Conversation with #board-meeting at Sun 27 Nov 2016 14:58:05 CET on
dops@irc.cacert.org (irc)

20:59:58 on 2016-04-09
(15:00:04) egal: hi, hello and welcome ...
(15:00:15) dops1: Hi
(15:00:21) iang: hello
(15:00:31) iang: how are we all?
(15:00:45) iang: we have a quorum within the minute - outstanding :)
(15:01:33) kalidriz is now known as piet
(15:02:06) iang: Anyone want to take the Chair?
(15:02:26) egal: the vice-president usually does ... ;-)
(15:02:34) iang: darnit.
(15:02:39) egal: (as long as the president is not there ...;-) )
(15:03:12) iang: OK. Meeting opened. Do we have minutes to accept?
(15:04:02) iang: And, who would like to make minutes? Not me, the Chair is too
rocky...
(15:04:41) dops1: No - not time. I can take the minutes for this meeting, but I
can't say when I will have time to write it.
(15:04:57) iang: ok.
(15:05:02) grendl: hello
(15:05:31) iang: Perhaps we can at least get the transcript up so we don’t lose
it?
(15:05:45) iang: My client doesn’t save enough of the transcript for a long
meeting, for some reason.
(15:06:16) iang: Hi @grendl
(15:06:45) katzazi: dirk_on_server should have transcripts ;-)
(15:06:51) egal: i can sent it later via unsigned and unencrypted mail ... ;-)
(15:07:07) dops1: The transscripts are there (but should not be published in
this very very rough form)
(15:07:13) iang: well, post it on the wiki?
(15:07:38) egal: btw: normall both machines, "egal" and "dirk_on_server" are
logging ... ;-)
(15:07:40) dops1: Ah you mean the IRC transcript? Sure, that's possible.
(15:08:10) iang: Yep - the IRC log or transcript. I’d call it the transcript
myself…
(15:08:15) iang: Are there any outstanding actions to report?
(15:08:33) katzazi: yes from my side
(15:08:43) iang: ah - go ahead!
(15:08:48) dops1: I am still working on the financial report ;-)
(15:09:08) katzazi: I once had the action item to propose a rule change for
rule 16. I asked it to be added as special resolution to next AGM
(15:09:26) iang: OK, I saw that, cool.
(15:09:54) katzazi: (I also send a lot of mails as requested in last meeting by
DRO, not sure if that counts as action item)
(15:10:34) iang: Yep, saw them too :) so that amounts to another item - lots of
reports sent to the board’s private list concerning cases.
(15:10:58) iang: I spent most of yesterday responding to them.
(15:11:42) iang: Is there anything else on the board mailing list to report?
(15:12:21) katzazi: explanation for secretary?
(15:13:35) dops1: Should one mention the resignaton, or not?
(15:13:43) egal: yep ... this was sent to members, too (as far as i know) ...
so there is no need to add a new item (we may handle it during agm prepartions)
(15:15:07) dops1: I mean this email: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/
cacert-board-private/2016-11/msg00047.html
(15:15:19) iang: Resignation? I noticed that @katzazi told me we’re not doing
that 100 times…. To which I am still saying OK OK OK...
(15:15:56) iang: There are a lot of difficult cases that have to be worked
through. My ideas didn’t help much :)
(15:16:36) dops1: The words are clear. But maybe we could be informed in
private if we should take it not that serious.
(15:16:55) iang: So it’s back to the drawing board as they say in English. I
think I can see some of the issues. But they are complicated. And speak to
changes in DRP. Which aren’t easy to get thru.
(15:18:06) katzazi: I don't understand the first comment from ian after
the link
(15:18:13) katzazi: but I just confirmed that it is meant seriously
(15:18:36) katzazi: and it's not about DRP changes
(15:19:19) iang: Well, the topic is serious. The cases have built up over time
and it needs some care to get them under control. And it is unfair to put all
that load on one person … Piet might be able to help in the future, but we need
more help on cases.
(15:19:55) katzazi: Piet cannot take those at the moment as long as he is under
my supervision he is conflicted
(15:20:16) iang: Anyway, regardless of the pain, and importance, we’re off
agenda, so let’s move on.
(15:20:49) iang: Business #1. AGM prep - @egal?
(15:24:16) egal: sorry ... was away for a minute or two ... ;-(
(15:24:36) egal: Financial report ready?
(15:24:36) egal: Board report?
(15:24:36) egal: Other reports?
(15:24:49) egal: Payments of members done?
(15:25:01) egal: i added these questions in our wiki ...
(15:25:21) iang: How are we doing on the Financial Report?
(15:25:24) egal: i have to send out the AGM-invitaion by today ...
(15:26:05) dops1: No, the financial report is not ready yet. A report about
payment status will follow right after that.
(15:26:17) dops1: I see a lot of payments via Paypal, though.
(15:26:21) iang: Yes to invite.
(15:26:22) katzazi: dops1: can you send links os that we can pay?
(15:26:51) katzazi: I've asked for that more than once but never got one
during last or current fy
(15:26:58) iang: I guess that the financial report comes first. Soon after a
reminder to those who haven’t paid… I have no idea what my status is.
(15:27:07) dops1: It should be possible to create a paypal link with EUR
currency .. I'll have a look into that.
(15:27:37) katzazi: because if you don't allow time for payment, the AGM
may be invalid
(15:27:38) dops1: To get a link included in the official web pages is hardly
possible in a short time frame in the current situation.
(15:28:01) dops1: IMO people don't depend on a link.
(15:28:09) katzazi: regrettably I've written something like that in my
deliberations ... not thinking about current situation back then
(15:28:13) iang: Board reports - this is going to be hard - when there is a
split board term, the early term is often hard to report on because the
replacement board is conflicted on reporting on the earlier term.
(15:28:18) dops1: All payment methods are possible, including setting a
transaction up on its own in Paypal.
(15:28:51) katzazi: then inform members about that dops1
(15:29:28) katzazi: especially the new ones
(15:30:05) dops1: ok, will do
(15:31:29) katzazi: iang: SGM told you to explicitly report on that part - so I
believe your idea of conflict does not apply
(15:32:26) iang: Yes, I was just thinking that. The two parts are likely
equivalent. The conflict still remains, but something should be done.
(15:32:44) iang: s/two parts/two tasks/
(15:33:30) iang: On other reports - I guess we’re all aware that we will have a
very short report this year. But something is better than nothing.
(15:34:20) katzazi: arbitration did a report - Policy will follow when there is
a page
(15:34:26) iang: @katzazi are you able to provide something for arbitration?
(15:34:34) iang: Ah good, already done! OK.
(15:34:56) iang: Arbitration is probably the best working area right now.
(15:35:11) egal: i'm working from the support, events and software-site
...
(15:35:12) iang: (much as it might not seem so within :) )
(15:35:57) iang: @egal I know … but it seems harsh to spread you (and others so
thin) and expect a report as well...
(15:36:37) katzazi: note: arbitration and policy report mostly to community and
use that page as it is convenient for everybody
(15:36:44) iang: nod
(15:38:02) katzazi: I believe support is also working ok ... today the 6 months
deadline about that runs out
(15:38:13) katzazi: if I calculated correctly
(15:38:31) iang: Aha. Remind us what that is about? I had this sinking feeling
in my mind yesterday that we were forgetting something…
(15:39:01) katzazi: the deadline to provide enough staff to support area else
that area would have to be closed down
(15:39:15) katzazi: was in a ruling 6 months ago
(15:39:25) dops1: Off topic: How many people are active nowadays?
(15:39:50) egal: for the support deadline (even if it's not on the todays
agenda) i'll send in a new ABC-request by today ...
(15:39:51) iang: ok, so let’s add this as a late business item. Talk about it
now or at the end?
(15:40:09) katzazi: there was one ABC entered, one person is constantly active
and there is perspective of another ABC as egal just wrote
(15:40:56) katzazi: (public support ml should also be mentioned as they support
that team quite well)
(15:40:59) egal: the first ABC was done, but up to now no decision up to now
(15:41:34) iang: ah, nice, that sounds like good progress.
(15:43:03) katzazi: good enough to just meet the minimal requirements of the
ruling, but that's all that was "expected" or demanded
(15:43:07) egal: but back to AGM-issues here ... ;)
(15:43:29) iang: Well, ok. But that was an important digression :)
(15:43:39) iang: Anyway, any more to report on AGM?
(15:45:39) egal: there is one special resolution up now ...
(15:46:09) egal: sent in by eva some time ago ...
(15:46:33) egal: will there be another one from us/one of us?
(15:46:51) iang: It is a change to the rules, right? I saw that and briefly
looked at it.
(15:47:11) katzazi: yes - I will not place my heart on that - if it fails it
fails
(15:47:23) katzazi: it was requested so I did that
(15:47:25) iang: According to the recent ruling it has to be worded exactly… as
a special resolution.
(15:48:00) katzazi: the secretary has to check that and inform me possibly in
time if that is not the case, yes
(15:48:05) iang: Another from us - are you referring to the Dunkel suggestion?
(15:48:24) egal: i don't know ... i'm asking only ... ;-)
(15:48:43) katzazi: I would like to learn about that as well
(15:49:38) iang: OK. So what I know is that there is a suggestion. That there
be a special resolution. That, in the event that there aren’t 3 AU members on
the board, the association resolves to place the association into suspension
and proceed to wind it up under the control of a special committee.
(15:50:16) iang: The point of this is that if we haven’t got the proper board,
then PO and/or existing AU members probably have to report to OFT that this is
the situation.
(15:51:09) iang: Now, once reported, it is then in the hands of the OFT. This
is unlikely to be entirely helpful to us. *However* if we have already moved to
place the organisation into a track towards winding up, then at least we have a
hand in it.
(15:51:49) iang: It takes a while to wrap ones head around the logic. It
appears as though we want to wind it up … but we don’t. It only happens when
danger strikes because we haven’t got the AU members.
(15:51:53) egal: how much time do we have then? weeks? months?
(15:52:16) iang: Well. That is an unknown. But I would suggest in terms of a
year.
(15:52:44) dops1: @iang: Thanks for your information and clarifying the
intention. In written words other wise it could be rapidly misunderstood.
(15:53:20) iang: The thing is, even getting the OFT to deliberate is likely to
take 3 months. The OFT runs O(100k) associations. With a small staff.
(15:54:00) katzazi: as far as I understand this it's to a) protect
remaining helping AU-members AND b) about do it in a controlled manner - as we
plan to eventually move over, anyway, correct?
(15:54:03) egal: which menas, that we have around a year (more or less) to
"move" CAcert Inc. somewhere or create something new to keep the CAcert
community running ... correct?
(15:54:05) iang: So they won’t be fast. And they won’t want to work against
members of the association. So they are likely to want to work with the
situation and with anyone who is working correctly.
(15:54:41) iang: well, it is in part to protect the AU members. It is also in
part to create a controlled crash landing, as an expression.
(15:55:06) katzazi: (my glider teacher told me that every landing is a
controlled crash)
(15:55:11) iang: The AU members are mostly protected if they notify the OFT of
the fact that the association is in trouble.
(15:55:51) egal: ... and to keep CAcert in a controlled status is to protect
all members ...
(15:56:28) iang: Right.
(15:58:14) katzazi: will there be such a resolution?
(15:58:17) iang: So, if it goes into a difficult situation, there are
legalities about control. Technically the board of control has difficulties
passing motions. In a challenge in court, it could be argued that any motion of
the board was not well founded.
(15:58:42) iang: So we’d then have the difficulty that accepting CCAs,
confirming existing CCAs, etc would be difficult.
(15:58:54) egal: you're refering to board during the suspension?
(15:59:40) katzazi: iang: question about that, the association rules say that
any issue with setting up board does not negate their done decisions
(16:00:44) katzazi: would that be relevant or would it be about not being right
persons and by this the question how it was set up is irrelevant?
(16:00:51) iang: I’m referring to any board that is ill-formed due to technical
issues (would also include insolvency issues). The board has to act as a
properly formed association. If the association is not in good standing then it
enters a grey area.
(16:02:14) iang: So, that is one issue … but by far the greater issue is having
the OFT on side. If they are on side then a lot can be done. If they are not on
side … if the association is listed as being not in good standing, then
anything can be challenged.
(16:03:34) iang: It is like (but not for same cause) a company in bankrupcy -
at that point, once filed in court, the court is the controller of the company
and the company’s board cannot sign cheques, make contracts, deliver goods. All
of it has to be handled by the court. Which typically changes strategy entirely
and starts selling off the assets.
(16:04:50) iang: Which is normally difficult because creditors are yelling and
screaming for their money … we don’t have that issue so it will not be so
noisy. But we do have the issue that CAcert Inc will no longer be in control of
its destiny.
(16:05:16) iang: So the Dunkel resolution moves to place a special committee in
charge of the destiny, ahead of the OFT having to do it for it.
(16:06:04) katzazi: uhm can you name material difference to the proposal of
Benedikt at last AGM?
(16:06:08) iang: If the OFT accept that, then we’re back in control. “In
theory.” In practice, it doesn’t change the basic facts, it just means that
someone has to carefully unwind.
(16:06:15) egal: will this committee elected/nominated/... then during the AGM
or later by SGM?
(16:06:20) iang: I do not recall the proposal of Benedikt - text?
(16:06:48) katzazi: it was about "create subcommittee to perform move" (more or
less in short)
(16:07:03) iang: @egal I don’t know the answer to that - I suspect that depends
on however the Special resolution is written.
(16:07:11) iang: Oh, no.
(16:08:27) iang: That was assuming that CAcert Inc was in good standing and
could organise the move happily. Also, it was assuming that the board could
hand power to do that task - in practice it could not. Only the association can
do that. In practical terms, the fault was that only a special resolution could
deal with that power, not an ordinary resolution
(16:09:03) katzazi: ok, you can name material differences :)
(16:09:28) iang: … and normally a special resolution has to have a concrete
plan to approve, whereas there was no plan. It was more like “create a secret
committee to come up with a secret plan to move CAcert’s assets to a secret
location…”
(16:09:49) iang: It didn’t say those words, but it was written to permit that
to happen.
(16:09:53) katzazi: I would not sign that interpretation
(16:10:26) iang: Are you saying that the previous board would not have set up
secret meetings, secret plans, and done secret things? (a)
(16:10:37) katzazi: but no reason to discuss that old resolution. There is a
ruling about that.
(16:10:58) iang: Sure.
(16:11:21) iang: So, …. I am not proposing the motion. Just trying to interpret
it.
(16:11:26) katzazi: no I would say that the subcommittee as such would not have
been secret ;-)
(16:12:08) iang: ;-)
(16:12:38) iang: If someone wants to write it, fine. I can help with
wordsmithing but I don’t think it helps if I write it and propose it.
(16:12:50) katzazi: why not?
(16:13:09) iang: People will just assume the worst.
(16:13:51) iang: I’m conflicted - I can fly to Australia “any time” and form a
secret committee of australians and sway the OFT with my accent and and and ….
(16:14:11) katzazi: how are you conflicted?
(16:14:56) katzazi: so what would you suggest who would enter something like
this ... within the next hours?
(16:14:58) iang: beats me. But apaprently some thought I had flown to Australia
in order to meet with the Australians and do nefarious deals.
(16:15:37) iang: Well. I think it is probably worth trying. It’s a special
resoltion … so it needs 75% of the vote. So it has to actualy win on its own
merits.
(16:16:17) iang: It is not as if writing it is going to convince the
membership, they will be naturaly disinclined to go with it.
(16:16:36) egal: within in the next hours i need the wording of the motion
itself ... to add it to the agenda and send the mail ...
(16:16:56) iang: But as members we need to be aware and think forward. So
certainly someone could propose this path.
(16:17:02) egal: ... o fill a wiki-page with details/... is another task ... ;
-)
(16:17:52) katzazi: so who do you think should write and propose within hours?
(16:18:21) iang: I don’t know. I don’t think anyone has a free few hours. For a
start we’re all working on this meeting.
(16:19:00) iang: What do people here think of the idea?
(16:19:17) katzazi: I will not have a stable connection later because of
travelling - but I would support any such resolution that would be there
(16:19:32) katzazi: but I just cannot guarantee from a technical point to be
able to enter it
(16:20:02) iang: ok. @egal @dops ?
(16:20:14) iang: @dops1
(16:20:36) iang: Any others want to comment? It’s a big issue!
(16:21:31) dops1: I'm in favor of preparing a special resolution.
(16:22:05) katzazi: I believe it's worth a try and better than the
alternative, especially if it is worded conditionally
(16:22:11) dops1: But it reduces time I should dedicate to ... you know
(16:22:18) egal: okay ... we should then prapre a wiki-page later to expain
this to our members ...
(16:22:23) iang: it’s got to be notified by Secretary 3 weeks in advance … what
is the date of the AGM?
(16:22:37) katzazi: no egal mail communication, speak with members
(16:22:56) egal: 2016-12-28, 20:00 UTC was the agreement ... ;-)
(16:23:17) egal: this means: 4.5 hours left (around)
(16:23:31) katzazi: wiki probably as well, but some push-communication is
better than pull-communication in this regard ;-)
(16:23:32) iang: Ah, so if it was written today and onto the wiki, it could be
notified as late as 7th December?
(16:23:49) egal: nope ...
(16:24:02) egal: special resolutions have to be sent in by today ...
(16:24:04) katzazi: it has to be done today
(16:24:45) iang: what am I missing .. it has to be notified to members by 3
weeks, right?
(16:25:10) egal: dampned typo ...
(16:25:14) egal: 2016-12-18
(16:25:22) iang: oooooooo… right :)
(16:26:00) iang: ok today. Well, perhaps after this meeitng then.
(16:26:30) egal: the wiki-page to explain the resolution can be changed later
... as long as the resolution is not changed (as far as i know ... ;-) )
(16:26:40) iang: perhaps we should try and move fast thro u remaining items.
(16:26:42) iang: yes.
(16:26:45) katzazi: I would suggest that due to time it is written and entered
by Ian but supported by others - he is the native speaker after all, even with
correct accent
(16:26:56) iang: ug :(
(16:27:16) egal: ACK to katzazi ... ;-)
(16:27:58) iang: Anyway. I shall pass by that remark without notcing…..
(16:28:04) iang: Let’s move on.
(16:28:16) iang: 2. DRO issues (status) by Ian… not sure how that got added for
me!
(16:28:25) iang: I don’t think I can summarise but I can list off some
comments. 1. lots of reviews of older/stalled cases and ones without adequate
CM/Arb representation have been posted by @katzazi
(16:28:54) iang: 2. @katzazi posted earlier that Piet is helping.
(16:30:02) iang: 3. It seems like what is happening is this: a lot of work has
been done cleaning up cases, and now we’ve got through the “easy” ones and what
is left is the “hard” ones. So there aren’t any easy answers…
(16:30:21) dops1: FYI We invited for 2016-12-18 UTC, but yes, 21d before gives
us just a few hours.
(16:30:23) iang: But that’s just my feeling … @katzazi can explain it better.
(16:30:53) dops1: s/invited/moved/
(16:30:59) katzazi: what was done in the past was that a multitude of
unnecessary cases were withdrawn from support/software/board
(16:31:06) iang: thanks … let’s keep on topic for now tho.
(16:32:15) katzazi: piet and me are working to get those handled correctly - it
will probalby get easier with a ruling that piet is working on but that's
up to him - it will be possible regardless
(16:32:40) katzazi: that would cover about 10% of the open cases or something
(16:33:00) katzazi: also piet and me already have handled a multitude of cases
since we picked up arbitration
(16:33:41) katzazi: what piet and I could not do so far is to do anything about
those cases where recently resigned arbitrators / CMs were sitting - beside of
those where I was CM.
(16:34:16) katzazi: then there is a multitude of personal or comparable cases
where I am placed to be conflicted
(16:34:32) iang: ok. is there any specific recommendation that board as or not
as DRO can help?
(16:34:34) katzazi: as named as party - I would claim to be named incorrectly
at least in one case
(16:35:09) iang: Are these cases where CM/Arbs are present? Or cases where CM/
Arbs are not present?
(16:35:22) katzazi: yes - DRO can help to get CM/A resolved where there
currently are resigning ones named
(16:35:38) katzazi: well ... I just resigned
(16:36:10) iang: so you’re no longer in conflict ;-)
(16:36:26) iang: more seriously …
(16:36:38) katzazi: no - I now can act as respondent - one of the reasons for
resigning
(16:37:37) iang: in email there were several cases described. However what we
lack is specific recommendations. Now, obviously it is hard to make
recommendations when also involved. But we have to do what we can do.
(16:38:12) iang: So if you could provide us with more specific recommendations
that might speed us up on it.
(16:38:24) katzazi: you had asked on a summary - without saying for what you
wanted the summary, just that you wanted a list of those cases
(16:38:33) iang: Otherwise we have to gain your understanding of the cases… and
that’s going to be hard/impossible/…
(16:38:50) iang: Ah ok. Well, I asked for a summary … and assumed that I could
solve it :) didn’t work out that way.
(16:39:51) katzazi: to be honest, any recommendation from my side really would
have some element of conflict included
(16:40:24) katzazi: I am usually good to move such stuff out of my mind when
thinking about cases but I will not be able to do that for all cases
(16:40:40) iang: Anyway. Conscious of time. If there is anything you need right
now, from us, here, say so or else I think I have to be brutal and claim
Chair’s privilege to move on.
(16:40:49) katzazi: if you acknowledge that I can try to do something
(16:40:50) iang: OK, let’s take it to email.
(16:41:04) iang: I acknowledge that you are conflicted with far too many cases.
Please try. :)
(16:41:19) iang: Independence is a state of mind - not an objective fact.
(16:41:28) katzazi: I know - just commented that ;-)
(16:41:54) iang: Excellent. We’ve had our agreement for this year ;-) so I’ll
move swiftly to point 3.
(16:42:00) iang: AO (status) by board.
(16:42:03) iang: anyone?
(16:42:38) egal: currently not ... we're AO ... ;-)
(16:42:52) iang: If no-one has antyhing to say on this topic, I’m more than
happy to defer.
(16:43:00) egal: and last time we postponed one AO-thing ...
(16:43:15) iang: Altho … I fear @katzazi had something to say about AO in a
ruling … is that relevent?
(16:43:38) katzazi: can be deferred if eventually handled and not forgotten
(16:43:44) egal: it was the question of informing some members or nt ...
(16:43:47) iang: There was one comment that AO has to decide whether to send
some notifications that certain Assurances were done under a cloud.
(16:43:50) iang: My view is not.
(16:44:00) iang: If the assurances are good, then that’s it. They stand.
(16:44:25) iang: The assurances are not the people.
(16:44:41) iang: (But, the people are the assurances ;-) according to a paper
I’m writing ;-) ;-) )
(16:45:10) egal: if there is/are questions by the affected members support can/
should answer them and explain ...
(16:45:46) iang: Does support need anything from board as AO right now?
(16:45:58) egal: only the decision ;-)
(16:46:15) egal: dops?
(16:46:33) dops1: What do you need from my side?
(16:46:36) iang: Can’t do the decision until know what the choices are, and the
topic.
(16:47:44) egal: 16:43 < iang> There was one comment that AO has to decide
whether to send some notifications that certain Assurances were done under a
cloud.
(16:47:48) katzazi: question to answer was if the assurees of the assurances
done by those members who ware declared not to be assurer by a ruling in
a20151125.1 should be informed about the fact that their assurers were not
really assurer at the time of the assurance ornot
(16:48:18) katzazi: as there was another ruling that for the time being those
assurances should stand
(16:48:21) katzazi: in same case
(16:48:32) katzazi: (I hope I remembered number correctly)
(16:49:58) katzazi: um assurees of the assurances after that ruling done by
those members under the ruling
(16:50:24) katzazi: not all of them only those after the ruling that they are
no assurer any more
(16:51:13) katzazi: but as I said - can be deferred if not forgotten - no
specific time pressure
(16:51:20) egal: "any more" or "at that time" ?
(16:51:47) katzazi: "after that ruling"
(16:52:20) katzazi: in one case "and before getting assurer status back"
(16:53:14) iang: I can write a motion against a notification if you like … not
sure I can write a motion for the notification ;-)
(16:53:15) egal: @dops ... what is your opinion to this?
(16:55:03) dops1: My opinion is that we can deal with it after the AGM. Sorry -
we, or at least I, must prioritize.
(16:55:40) egal: currently no notification ... okay ... ;-)
(16:55:44) egal: next item? ;-)
(16:55:50) iang: super
(16:56:03) iang: 4. Old board by dirk
(16:56:03) iang: Report to be created
(16:56:16) iang: Yes, Report to be created, no progress to report as yet.
(16:56:21) iang: (that I know of)
(16:56:46) egal: you wanted to to it, ian, as far as i remember ... ;-)
(16:57:53) iang: me??
(16:58:11) iang: I admit I wrote a special resolution to that effect, but I
didn’t want to do it…
(16:58:43) egal: @iang ... we should know, that we have to create the report
... no matter if we&apos;re still in board after the AGM or not ...
(16:58:43) iang: the old Chinese curse comes to mind … be careful what you wish
for.
(16:59:19) iang: ...
(17:00:24) katzazi: iang in that case: I told you so
(17:01:33) iang: :-( well
(17:01:52) iang: I still see little to report. Not a lot to say. Can we “defer
(17:02:31) egal: i&apos;m adding this to every agenda since the SGM ... ;-)
(17:04:05) iang: and no doubt until the AGM. Moving right along ...
(17:04:18) iang: 5. Status of Move of CAcert Inc.
(17:04:33) iang: Anyone anything on that?
(17:04:56) egal: i don&apos;t think we have any progress here since the last
meeting ... ;-(
(17:05:13) katzazi: I believe it was not noted here that on PolG a discussion
on a policy proposal for Cabinet was started ... had no time to answer for some
while, though
(17:05:13) iang: I’ll solve 4. for you if you solve 5. for us ;-)
(17:05:14) egal: (you wanted to have it as a last item for every boardmeeting
since SGM ;-) )
(17:05:43) katzazi: I believe it to be a step to allow for the move ...
(17:06:00) katzazi: at least it was not globally rejected so far ...
(17:07:01) iang: I can’t see anything happening before the AGM. So I’d suggest
we concentrate on the AGM. Until then.
(17:07:09) katzazi: in theory I am working on some further details requested by
Ian ... but had to focus on more urgent things like GM minutes or AMG rulings,
first
(17:07:19) egal: i&apos;m sure the discussion will start again after i send out
the AGM-invitation (as long as somebody prepars the special resolution ... ;-)
)
(17:07:38) iang: ah ok. Good. Then something to report next meeting ;-)
(17:07:49) iang: OK, let’s push on.
(17:08:09) egal: (who will send the SR? .. ian? dops?)
(17:08:12) iang: Late business posted in Question time -
(17:08:27) iang: Not me. I might provide some words…
(17:09:30) iang: I will try and capture what the idea was … but I’m not
particularly keen on it myself :( Up to the membership.
(17:09:50) iang: Late Business 1. When will motion m20161119.5 be executed? -
by Eva
(17:10:18) iang: Neitehr of my browsers can read the motions site any more … :(
because of the renegotiation bug.
(17:10:29) katzazi: it&apos;s the motion about list size
(17:10:39) iang: Ah that one. ok.
(17:10:48) katzazi: iang: I cannot see motions as well, I only do blind links
in my rulings as well ;-)
(17:11:04) katzazi: would have to use chrome but don&apos;t like that browser
(17:11:09) egal: is a list-admin able to change it?
(17:11:29) egal: (i&apos;m not an admin/manager for this list)
(17:11:29) katzazi: egal: the modertors / admins
(17:11:37) katzazi: I blieve that would currently be ian or dops
(17:11:39) dops1: Chromium on Linux is wrking for me, Chrome an Windows was
also (at least a few weeks ago)
(17:11:53) katzazi: as only those and peter and ben or something like this are
admin of that list
(17:12:36) katzazi: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/info/cacert-members
(17:12:42) katzazi: it&apos;s the owners who can do those settings
(17:12:48) iang: I am not an admin for the cacert-members list as far as I know
(17:12:48) dops1: If it can be done via GUI then probably I am allowed.
(17:12:58) iang: But is it a setting in the website or an internal thing?
(17:13:01) katzazi: iang: you are owner
(17:13:19) iang: oh :(
(17:13:19) katzazi: I believe it is a setting that can be done in the wiki
(17:13:58) egal: wiki? web ...
(17:14:18) katzazi: egal: see the links some lines above?
(17:14:45) iang: OK - if you can point me where, I will do it. I can’t see it
in one look.
(17:14:48) iang: Next.
(17:14:54) egal: you wrote "wiki"
(17:15:06) katzazi: iang: are you available via irc later the day?
(17:15:21) katzazi: I would have to search for it and have to focus on getting
on the train, first
(17:15:26) iang: Fine.
(17:15:38) dops1: Probably not a setting in the website .. could find something
related.
(17:15:39) iang: I can look later too.
(17:15:44) iang: Moving on.
(17:15:56) egal: next meeting?
(17:16:29) iang: Late Business #2: Was the following executed? - by Eva
(17:16:30) iang: The agenda of board-meeting 2016-01-10 mentions:
(17:16:31) iang: 1. Personal matters
(17:16:32) iang: 1. accept the membership application of Janis Streib and Neal
Oakey
(17:16:33) iang: 2. two members resigned their membership"
(17:16:43) iang: (next meeting - I suggest we call if for next Sunday, same
time same place.
(17:17:03) egal: nope ... not possible for me ... ;-(
(17:17:03) iang: @katzazi this is only about the resignation, part 2. above,
right?
(17:17:09) katzazi: yes
(17:17:17) iang: In the minutes only the first part is covered..
(17:17:17) iang: According to our association rules 7(2) resignation of
membership:
(17:17:26) iang: A member of the association may resign from membership of the
(17:17:27) iang: association by giving to the secretary written or digitally
signed
(17:17:28) iang: email notice to resign. On acceptance of the resignation, the
(17:17:29) iang: member ceases to be a member. Acceptance may only be delayed
(17:17:30) iang: under rule 11."
(17:17:42) iang: There, that’s the entire thing. Short answer is …. I don’t
know :)
(17:18:26) iang: First question - who are the two members in question?
(17:18:28) egal: janis and neal are in my list ...
(17:18:45) katzazi: I don&apos;t know - board should know
(17:19:09) dops1: The members are in the OpenERP database.
(17:19:13) katzazi: secretary should be able to see who resigned back then
(17:19:16) iang: OK, so let’s add this to the agenda of next meeting, and do
some investigsation?
(17:19:21) dops1: Who resigned - I don't know...
(17:19:31) katzazi: mail would have to be send to secretary
(17:20:07) iang: We need to look at the emails to secretary. at that time. And
possibly to board or members if they were being loose.
(17:20:17) egal: yep .. but secretar is a forward only adress ... ;-(
(17:20:26) iang: where does it forward to?
(17:20:55) katzazi: effectively to board-private but it&apos;s called otherwise
- as far as I know
(17:21:20) iang: OK, so we can ALL look in board-private …
(17:21:35) egal: just looking ...
(17:22:02) iang: ok, while doing that - is everyone happy and thrilled with
another meeting this time next week? Or….
(17:22:09) egal: no ...
(17:22:19) egal: i will have no time during the day on sunday ...
(17:22:36) iang: the saturday?
(17:22:53) egal: we can do an early one on saturday ... but not too long ... ;
-)
(17:22:59) dops1: I am available.
(17:23:11) dops1: For a meeting on the next weekend.
(17:23:44) egal: what is the earliest time for you, ian? ;-)
(17:25:20) iang: argghhh…
(17:25:27) iang: 0800 is doable
(17:25:56) katzazi: egal: what about in the evening, if oyu are not available
over day?
(17:26:05) egal: what&apos;s the time now on your site?
(17:26:31) iang: my time is 1126. Sunny, 23 degrees ;-)
(17:27:06) dops1: One possible resignation is here: https://lists.cacert.org/
wws/arc/cacert-inc/2015-12/msg00013.html (Wytze)
(17:27:31) dops1: @Ian: Which timezone, or which time in UTC?
(17:27:40) egal: the other one seems to be sebastian ...
(17:27:41) katzazi: what degrees?
(17:27:46) dops1: or is it 1126 now?
(17:27:59) iang: I am in ECT or New York time
(17:28:03) katzazi: its 1126 now for him
(17:28:17) iang: OK, I put the heady responsibility of choosing the next
meeting on @egal….
(17:28:49) iang: and close the meeting! Thank you all for your patience