Partial log starting 50mins in [08:55:18] Hi Dan [08:55:39] We started about 50 minutes ago [08:55:41] hey - sorry for being late. [08:55:53] shall I send you the loig so far by email? [08:55:57] hi dan [08:56:10] I think on that particular point, Dan and/or Andreas has confirmed that they just want the same "logo treatment" as the others. But the contract doesn't make that clear. [08:56:41] [PRIVMSG >>> Q]: thanks [08:58:24] @iang: this was just an example. Because we do not have another party in between we should review the conditions with more care [08:59:11] Q: yes [08:59:34] Ok, then the question is: how do we do this? [09:00:05] I've seen a number of email messages going up and down, with the messages getting longer and longer [09:00:33] in terms of the text of the contract, writing it is just a matter of turning the "wish list" into a text ... start a wiki page [09:01:08] I guess that will work better than ever increasing email messages [09:01:51] one question: is anything being delated by the contract / lack of contract? [09:01:51] Dan, you were involved in setting up this contract, what do you think of creating a wiki, and discussing specific items? [09:02:10] (@iang: good question...) [09:02:19] s/delated/delayed/p [09:02:45] (but I think that when this started last year, a few more weeks won't harm us) [09:02:55] I don't think so, they already delivered.+ [09:03:30] right - they have delivered and some substantial work has been done to set it up. Obvioulsy not complete [09:05:03] So am I right when I state we agree with the concept (adfinis offers some services for Infrastructure, and we agree on putting their logo on websites and all) but need to discuss the details? [09:05:29] yes [09:05:40] I agree with the concept, yes [09:05:46] ernie? [09:06:27] my caution is about the contract -- whether CAcert has this contract -- and only then, what that text would say [09:06:27] ' [09:06:37] I was part of the negotitiations - so I agree with that [09:06:45] ok [09:07:00] Dan, I assume you also agree with the concept :-) [09:07:05] yes [09:07:36] Ok, I wanted to ask a question in part 3 (question time), but like to add it here. [09:07:40] iang, what should this mean - sorry, don't understand [09:08:23] first part: CAcert entering into a contract in Switzerland would be a first for us ... it may change our situation [09:09:11] for example, we have an MoU with Oophaga ... but that doesn't state Netherlands jurisdiction. We have an agreement with Sonance, and that doesn't bring us into Austria [09:09:15] we've seen us trying to get some things solved, but it takes too long (for instance the root issue). What I like to see is a smaller group that prepares changes, and keeps the rest of the board informed [09:09:24] we are an international acting organisation. so we have to take this step i guess. [09:09:34] Q: given how not well the key escrow conversations on the wiki went I'm adverse to doing it again as I'm not hopefully of it acheiving its purpose [09:09:34] iang, agreement with sonace - I have never seen one [09:10:07] iang, also an informal one - I have never seen [09:10:19] sonance on the other hand does have a proper contract with Funkfeuer. [09:10:47] iang, that was not my question [09:10:48] @dan: what I propose is assigning a small group (3-5) to do the preparations [09:11:10] iang, and sonance only deliver 2 VM's if I understand right, not a whole server [09:11:18] @dan: so to avoid another slowdown [09:11:48] @Q could be a bit late there. anything to get it going though. [09:11:54] ernie: we can probably talk about sonance any time ... i just don't see it as important right now [09:11:59] @ernie: physical or virtual is not so relevant anymore: we need availability for both [09:12:32] iang, I don't started with sonance - you are always mention in your answers [09:13:07] Q, yes, but first you need hardware, before you can talk about VM's [09:13:16] Q: is it the point that we want to rewrite this contract? or is it the point that we want to list the things that go into the contract? [09:13:31] iang: speak for yourself [09:13:38] please don't over use we [09:14:50] dan: it's a question to the board, as to whether we've reached some consensus. the others can speak for themselves happily and they can easily deny those suggestions. [09:14:59] @iang: what do you mean? I was just stating we (=CAcert) need availability, whether it's for a physical or virtual machine. [09:15:38] So if we have it now without a contract, how can we be sure we keep this availability? [09:15:51] For me physical or virtual is equal [09:16:10] @Q: if we're talking about sonance ... yes, sonance is doing 1 test1 VM and has made another VM available. but so far this 2nd is unused. [09:16:11] Q, :-) [09:16:54] if on the other hand you are suggesting that CAcert feels the need to have a contract in order to have the availability ... then sure, if the board is minded to do that, I have no objection. [09:17:14] @iang: Ok, so if it's curently available, and not really critical, I don't think we need to commit ourselves more than we do now [09:18:23] Yes, and we can (I'm told) go up to 3 VMs in total easily enough and possibly more with the current situation. [09:18:23] I think we need to define what availability we need. Not extremely high for a test system I guess, but we need it for critical systems (Oophaga, Bit) and probably for Infrastructure (the current proposal) [09:18:55] So let's see if it is so important for CAcerrt that we need a contract to have an availability giarantee [09:19:14] the proposal of the previous board -- not well documented I guess -- was that we wanted to get around 3 different setups so that we had the agility to move VMs around. [09:20:14] can I entertain the board with a couple of yes/no questions to gasp a where we are? [09:20:21] Can I summarize? [09:20:34] Dan, yes, please do, that was the reason I wanted to summarize [09:20:57] 1. do we need some infrastructure? [09:21:07] yes [09:21:09] yes [09:21:17] yes [09:21:21] yes, probably [09:21:24] till now I understand we need [09:21:41] 2. is this the offer of intrastruture suitable here [09:21:47] yes [09:22:09] yes [09:22:11] 3. do we want a contract? [09:22:13] in technical terms, the offer of adfinis is fine [09:22:26] yes to 3 [09:22:29] not sure, I need to rely on the opinion of the Infrastructure leader to see if it suits our need [09:22:30] yes [09:22:32] yes (3) [09:22:58] 4. does juristiction matter? [09:23:05] to 3: prefer not, but we need something [09:23:12] I would say no to 3 if you mean a written contract, signed by board. *we* don't need a contract, but it is noted that the hoster probably prefers a contract. [09:23:12] to 4: yes [09:23:27] 4, yes [09:23:30] to 4: generally no [09:23:34] no to 4 [09:23:49] 4, yes. needs at least discussion [09:24:25] (feel free to add questions - I think I'm almost out) [09:24:34] as an extreme example, if we were to setup a contract and server in Cuba or Iran ... it might annoy some governments [09:24:47] Dan, the contract itself is not the issue, the issue is when it goes wrong (we do not provide enough logo, or they do not provide uptime) [09:25:16] @iang: let's focus on the proposal at hand, I don't think we want to host in Cuba [09:25:44] (although, I am willing to go there for a month to install systems :-) ) [09:25:50] 5 are we offering too much? [09:26:33] 5 (don't know) [09:26:41] right now we are offering stuff we cannot really present right now. [09:26:44] at 5: Dan, I don't know yet. That's why I would like to have some items defined in more detail, or at least start with the general idea [09:26:51] 5 we might be, but I cannot tell for sure [09:27:21] 5 also, I don't have a feeling for Michael's views here, so I don't know if it is important or not to him. [09:27:27] like: we like to use the offer, and are willing to promote adfinis by adding their logon on the website, like we do with others [09:27:39] The way it's written now seems a bit open to me [09:28:20] Or maybe have a maximum amount of liability [09:28:23] or... [09:29:19] to some extent, I don't think it matters if we "oversupply" ... as long as the community is happy to do that [09:29:20] My biggest issue now is I don't want to commit to something that might harm CAcert in the end [09:29:56] for example, if all the ATEs get run with their logo on the warmup screen (speaking hypothetically here) then that will go a long way to meeting the value ...may even exceed it [09:30:03] @iang: what do you mean with "oversupply"? [09:30:19] ok [09:30:25] oversupply == deliver a value in excess of what we receive from them [09:30:54] I'm happy to "oversupply" as long as it does not hurt CAcert [09:31:19] although, we have to be minded to also treat others fairly. but that is easy if we are talking about the ATE warmup slide .. just add the extra logos [09:31:44] we might consider having more sponsors in future. so we need to keep the contract at a level which we can also offer to others [09:31:47] in your example: if all our presentations would mandatory include a few slides on our sponsors, it would hurt CAcert, since people will start to ask questions [09:32:17] do you mean, would question CAcert's independence? [09:32:49] If, otoh our last slide would include the logos of our sponsors, it's no big deal [09:33:15] Q, it's not mandatory [09:33:42] contract also is specifing last slide [09:33:50] @dan , ernie: in the emails it was suggested that having a logo on the web site, like our other sponsors, would satisfy their needs. Can you confirm that? [09:34:26] Q, yes [09:36:16] Ok, I'd like to finish this topic, however, not without a clear way to progress this. [09:36:17] It seems we still need a few changes and clarifications, but the consensus seems that we do not mind such a contract, as long as the impact for CAcert is known and acceptable [09:36:23] Am I correct? [09:36:34] yes [09:36:45] yes [09:36:55] i'm not part of that consensus, but I can see that the consensus exists [09:37:00] Iang? [09:37:01] ok [09:37:03] Law? [09:37:10] yes [09:38:40] Ok. Next steps: we need work on the contract. Can we create a small group (3-5) to prepare this? Or do we need the full board to get involved? (input of all is always appreciated, of course) [09:38:59] I would prefer the latter, full board, full visibility. [09:39:35] I'd like to have it in a wiki, so that we all see what's in it. Better than all the separate emails [09:39:39] but, I don't see it as much of an issue, if we wikify it [09:39:50] Ok. [09:40:08] only 3-5 board members are likely to participate so i don't see much difference [09:40:39] Dan, Ernie, you were both involved. Can one of you handle the wiki? [09:40:58] ok - i will [09:41:19] mhh - the sponsor had no problem to send pdf - but we must ask, if he agree to post in the wiki [09:41:21] I suggest we then let the editing be done by you, please email all changes you make to the board, so we can keep track [09:41:22] Another step ... would it be a good idea to have Michael indicate what he thinks is important? Perhaps a phone call? [09:41:48] ernie: why is that? [09:41:53] @ernie: I'm suggesting a private wiki, not for everyone [09:42:15] iang: lets get or own view ready before we over communicate with michael [09:42:23] maybe he will not have, you have to ask both involved parties, and one is he [09:42:36] the contract is on the public board list, so whatss the problem? [09:42:58] @iang: that's not uncommon for contracts: for instance a PDF is not changeable, you can always point back to the original [09:43:05] i'm seeing the wiki as a structured discussion - not a redraft of the entire contract [09:43:27] law, pdf google will not find, wiki will be found [09:43:40] Ok, Ernie, can you ask Michael if he agrees? It would be the fastest way to get progress [09:43:45] hmmm... i thought google found PDFs these days? [09:44:05] ernie: think ians right ^ [09:44:15] google also spiders pdf [09:44:44] or is the board list archive not indexed by search engines? [09:44:46] this is one of those points that I dont' understand ... the agreement will be public in the end, so I don't see what is commercially sensitive about the negotiations [09:45:10] and I am wondering if we need to hear from Michael what his sensitivities are [09:45:50] we also have a duty to other sponsors to make the negotiations fair .... which probably means open [09:46:21] @iang: end contract will be open [09:46:55] But during negotiations there might be info that's seen as sensitive by them [09:47:17] plus .... the discussion will lead to a general framework that should be applyable to other sponsors [09:47:24] Q, agree with you [09:47:50] iang, somewhere is also a reason why it is so hard to find sponsors [09:47:59] Q: I agree with both of those points ... but I think we need to know what that info is, and what that sensitivity is [09:48:21] Ok, let's rephrase my question: Ernie, can you inform Michael that we will wikify the contract, to enable discussion regarding the items in it, and let him get back if he disapproves? [09:48:57] Q, I will do [09:49:08] Good [09:49:19] With that I'd like to finish this topic. [09:49:43] can we summarise the points? [09:49:49] Summary: Ernie will inform Michael, Dan will set up a wiki, we send comments to Dan, and he informs us of changes [09:50:24] i'll sort of structure the wiki for comments properly if michael agree. we'll see how it goes from there [09:50:59] @iang: did I miss anything in the summary? [09:51:42] I would clarify that the wiki page at this stage is a list of our desires in the contract, rather than a redrafting of the contract? [09:52:04] ack there too [09:52:09] Hmm, good point [09:52:31] and, add, that we are all requested to contribute [09:52:37] Would be best to clearly define what our desires are, then later include that into the contract [09:52:52] Will add that as action in the list... [09:53:27] Anything else on this subject? [09:53:46] Then, question time [09:53:52] I don't see anything else. [09:54:19] I see GR, hugi, and magu. Anyone of you have questions? [09:55:05] I take that as a no [09:55:15] I have a question, is that also allowed? [09:55:25] sure [09:55:28] i have on general comment, being that the Minutes for the AGM are now up in their first cut form: https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/General_Meetings/AGM-20100130/Minutes-20100130-AGM.html ... I'll add it to the next agenda for discussion. [09:55:41] Good, thanks [09:56:43] Question for Dan: your proposal for KSplice. Does that cover Infrastructure only? [09:56:51] ref agm minutes : why not just leave it in the membership associal forum. [09:57:13] Q: yes - wytze wasn't keen on it for critical - at least for now [09:58:30] (to be honest: I wouldn't want automatic patching for critical systems: look what a certain virus update program did... Also, all changes for critical systems, including patches, must go through approval IMHO) [09:58:34] dan: what do you mean? the document or the discussion? [09:59:09] both - i see document is already there - thanks [09:59:36] also, bringing in code & patching from a non-community member is quite troubling ... I'm not sure how we'd audit such a thing for critical systems [09:59:37] @dan, I think we have to look at it before sending out [10:00:04] so discussing it in a meeting seems appropriate [10:00:19] From there on it's the CAcert Inc Members [10:00:46] I thought about that a bit ... as to whether the Board should have first sight of it [10:01:01] Ok, that was my question for Ksplice [10:01:04] I have another [10:01:27] (Minutes of AGM) but the membership were already invited to write it anyway so it seemed to be not worth the effort of slowing things down [10:01:53] We currently have a IRC-only meeting. This often takes longer than needed, because we don't know if the rest is waiting or typing long sentences [10:02:10] or getting more coffee :-) [10:02:50] I propose we include a voice-channel as well, if only for synchronisation. Something like skype. (we'd need to keep the IRC for logs) [10:03:09] Is anyone opposed to trying this for once? [10:03:36] heppy to try [10:03:46] we used to use Skype for the "management subcommittee" meetings every week in around 2007-2008. it worked out OK, but with each additional voice added it tended to get a bit worse [10:04:05] what was a workable limit? [10:04:06] could try... [10:04:33] Also, I think Mark and Philipp D might have some experience in this area, we should ping them for ideas [10:04:40] ok [10:04:54] was it a technical or a coordination problem? [10:04:59] Happy to try anything, just want to get these meetings more efficient [10:05:04] dan: in my experience, 3-4 ... [10:05:09] yes, I'm happy to try [10:05:50] I would suggest we turn off video :-) [10:06:47] Yeah, you wouldn't want to see me now... [10:07:37] Anyone else with a question? [10:08:01] (see, now I have to wait, with skype you could all yell "No!") [10:08:16] on Ksplice [10:08:27] Yes? [10:08:56] Dan: I didn't understand the part about it being open on some distros but not on other distros? Did I understand that part wrong? [10:09:36] what meens open? Without a fee? [10:09:47] to be honest, I was intrigued as well, seemed like if we switched to another Linux distro it would be for free [10:10:02] the code it open source. the kernel binary patches are the service that is cost driven on some distros [10:10:59] So it would be free if we switched distro's? [10:11:30] or it would be free, if we created our own patches from the open source? [10:11:30] Q, ubuntu is free, debian - what most enterprises will use, is a fee for the service [10:11:45] (but the cost of switching existing machines is probably higher than the current fee) [10:12:15] i don't have the time to switch distros - espicially on the host. I barely have enough time to maintain build systems. [10:12:27] http://www.ksplice.com/pricing [10:12:43] I certainly agree that we shouldn't be switching distros for that reason, it's not cost-effective [10:12:50] @iang: we'd need a lot of effort for that as well, buying would probably be cheaper, and more up-to-date [10:13:17] Q: certainly ... i'm just trying to understand this model, it isn't clear as yet [10:13:21] (I know what to vote now :-) ) [10:13:30] as ernie said the fee isn't that much. Noone complained about paying association late fees so I'm not sure why $120 is all of a sudden important [10:13:36] also, i'm trying to contrast this to our principles [10:13:52] one of the principles is that we use open source ... GPL preferred I guess, by many. [10:13:57] law: what was your objection? [10:14:16] it is gpl [10:14:25] so as long as this is all GPL ... and what we are purchasing is a service, not software, then this seems fine [10:14:33] @iang: it's gpl, we don't pay for the SW, but for the service [10:14:43] another is that some people have pushed that all the stuff should be done for free. [10:15:10] Not sure... Maybe about spending some money. But I am about to change my vote - just got to a point where I see a real benefit. [10:15:15] with notable exceptions ... so this has not really become a principle as yet ... more a desired strategy [10:15:20] Dan, can we have an evaluation after 6 months? [10:15:37] we've already done a 4 month evaluation [10:16:19] So it's been running for 4 months now? [10:16:23] yes [10:16:57] Without informing the board? O boy, good you're not managing the critical systems ;-) [10:17:32] Q: Are you kidding? [10:17:38] Ok, anything else, then I'd like to finsih with deciding the date for the next meeting [10:17:41] lol... [10:17:43] :_) [10:17:58] yes, please, I would prefer the date & time question be clarified [10:18:09] We have a proposal from Dan to do skip the next meeting [10:18:39] what is the logic for that? [10:18:58] sort of on the proviso that a bit more email discussion occurs on some elements. just allocate the meeting time length at your own time and dedicate it to cacert [10:18:59] So we have the next meeting at Sunday 30 may [10:19:19] and as a catch up for action times. [10:19:54] I can't see that working ... but I guess it is up to the majority [10:20:10] logic is that the last few meeting have been slow to achive not much. a few more early responses could of quashed some issues earlier and quicker [10:20:41] i see the problem that the agenda will grow with skipping meetings [10:20:54] well, that's potentially true. But we just saw some very long responses on the Contract issue that didn't really resolve the discussion [10:21:11] to put items on the agenda, without to define a outcome, makes not much sense [10:21:12] so the alternate case is equally plausible [10:21:45] another possibility is to designate a non-meeting meeting place ... e.g., this IRC room ... [10:22:06] in that if we have discussions, we can simply dive in here and discuss [10:22:24] (I'm just throwing it out there as a suggestion, don't know if it will work) [10:22:45] Let's just raise hands: when if favor of skipping next meeting, please reply with May 30, otherwise reply with May 16 [10:22:53] May 16 [10:23:00] may 16 [10:23:04] 30th [10:23:10] May 30 [10:23:21] Chair has deciding vote :) [10:23:22] Hmm [10:23:58] So far the two-week meetings did not bring enough progress, I suggest we try and skip one [10:24:02] may 30 [10:24:02] if items are not prepared before, and the expections are defined before (as we had in the past), the meetings are too long [10:24:27] may 30 it is then. [10:24:27] But we can discuss items, like Ian proposed, I like that as a suggestion as well [10:24:34] Or maybe skype more? [10:24:52] Then I hereby close the meeting [10:24:53] how about the time? 22:00 ? [10:25:11] if sunday, one hour earlier normally [10:25:19] I do not have many of you in skype. My name is lipinski.biz [10:25:29] it's midnight 22 UTC at our time [10:26:03] Dan, you were late, is one hour earlier doable? starting at midnight on a Sunday is not good for me... [10:26:05] so you want UTC 21:00 to get CET 22:00 ? fine by me, but it's an early start here in Oz [10:26:06] 2100 is fine my me. i'll set an alarm [10:26:23] or we made on saturday [10:26:57] :-) [10:26:57] Sunday, 21.00 UTC [10:27:07] i think it also makes sense to stick to one day ... but let's discuss that next time [10:27:10] And we aim for a faster meeting [10:27:25] Do we introduce skype as well? [10:27:26] iang, we have summer-time now, means 22:00 is midnight, and for work on monday a little bit late [10:27:49] ok [10:27:54] skype should be an interesting experiment [10:28:08] dan, what is your skype handle? [10:28:21] grooverdan i think [10:28:35] yes [10:28:49] Before we exchange all skype handles in public, we could also send out handles to board -private [10:29:17] or the key person's list [10:29:48] Even better! [10:30:37] Ok, need to go and get bsome sleep. Good thing tomorrow is Sunday... [10:30:40] Bye [10:30:49] ok, later [10:31:03] bye = meeting offically close