[2008-11-07 16:01:55] The Annual General Meeting for 2008 will happen on the 7th November 2008 22:00UTC ... [2008-11-07 23:00:36] OK my clock says it is 22 UTC [2008-11-07 23:00:54] Welcome [2008-11-07 23:01:08] Evaldo will do the operation for this channel. [2008-11-07 23:01:34] Lets us do the head count and if needed give voice. [2008-11-07 23:01:51] Please use /nick YopurFullName [2008-11-07 23:02:06] and say hallo so we check voice [2008-11-07 23:02:12] Hello [2008-11-07 23:02:14] hi [2008-11-07 23:02:14] hi [2008-11-07 23:02:15] HHi [2008-11-07 23:02:17] hi [2008-11-07 23:02:18] Hello [2008-11-07 23:02:18] Hello [2008-11-07 23:02:19] Hello ! [2008-11-07 23:02:50] Count is 9 members. Can all vote? Question to secr. [2008-11-07 23:03:20] TeusHagen: all voiced members in this session are fully paid and can vote [2008-11-07 23:03:35] TeusHagen: shall I proceed and moderate the session? [2008-11-07 23:03:53] OK we have 2 nominated aspirants for membership: [2008-11-07 23:04:07] Edgar Alves Costa [2008-11-07 23:04:20] =-= Mode #agm +m by Evaldo_Gardenali [2008-11-07 23:04:30] -->| philippdunkel (philippdun@77.118.174.16.wireless.dyn.drei.com) has joined #agm [2008-11-07 23:04:33] Any objection to give him membership? [2008-11-07 23:04:53] =-= Mode #agm +v philippdunkel by Evaldo_Gardenali [2008-11-07 23:04:59] -->| groolot (groolot@235.80.94-79.rev.gaoland.net) has joined #agm [2008-11-07 23:05:01] No objections [2008-11-07 23:05:14] Daniel Black, any objection? [2008-11-07 23:05:28] None from me [2008-11-07 23:05:42] The more the merrier :) [2008-11-07 23:05:48] OK for vote proxy we have: [2008-11-07 23:06:04] Nick Bebaut is proxy by Teus HAgen [2008-11-07 23:06:20] Greg Rose is proxied by Rober Cruyikshank. [2008-11-07 23:06:40] Agenda point 2 Minutes: [2008-11-07 23:07:02] AGM 2007: any questions about this one? Any corrections needed? [2008-11-07 23:07:19] NCK [2008-11-07 23:07:42] SGM 4th of April: any questions any corrections needed? [2008-11-07 23:07:49] NCK [2008-11-07 23:08:16] Please vote for acceptations of AGM Nov 2007 and SGM April 2008: [2008-11-07 23:08:34] aye for the acceptance of both [2008-11-07 23:08:39] aye [2008-11-07 23:08:41] Approve for both [2008-11-07 23:08:42] Aye [2008-11-07 23:08:44] aye! [2008-11-07 23:08:45] Aye ! [2008-11-07 23:09:04] Aye for teus and Nick [2008-11-07 23:09:05] no vote on it. [2008-11-07 23:09:09] Greg Rose: Aye [2008-11-07 23:09:36] aye [2008-11-07 23:09:45] Any vote missing? [2008-11-07 23:10:18] Aye [2008-11-07 23:10:47] Minutes Nov 20087and April 2008 are accepted. Thanks for the minutes taking. [2008-11-07 23:11:11] New association members have been done on agenda point 1. [2008-11-07 23:11:27] -->| Schlaubi (daniel@p5B0A059C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #agm [2008-11-07 23:11:35] Agenda point 2: financial report. [2008-11-07 23:11:48] Voice to Robert for comment.... [2008-11-07 23:13:02] Any questions on Balance sheet 2007/2008? [2008-11-07 23:13:44] none from me [2008-11-07 23:13:48] nck [2008-11-07 23:13:56] no [2008-11-07 23:13:57] -->| jandd (jan@pool-242-26-196-89.dbd-ipconnect.net) has joined #agm [2008-11-07 23:13:59] Can we have a vote on acceptation of the balance sheet. Please vote [2008-11-07 23:14:15] accepted [2008-11-07 23:14:15] aye [2008-11-07 23:14:19] aye [2008-11-07 23:14:20] Aye -- accept both. [2008-11-07 23:14:26] Aye [2008-11-07 23:14:36] aye [2008-11-07 23:14:37] Abstain, due to lack of trend information over the last years. [2008-11-07 23:14:45] Ayue for Teus and Nick [2008-11-07 23:14:52] aye [2008-11-07 23:15:00] Aye [2008-11-07 23:15:06] Greg Rose: Aye [2008-11-07 23:15:29] Comment of Philipp D is can we have next time a trend? Robert? [2008-11-07 23:15:30] due to requests, link to the balance sheet http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/AGM20081107?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=CAcertBalanceSheet07-08.pdf [2008-11-07 23:15:35] Point taken about trend info [2008-11-07 23:16:09] The balance sheet 2007-2008 is accepted. [2008-11-07 23:16:11] This is mainly due to me joining only this year. [2008-11-07 23:16:27] And not taking the time to go through the balances of previous years. [2008-11-07 23:16:35] good idea to present some trending information anyway [2008-11-07 23:16:54] Point of trend is taken. [2008-11-07 23:17:23] Agenda 3: report of previous year. Any comments/questions? [2008-11-07 23:17:32] NCK [2008-11-07 23:17:56] none from me [2008-11-07 23:18:05] no [2008-11-07 23:18:10] nice writting :) [2008-11-07 23:18:16] Can we have a vote on acceptation. Votes please... [2008-11-07 23:18:21] Second on: Nice writing [2008-11-07 23:18:21] Ayse [2008-11-07 23:18:23] Aye [2008-11-07 23:18:26] aye [2008-11-07 23:18:27] aye! [2008-11-07 23:18:29] Yes ! [2008-11-07 23:18:33] aye [2008-11-07 23:18:33] Aye [2008-11-07 23:18:34] aye [2008-11-07 23:18:37] Greg Rose: Aye [2008-11-07 23:18:39] Aye from Nick [2008-11-07 23:19:01] Report is accepted. Thanks for the motivation:-) [2008-11-07 23:19:25] :) [2008-11-07 23:19:36] Agenda 4 audit report. Ian Grigg is auditor and not member. Can I invitee him in and give voice? [2008-11-07 23:19:51] ACK [2008-11-07 23:19:54] ack [2008-11-07 23:19:59] yes [2008-11-07 23:20:00] Yes [2008-11-07 23:20:02] yes [2008-11-07 23:20:02] ok [2008-11-07 23:20:05] =-= Mode #agm +v Ian_Grigg by Evaldo_Gardenali [2008-11-07 23:20:07] yes [2008-11-07 23:20:08] Of course ! [2008-11-07 23:20:49] Hi all. I have a one page report here on my desktop, shall I read it in or paste on wiki? [2008-11-07 23:20:51] Ian welcome. You have given quite some two monthly reports. Any remark in addition to this? [2008-11-07 23:21:08] past [2008-11-07 23:21:15] no sorry wiki [2008-11-07 23:21:19] Please paste in here for now, [2008-11-07 23:21:30] And record on the wiki for posterity [2008-11-07 23:21:44] What's the easiest way ? [2008-11-07 23:22:01] wiki ? [2008-11-07 23:22:22] paste it in rafb.net/paste, we can set a permanent location for it later [2008-11-07 23:22:23] I'm on a unix shell. So browsing is very difficult for me right now. [2008-11-07 23:22:36] So please paste in here if at all possible [2008-11-07 23:22:41] You may not have time to put it on the wiki anyway so paste [2008-11-07 23:22:45] http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/Audit/CommunityReport20081007short is an immediate paste, but it is wrong formatting. [2008-11-07 23:22:57] (Brief) Audit Report for AGM. [2008-11-07 23:22:57] SITUATION [2008-11-07 23:22:57] 1. Systems are moved: new team is working through its milestones. [2008-11-07 23:22:58] 2. documentation is now in reasonable shape. Two major shortfalls: [2008-11-07 23:22:58] a. Security Manual. [2008-11-07 23:22:59] a. CPS email/domain checking is a major issue as there has been little forward movement on this, and it is now going to cause problems. [2008-11-07 23:23:14] PLAN [2008-11-07 23:23:14] 1. end November: [2008-11-07 23:23:14] a. root creation for top-root and Individual-Assured subroot. [2008-11-07 23:23:15] b. three milestones given to new sysadm time (discuss with Wytze). [2008-11-07 23:23:15] c. introduce sysadm team to Security Manual [2008-11-07 23:23:16] 2. December: [2008-11-07 23:23:16] a. Security Manual work-thru [2008-11-07 23:23:17] b. Make a plan for operational review as per DRC-C (depends on 1.b above). [2008-11-07 23:23:17] 3. January: [2008-11-07 23:23:19] a. work through the email/domain checking. [2008-11-07 23:23:19] b. perhaps start operational review (2.b and 1.b above). [2008-11-07 23:23:21] c. Move AP to POLICY [2008-11-07 23:23:21] d. start operational review on assurance. [2008-11-07 23:23:23] 4. Feb: [2008-11-07 23:23:23] a. if all goes well, think about a limited audit report ==> Mozo. [2008-11-07 23:23:56] AUDIT: [2008-11-07 23:23:57] 1. CPS is partially updated to incorporate a wip Relying Party Statement: [2008-11-07 23:23:57] All information in the certificate is Verified. [2008-11-07 23:23:58] Certificates are only issued to Members. [2008-11-07 23:23:58] Think about that: it is the link between Assurance and Certificates and Reliance, leading on to Disputes. Get that right, and things are solid. Get it wrong and the edifice teeters and totters. [2008-11-07 23:23:58] 2. A lot of time has been taken up by the LISA presentation. [2008-11-07 23:23:59] 3. Security Manual: some of the experienced are being copied in. I hope to talk to Pat this weekend and get a handover of some form on the SM. [2008-11-07 23:24:51] BIG PICTURE: [2008-11-07 23:24:51] 1. Since 2006, Mozo has now changed track to a dual-path: EV and "non-EV". [2008-11-07 23:24:52] 2. Board prefers to maintain *high standards*. But accepts short-term audit approach of new root going into Mozilla in their "non-EV" track. [2008-11-07 23:24:52] 3. Propose limited audit report on Individual Assured Members subroot only. Do the rest later. [2008-11-07 23:24:52] 4. Could be proposing this by Feb-April if the operational review goes OK. [2008-11-07 23:25:06] FUNDING:Phase 1 is now complete as far as NLnet/funding is concerned and phase 2 payment is now in. [2008-11-07 23:25:10] I will look at clarifying the expenditures in December, after I get back from US and all expenses are clearer. Likely, we will have used up most of the expenses and most of the work budget for both phases, but there should be enough left for some trips to the Netherlands for operational checks. [2008-11-07 23:25:10] SUMMARY for YOU [2008-11-07 23:25:10] 1. fix that CPS bug: email/domain checking [2008-11-07 23:25:10] 2. think about how to help the tech side. Easy fixes: Lots of small systems on the non-crit area, or fix some source code. [2008-11-07 23:25:10] 3. if you are in the OA area: get some doco out there, and look at those bugs. [2008-11-07 23:25:10] End. A larger version of this will be posted later on the Wiki. [2008-11-07 23:25:24] Lot of work has been done, still some steps to do. Usual there is a lot of discussion. Which is good but on the other side it delays things heavily. [2008-11-07 23:25:38] Thanks for the overview. Any questions? [2008-11-07 23:25:47] EV? [2008-11-07 23:26:17] Extended Validation certificates [2008-11-07 23:26:30] thx [2008-11-07 23:26:41] More questions? [2008-11-07 23:26:54] NCK [2008-11-07 23:27:26] no, ok [2008-11-07 23:27:28] I want to thank Ian for his input. A lot of work you did. Some cheers:-) [2008-11-07 23:27:31] EV=green URL address with company name in broswer [2008-11-07 23:27:54] While we are at the cheers: [2008-11-07 23:28:02] Ian_Grigg: great job! [2008-11-07 23:28:13] thanks! [2008-11-07 23:28:22] Hear! Hear! [2008-11-07 23:28:36] Ian_Grigg: Hope ! [2008-11-07 23:28:41] OK loud and clear :-) [2008-11-07 23:28:50] I would like to commend the board and the auditor for their great work over the past year. A lot has been accomplished and I feel it justified to mark this thank you down in the minutes of this AGM. [2008-11-07 23:29:11] aye [2008-11-07 23:29:11] I second [2008-11-07 23:29:25] abstain for conflict of interest :P [2008-11-07 23:29:30] *g* [2008-11-07 23:29:34] Aye [2008-11-07 23:29:37] ack, keep on this good work [2008-11-07 23:29:39] abstain :) [2008-11-07 23:29:41] Without you we would not have done it. It is you all who did it. [2008-11-07 23:29:55] TeusHagen: ditto [2008-11-07 23:30:12] Thanks Ian let us move on to Agenda 5: Election [2008-11-07 23:30:26] thanks guys! (observe mode ON) [2008-11-07 23:30:54] There are 7 seats on the board. Nominated and accepted are 7 persons. [2008-11-07 23:31:46] At this time I wish to comment that I feel it unfortunate that Sam was not put on that list. [2008-11-07 23:31:50] Sam Johnston was due to circumstances late with his ack so is not on the election list of this agm. He may howver be present on sub-cmtees. [2008-11-07 23:32:21] I move to approve the new Board with Robert Cruikshank, Teus Hagen, Guillaume Romagny, Philipp Dunkel, Greg Stark, Alejandro Mery Pellegrini and Evaldo Gardenali, with individual roles to be published within a week. [2008-11-07 23:32:28] His ack was given together with my original nomination. In that it mentioned his explicit agreement [2008-11-07 23:32:32] is it correct, that the profile of greg stark on the wiki is empty? [2008-11-07 23:32:54] So his ack might have been considered by proxy. I put it in there knowing he would be offline for a while [2008-11-07 23:33:22] philippdunkel : we require to have signed emails [2008-11-07 23:33:30] So I just want to mention that this could have been handled better, since the way it stands was a big turn-off for him, which is unfortunate. [2008-11-07 23:33:38] I had a private interaction with Sam warning him about the fact that his ack was not seen via signed email to the board. This email was twice. [2008-11-07 23:33:45] But enough said on the point. The decision stands and is accepted [2008-11-07 23:33:47] So it was unfortunate. [2008-11-07 23:34:11] Back to the motion of Evaldo: Votes please. [2008-11-07 23:34:16] Aye [2008-11-07 23:34:20] aye [2008-11-07 23:34:21] implicit aye [2008-11-07 23:34:22] aye [2008-11-07 23:34:24] Aye [2008-11-07 23:34:28] Aye [2008-11-07 23:34:33] aye [2008-11-07 23:34:39] aye [2008-11-07 23:34:41] aye [2008-11-07 23:34:41] Aye from teus and Nick [2008-11-07 23:34:46] Greg Rpse:aye [2008-11-07 23:35:00] -->| PhilippGuehring (philipp@217.19.46.18) has joined #agm [2008-11-07 23:35:13] may we get Greg Stark's profile later? [2008-11-07 23:35:21] Board is accepted. In one week time positions needs to be published. [2008-11-07 23:35:55] Nice to see to have ha full board :) [2008-11-07 23:35:59] Yes Greg his profile will be extended. I have asked him for that already. [2008-11-07 23:36:14] thanks [2008-11-07 23:36:22] =-= Mode #agm +v PhilippGuehring by Evaldo_Gardenali [2008-11-07 23:36:58] Welcome to Philipp. He did quiote a lot of work on the system admin. And is member. [2008-11-07 23:37:10] Hello [2008-11-07 23:37:14] Can we get Philipp vote on board election ? [2008-11-07 23:37:15] hi [2008-11-07 23:37:42] Agtenda point 6: Public Office appointment of Robert Cruikshank. [2008-11-07 23:37:47] Votes please... [2008-11-07 23:37:52] Aye [2008-11-07 23:37:52] aye [2008-11-07 23:37:53] Aye [2008-11-07 23:37:55] aye, of course [2008-11-07 23:37:56] Aye [2008-11-07 23:38:01] aye [2008-11-07 23:38:08] Aye [2008-11-07 23:38:08] Greg Rose: aye [2008-11-07 23:38:11] aye [2008-11-07 23:38:23] Aye from teus and Nick [2008-11-07 23:38:56] Robert question: can Philipp G give his vote on board? [2008-11-07 23:39:05] yes [2008-11-07 23:39:09] yes [2008-11-07 23:39:13] yes [2008-11-07 23:39:14] Yes [2008-11-07 23:39:16] yes [2008-11-07 23:39:17] aye [2008-11-07 23:39:24] aye [2008-11-07 23:39:25] <@Evaldo_Gardenali> I move to approve the new Board with Robert Cruikshank, Teus Hagen, Guillaume Romagny, Philipp Dunkel, Greg Stark, Alejandro Mery Pellegrini and Evaldo Gardenali, with individual [2008-11-07 23:39:29] roles to be published within a week. [2008-11-07 23:39:35] Aye [2008-11-07 23:39:52] Aye to the proposed board [2008-11-07 23:40:01] aye [2008-11-07 23:40:04] Aye Greg Rose: Aye [2008-11-07 23:40:28] Board nominations are accepted. Robert is accepted as PO. [2008-11-07 23:40:50] Moving to agenda 7: special resolutions. [2008-11-07 23:41:03] There are none provided. However [2008-11-07 23:41:06] i would like to make a suggestion for the next agm. i see a problem with the identity check for the members here in the irc. IMHO it is possible that someone join with a fake identity and vote under that identity. i like to suggest using [2008-11-07 23:41:34] i like to suggest using an xmpp conference instead in future where the identity check would be easier. [2008-11-07 23:41:42] Michael will come back to your question on closing section. [2008-11-07 23:41:48] ok [2008-11-07 23:42:19] MichaelGrigutsch: that will be better implemented, and can be done with irc as well. We just need some hands-on, which I unfortunately was not able to prepare [2008-11-07 23:42:30] Or just mail (encrypted) a random string that the member uses to identify themselves ;) [2008-11-07 23:42:32] However a discussion has been started on conflict of interest issues within the association. Please take part on this discussion as it is an important one. [2008-11-07 23:42:59] Any comment on agenda point of special resolutions? [2008-11-07 23:43:15] sending a signed mail telling their current nick should be enough [2008-11-07 23:43:32] Coming to agenda 7. Closing: or roundtable: [2008-11-07 23:43:40] I second philippdunkels suggestion as long as no proper authentication is implemented [2008-11-07 23:43:44] Michael: [2008-11-07 23:44:00] TeusHagen: I have a proposition [2008-11-07 23:44:21] Round table would be a good idea, since it would give an opportunity to shortly discuss the way forward [2008-11-07 23:44:52] rt [2008-11-07 23:44:53] The problem was in the past proper authentication. Any ideas how to solve that? If so do on the membership discussion email list. [2008-11-07 23:44:58] We should handle the conflict of interest issue here at round table, then at the members mailing list, and call for a special general meeting to settle the matter before the next AGM [2008-11-07 23:45:26] What is the conflict of interest issue? It must have slipped by me [2008-11-07 23:45:43] Conflict of Interest: 5 minutes discussion? Evaldo start your saying. [2008-11-07 23:45:52] philippdunkel: http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/AGM20081107 [2008-11-07 23:46:01] philippdunkel: Users and Members Suggestions [2008-11-07 23:46:17] philippdunkel: as well as http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/RuleDiscussionConflictOfInterest [2008-11-07 23:47:11] we cannot vote on it at this AGM, but we have the quorum to call for an SGM in a while [2008-11-07 23:48:13] philippdunkel: We would like to give a more general sense of "conflict of interest" in CAcert membership (short version) [2008-11-07 23:48:34] can we plan that SGM in a month useful for the auditor? [2008-11-07 23:48:48] We currently are limited to : "being employed or contracted with either a Certificate Authority" which is not enough on my mind [2008-11-07 23:49:14] Let's go for an SGM. [2008-11-07 23:49:27] Is there a pressing need that requires this to be handled before next AGM? Because it seems a point of little real consequence in real life. Or am I missing something? [2008-11-07 23:49:49] philippdunkel: you are right. [2008-11-07 23:49:51] AlejandroMery: i have no objection to any month, but perhaps I am missing something here? [2008-11-07 23:49:51] according to our Association rules, we can call an SGM with 14 days advance, and in case of special decisions, 21 days in advance [2008-11-07 23:50:12] but we need time to discuss, then 21 days with final text of the decisions published [2008-11-07 23:50:31] Ian_Grigg: I mean, based on the audit plan, so we can check other audit-related stuff without been in the middle of something [2008-11-07 23:50:45] First question is: does ayone object to the proposition of the new rule? [2008-11-07 23:51:07] hmm [2008-11-07 23:51:12] No objection. But I think there are much more pressing matters [2008-11-07 23:51:16] Second question is there a time constraint? [2008-11-07 23:51:58] I don't believe there is a need to rush [2008-11-07 23:52:00] If all agree. The rule is noit formaly there now but defined. So for time being it is a policy within the membership. [2008-11-07 23:52:26] TeusHagen: turn it into a motion then? [2008-11-07 23:52:26] So no ruch for extra SGM. [2008-11-07 23:52:56] So yes turn it into a motion for policy till next GM. [2008-11-07 23:52:57] In 3? or 6 months ? to have another audit report at the same time [2008-11-07 23:53:27] GuillaumeRomagny: that's what I tried to say :p [2008-11-07 23:53:36] AlejandroMery: ok :) [2008-11-07 23:53:40] 3 or 6 months is ok but any member can call a SGM before if they feel the need [2008-11-07 23:54:17] indeed. we only need 5% of the membership requesting one. [2008-11-07 23:54:27] 5% of ? [2008-11-07 23:54:41] How many members are thre actually? [2008-11-07 23:54:47] 28 [2008-11-07 23:54:55] AlejandroMery: about 65 people, need to update the record with latest adds [2008-11-07 23:55:07] err, 28? [2008-11-07 23:55:14] Which is it? 28 or 65 [2008-11-07 23:55:19] 28 fully paid up members [2008-11-07 23:55:27] (65 + 2) * 0.05 = 4 [2008-11-07 23:55:55] this also brings another idea [2008-11-07 23:56:37] we have a relatively new rule that states members that are not fully paid for 3(?) or more years can be dismissed [2008-11-07 23:57:07] are all of you comfortable with the Board eventually putting it in practice? [2008-11-07 23:57:12] can or will ? [2008-11-07 23:57:21] aye! [2008-11-07 23:57:22] Just make it automatic? [2008-11-07 23:57:39] 3y is enough to regularize the situation [2008-11-07 23:57:40] will be dismissed [2008-11-07 23:57:43] and yes [2008-11-07 23:57:49] Can we keep founding members anyway ? [2008-11-07 23:57:58] OK First things first. Second is the GM. Put it as a motion to get this now as policy and in the Rules when next GM is there. [2008-11-07 23:58:09] GuillaumeRomagny: they can keep current and paid :) [2008-11-07 23:58:11] Then lets move to dismiss and clear the roll at the next GM. [2008-11-07 23:58:34] |<-- Schlaubi has left irc.cacert.org (Quit: Verlassend) [2008-11-07 23:58:38] And before then send out a reminder email [2008-11-07 23:58:49] GuillaumeRomagny: has any founding member has troubles to pay the fee? [2008-11-07 23:58:53] have* [2008-11-07 23:59:05] Please have a vote on the motion to bring Conflict of Interest into policy. [2008-11-07 23:59:07] AlejandroMery: maybe I am not sure [2008-11-07 23:59:10] err... bad typos [2008-11-07 23:59:15] Aye [2008-11-07 23:59:19] aye [2008-11-07 23:59:19] aye [2008-11-07 23:59:21] Aye [2008-11-07 23:59:23] aye [2008-11-07 23:59:24] no [2008-11-07 23:59:28] greg rose: aye [2008-11-07 23:59:28] Naye [2008-11-07 23:59:46] teus: Aye. Nick withhold. [2008-11-07 23:59:54] aye [2008-11-07 23:59:55] aye [2008-11-08 00:00:01] I believe that the policy group should be about CAcert policy and not Inc policy [2008-11-08 00:00:12] Additionally it has a lot on its plate already [2008-11-08 00:00:24] philippdunkel: someway yes, so I turn to no [2008-11-08 00:00:28] This would significantly slow down the policy group and would be the wrong forum [2008-11-08 00:00:32] Yes it is not the policy grouyp but CAcert Inc. discussion list. [2008-11-08 00:00:51] TeusHagen: ok for the membership list ! [2008-11-08 00:01:03] Aye for membership list [2008-11-08 00:01:22] yes, should be member list [2008-11-08 00:01:32] we already have a memebers list [2008-11-08 00:01:39] Majority is in favour but not full 100% consensus. Let us see how this goes on discussion list. For now the core of it is clear. [2008-11-08 00:02:01] Anything more for round table? [2008-11-08 00:02:18] But lets move on and have a short "mind meld" on how to go forward [2008-11-08 00:02:45] I think the membership should have a clear consensus of where we are going and what the tasks for the next years are [2008-11-08 00:02:52] i think we can relieve some members from payings as a way to honor their past efforts to cacert [2008-11-08 00:02:56] I have to go but will be back in 10 [2008-11-08 00:03:00] TeusHagen: just the soft question if all present members are comfortable with new rules for dismissal in practice. It is already policy, I just wanted to make sure [2008-11-08 00:03:01] This way it will become easier to work togehter [2008-11-08 00:03:38] Evaldo_Gardenali: I'm in favor [2008-11-08 00:04:03] Evaldo_Gardenali: yeah too [2008-11-08 00:04:21] I think there needs to be some form of comittment. If you can't remember to pay up commitment is lacking. Therefore Aye [2008-11-08 00:04:24] Evaldo: yes. But not a formal legal rule. So a member cannot be excluded but withholded for inclusion. [2008-11-08 00:04:25] I agree as well [2008-11-08 00:04:30] AlejandroMery: that is a "special decision" that needs to be voted in another general meeting, either an SGM or AGM, and the full text of the motion must be published 21 days beforehand (emeritus "free" membership) [2008-11-08 00:05:39] I agree that we may want to have some form of "emeritus" status. But I suggest discussion on the membership list and vote at an upcoming GM [2008-11-08 00:05:40] I was kicked out of ACM for not paying one year :( [2008-11-08 00:06:20] AlejandroMery: That's why I decided to prepay. I tend to forgest such things as well :) [2008-11-08 00:06:27] philippdunkel: =) [2008-11-08 00:06:36] Seems to be some favour for honory membership? [2008-11-08 00:06:53] TeusHagen: yes [2008-11-08 00:07:04] -->| DanielBlack (dan@ppp59-167-50-34.lns1.cbr1.internode.on.net) has joined #agm [2008-11-08 00:07:12] TeusHagen: yes [2008-11-08 00:07:14] Maybe have the members vote on it if there are any good reasons for a voting member not to have paied [2008-11-08 00:07:36] Let's discuss proposals on the member list and propose at next GM [2008-11-08 00:07:40] MarioLipinski: 3 years? [2008-11-08 00:07:51] Prefer the honory membership thing above "not paid". [2008-11-08 00:08:19] ok, but honorary members have to be elected during a GM [2008-11-08 00:08:26] TeusHagen: we can define a better term when elaborating the actual motion [2008-11-08 00:08:27] TeusHagen: Agreed on that one. It should be something actively sought and not automatically given because of not paying [2008-11-08 00:08:28] Yes they have to. [2008-11-08 00:08:54] It is a GM thing. [2008-11-08 00:08:55] is any founder in risk to be dismissed before the next GM if we put in practice the 3y rules? [2008-11-08 00:08:58] rule* [2008-11-08 00:09:17] ok, they cant count on quorum if they don't pay [2008-11-08 00:09:26] AlejandroMery: let me see [2008-11-08 00:09:30] AlejandroMery: I think that's not relevant. Because there is the option of paying [2008-11-08 00:10:21] I have to go in a few minutes and would really like to have that short discussion about where we are going first. [2008-11-08 00:10:30] Can I conclude that membership asks board to look into honory membership? And let us leave the 3 yr not paid rulke as it is. [2008-11-08 00:10:31] So I move to hold the emeritus discussion via mailing list [2008-11-08 00:10:32] I think this should be moved to the members list and next GM since we cannot vote on this now [2008-11-08 00:10:57] Back to Philipp D his question [2008-11-08 00:11:02] TeusHagen: yes [2008-11-08 00:11:33] Can we agree that we hold it as the primary objective for CAcert to enter Mozilla within 2009 ? [2008-11-08 00:11:42] AlejandroMery: It is still a bit unclear because some old payment details are a bit hard to retrieve now. There are some members that are unreachable because of address changes and lack of presence in meetings, mailing lists, or payment. [2008-11-08 00:11:46] PhilippD: much can be found on the yrly report of 2008. Do you want to add things? [2008-11-08 00:12:21] I agree that the primary objective for CAcert should be to enter Mozilla in 2009 [2008-11-08 00:12:36] While a lot is in that doc, I would like to get people to actually state where they see us going rather than just accepting a doc. [2008-11-08 00:12:57] Aye is easy. This is a bit more direct. [2008-11-08 00:13:05] Yes agree. So... [2008-11-08 00:13:30] back again [2008-11-08 00:13:36] I guess we cannot put a date on entering Mozilla, since it depends of the work of the community and available voluteers - but entering Mozilla and passing the Audit is and should be CAcerts main target by now. [2008-11-08 00:14:02] What are the consequences for CAcert if we fail to do so by the end of 2010? [2008-11-08 00:14:26] philippdunkel: unclear to me. [2008-11-08 00:14:32] Can I ask Philipp D to do some propositions for the future and start a discussion within the membership on this topic? [2008-11-08 00:14:37] motivational harm [2008-11-08 00:14:52] TeusHagen: seconded [2008-11-08 00:14:54] TeusHagen: Agreed. [2008-11-08 00:15:08] OK more for round table? [2008-11-08 00:15:29] Even though we cannot be sure the objective will be achieved, it seems reasonable to set it [2008-11-08 00:15:30] so the 3y rule stays "on hold"? [2008-11-08 00:15:31] NCK [2008-11-08 00:15:35] Note: please allow a few days for the membership mailing list to be reorganized with current members [2008-11-08 00:16:15]