07:34 -!- katzazi [smuxi@xdsl-81-173-145-212.netcologne.de] has joined #board-meeting
08:27 -!- WernerDworak [Werner@p54B1E33E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #board-meeting
08:51 -!- StefanT [smuxi@p5B3B8F34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #board-meeting
08:52 -!- INOPIAE [smuxi@xdsl-78-35-62-217.netcologne.de] has joined #board-meeting
08:59 -!- katzazi [smuxi@xdsl-81-173-145-212.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
09:14 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+o INOPIAE] by felix
09:14 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+o StefanT] by felix
09:14 -!- INOPIAE changed the topic of #board-meeting to: Board Meeting 2016-02-28 10:00 UTC | https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-02-28
09:16 -!- INOPIAE changed the topic of #board-meeting to: Board Meeting 2016-02-28 10:00 UTC| the channel is moderated for voice to board member only | https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-02-28
09:18 -!- katzazi [smuxi@xdsl-81-173-145-212.netcologne.de] has joined #board-meeting
09:41 -!- dops [dops@dops.innocircle.com] has joined #board-meeting
09:54 -!- Anonymous947ReinhardMutz [5485561a@localhost] has joined #board-meeting
09:55 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+o Anonymous947ReinhardMutz] by StefanT
09:55 -!- Anonymous947ReinhardMutz [5485561a@localhost] has left #board-meeting []
09:55 -!- ReinhardM [5485561a@localhost] has joined #board-meeting
09:56 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+o ReinhardM] by StefanT
10:00 <@ReinhardM> hello to everybody
10:00 <@StefanT> Good Morning
10:00 <@INOPIAE> good morning
10:00 <@ReinhardM> welcome to our todays board meeting
10:00 <@felix> hi
10:01 <@ReinhardM> I hereby open the board meeting
10:01 <@ReinhardM> do we have a quorum?
10:01 <@ReinhardM> Jurgen cannot attend
10:01 <@ReinhardM> we are 4 board members
10:01 <@ReinhardM> so we have a quorum
10:01 -!- alex [alex@82.139.196.202] has joined #board-meeting
10:02 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 1.2 Accept the minutes from the last meeting. 
10:02 <@ReinhardM> any coments?
10:03 <@StefanT> Minutes are OK from my side
10:03 <@ReinhardM> I move to accept the minutes from the last meeting
10:03 <@StefanT> second & aye
10:04 <@INOPIAE> aye
10:04 <@ReinhardM> ACK & AYE
10:04 <@felix> aye
10:04 <@ReinhardM> carried
10:04 <@ReinhardM> next topic
10:04 <@ReinhardM> Who is making minutes? 
10:05 <@INOPIAE> I will do the minutes
10:05 <@ReinhardM> Thank you, Marcus
10:05 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 2.4 Chair asks whether cacert-board-private maillist includes any items that need to be disclosed to Members. 
10:06 <@INOPIAE> I do not see any points.
10:06 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 2.5 Chair asks whether cacert-board maillist includes any business items that aren't on the agenda yet. 
10:08 <@INOPIAE> I do not see any points.
10:08 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 2.6 Chair introduces the URL of action items to the meeting, and asks for discussion. 
10:10 <@ReinhardM> soory, i just see a type writing error
10:10 <@ReinhardM> topic are correctly numbered 1.4 and 1.5
10:11 <@INOPIAE> The motion m20160209.1 Move to change all PayPal donations buttons and payment sites  of CAcert - including these on the main website www.cacert.org - to EUR  currency. was carried. Software already created a fix bug 1411 which is already deployed to the test server.
10:11 <@ReinhardM> thanks
10:11 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC 2. Businesses 
10:12 <@ReinhardM> Lucas Werkmeister 
10:12 <@ReinhardM> lucas asked for membership
10:12 <@INOPIAE> I recieved 2 seconds for Lucas Werkmeister. So we can vote on the application.
10:13 <@ReinhardM> I move to accept the application of membership from lucas
10:13 <@StefanT> aye
10:13 <@INOPIAE> second & aye
10:13 <@ReinhardM> aye
10:13 <@felix> aye
10:13 <@ReinhardM> motion carried
10:14 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.2 Karl-Heinz Gödderz 
10:14 <@ReinhardM> Karl Heinz asked for membership
10:14 <@INOPIAE> I only recieved 1 second for Karl-Heinz Göddertz. In this case the formal requirements are not met. I will put the request on the agenda again when the formal requirements are given.
10:15 <@ReinhardM> I saw only one email who seconded his application
10:15 <@ReinhardM> ACK
10:15 <@StefanT> Ack
10:16 <@felix> ack...
10:16 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.2. status root re-sign 
10:17 <@ReinhardM> current status is that we agreed on a date.
10:18 <@ReinhardM> the required persons will be available.
10:20 <@ReinhardM> We have a location for the public part and will perform an ATE at that location after the public part is done.
10:20 <@ReinhardM> It will happen during March 12th after noon. the exact dates and times will be published within the next days.
10:21 <@INOPIAE> The location will be somewhere near the datacenter in Ede, NL.
10:21 <@ReinhardM> any comments?
10:22 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.3 risk analysis hardware
10:22 <@INOPIAE> In the course of the risk analysis for the hardware I asked the critical team about their expectation of a possible failure.
10:22 <@INOPIAE> At the present stage I see that there is the need to replace the hardware for the critical servers within the next 2 years.
10:22 <@INOPIAE> We should discuss with the critical team about a time schedule for the replacement.
10:23 <@ReinhardM> We have to make a plan for the budget
10:23 <@INOPIAE> ... and a possible funding
10:24 <@ReinhardM> and a timetable.
10:26 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.4 status investigation committee
10:27 <@ReinhardM> I saw two emails of members of cacert who refused to cooperate with the invetigation committee.
10:28 <@ReinhardM> I have no further information.
10:28 -!- Anonymous391 [5065e36a@localhost] has joined #board-meeting
10:30 <@ReinhardM> I send an email "constitution of investigation committee" on Febraury, 16th.
10:30 <@ReinhardM> Board is waiting for some information from the investigation committee.
10:31 <@ReinhardM> The committee members are talking with each other.
10:32 <@ReinhardM> We don't have any more information. We do not influence the committee in any way.
10:32 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.5 personal matters
10:32 <@ReinhardM> 2.5.1 Ian Grigg
10:33 <@ReinhardM> We decided during the last board meeting to discuss the email subject "elephants" in this meeting.
10:33 <@ReinhardM> Yesterday I saw an email from Ian Grigg saying that he does not want board to discuss any personalities regarding his person.
10:34 <@ReinhardM> Dear Ian, e NEVER discuss personal matters in the public!
10:34 <@ReinhardM> But emails send out to the public may be discussed publicly.
10:34 <@ReinhardM> That is a difference.
10:35 <@ReinhardM> Lets start with that email.
10:37 <@ReinhardM> We will give links to the email we discuss. So everybody may read. And we will discuss every email in detail. At the and of boards discussion Ian may answer from the floor
10:38 <@ReinhardM> link to the archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-02/msg00000.html
10:41 <@ReinhardM> His first email about elephants was Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-01/msg00010.html
10:41 <@ReinhardM> He saiud
10:41 <@ReinhardM> He said: "The problem is much more difficult than that. There is a herd of elephants crowded into one small room."
10:42 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Elephant #1. The people who control the board now have (a) conducted a long-running campaign against Arbitration."
10:42 <@ReinhardM> That statement is absolutely wrong. He is not able to give any facts.
10:44 <@INOPIAE> You mean the campaign against arbitration?
10:46 <@INOPIAE> I can see where Ian give any facts for his claim.
10:46 <@INOPIAE> can/cannot
10:48 <@INOPIAE> To my knowledge there has been a few disputes and appeals against 2 arbitrators or their rulings.
10:49 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Which leads to Elephant #2 - CAcert is now in deadly embrace. Arbitration is no longer in effect, and cannot stop Board, and CAcert Inc is no longer legitimate, and can no longer act."
10:49 <@ReinhardM> Again no reasons given. Just feelings.
10:52 <@INOPIAE> I see only his personal view but I cannot follow his thoughts.
10:52 <@ReinhardM> Just to make it clear to everybody: There is NO board motion to seek assistance at court and there is no board motion who brings anybody to a hearing at some prosecutor in NSW. That are the facts!
10:53 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Elephant #3. As there is no effective arbitration, there is no longer any protection at law for the activities of the members - of both the community and the Association members. Which means that we're thrown backwards all the was to 2006 - you are liable for any mistakes you make before any court. This is in essence why many have pulled back, downed tools ("on strike"), resigned."
10:53 <@ReinhardM> That is a conclusion as some outcome of his personal feling.
10:54 <@ReinhardM> Again, no facts, no collection of evidence etc.pp..
10:56 <@INOPIAE> I have the feeling that Ian does not oversees the DRP and the underlying legal requirements that have been logged with the OFT.
10:56 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Elephant #4. Because the board has breached, the SGM has to replace the board."
10:57 <@ReinhardM> No facts again. IMHO it sounds a little bit like "ex cathedra".
10:59 <@INOPIAE> So far I only see that Ian tries to push a SGM from around Christmans and so far nobody really picked up his request.
11:00 <@ReinhardM> May be. Who knows but Ian himself?
11:01 <@INOPIAE> One thing I see is that he is claiming that someone should do something but he is not stepping in to take over responsibility.
11:02 <@ReinhardM> I like to introcude another email.
11:02 <@ReinhardM> Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2015-12/msg00004.html
11:02 <@ReinhardM> Just to remember: Our last AGM was held on November 22th, in 2015.
11:03 <@ReinhardM> This email was written on Decmeber 09th in 2015. That is 2 weeks after the constitutional meeting of this board which happened on 2015-11-28.
11:03 <@ReinhardM> cite: "The Board, and CAcert Inc, has no power to lock out Arbitrators, as obviously if it did, it would. Arbitration would be powerless.  The time has come for members to choose. The board? Or the policies and Arbitration? You can't have it both ways."
11:04 <@ReinhardM> These words may be seen as to prepare a split of CAcert in 2 parts.
11:06 <@ReinhardM> Ian send this email to many people not only members of CAcert Inc.
11:08 <@INOPIAE> From my point of view we do have a board that is following the statutes and policies of CAcert. The facts given by Ian is his assumption that board does not follow the rules.
11:09 <@ReinhardM> Yes, it is his personal assumption what is a very politely descriptin of "given wrong statments".
11:09 <@ReinhardM> letcs continue
11:09 <@ReinhardM> Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00013.html
11:10 <@ReinhardM> cite: "There is no permission for the board to conduct a star chamber. This is anathema to our culture."
11:15 <@ReinhardM> That is his answer to a note from board: "Please keep in mind that such an investigation is setup to give all affected parties the opportunity to work together afterwards."
11:15 <@INOPIAE> First of all board does not set up a star chamber. Board set up an investigation committee that should see if board was right to suspend arbitrators. This is an audit action as a third party is overlooking the case and has to come to a indepented statement.
11:17 <@ReinhardM> Right, the implementation of such a committe is an audit action. We ask independant people if we - board - interprete the facts correctly and if our actions do match our statutes and the acts.
11:20 <@INOPIAE> Another point is that board has the power to but parts of his actions under a privacy seal. In this case this was done to give the investigation committee the change to be independent. see Statues of Inc. 23 B 2
11:20 <@ReinhardM> s/change/chance/
11:21 <@ReinhardM> correct hint of statutes rule 23
11:22 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00025.html
11:22 <@ReinhardM> cite: "In one filing, Juergen M. Bruckner has destroyed CAcert's arbitration."
11:23 <@ReinhardM> That is a serious accusation, isn't it?
11:27 <@INOPIAE> Ian does not give no evidence what so ever was filled at the office of the Public Prosecuter of Vieanna. Hi comes directly to his assumption that it must be a "Criminal court". 
11:27 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Mr Bruckner and the members of the board in approval filed into CRIMINAL COURT in Austria against not only Eva, not only Philipp, but also his critic Iang, me, *and* his critic Alexander, long standing and independent arbitrator."
11:28 <@ReinhardM> That is a false and defamatory statement against my person. I never went to any court in this world and filed into criminal court against any member of CAcert, Inc as well as community.
11:30 <@ReinhardM> But if Ian continues his slanderous actions times may change and I have to fresh up my mind. Who knows?
11:32 <@ReinhardM> next Email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00029.html
11:32 <@ReinhardM> cite: "By putting Arbitrators into criminal court, CAcert Inc and its board have now breached DRP 2.1 and 3.5 as well."
11:33 <@ReinhardM> Again no memerb of CAcert at large in his capacity as arbitrator is ever put into criminal court.
11:33 <@ReinhardM> s/memerb/member/
11:34 <@ReinhardM> next Email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00033.html
11:34 <@ReinhardM> cite: "what is now apparent is that the board of CAcert is in fatal conflict of interest with our Arbitration Forum and our community.  We have: attempts to change Arbitration ex-jurisdiction; purported "suspensions" of Arbitrators who are active in cases; unspecified filings in criminal court for unspecified motives; the inclusion of opponents in attacks; running of "star chamber" investigations; shutdown of open disclosure; a belief that Board cannot
11:37 <@ReinhardM> sorry, once again, cite: "what is now apparent is that the board of CAcert is in fatal conflict of interest with our Arbitration Forum and our community.
11:37 <@ReinhardM> We have: attempts to change Arbitration ex-jurisdiction; purported "suspensions" of Arbitrators who are active in cases; unspecified filings in criminal court for unspecified motives; the inclusion of opponents in attacks; running of "star chamber" investigations; shutdown of open disclosure; a belief that Board cannot be controlled by Arbitration; re-interpretations of rulings, etc etc."
11:38 <@INOPIAE> Who has the power to control board? To my knowledge the power lies with the members of the Inc. repesented by the AGM oand not with any arbitrator.
11:38 <@INOPIAE> oand/and
11:41 <@ReinhardM> All I see are unspecified accusations. No facts,
11:42 <@ReinhardM> next Em,ail Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00035.html
11:42 <@ReinhardM> cite: "As the board and CAcert Inc are now creating liabilities and risks for all users by acting against the Arbitration on a concerted, united front, they are acting against the community's interests. It is therefore time for an SGM to replace the board, not only to protect the community, but to protect the members of the committee.
11:42 <@ReinhardM> We have done this before, once in around 2009, from memory. And in 2007, the board collapsed because of similar conflicts between board and community.
11:43 <@ReinhardM> We will need: * a demand for an SGM * resolutions * a timetable * a board.
11:43 <@ReinhardM> If you are happy to help support a call for SGM, please say AYE. We can get to work on a demand for SGM and a set of resolutions."
11:43 <@ReinhardM> That email was written in Dec 2015, 24th. 
11:46 <@INOPIAE> So far I do not see any really progress from this mail up to now.
11:47 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2015-12/msg00109.html
11:47 <@ReinhardM> cite: "In other news - the process to call for an SGM to change the board has been started."
11:49 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00056.html
11:49 <@ReinhardM> cite: "I wouldn't say that "complete disregard" is entirely accurate - they have accepted some things. I wonder if "persistent disrespect" is a better term?"
11:51 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-01/msg00010.html
11:51 <@ReinhardM> cite: "The board has lost legitimacy since its first meeting, but here is the latest ridiculous thing going on."
11:52 <@StefanT> no facts, no reasons again
11:52 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-01/msg00016.html
11:53 <@ReinhardM> cite: "If the members of the secret court are reading these mails - please contact me and I will brief you on the dangerous situation that the board has entered you into."
11:53 <@ReinhardM> threatening members ...
11:55 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-02/msg00000.html
11:55 <@ReinhardM> cite: "In my recent email to members list, I outlined the 4 elephants I saw in the room. #3 below is that there is no longer any arbitration in effect ....
11:56 <@ReinhardM> So, it seems that people haven't really understood this. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people need to understand. Let me draw it out for you. Sorry, it's long and utterly utterly painful."
11:56 <@ReinhardM> That is the email we started with this morning.
11:58 <@ReinhardM> That email is very long but again, no facts!
11:58 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2016-02/msg00000.html
11:58 <@ReinhardM> cite: "If you doubt arbitration, you doubt CAcert.  It doesn't get any simpler."
12:01 <@INOPIAE> cite from that mail "iang, never an arbitrator.  Too much responsibility. "
12:03 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2016-02/msg00006.html
12:06 <@ReinhardM> cite: "iang, please note this is not a definitive recording. Nor reliable. I welcome criticism and correction. I especially welcome facts more than I welcome complaints, wailings and grumblings."
12:06 <@ReinhardM> he mentioned 16 points (rumors) and ended up with this.
12:07 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-02/msg00009.html
12:08 <@ReinhardM> cite: "So we're setting up a fork. Either we declare CAcert Inc culpable, in which case it also is terminated before CCA and we have to resolve the corporation and distribute the assets, *or* we declare it innocent, in which case we can carry on. Either way, we have spoken, and the liabilities are therefore solidified one way or another. Without resolving on this point, we may set ourselves up for law suits in the future - the point here is to close of
12:08 <@ReinhardM> Note also that these resolutions aren't binding on arbitration. But they are highly informative. As I say, these are just ideas. Please hack in."
12:09 <@ReinhardM> sorry, once again for completeness:
12:09 <@ReinhardM> cite:"cite: "So we're setting up a fork. Either we declare CAcert Inc culpable, in which case it also is terminated before CCA and we have to resolve the corporation and distribute the assets, *or* we declare it innocent, in which case we can carry on.
12:10 <@ReinhardM> Either way, we have spoken, and the liabilities are therefore solidified one way or another.
12:10 <@ReinhardM> Without resolving on this point, we may set ourselves up for law suits in the future - the point here is to close off damaging options whichever way we go.
12:10 <@ReinhardM> Note also that these resolutions aren't binding on arbitration. But they are highly informative. As I say, these are just ideas. Please hack in."
12:13 <@StefanT> I interprete this as call for fork.
12:14 <@INOPIAE> Is he really calling a fork? In this case he should ask himself when he will follow the requirements of our rule 6 of the Statues. 
12:14 <@INOPIAE> Rule 6 Membership and Conflict of Interest
12:17 <@ReinhardM> I want to point out that a SGM in the past has discussed emails with similar topics.
12:18 <@ReinhardM> I do not want to discuss their problems but the given solution.
12:18 <@ReinhardM> A commitment was given:
12:18 <@ReinhardM> > Publicly making these types of statements without verifying the facts
12:19 <@ReinhardM> > is unacceptable and prejudicial to the association, and cannot be
12:19 <@ReinhardM> > justified by a right of free speech or democratic discussion.
12:19 <@ReinhardM> > By the number of them it cannot be said that they are not willful,
12:20 <@ReinhardM> > especially [] that proves his willfulness to harm the association.
12:20 <@ReinhardM> Given these facts, the committee can no longer tolerate these types of
12:21 <@ReinhardM> unsubstantiated statements , either on CAcert mailing lists, or in public mailinglists,
12:21 <@ReinhardM> we see no alternative other than expelling him from the association.
12:21 <@ReinhardM> end of cite
12:22 <@ReinhardM> A hint for the floor: You can read these words in the documentation of the SGM 20110508, https://wiki.cacert.org/SGM/SGM20110508
12:25 <@ReinhardM> I think that we have to come to an end with this disastrous communication.
12:26 <@ReinhardM> I propose to enter in the procedure following rule 12 of our statutes and start with the exppelling of Ian G from our association.
12:27 <@INOPIAE> I cannot see Ian present. If you are present please make yourself visible so we can grant you voice access to the channel.
12:30 <@INOPIAE> I see no response so lets continue.
12:31 <@ReinhardM> I move to enter the procedure following rule 12 of the statutes of CAcert Inc. to expell Ian G from CAcert Inc.
12:31 <@INOPIAE> second & aye
12:31 <@felix> aye
12:31 <@StefanT> aye
12:31 <@ReinhardM> aye
12:32 <@ReinhardM> next topic 2.5.2 Guillaume Romagny 
12:33 <@ReinhardM> Once again we respect his wish and will not discuss any private items! But we will discuss published emails.
12:34 <@ReinhardM> email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00024.html
12:34 <@ReinhardM> cite: "A nightmare, it is for the worst."
12:35 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00057.html
12:36 <@ReinhardM> cite: "note: the CAcert community (at large) exists by itself with its rules made by consensus, even if it has no legal personality."
12:36 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-01/msg00000.html
12:37 <@ReinhardM> cite: "What I understand from the email from Board to Eva, the Board is abusing the power granted by the members doing:
12:37 <@ReinhardM> - willful misconduct, - constraint, - threat, in order to remove the voice of Arbitration and so the CAcert community at large."
12:38 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-01/msg00039.html
12:38 <@ReinhardM> cite: "Let's be realistic, the answer of the survey is YES 100%, CAcert Inc. now includes Kim Jong-un as a member of our Web-of-Trust. "
12:39 <@ReinhardM> next email Archiv: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-02/msg00010.html
12:39 <@ReinhardM> cite: "The 2015 CAcert Inc Board may have hijacked the legal entity of the association.
12:39 <@ReinhardM> & leave CAcert Inc legal person to die by itself with the consequences granted to some of the foolish 2015 Board members."
12:39 <@ReinhardM> any comments?
12:41 <@ReinhardM> I see that guillaume has nothing learned from the SGM in 2011.
12:42 <@ReinhardM> He repeats wrong statements and could easily verify that his given statements were wrong.
12:44 <@ReinhardM> And he used a wording offensive insulting members.
12:44 <@ReinhardM> Is this the communication style of CAcert?
12:45 <@INOPIAE> It should not be that way.
12:45 <@StefanT> i am tired to hear insults from him
12:46 <@ReinhardM> The SGM of 20110508 confirmed a ruling from the board at that time.
12:46 <@ReinhardM> ruling, cite:
12:46 <@ReinhardM> "the ruling of the board includes two things:
12:47 <@ReinhardM> 1) the messages were inappropriate (no facts, could easily have been checked/verified)
12:47 <@ReinhardM> 2) the ruling: he's not allowed to do this again, and will be expelled if he does."
12:48 <@ReinhardM> It is important to see that there is no time period given. So that ruling is in place today.
12:48 <@ReinhardM> I inho would expect that in any controversial discussion only real facts are mentioned and participants do not insult or offend each other.
12:49 <@ReinhardM> that is normal behaviour.
12:49 <@ReinhardM> s/inho/imho/
12:49 <@StefanT> i mean his behavior stands direct against the ruling from the SGM
12:50 <@ReinhardM> any comments?
12:51 <@INOPIAE> no
12:53 <@ReinhardM> I move to execute the ruling from SGM20110508 which means to expell Guillaume R. from CAcert Inc. immediately.
12:54 <@INOPIAE> second & aye
12:54 <@StefanT> aye
12:54 <@felix> aye
12:54 <@ReinhardM> motion carried.
12:55 <@ReinhardM> Guillaume R. is expelled from CAcert Inc.
12:55 <@ReinhardM> next topic 3. Question Time 
12:55 -!- mode/#board-meeting [-m] by INOPIAE
12:56 <@ReinhardM> any questions from the floor please?
12:56 -!- INOPIAE changed the topic of #board-meeting to: Board Meeting 2016-02-28 10:00 UTC | https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-02-28
12:56 < katzazi> what precautions are you taking that the public part of the root-resigingn will not be disturbed?
12:56 < LambertHofstra> I have previously asked for a description of the "investigative committee¨ mission but have not seen any. The only thing I see is CAcert members who complain because they need to work with a committee that requires them to not inform other members. And at the same time they dont  know what the committeeś mission is.
12:56 < LambertHofstra> Can the board please explain in simple terms why said committee is installed and what the mission is?
12:56 < katzazi> and how will you take care that there will not be a time pressure from the following AGM?
12:56 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: it changes every time board speaks about it
12:56 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: the committee itself is asked to check if we were allowed to voices expressions
12:57 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: I was told in a prior statement that the investigation committee will explain me its authorisation and that board will not do so
12:57 < katzazi> in a prior board-meeting
12:58 < katzazi> about the risk evaluation: why was there no making public of the according risk-evaluation if it was send to board-private?
12:58 < katzazi> something like this would be a relevant document
12:58 < LambertHofstra> katzazi: letś wait for the answer from bvoard to your question first
12:58 < alex> katzazi: this would mean in my opinion this investigation commitee is a secret star chamber
12:58 < katzazi> about investigation committee: The committee asks about if there was a criminal filing related to what they should discuss or not
12:59 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: board does not answer, we may just ask questions
12:59 < katzazi> it was like this all the time in quesiton time
12:59 < katzazi> since this board is board
12:59 < LambertHofstra> We can ask questions but no one answers?
12:59 < katzazi> yes
12:59 < LambertHofstra> Thatś interesting!
12:59 < katzazi> if you are lucky you get an answer at the next meeting
12:59 < katzazi> or are told that the investigation committee will answer
12:59 < katzazi> or that rule 14 applies
12:59 < LambertHofstra> Ok, I have a few mkore
13:00 < katzazi> me as well, so I am just writing them
13:00 < katzazi> how else but "there was a criminal case filed" can the filing with the prosecutor be interpreted
13:00 < LambertHofstra> Another question to the board: Could you please describe how you see the different roles of the policy group, the arbitration group, the CAcert community, CAcert Inc. and the board?
13:00 < LambertHofstra> Background: it is now unclear to me what the status of arbitration is, did the board suspend some of the arbitors? Can the board do that?
13:00 < katzazi> and if it was interpreted incorrectly, why were we never informed about this mis-interpretation, as a lot of people seemed to understand it like this?
13:01 < dops> @board members: Are you willing to answer questions here, or if not, where?
13:01 <@ReinhardM> @ <LambertHofstra>: You raise many questions and we want to answer them all.
13:01 < katzazi> why do you think that you can expell someone without the process of rule 12? The last process was terminated so a new process is required to expell someone
13:02 < LambertHofstra> @reinhardM thanks please do
13:02 < WernerDworak> Dops, if Evan would stop, board would be able to answer the questions
13:02 < katzazi> also: how do you conclude that Ian has to be expelled, if last time there was only a set to moderation and this was regarded as a harsh treatment
13:02 <@ReinhardM> 1. question investigation committee
13:02 < katzazi> ReinhardM: maybe you should allow us to ask questions when the topics are discussed ...
13:03 < katzazi> WernerDworak: last times we were not able to write when board answered
13:03 < katzazi> so we had to write our questions in one go
13:03 <@ReinhardM> We see that 2 arbitrators are acting willfully against our rules. My personal opinion may be right or wrong, right?
13:04 < katzazi> your personal opinion does not matter more than the personal opinion of anybody else
13:04 < katzazi> the ruling of an appeal pannel would be the relevant one
13:04 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: is that a question to me?
13:04 <@ReinhardM> So I must find a way to check, what way to go is the best. And therefor I and all of the board seek adivice with an investigation committee.
13:04 < katzazi> but why did you act prior to that?
13:04 < katzazi> or claim to have acted
13:05 <@ReinhardM> We already said that there are personal matters and therefor some and really a few issues are not published. And we want to give all members all information.
13:05 <@ReinhardM> We will give all information. thre are no secrets.
13:06 <@ReinhardM> Currently we wait for the invetigation committe to give a first statement.
13:06 < katzazi> why are Philipp and me not informed about the issues?
13:06 < LambertHofstra> @reinhardM: I would assume that a clear mission for that investigation committee and the mandate given to them would be public?
13:06 < katzazi> why did the committee not get the information about all the issues only examples?
13:07 < katzazi> LambertHofstra: no it is secret without the motion and explanation to make it secret
13:07 < katzazi> and the mission was changed at least 4 times to my knowledge
13:07 < dops> So here is my question regarding complaint against prosecutor, which came to my attention in this email:
13:07 < dops> https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2015-12/msg00025.html
13:07 < dops> I quote:
13:07 < dops> "   - the complaint which was filed on 2015-12-10 at the office
13:07 < dops>     of Public Prosecutor of Vienna against Ian Grigg, Eva
13:07 < dops>     Stoewe, Alexander Robertson, Philipp Dunkel et al.
13:07 <@ReinhardM> @ Lambert: We wait for the committment of the investigation committee to publish the names of all of them.
13:07 < dops>     This case is pending at the prosecutor's office, and
13:07 < dops>     several additional information have been filed since that."
13:07 < dops> Reinhard wrote in this board meeting (quote):
13:07 < dops> "There is NO board motion to seek assistance at court and there is no board motion who brings anybody to a hearing at some prosecutor in NSW."
13:07 < dops> "I never went to any court in this world and filed into criminal court against any member of CAcert, Inc as well as community."
13:07 < dops> This doesn't say something about these imaginable combinations (no offense, my intention is to get rid of such interpretations, if possible):
13:07 < dops> #1 Reinhard might have been gone to _prosecution_ (instead of court)
13:07 < dops> #2 Another person might have been gone to court (or prosecution), e. g. Juergen who was mentioned in the quoted email above.
13:07 < dops> Now to make it clear 100% the question to every single board member:
13:07 < dops> Do you know or heard something about anyone filing something against prosecution or court anywhere in the context of CAcert Inc. or community?
13:07 < dops> Please all answer honestly with "no" or "yes", to stop all rumours, which are damaging.
13:09 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: I do not need names, I would like to understand what the committee needs to investigate and what their mandate is. It seems to me that that is possible without mentioning names?
13:09 < alex> dear board, so far i don't remember you have stated what is the order for the commitee to investigate. so if you are already waiting for 1st results, it is a secret start chamber, what before you have said it is not so. please tell us then what is the order for the investigation commitee
13:10 < WernerDworak> Hello all, plese more discipline. Ask one question after the other and wait for the answers. Else the board is not able to answer them in a decent way
13:10 <@ReinhardM> @ dops: I never filed any dispute against some member of cacert at large to put such a member into a hearing at court or prosecutor.
13:10 < katzazi> WernerDworak: can you ask board to tell us that all quesitons will be answered before they mute again?
13:10 < alex> WernerDworak: before after raising questions voice was stopped, it was impossible to discuss. this is the first time.
13:11 < WernerDworak> Again. One after the other. Else it cannot work
13:12 < BenBE> dops @ 14:01: Given the number of questions being asked here nearly simultanously it probably takes some time for them to get things written. Let's be patient for a moment.
13:16 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: just for my understanding: are you still working on an answer to my question or is the answer that you wait for the results?
13:17 <@INOPIAE> katzazi @ 13:55 "what precautions are you taking taht the public part of the root re-signing will not be disturbed?"
13:17 <@INOPIAE> First of all your question implies that someone plans to disturbe the procedure.
13:17 <@INOPIAE> Second next week the procedure for the public part will be published. This will also give the guideline of behaivor and the sanction if they are broken.
13:19 < dops> @BenBE: I am aware of that and can wait a little. Thought that all questions are to be collected first.
13:19 < katzazi> INOPIAE: it could be someone arriving and asking where to drop a bag or whatever
13:20 < LambertHofstra> @INOPIAE: for critical actions like a resign you need to prepare for incidents and either be prepared to address them or have a back-out plan. Both should ensure critical data is not exposed.
13:20 < LambertHofstra> So from my point of view itś a legitimate question
13:20 < katzazi> will there be an active arbitrator?
13:23 < BenBE> katzazi: I'm not sure I can follow you there. Why would we need one present?
13:23 <@INOPIAE> @LambertHofstra: Within the public part thes software needed for the root re-sign is prepaed. After the software is ready to be iused. 1 Access enginer, 2 critical admins and the innternal auditor will enter the data center to do the resigning there. So there will be no problem with private information to be exposed to the public.
13:24 < katzazi> why the auditor?
13:24 < katzazi> he does not have an ABC
13:24 < alex> BenBE: if you want to have sanctions if your guidelines are broken, then you'd need arbitration to rule on this.
13:24 < katzazi> BenBE: to be ready for authorisation of sanctions or necessary steps if something gets wrong and possible oversight of security actaions?
13:27 <@INOPIAE> THe basic procedure is laid out here: https://wiki.cacert.org/Roots/Class1ResignProcedure
13:29 <@INOPIAE> This information is open to the public for at least 5 month. The secureity relevant action have been discussed with the involved teams.
13:29 <@INOPIAE> To my knowledge they saw no security relevant points.
13:30 <@ReinhardM> @ dops: court assistence: If individuals seek assistance at some court because of injurities, insultings or whatsoever, it is not a business of CAcert.
13:30 <@INOPIAE> TSofztware installed  a root that was re-signed with the given procedure on the test-server.
13:30 <@INOPIAE> Anybody is welcome to test it there.
13:31 <@ReinhardM> @ Lambert: Please allow that I write you an email answering all of your questions.
13:31 < LambertHofstra> @ReinhardM: sure, please do
13:32 <@INOPIAE> The re-sign procedure has been executed last August and the resulting roots have been tested. Including some fixes required for compatibility (visible in the source of the re-sign utility) have been implemented on the test server for everyone to check.
13:32 < katzazi> INOPIAE: was there another test-run with those fixes?
13:33 < BenBE> katzazi: Yes, there have been two work around an issue with libnss.
13:33 < katzazi> where are those testruns documented?
13:34 < BenBE> s/two work/two too work/.
13:34 < dops> @ReinhardM: I read the statement as "If there were seekings for assistance, they address personal topics (as defamation etc.)." - can you acknowledge that?
13:34 < BenBE> katzazi: Currently in documentation between Software and Crit.
13:34 < BenBE> s/documentation/communiction/
13:35 <@ReinhardM> @dops : we have to take care for the business of CAcert 
13:35 < katzazi> ReinhardM: can we get a short answer to LambertHofstra questions?
13:37 <@ReinhardM> @ dops: regarding defamatory statements: everyone has the right to seek assistence e.g. ask a lawyer etc.pp. We have no working instruments at hand to direct people to do or not to do some- or anything.
13:38 < LambertHofstra> or file an arbitration case
13:38 <@ReinhardM> We discussed the email from IanG in detail and you have all links to read.
13:38 < katzazi> why were you disclosing mails from members list?
13:39 < katzazi> instead of answering there for example?
13:41 <@ReinhardM> please close the chat
13:42 -!- mode/#board-meeting [+m] by INOPIAE
13:42 <@ReinhardM> thank you
13:42 <@ReinhardM> board will answer all raised questions per email.
13:43 <@ReinhardM> Please understand that we all have limited time available. Some of us must leave now.
13:43 <@ReinhardM> The next meeting is planned to take place on April, 10th.
13:43 <@INOPIAE> again 10:00 UTC
13:43 <@ReinhardM> there might be a board meeting in 2 weeks but we have no agreed date for this.
13:44 <@ReinhardM> there is plenty of work to do. CEBIT, CLT2016, Root-resign etc.pp.
13:44 <@INOPIAE> 2016-04-10 is fine with me
13:45 <@ReinhardM> We might find a date during some week and will publish this per emai as usual.
13:45 <@StefanT> OK
13:45 <@ReinhardM> Thansk to all who attended todays board meeting.
13:45 <@ReinhardM> last topic
13:45 <@ReinhardM> 4. Clsoing
13:46 <@ReinhardM> I hereby close todays board meeting.
13:46 <@StefanT> Good Bye
13:46 <@ReinhardM> Good Bye.
13:46 <@INOPIAE> bye
13:46 -!- StefanT [smuxi@p5B3B8F34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has left #board-meeting []
13:46 -!- ReinhardM [5485561a@localhost] has left #board-meeting []