Conversation with #agm at 17.11.2013 16:50:25 on u60@irc.cacert.org (irc)
(21:59:12) TomasTrnka: Alright, the AGM is almost here, I will now switch the channel to moderated so that only valid members may talk.
(21:59:32) TomasTrnka!TooTea@ip4-46-39-163-183.cust.nbox.cz: TomasTrnka hat das Thema zu CAcert Incorporated - Annual General Meeting - Use FirstnameLastname as your nickname - http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/Next - Also join #vote - Only valid members may speak, use #cacert for general discussion abgeändert
(21:59:33) #agm: Modus (+m ) von TomasTrnka
(22:00:20) #agm: Modus (+vvvv BennyBaumann dirkastrath EvaStoewe GeroTreuner) von TomasTrnka
(22:00:22) #agm: Modus (+vvvv GuillaumeRomagny IanRobertson JanDittberner MarcusMaengel) von TomasTrnka
(22:00:23) #agm: Modus (+vvvv MartinGummi MichaelTaenzer PieterVanEmmerik ReinhardMutz) von TomasTrnka
(22:00:24) #agm: Modus (+vvv VoteBot WernerDworak WytzevanderRaay) von TomasTrnka
(22:01:19) WernerDworak: Hello everybody!
(22:01:26) TomasTrnka: Everyone please switch your nick to FirstnameLastname so I can check your membership status
(22:01:41) TomasTrnka: Yes, that applies to Uli and Mario too ;-)
(22:01:47) WernerDworak: Since not too much members are there, I will wait some more minutes
(22:02:27) dirkastrath: the nick "dirk_on_server" is only running for logging purposes ...
(22:03:11) MartinGummi: the same with magu|chatlog
(22:03:36) #agm: Modus (+v BenediktHeintel) von TomasTrnka
(22:03:50) BenediktHeintel: Hello
(22:03:52) #agm: Modus (+v MarioLipinski) von TomasTrnka
(22:03:56) #agm: Modus (+v DominikGeorge) von TomasTrnka
(22:05:29) Das Konto wurde getrennt und Sie sind nicht mehr in diesem Chat. Sie werden automatisch wieder mit dem Chat verbunden, wenn das Konto wieder verbunden ist.
Conversation with #agm at 17.11.2013 22:10:46 on u60@irc.cacert.org (irc)
(22:10:46) #agm: Das Thema für #agm ist: CAcert Incorporated - Annual General Meeting - Use FirstnameLastname as your nickname - http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/Next - Also join #vote - Only valid members may speak, use #cacert for general discussion
(22:11:30) WernerDworak: Since I am not so fast, I give the chair to Vide President Dirk Astrath
(22:11:40) WernerDworak: Dirk go on please!
(22:11:48) dirkastrath: @werner ... no problem ...
(22:13:07) dirkastrath: while there are some members try to change there name to name and given name we can start with 1.1 ... ;-)
(22:13:19) dirkastrath: 1.1 Who is making minutes?
(22:13:49) dirkastrath: any volunteers?
(22:14:08) WernerDworak: I can do it
(22:14:16) dirkastrath: thanks, werner ...
(22:14:39) dirkastrath: next: 1.2 Identification of members with voting rights
(22:14:55) #agm: Modus (+v u60) von TomasTrnka
(22:15:12) Sie heißen jetzt UlrichSchroeter
(22:15:21) dirkastrath: i thinks is tomas part ...
(22:15:23) TomasTrnka: All members eligible to vote were voiced at #vote 
(22:15:37) TomasTrnka: All valid members were voiced here
(22:16:04) dirkastrath: perfect ... 
(22:16:08) TomasTrnka: Can I present rules for voting?
(22:16:20) dirkastrath: yep ...
(22:16:23) TomasTrnka: Rules for voting:
(22:16:36) TomasTrnka: In #vote you can vote "aye"  or "yes" (if you agree) and "naye" or "no" (if you do not agree). These votes are counted. However, you can also vote "abstain". If you vote "abstain" your vote will not be counted.
(22:16:50) TomasTrnka: If you are the proxy for another member you can vote by typing: "proxy membername aye/naye/abstain"
(22:16:58) TomasTrnka: over
(22:18:18) dirkastrath: any questions from the members according the vote?
(22:18:38) MichaelTaenzer: who has a proxy?
(22:18:45) dirkastrath: 1.3 Identify proxy votes
(22:19:13) TomasTrnka: I will now list proxy votes in format "member eligible to vote" -> "member holding proxy"
(22:19:18) TomasTrnka: Alexander Bahlo -> Ulrich Schröter
(22:19:24) TomasTrnka: Jeffery Frederick -> Ulrich Schröter
(22:19:26) TomasTrnka: Nick Bebout -> Ulrich Schröter
(22:19:27) TomasTrnka: Fabian Knopf ?-> Marcus Mängel
(22:19:29) TomasTrnka: Jürgen Bruckner ?-> Marcus Mängel
(22:19:51) TomasTrnka: as Fabian and Jürgen are not here, Marcus's proxies are valid
(22:20:57) dirkastrath: i assume, marcus and ulrich know how to do the proxy vote ... ;-)
(22:21:10) TomasTrnka: dirkastrath: I just posted that
(22:21:11) u60: yep :)
(22:21:51) dirkastrath: okay ... let's continue with 1.4: Identification and acceptance of new members
(22:22:03) #agm: Modus (+v MatthiasSubik) von TomasTrnka
(22:22:17) WernerDworak: The board just accepted Etu
(22:22:45) MichaelTaenzer: Etienne
(22:22:53) TomasTrnka: There are no pending membership applications. New members may be proposed from the floor if desired
(22:22:59) WernerDworak: The board just accepted Etienne Ruedinn as a member
(22:23:18) dirkastrath: okay ... that means nothing new here ...
(22:23:25) dirkastrath: so 1.5 Urgent Business (Acceptance of addtl. resolution into the agenda)?
(22:23:53) IanRobertson: Yes
(22:23:56) MichaelTaenzer: There was a item from benedikt
(22:24:36) BenediktHeintel: As proposed by the Secretary, please add the discussion about the Association Move to the list of business
(22:24:46) IanRobertson: I'd like to propose that the two volunteer AU members get added to the list of nominations for the Board
(22:25:11) GuillaumeRomagny: IanRobertson : seconded
(22:25:13) MichaelTaenzer: IanRobertson: That will be handled at the comittee election
(22:25:19) TomasTrnka: IanRobertson: Those proposals will be handled as proposals from the floor at agenda item 6
(22:25:57) dirkastrath: @michael, @tomas: correct ...
(22:26:56) dirkastrath: @benedikt we'll add this discussion after the commitee elections
(22:27:05) BenediktHeintel: Thank you!
(22:27:42) dirkastrath: then we may continue with 2 ...
(22:27:58) dirkastrath: but i would like to do a testrun of votebot before ... ;-)
(22:28:05) TomasTrnka: okay
(22:28:19) dirkastrath: so everybody is sure with the handling of votebot ...
(22:28:50) u60: (test)motion ... that we want to ban NSA from our meeting
(22:28:57) VoteBot: TomasTrnka has started a vote on: This is a VoteBot test
(22:28:57) ***VoteBot please vote on: This is a VoteBot test
(22:29:02) dirkastrath: ;-)
(22:29:33) ***VoteBot Voting on "This is a VoteBot test" will end in 120 seconds!
(22:30:18) #agm: Modus (+v EvaStoewe) von TomasTrnka
(22:31:28) TomasTrnka: Your last vote counts
(22:31:48) dirkastrath: as everybody saw there are different languages possible and ... the LAST vote counts!
(22:31:57) ***VoteBot has totaled the results for "This is a VoteBot test"
(22:31:59) ***VoteBot ---        AYE:     17
(22:31:59) ***VoteBot ---        NAYE:    3
(22:32:02) ***VoteBot ---        ABSTAIN: 6
(22:32:44) BennyBaumann: 26 members voted, but only 23 ones voiced?
(22:32:58) TomasTrnka: We have 5 proxies
(22:33:18) BennyBaumann: Ah, k. Missed those when counting.
(22:33:41) TomasTrnka: I think we can regard the test as successful and move on
(22:33:45) dirkastrath: okay ...
(22:34:00) dirkastrath: then we can do two more votings ... ;-)
(22:34:03) dirkastrath: 2.1 Annual General Meeting 2012-11-25 AGM/AGM20121125#Minutes
(22:34:15) dirkastrath: Ratification of Minutes
(22:34:34) dirkastrath: http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/AGM20121125#Minutes
(22:34:58) BenediktHeintel: I would like to propose, that this years minutes are issued closer to the meeting. Last minute minutes are always hard do qualify
(22:35:29) TomasTrnka: Note that nothing is preventing anyone from doing them sooner
(22:36:04) BenediktHeintel: @ WernerDworak is it okay for you to release a draft within 7 days?
(22:36:29) dirkastrath: @benedikt would "1 month" or "this year" enough? ;-)
(22:36:37) WernerDworak: I will try but I cannot promise
(22:36:52) BenediktHeintel: one month is okay for me, too
(22:38:00) dirkastrath: then let's start the voting ...
(22:38:56) VoteBot: TomasTrnka has started a vote on: Accept the Minutes of Annual General Meeting 2012-11-25
(22:38:56) ***VoteBot please vote on: Accept the Minutes of Annual General Meeting 2012-11-25
(22:39:24) ***VoteBot Voting on "Accept the Minutes of Annual General Meeting 2012-11-25" will end in 90 seconds!
(22:40:51) #agm: Modus (+v PatrickPointu) von TomasTrnka
(22:41:26) ***VoteBot has totaled the results for "Accept the Minutes of Annual General Meeting 2012-11-25"
(22:41:27) ***VoteBot ---        AYE:     20
(22:41:27) ***VoteBot ---        NAYE:    0
(22:41:29) ***VoteBot ---        ABSTAIN: 6
(22:41:58) dirkastrath: cool ... 
(22:42:11) dirkastrath: then we can do 2.2:
(22:42:21) dirkastrath: Special General Meeting 2013-03-17 SGM/SGM20130317#Minutes
(22:42:24) BrianMcCullough: I presume that the consistent 2 short votes are legitimate?
(22:42:27) dirkastrath: http://wiki.cacert.org/SGM/SGM20130317#Minutes
(22:42:57) TomasTrnka: BrianMcCullough: What do you mean?
(22:44:01) WytzevanderRaay: It's perfectly legal to attend the meeting and not participate in one or more votes.
(22:44:05) dirkastrath: theis SGM was held for "Correction to Financial Report FY 2011-2012"
(22:44:07) BennyBaumann: TomasTrnka: I guess he is refering to PatrickPointu being a second late for the vote (due to missing +v)
(22:44:36) BrianMcCullough: We have, as mentioned above by Benny, 23 members present, 5 proxies, and 26 votes in both of the votes taken.  Just making sure that we aren't short-counting.
(22:44:37) MichaelTaenzer: BrianMcCullough: It's 22 people with vote rights in #vote + 5 proxies
(22:45:19) TomasTrnka: If you don't cast your vote, it's equivalent to ABSTAIN
(22:45:19) MichaelTaenzer: you have to subtract votebot and nonvoiced persons
(22:45:31) TomasTrnka: (at least that is how we defined ABSTAIN at the start)
(22:45:35) BrianMcCullough: Just checking.  Not objecting.
(22:46:40) dirkastrath: okay ... then let's start the SGM-minutes-voting ... ;-)
(22:47:01) VoteBot: TomasTrnka has started a vote on: Accept the Minutes of Special General Meeting 2013-03-17
(22:47:01) ***VoteBot please vote on: Accept the Minutes of Special General Meeting 2013-03-17
(22:48:30) ***VoteBot Voting on "Accept the Minutes of Special General Meeting 2013-03-17" will end in 30 seconds!
(22:49:33) ***VoteBot has totaled the results for "Accept the Minutes of Special General Meeting 2013-03-17"
(22:49:33) ***VoteBot ---        AYE:     23
(22:49:35) ***VoteBot ---        NAYE:    0
(22:49:35) ***VoteBot ---        ABSTAIN: 4
(22:49:58) dirkastrath: nice ...
(22:50:12) dirkastrath: then we proudly present ...
(22:50:24) dirkastrath: ... 3  Annual Reports
(22:50:31) dirkastrath: http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/AGM20131117/CAcert_Annual_Report_2013
(22:51:57) dirkastrath: are there any questions? ;-)
(22:52:53) BrianMcCullough: Me again.  Is "deplorable" accurate for Australia?
(22:53:58) TomasTrnka: IMHO the situation is not *that* bad, but many members feel it so
(22:54:21) GuillaumeRomagny: We have to deal with the situation.
(22:55:00) BrianMcCullough: Otherwise, I would like to congratulate the authors of this document.  Very well presented.
(22:55:11) GuillaumeRomagny: Thanks
(22:55:20) JanDittberner: thanks for the authors from my side too
(22:55:26) WytzevanderRaay: I would like to compliment our treasurer Michael Taenzer for delivering the best financial report in CAcert's history (I'm talking about the quality of the report, not about the somewhat depressing numbers)
(22:55:33) MichaelTaenzer: I would like to thank anyone who contributed to the report
(22:55:47) dirkastrath: +1
(22:55:49) MartinGummi: WytzevanderRaay: 2nd
(22:55:54) u60: +1
(22:56:02) BennyBaumann: Usually +661% profit would be a nice figure ... if there wasn't the sign ... :(
(22:56:11) MichaelTaenzer: and of course also anyone who did something so that we had something to write in that report
(22:57:56) IanRobertson: I propose that the reporf be accepted.
(22:58:27) BrianMcCullough: Second
(22:58:29) dirkastrath: then we should do one thing ...
(22:58:35) IanRobertson: s/f/t
(22:58:38) dirkastrath: Approve the Financial Report for presentation to the OFT
(22:58:56) dirkastrath: this means, we need an additiona vote
(22:59:03) TomasTrnka: dirkastrath: Do we need to separate it again?
(22:59:23) BrianMcCullough: One for "us," one for them?
(22:59:42) TomasTrnka: I don't see a reason to do it that way again, given that no objections were raised
(23:00:24) IanRobertson: It's a formality!
(23:00:33) WernerDworak: We neet to vote for the financial report. If the is a voote neede for the rest I am not sure, but thework of the board should be accepted
(23:00:42) MichaelTaenzer: TomasTrnka: §25(3)(d)
(23:01:05) TomasTrnka: MichaelTaenzer: Sure, accepting the whole thing would include that
(23:01:28) ***BenediktHeintel moves, that the FC 2012/2013 Report is accepted by the Members of CAcert Inc. and the Financial Officer is relieved
(23:01:47) TomasTrnka: BenediktHeintel: We don't have any Financial Officer
(23:01:48) MichaelTaenzer: other reports are usually not voted
(23:02:05) ***BenediktHeintel moves, that the FC 2012/2013 Report is accepted by the Members of CAcert Inc. and the Treasure is relieved
(23:02:15) BenediktHeintel: sorry ;)
(23:02:16) GuillaumeRomagny: Wytze : let's remember the  Ernestine Schwob great financial report 
(23:02:17) TomasTrnka: Well, we have a duly seconded proposal and we have to deal with it
(23:02:53) BrianMcCullough: So, we are voting to accept the Annual Report as presented.  Period.  However, I think that the question is whether to accept that the Financial Report be delivered, as is, to the OFT.   Ahh.  So you are saying that we don't need to "accept" the Annual Report?
(23:02:54) WytzevanderRaay: Guillaume: yes, my memory may be fading a bit on that one ...
(23:04:16) dirkastrath: according to the rules we need to vote for the financial report only so that Kevin can present it to OFT ...
(23:04:32) EtienneRuedin: or not; Annual report: take not of it
(23:04:38) TomasTrnka: So can I start the voting to Accept the CAcert Annual Report including the Financial Report for Financial Year 2012-2013?
(23:04:52) dirkastrath: @tomas: yes
(23:04:57) BrianMcCullough: Or do we drop that motion, and create another?
(23:05:17) VoteBot: TomasTrnka has started a vote on: Accept the CAcert Annual Report including the Financial Report for Financial Year 2012-2013
(23:05:17) ***VoteBot please vote on: Accept the CAcert Annual Report including the Financial Report for Financial Year 2012-2013
(23:06:28) dirkastrath: while everybody i voting now ...
(23:06:47) ***VoteBot Voting on "Accept the CAcert Annual Report including the Financial Report for Financial Year 2012-2013" will end in 30 seconds!
(23:07:22) dirkastrath: ... we have 3 special resolutions ... please do NOT start a longer discussion ... a short one may be okay ... ;-)
(23:07:42) ***BenediktHeintel moves, to disburden CAcert Inc.'s complete 2012/2013 committee
(23:07:47) ***VoteBot has totaled the results for "Accept the CAcert Annual Report including the Financial Report for Financial Year 2012-2013"
(23:07:49) ***VoteBot ---        AYE:     21
(23:07:49) ***VoteBot ---        NAYE:    0
(23:07:52) ***VoteBot ---        ABSTAIN: 4
(23:08:04) TomasTrnka: dirkastrath: Two of those are mutually exclusive so we have to untangle that, at least
(23:08:28) TomasTrnka: BenediktHeintel: and what would that mean? Neither our Rules nor the Act define anything like that
(23:08:55) BenediktHeintel: TomasTrnka, that shows the trust of the members to into the board
(23:09:02) BenediktHeintel: and their work
(23:09:13) GuillaumeRomagny: For sure
(23:09:14) IanRobertson: It may be better to postpone 1 and 2 as may all change if/when we move from AU
(23:10:20) IanRobertson: 3 can go straight to a vote
(23:10:39) WytzevanderRaay: The move from AU won't happen overnight ... it's better to clarify the rules *now*.
(23:10:56) GuillaumeRomagny: Wytze : seconded
(23:11:16) IanRobertson: It ought to be possible over a year...
(23:11:59) BrianMcCullough: Is the plan to completely dissolve the AU organisation, or leave a remnant?
(23:12:12) dirkastrath: @benedikt ... let us talk about this after the elections ...
(23:12:22) TomasTrnka: There's no plan at the moment
(23:12:27) dirkastrath: and continue with the special resolutions
(23:12:38) dirkastrath: 4.1 Specification of Rule 9: Fees and subscriptions
(23:12:46) dirkastrath: http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9
(23:13:04) MichaelTaenzer: For the record we have two special resolutions regarding rule 9
(23:13:10) MichaelTaenzer: both being exclusive
(23:13:15) WernerDworak: Brian that can be still discussed. But it I see the participation of AU members I have not much hope a organisation can still exist
(23:13:23) dirkastrath: 4.2 Another Proposal for Rule 9
(23:13:30) dirkastrath: http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9Proposal2
(23:13:46) dirkastrath: 4.1 and 4.2 are exclusive
(23:14:01) dirkastrath: 4.3 is for rule 9, too ... but another item
(23:14:16) BenediktHeintel: how to vote? first for 4.1 than for 4.2 and see which one gets more votes and vote this one again?
(23:14:29) u60: 4.3  http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/OptiontoWaiveMembershipFee
(23:14:42) GuillaumeRomagny: I guess yes : let's count the votes
(23:14:46) WytzevanderRaay: I'd say we can simply vote for each proposal separately. If one of them passes, all is clear. If both of them pass, we declare the membership insane :-)
(23:14:48) dirkastrath: does anybody have a question to benedikt ot michael?
(23:14:52) MichaelTaenzer: BenediktHeintel: I would second that
(23:15:48) BrianMcCullough: Where do I propose an amendment to both 1 and 2?
(23:15:50) BenediktHeintel: Majority counts or do we need a special majority?
(23:16:38) IanRobertson: Note that we may need to refile our rules if we change them...
(23:16:50) MichaelTaenzer: §32(a): if it is passed by a majority which comprises at least three-
(23:16:50) MichaelTaenzer: quarters of such members of the association as, being entitled
(23:16:50) MichaelTaenzer: under these rules so to do, vote in person or by proxy or by
(23:17:05) MichaelTaenzer: secure online methods at a general meeting of which at least
(23:17:05) MichaelTaenzer: 21 days' written or digitally signed email notice specifying the
(23:17:05) MichaelTaenzer: intention to propose the resolution as a special resolution was
(23:17:05) MichaelTaenzer: given in accordance with these rules, or
(23:17:15) GuillaumeRomagny: so 75%
(23:17:33) TomasTrnka: I would just like to reiterate that I deem the current Rule to clear enough and the confusion to be caused by ambiguous implementation. Additionally, both proposals introduce undefined terms ("subscription") that IMHO bring more confusion
(23:17:55) BennyBaumann: "Secure Online Methods" ;-)
(23:18:19) TomasTrnka: TomasTrnka: Sorry, that applies only to the first proposal
(23:20:06) IanRobertson: I propose that 4.1 and 4.2 are both adjoourned to allow further reflection before a decision is made
(23:20:07) BrianMcCullough: I would like to suggest that the actual amount be removed from Rule 9, and leave it as "as determined by the committee," as other words in Rule 9 state.
(23:20:23) BenediktHeintel: the rule 9 is named "fees and subscriptions", I cannot see any confusion through the word
(23:20:56) TomasTrnka: Proposal #2 is IMHO just redundant as "calendar year" is already in the current version of the rule
(23:21:37) TomasTrnka: BrianMcCullough: Sorry, but that would need to be proposed as another Special Resolution in time
(23:21:54) BrianMcCullough: That's what I suspected.
(23:22:00) BenediktHeintel: IanRobertson, I do not support your idea, you had at least 21 days to read, understand and comment the Special resolutions
(23:22:13) BennyBaumann: I move to get to vote on the proposals.
(23:22:20) MichaelTaenzer: TomasTrnka: that's exactly what a clarification does: it does ad redundancy for those that make too many error in parsing
(23:23:22) dirkastrath: okay ... then we should start the voting ...
(23:23:46) dirkastrath: as suggested: we vote for 4.1 first ... then for 4.2 ...
(23:23:53) TomasTrnka: That means, vote to accept proposal #1?
(23:24:50) dirkastrath: if both pass, the one with more "aye" will "win" ...
(23:25:08) dirkastrath: (pass means 75%)
(23:25:12) BenediktHeintel: this is not my understanding
(23:25:24) TomasTrnka: Did anyone second that proposal?
(23:25:31) TomasTrnka: (I can't find it)
(23:25:48) BenediktHeintel: we vote both first and a third time the one with more "aye" to get the 3/4
(23:25:54) GuillaumeRomagny: let's go for voting, seconded
(23:26:03) BennyBaumann: TomasTrnka: See text from MichaelTaenzer 20 lines above.
(23:26:47) WytzevanderRaay: BenediktHeintel: they may well both fail
(23:26:57) BenediktHeintel: sure
(23:27:18) GeroTreuner: I understand it like this that the first 2 votes are for voting which one to vote first for real.
(23:27:47) ***BenediktHeintel moves to vote for both proposals under 4.1 and 4.2 individually and allow a third vote on the one passing the single majority to allow a 3/4 majority for passing
(23:27:47) u60: no motions have to be voted as presented on the agenda 4.1 and 4.2 and 4.3
(23:28:00) VoteBot: TomasTrnka has started a vote on: Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Specification of Rule 9: Fees and subscriptions" as described at https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9
(23:28:00) ***VoteBot please vote on: Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Specification of Rule 9: Fees and subscriptions" as described at https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9
(23:28:04) MichaelTaenzer: I second BenediktHeintel
(23:28:33) dirkastrath: this is the vote for 4.1
(23:29:30) ***VoteBot Voting on "Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Specification of Rule 9: Fees and subscriptions" as described at https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9" will end in 30 seconds!
(23:30:00) VoteBot hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Excess Flood).
(23:30:12) TomasTrnka: damn
(23:30:31) TomasTrnka: I will count it by hand, but it doesn't seem to be 75%
(23:30:47) TomasTrnka: MarioLipinski: can you resurrect VoteBot?
(23:31:26) MarioLipinski: [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:30:00 GMT] INFO       [SENT]  PRIVMSG  #agm :ACTION has totaled the results for "Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Specification of Rule 9: Fees and subscriptions" as described at https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9"
(23:31:26) MarioLipinski: [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:30:00 GMT] INFO       [SENT]  PRIVMSG  #agm :ACTION ---        AYE:     3
(23:31:26) MarioLipinski: [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:30:00 GMT] INFO       [SENT]  PRIVMSG  #agm :ACTION ---        NAYE:    10
(23:31:26) MarioLipinski: [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:30:00 GMT] INFO       [SENT]  PRIVMSG  #agm :ACTION ---        ABSTAIN: 11
(23:31:33) VoteBot [VoteBot@10.0.0.14] hat den Raum betreten.
(23:31:43) #agm: Modus (+v VoteBot) von TomasTrnka
(23:31:50) TomasTrnka: thanks
(23:32:29) dirkastrath: since votebot is back again ... let's start the vote for 4.2
(23:33:38) #agm: Modus (+o VoteBot) von TomasTrnka
(23:33:57) VoteBot: TomasTrnka has started a vote on: Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Another Proposal for Rule 9" as described at https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9Proposal2
(23:33:57) ***VoteBot please vote on: Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Another Proposal for Rule 9" as described at https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9Proposal2
(23:35:27) ***VoteBot Voting on "Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Another Proposal for Rule 9" as described at https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9Proposal2" will end in 30 seconds!
(23:35:57) VoteBot hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Excess Flood).
(23:36:21) VoteBot [VoteBot@10.0.0.14] hat den Raum betreten.
(23:36:28) MarioLipinski: [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:35:57 GMT] INFO       [SENT]  PRIVMSG  TomasTrnka :ACTION has totaled the results for "Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Another Proposal for Rule 9" as described at https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/SpecificationOfRule9Proposal2"
(23:36:28) MarioLipinski: [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:35:57 GMT] INFO       [SENT]  PRIVMSG  TomasTrnka :ACTION ---        AYE:     12
(23:36:28) MarioLipinski: [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:35:57 GMT] INFO       [SENT]  PRIVMSG  TomasTrnka :ACTION ---        NAYE:    6
(23:36:28) MarioLipinski: [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:35:57 GMT] INFO       [SENT]  PRIVMSG  TomasTrnka :ACTION ---        ABSTAIN: 8
(23:37:00) MarioLipinski heißt jetzt law
(23:37:11) #agm: Modus (+o VoteBot) von TomasTrnka
(23:38:13) BenediktHeintel: 4.1: 46% < 75% - no quorum
(23:38:19) BenediktHeintel: sorry 4.2
(23:38:44) dirkastrath: then we can continue with 4.3, i think ...
(23:38:54) dirkastrath: Option to Waive Membership Fee (Rule 9)
(23:38:58) TomasTrnka: Its 12/18 = 67 % (abstains don't count), but the conclusion is the same
(23:39:00) dirkastrath: http://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/OptiontoWaiveMembershipFee
(23:39:24) IanRobertson: To clarify - both 4.1 and 4.2 faled??
(23:39:29) TomasTrnka: yes
(23:40:32) dirkastrath: are there any questions to michael for 4.3?
(23:41:26) BrianMcCullough: <crickets!>
(23:43:04) ***BennyBaumann cleans up the Kali Tragus tumbling through the meeting ...
(23:43:29) TomasTrnka: Can we start voting?
(23:43:31) IanRobertson: It may be already an option "such other fee as the commitee may determine"
(23:43:32) dirkastrath: if there are no questions, tomas can start the vote...
(23:43:43) TomasTrnka: ok
(23:43:57) MichaelTaenzer: IanRobertson: I would see that as bending the rules a lot
(23:44:25) MichaelTaenzer: because that other amount is not per member just for adjustments in the future
(23:44:52) VoteBot: TomasTrnka has started a vote on: Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Option to Waive Membership Fee"
(23:44:52) ***VoteBot please vote on: Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Option to Waive Membership Fee"
(23:44:55) BrianMcCullough: IanRobertson: I agree with Michael.  The wording that you are quoting has to do with the general case, not special cases.
(23:46:06) BennyBaumann: law: Please change your nick to FirstnameLastname ;-)
(23:46:22) ***VoteBot Voting on "Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Option to Waive Membership Fee"" will end in 30 seconds!
(23:46:58) law: BennyBaumann: For some reasons I'd prefer being privileged with IRC services, however, that means I would have to use the nick as registered with services.
(23:47:25) ***VoteBot has totaled the results for "Accept the Special Resolution proposal "Option to Waive Membership Fee""
(23:47:25) ***VoteBot ---        AYE:     16
(23:47:27) ***VoteBot ---        NAYE:    4
(23:47:27) ***VoteBot ---        ABSTAIN: 6
(23:47:58) BenediktHeintel: result: 61% "aye"
(23:48:35) GuillaumeRomagny: % ?
(23:48:47) WytzevanderRaay: But ABSTAIN doesn't count, so 75%?!?
(23:48:49) TomasTrnka: BenediktHeintel: Stop doing this. Abstains don't count, so 16/20 = 80 % in favor, motion carried
(23:48:58) MichaelTaenzer: WytzevanderRaay: abstain does count
(23:49:22) WytzevanderRaay: 80% agreed
(23:49:25) MichaelTaenzer: as per the rules a special resolution has to be accepted by 75%of the members elligible to vote
(23:49:31) TomasTrnka: MichaelTaenzer: It doesn't, as was clearly stated at the start of the motion
(23:49:45) GuillaumeRomagny: yes
(23:49:52) MichaelTaenzer: accept does not mean abstain
(23:49:55) TomasTrnka: s/motion/meeting
(23:50:23) TomasTrnka: Do we really need to have this discussion AGAIN?
(23:50:36) BennyBaumann: Yes :)
(23:50:44) MichaelTaenzer: you only said that abstain == not voted that is correct
(23:51:13) TomasTrnka: Yes, and the percentage would be of votes cast
(23:51:15) law heißt jetzt MarioLipinski
(23:51:22) MichaelTaenzer: no of the members elligible to vote
(23:51:30) MichaelTaenzer: as per §32
(23:51:39) TomasTrnka: MichaelTaenzer: You're not reading the whole sentence
(23:52:08) ***BennyBaumann caps a Club Mate and sits back ...
(23:52:16) TomasTrnka: It is [the members who] vote in person or by proxy …
(23:53:08) BenediktHeintel: exactly, and "abstain" is a vote
(23:53:16) MarcusMaengel: so tomas it make 16 votes from 26 
(23:53:23) TomasTrnka: No, it isn't, as was clearly stated at start
(23:53:34) BenediktHeintel: I do not agree
(23:53:57) TomasTrnka: Stop this, guys, this has already been discussed to death
(23:54:11) dirkastrath: i suggest, that we start in around 7 minutes (at the next full hour) the commitee elections ...
(23:54:13) WernerDworak: I think we continue now and clear that later
(23:54:16) GuillaumeRomagny: yes let's follow the chairman
(23:54:32) dirkastrath: ... if we still have to discuss this, we can do it AFTER the commitee election ...
(23:54:35) TomasTrnka: And the conclusion was, if it is announced in advance, it's okay
(23:54:45) TomasTrnka: +1 for moving to elections
(23:54:53) GuillaumeRomagny: let's go
(23:55:29) dirkastrath: oops ... so fast? ... ;-)
(23:55:44) dirkastrath: then let's skip the item 5 ...
(23:56:03) dirkastrath: (there are no ordinary resolutions)
(23:56:23) dirkastrath: item #6 commitee elections ...
(23:56:32) IanRobertson: I propose adding the two AU volunteers to the list of nominees...which has already been seconded
(23:56:40) dirkastrath: @ian wait
(23:57:02) MarioLipinski: no one can be added to the list right now I guess...
(23:57:03) dirkastrath: there are 5 names on the list:
(23:57:08) TomasTrnka: So, in total 5 members were duly nominated and seconded in time
(23:57:20) TomasTrnka: Sorry Dirk
(23:57:34) dirkastrath: dirk astrath, jürgen bruckner, werner dworak, alex robertson and michael taenzer
(23:57:58) TomasTrnka: Those are taken to be elected as per Rule 16 (2)
(23:58:00) dirkastrath: all of them are nominated, seconded ...
(23:58:09) dirkastrath: ... and agreed to their nomination
(23:58:17) GuillaumeRomagny: (Then the elected Board will need to nominate the extra Board member them from the floor as planned after the AGM)
(23:58:19) dirkastrath: this menas they are elected as per rule 16
(23:58:26) dirkastrath: correct?
(23:58:34) GuillaumeRomagny: indeed
(23:58:35) TomasTrnka: Right, see above
(23:58:35) MarioLipinski: dirkastrath, corrent.
(23:58:49) TomasTrnka: We have two vacant seats and can accept nominations from the floor now
(23:58:52) BenediktHeintel: now  ?16 (2)
(23:59:27) dirkastrath: from the floor i've seen robert cruikshank and ben ball
(23:59:48) dirkastrath: are there any more nominations from floor?
(23:59:57) MarioLipinski: Can we accept nominations from the floor for members who are not present?
(00:00:09) BenediktHeintel: I nominate Benjamin Ball (AU) as member of the next committee
(00:00:19) TomasTrnka: MarioLipinski: I don't see anything stopping us, just that we need their acceptance
(00:00:26) dirkastrath: @mario they sent the mails late ... ;-(
(00:00:33) dirkastrath: but before the agm
(00:00:45) dirkastrath: therefore in my eyes: yes
(00:00:59) WernerDworak: I nominate Etienne Ruedin as a board member
(00:01:13) BenediktHeintel: I nominate Robert Cruikshank (AU) as member of the next committee
(00:01:52) GuillaumeRomagny: I second Benjamin Ball and Robert Cruikshank
(00:02:09) MichaelTaenzer: I second Etienne
(00:03:45) GuillaumeRomagny: @all : we are in a mess... if we add Etienne, we need to vote, don't we?
(00:03:54) dirkastrath: if there are no more nominations, the order to vote seems to be Benjamin, Robert, Etienne
(00:03:57) TomasTrnka: GuillaumeRomagny: Yes, we do
(00:04:10) EvaStoewe: all three are already added 
(00:04:13) IanRobertson: We also need AU board members!
(00:04:15) TomasTrnka: I'm struggling to find acceptance of Ben and Robert
(00:04:17) MichaelTaenzer: GuillaumeRomagny: it's not a mess at all we have the subcommittee solution
(00:04:19) dirkastrath: (it's the order the nominations were sent in)
(00:04:41) MarioLipinski: I agree, Voting and Democracy is really messy stuff...
(00:04:49) GuillaumeRomagny: Michael : yes of course you are correct (the subcommittee is a mess)
(00:04:49) dirkastrath: since there are 5 non-AU-members we already have/need the subcommitee
(00:04:54) BenediktHeintel: TomasTrnka, both in E-mail threat "AGM 2013-11-17 coming soon" on the members list
(00:05:10) MichaelTaenzer: we have to do a subcommittee anyway
(00:05:49) TomasTrnka: Yep, well, that never got to secretary@, but as those are like "from the floor", I guess it doesn't matter
(00:06:01) BrianMcCullough: So do we just accept all three, and complete the committee?
(00:06:36) BenediktHeintel: TomasTrnka, I guess, they will accept the because they already said they are happy to help
(00:06:42) BenediktHeintel: -the
(00:06:47) TomasTrnka: Yes, I hope so
(00:07:36) dirkastrath: imho the questions is, if we want etienne to have in the board/subcommitee or not ... ;-)
(00:07:42) TomasTrnka: EtienneRuedin: Did you accept the nomination?
(00:08:06) TomasTrnka: We will have subcommittee (assuming we go for 3 AU members)
(00:08:12) EtienneRuedin: yes, I do
(00:08:13) dirkastrath: benjamin and robert are AU members and are needed for the OFT
(00:08:15) TomasTrnka: As we already have 5 non-AU ones
(00:08:46) WernerDworak: I think Etienne will a very valuable asset, so I suggest to take him in
(00:09:01) GuillaumeRomagny: Werner : let's go
(00:09:05) dirkastrath: since we already have a subcommitee, etienne would be in the subcommitee (at least)
(00:09:08) TomasTrnka: OK, so can we start voting?
(00:09:21) dirkastrath: yep ... order: benjamin, robert, etienne
(00:09:56) VoteBot: TomasTrnka has started a vote on: Accept Benjamin Ball as a member of the Committee
(00:09:56) ***VoteBot please vote on: Accept Benjamin Ball as a member of the Committee
(00:10:08) WernerDworak: Tomas, have all of them baid?
(00:11:09) TomasTrnka: WernerDworak: For Robert I'm not sure… Treasurer?
(00:11:26) ***VoteBot Voting on "Accept Benjamin Ball as a member of the Committee" will end in 30 seconds!
(00:11:42) GuillaumeRomagny: Unsure Rob has time to be treasurer
(00:12:01) TomasTrnka: I meant whether Michael can confirm ;-)
(00:12:23) MarioLipinski: I would not like to see any office left with robert, because of bad experiences in the past.
(00:12:24) ***VoteBot has totaled the results for "Accept Benjamin Ball as a member of the Committee"
(00:12:24) ***VoteBot ---        AYE:     18
(00:12:26) ***VoteBot ---        NAYE:    0
(00:12:26) ***VoteBot ---        ABSTAIN: 5
(00:12:42) MichaelTaenzer: Robert is currently not a member of CAcert Inc.
(00:13:05) IanRobertson: Not currently eligible then...
(00:13:06) TomasTrnka: OK, in that case we have to skip him
(00:13:29) MichaelTaenzer: we can probably fix up afterwards for the subcommitteee solution but not now
(00:13:30) GuillaumeRomagny: Michael : so Rob has to be nominated later by the Board.
(00:13:34) TomasTrnka: There's no point in voting then
(00:13:44) TomasTrnka: As we have two candidates for two seats
(00:13:56) GuillaumeRomagny: Tomas : correct
(00:14:25) TomasTrnka: Etienne Ruedin and Benjamin Ball are thus taken as elected under Rule 16 (4)
(00:15:54) dirkastrath: this means, the new board are:
(00:16:00) dirkastrath: Dirk Astrath
(00:16:06) dirkastrath: Jürgen Bruckner
(00:16:12) dirkastrath: Werner Dworak
(00:16:19) dirkastrath: Alex Robertson
(00:16:23) dirkastrath: Michael Tänzer
(00:16:34) dirkastrath: Benjamin Ball
(00:16:45) dirkastrath: Etienne Ruedin
(00:17:10) dirkastrath: Does everybody accept the election?
(00:17:18) MichaelTaenzer: ACK
(00:17:20) WernerDworak: I accept
(00:17:24) dirkastrath: ACK
(00:17:26) EtienneRuedin: I accept
(00:17:26) IanRobertson: OK
(00:18:10) BennyBaumann: Congratulations to the new board!
(00:18:18) EvaStoewe: congratulations
(00:18:30) dirkastrath: (since juergen and benjamin are not online then will agree later (hopefully) )
(00:18:54) GuillaumeRomagny: Grats to th new Board
(00:19:01) dirkastrath: many thanks especially to tomas for the job in the last board
(00:19:08) BrianMcCullough: Agreed.
(00:19:14) GuillaumeRomagny: Sure
(00:19:44) dirkastrath: the first jobs for the new board are: call a board-meeting to define the new "jobs" and install a subcommitee ...
(00:20:14) dirkastrath: ... but this will be done via email after the agm ...
(00:20:54) dirkastrath: then we can continue with the items not listed on the agenda ... ;-)
(00:21:09) dirkastrath: discussion about a possible move of CAcert to europe
(00:21:11) WernerDworak: One remark: Kevin Dawson stands as the Publich officer, he told.
(00:21:25) MichaelTaenzer: The item for the association move is still on the agenda
(00:21:32) dirkastrath: thanks for the info, werner
(00:21:51) ReinhardMutz: congratulations to the new board, thankx tomas
(00:22:00) BennyBaumann: What about making each board member donate a 1 EUR for each board meeting they failed to attend? (JK ;-))
(00:22:09) WernerDworak: A regular board member he denied. I hope I can ask him for subcommitte
(00:22:14) GuillaumeRomagny: Benny : good point
(00:22:34) EtienneRuedin hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: [https://irc.cacert.org]   (Ping timeout)).
(00:22:43) ReinhardMutz: benny: 1 is too less 10 is much better
(00:22:50) BennyBaumann: (Payable at the end of their term)
(00:23:05) ReinhardMutz: in advance :D
(00:23:39) IanRobertson: In which case I'd have to resign - I'm long term unemployed!
(00:23:46) dirkastrath: ;-)
(00:24:05) u60: Alex ... we can start a collection  ,-)
(00:24:15) BenediktHeintel: Or never miss any meeting
(00:24:16) TomasTrnka: chairman, can we keep on topic (if there is one)? It's getting late
(00:24:18) dirkastrath: well ... this has to be a board motion ... and i don't think, that it will pass ... ;-)
(00:24:25) dirkastrath: we have a topic ...
(00:24:32) dirkastrath: discussion about a possible move of CAcert to europe
(00:24:34) EvaStoewe: if you are unemployed you should have the time to go to the meetings...
(00:24:35) MichaelTaenzer: Ok enough of the fun we still have the item from Benedikt on the table
(00:24:54) BenediktHeintel: Let me just summarize
(00:26:19) BenediktHeintel: This AGM we see it again: It is getting harder and harder to get the needed number of Australian residents to staff the committee and the majority of CAcert Inc. Members resides in Europe (esp. Germany, Austria, the netherlands)
(00:26:57) BenediktHeintel: therefore, I'd like to discuss with you your willingness to give up CAcert Inc. in favour for a Association in Europe
(00:27:25) dirkastrath: ... and the possibility ... 
(00:27:43) IanRobertson: OK - two issues I see
(00:27:51) dirkastrath: as far as i know the policies/... prevent a move of CAcert
(00:27:54) WernerDworak: There was an opinion to keep the australian Inc, but I see no hope
(00:28:00) BenediktHeintel: Today, there is no decision to take where this association should be located, but the clear task for the board to work on this topic
(00:28:11) IanRobertson: 1) tranferring the membership
(00:28:11) MarioLipinski: Is it possible to move the CA (means root certificate) and the members to another association?
(00:28:29) IanRobertson: 2) moving the CA
(00:28:48) BenediktHeintel: Let's take the second issue, because it is easier:
(00:28:53) IanRobertson: 1) can be addressed by members agreeing "in principke" at this stage
(00:29:15) dirkastrath: @ian: inc members or community members? ;-)
(00:29:20) BenediktHeintel: Moving a CA is a contractual change: One association hands over / sells the CA for 1 EUR to the other
(00:29:40) BenediktHeintel: same with all the other contracts (mutual agreement needed between the three parties)
(00:29:46) IanRobertson: 2) requires policy group to agree changes to CPS and other documents
(00:29:46) MarioLipinski: Moving members would not be a problem imho.
(00:29:52) dirkastrath: @benedikt ... like the oophaga -> secure-u transfer
(00:30:01) BenediktHeintel: exactly dirkastrath 
(00:30:06) MarioLipinski: But rumours said that CPS or something like this prohibits moving the CA.
(00:30:20) MichaelTaenzer: MarioLipinski: correct but the cps can be changed
(00:30:23) BenediktHeintel: MarioLipinski, CPS will be replaced with the NRE-Project
(00:30:28) BenediktHeintel: we can take care of this ;)
(00:30:29) WernerDworak: Then just changer the CPS.
(00:30:31) IanRobertson: CPS disallows moving the CA currently
(00:30:49) MarioLipinski: OK, then it is easy... change the CPS first :)
(00:30:51) WernerDworak: I assume it will be easy to convince enough members
(00:30:58) BenediktHeintel: NRE Project is the "New Roots & Escrow" Project
(00:31:09) BenediktHeintel: please check the AGM Team Report for more information
(00:31:29) MarioLipinski: BenediktHeintel, what is the schedule for NRE in the upcoming 12 months?
(00:31:33) TomasTrnka: The biggest problem is CCA
(00:32:00) TomasTrnka: As we would need each and every Member to agree to the new one
(00:32:09) BenediktHeintel: @ MarioLipinski as shown in https://wiki.cacert.org/Roots/EscrowAndRecovery/NRE#Time_Planning we shoud be through
(00:32:25) MichaelTaenzer: The more difficult thing is the CCA transfer and there there are some people who say it's a one-sided contract the can just be updated and some say different
(00:33:06) IanRobertson: Again CCA can be changed if needed provided members are notified appropriately
(00:33:15) BenediktHeintel: right Alex
(00:34:07) IanRobertson: Think of eg credit card agreements - the issuer can unilaterally change terms and conditions
(00:34:19) BrianMcCullough: But what is "appropriately," Ian?  Some people, in the past, have suggested that such a thing would require a mass mailing to everybody in the database.
(00:34:33) TomasTrnka: IanRobertson: True, but this is a change of jurisdiction
(00:34:39) TomasTrnka: That's where it gets complicated
(00:34:47) MarioLipinski: I am somehwat concerned looking at https://wiki.cacert.org/Roots/EscrowAndRecovery/NRE#Cost_Planning - guess CAcert would be bankrupt with finishing the project...
(00:35:33) GuillaumeRomagny: possibly :(
(00:35:55) IanRobertson: CCA is an international agreement - it might change governing law depending on where incorporated...
(00:36:37) TomasTrnka: IanRobertson: Can't comment on that as I'm not an AU lawyer
(00:37:00) BenediktHeintel: generally speaking, could we have a range of opinions how your willingness to give board the task to find a new country for CAcert residence by a test vote?
(00:37:44) MichaelTaenzer: MarioLipinski: That's why I said that the costs can't come from Inc. and would have to come from a separate source of income
(00:38:02) BenediktHeintel: MarioLipinski, the NRE project will bring us sponsors
(00:38:09) IanRobertson: amend benedict's proposal to instruct board to take initial steps such as changes to CPS/CCA
(00:38:22) IanRobertson: in addition
(00:38:31) BenediktHeintel: CPS is part of NRE and planned
(00:38:41) BenediktHeintel: CCA should be amended 
(00:39:03) MarioLipinski: BenediktHeintel, then I am missing funding the project planning - which would be a major task...
(00:39:14) IanRobertson: No mention of any changes propsed in policy group yet
(00:39:23) BenediktHeintel: MarioLipinski, we are working on this
(00:39:28) BenediktHeintel: Alex, we are not that far
(00:39:46) BenediktHeintel: Dear Mr speaker, please consider my request
(00:40:17) BrianMcCullough: I would suggest that that become a priority, then, because it might take a while for Policy Group to come to a final product.
(00:40:48) IanRobertson: @Brian - agreed!
(00:40:54) BenediktHeintel: BrianMcCullough, definitively. What we are creating now is the content of the certificated
(00:40:56) BenediktHeintel: -d+s
(00:41:43) IanRobertson: We need to prepare to move - possibly before NRE finish
(00:42:00) BrianMcCullough: s/possibly/probably/
(00:42:13) IanRobertson: :)
(00:42:20) BenediktHeintel: you are right, this are two different actions
(00:42:43) BenediktHeintel: NRE's goal is to make CAcert audit ready
(00:42:57) BenediktHeintel: Board should prepare the move of association
(00:43:22) BenediktHeintel: what effectively means: open a new and close down CAcert Inc.
(00:43:24) dirkastrath: @tomas can we do a vote for range of opinios?
(00:43:39) TomasTrnka: dirkastrath: What do you mean by that?
(00:43:45) dirkastrath: (as suggested by benedikt)
(00:43:53) GeroTreuner: What about founding a backup CAcert now and prepare to move just in case we are urged to move? Since then this association can act for funding and collecting donations.
(00:43:54) MichaelTaenzer: A vote that is not binding
(00:44:02) BenediktHeintel: this are two separate projects to be handled as such
(00:44:18) TomasTrnka: Sure, it's just a tool, we can't pass resolutions anyway
(00:44:21) MichaelTaenzer: but gives a hint whether the members think it's the way to go
(00:44:39) TomasTrnka: Propose the wording then
(00:45:38) MichaelTaenzer: "The now elected board should prepare to move the association from Australia to another country"
(00:45:54) BenediktHeintel: second
(00:46:00) BrianMcCullough: I move that we propose that the board investigate the formation of an organization in a second region of the world.
(00:46:36) IanRobertson: Two organisations would be difficult.
(00:47:02) BrianMcCullough: True.  I was building on what Gero proposed.
(00:47:16) IanRobertson: @michael - second
(00:47:22) WernerDworak: For a transition ztime we need two, but then there should be only one
(00:47:22) TomasTrnka: It might be easier to do the switchover only when really needed, true
(00:47:36) dirkastrath: @ian: two organisations driving one CA is difficult since they will have different motions ...
(00:47:53) VoteBot: TomasTrnka has started a vote on: INFORMATIONAL POLL ONLY: The now elected board should prepare to move the association from Australia to another country
(00:47:53) ***VoteBot please vote on: INFORMATIONAL POLL ONLY: The now elected board should prepare to move the association from Australia to another country
(00:49:23) ***VoteBot Voting on "INFORMATIONAL POLL ONLY: The now elected board should prepare to move the association from Australia to another country" will end in 30 seconds!
(00:50:02) BrianMcCullough: I withdraw my motion.
(00:50:12) ***VoteBot has totaled the results for "INFORMATIONAL POLL ONLY: The now elected board should prepare to move the association from Australia to another country"
(00:50:14) ***VoteBot ---        AYE:     13
(00:50:14) ***VoteBot ---        NAYE:    1
(00:50:16) ***VoteBot ---        ABSTAIN: 0
(00:50:48) IanRobertson: Tomas - why do you feel we should NOT prepare to move??
(00:51:00) GeroTreuner: To clarify this: Until the new organization takes over the CA, it's responsibilities would be low. In the meantime I expect it to not be that difficult.
(00:52:06) ***BenediktHeintel moves, the new elected board to prepare the move of the association from Australia to another country
(00:52:28) ***MichaelTaenzer feels moved
(00:52:34) GeroTreuner: Are there any opinions which country might be best?
(00:52:35) BennyBaumann: second
(00:52:56) TomasTrnka: IanRobertson: That's not exactly my feeling. The move is going to be an enormous effort and will siphon most of our resources from more important projects. Additionally, I don't think this is a job for Board.
(00:53:47) WernerDworak: I think best is a country wit many members. But I heard Austria would have sime minor advantage over Germany
(00:53:53) dirkastrath: @tomas yes and no ... board should take care of it ... but like the NRE project there can be a team which prepares the move ...
(00:54:05) BenediktHeintel: TomasTrnka, I'm astonished, that you feel there are more important projects than the future of CAcert
(00:54:14) TomasTrnka: Germany is a no-go from several points of view
(00:54:28) IanRobertson: Almost any EU country meets Data Protection and Privacy requirments, UK is "common lay" similar o NSW
(00:54:43) IanRobertson: s/lay/law
(00:55:05) ReinhardMutz: tomas, please can U give some reasons why?
(00:55:26) TomasTrnka: BenediktHeintel: the Association is just a small service organisation for the Community, and should be regarded as such. We should focus more e.g. on running the CA!
(00:55:53) IanRobertson: US is probably to litiigeous - but this whole area is perhaps one part of the preparations
(00:55:58) BenediktHeintel: TomasTrnka, the CAcert Inc. hold the CA
(00:55:59) TomasTrnka: secure-u is there and we would then put all our eggs into the same basket
(00:56:25) TomasTrnka: Additionally, German data protection regulations are (AFAIK) unworkable for us
(00:56:35) dirkastrath: @tomas there are at least two board-members of secure-u against the merge ... ;-)
(00:56:45) IanRobertson: I'm not sure that the aims an objects of secure-u are sufficiently compatible
(00:56:47) BennyBaumann: TomasTrnka: secure-u will intentionally NOT take CAcert's responsibilities.
(00:57:04) dirkastrath: (secure-u has currently 3 active board-members ... ;-) )
(00:57:09) TomasTrnka: I'm talking about having both organisations in a single country
(00:57:19) BenediktHeintel: TomasTrnka, are you aware, that in Europe all Data protection Acts will be same by 2014
(00:57:37) WernerDworak: Tomas, just the opposite. If we comply to Germn data protection laws, we comply worldwise. This is a asset
(00:57:45) dirkastrath: however ... since we don't come to a conclusion now i suggest to close the meeting now
(00:58:02) ReinhardMutz: yes dirk
(00:58:08) dirkastrath: we can keep this channel open for further discussion, but some of us has to go to bed ... ;-)
(00:58:08) TomasTrnka: WernerDworak: We had this looong discussion before and you certainly know the results
(00:58:10) IanRobertson: @Benedict - not quite true - all will be similar and offer at least the EU directed level
(00:58:36) dirkastrath: and .. board should take care of the move (according to the informational poll)
(00:58:51) ReinhardMutz: too much stuff to get ready today
(00:58:57) PieterVanEmmerik: help part
(00:59:04) ReinhardMutz: but we have to continue this discussion 
(00:59:18) TomasTrnka: feel free to close the meeting
(00:59:27) ReinhardMutz: CU all
(00:59:28) GeroTreuner: I hoped to get ideas not already seen on the mailing lists ...
(00:59:36) WernerDworak: Tomas, I do not see what you mean
(00:59:36) dirkastrath: if anybody wants to help board for the move, please send and email ... ;-)
(00:59:39) ReinhardMutz hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: Konversation terminated!).
(00:59:47) dirkastrath: okay .. i'll close the AGM now ...
(00:59:52) dirkastrath: thanks for attending...