15:24 < BrianMcCullough> Nick, should we be here ( as I suspect ) or on #CaCert-SGM, which also has some of the same names? 15:35 < iang> SGM is the correct channel, the info on the wiki was incorrectly copied by me from the procedures of 2 years ago 20:33 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> Is there anyone in this room who can tell me who will be our meeting chair? This seems to be a well-kept secret so far in the tons of e-mail 20:33 < NickBebout> i would assume our vicepresident/acting president/president whatever evaldo is 20:33 < NickBebout> if he is here 20:33 -!- Mat_64 [...] has joined #SGM 20:34 -!- PhilippDunkel [...] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds] 20:34 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> He is in the room, but has been idle for 1h 45 minutes 20:35 -!- PhilippDunkel_ is now known as PhilippDunkel 20:37 -!- Anonymous834 [...] has joined #SGM 20:38 < BasvandenDikkenberg> wake up mister president 20:38 < IanGriggNumber2> does anyone have operator here? can anyone start putting the Voice up? 20:39 < NickBebout> RobertKochheim, has op 20:39 < NickBebout> and AlexanderPrinsier 20:39 -!- Mat_64 is now known as Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage 20:39 < RobertKochheim> Eveldo is marked as idle can transfer 20:40 < RobertKochheim> can = can't 20:41 < BasvandenDikkenberg> robbert type "/mode * +o BasvandenDikkenberg" and i wil fix it 20:41 < RobertKochheim> Let Evaldo wake up 1st 20:42 < WernerDworak> Woh has present the chair? Who will final chair for the elections? 20:44 < BasvandenDikkenberg> 16 min 20:44 < IanGriggNumber2> AndreasBaess: could you close your vote in the Vote room and open an "election 20:44 < IanGriggNumber2> so people can try that 20:45 < PhilippDunkel> And can someone promote the VoteBot to operator for that channel 20:46 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> VoteBot is off-line 20:46 < RobertKochheim> If Evaldo does not wake up i propose that Mark chairs the meeting anyone against that? 20:47 -!- mode/#SGM [+o ] by RobertKochheim 20:48 < IanGriggNumber2> I second that. Do we need to vote on it? 20:48 < MarkLipscombe> we need to wait until the meeting time in any event 20:48 -!- Anonymous834 [...] has quit [Quit: [https://irc.cacert.org] ] 20:49 -!- BugBlue [...] has joined #SGM 20:49 -!- PhilippGuehring [...] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds] 20:49 < NickBebout> IIRC, the meeting can appoint a chair if it wants 20:49 < PhilippDunkel> Ok by me 20:49 * NickBebout needs to look at rules 20:49 -!- ted [...] has joined #SGM 20:49 < MarkLipscombe> yes, it can... but we need to wait 11 mins :) 20:49 -!- TomekP [...] has joined #SGM 20:49 -!- ted is now known as BernhardFroehlich 20:50 < MatthiasSubik> t - 10 min 20:50 < PhilippDunkel> Could everyone who has not done so change their nicks to FirstnameLastname 20:50 < PhilippDunkel> Makes it easier to se who is who 20:50 < NickBebout> PhilippDunkel, do you want me to change to NicholasBebout? 20:50 < andreasbuerki> all lower-case is fine as well? 20:50 < GaryLeeAdams> Rule 29 would permit us to appoint a chair only if Evaldo doesn't show up or declines to chair the SGM. 20:50 -!- BugBlue is now known as MendelMobach 20:50 -!- CAcert [...] has joined #SGM 20:50 < NickBebout> GaryLeeAdams, ok 20:51 < BasvandenDikkenberg> hi mendel 20:51 < WernerDworak> Common short forms like Nick are ok, I think, only strenfe phantasy names avoided 20:51 * MendelMobach is not a member, am I allowed here? 20:51 < PhilippDunkel> There seems to be a vote going on. I recommend, we start that process by anouncing it here on this list first 20:52 < PhilippDunkel> Mendel: You are allowed to watch 20:52 < NickBebout> MendelMobach, i believe you are welcome to watch, just not participate 20:52 -!- lance is now known as LanceDavis 20:52 < MendelMobach> thank you 20:52 < WernerDworak> Who tests who is entitled to vote? 20:52 < IanGriggNumber2> is moderation set on the channel yet? 20:52 < DouglasWard> Do we have to ask for a voice? 20:52 < NickBebout> WernerDworak, the secretary should, but secretary is AWOL 20:52 < ChristopherHoth> Is there anybody who can voice the members? 20:52 < NickBebout> mark could 20:52 < PhilippDunkel> I can also run the VoteBot if you want me to, I figure I know it well enough 20:52 < NickBebout> or robert 20:53 < MarkLipscombe> it looks like Greg may have just joined the channel.. lets give him a couple of mins... no one will miss out on a voice :) 20:53 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> The secretary has joined at 10:50:49PM 20:53 < EvaldoGardenali> hi 20:53 < PhilippDunkel> Hi evaldo 20:53 -!- mode/#SGM [+o ] by EvaldoGardenali 20:53 -!- PhilippGuehring [...] has joined #SGM 20:53 < IanGriggNumber2> Hi evaldo ... there is discussion on who will be chair. Have you any comments on that? 20:53 < CAcert> Hello everyone 20:54 < RobertKochheim> he is here so the discussion can stop 20:54 < MarkLipscombe> Evaldo is the chair, unless he declines to chair 20:54 < PhilippDunkel> @CAcert, could you change your nick to reflect your name please 20:54 -!- GaryLeeAdams is now known as GaryAdams 20:54 < EvaldoGardenali> IanGriggNumber2: Did anyone step up? I can let someone else chair, if you guys want to 20:55 < PhilippDunkel> No, the discussion was only if you did not show up 20:55 * NickBebout suggests EvaldoGardenali chair, unless he does not want to 20:55 -!- dirk_on_tour [...] has joined #SGM 20:55 < GuillaumeRomagny> Hi EvaldoGardenali 20:55 < PhilippDunkel> Since you are here, you should do it 20:55 < EvaldoGardenali> okay 20:55 < MarkLipscombe> I think Evaldo should chair if he is willing 20:55 < IanGriggNumber2> Well, Greg Stark apparently asked Guillaume to ask Mark Lipscombe to be chair ... if you nor Greg could make it. But as you are here, that request expires 20:55 < andreasbuerki> hi CAcert Greg 20:55 < BasvandenDikkenberg> cacert please use real name 20:55 < GaryAdams> Evaldo: Rule 29 says you will chair the SGM unless you decline to do so. Then the SGM selects a chair. 20:55 < EvaldoGardenali> GaryAdams: allright 20:55 * NickBebout would like to note that he has sent a short email about himself to the members list, in response to the nomination sent earlier 20:56 < GuillaumeRomagny> Also, I have Greg Stark proxy if he is not present 20:56 < PhilippDunkel> Evaldo, do you want me to run the VoteBot, or do you want to do it yourself. 20:56 < RobertKochheim> he is CAert 20:56 < EvaldoGardenali> I am sorry for my absence in the last days, this hospital thing has driven me nuts 20:57 -!- dirk_on_tour [...] has quit [] 20:57 < andreasbuerki> Evaldo, sh... happens. We hope your beloved are fine! 20:57 < EvaldoGardenali> so, we should start identifying and voicing the voting members 20:57 < IanGriggNumber2> Guys, we are now into the 5 minutes time. So we might limit all comments to essential SGM business. 20:57 -!- dirkastrath [...] has joined #SGM 20:57 < BasvandenDikkenberg> yes sir :-D 20:58 < EvaldoGardenali> CAcert: please type /nick GregStark 20:58 < HansVerbeek> Nick , why is your nomination removed from the wiki ? 20:58 < CAcert> nick GregStark 20:58 < BasvandenDikkenberg> you forgot the / 20:58 -!- Anonymous946 [...] has joined #SGM 20:58 < MarkLipscombe> please also change your nick to be your full name, Amotu, JS, CAcert, dirk, maurice, mnemoc, TomekP... you can do this by /nick MyFullName 20:58 < ChristopherHoth> you must use the slash before nick GregStark ;) 20:59 < EvaldoGardenali> what is the current agenda url? 20:59 -!- maurice is now known as MauriceKellenaers 20:59 -!- CAcert is now known as GregStark 20:59 < BasvandenDikkenberg> http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/SGM/SGM20090725/Procedures 20:59 < JohnMoore3rd> http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/SGM/SGM20090725 21:00 -!- TomekP is now known as TomaszPapszun 21:00 < MatthiasSubik> please set that as a topic, and can somebody follow to agenda numbers while in the SGM? 21:00 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> Time!!! 21:00 -!- dirk is now known as dirkastrath1 21:00 < NickBebout> Question for the chair: Have we any pending membership applications? I do not believe so? 21:00 < EvaldoGardenali> is robert cruikshank online? 21:00 < PhilippDunkel> We need to confirm the acceptances anyhow 21:00 < HansVerbeek> please be aware that someone is editing http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/SGM/SGM20090725. It looks as if Nick Bebout no longer is nominated. 21:01 < NickBebout> I'm not? 21:01 < BasvandenDikkenberg> one vote less :-D 21:01 < HansVerbeek> your name has vanished from that page 21:01 < WernerDworak> Can he add again? 21:01 * NickBebout suggests that the wiki page is irrelevant 21:02 * NickBebout will add himself back 21:02 < IanGriggNumber2> I think that was my fault, it just needs to be added again, My edit clashed with Guillaume's edit 21:02 -!- dirkastrath is now known as ulrichschroeter1 21:02 < IanGriggNumber2> Yes, Nick, please do that. 21:02 -!- mode/#SGM [-o ] by RobertKochheim 21:02 -!- ulrichschroeter1 is now known as dirk 21:02 < GuillaumeRomagny> IanGriggNumber2 : sorry I put back Alejandro & me to the current board 21:03 < BasvandenDikkenberg> its time 21:03 -!- dirk is now known as dirkastrath 21:03 < BasvandenDikkenberg> to start 21:03 -!- EvaldoGardenali has changed the topic to Meeting Agenda: http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/SGM/SGM20090725 21:03 -!- mode/#SGM [+o ] by EvaldoGardenali 21:03 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: can you please " /voice nickname " on all members that are allowed to vote? 21:03 -!- UlrichSchroeter [...] has joined #SGM 21:04 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by GregStark 21:04 -!- mode/#SGM [-oo AlexanderPrinsier] by EvaldoGardenali 21:05 < EvaldoGardenali> AlexanderPrinsier, MarkLipscombe: nothing personal, just to improve visual on the meeting list 21:05 < MarkLipscombe> didn't even realise I had +o :) 21:06 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: ping? 21:06 < GregStark> Yes 21:06 -!- mode/#SGM [+m ] by EvaldoGardenali 21:08 -!- EvaldoGardenali has changed the topic to Meeting Agenda: http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/SGM/SGM20090725 | In case of trouble with IRC, /msg EvaldoGardenali 21:09 -!- mode/#SGM [-m ] by EvaldoGardenali 21:10 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: ping? 21:10 < EvaldoGardenali> anyone can help me with identifying members? 21:10 < EvaldoGardenali> I dont have an up-to-date list at hand 21:11 < LanceDavis> I have the list from yesterday 21:11 < NickBebout> I have a list in front of me 21:11 < NickBebout> the latest one sent to the members list 21:11 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:11 -!- mode/#SGM [+o ] by EvaldoGardenali 21:11 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: can you please do the voicing run? 21:12 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:12 < AlexanderPrinsier> can someone tell me if I'm entitled to vote? 21:12 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:12 < NickBebout> yes it shows you have paid 21:12 < MarkLipscombe> AlexanderPrinsier: says you are paid on the members list, so I would assume yes 21:12 < AlexanderPrinsier> Thanks 21:12 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:12 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:13 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:13 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:13 < MarkLipscombe> op me too, I have the list and i'll start from the bottom... speed this up a bit 21:13 < EvaldoGardenali> for the record, I paid my fees this week, so I am entitled to vote. 21:13 -!- mode/#SGM [+o ] by NickBebout 21:13 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:13 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+vv BasvandenDikkenberg] by NickBebout 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:14 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:15 -!- JS is now known as JoostSteijlen 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+vv ErnestineSchwob] by NickBebout 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+vv IanGrigg] by NickBebout 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+vv DorisSteinbichler] by NickBebout 21:15 < MarkLipscombe> /mode +v JohanvanSelst 21:15 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> Why is Ian Grigg twice on the list? 21:15 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:16 < EvaldoGardenali> IanGriggNumber2: IanGrigg: Should we devoice one of your clients? which? 21:16 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:16 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:16 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:16 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by NickBebout 21:16 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by MarkLipscombe 21:16 < MarkLipscombe> mnemoc should not have voice til he changes his nick 21:16 < NickBebout> oh 21:16 -!- mode/#SGM [-v ] by NickBebout 21:16 < IanGriggNumber2> I have two clients / two windows. Don't voice IanGriggNumber2 if you want to 21:16 < NickBebout> he is away anyway 21:17 < GuillaumeRomagny> Alejandro is not here, he's connected for logging 21:17 -!- mode/#SGM [-v ] by EvaldoGardenali 21:17 < MarkLipscombe> anyone who hasn't changed their nick to their full name, if you want to remain in this channel, please change your nick now 21:17 < LambertHofstra> mnemoc could not attend, but left his IRC client on 21:17 < LambertHofstra> for the logs 21:17 * NickBebout does not object to people remaining in the channel that are not using their name as nick 21:17 -!- mode/#SGM [+m ] by NickBebout 21:18 < NickBebout> They simply will be unable to speak 21:18 < BasvandenDikkenberg> but i want to know who is here 21:18 < BasvandenDikkenberg> don't know who amotu 21:19 < LambertHofstra> I would like to know who Anonymous946 is 21:19 < NickBebout> I move that the chair call the meeting to order, now that members are identified. 21:19 < GuillaumeRomagny> Anonymous946 is mine 21:19 < EvaldoGardenali> BasvandenDikkenberg: since we are devoted to open governance, having non-members watch it realtime or read the logs later, what difference does it make? 21:19 < LambertHofstra> ok 21:19 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:19 < BasvandenDikkenberg> oke 21:19 < EvaldoGardenali> with 38 voting members present 21:19 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> ok 21:20 < JefferyFrederick> Do I get a voice? I've paid my dues 21:20 < NickBebout> you have a voice JefferyFrederick 21:20 < EvaldoGardenali> JefferyFrederick: you already have 21:20 -!- mode/#SGM [+m ] by EvaldoGardenali 21:20 < PatrickPointu> my only question will be how can we be sure that the nickname represents who they are claiming to be? But that's something that we should solve for the next meeting. 21:20 < JefferyFrederick> Sorry, missed that 21:20 < EvaldoGardenali> with 38 voting members present, I declare the meeting open. Welcome! 21:21 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> 36 voting members according to the #vote channel 21:21 * NickBebout suggests you join the #vote channel if desiring to vote 21:21 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> 36+4 admin 21:21 < PhilippDunkel> If someone has not joined #vote please do so now 21:21 < AlexanderPrinsier> I'm in there now 21:21 < EvaldoGardenali> Wytze_van_der_Raay: this channel has 36 voiced + 4 admins 21:21 -!- mode/#SGM [-v ] by NickBebout 21:21 < IanGrigg> (PatrickPointu: you can ask the person. Clumsy I know, but it has worked to date) 21:22 < PhilippDunkel> Ok, all 38 voters are in the room and voiced 21:22 < NickBebout> MartinGummi is not listed as voiced on the membership list 21:22 < NickBebout> listed as paid sorry 21:22 < GregStark> He is a member 21:22 < RobertKochheim> as the wiki is just updated vote for nick = NickBebout 21:22 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: is he paid? 21:22 < GregStark> Just paid via PD 21:22 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:22 < NickBebout> GregStark, oh ok then 21:22 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by EvaldoGardenali 21:23 < EvaldoGardenali> ok, it should be set now 21:23 < DorisSteinbichler> ok 21:23 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel will assist us with counting votes, which will be held in #vote. 21:23 < andreasbuerki> so.everyting is fine? 21:23 < PhilippDunkel> Fine on this end 21:24 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: do we have registered proxy letters? 21:24 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:24 < RobertKochheim> Yes 21:25 < GuillaumeRomagny> yes 21:25 < EvaldoGardenali> we have a proxy letter for Robert Cruikshank with Greg Rose, who is not around just yet. 21:25 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: please state all proxy letters you have registered 21:27 < GregStark> Give me a moment 21:27 < IanGrigg> (Greg Rose mentioned to me he might also be delayed, if his plane is late) 21:29 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:29 < NickBebout> DanielBlack holds proxy for AlejandroMeryPellegrini 21:29 < NickBebout> https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-07/msg00256.html 21:29 < RobertKochheim> I have one for Teus Hagen 21:29 < GuillaumeRomagny> I have one for John Cagnol 21:29 < RudiVanDrunen> I have one for Rudi Engelbertink 21:29 < MarkLipscombe> We need the secretary to table which proxies he has notice of, they are the only ones that are valid. 21:29 < GregStark> I confirm those 21:30 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: yeah, its coming my way by mail 21:30 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: didnt arrive yet 21:30 < EvaldoGardenali> the cacert.org MTA delays things a bit, asked GregStark to mail me on another account 21:31 < BasvandenDikkenberg> why was this not prepaird ??? should be cut and past 21:31 < JohanvanSelst> Can I appoint a proxy during the meeting? As it is not moving as fast as I expected, I may not stay the entire meeting. 21:31 < EvaldoGardenali> BasvandenDikkenberg: its coming to me by mail, will be cut and pasted 21:31 < EvaldoGardenali> sorry for the delay 21:31 < EvaldoGardenali> I was not able to be here earlier 21:31 < GuillaumeRomagny> Bas : Greg has been in trouble with his laptop for a while before the SGM 21:32 < MarkLipscombe> JohanvanSelst: unfortunately not, the rules say it has to be received by the secretary 24 hours before the meeting :( 21:32 < RobertKochheim> Its weekend i'm not in a hurry 21:32 < IanGrigg> JohanvanSelst: No I fear not. All proxies have to be signed and with the secretary 24 hours earlier. 21:32 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i will get another cup of hot choco 21:32 < PhilippDunkel> Well let's move on on the assumption that we can trust our Assurers such as Greg. If he says he has them, that's enough for me 21:32 < IanGrigg> agreed. 21:32 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:33 < EvaldoGardenali> yeah, mail is not arriving 21:33 < GaryAdams> Evaldo: What is total count of those able to vote at this SGM either by I 21:33 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> Will open a green one if it will take much longer 21:33 < BasvandenDikkenberg> Evaldo how do we know that the persons in the vote chanel are who they say they are ? 21:33 < GaryAdams> Evado: either by IRC or proxie when you get this figure please. 21:34 < PhilippDunkel> Currently there are 39 voting members present 21:34 < MarkLipscombe> rather than forwarding mails around, can Greg Stark just list which proxies he has the required 24 hours notice for? surely that'll be quicker 21:34 < EvaldoGardenali> BasvandenDikkenberg: if you want to delay the meeting a bit more, we can ask them to send signed email 21:34 < IanGrigg> BasvandenDikkenberg: we can audit the list afterwards and check. Plus all are assurers and we trust our assurers to make reliable statements 21:34 < MarkLipscombe> we don't need proof of them, but we do need information about them tabled 21:34 < NickBebout> EvaldoGardenali, Mr. President, I move that the proxies that have been mentioned be accepted, as GregStark has stated he confirms it, and move that we now proceed to the first item of business, accepting committee resignations. 21:34 < NickBebout> May someone second my motion? 21:35 < GregStark> Hi 21:35 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:35 < PhilippDunkel> Seconded 21:35 < BrianMcCullough> So seconded. 21:35 < BasvandenDikkenberg> oke 21:35 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> second 21:35 < RudiVanDrunen> seconded 21:35 < RobertKochheim> Agree, we can use the vote bot for it as a nice test:-) 21:35 < ChristopherHoth> Seconded 21:35 < MatthiasSubik> 0,1seconded 21:35 < UlrichSchroeter> seconded 21:35 < andreasbuerki> seconded 21:35 < EvaldoGardenali> So, the meeting is open to receive resignations by the current board members, should they decide so 21:35 < PhilippDunkel> The vote for this has been opened ;) 21:36 < GaryAdams> Greg Stark: We have 39 members (IRC or proxy) present. What is total number of paid Assn members now please? 21:36 < EvaldoGardenali> If you are a board member or hold a proxy for one and want to resign, please state so now 21:36 < EvaldoGardenali> GaryAdams: about 56 iirc 21:37 * NickBebout notes TeusHagen has already and PhilippDunkel has 21:37 < GuillaumeRomagny> I have a proxy for John Cagnol 21:37 < NickBebout> GuillaumeRomagny, yes, that has been noted above 21:38 < GuillaumeRomagny> NickBebout : ok 21:38 < MarkLipscombe> I move that we accept Teus Hagen and Philipp Dunkel's resignations, and thank them for their significant and enduring contributions to CAcert. 21:38 < NickBebout> Seconded 21:38 < BrianMcCullough> second 21:38 < RobertKochheim> Second 21:38 < GuillaumeRomagny> vote ? 21:38 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> seconed 21:38 < UlrichSchroeter> second 21:38 < RudiVanDrunen> second 21:38 < andreasbuerki> seconded 21:38 < PhilippDunkel> Hold, should I close the vote on proxies 21:38 < MarkLipscombe> wait for the first vote to finish 21:39 < MarkLipscombe> the chair will call for a vote when it's time 21:39 < DanielBlack> (please no vote for seconding stuff) 21:39 < MatthiasSubik> seconded 21:39 * NickBebout suggests that the resignations be accepted by unanimous consent 21:39 < GuillaumeRomagny> seconded 21:39 * NickBebout does not think a vote is required? 21:39 < PhilippDunkel> Evaldo: Please tell me when to close the vote. That decision is yours 21:39 < LanceDavis> the proxies voted in the vote on accepting proxies ?? 21:39 * PhilippDunkel agree with NickBebout 21:39 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: votes closed, please 21:39 * Wytze_van_der_Raay agrees too 21:40 < PhilippDunkel> VoteBot: PhilippDunkel closed voting on: Accept the proxies as confirmed by GregStark 21:40 < PhilippDunkel> [23:39] VoteBot: I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 21:40 < PhilippDunkel> [23:39] VoteBot: ABSTAIN had 0 votes. 21:40 < PhilippDunkel> [23:39] VoteBot: NAYE had 0 votes. 21:40 < PhilippDunkel> [23:39] VoteBot: AYE had 36 votes. 21:40 < IanGrigg> Chair: it looks like vote by Matthias Subik were not counted by VoteBot, some client-side problem 21:40 < PhilippDunkel> He sent special Characters 21:40 < LanceDavis> IanGrigg, it was counted second time 21:40 < PhilippDunkel> (UTF-16 ?) 21:40 < MatthiasSubik> my vote was accepted after disabling formatting 21:41 < EvaldoGardenali> (1737) <+MatthiasSubik> aye 21:41 < EvaldoGardenali> (1737) <@VoteBot> Thank you for voting MatthiasSubik. Your vote was AYE 21:41 < EvaldoGardenali> IanGrigg: it was accepted 21:41 < IanGrigg> thanks! 21:41 < PhilippDunkel> Great auditability 21:41 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:41 * MatthiasSubik agreed 21:41 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: please open vote: <@MarkLipscombe> I move that we accept Teus Hagen and Philipp Dunkel's resignations, and thank them for their significant and enduring contributions to CAcert. 21:42 < DanielBlack> objection - seconding stuff doesn't need a vote 21:42 < MarkLipscombe> DanielBlack: passing a motion accepting something, however, d oes 21:42 * Wytze_van_der_Raay agrees with Daniel, but it's faster to proceed anyway 21:42 < MarkLipscombe> we're not secondiing their resignations.. we're accepting them 21:42 < LanceDavis> I am surprised that the proxies could vote as proxies on whether to accept the proxies .... 21:42 < IanGrigg> I agree with DanielBlack. but if we have to do this .... let's move quickly and make the vote short. 21:43 < AlexanderPrinsier> I suggest we vote, but the vote will be closed as soon as it's clear majority says aye/naye? 21:43 < NickBebout> MarkLipscombe, do the rules support accepting the resolutions by unanimous consent? 21:43 < NickBebout> accepting the resignations 21:43 < NickBebout> sorry 21:43 < DanielBlack> it wasn't a tabled SGM agenda item 21:43 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: close, please 21:43 < NickBebout> DanielBlack, it is pertinent to one 21:43 < JohanvanSelst> LanceDavis: Indeed, that is strange 21:43 < MarkLipscombe> NickBebout: yes, which looks like what is happening... I don't see any nayes 21:43 < PhilippDunkel> VoteBot: PhilippDunkel closed voting on: accept Teus Hagen and Philipp Dunkel's resignations, and thank them for their significant and enduring contributions to CAcert. 21:43 < PhilippDunkel> [23:43] VoteBot: I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 21:43 < PhilippDunkel> [23:43] VoteBot: ABSTAIN had 1 votes. 21:43 < PhilippDunkel> [23:43] VoteBot: NAYE had 0 votes. 21:43 < PhilippDunkel> [23:43] VoteBot: AYE had 31 votes. 21:43 < GuillaumeRomagny> LanceDavis : I was testing 21:43 < MarkLipscombe> DanielBlack: it is procedural business arising from the tabled matters 21:43 < IanGrigg> it is procedural, more or less, it isn't counted as filed business. 21:43 < NickBebout> MarkLipscombe, well, i meant without a vote on votebot 21:44 < NickBebout> but that is irrelevant now as it has passed anyway 21:44 < EvaldoGardenali> Ok, moving on to the announced business 21:44 < MarkLipscombe> NickBebout: yes, it could be done that way.. but just technical difference for the same outcome 21:44 < NickBebout> MarkLipscombe, true 21:45 < EvaldoGardenali> should we vote the proposed changes in a single block, or one by one? 21:45 < RobertKochheim> One by one please 21:45 < EvaldoGardenali> someone please move for a way and we can get a vote quickly 21:45 < MarkLipscombe> the rule change is a single motion 21:45 < EvaldoGardenali> ahhh 21:45 < MarkLipscombe> on the agenda.. it has to be voted as one 21:45 < JefferyFrederick> I move that we vote on the rule change 21:45 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: nod 21:45 < IanGrigg> First, let's examine item #1 21:45 < NickBebout> EvaldoGardenali, I move that the rule change at https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-06/msg00246.html be accepted 21:45 < PatrickPointu> second 21:45 < PhilippDunkel> It was proposed as a single change. It therefore has to be voted such 21:45 < JefferyFrederick> second 21:45 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i want one by one please 21:46 < GuillaumeRomagny> It was proposed as one change 21:46 < andreasbuerki> second 21:46 < EvaldoGardenali> well, we need to go to the 4 points of that email 21:46 < MarkLipscombe> votebot is not working? 21:46 < GuillaumeRomagny> Noone has changed Mark Proposal officially 21:47 < EvaldoGardenali> Regarding point 1, "As the first order of business, to consider and vote on each and every properly submitted membership application received by the the secretary in the proceeding sixty days, up to the opening of the SGM that has either not yet been admitted to the association as a member, or have been refused membership. " 21:47 < PhilippDunkel> Yes it is, I have just opened the vote 21:47 * NickBebout raises a point of order that the chair must rule on if the resolution may be divided 21:47 < PhilippDunkel> Hold 21:47 < PhilippDunkel> I will reopen 21:47 < LanceDavis> VoteBot has quit (Excess Flood) 21:47 < IanGrigg> People, please follow the Chair! 21:47 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: its impossible to vote the 4 points as one 21:47 * NickBebout would suggest it may, if the majority of the meeting moves to divide the question 21:47 < PhilippDunkel> Please recast your votes 21:48 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: do we have any notice of a denied or delayed membership application? 21:48 < NickBebout> please hold PhilippDunkel 21:48 < BasvandenDikkenberg> please say when we can start voting 21:48 < PhilippDunkel> Will hold 21:48 < HansVerbeek> what is the topic of the vote? 21:48 < GregStark> No we do not 21:48 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:48 < IanGrigg> Chair has not announced a vote as yet? 21:48 < RobertKochheim> Motion or order, please clear the vote bot and start again 21:48 < PhilippDunkel> There is no vote as yet 21:48 < RobertKochheim> ok 21:49 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: please halt any ongoing voting 21:49 < HansVerbeek> i see lots of votes, but no topic in that channel 21:49 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: is it still needed to proceed on point 1? 21:49 < PhilippDunkel> There is no ongoing vote 21:49 < PhilippDunkel> I will open it when Evaldo asks me to 21:49 < PhilippDunkel> After that, please wait until Votebot asks you to vote 21:49 < IanGrigg> Mr Secretary: are there any outstanding applications for memberships? 21:49 < MarkLipscombe> EvaldoGardenali: I don't believe so, I'm not aware of any members who have pending applications but not yet accepted. Unless anyone else knows of any, I'd suggest we move on. 21:50 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:50 < EvaldoGardenali> regarding point 2 21:50 < IanGrigg> If there are none, I move that we drop the Business #1. 21:50 < JefferyFrederick> seconded 21:50 < EvaldoGardenali> To consider the following special resolution to amend the rules of the association. 21:50 < GregStark> There are no applicantes 21:51 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: please open vote for: Accept the rule changes on point 2. of https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-06/msg00246.html 21:52 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: please close 21:52 < PhilippDunkel> VoteBot: PhilippDunkel closed voting on: Accept the rule changes on point 2. of https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-06/msg00246.html 21:53 < PhilippDunkel> [23:52] VoteBot: I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 21:53 < PhilippDunkel> [23:52] VoteBot: ABSTAIN had 3 votes. 21:53 < PhilippDunkel> [23:52] VoteBot: NAYE had 14 votes. 21:53 < PhilippDunkel> [23:52] VoteBot: AYE had 24 votes. 21:53 < PhilippDunkel> That means 58.5% 21:53 < IanGrigg> Does not pass. 21:53 < PhilippDunkel> A rule change requires 75% 21:54 < PhilippDunkel> So the rule change did not pass 21:54 < EvaldoGardenali> rule change did not pass for this meeting. 21:54 < JohnMoore3rd> So the number of 'Open' positions shrinks. 21:54 < IanGrigg> I move that we convene the interested parties to rewrite and submit at a future general meeting 21:54 < EvaldoGardenali> Moving on to point 3. 21:54 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: any comments on your proposal please? 21:55 < IanGrigg> (procedural motion only) 21:55 < MarkLipscombe> EvaldoGardenali: on which one? 21:55 < EvaldoGardenali> 3. To consider, and if thought fit, to vote on the following resolutions: 21:55 < EvaldoGardenali> RESOLVED, that the membership takes note of the extraordinary work performed by the current committee, but is disheartened by the recent breakdown of the working relationship of the committee. 21:55 < EvaldoGardenali> RESOLVED, that the committee as constituted no longer enjoys the confidence of the members, and each committee member is removed from their position. 21:55 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: that agenda point 21:55 < MarkLipscombe> they are two separate motions, to be voted on independently 21:56 * NickBebout moves 3a be adopted 21:56 < DouglasWard> Second 21:56 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: yeah. But do you have any comments before we vote? 21:57 < MarkLipscombe> Just that I encourage everyone to vote aye to both items, both to thank the board for its hard work to date, and to remove everyone so we can vote to fill all the vacancies, rather than leaving anyone glued to their chair. 21:57 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 21:57 < NickBebout> nothing prevents current board members from being re-elected 21:57 < MarkLipscombe> NickBebout: absolutely correct 21:57 < RobertKochheim> there not on the list 21:57 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: please open vote for "RESOLVED, that the membership takes note of the extraordinary work performed by the current committee, but is disheartened by the recent breakdown of the working relationship of the committee." 21:57 < PhilippDunkel> I agree fully, as spelled out earlier 21:58 < NickBebout> RobertKochheim, not necessary, motions may be made from the floor 21:58 < NickBebout> RobertKochheim, nominations i mean 21:58 < IanGrigg> I think we have discussed this very well on the lists ... second the acceptance of the motion 21:58 < RobertKochheim> got ya 21:59 < NickBebout> FWIW, I believe the chair should give notice of closing votes 21:59 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: please close 21:59 < PhilippDunkel> VoteBot: I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 21:59 < PhilippDunkel> [23:59] VoteBot: ABSTAIN had 2 votes. 21:59 < PhilippDunkel> [23:59] VoteBot: NAYE had 5 votes. 21:59 < PhilippDunkel> [23:59] VoteBot: AYE had 35 votes. 22:00 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: please open vote on "RESOLVED, that the committee as constituted no longer enjoys the confidence of the members, and each committee member is removed from their position." 22:00 < PhilippDunkel> Motion 3a passed with 83% 22:01 < PhilippDunkel> Voting on 3b is opend 22:02 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: please close 22:02 < PhilippDunkel> VoteBot: I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:02 < PhilippDunkel> [00:02] VoteBot: ABSTAIN had 5 votes. 22:02 < PhilippDunkel> [00:02] VoteBot: NAYE had 16 votes. 22:02 < PhilippDunkel> [00:02] VoteBot: AYE had 20 votes. 22:02 < GregStark> JohanvanSelst: no but did not count 22:03 < DanielBlack> (it did) 22:03 < DanielBlack> [08:01:44] <@VoteBot> Thank you for voting JohanvanSelst. Your vote was NAYE 22:03 < JohanvanSelst> it was delayed, but did count 22:03 < PhilippDunkel> The vote passed with 55% 22:03 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 22:04 < PhilippDunkel> That means that the current board has been relieved of its duties 22:04 < EvaldoGardenali> motion passed. 22:04 < GuillaumeRomagny> and all the legal consequences as well 22:04 < IanGrigg> Yes, but this does not effect this meeting. Evaldo remains the Chair, as this is association business, not board business. 22:04 < EvaldoGardenali> IanGrigg: indeed 22:05 < EvaldoGardenali> Proceeding to point 4. To consider, and if thought fit, accept any nominations from the floor to fill any casual board vacancies arising. 22:05 < LambertHofstra> I would like to nominate Evaldo Gardenali as member of the committee 22:05 < PhilippDunkel> GuillaumeRomagny: It has no bearing on the legal consequences 22:05 < JohnMoore3rd> I second 22:06 < BasvandenDikkenberg> second 22:06 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> second Evaldo 22:06 < EvaldoGardenali> LambertHofstra: I gladly accept the nomination. 22:06 < MarkLipscombe> so, on this point, technically we must nominate each person who is on the wiki list as well... what I would like to do is I will go down the list and propose them, and someone can second them, ok? 22:06 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: yes. 22:06 < JefferyFrederick> Yes 22:06 < PhilippDunkel> Why not in Bulk? 22:06 < LambertHofstra> I would like to nominate Robert Cruikshank as member of the committee 22:06 < PhilippDunkel> You nominate all, I second all 22:06 * NickBebout nominates the whole wiki list 22:06 < JefferyFrederick> second whole wiki list 22:06 * PhilippDunkel seconds the whole wiki list 22:06 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> second whole list 22:06 < JohanvanSelst> NickBebout: does that include the old board? 22:06 < andreasbuerki> second the wiki list 22:06 < LambertHofstra> I would like to nominate Greg Stark as member of the committeee 22:07 < GregStark> I decline 22:07 < BrianMcCullough> Could we enter the wiki list here, for the record? 22:07 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i second greg 22:07 < MatthiasSubik> since the wiki could look different to each of us, list the names please. 22:07 < RobertKochheim> second Robert C 22:07 < BasvandenDikkenberg> second robert c 22:07 < NickBebout> JohanvanSelst, sure, i have no problem with them being candidates 22:07 < RudiVanDrunen> second robert C 22:07 < IanGrigg> I agree with Mark's original point. Let's list each of the names. So no errors. 22:07 < MarkusWarg> second whole wiki list 22:07 < WernerDworak> I nomaitate all from the list, I second all 22:07 < LambertHofstra> :-) 22:07 < PhilippDunkel> Ok, 1 by 1 22:07 < JohanvanSelst> ok 22:08 < MarkLipscombe> I nominate Philipp Dunkel, Sam Johnston, Andreas Burki, Ernestine Schwob, Fred Trotter, Ian Grigg, Andreas Bab, John More, Greg Stark, Evaldo Gardenali, Robert Cruikshank, Guillaume Romagny, Alejandro Mery Pellegrini to fill casual vacancies on the committee. 22:08 < MarkLipscombe> (and if someone would be so kind as to nominate me :) 22:08 < IanGrigg> I nominate MarkLipscombe 22:08 < RobertKochheim> I nominate mark 22:08 < ChristopherHoth> I nominate MarkLipscombe 22:08 < DanielBlack> Alejandro has already declined 22:08 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i nominate marklipscombe 22:08 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: can you please take notes of all the people who were nominated AND seconded? Take note of their acceptance too, please 22:08 < LambertHofstra> I nominate MarkLipscombe 22:08 < NickBebout> I nominate MarkLipscombe 22:08 < andreasbuerki> second Ian 22:08 * PhilippDunkel seconds the above and mnominates/seconds MarkLipscomb 22:08 < JohanvanSelst> seconds the full list 22:08 < RobertKochheim> what about robert c 22:08 < IanGrigg> I second Mark Lipscombe 22:08 < MarkLipscombe> ok, I just listed everyone, and they can decline and be removed from the vote 22:08 < NickBebout> MarkLipscombe, im not on your list 22:08 < PhilippDunkel> I nominate NickBebout 22:08 < LambertHofstra> I nominate Nick 22:09 < IanGrigg> I second Philipp Dunkel, Sam Johnston, Andreas Burki, Ernestine Schwob, Fred Trotter, 22:09 < RobertKochheim> i nominate nick 22:09 < ChristopherHoth> I second Andreas Bäß, Andreas Burki, Philipp Dunkel 22:09 < BrianMcCullough> I second NickBebout. 22:09 < MarioLipinski> I second Nick Bebout 22:09 < MarkLipscombe> oops sorry Nick, you weren't on the wiki 22:09 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> this is a silly game, nobody wants to block anyone from being eligible 22:09 < ChristopherHoth> I second NickBebout 22:09 < IanGrigg> I second Andreas Bab, John Moore III 22:09 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> it's more important to know which candidates will actually accept a nomination 22:09 < MarioLipinski> I second Philipp Dunkel, Sam Johnston, Andreas Burki, Ernestine Schwob, Fred Trotter, Ian Grigg, Andreas Bab, John More, Greg Stark, Evaldo Gardenali, Robert Cruikshank, Guillaume Romagny, Alejandro Mery Pellegrini to fill casual vacancies on the committee. 22:09 * NickBebout accepts 22:09 -!- greg_rose [...] has joined #SGM 22:09 < MarkLipscombe> Wytze_van_der_Raay: as a technical matter though, we must nominate each of them at *this* meeting 22:09 < IanGrigg> Ian Grigg accepts 22:09 < andreasbuerki> accepts 22:09 < andreasBaess> accepts 22:10 < EvaldoGardenali> Wytze_van_der_Raay: its the rules 22:10 < PhilippDunkel> I accept 22:10 < MarkLipscombe> I accept 22:10 < GuillaumeRomagny> I accept 22:10 < JohnMoore3rd> Accepts 22:10 < GregStark> I decline 22:10 < ErnestineSchwob> I accept 22:10 < LanceDavis> I would accept but noone has nominated me :) 22:10 < PhilippDunkel> I also want to note that I have to move location 22:10 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> MarkLipsccombe: Anglo-American folklore I'm afraid 22:10 < EvaldoGardenali> I (previously accepted) accept 22:10 < IanGrigg> Greg_rose: rule change failed to pass; no confidence passed; now we are nominating for the election. 22:10 < DanielBlack> Alejandro has already declined 22:10 < LambertHofstra> I nominate LanceDavis 22:10 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by EvaldoGardenali 22:10 < WernerDworak> I sencon Ian Grigg, Andreas Bürki, Ernestine Schwob, Phhilipp Dunkel, Andreas Bäß, Mark Libscombe,Evaldo Gardenali, Nick bebout, 22:11 < JohnMoore3rd> 2nd LanceDavis 22:11 < LanceDavis> hey 22:11 < EvaldoGardenali> greg_rose: would you be willing to be nominated? 22:11 < RobertKochheim> Robert C can't accept as he is not here didt anyone hear from him 22:11 < NickBebout> EvaldoGardenali, i believe he declined (Greg_Rose) I mean 22:11 < EvaldoGardenali> RobertKochheim: Greg Rose is his proxy 22:11 < RobertKochheim> Greg, Will robert Accept? 22:11 < greg_rose> I have proxy for Robert Cruickshank. He indicated to me previously that he would accept nomination. I nominate and/or second him. 22:12 < greg_rose> I decline for myself. 22:12 < RobertKochheim> ok thanks 22:12 < MarkLipscombe> he is both nominated and seconded, he just needed to accept 22:12 < greg_rose> Robert accepts. 22:12 < greg_rose> Sorry my plane was late. 22:12 < BrianMcCullough> Life in today's world. 22:12 < EvaldoGardenali> I second Robert Cruikshank 22:12 < andreasbuerki> the nature of planes... 22:13 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel: when you are ready to do so, please summarize 22:13 -!- PhilippDunkel_ [...] has joined #SGM 22:13 < IanGrigg> Chair: it would be good to outline how the voting in the election is done. 22:13 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by EvaldoGardenali 22:13 -!- Anonymous946 [...] has quit [Quit: [https://irc.cacert.org] (Ping timeout)] 22:14 < IanGrigg> Chair: he lost connection he cannot summarise. 22:14 < EvaldoGardenali> IanGrigg: indeed. hold a second, please 22:14 < PhilippDunkel_> I am back 22:14 -!- PhilippDunkel [...] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds] 22:14 < PhilippDunkel_> My UMTS crapped out 22:14 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: no problem 22:15 < RobertKochheim> Yes good point ian 22:15 < IanGrigg> This is how the procedures were written: 22:15 < HansVerbeek> Philip, can you please remove the voting rights for your first account 22:15 < IanGrigg> When the Chair opens an election for a single seat with Votebot: Chair opened election for: Seat number one you can then type: 22:15 < IanGrigg> * Firstname Lastname 22:15 < IanGrigg> Only. That is, type in the First and Last name, no middle names, no extra funny bits (voteBot strips spaces and ignores case.) These names should be taken from the list of nominated members at SGM/SGM20090725. 22:15 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: how can we use votebot to speed up the voting? 22:15 < IanGrigg> My comment: I know, we all know, this is very sucky ... but it was the best we could do in a short time. 22:16 < MarkLipscombe> when voting for the two candidates with non-ASCII characters in their name, how do we do that? 22:16 < IanGrigg> So if there are any objections to the method, we should probably hear them now? 22:16 < RobertKochheim> cant we use one voteing and type multible names? 22:16 < RobertKochheim> or vote per name with aye naye 22:16 < IanGrigg> RobertKockheim: no, each round run by VoteBot will be for one name only. 22:16 < ChristopherHoth> Ian Grigg, andreas bürki, andreas bäß, nick bebout, philipp dunkel, mark lipscombe, g. romagny, johnmoore3rd, ernestine schwob, lance davis and evaldo gardenali accepts, right? 22:16 < EvaldoGardenali> I move that we vote following the process outlined by IanGrigg 22:16 < PhilippDunkel_> Second 22:17 < GaryAdams> And we are voting to fill 7 positions, correct? 22:17 < PhilippDunkel_> Yes 22:17 < greg_rose> forgot robert 22:17 < LambertHofstra> Where is Guillaume? 22:17 < IanGrigg> Do we think we need a vote to accept the Voting system? It might be safer :) 22:17 < ChristopherHoth> oh, sorry 22:17 < GuillaumeRomagny> LambertHofstra : g.romagny 22:17 < LambertHofstra> sorry, missed him, he's in the list 22:17 < EvaldoGardenali> IanGrigg: yes, we will do that 22:17 < RobertKochheim> object 22:18 < GaryAdams> Move we accept the VoteBot system to elect 7 members to the "Committee" (Board) 22:18 < RobertKochheim> how can we count the votes one person holds 22:18 < ChristopherHoth> list: Ian Grigg, andreas bürki, andreas bäß, nick bebout, philipp dunkel, mark lipscombe, g. romagny, johnmoore3rd, ernestine schwob, lance davis and evaldo gardenali, robert c accepts 22:18 < LanceDavis> do we get a chance to say a few words ?? 22:18 < EvaldoGardenali> RobertKochheim: the votebot will do that 22:18 < PhilippDunkel_> Could the chair ReVoice and ReOp me on #vote please 22:18 < GregStark> Go by seat #1, Seat #2, ... 22:18 < RobertKochheim> not if we can only type one name 22:18 < RobertKochheim> thus if i want you in greg i could be voting 10x for you 22:19 < GuillaumeRomagny> RobertKochheim : you are right 22:19 < IanGrigg> Please type the name without any European characters 22:19 < RobertKochheim> so you don't now my 2nd 22:19 < GuillaumeRomagny> Better to vote on each names 22:19 < ChristopherHoth> sorry 22:19 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> That is a system wide open to manipulation I'm afraid 22:19 < RobertKochheim> agree wytze 22:19 < JohanvanSelst> GuillaumeRomagny: seconded 22:19 < MarkLipscombe> andreasBäß = Andreas Bab when voting, and Andreas Bürki = Andreas Burki 22:19 < RudiVanDrunen> agree 22:19 < BasvandenDikkenberg> agree 22:19 < EvaldoGardenali> Wytze_van_der_Raay: votebot will only track one vote per voting member 22:19 < RobertKochheim> again the names is a good point to just say aye nnaye to a name 22:19 < GuillaumeRomagny> This is too complicated 22:19 < RobertKochheim> perffered hidden 22:19 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> that is not the point, you want to vote per name, not per position 22:20 < BasvandenDikkenberg> chair i sugest we vote in each name 22:20 < BasvandenDikkenberg> with yes or no 22:20 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> exactly, very simple 22:20 * NickBebout suggests we vote as has been stated previously on the mailing list 22:20 < MatthiasSubik> you can vote aye for more then one name 22:20 < IanGrigg> RobertKochheim: cannot be hidden. The rules say "show of hands" Suggest we think of that next time. 22:20 < EvaldoGardenali> BasvandenDikkenberg: how can we solve ties then? 22:20 < LanceDavis> what happens if you vote in more than 7 ?? 22:20 < NickBebout> it is per the rules 22:20 < GuillaumeRomagny> When we have the 7 names we can vote on the positions 22:20 < RobertKochheim> yes as there are more seats 22:20 < RobertKochheim> yes 22:21 < GuillaumeRomagny> EvaldoGardenali : let's see if there are ties at all 22:21 < RobertKochheim> so vote on all and create a list with the highest points they are in the board 22:21 < IanGrigg> Tradition of CAcert is that association does not vote on the positions 22:21 < EvaldoGardenali> GuillaumeRomagny: no, too time-consuming 22:21 < GaryAdams> In the past it has been the members elected who then among themselves determine positions. 22:21 < GuillaumeRomagny> EvaldoGardenali : you are kidding 22:21 < RobertKochheim> so can we use the certificated based voting system than? 22:21 < PhilippDunkel_> No we cannot use cert based, because we have to vote in real-time 22:22 < DanielBlack> RobertKochheim: not implented 22:22 < MatthiasSubik> RobertKochheim: there is none yet AFAIK. 22:22 < RobertKochheim> PhilipD's voting thing worked fast with they aye naye 22:22 < BasvandenDikkenberg> Chair ties is not realectobeld 22:22 < NickBebout> I thought this was all settled ahead of time 22:22 < MarkLipscombe> GaryAdams: it is not supported by the rules tho... the vacancy that exists is for the position that was declared vacant 22:22 < IanGrigg> I believe we've had at least a week to discuss this ... I do not believe that we can resolve a voting system change in this meeting. 22:22 < RobertKochheim> AFAIK ? 22:22 < ChristopherHoth> Ian Grigg, Andreas Burki, Andreas Bab, Nick Bebout, Philipp Dunkel, Mark Lipscombe, GuillaumeRomagny, John Moore 3rd, Ernestine Schwob, Lance Davis Evaldo Gardenali, Robert Cruikshank accepts, forgot anyone? 22:22 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> the voting system does not need to be changed, only the way we use it 22:22 < MatthiasSubik> RobertKochheim: As far as I know 22:22 < GaryAdams> Mark: All positions are now vacant I thought. 22:22 < IanGrigg> So, maybe we should put the existing system to the vote. Alternatively, we can move for an adjournment if people are against. 22:22 < GregStark> Highest 7 are in 22:22 < EvaldoGardenali> I move that we vote, sequentially, in names for each of the seats named: President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Ordinary 1, Ordinary 2, Ordinary 3; For each vote, each voting member will select one candidate from the list and say his name in #vote. 22:22 < BasvandenDikkenberg> chair voting with yes and no is easyed way 22:23 < RobertKochheim> Evaldo, thats not a good plan 22:23 * JohanvanSelst favours voting on names at letting the highest 7 in 22:23 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 22:23 < RobertKochheim> as i need to vote 10x you and can;t vote for nick e.g 22:23 < BasvandenDikkenberg> good idea johan 22:23 < PatrickPointu> agree with JoahanvanSelst 22:23 < EvaldoGardenali> JohanvanSelst: please move that then 22:23 * MatthiasSubik favours the system by seat number. 22:23 < DanielBlack> agree with EvaldoGardenali 22:23 < LambertHofstra> Agree with Johan 22:23 < GregStark> No let the board manage does what 22:24 < RobertKochheim> Agree with johan 22:24 < LanceDavis> agree with johan 22:24 < GuillaumeRomagny> EvaldoGardenali : this is too complicated, I will abstain from voting at all 22:24 < ChristopherHoth> a vote for vote system? 22:24 < RudiVanDrunen> Agree with Johan 22:24 < GaryAdams> I think the Board (Committee) elected individuals should determine among themselves -- as in the past -- who is to hold each position of the 7 available. 22:24 < EvaldoGardenali> GuillaumeRomagny: my motion didnt pass 22:24 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> agrees with Johan 22:24 < PhilippDunkel_> GaryAdams: I agree 22:24 < PhilippDunkel_> Yes, I think going down the list of names doing an Aye/Naye would be OK. 22:24 < PhilippDunkel_> Only AYE votes count and we take the 7 people with the most AYE 22:24 * MarkusWarg favors johan's 22:24 * NickBebout thought this was already decided on the mailing list 22:24 < EvaldoGardenali> ok. a motion anyone? We can then register it as approved 22:24 < andreasBaess> I second PD move 22:24 < RobertKochheim> Nick; no as many dont write there 22:25 < AlexanderPrinsier> seconds PD too 22:25 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> second PD 22:25 < DanielBlack> election of voting sytem - 1. by 'Position', 2. 'individuals' by person ? 22:25 < UlrichSchroeter> seconds PD 22:25 < LambertHofstra> PD's is same as Johan's right? 22:25 < andreasbuerki> second PD too 22:25 < PhilippDunkel_> Yes 22:25 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> second 22:25 < JohanvanSelst> yes, I agree with PD 22:25 < GuillaumeRomagny> seconds Philipp D. 22:25 < RobertKochheim> yes with removal of the aye 22:25 < MatthiasSubik> PD seconded 22:25 < RobertKochheim> so vote for aye alone 22:25 < PhilippDunkel_> Just aye counts 22:25 < RobertKochheim> than count 22:26 < EvaldoGardenali> can I summarize the proposal as "Take a vote on each candidate, and elect the 7 with most aye votes to board, with no specified position, to be defined internally by the committee" ? 22:26 < MatthiasSubik> so multiple votes are not a problem ... 22:26 < BasvandenDikkenberg> the seven persons with the most ayes wil kom in 22:26 < PhilippDunkel_> Yes 22:26 < JohanvanSelst> Yes 22:26 < RudiVanDrunen> yes 22:26 < andreasBaess> yes 22:26 < DorisSteinbichler> Yes 22:26 < AlexanderPrinsier> yes 22:26 < MarkusWarg> yes 22:26 < DouglasWard> Yes 22:26 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please open a vote then 22:26 < PatrickPointu> tes 22:26 < BasvandenDikkenberg> yes 22:26 < WernerDworak> yes 22:26 < LambertHofstra> yes 22:26 < andreasbuerki> yes 22:26 < ErnestineSchwob> yes 22:26 < MatthiasSubik> yes 22:26 < MarkLipscombe> the last part is problematic 22:26 < PhilippDunkel_> and if there are equal numbers we do a run off 22:26 < GuillaumeRomagny> ok 22:26 < IanGrigg> is the vote on this method of voting? 22:26 < NickBebout> yes 22:26 < PhilippDunkel_> Tell me the first name 22:26 < GregStark> yes 22:26 < MatthiasSubik> sort by alphabet 22:26 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: thats what they decided so far 22:26 < MarkLipscombe> we are filling casual vacancies.. those vacancies exist for the position that was declared vacant 22:26 < andreasbuerki> yes 22:26 < IanGrigg> First we should vote on the method please! 22:26 < GuillaumeRomagny> we can also vote for the president among the 7 elected members 22:26 < MarkLipscombe> EvaldoGardenali: yes, but we cannot decide against the rules 22:27 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: well, I wanted to follow by the rule, voting on each vacant seat 22:27 < GaryAdams> yrd 22:27 < MarkLipscombe> we must decide which vacancies to fill with which members... the board can change it themselves later 22:27 < GaryAdams> yes 22:27 < MarkLipscombe> but to follow the rule, we must fill the specific vacancies 22:27 * MatthiasSubik suggests we vote for the names by alphabetic order 22:27 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: they want it otherwise, so I am unsure how to proceed 22:27 < MarkLipscombe> what I would suggest is this... 22:27 < MarkLipscombe> we vote the top 7, like everyone suggests 22:27 < GaryAdams> Mark: I disagree -- let the elected 7 make the position decision. 22:27 < MarkLipscombe> and we fill vacancies in order of seniority 22:28 < WernerDworak> No, vote on just any person. The 7 best succeed 22:28 < MarkLipscombe> GaryAdams: disagree, but you cannot override the rules 22:28 < DouglasWard> The board should be able to pick their own positions. 22:28 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: define order of seniority please 22:28 * NickBebout thinks the proposal we voted on has passed 22:28 < MarkLipscombe> so, highest vote fills president, 2nd highest vote fills vice president, etc 22:28 < RobertKochheim> Agree gary vote for the top 7 and they set the roles 22:28 < GuillaumeRomagny> MarkLipscombe : order of seniority as temp seat 22:28 < MarkLipscombe> then, the board can switch that around however they want 22:28 < PatrickPointu> let's vote first on the names, then after to follow the rules we can vote to officialize these names in the positions 22:28 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: which is more senior? secretary or treasurer? 22:28 < MarkLipscombe> there is no practical difference in the end, but we follow the rules 22:28 < BasvandenDikkenberg> agree with mark 22:28 < NickBebout> so how many ayes can we give? 22:28 < NickBebout> or is there a limit? 22:29 < GregStark> 7 22:29 < BasvandenDikkenberg> 1 for each person 22:29 < GregStark> yes 22:29 < MarkLipscombe> We cannot "resolve" to ignore the rules, it will invalidate our vote here 22:29 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: in this system you can aye everyone 22:29 < RobertKochheim> on every name you can give a aye if yu want to 22:29 < PhilippDunkel_> Should I open the following vote? resolve to vote on each nominee separately counting only AYE votes. The persons with the most votes are elected. 22:29 < MarkLipscombe> add to that vote the seniorities, to avoid any mistake 22:29 < BasvandenDikkenberg> good idea 22:30 < GaryAdams> What does senority of position have to do with anything? 22:30 < RobertKochheim> or aske if any one wants a vote 22:30 * MatthiasSubik seconded markLpipscombe 22:30 < MarkLipscombe> "Resolve to vote on each nominee separately, counting only AYE votes. The 7 persons with the most votes are elected, in the following order - President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Ordrinary Members" 22:30 < PhilippDunkel_> Then fill the seats in the following order by number of votes: President, VicePresident, Secretary 22:30 < NickBebout> second mark proposal 22:30 < MarkusWarg> second mark 22:30 < MarkLipscombe> GaryAdams: because we need a way to fill the individual vacancies, to comply with the rules 22:30 < PhilippDunkel_> Third 22:30 < NickBebout> I move that the question be now put. (i.e. I move we vote on the motion now) 22:30 < MatthiasSubik> correct that to Ordinary Memers 22:30 < WernerDworak> second mark 22:30 < GuillaumeRomagny> I second Mark 22:30 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please open a vote on Mark's motion 22:30 < LambertHofstra> One question: can I vote only 7 ayes, or could I Aye everyone? 22:31 < PhilippDunkel_> Vote opened 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Andreas Bab 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Andreas Burki 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Ernestine Schwob 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Evaldo Gardenali 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> GuillaumeRomagny 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Ian Grigg 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> John Moore 3rd 22:31 < GaryAdams> So we end up with a president who would be a better treasurer and a treasurer who would be a better secretary? Crazy -- let the board itself decide who fills which of the 7 positions. 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Lance Davis 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Mark Lipscombe 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Nick Bebout 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Philipp Dunkel 22:31 < ChristopherHoth> Robert Cruikshank 22:31 < GuillaumeRomagny> LambertHofstra : you can "aye" everyone 22:31 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> LambertHofstra: you can aye everyone if you like 22:31 < MarkLipscombe> GaryAdams: they can change it later by board resolution! 22:31 < GaryAdams> John Moore 3rd 22:31 < GaryAdams> Robert Cruikshank 22:31 < LanceDavis> could candidates do a very brief outline of who they are and what they stand for ?? 22:31 < GaryAdams> Philipp Dunkel 22:31 < MarkLipscombe> GaryAdams: but, to comply with the rules, we MUST fill the individual vacancies 22:31 < RobertKochheim> garry , they can change that tommorow again 22:31 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please close 22:32 < PhilippDunkel_> VoteBot: I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:32 < PhilippDunkel_> [00:32] VoteBot: ABSTAIN had 1 votes. 22:32 < PhilippDunkel_> [00:32] VoteBot: NAYE had 1 votes. 22:32 < PhilippDunkel_> [00:32] VoteBot: AYE had 30 votes. 22:32 < PhilippDunkel_> [00:32] GregStark: naye 22:32 < GaryAdams> Fred Trotter 22:32 < GaryAdams> Greg Stark 22:32 < IanGrigg> I think the board members will probably discuss the positions in the first meeting 22:32 < IanGrigg> I certainly would move to do that :-) 22:32 < GaryAdams> Greg Rose 22:32 < MarkLipscombe> GaryAdams: it's a practical solution to a technical problem.. the first board meeting can completely change all the positions it wants 22:32 < ChristopherHoth> did i forgot one? 22:32 < GaryAdams> Ernestine Schwob 22:32 < EvaldoGardenali> IanGrigg: according to Mark we cant 22:33 < MarkLipscombe> EvaldoGardenali: yes, the new board can do that... but when we fill casual vacancies, we must fill the individual vacancies 22:33 < EvaldoGardenali> ok, so we should now vote on each individual candidate 22:33 < MarkLipscombe> the new board can do as it sees fit in shuffling people around 22:33 < greg_rose> Sorry to do this, can someone remind me how to use the votebot? 22:33 < GaryAdams> Mark: Not if we have elected them to specific positions since it is then dictated by the Association. 22:33 < BasvandenDikkenberg> just type yes or no 22:33 < PhilippDunkel_> Just vote AYE when a name you like is voted 22:33 < IanGrigg> Greg_rose: join the channel vote and type AYE to your choices 22:34 < NickBebout> GaryAdams, then they can resign as secretary or whatever and the board can appoint them as the other officer 22:34 < RobertKochheim> or don't vote at all do yes or no vote 22:34 < EvaldoGardenali> <+RobertKochheim> PROXY TeusHagen: Aye 22:34 < EvaldoGardenali> (1831) <@VoteBot> Thank you for voting TeusHagen (via RobertKochheim). Your vote was AYE 22:34 < EvaldoGardenali> (1831) <+RudiVanDrunen> AYE 22:34 < MatthiasSubik> we could vote to support the vote in the end, to confirm the individual positions outlined in the vote. 22:34 < EvaldoGardenali> (1831) <@VoteBot> Thank you for voting RudiVanDrunen. Your vote was AYE 22:34 < EvaldoGardenali> greg_rose: thats the way you will need to use it 22:34 < MarkLipscombe> GaryAdams: exactly like Nick said... the alternative is we vote for them today, not put them in a position, and your vote is wasted, because it does not comply with the rules for filling casual vacancies 22:34 < andreasbuerki> no vote is a not a good idea! 22:35 * NickBebout moves we now vote to fill the vacancies 22:35 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: seconded 22:35 < IanGrigg> have we decided on the order of names? 22:35 < MarkusWarg> seconded 22:35 < EvaldoGardenali> alphabetic order should do it 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> alphabetical? 22:35 < MarkusWarg> thought alphabetically? 22:35 < EvaldoGardenali> anybody against it? 22:35 < IanGrigg> agreed 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Andreas Bab 22:35 < NickBebout> alphabetical order sounds good 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Andreas Burki 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Ernestine Schwob 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Evaldo Gardenali 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> GuillaumeRomagny 22:35 < BasvandenDikkenberg> no 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Ian Grigg 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> John Moore 3rd 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Lance Davis 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Mark Lipscombe 22:35 < UlrichSchroeter> agreed 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Nick Bebout 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Philipp Dunkel 22:35 < ChristopherHoth> Robert Cruikshank 22:35 < JohanvanSelst> 00:35 <+ChristopherHoth> Andreas Bab 22:35 < BasvandenDikkenberg> stop spaming names please let the chair call the names 22:35 < JohanvanSelst> oops 22:36 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please open a vote for "Elect Andreas Bab to fill a board vacancy" 22:36 < EvaldoGardenali> only aye votes are needed. 22:36 < PhilippDunkel_> Open 22:36 < EvaldoGardenali> naye/abstain will not be counted 22:37 < EvaldoGardenali> greg_rose: PROXY Robert Cruikshank: aye 22:37 < EvaldoGardenali> greg_rose: thats the way to do it 22:37 < LanceDavis> do all candidates get the same time for voting ?? 22:37 < greg_rose> thanks 22:37 < NickBebout> PROXY RobertCruikshank: AYE i believe 22:38 < PhilippDunkel_> Greg, there is a colon after the name! 22:38 < MarkLipscombe> btw guys, this method of voting will get very difficult if you each vote for more than 7 people :) 22:38 < EvaldoGardenali> LanceDavis: I hope to give enough time for voting, now IRC is asynchronous. In any case, if someone yells we can recount 22:38 < LanceDavis> ok 22:38 -!- GregStark [...] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 22:39 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please close 22:39 < PhilippDunkel_> Next 22:39 < PhilippDunkel_> 18 for AB (I am keeping count) 22:39 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: open it for Andreas Burki now 22:40 < PhilippDunkel_> Close? 22:40 < EvaldoGardenali> should we wait a bit more because Greg Stark just got disconnected? 22:40 < EvaldoGardenali> or close right away? 22:41 < MarkLipscombe> Thank you for voting RobertCruikshank (via greg_rose). Your vote was AYE 22:41 < MarkLipscombe> he voted? 22:41 < andreasbuerki> wait for Greg 22:41 < MarkLipscombe> ah, wrong greg :) 22:41 < LambertHofstra> give him a few seconds 22:42 < EvaldoGardenali> again, abstain and nayes will not influence the result 22:42 < PhilippDunkel_> You tell me what a few seconds are 22:42 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i say max 60 seconds 22:42 < MatthiasSubik> 60 seconds no voting .. 22:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Close? 22:42 < EvaldoGardenali> according to my clock, we gave him 4 minutes 22:42 < PatrickPointu> yes but abstain shows that everyone has casted their vote and that you don't have to wait anymore 22:42 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please clock 22:42 < EvaldoGardenali> err 22:42 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please close 22:42 < AlexanderPrinsier> Just ask Greg later on? you can add one vote if he comes back before end of the meeting. 22:42 < andreasbuerki> in a democracy everybody shoud have his chance 22:43 < EvaldoGardenali> AlexanderPrinsier: yeah 22:43 < PhilippDunkel_> Next (Andreas 21) 22:43 < greg_rose> He might have left on purpose. 22:43 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please open it for Ernestine Schwob 22:43 < EvaldoGardenali> greg_rose: if he comes back, we can ask 22:44 -!- CAcert [...] has joined #SGM 22:45 < PhilippDunkel_> Well he is back 22:45 -!- mode/#SGM [+v ] by EvaldoGardenali 22:46 < MatthiasSubik> CAcert please change your nick to FirstnameFamilyname 22:46 < BasvandenDikkenberg> Please change your nick 22:46 < PhilippDunkel_> Greg Please vote on Ernestine and tell me your vote for Andreas 22:46 < BasvandenDikkenberg> Thats not allowed 22:46 < EvaldoGardenali> CAcert: please state so if you have intentions of saying AYE to andreasbuerki or ErnestineSchwob here 22:46 < BasvandenDikkenberg> vote was closed 22:46 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please close 22:47 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: open it for Evaldo Gardenali then 22:47 < BasvandenDikkenberg> chair the vote was closed, due to that it cannot be changed 22:47 < PhilippDunkel_> Next (Enrnestine 27) 22:47 < CAcert> Yes 22:47 < EvaldoGardenali> BasvandenDikkenberg: yeah, I just asked if he had intentions, not a vote ammendment 22:48 < CAcert> Got kicked out 22:48 < PhilippDunkel_> Ok, next 22:48 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: already asked :) 22:48 < PhilippDunkel_> Sorry, Opened 22:49 < CAcert> Who is next 22:49 < EvaldoGardenali> CAcert: me, Evaldo 22:49 < EvaldoGardenali> CAcert: please /nick GregStark 22:49 < EvaldoGardenali> CAcert: I voiced you, but dont vote until you change nick 22:50 -!- CAcert is now known as GregStark 22:50 < PhilippDunkel_> Tell me to close when ready 22:50 < EvaldoGardenali> 30 more seconds 22:51 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 22:51 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please close 22:51 < EvaldoGardenali> the technical problem has been fixed, no need for the extra time 22:51 < PhilippDunkel_> Next (Evaldo 19) 22:51 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: Guillaume Romagny now please 22:53 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please close 22:53 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: Ian Grigg please 22:53 < PhilippDunkel_> Next (Guillaume 21) 22:54 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please close 22:55 < PhilippDunkel_> Next (Ian 18) 22:55 * NickBebout missed the vote 22:55 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: next, please open it for John Moore 3rd 22:55 * NickBebout would like to vote aye for ian 22:55 * NickBebout thinks the chair should give a warning of pending closures 22:55 < BasvandenDikkenberg> nick is to lait 22:55 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: noted, will do 22:55 * NickBebout objects on the grounds of not knowing how much time is left in the vote 22:56 * NickBebout requests ian receive my vote 22:56 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i object to that when vote is closed its final 22:56 < EvaldoGardenali> does anyone support nick's request? 22:56 < PhilippDunkel_> Yes 22:56 < GregStark> nick, then what about my missed votes 22:56 < MarkLipscombe> I do, we should give warning before closing 22:56 < DanielBlack> yes and greg's too 22:56 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> object to nick 22:56 < MarkLipscombe> Greg's as well 22:56 < LambertHofstra> yes, and Greg's too 22:56 < PhilippDunkel_> I am opening and closing and even I missed some opening requests by you 22:57 * NickBebout count gregs too 22:57 * NickBebout makes a motion 22:57 < greg_rose> second the motion to count missed votes. 22:57 < PhilippDunkel_> Should I close on JohnMoore? 22:57 < MarkLipscombe> I think we can declare it carried, unless anyone says no in here? 22:57 < BasvandenDikkenberg> please check rules if thats allowed 22:57 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i don't think so 22:57 < PatrickPointu> as said before it's asynchronous, we can have some delay. Give a 30s warning before closing... I think that would be fair 22:57 < MarkLipscombe> BasvandenDikkenberg: the rules are mute on the topic 22:58 < EvaldoGardenali> CLOSING VOTE ON JOHN MOORE 3RD IN 30 SECONDS. 22:58 < LanceDavis> if you are giving 30s warning now then for previous we need to count late votes 22:58 < UlrichSchroeter> this chance didnt ian have 22:58 < MarkLipscombe> LanceDavis: that is what we are propsing 22:58 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please close 22:59 < WernerDworak> I think the voting time for Ian Grigg was too short. Cen we reperat it? 22:59 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i don't agree 22:59 < LanceDavis> I dont think it was either 22:59 < PhilippDunkel_> Well then let's vot on it 22:59 < GregStark> Only nick has voiced 22:59 < MatthiasSubik> please move the topic of counting the extra votes when the regular votes are over 22:59 < EvaldoGardenali> ok, we have people requesting we count missed votes, people asking we dont, and people requesting we recall the vote 22:59 < EvaldoGardenali> can you guys please settle so we can proceed? 23:00 < PhilippDunkel_> I noted the missing voted separately. Let us count later 23:00 < PatrickPointu> I move that we count late vote 23:00 < UlrichSchroeter> aggreed to revote after regular proc. 23:00 < MatthiasSubik> please recalculate afterwards, to see if there is a difference, 23:00 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i don't agree 23:00 < BasvandenDikkenberg> when vote is closed it closed 23:00 < RobertKochheim> if the final round is there we can check if it is a vote thant changes if so revote? 23:00 < NickBebout> why dont we put it to a vote? 23:00 < LambertHofstra> it's not fair when someone misses a vote because of network failures 23:00 < NickBebout> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE COUNT THE MISSED VOTES 23:00 < MatthiasSubik> afterwards ... to a vote 23:00 < NickBebout> which i did already 23:00 < NickBebout> why do we not vote on it? 23:01 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: can you please hold a second? 23:01 < LambertHofstra> I second Nicks proposal 23:01 < NickBebout> yes i will EvaldoGardenali 23:01 < MatthiasSubik> we can later vote on the length of each vote, and the missed votes .. 23:01 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: you motion was seconded, it needs voting, and another vote was ongoing 23:01 < HansVerbeek> please indicate upto how many seconds or minutes after the closing we should insclude the late votes 23:01 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: I couldnt open one on top of another 23:01 < NickBebout> true 23:01 < EvaldoGardenali> is 2 minutes enough for all of you? 23:01 < andreasbuerki> yep 23:01 < NickBebout> yes with a 30 sec warning 23:01 < AlexanderPrinsier> yes 23:01 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 23:02 < DanielBlack> plenty 23:02 < andreasBaess> yes 23:02 < LambertHofstra> yes 23:02 * BernhardFroehlich agrees. 23:02 < greg_rose> yes 23:02 < PhilippDunkel_> Yes, but with a 30 second warning! 23:02 < BasvandenDikkenberg> if you accept this moition you need to revote every thing 23:02 < ErnestineSchwob> yes 23:02 < GregStark> aye 23:02 < RobertKochheim> agree 23:02 < GuillaumeRomagny> ok 23:02 < WernerDworak> yes 23:02 < PatrickPointu> I will add that if someone is disconnected, gave him until he's back 23:02 < RudiVanDrunen> ok 23:02 < NickBebout> BasvandenDikkenberg, well then do that 23:02 < NickBebout> PatrickPointu, if someone is disconnected give them a couple minutes 23:02 < NickBebout> we can't wait forever 23:02 < PatrickPointu> It took more than 2 minutes to come back 23:02 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: on the next votes, please warn when we reach 90 seconds (1:30) and close when we reach 2 minutes 23:02 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i think a time limit is in order 23:02 < MarkLipscombe> I move that we accept votes from members who's votes were not cast in votes where the chair did not warn 30 seconds before closure. 23:02 < PhilippDunkel_> OK 23:02 < MarkLipscombe> (this would allow us to get on with it, and just count the votes that were missed) 23:03 -!- MarioLipinski is now known as law 23:03 * MatthiasSubik seconds MarkL 23:03 < LambertHofstra> I second 23:03 < MarkLipscombe> we can come back to it if space aliens abduct someone and they need more time to vote or something, but it will sort out both Greg and Nick's votes 23:03 -!- law is now known as MarioLipinski 23:03 < MarioLipinski> did I miss anything? client crashed 23:03 < greg_rose> yes 23:03 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please open vote on Nick Bebout's motion to count missed/late votes on all the candidates voted already 23:03 < PhilippDunkel_> Vote open 23:04 < MatthiasSubik> note to secretary and vote counter: next time please finish the complex vote for all names before starting another kind of vote. 23:05 < NickBebout> MatthiasSubik, we had to decide about the missed votes first 23:05 < MatthiasSubik> Nick : why? we can do that afterwards anyway. 23:05 < BasvandenDikkenberg> note this is rule change so 75 % is pass if i am correct 23:05 < MarkLipscombe> not deciding it til later would give the people who missed extra voting power, because they would know if their vote makes a difference 23:05 < MarkLipscombe> it's not a rule change, it's a simple procedural motion 23:05 < PhilippDunkel_> bas, this is not a rule chsange 23:05 < NickBebout> BasvandenDikkenberg, no its not a rule change 23:06 < MatthiasSubik> fine. and all others can object b/c it makes a difference. 23:06 < RobertKochheim> good pint mark 23:06 < GuillaumeRomagny> not a rule change 23:06 < PhilippDunkel_> close 23:06 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING IN 30 Seconds 23:06 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING VOTE 23:07 < PhilippDunkel_> VoteBot: I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:07 < PhilippDunkel_> [01:07] VoteBot: ABSTAIN had 1 votes. 23:07 < PhilippDunkel_> [01:07] VoteBot: NAYE had 12 votes. 23:07 < PhilippDunkel_> [01:07] VoteBot: AYE had 29 votes. 23:07 < PhilippDunkel_> the votes are counted 23:07 < EvaldoGardenali> please state your late votes now, you will have 2 minutes starting now to do so. Please indicate the names of the people receiving your aye votes. 23:07 < PhilippDunkel_> next please 23:07 < AlexanderPrinsier> PhilippDunkel_: when showing votebot summary in #SGM, please also include the title of the vote. 23:07 < MarioLipinski> EvaldoGardenali: what votes have been dome after John Moore? 23:07 < PhilippDunkel_> none 23:08 < EvaldoGardenali> MarioLipinski: after john moore, we voted to count late votes 23:08 < GregStark> Who did i miss sine there was no list order and erset the clock please 23:08 < WernerDworak> one aye gor Ian Grigg 23:08 < NickBebout> Ian Grigg: AYE 23:08 < NickBebout> GregStark, it was alphabetical order 23:08 < PhilippDunkel_> Werner You were late as well? 23:08 < NickBebout> you missed the andreas's i think 23:08 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: andreasbuerki and ErnestineSchwob 23:08 < WernerDworak> indeed 23:09 < EvaldoGardenali> 30 seconds to close 23:09 < PhilippDunkel_> Hold it 23:09 < GregStark> ABSTAIN a 23:09 < PhilippDunkel_> Greg: can you vote please here 23:09 < PhilippDunkel_> There was confudion over where to vote 23:09 < GregStark> Erstine Aye 23:10 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: is it noted? we can close then 23:10 < GregStark> andreas - 23:10 < PhilippDunkel_> OK 23:10 < EvaldoGardenali> closed. 23:10 < PhilippDunkel_> Next 23:10 < GregStark> Thank you 23:10 < GregStark> all 23:10 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please open it for Lance Davis, 2 minutes as well 23:10 < PhilippDunkel_> opoen 23:11 < BasvandenDikkenberg> Evaldo, i want the log that object against the late votes and request that rules/policy and law wil be checked if this allowed 23:12 < BasvandenDikkenberg> bye the new board 23:12 < GuillaumeRomagny> BasvandenDikkenberg : I seconds that we check 23:12 < BasvandenDikkenberg> becouse i think its not allowed 23:12 < NickBebout> BasvandenDikkenberg, i see no way that it is not legal. the chair did not give any warning 23:12 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING IN 30 SECONDS 23:12 < MarkLipscombe> there is no rule that covers voting, it's left as an exercise to the meeting.. it just has to be procedurally fair 23:12 < EvaldoGardenali> BasvandenDikkenberg: well, we can start fresh if you want 23:12 < NickBebout> we voted, now why cant we just move on 23:12 < MarkLipscombe> and NOT counting a vote and not warning the vote was closing is procedurally unfair, and cannot be allowed to stand 23:12 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING 23:13 < greg_rose> I believe the issue is resolved. 23:13 < BasvandenDikkenberg> I want my objection to benoted 23:13 < DouglasWard> This issue appears resolved to me. 23:13 < PhilippDunkel_> NEXT (Lance 3) 23:13 < NickBebout> BasvandenDikkenberg, it will be, it has numerous times 23:13 < LanceDavis> I propose we should start the voting again 23:13 < EvaldoGardenali> BasvandenDikkenberg: Noted 23:13 < EvaldoGardenali> BasvandenDikkenberg: now, how can we resolve it? 23:14 < LanceDavis> and have equal time and warning for each candidate 23:14 < EvaldoGardenali> we can start it all again, its the only way I can see 23:14 < NickBebout> EvaldoGardenali, i think it already has been! 23:14 < MatthiasSubik> finish this round, then vote on another ... 23:14 < NickBebout> we voted to accept late votes 23:14 < PhilippDunkel_> Move on 23:14 < BasvandenDikkenberg> i request that the new board investegates this 23:14 < BernhardFroehlich> I object restarting votes! 23:14 < JohanvanSelst> Move on please 23:14 < MarkLipscombe> I move that we continue with voting, taking note of the objections of Bas and Lance, but continuing. 23:14 < NickBebout> BasvandenDikkenberg, i request you let us move on 23:14 < BasvandenDikkenberg> if i am right 23:14 < PhilippDunkel_> Ok Bas, that's a good idea 23:14 < GregStark> BasvandenDikkenberg cut off your internet access intermitantly 23:14 < BasvandenDikkenberg> the votes wil ber evoked 23:14 < MatthiasSubik> i second mark 23:14 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: open it for Mark Lipscombe 23:14 < IanGrigg> There has been a vote on accepting late votes. This makes it rather strong. 23:14 < PhilippDunkel_> NEXT 23:15 < RobertKochheim> agree markl 23:15 < RudiVanDrunen> agree, please move on.... 23:16 < JohnMoore3rd> Hmm.... 23:16 < BasvandenDikkenberg> move on 23:16 < AlexanderPrinsier> As I'm seeing it, no votes will be missed. The procedure we're following (votebot+ 2 minute limit) is just to help us out. Late votes are still accepted. I don't see why people are complaining here. 23:16 < UlrichSchroeter> seems to be we've lost PD 23:16 < PhilippDunkel_> nope 23:17 < GuillaumeRomagny> Let's continue 23:17 < NickBebout> why do we not continue with voting now? 23:17 < MatthiasSubik> i move since we have the logs with times we have all needed to analyse later if we need a better voting rule and now move on 23:17 * NickBebout moves we vote on the next candidate at this time 23:17 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: it seems PhilippDunkel_ had some delay 23:17 < PhilippDunkel_> who is next 23:17 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: we will 23:17 < ChristopherHoth> can we move on? it´s late 23:17 < NickBebout> oh 23:17 < EvaldoGardenali> NickBebout: Mark Lipscombe 23:17 < PhilippDunkel_> open 23:18 < GregStark> The rules allow for voting by post mail we could fall back to that. 23:18 < ChristopherHoth> thats a good idea ;) 23:18 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: good one. 23:19 < GuillaumeRomagny> GregStark : please no 23:19 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> need to be precend atstart of meeting 23:19 < BrianMcCullough> But not that newfangled airmail. 23:19 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING IN 30 SECONDS 23:19 < GregStark> It's how we choose to disenfranchise one another isn't it. 23:20 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING 23:20 < MarkLipscombe> the whole point of the motion was that we don't disenfranchise people 23:20 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: Nick Bebout now please 23:20 < MarkLipscombe> we accept votes where an intent is clear, and "do the right thing", rather than finding technical ways to screw people out of a vote 23:20 < GregStark> Technical issues and yes do the right thig 23:21 < PhilippDunkel_> OPEN 23:21 < GregStark> for 23:21 < PhilippDunkel_> NB 23:23 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING IN 30 SECONDS 23:23 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSED 23:24 < PhilippDunkel_> NEXT (NB 29) 23:24 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: Philipp Dunkel now, please 23:24 < PhilippDunkel_> Hold it 23:25 < PhilippDunkel_> Please revote, the opening eas delayed 23:25 * MatthiasSubik works fine, picked up my vote afterwards .. 23:25 < PhilippDunkel_> OK 23:25 < MatthiasSubik> the little votebotthinggy 23:26 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING IN 30 SECONDS 23:27 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING 23:27 < PhilippDunkel_> Next (PD 24) 23:27 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: Robert Cruikshank now please 23:28 < PhilippDunkel_> open 23:30 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING IN 30 SECONDS 23:30 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING 23:31 < PhilippDunkel_> NEXT (RC 18) 23:31 < EvaldoGardenali> reviewing our records, it was noticed that Fred Trotter was nominated, seconded and accepted, but he is not at the meeting 23:31 < RobertKochheim> Rudi what is you vote? 23:31 < RobertKochheim> you voted twice 23:32 < MarkLipscombe> RobertKochheim: it takes your last vote 23:32 < andreasbuerki> the last counts 23:32 < PhilippDunkel_> The bot only counts the last one 23:32 < RobertKochheim> aha cool system philipp ! 23:32 < GaryAdams> Sam Johnson was on wiki as nominated. Voting for him also? 23:32 < PhilippDunkel_> Who is the next candidate? 23:32 < EvaldoGardenali> GaryAdams: did he give notice of acceptance? 23:32 < ChristopherHoth> i mean, thats all 23:33 < GaryAdams> Yes 23:33 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: do you confirm Fred Trotter accepted his nomination? 23:33 < DanielBlack> https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-07/msg00209.html 23:33 < GregStark> Yes 23:33 < ChristopherHoth> or? 23:33 < GregStark> Sam Johnston Yes 23:33 < PhilippDunkel_> So Fred is next? 23:33 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: yes, please do it for Fred Trotter 23:33 < GaryAdams> Wiki says Sam accepted via 20090712 post. 23:33 < PhilippDunkel_> opened 23:33 < GregStark> I type with two fingers hold on 23:34 < GuillaumeRomagny> I guess so 23:34 < GregStark> Fred ? 23:35 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: Fred Trotter 23:35 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING IN 30 SECONDS 23:35 < GregStark> I meant I haven't found any 23:35 < EvaldoGardenali> ahhh 23:35 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING 23:35 < GregStark> for yoo 23:36 < GregStark> for who 23:36 < PhilippDunkel_> NEXT (FT 6) 23:36 < EvaldoGardenali> LambertHofstra: can you show us Fred Trotter's acceptance? 23:36 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: Sam Johnston please 23:36 < LambertHofstra> Evaldo: he sent an email, but it was not signed 23:36 < PhilippDunkel_> OPENED 23:37 < GregStark> that is not far you asked me about fred and i have not responded 23:37 < GregStark> CAcert is not a machine 23:38 < LambertHofstra> was sent on 25/07/2009 13:11 (European time) to CAcert members list 23:38 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 23:38 < JohnMoore3rd> NickBebout: Voting for Sam Johnson 23:38 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING IN 30 SECONDS 23:38 < GuillaumeRomagny> yes 23:38 < EvaldoGardenali> GregStark: we can solve this issue if its relevant, it seems it wont cross our path 23:38 < PhilippDunkel_> CLOSING 23:39 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: its the end of the candidate list 23:39 < andreasbuerki> next? 23:39 < PhilippDunkel_> Next (SJ 11) 23:39 < IanGrigg> on Fred Trotter, it looks like there will be no need to challenge his appearance. 23:39 < PhilippDunkel_> OK Hold for sot 23:39 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: can you please rank them and list all of them ? :) 23:39 < RudiVanDrunen> OK, as it is 01.40 AM here, I'm off... 23:39 < GregStark> sot/ 23:39 < RudiVanDrunen> TTYL ! 23:40 < EvaldoGardenali> RudiVanDrunen: ok, see you 23:40 < andreasbuerki> cya rudi 23:40 -!- RudiVanDrunen [...] has quit [Quit: RudiVanDrunen] 23:40 < IanGrigg> thanks guys! 23:40 < PhilippDunkel_> Here are the result 23:41 < PhilippDunkel_> Nick Bebout, Mark Lipscombe, Ernestine Schwob, Philipp Dunkel, Guillaume Romagny, Andreas Bürki, Ian Grigg 23:41 < AlexanderPrinsier> Isn't the rest of the meeting purely post processing? If so, all the people who are really tired can go to sleep now. 23:41 < DouglasWard> Congratulations to the new board! 23:41 < MarkLipscombe> AlexanderPrinsier: someone might throw a curve ball, always good to hang around :) 23:41 < AlexanderPrinsier> ok 23:41 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 23:41 < GuillaumeRomagny> We finally had a real board election 23:41 < BernhardFroehlich> PD: Can you add the counts of all candidates? Just being curious... 23:41 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> Could you please publish the number of votes for each? 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Give me a second 23:42 < andreasbuerki> second bernhard and Wytze 23:42 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> According to my (admittedly paper) notes, there was a tie between Ian Grigg and Evaldo Gardenali 23:42 < GregStark> Ok congrate to you all 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Here are all the votes: 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Nick Bebout 29 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Mark Lipscombe 28 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Enestine Schwob 28 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Philipp Dunkel 24 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Guillaume Romagny 21 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Andreas Bürki 21 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Ian Grigg 20 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Evaldo Gardenali 19 23:42 < PhilippDunkel_> Andreas Bäß 18 23:43 < PhilippDunkel_> Robert Cruikshank 18 23:43 < PhilippDunkel_> John Moore 3rd 11 23:43 < PhilippDunkel_> Sam Johnston 11 23:43 < PhilippDunkel_> Lance Davis 3 23:43 < PhilippDunkel_> Fred Trotter 6 23:43 < EvaldoGardenali> Wytze_van_der_Raay: Ian had 18, I had 19, but he got 2 late votes. The count is okay 23:43 < Wytze_van_der_Raay> I see, I noted just one late vote 23:43 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 23:43 < MarkLipscombe> Wytze: Werner and Nick both voted late on Ian 23:43 < EvaldoGardenali> So we have 23:44 < EvaldoGardenali> Nick Bebout - President 23:44 < EvaldoGardenali> Mark Lipscombe - Vice President 23:44 < RobertKochheim> who of the 7 board members lives in australia? 23:44 < EvaldoGardenali> Ernestine Schwob - Secretary 23:44 < PhilippDunkel_> Mark Lipscombe (could be Public Officer) 23:44 < PhilippDunkel_> but that is independant of the board stuff 23:44 < greg_rose> Robert is happy to continue to be Public Officer, which is the only position required to be in Australia. 23:44 < EvaldoGardenali> Philipp Dunkel - Treasurer 23:45 < EvaldoGardenali> Guillaume Romagny, Andreas Bürki, Ian Grigg as ordinary members 23:45 < RobertKochheim> aha okey solved that 23:45 < LambertHofstra> That's typical: the only lady in the board is now secretary :-) 23:45 < LanceDavis> IMHO the counting of late votes was flawed as there was no complaint at the time of the vote that they had missed the voting ... 23:45 < MarkLipscombe> greg_rose: that would be amazing if he is willing... I spend too much time out of Australia 23:45 < andreasbuerki> lol@lambert 23:45 -!- GregStark [...] has left #SGM [] 23:45 < RobertKochheim> congratulations to you all 23:45 < GuillaumeRomagny> LambertHofstra: ;) 23:45 < EvaldoGardenali> LambertHofstra: I bet she can make meeting minutes better than all of the others :P 23:46 < GaryAdams> Move we designate Rob as Public Officer 23:46 < Raoul_Xavier_Boerlage> @lambert shout be Treasurer in my eyes 23:46 < GuillaumeRomagny> GaryAdams : we can 23:46 < EvaldoGardenali> GaryAdams: public officer wasnt subject of this meeting 23:46 < JohnMoore3rd> Second 23:46 < MarkLipscombe> GaryAdams: it's done by the board 23:46 < EvaldoGardenali> GaryAdams: the new board can inquire him about it 23:46 < greg_rose> second (on behalf of me) and accept (on behalf of Robert). 23:46 < GaryAdams> OK 23:46 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 23:46 < NickBebout> LanceDavis, actually i did complain then 23:47 < EvaldoGardenali> Moving on 23:47 < andreasbuerki> so, is everything fine, with this vote? 23:47 < LanceDavis> ah ok - sorry missed that 23:47 < EvaldoGardenali> do we have any late business to be decided? 23:47 < MatthiasSubik> is the vote accepted? 23:47 < DanielBlack> (cannot - not on SGM agendy) 23:48 < BrianMcCullough> I move that we accept the votes as counted. 23:48 < EvaldoGardenali> BrianMcCullough: seconded 23:48 < greg_rose> Agree, board should contact Robert re Public Officer. 23:48 < EvaldoGardenali> PhilippDunkel_: please open a vote 23:48 * NickBebout doesnt think we need a vote, but seconded if the members want a vote 23:48 < MarkLipscombe> we don't need a vote to accept the vote :) 23:48 < MarkLipscombe> we voted 23:48 < EvaldoGardenali> MarkLipscombe: yeah 23:48 < PhilippDunkel_> OPENED 23:48 < EvaldoGardenali> but a motion needs a vote 23:48 < IanGrigg> DanielBlack: can we do the board list thing? 23:48 < EvaldoGardenali> otherwise its not a motion 23:48 < BrianMcCullough> Agreed, but it seemed to be required. 23:49 < HansVerbeek> not on the agenda. Please close the meeting 23:49 < RobertKochheim> rudi van drunen left i know he said Aye to this 23:49 < DanielBlack> IanGrigg: ok - just give me a day. 23:49 < IanGrigg> np 23:49 < EvaldoGardenali> (1948) <@PhilippDunkel_> VOTE to accept the votes as counted 23:49 < EvaldoGardenali> (1948) <+greg_rose> aye 23:49 < EvaldoGardenali> (1948) <+MarioLipinski> aye 23:49 < EvaldoGardenali> (1948) <+MatthiasSubik> aye 23:49 < EvaldoGardenali> (1948) <+UlrichSchroeter> aye 23:49 < EvaldoGardenali> (1948) <+greg_rose> PROXY RobertCruikshank: Aye 23:49 < EvaldoGardenali> (1948) <+andreasbuerki> AYE 23:50 < EvaldoGardenali> (1948) <+RobertKochheim> aye 23:50 < EvaldoGardenali> (1948) *** Topic change by VoteBot on #vote: Vote on: accept the vote 23:50 < MarkLipscombe> it counted the early ones 23:50 < MarkLipscombe> it was just slow 23:50 < EvaldoGardenali> the ones who voted before the topic was set, please confirm you got counted 23:50 < PhilippDunkel_> Revote if you are unsure that yours was counted 23:50 < MarioLipinski> just revoted and got counted 23:50 < EvaldoGardenali> ok 23:50 < PhilippDunkel_> tell me to close 23:51 -!- HansVerbeek [...] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.5.1/20090715094852]] 23:51 < EvaldoGardenali> 2 minutes have passed in my clock. please close 23:51 < PhilippDunkel_> VoteBot: PhilippDunkel_ closed voting on: accept the vote 23:51 < PhilippDunkel_> [01:51] VoteBot: I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:51 < PhilippDunkel_> [01:51] VoteBot: ABSTAIN had 4 votes. 23:51 < PhilippDunkel_> [01:51] VoteBot: NAYE had 0 votes. 23:51 < PhilippDunkel_> [01:51] VoteBot: AYE had 30 votes. 23:52 < BrianMcCullough> Shall I offer a motion to adjourn? 23:52 < AlexanderPrinsier> please 23:52 < greg_rose> Yes, seconded 23:52 < PatrickPointu> second 23:52 < EvaldoGardenali> BrianMcCullough: we need to close 23:52 < andreasbuerki> Thank you everyone for your trust 23:52 < EvaldoGardenali> business is over 23:52 < EvaldoGardenali> I declare the meeting closed. Thanks for participating