(14:01:28) egal: hi, hello and welcome ...
(14:01:36) iang: goodmorning
(14:01:38) dops1: Hi all
(14:01:38) egal: (sorry for being late for a minute ... ;-) )
(14:02:29) iang: we have a quorum, let’s open the meeting.
(14:02:43) egal: (had to find my 2fa-device to connect to my machine upstairs
via nuremberg ... ;-) )
(14:03:14) iang: Any minutes?
(14:03:22) egal: sgm i had seen ... ;-)
(14:03:32) iang: indeed.
(14:03:33) egal: (at least, that they are there ... ;-) )
(14:03:38) katzazi: next sgm should be finished soon ;-)
(14:03:42) dops1: unfortunately no minutes
(14:04:07) iang: ok. perhaps we can ask someone to help…
(14:04:32) katzazi: /taking cover
(14:05:06) iang: The Chair recognises @katzazi
(14:05:09) iang: :P
(14:05:20) iang: well … never mind...
(14:05:22) iang: let’s move on.
(14:05:50) katzazi: I cannot help with last meeting I don't have my own
transcript I could help with this meeting
(14:06:19) iang: Someone should be able to post the transcript into the agenda
at least. Not me.
(14:07:50) egal: sure ...
(14:07:59) iang: On the private mailing list I see discussion of Eva’s
resignation request; a mail from Etienne about move status, DRO from Eva,
paypal frm Eva? and discovery that the other resignation could be Sebastian by
iang.
(14:08:28) iang: Also Membership fees period by Piers; and a request to hand
over iCM roles by Eva.
(14:08:40) iang: Oh and more dispute reports.
(14:09:00) iang: I’m sure some of that could be done on the main board list :)
(14:09:17) katzazi: not stuff that is send to dro
(14:09:19) dops1: The transscript is uploaded to https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/
CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-12-03?action=AttachFile&do=
view&target=transscript_2016-12-03.txt
(14:09:23) katzazi: you can forward it though
(14:09:40) iang: Hmmm… yes, DRO is possibly harder.
(14:09:47) dops1: But not linked on the page for the last meeting yet - must
click on attachments.
(14:09:58) iang: Any actions from the last meeting?
(14:11:09) katzazi: and paypal was send to members as well
(14:11:24) egal: members list?
(14:11:45) iang: Members list - ah yes - a mail was sent out to the list
admins.
(14:11:49) katzazi: yes, there was discussion on that topic on members list ...
(14:13:27) katzazi: a member asked about when (new) members are due to pay to
be eligible to vote at an AGM
(14:13:29) iang: Well, I thought mail had been sent out. I can’t find it. I’ll
try again :(
(14:14:24) iang: Unless there is any more … I’ll push on. to Businesss?
(14:14:43) iang: 1. Personal matters by Dirk?
(14:15:19) iang: I think here you mean Personnel matters, being matters to do
with the people in the group. Personal matters is private matters, it’s one of
those things where English is annoying ;)
(14:16:13) iang: - Membership-status of members named there/in mails - @dops1
do we have any summary of the members?
(14:16:39) dops1: yes
(14:16:50) dops1: I sent it to Dirk
(14:17:05) iang: @egal
(14:17:33) egal: i used this list to send out the invitation-mails ... ;-)
(14:18:10) egal: ah ... and i got one mail about resigning from cacert inc from
a.p.
(14:19:42) iang: Is there a list of people who are behind on their fees?
(14:19:50) dops1: no, not yet.
(14:19:57) iang: As in people who need to be reminded to pay? I might be in
that list myself :(
(14:20:23) katzazi: mark: at least one member has asked for clarification on
such topics on members list
(14:20:26) egal: we need a list of members allowed to vote until AGM ...
(14:20:34) iang: we silent disenfranchised… but are we a majority ?
(14:20:46) dops1: To get valid results I must figure out how to get something
like a "members balance". If not otherwise possible, I create it from list of
transactions.
(14:20:51) dops1: This is planned for today.
(14:21:36) iang: ok. if we can get that out, it will help to reduce the
discussion on the day.
(14:21:54) dops1: yep, that must not happen...
(14:21:58) dops1: (the discussion)
(14:22:08) iang: OK - so is there one resignation from the membership?
(14:23:11) egal: correct ... alexander prinsier ...
(14:26:08) iang: ok - I can’t see the email :( is there any reason to believe
we shouldn’t accept the resignation?
(14:27:52) egal: it was sent to me ... ;-)
(14:28:00) dops1: He is paid up.
(14:28:14) egal: let me forward this mail to us ... ;-)
(14:28:18) iang: thanks
(14:28:53) egal: done
(14:30:24) iang: OK I see that. I see no reason to not accept, we should always
be kind to our people who feel their time is up.
(14:30:32) iang: These rules do not apply to Eva tho ;-)
(14:30:48) iang: Who we have under point 4 for discussions today hopefully
(14:31:10) iang: Resolved, to accept the resignation of Alexander P and to
thank him for his many years of membership.
(14:31:16) egal: second and aye
(14:31:20) iang: Aye.
(14:31:25) dops1: aye
(14:31:39) iang: Motion carried.
(14:31:51) iang: Are there any other matters to do with membership and the
association?
(14:32:05) iang: Oh - yes - Sebastian.
(14:32:41) iang: I found in the private list of the board that Sebastian K had
attempted to resign. He was possibly the second missing resignation. Has anyone
confirmed this matches?
(14:33:05) iang: @eva I think it was you chasing it for the minutes of the AGM
but my memory is ancient old and slow...
(14:33:32) katzazi: no I was stumbling over it in the minutes of a board
meeting and then found no further reference to it
(14:33:45) katzazi: no need to know this for any GM minutes that I was asked to
do
(14:34:13) iang: OK. Does anyone know Sebastian?
(14:34:32) egal: @iang ... you and me ... ;-)
(14:34:37) egal: personally ... ;-)
(14:35:11) iang: aha - could you reach out to him and say “old board appeared
to have not responded to your request to resign, do you still consider yourself
having resigned?”
(14:36:13) iang: I read the emails surrounding the board’s treatment of the
affair, suffice to say … I’m not recommending we follow their approach ;0
(14:36:16) iang: ;)
(14:36:35) egal: agreed to ian ...
(14:36:51) egal: i wanted to contact him by this week ... but ran out of time
... ;-(
(14:37:09) iang: ok cool.
(14:37:12) egal: will try to contact him again (have some secure-u things for
him, too)
(14:37:33) iang: Who was the other member that we had identified as resigning -
and was he accepted as well?
(14:37:35) katzazi: egal: I will be in that area this week, you are not coming
as well, correct?
(14:38:18) egal: @katzazi ... not as far as i know ... ;-(
(14:38:20) iang: ok. let’s move on.
(14:38:30) iang: 2. AGM preparation by dirk
(14:38:39) iang: and our big dependency - financial report - @dops1
(14:38:51) GuKKDevel: wytze was the other one, dirk wanted to contact
(14:39:04) egal: correct ... will do it, too ...
(14:39:44) dops1: I created a template for the new report with first basic data
here: https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/FinancialReport/2016
(14:40:14) dops1: For the balance a document attached to the current meeting
provides numbers: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/
MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-12-11?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=
account.financial.report_fy2015_16_balancesheet.pdf
(14:40:37) dops1: (to be added to the wiki page, again not linked in the wiki
text)
(14:41:15) dops1: Assets minus the at end of FY open secure-u invoice is a
total of 3706.51 AUD.
(14:41:37) dops1: But our expenses are currently greate that the income.
(14:42:58) dops1: I guess the the ration from the balance is still valid, so
expenses are roughly 1.5 times the income.
(14:43:27) dops1: Although there were gratious donations.
(14:45:04) iang: So, actually income looks slightly up and expensies look down?
(14:45:41) iang: Is the expenses being down because of just the way the bills
end up falling … we’ve got a pending bill which will wipe any difference?
(14:45:50) dops1: The differences on the wiki page are old from last year - yet
to be prepared :-)
(14:45:59) iang: ah!
(14:46:34) dops1: On the wiki please look only at the column "2015/2016"
(14:47:44) iang: Ah - so still lots of work to be done there. OK but progress.
(14:47:50) iang: wel good news.
(14:49:39) iang: ok. so perhaps better to defer much discussion until it’s
done.
(14:49:59) iang: But in essence - are we in good shape to present the numbers
at the AGM?
(14:50:20) dops1: At the end of the day I think so...
(14:50:56) iang: end of today? Super. If you can put an email out to point
peopel at the basics that would help.
(14:51:05) dops1: When the remaining parts are filled in and differences to
last year are shown. Btw, the wiki is ugly.
(14:51:50) iang: ugly … in what way? Aesthetically? Unpleasing numbers?
(14:52:31) dops1: for editing
(14:53:23) dops1: ok, next. Board report?
(14:53:42) iang: Yep.
(14:53:56) iang: OK, so I made a start at board report last week https://
wiki.cacert.org/AGM/BoardReport/2016
(14:54:14) iang: and quickly found I had a problem - half of it has to be the
board report from the last board …
(14:54:45) iang: which sucked me into the topic of the Special Report as per
SGM … So I’ve made a start at that at: https://wiki.cacert.org/CAcertInc/
SpecialReport2016
(14:55:16) iang: Now, that’s much bigger than the Board report. But it contains
the same content, more or less, for that section. So it sort of has to come
first.
(14:55:54) katzazi: thank you ian for finally starting that :)
(14:55:56) iang: Now, Eva reminds me (!!!) that the Special Report should be
added to by all people… so comment and critique should be added in there.
(14:55:59) egal: which means: you give summary for the last board on 2015/2016
board report ... and point to the "bigger" one ...
(14:56:21) egal: ... and i have to summarize the time from summer to november
...
(14:56:52) katzazi: uhm actually, the motion for that reoport was:
(14:56:53) katzazi: 6. RESOLVED, the new committee is to create a detailed and
fully transparent, uncensored report of the old committee's activities
since the AGM to which all members of the community may contribute. This report
is to be presented to a general meeting for ratification.
(14:56:56) iang: But if you want to add a critique, it might be easier to add
it in, in a way that is stylistically different so we can see what you’re
critiquing and fix it up.
(14:57:08) katzazi: it cannot be ratified ad this AGM as it is not part of the
invitation, or was it?
(14:57:38) egal: "a general meeting" may be AGM or SGM ... ;-)
(14:57:45) katzazi: (sorry just editied those SGM minutes)
(14:57:49) katzazi: yes egal
(14:58:28) iang: oh ok - good point.
(14:58:34) katzazi: (but there has to be the "usual" board report, anyway)
(14:59:01) iang: just added the resolution in for completeness.
(14:59:27) katzazi: you can use an anchored link for that, that directly points
to the resolution
(14:59:29) iang: well we can probably discuss it under Board report at least.
(14:59:52) iang: link … where is?
(15:00:09) katzazi: https://wiki.cacert.org/SGM/20160409#sgm20160409.7
(15:00:11) egal: that's what i said: small summary in this boards report
... with a link to the complete one ...
(15:00:12) katzazi: should work
(15:00:21) iang: Anyway. Just to notify you all - this is a work in progress.
ANd you should all look and read and critique and fill in the gaps...
(15:00:41) iang: I don’t need to notify Eva who has already sent me substantial
critique … But EVERYONE ELSE!!!!
(15:00:47) egal: i don't think, that the report for 2015/2016 has to
contain every single detail of the last board ...;-)
(15:00:50) katzazi: :)
(15:01:32) iang: No, it doesn’t. So I originally had all that text in the
future Board report but it got a bit overweight and fell over. Now pulled out
into its own Special Report
(15:03:17) iang: OK.
(15:03:35) iang: Moving on…. Other reports?
(15:03:54) iang: I imagine the Arbitrators can knock up a little report fairly
easily…
(15:04:02) katzazi: it already was
(15:04:06) katzazi: only has to be placed in the wiki
(15:04:25) iang: Ah super.
(15:04:43) katzazi: and I'm designing something for PolG as well - which
also could go there - but both are no "real" team reports as reports of other
heads
(15:05:03) egal: working on "my" reports ...
(15:09:10) egal: a small status from my site to one "action item" for AGM: up
to now i did not receive any nominations ...
(15:09:45) egal: (well ... it's still some hours left to keep the
7-days-deadline ... ;-) )
(15:09:45) katzazi: I plan to add some today
(15:10:11) dops1: Ahem ... The Inc. should care that regarding board elections
big surprises are avoided.
(15:10:21) dops1: Imagine some deja-vu
(15:10:40) egal: ACK to dops ... ;-)
(15:10:42) katzazi: there is a ruling from last AGM about nominations of board
candidates
(15:11:13) iang: please summarise ?
(15:11:16) katzazi: because I named some too late, last time ... that is likely
to kick in for my nominations, again ...
(15:11:42) katzazi: iang: not really worth it - it was about which are valid
when slightly send before or after deadline
(15:12:17) katzazi: it only effectively would make a difference if there would
be a lot of valid ones send much earlier, as last time
(15:12:31) iang: Ah - sure - in that if it effects candidates, then yes but if
not then no.
(15:12:42) iang: thansk
(15:13:19) iang: So, reports by teams, presentations-not-reports from Arb &
Pol, … any others?
(15:13:35) iang: 2.4 - payments for members done?
(15:13:49) iang: @dops1 you mentioned you would be able to summarise that to
members today?
(15:15:04) dops1: I hope so. OpenERP doesn't provide reliable overviews about
payments. So in worst case I need to extract the base data and do it outside of
it.
(15:15:17) iang: ok. good luck!
(15:15:33) dops1: We have an item "last complete reconcilation", but it is not
possible to see behind it and check for errors in data input.
(15:15:34) iang: Moving on … 3. DRO by board.
(15:16:03) katzazi: uhm another question to AGM: will board / secretary remind
about proxy / early votes?
(15:16:15) iang: ah yes please :)
(15:16:41) egal: yep ... i plan to send out another mail as soon as the
nominations-deadline passed ... with the latest updates
(15:16:56) katzazi: thank you egal
(15:17:20) iang: ok … DRO - who wishes to summarise?
(15:17:27) egal: board got an email from arbitration about DRO ... (that's
why this was added to the agenda ... ;-) )
(15:18:46) iang: just one? ;-) is this about proposing Iang as DRO?
(15:18:58) egal: yep ... ;-)
(15:19:02) iang: I’d also add that there is now a new Arbitration about DRO -
as board - as conflict of interest.
(15:19:16) iang: which substantially criticises the choice of Iang as DRO ;-)
(15:19:17) egal: (most others were private and/or to DRO ... ;-) )
(15:19:38) katzazi: I am iCM of that case and don't see that critic
(15:19:38) egal: @iang as long as you are in board ... ;-)
(15:20:29) katzazi: the CoI that was mentioned in that case was about board as
such not about board-members as all board-members were exchanged in between
(uhm maybe not Ben, did not look that up)
(15:21:06) egal: @iang ... you plan to be nominated as a committee member for
the next AGM? ;-)
(15:21:53) dops1: probably ... but do you plan to accept it?
(15:22:04) iang: @egal I won’t accept board this AGM
(15:23:13) dops1: ok, so soon there won't be a CoI for Ian :-)
(15:23:35) egal: @dops1: yep ... but you was typing faster ... ;-)
(15:24:12) iang: Ah - well. I actually have other CoIs to report…
(15:24:18) iang: important ones, not makeup ones :)
(15:26:05) iang: The important conflict I might have is that I might be
building a DR system for commercial purposes … so will likely have strong
interests in certain things which may spill over into CAcert.
(15:27:08) katzazi: "might" means "currently doing"?
(15:27:27) katzazi: and is "strong interests" conflicting?
(15:27:31) katzazi: or improving?
(15:27:35) iang: As in, it might be part of $day job to do DRO-like activities.
And it would involve writing new equivalents to DRP, CCA, etc.
(15:27:56) iang: Currently doing but informally. There is a move to make it a
formal deliverable.
(15:28:32) katzazi: how would that be a conflict with CAcert?
(15:28:35) iang: that move might or might not happen. In practice, I’ve been
“selling” the process for a year and a half now. Things are starting to move.
(15:29:07) iang: Because, I might find changes and benefits and ways .. that I
would then seek to export into CAcert.
(15:29:29) katzazi: via PolG?
(15:29:55) iang: To say more, I would have to request a private board meeting.
Another conflict is that work requires NDAs over everything including
permission to go to the bathroom…
(15:29:56) dops1: IMO it is up to the community to judge about the impact of
the CoI.
(15:30:09) iang: via PolG, yes.
(15:30:23) katzazi: PolG is no conflict with executive, there is a ruling
(15:30:44) dops1: Personally I cant't imagine right now how to try to make a
bug business within CAcert, and I absolutely trust you to not trying to ruin
CAcert.
(15:31:18) iang: Thank you for that - but please note that others don’t think
that way. It is too easy to see demons under the bed.
(15:31:22) dops1: But still it is a conflict where one have to decide whether
soing the same work for $ or for honor.
(15:32:01) iang: And to an extent people are right to scrutinise. I myself had
to kill three commercial attempts to “help” CAcert.
(15:32:07) dops1: I meant "big business" of course, not the other ;-)
(15:32:20) katzazi: so the conflict is not there at the moment and unknown if
it would happen, Ian probably would be responsible to name it if it comes up -
in PolG it is required! - he could be removed from the post, then
(15:32:58) iang: Well the benefit there is that if something is good and is
copied 3 times, only the first pays. CAcert can benefit if new work can be
copied easily, and BigCorp can benefit from prior work that CAcert has done
already.
(15:33:17) katzazi: uhm can it be copied with NDAs?
(15:33:59) iang: nothing is easy under NDAs ;-) no I mean that the documents
would need to be broadly published anyway.
(15:34:16) iang: So that isn’t an issue.
(15:36:39) iang: Some of you may have seen my work in the past with social
savings groups - this is similar work related to payments for diaspora and
remittances. In need of DR to make the same fabric as CAcert. Based out of the
Caribbean, which has large numbers of expatriate workers doing lots of tiny
remittances.
(15:37:49) iang: So anyway. The point is that I’m doing similar work. This
could lead to conflict. We’ll have to watch that.
(15:38:32) katzazi: you would be watched by arbitrators
(15:39:05) iang: of course.
(15:39:26) iang: anyway. I’d also like to talk about the new case.
(15:41:06) egal: the agenda-item is "DRO", not "DRO-issues" ... ;-)
(15:41:48) iang: well this case speaks directly to DRO ;-) it is a conflict of
interest case against board as DRO … so hard to see how it doesn’t fit in
(15:41:52) egal: an ... i'm slowly running out of time for today ...
around 45 minutes left ... ;-)
(15:44:39) iang: OK. As chair, being mindful of the time, should we push on?
(15:44:53) iang: I’m happy to defer the discussion abotu the case.
(15:45:28) egal: we still have 45 minutes ... ;-)
(15:46:09) iang: OK, I’ll add it at end if we don’t get to it.
(15:46:21) iang: 4. Resignations in Arbtiration by Dirk, who isn’t in
Arbitration...
(15:46:41) iang: This presumably is about Eva’s resignation. Who has tendered
and deserves a response from board.
(15:46:59) iang: Now, I’ve said a lot. Eva has said a LOT … can we hear from
@dops1 and @egal?
(15:47:08) egal: it was added by me ... ;-)
(15:47:20) egal: and we still have magu ...
(15:47:30) egal: (released as CM, but not as A up to now)
(15:48:05) iang: ok - let’s order them. Who first?
(15:48:31) egal: i suggest: magu ... it's faster ... ;-)
(15:49:02) iang: Ha ok. Now, are we talking about (a ) resignation from running
active cases, or (b ) resignation as an arbitrator on the list? Or both...
(15:49:22) egal: eva summarized the pending cases from him ... and as far as i
understand her mail we can now accept his resignation as A ...
(15:49:41) iang: @katzazi is that a fair summary?
(15:50:15) egal: (we did not release him from A due to the amout of cases he
had in summer ... now the number of cases, where he is A is lower ...)
(15:50:16) katzazi: well I don't believe that we will get some more work
from his side, at least if things don't change a lot
(15:50:29) egal: (please correct me, if i'm, wrong)
(15:50:40) katzazi: by 2 cases. But PD already hinted to me that he could move
one where he is CM to another A as well
(15:51:02) katzazi: and I believe at least one other case seems to be executed
according to the documentation
(15:51:11) iang: Sure, I understand the part about work. However, have we
identified new As for each active / running case?
(15:51:27) katzazi: no, that would be task for CM of that case if there is a CM
(15:51:49) katzazi: not board not DRO
(15:51:52) iang: Hmmm… you’re saying that … if the A resigns, it is up to the
CM to find a new A?
(15:52:19) egal: isn't it the job of the CM to select A? ... ;-)
(15:52:24) katzazi: well only hint we have in policies is that CM selcts A
(15:52:35) katzazi: and I believe it was done like this before
(15:52:57) iang: Currently yes. But that is only for the first A. The policy
never anticipated that an A would resign mid-course.
(15:53:35) egal: i would read it as "if there is no A the CM select an A" ...
(15:53:38) katzazi: I remember at least 3 times where CM selected new A in such
situations, probably more
(15:53:44) iang: So we could say, yes, the CM selects a replacement A. But I’d
like to hear the Arbitrators say as a group that this is how they are going to
handle it.
(15:54:07) iang: OK - so you are saying that this custom already exists. That
helps.
(15:54:22) egal: so CM is not able to kick out an A out of a running case ... ;
-)
(15:54:44) iang: Caution is required here because Board should not interfere
with cases. So we need a fairly clear mandate to do anything.
(15:54:44) katzazi: then ask them ... I believe there is a lesson somewhat in
that direction - involving DRO but not quite specific and possibly it was
overruled by PDs ruling, anyway
(15:54:50) egal: (if A resigns, then there is no A anymore ... especially, if A
does not answer anything)
(15:55:35) iang: @egal yes, that too :)
(15:55:35) katzazi: but major point is you already removed Uli and Sebastian
and Uli without such a discussion and Uli had much more cases (it was the
bigger "damage")
(15:55:56) iang: Ah ok. SO we are working to stronger/bigger custom. Good.
(15:56:16) egal: sebastian and uli were before ... magu did not resign until
then ...
(15:56:41) egal: ... so he should have changed CM and A in his cases ...
(15:56:45) katzazi: ok, bad phrased, every case has same value for me - but
those from Magu are probably easier to distribute as they are not as many and
probably in a much further state
(15:56:50) iang: This is where having a DRO would be nice … who isn’t us.
(15:57:05) dops1: @egal: I second, not have resigned could make a differemce.
(15:57:10) katzazi: yeah it is - that's why I tried to get another DRO
(15:57:20) katzazi: ... one of the reasons that is
(15:57:20) iang: OK. So Magu has formally resigned?
(15:57:22) egal: releasing magu as A would have resulted in cases, which have
to be restarted from the beginning ...
(15:57:37) katzazi: shortly after SGM he resigned but you did not accept
(15:58:12) iang: Ah. OK. Is he still minded to resign? Is his activity at zero?
(15:58:24) katzazi: his mails bounces
(15:58:34) katzazi: primary email that is
(15:58:52) iang: has he resigned from CAcert Inc association?
(15:58:55) katzazi: activity is zero
(15:58:57) katzazi: yes
(15:59:03) katzazi: as far as I remember
(15:59:05) iang: has he resigned from community?
(15:59:11) egal: no
(15:59:15) katzazi: no - cannot is involved in cases
(15:59:20) katzazi: obviously
(15:59:21) dops1: aha, right, from our motion m20160702.3: "Note that the
arbitration area is deferred, pending advice from the arbitrators."
(16:00:16) iang: well spotted. OK - Eva has done the work to clarify where his
cases stand. As I understand it, Eva is saying that the cases can be
re-assigned. And to do so would be better than the alternate.
(16:00:46) iang: (The alternate being more zero activity and more bounced
emails… )
(16:01:03) katzazi: well I cannot say for sure and maybe some would require
restarting, but I don't see an alternative as he is not answering to
arbitration requests
(16:01:40) iang: Yes. Understood. And we’re not in a good position to establish
“formal” advice from the arbitrators. We have to do best with the information
to hand.
(16:02:14) iang: OK. shall we put it to the vote?
(16:02:48) dops1: Could we accept the resignation on a "defacto base", stating
the the obligations are not satisfied?
(16:04:07) iang: That is rather tricky to interpret.
(16:04:40) iang: We can write anything … but how will people interpret it? It
could be seen as sort of retrograde sacking. Which is not what is intended.
(16:04:48) katzazi: do you mean that he continues to be obliged to help with
handover?
(16:05:10) iang: We can certainly ask him to continue with his obligations to
handover.
(16:05:43) dops1: Resolved, that we accept the resignation of Martin G. given
the fact that he didn't respond and was not reachable for CAcert for over 6
months, and that we can't expect any further action from him regarding
requested hand-overs.
(16:06:11) dops1: Too offensive?
(16:06:23) katzazi: uhm I'm not sure if you can forbid arbitrators to ask
for hand-overs from a member
(16:06:24) iang: But citing a failure of obligation is … a dispute… which
leaves us in a tricky position … not only from the point of view of not
interfering with DR, but also in that we’d have to take on the consequences.
(16:06:51) iang: Resolved, that we accept the resignation of Magu as
Arbitrator, thank him for his many years of service, ask him to help us with
obligations on handover, and ask the arbitrators to reassign his current cases.
(16:07:24) katzazi: (arbitrator team instead of arbitrators? it's mostly
CM role)
(16:07:37) iang: yes, good point.
(16:09:21) dops1: I second your proposal with the team clarification. Well
said.
(16:09:32) egal: second and aye ... (in case of "arbitrator team" instead of
"arbitrators" ... ;-) )
(16:09:38) iang: and,should be Martin G.
(16:09:47) egal: yep
(16:09:57) iang: Aye.
(16:10:20) iang: Resolved, that we accept the resignation of Martin G. as
Arbitrator, thank him for his many years of service, and ask the arbitration
team to reassign his current cases.
(16:10:34) dops1: aye
(16:10:41) iang: assuming an Aye from @dops1 I declare the motion carried!
(16:10:45) iang: ah thanks.
(16:10:58) iang: OK! That was the fast one ;-)
(16:11:34) iang: Now, this is the hard one. Eva wishes to resign. For reasons
that are probably pretty good.
(16:12:13) iang: I admit I haven’t read all the emails on this thread. But the
general sense is that if there are too many cases against an Arbitrator, naming
that person for or in relation to the work of arbitration, it becomes hard to
continue.
(16:12:40) iang: We as board and arbitration as a body have to take this into
consideration. And policy group too. This is … a weakness?
(16:12:40) katzazi: I disagree with that summary
(16:12:52) iang: Ah. OK. How would you put it?
(16:13:09) katzazi: I would prefer to not discuss publicly
(16:13:42) iang: Hmmm…. Fair enough. Would you prefer a private meeting? Or not
discuss? Or discuss on private list?
(16:13:51) iang: Or discuss one on one?
(16:13:59) katzazi: some points are easy to discuss in public, but the whole
depth of the issue involves points that I believe don't need to be public
(16:14:27) iang: I think given the circumstances we as board need to bend over
backwards to deal with this … so happy to do it anyway you desire.
(16:14:49) iang: @egal how’s your time looking?
(16:15:16) katzazi: well, I wrote in one mail that you probably did not read a
proposal to continue as arb if it is possible to discuss it with a DRO as
person - but I asked board to NOT press anybody in that role just for that
option
(16:15:29) egal: around 16 minutes left ... ;-( ... (i'll be online
longer, but have to move ...)
(16:15:58) iang: does that mean you’ll come back after moving?
(16:16:00) egal: which means: around 30 minutes later i have some minutes to
re-read everything ...)
(16:16:05) katzazi: uhm continue until both DRO and me would have concluded on
something - and if it remains resignation that board would accept that
(16:16:58) egal: i'll not have much time later to continue the discussion)
(16:17:02) iang: oh. ok.
(16:17:27) katzazi: not sure if that answers your question - 1o1 would probably
good, but would leave rest of board out
(16:17:43) iang: So, we’re going to run out of time to talk about it. I’d
rather not start a discussion of such gravity only to cut it short. Seems
highly unfair.
(16:17:51) iang: OTOH, leaving the issue dangling is also unfair.
(16:17:59) dops1: To order the dependencies: If I understand it right it's
this: 1. Find DRO 2. DRO and Eva discuss issues 3. Board decides about
resignation.
(16:18:03) katzazi: anyway my last mail on that topic, that was only send to
private addresses probably sums it up - and it is the last that I intended to
send
(16:18:31) dops1: 2a. Eva finally decides about holding the resignation
(16:19:06) katzazi: @dops1 that would have been the case if there is a
perspective of having DRO quickly - and without pressing someone in that role -
I don't think that this is the case at the moment
(16:19:47) iang: Well, it’s hard to press anyone from Board into that role.
Especially me.
(16:20:00) katzazi: I believe my reasons why I don't want keep up that
proposal if DRO=board are valid, one is that discussion of such things is not
something that really should be public as I believe
(16:20:23) iang: Might be another story after AGM. But even then I wonder why
people want me in as DRO as I tend to … make decisions fast and furious :)
(16:20:44) katzazi: easy to answer: you make decision
(16:21:06) katzazi: and you try to listen and would be up to correct a decision
if necessary
(16:21:40) iang: DRO=board is a stopgap measure as is board= any other team
leader or etc.
(16:22:44) iang: Anyway. I feel that we’re going to have to take this out of
the meeting :) and keep discussing. Just because time is almost over.
(16:22:48) grendl: rehu
(16:23:46) iang: So as Chair I feel impelled to defer the discussion. MOve on.
Apologies to eva for harsh treatment.
(16:23:53) katzazi: uhm "keep discussing" is a "nice" way to phrase it ...
(16:24:18) iang: 5. Old board - report - already covered in previous, up and on
wiki as a start https://wiki.cacert.org/CAcertInc/SpecialReport2016
(16:24:22) dops1: @grendl: Hi. Feel free to step in and comment if you like.
(16:24:23) iang: Please contribute…
(16:25:00) iang: 6. Status of move - there is an email from Etienne to respond
to. I haven’t had the time.
(16:25:18) iang: But I should make time. There are substantive points.
(16:25:27) iang: anything else there?
(16:25:44) iang: if not I’d like to move on to question time… and in parallel
agree on next meeting.
(16:26:15) grendl: dops1: inthe moment im to tired to do anything well
(16:26:15) iang: @egal I think we need one more meeting to clarify / finish /
agree on the financial numbers and get stuff done.
(16:26:47) dops1: The last time I'll be available for a meeting is Thursday
evening, starting at 18 UTC.
(16:27:12) iang: The AGM is 2016-12-18 20:30 UTC
(16:27:23) iang: I can make myself available then. @dops1 ?
(16:29:11) egal: thursday evening should fit ... ;-)
(16:29:23) egal: (if earlier, it whould be better ... ;-) )
(16:29:24) dops1: ok, fine
(16:29:28) iang: Super - can you call the meeting? And remind me of the minute
to turn up ;)
(16:29:37) egal: sure ...
(16:29:43) iang: great.
(16:29:44) dops1: Tue/Wed is also possible for me
(16:30:30) iang: For me too, depending on what times.
(16:31:22) iang: OK that’s over to @egal to finesse. I don’t see any questions
coming in. If no more, let’s declare the meeting closed in a formal setting at
least.