[20:37] Q: As mentioned before I'd like to try the voice channel.
[20:38] Q: This is available via a teamspeak server (www.teamspeak.com includes clients)
[20:39] Q: You can connect to game2.hobby.nl:9993
[20:39] Q: Channel "CAcert Board", no password needed
[20:40] Q: Meeting starts in 20 minutes, right?
[20:43] magu| joined the chat room.
[20:44] iang: i am connected in to channel, but cannot type ... was there something to fix up at server end?
[20:45] dirk joined the chat room.
[20:45] dirk: ping
[20:46] Q: Hi Dirk, pong
[20:46] Q: Ian, you seem to be connected to the default channel
[20:46] magu|: ping
[20:47] Q: pong
[20:47] iang: I am connected, but hear nothing as yet
[20:48] dirk_g1 joined the chat room.
[20:48] Q: you're in the default channel, not in the "CAcert Board", just double click on the other channel
[20:50] iang: ok, I'm into teamspeak Board channel
[20:50] Q: Law, are you there?
[20:51] Q: nb are you there?
[20:52] Q: Ernie, are you there?
[20:52] markl joined the chat room.
[20:56] Q: Dirk, hugi, magu, you're aware we're trying a voice channel in paralel? IRC is leading, but voice in intended to help synchronize
[20:57] Q: You can access it via teamspeak, server game2.hobby.nl:9993, channel "CAcert Board"
[20:58] law: Hi. Yes.
[21:02] Q: Law, do you have access to teamspeak?
[21:03] law: just setting up...
[21:05] Q: It's now 21.04 UTC
[21:05] Q: I'd like to start the meeting
[21:05] markl: ok
[21:05] iang: ftr, is record-feature on for teamspeak?
[21:06] Q: Yes, can do
[21:06] Q: One moment
[21:07] Q: Teamspeak is recording
[21:07] Q: I hereby open the meeting
[21:08] Q: I see present Law, Markl, Iang, and myself (Q, or Lambert)
[21:08] Q: Accept minutes,
[21:09] Q: Has everyone read the minutes, and can we accept them?
[21:10] law: I would abstain anyhow, since I did not attend the meeting.
[21:10] iang: ok, it is not clear to me that minutes prepared 24 hours before the meeting give a fair chance to read and use them, nor prepare for the foundation of the next meeting
[21:11] Q: I myself have not yet been able to read
[21:11] markl: perhaps defer acceptance?
[21:11] iang: agree, defer
[21:11] Q: Yes, let's defer acceptance
[21:11] iang: fwiw, i can do the meetings for this meeting
[21:11] Q: That would be great
[21:12] Q: I'll send you the voice transcript as well, although the important items must be in the IRC transcript
[21:12] iang: nod
[21:12] Q: Next item
[21:12] Q: Uregent business.
[21:12] Q: I tink we need confirmation from all board members to start this, right?
[21:13] markl: We need the unanimous consent of all the members at this meeting.
[21:13] law: fine for me.
[21:13] iang: yes.  although I see the item as flexible, I personally see these questions:
[21:13] iang:   a.  follow-up w/ Michael?
[21:13] iang:   a.  clarification of positions on outstanding questions?
[21:13] iang:   a.  arrangement in place, now and earlier?
[21:13] iang:   a.  is Board in a position to enter into such a contract?
[21:13] iang: I move that the urgent business, to add "adfinis contract and related issues" to the agenda
[21:13] Q: Ok, fine with me
[21:13] markl: I second, and aye.
[21:14] Q: aye
[21:14] Q: So everyone here agrees
[21:14] iang: mario?
[21:14] law: aye
[21:15] Q: So we'll put this at the end of the agenda
[21:16] Q: Ian, item 2.1
[21:16] Q: you have the floor
[21:16] iang: Policy Group has reached a milestone in passing into DRAFT (at least) the full set of policies that are essential to face audit.
[21:16] iang: More on the blog:  https://blog.cacert.org/2010/06/474.html
[21:16] iang: The list of contributors was taken from an early draft of a wiki-scraping script.  SInce then, I've upgraded the script and the wiki page to cover the entire history back to 2007, when Policy on Policy passed the baton across from the Board to the group.
[21:16] iang:        https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/policy_group_decisions_summary.html    
[21:16] iang: Input into future directions is requested on the policy group, as we no longer have a clear target to aim for.  There are competing directions: Assurance subpols like the TTP-Assisted Assurance, Organisation Assurance, revisions, and taking DRAFTs to POLICY.
[21:16] iang: As Philipp has mentioned, Security Policy is now in DRAFT, and it will go to POLICY in due course.  I'm thinking about 3 months after.
[21:16] iang: (END)
[21:17] Q: What is now expected from the board?
[21:17] iang: nothing in particular, it is more a notification, and entering into minutes
[21:18] iang: a team report, if you like
[21:18] Q: Good, thanks.
[21:18] markl: Thanks for the report, Ian.
[21:18] Q: Let's continue with the next item, 2.2
[21:19] Q: Ian, you have the floor
[21:19] iang: As we get to End of Financial Year 20100630, this means two things:  Annual Report can now be written, which amounts to mostly the last 6 months, because the previous six months was written already.  Also, it is good to have a look at the "forward looking statement" and consider progress, and/or lack of same, and/or what alternatives should be offered into the next report.
[21:22] Q: So, actions for us:
[21:22] iang: 1.  read the parts in the report from last year
[21:22] iang: 2.  think about progress, and what to do with next 6months
[21:22] iang: 3.  start preparing (or thinking) the next report for November / December AGM
[21:23] dan joined the chat room.
[21:24] Q left the chat room. (Excess Flood)
[21:24] iang: OFT submission of paperwork needs 14 days
[21:25] iang: which would put a bound on of about mid-november
[21:25] markl: end of Sept or beginning of Nov would be ideal for the AGM, in my opinion
[21:25] Q joined the chat room.
[21:25] Q: hi, got disconnected
[21:26] Q: So, summary: we need to prepare for a AGM by november
[21:27] iang: Q left the chat room. (Excess Flood)
[21:27] iang: [07:24am] iang: OFT submission of paperwork needs 14 days
[21:27] iang: [07:25am] iang: which would put a bound on of about mid-november
[21:27] iang: [07:25am] markl: end of Sept or beginning of Nov would be ideal for the AGM, in my opinion
[21:28] Q: Markl: why not october?
[21:28] markl: oops, I meant end of Oct/beginning of Nov
[21:28] Q: ok
[21:28] iang: well spotted 
[21:28] markl: managed to lose a whole month 
[21:28] iang: dan, you're microphone appears active
[21:29] iang: s/appears/sounds/ .. now it is off
[21:30] dan: if its active i still can't hear anything
[21:30] iang: let's add the item to next board meeting / for treasurer, etc.
[21:30] Q: So summary: plan for end of oct/begin of nov., add action item to our list?
[21:30] Q: Yes, ok
[21:30] law: dan:  its we are active and even cannot hear you...
[21:30] iang: yes, cool
[21:31] markl: we can hear you, Dan
[21:31] iang: dan, you are active
[21:31] Q: Ok, next item
[21:32] iang: I entered these ideas earlier:
[21:32] iang:   a.  follow-up w/ Michael?
[21:32] iang:   a.  clarification of positions on outstanding questions?
[21:32] iang:   a.  arrangement in place, now and earlier?
[21:32] iang:   a.  is Board in a position to enter into such a contract?
[21:33] iang: i lost connection to teamspeak
[21:34] iang: hmmm, is everyone having trouble or just me?
[21:37] iang: i may be back?
[21:37] Q: Yes. Dan, since this item (Adfinis) was entered within 48 hours before the start of the meeting, we need everyone's consent (everyone who is in the meeting)
[21:37] Q: Do you agree discussing this item?
[21:37] dan: i can't see any point - seems everyone has their optinion already and i dont' want to go over the same old shit
[21:37] • dan stil cant' hear
[21:37] Q: Does that mean you don't want us to discuss the item right now? In that case we're done, but it doesn't get us any progress.
[21:37] law: iang:  seems just you
[21:37] markl: as a point of order, we decided to add it to the agenda unanimously with the people at the meeting at the time, it's now already on the agenda
[21:37] Q: Yes, you're right
[21:37] Q: Ian, you entered 4 items
[21:37] Q: We currently have a sponsorship proposal
[21:37] markl: looks like Ian might be having connectivity issues
[21:37] Q: what I like to get out of today's meeting is a motion where we can vote whether we acceot or reject the current proposal
[21:38] Q: I know there are a lot of items to be discussed, but I like to stick to the main question: do we want the sponsorship?
[21:38] markl: like I said in my email, I don't think we can make it that black and white
[21:39] dan: great non-decision
[21:39] markl: of course we want the sponsorship, but we must also consider the contract we're agreeing to
[21:39] law: I think it is a little bit too late for discussing the whole contract now again. It is on the boards table for two month now, w/o much action from us.
[21:40] markl: law: not much action because we've been told we can't make any changes
[21:40] Q: So, can we split this into separate items:
[21:40] Q: 1) do we like the offer?
[21:40] Q: 2) what can we offer in return?
[21:40] iang: so, one of the points was to establish if that is indeed the case
[21:40] dan: law: how would you like to proceed?
[21:41] iang: whether the position remains that we cannot change the contract / or there are no changes possible
[21:41] iang: Q:  I think we established last time that your 1) is a Yes.
[21:41] Q: Let us for the record assume we cannot change the contract, what would be your answer for the above two questions?
[21:42] law: I'd like to see some action. A new version of the contract. Maybe have some native speaker to reword it completely. But primary get the agreed changes in, have a version we as board somehow can accept and submit it to adfinis for feedback.
[21:42] markl: law: that would be nice, but every attempt to reach out to both Andreas and the sponsor concerning changes to the agreement have been met with a quite definite "take it or leave it" message
[21:42] iang: For 2) there is the logo-on-web page, which we can do;  Ulrich has signalled that ATEs can include a sponsorship page of some form.
[21:43] law: especially I do not see something to bad in a rewording, if it is not changing the intentions of the current contract - but that is only my pov.
[21:46] Q: What are the real issues with the current draft that would in your mind be blocking?
[21:46] iang: Also, for 2) andreas has signalled that he would coordinate leaflets.
[21:46] Q: Something that might hurt CAcert more that the value of the offer?
[21:47] markl: I think the Wiki has many of the concerns already, too, so we should take note of that page.
[21:47] markl:        http://wiki.cacert.org/Technology/Laboratory/Hardware/InfrastructureHost/Bern/Contract    
[21:48] markl: the overarching issue is that it drafted in very poor terms
[21:48] Q: Ok, I'd like to look at it from a pragmatic point of view:
[21:48] iang: Still on 2) having done some research, the consensus in the Foundations community is that the exchange should be limited to a single logo on a non-major page.  That is, a token presence, not a substantial marketing effort as is described in the contract
[21:48] Q: 1) we like the offer
[21:48] Q: 2) we need to provide something in return: we can discuss that or ask one or two board members to come up with a proposal
[21:49] Q: and 3) we see issues in the way the contract is worded.
[21:49] markl: it lacks specificity where specificity is required... the language used is imprecise, and creates many, many points for misunderstandings, which could result in the withdrawal of the services that would be provided to us or a legal disagreement
[21:49] dan: folks - this isn't the time to add new stuff. wording was only an issue raised very recently.
[21:49] markl: dan: wording is raised throughout that wiki page
[21:50] dan: i'm not prepared to spend hours on this dribble - have a good day
[21:50] Q: Markl: if the only risk we see rising from this agreement is the termination, would that be a show-stopper for you?
[21:50] dan left the chat room. (life lost - quest to regain commences)
[21:50] markl: Q: if we migrate essential services to this host, then yes
[21:51] Q: It seems something we should be prepared for anyhow
[21:51] law: What are essential service? Are mail, wiki by example essential for us?
[21:51] Q: Markl: we already agreed we cannot migrate critical systems here, because of us not able to access and controll the physical servers
[21:52] iang: I would say that mail is essential for us because it is written into so many processes
[21:52] Q: And we should be prepared to "fail-over" to another environment anyhow
[21:52] iang: wiki is essential for arbitration, but this might change at some point with advent of PD's proposed automation of case management
[21:52] Q: So we can keep a server in bit running virtual machines
[21:52] markl: some of the things being proposed to be moved there are clearly essential, like mail and the wiki... they're the lifeblood of our communications
[21:52] Q: or in another location
[21:53] law: I have the feeling we do not have the (especially human) resources for now to do so. Desirable in future: yes.
[21:53] markl: there is also nothing in the agreement concerning how any information on the servers would be handled in the event of termination
[21:53] Q: Ok, if I approach it from another angle: what is the alternative?
[21:53] law: Do we really need to care? I guess we encrypt anyhow.
[21:54] iang: alternative:  do you mean alternative to the adfinis?
[21:54] markl: there is another issue, a more serious one... CAcert, Inc. and Adfinis GmbH are both subject to the CAcert Community Agreement... which means we each have an agreement to arbitrate our disputes using the DRP
[21:54] markl: we have Sonance already agreed to by this board
[21:54] iang: we have Sonance VMs.  There is also a potential of another Vienna server (not sure what status is)
[21:55] iang: I have put forward an idea that HCC be asked to help us ... we can provide a machine to them, and they could potentially host.
[21:55] markl: so it's not as though we're at the brink of our capacity and desperately in need of more options... yes, additional hosting is desirable, but we shouln't accept an otherwise bad agreement for the sake of any kind of imagined urgency
[21:55] Q: Also: if we create an addendum to the contract, with a clear processes in case of termination, that would also be seen as a professional approach
[21:55] iang: but, it is a bit broader than that in that there are HR ramification
[21:56] markl: Q: but both Andreas and Michael have indicated that they're not prepared to entertain changes beyond two clauses relating to the advertising
[21:57] law: markl:  I guess we can make an agreement outside of DRP. If I do some regular business with another CAcert emmber, this is not within DRP either..
[21:57] Q: iang: I can see that (HCC) only as a temporary solution. It's in the same datacenter
[21:57] markl: law: but if it's related to CAcert, you cannot
[21:58] law: markl:  then we should look for a sponsor who is not community member?
[21:59] markl: law: that's one possibility, the other is to make agreements with community members within our community, which includes DRP
[22:00] Q: I'm not sure the DRP is vital: we can see Afinis as just another supplier, we don't have a DRP link to the bank
[22:00] iang: markl:  yes, I see that as sufficient.  I wouldn't rule out other arrangements like the adfinis model
[22:01] iang: adfinis is a member, and is also Organisation Assurance assured as far as I know
[22:01] Q: The members would be protected anyhow, since it is an agreement between adfinis and cacert inc.
[22:03] markl: CAcert Inc and Adfinis are both members of the community, no different than you or I individually being members of the community
[22:13] dirk left the chat room. (Quit: [https://irc.cacert.org]  )
[22:14] dirk joined the chat room.
[22:22] dirk: silence?
[22:22] iang: dirk: we are using the teamspeak 
[22:36] dirk_g1 left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
[22:39] dirk_g1 joined the chat room.
[22:42] Q: Summary of discusion on teamspeak:
[22:42] markl: how about somehting like this:
[22:42] markl: It is the committee's opinion that the current CCA prohibits us from entering into an agreement with another CAcert Community Member which excludes our dispute resolution policy.
[22:42] markl: This prevents us from entering into an agreement with Adfinis GmbH at this time which specifies a dispute resolution forum.
[22:42] markl: The board will seek further discussions with Adfinis with a view to redrafting the proposed agreement to take this in to account, and will refer the matter to the policy group for their consideration.
[22:43] magu joined the chat room.
[22:44] Q: The issue is not Swiss law (like we have to comply with Swiss telecom laws) but our DRP currently preventing arbitration as a way to solve disputes
[22:44] Q: Right?
[22:44] markl: correct, we can agree to abide by Swiss law
[22:45] magu|1 joined the chat room.
[22:45] iang: yes, I agree, the issue is not Swiss law per se.  Swiss law is as it is, and our presence there is a matter for them to decide or not, we can't change that
[22:45] Q: Ehh, DRP is preventing bypassing arbitration to solve issues (is what I ment)
[22:45] iang: and (as Mark says) adfinis is without a doubt acting under swiss law
[22:45] markl: to be exact, the CCA prevents bypassing the DRP
[22:45] magu_ left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
[22:46] magu| left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
[22:47] markl: It is the committee's opinion that the current CCA prohibits us from entering into an agreement with another CAcert Community Member which excludes our dispute resolution policy.
[22:47] markl: This prevents us from entering into an agreement with Adfinis GmbH at this time which specifies a dispute resolution forum.
[22:47] markl: The committee will seek further discussions with Adfinis with a view to redrafting the proposed agreement to take this in to account, and will refer the matter to the policy group for their consideration.
[22:47] markl: The committee further recognises that any hosting agreement will be subject to local law (Swiss, in this case), and does not take issue with this.
[22:52] Q: Next steps?
[22:52] Q: Do we need to vote on this?
[22:52] iang: yes, I would like a motion becaues we need to refer it to policy group
[22:53] iang: the policy group will be much happier with a substantial motion 
[22:53] markl: I move the following motion:
[22:53] markl: It is the committee's opinion that the current CCA prohibits us from entering into an agreement with another CAcert Community Member which excludes our dispute resolution policy.
[22:53] markl: This prevents us from entering into an agreement with Adfinis GmbH at this time which specifies a dispute resolution forum.
[22:53] markl: The committee will seek further discussions with Adfinis with a view to redrafting the proposed agreement to take this in to account, and will refer the matter to the policy group for their consideration.
[22:53] markl: The committee further recognises that any hosting agreement will be subject to local law (Swiss, in this case), and does not take issue with this.
[22:53] iang: Seconded and Aye
[22:53] markl: aye
[22:59] Q: This issue puts us in a difficult situation, and needs quite some thought to get this sorted.
[23:00] Q: so we need to get this sorted out soon, thus allowing us to enter into this type of contracts in the near future
[23:00] Q: But for now an aye
[23:01] Q: Who can draft a half-pager describing exactly what this problem is, and why it needs to be sorted real soon?
[23:01] law: aye, If this is really a problem imho CCA needs to be fixed asap.
[23:01] markl: I'm entering this into the motions system.
[23:02] iang: i can take it to policy group, but am happy for anyone to beat me on that
[23:02] Q: iang: I'd like the short description first
[23:02] Q: That would allow us to ask the policy group
[23:09] Q: Who will draft the summary describing the problem?
[23:10] markl: I can...
[23:10] Q: ok, please send it to the board-list
[23:10] iang: i can try as well, but I'm guessing mark's will be better 
[23:10] iang: i also have the minutes to write 
[23:12] Q: With that I'd like to close this subject
[23:13] Q: Any questions ?
[23:13] iang: dirk:  have you managed to install teamspeak?
[23:15] Q: If there is no one else, I have a question: do you think the voice channel helps?
[23:18] markl: yes, I think it does help, but will be interesting to see how it goes with more people present
[23:18] Q: Ok, will try to convert the log to a MP3 and send it to the board members
[23:18] law: I think it helps us to dicuss faster
[23:18] Q: Anything else?
[23:19] Q: Ok, I'd like to confirm the next meeting. Do we need one in two weeks or can we delay one?
[23:26] iang: we need to discuss what to do with the voice record.  I would suggest that the voice record be deleted once the minutes are approved, and also the agreement is established that the voice record is not to be used after that date, being entirely replaced by the meeting minutes.
[23:26] Q: agree
[23:27] Q: So, next meeting on Sunday July 4. 21.00 UTC.
[23:27] iang: my sense here is that it is somewhat the better wisdom that we extract the real intention into the minutes, and reduce the opportunity for later random snippets to be trawled out and thrown out there.  I see that as just a waste of time, an opportunity to burn other people's cycles.
[23:27] markl: iang: agreed
[23:27] Q: I won't be able to make that meeting though
[23:28] Q: If there is nothing else I'd like to close the meeting