1 18:59 < dirk_on_server> hi
   2 19:01 < dirk_on_server> i see juergen only ...
   3 19:01 < dirk_on_server> lets wait some minutes ...
   4 19:01 < katzazi> ben
   5 19:01 < jmbruckner> hello
   6 19:02 < jmbruckner> im on tablet/mobile .. so i will have a bit longer time for responses
   7 19:03 < dirk_on_server> me too ... a
   8 19:04 < dirk_on_server> (for the next around 20 minutes)
   9 19:09 < INOPIAE> Do you have any news about joining the CA/B forum as interested party?
  10 19:11 < katzazi> what is with NEOatNHNG?
  11 19:27 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.67] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
  12 19:31 -!- Q [rats@ipservice-092-209-181-251.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #board-meeting
  13 19:32 < Q> good evening
  14 19:33 -!- EtienneRuedin [5c6af3ad@localhost] has joined #board-meeting
  15 19:37 -!- dirk [dirk@astrath.net] has joined #board-meeting
  16 19:38 < dirk> now i have a keyboard under my fingers .... ;-)
  17 19:38 < dirk> and etienne is there ... great ... ;-)
  18 19:40 < EtienneRuedin> Hello Dirk
  19 19:40 < dirk> hi
  20 19:41 < dirk> can you open the agenda?
  21 19:42 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has joined #board-meeting
  22 19:45 < dirk> okay ... my browser doesn't like me .. but lynx does ... ;-)
  23 19:45 < dirk> let's start ...
  24 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 ...
  25 19:47 < dirk> ... since werner isn't available right now i'll take over the chair for the next meetings (and possibly AGM)
  26 19:47 < dirk> therefore: i open the meeting (since we have a quorum with etienne, juergen and me)
  27 19:48 < jmbruckner> okay
  28 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)
  29 19:49 < dirk> furthermore i'll do the minutes ... (2.4)
  30 19:49 < jmbruckner> accept
  31 19:49 < dirk> now 2.4: are there any items from board-private to disclose?
  32 19:49 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
  33 19:50 < dirk> (i would have checked on my machine, but it crashed while being away for around 2 hours ... ;-( )
  34 19:51 < jmbruckner> there have been mails from Eva we should reacton
  35 19:51 < dirk> will take some minutes (unless etienne is able to tell us ... ;-) )
  36 19:52 < EtienneRuedin> who is best versed in legal on the board?
  37 19:52 < jmbruckner> i guess Dirk is, Etienne
  38 19:52 < EtienneRuedin> first mmail from june 16
  39 19:52 < EtienneRuedin> and second from today 4 o'clock
  40 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
  41 19:54 < EtienneRuedin> We wanted, that arbitration takes over (shortest version)
  42 19:55 < jmbruckner> yes but as far i understand evas mail, she didnt get the needed information .. initial mail to board, etc
  43 19:55 < dirk> okay ... let's add this to the business items ...
  44 19:56 < EtienneRuedin> Neither I did. (As I had no access to board private and I does not anymore at the moment.)
  45 19:56 < dirk> eva isn't online currently ...
  46 19:57 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has joined #board-meeting
  47 19:57 -!- katzazi_ [katzazi@89.204.139.67] has joined #board-meeting
  48 20:00 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
  49 20:00 < dirk> is the anything more from the board-mailing-list?
  50 20:00 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has joined #board-meeting
  51 20:01 < jmbruckner> not as i knew
  52 20:01 < dirk> i don't think so ... so let's start with 2.1: add late items ...
  53 20:02 < dirk> i move "Add arbitration cases from board-private as 2.8 to business items"
  54 20:02 < jmbruckner> second and aye
  55 20:02 < EtienneRuedin> aye
  56 20:02 < dirk> aye
  57 20:02 < katzazi> will you come to that today or do you have to leave earlier?
  58 20:02 < dirk> carried ... ;-)
  59 20:03 -!- katzazi_ [katzazi@89.204.139.67] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
  60 20:03 < dirk> @katzazi ... this depends on the discussions for the items before 2.8 ... ;-)
  61 20:03 < dirk> more late items?
  62 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)
  63 20:04 < katzazi> what with CA/B forum?
  64 20:05 < jmbruckner> i think we can skip 2.2 and 2.3
  65 20:05 < dirk> for 2.3 ... are there any news about the move of CAcert Inc.?
  66 20:05 < jmbruckner> no news so far
  67 20:05 < dirk> @jmbruckner: but still ongoing?
  68 20:05 < jmbruckner> yes still ongoing
  69 20:06 < dirk> okay ...
  70 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)
  71 20:07 < dirk> 2.4 AGM preparation ...
  72 20:07 < dirk> you're aware, that the AGM will be in around 4 weeks?
  73 20:07 < katzazi> any board can decide on this
  74 20:08 < INOPIAE> and you had enough time to prepare yourself.
  75 20:08 < jmbruckner> i think we need some more information about CA/B-Forum, so it should be handled by next board
  76 20:08 < dirk> @all: can we discuss this later? ... thank you
  77 20:09 < dirk> let's do AGM first ...
  78 20:09 < dirk> (2.4 ... not the AGM itself ... ;-) )
  79 20:09 < dirk> i sent etienne a mail with some details/dates ...
  80 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.
  81 20:11 < dirk> yep ... s/06/07/g ...
  82 20:11 < dirk> (i sent it early in the morning ... sorry ... )
  83 20:11 < EtienneRuedin> No problem.
  84 20:12 < dirk> did you contact michael according the members list?
  85 20:12 < dirk> next question: who will contact the teamleaders for their team-report of the last year?
  86 20:13 < dirk> (financial year = summer 2013 to summer 2014)
  87 20:13 < EtienneRuedin> I will contact Michael, as the way over the SVN admin seems more comlicated to be fast.
  88 20:14 < dirk> okay ...
  89 20:14 < EtienneRuedin> Update: I wrote Micahel seven hours ago.
  90 20:15 < dirk> perfect ... ;-)
  91 20:16 < dirk> it seems i have to inform the teamleaders for their report ...
  92 20:16 < dirk> okay ...
  93 20:16 < dirk> anything more according to the AGM?
  94 20:17 < jmbruckner> not from me
  95 20:19 < dirk> are there any volunteers available for the next board? ;-)
  96 20:19 < dirk> (except me if nobody sees a COI with secure-u ... ;) )
  97 20:19 < katzazi> weird question
  98 20:20 < katzazi> people get recommended and do not volunteer ....
  99 20:20 < dirk> and ... we all should try to find board member candidates ... ;-)
 100 20:20 < dirk> @katzazi ... please excuse my wording ... i'm not a native speaker ... ;-(
 101 20:20 < dirk> ;-)
 102 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 ... ;-)
 103 20:23 < dirk> it makes no sense to nominate a person, who doesn't want to become a board-member ... ;-)
 104 20:24 < dirk> well ... hopefully etienne sends out the mail real fast now so we have enough candidates ... ;-)
 105 20:25 < dirk> let's continue with the AGM preparation on the next meeting ...
 106 20:25 < EtienneRuedin> I hope so.
 107 20:25 < dirk> ... and continue with 2.5: job description of the document officer ...
 108 20:26 < katzazi> why is this point handled bevor 2.6? 2.6 is older
 109 20:26 < katzazi> and 2.5 get's irrelevant if 2.6 is carried
 110 20:27 < dirk> who added it to the agenda?
 111 20:28 < dirk> (... which brings me to the question: who can define the job of the document officer? ... ;-) )
 112 20:28 < EtienneRuedin> Committee think, it can.
 113 20:28 < katzazi> all other officer roles are defined by policy
 114 20:29 < jmbruckner> i think it should be defined by polocy group
 115 20:29 < katzazi> so why should it be different for docO?
 116 20:29 < dirk> all "other" ... other than the documetation officer?
 117 20:30 < jmbruckner> all other officers - other than doc officer - are also defined by policy
 118 20:30 < katzazi> on the teams and officers overview there are polices marked for the description of the teams and officers
 119 20:30 < katzazi> well not all are actually defined or well defined but it looks like the general idea
 120 20:32 < dirk> makes it sense to take etiennes job-description and give it to "the policy group"?
 121 20:32 < jmbruckner> yes dirk that makes sense
 122 20:32 < jmbruckner> it would be the best way
 123 20:32 < katzazi> not at this time but generally yes - but consider that there already is one WiP document in this direction
 124 20:33 < katzazi> please give polG time to vote on CCA first - also there are some other pressing tasks to do for polG afterwards
 125 20:33 < jmbruckner> i think we should take etiennes description and give it over to the policy group via the Policy Officer
 126 20:33 < dirk> well ... who takes care of the document officer job description in the policy group?
 127 20:33 < katzazi> I'm PolO and my job is to organise the polG
 128 20:34 < dirk> (IMHO it's not urgent but it want to prevent it as a open point for a longer time ...)
 129 20:35 < katzazi> there are urgent policy items outstanding
 130 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
 131 20:35 < katzazi> exactly
 132 20:36 < dirk> @katzazi: you take care of it ... and report the status of the docO to board if asked for ... perfect ... ;-)
 133 20:36 < katzazi> but I think that we need an according policy anyway for our audit
 134 20:36 < katzazi> so Q will probably look for me bringing it on the table, anyway
 135 20:36  * Q reading
 136 20:37 < dirk> @katzazi: you take care of it ... if Q brings it on the table, too, we have double-control ... ;-)
 137 20:37 < katzazi> but please send me an according mail
 138 20:38 < katzazi> I do NOT have access to the orignal mail
 139 20:38 < dirk> do we need a motion for it?
 140 20:38 < dirk> ... or should go to 2.6 first?
 141 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
 142 20:38 < dirk> (i suggest: first 2.6 .. then the motions ... ;-) )
 143 20:38 < katzazi> Q I agree
 144 20:39 < dirk> ... if we agree that the DocO has to be defined by policy group we did something wrong in the past ... ;-(
 145 20:40 < Q> dirk, that's not true: you gave PolG Input
 146 20:40 < Q> that's great
 147 20:40 < katzazi> i think he comments the motions done
 148 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 ...
 149 20:40 < katzazi> as one of them is to define the docO by board
 150 20:41 < jmbruckner> yes we should do that this way dirk
 151 20:41 < dirk> who volunteers to do the perfect wording for this motion? ;-)
 152 20:41 < katzazi> you did a good one
 153 20:42 < EtienneRuedin> @Dirk: You have solved a Gordian knot.
 154 20:45 < jmbruckner> does anyone have the motion for this?
 155 20:46 < dirk> back ... had to bring my last drink away ... sorry ... ;-)
 156 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"
 157 20:49 < jmbruckner> second and aye
 158 20:49 < EtienneRuedin> aye
 159 20:49 < katzazi> PolG will take care -
 160 20:49 < EtienneRuedin> Thank you, Eva
 161 20:50 < katzazi> PolO will take care that PolG will address it
 162 20:50 < dirk> yep ...
 163 20:50 < dirk> aye
 164 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
 165 20:50 < dirk> take care that PolG will address the DocO-Job-Description"
 166 20:51 < katzazi> :)
 167 20:51 < jmbruckner> okay dirk
 168 20:52 < dirk> that was the easy knot to solve ... ;-)
 169 20:52 < dirk> now we have 2.7 ... ;-)
 170 20:53 < katzazi> if you have to discuss something there - i would like to be present as it affecty my person
 171 20:53 < dirk> makes sense ...
 172 20:53 < katzazi> however I have to leave soon, because my train is arriving and I have to check into my hotel
 173 20:53 < katzazi> I can come back later (about 20min)
 174 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 ...
 175 20:54 < katzazi> thank you
 176 20:55 < dirk> 2.8 ... motions from board-private ...
 177 20:55 < jmbruckner> ist there anything we could handle before tat topic?
 178 20:56 < dirk> ... or shall wie add "2.9 CA/B-forum" and talk about this before?
 179 20:56 < dirk> Q is here to answer questions (hopefully ... ;-) )
 180 20:56 < jmbruckner> anything is fine
 181 20:56 < Q> I try my best ;)
 182 20:57 < EtienneRuedin> I prefer 2.8 arbitration case now (as I have to get up in 6 hours)
 183 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 ... ;-(
 184 20:58 < dirk> (rebuild my machine and forgot the certificate on the old one ... which is around 30 km from here ... ;-( )
 185 20:58 < Q> I search for it
 186 20:58 < dirk> merci
 187 20:58 < EtienneRuedin> Eva asked us to read the details befor vote it (if I remember well)
 188 20:59 -!- katzazi [katzazi@88.128.80.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
 189 21:01 < dirk> @etienne ... do you have a link to the details?
 190 21:01 < jmbruckner> well i cant read them now as im not on my PC, just on tablet
 191 21:02 < dirk> (or the email with the details?)
 192 21:02 < EtienneRuedin> I am sorry, not. It comes from my mind. I red just the minutes (with no details).
 193 21:03 < dirk> let'S wait for Q ... ;-)
 194 21:03 < Q> it was 20140601's Meeting. However, there was no Motion recorded.
 195 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
 196 21:04 < Q> [1] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-Bylaws-v.-1.1.pdf
 197 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
 198 21:05 < Q> exactly
 199 21:05 < jmbruckner> well if i remember right the only topic was if its accordable with our CCA
 200 21:05 < EtienneRuedin> so decision was probably made in the meeting before (that without minutes)
 201 21:05 < Q> actually, the contract is on page 10 Exhibit A of the byLaws
 202 21:06 < Q> I do not see any conflict to the CCA. We do not promise anything else than keeping the IPR
 203 21:07 < jmbruckner> well if you dont see any conflicts i guess we cann join in
 204 21:07 < dirk> what means "IPR" ?
 205 21:07 < Q> Intellectual Property rights
 206 21:09 < Q> Please have a short look at 1.3 of the bylaws to get the IPR known
 207 21:09 < Q> As you know, this meeting includes com
 208 21:09 < Q> panies that compete against one another. This
 209 21:09 < Q> meeting is intended to discuss technical standards related to the provision of existing and
 210 21:09 < Q> new types of digital certificates without restricting competition in developing and marketing
 211 21:09 < Q> such certificates. This meeting is not intended
 212 21:09 < Q> to share competitively-sensitive information
 213 21:10 < Q> Bylaws of the CA/Browser Foru
 214 21:10 < Q> m, v.1.1 (Effective 25 March 2014)
 215 21:10 < Q> 2
 216 21:10 < Q> among competitors, and therefore all participants agree not to discuss or exchange
 217 21:10 < Q> information related to:
 218 21:10 < Q> (a) Pricing policies, pricing formulas, prices or other terms of sale;
 219 21:10 < Q> (b) Costs, cost structures, profit margins,
 220 21:10 < Q> (c) Pending or planned service offerings,
 221 21:10 < Q> (d) Customers, business, or marketing plans; or
 222 21:10 < Q> (e) The allocation of customers, territories, or products in any way.
 223 21:11 < Q> We fall under "3.2 Interested Parties "
 224 21:12 < Q> CA/B membership is free of charge
 225 21:13 < jmbruckner> i would have no objection to that
 226 21:14 < Q> just reading the Exhibit A, It looks like, I need to sign it
 227 21:14 < Q> as Participant
 228 21:14 < Q> it would be good to get a motion for this
 229 21:14 < Q> Please read Page 10
 230 21:14 < Q> if not yet done
 231 21:15 -!- katzazi [katzazi@89.204.138.228] has joined #board-meeting
 232 21:16 < katzazi> re
 233 21:16 < jmbruckner> welcome back
 234 21:16 < INOPIAE> I support Benedikt's view that he can sign the document, but he should have a motion that support this.
 235 21:16 < dirk> still at the CABforum
 236 21:16 < katzazi> thank you
 237 21:17 < dirk> @inopiae ... which means, that we encourage Q to sign the document for CAcert? ...
 238 21:17 < dirk> ... so Q builds the link between their contract and the CCA?
 239 21:17 < INOPIAE> yes
 240 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
 241 21:18 < dirk> (like secure-u does for the hosting contract and the CCA?)
 242 21:18 < dirk> @jmbruckner ... wait ...
 243 21:18 < jmbruckner> okay ..
 244 21:19 < katzazi> i think board has to sign something like this
 245 21:19 < INOPIAE> any way: joins the CA/B forum as interested party
 246 21:19 < katzazi> or at least read what cacert enters
 247 21:19 < dirk> it's a difference if CAcert will join or Q will join for the behalve of CAcert ...
 248 21:19 < Q> CAcert cannot join
 249 21:19 < dirk> @katzazi: board with Q, Q with CABforum?
 250 21:20 < Q> wait a second
 251 21:20 < dirk> or will the motion be enough for the support or Q for joining the CABforum?
 252 21:21 < dirk> support for Q ... (the "f" disappeared)
 253 21:21 < Q> The Contracts says "If such
 254 21:21 < Q> party
 255 21:21 < Q> is
 256 21:21 < Q> not
 257 21:21 < Q> a
 258 21:21 < Q> natural
 259 21:21 < Q> person,
 260 21:21 < Q> the
 261 21:21 < Q> individual
 262 21:21 < Q> signing
 263 21:21 < Q> this
 264 21:21 < Q> Agreement
 265 21:21 < Q> for
 266 21:21 < Q> the
 267 21:21 < Q> Participant
 268 21:22 < Q> represents
 269 21:22 -!- NEOatNHNG [neo@nat1.scc.kit.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
 270 21:22 < Q> and
 271 21:22 < Q> warrants
 272 21:22 < Q> that
 273 21:22 < Q> he
 274 21:22 < Q> or
 275 21:22 < Q> she
 276 21:22 < Q> has
 277 21:22 < Q> the
 278 21:22 < Q> authority
 279 21:22 < Q> to
 280 21:22 < Q> enter
 281 21:22 < Q> into
 282 21:22 < Q> this
 283 21:22 < Q> Agreement
 284 21:22 < Q> on
 285 21:22 < Q> behalf
 286 21:22 < Q> of
 287 21:22 < Q> the
 288 21:22 < Q> Participant."
 289 21:22 < Q> sorry
 290 21:22 < dirk> Q wants to get a price for most written lines in this meeting .. ;-)
 291 21:22 < Q> the PDF is broken ;9
 292 21:22 < Q> so means: only individuals on behalf of a party can enter
 293 21:22 < Q> s/party/organisation/
 294 21:23 < Q> :D | it also means, that more than one can join
 295 21:23 < katzazi> for the same party/organisation?
 296 21:23 < Q> seems like
 297 21:24 < katzazi> each of them has to have the authoritiy to enter into the agreement on behalf of CAcert
 298 21:24 < katzazi> from CAcert [Inc.]
 299 21:24 < Q> exactly
 300 21:25 < katzazi> who should be the participant? CAcert? CAcert Inc.?
 301 21:25 < katzazi> Q?
 302 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;
 303 21:26 < Q> CAcert cannot join
 304 21:26 < EtienneRuedin> CAcert Inc. , so the committee can give the authority. With the community, it becomes complicated.
 305 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 ... ;-)
 306 21:27 < Q> so CAcert Inc. can give the authority to e.g. Benedikt aka Q to join the CA/B for CAcert Inc
 307 21:27 < katzazi> as interested party
 308 21:28 < Q> that is evident, since we do not comply to the rules of the other member status
 309 21:28 < Q> i.e. successful BR Audit
 310 21:28 < katzazi> sure but even if we would the authority only should cover interested party at the moment
 311 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
 312 21:30 < Q> I don't mind
 313 21:31 < Q> I mean, the proposed motion contained this anyway
 314 21:32 < EtienneRuedin> Is there allready a motion to vote?
 315 21:32 < jmbruckner> i did write one above
 316 21:32 < jmbruckner> i repeat here ..
 317 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
 318 21:32 < jmbruckner> to be exact CAcert means CAcert Inc.
 319 21:33 < EtienneRuedin> Benedikt means: Benedikt Heintel
 320 21:33 < jmbruckner> and yes Benedikt meand Benedikt Heintel
 321 21:33 < jmbruckner> * means
 322 21:33 < Q> ;)
 323 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
 324 21:34 < jmbruckner> correct Etienne
 325 21:35 < INOPIAE> To join as intersted party
 326 21:35 < Q> hihi
 327 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
 328 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
 329 21:36 < jmbruckner> lol
 330 21:36 < EtienneRuedin> Or better this way: your wording is better...
 331 21:37 < EtienneRuedin> Second and aye
 332 21:37 < dirk> aye
 333 21:37 < dirk> carried ... ;-)
 334 21:37 < jmbruckner> aye
 335 21:38 < dirk> okay ... two things left ... ;-)
 336 21:38 < Q> goes out by end of this week latest, I will report about the progress
 337 21:39 < jmbruckner> thanks Q
 338 21:39 < dirk> 2.7 revoke motion and 2.8 arbitration cases from board-private ...
 339 21:39 < dirk> Q: thanks ...
 340 21:40 < dirk> which one can be handled faster? ;-)
 341 21:40 < dirk> (or is more urgent? ;-) )
 342 21:40 < katzazi> 2.8 is more urgent
 343 21:41 < katzazi> if it is faster? - I do not think so
 344 21:41 < dirk> then 2.8 ... ;-)
 345 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.
 346 21:42 < EtienneRuedin> Committee wants, that it is handled by arbitration first.
 347 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
 348 21:44 < katzazi> if you want to hand this case over - you have to hand it over
 349 21:44 < katzazi> this includes the original complaint and an identification of the original participants
 350 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
 351 21:46 < katzazi> it would also be great if you update your dispute to just that complaint or something in this direction
 352 21:46 < dirk> @katzazi: this means: you're waiting for the original complaint and names of the origianl participants ... correct?
 353 21:46 < katzazi> for example
 354 21:46 < katzazi> or at least I'm waiting for those
 355 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
 356 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
 357 21:48 < katzazi> a20140324.1
 358 21:49 < katzazi> it was just an informal mail just stating the exchange
 359 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.
 360 21:50 < katzazi> dirk: you have a lot of experience with disputes maybe you should take over on the side of board?
 361 21:50 < katzazi> you are the only person involved in the dispute currentyl EtienneRuedin
 362 21:50 < katzazi> beside of A/CM and "board" or "CAcert" and "CAcert Inc."
 363 21:51 < dirk> @katzazi: starting after july: yes .. but not before ...
 364 21:51 < katzazi> you need over 1 month to forward a mail?
 365 21:51 < dirk> there is the AGM, my son ... and the preparation of the flat in solingen ...
 366 21:51 < dirk> ... and unfortunately the days has only 24 hours ... ;-(
 367 21:52 < EtienneRuedin> When I wrote "not involved in the dispute" means int he dispute on the mailing list, not the arbitration dispute.
 368 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
 369 21:53 < katzazi> ok with me
 370 21:53 < katzazi> you do not need to forward anything from any public mailing list
 371 21:54 < dirk> i can't do everything at the same time ... ;-(
 372 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?
 373 21:55 < katzazi> maybe I should than include a change of CAcert Inc rules that according complaints should be handled by arbitration directly
 374 21:58 < katzazi> jmbruckner: you can forward the mail as well
 375 21:58 < katzazi> anybody of you can
 376 21:59 < katzazi> but if you do hand over the case to arbitration correctly this is something that AGM should not accept
 377 21:59 < dirk> @katzazi: handled by arbitration as soon as there is not a motion against it ...
 378 21:59 < dirk> (which means: reversed direction
 379 22:00 < dirk> compared to the state now)
 380 22:01 < katzazi> sure you can undo your motion all the time
 381 22:01 < katzazi> ah sorry now I read it another time and got the meaning
 382 22:01 < katzazi> how could there be a motion against it?
 383 22:02 < katzazi> jmbruckner: you could do it as well if dirk or EtienneRuedin cannot or will not do it
 384 22:02 < katzazi> also there is the DRO - he SHOULD know how to file a dispute ....
 385 22:03 < dirk> i can take care of it ... but on my site it takes some time (and blocks other things ...)
 386 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 ...
 387 22:04 < jmbruckner> i cant find the email in my list anymore
 388 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
 389 22:05 < katzazi> you will not be able to do the case on your own without the mail, too
 390 22:05 < dirk> ;-)
 391 22:05 < EtienneRuedin> As soon as I get the e-mail, you will have a copy of it.
 392 22:06 < katzazi> so you HAVE to get hold of the mail one way or the other
 393 22:06 < katzazi> EtienneRuedin: make it soon
 394 22:06 < katzazi> there is not much time for me to enter proposals for rule changes, anymore
 395 22:09 < katzazi> there were two other arbitration cases I reminded you today
 396 22:10 < katzazi> one of them is a ruling in a sealed case that affects board communication
 397 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
 398 22:11 < katzazi> I proposed to confere with the internal auditor
 399 22:12 < katzazi> in the first case the internal auditor already asked me about a status update
 400 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?
 401 22:13 < katzazi> i do not think that it should wait as long
 402 22:13 < dirk> (would it be enough to update/review in the weeks after the AGM?)
 403 22:14 < katzazi> please look at the deadlines
 404 22:14 < katzazi> look at the month not the day
 405 22:15 < katzazi> i do not think that this should wait one or two other months
 406 22:15 < dirk> the deadline were set before the date of the AGM was defined ...
 407 22:15 < katzazi> but well, that is only me
 408 22:15 < dirk> that's why i'm asking ...
 409 22:15 < dirk> ;-)
 410 22:15 < katzazi> I do not think thatI had the authority to rule on this based on the dispute of said case
 411 22:16 < katzazi> but I have 3 other cases that may come to the same conclusion
 412 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
 413 22:18 < katzazi> we do not know when the next incident / emergency will be there where such a list may make a difference
 414 22:19 < katzazi> it should be correct all teh time
 415 22:20 < dirk> who will take care of it? ... juergen? etienne?
 416 22:22 < jmbruckner> i m afraid i cant, very busy this week
 417 22:22 < dirk> michael? alex? ...
 418 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 ...
 419 22:23 < jmbruckner> okay
 420 22:24 < jmbruckner> well guys im sorry but i have to run now, have to be up around 5.00 again
 421 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 ...
 422 22:25 < dirk> @katzazi: will this be OK for you?
 423 22:26 < katzazi> I do not have the authority to ask for anything else, anyway ;-) - at least not at the moment
 424 22:26 < katzazi> but for the communication thing a report is due next saturday
 425 22:26 < dirk> even if i'm not able to help i try to push ... ;-)
 426 22:26 < katzazi> as for everybody else entioned in that ruling
 427 22:27 < katzazi> thank you
 428 22:27 < katzazi> *mentioned - I'm getting really tired
 429 22:27 < jmbruckner> have a good night
 430 22:27 < jmbruckner> ... gone
 431 22:27 -!- jmbruckner [jmbruckner@178.188.196.234] has quit [Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de]
 432 22:27 < dirk> same goes for the secure communications with board ...
 433 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 ...
 434 22:33 < katzazi> is the meeting closed?
 435 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 ...
 436 22:33 < dirk> sunday morning ...
 437 22:34 < dirk> see you ...
 438 22:34 < katzazi> good night
 439 22:35 < Q> good night, too from my side