Attachment 'transscript_board-meeting_2016-05-21.txt'
Download 1 (11:59:57) egal: hi, hello and welcome ...
2 (12:00:02) piers: hi everyone! how many board members are present?
3 (12:00:29) dops: Hi
4 (12:00:37) iang: Hi everyone
5 (12:00:46) egal: at least 4 ... we have a quorum ... ;-)
6 (12:00:56) alex: hello everybody
7 (12:00:58) piers: great
8 (12:00:59) iang: Excellent
9 (12:01:12) piers: Let's begin
10 (12:01:23) piers: I think we have minutes from the last meeting?
11 (12:01:48) egal: letz me check ...
12 (12:01:52) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/
13 MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-04-24#Minutes
14 (12:02:16) piers: I propose a motion to accept the minutes
15 (12:02:23) egal: yep ... quite long ... have to read them (and match to my
16 meeting log ...)
17 (12:02:36) iang: I second the motion!
18 (12:03:01) katzazi_: Just for your notice. I was asked if I agree with the
19 parts I brought up, I did not agree
20 (12:03:32) iang: which section?
21 (12:03:52) katzazi_: You asked me ian, we discussed it
22 (12:04:43) katzazi_: I currently do jot have access
23 (12:05:10) iang: I don’t have recollection of that discussion, so if it is to
24 be discussed here, you’ll have to present it.
25 (12:05:28) katzazi_: It was s
26 (12:05:32) katzazi_: In skype
27 (12:06:13) katzazi_: Gero should know about it as well
28 (12:06:35) katzazi_: I can present it later, but not at the moment, I am not at
29 home
30 (12:06:40) piers: i'd rather we postponed discussing the minutes until
31 they can be amended to eva's satisfaction
32 (12:06:56) iang: ok
33 (12:07:10) dops: aye
34 (12:07:16) piers: anyone volunteer to take the minutes today?
35 (12:07:22) dops: I can do it
36 (12:07:26) piers: thanks!
37 (12:07:37) iang: Technically we have a motion before us to vote on the minutes,
38 but I’m happy to vote NAYE and allow it ito lapse :)
39 (12:07:41) piers: anything from cacert-board private to be revealed?
40 (12:08:29) dops: I didn't see anything.
41 (12:08:38) piers: sorry ian, yes you are right, i'll vote NAYE
42 (12:09:02) egal: or don't cast a vote now and leave the motion open (7
43 days)
44 (12:09:51) iang: Discussion Re: New Arbitrator?
45 (12:09:58) katzazi_: You got a ruling that confirmed that interference of arb
46 cases (or at least one) was stopped successfully
47 (12:11:11) piers: is this something we should discuss as part of the business?
48 (12:12:05) katzazi_: And no costs for investigation commitee has to be paid
49 (12:12:45) iang: I’m not sure of the question being asked. It’s vague. All I
50 can say is that we hope new Arbitrators are brought on with most speed.
51 (12:13:17) piers: hang on everyone, let's not depart from the agenda!
52 (12:13:27) piers: right now it's "preliminaries"
53 (12:13:29) katzazi_: The question is if you add that arbitrator or not
54 (12:14:12) iang: Oh ok. Then let’s get that added to the business of the board.
55 But please propose the board agenda item.
56 (12:14:16) katzazi_: Until then we cannot continue the training
57 (12:14:24) iang: Why not?
58 (12:14:31) katzazi_: He needs acess
59 (12:15:02) katzazi_: There was already some training without access
60 (12:15:08) iang: Are you saying you only have access as a fully approved
61 arbitrator, and can’t do training without access, and can’t have an untrained
62 arbitratOor? Sounds like catch 22.
63 (12:15:14) katzazi_: No
64 (12:15:22) piers: Eva, please wait until the Questions session to discuss this
65 further, ok?
66 (12:15:33) iang: ok
67 (12:15:37) katzazi_: Ok
68 (12:15:41) piers: Thanks.
69 (12:15:44) piers: next item
70 (12:16:01) piers: actions - are there any outstanding that we should discuss?
71 (12:16:41) iang: Dirk has posted minutes for 1st meeting to the private board
72 list.
73 (12:17:29) piers: i read them - seemed good to me - thanks dirk!
74 (12:17:39) iang: (which is an action point in last week’s meeting.) So should
75 we put it on the agenda for next week to approve or vote now?
76 (12:17:49) egal: did them yesterday late night ... they probably need some
77 overview ... that's why i didn't add them to the meeting up to now
78 (12:18:10) piers: on the agenda for next week then
79 (12:18:10) ***egal wants to have at least a second view on it ...
80 (12:18:25) piers: anything else on the actions list?
81 (12:18:32) iang: ok fine!
82 (12:18:41) egal: next week? ... okay ... will not be online next week ...
83 (12:19:03) piers: next meeting anyway, may not be next week
84 (12:19:03) iang: Eva has reported no costs for “investigation committee”
85 (12:19:28) piers: good news
86 (12:20:03) iang: That leaves a few items, minutes writer can just carry them
87 across?
88 (12:20:23) piers: good
89 (12:20:26) piers: moving on
90 (12:20:38) katzazi_: I also proposed the rule change but have to move it to the
91 wiki
92 (12:21:00) piers: item 2.1 "parts A,B,C" - ian?
93 (12:22:29) iang: Ah that. Yes, so we’ve all read the document by now I hope.
94 (12:23:11) egal: "the document" refers the next/background of A, B, C-motions
95 ... correct?
96 (12:23:17) iang: IMHO the foundation of argument in that document is poor to
97 non-existent. There is no citing of clauses, no indication of which statutes
98 were broken, nor laws, and no presentation of evidence of any form.
99 (12:23:23) egal: s/next/text/
100 (12:23:53) iang: it is the document “board-private20151206.txt” in the handover
101 package.
102 (12:26:15) iang: The PD accusation is especially odd because it relates to duly
103 ruled decisions of an arbitrator. I’m pretty sure I’ve read that ruling
104 multiple times, and I can only say that IMHO the interpretation of Reinhard is
105 not reasonable.
106 (12:26:37) iang: Therefore I conclude that the motions were badly done. And
107 should be reversed.
108 (12:26:42) iang: discussion?
109 (12:27:38) piers: do we need to reverse all their motions one by one - or can
110 we just declare all motions of the previous board as void?
111 (12:27:55) iang: (oh, and that isn’t to discuss the potential for interference
112 with arbitrator, nor the contradiction/conflict of PD’s ruling on 3 heads of
113 power, nor the suppression the evidence.)
114 (12:28:22) iang: I would do it one by one because there are three motions that
115 were duly passed as A, then B, then C. From memory.
116 (12:28:33) iang: We should cite those directly.
117 (12:28:37) piers: ok
118 (12:29:05) piers: i'm also happy to make them public
119 (12:29:20) iang: yep - that motion went through
120 (12:29:25) iang: So we need a motion
121 (12:30:28) iang: How about: Resolved, that the Part A, ref PD, motion of
122 previous board be overturned in full for fault of particular clauses and fault
123 of evidence.
124 (12:30:58) piers: seconded and AYE
125 (12:31:17) dops: aye
126 (12:31:42) iang: Aye
127 (12:32:06) egal: aye
128 (12:32:08) piers: i declare the motion carried
129 (12:32:13) piers: next?
130 (12:32:41) iang: Found it - https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?
131 motion=m20151206.17 - Can we have that CC’d into the motion.
132 (12:32:58) egal: cc'ed or provide a link in the motion
133 (12:33:29) iang: Resolved, that the Part B, ref ES, motion of previous board be
134 overturned in full for fault of particular clauses and fault of evidence.
135 https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20151206.18
136 (12:33:35) dops: I'll add the link
137 (12:33:41) piers: seconded and AYE
138 (12:33:49) dops: aye
139 (12:33:53) egal: aye
140 (12:34:14) iang: Aye.
141 (12:34:17) piers: i declare the motion carried
142 (12:34:20) piers: next?
143 (12:34:52) iang: Resolved, that the Part C, ref AS, motion of previous board be
144 overturned in full for fault of particular clauses and fault of evidence.
145 https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20151206.19
146 (12:34:58) piers: seconded and AYE
147 (12:35:03) egal: DA instead AS ..
148 (12:35:25) dops: aye (with correction from Dirk)
149 (12:35:38) piers: aye (with correction)
150 (12:35:47) egal: abstain (... obviously ... ;-) )
151 (12:36:37) egal: (would have voted aye, but DA is referencing me .. therefore:
152 abstain)
153 (12:36:43) piers: ian?
154 (12:37:02) iang: Aye. DA. Not sure who AS is :)
155 (12:37:08) piers: i declare the motion carried
156 (12:37:25) piers: i think we can now move on to 2.2
157 (12:37:31) egal: yes and now ...
158 (12:37:53) piers: ABCs - Arbitrated Background Checks - ian?
159 (12:38:11) egal: A,B,C is not "everything" ... we have a lot more work to do
160 according the last board ...
161 (12:38:55) iang: Well, the original topic was posted quite some time ago, but
162 ran into opposition on the basis of interference with Arbitration. I am not
163 clear nor keen to carry on this so I’m happy to drop the entire topic for now.
164 (12:38:58) egal: we should all remember it ... even if it's not on today
165 agenda)
166 (12:40:05) iang: @egal ok - but can we put it on the agenda? I for one am not
167 able to divine the everything so easily, juggling multiple crises elsewhere. I
168 think it is age that stops my mind remembering everything...
169 (12:40:36) piers: everyone happy to drop 2.2 for the time being?
170 (12:40:49) dops: I'm fine with dropping that topic. If necessary we can come
171 back to it if it is more urgent.
172 (12:41:05) piers: ok
173 (12:41:08) ***egal agrees to dops
174 (12:41:15) piers: next item
175 (12:41:33) piers: 2.3 Application for membership from Kim Nilsson
176 (12:41:56) dops: Is running as motion m20160514.1
177 (12:42:32) piers: so it is, with three AYE so far
178 (12:42:40) piers: moving on then
179 (12:42:58) egal: 4
180 (12:42:59) iang: maybe egal could vote on that then ;-)
181 (12:43:07) iang: ha!
182 (12:43:16) piers: item 2.4 Scope of Internal Audit - ian?
183 (12:43:54) iang: Yes - internal auditor posted an incident report on the
184 activities of CAcert Inc. This related to how the SGM was conducted, from
185 memory.
186 (12:44:11) iang: Now, I was surprised by this … it seems a long way away from
187 the audit of the CA.
188 (12:44:41) iang: Question for us as committee is what is the scope of internal
189 audit - is it directed to preparing for an audit of the CA, or is it “over the
190 whole of CAcert community” ?
191 (12:45:07) piers: i thought it was just the CA
192 (12:45:10) iang: Obviously there can be no hard and fast line. But some things
193 are rather hard to justify as helping the CA’s audit.
194 (12:45:32) iang: second question is what is the relationship of audit to
195 dispute resolution?
196 (12:46:09) iang: Can auditor post an incident and expect people to follow those
197 directions? Or is this more an issue of the DR? This is quite a touchy subject
198 of course given recent events… So there is room for many interpretations.
199 (12:46:26) piers: sounds like the purview of the policy group?
200 (12:46:59) katzazi_: Internal audit is not named in any policy
201 (12:47:23) iang: Now, on the first question, I can declare a historical
202 anecdote which is that I as auditor back in 2006 watched the board collapse,
203 and after 2 incidents where the board had engaged in difficult manouvers, I
204 moved to take over the control of the association by telling the board that all
205 future decisions were to be passed through me.
206 (12:48:09) iang: Board collapsed soon after that event, and we worked for
207 several months to put a new board in place. But point remains that an auditor
208 can exert pressure by one means or other.
209 (12:48:50) iang: Right, so and again - internal audit is not a policy thing,
210 nor a well-recognised CA requirement. It is assumed to be “preparation for CA
211 audit” but that’s only an assumption.
212 (12:50:21) iang: One thing that we did manage during my time as auditor was
213 that the auditor was also subject to dispute resolution. SO the answer could be
214 that any difficulties found by internal auditor should be filed as disputes for
215 action?
216 (12:50:51) iang: On the first question, I’d prefer if the efforts were focussed
217 to preparation for CA / RA audit.
218 (12:51:14) iang: I suppose there is also a 3rd question - whether internal
219 auditor desires to continue in that role.
220 (12:51:25) katzazi_: Currently the internal auditor does two things. Audit and
221 incidents. Which are near to DR according to our SP.
222 (12:51:27) dops: I agree about the focus.
223 (12:53:37) iang: How about: Resolved, that the role of internal audit is to
224 prepare for CA/RA audit, to liase with an appointed auditor, and to advise
225 board on progress. Any incidents may be reported, but serious issues should be
226 filed as disputes into our forum of arbitration, in alignment with the customs
227 and policies of the community.
228 (12:54:35) piers: seconded and AYE
229 (12:54:46) katzazi_: This is what he does
230 (12:55:56) katzazi_: The question is where starts "serious"?
231 (12:56:16) dops: What means "liase"?
232 (12:56:24) dops: (don't know the word)
233 (12:56:26) iang: For the most part, yes. But that last incident was tantamount
234 to creating a new forum of dispute resolution.
235 (12:56:51) iang: Liase: Communicate with on the expectation that this is the
236 primary relationship of communication.
237 (12:57:04) katzazi_: Ian, was its subject "serious"? I don't think so
238 (12:57:19) iang: It was serious in that it was directing someone to act.
239 (12:57:38) katzazi_: He always direct.
240 (12:57:48) dops: @Ian: thanks
241 (12:57:50) katzazi_: Is anything with direction serious?
242 (12:57:56) iang: He is always direct? Or he always directs?
243 (12:58:13) katzazi_: He always directs
244 (12:58:31) iang: Well, that is part of the question - does internal auditor
245 have the power to direct?
246 (12:59:01) iang: The above motion does not give him the power to direct. It
247 does place disputes into DR. So if there is a policy breach then there is a
248 clear path.
249 (12:59:29) katzazi_: He sometimes files disputes but always directs board
250 (12:59:40) katzazi_: Or proposes actions to board
251 (13:00:18) iang: right - the latter. It is always fine to propose actions to
252 anyone. But direct? This is … more difficult. For that we have DR. Also, for
253 directions we want to make sure they are focussed on the topic area.
254 (13:01:18) katzazi_: He only proposed in the incident you mentioned
255 (13:03:06) piers: in that case ian's motion should be ok?
256 (13:03:19) katzazi_: I do not see what it does
257 (13:03:22) dops: The section "corrective actions" in an incident report is
258 always some kind of direction, correct?
259 (13:04:10) iang: The issue here is that people are asking Internal Auditor to
260 investigate the voting practices of the association. For that (1) it is a long
261 way away from the CA/RA audit, and (2) we already have dispute resolution.
262 (13:04:51) dops: yes, I neither have a clue how this issue can be resolved via
263 incident processing.
264 (13:05:21) katzazi_: How does the motion address this?
265 (13:06:10) katzazi [katzazi@89.204.155.125] entered the room.
266 (13:06:39) iang: @dops right. The incident asserts that there are violations in
267 voting procedures and then directs “corrective actions”. I think this is really
268 association business, not audit business. And for that we have dispute
269 resolution.
270 (13:07:26) dops: @iang: I agree.
271 (13:07:59) iang: I will note however that Internal Auditor also mentions that
272 committee should confirm the conclusions … and file a dispute. I just don’t see
273 the point in having multiple investigative committees running around doing the
274 same thing.
275 (13:10:16) iang: @dops @egal do you still need to discuss / think about this?
276 (13:10:24) iang: we can change the text of the motion … or?
277 (13:11:01) dops: I feel more the need to express that internal business of the
278 association should not be focus of audit. I don't want a motion to look like a
279 prohibition of actions. That would not be a good motivation.
280 (13:11:55) iang: I agree. And, as history of 2006 showed, no hard and fast rule
281 should be set.
282 (13:12:56) iang: The motion isn’t intended to rule out an incident focussing on
283 the actions of the association’s SGM. It is meant to set a topic. Then, and
284 particular given incident should then draw a line back to that role.
285 (13:13:10) katzazi_ left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds).
286 (13:13:44) iang: (In the incident in question, it is made clear in Sections 3,
287 4 that there is no danger to the CA…)
288 (13:13:52) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Audit/Incidents/i20160410.1
289 (13:15:05) iang: If people need more time, we can defer. It’s probably late in
290 Oz, and we should move on…
291 (13:15:15) dops: ok, with this explanation the intention is clear.
292 (13:16:42) iang: well, I understand that the language might make that difficult
293 to perceive and subtleties might be misunderstood. There isn’t meant to be a
294 solid order in there - I use “should” in the IETF fashion.
295 (13:16:52) piers: so, vote? or defer?
296 (13:17:30) iang: We could of course have an issue where the internal auditor is
297 investigating an incident about arbitration … hypothetically … and filing
298 dispute might be the precise incident.
299 (13:18:18) dops: Then vote please, or continue the vote. AYE
300 (13:18:27) katzazi: There is such an audit / incident
301 (13:18:39) iang: So in that context, filing dispute to ask why filed disputes
302 aren’t working makes no sense. In such a context, “should” means that the
303 internal auditor has some leeway if it can be justified.
304 (13:18:52) katzazi: It lead to the ABC ruling
305 (13:19:09) iang: @egal?
306 (13:19:30) ***egal is reading ... ;-)
307 (13:21:30) iang: well, I have a novel to get back to as well ;-) we have three
308 votes?
309 (13:21:39) piers: yes
310 (13:21:48) piers: I declare the motion carried
311 (13:21:57) piers: next item
312 (13:22:20) piers: item 2.5 Move of CAcert Inc (continuing)
313 (13:22:40) iang: I don’t have ownership of this item. I think it is for all of
314 us to start moving on it. Having said that, to repeat what was said earlier...
315 (13:23:40) iang: Piers & Kevin are only in it until the AGM which is … within
316 months. Maybe November by averages. After that we are not only back to trouble
317 with Australian members, we are also back to the situation that CAcert Inc
318 itself is likely to be wound up if we don’t get moving.......
319 (13:24:47) iang: I can say that I also am not in a position to “do the work” to
320 move CAcert Inc to a new jurisdiction.
321 (13:25:11) dops: I doubt that an exact timeline will succeed. But it might help
322 to have one as orientation.
323 (13:26:04) dops: The we can soon define the date for the next AGM as big
324 milestone.
325 (13:26:13) iang: I agree with that. Which leaves us squeezed. So perhaps the
326 way to move forward is to simply start cataloguing the assets and disposeing of
327 thing?
328 (13:26:17) katzazi: The vote on PolG alone takes 4 weeks
329 (13:26:19) iang: s/thing/them/
330 (13:26:46) iang: this process might be akin to the “living will” process that
331 banks are being tortured with these days ...
332 (13:28:56) iang: If that helps, we could simply set up a table of all the
333 assets and in the columns relate who they go to and how they are transferred.
334 (13:29:16) dops: I am not sure that I understand the background. Assets means
335 money, not control about servers, It think.
336 (13:29:24) dops: s/It/I/
337 (13:29:50) dops: If we can gain time by making banks happy, sure, why not.
338 (13:29:51) iang: I include “everything” as assets. In this context at least.
339 (13:30:26) iang: So, there is “the CA” and also “the RA” … there is the CCA.
340 (13:31:07) iang: The CCA is an asset because CAcert Inc is a counterparty to
341 everyone’s CCA. If CAcert Inc is wound up, that party needs to be replaced /
342 transferred or something.
343 (13:31:26) dops: yes, that includes the CCA, with policy group, mailing to the
344 community etc.
345 (13:31:56) iang: Any way, I can make such a table.
346 (13:32:26) iang: If I make such a table, can we then consider it next meeting
347 and get kicking on things? Find people to do these works?
348 (13:33:05) piers: that seems like sensible progress, shall we move on?
349 (13:33:15) dops: I assume that we have big interest. So the challenge might to
350 organise all this.
351 (13:33:50) iang: yes, big challenge. This is why I point out, the australians
352 won’t be standing at AGM.
353 (13:34:09) iang: This is not something the board can deal with.
354 (13:34:18) dops: Sorry ,I mean the first challenge is to organiue discussions.
355 (13:34:38) iang: This is all of community - everyone is going to have to
356 participate. If not, bad luck I guess.
357 (13:34:52) egal: this table ... can we do it online so everybody can put items
358 on it ... so nothing will be missed?
359 (13:34:53) katzazi: There is phoenix
360 (13:35:04) piers: CAcert will be without the statutory Public Officer as of
361 Kevin's resignation
362 (13:35:39) katzazi: He resigned? Why is nobody informed?
363 (13:35:43) iang: Maybe we should make the board agenda item as the last item
364 each time and open it to entire community … so that we aren’t encouraging
365 people to think “board will do this” ?
366 (13:35:53) iang: He will resign at forthcoming AGM.
367 (13:36:15) egal: @katzazi ... he will resign at AGM as far as i know ...
368 (13:36:25) iang: phoenix - yes. should we discuss it all there? (I am not sure
369 I am on that list.)
370 (13:36:46) egal: phoenix is open for everybody ... ;-)
371 (13:36:46) katzazi: You are
372 (13:36:54) iang: @chair - move on to next item?
373 (13:36:58) piers: ok
374 (13:37:08) piers: item 2.6 Key Persons List - ian
375 (13:38:16) iang: Um - I gather the Key Persons List has been sent from Marcus
376 to Dirk. But there is a problem with this that I don’t understand.
377 (13:38:29) iang: So I’d ask @egal to explain the problem.
378 (13:38:40) egal: marcus sent me the list without contacting me first.
379 (13:39:10) iang: why is that a problem?
380 (13:39:15) egal: there are some names on this list, which should be removed
381 from my site (deadline is today)
382 (13:39:44) egal: (why did he disclose the personal data of these persons when i
383 should delete it?)
384 (13:39:47) dops: What is the practical value of the key persons list? I saw
385 concerns about being outdated, or not suitable.
386 (13:40:09) egal: and ... why do I (personally) have to take care of the KPL ?
387 (13:40:15) katzazi: It is required in the SP
388 (13:40:41) piers: didn't marcus send it to "The Secretary" - so no need to
389 ask first perhaps?
390 (13:40:49) iang: yeah - my view was that we’ve always had problems, nobody
391 seems to have succeeded in getting it under control. SO maybe the problem here
392 isn’t us but is the inability of the people to manage this process ==> simplify
393 the process.
394 (13:41:38) egal: there are names on this list of non-Inc-members ... so why has
395 CAcert Inc. secretary to maintain this list?
396 (13:41:53) katzazi: The problem is the requirement if encryption that some see
397 (13:42:24) katzazi: It was added by last board
398 (13:42:37) egal: motion?
399 (13:42:50) iang: well - the list is mandated by a community policy ==> effects
400 the community not the association.
401 (13:43:08) katzazi: Not sure about motion, they changed the process in the wiki
402 (13:43:10) iang: it’s just that the board / executive has to manage it.
403 (13:43:15) iang: wiki page?
404 (13:43:31) katzazi: No access, follow the SM.
405 (13:43:42) katzazi: Can give it later
406 (13:43:57) egal: (there is no motion about the KPL added by last board)
407 (13:44:11) katzazi: A prior board placed the organisation of the kpl by someone
408 outside if board
409 (13:44:25) iang: The last board added a requirement to have the list encrypted?
410 Oh ok. That makes sense, but doesn’t make it any easier to manage.
411 (13:44:42) katzazi: Actually I am still responsible according to the motions
412 (13:44:45) egal: as far as i know the KPL could be maintained by ANY person
413 being on this list
414 (13:45:08) piers: isn't the key persons list needed in an emergency - bit
415 hard to use if encrypted!
416 (13:45:35) katzazi: But arbitrators were removed from kpl by the process change
417 of last board
418 (13:45:41) iang: @katzazi I would say that is how it should be - board is too
419 useless because it changes so quickly. We should have someone outside the board
420 who can manage the list.
421 (13:45:54) katzazi: Piers, yes. My argument.
422 (13:46:35) iang: so we have two issues - whether the list has been handed over
423 (albeit badly, but … whatever) … and how to manage it going into the future.
424 (13:46:39) katzazi: I volunteer to do it again if I am added again and it does
425 not have to be encrypted
426 (13:46:58) iang: Would it be an idea to say that the arbitrators should manage
427 the list?
428 (13:46:59) piers: we love volunteers :-)
429 (13:47:23) katzazi: But if someone else does it I am happy as well. Less work
430 (13:47:51) dops: What kind of personal data is in it? Names, roles, address/
431 coomunication data? Something else?
432 (13:48:01) iang: I would like to establish that the board does not manage the
433 list - but we might need an institution to handle it so it is also long lived
434 (13:48:07) katzazi: Ian currently arbs are NOT on that list.we were removed
435 (13:48:22) iang: Being on the list != who manages the list. Two different
436 topics.
437 (13:48:54) katzazi: We should be on the list according to.SP/SM
438 (13:49:40) iang: Oh well, then the person managing the list should be directed
439 to keep the list according to SP/SM and if that says add the arbitrators then
440 that should be done too.
441 (13:49:50) katzazi: If you give it to a team nobody feels responsible. If you
442 hand it to a person you can address that person
443 (13:49:57) iang: ok
444 (13:50:13) piers: do we need a motion?
445 (13:50:40) iang: Resolved, that Eva manage the Key Persons List according to SP
446 /SM.
447 (13:50:55) piers: Seconded and AYE
448 (13:51:03) dops: aye
449 (13:51:06) iang: Aye
450 (13:51:14) egal: aye
451 (13:51:25) piers: i declare the motion carried
452 (13:51:30) piers: next item
453 (13:51:37) piers: item 3 Question Time
454 (13:52:04) egal: which means: i will remove the names requested by RM and MM
455 and send it (encrypted) to eva
456 (13:52:30) iang: “names requested by RM and MM” ?
457 (13:52:53) dops: I don't think that the key persons list must be encrypted. SP
458 says "contact information". But people could be asked whether they agree.
459 (13:52:54) iang: as Eva is now managing the list, you could ask her to remove
460 them.
461 (13:53:03) egal: RM and MM requested their data to be wiped out from this liste
462 (maybe more)
463 (13:53:17) iang: Then Eva should do that.
464 (13:53:22) katzazi: Dirk and me can discuss the handover
465 (13:53:27) iang: Yes.
466 (13:53:45) egal: Rm asked about keeping the domain cacert.tips ...
467 (13:54:21) iang: that was weird. This is not board business as far as I can
468 see. Fine for question time I suppose. But I see nothing for board to do.
469 (13:54:21) dops: I don't see a need to support a dozen of top level domains.
470 (13:54:35) egal: (he will not keep it, but asked, if he should give it back to
471 the registrar or we (CAcert community) want to have it
472 (13:54:56) iang: there was a move away from any centralised decision making
473 here by creating a “conservatory” approach. The community decides for itself
474 what domains they want to keep.
475 (13:55:13) dops: ok
476 (13:56:13) dops: So we can forward the request (without personal data of
477 course) to the cacert list.
478 (13:56:25) iang: https://wiki.cacert.org/Domains
479 (13:56:42) egal: okay ...
480 (13:57:16) piers: any other questions?
481 (13:57:38) iang: 7. if you decide to release the domain, you agree to offer it
482 to the Community for takeover first.
483 (13:57:54) iang: So Reinhard should be posting to community list. Asking board
484 to do his post for him is … crazy.
485 (13:58:03) katzazi: Piers you asked to discuss new arbitrator, now
486 (13:58:15) piers: go ahead
487 (13:58:23) iang: ah yes
488 (13:58:32) katzazi: Ian seems to have questions, not mr
489 (13:58:43) katzazi: *me
490 (13:59:05) iang: the question is, what is the decision that board needs to
491 take?
492 (13:59:33) katzazi: I just want to be able to continue the training if he is
493 allowed to join the team, which is your decision.
494 (13:59:47) katzazi: To add him to the team.
495 (14:00:20) katzazi: According to CCA that is done by Inc.
496 (14:00:29) dops: You can assume support from board. What is required to be able
497 to continue?
498 (14:00:48) iang: So, the request is that Piet be added to the arbitration team?
499 Or appointed as arbitrator?
500 (14:00:53) katzazi: You could make conditions or whatever
501 (14:01:04) katzazi: Yes
502 (14:01:30) iang: well, (a) we should do the same as what others have done. And
503 (b) there is a move to make sure that the board not be a bottleneck so how can
504 we move forward on that?
505 (14:02:01) katzazi: He cannot be an full arb at the moment but he can be added
506 I'm training or something
507 (14:02:26) iang: Or should we retain that oversite? this is a tricky topic
508 because of recent events, and is probably best conducted over at policy group.
509 (14:02:29) katzazi: You are the bottleneck for 3 weeks niw
510 (14:03:01) katzazi: So we have to wait longer
511 (14:03:14) katzazi: Even as CCA place this with inc
512 (14:03:26) iang: Is there a notion that someone can be a member of the team
513 without being an Arbitrator? Or is membership of the team equivalent to being
514 an Arbitrator?
515 (14:04:33) katzazi: Case managers ate part of the team
516 (14:04:46) katzazi: DRO is part of the team
517 (14:04:55) piers: surely arbitrator training doesn't need board approval -
518 only appointment?
519 (14:05:03) katzazi: Arbs in training are part of the team
520 (14:05:06) iang: OK so you want him added to the team without being made an
521 arbitrator. Fine.
522 (14:05:12) katzazi: He does piers
523 (14:05:22) katzazi: We all needed it for years
524 (14:05:53) katzazi: We were added as arbs and DRO decided on ending training
525 (14:05:54) iang: I do not recall that board approved training in my time.
526 (14:06:18) katzazi: DRO does that
527 (14:06:21) iang: Ah - added as arbs, yes. Because an Arbitrator can hear a case
528 and deliver a ruling. That is an important step. But to the team? No.
529 (14:06:40) katzazi: ... So training will stop.
530 (14:06:57) katzazi: Infra does not give access
531 (14:07:10) iang: aha! Infra won’t give access because?
532 (14:07:23) katzazi: No further arb until next board
533 (14:07:32) egal: ah ... okay ... infra waits for OK by board to grant access
534 need for training ... correct?
535 (14:07:53) piers: ah it's about access - surely then we can propose a
536 motion appointing "an arbitrator-in-training" - will that do?
537 (14:08:10) iang: that makes some sort of sense. Does the access involve being
538 able to read the private part of the recorded rulings?
539 (14:08:37) katzazi: We need All accedd
540 (14:08:48) katzazi: Including the option to rule
541 (14:09:06) katzazi: Under supervision of another arb
542 (14:09:33) katzazi: That is how it is done
543 (14:09:42) iang: ok. This is a more complicated motion.
544 (14:10:09) katzazi: Like if you train for drivers license you need to be able
545 to try it, eventually
546 (14:10:24) iang: Right - but this is not apparent to outsiders.
547 (14:10:33) iang: Unless standing before the learner drivers...
548 (14:11:08) katzazi: Well, I better wait for the next board with this request,
549 will be faster
550 (14:11:26) iang: Resolved, that Piet be appointed Arbitrator-in-training, be
551 given access to the Arbitration tools, and be supervised by Eva for remaning
552 training until she determines he is ready to be proposed to Board for full
553 appointment.
554 (14:12:25) dops: We are in the questions agenda item. Take it as ad-hoc motion.
555 (14:12:32) katzazi: There is a prior board motion that puts training and end of
556 training in the hands of the teams
557 (14:12:38) katzazi: Or team leads
558 (14:12:43) dops: The name is Piet Starreveld, I assume.
559 (14:12:48) katzazi: Dirk was on that board
560 (14:13:01) piers: What exactly do you want us to do here Eva?
561 (14:13:03) iang: ok, what is that motion?
562 (14:13:16) katzazi: No access ;-)
563 (14:13:52) katzazi: It was because of arbitrators in training but given for all
564 teams
565 (14:13:53) iang: you have no access to the motions system? Can you tell us the
566 month?
567 (14:14:18) katzazi: I am on a mobile device and not at home
568 (14:14:30) katzazi: No. Probably 2014
569 (14:14:36) iang: @egal do you know which motion this was?
570 (14:14:39) katzazi: In spring
571 (14:15:19) piers: the board wants to help arbitration every way it can, but is
572 is still not clear to me exactly what the board can do apart from something
573 like Ian's proposed motion above
574 (14:15:35) egal: possibly 20140330.9 (advise all teams to think about training
575 process)
576 (14:15:44) katzazi: But we could work with such kind of motion, as he currently
577 does not fulfil the formal requirements
578 (14:15:59) piers: so we can't help then?
579 (14:16:02) egal: possibly 20140330.8 (team leaders to manage training)
580 (14:16:23) katzazi: However also other arbs will be involved in the training
581 (14:16:46) piers: well, propose a motion that bwill satisfy your requirements
582 (14:17:55) iang: I would reject those motions for this context as not being
583 sufficiently clear to cover Arbitration.
584 (14:18:16) iang: Arbitration as a separate head-power should not be treated as
585 “teams”
586 (14:18:30) katzazi: I can live with Ian's proposals for the moment so that
587 we can continue but I may ask to adjust it to something more appropriate in the
588 future
589 (14:18:55) piers: sounds like a working proposition!
590 (14:18:59) piers: shall we vote?
591 (14:19:08) katzazi: Make it an action item for me to update it
592 (14:19:10) iang: that would be excpellent.
593 (14:19:36) dops: update Ian's proposal for the motion?
594 (14:19:46) iang: if we hear seconders to the motion: Resolved, that Piet be
595 appointed Arbitrator-in-training, be given access to the Arbitration tools, and
596 be supervised by Eva for remaning training until she determines he is ready to
597 be proposed to Board for full appointment.
598 (14:19:58) piers: seconded and AYE
599 (14:20:01) iang: Aye
600 (14:20:20) dops: We should not vote here, because we are in questions and it is
601 not on the agenda.
602 (14:20:32) iang: What I would like to see is a new motion that establishes the
603 entire process for this.
604 (14:21:23) iang: Well, technically we can simply vote to add other business. I
605 would rather do that and move on.
606 (14:21:27) piers: we want Eva to be able to continue training right away surely
607 /
608 (14:21:49) dops: ok, if it is possible like this, that AYE and AYE
609 (14:22:00) dops: s/that/then/
610 (14:22:01) iang: Resolved, that Piet be appointed Arbitrator-in-training, be
611 given access to the Arbitration tools, and be supervised by Eva for remaning
612 training until she determines he is ready to be proposed to Board for full
613 appointment. And, we agree to accept this item as other business.
614 (14:22:20) piers: seconded and AYE
615 (14:22:25) katzazi: Ian, add ab action item for me to come up with an improved
616 motion
617 (14:22:44) iang: @egal we would like a unanimous for that one … other business!
618 (14:22:46) dops: Piet is Piet Starreveld. AYE
619 (14:23:12) iang: And AYE from me.
620 (14:23:27) piers: @egal?
621 (14:23:43) iang: I have to dive off now. Minutes writer - please add my action
622 point to create a table of assets and nag me on it :)
623 (14:23:45) egal: aye
624 (14:23:56) dops: @iang: I'll do
625 (14:23:59) piers: i declare the motion carried
626 (14:24:04) iang: :)
627 (14:24:21) piers: bye ian!
628 (14:24:30) iang: thanks all!
629 (14:24:39) dops: next meeting?
630 (14:24:42) egal: see you ...
631 (14:24:45) piers: next item 4 Date for next committee mtg
632 (14:24:53) egal: not next week ... will be on the move within NL
633 (14:25:07) egal: saturday in 2 weeks is possible, sunday not
634 (14:25:17) piers: i'd like to continue using the doodle site to arrange
635 our meetings
636 (14:25:39) piers: Gero - can you set up one for the next 2 weeks?
637 (14:26:04) dops: ok.
638 (14:26:33) piers: thanks!
639 (14:26:47) piers: I declare the meeting closed
Attached Files
To refer to attachments on a page, use attachment:filename, as shown below in the list of files. Do NOT use the URL of the [get] link, since this is subject to change and can break easily.You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.