the famous "call for fork" post to Association Members list

[dave broz]

So clearly, Ian's use of the term "fork" was used to describe two branches
of a decision tree as opposed to creating a duplication of a project as
commonly used in open source software. An unfortunate miscommunication.
When English is not your mother tongue, such ambiguities are not uncommon.

Turn left at the fork in the road. :-)

Dave.

[dave broz]

I am also a native Australian English speaker, though I am resident in
German speaking Switzerland, my experience with ambiguity in the
English language is more attuned than others just in my day to day dealings
with broken English. But even then, the ambiguity in the language can even
catch out native speakers. Consider this sentence:

"I saw a man with binoculars."

Now who has the binoculars? Me or the other guy?
You can never be sure of your answer.

I have noticed software developers normally associate the word fork with
splitting of projects. In fact using the word fork in a open source
software community generally always evokes overreaction, it is a dirty word
in some circles. It does seem to be the reaction we are seeing here.

My 2c

[dave broz]

However, if you look at all the other stuff, there are so many
"misunderstandings" that we are way beyond the language barrier issue now.
But yes, I'll try and write in simpler English.

Yes, and as Eva as alluded, it appears nobody is asking the question, "How
did you mean that?". When dealing with a multicultural group it is a
question that needs to be asked often, even when you think the meaning is
clear. (In fact it also is required in monocultures)

More importantly, the board needs to be asking this question the most.

IMHO to fix this whole nightmare amicably, all parties need to sit down at
a table together and start the whole conversation again with that simple
question engraved on the board table. A professional mediator can help in
such situations.

If the board is not prepared to do this then yes, confidence in the board
is truly lost.
The board should be seen to be doing the utmost to clarify issues with its
members.

Dave

[dave broz]

In exercising my democratic right to call for an SGM and debate the
reasons for this SGM, I've been accused of calling for a fork and now
threatened with penalties. If I don't leave.

Hi Ian,

I do seem to comprehend what has passed, and your right to call for an SGM
is absolutely justified in context.

The reactions from the board, from my perspective as a general community
member, always seemed to be from either a defensive postulation or as a
secretive cover up.

This is not what I expected as typical behaviour from CACert management.

I speculate though that these over-reactions are rooted in miscommunication
rather than some nefarious plot. When I say it like that, it gives a chance
for all parties involved to take some breathing space to re-evaluate their
positions and make corrections. To put aside personal feelings, get off the
war footing, and possibly even forgive each other.

Ultimately all board decisions since the start of this kerfuffle need to be
immediately reversed and special mediation commenced on an even playing
field. All other arbitration and other pending issues should also come to a
halt during this period. The board needs to show leadership to the rest of
community by initiating such a process.

In fact a call to a SGM is a perfect catalyst to get that started.
I would expect the board themselves should call the SGM.

It is the right thing to do to maintain trust in the organization.

For me as a non-paying community member if this does not eventually happen
I will just stop using my certs and remove the root cert from my various
devices. I suspect others will silently do the same. I will also stop
assuring other people and not recommend anyone else to sign up. Though I
admittedly have not assured anybody for a number of years, only because my
realm of social contact has been reduced with family commitments.

Of course my personal repercussive actions are only minuscule in the grand
scheme of things, but CACert needs to be reminded that they only exist
because of the minuscule actions of many.

The power behind CACert has always been about people, and trust begins with
the actions of people no matter how small or large those actions may
be, every single one was equally important.

I hope it is a wake up call for everyone.

Dave.

[dave broz]

Hi Eva,

Sorry, but our policies do not allow for this.

Oh well sometimes the rules need to be bent in extreme circumstances.
Putting everything on hold is not a judgement on any particular issue, it
is just a way to create a even playing field to re-step the current
predicament. It creates an opportunity to fix things when there appears no
other way. Like a cease fire.

It seems to me, both sides being dogmatic with existing policies is not
going to resolve the current unacceptable situation. Mediation and
arbitration are different things. IMHO mediation is what is required at
the moment, not arbitration.

Arbitration is when you nominate a third party to pass a judgement,
mediation is more informal and the mediator will make no judgement.
Mediation allows the parties to work out their differences together. I
think a mediated solution reduces the possibility of community
fragmentation. Arbitration on the other hand can be a hammer judgement,
some will walk away in agreement others in dissatisfaction.

At the end of mediation it may turn out that you are in the same position
when you started. If so you can try other dispute resolutions, or carry on
fragmenting the community. I believe there is no harm done in trying to
mediate first. It does not have to undermine the general effectiveness of
current policy if you do want it to. You can bring that up as an issue in
mediation.

Dave.

[Nico Baggus]

Morning Dave,

Post by dave broz
Hi Eva,

Sorry, but our policies do not allow for this.

Oh well sometimes the rules need to be bent in extreme circumstances.
Putting everything on hold is not a judgement on any particular issue, it
is just a way to create a even playing field to re-step the current
predicament. It creates an opportunity to fix things when there appears no
other way. Like a cease fire.

Be careful what you ask for...., Bending rules? There is a policy group to
ADJUST rules to be better or solve corner cases that the rules need to cover
but currently don't...
If you allow bending of rules, then which rules can be bent. All, Some of
them?
Exactly defining the changes to rules are what the Policy Group is supposed to
do.
Suspension of the whole system is NOT what should be done, Bending to please
one party, also should NOT be done.

Post by dave broz
It seems to me, both sides being dogmatic with existing policies is not
going to resolve the current unacceptable situation. Mediation and
arbitration are different things. IMHO mediation is what is required at
the moment, not arbitration.

This where (almost) everybody agrees on i think. With one big problem that the
mediator should NOT be appointed by ONE of the involved parties, and the
orders for such a mediator should be known to everybody.

Post by dave broz
Arbitration is when you nominate a third party to pass a judgement,
mediation is more informal and the mediator will make no judgement.
Mediation allows the parties to work out their differences together. I
think a mediated solution reduces the possibility of community
fragmentation. Arbitration on the other hand can be a hammer judgement,
some will walk away in agreement others in dissatisfaction.

There is allways the appeal process, so even arbitration isn't a one sided
affair.

Post by dave broz
At the end of mediation it may turn out that you are in the same position
when you started. If so you can try other dispute resolutions, or carry on
fragmenting the community. I believe there is no harm done in trying to
mediate first. It does not have to undermine the general effectiveness of
current policy if you do want it to. You can bring that up as an issue in
mediation.

Fragmentation is what the CACert INC was supposed to prevent by guiding all
parties to the common goal, a web of TRUST.... Without trust no web, and no
reason for CACert (Community, Members, even Inc.) to even exist.

Kind regards,
Nico

Post by dave broz
Dave.

[dave broz]

Post by Nico Baggus
Be careful what you ask for...., Bending rules? There is a policy group to
ADJUST rules to be better or solve corner cases that the rules need to cover
but currently don't...
If you allow bending of rules, then which rules can be bent. All, Some of
them?
Exactly defining the changes to rules are what the Policy Group is supposed to
do.
Suspension of the whole system is NOT what should be done, Bending to please
one party, also should NOT be done.

I am not suggesting to change anything other than to allow people to sit
together and talk amicably, to discuss their differences, in a guided
environment. At the moment effective communication is obviously not
happening between all involved. By sticking to policy, in the current
environment, it will ultimately fragment the community. This is an extreme
circumstance, policy does not cover it, it possibly even created it. Each
side is trying to use policy against each other. So put policy to the side
for one moment, re-evaluate the situation as humans.

That is all, no harm done.

Dave.

[dave broz]

Hi Eva,

As long as we do not know what this case may be about we cannot enter
into free communication about things that may be related or not because
whatever we say may or may not be used in that criminal case. As we do
not know what it is about this is a danger where ANY lawyer will say
that one cannot proceed.

That is a tricky one. IANAL but generally you do not have any rights to
know if you are being investigated by a prosecutors office. The only thing
you can do is probably make a request for public records in Vienna. If
enough time has passed something may show up. They generally do not keep
investigating for long if charges cannot be obviously and quickly made. It
is about time and resources.

But essentially it does potentially gag you, in your position I would be
very reluctant to make any further public comment until that is clarified.
I re-iterate... IANAL.

Of course if this is the case even if it is a bluff or not, that is not the
type of behaviour I would expect from the board, without membership
consultation. IMHO it is an outrageous thing to do for a community group
based in trust between people. At the very least it is a dirty trick and
simultaneously torpedoes the trust built up in the organization. Trust
begins with people not policy.

That in itself is a good reason for an SGM. Members can ask the board if
criminal filings have been made. It never looks good if it turns out that
the board lies to its members. Though I guess ultimately to know what is
really going on you need to get on the board.

As a community member I am losing trust in the organization by the actions
of the board. I expect the board of CACert to facilitate trust between
people not dismantle it. They can only point fingers at themselves for
that, to suggest it was instigated by others would be a farce. There are
many ways to resolve disputes, it does not seem many of the easier ways
were attempted first or openly.

I know in Australia most state governments have a model litigant
policy when taking action against individuals. Because of the obvious
imbalance of power between the individual and the government, they have
series of checks and balances to be fair in disputes. For example limiting
the amount of resources used when approaching a dispute, or attempting
mediation first, and publicly apologizing when they mess up. It could also
be something that CACert could look into for itself (according to its own
needs) to stop the board using a heavy hand on members or other smaller
parties.

However it doesn't change my opinion that policy is possibly at fault and
cannot entirely be relied upon. I don't think it was envisioned that it
would be used/abused? in such a way. If it was I don't think this situation
would exist. Forgive my Australian, but in a shit fight, current policy is
proving itself to not be very productive, or in the common interest of
CACert.

As far as what should be discussed at a mediation, it can be anything
anybody has an issue with, or even non issue with. If you put everything on
hold you can quickly re-establish what you all agree with and allow it to
continue while mediation progresses. For example unrelated arbitration
cases. When people fundamentally agree with each other they generally do so
quickly. In fact you might even pre-decide what is allowed to continue
before mediation even commences, but you need to be able to communicate to
do that. You start off with the assumption that no communication is
happening, and work from there.

In the end, if CACert can survive it, it could make the organization better.
Bring on the SGM.

Dave.

[dave broz]

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there, does it make noise?

It is a bit of Schrodinger situation, looking for a cat.

However there are some truths to come out of this:
1. When a board breaks the policy that it should abide and facilitate, the
only recourse in policy members have against the board is to try and remove
it.
2. Whistle blowers are not currently protected by policy.

After thinking about the fact that arbitration is effectively frozen, it
probably means that there is no effective dispute policy to enforce. And if
this is the case, doesn't it mean that dispute resolution falls back to the
model constitution in the incorporated associations regulations?
That is probably a lawyer question.

I just had a quick look at the model constitution and there appears a right
to appeal for a disciplined member, followed by a general meeting in which
all members can vote on the appeal.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+238+2010+sch.1-indoc.1-pt.2-sec.12+0+N?tocnav=y

Considering the circumstances, if an appeal has not been allowed by the
board it may be a case for the office of fair trading to get involved. The
circumstances could also be an abuse of power by the board.

The criminal aspect to all of this I also find bewildering. Any individual
can make a criminal complaint to a prosecution office in any country. Of
course a crime must have been committed in that country for it to be
prosecuted there.

My question is what happened in Austria by those being criminally
investigated? For a second I thought maybe it pertained to work happening
on servers in Austria, but then I remembered that the CACert servers were
moved to the Netherlands. If none of you were in Austria then it shouldn't
be a problem. Or am I missing something?

Dave.

[dave broz]

Hi Eva,

There was a claim by JÃŒrgen on members list, that because of something
that probably I did, an immense financial(?) damage was caused in
Austria. That claim was stated in August or early September. As far as I
remember I should have alienated some Austrian people who may have been
potential backers.

Financial damages and loss is generally a civil matter not a criminal one.
Generally extradition can not be used to collect debt or for other civil
matters.

((If it could non-US countries could drag US banks into their civil
courts to collect on losses caused by the 2008 global economic meltdown))

If what you did was happening while acting out the policy of the
organization, then your criminal liability is probably also limited, with
some liability even possibly falling back on the organization. The only
thing I could imagine from your description is that whatever your action
was it possibly may have mislead belief. That *may* be constituted as
criminal fraud, but they generally need to show intent for you
to personally gain from that misbelief. Not so easy to prove if you were
just following policy and volunteering etc...

Again IANAL just speculating.

Dave.

[Lucas Werkmeister]

Dear Eva,

I do not see why board would be forced to accept any nominee. Our rules
of association say, under 3:

(2) As soon as practicable after receiving a nomination for membership,
the secretary must refer the nomination to the committee which is to
determine whether to approve or to reject the nomination.
(3) As soon as practicable after the committee makes that determination,
the secretary must:
(a) notify the nominee, in writing or by digitally signed email, that
the committee approved or rejected the nomination (whichever is
applicable)[
]

This sounds to me like board (committee) is free to reject a nomination.
There also is no requirement that the decision be made in a single board
meeting, so I would think that board is free to seek clarification from
the nominee before making the decision, as has happened here. This does
not make such an interview a requirement for membership, but board may
decide to make it a requirement for accepting that particular nomination.

Best regards,
Lucas Werkmeister

Dear Nico,
no, it is not required. It was not done for anybody since I became a
member of CAcert Inc., including me. It especially also was not done for
Bernd who was accepted as CAcert Inc. member just before your not
acceptance in the same board meeting, yesterday. At least nothing in
that direction was visible, while the existence of questions to you was
discussed at that meeting.
But as I am "only" a CAcert Inc member since I believe November 2013
there are others with a lot more information about this issue.
The statutes do not mention any such interview so it is not a
requirement according to our statutes.
Additionally while I was a member of CAcert Inc. there was once a
discussion about the acceptance of someone else to become a member of
CAcert Inc. That member is our current treasurer so a board member. Two
other current board members claimed back then that board has to accept
any member even if objections were raised by another member against
this. This was about a year ago if I remember correctly. (All this is
only from my memory details may be wrong.)
If you are interested in that topic, you can look it up in the wiki.
Board-meetings are documented.
Kind regards,
Eva Stöwe

Dear Reinhard,
To clarify i am a natural person, i sent a signed request as application
and i will here declare that i am in no way affiliated to any other CA
certification institutions other than CACert and a private one for
.local domains.
I payed the membership fee.
So i think my obligations to the application have been fulfilled.
I didn't find any mentioning of a interview as requirement. So i
included cacert list as cc to ask other members on this.
Dear CA Cert Inc members,
Is an interview about opinions part of the appliaction of membership.
Answers please to the list.
As i type this on a mobile phone through a web interface in cannot sign
this mail.
If this is required
I will send a signed mail later.
Kind regards,
Nico Baggus

Dear Nico,
you applied for membership by an email send out on Thu, 31 Mar 2016
14:53:55 +0200 to secretary.
The statutes of CAcert Incorporated require that such an application
MUST be supported by at least two members of the association.
Rule 2

Membership qualification
i. who has been nominated for membership of the
association as provided by rule 3, and
ii. who has been approved for membership of the association
by the committee of the association.

Rule 3

Nomination for membership
(a)must be made by a member of the association in writing or by
digitally signed email in the form set out in Appendix 1 to
these rules, and
(b) must be lodged with the secretary of the association.
(c)Nominee must not be an employee of, or contracted to, either
a Certificate Authority which provides digital certification or
identification services or digital signing services for financial
reward, or an organisation which is employed by or
contracted to a Certificate Authority which provides digital
certification or identification services or digital signing
services for financial reward.
(d)Failure to adhere with clause (c) results in expulsion from the
association at any time.
As soon as practicable after receiving a nomination for
membership, the secretary must refer the nomination to the
committee which is to determine whether to approve or to reject
the nomination.
As soon as practicable after the committee makes that
(a)notify the nominee, in writing or by digitally signed email, that
the committee approved or rejected the nomination
(whichever is applicable), and
(b)if the committee approved the nomination, request the
nominee to pay (within the period of 28 days after receipt by
the nominee of the notification) the sum payable under these
rules by a member as entrance fee and annual subscription.

The first one to support your application of membership was Eva Stöwe.
She wrote her email on Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:27:19 +0200.
The second one to support your application of membership was Etienne
Ruedin. He wrote his email on Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:41:39 +0200.
Our secretary informed board immediately and board discussed your
application during the last boardmeeting which was held on 2016-04-7
21:30 UTC.
The board decided to clarify some questions about 2 emails which you send

So first telling there is a filing with a "Public Prosecutor" by a
board member
and then telling in a meeting there is no "Board Motion" to do such a
thing
can only mean that board does not control itself, has not one voice and
possibly allows board-members to go rogue(handle in self-interest in
stead of
CACert Inc). Obviously providing data (anonymised where needed) about
what
really happened is in their hands as they have proof of the filing.
(This is what I can make of communications of THE BOARD).

(see the email to which I reply).
The board decision will depend on your answer.
It seems to all of us that you are writing about facts. Please provide
us with evidence.
Currently you are NOT a member of CAcert Incorporated.
Kind regards
Reinhard Mutz, President of CAcert Incorporated in the name of board
Dave,
it is worse

Dave,
I also am a plain joe in the crowd of the hangarounds...
I agree, I expect a board to show leadership.
Leadership is NOT firing all opponents, then they will find the
biggest asset
has left.
(I do also act as a lifeboat captain, and believe me throwing crew
overboard
if there is a conflict IS NOT helpful, it requires talking, teaching,
EXPLAINING, and training how things can be done does help, and
sometimes one
the (and
sometimes family of the) crew need to TRUST ME in deciding over
actions they
VOLUNTARILY do on my request(ok order) even if any wise person stays
on solid
ground under the circumstances.
CACert only asset is the web of *Trust*...
And that has it's peculiarities it's gone before you know it( it only
takes a
careless moment of a few seconds).. it takes years to build it.
And has little to do with providing a Globally accepted certificate....
Well it has to have a certificate accepted by relations to prove
trust in
digital relations, so it is a by product for the people that think
likewise.
And if that can be the Whole of the world..., Nice..., no more wars,
no more
conflicts... (pinch, stop dreaming).
This is quite opposed to what i see happen in the last few months....
A board that is splitting, a community instead of trying to join...
The biggest problem is that the board seems to be able to see minuscule
splints with others(maybe even non-existing ones) , but they are
completely
missing the boat on the beam in their own eyes.
IMHO agree everyone has the rights to secrets, f.e. nobody except a
treasurer
needs access to bank credentials etc.
But the process of running organizations like CACert need to be clear
and
open. And a message can be created once.
So first telling there is a filing with a "Public Prosecutor" by a
board member
and then telling in a meeting there is no "Board Motion" to do such a
thing
can only mean that board does not control itself, has not one voice and
possibly allows board-members to go rogue(handle in self-interest in
stead of
CACert Inc). Obviously providing data (anonymised where needed) about
what
really happened is in their hands as they have proof of the filing.
(This is what I can make of communications of THE BOARD).
One cannot ask of a non board-member to provide proof about such a
thing, or
about the filing whatever.
I am not sure what is worst here.... IMHO the board went completely
over-
board on the wrong subject, the right one being
Retain and Extend CACert as web of *trust*.
Now i have no vote in this, except with my feet obviously.
So i second Dave's call for trying to best FIX things and bring ends
in the
obvious current holes in the web of trust together again and go from
there.
And this means that all ambiguities need to be resolved solved, and any
action/decision that *could* have a source in ambiguity need to be
turned back
until investigated and possibly an YET SEPARATE SGM needs to decide
on the
real issues that come to light after resolution fails.
Kind regards,
Nico
(sorry, for the boat references, but i have thing with that mode of
transport
being it fast/slow/motor/sail/whatever).
Snipped to prevent overflow of MBX...

Post by dave broz
I hope it is a wake up call for everyone.
Dave.

[Bernd Jantzen]

Dear all,

are the minutes of yesterday's board meeting available somewhere? The wiki page
https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-04-07
does not have any attachments, and the link at the bottom is not functional.

Or can anyone provide me with this transscript of the board meeting?
Eva's mail is my first information that board seems to have accepted me as
CAcert Inc member.
And I'm also interested to see what has been discussed about Nico's application.

Best regards,
Bernd

Dear Nico,
no, it is not required. It was not done for anybody since I became a
member of CAcert Inc., including me. It especially also was not done for
Bernd who was accepted as CAcert Inc. member just before your not
acceptance in the same board meeting, yesterday. At least nothing in
that direction was visible, while the existence of questions to you was
discussed at that meeting.
But as I am "only" a CAcert Inc member since I believe November 2013
there are others with a lot more information about this issue.
The statutes do not mention any such interview so it is not a
requirement according to our statutes.
Additionally while I was a member of CAcert Inc. there was once a
discussion about the acceptance of someone else to become a member of
CAcert Inc. That member is our current treasurer so a board member. Two
other current board members claimed back then that board has to accept
any member even if objections were raised by another member against
this. This was about a year ago if I remember correctly. (All this is
only from my memory details may be wrong.)
If you are interested in that topic, you can look it up in the wiki.
Board-meetings are documented.
Kind regards,
Eva Stöwe

[Marcus Mängel]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bernd Jantzen" <***@bernd-jantzen.de>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:45 PM
To: <***@lists.cacert.org>
Subject: Re: Application for membership

Post by Bernd Jantzen
Dear all,
are the minutes of yesterday's board meeting available somewhere? The wiki page
https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-04-07
does not have any attachments, and the link at the bottom is not functional.

I just attached the transscript.

Marcus

[Lucas Werkmeister]

The link at the bottom of the wiki page still seems to be broken. Here’s
the working one:
https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-04-07?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=2016-04-07.cacert.board.meeting.txt

Post by Marcus Mängel
--------------------------------------------------
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Application for membership

Post by Bernd Jantzen
Dear all,
are the minutes of yesterday's board meeting available somewhere? The wiki page
https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/2016-04-07
does not have any attachments, and the link at the bottom is not functional.

I just attached the transscript.
Marcus

[dave broz]

"I saw a man, with binoculars."

Even with the comma who has the binoculars?
It is not a technicality it is an ambiguity.

Dave.

[Jason Horan]

That, and the fact that you're obviously descended from convicts......
;-P


Jason

Sent from my Sony Xperia Z5 Compact

---- Ian G wrote ----

"I saw a man, with binoculars."
Even with the comma who has the binoculars?
It is not a technicality it is an ambiguity.

"I saw a man, with binoculars. And a tripod. Without the tripod, he
looked like a woman..."
Yep - ambiguous :) I don't know how it is in other languages, but there
is an entire sub-culture in (native) English speaking circles on this
topic. I blame the English public school system myself. They blame me
for not learning proper English.
iang

[dave broz]

Yep - ambiguous :) I don't know how it is in other languages,

My German language skills are atrocious and I have been living here since
1999, however if I ever wanted to write clear rules and regulations I would
want them to be written in a Germanic language, these people have a word
for everything it seems. I am sure Dutch is similar.

Dave.