Agenda - Committee Meeting 2010-03-06 22:00 UTC

Minutes - Committee Meeting 2010-03-06

Present: Ernestine, Daniel, Mario (had connection interruption), Ian (passively) and Lambert (away from 22:55 to 00:03). Nick joined at 22:49.

Lambert held a proxy for Ian.

  1. Preliminaries
    1. Lambert chairing the meeting determined a quorum and opened the meeting. Chair backed up by Daniel.

    2. Accept the Minutes of the last Committee Meeting

      • Daniel noted the minutes have been finished in a rush and he might have missed something.
      • Moved by Lambert, seconded by Mario. Carried.
    3. Progress on agreed ACTION items
      1. Outstanding From 2010-02-02
        1. Mark: write up Oophanga letter response for President Lambert's signature.
          • Mark was not there as well as last meeting. Daniel will contact him.
          • Lambert tried to contact Mark but did not get a response
          • Daniel assumed Mark being overloaded and asked whether this should be taken off his hands.
            • Agreed first to contact Mark to check whether he is not nearly finished by now.
          • Mario mentioned remembering on one of the last meeting it was agreed to contact Oophaga informally and send them the annual report while finishing the formal reply. Lambert to call Oophaga and tell them that they will be informed soon.
          • Ernestine mentioned Ian spoke with Oophaga in December or Janurary.
          • Lambert noted we need to follow up and referred to an email sent by Teus.
        2. contribute to discussion on Board/Community goals on board email list. reiterated in 20100221 meeting.
          • Lambert did not see any substatial progress on this yes.
          • Daniel and Ian did some posts.
          • Not much followup either by community and board.
          • Mario has just gone abroad and will try to catch up with the lists.
          • Ernestine mentioned to get an overview where we are we need somehow feedback from the people.
            • Daniel stated we only need a board view and the community will object/state their view if they think we are wrong. We sort of need this to complete the Oophaga letter.
          • Lambert suggested for all to come up with one or two items to look at and then to decide a priority and a timeline
          • Ernestine noted that we would need a list auf the running projects and their status
          • Daniel liked to have a quick status report of them on every board meeting

          • Lambert agreed and said independent of status we need to have a 50.000 feet idea of where we want to be in 6-12 months

          • Ernestine asked whether there is an actual list of all officers
            • Dan mentioned the officers wiki page, but did not knew whether it was current. Ernestine said it was not.
          • Lambert noticed that the overview was lost and asked for a volunteer to sort out officers, projects and status.
            • Ernestine will start a wiki page and ask people to complete.
        3. automatic sending bit
          • Dan explained: was the key persons email list - to send contact details out automaticly to baord/arbitratiors/admins to facilitate DR. He is still waiting on Nick to compile the list of contacts. For Daniel low priority unless he gets the list of contacts.
          • Lambert mentioned a rather small list. Dan said it was partially complete now and Nick was finished with it.
          • Mario said we might need Nicks feedback for this.

          • => Waiting for Nick to complete the list.

          • Nick: I still have the emails that were sent to me, the spreadsheet i had basically done was lost when my hard drive crashed. but i have it almost re-constructed from the emails. hopefully i can finish and upload it to the list tomorrow
        4. Mark: Pay Ian (old audit debt related) and Oophanga.
          • Ernestine had no record on these payments had been done. Mentioned that Mark can do payments alone now.
          • Ian: not received any payment.
        5. Mark: Westpac to change to a single signatory to sign payments in accordance with AGM rule change.
          • Dan to ask Mark and report back if Mark to not give a status. Mario to mail Nick.
        6. Agreed on other action items of Mark being deferred to next meeting.
        7. Ian: Write up AGM minutes
          • Ernestined thinks Ian already started.
          • Daniel mentioned we can get any member to write the minutes if Ian has not time.
          • Ian: not started yet.
      2. Outstanding From 2010-02-21
        1. Lambert skipped the first four as they were already discussed.
        2. Mario had sent a summary of the board-private-list to the public readable board list just an hour before the meeting.
        3. Find out from US bankers whats required to open an account
          • Nick is not there. Ask him again.
          • Nick later was asked to post info to the list.
        4. Ian: Examine willingness and legalities of using other organisations to provide alternate payment mechanisms
          • Answer was given. No questions.
        5. Lambert: Prepare summary of payment options / investigation for association
          • Lambert: First email sent, need to follow up. No further info.
        6. Support TL: Access control in OTRS (support system) needs to be defined
          • Ernestine: but regarding OTRS and other systems we have to sep. system by itself and process of the data-process/datahandling
          • Lambert: question is: is OTRS part of the critical systems, and does SP apply? Short summary: is not part of critical systems, and SP does not apply. L to Ian: is that correct, and do we need a vote here?
          • Daniel: board can decide what's critical or not
          • Ernestine: as long we don't have a overview about the setup, we cann't vote
            • Daniel: If we need more info, ask on the list.
          • Daniel: there was some outstading items for Support leader - lets get an update next meeting on OTRS
          • Agreed to move OTRS to next meeting.
          • Questions on OTRS: Groups, Roles, Permissions. Not basically on OTRS, more on data, process and procedures.
          • Nick: Role based. SE have SE role and can see SE informationen (basically support@). Triage can see incoming mail and move it into other queues.
            • Ernestine: but it depends how you have done the setup regarding to the policy, how the processing is. Further discussions on the list.
        7. Dan: didn't seem much on root escrow discussion
          • Ernestine: people on vacation till next week ...
  2. Businesses
    1. p20100306 Policy Officer makes minor adjustments
      • Daniel: i'm thinking this is take note of community work which is good
      • Ernestine: Who is Policy Officer? Was the last one Philipp D.?
      • Daniel: I'm thinking Philipp D.
      • Ian: PD is documents officer. Policy Officer was never appointed.
      • Daniel: so now that there is a reponsibility declared by the policy group we need to fill it?
      • Ian: that's what the vote asks for, in a way. if not, it falls back to board.
      • Daniel: want to ask the policy group for volunteers?
      • Deferred.
    2. Determine Root escrow and recovery mechanism
      • Daniel: critera is up - few proposals are there. was an action item from last meeting to review the items here.
      • Lambert: Seems to me this is not yet covered in enough detail, but I also see a lack of progress.
      • Daniel: security manual section 9 clearly said this procedures is a board responsibility so we shouldn't be depending on the community to fill it out for us.
      • Lambert: It's a responsibility of the board, but that does not mean we have to do all the work. we do have to understand the options and make the final decision though.
      • Daniel citing "This section is managed by the Board."
      • Lambert: A "manager" normally makes it happen, but dos not do the work him/herself.
      • Daniel: we're not showing a lot of management here. limited leading discussion, limited decisions, limited criteria
      • Ernestine: some answers will come from the people on the list next week - they are away
      • Daniel: lets make sure we have all the questions clearly ready for them.
      • Ernestine: right, think finally we must present a proposal, otherwise we will not have a decision wihin reasonable time.
      • Ernestine thanks Daniel and Ian for doing a good job here and his effort.
    3. Support team changes requested by Michael Tänzer
      • Ernestine: could we agree to hear more about the people - not only the name. from all people we are asking who they are, if I should say to somebody yes or no - I should know a short summary.
      • Mario: Joost should be well known. Regarding b. see private list.
      • Lambert: Joost is known. Martin was not able to do the work as requested
      • Daniel: thinking that Joost has a background check done and is keen to do the position and is recommended by those doing the position and that gets and aye from me
      • In futuer get more details on names proposed to board.
      • Add Joost Steijlen
      • Remove Martin Schulze
    4. Lambert moved to accept the changes as requested by Michael Tänzer, seconded by Mario.
      • Carried.
    5. Events officer
      • Lambert: I don't see Walter's last name. Can anyone fill us in?
      • Mario: I think it is Walter Güldenberg
      • Ernestine: did anybody ask walter, did he accept
      • Daniel: ian probably did and yes. lets leave that as ian's action item to propose it fully.
    6. Revoke CoI between Board and Arbitration
      • Daniel: was derived form uli's question last meeting. they feel impeeded by the board taking two arbitartores and the current rulling prohibiting dual hats.
      • Ernestine: think not it is a problem, as long not the board is involved.

      • Daniel: i don't see a COI for the majority of cases and the abitrator rules have COI clauses so they don't rule over the board they are sitting on. so i propose that we overrule m20090914.1 and let our board/arbitrators work themselves in as many ways possible :-)

      • Mario: I am also in favour of overturning the motion.
      • Lambert: I move the arbitrators come with a proposal explaining what cases can be picked up by arbitrators that are currently board members. i don't think we need to decide on the arbitrators proposal. (one thing to consider: arbitrators that are board members should first focus on board, then on arbitration. so I don't think they will have much time to do arbitrations)
      • Daniel: so in the interested of saving everyones time -lets not ask arbitarors to write a proposal then we as a board don't need to review it.
      • Mario: I thinkany individual should decide their timeline for himself...
      • Lambert move to overturn motion m20090914.1, seconded by Mario.
        • Carried.
    7. Infrastructure Team Leader
      • Daniel: all in favour of inflicing pain and suffering on making me an infrastructure team leader officially?
      • Mario: Fine for it by now. But we need to have more discussions on more seperation (e.g. stricter policy on email/otrs)
        • Moved to email discussion.
      • Lambert moved to assign Daniel as Infrastructure team leader, seconded by Mario.
        • Carried.
      • Lambert: And thanks dan for the work so far.
    8. Infrastructure movement out of Ede
      • Lambert: First, let me make it clear to everyone, this is not about the critical systems. These will stay in Ede. It is about the infrastructure systems.
      • Daniel agreed this was a goal, but has not done much in the last month.
      • Daniel: brian mostly and I was getting infrastructure standards setup so hopefully maintaince down the track is easier. was going to look at the vienna option when it came though. at the moment we have adfinis in swiss that has two servers. i still have to work our IP requirements. but its mainly waiting on me to fix up adfinis to a standard where it I can move stuff. other infra can go off the same standards when they come through.
      • Ernestine: where is the server in vienna now located? saw some post regarding "moving".
        • Mario: I think it is still sonance. Afaik is was just from one machine to another in the same rack. (Ian confirmed that this machine is still hosted by Sonance at Funkfeuer).
    9. Ian: vienna #2 is searching for some parts; not sure which colo it is located in
    10. Daniel: i don't think i can handle more that 3 locations (bit, vienna #, adfinis) so please slow down here
  3. Question time
    • No questions.
  4. Closing
    • Lambert noticed meeting take a lot of time and much time is spent on action items.
      • Mario proposed to communicate more via email.
      • Lambert: I think that with a bit more preparation we could do these meetings in half the time, or have double the discussions in the same time
      • Daniel: lets cover them as a any quesitons on action items and move on. - i'm was mainly keeping it there for tracking
      • Agreed on having action items updated before the meetings so they can be handled faster.
    • Lambert also noted that when moving to the next item not everyone is ready.
      • We will try to improve in future by waiting a short while before moving on. If someone has something to add put in a quick stop.

    1. Confirm next Committee Meeting: 2010-03-21 21:00 UTC.

    2. Chair closes the Committee Meeting
    3. Preparation of Minutes
      • Mario agreed to write these minutes.
      • Ernestine Mentioned meet-bot would make writing up minutes easier.
      • Nick to install meet-bot.

Action Items

Synopsis of Meeting Contents

Decisions Reached by Motion including Update since last Committee Meeting - Overview

Meeting Transcript

Logs are UTC+1 timezone. 

23:02 < Q> And who is here?
23:02 < law> me
23:03 < Q> no Nick?
23:03 < law> nb?
23:03 < ernie> Q, mark is also not here
23:03 < dan> me is also here
23:03 < Q> So I count Ernie, Dan, Law, and myself
23:03 < ernie> Q, ian said before 
23:03 < ernie> Q, he is maybe not here
23:04 < Q> Well, at least we have 4, so we seem to have a quorum, right?
23:04 < law> Ian just timed out, maybe he joins in back later
23:04 -!- iang [iang@210.9.139.115] has joined #board-meeting
23:04 < Q> Same Internet downtime as myself :-)
23:05 < Q> Ok, I'd like to start then
23:05 < Q> I open the meeting
23:05 < Q> We have Ernie, Dan, Law, Ian, and myself, is that correct?
23:05 < law> iang: You take part in the meeting?
23:06 < iang> maybe, passively, I'm sick :-(
23:06 < dan> ow
23:06 < dan> lets continue...
23:06 < Q> @iang: Travelling sickness?
23:07 < law> Wish you to get better soon!
23:07 < ernie> iang, hope you feel better soon
23:07 < iang> Q: no, picked up something in CeBIT .. travel probably made it worse,
23:07 < Q> So we miss Nick and Mark,
23:07 < Q> I'd like to start with item 1.2, minutes.
23:08 < Q> I move we accept the minutes
23:08 < iang> so i leave my proxy with Lambert, and will be in & out
23:08 < law> second
23:08 < ernie> aye
23:08 < law> aye
23:08 < dan> accept (but only just)
23:08 < Q> @dan: why?
23:08 < dan> i just completed it in a rush and  could of missed things.
23:09 < Q> ok
23:09 < dan> acceptable - there's a log there anyway
23:09 < Q> Ok, I declare it carried
23:09 < Q> Let's move to 1.3, open items
23:09 < law> hold on
23:10 < Q> @law: yes?
23:10  * dan holds to my nice warm cup of tea
23:10 < law> I just saw 2 ayes. Dan needs either to vote aye, naye (or abstain)
23:10 < dan> aye then
23:10 < Q> aye fom me
23:11 < Q> ah, and aye from Iang  :-)
23:11 < Q> ok now?
23:11 < law> yes :)
23:11 < Q> Ok, carried, move to 1.3
23:11 < Q> item 1: letter to oophaga
23:12 < ernie> mark is not here, what we do?
23:12 < Q> I have tried to contact Mark, but did not get any response
23:12 < dan> appears mark is overloaded - want to take that one off his hands?
23:12 < Q> Who ha talked to Mark recently?
23:12 < law> Has there been sent an informal mail to oophaga after the last (or the one before) to oophaga?
23:13 < ernie> Q, he was also last time not here
23:13 < law> ... the last meeting ...
23:13 < dan> i'll take an action time to phone him after the meeting
23:13 < Q> law: not that I know of, that's why I wanted to contact mark
23:13 < dan> s/time/item/
23:13 < Q> dan: phone Mark?
23:13 < ernie> Q, with people from oopahaga Ian has spoken ... the prof I think
23:14 < ernie> Q, but this was in Dec or Jan
23:14 < dan> Q: after the meeting I will phone him
23:14 < Q> ernie: yes, but we need to follow up, see for instance the email from Teus regarding being at NLUUG
23:14 < law> Iirc we agreed to sent an informal mail containing a reference to the annoal report and announce a response which already should have been sent by now.
23:15 < dan> law: that's my recollection too - did anyone do it?
23:15 < Q> I think it's important to keep Oophaga informed, so I'll contact them
23:15 < Q> if there are no objections that is
23:15 < ernie> Q, if mark sent this mail ? could not rember that he said something
23:16 < Q> Mark was going to create a draft, that I was to send to Oophaga
23:16 < ernie> Q, what you will tell them? or only informal "contact" to keep them happy
23:16 < law> I guess if a mail was send the board should have received a copy...
23:16 < Q> Have not heard from Mark since
23:16 < Q> law: yes
23:16 < dan> i'd rather we contacted them twice informally and appear disorganised than not contact them and appear disorganised and rude
23:17 < law> agreed
23:17 < Q> Ok, can we summarize as:
23:17 < Q> Dan will call Mark
23:17 < Q> I will call Oophaga, and tell them they'll be informed soon
23:17 < ernie> ok
23:17 < dan> good
23:17 < law> ok
23:17 < dan> ok ref formal letter can we take that off mark?
23:18 < Q> I'd like to wait for Mark's answer
23:18 < Q> Maybe he's already at 80%
23:18 < dan> ok - i'll report back after i contact him
23:18 < Q> So, can we decide after you talked to him?
23:18 < Q> Good.
23:18 < Q> Next
23:19 < Q> Ok, : discussion on community 
23:19 < law> but maybe it would be a good idea to have someone appointed for backup. Getting this solved soon seems important to me
23:19 < Q> We need to start this, have not seen any substantial progress yet
23:20 < dan> ian and i did some posts
23:20 < Q> @law, that's why I'll contact them directly, independent of the answer
23:20 < ernie> dan, right 
23:20 < Q> dan: yes, but not much follow-up
23:20 < Q> from the rest of the board
23:20 < Q> or the communitry
23:21 < ernie> but to get a overview where we are, we need somehow a statusreport from the people
23:21 < law> I will try to catch up with the lists asap. Have just gone abroad this week and hopefully now getting more time to catch up.
23:21 < dan> er both - but only really need a board view - the community will object/state their view if they think we're wrong
23:22 < dan> we sort of need this to complete the oophaga letter
23:22 < Q> I suggest we all come up with one or two items to look at, then decide on a priority and timeline
23:22 < Q> Would that work?
23:22 < ernie> and we also need a list of the projects / running, status
23:23 < dan> and have a quick status report of them every board meeting
23:23 < Q> ernie: agree, but independent of status we need to have a 50.000 feet idea of where we want to be in 6-12 months
23:23 < ernie> did we have somewhere am actual list of all officers
23:24 < dan> there was a officer's wiki page - don't know of its currency
23:24 < ernie> Q, right, but I think the prios we know ... :-)
23:25 < ernie> dan, last time I looked, it wasn't up to date ...
23:25 < ernie> but I'm not sure if I looked to the right list ...
23:25 < Q> Seems to me we have no clear overview. Do we have a volunteer to sort out and summarize back to the board
23:25 < Q> ?
23:25 < dan> of officers?
23:26 < Q> officers, projects, status
23:26 < ernie> officers and different people in charge 
23:27 < ernie> I will start I wiki-page and ask people to complete
23:27 < Q> Thanks!
23:27 < ernie> somewhere we have everything, but you don't find a overview 
23:27 < Q> Anything else to add to this item?
23:28 < dan> nothing here
23:28 < Q> No, then I'd like to continue with action 3, automatic sending bit
23:28 < dan> to add
23:28 < Q> Dan, can you explain this item?
23:29 < dan> was the key persons email list - to send contact details out automaticly to baord/arbitratiors/admins to facilitate DR
23:30 < dan> still waiting on nick to compile list of contacts though
23:30 < Q> What is the status?
23:30 < Q> ok
23:30 < dan> status - to me low pri until i get contact details
23:30 < ernie> dan, didn't have philippD also this list?
23:31 < Q> I noticed there is a list, and also a spreadsheet with names, but it's on the server, and the spreadsheet is small (two names)
23:31 < dan> its partially complete now - nick said he'd finished - its even in teh action items of last meeting though it goes back before then
23:31 < Q> I wished I had the full list on my computer 20 minutes ago when my Internet broke down
23:31 < ernie> Q, there was a longer list last time (old board)
23:31 < law> I think we need nicks feedback to proceed here...
23:32 < Q> Ok. 
23:32 < dan> yes!
23:32 < Q> Btw. who's making minutes?
23:32  * dan done two lots so far and passes
23:33 < Q> Ernie? Law?
23:33 < ernie> mhh, if somebody install meet-bot I could help in the future :-)
23:33 < law> OK, I can do it.
23:33 < Q> Law: thanks!
23:33 < ernie> meet-bot makes life  easier
23:33 < dan> action nick - install meet-bot?
23:34 < Q> Can we enter in the minutes that we're waiting for Nick to complete the list?
23:34 < Q> ernie: meet-bot?
23:34 < ernie> why not, you have done minutes quicker, 
23:35 < dan> take recording of minutes and action items as done
23:35 < Q> ok. Anything to add to this item?
23:35 < dan> ACTION nick to install meet-bot
23:35 < ernie> dan, hope he will do this time, I asked him already last year :-)
23:36 < Q> Let's move to next action. Ernie, do you know if Ian and Oophaga have been paid?
23:36 < dan> key persons list was from last year too
23:36 < ernie> Q, no
23:36 < ernie> Q, but could ask oophaga, no problem
23:36 < Q> Can you explain what's blocking payments?
23:36 < ernie> Q, don't know, mark can do alone now
23:36 < law> We should mail Mark and Nick personally to get a status and timeline regarding their action items!
23:37 < Q> Dan, can you ask about this as well when you talk to Mark?
23:37 < dan> yes
23:37 < Q> Anything to add here?
23:37 < ernie> iang, you are here? did you get payment?
23:38 < Q> Next: Single signatory: I think we have to wait for Mark. Dan, can you ask this as well?
23:38  * dan notes the point of a action list being there bfore the meeting is so it could be rougly filled out before the meeting too
23:38 < dan> ok
23:38 < dan> ref signatory
23:39 < law> please give a refirm report of marks status if he cannot do by himself soon. Is it ok if I write an email to nick?
23:40 < dan> freedom to write all emails granted to law :-p
23:40 < Q> Agree
23:40 < ernie> dan, right :-)
23:41 < Q> The remaining actions for Mark from 2010-02-02 must wait until next time (less urgent for now). Agreed?
23:41 < law> agreed
23:41 < dan> yes
23:41 < ernie> yes
23:41 < Q> Write up AGM minutes, by Ian. Any status here?
23:42 < ernie> I don't have one, but I think ian started already, didn't he say something once
23:42 < dan> i gave him a log a few days before last meeting - if ian doesn't have time we can get any member to write it - happy to provide logs there
23:43 < Q> I did send Ian a log of the meeting as well, he mentioned he was going to do it
23:43 < dan> good next item....
23:43 < Q> I'll ask him again, and otherwise search for a volunteer
23:43 < Q> Moving to actions from 2010-02-21
23:43 < dan> ACTION ^  ( just to make seaching logs for action items easier)
23:44 < Q> I'll skip the first4, have been discussed
23:44 < Q> next: Law: you wrote a summary, right?
23:44 < law> yes. jut posted to board list in the last hour.
23:44 < Q> ok, done
23:45 < Q> US bankers: Nick's not here, I'll ask him again
23:45 < Q> Next: legalisties of using other organisations for payments. Has been answered by Ian. Any questions here?
23:46 < dan> no
23:46 < ernie> no
23:46 < iang> ernie:  I can not see any payment made over the last few months
23:47 < Q> Next: payment options: I've sent my first email, need to follow-up. No further info
23:47 < iang> agm minutes:  not started as yet
23:47 < ernie> iang, mhh, we need mark for an answer here
23:47 < Q> Ian: the OTRS system. Can you provide status?
23:48 < dan> it was sent to the baord list
23:48 < iang> Q: see report
23:49  * nb here now
23:49 < Q> Has everyone seen it?
23:49 < ernie> but regarding OTRS and other systems we have to sep. system by itself and process of the data-process/datahandling
23:50 < Q> question is: is OTRS part of the critical systems, and does SP apply? Short summary: is not part of critical systems, and SP does not apply
23:50 < Q> Iang: is that correct, and do we need a vote here?
23:50 < Q> (hi nick)
23:51 < dan> board can decide what's critical or not
23:51 < nb> RE: Key persons list
23:51 < ernie> Q, as long we don't have a overview about the setup, we cann't vote 
23:51 < dan> if we need more info ask on the list
23:51 < ernie> dan right
23:51 < nb> I still have the emails that were sent to me, the spreadsheet i had basically done was lost when my hard drive crashed
23:51 < nb> but i have it almost re-constructed from the emails
23:52 < nb> hopefully i can finish and upload it to the list tomorrow
23:52 < dan> there was some outstading items for Support leader - lets get an update next meeting on OTRS
23:52 < Q> law: can you add the feedback from Nick to that corresponding action?
23:52 < Q> dan: agree, let's move OTRS to next meeting
23:52 < ernie> Q, regarding OTRS we postpone till we have more info about the setup and datahandling process
23:53 < Q> We all seem to agree on this :-)
23:53  * nb will see about installing meetbot, i know it is packaged for fedora, but do not know about for debian
23:53 < nb> what kind of questions about the setup of otrs?
23:53 < nb> i may be able to answer some
23:53 < ernie> groups, roles, permission 
23:53 < Q> well, for one: what data is stored in OTRS
23:53 < dan> nb: its not about otrs per say - its about data/process/procedures
23:54 < nb> oh ok
23:54 < nb> ernie, basically everything is controlled by "roles" in otrs
23:54 < nb> which means that SE's have the SE role and can see SE information (basically all of support@)
23:54 < nb> triage can see incoming mail and move it into other queues
23:55 < ernie> nb, right, but it depends how you have done the setup regarding to the policy, how the processing is
23:55 < ernie> nb, we will discuss on list 
23:55 < nb> ernie, ok
23:55 < Q> (guys, I have a small issue: my dog needs a short walk, I can get out and be back in less than two minutes, or clean up later.
23:55 < Q> Who can take chair?)
23:55 < dan> i''ll take it
23:56 < Q> ok, I'm off, 
23:56 < dan> ok - next few action items - accept them as not done and carry them forwards
23:57 < dan> didn't seem much on root escrow discussion - another agenda item - over it there
23:57 < ernie> dan, people on vacation till next week ... 
23:57 < dan> CoI discussion was from uli's questions needs to still be done
23:57 < nb> Oh, I do have some info of banking
23:58 < dan> any more action item questions?
23:58 < nb> dan, would this be the appropriate time?
23:58 < nb> sincei t was an action item?
23:58 < dan> nb: put it on list - can't really present anddiscuss in this time frame
23:58 < nb> oh ok
23:59 < dan> law - thanks for private list summary - heaps better than mine
23:59 < dan> (ref 1.4) ^
23:59 < dan> ok - business - 2
23:59 < dan> 2.1 p20100306 Policy Officer
23:59 < dan> i'm thinking this is take note of community  work which is good
00:00 < dan> was there more info/questions here?
00:00 < ernie> no, but who is policy-officer 
00:00 < ernie> was the last one philippD
00:00 < dan> i'm thinking phillip d
00:00 < ernie> did he ever resign?
00:01 < law> hi. back. seems to be internet outage day today
00:01 < dan> not from that position
00:01 < ernie> ok, then I'm up-to-date :-)
00:01 < dan> law: on 2.1 - policy officer stuff
00:01 < iang> PD is documents officer
00:01 < dan> good clarification - thanks iang
00:01 < iang> s/documents/documentation/
00:02 < dan> anything else regarding this 2.1 item iang?
00:02 < ernie> who was last policy-officer?
00:02 < iang> never been appointed
00:02 < dan> i'm not sure there was one
00:02 < ernie> because I thought it was pilipp
00:02 < ernie> did we need one?
00:03 < Q> Back
00:03 < dan> iang: so now that there is a reponsibility declared by the policy group we need to fill it?
00:03 < dan> Q: (2.1)
00:03 < iang> dan: that's what the vote asks for, in a way
00:04 < iang> if not, it falls back to board
00:04 < dan> iang: want to ask the policy group for volunteers?
00:05 < ernie> let us think about, and speak next time about this issue
00:05 < dan> ok ernie
00:05 < iang> agree with defer ... dan: i doubt that could work
00:06 < dan> any more 2.1 items?
00:07 < dan> ok - 2.2 - Determine Root escrow and recovery mechanism
00:07 < dan> critera is up - few proposals are there
00:08 < dan> was an action item from last meeting to review the items here.
00:08 < Q> Seems to me this is not yet covered in enough detail, but I also see a lack of progress
00:08 < dan> right - have you asked for more detail?
00:09 < Q> To be honest, no
00:09 < dan> i agree that there are bits of all proposals that lack detail
00:09 < Q> have been busy with things outside CAcert...
00:09 < dan> unless any objection ACTION item is for all to review level of detail in root escrow proceedures and criteria
00:10 < Q> agree
00:10 < dan> security manual section 9 clearly said this procedures is a board responsibility so we shouldn't be depending on the community to fill it out for us
00:11 < Q> Hmm, not sure. It's a responsibility of the board, but that does not mean we have to do all the work
00:11 < Q> we do have to understand the options and make the final decision though
00:12 < dan> "This section is managed by the Board."
00:12 < Q> right. "managed"
00:12 < Q> A "manager" normally makes it happen, but dos not do the work him/herself
00:12 < dan> we're not showing a lot of management here. limited leading discussion, limited decisions, limited criteria
00:12 < ernie> dan, some answers will come from the people on the list next week - they are away
00:13 < dan> ok - lets make sure we have all the questions clearly ready for them.
00:13 < ernie> dan, right, think finally we must present a proposal, otherwise we will not have a decision wihin reasonable time
00:14 < Q> dan: agree
00:15 < dan> ok - probably can move on - 2.3 back to Q in chair
00:15 < ernie> dan, think you have done here a good job
00:15 < ernie> dan, btw - thank you for the effort
00:15 < ernie> and to ian
00:15 < Q> agree, this is rather important
00:15 < Q> ok, 2.3
00:16 < Q> Michael requested team changes
00:16 < Q> Any questions? Otherwise I move we approve the requested changes
00:16 < ernie> Q, could we agree to hear more about the people - not only the name
00:16 < Q> ernie: what is it you're looking for?
00:17 < ernie> from all people we are asking who they are, if I should say to somebody yes or no - I should know a short summary
00:17 < ernie> we asked from people in the past too - in the wiki is ok 
00:18 < ernie> he can do afterwards, no porb
00:18 < ernie> *problem*
00:18 < law> Joost should be well known. Regarding b. see private list.
00:18 < ernie> law, you maybe know, I don't - only the name
00:19 < Q> ok. Joost is known. Martin was not able to do the work as requested
00:19 < ernie> regarding the second name I read ... 
00:19  * dan thinking that Joost has a background check done and is keen to do the position and is recommended by those doing the position and that gets and aye from me
00:19 < ernie> dan, I think he has done, but where you can find .... 
00:20 < ernie> I don't will know "everything" about the check, but whe it was done, then say it
00:21 < ernie> anyhow, we could move on - but some process how this changes will be done will be nice, not only two names
00:21 < Q> ernie: ABC of Joost: https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20100113.1
00:22 < ernie> ok
00:22 < Q> Ok, I move we accept the changes as requested by Michael Taenzer
00:22 < dan> aye
00:22 < ernie> aye
00:22 < law> second & aye
00:23 < ernie> Q, thank you
00:23 < Q> aye
00:24 < Q> I declare it carried
00:24 < Q> 2.4
00:24 < Q> Events officer
00:24 < ernie> we had already above ...
00:24 < Q> I don't see Walter's last name. Can anyone fill us in?
00:24 < Q> ernie: did I miss something?
00:24 < law> I think it is Walter Güldenberg
00:25 < ernie> Q, this line ***Propose Walter (??) as Events Officer as out of band motion 
00:25 < ernie> did anybody ask walter, did he accept
00:25 < dan> ian probably did and yes. 
00:26 < dan> lets leave that as ian's action item to propose it fully
00:26 < Q> ok, next: COI between board and Arbitration
00:26 < Q> Daniel, can you comment?
00:27 < dan> was derived form uli's question last meeting
00:27 < dan> they feel impeeded by the board taking two arbitartores and the current rulling prohibiting dual hats
00:28 < ernie> think not it is a problem, as long not the board is involved 
00:28 < dan> i don't see a COI for the majority of cases and the abitrator rules have COI clauses so they don't rule over the board they are sitting on
00:29 < dan> so i propose that we overrule m20090914.1 and let our board/arbitrators work themselves in as many ways possible :-)
00:29 < ernie> dan, agree 
00:29 < law> I am also in favour of overturning the motion
00:29 < Q> I move the arbitrators come with a proposal explaining what cases can be picked up by arbitrators that are currently board members
00:30 < dan> as a board lets allow this to happen. then the arbitarors are free to manage themselves
00:31 < Q> dan: please explain?
00:32 < dan> i don't think we need to decide on the arbitrators proposal
00:32 < Q> (one thing to consider: arbitrators that are board members should first focus on board, then on arbitration)
00:32 < Q> (so I don't think they will have much time to do arbitrations)
00:33 < Q> With that I support dan's proposal.
00:33 < dan> ok - so in the interested of saving everyones time -lets not ask arbitarors to write a proposal then we as a board don't need to review it.
00:33 < Q> I move we overturn motion m20090914.1
00:33 < law> I thinkany individual should decide their timeline for himself...
00:33 < law> second & aye
00:33 < Q> aye
00:33 < dan> i think we have all here in favour of overturning it 
00:34 < dan> aye here too 
00:34 < ernie> aye
00:34 < Q> I declare it carried
00:34 < Q> 2.6: infrastructure team leader
00:35 < dan> all in favour of inflicing pain and suffering on making mean infrastructure team leader officially?
00:36 < law> So this is only a motion to fix the defacto state?
00:36 < dan> yep
00:36 < Q> I move we assign Dan as Infrastructure team leader
00:36 < law> Fine for it by now. But we need to have more discussions on more seperation (e.g. stricter policy on email/otrs)
00:36 < law> second & aye
00:36 < dan> abstain
00:36 < Q> aye
00:37 < ernie> aye
00:37 < Q> I declare it carried
00:37 < dan> happy to talk about email/otrs policy later offline
00:37 < Q> And thanks dan for the work so far
00:37 < ernie> law, this issue we move to list - for further discussion
00:38 < Q> Next, 2.7, move of infrastructure out of Ede
00:38 < law> agree, list is better for this.
00:38 < Q> First, let me make it clear to everyone, this is not about the critical systems
00:38 < dan> i'd pretty much agreed this was a goal - aven't done much in the last moth though
00:38 < Q> These will stay in Ede
00:39 < dan> yes
00:39 < Q> It's about the Infrastructure systems
00:39 < law> So, what is this item about? Just for Dan to give a status update?
00:39 < ernie> btw, where is the server in vienna now located?
00:39 < ernie> saw some post regarding "moving"
00:40 < law> I think it is still sonance. Afaik is was just from one machine to another in the same rack. Iang should know better.
00:40 < Q> Dan, can you give us a status update what systems we're talking about, where they are right now, and what the plans are?
00:40 < ernie> law, location of the server ... think not the will have in the offices there
00:40 < ernie> *they*
00:41 < dan> it ok - at the moment we have adfinis in swiss that has two servers
00:41 < law> Doing some more guessing it is funkfeuer
00:41 < iang> law: correct, it was change of machine, not location
00:41 < law> but everyting just from catching this up from discussions.
00:41 < dan> brian mostly and I was getting infrastructure standards setup so hopefully maintaince down the track is easier
00:42 < dan> was going to look at the vienna option when it came though.
00:42 < law> iang: So ftr the vienna location is still Sonance hosted by/at Funkfeuer?
00:42 < iang> yes
00:42 < dan> yes it is
00:43 < dan> it will leverage of existing work.
00:43 < dan> afaik i still have to work our IP requirements.
00:43 < iang> vienna #2 is searching for some parts;  not sure which colo it is located in
00:44 < dan> but its mainly waiting on me to fix up adfinis to a standard where it I can move stuff. other infra can go off the same standards when they come through
00:45 < Q> Ok, so what's the question with item 2.7? Do we need to make a decision, or is this a FYI?
00:45 < dan> i don't think i can handle more that 3 locations (bit, vienna #, adfinis) so please slow down here
00:45 < law> I do not see anything to vote on..
00:46 < dan> ians idea in the email was to reaffirm this - i'm impartial - was going to do it anyway
00:46 < Q> ok. I think we've covered item 2.7 then :-)
00:47 < Q> Question time.
00:47 < Q> Anyone?
00:48 < Q> If no one has a question, there is something I'd like to ask. I've noticed these meetings take a lot of time, and it's my impression we could do these a bit more efficient
00:48 < nb> aye to overturning m20090914.1
00:48 < Q> Thanks Nick
00:49 < Q> I'd like to propose a more formal approach. We for instance spend far too much time on action items
00:49 < Q> But we need to go through them
00:50 < law> I think we should communicate more via email to make the meetings easier.
00:50 < Q> I think that with a bit more preparation we could do these  meetings in half the time, or have double the discussions in the same time
00:50 < ernie> Q, action items we can do the remarks also before in the wiki
00:50 < Q> Am I the only one with this opinion?
00:50 < dan> lets cover them as a any quesitons on action items and move on. - i'm was mainly keeping it there for tracking
00:50 < ernie> so we can move the open things to next time 
00:51 -!- jmoore3rd1 [JohnMoore@adsl-176-166-45.asm.bellsouth.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
00:51 < ernie> and handle where we have to discuss
00:51 < ernie> dan, agree
00:51 < Q> ernie: good suggestion, would save a lot of time
00:51 -!- jmoore3rd [JohnMoore@adsl-190-41-209.asm.bellsouth.net] has joined #board-meeting
00:52 < Q> OTOH we need to go through them to make sure there is progress
00:52 < dan> assigned members can update us if there's issues
00:52 < Q> So let's make sure we have the items updated before the meeting
00:52 < dan> please
00:52 < law> Since we do not need to vote on anything, have the chair decide which items to address?
00:53 < Q> Another thing I noticed is switching to the next item
00:53 < Q> I notice I sometimes go to the next item, bit not everyone is already there
00:54 < Q> Can we think of a way to make sure we all agree to go to the next item?
00:54 < law> I have to apoligize here. I often do late comments.
00:54 < Q> It's not a personal comment :-)
00:55 < dan> i think a next item call followed by 30s is enough
00:55 < ernie> :-) 
00:55 < Q> As chair I have to wait until everyone finished, but I never know
00:55 < Q> Dan: that would be nice :-)
00:55 < dan> rather than putting a response  a quic ''stop' and then go on
00:56 < Q> ok. Enough on my question.
00:56 < Q> Any other questions?
00:56 < dan> so the chair should go quickly and the rest say stop when they need to input
00:56 < ernie> agee
00:56 < law> I have no problem if moved to the next item. Should I/we abstain from commenting on previous items if something comes up late?
00:56 -!- iang [iang@210.9.139.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:56 < Q> (waiting for 30 seconds now)
00:57 < Q> Ok. I'd like to confirm the next meeting
00:57 -!- iang [iang@210.9.139.115] has joined #board-meeting
00:57 < dan> 21 march 2100?
00:58 < dan> time 2100 not year :-)
00:58 < Q> That would be Sunday  March 16, 21.00 UTC
00:58 < ernie> lol
00:58 < ernie> yes
00:58 < Q> We now started at 22.00 UTC, but we agreed it was to be 21.00 UTC
00:58 < Q> What would be the time?
00:59 < ernie> Q, sunday one hour earlier
00:59 < law> Sat 22, Sun 21. We had I think...
00:59 < ernie> saturday 22:00
00:59 < Q> Ok, net meeting Sunday March 16, 21.00 UTC
00:59 < Q> The meeting is closed
00:59 < Q> (net=next)
00:59 < dan> i see 16 march as a tuesday ?
01:00 < law> Mach 21 I think...
01:00 < Q> dan: what year?
01:00 < dan> thanks law - March 21
01:00 < dan> this year 
01:00 < ernie> mhh - 16th .. couldn't be :-)
01:01 < ernie> dan, we have 21st
01:01 < dan> anyone got mark phone number off hand?
01:01 < ernie> no, I dont have
01:01 < Q> Hmm, my paper agenda says march 16 is Tuesday.....
01:02 < dan> just email - needs to take other 1/2 out to breakfast
01:02 < dan> i may have it already - i'll need to dig for it though
01:03 < law> I will do the minutes. cu
01:03 < dan> i'm off - you can work out the date system - i'll turn up at the presecribed time
01:03 < dan> thanks law
01:03 < ernie> Q, yes, but the 16th is not in two weeks ..
01:05 < Q> So next meeting: Sunday March 21st, 21.00 UTC
01:05 < ernie> yes
01:07 < nb> dan, i think i do

Original transcript is located in SVN.

Category or Categories

Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/20100306 (last edited 2010-07-20 06:54:58 by SunTzuMelange)