-- Sun May 18 09:44:29 2014 --
<alex-uk> Back!
<WernerDworak> But nothing to see from Dirk and Etienne. :-(
<alex-uk> I'd give it until 10:00 UTC and if they're not there adjourn for a fortnight...
<dirk> hi ...
<WernerDworak> Hello Dirk, finally there?
<WernerDworak> Etienne is still missing, thoug he promised to come about 8:45 UTC
<dirk> sorry ... had to find a parking place
<WernerDworak> But at least we have a quorum now and can start.
<dirk> mnow I've ponly gsm
<WernerDworak> Dirk, I cannot understand, What characters are the squares?
<dirk> I'm using my smartphone
<WernerDworak> Now I see it clear.
<WernerDworak> Can we move now to accept the minutes from the last meeting?
<alex-uk> Propose accepting the minutes...
<WernerDworak> I move to accept the minutes from the last meeting
<alex-uk> Second and aye
<WernerDworak> aye
<WernerDworak> Who does the minutes of today?
<alex-uk> I can
<WernerDworak> Fine. Thank you
<WernerDworak> Dirk, I wait for you vote
<dirk> had no time to read them
<WernerDworak> For me they look fine
<WernerDworak> 1.4 I see several items from board private we should discuss. But it looks like we need a private IRC seesion.
<WernerDworak> Dirk, can you initiate a private session? And shall we do it now or later?
<WernerDworak> Dirk?
<dirk> i can't grin my smartphone
<alex-uk> I see two items from Eva - one about sealing a case, the other about DocOff - not convinced either need privacy
<dirk> but ican join
<WernerDworak> Dirk, what you cannot? Grin?
<alex-uk> probably should be "from"
<WernerDworak> Alex, it seems you could be right. I asume we do not need to discuss it, just decide
<WernerDworak> So I move to take Evas arbitration case a20140422.1 under seal.
<alex-uk> as 2.5 ??
<dirk> skip "evas" ... the arb numberisenough
<WernerDworak> Maybe. Or shall we take it just as 1.4?
<alex-uk> Make it it's own item - suggest 2.5
<alex-uk> If we need to go private, it's at the end.
<WernerDworak> Ok, I take it later as 2.5
<WernerDworak> Is ther still something to 1.4?
<alex-uk> Micheal's "sabbatical"
<WernerDworak> Indeed. I assume we cannot do anything about ist but live with it.
<alex-uk> Probably just note it for the record...
<WernerDworak> The most critical things as trasurer Michael handles well as I see.
<alex-uk> He's agreed to keep on doing that AIUI
<WernerDworak> Indeed Alex
<alex-uk> but may leave problems with 2.3.1
<WernerDworak> Alex, I assume Jrgen, me and other people can handle it
<alex-uk> just noting it
<WernerDworak> 1.5 Issues from board mailing list
<alex-uk> Probably need to approve payment to BIT
<WernerDworak> Documentation officer is 2.4 anyway. So we take Community & Communication, Marketing Arsenal  and Application Engineering  as 2.6
<alex-uk> 2.5 and move seal to 2.6
<WernerDworak> I am not sure if an approvermant is needed. But we can do it. A motion is easy.
<WernerDworak> So I move to appoint the payment to BIT by Michael.
<WernerDworak> approve I mean
<alex-uk> approve?
<alex-uk> Second and aye
<WernerDworak> aye
<dirk> aye
<WernerDworak> carried
<WernerDworak> Something more to 1.5?
<WernerDworak> 1.6 I have to admit I have not yet done it. I will do.
<dirk> 1.6?
<alex-uk> Action items need cleaning up! :)
<WernerDworak> Indeed
<WernerDworak> That I meant
<BenBE> Key Persons List?
<WernerDworak> Just that
<WernerDworak> More to 1.6?
<WernerDworak> 2.1 do we explicitly accept late business or did we implicitly?
<alex-uk> I suggest we accept formally 2.5 (Officers) and 2.6 (Seal) as late business
<dirk> inoneminute ...
<WernerDworak> 2.2 Update subcommittee. I asume ther is nothing new, so we can close it
<alex-uk> Do we remove Micheal or not?
<WernerDworak> Ok, I move to accept formally 2.5 (Officers) and 2.6 (Seal) as late business
<alex-uk> We should leave it open - just to keep it in mind.
<alex-uk> Second and aye
<dirk> back
<WernerDworak> We shousld not remove Michael. He did not leave, just need a pause.I am sure he will come again rather soon.
<WernerDworak> aye
<dirk> ayefor the Mkotion
<WernerDworak> Carried
<dirk> do not remove Michael ...
<WernerDworak> So I assume 2.2. is done
<WernerDworak> 2.3.1 Move CAcert Inc. to another country,    Statutes/Organisation
<WernerDworak> Are there any news known?
<alex-uk> Without either Michael or Jurgen present diffucult to progress!
<WernerDworak> As far as I know Jrgen is working on a update of the statuses which will come soon.
<WernerDworak> So we come to 2.3.2 Policies
<WernerDworak> Alex, can you tell something?
<alex-uk> Policy changes are on hold until more info (ie Statutes) are available - and probaby an English version as well
<alex-uk> Changes will be needed to CCA and CPS as a minimim, probably minor changes to other policies as well
<WernerDworak> Ok, then I will ask Jrgen about the state
<WernerDworak> More to 2.3?
<alex-uk> No
<WernerDworak> 2.4 Documentation Officer
<WernerDworak> As Eva told, she had somone that could act as documentation office, I suggest to revert the last board motion and install that person as a documentation officer
<WernerDworak> Fine, Etienne you are finally there
<alex-uk> I'm not sure quite what Eva wants here - no name, no info about who and no info about what they should be doing
<alex-uk> I still think teams should look after their own documentation!
<WernerDworak> This looks strange to me too. So I suggest first we collect more information and decide then.
<WernerDworak> To Etienne, we are at 2.4 now and Eva told she had someone that could act as documentation officer
<alex-uk> I also begin to wonder who is running CAcert!
<WernerDworak> I think an independent documetation officer would be fine to unburden Evan from some formal work
<magu_cic_> if not Documentation Officer position is avalibile can some one suggest?
<EtienneRuedin> I agree with Werner. Even, if each team should make documentation, it is godd to have someone that overlook it an can help, if it is needed
<alex-uk> I don't disagree - but the role needs more definition - we need to clarify 
<EtienneRuedin> yes, of course
<WernerDworak> Indeed, Eva seems to be overly eager. On the one side she does good work, on the other sice she seem to try to hold the reigns
<WernerDworak> Indeed about documentation officer we need more imput
<BenBE> WernerDworak: She's doing her work, but she won't by far do any work board was responsible for ;-)
<dirk> eva keeps the privacy of persons ...
<alex-uk> ... to extremes at times
<WernerDworak> Dirk, I don't understand
<WernerDworak> True, the overdoes some times
<BenBE> alex-uk: Better than unnecessarily disclosing private conversations in CC parties ...
<BenBE> WernerDworak: she lives by the rules, but that's another discussion - for later maybe.
<alex-uk> However board cannot make decisions on officers without knowing who
<WernerDworak> Yet without real imput we cannot work
<alex-uk> Agree.
<alex-uk> Perhaps we need to review officers and their roles a bit more
<WernerDworak> Benny, generally you are true. But you should not exaggerate
<BenBE> If there's no post to do work - there won't be anyone who will be eager to do that work.
<EtienneRuedin> one ore two could write the specification. Then specification will go to consultation to the board and maybe others. After specifications will be revised.
<WernerDworak> Any more to 2.4 now?
<EtienneRuedin> what will happen next?
<alex-uk> Perhaps ask Eva for more info both as to person and what she expects them to do...
<EtienneRuedin> does soemone something? until next meeting?
<BenBE> Spec in 3 lines:
<BenBE> 1. The Document officer manages documentation available to all the teams
<BenBE> 2. The Document officer coordinates efforts on imporiving, altering or consolidating documentation accross teams
<BenBE> 3. The document officer may advise or instruct teams on providing clarification on documentation.
<EtienneRuedin> @BenBE: after a first reading, this sounds good
<EtienneRuedin> short
<alex-uk> Agree
<WernerDworak> Indeed, it looks good
<alex-uk> Needs care though - I see a need for a good bilingual translator as part of that
<BenBE> alex-uk: Why?
<WernerDworak> Alex, AFAIS most documents can stay in Englis, there is no need for an official trnaslation. Ther only
<alex-uk> Quality of work in whatever the official language is. Issues arise because of differences of understanding
<WernerDworak> exception is the bylaws of the new assiciation. They mus be in German and English
<WernerDworak> Even for DRP and maybe for CCA no officuial translation is needed.
<EtienneRuedin> If it is a translation en > de it should done by a german speaker; if it is de > en by an Englishmen
<WernerDworak> For the present CCA a good translation exist. So I assume it is not too had to update it
<BenBE> WernerDworak: For DRP+CCA none is strictly needed by we might consider providing one (in the far future)
<alex-uk> Agree in principle
<alex-uk> to Etienne
<WernerDworak> Indeed, we should try to translate as much as possible. But what is really needed is not too much
<BenBE> ACK.
<BenBE> What we should focus on is structuring of what we have and organizing it so people can find things they look for.
<alex-uk> and that appropriate changes can be made - there are serious problems updating policies at the moment
<EtienneRuedin> Maybe a very well strucutred page on the wiki that links to everything.
<alex-uk> Some needs to be there, some may need to be on the main site
<WernerDworak> I see a general problem in the different views of Alex and Eva regarding policies and the like. This seems to paralyse the policy group. How can we resolve tha?
<BenBE> WernerDworak: That's an issue that the policy group should sort out for themselves. I see no reason why why board should move on this in any way.
<alex-uk> I and IanG are usually not far apart - Eva and Benedikt seem to differ - is this an effect of the civil law/common law confict??
<BenBE> Furthermore policy group is there to discuss things prior to making decisions - if decisions take longer because people are carefully weighting all their aspects of an decisions it's for the better IMHO.
<WernerDworak> Benny, a motion would be wrong. But board and other people shoul try to make that better
<EtienneRuedin> @Alex: can you find compromises/agreements; resolve this in the group?
<alex-uk> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are basically four people mainly involved 
<WernerDworak> How can we come to more people attending policy group?
<BenBE> alex-uk: I see regular contributions from more than for people - but discussing the issues that arise usually works out.
<BenBE> I don't expect policy group to find the solution to world peace by yesterday evening.
<alex-uk> More likely WW3 :)
<BenBE> WernerDworak: Do some more advertising?
<alex-uk> However that is not for board to decide - policy group is a seperate "head of power" 
<BenBE> ACK
<WernerDworak> More to 2.4 at the moment?
<alex-uk> The only role board has is to appoint or unappoint a policy officer
<EtienneRuedin> Of course, policy group act on their own, but the committee is interested, that it works more or less well in policy group
<alex-uk> Move to accept BenBE's definition for DocOff and reinstate the post
<BenBE> alex-uk: Usually not even unappointing ... that's for other heads of power ;-)
<alex-uk> I think board has a "veto" on changes as well
<BenBE> alex-uk: ACK to that motion.
<WernerDworak> An appropriate person or group suggest to appint or unappoint someone, but usually borad does it
<WernerDworak> Banny, can you post it again?
<BenBE> Post of the Documentation Officer:
<BenBE> 1. The Document officer manages documentation available to all the teams
<BenBE> 2. The Document officer coordinates efforts on imporiving, altering or consolidating documentation accross teams
<BenBE> 3. The document officer may advise or instruct teams on providing clarification on documentation.
<WernerDworak> I move to accept Bennys suggestion
<alex-uk> remove instruct from last clause
<WernerDworak> ok
<alex-uk> second amended proposal and aye
<EtienneRuedin> aye
<WernerDworak> aye
<WernerDworak> Dirk?
<dirk> hm ... reinstate yes ... but i have to check the official doscription for the documentationbofficer in the policies to be sur
<dirk> sure
<WernerDworak> Dirk, do you agree to the motion?
<alex-uk> See https://wiki.cacert.org/DocumentationOfficer for current role
<dirk> impossible on the smartphone ... :'( 
<dirk> have to check it later ... sorry
<magu_cic_> @dirk 
<magu_cic_> Provide guidelines for writing and maintaining documentation.
<magu_cic_> Versioning and publishing of ?OfficialDocument set and meta-data (editor, state of approval, ...)
<magu_cic_> Find a file format which can be used for documentation work, as described in FindingADocumentationFormat.
<magu_cic_> Other things requested by Community in the Documentation/WishList. 
<alex-uk> I suspect Eva is looking at the publishing of the official docset
<WernerDworak> I suggest to camly consolitate old an new version together
<EtienneRuedin> I can do this until next meeting
<WernerDworak> I assume this is better
<BenBE> Currently there is no fully official version of the CCA and some other documents that not only official but also current.
<WernerDworak> So I regard this motion not as carried but withdrawn
<alex-uk> not that are current - the "official" set are at cacert.org/policies iitc but they are out of date and difficult to update
<alex-uk> It may be that we need to change how/where official versions are helf
<alex-uk> held
<BenBE> WernerDworak: What do you mean?
<WernerDworak> This would be a good task for a documentation offiver
<alex-uk> :)
<WernerDworak> Benny, I don't understand. To what do you refer?
<BenBE> WernerDworak: I did not withdraw my suggestion nor did I veto on the amended version.
<BenBE> WernerDworak: I referred to you @ 12:21: 12:21 < WernerDworak> So I regard this motion not as carried but withdrawn
<WernerDworak> But there was a suggestion to create a new version from old and new
<alex-uk> That should create an amended motion then as a motion was on the table
<BenBE> WernerDworak: magu_cic_ only posted the current description of DocOff for Dirk for reference.
<alex-uk> At present the motion is 3 votes aye and one unknown
<WernerDworak> BTW, Benny, don't addresse me explicitly always with "WernerDworak:" that my IRC client dislikes and makes it complicated
<magu_cic_> BenBE: but description is more clarify and short
<alex-uk> Etienne - are you proposing to prepare a new definition and present it to the next meeting
<WernerDworak> What shall we do now? Kepp on Bannys suggestion and declare the motion carried or shat we wait for a new revides combined version?
<EtienneRuedin> If the board wants a new version including new/BenBe and old, I could do this.
<WernerDworak> What shall we do now? Keep on Bennys suggestion and declare the motion carried or shall we wait for a new revised combined version?
<alex-uk> I'd prefer to see Policies managed by the PolOff - so I prefer BenBE's def - but some of the old roles may be worth at least thinking about
<WernerDworak> So Isee it too.
<alex-uk> I withdraw my original proposal in favour of letting Etienne work on a merger of old and new for further discussion
<WernerDworak> I asecond this
<alex-uk> So it's over to you Etienne - I'll help where I can!
<EtienneRuedin> @Alex: I will send it to you for proofreading
<BenBE> EtienneRuedin, alex-uk Please put me on CC when discussing.
<EtienneRuedin> @BenBE: fine
<alex-uk> I move that the role of DocOff is reinstated but held "in abeyance" until the role is defined
<WernerDworak> Can we clos 2.4 for now?
<EtienneRuedin> Who will tell it Eva?
<alex-uk> There's a new motion to close this...
<WernerDworak> 2.5 Ttake arbitration case a20140422.1 under seal.
<alex-uk> @werner - motion first please
<WernerDworak> Is there a discussion needed or can we just move?
<alex-uk> Just move - propose and aye
<WernerDworak> Alex, motion fow what?
<WernerDworak> For 2.5 od 2.4?
<alex-uk> 2.4
<WernerDworak> So propos that motion to 2.4
<WernerDworak> Do the wording you like
<alex-uk> I move that the role of DocOff is reinstated but held "in abeyance" until the role is defined
<EtienneRuedin> second and aye
<WernerDworak> aye
<alex-uk> aye
<WernerDworak> Dirk?
<dirk> aye ... had to check "abeyance" ...
<WernerDworak> carried
<alex-uk> 2.5 is the other officer roles
<WernerDworak> 2.5 Take arbitration case a20140422.1 under seal.
<WernerDworak> Is there a discussion needed or can we just move?
<WernerDworak> No Alexc, this is 2.6
<WernerDworak> The other roles are 2.6
<WernerDworak> And now to 2.5
<alex-uk> See late busiuness accepted - 2,5 other officers 2.6 seal
<alex-uk> But - OK
<WernerDworak> Just there arbitration was 2.5 and other officers were 2.6
<alex-uk> No
<WernerDworak> 	WernerDworak	So I move to take Evas arbitration case a20140422.1 under seal.
<WernerDworak> 	alex-uk	as 2.5 ??
<WernerDworak> 	dirk	skip "evas" ... the arb numberisenough
<WernerDworak> 	WernerDworak	Maybe. Or shall we take it just as 1.4?
<WernerDworak> 	alex-uk	Make it it's own item - suggest 2.5
<WernerDworak> 	alex-uk	If we need to go private, it's at the end.
<magu_cic_> Werner say  2.4 Policy Officer 2.5 seal and 2.6 other offices
<WernerDworak> 	WernerDworak	Ok, I take it later as 2.5
<alex-uk> and see the late business motion as accepted....
<WernerDworak> Now I don't understand anything. I know very well what my log says, and ther is 
<alex-uk> <WernerDworak> Ok, I move to accept formally 2.5 (Officers) and 2.6 (Seal) as late business
<WernerDworak> 2.4 documentation officer, 2.5 arbitration seal and 2.6 other officers later
<alex-uk> It doesn't really matter - I was keeping the seal to last in case private channel needed
<alex-uk> OK - (seal)
<WernerDworak> Anyway, we now handle "other officers"
<WernerDworak> Shall we revide any old motion and how?
<WernerDworak> revise
<alex-uk> OK - this was essentially considered last meeting and the three roles were removed as far as I remember
<alex-uk> I'm not sure why it was reinstated here... 
<WernerDworak> Shall we revert that decision? There are voices to keep some or all of that offices posts
<alex-uk> I can see a role for a "community" officer perhaps but the other roles were essentially part of overall PR
<alex-uk> but we can reinstate at another time - I see no need for action now
<WernerDworak> So I suggest to postpone that now and go to arbitration seal. Or is any other discussion neede before?
<WernerDworak> Etienne, how about the letter to Dominik?
<EtienneRuedin> I have no access to my cacert.org mail adress until now. Should I send it by my private e-mail adress?
<WernerDworak> Very stange. I assume you can and should do it
<EtienneRuedin> OK, I will send it today and also for arbitration, just after lunch.
<WernerDworak> Fine
<WernerDworak> Now to arbitration seal. What is to do?
<alex-uk> OK - DRP assumes that there is one and only one ruling that ends the case - intermediate rulings are not catered for
<alex-uk> Since I have allowed an appeal on an intermediate ruling, Eva feels she needs confirmation for each and every intermediate ruling 
<alex-uk> or a blanket permission to seal.
<alex-uk> Both approaches have issues
<dirk> we can put this motion under seal ...
<dirk> ... and maybe revide after the final ruling
<WernerDworak> Dirk, a board motion or an arbitration ruling?
<alex-uk> we could - but Eva seems not to like that as the community cannot appeal as the cannot see the ruling
<WernerDworak> I suggest to allow Eva to put the intermediate rulings under seal as well
<alex-uk> I think it's a "mountain out of a molehill"
<WernerDworak> So is Eva
<WernerDworak> I am accustomed to it in the meantime
<alex-uk> and since the case is under seal, intermediate rulings are under seal too - although they should be visible to DRO and arbteam
<WernerDworak> I assume rules under seal would be visible to arbteam?
<alex-uk> I would interpret the case that board reviews the sealing decision at the end of the case and takes action appropriately
<dirk> i suggest to keep the case and the further rulings under seal ... and come back to this after the final ruling
<WernerDworak> Dirk, this looks good
<EtienneRuedin> Dirk, that sounds good
<alex-uk> It may be that you want to charge one of the arbteam to monitor cases under seal - perhaps a DRO role to provide a degree of oversight
<WernerDworak> I assumed all the arb team, but DRO only could go too
<alex-uk> but I am not convinced that this is necessary
<alex-uk> Remember that there is a CM too
<WernerDworak> I want to move  to keep the case and the further rulings under seal ... and come back to this after the final ruling. any objections?
<dirk> please add the case number
<alex-uk> I think that this should be a general permission for seal cases - it will probably warrant a change in DRP
<WernerDworak> I want to move  to keep the case  a20140422.1 and the further rulings under seal ... and come back to this after the final ruling. any objections?
<dirk> hm ...
<dirk> arb kepps it under seal or not ...
<dirk> ... we accept the seal ... or agree to the seal ...
<WernerDworak> I think we should do so
<alex-uk> We agree to the seal until the final ruling is issued at which point we review it again
<WernerDworak> Looks good
<alex-uk> OK - let's try for
<EtienneRuedin> I accept it, but I will also agree to agree it.
<dirk> i want to move to accept the seal for case a20140422.1.
<alex-uk> The board agrees that case a20140422.1 and any intermediate rulings may be kept under seal until the final ruling is issued at which point the seal will be reviewed
<EtienneRuedin> second and aye
<WernerDworak> aye
<alex-uk> aye
<dirk> (thes motion can be overruled at a latertime /after the final rulingbby another motion)
<alex-uk> is that an amendent?
<WernerDworak> Dirk, anyway
<WernerDworak> Dirk, is that an aye?
<EtienneRuedin> That happen regulary in democracy after a while...
<dirk> no
<WernerDworak> Is it a naye or what?
<dirk> its a naye
<WernerDworak> Do you have anotzhe suggestion?
<WernerDworak> Anyway, I regard the motion carried
<WernerDworak> Any more to 2.x?
<dirk> i move to accept the seal for case a20140422.1
<WernerDworak> Plain that? Or something more?
<WernerDworak> No opinions?
<WernerDworak> I tend do second this, to proceed. Your opinions?
<WernerDworak> Any more to 2.x?
<alex-uk> we've agreed to the seal with a review at the end of the case as it stands
<WernerDworak> Something to 3.0 Question time?
<dirk> we cant agree ... we can acvept ...
<dirk> accept
<alex-uk> OK - my proposal substituting accept for agree - is that what you mean?
<WernerDworak> 4.1 When will me meet the next time?
<dirk> alex: correct
<alex-uk> 2014-06-08 8:00UTC?
<alex-uk> @dirk - I've no issues with that change - anybody?
<EtienneRuedin> I have no issues with that change
<WernerDworak> Me too.
<WernerDworak> To the next meeting. I assume pentacost is not good
<alex-uk> OK - next meeting 2014-06-08 8:00UTC??
<EtienneRuedin> 8th of June is Pentecost, maybe it is better to meet the 9th - is Monday of Pentecost bank holyday everywhere?
<WernerDworak> Or what about 2014-06-01?
<magu_cic_> alex-uk: its a Pentecost day avalibily in uk and au?
<alex-uk> Pentecost not a holiday here - last Monday in May
<alex-uk> 06-01 OK for me at the moment....
<dirk> according to the motion ... i assume, that it will be listed with `accept` in the motion system ...
<alex-uk> Yes, Dirk
<dirk> 06-01 will not be possible on my site
<WernerDworak> Who agrees to 2014-06-01
<alex-uk> @werner - OK
<WernerDworak> So we should take 2014-06-01 08:00 UTC
<WernerDworak> Something elso or can I close?
<EtienneRuedin> Maybe I can come at 8, maybe at 9.
<WernerDworak> Shall we take 09:00 UTC
<alex-uk> Another option is 4 weeks (06-15)
<dirk> lets do it in two and in 4 weeks ... :-) 
<WernerDworak> We should not waait so lang.
<WernerDworak> I suggest we take 2014-06-01 08:00 UTC and maybe Etienne comes a little later
<EtienneRuedin> Sunday morning is allways disadvantageous to me. Let's do it at 1th of June at 8 UTC an I will join as soon as possible.
<alex-uk> OK
<WernerDworak> Fine.
<WernerDworak> So I close the meeting
<alex-uk> See you all
<dirk> see you ...
<EtienneRuedin> good bye
