21:05:09] |!n|NickBebout| calls the meeting to order 21:05:27] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> |!c|#| Identification of members with voting rights 21:05:44] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> ErnestineSchwob, |!n|PhilippDunkel| please confirm that all members are voiced, and that all voiced users are members entitled to vote 21:06:17] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> I believe so 21:06:39] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> I'm too (the one which are not paid are not here) 21:06:44] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 1.2 |!c|#| Identification and acceptance of new members - I believe we do not have any currently pending, correct? 21:06:56] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> in my opinion yes 21:07:02] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> correct 21:07:40] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 1.3 |!c|# 21:07:40] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Urgent Business (Acceptance of SGM Call Size into the agenda) - This requires the unanimous consent of all members to consider this item. Your consent does not imply that you will vote for the resolution, it just means that you do not object to it being voted on 21:07:55] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Do I hear any objections to this item being added to the agenda as "urgent business" 21:08:21] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> NickBebout: nope, ok with me 21:08:26] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> Please, "Urgent" implies what ? 21:08:50] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> It means, it is business that is proposed after the close of business for the agenda 21:08:53] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please explain, was it timely sent to you, and just not included in the agenda? or not timely sent to you, as secretary? 21:09:01] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Urgent implies that it was added after the Agenda was submited 21:09:26] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> I understand/ thanks 21:09:43] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> I will wait one more minute for objections. 21:10:31] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> As I explained in the WIKI, the item was in fact submitted on time. However I erred and did not include it in the Agenda. Since the statutes require all items to be on that agenda if we are to deal with it this is my attempt to fix my mistake 21:10:36] <+|!nc|PatrickPointu|> if we are waiting two minutes for this kind of no objection votes, it would be as fast as doing a real vote 21:10:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PatrickPointu, true 21:10:55] |!n|NickBebout| hears no objections, so the agenda item is added. 21:11:27] |!n|PhilippDunkel| suggest combining the votes for 2.1 and 2.2 21:11:27] |!n|NickBebout| moves that agenda items 2.1 and 2.2 be approved, the minutes for the previous AGM and the SGM 21:11:41] <+|!nc|PatrickPointu|> second 21:11:51] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please start a vote for 1 minute 21:12:05] |!n|NickBebout| thinks that is long enough for the minutes (important votes will be longer) 21:12:11] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER TOACCEPT THE MINUTES 21:12:12] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 21:12:24] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> A note 21:12:36] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, yes? 21:12:45] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> I have scripted this for fairness. Even I cannot not easily change the timing. 21:13:03] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> So I would like to keep all votes to 2 minutes with 30 second warning 21:13:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, that is fine 21:13:41] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER TOACCEPT THE MINUTES WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 21:13:53] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Like that message comes from a script 21:13:54] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> how many members with voting rights we are at the moment? 36? 21:14:02] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> 32 21:14:12] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 21:14:12] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 6 votes. 21:14:12] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 21:14:13] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 0 votes. 21:14:13] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 31 votes. 21:14:34] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> how do we want to handle presenting reports? 21:14:38] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> 32 (excluding Proxies that is) 21:14:40] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> ^^ so one missed ;-) 21:14:58] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> I would present the URL for downloading, into the minutes: https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/General_Meetings/AGM-20100130/CAcert_Annual_Report_2009.pdf 21:15:03] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> I would just use the |!c|#agm| transscript 21:15:12] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, one matter of business that wasn't on the agenda 21:15:21] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Yes? 21:15:22] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please let us know what proxies exist 21:15:27] <+|!nc|MartinGummi|> https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/General_Meetings/AGM-20100130/CAcert_Annual_Report_2009.pdf 21:15:34] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> well it isn't business, but i'd like it to be in the minutes 21:15:49] <+|!nc|MartinGummi|> ups sorry 21:15:52] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> I will publish the proxies. (the people on the left hold the proxies for the peole at the right 21:15:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> AGM-Proxies 21:15:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Daniel Black: Alejandro Mery-Pelegrini 21:15:55] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> John Moore III: Teus Hagen, Gary Adams 21:15:55] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Ian Grigg: Jeffrey Frederick, Brian D. McCullough (except elections) 21:15:55] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Ulrich Shröter: Alexander Prinsier 21:15:56] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Guillaume Romagny: John Cagnol 21:15:56] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Henri Johan Verbeek: Bas van Dikkenberg 21:15:58] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Martin Gummi: Christopher Hoth 21:15:58] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Philipp Dunkel: Brian D. McCullough (only elections), Gary Adams (backup only ) 21:16:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Special Resolutions 21:16:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 1. 21:16:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Internal Dispute Resolution 21:16:44] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> ***thinking NickB is quite smart and souverign*** 21:17:18] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Where in the Agenda are you? 21:17:20] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/AGM20100130 is the link to all the text 21:17:28] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> called 4.1 here :http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/Next ? 21:17:31] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> or did we want to discuss the reports? 21:17:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> yes, 4.1 on the agenda 21:17:47] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> would be point 3 21:18:01] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> I'm nothing to add with respect the MembersReports that isn't on the wiki. would of liked to see more member input into it but hey, maybe next year :-) lets move on. 21:18:05] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> I think we need to accept the Annual Report 21:18:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> IanGrigg, oh ok 21:18:10] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> one note to the team reports 21:18:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> IanGrigg, is that a motion? 21:18:20] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> what about questions on the contents of the annual report? 21:18:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> WytzevanderRaay, good idea 21:18:32] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> wytze, exactly 21:18:33] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Does anyone have any questions? 21:18:54] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> many team reports are presented by team members that aren't t/l 21:18:58] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> team report writers have done a lot of work, so they desevere our respect 21:19:07] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> yes, i do, I would have liked to handle this by e-mail before, but the report was published too late in my opinion 21:19:08] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> I do not fully understand the reasons for the reelection at the SGM, but that's to heavy for now 21:19:49] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> wytze, agree... timing was by far too late 21:20:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> WytzevanderRaay, i agree 21:20:20] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> my question: on page 32 expense for two laptops are mentioned -- what are/were those laptops used for and where are they now? 21:21:31] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> WytzevanderRaay, one was for evaldo ... the second I'm not sure - robert 21:21:46] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|ErnestineSchwob| : I guess yess 21:22:06] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> we dont' have details - these two are assets from the year 2007/08 21:22:17] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> Robert .... Not me (as far as i know) 21:22:27] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> RobertKochheim, no :-) 21:22:28] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Nope: RobertCruikshanl 21:22:34] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> yes 21:22:37] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> s/nl/nk/ 21:22:37] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> RobertKochheim, i think she means RobertCruikshank, our former public officer 21:22:45] <+|!nc|HansVerbeek|> I heard one was used by the auditor? 21:22:54] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> HansVerbeek, i think that came out of the audit budget 21:23:07] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> HansVerbeek, no the laptop from the auditor are in the audit expenses 21:23:09] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|NickBebout| : yes right 21:23:18] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> the CAcert laptop in my possession is here in my apartment in Campinas, SP, Brazil, with a broken hard drive (after warranty ended) 21:23:27] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> looool 21:23:29] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> EvaldoGardenali, lol 21:23:37] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> I am using it right now through a livecd 21:23:44] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> one of them is 2008/2009, for 2699 AUD. Is that the one? 21:24:03] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|WytzevanderRaay| : Ian I guess 21:24:05] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> no, this one is 2007, I brought that to the TOP in germany 21:24:31] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> The 2008/2009 one was the one that was paid by CAcert out of the Auit Budget 21:24:43] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> WytzevanderRaay,no - no not from ian 21:24:46] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> its a Turion64X2 TL-52 1.6GHz, Acer Laptop 21:25:05] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> the laptop from ian was paid and included in the audit-expeses 21:25:08] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> That Audit expense was expressly approved in advance by the Board at the time 21:25:14] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> Maybe I need to state the question more generally: is it still CAcert policy to buy laptops for individuals, without keeping track of them? I'd like to hear a clear negative here ... 21:25:27] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> WytzevanderRaay, no 21:25:27] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> It never was 21:25:33] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> WytzevanderRaay: this was not policy to buy laptops for individuals 21:25:45] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> I assue all assets owned by CAcert are captured on an asset list 21:25:49] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> One went to Evaldo and has been kept track of. We kne he had it with a broken drive 21:25:57] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> every computer bought for a member is a CAcert asset and needs to be in the inventory 21:26:06] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> assue = assume 21:26:10] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> the second went to Ian and was an Audit expense (approoved in advance) and is now owned by Ian 21:26:12] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> AndreasBurki: spot on! 21:26:14] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|WytzevanderRaay| : we bought laptops to support Evaldo (student) and Robert C (Treasurer) 21:26:15] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> WytzevanderRaay: it was allocated to me to perform my CAcert duties. I still keep it as a CAcert asset, though the costs of shipping it internationally are prohibitive 21:26:21] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> it should not matter where they where paid of/by 21:26:28] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> WytzevanderRaay, but it was approved from the former board - I don't know the real reason 21:26:57] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> wytze And and in this inventory it's value is 0 ;-) 21:27:04] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> at the time, I was traveling 2500km a week, without a mobile computer to perform CAcert duties securely. 21:27:08] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Any case, we kow exactly where these laptops are and who now owns them 21:27:19] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> btw - there was also buyed a server in the past - 21:27:30] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> and i believe mark is making arrangements to pick up the assets that rob c has 21:27:31] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> AndreasBurki: not the one from 2008/2009 as far as I can tell ... 21:27:32] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> we write off 2008/2009 21:28:10] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> The invertory value of the 2008/2009 is 0 for CAcert since it was an Audit expense. The laptop is actually owned by Ian 21:28:39] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> wytze: this one, as we learned was part of the Audit budget, so no need of inventory in my humble opinion 21:28:42] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> It's not listed as an audit expense 21:28:54] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> what's with RC's laptop ? did he handed out to Mark ? 21:29:01] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> NickBebout, I don't know what his progress is in this issue 21:29:20] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> To distinguish, are all these laptops are owned by the current users or owned by CAcert and given to them to use for their CAcert work? 21:29:24] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> UlrichSchroeter, i don't know that they have made any progress on that, other than that he is in contact with RC and they are going to make arrangements to pick them up 21:29:33] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> UlrichSchroeter, don't know the progress (robert has a old server too which was paid from cacert) 21:29:44] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> PD if you buy someting for a project that its an expence? 21:29:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> MarioLipinski, Ian's was an audit expense and is owned by him, the other two are owned by CAcert 21:30:16] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> MarioLipinski, although evaldo's is broken hard drive, so its practical value is 0 21:30:27] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> MarioLipinski, especially given the cost it would take to ship it to somewhere 21:30:42] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> anyhow, I think CAcert shouldn't pay anymore hardware to anybody. To much hassle and work to trak them 21:30:57] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> second 21:31:00] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> AndreasBuerki, i would tend to agree, unless there is a really good reason 21:31:02] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> NickBebout: also, I'd need to take it personally, since Brazil now forbids import/export of *used* equipment 21:31:03] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> second 21:31:06] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> thx for pointing it out. I would propose to give evaldo's device to him. More thinking needed about the RC device - my opinion. 21:31:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> EvaldoGardenali, oh 21:31:18] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> must be a really good one Nick ;-) 21:31:23] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @RK that depends. If I buy it for the project it is an investment good. If I approve an audit expense as a simple expense that's a different story 21:31:29] |!n|NickBebout| moves that ownership of EvaldoGardenali's CAcert laptop be transferred to him 21:31:43] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> good choive of wording rather *should not* than *can not* 21:31:46] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> w8 please if you need an asset to do your work, like ian why should ernie not have an exopence like that 21:31:56] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> anyhow, hardware is deprecated at longest in 3 years to 0 21:32:18] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> all assets bought for/by cacert should be cacert owned, board may deside to donate it 21:32:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> RobertKochheim, i agree. 21:32:40] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Robert, second 21:32:44] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> second 21:32:46] <+|!nc|RaoulXavierBoerlage|> me too 21:32:48] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Should I start a vote on your motion (I second it) 21:32:50] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> second 21:32:52] |!n|FaramirCl| [ba684816@|!h|CAcert.Web.Interface.User|] has joined |!c|#agm 21:33:04] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> RobertKochheim, it was agreed as audit expenses - means what he will buy is his decicion - the amount was agreed 21:33:05] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, yes please 21:33:19] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> RobertKochheim, means, it's not something which belongs to cacert 21:33:21] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> no need to vote i guess 21:33:22] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER THE LAPTOP IS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO EVALDO 21:33:22] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 21:34:33] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> point of order: this sounds like new business, how is it possible to add this to the Agenda? 21:34:52] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER THE LAPTOP IS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO EVALDO WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 21:34:57] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> (and, it seems something that is more adequately dealt with by prior and future boards.) 21:34:59] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> IanGrigg, i was considering it as arising from business on the agenda 21:35:08] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> lets leave it in the mintues and let the new board ratify it 21:35:11] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> IanGrigg, although if we wanted to defer it for the board i suppose so 21:35:11] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Well let's just call it a poll to instruct the next board to make that decision 21:35:16] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> it came up from a discussion of the financial report 21:35:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 21:35:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 8 votes. 21:35:22] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 21:35:24] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 0 votes. 21:35:24] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 31 votes. 21:35:38] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> WytzevanderRaay, right 21:35:44] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> WytzevanderRaay, yeah, i would think it would be permissible because of that 21:35:54] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> yes, sure, but the financial report is generally treated as being correct or otherwise ... 21:36:08] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> IanGrigg, each member could ask a question 21:36:24] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> or two or three or 21:36:38] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Well let's just call it a poll to instruct the next board to make that decision 21:36:45] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> For the record, Laptop Serial Number LXAX90X088711135551601, Acer Aspire 5100 Series, Model No BL51 21:36:47] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> seconded 21:37:01] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> second 21:37:19] <+|!nc|PatrickPointu|> it's too late, we already voted on it 21:37:28] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> ack 21:37:40] |!n|NickBebout| declares the motion carried, as it is arising from a item on the agenda 21:37:55] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> if there be no further questions, i move we accept the annual reports 21:38:00] <+|!nc|PatrickPointu|> second 21:38:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please start a vote 21:38:16] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> second accepting annual report 21:38:19] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> question. 21:38:25] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> HenrikHeigl, ok 21:38:28] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please wait 21:38:32] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> can we vote on something if reports are missing? 21:38:46] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> HenrikHeigl, what is missing? 21:38:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER THE AGM ACCEPTS THE PRESENTED REPORTS 21:38:51] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 21:39:10] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> what voting is missing ? 21:39:19] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> One moment PD... 21:39:21] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> about the report, we should move to decide the color of the kangaroo 21:39:29] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> lol 21:39:33] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> lol 21:39:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> lol 21:39:42] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> but for any of these ;) 21:39:52] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Henrik? 21:40:02] |!n|EvaldoGardenali| is colorblind 21:40:11] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> the member reports seem to be missing. at http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/AGM20100130 there are at point 4.1. but not in the pdf. we can vote on the rest?! 21:40:12] <+|!nc|WernerDworak|> Philipp, opposed to the SGM, voting now works excellent. You allways know start and end 21:40:12] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> EvaldoGardenali: I think the current combination works well... 21:40:16] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> is this a valid vote when NB asks to hold ? 21:40:20] <+|!nc|PieterVanEmmerik|> Who made the pics in the report, I like them 8) 21:40:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER THE AGM ACCEPTS THE PRESENTED REPORTS WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 21:40:26] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> TomasTrnka: I cant see it :P colorblind 21:40:39] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> sorry point 3.4. 21:40:39] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> PatrickPointu, see last page - is written there 21:40:41] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> PieterVanEmmerik: is noted in the editorial 21:40:45] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Werner I spent some time today scripting the timings 21:40:48] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Pieter, a friend of Uli 21:40:50] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 21:40:50] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 4 votes. 21:40:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 21:40:52] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 0 votes. 21:40:52] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 28 votes. 21:41:05] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> HenrikHeigl, so they are missing from the pdf? 21:41:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> but not on the wiki? 21:41:25] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> pics are from Gerhard von Reith, a friend of mine 21:41:29] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> Earlier we held a straw poll to accept minor TYPO corrections ... 21:41:34] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Henrik.... Assurer Training report? 21:41:41] <+|!nc|WernerDworak|> Philipp. you did asn excellent job 21:41:49] |!n|NickBebout| moves that minor typographical corrections be authorized 21:41:53] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Henrik? Assurer Training Report? 21:41:54] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> in the pdf 21:41:55] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> I think the Member reports must have got missed ... 21:41:59] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> Assurer Training Events is after Events report 21:42:02] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> and that the member reports be added 21:42:16] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> NickBebout: seconded (both) 21:42:24] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> Does our rules say anything about member reports? 21:42:25] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> People the member reports are not in the PDF inten tionally 21:42:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> MarioLipinski, no 21:42:33] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> they are supposed to be presented here 21:42:36] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> So if the consensus of the meeting is to add the Member reports in again in the next minor revision, we can ask Ernestine to do that 21:42:42] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> sorry, there is written "member report" as well as team report but there is no point member report in the pdf. 21:42:51] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> the PDF is the official annual report as gathered and approoved by the board 21:43:00] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> And it has just been accepted. 21:43:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> oh. 21:43:08] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> PhilippDunkel: Oh... 21:43:09] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> So maybe we should just move on ? 21:43:26] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> PhilippDunkel: seconded 21:43:28] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> easy PD 21:43:28] <+|!nc|JohnMoore|> Seconded! 21:43:41] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> Thirded! 21:43:51] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> |!n|aphexer| is not here to present his report 21:43:54] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> let's lead Nick the Meeting 21:43:55] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @andreas: I'm actually quite easy and cheerful today ;) 21:44:06] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> today? ;-) 8:44:07] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> DanielBlack, or |!n|AndreasBaess| do either of you wish to say anything about your report? 21:44:14] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> I'm nothing to add with respect the MembersReports that isn't on the wiki. would of liked to see more member input into it but hey, maybe next year :-) lets move on. 21:44:42] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> maybe just post the links here for reference 21:44:52] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, do you have anything to say about the secretary annual report? 21:44:55] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> Daniel, thats exactly the part I refer to. where are they and CAN we vote on something thats not in?! 21:45:16] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/MembersReport2009 21:45:24] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> There is no need to vote on member reports I guess 21:45:41] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> we don't have to vote on the member reports 21:45:42] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> the the agenda is not right ;-) 21:45:42] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> not really - there wasn't much contribution (even from myself was really rought) 21:45:48] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> wrt a vote 21:45:50] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Mario, agree, we take note of them and say thank you 21:46:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> yes, thank you for the member reports 21:46:08] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> agreed 21:46:25] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, anything to say about the Secretary Annual Report? 21:46:51] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> No that was my way to enable me to give the floor to any member-reporter that did not make the agenda 21:46:51] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> one question to AndreasBaess: whats actual state about testsystem ? 21:46:59] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> since none of them exists :) 21:47:05] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> It's a moot point 21:47:08] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, oh ok :) 21:47:18] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Item 4 - Special Resolutions 21:47:26] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.1 Internal Dispute Resolution 21:47:32] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> UlrichSchroeter, it's later on the agenda 21:47:37] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 21:47:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By inserting the following additional definitions at rule 1(1): 21:47:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> a Policy means a reference to the Policies of the Community duly passed to at least DRAFT under CAcert Community's Policy on Policy 21:47:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> a Certificate Authority is an entity that issues digital certificates for use by other parties 21:47:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 11, and inserting in its place: 21:47:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 11. Resolution of internal disputes 21:47:41] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (1) Disputes between members (in their capacity of members) of the association and disputes between members and the association, are to be dealt with in accordance with the association's Dispute Resolution Policy. 21:47:44] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting clause 7(2), and inserting in its place: 21:47:46] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2) A member of the association may resign from membership of the association by giving to the secretary written or digitally signed email notice to resign. On acceptance of the resignation, the member ceases to be a member. Acceptance may only be delayed under rule 11. 21:48:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> motion and second? 21:48:09] <+|!nc|PatrickPointu|> motion to approve 21:48:10] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> second 21:48:11] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> second 21:48:14] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> We have testsystems on the agenda? 21:48:19] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please start vote 21:48:19] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> second 21:48:39] |!n|markl| [markl@|!h|124-168-186-155.dyn.iinet.net.au|] has joined |!c|#agm 21:48:39] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.1 OF THE AGENDA 21:48:39] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 21:48:58] |!n|PhilippDunkel| [phidelta@|!h|dsl-stat-43-2.mmc.at|] has set mode +v |!n|markl 21:48:59] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> mario - mhh, think I was on the wrong page .. 21:49:02] |!n|markl| [markl@|!h|124-168-186-155.dyn.iinet.net.au|] is now known as |!n|MarkLipscombe 21:49:03] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> This is not clear enough 21:49:10] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> The vote does not say on what resolution we are voting 21:49:17] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> sorry for being late folks, internet troubles where I'm staying 21:49:24] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> mark join |!c|#vote| and wait for voicing 21:49:26] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> DominikGeorge: the agenda does :-) 21:49:27] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> hy mark 21:49:29] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> then vote on 4.1 21:49:29] |!n|MartinSchulze| [chatzilla@|!h|dslb-088-070-185-198.pools.arcor-ip.net|] has quit IRC: Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.7/20091221164558] 21:49:39] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> good evening mark and vote now... ;-) 21:49:47] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Ok Mark Go 8:49:56] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> DanielBlack: Ah, 4.1 , my eyes oversaw the .1 ;) 21:50:09] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.1 OF THE AGENDA WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 21:50:09] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> NickBebout: small point of efficiency - there's no need to motion/second agenda items :-) 21:50:30] |!n|HenrikHeigl| reminds himself that wired stuff is going on here ;-) 21:50:39] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 21:50:39] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 5 votes. 21:50:39] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 21:50:40] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 0 votes. 21:50:40] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 34 votes. 21:50:51] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Daniel: It#s procedure to avaid voting on things while the discussion is still going on. Aside from that benefit you are of course right 21:51:09] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> ack 21:51:54] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.2 - Membership Qualifications 21:51:55] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 21:51:56] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By inserting the following additional definitions at rule 1(1): 21:51:56] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> a Policy means a reference to the Policies of the Community duly passed to at least DRAFT under CAcert Community's Policy on Policy 21:51:56] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 2 and rule 3, and inserting in its place: 21:51:58] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 2. Membership Qualifications 21:52:00] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (1) A person is qualified to be a member of the association if, but only if: 21:52:02] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (a) the person is a person referred to in section 15(1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Act and has not ceased to be a member of the association at any time after incorporation of the association under the Act, or 21:52:05] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (b) the person is a natural person: 21:52:07] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (i) who subscribes to the objects of the association, and 21:52:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (ii) who is, at the time of application, an Assurer, within the meaning of the Assurance Policy, or has received approval from the committee to dispense with this requirement, and 21:52:12] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (iii) who has not previously been expelled from the association, unless approved by a motion at a general meeting of the association. 21:52:15] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 3. Application for membership 21:52:17] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (1) An application of a person for membership of the association must be made: 21:52:19] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (a) in writing or digitally signed email to the secretary, in the form set out in Appendix 1 to these rules, or 21:52:22] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (b) in any other such manner determined by the committee from time to time. 21:52:25] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2) As soon as practicable after receiving a membership application, the secretary must cause to be checked that the proposed member: 21:52:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (a) is an Assurer within the meaning of the Assurance Policy, and 21:52:32] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (b) is not an expelled member of the association. 21:52:33] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (3) If the secretary cannot be satisfied as to the applicant’s qualifications pursuant to rule 2, the secretary must, as soon as practicable, refer the application to the committee to determine whether to approve or reject the application. 21:52:37] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (4) A membership application referred to the committee under these rules must: 21:52:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (a) be considered as soon as practicable, and 21:52:41] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (b) be approved if the app 21:53:46] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> did the whole thing paste? 21:53:52] <+|!nc|MichaelTaenzer|> nope 21:53:57] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> NickBebout: re-paste from 4-b on 21:54:12] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (b) be approved if the application complies with Rule 2 of these rules. 21:54:13] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (5) As soon as practicable after the secretary or committee makes a determination as to the application, the secretary must notify the applicant in writing or by digitally signed email, that: 21:54:13] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (a) the application was approved or rejected (whichever is applicable); and 21:54:13] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (b) if the application was rejected the reasons relied upon in doing so 21:54:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (6) The secretary must, on approval of a membership application, enter the applicant's name in the register of members and, on the name being so entered, the nominee becomes a member of the association. 21:54:18] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 9, and inserting in its place: 21:54:22] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 9. Fees and subscriptions 21:54:22] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Members of the association are not required to pay an admission or annual fee. 21:54:23] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 33(5). 21:54:25] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting the remainder of Appendix 1 of the rules after the first occurrence of "Date……………………………………………". 21:54:35] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> just checking: each rule change motion requires a 75% majority to pass? 21:54:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> yes 21:55:00] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please open a vote on 4.2 21:55:10] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.2 21:55:10] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 21:55:59] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> request for order : is it realy needed to past the txt we know the wiki page just add the page to the minutes 21:56:16] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> http://fpaste.org/RUOC/ 21:56:24] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> RobertKochheim, anyone could change the wiki page 21:56:29] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> could also help for small quotes... 21:56:31] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> MarioLipinski, actually, can you protect the wiki page? 21:56:32] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Robert: the wiki could not be the real text... so the text in the meeting is binding 21:56:40] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.2 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 21:56:41] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> the next motions are shorter, so no problems 21:56:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> well, i don't know, i'd still prefer to read it into the minutes 21:56:51] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> make a signed pdf 21:57:02] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> second 21:57:02] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> HenrikHeigl: pastebins dont go to the log ;) 21:57:10] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 21:57:10] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 3 votes. 21:57:10] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 21:57:12] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 24 votes. 21:57:12] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 12 votes. 21:57:31] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> :) 21:57:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> the motion has failed 21:57:45] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Is that a 3/4 majority? 21:57:51] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> because abstains don't count! 21:57:54] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> NickBebout, done. 21:58:11] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> we are domcrats... hopefully 21:58:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> So 24/12 21:58:28] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> PhilippDunkel: naye > aye --> obvious fail 21:58:31] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 21:58:32] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule(26)(2) and inserting in its place: 21:58:32] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2) The committee must, on the requisition in writing or by digitally signed email, of at least 5 per cent of the total number of members or 20 members, whichever is less, convene a special general meeting of the association. 21:58:32] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting the word "Five" from rule 28(2) and inserting "Fifteen". 21:58:36] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Ah 21:58:38] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Mixup 21:58:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> please start a vote on this resolution 21:58:55] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> are we at 4.3 now? 21:58:55] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> sorry!? 21:59:11] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> AndreasBuerki, yes 21:59:17] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> ok 21:59:17] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Yes we are on 4.3 21:59:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.3 21:59:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:00:21] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> umm interesting rule change... there is no word five in that rule, only the number five? 22:00:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.3 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:01:08] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> sorry, sleepy, misread it's effect 22:01:13] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> No worries, I have a feeling we won't have to reconcile that 22:01:20] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:01:20] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 5 votes. 22:01:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:01:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 11 votes. 22:01:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 24 votes. 22:01:43] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> if my calculations are correct the motion failed 22:01:48] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> since abstain is basically a naye 22:01:49] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> 24 to 11, this carries? 22:01:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Well that is more than a 2/3 majority 22:01:55] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> no, Abstain is not counted 22:02:01] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> 24 / (24 + 11) 22:02:02] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> in my humble opinion 22:02:10] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> i thought it was 75% of those voting 22:02:12] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> no, it fails, 68% 22:02:13] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> = 0.68 which is a pass 22:02:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> and abstain is a "vote" 22:02:15] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> ah, actually yes, it fails 22:02:17] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> 26 votes would have needed 22:02:19] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> sorry, my error 22:02:21] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Right 22:02:22] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> PhilippDunkel: 75% is what counting, not 2/3 22:02:23] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> failed ! 22:02:24] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> 75% required, 68% obtained 22:02:27] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> abstain is a vote, agree Nick 22:02:28] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> 3/4 not 2/3 22:02:30] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> MarkLipscombe: don't worry. you get 5 Cent per each cent if the members are at a minimum of 20 *g* 22:02:34] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> abstain is not a vote 22:02:41] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> not for the purposes of counting 75% 22:02:43] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> abstain does not count in yes or no but does change the ammount needed to get 75% 22:02:43] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Abstain is not a vote! 22:02:49] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> but eitherr way, it's still less than 75% 22:02:51] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> RobertKochheim, agreed 22:02:52] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> Agreed, Abstain is not a vote. 22:03:06] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> But it makes no difference here 22:03:11] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> Why is abstain not a vote? 22:03:16] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> anyho, it didn pass 22:03:18] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> It changes the amount of people who voted 22:03:22] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> ok 22:03:36] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> SGM Call Size 22:03:36] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:03:36] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By inserting rule 26(2a) below into the rules of association: 22:03:36] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2a) In addition to the requirements of 26(2) the minimum number of members 22:03:36] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> required to request a special general meeting of the association must be at 22:03:36] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> least ten. If there are less than fifteen members in the association the 22:03:38] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> because you are abstaining from voting 22:03:40] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> number of members required to request a special general meeting of the 22:03:42] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> association must be at least five. 22:03:44] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.4 22:04:10] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please open a vote 22:04:14] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.4 22:04:15] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:04:22] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> As chair, I rule that abstentions do count as votes. 22:04:34] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> And how do they count? 22:04:39] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> NickBebout: fine! 22:04:43] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> they count in the number of people voting 22:05:00] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> although if you wnat to present the question to the members as an appeal from the chair's ruling, that is fune 22:05:01] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> NickBebout: Whoa...And what's the difference between it and naye, then? 22:05:01] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> fine 22:05:03] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> they do not.. this is *well accepted* 22:05:12] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> That then means that an ABSTAIN is the same a a NAYE 22:05:14] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> to abstain is to not do something 22:05:25] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> you are abstaining from voting, yet recording your abstention on the record 22:05:27] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> To abstain is not to participate in the vote. 22:05:29] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> thus 100 votes including abstains still needs 75 votes to get 75 % 22:05:30] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> if you wanted to vote naye, you would vote naye 22:05:31] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> MarkLipscombe: agree on that 22:05:44] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.4 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:05:46] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> I ask NickDebout and |!n|PhilippDunkel| to have this clarified before any further votes 22:05:55] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> People abstain because they do not want to participate either way, they want to not effect the result. 22:06:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> so 100 people could abstain and 1 could vote aye and it would pass? 22:06:10] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> with abstain I push up the quorum, right? 22:06:14] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:06:14] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 2 votes. 22:06:15] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:06:16] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 24 votes. 22:06:16] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 13 votes. 22:06:17] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> Please revoice Mark on vote channel 22:06:20] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> AndreasBuerki, that is what i ruled, although we are discussing it 22:06:23] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> there is no quorum on individual votes 22:06:28] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> only on attendedance at the meeting 22:06:53] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> So in any democratic election, abstains count for the number of votes given 22:07:05] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> so the procentual amount for every other vote becomes smaller 22:07:07] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> no they do not 22:07:08] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> (1704) <@NickBebout> association must be at least five. 22:07:10] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> err 22:07:13] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> 32 Special resolution 22:07:13] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> A resolution of the association is a special resolution: 22:07:13] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> (a) if it is passed by a majority which comprises at least three-quarters of such members of the association as, being entitled under these rules so to do, vote in person or by proxy or by secure online methods at a general meeting of which at least 21 days' written or digitally signed email notice specifying the intention to propose the resolution as a special resolution was given in accordance with these rules, or 22:07:19] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> (b) where it is made to appear to the Director- General that it is not practicable for the resolution to be passed in the manner specified in paragraph (a) if the resolution is passed in a manner specified by the Director-General. 22:07:23] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> an abstention in a government election is an informal vote, and is not counted 22:07:29] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> thats the rule in our association 22:07:40] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> abstaining *is* voting, it is just voting neutral basically 22:07:41] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> yes, but abstentions do not effect the number how votes are distributed 22:07:55] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> (a) if it is passed by a majority which comprises at least three-quarters of such members of the association 22:08:02] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> thats pretty clear to me 22:08:18] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> it doesnt care for how many naye or abstains, but AYES and TOTAL MEMBERS 22:08:23] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> "vote in person or by proxy" 22:08:29] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> no Evaldo, you are selecting half the sentence 22:08:35] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|EvaldoGardenali| : so abstain = naye 22:08:41] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> "being entitled under these rules so to do, vote in person or by proxy" 22:08:55] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Evaldo you are only reading half the sentence it actually meand of those who vote 22:08:55] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> so, if you vote, you count towards the 75% or against it 22:08:58] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> MarkLipscombe: yes, mispaste 22:08:59] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> they have to vote ... 22:09:03] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> and people that abstain are not voting 22:09:08] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> but if you don't vote, by abstaining, or not attending the meeting, you don't count for or against the 75% 22:09:09] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> PhilippDunkel: exactly 22:09:19] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> Does this mean that there is no difference between voting "abstain" and not voting at all? 22:09:20] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> so, clear abstain from the answer list? 22:09:21] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> but abstaining is voting, it is just voting abstain 22:09:26] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> LambertHofstra: well, almost 22:09:27] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> otherewise there is no purpose to abstaining, it would then mean NAYE. 22:09:31] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> so if you really don't want to count, then don't vote at all 22:09:31] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> to accept the chair's concept, abstain is the same as naye 22:09:39] |!n|NickBebout| is not the only one saying this 22:09:40] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Lambert: exactly the only difference is that you say that you are not voting for the record 22:09:43] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> PD... but making the 75% harder to reach ;-) 22:09:49] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> People from germany might know that abstains *do* count in federal elections 22:10:02] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> Abstaining is saying that "you do not vote because of some reason like Conflict of Interest." 22:10:05] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> almost everywhere else in the world they are an informal vote, and do not count 22:10:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> MarkLipscombe, the appropriate thing to do is to move to appeal from the chair's ruling 22:10:12] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> I move to override the chair, and direct that a vote of abstain will not count in calculating any required majority. 22:10:14] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> DG... in CH as well 22:10:18] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> ok 22:10:18] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Mark: second 22:10:20] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> you just did :) 22:10:26] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, open a vote for that please? 22:10:29] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> MarkLipscombe: second 22:10:42] <+|!nc|AndreasBaess|> Guillaume: one could also argue that abstain=aye. 22:10:45] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER TO OVERRIDE THE CHAIRS RULING 22:10:45] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:11:02] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> override what? 22:11:03] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> No andreas one could not 22:11:05] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> what do we vote for 22:11:12] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> what ruling exactly please - sorry for asking.... 22:11:24] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> MathieuSimon, the ruling that abstaining counts as voting 22:11:26] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> because the requirement is in terms of percentage ayes of total to approve and the default is not to approove 22:11:42] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> thanks 22:11:44] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> for purposes of determinging how many votes were cast to determine what 75% of the votes cast was 22:11:47] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> I opposite to not taking into account ABSTAIN votes in calculating majority 22:11:51] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> If you vote aye then abstains do not count 22:11:51] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> if you vote naye then ABSTAIN = NAYE 22:11:52] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> what does vote aye means here 22:12:01] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> voting aye will mean that we do not count abstains as a vote when calculating the majority required, voting naye will accept the chair's decision to count them (menaing basically no rule changes will pass here today most likely) 22:12:02] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> AndreasBuerki, vote NAYE then 22:12:08] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> AYE = ABSTAIN is not counted 22:12:14] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER TO OVERRIDE THE CHAIRS RULING WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:12:15] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> NAYE = ABSTAIN = NAYE 22:12:45] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:12:45] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 4 votes. 22:12:45] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:12:46] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 14 votes. 22:12:46] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 21 votes. 22:12:51] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> MarkLipscombe: rule change 4.1 passed already successfully 22:12:54] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> very well. the motion has passed 22:12:56] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> AndreasBuerki: if you want your vote to count, choose AYE or NAYE 22:13:00] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> AYEthen this rules shoudl clearly communitcated at the BEGINNING of the meeting sand not in the middle of it! 22:13:08] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> why does this happen when proposals are voted off 22:13:16] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|AndreasBuerki| : true ! 22:13:39] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> currently we did not have any proposal that would have been affected 22:13:41] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> becasue apprarently different people are from different countries where abstentions care counted differently 22:13:41] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> if you dont want to vote dont vote ! 22:13:44] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad style and undemoctaric! 22:13:47] |!n|HenrikHeigl| hopes for a very good summary of all this after that. 22:13:47] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> RobertKochheim, agreed 22:13:48] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @GR & AB: this is the way it is commonly done. Should we also announce that the sky is blue in advance? 22:13:51] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> generally the meaning of Abstain is taken to be well understood ... but I suppose someone could submit a rule change to add an explanation 22:13:52] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> @Guillaum: Well - lesson learned for the members for next time ? :-) 22:13:54] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> andreas agree 22:14:02] |!n|EvaldoGardenali| requests that the voting subjects should be better expressed, this vote had a confusing subject 22:14:12] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> can we please redo this a bit less quick 22:14:17] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> PD... stop it 22:14:28] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Will do 22:14:36] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> MathieuSimon: :) 22:14:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> AndreasBuerki, i would have announced it, but didn't know it was something that everyone didn't already know 22:14:45] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> procedure should be : 22:14:55] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> if you dont want to vote don't vote 22:14:58] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> OK, it's settled, abstains don't count for the purposes of calculating a majority. The majority has spoken, lets continue, rather than keep arguing an already settled matter? 22:15:04] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> yes, lets continue 22:15:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Member Liabilities 22:15:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:15:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 10, and inserting in its place: 22:15:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 10. Members' liabilities 22:15:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> No member of the association is liable to contribute towards the payment of the debts and liabilities of the association or the costs, charges and expenses of winding up the association. 22:15:06] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> abstain means you change the numbers 22:15:23] |!n|NickBebout| doesn't think this rule change makes sense, since we still have dues 22:15:36] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> this rule now has no purpose now, so I'd recommend voting naye.. it will be ineffective in any event 22:15:37] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Robert, as we lerned right now, they do not cont! 22:15:38] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> NickBebout: is that lawful under NSW, AU jurisdiction? 22:15:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> but start a vote anyway please 22:15:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> EvaldoGardenali, is what lawful? 22:15:48] |!n|PhilippDunkel| thinks it makes no difference either way 22:15:54] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> making members exempt 22:15:59] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> It is lawful, but immaterial 22:16:02] <+|!nc|AndreasBaess|> @PD is was trying to tell GUillaume that the same "argument" can be used to claim the opposite. To me abstain just tells the people that count they don't have missed a vote so they can easily tell they have counted all of them. 22:16:04] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> for those that have suggestions on how this meeting can be better run, or clarifications to be made, please post a discussion to the members list 22:16:21] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> it only made sense (and would have made a difference) if 4.2 had of passed 9:16:26] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> DanielBlack: second 22:16:27] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|AndreasBaess| : we are clear now :) 22:16:30] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> We can't exempt members we just say that anything that they don't owe CAcert they are not liable for 22:16:37] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> seconf, Daniel :-) 22:16:53] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> please start a vote on that 22:16:59] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> it was on the agenda, so i think we have to vote anyway 22:17:05] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.5 22:17:06] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:18:35] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.5 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:19:06] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:19:06] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 0 votes. 22:19:06] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:19:08] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 18 votes. 22:19:08] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 21 votes. 22:19:25] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> the motion has failed 22:19:38] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> wow. a change that has no effect has been knocked back. 22:19:44] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> conflict of interest variant A 22:19:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:19:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 6, and inserting in its place: 22:19:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 6. Conflict of Interest Register 22:19:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (1) The secretary must establish and maintain a register of conflicts of interest of members of the association, specifying the name of the member, the nature of the conflict of interest, and the date so recorded. 22:19:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2) A member is taken to have a conflict of interest in the event of becoming employed, contracted to or gaining any pecuniary interest in any entity that is engaged in a for-profit business of: 22:19:47] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (i) operating a Certificate Authority, or 22:19:49] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (ii) reselling services operated by a Certificate Authority 22:19:51] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (3) A member that has a conflict of interest must disclose immediately to the secretary the date the conflict commenced, the nature of the conflict and the names of any other parties to the conflict of interest. 22:19:54] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (4) A member who previously made a disclosure in accordance with these rules must notify the secretary in the event of there no longer being a conflict of interest. 22:19:59] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (5) The secretary must, on receipt of a notification in accordance with clause (2) or (3) of this rule, cause that notification to be recorded in the register of conflicts of interest. 22:20:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (6) Whilst ever a conflict of interest exists, that member may not vote on any matter. 22:20:04] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By appending the following to rule 19: 22:20:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> , or 22:20:08] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (h) makes, or is required to make a notification to the secretary under rule 6. 22:20:10] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, start a vote please 22:20:12] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> this is 4.6 22:20:15] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.6 22:20:16] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:21:34] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> how does the votingbot count people that do not give a vote? 22:21:45] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.6 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:21:54] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> HenrikHeigl: Why would it do that? 22:21:58] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> HenrikHeigl, it doesnt 22:22:00] |!n|PhilippDunkel| thinks this meeting is being run way to efficiently. This is not typical for CAcert 22:22:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, :) 22:22:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> although i think that is a good thing :) 22:22:16] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:22:16] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 4 votes. 22:22:16] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:22:16] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 23 votes. 22:22:16] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 12 votes. 22:22:19] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> pd: :-) 22:22:21] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> Yes, rarely seen... 22:22:24] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> motion failed 22:22:24] |!n|PhilippDunkel| agrees with Nick 22:22:25] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> CAcert is becoming professional :) 22:22:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.7 22:22:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Conflicts of Interest ( Variant B ) 22:22:30] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:22:30] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 6, and inserting in its place: 22:22:30] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 6. Conflict of Interest Register 22:22:30] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (1) The secretary must establish and maintain a register of conflicts of interest of members of the association, specifying the name of the member, the nature of the conflict of interest, and the date so recorded. 22:22:31] <+|!nc|JohnMoore|> PhillippDunkel: >:o 22:22:33] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> PhilippDunkel: I'd argue, but lets keep it for an informal chat later 22:22:34] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2) A member is taken to have a conflict of interest in the event of becoming employed, contracted or obliged in other ways to any organization in the business of: 22:22:36] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (i) operating a Certificate Authority, or 22:22:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (ii) reselling services operated by a Certificate Authority, or 22:22:40] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (iii) maintaining national security (internally or externally), or 22:22:42] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (iv) any activity the committee views as in conflict with the principles of CAcert. Such activities must be publicized by the committee to the membership before taking effect. 22:22:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (3) A member that has a conflict of interest must disclose immediately to the secretary the date the conflict commenced, the nature of the conflict and the names of any other parties to the conflict of interest. 22:22:48] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (4) A member who previously made a disclosure in accordance with these rules must notify the secretary in the event of there no longer being a conflict of interest. 22:22:51] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (5) The secretary must, on receipt of a notification in accordance with clause (2) or (3) of this rule, cause that notification to be recorded in the register of conflicts of interest. 22:22:52] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> LOL 22:22:54] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (6) Whilst ever a conflict of interest exists, that member may not vote on any matter. 22:22:56] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By appending the following to rule 19: 22:23:01] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> , or 22:23:02] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (h) makes, or is required to make a notification to the secretary under rule 6. 22:23:04] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, start a vote please 22:23:07] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.7 22:23:07] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:23:45] |!n|FaramirCl| [ba684816@|!h|CAcert.Web.Interface.User|] has quit IRC: Quit: Web-based client at https://irc.cacert.org 22:24:28] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> The special resolution has failed. 22:24:37] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.7 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:24:50] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> if abstain does not count why do we have it at all 22:24:57] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> very likely 22:25:06] |!n|NickBebout| agrees with |!n|RobertKochheim| 22:25:07] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:25:07] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 4 votes. 22:25:07] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:25:08] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 23 votes. 22:25:08] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 12 votes. 22:25:08] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> Robert: better discussed on the mailing list, it's effect has been settled at this meeting 22:25:13] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> Nick, the voting hasNt ended... but a good guess ;-) 22:25:15] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> The special resolution has failed. 22:25:19] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> OOPS 22:25:21] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> hehe 22:25:22] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> I had that queued 22:25:31] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> it means that 3 aye 1 naye 100 abstain = passed 22:25:36] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> so you are recorded as having a conflict of interest, or not having your mind made up 22:25:40] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Robert: because the transcript can be recorded and it shows that a deliberate choice not to vote was made rather than not being able to vote due to technical dificulties fore example 22:25:56] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|RobertKochheim| : true it is crazy ! 22:26:02] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.8 22:26:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Committee Size Increase 22:26:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:26:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 15(1)(b) and inserting in its place: 22:26:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (b) 6 ordinary members, 22:26:04] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 21(5) and inserting in its place: 22:26:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (5) Any 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum for the transaction of business of a meeting of the committee. 22:26:13] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, start a vote on that please 22:26:33] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.8 22:26:33] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:27:27] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> A note to all members: Please wait for |!n|votebot| to announce a vote beginning before attempting to vote 22:27:43] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> AYE 22:27:52] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> sorry...wrong channel 22:28:02] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.8 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:28:04] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> @pd: compliments for the |!n|votebot 22:28:12] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @lh: thanks 22:28:28] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> ack - esp the timing - working well 22:28:29] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|PhilippDunkel| : a good piece of software ! 22:28:33] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:28:33] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 3 votes. 22:28:34] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 19 votes. 22:28:34] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 18 votes. 22:28:34] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:28:46] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> The special resolution has failed. 22:28:47] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> PD a real good techie :-) 22:28:47] <+|!nc|RaoulXavierBoerlage|> second lambert 22:29:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Ordinary Business Notification 22:29:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:29:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting clause 27(1), and inserting in its place: 22:29:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (1) Except if special resolutions under rule 32 are proposed, the secretary must, at least 14 days before the date fixed for the holding of the general meeting, give a notice to each member specifying the date and time of the meeting and the nature of the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting. 22:29:06] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting clause 27(2), and inserting in its place: 22:29:08] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2) If special resolutions under rule 32 are proposed, the secretary must, at least 21 days before the date fixed for the holding of the general meeting, cause notice to be given to each member specifying the intention to propose the resolutions as special resolutions, and include any ordinary business received at that time. The secretary may, no later than 14 days before the date, update the notice to include additional ordinary business duly received. 22:29:18] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.8 22:29:19] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> (last time late votes got members in the board, so why does ernies vote not count now) 22:29:20] |!n|FaramirCl| [ba684816@|!h|CAcert.Web.Interface.User|] has joined |!c|#agm 22:29:22] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.9 sorry 22:29:34] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> 4.8 22:29:37] |!n|NickBebout| does not object to counting ErnestineSchwob's vote 22:29:47] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> althoug hit was warned this time 22:29:51] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> and would not affect the outcome 22:30:02] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> last time it was because we were not warned of closing votes 22:30:02] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> the issue last time is that there was no warning or fixed duration of voting 22:30:15] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|NickBebout| :seconded 22:30:28] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Which item is next? 4.8 right? 22:30:40] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> 4.9 i think... 22:30:41] <+|!nc|RaoulXavierBoerlage|> 4.9! 22:30:48] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4/9 22:30:51] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.9 sorry 22:30:52] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> 4.9 ordinary business .. 22:31:07] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> please start a vote on 4.9 ordinary business 22:31:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.9 22:31:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:31:34] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> (remark was about "change the rules during the game") 22:32:01] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> if all agree this isn't a problem ,-) 22:32:18] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> communications practice ... read watzlawick ,-) 22:32:40] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> aha, so lets agree that the bank gives us 25% intrest :-) 22:32:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.9 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:33:01] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> If all including the bank agre that's not a problem 22:33:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> :) 22:33:17] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> i do not agree with changing rulesz within a game ;-) ... better afterwards for next time. 22:33:17] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> ;) 22:33:20] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:33:20] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 4 votes. 22:33:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:33:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 4 votes. 22:33:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 32 votes. 22:33:31] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> HH... agree ;-) 22:33:32] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> The special resolution is passed. 22:33:40] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> as long as it it 75% that did not say abstain 22:33:54] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> ;-)@Robert 22:34:08] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Committee Elections 22:34:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:34:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By inserting the following at the end of rule 16: 22:34:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (7) Early Ballots may be made with digitally signed email to the secretary, or using other usual and proper methods as the committee may direct. Early ballots must be accepted from fourteen days prior to, and up to one hour before the meeting, and be accepted with signed email. 22:34:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting clause 33(3) and inserting in its place: 22:34:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (3) Early votes may be made with digitally signed email to the secretary, or using other usual and proper methods as the committee may direct. Early votes must be accepted from fourteen days prior to, and up to one hour before the meeting, and be accepted with signed email. 22:34:17] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.10 22:34:18] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Nick thanks for agiving me the number as well. That helps 22:34:19] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please start a vote 22:34:22] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.10 22:34:23] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:35:52] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.10 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:36:03] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> my proposal would be to remove abstain for the next time. So anyone who likes to vote needs to give a clear statement 22:36:25] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:36:26] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:36:26] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 3 votes. 22:36:26] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 2 votes. 22:36:26] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 35 votes. 22:36:34] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> The special resolution has passed 22:36:35] <+|!nc|PatrickPointu|> already more than 1h30 of meeting. Motion for a 10 min recess. 22:36:45] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> @Mario: no, that way you cannot check technical problems prohibiting voting 22:37:04] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PatrickPointu, it was proposed to take a recess after the special resolutions 22:37:09] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> which would leave 4 more votes 22:37:17] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Which should go quick 22:37:21] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PatrickPointu, do you mind waiting until then? 22:37:25] <+|!nc|PatrickPointu|> ie another 15~20 min 22:37:37] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> if someone seconds your motion, we can vote on having a recess now 22:37:43] <+|!nc|PatrickPointu|> no problem, I'm not sure my dog will wait that long ;-( 22:38:04] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> Patrick: second :-) 22:38:06] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> please open the door ,-) 22:38:19] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please open a vote on whether to recess for 10 mins 22:38:33] <+|!nc|PatrickPointu|> thanks 22:38:34] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> @patrick: my daughter is now walking my dog 22:38:39] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE SHOULD RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES 22:38:40] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:38:47] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> spend 20% of the recess time on a vote. clever 22:38:57] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Lambert... as long it's not the opposite... ;-) 22:39:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> EvaldoGardenali, well, i don't think the chair has the authority to declare a recess 22:39:19] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> although i don't know, maybe :) 22:39:57] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> (new vote for 5min break ;-) 22:40:09] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE SHOULD RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:40:21] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> WEll by seconding we already approved a 2 minute recesss :) 22:40:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, true :) 22:40:40] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:40:40] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 5 votes. 22:40:40] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:40:40] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 21 votes. 22:40:40] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 11 votes. 22:40:43] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> RobertKochheim: vote on 1 minute break 22:40:48] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> the motion has failed 22:40:49] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> :) 22:41:04] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|EvaldoGardenali| : :) 22:41:08] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> .-) 22:41:13] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> vote on 30' break - ;-) 22:41:25] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:41:26] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> 4.11 ? 22:41:26] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By inserting, at the end of rule 23, the following: 22:41:26] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 23a Ballot methods 22:41:26] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (1) Questions may be put by any member of the committee outside of a meeting by circulating the question to all board members by digitally signed email to a mailing list containing all members of the committee. 22:41:26] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2) A question circulated by way of rule 23A(1) is taken to have been received by all committee members 48 hours after transmission or such other period as may be unanimously agreed on by the members of the committee. 22:41:28] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (3) A question so put under this rule shall be voted on by digitally signed email to the committee mailing list, or by any other method deemed unanimously acceptable to the members of the committee. 22:41:32] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (4) A question put under this rule must be held open for votes for 72 hours following deemed receipt of the question in clause (2), or until such time as all members of the committee have voted, whichever is the sooner. 22:41:35] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (5) A question is not resolved unless it is voted on by at least as many members as would be required to constitute a quorum under rule 21(5). 22:41:37] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 23b Open and transparent governance 22:41:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (1) The committee must, except as provided in this rule, cause any and all business transacted by it to be published on the association's website. 22:41:43] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2) The committee may, by its own motion, close its deliberations to the public, restrict access to any document, or do any other thing as necessary for the proper administration of the association. 22:41:44] <+|!nc|WernerDworak|> You allways can do your own small break :-) 22:41:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (3) In the event of the use of rule 23B(2), the committee must record and publicly disclose the reasons for its decision. 22:41:50] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting rule 23(6). 22:41:52] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.11 22:41:55] |!n|NickBebout| would very much encourage the passage of this resolution 22:42:03] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> it would greatly help the board act more quickly 22:42:05] |!n|PhilippDunkel| seconds that 22:42:10] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> second 22:42:10] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> Thirds that :) 22:42:14] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> as the author, I would encourage you all likewise :) 22:42:21] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> as it is, we have to have a board meeting to do ANYTHING 22:42:29] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> So I guess most of the board would really like this 22:42:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, start a vote please 22:42:33] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.11 22:42:33] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:44:02] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.11 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:44:05] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> basically all this says is that we can vote by email 22:44:06] |!n|MarioLipinski| [law@|!h|ist.der.groesste.saeufer.von.lanarena.de|] is now known as |!n|law 22:44:23] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> which is how the previous boards always have done, they just didn't follow the rules 22:44:23] |!n|law| [law@|!h|ist.der.groesste.saeufer.von.lanarena.de|] is now known as |!n|MarioLipinski 22:44:33] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:44:33] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 1 votes. 22:44:33] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:44:34] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 8 votes. 22:44:34] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 30 votes. 22:44:35] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> (perhaps a suggestion for the next AGM aswell) 22:44:46] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> This passed 22:44:49] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 78% 22:44:57] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @robert : for the AGM that is already possible 22:45:21] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> you could have sent your votes to the secretary. Then I would have had to proxy vote for you as you had written 22:45:30] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.13 Member Cost Reimbursement 22:45:30] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:45:30] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting the words "and any member who consequently incurs expenses is entitled to be reimbursed by the association for any expense so incurred" from rule 26(5). 22:45:36] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> i mean as the default 22:45:37] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> 4.12 22:45:52] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> RobertKochheim, 4.11 was about the board, not about agm's 22:45:57] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> agm's already can vote by email 22:46:02] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.12 sorry 22:46:12] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Start ? 22:46:15] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> yes please 22:46:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.12 22:46:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:46:54] |!n|FaramirCl| [ba684816@|!h|CAcert.Web.Interface.User|] has quit IRC: Quit: Web-based client at https://irc.cacert.org 22:47:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.12 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:48:20] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:48:20] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 1 votes. 22:48:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:48:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 0 votes. 22:48:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 38 votes. 22:48:29] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> Wow! 22:48:30] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> The special resolution has passed 22:48:40] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 4.13 22:48:40] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Payment Signatories 22:48:41] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the rules of the incorporated association be amended as follows: 22:48:41] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting clause 37(2) and inserting in its place: 22:48:41] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (2) All cheques, drafts, bills of exchange, promissory notes and other negotiable instruments must be approved by the committee, either directly, or under standing motions as duly approved by the committee. 22:48:41] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By inserting clause 37(3): 22:48:43] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (3) All cheques, drafts, bills of exchange, promissory notes and other negotiable instruments must be signed by a designated representative of the committee, being a member or employee of the association, duly approved to the task of operating a financial facility by the committee. 22:48:48] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> By deleting clause 18(a) and inserting in its place: 22:48:49] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> (a) that all money due to the association is collected and received, that all payments authorized by the association are made and that correct operation of the association's financial facilities is maintained, and 22:48:57] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> This is very important, because at this time we cannot issue payments, including payments to oophaga for hosting 22:49:11] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> since every instrument (or online transfer) has to be signed by two committee members or employees 22:49:16] |!n|PhilippDunkel| seconds Nick. This is very important 22:49:26] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> a special plea on this one... please vote to accept it, so that the next board doesn't have the same saga of trying to get signatories sorted out yet again 22:49:35] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> on the other hand those against presented their arguments.... 22:49:36] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> Hear hear! 22:49:44] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> from the person *still* trying to sort the signatory issue out since the last board 22:49:46] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, start a vote please 22:49:49] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> Hear BS 22:49:53] <+|!nc|MichaelTaenzer|> It reduces expenses ;-) 22:49:53] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> We just spent the better half of 6months to try to work this out and are still not done 22:49:56] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.13 22:49:56] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:51:07] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> Can the bank systems handle more than one signatory for online transfers? 22:51:12] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> just curious 22:51:13] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> MarioLipinski, yes 22:51:18] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> The consequense now will be, their will be no bigger donations to CAcert bank account 22:51:20] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> ok, a representative means that he or she can be a member of the comitee but not must be... 22:51:26] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 4.13 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:51:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> AndreasBuerki, i don't think that bill gates personally signs all of microsoft's checks does he?L 22:51:42] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> or the other board members? 22:51:44] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> MarioLipinski: some banks can (in Holland) 22:51:44] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> Mario: yes, but the two current signatories on our bank account are Greg Rose and Robert Cruickshank.. does us a great deal of good 22:51:56] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:51:56] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 2 votes. 22:51:56] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:51:58] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 7 votes. 22:51:58] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 31 votes. 22:52:00] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Nick... sorry, You don't know, how donators think 22:52:10] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> it passed 22:52:11] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 81% 22:52:13] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> this was not about others it was about 4 eyes 22:52:14] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Andreas: onor do you 22:52:26] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> well, it's done. 22:52:31] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> (phew!) 22:52:39] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> PD... do you think so? You are worng. 22:52:49] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> CAcert is almost dead 22:52:49] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> AndreasBuerki: anything wrong can be taken to a dispute or criminal action, if appropriate 22:52:58] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> AndreasBuerki: I have never heard of a funder wanting to know signing details 22:53:10] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 5.1 Cost of Payment Facilities 22:53:11] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that we think the transaction costs of paying into the existing facilities (Australian bank account, Paypal) are too high and represent a significant barrier, and we request the committee to investigate alternative payment possibilities, and that they either implement these or report back to the membership on why these are not effective. For example, a SEPA account. 22:53:13] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> nod 22:53:18] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> AndreasBuerki: so I'd not care about that, board members are pretty responsible, or they shouldnt be elected 22:53:42] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Evaldo: If money is away, I give a s*** about arbitration or courts 22:53:44] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, start a vote please 22:53:52] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 5.1 22:53:52] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:53:55] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> OK, this is an informational vote: It tells the board what the people want 22:54:03] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> it isn't forceing a result 22:54:47] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> If money really is away I would consider arbitration or courts... 22:55:10] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> and that you can't pay for when the mony is gone :-) 22:55:14] <+|!nc|GeroTreuner|> @Ian: result = report back, at least? 22:55:18] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> (and this is not only about civil rights) 22:55:21] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 5.1 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:55:25] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Ian: There you are totally wrong, founders of bigger amounts will always know, about financial transactions and signatory details 22:55:31] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> MarioLipinski, you are really dreaming, if you think you will get somthing in this way 22:55:35] <+|!nc|JohnMoore|> MarioLipinski: Hunt 'em down and kill 'em. :) 22:55:35] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Well if the money is there and you still can't pay it comes out to the same end 22:55:37] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> naye 22:55:43] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> yes ... so the board can report back that it is too expensive 22:55:45] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> sorry 22:55:52] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:55:52] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 7 votes. 22:55:52] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:55:54] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 10 votes. 22:55:54] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 23 votes. 22:55:56] |!n|NickBebout| thinks it is not to expensive to have one in the US at least 22:55:59] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> anyhow, we will see the consequenses 22:55:59] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> the motion passed 22:56:00] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> I am more interested in protecting the real assets (like root keys) with 4-eyes, than the money, especially since any wrondoing regarding money can be claimed, but loosing the root keys cannot 22:56:17] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 5.2 22:56:17] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Financial Disclosure 22:56:18] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> It is resolved that the committee discloses all financial transactions in an anonymized way. 22:56:25] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, please start a vote on that 22:56:28] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 5.2 22:56:28] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 22:56:56] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> AndreasBuerki: me being totally wrong is quite common :) However, I've not seen it, and it didn't happen before. When we have real big funders, we can add a second signatory, *iff* they ask for it. 22:57:25] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> IanGrigg, agreed 22:57:28] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> have you ever seen a bigger founding by a donator, Ian?... ;-) 22:57:45] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> we even considered calling a sgm for that resolution 22:57:47] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Ian: they will, I bet 22:57:53] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Andreas: Have you? 22:57:57] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED IN POINT 5.2 WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 22:57:58] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> yes 22:58:07] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> Maybe we could think about a limit one signator can handle within one month... 22:58:14] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> and all this is academic.. we cannot pay our bills until this! forget about donations, we need access to our bank account! 22:58:16] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> AndreasBuerki: we can fix it in 21 days if such "problem" arises 22:58:26] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Mario: to late, we are done now 22:58:27] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> AndreasBuerki: I never said I had. I said, I've never seen it. 22:58:28] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 22:58:28] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 4 votes. 22:58:28] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 22:58:28] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> MarkLipscombe, agreed 22:58:30] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 30 votes. 22:58:30] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 4 votes. 22:58:33] |!n|NickBebout| [nb@|!h|72.13.95.118|] has left |!c|#agm|: Leaving 22:58:39] |!n|NickBebout| [nb@|!h|72.13.95.118|] has joined |!c|#agm 22:58:40] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> What is common is a limit per transaction, like you need 2 persons for a payment over 50K 22:58:49] |!n|NickBebout| [nb@|!h|72.13.95.118|] has set mode +o |!n|NickBebout 22:58:52] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Ian: I ask you, have you ever seen a bigger amount of a donator? 22:58:54] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> ok that was strange 22:59:10] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> ab: idea came too late, just before a few days. But maybe for next agm... 22:59:12] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> 6 digit at lest 22:59:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Andreas: Chill. It's done with 22:59:26] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> but I trust our people. 22:59:26] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> AndreasBuerki: does that need to be discussed here? propose something for an SGM or AGM 22:59:35] |!n|NickBebout| suggests we take a short recess? 22:59:38] <+|!nc|ErnestineSchwob|> LambertHofstra, it is already now at the westpac - one transaction could not be bigger then 5k 22:59:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> 5-10 mins? 22:59:39] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Evaldo: too late 22:59:47] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> before doing the elections? 22:59:48] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> AndreasBuerki: As you haven't defined "bigger" then the answer and the question is worthless. Of course, I've seen bigger amounts than $1, like $2. 22:59:55] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> second 22:59:57] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> And I have deal with something like that. And still think you are a wrong. So let's leave this topic now. OK? 23:00:02] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> NickBebout: I am late for something else 23:00:09] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> NickBebout: I'd prefer to get things sorted 23:00:18] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> well, the elections shouldn't take too long 23:00:23] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> we just have 8 people i think 23:00:27] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> donated as a donation to you, Ian? not investment 23:00:27] <+|!nc|JohnMoore|> Me too; it's only 8 Names 23:00:33] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> ok, let's start then 23:00:51] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> We will conduct the elections like at the SGM 23:00:53] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> anyhow, issue is done and other ways to take 23:01:00] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> we will vote for one person at a time 23:01:12] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> the 7 people with the most AYE's are elected 23:01:23] |!n|NickBebout| suggests that the board organize their own positions 23:01:30] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> NickBebout: name all the candidates beforehand please? 23:01:35] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> since it is a regular AGM election and not filling casual vacancies, that is allowed 23:01:57] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> EvaldoGardenali: seconded 23:02:00] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Nick Bebout, Mario Lipinski, Ian Grigg, Ernestine Schwob, Mark Lipscombe, Daniel Black, Alexander Prinsier, Lambert Hofstra 23:02:19] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Before we start I have a question for all the candidated 23:02:26] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> So, in this election, silence, Abstain, and NAYE all have the same meaning. 23:02:32] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> IanGrigg, yes 23:02:51] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, yes? 23:03:32] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> The current law already requires that Conflict of Interrests be declare for Board Members. So I ask: Is any of you or has any of ever been in the employ of a National Security organisation or Law Enforcement Agency. 23:03:50] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> no 23:03:52] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> no 23:04:01] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> does the law require this to be declared to all the members? 23:04:04] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> PD: We didn't agree that national security represented a conflict of interest, so I'm not sure the question is appropriate 23:04:05] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> PD... unlawful question 23:04:18] |!n|NickBebout| doesn't think this is mandatory 23:04:23] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|AndreasBuerki| : seconded 23:04:24] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> but if people want to answer, that is fine 23:04:26] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> It is a lawful question and will to a degree influence at least my decision 23:04:34] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> yes, I think conflucts should be declared in private 23:04:38] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> but I think you personally already know the answer to the question, but you're trying to smoke one out :) 23:04:40] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, i agree, it is a lawful question, and they may lawfully decline to answer 23:04:47] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> but FWIW, I have not. 23:04:54] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> no, not to the actual rules, this is unlawful and miseralble! 23:04:55] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> let's go for a vote ! 23:05:07] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> GuillaumeRomagny: seconded 23:05:08] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, open a vote on Nick Bebout please 23:05:16] |!n|NickBebout| is going in order of the wiki list 23:05:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER NICK BEBOUT SHOULD BE ON THE COMITTEE 23:05:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 23:05:28] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> PD... as you lost the resolutions above, you try a dirty trick 23:05:54] <+|!nc|DanielBlack|> fwiw i'll declare i have no conflict(s) of interest 23:06:06] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> This is not a dirty trick an unrelated to special resolutions 23:06:16] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> |!n|AndreasBuerki| : I agree 23:06:32] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> AndreasBuerki: I don't think it's a dirty trick...I'm interested in that, too... 23:06:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER NICK BEBOUT SHOULD BE ON THE COMITTEE WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 23:06:50] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> PD... stop you usual provocatice behavoir, be a man:-) 23:06:59] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Danie do you also not have a Conflict according to my definition of Conflict? 23:07:07] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Tomas, but you are not entitled to 23:07:20] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:07:20] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 2 votes. 23:07:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 23:07:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 1 votes. 23:07:22] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 34 votes. 23:07:32] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, Mario Lipinski please 23:07:34] <+|!nc|WernerDworak|> Andreas, I see not any problem with PDs question 23:07:39] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> AndreasBuerki: That can't stop me asking...Anybody can refuse to answer... 23:07:51] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> WD... read the actual valid rules 23:07:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER MARIO LIPINSKY SHOULD BE ON THE COMMITTEE 23:07:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 23:08:07] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> I think now may be the wrong time to ask the question. But as it is asked, I'm a "NO". 23:08:14] |!n|HenrikHeigl| also see no problem in that question ... we should have nothing to hide. 23:08:26] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> Well, rather ask directly than in public... it's more fair according to actual rules. 23:08:34] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Tomas... of course 23:08:38] <+|!nc|DominikGeorge|> for the record, the vote is for Mario Lipinski, not Lipinsky 23:08:49] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> thx dominik 23:09:01] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> You can ask, but people don't have to answer, at least not in public. Since they will have to answer to the secretary in private, I guess that those that have a CoI never accepted the nomination 23:09:04] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Sorry, my speling iss horrrrable 23:09:06] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> ;) 23:09:14] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> so, the vote should be canceled. 23:09:20] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> PD... mine is worse :-) 23:09:24] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER MARIO LIPINSKY SHOULD BE ON THE COMMITTEE WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 23:09:25] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> othewise naye 23:09:54] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:09:54] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 4 votes. 23:09:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 23:09:56] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 3 votes. 23:09:56] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 28 votes. 23:10:05] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, Ian Grigg please 23:10:13] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> PD: homework for next version of votingbot: canceling votes :-) 23:10:17] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER IAN GRIGG SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE 23:10:18] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 23:10:24] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> HenrikHeigl, i don 23:10:35] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> HenrikHeigl, i don't think a minor spelling error necesitates revoting 23:10:37] |!n|MartinSchulze| [MartinSchu@|!h|dslb-088-070-185-198.pools.arcor-ip.net|] has joined |!c|#agm 23:10:48] <+|!nc|MichaelTaenzer|> HenrikHeigl: you can just vote again it will only be counted once 23:10:59] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> HenrikHeigl, oh 23:11:04] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> or are you trying to change your vote 23:11:12] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> HenrikHeigl, you can already change your vote, just vote again 23:11:19] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> Nick: I dissagree. We also do not assure someone and file an arbitration if someone does so. 23:11:30] <+|!nc|MartinGummi|> PhilippDunkel: voice on |!n|MartinSchulze| 23:11:40] |!n|NickBebout| [nb@|!h|72.13.95.118|] has set mode +v |!n|MartinSchulze 23:11:47] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER IAN GRIGG SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 23:11:48] <+|!nc|MartinGummi|> @ vote 23:12:00] <+|!nc|MartinGummi|> PhilippDunkel: voice on |!n|MartinSchulze| @ vote 23:12:18] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:12:18] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 7 votes. 23:12:18] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 23:12:18] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Happened alread 23:12:18] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 7 votes. 23:12:18] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 25 votes. 23:12:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, Ernestine Schwob 23:12:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> or if you can do those .. things that'd be even better :) 23:12:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER ERNESTINE SCHWOB SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE 23:12:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 23:14:16] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> seriously, if we do not live our own rules the hole thing does not matter... 23:14:20] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER ERNESTINE SCHWOB SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 23:14:38] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> lool... would be the first lady to be president of CAcert Inc. ... ;-) 23:14:50] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:14:50] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 2 votes. 23:14:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 23:14:52] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 0 votes. 23:14:52] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 38 votes. 23:14:52] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> not really ;-) 23:14:56] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> Andreas: yes 23:15:22] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, Mark Lipscombe 23:15:22] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> no lets go for Mark :-) 23:15:33] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER MARK LIPSCOMBE SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE 23:15:33] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 23:15:42] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> it has not been decided how to name the positions 23:15:48] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> normally they are decided by the board 23:15:59] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> although at the SGM the members had to, because they were filling the specific vacancies 23:16:46] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Thanks nick for the warning 23:17:00] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> no problem 23:17:03] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER MARK LIPSCOMBE SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 23:17:33] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:17:33] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 3 votes. 23:17:33] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 23:17:34] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 3 votes. 23:17:34] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 32 votes. 23:17:44] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, Daniel Black 23:17:49] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> I've been voting BrianMcCullough's proxy ... but I might not have it. PD, have you checked htat situation? 23:17:49] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER DANIEL BLACK SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE 23:17:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 23:18:58] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> You do not have it 23:19:08] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> I do as of the start of elections 23:19:19] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER DANIEL BLACK SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 23:19:29] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Can you pm me your votes so that I can change my tally 23:19:34] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> did you also vote in the previous elections? and was your vote recorded after mine? We may have to re-count 23:19:37] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> so has he been voting twice? 23:19:41] |!n|MarkLipscombe2| [markl@|!h|124-168-186-155.dyn.iinet.net.au|] has joined |!c|#agm 23:19:42] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> in effect? 23:19:46] |!n|NickBebout| [nb@|!h|72.13.95.118|] has set mode +v |!n|MarkLipscombe2 23:19:48] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> pm? 23:19:50] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:19:50] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 1 votes. 23:19:50] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 23:19:50] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 6 votes. 23:19:50] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 27 votes. 23:19:53] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Yes 23:20:07] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> We have a situation 23:20:41] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> situation? 23:20:53] |!n|MarkLipscombe| [markl@|!h|124-168-186-155.dyn.iinet.net.au|] has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 180 seconds 23:20:59] |!n|MarkLipscombe2| [markl@|!h|124-168-186-155.dyn.iinet.net.au|] is now known as |!n|MarkLipscombe 23:21:09] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Please hold everything 23:21:11] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> WEll, I don't think there is a need to panic; it only effects the lowest results 23:21:22] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> hummm 23:21:34] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> something wrong? 23:21:38] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> at this stage, my count is the lowest, and even with one vote, it does not change any result. 23:21:58] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> So I suggest we carry on and then assess later on 23:22:10] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> two votes were coming in later for the last vote, shouldn't that be corrected? 23:22:19] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, alexander prinsier 23:22:24] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> aint 2 minutes fair? 23:22:33] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> voted later, lost the time? 23:22:45] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> |!n|MarkLipscombe| has an internet problem apparently (not his fault I'd say) 23:23:01] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> I got booted by the IRC server, it would seem 23:23:06] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> oh, nod 23:23:09] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> |!n|HenrikHeigl| I don't know why he voted late 23:23:12] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER ALEXANDER PRINSIER SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE 23:23:12] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 23:23:12] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> thats something to be arranged 23:23:25] |!n|NickBebout| listens for a motion 23:24:20] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> Wytze: what do you mean? 23:24:31] |!n|PhilippDunkel| motions to restart the voting process, because there are too many iregularities 23:24:41] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER ALEXANDER PRINSIER SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 23:24:48] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> PhilippDunkel: please state irregularities 23:24:49] |!n|TomasTrnka| seconds 23:24:50] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> HenrikHeigl: your vote was shown to come in after closing the voting, so not counted I think 23:24:53] |!n|MarkLipscombe2| [markl@|!h|203-214-151-173.perm.iinet.net.au|] has joined |!c|#agm 23:25:10] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> There are people voting late and then there were duplicates due to proxy errors 23:25:10] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:25:10] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 7 votes. 23:25:11] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 23:25:12] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 9 votes. 23:25:12] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 21 votes. 23:25:18] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> MarkLipscombe2: do you need to cast any out-of-time vote? 23:25:22] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> Wytze: I think I was 5 seconds to late while windowshifting, but its ok. 23:25:45] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> PhilippDunkel: cant we just state and re-count excluding irregulars? 23:25:49] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Nick my motion was seconded 23:26:02] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Going through the logs will take significat amounts of time 23:26:04] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> I think the proxy things need to be corrected before announcing the final results 23:26:06] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Much more than starting over 23:26:10] |!n|NickBebout| [nb@|!h|72.13.95.118|] has set mode +v |!n|MarkLipscombe2 23:26:16] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe2|> at this stage, it seems neither of my votes concerning Daniel or Alexander will make a difference, so I'm happy to leave it be 23:26:23] |!n|MarkLipscombe| [markl@|!h|124-168-186-155.dyn.iinet.net.au|] has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 180 seconds 23:26:25] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> motion to agree the current results 23:26:29] |!n|MarkLipscombe2| [markl@|!h|203-214-151-173.perm.iinet.net.au|] is now known as |!n|MarkLipscombe 23:26:32] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> But there are other errors besides your late votes 23:26:33] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> RobertKochheim: seconded 23:26:41] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Rober, second 23:26:46] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> second, but first vote for lambert? 23:26:50] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> we have 2 motions 23:26:54] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> what's the deal? Philipp in fact holds Brian's proxy for voting in the committee elections, and Ian was voting for him? 23:26:56] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> so we need to vote on PhilippDunkel's first 23:27:04] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Honestly going through the log to recount will not be fun 23:27:04] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> can't we just adjust the vote accordingly? 23:27:15] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> MarkLipscombe: yes. 23:27:17] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER WE SHOULD RESTART THE VOTING 23:27:17] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 23:27:23] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> at this stage, it also would not affect the outcome 23:27:42] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> if it doesn't affect the outcome, why do we need to do it again? 23:27:49] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> we have someone with the lowest vote by more than one vote 23:27:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> It probably does affect the outcome 23:28:06] <+|!nc|WytzevanderRaay|> the whole point of keeping a log seems to me that you CAN go through it, and don't have to repeat the vote 23:28:12] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> I count 3 proxy ayes from ian during elections. Just substracting them would not make any difference in the final results i guess. 23:28:24] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> (for Brian) 23:28:34] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> PD: I don't think so.. gap between lowest and second lowest candidate is 4 votes 23:28:37] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> PD i did not read a call for votes on the motion by the chair 23:28:46] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER WE SHOULD RESTART THE VOTING WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 23:28:49] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> RobertKochheim, it was implied 23:28:54] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> when i said we needed to vote on his motion first 23:28:58] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> MarioLipinski: Repeating the votes would take quarter an hour, tops... 23:28:58] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> since it was seconded first 23:29:04] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @ Robert: "NickBebout: so we need to vote on PhilippDunkel's first" 23:29:14] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> ok appologies, non native 23:29:17] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:29:17] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 23:29:18] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 2 votes. 23:29:18] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 26 votes. 23:29:18] <+|!nc|TomasTrnka|> MarioLipinski: Sorry, that was to MarkL 23:29:20] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 7 votes. 23:29:24] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> RobertKochheim, thats ok 23:29:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> the motion failed 23:29:39] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> the motion to proceed is moot, since the motion to revote failed 23:29:42] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> we will now proceed 23:29:46] <+|!nc|RobertKochheim|> looking at the last results no need to vote for mine i guess 23:29:49] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> PhilippDunkel, Lambert Hofstra please 23:29:54] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> but in any case, it would not make a material difference to the outcome of the election 23:30:04] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> OPENING VOTE ON WHETHER LAMBERT HOFSTRA SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE 23:30:04] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING WILL LAST 2 MINUTES ONLY 23:30:11] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> yes, let's go for Lambert :-) 23:30:55] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Lambert seems the only one beating Ernie... ;-) 23:31:18] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> that is not a race... 23:31:24] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> ;-) 23:31:34] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> VOTING ON WHETHER LAMBERT HOFSTRA SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL END IN 30 SECONDS! 23:31:36] <+|!nc|GuillaumeRomagny|> :) 23:31:55] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> What a confusion. My apologies to the members, I misunderstood the proxy and didn't change my scripts until mentioned by someone else. 23:32:00] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> HH... lool... just some fun :-) 23:32:05] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> I have counted all the votes and reached the following result: 23:32:05] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> ABSTAIN had 2 votes. 23:32:05] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> THE VOTE HAS BEEN CLOSED 23:32:06] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> NAYE had 1 votes. 23:32:06] <+|!nc|VoteBot|> AYE had 34 votes. 23:32:23] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Results are: Ernestine Schwob - 38 23:32:24] <+|!nc|HenrikHeigl|> yeah, I know. all a joke :-) 23:32:31] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Nick Bebout and Lambert Hofstra - 34 23:32:38] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Mark Lipscombe - 32 23:32:43] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Mario Lipinski - 28 23:32:49] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Daniel Black - 27 23:32:52] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Ian Grigg - 25 23:32:53] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Ernie - 38 23:32:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Nick - 34 23:32:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Lambert - 34 23:32:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Lambert - 34 23:32:55] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Mark - 32 23:32:55] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Mario - 28 23:32:55] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Daniel - 27 23:32:56] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Ian - 25 23:32:56] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> Alexander Prinsier - 21 23:32:59] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Is my uncorrected count 23:33:29] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> do we need to make corrections to those ? 23:33:47] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> yes, they should be corrected, but it doesn't make any difference to the outcome 23:33:55] |!n|Internat| [nf@|!h|123-243-184-161.static.tpgi.com.au|] has joined |!c|#agm 23:34:09] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Since the potential error is smaller than the difference (according to the gospel of mark) I guess not 23:34:17] |!n|Internat| [nf@|!h|123-243-184-161.static.tpgi.com.au|] has left |!c|#agm 23:34:28] |!n|NathanFrankish| [nf@|!h|123-243-184-161.static.tpgi.com.au|] has joined |!c|#agm 23:34:35] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> PhilippDunkel: does the vote bot count only one Proxy per name? 23:34:40] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Especially since the only way to do that is to go though the log 23:35:07] |!n|NickBebout| will either entertain a motion to count the results as given, or a motion to change them 23:35:13] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Ian: Basically yes, however if there is a spelling Error which is not unlikely, then those are 2 votes 23:35:20] <+|!nc|IanGrigg|> because if so, it then only changes if we voted differently. 23:35:25] <+|!nc|LambertHofstra|> @PD: my son wrote a script to do that after the SGM, so I can ask to check the log again? 23:35:40] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> (It's not unlikely, because I know I have at least 2 versions of Brians Last Name used) 23:36:21] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> @Lambert: As a double check that would be excellent 23:36:24] <+|!nc|AndreasBuerki|> Lambert.... as the father....fg* 23:36:34] |!n|NickBebout| declares a 5 minute recess while the impact of the proxy error and necessary corrections are determined 23:36:44] <+|!nc|JohnMoore|> Bottom Line; are there any more Votes to be made? If not, then some of Us could quietly depart. ;) 23:36:47] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> second 23:36:57] <+|!nc|MathieuSimon|> second? - if possible yes 23:37:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> UlrichSchroeter, second what? to have a recess while they decide the corrections? 23:37:24] <+|!nc|UlrichSchroeter|> yup ;) 23:37:28] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> ok 23:37:32] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> ok 23:37:42] |!n|NickBebout| declares us in recess 23:37:54] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> I think that doing more than analysis by Lamberts son is overkill. 23:38:06] <+|!nc|EvaldoGardenali|> I need to go, sorry to leave early. I'll be in touch 23:38:07] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> since it was only 1 vote anyway, right? 23:38:09] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> The difference in votes will be 2 at most 23:38:15] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> yeah, so it wouldnt affect anything 23:38:19] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> and therefore it will really not make a difference 23:38:20] |!n|NickBebout| withdraws his motion 23:38:26] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> yeah, the minimum number of error votes needed to change it is 4 23:38:38] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> Does PD hold a proxy for Brian? 23:38:43] <+|!nc|MarkLipscombe|> and that also presumes that PD votes a different way to Ian with Brian's proxy 23:38:45] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Yes I do 23:38:51] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> Brian split his proxy 23:39:02] |!n|NickBebout| declares the following as elected to the Committee of Management of CAcert Incorporated .......... Ernestine Schwob, Nick Bebout, Mario Lipinski, Ian Grigg, Mark Lipscombe, Daniel Black, Lambert Hofstra 23:39:04] <@|!nc|PhilippDunkel|> he gave it to Ian for the resolutions and to me for the elections 23:39:12] <+|!nc|MarioLipinski|> From my logs this would not change anything because when ian voted, he voted same as you 23:39:14] <@|!nc|NickBebout|> There being no further business, this meeting is ADJOURNED.