23:02 < Q> And who is here?
23:02 < law> me
23:03 < Q> no Nick?
23:03 < law> nb?
23:03 < ernie> Q, mark is also not here
23:03 < dan> me is also here
23:03 < Q> So I count Ernie, Dan, Law, and myself
23:03 < ernie> Q, ian said before 
23:03 < ernie> Q, he is maybe not here
23:04 < Q> Well, at least we have 4, so we seem to have a quorum, right?
23:04 < law> Ian just timed out, maybe he joins in back later
23:04 -!- iang [iang@210.9.139.115] has joined #board-meeting
23:04 < Q> Same Internet downtime as myself :-)
23:05 < Q> Ok, I'd like to start then
23:05 < Q> I open the meeting
23:05 < Q> We have Ernie, Dan, Law, Ian, and myself, is that correct?
23:05 < law> iang: You take part in the meeting?
23:06 < iang> maybe, passively, I'm sick :-(
23:06 < dan> ow
23:06 < dan> lets continue...
23:06 < Q> @iang: Travelling sickness?
23:07 < law> Wish you to get better soon!
23:07 < ernie> iang, hope you feel better soon
23:07 < iang> Q: no, picked up something in CeBIT .. travel probably made it worse,
23:07 < Q> So we miss Nick and Mark,
23:07 < Q> I'd like to start with item 1.2, minutes.
23:08 < Q> I move we accept the minutes
23:08 < iang> so i leave my proxy with Lambert, and will be in & out
23:08 < law> second
23:08 < ernie> aye
23:08 < law> aye
23:08 < dan> accept (but only just)
23:08 < Q> @dan: why?
23:08 < dan> i just completed it in a rush and  could of missed things.
23:09 < Q> ok
23:09 < dan> acceptable - there's a log there anyway
23:09 < Q> Ok, I declare it carried
23:09 < Q> Let's move to 1.3, open items
23:09 < law> hold on
23:10 < Q> @law: yes?
23:10  * dan holds to my nice warm cup of tea
23:10 < law> I just saw 2 ayes. Dan needs either to vote aye, naye (or abstain)
23:10 < dan> aye then
23:10 < Q> aye fom me
23:11 < Q> ah, and aye from Iang  :-)
23:11 < Q> ok now?
23:11 < law> yes :)
23:11 < Q> Ok, carried, move to 1.3
23:11 < Q> item 1: letter to oophaga
23:12 < ernie> mark is not here, what we do?
23:12 < Q> I have tried to contact Mark, but did not get any response
23:12 < dan> appears mark is overloaded - want to take that one off his hands?
23:12 < Q> Who ha talked to Mark recently?
23:12 < law> Has there been sent an informal mail to oophaga after the last (or the one before) to oophaga?
23:13 < ernie> Q, he was also last time not here
23:13 < law> ... the last meeting ...
23:13 < dan> i'll take an action time to phone him after the meeting
23:13 < Q> law: not that I know of, that's why I wanted to contact mark
23:13 < dan> s/time/item/
23:13 < Q> dan: phone Mark?
23:13 < ernie> Q, with people from oopahaga Ian has spoken ... the prof I think
23:14 < ernie> Q, but this was in Dec or Jan
23:14 < dan> Q: after the meeting I will phone him
23:14 < Q> ernie: yes, but we need to follow up, see for instance the email from Teus regarding being at NLUUG
23:14 < law> Iirc we agreed to sent an informal mail containing a reference to the annoal report and announce a response which already should have been sent by now.
23:15 < dan> law: that's my recollection too - did anyone do it?
23:15 < Q> I think it's important to keep Oophaga informed, so I'll contact them
23:15 < Q> if there are no objections that is
23:15 < ernie> Q, if mark sent this mail ? could not rember that he said something
23:16 < Q> Mark was going to create a draft, that I was to send to Oophaga
23:16 < ernie> Q, what you will tell them? or only informal "contact" to keep them happy
23:16 < law> I guess if a mail was send the board should have received a copy...
23:16 < Q> Have not heard from Mark since
23:16 < Q> law: yes
23:16 < dan> i'd rather we contacted them twice informally and appear disorganised than not contact them and appear disorganised and rude
23:17 < law> agreed
23:17 < Q> Ok, can we summarize as:
23:17 < Q> Dan will call Mark
23:17 < Q> I will call Oophaga, and tell them they'll be informed soon
23:17 < ernie> ok
23:17 < dan> good
23:17 < law> ok
23:17 < dan> ok ref formal letter can we take that off mark?
23:18 < Q> I'd like to wait for Mark's answer
23:18 < Q> Maybe he's already at 80%
23:18 < dan> ok - i'll report back after i contact him
23:18 < Q> So, can we decide after you talked to him?
23:18 < Q> Good.
23:18 < Q> Next
23:19 < Q> Ok, : discussion on community 
23:19 < law> but maybe it would be a good idea to have someone appointed for backup. Getting this solved soon seems important to me
23:19 < Q> We need to start this, have not seen any substantial progress yet
23:20 < dan> ian and i did some posts
23:20 < Q> @law, that's why I'll contact them directly, independent of the answer
23:20 < ernie> dan, right 
23:20 < Q> dan: yes, but not much follow-up
23:20 < Q> from the rest of the board
23:20 < Q> or the communitry
23:21 < ernie> but to get a overview where we are, we need somehow a statusreport from the people
23:21 < law> I will try to catch up with the lists asap. Have just gone abroad this week and hopefully now getting more time to catch up.
23:21 < dan> er both - but only really need a board view - the community will object/state their view if they think we're wrong
23:22 < dan> we sort of need this to complete the oophaga letter
23:22 < Q> I suggest we all come up with one or two items to look at, then decide on a priority and timeline
23:22 < Q> Would that work?
23:22 < ernie> and we also need a list of the projects / running, status
23:23 < dan> and have a quick status report of them every board meeting
23:23 < Q> ernie: agree, but independent of status we need to have a 50.000 feet idea of where we want to be in 6-12 months
23:23 < ernie> did we have somewhere am actual list of all officers
23:24 < dan> there was a officer's wiki page - don't know of its currency
23:24 < ernie> Q, right, but I think the prios we know ... :-)
23:25 < ernie> dan, last time I looked, it wasn't up to date ...
23:25 < ernie> but I'm not sure if I looked to the right list ...
23:25 < Q> Seems to me we have no clear overview. Do we have a volunteer to sort out and summarize back to the board
23:25 < Q> ?
23:25 < dan> of officers?
23:26 < Q> officers, projects, status
23:26 < ernie> officers and different people in charge 
23:27 < ernie> I will start I wiki-page and ask people to complete
23:27 < Q> Thanks!
23:27 < ernie> somewhere we have everything, but you don't find a overview 
23:27 < Q> Anything else to add to this item?
23:28 < dan> nothing here
23:28 < Q> No, then I'd like to continue with action 3, automatic sending bit
23:28 < dan> to add
23:28 < Q> Dan, can you explain this item?
23:29 < dan> was the key persons email list - to send contact details out automaticly to baord/arbitratiors/admins to facilitate DR
23:30 < dan> still waiting on nick to compile list of contacts though
23:30 < Q> What is the status?
23:30 < Q> ok
23:30 < dan> status - to me low pri until i get contact details
23:30 < ernie> dan, didn't have philippD also this list?
23:31 < Q> I noticed there is a list, and also a spreadsheet with names, but it's on the server, and the spreadsheet is small (two names)
23:31 < dan> its partially complete now - nick said he'd finished - its even in teh action items of last meeting though it goes back before then
23:31 < Q> I wished I had the full list on my computer 20 minutes ago when my Internet broke down
23:31 < ernie> Q, there was a longer list last time (old board)
23:31 < law> I think we need nicks feedback to proceed here...
23:32 < Q> Ok. 
23:32 < dan> yes!
23:32 < Q> Btw. who's making minutes?
23:32  * dan done two lots so far and passes
23:33 < Q> Ernie? Law?
23:33 < ernie> mhh, if somebody install meet-bot I could help in the future :-)
23:33 < law> OK, I can do it.
23:33 < Q> Law: thanks!
23:33 < ernie> meet-bot makes life  easier
23:33 < dan> action nick - install meet-bot?
23:34 < Q> Can we enter in the minutes that we're waiting for Nick to complete the list?
23:34 < Q> ernie: meet-bot?
23:34 < ernie> why not, you have done minutes quicker, 
23:35 < dan> take recording of minutes and action items as done
23:35 < Q> ok. Anything to add to this item?
23:35 < dan> ACTION nick to install meet-bot
23:35 < ernie> dan, hope he will do this time, I asked him already last year :-)
23:36 < Q> Let's move to next action. Ernie, do you know if Ian and Oophaga have been paid?
23:36 < dan> key persons list was from last year too
23:36 < ernie> Q, no
23:36 < ernie> Q, but could ask oophaga, no problem
23:36 < Q> Can you explain what's blocking payments?
23:36 < ernie> Q, don't know, mark can do alone now
23:36 < law> We should mail Mark and Nick personally to get a status and timeline regarding their action items!
23:37 < Q> Dan, can you ask about this as well when you talk to Mark?
23:37 < dan> yes
23:37 < Q> Anything to add here?
23:37 < ernie> iang, you are here? did you get payment?
23:38 < Q> Next: Single signatory: I think we have to wait for Mark. Dan, can you ask this as well?
23:38  * dan notes the point of a action list being there bfore the meeting is so it could be rougly filled out before the meeting too
23:38 < dan> ok
23:38 < dan> ref signatory
23:39 < law> please give a refirm report of marks status if he cannot do by himself soon. Is it ok if I write an email to nick?
23:40 < dan> freedom to write all emails granted to law :-p
23:40 < Q> Agree
23:40 < ernie> dan, right :-)
23:41 < Q> The remaining actions for Mark from 2010-02-02 must wait until next time (less urgent for now). Agreed?
23:41 < law> agreed
23:41 < dan> yes
23:41 < ernie> yes
23:41 < Q> Write up AGM minutes, by Ian. Any status here?
23:42 < ernie> I don't have one, but I think ian started already, didn't he say something once
23:42 < dan> i gave him a log a few days before last meeting - if ian doesn't have time we can get any member to write it - happy to provide logs there
23:43 < Q> I did send Ian a log of the meeting as well, he mentioned he was going to do it
23:43 < dan> good next item....
23:43 < Q> I'll ask him again, and otherwise search for a volunteer
23:43 < Q> Moving to actions from 2010-02-21
23:43 < dan> ACTION ^  ( just to make seaching logs for action items easier)
23:44 < Q> I'll skip the first4, have been discussed
23:44 < Q> next: Law: you wrote a summary, right?
23:44 < law> yes. jut posted to board list in the last hour.
23:44 < Q> ok, done
23:45 < Q> US bankers: Nick's not here, I'll ask him again
23:45 < Q> Next: legalisties of using other organisations for payments. Has been answered by Ian. Any questions here?
23:46 < dan> no
23:46 < ernie> no
23:46 < iang> ernie:  I can not see any payment made over the last few months
23:47 < Q> Next: payment options: I've sent my first email, need to follow-up. No further info
23:47 < iang> agm minutes:  not started as yet
23:47 < ernie> iang, mhh, we need mark for an answer here
23:47 < Q> Ian: the OTRS system. Can you provide status?
23:48 < dan> it was sent to the baord list
23:48 < iang> Q: see report
23:49  * nb here now
23:49 < Q> Has everyone seen it?
23:49 < ernie> but regarding OTRS and other systems we have to sep. system by itself and process of the data-process/datahandling
23:50 < Q> question is: is OTRS part of the critical systems, and does SP apply? Short summary: is not part of critical systems, and SP does not apply
23:50 < Q> Iang: is that correct, and do we need a vote here?
23:50 < Q> (hi nick)
23:51 < dan> board can decide what's critical or not
23:51 < nb> RE: Key persons list
23:51 < ernie> Q, as long we don't have a overview about the setup, we cann't vote 
23:51 < dan> if we need more info ask on the list
23:51 < ernie> dan right
23:51 < nb> I still have the emails that were sent to me, the spreadsheet i had basically done was lost when my hard drive crashed
23:51 < nb> but i have it almost re-constructed from the emails
23:52 < nb> hopefully i can finish and upload it to the list tomorrow
23:52 < dan> there was some outstading items for Support leader - lets get an update next meeting on OTRS
23:52 < Q> law: can you add the feedback from Nick to that corresponding action?
23:52 < Q> dan: agree, let's move OTRS to next meeting
23:52 < ernie> Q, regarding OTRS we postpone till we have more info about the setup and datahandling process
23:53 < Q> We all seem to agree on this :-)
23:53  * nb will see about installing meetbot, i know it is packaged for fedora, but do not know about for debian
23:53 < nb> what kind of questions about the setup of otrs?
23:53 < nb> i may be able to answer some
23:53 < ernie> groups, roles, permission 
23:53 < Q> well, for one: what data is stored in OTRS
23:53 < dan> nb: its not about otrs per say - its about data/process/procedures
23:54 < nb> oh ok
23:54 < nb> ernie, basically everything is controlled by "roles" in otrs
23:54 < nb> which means that SE's have the SE role and can see SE information (basically all of support@)
23:54 < nb> triage can see incoming mail and move it into other queues
23:55 < ernie> nb, right, but it depends how you have done the setup regarding to the policy, how the processing is
23:55 < ernie> nb, we will discuss on list 
23:55 < nb> ernie, ok
23:55 < Q> (guys, I have a small issue: my dog needs a short walk, I can get out and be back in less than two minutes, or clean up later.
23:55 < Q> Who can take chair?)
23:55 < dan> i''ll take it
23:56 < Q> ok, I'm off, 
23:56 < dan> ok - next few action items - accept them as not done and carry them forwards
23:57 < dan> didn't seem much on root escrow discussion - another agenda item - over it there
23:57 < ernie> dan, people on vacation till next week ... 
23:57 < dan> CoI discussion was from uli's questions needs to still be done
23:57 < nb> Oh, I do have some info of banking
23:58 < dan> any more action item questions?
23:58 < nb> dan, would this be the appropriate time?
23:58 < nb> sincei t was an action item?
23:58 < dan> nb: put it on list - can't really present anddiscuss in this time frame
23:58 < nb> oh ok
23:59 < dan> law - thanks for private list summary - heaps better than mine
23:59 < dan> (ref 1.4) ^
23:59 < dan> ok - business - 2
23:59 < dan> 2.1 p20100306 Policy Officer
23:59 < dan> i'm thinking this is take note of community  work which is good
00:00 < dan> was there more info/questions here?
00:00 < ernie> no, but who is policy-officer 
00:00 < ernie> was the last one philippD
00:00 < dan> i'm thinking phillip d
00:00 < ernie> did he ever resign?
00:01 < law> hi. back. seems to be internet outage day today
00:01 < dan> not from that position
00:01 < ernie> ok, then I'm up-to-date :-)
00:01 < dan> law: on 2.1 - policy officer stuff
00:01 < iang> PD is documents officer
00:01 < dan> good clarification - thanks iang
00:01 < iang> s/documents/documentation/
00:02 < dan> anything else regarding this 2.1 item iang?
00:02 < ernie> who was last policy-officer?
00:02 < iang> never been appointed
00:02 < dan> i'm not sure there was one
00:02 < ernie> because I thought it was pilipp
00:02 < ernie> did we need one?
00:03 < Q> Back
00:03 < dan> iang: so now that there is a reponsibility declared by the policy group we need to fill it?
00:03 < dan> Q: (2.1)
00:03 < iang> dan: that's what the vote asks for, in a way
00:04 < iang> if not, it falls back to board
00:04 < dan> iang: want to ask the policy group for volunteers?
00:05 < ernie> let us think about, and speak next time about this issue
00:05 < dan> ok ernie
00:05 < iang> agree with defer ... dan: i doubt that could work
00:06 < dan> any more 2.1 items?
00:07 < dan> ok - 2.2 - Determine Root escrow and recovery mechanism
00:07 < dan> critera is up - few proposals are there
00:08 < dan> was an action item from last meeting to review the items here.
00:08 < Q> Seems to me this is not yet covered in enough detail, but I also see a lack of progress
00:08 < dan> right - have you asked for more detail?
00:09 < Q> To be honest, no
00:09 < dan> i agree that there are bits of all proposals that lack detail
00:09 < Q> have been busy with things outside CAcert...
00:09 < dan> unless any objection ACTION item is for all to review level of detail in root escrow proceedures and criteria
00:10 < Q> agree
00:10 < dan> security manual section 9 clearly said this procedures is a board responsibility so we shouldn't be depending on the community to fill it out for us
00:11 < Q> Hmm, not sure. It's a responsibility of the board, but that does not mean we have to do all the work
00:11 < Q> we do have to understand the options and make the final decision though
00:12 < dan> "This section is managed by the Board."
00:12 < Q> right. "managed"
00:12 < Q> A "manager" normally makes it happen, but dos not do the work him/herself
00:12 < dan> we're not showing a lot of management here. limited leading discussion, limited decisions, limited criteria
00:12 < ernie> dan, some answers will come from the people on the list next week - they are away
00:13 < dan> ok - lets make sure we have all the questions clearly ready for them.
00:13 < ernie> dan, right, think finally we must present a proposal, otherwise we will not have a decision wihin reasonable time
00:14 < Q> dan: agree
00:15 < dan> ok - probably can move on - 2.3 back to Q in chair
00:15 < ernie> dan, think you have done here a good job
00:15 < ernie> dan, btw - thank you for the effort
00:15 < ernie> and to ian
00:15 < Q> agree, this is rather important
00:15 < Q> ok, 2.3
00:16 < Q> Michael requested team changes
00:16 < Q> Any questions? Otherwise I move we approve the requested changes
00:16 < ernie> Q, could we agree to hear more about the people - not only the name
00:16 < Q> ernie: what is it you're looking for?
00:17 < ernie> from all people we are asking who they are, if I should say to somebody yes or no - I should know a short summary
00:17 < ernie> we asked from people in the past too - in the wiki is ok 
00:18 < ernie> he can do afterwards, no porb
00:18 < ernie> *problem*
00:18 < law> Joost should be well known. Regarding b. see private list.
00:18 < ernie> law, you maybe know, I don't - only the name
00:19 < Q> ok. Joost is known. Martin was not able to do the work as requested
00:19 < ernie> regarding the second name I read ... 
00:19  * dan thinking that Joost has a background check done and is keen to do the position and is recommended by those doing the position and that gets and aye from me
00:19 < ernie> dan, I think he has done, but where you can find .... 
00:20 < ernie> I don't will know "everything" about the check, but whe it was done, then say it
00:21 < ernie> anyhow, we could move on - but some process how this changes will be done will be nice, not only two names
00:21 < Q> ernie: ABC of Joost: https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20100113.1
00:22 < ernie> ok
00:22 < Q> Ok, I move we accept the changes as requested by Michael Taenzer
00:22 < dan> aye
00:22 < ernie> aye
00:22 < law> second & aye
00:23 < ernie> Q, thank you
00:23 < Q> aye
00:24 < Q> I declare it carried
00:24 < Q> 2.4
00:24 < Q> Events officer
00:24 < ernie> we had already above ...
00:24 < Q> I don't see Walter's last name. Can anyone fill us in?
00:24 < Q> ernie: did I miss something?
00:24 < law> I think it is Walter Güldenberg
00:25 < ernie> Q, this line ***Propose Walter (??) as Events Officer as out of band motion 
00:25 < ernie> did anybody ask walter, did he accept
00:25 < dan> ian probably did and yes. 
00:26 < dan> lets leave that as ian's action item to propose it fully
00:26 < Q> ok, next: COI between board and Arbitration
00:26 < Q> Daniel, can you comment?
00:27 < dan> was derived form uli's question last meeting
00:27 < dan> they feel impeeded by the board taking two arbitartores and the current rulling prohibiting dual hats
00:28 < ernie> think not it is a problem, as long not the board is involved 
00:28 < dan> i don't see a COI for the majority of cases and the abitrator rules have COI clauses so they don't rule over the board they are sitting on
00:29 < dan> so i propose that we overrule m20090914.1 and let our board/arbitrators work themselves in as many ways possible :-)
00:29 < ernie> dan, agree 
00:29 < law> I am also in favour of overturning the motion
00:29 < Q> I move the arbitrators come with a proposal explaining what cases can be picked up by arbitrators that are currently board members
00:30 < dan> as a board lets allow this to happen. then the arbitarors are free to manage themselves
00:31 < Q> dan: please explain?
00:32 < dan> i don't think we need to decide on the arbitrators proposal
00:32 < Q> (one thing to consider: arbitrators that are board members should first focus on board, then on arbitration)
00:32 < Q> (so I don't think they will have much time to do arbitrations)
00:33 < Q> With that I support dan's proposal.
00:33 < dan> ok - so in the interested of saving everyones time -lets not ask arbitarors to write a proposal then we as a board don't need to review it.
00:33 < Q> I move we overturn motion m20090914.1
00:33 < law> I thinkany individual should decide their timeline for himself...
00:33 < law> second & aye
00:33 < Q> aye
00:33 < dan> i think we have all here in favour of overturning it 
00:34 < dan> aye here too 
00:34 < ernie> aye
00:34 < Q> I declare it carried
00:34 < Q> 2.6: infrastructure team leader
00:35 < dan> all in favour of inflicing pain and suffering on making mean infrastructure team leader officially?
00:36 < law> So this is only a motion to fix the defacto state?
00:36 < dan> yep
00:36 < Q> I move we assign Dan as Infrastructure team leader
00:36 < law> Fine for it by now. But we need to have more discussions on more seperation (e.g. stricter policy on email/otrs)
00:36 < law> second & aye
00:36 < dan> abstain
00:36 < Q> aye
00:37 < ernie> aye
00:37 < Q> I declare it carried
00:37 < dan> happy to talk about email/otrs policy later offline
00:37 < Q> And thanks dan for the work so far
00:37 < ernie> law, this issue we move to list - for further discussion
00:38 < Q> Next, 2.7, move of infrastructure out of Ede
00:38 < law> agree, list is better for this.
00:38 < Q> First, let me make it clear to everyone, this is not about the critical systems
00:38 < dan> i'd pretty much agreed this was a goal - aven't done much in the last moth though
00:38 < Q> These will stay in Ede
00:39 < dan> yes
00:39 < Q> It's about the Infrastructure systems
00:39 < law> So, what is this item about? Just for Dan to give a status update?
00:39 < ernie> btw, where is the server in vienna now located?
00:39 < ernie> saw some post regarding "moving"
00:40 < law> I think it is still sonance. Afaik is was just from one machine to another in the same rack. Iang should know better.
00:40 < Q> Dan, can you give us a status update what systems we're talking about, where they are right now, and what the plans are?
00:40 < ernie> law, location of the server ... think not the will have in the offices there
00:40 < ernie> *they*
00:41 < dan> it ok - at the moment we have adfinis in swiss that has two servers
00:41 < law> Doing some more guessing it is funkfeuer
00:41 < iang> law: correct, it was change of machine, not location
00:41 < law> but everyting just from catching this up from discussions.
00:41 < dan> brian mostly and I was getting infrastructure standards setup so hopefully maintaince down the track is easier
00:42 < dan> was going to look at the vienna option when it came though.
00:42 < law> iang: So ftr the vienna location is still Sonance hosted by/at Funkfeuer?
00:42 < iang> yes
00:42 < dan> yes it is
00:43 < dan> it will leverage of existing work.
00:43 < dan> afaik i still have to work our IP requirements.
00:43 < iang> vienna #2 is searching for some parts;  not sure which colo it is located in
00:44 < dan> but its mainly waiting on me to fix up adfinis to a standard where it I can move stuff. other infra can go off the same standards when they come through
00:45 < Q> Ok, so what's the question with item 2.7? Do we need to make a decision, or is this a FYI?
00:45 < dan> i don't think i can handle more that 3 locations (bit, vienna #, adfinis) so please slow down here
00:45 < law> I do not see anything to vote on..
00:46 < dan> ians idea in the email was to reaffirm this - i'm impartial - was going to do it anyway
00:46 < Q> ok. I think we've covered item 2.7 then :-)
00:47 < Q> Question time.
00:47 < Q> Anyone?
00:48 < Q> If no one has a question, there is something I'd like to ask. I've noticed these meetings take a lot of time, and it's my impression we could do these a bit more efficient
00:48 < nb> aye to overturning m20090914.1
00:48 < Q> Thanks Nick
00:49 < Q> I'd like to propose a more formal approach. We for instance spend far too much time on action items
00:49 < Q> But we need to go through them
00:50 < law> I think we should communicate more via email to make the meetings easier.
00:50 < Q> I think that with a bit more preparation we could do these  meetings in half the time, or have double the discussions in the same time
00:50 < ernie> Q, action items we can do the remarks also before in the wiki
00:50 < Q> Am I the only one with this opinion?
00:50 < dan> lets cover them as a any quesitons on action items and move on. - i'm was mainly keeping it there for tracking
00:50 < ernie> so we can move the open things to next time 
00:51 -!- jmoore3rd1 [JohnMoore@adsl-176-166-45.asm.bellsouth.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
00:51 < ernie> and handle where we have to discuss
00:51 < ernie> dan, agree
00:51 < Q> ernie: good suggestion, would save a lot of time
00:51 -!- jmoore3rd [JohnMoore@adsl-190-41-209.asm.bellsouth.net] has joined #board-meeting
00:52 < Q> OTOH we need to go through them to make sure there is progress
00:52 < dan> assigned members can update us if there's issues
00:52 < Q> So let's make sure we have the items updated before the meeting
00:52 < dan> please
00:52 < law> Since we do not need to vote on anything, have the chair decide which items to address?
00:53 < Q> Another thing I noticed is switching to the next item
00:53 < Q> I notice I sometimes go to the next item, bit not everyone is already there
00:54 < Q> Can we think of a way to make sure we all agree to go to the next item?
00:54 < law> I have to apoligize here. I often do late comments.
00:54 < Q> It's not a personal comment :-)
00:55 < dan> i think a next item call followed by 30s is enough
00:55 < ernie> :-) 
00:55 < Q> As chair I have to wait until everyone finished, but I never know
00:55 < Q> Dan: that would be nice :-)
00:55 < dan> rather than putting a response  a quic ''stop' and then go on
00:56 < Q> ok. Enough on my question.
00:56 < Q> Any other questions?
00:56 < dan> so the chair should go quickly and the rest say stop when they need to input
00:56 < ernie> agee
00:56 < law> I have no problem if moved to the next item. Should I/we abstain from commenting on previous items if something comes up late?
00:56 -!- iang [iang@210.9.139.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:56 < Q> (waiting for 30 seconds now)
00:57 < Q> Ok. I'd like to confirm the next meeting
00:57 -!- iang [iang@210.9.139.115] has joined #board-meeting
00:57 < dan> 21 march 2100?
00:58 < dan> time 2100 not year :-)
00:58 < Q> That would be Sunday  March 16, 21.00 UTC
00:58 < ernie> lol
00:58 < ernie> yes
00:58 < Q> We now started at 22.00 UTC, but we agreed it was to be 21.00 UTC
00:58 < Q> What would be the time?
00:59 < ernie> Q, sunday one hour earlier
00:59 < law> Sat 22, Sun 21. We had I think...
00:59 < ernie> saturday 22:00
00:59 < Q> Ok, net meeting Sunday March 16, 21.00 UTC
00:59 < Q> The meeting is closed
00:59 < Q> (net=next)
00:59 < dan> i see 16 march as a tuesday ?
01:00 < law> Mach 21 I think...
01:00 < Q> dan: what year?
01:00 < dan> thanks law - March 21
01:00 < dan> this year 
01:00 < ernie> mhh - 16th .. couldn't be :-)
01:01 < ernie> dan, we have 21st
01:01 < dan> anyone got mark phone number off hand?
01:01 < ernie> no, I dont have
01:01 < Q> Hmm, my paper agenda says march 16 is Tuesday.....
01:02 < dan> just email - needs to take other 1/2 out to breakfast
01:02 < dan> i may have it already - i'll need to dig for it though
01:03 < law> I will do the minutes. cu
01:03 < dan> i'm off - you can work out the date system - i'll turn up at the presecribed time
01:03 < dan> thanks law
01:03 < ernie> Q, yes, but the 16th is not in two weeks ..
01:05 < Q> So next meeting: Sunday March 21st, 21.00 UTC
01:05 < ernie> yes
01:07 < nb> dan, i think i do