1 <WernerDworak> Since there are enough members there, I open the meeting.
   2 <WernerDworak> I hope Michael will come soon. Etienne cannot attend now, I hope he will come later
   3 <NEOatNHNG> Hi guys
   4 <WernerDworak> Has everyone read the minutes? Can we accept them?
   5 <BenBall> hi
   6 <NEOatNHNG> not yet just a minute
   7 <WernerDworak> ok, the 1.3 Who makes the minutes today?
   8 <NEOatNHNG> Minutes:
   9 <NEOatNHNG> 2.2 talks about CCA and CPS but that should be in 2.4 right?
  10 <alex-uk> I'll take the minutes if required
  11 <WernerDworak> Michael, there was no strict separation of 2.2 and 2.4. Alot of items for 2.4 was discussed in 2.2.
  12 <WernerDworak> Alex, that would be nice
  13 <NEOatNHNG> For todays agenda: OFT report was already finally handled in last meetings so we should delete it
  14 <alex-uk> All are late items!
  15 <WernerDworak> I wanted the confirmation that everything is done and no negative return came. So I think we have 2.3 but close it very fast.
  16 <WernerDworak> Alex, indeed. So we have 2.1
  17 <WernerDworak> Can we come back to 1.2 and accept the minutes?
  18 <NEOatNHNG> For last meetings minutes: it would be more readable for someone who didn't take part in the meeting to aqctually sort the discussion into the right topics
  19 <NEOatNHNG> but no factual corrections from my side
  20 <alex-uk> Propose and Aye
  21 <jbruckner> aye
  22 <WernerDworak> I suggest we agree it now and you or me can bring it to better shape later
  23 <NEOatNHNG> aye
  24 <WernerDworak> Second and aye
  25 <WernerDworak> Ben, your voice
  26 <WernerDworak> BTW, is Dirk there or only hisserver?
  27 <BenBall> aye
  28 <WernerDworak> carried
  29 <WernerDworak> 1.4 Is something to disclose from board private?
  30 <NEOatNHNG> We did some recruiting for AU board members
  31 <NEOatNHNG> and permissions review was due
  32 <WernerDworak> Ok.
  33 <NEOatNHNG> There's also some information on an ongoing arbitrations case
  34 <WernerDworak> Do you regard it important to mention?
  35 <NEOatNHNG> which one?
  36 <NEOatNHNG> the arbitration thing?
  37 <WernerDworak> yes
  38 <NEOatNHNG> yes I consider that part of the open government principle
  39 <WernerDworak> ok
  40 <NEOatNHNG> we don't publish the full details just that board was informed on some steps to arbitration case a20121228.1
  41 <NEOatNHNG> the rest can be read on the public part of the arb case itself
  42 <WernerDworak> Fine. And now to 1.5. Is something to add to the agende from board mailing list or other sources?
  43 <WernerDworak> I see nothing.
  44 <BenBall> nope
  45 <WernerDworak> 1.6 Any action items to discuss?
  46 <WernerDworak> 2.1 Sice the invitation to the meeting was late and the minutes too, I move to accept all topics today as late business
  47 <alex-uk> Second and aye
  48 <jbruckner> aye
  49 <WernerDworak> aye
  50 <BenBall> aye
  51 <WernerDworak> Michael?
  52 <NEOatNHNG> aye
  53 <WernerDworak> carried
  54 <WernerDworak> 2.2 Create a subcommittee. 
  55 <WernerDworak> Michael, whom did you ask, what was the response?
  56 <WernerDworak> Did some other do something?
  57 <NEOatNHNG> I got no more mails than those also sent to private
  58 <NEOatNHNG> so there is robert who is definitely going for it and ben dechrai who said he would assuming there are no legal implications
  59 <NEOatNHNG> but I responded that there are so I'm not sure where he stands now
  60 <WernerDworak> Hmmm, strange and boring.
  61 <WernerDworak> That means, we can count on robert and declare him board member but you are reluctant about Ben Dechrai?
  62 <NEOatNHNG> I'm especially confused because I already informed about the legal implication in a previous mail
  63 <NEOatNHNG> that would be one possibility
  64 <WernerDworak> I the past I interpreted Bens mail as a confirmation. But you think we need a more sraigt confirmation from Ben?
  65 <NEOatNHNG> "As stated before, I am happy to be a "sleeping" board member for the     purposes of satisfying regulatory requirements, if there are no     legal obligations or implications of holding this position."
  66 <WernerDworak> I think, since there are no essential obligations and implocations, this should be fulfilled. What do the others think?
  67 <NEOatNHNG> So as there are legal implications of holding that posistion I don't want to decide for Ben.
  68 <WernerDworak> Your opinions?
  69 <alex-uk> I think a formal acceptance is a good idea
  70 <BenBall> we need to wait for Ben D to reply to your last email.
  71 <WernerDworak> Alex, acceptance from him of from us?
  72 <alex-uk> From him
  73 <jbruckner> i agree to Alex
  74 <alex-uk> Also AU members need to be on Board - which means one or two EU members need to join the subcommittee
  75 <WernerDworak> So we have to comminicate with Ben D and wait.
  76 <WernerDworak> This is a formality, I assume. In the last subcommittee it worked well
  77 <NEOatNHNG> Sure but especially with the upcoming association move there are some unusual issues that might go wrong
  78 <WernerDworak> I suggest, first we accept Robert and Ben D asnew bord members and the decide who moves to the subcommittee
  79 <WernerDworak> Can we accept Robert now or is more discussion needed?
  80 <alex-uk> Accept Robert, make space for Ben but wait for acceptance, move two to subcommittee
  81 <WernerDworak> Internally the subcommittee members are regarded full members, only formally they are not.
  82 <alex-uk> Understood - this is a legal technicality
  83 <NEOatNHNG> mhh yes we coould already form the subcommittee also with ben in it that has no legal implications whatsoever and only one board member is replaced by robert. once ben accepts another board member can be replaced
  84 <WernerDworak> I hope Etienne will show up later, so I suggest we postpone discussions that could concern him.
  85 <NEOatNHNG> Etienne is secretary so it wouldn't be a good idea if he stepped back
  86 <alex-uk> I'd suggest non-office-holders for subcommittee - that would be Dirk and Jurgen iirc
  87 <NEOatNHNG> alex-uk: all board members plus robert and ben dechrai will go in the subcommittee
  88 <NEOatNHNG> the non-office-bearers are candidates to step back and be replaced with the australian baord members
  89 <WernerDworak> Since Dirk is a sesoned member, UI assume he agrees even if he is not here now.
  90 <NEOatNHNG> I move to form a subcommittee subject to the rules usually applied to the committee consisting of: Werner Dworak, Alex Robertson, Etienne Ruedin, Jürgen Bruckner, Benjamin Ball, Dirk Astrath, Robert Cruikshank, Ben Dechrai and Michael Tänzer
  91 <NEOatNHNG> rules meaning meetin announcement quorum etc.
  92 <WernerDworak> Second and aye
  93 <NEOatNHNG> aye
  94 <alex-uk> aye
  95 <jbruckner> second and aye
  96 <BenBall> aye
  97 <WernerDworak> Carried
  98 <WernerDworak> Do we need to formally accept Robert Cruikshank as a board member?
  99 <NEOatNHNG> Now we have one AU board member ready to join in so one board members has to formally resign
 100 <NEOatNHNG> ideally one board member that doesn't hold an office and is not Australian. That leaves Jürgen and Dirk
 101 jbruckner officially resigns to bring Robert into the Board
 102 <NEOatNHNG> OK I move to accept the resignation of Jürgen Bruckner
 103 <WernerDworak> second and aye
 104 <NEOatNHNG> aye
 105 <alex-uk> Thanks and aye
 106 <BenBall> aye
 107 <WernerDworak> This looks carried
 108 <WernerDworak> Do we need to formally accept Robert Cruikshank as a board member?
 109 <NEOatNHNG> I nominate Robert Cruikshank for the open position in the CAcert Inc. comittee
 110 <alex-uk> Second and aye
 111 <jbruckner> second and aye
 112 <WernerDworak> I second him
 113 <BenBall> aye
 114 <WernerDworak> Carried
 115 <WernerDworak> Is ther still something tp discuss to 2.2 now?
 116 <WernerDworak> It doesnÄt look like.
 117 <WernerDworak> So 2.3 State OFT report. Any resonses or remarks?
 118 <WernerDworak> responses
 119 <NEOatNHNG> Nope no responses AFAIK
 120 <jbruckner> nope
 121 <WernerDworak> 2.4 Move CAcert Inc. to another country
 122 <NEOatNHNG> yay now for the fun part
 123 <WernerDworak> Jürgen, can you tell us something about Austria?
 124 <alex-uk> 1st Draft document presented as promised
 125 <jbruckner> Werner what especially would you know?
 126 <WernerDworak> There has been some discussion but I expected more, also from other members
 127 <WernerDworak> How do you regard the legfal condition for a residence of a a new CAcert organiosation in Austria and what organisation forms come in closer choice?
 128 <NEOatNHNG> I think we should come to a preliminary decision on a country then research concrete steps that would need to be taken in that country and if there are major block reevaluate the decision otherwise go ahead
 129 <jbruckner> In Austria there are two possibillities
 130 <jbruckner> the austrian association - called here 'Verein' or the austrian cooperative - called 'Genossenschaft'
 131 <alex-uk> How well does either work with an international board?
 132 <jbruckner> where the association would be preferable
 133 <WernerDworak> The other choice could be an European cooperative. Dos someone have information about it? Eva?
 134 <jbruckner> especially for international organizations, the Austrian law has own regulations
 135 <alex-uk> EU forms need large capital - 30000 Euro for co-op
 136 <katzazi> no
 137 <INOPIAE> I know that Benedikt did some research about the European cooperative. As far as I know it is not legalized yet.
 138 <jbruckner> this is meant for associations
 139 <alex-uk> EU coop is legalised EU association is not
 140 <WernerDworak> Afaik EU cooperative exists, but EU association is still in discussion
 141 <jbruckner> thats correct, Werner
 142 <NEOatNHNG> there are not many organisations that are EU cooperatives so that would be more complex as there's less experience with it out there so if we add the complexitiy of the association move it might get over our heads
 143 <alex-uk> and 30000 euros capital required!
 144 <WernerDworak> Alex, afaik the AT and DE association has no problems with an international board, theer must only a locak representative and a local address
 145 <katzazi> as far as i know in germany you only need local address
 146 <katzazi> and this address does not need to be one of a board member
 147 <WernerDworak> I assume the same hold true for AT.
 148 <katzazi> (and you need to be at least 3 members total)
 149 <jbruckner> in Asutria you need a local adress and ONE local representative (which dont have to be a board member)
 150 <jbruckner> .. Austria..
 151 <alex-uk> What about documentation - do we need signed documents?
 152 <katzazi> in germany you need to be able to go to a notary if you change the rules or board members
 153 <WernerDworak> Jürgen, If I see it right, the Austrian association legal system is similar to Germany but a little more flexible.
 154 <jbruckner> Yes Werner, thats right
 155 <jbruckner> In Austria just simple signed documents for founding is needed
 156 <NEOatNHNG> jbruckner:  we need to go to a notary whenever the board changes?
 157 <NEOatNHNG> s/^/do/
 158 <jbruckner> there have to be at least 3 persons who act as founder, and they have to sign the founding documents - no notary is needed
 159 <jbruckner> Board changes are simply to sign by the secretary
 160 <katzazi> you don't have to go to the notary within a fixed timeframe in de as far as i know - at least we lacked in this reagard in some of them for quite a long time without any problems
 161 <katzazi> 7 founders in de
 162 <NEOatNHNG> ok so Austria seems to be far more relaxed bureaucracy-wise
 163 <katzazi> you can go down to 3 afterwards (members, total)
 164 <katzazi> I'm speaking about total members not board members
 165 <alex-uk> Austria is sounding good....
 166 <katzazi> i agree
 167 <WernerDworak> Indeed. And afaik data protection ist strict in AT- which is good - but a little relaxed to DE
 168 <NEOatNHNG> which is also good because we can be more strict if we want
 169 <NEOatNHNG> and don't have to when our unusual organisation would be hindered
 170 <jbruckner> In Austria there is no distinction between registered and non-registered association
 171 <WernerDworak> Mostly we are more strict internally with data protection than legally required
 172 <alex-uk> What about international subsidiaries - for tax relief for example
 173 <alex-uk> So CAcert incorporates in AU but owns CACert DE inc
 174 <WernerDworak> At least for donations we have secure-u on Gemany. But this doesn't hold true for membership feed for CAcert.
 175 <jbruckner> In Austria an association ist automatically 'non-profit' from founding on
 176 <WernerDworak> Similar association in outger countries should be rather easy.
 177 <WernerDworak> Inside one country tax deducion should be rather easy, but cross border can be a problem
 178 <alex-uk> So it may be worth having DE and perhap NL - but other countries perhaps not.
 179 <NEOatNHNG> We have secure-u for germany and the would have cacert in Austria for tax-deductlbile donations that covers most of our user base
 180 <WernerDworak> Jürgen, it is difficult to translate "gemeinnützig" to English. Neiter "non-profit" nor "charitavle" really fits
 181 <jbruckner> yes thats true
 182 <alex-uk> What sort of cost and what sort of bureaucracy to an AT association??
 183 <NEOatNHNG> jbruckner: any special bookkeeping/finance stuff to be aware of?
 184 <jbruckner> forming the association is around 60-90EUR in Austria
 185 <jbruckner> Michael, its very similiar to Germany
 186 <WernerDworak> I assume the new CAcert is legally independent of the old CAcert Inc. so it should be easy to have both parallel till everything is moved .
 187 <jbruckner> I agree to Werner
 188 <alex-uk> It might need to be independently funded initially....
 189 <WernerDworak> This should be not big problem. We can collect membership fees and hole for some donations
 190 <WernerDworak> hope
 191 <jbruckner> donations for?
 192 <katzazi> funding?
 193 <NEOatNHNG> ok as I stated before I think we should decide which country we want to go for because having a decision and getting things rolling which might turn out as not the most optimal country is better than searching forever for the perfect country
 194 <jbruckner> ... did you mean for funding a new Association?
 195 <alex-uk> CAcert inc probably should not fund setting up the new Association - it needs to be able to "buy" the old one...
 196 <katzazi> it has to be the legal successor
 197 <katzazi> if the old one should or may be closed
 198 <NEOatNHNG> therefore I'd like to hear votes for the following countries: UK, switzerland, Germany, Austria. I propose the following mode: each country you vote aye or naye the country with the most ayes wins. If there's a draw we make a vote just between those countries if there's still a draw after three votings the winer is chosen by fair dice roll
 199 <WernerDworak> Michael, it looks like founding the new CAcert association in Autria fore sure is a good solution and I could not see any reservation up to now, so this should be our main target
 200 <jbruckner> i agree to werner!
 201 <alex-uk> "buying" the old org is the easiest way to ensure that the new org is the legal successor
 202 <BenBall> how many members do we have in austria?
 203 <alex-uk> I'd go with AT
 204 <NEOatNHNG> ok no vote then austria it is
 205 <jbruckner> +1 Michael ;)
 206 <NEOatNHNG> Associations can usually not be sold
 207 <WernerDworak> I assume ther will be no reservation from Dirk and I hope fromEtienne too.
 208 <NEOatNHNG> at least in the NSW act there's no such concept as far as I read it
 209 <WernerDworak> But you can tell a legal successor and transfer all assets
 210 <WernerDworak> Since the new association is nor profit too, maybe even charitable, it should be easy to tranfer funds.
 211 <katzazi> the new one should not "own" the old one but be the successor so all assets are moved to the new one and not hold through the old one
 212 <NEOatNHNG> you can dissolve it and when doing that you can decide how to distribute its assets
 213 <dirk> hi ...
 214 <NEOatNHNG> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/s72.html
 215 <NEOatNHNG> hi dirk
 216 <WernerDworak> Our server are maintained by CAcert but operated by secure-u, so we have s safe transfer in any case.
 217 <BenBall> Another organisation I was involved with merged with a new organisation by resolutions passed at AGM.  
 218 <BenBall> Agreements to transfer assets (money) etc
 219 <BenBall> was simple enough.
 220 <WernerDworak> Dirk, it looks like all support Austria as location for the new CAcert association. Any reservation from you?
 221 <NEOatNHNG> BenBall: yep, merging, renaming etc. within the same country is a no-brainer
 222 <NEOatNHNG> because it essentially stays the same organisation
 223 <NEOatNHNG> but international transfer is more complicated because usually legal systems are rather ignorant when it comes to acknowledge foreign legal bodies in all their facettes
 224 <NEOatNHNG> it's more like there's a legal body outside our borders so you can trade with it and so on but when you make special things with it it becomes more complicated
 225 <NEOatNHNG> it's like passing void pointers arround
 226 <WernerDworak> So the new and old assocuations should be legally independend, the new only being the successot regating assets
 227 <jbruckner> yes Werner, i think so too
 228 <NEOatNHNG> you might know that there's a special object behind it but the compiler doesn't know what's behind it and you need to get ugly and make casts
 229 <alex-uk> It could be handled by "running down" the assets of the old org prior to closedown and ensuring that new fees etx come to the new association
 230 <NEOatNHNG> alex-uk: we still need to transfer CCA
 231 <NEOatNHNG> and to make things more complicated we need to transfer CCA for assurers that have done assurances in the past but are now inactive
 232 <alex-uk> I don't really see an issue there - it needs a simple mod to CCA to allow for heirs and successors.
 233 <katzazi> you need to transfere a lot - with a successor part it is quite easy to "take all", even stuff you don't think about
 234 <dirk> @werner if possible i would prefer a non-euro-location (like switzerland/...) ... but if everything i clear (i just read the log of the board-meeting) i'm fine with austria ...
 235 <NEOatNHNG> anyway it's not that complicated to make the new org a successor to the old so we should do that
 236 <alex-uk> CPS is a bigger stumbling block as it explicitly disallows transfer of the CA
 237 <WernerDworak> Disk, what could be a reason dor a non-EU country? Up to now everything speaks for EU
 238 <WernerDworak> Dirk
 239 <dirk> for the subcommitee ... yep ... it would step back to make place for a regular AU-board-member ... since my time for meeting in the morning is quite limited ...
 240 <alex-uk> non-euro <> non EU
 241 <NEOatNHNG> dirk: non-euro is not  that easy payment-wise. CH is part of SEPA but not EWB which means it's a bit more complicated then within EU
 242 <NEOatNHNG> dirk: we currently don't have a second AU candidate
 243 <dirk> @werner if something "goes wrong" is easier for officials to act within the EU ... 
 244 <dirk> but as i said: if this is
 245 <dirk> isn't possible, i'm fine with austria ...
 246 <WernerDworak> Alex. as any policy, the CPS and CCA can be changed. And
 247 <WernerDworak> if I understood Eva right, the CCA as a contract can be unilaterally changed. Who disagreed is out, all others are in.
 248 <katzazi> that's how I understand it
 249 <jbruckner> i see that with CCA in same way
 250 <WernerDworak> And not to forget, if there is no claimant, there is no judge
 251 <WernerDworak> If someone disagrees, I assume the arbitrators will find a decent solution.
 252 <NEOatNHNG> ok I think we stick with Austria for now and now have to plan the next steps
 253 <NEOatNHNG> forming an association should not be that hard but we need to do some things
 254 <NEOatNHNG> - we need a constitution
 255 <WernerDworak> I assume one of the first steps is to activate the policy group and to the required changes to CCA, CPS and other policies concerned.
 256 <katzazi> are there language requirements for this in AT?
 257 <NEOatNHNG> can we do that in English or has it to be in German?
 258 <NEOatNHNG> - we need founding members
 259 <jbruckner> it has to be in german in austria, but i dont see any reason against to translate it to english
 260 <NEOatNHNG> again: anyone in the EU or AT only?
 261 <katzazi> do the founding members have to actually meet?
 262 <NEOatNHNG> ok we can do a non-binding english translation of the constitution and do the binding variant in german
 263 <jbruckner> Correct Michael!
 264 <WernerDworak> From my experience, if a native German speaking person creates the bylaws, ha should start in English and then translate it to German. So you get better formulations
 265 <NEOatNHNG> - we need an address/contact person: jbruckner can you do that?
 266 <jbruckner> yes i can do that
 267 <NEOatNHNG> WernerDworak: we could start with the current constitution of CAcert as a starting point
 268 <WernerDworak> Jürgen, 	do the founding members have to actually meet?
 269 <jbruckner> Werner, yes, but i didnt read anywhere that it couldnt be an 'online' meeting
 270 <NEOatNHNG> then assuming that goes well we need to prepare for old org to transfer everything to the new org
 271 <NEOatNHNG> that means policies, contracts etc.
 272 <WernerDworak> Michael, I assume the new CCA should be the old CCA with as little changes as possible. The same hold true for the bylwas of the new organisation
 273 <NEOatNHNG> the CCA is not relevant to the Austrian authorities so we don't need a german variant there I suppose
 274 <WernerDworak> But since legal differences some more changes could be required.
 275 <katzazi> i do not think that the cca has to be in german but it's just a guess
 276 <NEOatNHNG> in the CCA we could still say we base it on Australian law i guess? after all it's only relevant to our internal arbitration
 277 <dirk> if there had to be changed in the policies/... independent of the association move we should handle this differently ...
 278 <dirk> so it's not possible, that the move will get delayed due to a "naye" for another non-move-related change ...
 279 <jbruckner> in fact i think that we just need to have the bylaws in german, all other documents can be in english
 280 <WernerDworak> Michael, with "But since legal differences some more changes could be required." I meant the bylaws or constitution as you called it.
 281 <katzazi> @neo i think it should be possible in most cases (with exceptions to really basics of AT/EU law - but that should not concern uss)
 282 <katzazi> but i'm not a specialist in at law - i'm only doing educated guesses here
 283 <NEOatNHNG> - we have to get a bank account for the new org
 284 <WernerDworak> Indeed. BUt the location of that bank is rather uncritical
 285 <jbruckner> Michael, yes, but i think it dont have to be in Austria
 286 <NEOatNHNG> after we have checked all of the above there's one more thing: cancel old org and distribute all funds to new org
 287 <NEOatNHNG> s/funds/assets/
 288 <WernerDworak> Jürgen and Michal, how about cross border tax deduction for membership fees?
 289 <katzazi> neo that should be handled in the old org but the new one has to exist - you can prepere it parallel to funding a new one
 290 <WernerDworak> If it is not possible, maybe Germany with nost community members should be the preferred banl location
 291 <NEOatNHNG> Don't know about that. I think I heard that someone said you can deduct membership fees for cross border membership fees but that's not a very solid statement
 292 jbruckner dont know about it
 293 <NEOatNHNG> ok lets distriibute tasks: who works with policy group to prepare our policies for the move?
 294 <katzazi> i volunteer to work with policies
 295 <NEOatNHNG> +1
 296 <magu> +1
 297 <WernerDworak> Fine Thank you
 298 <alex-uk> I can do that with Eva
 299 <WernerDworak> Fine.
 300 <jbruckner> +1
 301 <NEOatNHNG> founding the new org: jbruckner can we two work that out?
 302 <jbruckner> yes sure Michael!
 303 <WernerDworak> BTW, shall we explititly appoint a policy officer or is it not really needed?
 304 <katzazi> it would be great to have one
 305 <jbruckner> i suggest Eva as Policy Officer ;)
 306 <katzazi> i would even volunteer - if i would not be an arbitrator and that could be a big CoI
 307 <NEOatNHNG> I move to appoint Eva as Policy Officer
 308 <WernerDworak> Indeed, this CoI should be avoided
 309 <BenBall> second and aye
 310 <NEOatNHNG> ok I draw back
 311 <alex-uk> Megan volunteered in the past...
 312 <BenBall> ok i withdraw 2nd
 313 <katzazi> ... i could step back as arbitrator but i doubt that would be a good idea...
 314 <NEOatNHNG> Is she still willing to do that? That means mostly making redactional edits to the policies
 315 <NEOatNHNG> was talking about megan
 316 <jbruckner> Eva, NO that wouldnt be a good idea
 317 <WernerDworak> ... but Megan didn't show any activity. A pure figurehead is of no use
 318 <alex-uk> There hasn't been much activity since then..
 319 <WernerDworak> Alex, do you thik Megan would really have the reigns firm in her hands?
 320 <alex-uk> I can ask - she's out at the moment,
 321 <WernerDworak> I meant reins
 322 <alex-uk> This can be progressed next meeting.
 323 <WernerDworak> Ok
 324 <alex-uk> I suggest we need some idea of what we need to do to form the new organaisation
 325 <alex-uk> This can be in parallel with getting the changes we need to make to policy prepared
 326 <NEOatNHNG> yep jbruckner and me will figure that out and present it to the board once we have some substance
 327 <NEOatNHNG> or are there any wishes?
 328 <alex-uk> Eva and I can do the same with policy change prep.
 329 <NEOatNHNG> I would wish for the fiscal year to correspond to the calendar year but apart from that i can't think of anything speacial that needs changing
 330 <WernerDworak> BTW what shall be discussed and done at board level, what discussed in the board mailig list and other list, when shall we inform the community and include them on our considerations?
 331 <jbruckner> thats a good idea Michael
 332 <NEOatNHNG> we can announce our decision to dig down into austria on board, members and cacert general disuccion list I think but without a proper concept involving cacert discussion might also lead to a lot of ideas streaming in which are not easy to handle
 333 <WernerDworak> I think too fiscal year should be calender year.
 334 <NEOatNHNG> so I would go for board and members at first
 335 <alex-uk> Inc is primarily about administering the infrastructure on behalf of the community - most of the community don't care as long as ot wotksd
 336 <alex-uk> it works
 337 <WernerDworak> Michael you are right. Before we start to publish we should have a concept with some flesh on it. not just bones
 338 <WernerDworak> Alex, indeed. Most community members are not aware of te Inc and not interested in details
 339 <alex-uk> So to summarise...
 340 <alex-uk> 1)we look at AT
 341 <alex-uk> 2) Jurgen and Micheal look at setting up an associtation 
 342 <alex-uk> 3) Eva and I look at policy changes.
 343 <alex-uk> Do we need any more at this time?
 344 <WernerDworak> Who looks for bank accounts?
 345 <jbruckner> What is needed about Bank Accounts?
 346 <alex-uk> Can we do that before neworg is formed?
 347 <NEOatNHNG> I think juergen and I can do that after we have cleared the association stuff up
 348 <katzazi> you can collect information before it is formed - parallel
 349 <NEOatNHNG> sure before we have actually formed it but after having some basic understanding of the concept
 350 <WernerDworak> My intention was, the new association needs a bank account in a rather early phase.
 351 <NEOatNHNG> meaning how many board members can authorise financial transactions etc.
 352 <BenBall> should somone over there compare banks in terms of friendliness
 353 <BenBall> online banking access
 354 <BenBall> online banking - multiple approvals online for payments
 355 <BenBall> international rates and fees
 356 <BenBall> monthly fees
 357 <WernerDworak> Jürgen, do you know it the creation of an association can be online only or if some personal meeting is required?
 358 <NEOatNHNG> yep something like that. I arlready did a little bit of that work when we were searching for a european bank account for old org
 359 <NEOatNHNG> but AU organisation was a major nuissance
 360 <NEOatNHNG> WernerDworak: we'll figure that out off-meeting
 361 <WernerDworak> ... which is now over. Assuciation and bank will be both EU or at least SEPA
 362 <NEOatNHNG> of course
 363 <alex-uk> Question time??
 364 <WernerDworak> Is there somethig still for 2.4 or can we go to 3.0 Question time?
 365 <NEOatNHNG> u601: your turn ;-)
 366 <WernerDworak> 3.0 Question time
 367 <WernerDworak> Are there other questions?
 368 <katzazi> that is a question WernerDworak
 369 <alex-uk> :)
 370 <u601> you've just decided for a move to AT .... whats about Communications to the public  ?  blog post, mailing list first, before you continue with all other stuff ... to collect some more thoughts, problem issues ...
 371 <WernerDworak> I see none. So I come to 4.1
 372 <katzazi> communication was just discussed if i remember correctly
 373 <NEOatNHNG> u601: we handled that first members only until we have a concept, that will go request for comments and public
 374 <BenBall> Comms was just discussed.
 375 <WernerDworak> Uli, we decided to wait with that till some substance is there
 376 <WernerDworak> 4.1 date of the next Committee Meeting 
 377 <u601> now you think in your cloud towers ...  bring out some plans that will be pushed down ... 
 378 <u601> so why not do step by step ...    you've decided for AT ...  now hear the community ...
 379 <WernerDworak> Uli, can't you read? 
 380 <katzazi> there was no motion, was tehre?
 381 <jbruckner> no there wasnt
 382 <NEOatNHNG> uli I'm sure there will be a moderate flame -war about which country is best and we won't get any closer to actually moving
 383 <WernerDworak> Eva, we should check details, the move
 384 <u601> didn't you brought from several countries down to one ?
 385 <WernerDworak> then#
 386 <WernerDworak> 	4.1 date of the next Committee Meeting 
 387 <u601> this is a decision, not yet covered by a motion, but its a pre-decision ....
 388 <katzazi> without a motion there was no actual decision
 389 <WernerDworak> What will we meet next?
 390 <alex-uk> 2014-01-26 09:00 UTC??
 391 <NEOatNHNG> yep because we accepted that it might not actually be the best™ couuntry in the world to found the new association, there are always tradeoffs and the tradeoff here is that we don't want to loose any more precious time and just go with a country that doesn't look so bad
 392 <NEOatNHNG> alex-uk: that is not doable for me
 393 <WernerDworak> Looks good. But we should check is anióther time of day could be better for Etienne
 394 <NEOatNHNG> I will be part of the Unifest crew one of the biggest student parties of southern germany
 395 jbruckner is away that weekend too
 396 <WernerDworak> What times are possible for ben and other Australian members?
 397 <NEOatNHNG> so I will be cleaning-up and if I'm lucky get some sleep then
 398 <alex-uk> What about a week later then?
 399 <NEOatNHNG> how about one week later? there's fosdem but I could probably do a short meeting in between
 400 <BenBall> 09:00 or 19:00 most days work for me.
 401 <WernerDworak> Ben, local time or UTC?
 402 <BenBall> UTC
 403 <alex-uk> So 2014-02-02 9:00 UTC???
 404 <NEOatNHNG> I would then prefer 19:00 UTC at 2014-2-2
 405 <WernerDworak> Since several member cannot attend at 26 January, what about next sunday?
 406 <oakey> oh... and i'm to late again >.<
 407 <jbruckner> / 2014-02-02 19:00UTC sounds good to me
 408 <katzazi> slightly oakey
 409 <alex-uk> next sunday probably too soon
 410 <NEOatNHNG> to soon for any results yes
 411 <alex-uk> 1900 not too good for me but...
 412 <NEOatNHNG> unless some major issue comes up
 413 <WernerDworak> Ben, is 19:00 UTC really possible for Australia? Isn't htat 6:00 or even 5:00 local time?
 414 <WernerDworak> Etienne, we are mostly over. Shall I send yo the log? So at least you can give comments in the mailing list?
 415 <alex-uk> so 2014-02-02 19:00 UTC???
 416 <BenBall> 1900UTC is 6am local time which is fine
 417 <WernerDworak> Alex, I need an answer from Ben
 418 <BenBall> until end of march when we move back to UTC+10
 419 <WernerDworak> Ben, if it is fine with you, we can do it. But do you know how Robert and Ben D think?
 420 <EtienneRuedin> @Werner: oh yes, please.
 421 <BenBall> Im pretty sure Ben D is a morning person too.
 422 <BenBall> I dont know Robert at all.
 423 <WernerDworak> So at least the next meeting will be fixed to  2014-02-02 19:00 UTC
 424 <alex-uk> OK
 425 <BenBall> cool
 426 <WernerDworak> Something more or can I close?
 427 <jbruckner> okay :)
 428 <EtienneRuedin> fine
 429 <NEOatNHNG> thanks for the productive meeting
 430 <WernerDworak> 4.2 So I close the meeting