1 19:32 <@INOPIAE> Good eveneing
   2 19:32 <@ReinhardM> hello all together
   3 19:32 <@StefanT> Good Evening
   4 19:32 -!- 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/2016-04-07
   5 19:33 -!- dops [dops@dops.innocircle.com] has joined #board-meeting
   6 19:33 -!- INOPIAE changed the topic of #board-meeting to: Board Meeting 2016-04-07 19:30 UTC| the channel is moderated for voice to board member only | https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-04-07
   7 19:33 <@jmbruckner> Good Evening!
   8 19:33 <@ReinhardM> Let us start with todays board meeting
   9 19:34 <@ReinhardM> 1. Preliminaries 
  10 19:34 <@ReinhardM> 1.1 Chair opens the Committee Meeting 
  11 19:34 <@ReinhardM> I hereby open the board meeting of today.
  12 19:34 <@ReinhardM> 1.2 Accept the minutes from the last meeting. 
  13 19:35 <@INOPIAE> I have to apologize. I will add the minutes tomorrow morning. We will have to vote via the motion system.
  14 19:35 <@jmbruckner> thats okay Marcus
  15 19:35 <@ReinhardM> ACK
  16 19:35 <@jmbruckner> ACK
  17 19:35 <@StefanT> Ack
  18 19:36 <@ReinhardM> 1.3 Who is making minutes? 
  19 19:36 <@INOPIAE> I can do them
  20 19:36 <@jmbruckner> Thank you Marcus!
  21 19:36 <@ReinhardM> thx Marcus
  22 19:36 <@ReinhardM> 1.4 Chair asks whether cacert-board-private maillist includes any items that need to be disclosed to Members.
  23 19:37 <@StefanT> Nothing from me
  24 19:37 <@jmbruckner> Nothing from my side
  25 19:37 <@ReinhardM> 1.5 Chair asks whether cacert-board maillist includes any business items that aren't on the agenda yet. 
  26 19:37 <@jmbruckner> Nope
  27 19:37 <@ReinhardM> 1.6 Chair introduces the URL of action items to the meeting, and asks for discussion. 
  28 19:38 <@ReinhardM> status quo
  29 19:38 <@ReinhardM> no news
  30 19:38 <@jmbruckner> ACK
  31 19:38 <@ReinhardM> 2. Businesses 
  32 19:39 <@ReinhardM> 2.1. New members
  33 19:39 <@ReinhardM> 2.1.1. Bernd Jantzen 
  34 19:39 <@ReinhardM> I move to accept Bernd Jantzen as new member of CAcert Incoporation
  35 19:39 <@jmbruckner> second and aye
  36 19:39 <@StefanT> Aye
  37 19:40 <@INOPIAE> aye
  38 19:40 <@ReinhardM> AYE
  39 19:41 <@ReinhardM> We have a quorum, motion CARRIED 4 : ?
  40 19:41 <@ReinhardM> 2.1.2. Nico Baggus 
  41 19:41 <@ReinhardM> I read his email and have several questions to him.
  42 19:41 <@ReinhardM> I want to hear his motivations.
  43 19:44 <@ReinhardM> I move to start a motion for 7 days. He may have answerred my questions until them.
  44 19:44 <@jmbruckner> yes okay, ACK
  45 19:44 <@INOPIAE> second
  46 19:44 <@jmbruckner> second and aye for a 7days motion
  47 19:45 <@StefanT> Ack
  48 19:45 <@ReinhardM> Motion for 7 days CARRIED
  49 19:45 <@INOPIAE> Please send him your questions via mail.
  50 19:45 <@ReinhardM> ACK
  51 19:45 <@ReinhardM> I move to accept Nico Baggus as a member of CAcert Incorporated
  52 19:46 <@jmbruckner> second, for the moment ABSTAIN
  53 19:46 <@INOPIAE> second & abstain
  54 19:46 <@ReinhardM> ABSTAIN
  55 19:46 <@StefanT> abstain
  56 19:46 <@ReinhardM> next Topic
  57 19:46 <@ReinhardM> 2.2. Complaint against Ian Grigg from Benedikt H
  58 19:48 <@ReinhardM> Ian Grigg wrote an email on 2016-04-03 subject: "ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL SECRETARY"
  59 19:49 <@ReinhardM> I assume that all now the content.
  60 19:49 <@ReinhardM> s/now/know/
  61 19:50 <@ReinhardM> He wrote:  In particular, the Secretary has shown himself to be unreliable in these ways: ...
  62 19:50 <@INOPIAE> https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-members/2016-04/msg00000.html
  63 19:51 <@ReinhardM> I see no new action but the same as before: Ian Grigg makes a false statement, Ian Grigg makes a ruling acting like a judge, Ian Grigg asks the members to follow him!
  64 19:51 <@ReinhardM> Same old story all the time.
  65 19:52 <@ReinhardM> He breaches our rules.
  66 19:53 <@ReinhardM> There is no such a role defined in our statutes.
  67 19:54 <@ReinhardM> By this his request is obsolete.
  68 19:55 <@ReinhardM> Currently no single role of board is vacant!
  69 19:56 <@ReinhardM> All roles are present and active. Roles defined are "President", "Vice president", "Secretary" and "Treasurer".
  70 19:57 <@ReinhardM> If one of these offices is vacant for more than a half year - then it may be necessary to fill the vacuum.
  71 19:59 <@ReinhardM> I see the intention of Ian Grigg to split the community and CAcert Incorporated in groups which all act contrary to defined targets, confirmed statutes and rules.
  72 20:00 -!- Q [Q@monitor.ylabs.eu] has joined #board-meeting
  73 20:01 <@ReinhardM> The claimant requests that board should consider to take actions in regards to rule 12 (1) (b),
  74 20:01 <@ReinhardM> rule 12 is about "Disciplining of members"
  75 20:02 <@ReinhardM> A complaint may be made to the committee by any person that a member of the association: (a)has persistently refused or neglected to comply with a provision or provisions of these rules, or (b)has persistently and willfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the association.
  76 20:03 <@ReinhardM> I have to say that board already made a decision and expelled Ian Grigg from membership.
  77 20:04 <@ReinhardM> The current actions are reasons to expell Ian from membership.
  78 20:04 <@ReinhardM> And ofcourse we cannot expell a member more than once.
  79 20:04 <@ReinhardM> There are several questions to answer in these regards.
  80 20:05 <@ReinhardM> I saw several email all intended to give extraordinary explanations of interpretation.
  81 20:06 <@ReinhardM> We should start and give some hints how to read the act, the regulations and our statutes.
  82 20:06 <@StefanT> Ack
  83 20:06 <@jmbruckner> ACK
  84 20:07 <@ReinhardM> OK, if two members interpret the rules in a contradictionary result - the only institution to clarify is a judge at some court. 
  85 20:07 <@ReinhardM> If nobody wants to hear a sentence - they have to make an agreement.!
  86 20:09 <@ReinhardM> I put some thoughts on the wiki, https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/proposal/answers01
  87 20:10 <@ReinhardM> And I found some cases similar to our current situation and decided by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
  88 20:12 <@ReinhardM> First case:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/905.html?query=%221996%20NSWCA%20573%22
  89 20:13 <@ReinhardM> The interesting part are the explanations about the Association Act and how to read the rules!
  90 20:14 <@ReinhardM> Second Case: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/383.html
  91 20:14 <@ReinhardM> The date of that decision is 2013-04-13.
  92 20:15 <@ReinhardM> And the court gives detailed explanations especially about "dispute" and "complaint" and how to manage it.
  93 20:16 <@ReinhardM> In short a dispute may be refeered to arbitration, a complaint MUST be managed by the board and only the board. No other option left.
  94 20:16 <@ReinhardM> An expelled member has the right of appeal. 
  95 20:17 <@ReinhardM> A SGM has to vote on one question: CONFIRM  the board decision OR withdraw the board decision.
  96 20:18 <@ReinhardM> The Association Regulation Act 2010 says that this voting is done by a simple majority.
  97 20:19 <@ReinhardM> Thew court asked: "Did the Committee fail to comply with clause 10 of the Model Constitution?"
  98 20:19 <@ReinhardM> The answer is: 
  99 20:19 <@ReinhardM> In my opinion, it did not. There may be a question concerning the precise scope of cl 10 of the Model Constitution. However, whatever its scope, in my opinion, it does not apply to disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with cl 7 of NSWRYA's Constitution. Schedule 1 to the 2009 Act draws a distinction between the resolution of disputes and the disciplining of members. It treats them as separate matters. Clause 10 must be construed against tha
 100 20:20 <@ReinhardM> Were it otherwise, provisions in an association's constitution concerning the disciplining of members would be otiose. If the question whether a member should be disciplined were a dispute to which clause 10 applied, then it would be necessary to refer that dispute to mediation. If mediation failed, the dispute would have to be referred to arbitration. It is unclear, however, what issue could be arbitrated since the question whether a member should be 
 101 20:20 <@ReinhardM>  It might be said that the question to be arbitrated is the question whether a member has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the association. But once the arbitral tribunal made an award on that question, that award would be binding on the parties. The result would be that the question whether a member should be disciplined could never be determined by the committee or a general meeting. Clause 10 of the Model Constitution could not have
 102 20:20 <@ReinhardM> You will find that part under "45."
 103 20:21 <@ReinhardM> The case is of category "Principal judgment  	"
 104 20:22 <@StefanT> It is incomplete
 105 20:22 <@INOPIAE> I just see that there are some words missing in the last three paragraphs
 106 20:23 <@ReinhardM> OK, I copy the stuff word by word ...
 107 20:23 <@ReinhardM> Thew court asked: "Did the Committee fail to comply with clause 10 of the Model Constitution?"
 108 20:23 <@ReinhardM>  The answer is: 
 109 20:23 <@ReinhardM> In my opinion, it did not. There may be a question concerning the precise scope of cl 10 of the Model Constitution. However, whatever its scope, in my opinion, it does not apply to disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with cl 7 of NSWRYA's Constitution. Schedule 1 to the 2009 Act draws a distinction between the resolution of disputes and the disciplining of members.
 110 20:23 <@ReinhardM> It treats them as separate matters. Clause 10 must be construed against that background. The disciplining of a member is concerned with whether the member should remain a member of the association.
 111 20:23 <@ReinhardM> It is not concerned with a dispute between members or the relevant member and the association, although the existence of disputes of those types may be relevant to whether disciplinary action should be taken.
 112 20:24 <@ReinhardM> Were it otherwise, provisions in an association's constitution concerning the disciplining of members would be otiose. If the question whether a member should be disciplined were a dispute to which clause 10 applied, then it would be necessary to refer that dispute to mediation.
 113 20:24 <@ReinhardM> If mediation failed, the dispute would have to be referred to arbitration. It is unclear, however, what issue could be arbitrated since the question whether a member should be disciplined is a question first for the committee and then for a general meeting.
 114 20:24 <@ReinhardM>  It might be said that the question to be arbitrated is the question whether a member has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the association. But once the arbitral tribunal made an award on that question, that award would be binding on the parties. 
 115 20:24 <@ReinhardM> The result would be that the question whether a member should be disciplined could never be determined by the committee or a general meeting. Clause 10 of the Model Constitution could not have been intended to have that effect.
 116 20:26 <@ReinhardM> Question, can you read it now?
 117 20:26 <@ReinhardM> sorry for the incomplete copy.
 118 20:26 <@jmbruckner> yes its clearly readable now
 119 20:26 <@StefanT> It is OK yet
 120 20:28 <@ReinhardM> OK, that is the interpretation of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
 121 20:28 <@ReinhardM> I have to clarify that board gave Ian Grigg a lot of chances to consider his writings.
 122 20:29 <@ReinhardM> He gave many statements which I see a clearly defamatory.
 123 20:29 <@ReinhardM> He refused to say "SORRY".
 124 20:30 <@ReinhardM> Defamation can not be rules by arbitration because defamation is code of crime!
 125 20:30 <@ReinhardM> s/rules/ruled/
 126 20:31 <@ReinhardM> He gave NO EVIDENCE of his statements. He followed by others put things upside-down.
 127 20:31 <@ReinhardM> He MUST take the burden of proof - nobody else!
 128 20:32 <@ReinhardM> And he failed to do so. What should I say?
 129 20:32 <@ReinhardM> He made the claim that I - Reinhard Mutz - files him and others into a criminal filing. I NEVER DID.
 130 20:33 <@ReinhardM> We read for several weeks a lot of wrong and false statements. The result was that I made a complaint against Ian Grigg during a board meeting.
 131 20:34 <@ReinhardM> I used the chat.
 132 20:34 <@ReinhardM> He says that I have to write a document. No that is not required.
 133 20:36 <@ReinhardM> Just have a look into our statutes. It is written in rule 13(4)(b)
 134 20:36 <@ReinhardM> the committee and the member must be given the opportunity to state their respective cases orally or in writing or in digitally signed email, or by all three, and
 135 20:37 <@ReinhardM> One may make a complaint orally to a board member and that board member should log the complaint and ldoge it with board.
 136 20:38 <@ReinhardM> He accused board to act along a prewritten story book. Board did not.
 137 20:38 <@ReinhardM> Board gave him several chances to either correct or to proof his statements.
 138 20:39 <@StefanT> I don't know about a Storybook
 139 20:39 <@ReinhardM> And board made the final decision after studying his last email before the deadline 2016-03-20 23:59 UTC to answer.
 140 20:40 <@ReinhardM> Currently ian Grigg is telling that a decision about his membership should be seen as a decision about the future of CAcert Incorporated.
 141 20:40 <@ReinhardM> What is to expect from Ian Grigg in the future?
 142 20:41 <@ReinhardM> How to interpert his tweet https://twitter.com/iang_fc/status/635625422554853377
 143 20:42 <@ReinhardM> Or this one: https://twitter.com/iang_fc/status/635625607439740928
 144 20:42 <@ReinhardM> The best ones always comes at last
 145 20:42 <@ReinhardM> https://twitter.com/iang_fc/status/661333287634382848
 146 20:43 <@ReinhardM> His words: I failed them (the audit!)
 147 20:43 <@ReinhardM> Any association may change statutes, rules and targets. But the rules must be followed.
 148 20:43 <@StefanT> And now he wants to prevent CAcert from Audit?
 149 20:44 <@ReinhardM> If CAcert Incorporated wants to stop audit and so forth - this should be done by special resolution.
 150 20:44 <@StefanT> And his Tweets are from last summer!
 151 20:44 <@ReinhardM> Today we all are in a dangerous situation.
 152 20:45 <@ReinhardM> We explain to interested people to work on an audit to become audit ready and get the inclusion tinto the browsers mainstream done.
 153 20:45 <@ReinhardM> But what are the facts?
 154 20:45 <@ReinhardM> Please allow a question: Do we act like fraudsters?
 155 20:45 <@ReinhardM> Telling A doing B? 
 156 20:46 <@ReinhardM> I will stop for now.
 157 20:47 <@ReinhardM> The outcome of our todays meeting is imho that following Ian Grigg is a clear breach of the act.
 158 20:47 <@ReinhardM> Will he force anyone of us to file into some criminal court?
 159 20:47 <@ReinhardM> Quo vadis CAcert?
 160 20:48 <@ReinhardM> Cui bono?
 161 20:51 <@ReinhardM> TOPIC closed.?
 162 20:52 <@ReinhardM> Next Topic
 163 20:52 <@ReinhardM> 3. Business added
 164 20:52 <@StefanT> I have to go shortly
 165 20:52 <@ReinhardM> No business added.
 166 20:52 <@ReinhardM> sorry, corrections: 2.3 Business added
 167 20:52 <@ReinhardM> 3. Question Time 
 168 20:53 <@ReinhardM> I added some wikipages
 169 20:53 <@ReinhardM> https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/proposal/answers01
 170 20:53 <@ReinhardM> https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/proposal/answers02
 171 20:53 <@ReinhardM> https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/proposal/answers03
 172 20:55 <@ReinhardM> I kindly ask all of you to study the documents carefully. And please consider the targets of CAcert Incorporated. 
 173 20:57 <@ReinhardM> I just want to say that board is currently waiting for a decision by arbitration about the SGMs on this weekend.
 174 20:58 <@ReinhardM> As I already wrote: I and board will accept the ruling without any questions.
 175 21:04 <@INOPIAE> I have to head for bed now.
 176 21:05 <@ReinhardM> OK Marcus.
 177 21:05 <@ReinhardM> I clsoe hereby the meeting.
 178 21:05 -!- INOPIAE [smuxi@xdsl-78-35-62-244.netcologne.de] has left #board-meeting []
 179 21:05 <@jmbruckner> Good night!
 180 21:05 <@ReinhardM> s/clsoe/close/
 181 21:05 -!- jmbruckner [jmbruckner@193-81-49-202.adsl.highway.telekom.at] has left #board-meeting []
 182 21:07 <@StefanT> Good bye