu_cic jmbruckner full ack
magu_cic and i agree with INOPIAE
katzazi ack jmbruckner
katzazi can I state my question now
jmbruckner i think we can go to 3.x
magu_cic jmbruckner true
alex-uk OK
katzazi my question is as there just was a motion on board mailing list to appoint me to polO - what is my state as polO
WernerDworak 3.0 Question time
katzazi my question is as there just was a motion on board mailing list to appoint me to polO - what is my state as polO
katzazi because there was already a motion that was linked by alex when he told policy group that i'm polO
NEOatNHNG the motion was carried in the meeting
NEOatNHNG IIRC
alex-uk Correct
WernerDworak Indeed
katzazi the delay between both is quite huge in this case so I'm a little bit unsure
katzazi as when I was appointed
WernerDworak Eva, you are fully fledged PolO
katzazi ok
alex-uk The mailing list vote is a formality to record the meeting's decisions - Werner did not have time for the paperwork followup to it
katzazi thank you
katzazi so the motion-system is not the relevant one but the iirc
INOPIAE One question can board try to put the motions and the meeting minutes right after the meeting
katzazi this is a general question becaue one may have to relay on some motion or another
katzazi for example if someone is appointed to a role or not may be relevant in an arbitration case
alex-uk I try to do it the same day, Marcus - but it's not always possible
katzazi INOPIAE  that would help in this regard, yes
WernerDworak Eva, both should be the same for motions inside the board meeting. If someone is carried in the meeting, it is valid. httpscommunity.cacert.orgboardmotions.php is only paperwork
katzazi ok
WernerDworak Another case are motions between meetings. Ther the above web page counts
katzazi that answers my question
WernerDworak since the board mailing list is not clear enough
WernerDworak More questions
WernerDworak 4.1 When will we meet the next time
WernerDworak Who has a caleder at hand
alex-uk 3 weeks seems to work but perhaps an hour earlier
jmbruckner Sunday, April 13th
NEOatNHNG dirk wanted two weeks in the morning
WernerDworak For me no problem. Ben
alex-uk 2014-04-20 @ 800 UTC
katzazi 3 weeks is east...
katzazi easter
jmbruckner in 3 Weeks we have Easter
NEOatNHNG in three weeks it's easter so some people might want family time
alex-uk OK - go for 2014-03-13 @ 800 UTC
dirk_on_server in two weeks i may have time in the mornig
dirk_on_server 8utc means  for germany
NEOatNHNG 10 CEST
jmbruckner 10CEST
alex-uk and 9 BST
dirk_on_server will fit .... -) 
WernerDworak Fine. so we meet in two weeks at 899 UTC
WernerDworak 800 of couse
alex-uk OK
NEOatNHNG ok
dirk_on_server (eva will probably push me to meeting .. -)  )
jmbruckner okay
BenBall cya then
WernerDworak Something more to discuss 
WernerDworak Else I close the meeting
jmbruckner not from me
dirk_on_server hopefully she will take care of my kids then .. otherwise sonja will have to ... -) 
katzazi ...
katzazi now i konw why you planned taht weekend for me without asking ....
katzazi btw what do you pay
WernerDworak 4.2 I officially close the meeting


