18:59 < dirk_on_server> hi
19:01 < dirk_on_server> i see juergen only ...
19:01 < dirk_on_server> lets wait some minutes ...
19:01 < katzazi> ben
19:01 < jmbruckner> hello
19:02 < jmbruckner> im on tablet/mobile .. so i will have a bit longer time for responses
19:03 < dirk_on_server> me too ... a
19:04 < dirk_on_server> (for the next around 20 minutes)
19:09 < INOPIAE> Do you have any news about joining the CA/B forum as interested party?
19:11 < katzazi> what is with NEOatNHNG?
19:27 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.67] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
19:31 -!- Q [rats@ipservice-092-209-181-251.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #board-meeting
19:32 < Q> good evening
19:33 -!- EtienneRuedin [5c6af3ad@localhost] has joined #board-meeting
19:37 -!- dirk [dirk@astrath.net] has joined #board-meeting
19:38 < dirk> now i have a keyboard under my fingers .... ;-)
19:38 < dirk> and etienne is there ... great ... ;-)
19:40 < EtienneRuedin> Hello Dirk
19:40 < dirk> hi
19:41 < dirk> can you open the agenda?
19:42 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has joined #board-meeting
19:45 < dirk> okay ... my browser doesn't like me .. but lynx does ... ;-)
19:45 < dirk> let's start ...
19:46 < dirk> as you should know from my email this week alex stepped back as vice-president ... and there was a motion where i became the new vice-president ...
19:47 < dirk> ... since werner isn't available right now i'll take over the chair for the next meetings (and possibly AGM)
19:47 < dirk> therefore: i open the meeting (since we have a quorum with etienne, juergen and me)
19:48 < jmbruckner> okay
19:49 < dirk> to speed it up, i suggest to skip the 1.2 and 1.3 (agreement for the last/previous meeting and postpone it to the next meeting)
19:49 < dirk> furthermore i'll do the minutes ... (2.4)
19:49 < jmbruckner> accept
19:49 < dirk> now 2.4: are there any items from board-private to disclose?
19:49 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
19:50 < dirk> (i would have checked on my machine, but it crashed while being away for around 2 hours ... ;-( )
19:51 < jmbruckner> there have been mails from Eva we should reacton
19:51 < dirk> will take some minutes (unless etienne is able to tell us ... ;-) )
19:52 < EtienneRuedin> who is best versed in legal on the board?
19:52 < jmbruckner> i guess Dirk is, Etienne
19:52 < EtienneRuedin> first mmail from june 16
19:52 < EtienneRuedin> and second from today 4 o'clock
19:54 < EtienneRuedin> I answered Eva how I understod committee's meening at the meeting without minutes (Eva was at the meeting), but for her, the answer was not clear enough
19:54 < EtienneRuedin> We wanted, that arbitration takes over (shortest version)
19:55 < jmbruckner> yes but as far i understand evas mail, she didnt get the needed information .. initial mail to board, etc
19:55 < dirk> okay ... let's add this to the business items ...
19:56 < EtienneRuedin> Neither I did. (As I had no access to board private and I does not anymore at the moment.)
19:56 < dirk> eva isn't online currently ...
19:57 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has joined #board-meeting
19:57 -!- katzazi_ [katzazi@89.204.139.67] has joined #board-meeting
20:00 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
20:00 < dirk> is the anything more from the board-mailing-list?
20:00 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has joined #board-meeting
20:01 < jmbruckner> not as i knew
20:01 < dirk> i don't think so ... so let's start with 2.1: add late items ...
20:02 < dirk> i move "Add arbitration cases from board-private as 2.8 to business items"
20:02 < jmbruckner> second and aye
20:02 < EtienneRuedin> aye
20:02 < dirk> aye
20:02 < katzazi> will you come to that today or do you have to leave earlier?
20:02 < dirk> carried ... ;-)
20:03 -!- katzazi_ [katzazi@89.204.139.67] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
20:03 < dirk> @katzazi ... this depends on the discussions for the items before 2.8 ... ;-)
20:03 < dirk> more late items?
20:04 < dirk> (while thinking we can skip 2.2 about the subcommitee since werner isn't there and we will have the AGM real soon now)
20:04 < katzazi> what with CA/B forum?
20:05 < jmbruckner> i think we can skip 2.2 and 2.3
20:05 < dirk> for 2.3 ... are there any news about the move of CAcert Inc.?
20:05 < jmbruckner> no news so far
20:05 < dirk> @jmbruckner: but still ongoing?
20:05 < jmbruckner> yes still ongoing
20:06 < dirk> okay ...
20:07 < dirk> @katzazi ... is the CA/B-forum a thing this board has to decide or the next one after the AGM? ;-) ... (but we will discuss this later/on the next meeting)
20:07 < dirk> 2.4 AGM preparation ...
20:07 < dirk> you're aware, that the AGM will be in around 4 weeks?
20:07 < katzazi> any board can decide on this
20:08 < INOPIAE> and you had enough time to prepare yourself.
20:08 < jmbruckner> i think we need some more information about CA/B-Forum, so it should be handled by next board
20:08 < dirk> @all: can we discuss this later? ... thank you
20:09 < dirk> let's do AGM first ...
20:09 < dirk> (2.4 ... not the AGM itself ... ;-) )
20:09 < dirk> i sent etienne a mail with some details/dates ...
20:10 < EtienneRuedin> I was in contact with Tomáš Trnka. At the moment, I don't have to the member list. Furthermore, I have the e mail from Dirk. I think the months are wrong.
20:11 < dirk> yep ... s/06/07/g ...
20:11 < dirk> (i sent it early in the morning ... sorry ... )
20:11 < EtienneRuedin> No problem.
20:12 < dirk> did you contact michael according the members list?
20:12 < dirk> next question: who will contact the teamleaders for their team-report of the last year?
20:13 < dirk> (financial year = summer 2013 to summer 2014)
20:13 < EtienneRuedin> I will contact Michael, as the way over the SVN admin seems more comlicated to be fast.
20:14 < dirk> okay ...
20:14 < EtienneRuedin> Update: I wrote Micahel seven hours ago.
20:15 < dirk> perfect ... ;-)
20:16 < dirk> it seems i have to inform the teamleaders for their report ...
20:16 < dirk> okay ...
20:16 < dirk> anything more according to the AGM?
20:17 < jmbruckner> not from me
20:19 < dirk> are there any volunteers available for the next board? ;-)
20:19 < dirk> (except me if nobody sees a COI with secure-u ... ;) )
20:19 < katzazi> weird question
20:20 < katzazi> people get recommended and do not volunteer ....
20:20 < dirk> and ... we all should try to find board member candidates ... ;-)
20:20 < dirk> @katzazi ... please excuse my wording ... i'm not a native speaker ... ;-(
20:20 < dirk> ;-)
20:22 < dirk> but you're correct: requirement for a board-members is: being an inc.-member, was nominated by (at least two members) and volunteers for the job ... ;-)
20:23 < dirk> it makes no sense to nominate a person, who doesn't want to become a board-member ... ;-)
20:24 < dirk> well ... hopefully etienne sends out the mail real fast now so we have enough candidates ... ;-)
20:25 < dirk> let's continue with the AGM preparation on the next meeting ...
20:25 < EtienneRuedin> I hope so.
20:25 < dirk> ... and continue with 2.5: job description of the document officer ...
20:26 < katzazi> why is this point handled bevor 2.6? 2.6 is older
20:26 < katzazi> and 2.5 get's irrelevant if 2.6 is carried
20:27 < dirk> who added it to the agenda?
20:28 < dirk> (... which brings me to the question: who can define the job of the document officer? ... ;-) )
20:28 < EtienneRuedin> Committee think, it can.
20:28 < katzazi> all other officer roles are defined by policy
20:29 < jmbruckner> i think it should be defined by polocy group
20:29 < katzazi> so why should it be different for docO?
20:29 < dirk> all "other" ... other than the documetation officer?
20:30 < jmbruckner> all other officers - other than doc officer - are also defined by policy
20:30 < katzazi> on the teams and officers overview there are polices marked for the description of the teams and officers
20:30 < katzazi> well not all are actually defined or well defined but it looks like the general idea
20:32 < dirk> makes it sense to take etiennes job-description and give it to "the policy group"?
20:32 < jmbruckner> yes dirk that makes sense
20:32 < jmbruckner> it would be the best way
20:32 < katzazi> not at this time but generally yes - but consider that there already is one WiP document in this direction
20:33 < katzazi> please give polG time to vote on CCA first - also there are some other pressing tasks to do for polG afterwards
20:33 < jmbruckner> i think we should take etiennes description and give it over to the policy group via the Policy Officer
20:33 < dirk> well ... who takes care of the document officer job description in the policy group?
20:33 < katzazi> I'm PolO and my job is to organise the polG
20:34 < dirk> (IMHO it's not urgent but it want to prevent it as a open point for a longer time ...)
20:35 < katzazi> there are urgent policy items outstanding
20:35 < jmbruckner> i think that polgroup would handle it in a reasonable time but i also know that there are some more important tasks at the moment
20:35 < katzazi> exactly
20:36 < dirk> @katzazi: you take care of it ... and report the status of the docO to board if asked for ... perfect ... ;-)
20:36 < katzazi> but I think that we need an according policy anyway for our audit
20:36 < katzazi> so Q will probably look for me bringing it on the table, anyway
20:36  * Q reading
20:37 < dirk> @katzazi: you take care of it ... if Q brings it on the table, too, we have double-control ... ;-)
20:37 < katzazi> but please send me an according mail
20:38 < katzazi> I do NOT have access to the orignal mail
20:38 < dirk> do we need a motion for it?
20:38 < dirk> ... or should go to 2.6 first?
20:38 < Q> To conclude here: Each job should be described in a related policy where the office is established and gets its power from. Some of those are still missing. e.g. Internal Audit
20:38 < dirk> (i suggest: first 2.6 .. then the motions ... ;-) )
20:38 < katzazi> Q I agree
20:39 < dirk> ... if we agree that the DocO has to be defined by policy group we did something wrong in the past ... ;-(
20:40 < Q> dirk, that's not true: you gave PolG Input
20:40 < Q> that's great
20:40 < katzazi> i think he comments the motions done
20:40 < dirk> ... which means: we have to overrule the motions about DocO removal and DocO redefinition by a motion to put it back to the state it was before to allow the policy group to do a DocO-job-description ...
20:40 < katzazi> as one of them is to define the docO by board
20:41 < jmbruckner> yes we should do that this way dirk
20:41 < dirk> who volunteers to do the perfect wording for this motion? ;-)
20:41 < katzazi> you did a good one
20:42 < EtienneRuedin> @Dirk: You have solved a Gordian knot.
20:45 < jmbruckner> does anyone have the motion for this?
20:46 < dirk> back ... had to bring my last drink away ... sorry ... ;-)
20:48 < dirk> I move "Since the DocO is to be defined by the policy-group, we overrule the motions m20140515.3 and m20140518.4 and put back the DocO to the state it was before. The description made by etienne will be given to the Policy-Group, the PolO will take care of the DocO-Job-Description"
20:49 < jmbruckner> second and aye
20:49 < EtienneRuedin> aye
20:49 < katzazi> PolG will take care -
20:49 < EtienneRuedin> Thank you, Eva
20:50 < katzazi> PolO will take care that PolG will address it
20:50 < dirk> yep ...
20:50 < dirk> aye
20:50 < dirk> (i'll list it as "Since the DocO is to be defined by the policy-group, we overrule the motions m20140515.3 and m20140518.4 and put back the DocO to the state it was before.  The description made by etienne will be given to the Policy-Group, the PolO will
20:50 < dirk> take care that PolG will address the DocO-Job-Description"
20:51 < katzazi> :)
20:51 < jmbruckner> okay dirk
20:52 < dirk> that was the easy knot to solve ... ;-)
20:52 < dirk> now we have 2.7 ... ;-)
20:53 < katzazi> if you have to discuss something there - i would like to be present as it affecty my person
20:53 < dirk> makes sense ...
20:53 < katzazi> however I have to leave soon, because my train is arriving and I have to check into my hotel
20:53 < katzazi> I can come back later (about 20min)
20:54 < dirk> maybe we have to switch to a private channel for this ... but we should do it as soon as eva comes back again ...
20:54 < katzazi> thank you
20:55 < dirk> 2.8 ... motions from board-private ...
20:55 < jmbruckner> ist there anything we could handle before tat topic?
20:56 < dirk> ... or shall wie add "2.9 CA/B-forum" and talk about this before?
20:56 < dirk> Q is here to answer questions (hopefully ... ;-) )
20:56 < jmbruckner> anything is fine
20:56 < Q> I try my best ;)
20:57 < EtienneRuedin> I prefer 2.8 arbitration case now (as I have to get up in 6 hours)
20:57 < dirk> as far as i remember there was already a motion about CA/B-forum ... but currently i can't check the motions ... ;-(
20:58 < dirk> (rebuild my machine and forgot the certificate on the old one ... which is around 30 km from here ... ;-( )
20:58 < Q> I search for it
20:58 < dirk> merci
20:58 < EtienneRuedin> Eva asked us to read the details befor vote it (if I remember well)
20:59 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
21:01 < dirk> @etienne ... do you have a link to the details?
21:01 < jmbruckner> well i cant read them now as im not on my PC, just on tablet
21:02 < dirk> (or the email with the details?)
21:02 < EtienneRuedin> I am sorry, not. It comes from my mind. I red just the minutes (with no details).
21:03 < dirk> let'S wait for Q ... ;-)
21:03 < Q> it was 20140601's Meeting. However, there was no Motion recorded.
21:04 < Q> I was pretty sure, that you agreed, that CAcert will join CA/B as interested party. But Eva asked you to read the document [1], before you sign it
21:04 < Q> [1] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-Bylaws-v.-1.1.pdf
21:04 < EtienneRuedin> last meeting: <alex-uk> AFAICR we agreed on joining CA/B - with Benedikt acting as team rep <katzazi> you wanted to read what you would have to accept and all and discuss it here
21:05 < Q> exactly
21:05 < jmbruckner> well if i remember right the only topic was if its accordable with our CCA
21:05 < EtienneRuedin> so decision was probably made in the meeting before (that without minutes)
21:05 < Q> actually, the contract is on page 10 Exhibit A of the byLaws
21:06 < Q> I do not see any conflict to the CCA. We do not promise anything else than keeping the IPR
21:07 < jmbruckner> well if you dont see any conflicts i guess we cann join in
21:07 < dirk> what means "IPR" ?
21:07 < Q> Intellectual Property rights
21:09 < Q> Please have a short look at 1.3 of the bylaws to get the IPR known
21:09 < Q> As you know, this meeting includes com
21:09 < Q> panies that compete against one another. This
21:09 < Q> meeting is intended to discuss technical standards related to the provision of existing and
21:09 < Q> new types of digital certificates without restricting competition in developing and marketing
21:09 < Q> such certificates. This meeting is not intended
21:09 < Q> to share competitively-sensitive information
21:10 < Q> Bylaws of the CA/Browser Foru
21:10 < Q> m, v.1.1 (Effective 25 March 2014)
21:10 < Q> 2
21:10 < Q> among competitors, and therefore all participants agree not to discuss or exchange
21:10 < Q> information related to:
21:10 < Q> (a) Pricing policies, pricing formulas, prices or other terms of sale;
21:10 < Q> (b) Costs, cost structures, profit margins,
21:10 < Q> (c) Pending or planned service offerings,
21:10 < Q> (d) Customers, business, or marketing plans; or
21:10 < Q> (e) The allocation of customers, territories, or products in any way.
21:11 < Q> We fall under "3.2 Interested Parties "
21:12 < Q> CA/B membership is free of charge
21:13 < jmbruckner> i would have no objection to that
21:14 < Q> just reading the Exhibit A, It looks like, I need to sign it
21:14 < Q> as Participant
21:14 < Q> it would be good to get a motion for this
21:14 < Q> Please read Page 10
21:14 < Q> if not yet done
21:15 -!- katzazi [katzazi@89.204.138.228] has joined #board-meeting
21:16 < katzazi> re
21:16 < jmbruckner> welcome back
21:16 < INOPIAE> I support Benedikt's view that he can sign the document, but he should have a motion that support this.
21:16 < dirk> still at the CABforum
21:16 < katzazi> thank you
21:17 < dirk> @inopiae ... which means, that we encourage Q to sign the document for CAcert? ...
21:17 < dirk> ... so Q builds the link between their contract and the CCA?
21:17 < INOPIAE> yes
21:18 < jmbruckner> then i move that CAcert will join in CA/B Forum and give benedikt the power to sign the contract in behalf of CAcert, and that Benedikt is the Contact-Person to/from CA/B Forum
21:18 < dirk> (like secure-u does for the hosting contract and the CCA?)
21:18 < dirk> @jmbruckner ... wait ...
21:18 < jmbruckner> okay ..
21:19 < katzazi> i think board has to sign something like this
21:19 < INOPIAE> any way: joins the CA/B forum as interested party
21:19 < katzazi> or at least read what cacert enters
21:19 < dirk> it's a difference if CAcert will join or Q will join for the behalve of CAcert ...
21:19 < Q> CAcert cannot join
21:19 < dirk> @katzazi: board with Q, Q with CABforum?
21:20 < Q> wait a second
21:20 < dirk> or will the motion be enough for the support or Q for joining the CABforum?
21:21 < dirk> support for Q ... (the "f" disappeared)
21:21 < Q> The Contracts says "If such
21:21 < Q> party
21:21 < Q> is
21:21 < Q> not
21:21 < Q> a
21:21 < Q> natural
21:21 < Q> person,
21:21 < Q> the
21:21 < Q> individual
21:21 < Q> signing
21:21 < Q> this
21:21 < Q> Agreement
21:21 < Q> for
21:21 < Q> the
21:21 < Q> Participant
21:22 < Q> represents
21:22 -!- NEOatNHNG [neo@nat1.scc.kit.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
21:22 < Q> and
21:22 < Q> warrants
21:22 < Q> that
21:22 < Q> he
21:22 < Q> or
21:22 < Q> she
21:22 < Q> has
21:22 < Q> the
21:22 < Q> authority
21:22 < Q> to
21:22 < Q> enter
21:22 < Q> into
21:22 < Q> this
21:22 < Q> Agreement
21:22 < Q> on
21:22 < Q> behalf
21:22 < Q> of
21:22 < Q> the
21:22 < Q> Participant."
21:22 < Q> sorry
21:22 < dirk> Q wants to get a price for most written lines in this meeting .. ;-)
21:22 < Q> the PDF is broken ;9
21:22 < Q> so means: only individuals on behalf of a party can enter
21:22 < Q> s/party/organisation/
21:23 < Q> :D | it also means, that more than one can join
21:23 < katzazi> for the same party/organisation?
21:23 < Q> seems like
21:24 < katzazi> each of them has to have the authoritiy to enter into the agreement on behalf of CAcert
21:24 < katzazi> from CAcert [Inc.]
21:24 < Q> exactly
21:25 < katzazi> who should be the participant? CAcert? CAcert Inc.?
21:25 < katzazi> Q?
21:26 < Q> The Participant represents and warrants that either: (a) it has the authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of all of its Affiliates;
21:26 < Q> CAcert cannot join
21:26 < EtienneRuedin> CAcert Inc. , so the committee can give the authority. With the community, it becomes complicated.
21:27 < dirk> if Q should act in the behalf of CAcert, we're out ... if he should act in the behalf of CAcert Inc. it's our job to decide ... ;-)
21:27 < Q> so CAcert Inc. can give the authority to e.g. Benedikt aka Q to join the CA/B for CAcert Inc
21:27 < katzazi> as interested party
21:28 < Q> that is evident, since we do not comply to the rules of the other member status
21:28 < Q> i.e. successful BR Audit
21:28 < katzazi> sure but even if we would the authority only should cover interested party at the moment
21:30 < katzazi> I think that everything else would start a discussion on the community side, because not everybody agrees with the rules of CA/B forum or CAcert entering them
21:30 < Q> I don't mind
21:31 < Q> I mean, the proposed motion contained this anyway
21:32 < EtienneRuedin> Is there allready a motion to vote?
21:32 < jmbruckner> i did write one above
21:32 < jmbruckner> i repeat here ..
21:32 < jmbruckner> then i move that CAcert will join in CA/B Forum and give benedikt the power to sign the contract in behalf of CAcert, and that Benedikt is the Contact-Person to/from CA/B Forum
21:32 < jmbruckner> to be exact CAcert means CAcert Inc.
21:33 < EtienneRuedin> Benedikt means: Benedikt Heintel
21:33 < jmbruckner> and yes Benedikt meand Benedikt Heintel
21:33 < jmbruckner> * means
21:33 < Q> ;)
21:34 < EtienneRuedin> Reworded: then i move that CAcert Inc. will join in CA/B Forum and give Benedikt Heintel the power to sign the contract in behalf of CAcert Inc., and that Benedikt Heintel is the Contact-Person to/from CA/B Forum
21:34 < jmbruckner> correct Etienne
21:35 < INOPIAE> To join as intersted party
21:35 < Q> hihi
21:35 < EtienneRuedin> then i move that CAcert Inc. will join in CA/B Forum and give Benedikt Heintel the power to sign the contract in behalf of CAcert Inc. as interested party, and that Benedikt Heintel is the Contact-Person to/from CA/B Forum
21:36 < jmbruckner> new reworded then i move that CAcert Inc. will join in CA/B Forum as interested party and give Benedikt Heintel the power to sign the contract in behalf of CAcert Inc., and that Benedikt Heintel is the Contact-Person to/from CA/B Forum
21:36 < jmbruckner> lol
21:36 < EtienneRuedin> Or better this way: your wording is better...
21:37 < EtienneRuedin> Second and aye
21:37 < dirk> aye
21:37 < dirk> carried ... ;-)
21:37 < jmbruckner> aye
21:38 < dirk> okay ... two things left ... ;-)
21:38 < Q> goes out by end of this week latest, I will report about the progress
21:39 < jmbruckner> thanks Q
21:39 < dirk> 2.7 revoke motion and 2.8 arbitration cases from board-private ...
21:39 < dirk> Q: thanks ...
21:40 < dirk> which one can be handled faster? ;-)
21:40 < dirk> (or is more urgent? ;-) )
21:40 < katzazi> 2.8 is more urgent
21:41 < katzazi> if it is faster? - I do not think so
21:41 < dirk> then 2.8 ... ;-)
21:42 < EtienneRuedin> In fact, I does not understand all the details from the case, I just wrote, was I was told to write. It was a political descision that the neutralest person of the committee should do this. Some of Eva's questions are tricky from the legal point of view, as the answers probabely should be well worded and precise.
21:42 < EtienneRuedin> Committee wants, that it is handled by arbitration first.
21:44 < katzazi> I do not think that I wrote a lot of questions in the case a20140518.1 - i think you refere to that
21:44 < katzazi> if you want to hand this case over - you have to hand it over
21:44 < katzazi> this includes the original complaint and an identification of the original participants
21:45 < katzazi> if you do not want to do that - it's ok by me, but you already did two motions in this direction
21:46 < katzazi> it would also be great if you update your dispute to just that complaint or something in this direction
21:46 < dirk> @katzazi: this means: you're waiting for the original complaint and names of the origianl participants ... correct?
21:46 < katzazi> for example
21:46 < katzazi> or at least I'm waiting for those
21:47 < katzazi> and I do not understand why you do have issues providing them if you want arbitration to take care of the case - for over 3 months
21:48 < katzazi> if you want to see how you can exchange a dispute - benedikt did it in the case I mentioned in my first response
21:48 < katzazi> a20140324.1
21:49 < katzazi> it was just an informal mail just stating the exchange
21:49 < EtienneRuedin> As I was not involved in the dispute and I do not have access to all lists at the moment (again), I have to ask to someone to provide it to me. Unfortunately, not everyone answers as quick as you do.
21:50 < katzazi> dirk: you have a lot of experience with disputes maybe you should take over on the side of board?
21:50 < katzazi> you are the only person involved in the dispute currentyl EtienneRuedin
21:50 < katzazi> beside of A/CM and "board" or "CAcert" and "CAcert Inc."
21:51 < dirk> @katzazi: starting after july: yes .. but not before ...
21:51 < katzazi> you need over 1 month to forward a mail?
21:51 < dirk> there is the AGM, my son ... and the preparation of the flat in solingen ...
21:51 < dirk> ... and unfortunately the days has only 24 hours ... ;-(
21:52 < EtienneRuedin> When I wrote "not involved in the dispute" means int he dispute on the mailing list, not the arbitration dispute.
21:53 < katzazi> well then I will have to report to the AGM that members are treated unfair or complaints about potential damaging beahvier of CAcert are not handled because board cannot forward a mail within 4 months
21:53 < katzazi> ok with me
21:53 < katzazi> you do not need to forward anything from any public mailing list
21:54 < dirk> i can't do everything at the same time ... ;-(
21:54 < jmbruckner> dirk, can you take care about this, to provide the needed informations to Eva in her Role of Arbitrator of this case?
21:55 < katzazi> maybe I should than include a change of CAcert Inc rules that according complaints should be handled by arbitration directly
21:58 < katzazi> jmbruckner: you can forward the mail as well
21:58 < katzazi> anybody of you can
21:59 < katzazi> but if you do hand over the case to arbitration correctly this is something that AGM should not accept
21:59 < dirk> @katzazi: handled by arbitration as soon as there is not a motion against it ...
21:59 < dirk> (which means: reversed direction
22:00 < dirk> compared to the state now)
22:01 < katzazi> sure you can undo your motion all the time
22:01 < katzazi> ah sorry now I read it another time and got the meaning
22:01 < katzazi> how could there be a motion against it?
22:02 < katzazi> jmbruckner: you could do it as well if dirk or EtienneRuedin cannot or will not do it
22:02 < katzazi> also there is the DRO - he SHOULD know how to file a dispute ....
22:03 < dirk> i can take care of it ... but on my site it takes some time (and blocks other things ...)
22:03 < dirk> if it's more than only to forward an email ... either somebody has to take care of it .. or some other jobs i have ...
22:04 < jmbruckner> i cant find the email in my list anymore
22:05 < katzazi> I have not enough information to handle the case - if board cannot or does not hand the original mail over the cas cannt start - so it is the responsibility of board to do this
22:05 < katzazi> you will not be able to do the case on your own without the mail, too
22:05 < dirk> ;-)
22:05 < EtienneRuedin> As soon as I get the e-mail, you will have a copy of it.
22:06 < katzazi> so you HAVE to get hold of the mail one way or the other
22:06 < katzazi> EtienneRuedin: make it soon
22:06 < katzazi> there is not much time for me to enter proposals for rule changes, anymore
22:09 < katzazi> there were two other arbitration cases I reminded you today
22:10 < katzazi> one of them is a ruling in a sealed case that affects board communication
22:11 < katzazi> and the other is a ruling in a case that asks you to review and update f.e. the keypersons list and some other aspects mentioned in the SP
22:11 < katzazi> I proposed to confere with the internal auditor
22:12 < katzazi> in the first case the internal auditor already asked me about a status update
22:13 < dirk> for the keypersons list i suppose this is on the list of the first items for a new board ... isn't it?
22:13 < katzazi> i do not think that it should wait as long
22:13 < dirk> (would it be enough to update/review in the weeks after the AGM?)
22:14 < katzazi> please look at the deadlines
22:14 < katzazi> look at the month not the day
22:15 < katzazi> i do not think that this should wait one or two other months
22:15 < dirk> the deadline were set before the date of the AGM was defined ...
22:15 < katzazi> but well, that is only me
22:15 < dirk> that's why i'm asking ...
22:15 < dirk> ;-)
22:15 < katzazi> I do not think thatI had the authority to rule on this based on the dispute of said case
22:16 < katzazi> but I have 3 other cases that may come to the same conclusion
22:18 < katzazi> I cannot press you to do anything but I think this is security relevant and the current state does not match SP and SM at all
22:18 < katzazi> we do not know when the next incident / emergency will be there where such a list may make a difference
22:19 < katzazi> it should be correct all teh time
22:20 < dirk> who will take care of it? ... juergen? etienne?
22:22 < jmbruckner> i m afraid i cant, very busy this week
22:22 < dirk> michael? alex? ...
22:23 < dirk> i'll send a mail to all (more-or-less) board-members and expect, that at least one person will take care of it BEFORE the next board-meeting ...
22:23 < jmbruckner> okay
22:24 < jmbruckner> well guys im sorry but i have to run now, have to be up around 5.00 again
22:25 < dirk> for the key-persons list especially ... and if i'm not able to find the mail on tuesday i'll send a mail, too, so alex_uk or michael can take care of ...
22:25 < dirk> @katzazi: will this be OK for you?
22:26 < katzazi> I do not have the authority to ask for anything else, anyway ;-) - at least not at the moment
22:26 < katzazi> but for the communication thing a report is due next saturday
22:26 < dirk> even if i'm not able to help i try to push ... ;-)
22:26 < katzazi> as for everybody else entioned in that ruling
22:27 < katzazi> thank you
22:27 < katzazi> *mentioned - I'm getting really tired
22:27 < jmbruckner> have a good night
22:27 < jmbruckner> ... gone
22:27 -!- jmbruckner [jmbruckner@178.188.196.234] has quit [Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de]
22:27 < dirk> same goes for the secure communications with board ...
22:29 < dirk> however: i'll update the agenda for the next meeting (next week, sunday morning) with this item (arbitration from board-private by eva) as the first item after AGM preparation ...
22:33 < katzazi> is the meeting closed?
22:33 < dirk> okay .. since the next meeting is already defined (next week morning) i'll postpone the open point(s) to the next meeting and close the meeting now ...
22:33 < dirk> sunday morning ...
22:34 < dirk> see you ...
22:34 < katzazi> good night
22:35 < Q> good night, too from my side