Log of Board-meeting 2018-07-26-20:00 UTC
Timestamp all UTC +02:00
26.07.2018 [21:55:47] <pnunn> Morning
26.07.2018 [21:56:36] <alex-uk> Hi
26.07.2018 [21:58:41] <Etienne> Good morning pnunn, good evening alex-uk
26.07.2018 [21:59:00] <Etienne> Good afternoon bdmc
26.07.2018 [21:59:41] <pnunn> I just noticed on the agenda "7 AEST" am I an hour early?
26.07.2018 [22:00:12] <Etienne> No, pnunn, I have to learn more about Australiann geography.
26.07.2018 [22:00:22] <pnunn> :)
26.07.2018 [22:00:47] <bdmc> Greetings to both of you. According to my clock, this is the correct time.
26.07.2018 [22:00:53] <bdmc> Are you up, Peter?
26.07.2018 [22:01:03] <Etienne> Behind my back, trough the window, I hear just the church bells telling that is time for us :-)
26.07.2018 [22:01:33] <bdmc> Shall we start now, or wait to see who else might join us?
26.07.2018 [22:02:12] <Etienne> I see four of the committee and two from arb (alex-uk and Q)
26.07.2018 [22:02:40] <alex-uk> Q is not an arb AFAIK
26.07.2018 [22:02:45] <bdmc> I thought that alex-uk was unable to join us for technical reasons. I am probably confused.
26.07.2018 [22:03:00] <alex-uk> I am partially sightet
26.07.2018 [22:03:15] <bdmc> In that case, shall we press on?
26.07.2018 [22:03:25] <alex-uk> makes kb awkward
26.07.2018 [22:03:32] <Etienne> sorry alex-uk, sometimes I got lost with all the nick names
26.07.2018 [22:04:06] <bdmc> For our "new" members, we normally try to limit our time, but that means from 1.5 to 2 hours.
26.07.2018 [22:04:36] <bdmc> I will call this meeting to order as of XX:05. ( I know that it isn't quite then, but.... )
26.07.2018 [22:04:47] <alex-uk> Q is Benedikt I believe
26.07.2018 [22:06:01] <bdmc> Who wants to prepare next meeting's minutes?
26.07.2018 [22:06:55] <bdmc> As I said, we normally try to keep a time limit. Shall we say 1.5 hours, and see how it goes?
26.07.2018 [22:07:24] <Etienne> If you are not in a hurry, I can write them, while beeing without internet in holyday and post later.
26.07.2018 [22:08:03] <bdmc> Certainly. Thank you, Etienne. If somebody else wants to volunteer, I am willing to provide help and guidance.
26.07.2018 [22:08:33] <bdmc> Speaking of which, do we have minutes from our previous meeting or two?
26.07.2018 [22:09:28] <Etienne> https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2018-06-21
26.07.2018 [22:10:08] <bdmc> That does not look complete.
26.07.2018 [22:10:59] <Etienne> So, let's skip it for the moment.
26.07.2018 [22:12:28] <bdmc> OK. Next. Action items. Anything to report?
26.07.2018 [22:13:00] <Etienne> bdmc: do we Agenda A with alex-uk or Agenda B?
26.07.2018 [22:13:02] <pnunn> The log file is attached though. Just looking at it now. Apologies for being MIA for the last couple.
26.07.2018 [22:13:21] <bdmc> Anything in board-private or the Board mailing list?
26.07.2018 [22:13:54] <bdmc> Etienne: I wondered about that.
26.07.2018 [22:14:09] <Etienne> A mail from P. Dunkel concerning Agenda A.
26.07.2018 [22:14:21] <bdmc> Certainly. There are a couple of things that I want to include, but we can certainly do the abbreviated form.
26.07.2018 [22:14:40] <bdmc> Also Alex Samad, as I remember.
26.07.2018 [22:15:13] <bdmc> Switching horses in mid-stream.
26.07.2018 [22:16:11] <bdmc> On to Item 2.1.1. How soon should we call the AGM?
26.07.2018 [22:16:35] <bdmc> Part of that depends on Frederic, and the Treasurer's report.
26.07.2018 [22:16:44] <alex-uk> S
26.07.2018 [22:17:15] <alex-uk> Which agenda version??
26.07.2018 [22:17:37] <bdmc> Sorry. I switched to A, without specifying.
26.07.2018 [22:17:39] <alex-uk> 2.1.1 maay depend on it
26.07.2018 [22:18:31] <Etienne> It takes about 2 month to prepare, but I cannot start before mid August.
26.07.2018 [22:19:03] <pnunn> Pick a date that suites you Etienne.
26.07.2018 [22:19:13] <bdmc> Are you talking about the Treasurer's report, or your own preparations?
26.07.2018 [22:20:03] <Etienne> AGM preparation with all the calls and reports (teams, treasurer, members, president, etc.)
26.07.2018 [22:20:33] <bdmc> Agreed. Mid-October, or later?
26.07.2018 [22:21:06] <Etienne> f.eg. Friday 19 / Saturday 20 oct
26.07.2018 [22:21:17] <pnunn> Done.
26.07.2018 [22:21:27] <bdmc> I see no reason to say otherwise.
26.07.2018 [22:21:42] <bdmc> frederic: ?
26.07.2018 [22:22:13] <pnunn> We do seem to have a large number of ghosts here today.
26.07.2018 [22:22:58] <bdmc> I agree. I don't expect Dirk's Machine to participate, but it would be nice of some of the ghosts would materialise.
26.07.2018 [22:23:04] <Etienne> Time: 21 Europe is 6 Sydney is 15 NY
26.07.2018 [22:23:15] <Etienne> 22 Europe is 7 Sydney is 16 NY
26.07.2018 [22:23:37] <Etienne> 7:00 is probabely better on saturday morning?
26.07.2018 [22:23:49] <pnunn> Would be nice :{
26.07.2018 [22:23:58] <bdmc> We do have other members in North America, but they don't tend to be active.
26.07.2018 [22:24:45] <bdmc> Is 22:00 early enough, or should we look at Sunday afternoon?
26.07.2018 [22:25:34] <bdmc> Unfortunately, that puts it about midnight for the Australians.
26.07.2018 [22:25:41] <Etienne> I do not like meetings on sunday late in the evening, as monday follows.
26.07.2018 [22:25:57] <bdmc> No, I meant Sunday afternoon European time.
26.07.2018 [22:26:38] <Etienne> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20181019&p1=1426&p2=179&p3=240
26.07.2018 [22:26:45] <pnunn> Saturday morning probably works better than midnight on Sunday for me.
26.07.2018 [22:27:50] <Etienne> bdmc, is Friday 16:00 to early for you?
26.07.2018 [22:28:21] <bdmc> Definately not. I was just trying to adjust for everybody else.
26.07.2018 [22:28:56] <Etienne> So, I move that the AGM 2018 will be held at Sat 20-10-2018 07:00 in Sydney (Fri 19-10-2018, 20:00 GMT)
26.07.2018 [22:29:07] <pnunn> Second
26.07.2018 [22:29:10] <pnunn> and aye
26.07.2018 [22:29:13] <Etienne> aye
26.07.2018 [22:30:03] <bdmc> That is 6am in Sidney, or 22:00 in Geneva ( 21:00 GMT )
26.07.2018 [22:30:13] <bdmc> Which did you mean?
26.07.2018 [22:32:22] <bdmc> Etienne: According to the chart that you posted, those times do not agree.
26.07.2018 [22:32:28] <Etienne> Fri, 19. Oktober 2018, 20:00:00 UTC Fr 22:00 Central Europe* Fr 16:00 NY * Sat 07:00 Sydney*
26.07.2018 [22:33:10] <Etienne> GMT=UTC / not Central European Time, that is +2
26.07.2018 [22:33:35] <bdmc> OK. I was mis-reading, I guess.
26.07.2018 [22:33:39] <bdmc> Aye
26.07.2018 [22:33:58] <bdmc> Any other votes?
26.07.2018 [22:35:17] <bdmc> Nothing heard.
26.07.2018 [22:35:41] <pnunn> Nope.
26.07.2018 [22:35:51] <bdmc> Etienne: Please publish that date in the next few days, as a preliminary notice to the members.
26.07.2018 [22:36:07] <bdmc> We will make a more formal announcement later.
26.07.2018 [22:36:58] <Etienne> Of course.
26.07.2018 [22:37:08] <bdmc> nemunaire: Pierre-Olivier. Are you actually present?
26.07.2018 [22:38:03] <bdmc> All right. Item 2.2.1.
26.07.2018 [22:38:25] <bdmc> Are there more members of the Arbitration Team present, other than alex-uk?
26.07.2018 [22:38:46] <alex-uk> Only me AFAICS
26.07.2018 [22:39:17] <bdmc> Thank you. We have "proxies" from a couple of the others, in the form of e-mail messages.
26.07.2018 [22:39:45] <bdmc> Etienne: would you please chair this portion of the meeting?
26.07.2018 [22:40:04] <Etienne> alex-uk, you wrote, we need more people, for arb (and other teams).
26.07.2018 [22:40:45] <Etienne> What I heard, it seems to be difficult to get people in some positions, as there are no more ABC. Is this right?
26.07.2018 [22:41:30] <alex-uk> Yes - at least a couple of CMs immediately and ideally also a couple of prospective arbs
26.07.2018 [22:41:41] <alex-uk> Arbs don't need ABC
26.07.2018 [22:42:29] <bdmc> So they can be any member of the Community, or are there requirements?
26.07.2018 [22:42:36] <alex-uk> Without more we will fall foul of GDPR as many changes to info require arbitration
26.07.2018 [22:43:50] <alex-uk> In theory - iirc they should be "senior assurers" whatever that may mean
26.07.2018 [22:44:36] <Etienne> senior assurers = maximum of assurance (150/35)
26.07.2018 [22:44:48] <bdmc> In other words, somebody with experience with the whole WOT process.
26.07.2018 [22:45:25] <bdmc> We have several hundred of those, don't we?
26.07.2018 [22:46:10] <alex-uk> Also helps if they understand the infrasrtucture as that also needs some interventions
26.07.2018 [22:47:08] <alex-uk> C ]
26.07.2018 [22:47:16] <pnunn> For my 0.02 worth.. it has seemed to me for a long time that part of the problem here is the seperation of powers is part of the problem, although I understand completely why in needs to be. Unless I'm mistaken most of the active people are here but can't do some of the other roles because of it. How do we attract more active people?
26.07.2018 [22:47:17] <bdmc> Could they be Arbitrators with "specialties?" ( In other words, not everybody needs to understand "how" all of the pieces work, but can work on other issues? )
26.07.2018 [22:47:59] <alex-uk> CM is a little easier as essentiially administrative role
26.07.2018 [22:48:35] <Etienne> alex-uk: would it be better for you, if we collect all our questions and I send it to you as e-mail?
26.07.2018 [22:48:57] <alex-uk> I don't see why not
26.07.2018 [22:48:59] <bdmc> Hmmm. Is there a "promotion path" from CM to Arbitrator, or are they essentially separate?
26.07.2018 [22:49:01] <Etienne> questions about become arbitrator
26.07.2018 [22:49:30] <pnunn> I'm not even sure what the role entails to be honest.
26.07.2018 [22:49:37] <alex-uk> I can be interactive for a while - IMO this is getting to be urgent
26.07.2018 [22:50:13] <pnunn> How many more do you think we need alex-uk?
26.07.2018 [22:50:56] <bdmc> alex-uk: Do I understand you to be saying that there may be a way to salvage things, unlike Philipp or Alex Samad?
26.07.2018 [22:51:05] <alex-uk> Promortion path is essentially moving through the training process in the Arb wiki
26.07.2018 [22:51:28] <bdmc> So it takes a bit of time and dedication?
26.07.2018 [22:52:00] <alex-uk> I think that there is a slim path - but it's also possible that too many other areas have been broken
26.07.2018 [22:52:55] <bdmc> OK. So does the CM perform triage, or management of an Arbitration later in the process?
26.07.2018 [22:53:49] <alex-uk> Both - the CM takse a case and appoints the arbitrator; thereafter handles the admin in the wiki
26.07.2018 [22:54:28] <alex-uk> NB I cannot handle the wiki any more - it is disablilty hostile
26.07.2018 [22:54:53] <bdmc> As pnunn asked, you suggested a couple of CMs. Would more help, and how many?
26.07.2018 [22:56:09] <bdmc> Also, can you still perform your duties, even without the wiki?
26.07.2018 [22:56:21] <alex-uk> We have one active CM (lambert), two active arbs (lambert and myself) as Ted and Mario are both officers; Philipp turns up from time to time
26.07.2018 [22:56:47] <alex-uk> I can still arbitrate
26.07.2018 [22:56:57] <bdmc> Good, thank you.
26.07.2018 [22:57:57] <alex-uk> I don't think we could handle more than two at a time as new members are meant to be mentored through the training
26.07.2018 [22:58:49] <bdmc> I wish that our Paris members were here. They seem enthusiastic, and may have a member or two who could assist.
26.07.2018 [22:58:59] <Etienne> Another point is the daily business with users having problems. They contact support, but support is very short staffed. There are people willing to help, but they do not have an ABC. Is there a way to overrule the ABC-stop-ruling from a former abritrator or another way to get ABC back?
26.07.2018 [22:59:02] <alex-uk> I can also CM if the arb involved is able to handle the wiki side of things (four eye principle) (maybe three eye in my case)
26.07.2018 [22:59:57] <bdmc> On the other hand, we have MANY Community members. The question is, how do we prompt ( encourage ) their participation?
26.07.2018 [23:00:28] <bdmc> alex-uk: B-)
26.07.2018 [23:00:28] <Etienne> bdmc: let's talk about this afterwards
26.07.2018 [23:00:38] <bdmc> I agree.
26.07.2018 [23:01:34] <pnunn> It seems to me with so few active members and such complex separation of powers we are pushing it up hill with a tooth pick. If you do this you can't do that.. in SO many places.
26.07.2018 [23:01:47] <bdmc> True
26.07.2018 [23:02:07] <bdmc> Perhaps we need to know WHY they are not active.
26.07.2018 [23:02:37] <bdmc> Do we know anything about Assurance activity? Is is still at the same rate or has it stopped, as well?
26.07.2018 [23:03:06] <pnunn> Or look at the rules on separation again. I can see why this was a good idea with a very active group of people but it makes it pretty much impossible with this number.
26.07.2018 [23:03:22] <alex-uk> It's also abpiy getting the right members - they need some legal understanding to go on to full arb - but also need a degree of flexibility to make things work
26.07.2018 [23:03:39] <bdmc> Good point.
26.07.2018 [23:04:35] <alex-uk> If they are too dogmatic, issues occur as per the recent big blow-uo
26.07.2018 [23:05:02] <bdmc> Also, there is the question of "Legal --- darn, what is the word, perhaps Structure." I mean the difference between the English system and the German ( French? ) system.
26.07.2018 [23:05:10] <pnunn> Good point alex-uk. Looking at some of the background to the great bust up I'd certainly fear to step in there with no legal background and people lawyering up in various disperate duristrictions.
26.07.2018 [23:05:56] <pnunn> bdmc, from a position of ignorance I would have thought as an Australian Incorporated body, the Aust rules would have applied.. but I have no real clue.
26.07.2018 [23:06:15] <alex-uk> Yes - UK/US/AU are essentially common law EU is "code napoleonic"
26.07.2018 [23:06:25] <bdmc> pnunn: Yes, that is exactly it.
26.07.2018 [23:06:49] <bdmc> alex-uk: thank you for the translation. ( Don't forget Canada! )
26.07.2018 [23:07:30] <alex-uk> NSW law is the default currently
26.07.2018 [23:07:36] <pnunn> Having said that, if push came to shove and a case ended up in any court were in no position to defend anything financially or practically I would have though.
26.07.2018 [23:08:01] <bdmc> pnunn: The issue, as I understood, was that people were trying to apply the Napoleonic version of things to this organisation.
26.07.2018 [23:08:21] <pnunn> Yeh, that was pretty much how I read it too.
26.07.2018 [23:08:33] <alex-uk> Actually we are if it's gone to arbitration - most countries have arbitration as an option
26.07.2018 [23:08:51] <bdmc> That is why we have the whole process of Arbitration.
26.07.2018 [23:09:37] <bdmc> Part of our organisational agreement is that Arbitration is agreed upon, and the courts are not involved.
26.07.2018 [23:10:11] <pnunn> Yes, but that was the problem wasn't it.. some were not happy with the arbitration.
26.07.2018 [23:10:30] <bdmc> Well, they signed the contract.
26.07.2018 [23:10:39] <pnunn> Anyway.. that's history.. a way forward?
26.07.2018 [23:10:44] <bdmc> ( I know, preaching to the choir. )
26.07.2018 [23:10:58] <pnunn> So as committee members, we can't be involved in arb or abc is that correct?
26.07.2018 [23:11:11] <Etienne> (I am not happy with the district's court of M...., but what can I do)
26.07.2018 [23:11:55] <Etienne> Another point is the daily business with users having problems. They contact support, but support is very short staffed. There are people willing to help, but they do not have an ABC. Is there a way to overrule the ABC-stop-ruling from a former abritrator or another way to get ABC back?
26.07.2018 [23:13:05] <pnunn> Who can make those decisions Etienne?
26.07.2018 [23:13:08] <alex-uk> I think arbitration is fixable; ABC could be replaced by a policy change; so could Philipp's ruling
26.07.2018 [23:13:16] <bdmc> Etienne: you have some knowledge of the Community. Are there sufficient ( active ) members who are willing to use English Common Law ( I won't restrict it to those four countries. ) even if they live in Europe? I know, that is a judgement call for you.
26.07.2018 [23:13:45] <GuKKDevel> AFAIK this former ruling states, the inofficial list for ABC should not longer be used
26.07.2018 [23:14:01] <bdmc> alex-uk: But, as I understand it, that would require a complete new set of Arbitrators, to overrull Philipp.
26.07.2018 [23:14:19] <bdmc> Welcome, Karl-Heinz.
26.07.2018 [23:14:23] <GuKKDevel> so I think each arb could do his/her own questions
26.07.2018 [23:14:48] <Etienne> bdmc, no, a policy will be changed by policy group
26.07.2018 [23:14:49] <alex-uk> No - a change to DRP to allow arbs to hold other offices would supersede
26.07.2018 [23:15:09] <Etienne> policy group = all subscribers of the policy group mailing list.
26.07.2018 [23:15:22] <bdmc> True. I am one of those.
26.07.2018 [23:16:04] <pnunn> alex-uk how would Philipp's ruling effect things? I'm not up to speed on that.
26.07.2018 [23:17:32] <bdmc> Etienne: I got your message. Will read it after the meeting.
26.07.2018 [23:18:10] <alex-uk> Philip force separated heads of power (Executiive = Board and officers; Legislative = PolG and Judicueary (Arbs))
26.07.2018 [23:19:03] <bdmc> As I remember, it had to do with conflict of interest.
26.07.2018 [23:19:17] <alex-uk> The key part was that offiers (ie team leaders) could not act as arbitrators)
26.07.2018 [23:19:55] <pnunn> I see, so it made the situation worse.
26.07.2018 [23:21:08] <bdmc> Slightly off topic. Could we have different levels of Support? The front line dealt with "everything," and passed the issues that involved "private" information, or access to systems, on to more qualified members? Cut down on the initial load?
26.07.2018 [23:21:14] <alex-uk> I think the problem WAS ALREADY THERE
26.07.2018 [23:21:33] <pnunn> Oh Ok.
26.07.2018 [23:22:33] <Etienne> The problem with support is: Supporter needs an ABC. MarioLipinski ruled that there will be no more ABC until he will rule something else, but now he left CAcert. So we have supporter candidates, but no ABC forever.
26.07.2018 [23:22:34] <pnunn> So the only way forward is to get more people to do these roles then. No other options.
26.07.2018 [23:23:14] <pnunn> What is the process to overturn a ruling.. Surely there must be a process for that.
26.07.2018 [23:23:24] <alex-uk> That's what we do effectively - the final dumping ground is arbitration.
26.07.2018 [23:23:28] <Etienne> That is way I asked in general an alex-uk if there is a way to over rule this or change the arbitrator of the case or something else.
26.07.2018 [23:23:38] <bdmc> That was why I was proposing two layers of Support. Those who have ABCs to do the "critical" tasks, and the "Help Desk" to handle the lesser tasks.
26.07.2018 [23:24:11] <alex-uk> There is an appeal process - however that effectivly needs 3 more arbs + a CM
26.07.2018 [23:24:38] <bdmc> pnunn: The process is that Policy Group assembles and agrees on changes to Policy.
26.07.2018 [23:24:40] <pnunn> But if there is a ruling that says no more ABC's for ever.. and you need it for anything.. and the ruling can't be overturned.. we are dead in the water surely.
26.07.2018 [23:25:00] <pnunn> Wow.
26.07.2018 [23:25:22] <bdmc> The assembly point is the Policy Group Mailing List.
26.07.2018 [23:26:50] <GuKKDevel> so DRP should get an article that sttes, if an arbitrator leaves, another arbitator can get in charge? st like that?
26.07.2018 [23:27:17] <alex-uk> DRP implies that cases must be closed before an appeal - this could be changed
26.07.2018 [23:28:09] <pnunn> OK, both of those solutions could be a way forward. How do we get this before the policy group? Who can do that?
26.07.2018 [23:28:17] <alex-uk> Similarly an aactive DRO might be empoyered to ensure that cases don't stagnate
26.07.2018 [23:28:49] <bdmc> alex-uk: going on from ~GuKKDevel, is there any rule about arbitrators who abandon their jobs?
26.07.2018 [23:28:49] <GuKKDevel> but DRO must be an arb or?
26.07.2018 [23:28:55] <pnunn> And Etienne's issue with the re-enstatement of ABC's.
26.07.2018 [23:29:35] <bdmc> pnunn: Any member of CAcert may write a message into the Policy Group mailing list, and start a discussion.
26.07.2018 [23:29:53] <bdmc> CAcert the Community, not the Inc.
26.07.2018 [23:30:44] <bdmc> alex-uk: Do I remember that the Board is the current default DRO?
26.07.2018 [23:31:06] <alex-uk> correct
26.07.2018 [23:31:17] <pnunn> But would it not carry more weight if it came from the committee initially? or is that likely to be a bad thing under the circumstances :)
26.07.2018 [23:32:49] <bdmc> alex-uk: would the Board, as DRO, act as a CM, or is it a different type of role?
26.07.2018 [23:33:02] <bdmc> ( For those who have deadlines, 1.5 hours )
26.07.2018 [23:33:56] <pnunn> Yes, I need to move soon, have a solar farm about to yell at me.
26.07.2018 [23:35:03] <egal> good evening ... from france
26.07.2018 [23:35:15] <bdmc> Welcome Dirk.
26.07.2018 [23:35:27] <bdmc> Has your machine brought you up-to-date?
26.07.2018 [23:35:37] <alex-uk> Board could not IMO act as a CM
26.07.2018 [23:35:51] <bdmc> OK. So DRO is a different type of role.
26.07.2018 [23:36:05] <Etienne> egal, we are just talking about the frozen ABC, maybe you will ad something?
26.07.2018 [23:36:29] <Etienne> I cannot find the case that freeze it.
26.07.2018 [23:36:51] <alex-uk> ms
26.07.2018 [23:36:52] <alex-uk> a
26.07.2018 [23:36:54] <alex-uk> ,
26.07.2018 [23:37:24] <alex-uk> magu was doing an ABC for Eva
26.07.2018 [23:40:10] <alex-uk> DRO has a couple of specific roles in DRP iirc - other than that they are arbteam leader, and the job is what they make of it...
26.07.2018 [23:40:26] <bdmc> OK, thanks.
26.07.2018 [23:40:39] <pnunn> I'm sorry folks, I must away, my phone has started to ring already. I'll check out the rest of the conversation later if the log is posted. Let me know when the next meeting is and I'll try an get there. Not sure where we go from here.
26.07.2018 [23:41:11] <bdmc> pnunn: you might raise the issue in Policy Group, but we will talk about it beforehand.
26.07.2018 [23:41:22] <alex-uk> At present there is no way to get an appeal through as not enough arbs...
26.07.2018 [23:41:23] <egal> corretc ... magu was doing the ABC for eva, but after around 1.5 years he decided, that the "ABC" is broken .. until HE will set up a new (updated) set of questions accoridng to audit ...
26.07.2018 [23:41:26] <bdmc> Nice having you here.
26.07.2018 [23:41:32] <pnunn> OK. Sounds good.
26.07.2018 [23:42:34] <egal> i told him about restricting it to his name (instead of a position), but he made the ruling ...
26.07.2018 [23:43:10] <alex-uk> I'm open to questions by email over the next few days - it might be worth getting one of yourselves to co-ordinate and make sure that all the relevant people are kept in the loop
26.07.2018 [23:43:22] <egal> there MAY be a way to solve this issue ... as he stated by voice "the case is closed", but within wiki the case isn't finished ...
26.07.2018 [23:44:03] <egal> so ... in thery another arbitrator can pick up the case, update the ABC-questions and do a further ruling ...
26.07.2018 [23:44:06] <bdmc> egal: as I have been asking Alex, is that something that the Board as DRO could assist with? What else could we do?
26.07.2018 [23:44:22] <alex-uk> alternatively, change DRP to close cases with no activity for a given time....
26.07.2018 [23:44:30] <GuKKDevel> we need in our policies a fallback if an arb and CM drop their cases
26.07.2018 [23:44:38] <bdmc> Agreed.
26.07.2018 [23:44:49] <bdmc> That does seem to be a deficiency.
26.07.2018 [23:44:58] <egal> but ... for support eva ruled, that a maximum of 3 ABC-cases can still be processed using the old questions ... only one is "inprogress"
26.07.2018 [23:45:14] <alex-uk> or drop dead :P
26.07.2018 [23:45:24] <bdmc> B-(
26.07.2018 [23:45:27] <egal> (btw: the questions are not mandatory, but should be a guideline as far as i know)
26.07.2018 [23:46:06] <GuKKDevel> I also thought it was meant not to use this old list
26.07.2018 [23:46:09] <egal> if A and CM drop from a case, normally DRO (or the community of arbitrators) should take over
26.07.2018 [23:47:33] <egal> from my POV alex-uk may act as arbitrator (even if issues in sigth) as (normally) the CM will/should do all the wiki-stuff ...
26.07.2018 [23:47:36] <alex-uk> magu specifically ruled that he had to clear a new ABC
26.07.2018 [23:47:50] <egal> (but I may be wrong, never ben A or CM .. ;-) )
26.07.2018 [23:48:21] <egal> @alex-uk correct, but as far as i know, the case is still open ...
26.07.2018 [23:48:56] <bdmc> It sounds as if there are a few things that we, as the Board, can do immediately, as well as recruiting more CMs and trainee Arbitrators.
26.07.2018 [23:49:12] <alex-uk> Arb is like US supreme court judge = doesn't matter how old or infirm... :)
26.07.2018 [23:49:40] <egal> ... so another A could take over the case and give a new ruling (e.g. as magu is not active as A anymore, e.g. 3 A or A+DRO or ... has to define the new set/restart of ABC
26.07.2018 [23:50:03] <bdmc> Is that Job One?
26.07.2018 [23:50:09] <egal> (don't forget: we still have the possibility to do two ABCs ... see evas ruling)
26.07.2018 [23:51:14] <bdmc> egal: is there a specific person who must do that?
26.07.2018 [23:51:36] <alex-uk> If you have an arb available... I've not been through ABC so probably should not do one....
26.07.2018 [23:52:15] <egal> ulrich had no ABC, magu had no ABC, Lambert has no ABC ...
26.07.2018 [23:52:29] <egal> they all did ABC-rulings ...
26.07.2018 [23:53:02] <bdmc> egal: Also, do you have people already in line to receive ABCs?
26.07.2018 [23:53:19] <bdmc> ( for Support, or otherwise )
26.07.2018 [23:53:38] <egal> (looking back there was a decision not to add more A to ABC-cases, as they will then be confliced by getting an ABC as they will know the questions)
26.07.2018 [23:54:32] <egal> @bdmc the is one person, where the ABC took place 1.5 years ago, but the final ruling is not yet done
26.07.2018 [23:54:59] <bdmc> Is that one of Eva's three, or outside that group?
26.07.2018 [23:55:01] <egal> i triggered a second one, but this was not yet picked up ... ;-(
26.07.2018 [23:55:14] <egal> one of the three ...
26.07.2018 [23:55:24] <egal> so we still have two left ...
26.07.2018 [23:56:04] <alex-uk> Was Eva specific about who should arb these??
26.07.2018 [23:56:30] <egal> nope
26.07.2018 [23:56:31] <bdmc> alex-uk: and egal, can the two of you get together ( virtually ) and move this along?
26.07.2018 [23:56:53] <alex-uk> mwyb
26.07.2018 [23:57:12] <alex-uk> maybe - I'm emailable
26.07.2018 [23:57:24] <Etienne> bdmc, please be aware, we are not allowed to give adwise too the supreme court!
26.07.2018 [23:57:25] <egal> ABC have to be done by two A instead of A and CM ...
26.07.2018 [23:57:56] <bdmc> Etienne: But we are also the DRO, pro-tem.
26.07.2018 [23:58:26] <alex-uk> We only have two active arbs....
26.07.2018 [23:59:05] <egal> @bdmc ... as i followed all the ABC-process i can sum it up on my next flight (on sunday to netherlands) for everybody, who isn't aware of it ... no matter i board, A or "somebody else"
26.07.2018 [23:59:08] <GuKKDevel> for the open case lambert was A and Eva CM
26.07.2018 [23:59:41] <egal> but ... i will not give any advice to A on how to do a ruling ... ;-)
26.07.2018 [23:59:50] <alex-uk> Eva was also an A too
26.07.2018 [23:59:53] <egal> (only ideas ... ;-) )
27.07.2018 [00:00:45] <egal> in the open case eva was A acting as CM ... (so the two-A-eyes for ABC was fullfilled)
27.07.2018 [00:01:37] <bdmc> egal: and I was not intending to tell them HOW to do their job, just to please begin the process.
27.07.2018 [00:02:53] <egal> ;-)
27.07.2018 [00:02:57] <bdmc> alex-uk: I know that you mentioned it earlier, but who is the other active ( ? ) Arbitrator?
27.07.2018 [00:03:43] <alex-uk> lambert - and Philipp pops up occasionally
27.07.2018 [00:03:55] <bdmc> Right, thank you.
27.07.2018 [00:04:36] <bdmc> So, it sounds as if this ABC task is something that we could accomplish relatively quickly, while we are attempting to increase your group, correct?
27.07.2018 [00:06:06] <Etienne> OK. Other (final) question: Do we need a ruling to send a email to all community members? Years ago, I was told something like this. Is it trough?
27.07.2018 [00:06:15] <alex-uk> Not certain - I'd need to check the relevant case notes, but there are a few approaches that might clear the log-jam
27.07.2018 [00:07:15] <bdmc> Etienne: that is what I remember, too. Eva said that, if I remember.
27.07.2018 [00:07:33] <alex-uk> All community members, probably; all .inc members, no
27.07.2018 [00:08:06] <bdmc> So, are we going to restrict recruiting to INC members, or the whole Community?
27.07.2018 [00:08:24] <GuKKDevel> all members in the database or all members in the mailinglist?
27.07.2018 [00:08:56] <bdmc> Mailing List, I imagine. Oh, I see where you are going. It doesn't need to be a personal e-mail message.
27.07.2018 [00:09:28] <bdmc> Is there a Community mailing list, or just the "members" one?
27.07.2018 [00:09:59] <Etienne> No, data base. In the mailing list, we have 800, in the database 360 000.
27.07.2018 [00:10:04] <GuKKDevel> cacert@... is the community member list
27.07.2018 [00:10:33] <alex-uk> I'm going to be leavimg in about 5 min
27.07.2018 [00:10:43] <bdmc> Etienne: is that the cacert@ list, or the members@ list?
27.07.2018 [00:11:01] <bdmc> alex-uk: Thank you very much for your assistance. We will continue this.
27.07.2018 [00:11:30] <bdmc> welcome back
27.07.2018 [00:12:31] <Etienne> Thank you alex-uk you can probabely soon pick up a mailing case ;-)
27.07.2018 [00:12:57] <Etienne> bdmc: members ca. 50, cacert 746, community 360 000.
27.07.2018 [00:13:00] <alex-uk> I need a CM first...
27.07.2018 [00:13:31] <GuKKDevel> how to become one?
27.07.2018 [00:13:44] <bdmc> OK, thank you. Start with both mailing lists, and go on from there?
27.07.2018 [00:14:18] <bdmc> ~GuKKDevel: Very good question.
27.07.2018 [00:14:31] <alex-uk> Get board to appoint you :)
27.07.2018 [00:14:46] <GuKKDevel> :-)
27.07.2018 [00:14:51] <Etienne> It depends of the message ;-)
27.07.2018 [00:14:59] <bdmc> ~GuKKDevel: so, are you available? B-)
27.07.2018 [00:15:13] <GuKKDevel> might be
27.07.2018 [00:15:14] <egal> i think, not soo easy ... ;-)
27.07.2018 [00:15:40] <egal> as far as i remember, support can act as CM in some cases ...
27.07.2018 [00:15:42] <GuKKDevel> ;)
27.07.2018 [00:16:09] <egal> but we should take a deeper look in our rules and policies first ... ;-)
27.07.2018 [00:16:24] <Etienne> Isn't one or two of the Paris group with legal knowledge?
27.07.2018 [00:16:25] <alex-uk> agree - ISTR the same...
27.07.2018 [00:16:26] <bdmc> Well, Alex said that his first priority was two CMs.
27.07.2018 [00:16:37] <egal> (however ... support has not sufficient rights in OTRS/...)
27.07.2018 [00:17:01] <egal> maybe ted can act as CM ...
27.07.2018 [00:17:02] <bdmc> I think so, Etienne. That was why I was hoping that they were here, and not just their machines.
27.07.2018 [00:17:31] <Etienne> I will ask Frédéric to distribute the minutes.
27.07.2018 [00:18:02] <alex-uk> We'd need to look at Philipp's ruling re ted
27.07.2018 [00:18:22] <alex-uk> OK Bye all.....
27.07.2018 [00:18:36] <bdmc> alex-uk: Bye for now. Thank you for joining us.
27.07.2018 [00:19:34] <bdmc> Etienne: Since we are approaching 2.5 hours, shall we start finishing?
27.07.2018 [00:19:42] <Etienne> I would like to thank all those present (including pnunn) and alex-uk in particular for this productive, open and goal-oriented discussion.
27.07.2018 [00:19:59] <Etienne> Question time? Next date!
27.07.2018 [00:20:43] <bdmc> Not hearing any Questions.
27.07.2018 [00:20:48] <bdmc> Two weeks?
27.07.2018 [00:21:07] <bdmc> I know that you have issues until the middle of the month.
27.07.2018 [00:22:21] <Etienne> I will be back Friday 10th in the after noon, but before without internet in something like the Rocky Mountains.
27.07.2018 [00:23:17] <bdmc> I'm not available the 10th, or the 16th, but am on the 17th.
27.07.2018 [00:23:46] <bdmc> Etienne: The Alps, or elsewhere?
27.07.2018 [00:24:10] <Etienne> The engadine, for being more precise.
27.07.2018 [00:24:34] <Etienne> Friday 17th is OK for me.
27.07.2018 [00:24:47] <Etienne> frederic?
27.07.2018 [00:25:22] <bdmc> He didn't answer earlier.
27.07.2018 [00:25:56] <Etienne> I will send the invitation tonight.
27.07.2018 [00:26:25] <bdmc> Thank you. Perhaps add a note to ask people to tell us if they would prefer a different date.
27.07.2018 [00:26:44] <bdmc> Having so few is a problem.
27.07.2018 [00:27:13] <Etienne> Of course. (bdmc, I heard just the last train leaving at the station, maybe time to say good night for me)
27.07.2018 [00:27:41] <bdmc> I agree. Why don't we do that now. I hereby declare this meeting closed.