1 GuKKDevel_log
   2 @ChanServ
   3 bdmc
   4 decay
   5 dirk_on_server
   6 dops
   7 egal
   8 Etienne
   9 FD
  10 nb
  11 nemunaire
  12 SkarmoutsosV
  13 Skeeper
  14 ted
  15 ynazarov
  16 zerkalo
  17 
  18 21:58:57
  19 bdmc
  20 Good Evening, you three. 
  21 21:59:17
  22 * ted wonders... 
  23 21:59:34
  24 * bdmc what??? 
  25 21:59:51
  26 FD
  27 Good afternoon, Brian ; good evening Bernhard. 
  28 21:59:57
  29 Etienne
  30 Hello bdmc! A little bi early, your evening ;-) 
  31 22:00:01
  32 bdmc
  33 ted: I'm afraid that I have been neglecting you. 
  34 22:00:20
  35 → dops has joined 
  36 22:00:22
  37 FD
  38 Bonsoir Etienne, 
  39 22:00:25
  40 bdmc
  41 I was talking about your evening, Etienne.   Maybe Night would be more accurate. 
  42 22:00:47
  43 Incidentally, Etienne.  What happened to the 8th? 
  44 22:02:42
  45 Etienne
  46 Oh, gosh, I sent the inivtation for the 8th, came back from holliday on the 7th and tought, the meeting would be on the 15th. But you proved, that CAcert runs also without the secretary and did good wrk. 
  47 22:04:02
  48 bdmc
  49 We missed you, but the Frederics and I had a productive session anyway. I suppose that we should formally start this thing. 
  50 22:04:27
  51 FD
  52 https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2019-08-29 
  53 22:04:51
  54 Etienne
  55 The agenda includes topics from priority 1b (for next week). 
  56 22:05:17
  57 with priority 1b 
  58 22:06:12
  59 bdmc
  60 OK.  Let me call this meeting to order. 
  61 22:07:03
  62 I am relatively flexible on time.  Anybody want to get to bed before midnight? 
  63 22:07:28
  64 * ted nods. 
  65 22:07:44
  66 bdmc
  67 OK.  One vote for less than two hours. 
  68 22:07:45
  69 ted
  70 . Or better, around midnight 
  71 22:08:57
  72 bdmc
  73 We have minute from July 25th and, that's odd.  I don't remember a formal meeting on the 8th.  Let's do the 25th first.  Any discussion before we vote to accept the minutes from July 25th? 
  74 22:10:03
  75 Etienne
  76 Did you read the sentences written in bold? 
  77 22:10:13
  78 bdmc
  79 There was quite a lot that happened in that meeting, so we can pause while people read those minutes. 
  80 22:10:38
  81 Etienne, the one about Brian? 
  82 22:11:01
  83 Etienne
  84 one of the, yes, another for all of us. 
  85 22:12:16
  86 bdmc
  87 In that other item, you are referring to Agenda item 2.3.4?  It is still on the Agenda, and will be discussed tonight. 
  88 22:12:56
  89 Everybody had time for the minutes of July 25th?  May I have a motion to accept those minutes? 
  90 22:14:06
  91 Etienne
  92 i moove too "Accept the minutes from board meeting of 25 July 2019" 
  93 22:14:28
  94 bdmc
  95 I will second.  All in favour? 
  96 22:14:34
  97 FD
  98 yes 
  99 22:14:47
 100 bdmc
 101 aye 
 102 22:15:01
 103 → SkarmoutsosV has joined 
 104 22:15:35
 105 bdmc
 106 Well, there's an unfamiliar user ID. 
 107 22:15:59
 108 I guess that we are it, Frederic, aren't we? 
 109 22:16:27
 110 FD
 111 I beg your pardon? 
 112 22:16:35
 113 bdmc
 114 OK, moving on to the "minutes" for August 8th. 
 115 22:16:46
 116 FD: The only ones who are voting. 
 117 22:17:07
 118 Etienne
 119 I moove to "Accept the minutes from board meeting of 8 August 2019" 
 120 22:17:38
 121 FD
 122 Well, there are no minutes, as there was no meeting. 
 123 22:17:42
 124 bdmc
 125 Since August 8th was not held as a formal meeting of the Board, I do not think that minutes are necessary or appropriate.  What do the rest of you think? 
 126 22:18:05
 127 Moving on. 
 128 22:18:13
 129 Etienne
 130 There are kind of minutes: https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2019-08-08#Minutes 
 131 22:18:19
 132 FD
 133 I just wrote a short description of what happened and what we did. These are not "minutes". 
 134 22:18:39
 135 Etienne
 136 Thank you in any case, FD. 
 137 22:18:44
 138 bdmc
 139 Anything on the mailing lists that we need to discuss outside the regular Agenda? 
 140 22:19:12
 141 FD
 142 I guess everything important from the mailing lists is already on the agenda. 
 143 22:19:59
 144 bdmc
 145 Item 2.1.1 -- AGM -- I thought that we had already agreed on a date.  So, which shall it be?  22nd or 29th? 
 146 22:20:36
 147 Or do we want to poll the Board Members, or even all CAcert Inc Members? 
 148 22:21:38
 149 bdmc
 150 We could send an e-mail message to all paid members, asking their preference. 
 151 22:21:47
 152 Etienne
 153 Not Inc, maybe board and selected from Teams. 
 154 22:22:17
 155 OK, and most from Ink will not answer - so it will be board and team ;-) 
 156 22:22:34
 157 bdmc
 158 Well, remember that we do want to get as many members as possible in attendence. 
 159 22:22:40
 160 Etienne
 161 (sorry, my spelling today is too strange) 
 162 22:23:16
 163 If you agree, I will send a doodle to board, teams ans Inc, decision to be taken on 05 Sept? 
 164 22:23:58
 165 bdmc
 166 I guess that I didn't see it needing anything that formal, although counting vots via e-mail may be tedious, too. 
 167 22:24:39
 168 Any idea of Doodle's limit on number of people? 
 169 22:25:07
 170 Etienne
 171 No, not, I will check before. 
 172 22:25:23
 173 FD
 174 "With a free account, you can invite up to 49 participants" Google was my friend. https://help.doodle.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012048714-Invitation-limits 
 175 22:25:32
 176 bdmc
 177 I have always seen it used for very small groups of people. 
 178 22:26:00
 179 Hmmm.  49.   How many paid members do we have today? 
 180 22:26:04
 181 Etienne
 182 That means that 90% of inc members can answer. I do not think that so much will do. 
 183 22:26:50
 184 bdmc
 185 OK.  But from FD's answer, it sounds as if the limit is on the number of people that we contact, not the number who respond. 
 186 22:27:21
 187 FD
 188 Correct. I failed to find better answer on Doodle's help pages. 
 189 22:27:48
 190 bdmc
 191 Wait.  We can send out an e-mail message with a link.  We don't tell Doodle until they respond, correct? 
 192 22:27:48
 193 Etienne
 194 I will not send it with doodle and they keep our adresses. I will send the lin with our mail. 
 195 22:28:13
 196 bdmc
 197 Right.   That should work. 
 198 22:28:32
 199 FD
 200 @Etienne: teh link to Doodle's pool? 
 201 22:28:50
 202 Etienne
 203 yes. tonight. 
 204 22:28:56
 205 FD
 206 Fine, 
 207 22:29:11
 208 bdmc
 209 I think that the procedure would be for Etienne to create a question, and then send a link to that question for people to answer. 
 210 22:29:33
 211 Etienne
 212 yes 
 213 22:29:39
 214 FD
 215 Great. 
 216 22:30:06
 217 Etienne
 218 2.2.1? 
 219 22:30:08
 220 bdmc
 221 OK, moving on again.  Item 2.2.1 -- I skipped 2.1.2 because the Agenda has a note. 
 222 22:30:17
 223 Etienne
 224 It was my fault after Ted said it was possible without Arb to go back to Arb. Now we have a case and it doesn't go on. The time is pressing. Request: We send "Big Mail" as "Small Mail" to all who agreed to get news as long as Wytze is still active without Ruling. To all others we can still write later, if Arb still allows it. 
 225 22:31:07
 226 FD
 227 2.2.1. Basically waiting for Mario processing the request, right? 
 228 22:31:09
 229 bdmc
 230 Didn't Wytze say that he was OK with sending the letter to everybody?  Yes, I know that you asked Arb. 
 231 22:31:49
 232 Etienne
 233 Wytze was OK, but can we send it now, when Mario took it and we no not have any news for weeks? 
 234 22:32:02
 235 bdmc
 236 ted:  ??? 
 237 22:32:12
 238 * ted sighs deeply. 
 239 22:32:19
 240 bdmc
 241 Etienne: I suspect that you are correct, but.... 
 242 22:32:22
 243 ted
 244 It would not look very good... 
 245 22:32:30
 246 bdmc
 247 I agree, unfortunately. 
 248 22:33:09
 249 Etienne
 250 But sending only to the people that agreed to get informed from time to time? Ted? 
 251 22:33:31
 252 ted
 253 I'd see no problem there 
 254 22:33:47
 255 What other use is it to agree to receive news? 
 256 22:34:23
 257 bdmc
 258 So, yes.  Let us do that, Etienne.  Send a message to the "short list," and we will continue.      OK, here we go again.  Moving on.  Item 2.3.2 ( yes, I know that I skipped one. ) 
 259 22:34:28
 260 Etienne
 261 So, my proposition is: "Newsletter" to those whoo agreed now and "Information" to the rest wehn Arb agrees. later. 
 262 22:34:50
 263 ted
 264 Sounds like a plan. 
 265 22:35:00
 266 bdmc
 267 What is the difference?  What do you intend to put in the "Newsletter?" 
 268 22:35:28
 269 Etienne
 270 The same, but we have to do it before 1st of Sept, as Wytze is available only until then :-( 
 271 22:35:56
 272 bdmc
 273 OK.  So, yes.  Get that out as quickly as possible. 
 274 22:35:57
 275 Etienne
 276 Well, I ad one sentene "you agreed to receive....." 
 277 22:35:59
 278 FD
 279 May I add a word on 2.2.1 ? 
 280 22:36:07
 281 Etienne
 282 please 
 283 22:36:13
 284 bdmc
 285 Certainly. 
 286 22:36:16
 287 FD
 288 2.2.1 We would better to send two times the mailing, the second delayed by ~5 days. First mail: a short one, as a teaser, to wake up somehow people. Second one, what you already prepared, Etienne. People are a lot more responsive when having being teased, than after receiving a cold call. 
 289 22:36:58
 290 bdmc
 291 FD: The only issue with that is the September 1st deadline that Etienne mentioned. 
 292 22:37:07
 293 Etienne
 294 FD, can you send me a draft within 24 hrs? 
 295 22:37:21
 296 FD
 297 Within 16hrs. 
 298 22:37:24
 299 Etienne
 300 OK 
 301 22:37:47
 302 bdmc
 303 Great, thank you both. 
 304 22:37:55
 305 OK.  Item 2.3.2 
 306 22:38:23
 307 FD
 308 What happened with 2.3.1 :-) 
 309 22:39:08
 310 bdmc
 311 FD, Frederic and I worked on the submission to the Linux Foundation's Community Bridge web site on the 8th, and I submitted it to them that day.  Since then, I have periodically logged in to their 
 312 22:39:55
 313 FD
 314 2.3.1 i related to Linux Australia. Yet another Linux. :-) Looks to me like a quick win, an easy to get grant. 
 315 22:40:32
 316 bdmc
 317 site and been told that it was "pending review" ( or pending approval )    Today, I wrote them a note on their "tech support" and asked whether there was anything that we could do to help.  I will report on results. 
 318 22:41:58
 319 FD
 320 2.3.2 Are we expecting something more from the Linux Foundation than just to be referenced on the Community Bridge page? 
 321 22:41:59
 322 bdmc
 323 Back to 2.3.1 -- FD, we haven't really talked about that submission recently.  Do you think that we have enough ( or can easily create enough ) to satisfy them? 
 324 22:42:29
 325 FD
 326 Yes I do. 
 327 22:42:30
 328 bdmc
 329 2.3.2 -- I don't THINK that they give money directly. 
 330 22:42:53
 331 FD: do you want to try to get together some time in the next few days? 
 332 22:43:05
 333 FD
 334 Yes, sure. 
 335 22:43:25
 336 bdmc
 337 Also, have you subscribed to the "grants" mailing list? 
 338 22:44:07
 339 FD
 340 What is it? Yet another mailing-list @c.o. ? 
 341 22:45:12
 342 bdmc
 343 No, the one from Linux Australia where they receive and consider grant applications.   I will forward you recent messages from other applicants. 
 344 22:46:39
 345 FD
 346 Ok 
 347 22:46:42
 348 bdmc
 349 FD: I am wide open from now through the weekend.  First thing in the way would be Monday afternoon ( 14 UTC ) for a couple of hours. )  You can suggest times for us. 
 350 22:46:42
 351 FD
 352 2.3.2 Should I go ahead with Julian Gordon and Trishan de Lanerolle (both from the Linux Foundation) and ask for some more support than just being pinned on a main page ? 
 353 22:47:21
 354 bdmc
 355 Certainly.  That sounds like a good idea.  Have you mentioned them before?  I may have missed that. 
 356 22:47:59
 357 FD
 358 2.3.2 Which kind of support ? (financial, technical, organizational management?) 
 359 22:48:42
 360 bdmc
 361 Definitely the first, possibly the second, perhaps even the third. 
 362 22:49:26
 363 FD
 364 You're not an annoying person. :-) 
 365 22:51:48
 366 bdmc
 367 OK, folks.  Are we enough done with 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 to move on? 
 368 22:54:13
 369 bdmc
 370 I guess so.  Item 2.3.3 -- Open Technology Fund. 
 371 22:55:01
 372 I was looking over FD's application document before this meeting started, and will get that to him shortly after we are done. 
 373 22:57:54
 374 bdmc
 375 FD: You asked about the "U.S. Government Contract requirements."  In general, as I understand, they own everything that is created or developed with their money. 
 376 22:58:54
 377 FD
 378 Nothing like that here. 
 379 22:59:30
 380 They mainly want to make us fly on US airlines, should we have to buy air tickets with their money. 
 381 23:00:11
 382 (Fly America Act of 1974) 
 383 23:00:15
 384 bdmc
 385 Agreed.  So we don't, or we fly places that the US Airlines don't go. 
 386 23:00:24
 387 Etienne
 388 ;-) 
 389 23:00:40
 390 FD
 391 Correct. 
 392 23:00:45
 393 Etienne
 394 Are there some American Airlines flying to Murwillumbah? 
 395 23:01:20
 396 FD
 397 There is also a clause related to “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations" 
 398 23:01:32
 399 I copy - paste it: 
 400 23:01:39
 401 bdmc
 402 FD: That was the part that I was talking about. 
 403 23:01:44
 404 FD
 405 Contracts or agreements for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work shall provide for the rights of the Federal Government and the recipient in any resulting invention in accordance with 37 CFR part 401, “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts, and Cooperative Agreements,” and any implementing regulations issued by the awarding agency. 
 406 23:02:12
 407 I saw nothing which could hurt CAcert, as basically, we are open-source already. 
 408 23:02:50
 409 bdmc
 410 Agreed.  Also, I don't know how much "new development" we would be doing with their money.  It's a possibility, though. 
 411 23:03:22
 412 FD
 413 Hope to make our user interface all new, bright and shiny. :-) 
 414 23:03:51
 415 Etienne
 416 Agree with you. 
 417 23:04:00
 418 bdmc
 419 True.  I don't know how much "creative effort" would be involved there.  Depends on your definition. 
 420 23:04:13
 421 ( as in "new invention" ) 
 422 23:04:30
 423 OK, move on? 
 424 23:04:47
 425 FD
 426 The agreement framwork is available for downloading here: https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/gitbook-28427.appspot.com/o/assets%2F-LCZqCJLmuG9RsuA-qL... 
 427 23:05:19
 428 bdmc
 429 Yes, that's a sample contract, isn't it.  I was reading that earlier. 
 430 23:06:00
 431 FD
 432 Yes. Oddly enough, we would have to enter into contract with Radio Free Asia. 
 433 23:06:26
 434 bdmc
 435 I thought that that was one of their projects, just a sample. 
 436 23:06:59
 437 FD
 438 Radio Free Asia seems to be the proxy of the US Congress, in regards to matters piloted by the Open Technology Fund. 
 439 23:07:17
 440 bdmc
 441 Interesting.  OK, I guess. 
 442 23:10:51
 443 bdmc
 444 OK.  Do we want to discuss Item 2.3.4 tonight, or move on? 
 445 23:11:14
 446 Etienne
 447 we can move on 
 448 23:11:41
 449 FD
 450 I see 2.3.4 very much linked to Linux Australia grant application. 
 451 23:11:53
 452 bdmc
 453 OK.  Nothing to report on 2.4, since it is very closely tied to Item 2.3.1. 
 454 23:12:06
 455 Item 2.5.1 -- Critical Team 
 456 23:12:33
 457 FD
 458 Correct, that is what I wanted to say. 
 459 23:12:48
 460 Etienne
 461 I also see the following possibility: 
 462 23:12:48
 463 - provisional Critical Team with a BC (background check but not of 
 464 23:12:48
 465 arbitration). Of course these people have to be registered at Arb for ABC 
 466 23:12:48
 467 immediately. That's against the policies, but Arb doesn't work either. 
 468 23:12:48
 469 That's why nobody can take action against us ;-) 
 470 23:12:48
 471 - How was Arb created in the beginning? From nothing. Maybe we have to 
 472 23:12:48
 473 build a new Arb with new people? Maybe an old Arb will help us as a 
 474 23:12:48
 475 consultant? 
 476 23:12:48
 477 - Then immediately new ABC, etc. and everything again policy-compliant! 
 478 23:13:13
 479 bdmc
 480 I don't know of anybody who has reponded to our requests for help. 
 481 23:13:37
 482 FD
 483 There is nobody left. 
 484 23:14:35
 485 bdmc
 486 ted: There was one who didn't think that he was technically suitable.  Did you two find a role for him, or is that still outstanding? 
 487 23:14:44
 488 Etienne
 489 I asked two people (this week). They are good sys admins, one onn tour around the world for >5 years and working remote and the other retired. They would be new to CAcert, but very serious. I am waiting for answers. 
 490 23:15:03
 491 ted
 492 You mean Marek? 
 493 23:15:10
 494 FD
 495 @Brian: you are talking about Marek, yes. 
 496 23:16:23
 497 bdmc
 498 ted: yes 
 499 23:16:23
 500 ted
 501 I found no role for him, that's probably his own job. I proposed Arbitrator. 
 502 23:16:57
 503 Etienne
 504 +1 
 505 23:17:04
 506 ted
 507 I guess he could also do a job in Software, but to what use without Critical team? 
 508 23:17:24
 509 FD
 510 @Bernhard: Marek is a PHP dev. No role for him, really? 
 511 23:17:44
 512 @Bernhard: OK. 
 513 23:18:39
 514 ted
 515 He mentioned the Arbitrator himself, but I'm still not sure if it was serious... 
 516 23:19:28
 517 FD
 518 @ Brian: we tried to schedule a conf. call with Marek and all four of us. 
 519 23:19:40
 520 bdmc
 521 ted: should one or more of us "push?" 
 522 23:20:13
 523 FD
 524 No, Marek wants to join. Time for a face to face talk. 
 525 23:20:20
 526 ted
 527 In which direction? 
 528 23:22:22
 529 bdmc
 530 If he want Arbitration, then that direction.  I am sure that you would take him for anything he offered. 
 531 23:22:28
 532 ( want = wants ) 
 533 23:22:53
 534 FD
 535 And software development, too. 
 536 23:23:47
 537 bdmc
 538 But as Ted says, at the moment, that is lesser priority, although it can be done by "anyone" ( or almost ) no matter what other work they do. 
 539 23:23:50
 540 ted
 541 No need to exclude Software development, there the formal requirements are lower (just do some work). 
 542 23:24:14
 543 Etienne
 544 We are short in people every where, so we take them where they want. So they are motivated. 
 545 23:24:51
 546 bdmc
 547 Exactly. 
 548 23:24:57
 549 FD
 550 BTW, may we decide about a schedule to invite Marek to a welcome talk ? Bernhard, you said you could next week after 19:00 CEST, am I right? 
 551 23:26:49
 552 ted
 553 My Skype installation is currently unusable. Probably would need reinstallation. 
 554 23:27:48
 555 FD
 556 We are not talking about Skype. We are talking about whereby.com/cacert, aren't we? 
 557 23:27:56
 558 bdmc
 559 FD:  I've forgotten.  Is free Zoom only 1:1? 
 560 23:28:48
 561 Oh!   Whereby.com == appear.in.  fooled me 
 562 23:28:54
 563 FD
 564 whereby.com/cacert is for 4 concurrent persons to talk together in real time (mic + cam) in the same "meeting space" 
 565 23:29:08
 566 want to give a try now? 
 567 23:29:18
 568 Etienne
 569 free zoom unlimited 1:1 and 40 min groups https://zoom.us/pricing 
 570 23:29:50
 571 why not 
 572 23:30:31
 573 bdmc
 574 Etienne: Sorry, I meant only two participants.  I see that it is up to 100. 
 575 23:30:46
 576 So that gives two alternatives. 
 577 23:30:57
 578 FD
 579 We are online there 
 580 23:31:02
 581 bdmc
 582 In our price range. 
 583 23:31:20
 584 I do not have sound or video, so won't join you. 
 585 23:33:01
 586 FD
 587 Brian, it works great for us ! 
 588 23:33:52
 589 bdmc
 590 OK, folks.  We have less than half an hour.  Do you have any preferences for Agenda items that we MUST get to tonight?  We have about half of the Agenda left. 
 591 23:35:21
 592 Etienne
 593 I thik it is only software. 7,1 is important. 
 594 23:38:02
 595 bdmc
 596 OK.  Any other votes? 
 597 23:38:55
 598 ted
 599 OK, back from Video chat... 
 600 23:39:10
 601 FD
 602 Yes, the vote related to Bernhard application as an Organisation Assurer 
 603 23:39:29
 604 (point 2.5.2) 
 605 23:41:27
 606 bdmc
 607 Is that Ted, or some other Bernhard? 
 608 23:41:42
 609 ted
 610 It's most probably me. 
 611 23:42:22
 612 FD
 613 We are talking about Bernhard "Ted" Fröhlich 
 614 23:43:14
 615 https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board-private/2019-08/msg00015.html 
 616 23:43:19
 617 bdmc
 618 OK.  Item 2.5.2, since we are here already. 
 619 23:43:32
 620 May I hear a motion that we may vote on? 
 621 23:43:40
 622 Etienne
 623 "Considering that there is currently no Org Assurer Officer, I request that Board confirm Bernhard F as an Org Assurer after he meets all requirements." 
 624 23:43:57
 625 FD
 626 I second 
 627 23:44:19
 628 Etienne
 629 aye 
 630 23:44:24
 631 FD
 632 aye 
 633 23:44:45
 634 Etienne
 635 (after should be as - bad translation) 
 636 23:45:46
 637 Etienne
 638 bdmc? 
 639 23:46:02
 640 bdmc
 641 Hmmm.  Do you mean the after at the end?  "as he meets all requirements."  ??? 
 642 23:46:20
 643 Etienne
 644 yes 
 645 23:46:27
 646 ted
 647 Just out of curiosity, what are the reqiurements for Org Assurers? 
 648 23:46:28
 649 bdmc
 650 OK.  No problem.  Aye 
 651 23:46:40
 652 NOW he asks.  B-) 
 653 23:47:15
 654 Any other items, or shall we jump ahead to 7.1? 
 655 23:47:25
 656 ← SkarmoutsosV has quit (Connection closed) 
 657 23:47:27
 658 Etienne
 659 You are a senior assurer. You found a mentor to introduce and back you during the first case(s). 
 660 23:47:43
 661 That is, what I know. 
 662 23:47:46
 663 ted
 664 Ahh, Great. :-) 
 665 23:48:20
 666 FD
 667 May I receive same approval from committee members at point 2.9? 
 668 23:48:47
 669 ted
 670 I did assume something like that, but have not looked it up yet. 
 671 23:48:59
 672 bdmc
 673 FD:  That can be after 7.1. 
 674 23:49:12
 675 FD
 676 Thank you. 
 677 23:49:18
 678 bdmc
 679 Sorry, folks.  I meant 2.7.1. 
 680 23:50:00
 681 OK.  All I see here, is a letter from the Board.  Am I correct? 
 682 23:50:22
 683 ( take that comma out ) 
 684 23:50:31
 685 Etienne
 686 "The committee expresses thanks to JanDD for the great work in updating Infrao02 and many containers with the help of Wytze." 
 687 23:50:40
 688 FD
 689 I second. 
 690 23:50:43
 691 Etienne
 692 aye 
 693 23:50:47
 694 FD
 695 yes 
 696 23:51:03
 697 bdmc
 698 "Infra02" or "Infrao02"  ?? 
 699 23:52:05
 700 Etienne
 701 My spellchecker is allready sleeping, it's 23:51 here ;-) 
 702 23:52:28
 703 bdmc
 704 I understand.  I am trying to finish quickly. 
 705 23:52:45
 706 OK.  I will say a conditional Aye, with the provision that the name is correct. 
 707 23:53:42
 708 Unless anyone else has anything urgent, I think that it is time to agree on when we three shall meet again.  ( except that we are not the three witches from the Scottish Play. ) 
 709 23:53:50
 710 I would like to vote for next week. 
 711 23:54:32
 712 Etienne
 713 Maybe bug 775 before his anniversary? 
 714 23:54:41
 715 FD
 716 Good ! 
 717 23:54:53
 718 its 10th anniversary ! 
 719 23:55:36
 720 bdmc
 721 So, next week, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel? 
 722 23:55:54
 723 FD
 724 This is fine for me. 
 725 23:56:09
 726 Etienne
 727 Yes. And I hope that until then FD will also be into the voting system. 
 728 23:56:39
 729 bdmc
 730 Let us hope that we get more participation, then, too. 
 731 23:56:41
 732 Etienne
 733 I contactet JanDD during this meeting about this. bdmc 's and my votes are allready registered. 
 734 23:56:49
 735 bdmc
 736 ( not hope -- plan for ) 
 737 23:56:57
 738 FD
 739 Should I do something specific to get into? 
 740 23:57:28
 741 Etienne
 742 waiting for Jan's answer. Usually, he is quick during day times. 
 743 23:57:47
 744 bdmc
 745 You should be able to "slash join #vote" and it works. 
 746 23:58:32
 747 Etienne
 748 So, FD and I will look for teaser and small mail, bdmc will correct the English tomorrow in the early morning american time. Then I will get in touch with Wytze. 
 749 23:58:53
 750 FD
 751 I would like to come back on 2.5.1, may I ? 
 752 23:58:59
 753 bdmc
 754 Sounds like a plan. 
 755 23:59:06
 756 FD:  Go ahead. 
 757 23:59:24
 758 Etienne
 759 bdmc: the new one: https://motion.cacert.org/motions/ 
 760 23:59:56
 761 FD, yes, please 
 762 00:00:10
 763 FD
 764 Etienne exposed the possibility to call technically skilled persons, not having been ABCed yet 
 765 00:00:22
 766 I received a positive answer too, from Johan Bloemberg. Not known at CAcert, but willing to help. He wrote: "thanks for the invitation. I guess this is a volunteering job? At the moment I'm too busy in my spare time to dedicate much time to side projects, I just moved and already have some project I'm working on.  But if you ever need local hands-on for a short project feel free to contact me, I can probably spare a day or 2 in the weekends occasionally. " 
 767 00:00:54
 768 bdmc
 769 Etienne: Interesting.  It appears that I can read items, but how do I do more? 
 770 00:02:03
 771 FD
 772 Should we go more broadly a t approaching sys admins in the Lede area, wanting to help at the Critical Team, even if they heve no previous record track with CAcert? 
 773 00:02:15
 774 Etienne
 775 Yes, that is my Plan B (A=ABCed; C=collect the access password and wait): Take new people and start the ABC imediately at Arb. During the waiting time, the could/should start. 
 776 00:03:13
 777 bdmc
 778 Do we still have somebody who can act as "Senior?" 
 779 00:03:20
 780 Etienne
 781 This are "relaxed rules" to keep CAcert running during a time, Arb is understaffed and ABC frozed. 
 782 00:03:55
 783 FD
 784 Very good. I love relaxed rules. Well, I may then start to recruit actively. 
 785 00:04:41
 786 Etienne
 787 If I remember well, Wytze and Co are willing to overhand it correctly to their successors. 
 788 00:05:03
 789 ted
 790 But we should take into account that critical team is, as the name says, quite critical for CAcert, as the only one having access to the database. 
 791 00:05:18
 792 (sorry, a bit late) 
 793 00:05:36
 794 bdmc
 795 I would like someone who has a real connection to CAcert to be the "manager" of the Critical Team, even if we have outsiders doing most of the work. 
 796 00:06:48
 797 Etienne
 798 You are right, ted. I am not saying to take jusst someone from the street. We can also do a Comitee's Background Check until the real ABC is back. This is to avoid that CAcert will die do to missing ABC. 
 799 00:07:05
 800 bdmc: +1 
 801 00:07:13
 802 ted
 803 Agreed. 
 804 00:07:44
 805 Just to keep in mind that some of the rules also make some sense... 
 806 00:08:07
 807 bdmc
 808 OK.  Well, we are after midnight.  Go on, or finish in e-mail or next week's meeting? 
 809 00:08:37
 810 FD
 811 OK for finihsing on next week meeting. 
 812 00:08:39
 813 ted
 814 I'll be off now 
 815 00:08:43
 816 Etienne
 817 So we won't be audit ready. But once the crisis has been overcome, it can be dealt with properly. 
 818 00:08:50
 819 Thank you ted 
 820 00:09:13
 821 FD
 822 Bye Bernhard, a new Org Assurer of ours ! 
 823 00:09:14
 824 Etienne
 825 OK finishing on 05 Sept 20 UTC 
 826 00:09:58
 827 bdmc
 828 Thank you all.  I hereby declare this meeting over, and wish you all a good night. 
 829 00:10:49
 830 FD
 831 Good afternoon, Brian, Gute Nacht to all others. 
 832 00:10:58
 833 Etienne
 834 Thank you and good night! bdmc, you well hear from me soon. 
 835 00:11:12
 836 ← ted has quit (Client exited) 
 837 00:11:28
 838 ← bdmc has quit (Quit: leaving) 
 839 00:12:49
 840