Attachment '2020-06-25-irc-log.txt'
Download 1 Committee meeting - IRC log
2
3 [21:54:11] FD (f.dumas@80.82.24.20) joined the channel.
4
5 [21:54:11] Mode is +nt
6
7 [21:54:46] Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) joined the channel.
8
9 [21:57:24] Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) left IRC. (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand-crafted IRC client)
10
11 [21:58:01] Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) joined the channel.
12
13 [21:59:57] <egal> hi, hello and welcome ...
14
15 [22:00:24] <sat> good evening everybody
16
17 [22:00:31] <FD> Good evening.
18
19 [22:00:57] bdmc (bdmc@107-138-158-92.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net) joined the channel.
20
21 [22:01:19] <bdmc> Good evening, All. Helps if I spell the channel correctly.
22
23 [22:01:23] <Etienne> Good morning Australia!
24
25 [22:02:10] MitchMaifeld (462766ae@localhost) joined the channel.
26
27 [22:03:31] <FD> Here we have the agenda: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2020-06-25
28
29 [22:04:04] <bdmc> Thank you, Frederic. I was just reading it in a different window.
30
31 [22:04:32] <bdmc> Shall we get started, or wait a minute or two for people to catch up?
32
33 [22:05:13] <FD> I set up a live notepad to note down the minutes in live. It is here: https://kabendzie.ellis.siteparc.fr/s/oT6fxEdaYA6neiJ
34
35 [22:07:17] <FD> Let's start?
36
37 [22:08:26] <bdmc> I agree.
38
39 [22:08:46] <bdmc> I hereby call this meeting of the Board of CAcert to order.
40
41 [22:09:12] <bdmc> Do I understand that FD is volunteering to take care of the Minutes for this meeting?
42
43 [22:09:52] <bdmc> No? Someone else?
44
45 [22:10:13] <FD> I just saw it as a collaborative task, as we did in some of the last meeting we had with finances team and Arbitrators.
46
47 [22:10:29] <bdmc> Certainly.
48
49 [22:10:49] <FD> Everybody is invited to add its word in the notepad, should he want to do so.
50
51 [22:10:50] <bdmc> I would like to suggest a time limit ( soft ) of one hour.
52
53 [22:11:19] <egal> my limit is until midnight (2 hrs)
54
55 [22:11:45] <bdmc> egal: Well, you know how well we do on limits.
56
57 [22:12:03] <bdmc> Item 1.4 -- Anything in either of the mailing lists that needs to be discussed?
58
59 [22:12:11] <egal> okay ... let's set a limit to 1 hr ... so we're done within 2 ... ;-)
60
61 [22:13:19] <bdmc> Nothing heard.
62
63 [22:13:42] <bdmc> Item 2.1.1.1 -- ABC
64
65 [22:14:20] <bdmc> Our first item involves us, the Board, requesting Arbitration to suspend the ABC rules for 12 months.
66
67 [22:16:31] <FD> The talk we had today with Lambert, Ian Alastair, Etienne, Dirk, confirmed that we should ask Arbitration according to the drafted motions. The motions may have been written in a not enough precise way, because I am neither a native English speaker, nor an expert with Arbitration rules and tricks.
68
69 [22:17:03] <FD> We are here to understand the goal and meaning of these motions, to refine them, to vote them if we decide to do so.
70
71 [22:17:05] <bdmc> I don't see this motion in the Agenda.
72
73 [22:17:42] <egal> 2.1.1.1 ... i can see it
74
75 [22:17:42] <Etienne> "asking Arbitration to suspend the need for performing ABC on new applicants for the next 12 months; "
76
77 [22:18:07] <bdmc> Sorry, I wasn't seeing that as a formal motion.
78
79 [22:18:37] <bdmc> That is why we are discussing each of these items.
80
81 [22:19:34] <FD> The general idea of the motions is that Arbitration could make legal something which fails to enforce our Policies, in case an Arbitrator rules that the context, environment, circumstances, actual difficulties, are a good enough reason to rule so.
82
83 [22:19:58] <sat> Why 12 months? What will be different in 12 months?
84
85 [22:20:28] <FD> We will have Arbitration reactivated. We are actively working on it.
86
87 [22:21:18] <sat> I mean, it should rather be something like "until we have N active arbitrators" or so
88
89 [22:21:20] <bdmc> sat: It is an arbitrary date that we picked in discussions over the past few months. The idea is that by that time we can re-examine the situation and decide whether the ruling needs to be extended.
90
91 [22:21:28] <egal> what about "up to 12 months" or "6 to 12 months" ?
92
93 [22:22:16] <FD> Dirk, would you like to give a short feedback of the output of the three past "steering committees" which we had together with Lambert, Bernhard, Ian Alastair, Etienne, etc?
94
95 [22:22:55] <egal> hm ... Arbitration status is not on the agenda ... ;-)
96
97 [22:23:27] <egal> (nothing prepared up to now ... ;-( )
98
99 [22:23:34] <FD> It is just a matter of explaining to Sascha the context of the motion.
100
101 [22:24:00] <FD> I can do it, but I guess you manage better than me the topic.
102
103 [22:25:30] <bdmc> I can take a shot at it, and others can correct me.
104
105 [22:25:37] <egal> currently we're quite low on ABCed members ... so it's not easy to fulfull our policies ...
106
107 [22:26:34] <egal> ... to have the possibility to add members (at least temporarily to one or another team the requirement for an ABC may be lowered)
108
109 [22:26:35] <bdmc> According to our Policies, we require a process called ABC to approve people for certain posts.
110
111 [22:27:43] <bdmc> What we are asking for, when the motion is submitted, is for that requirement to be waived temporarily until we can add to the number of people working for CAcert.
112
113 [22:28:08] <bdmc> sat: does that help at all?
114
115 [22:28:38] <MitchMaifeld> What is the critical threshold number of people and where is CAcert now?
116
117 [22:28:54] <sat> MitchMaifeld: good question
118
119 [22:29:34] <FD> rough figure: critical threshold : 40; by now: 20
120
121 [22:30:31] <egal> if the question is for ABCed members it's lower ... and we're not at the minimum limit ...
122
123 [22:30:37] <FD> More or less, teams have a team leader, that's all. We need to staff our teams back. For that, we need to have our volunteers to be ABC'ed.
124
125 [22:30:38] <MitchMaifeld> How do people normally find CAcert and is that process expected to improve over the next 12 months (I'm thinking of Coronavirus)?
126
127 [22:32:00] <FD> May I ask who are you, Mitch? My question has no other purpose than wanting to know if we know each other. :-)
128
129 [22:32:19] <MitchMaifeld> I'm a self-employed engineer in Katy, Texas, USA.
130
131 [22:32:28] <bdmc> MitchMaifeld: It has been a combination of organic growth, people looking for us, and us going out and recruiting people, as you were.
132
133 [22:32:53] <MitchMaifeld> Apologies for my ignorance of the inner workings.
134
135 [22:33:34] <bdmc> No apologies necessary. How else would you learn?
136
137 [22:33:45] <FD> Coming back to the motion, there is no high philosophy here:
138
139 [22:33:55] <FD> a) we need to recruit people;
140
141 [22:34:12] <FD> b) most of them need to be ABC'ed by Arbitrators
142
143 [22:34:19] <MitchMaifeld> In other volunteer professional organizations I belong to (everyone is short of volunteers), we try to make the value proposition to new recruits.
144
145 [22:34:41] <FD> c) We are short with Arbitrators at the moment
146
147 [22:34:57] <MitchMaifeld> Is ABCing a roadblock, or just not enough warm bodies coming in?
148
149 [22:35:08] <FD> d) we are on our way to put Arbitration at work again
150
151 [22:35:21] <FD> e) we need time for that
152
153 [22:35:38] <bdmc> MitchMaifeld: the former
154
155 [22:35:45] <FD> f) we have no time to waste, waiting for ABC's being frozen in the meantime
156
157 [22:36:01] <MitchMaifeld> I see.
158
159 [22:36:15] <bdmc> We have quite a few qualified volunteers, but no way to put them to work.
160
161 [22:36:50] <FD> g) this is why we would ask the Arbitration to waive for a limited period of time one of the obligations of our Policies, i.e. ABC for new comers.
162
163 [22:37:16] <FD> h) last argument: without doing it, CAcert cannot run its operations.
164
165 [22:37:18] <sat> I'm not against suspending ABC, I just question that we should give it 12 month and then evaluate again.
166
167 [22:37:22] <MitchMaifeld> If ABC was chosen as a policy for a reason, that seems risky to this engineer.
168
169 [22:38:07] <sat> We should rather ask Arbitration to rule that ABC is suspended until a defined number of X has met
170
171 [22:38:58] <egal> maybe arbitration limits ABC "somehow" so well-known long-standing mambers may do a job without ABC ... while a completely new member still needs an ABC ...
172
173 [22:39:07] <FD> Yes it is, and we discussed the pros and cons within the past three steering committees with the remaining active Arbitrators, and our output was that we should temporarily waive the Policy on ABC.
174
175 [22:39:27] <egal> but ... arbitration has to decide, board can only trigger an arbitration case
176
177 [22:39:50] <FD> Dirk you are right.
178
179 [22:40:40] <egal> you could simply keep the time to suspend open ... so arbitration can set the duration ...
180
181 [22:40:40] <Etienne> @Mitch: At the moment Arbitration Background Check (ABC) is frozen due to a ruling. The Arbitrator who frozed it did it "until he change the rules", but the he left CAcert.
182
183 [22:40:48] <egal> like "for a limited time2 ...
184
185 [22:41:46] <sat> I consider such a ruling invalid
186
187 [22:42:35] <egal> @sat: the wording is different ... but ... ruling is ruling ... ;-(
188
189 [22:42:44] <sat> Mr. Arbitator could die in a car accident and never get the chance to change it
190
191 [22:42:50] <egal> so we have to live with it ...
192
193 [22:43:30] <egal> as the case is still open, the case-manager may select a new A (as the old one is not within CAcert anymore) ..
194
195 [22:44:06] <FD> Philippe said to me face to face that he would have no problem to change his ruling by now, as conditions are completely different, and members of the committee are completely different too.
196
197 [22:44:13] <egal> .. if this does not help, DRO may step in to get the A and CM of this case be replaced due to non-respondence
198
199 [22:44:44] <egal> @fd: the PD-case is a different one
200
201 [22:45:23] <Etienne> Asking Arbitration to suspend the ABC for a limited time gives us the possibility to go further with people willing to help during Arbitration is resolving the ABC issue.
202
203 [22:45:52] <FD> Etienne, may you say which Arbitrator were you talking about?
204
205 [22:49:07] <Etienne> at 20:40:40 or 20:45:23?
206
207 [22:50:00] <FD> Well, the idea for today is pushing a request to the remaining active Arbitrators, for one of them to decide to waive the burden of the ABC until let's say July 2021, in order for us, to put at work in our teams the volunteers who proposed to work with/for CAcert.
208
209 [22:50:09] <bdmc> Alright, folks. Do we need some more time to discuss this?
210
211 [22:51:38] <FD> BTW, diverging from your opinion Dirk, I would prefer to suggest a deadline in the motion. It makes sure that a "temporary" situation does not become definitive, just because nothing good fixed it in the meantime.
212
213 [22:52:28] <sat> We should leave the details to Arbitration
214
215 [22:52:35] <bdmc> egal: would you please help me with wording? I will propose the draft motion, and you can comment from the point of view of Arbitration.
216
217 [22:52:37] <FD> Etienne: at 20:40:40
218
219 [22:53:39] <bdmc> I move that the Board of CAcert request that Arbitration waive the requirement for ABCs for the next 12 months, ending at the end of July, 2021.
220
221 [22:53:46] <bdmc> Not sure about some of that.
222
223 [22:54:13] <egal> aehm ... i'm not an arbitrator ... only being a case-manager due to my support-job ... ;-)
224
225 [22:54:24] <bdmc> Closer than most of us.
226
227 [22:54:42] <bdmc> But, yes, I understand.
228
229 [22:55:18] <FD> Perhaps we could add at the beginning of the motion: "Due to the current inability of Arbitration to process ABC's..." or something like that, just for giving a piece of context.
230
231 [22:56:00] <egal> hm ... does board critizise arbitration ????
232
233 [22:56:04] <bdmc> FD: I see that as somewhat accusatory, or some people could take it that way.
234
235 [22:56:42] <FD> As usual, my poor ability to make clear statement in English.
236
237 [22:57:04] <bdmc> Your English is much better than my Polish.
238
239 [22:57:24] <FD> But you got the idea: our committee is not going to ask Arbitration to waive ABC without motivation to do so.
240
241 [22:58:03] <bdmc> egal: I lean towards just a simple request, no justification or history involved.
242
243 [22:58:31] <FD> In the body of the motion, we may add a few words for explaining what makes the committee to take such an unusual decision.
244
245 [22:59:02] <FD> My point was just that, nothing more.
246
247 [23:03:06] <bdmc> FD: I guess that I was thinking that Arbitration is well aware of the history and other factors, and, since they suggested this motion, are expecting it. As well, you have had several meetings with them lately.
248
249 [23:03:28] <FD> The motion may look like that in French: "Compte tenu de l'absence de résolution persistante depuis plusieurs années des cas ouverts en Arbitrage, et notamment du gel des procédures de vérification des antécédents par l'Arbitrage (ABC), et compte tenu du blocage que cela provoque dans le recrutement de volontaires dans nos équipes, le comité demande à l'Arbitrage de suspendre pour une durée de 12 mois, jusqu'à la fin de Juillet 2021,
250
251 [23:03:28] <FD> l'obligation de faire passer un ABC aux personnes nouvellement intégrées à des postes qui le réclameraient normalement."
252
253 [23:03:56] <FD> Deepl: "In view of the persistent lack of resolution for several years of the cases opened in Arbitration, in particular the freezing of background check procedures by Arbitration (CBA), and in view of the blockage that this causes in the recruitment of volunteers in our teams, the committee asks Arbitration to suspend for a period of 12 months, until the end of July 2021, the obligation to pass a CBA to persons newly integrated in positions that would
254
255 [23:03:56] <FD> normally require it."
256
257 [23:04:49] <FD> It is always easier to do it in the tongue which one manages...
258
259 [23:05:52] <bdmc> But, even in French, it is "complaining" that Arbitration is not doing their job, which I did not want to say. Anybody else?
260
261 [23:07:17] <Etienne> FD, I understand you want it well formulated, in context, that it will still be easy to understand in 100 years. However, for reasons I have already mentioned, I would keep it short and sweet.
262
263 [23:07:32] <FD> OK.
264
265 [23:07:48] <Etienne> sorry, reasons that are mentionned (not by me)
266
267 [23:08:29] <FD> It is fine with me.
268
269 [23:09:14] <bdmc> OK. Going back to my draft, does anybody else want to edit it?
270
271 [23:09:19] <bdmc> I move that the Board of CAcert request that Arbitration waive the requirement for ABCs for the next 12 months, ending at the end of July, 2021.
272
273 [23:09:34] <sat> ...for at least 12 month.
274
275 [23:10:27] <bdmc> sat: As we discussed earlier, we want to set a fixed time, and any needed extension can be decided next year.
276
277 [23:10:31] <FD> Sascha: you don't believe that Arbitration will work again, do you? :-)
278
279 [23:10:52] <sat> I want to believe.
280
281 [23:10:59] <FD> I like you.
282
283 [23:11:24] <sat> Let them decide themselves when it ends.
284
285 [23:12:00] <Etienne> Even if we ask until July, the can decide as they want.
286
287 [23:12:29] <sat> Then "for the next 12 months" should do
288
289 [23:12:56] <sat> Short and sweet.
290
291 [23:13:12] <bdmc> Anything else. I will call for the vote at xx:15.
292
293 [23:14:00] <FD> I like Brian's phrasing, because it put a hard deadline. As Etienne said, Arbitration could follow our suggestion or not.
294
295 [23:14:58] <sat> So we vote for Brian's motion from 20:53 UTC?
296
297 [23:15:18] <bdmc> Or 21:09. !!
298
299 [23:15:41] <sat> ok
300
301 [23:15:51] <bdmc> Please vote on motion "1".
302
303 [23:15:59] <FD> ready
304
305 [23:16:05] <bdmc> ( I suppose, to be formal, we should have a second. )
306
307 [23:16:13] <FD> or should I second?
308
309 [23:16:38] <Etienne> I second and aye
310
311 [23:16:49] <bdmc> Aye
312
313 [23:16:53] <FD> I vote yes for your good, clear and clever motion, Brian.
314
315 [23:17:04] <bdmc> ( you make me blush )
316
317 [23:17:41] <FD> after that, nobody wants to add a voice. :-)
318
319 [23:17:44] <bdmc> sat: was that you voting with "ok?"
320
321 [23:18:10] <sat> no, I vote now: aye
322
323 [23:18:28] <MitchMaifeld> I'm not on the Board, but will offer my positive.
324
325 [23:18:37] <bdmc> Thank you. Etienne, any other Board Members to vote?
326
327 [23:18:41] <FD> Nice, thank you mitch!
328
329 [23:20:02] <bdmc> Nothing heard.
330
331 [23:20:05] <FD> BTW, could you Etienne update the page at: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/Current ?
332
333 [23:20:32] <bdmc> Moving on to Item 2.1.1.2 -- "The PD Ruling"
334
335 [23:21:03] <Etienne> votes registered at https://motion.cacert.org/motions/m20200625.1?showvotes=1, others can still vote within 3 days.
336
337 [23:21:16] <bdmc> This will require a similar motion to the last, asking Arbitration to set aside, or perhaps, re-decide, an earlier decision.
338
339 [23:21:17] <FD> Thank you !
340
341 [23:21:28] <egal> if you don't feel familiar with a ruling you may trigger an appeal ...
342
343 [23:22:02] <bdmc> egal: How should we word this motion?
344
345 [23:22:29] <bdmc> "suspend," "waive," something else?
346
347 [23:24:47] <FD> The idea here was to have an easy to do move, i.e. asking Arbitration for waiving Philipp's ruling for a limited period of time, not to reverse it. The underlying rational is once again the critical and unusual situation which CAcert is facing at the moment. Otherwise, Philipp's ruling is sensible when we have enough people on board for each position and do not need to have a few of us cumulating several position in different "heads of power".
348
349 [23:25:21] <bdmc> FD: I like that argument.
350
351 [23:25:52] <bdmc> Let me try to craft that one.
352
353 [23:26:16] <FD> It is nothing more than what has been discussed with our fellow Arbitrators during the past two months or so.
354
355 [23:27:21] <bdmc> I move that the Board of CAcert request that Arbitration suspend the Philipp Dunkel ruling on "Two Heads of Power" for the next 12 months, ending at the end of July, 2021.
356
357 [23:27:34] <FD> I second.
358
359 [23:27:54] <bdmc> Any discussion, or are we ready to vote?
360
361 [23:28:49] <FD> I could add that Philipp himself considers that we do not even need to waive his ruling for working around it.
362
363 [23:29:30] <bdmc> Nothing heard. Please vote on this motion -- #2.
364
365 [23:29:33] <FD> I wanted him to talk to us earlier in the week, but failed to secure his presence for the meeting we had today with Arbitrators.
366
367 [23:29:33] <bdmc> Aye
368
369 [23:29:41] <Etienne> This will end up like certain laws in Switzerland, which the parliament passes every three years "provisionally" for the next three years to avoid a referendum ;-)
370
371 [23:29:50] <bdmc> B-)
372
373 [23:30:13] <FD> To your motion Brian, I vote yes.
374
375 [23:30:38] <Etienne> aye
376
377 [23:30:49] <sat> aye
378
379 [23:31:07] <bdmc> Thank you all.
380
381 [23:31:49] <bdmc> Since we seem to have lost egal, let us move on to Item 2.2.1, the infamous PayPal. Frederic, are you leading this one?
382
383 [23:32:02] <bdmc> ( Frederic = FD )
384
385 [23:32:06] <egal> still online ... ;-)
386
387 [23:32:31] <bdmc> egal: shall we back up for an Arbitration report?
388
389 [23:32:50] <egal> nope ... let's continue with paypal ...
390
391 [23:32:59] <bdmc> Do we have to? B-)
392
393 [23:33:30] <bdmc> Etienne: I guess that you have the information for this.
394
395 [23:34:07] <bdmc> Or is what is in the Agenda all of the information that we have?
396
397 [23:34:30] <FD> Brian, give me less then a minute to direct you to the last minutes of the Finances team on that.
398
399 [23:34:57] <Etienne> There's not much more to say than what's written in the wiki, except that I have to send an authorization again this weekend. Text and signatures were OK, but it was not on AFCA letter paper.
400
401 [23:35:31] <FD> Here they are: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2020-06/msg00000.html
402
403 [23:36:23] <bdmc> Alright. Item 2.2.2 -- the new bank account.
404
405 [23:37:30] <FD> Same minutes apply + confirmation from Frédéric and Etienne, that the signed required red tape has been actually delivered to the Bank. BTW, which bank was chosen?
406
407 [23:38:07] <Etienne> I paid FDs 20 CHF and FredericG can check next week if it arrived. If yes, we will change paypal to IBAN in our communication.
408
409 [23:38:43] <bdmc> What about people outside of Europe?
410
411 [23:38:51] <Etienne> Graubündner Kantonalbank
412
413 [23:39:13] <bdmc> Same question as we had before for Westpac outside of Australia.
414
415 [23:39:15] <FD> For them, we need to find a new financial service provider for processing payments by card.
416
417 [23:39:41] <Etienne> People outside the SEPA/IBAN area: the finance team is now evaluating paypal alternatives.
418
419 [23:40:01] <FD> This is an ongoing work, please refer to the above mentionned minutes of the Finances team.
420
421 [23:40:03] <bdmc> I know that we discussed this a year or so ago, so it will be interesting to see new options.
422
423 [23:41:10] <FD> It has been reactivated in May 2020. Bret from Perth did a listing of two dozens of possible financial services providers.
424
425 [23:41:31] <bdmc> Anything more that we want to discuss about Finance, or are we ready to move on?
426
427 [23:42:38] <FD> Just one word: I do not see a lot of work from the Finances team, except from Frédéric G. our former treasurer.
428
429 [23:42:51] <FD> This is a concern for me
430
431 [23:43:57] <FD> We may call once again for a meeting of the members of the Fincances team, but if people do not deliver the work which they committed to complete, a yet another meeting could not help a lot.
432
433 [23:44:35] <FD> There is a moment when CAcet need people delivering an output, not only talking about it.
434
435 [23:44:59] <bdmc> Etienne: do you know anything more about this?
436
437 [23:46:04] <Etienne> I have to send Bret something that I promised :-(
438
439 [23:46:50] <FD> Well, Etienne, do not worry, the same applies for Christophe and for Bret himself. Frédéric G. is the one having answered already.
440
441 [23:48:28] <bdmc> Item 2.3.1 -- Volunteers and Applicants
442
443 [23:48:36] <bdmc> Who wants to talk to this?
444
445 [23:49:24] <Etienne> egal said, it could be pushed to next month.
446
447 [23:49:43] <bdmc> Thank you. How about Item 2.3.2?
448
449 [23:50:08] <Etienne> (all infra)
450
451 [23:50:25] <bdmc> Moving on.
452
453 [23:50:51] <bdmc> Item 2.4.0 -- When shall we plan the AGM?
454
455 [23:51:12] <bdmc> As usual, it tends to be dependent on the financial reports.
456
457 [23:51:38] <Etienne> In which month should the AGM take place (the date can be set later)?
458
459 [23:51:52] <bdmc> September, October?
460
461 [23:52:09] <Etienne> When it is in not daylight saving time in the northern countries, it is eaysier to find a good time.
462
463 [23:52:38] <bdmc> That puts it very late, then. Late October or November, as I remember.
464
465 [23:53:20] <Etienne> DST change last sunday in October -> November
466
467 [23:53:44] <Etienne> Is November OK?
468
469 [23:54:56] <bdmc> I suppose that it will need to be. We are so often late to have it. When are the Financial Reports due, end of next month?
470
471 [23:57:02] <Etienne> (Time: 4 minutes left)
472
473 [23:58:30] <egal> some words for infrastructure ... we do have a testserver for training ... and the luxemburg-machine is now running 24/7 ...
474
475 [23:58:44] <bdmc> egal: good news.
476
477 [23:58:56] <egal> in the last weeks jan and i updated several machines (see blog-post)
478
479 [23:59:22] <bdmc> OK, well we have reached our deadline. Etienne has proposed that the next meeting be on the 9th of July. Does everybody agree?
480
481 [23:59:35] <sat> yes
482
483 [23:59:47] <MitchMaifeld> Concur.
484
485 [23:59:50] <egal> as long as there will then be decision for CRL server ... ;-)
486
487 [00:00:22] <bdmc> We will put that at the top of the Agenda, unless you want to stay up after midnight?
488
489 [00:00:44] <FD> I would prefer after the 12th of July, I am taking care of our children before that date.
490
491 [00:01:25] <egal> well ... i still do have some minutes ... but not tooo long ... ;)
492
493 [00:02:15] <FD> with respects to the CRL server, a short informal live talk could help us to understand the pros and cons. I do not see myself going through an unknown topic during one hour by keyboard.
494
495 [00:02:17] <bdmc> Folks, if we move the next meeting to the 16th or later, we need to take some time for Dirk's issue tonight?
496
497 [00:02:52] <bdmc> egal: can you accomodate that request some evening or weekend?
498
499 [00:03:02] <FD> Brian, CRL is a too long topic for now.
500
501 [00:04:01] <egal> we can discuss this server via email the next days ... and ... motions are not limited to be done on board-meetings only ...
502
503 [00:04:16] <FD> If it is ok for us, let us Dirk and me set up a short online meeting for the committee members before the 16th of July.
504
505 [00:04:23] <egal> but ... i asked for it months ago ... unfortunately without any progress from board ... -(
506
507 [00:04:26] <egal> ;-(
508
509 [00:04:48] <bdmc> egal: understood. OK, let us do it that way. Next meeting 16th?
510
511 [00:05:01] <bdmc> ( "In person" meeting. )
512
513 [00:05:13] <FD> It would be more convenient for me, thank you.
514
515 [00:05:31] <bdmc> Anybody else with a date preference?
516
517 [00:05:50] <egal> 16th should be possible ...
518
519 [00:06:23] <bdmc> OK, we will hold our next meeting, here, on July 16th.
520
521 [00:06:35] <bdmc> I hereby call this meeting complete.
522
523 [00:06:45] <bdmc> Good night, All.
524
525 [00:06:46] <sat> thank you. bye.
526
527 [00:06:58] <Etienne> @Dirk & @FD: For CRL: If we don't have an IRC meeting, voting takes 7 days (not three), but if x people vote immediately, the result can be anticipated.
528
529 [00:07:06] <bdmc> MitchMaifeld: and a good afternoon and evening to you.
530
531 [00:07:19] <MitchMaifeld> Ha, thanks. Later, y'all.
532
533 [00:07:30] MitchMaifeld (462766ae@localhost) left the channel.
534
535 [00:07:40] <Etienne> Good bye, just time for breakfast in New South Wales...
536
537 [00:11:40] nemunaire (nemunaire@82-64-151-41.subs.proxad.net) left IRC. (Ping timeout: 121 seconds)
538
539 [00:18:50] bdmc (bdmc@107-138-158-92.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net) left IRC. (Quit: leaving)
540
541 [00:39:27] Etienne (2efdbfd9@localhost) left IRC. (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand-crafted IRC client)
542
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.