IT Committee 03-20-2012 Transcript

21:30 <~psema4> ok, it's time. This meeting is called to order 21:30 I am not exactly a member but will just be lurking while I pack 21:31 <~psema4> first up, permanent chair 21:31 <~psema4> anyone wishing to take the position? 21:31 <&scshunt> May I offer some thoughts here first? 21:31 <~psema4> sure 21:31 <&scshunt> I think that the permanent chair should not necessarily be the only sysadmin 21:32 <&scshunt> I think that it's clear from the last two months that we need multiple sysadmins 21:32 this is accurate. 21:32 <~psema4> agreed 21:32 <&scshunt> The chair should really just be the manager 21:32 <&scshunt> Additionally, the committee should probably only consist of those people willing to undertake regular sysadmin-type duties 21:32 <&scshunt> (even if not across all systems) 21:33 I also agree with this statement 21:33 <&scshunt> We don't need everyone with access to be on the committee either 21:33 I certainly don't have the wide range of expertise to handle everything myself. Usage of linux alone puts me at a disadvantage 21:33 but i'd still like to be functional 21:33 <~psema4> gentoo at that 21:34 <&scshunt> as in, you're not familiar with Linux? 21:34 as in--haven't used it in 6yrs. 21:34 :p 21:34 <&scshunt> ah ok 21:34 <~psema4> jhowell: curious - what was your last distro? 21:35 the closest thing I can admit to was setup of ESX cluster 6 mos ago...and thats not true linux 21:35 oh gee.. hmm 21:35 <&scshunt> were I not an ex officio member, I'd resign, since I don't think I'm up to the commitment 21:35 ubuntu..when it first got its ability to do an install purely off a network connection 21:35 can't remember the version 21:35 <~psema4> k 21:36 <~psema4> scshunt: I absolutely agree we need to spread the sysadmin jobs around. the problem is we don't have as many as we need 21:36 <&scshunt> yeah 21:36 <&scshunt> hands up; who here is actually willing to put time in doing sysadmin stuff? 21:37 I can navigate around, google search the stuff that my brain is missing.. I definitely need to brush up on that --as well as my networking appliance OS's. 21:37 I'm not on the commitee, but can help. 21:37 Willing to put in the time, but certain learning curves exist. 21:37 Sorry if I'm speaking out of place, just meant to lurk/ 21:37 <&scshunt> sheps: If you want to help out regularly, we can get you on the committee 21:37 <&scshunt> I don't mind myself 21:37 < CCitizen> I dont really have a huge amount of experience in a production environment either... but I've messed around with lots of distros a while back... Ubuntu is what I use at the moment though I wish I had have picked Debian directly at this point 21:38 Cool. I'm a network and sys admin in my day job. 21:38 <~psema4> CCitizen: why? i use both regularly 21:38 < CCitizen> I dont like the new Unity UI they're trying to force on people when they upgrade 21:38 <&scshunt> ++++ 21:38 <~psema4> sheps: any preferred stack? lamp? ms? 21:39 <~psema4> CCitizen: my primary dev box is oneric but I dumped unity in favor of gnome 3. love it 21:39 I work primarily in Windows environments, but an competent with linux. 21:39 <&scshunt> CCitizen: Do you think you can put in the time, with the PDC? 21:39 Ah, also used backtrack 4 to do some ethical wifi hacking a couple years ago.. 21:39 :p 21:39 psema4, IIS primarily. 21:39 < CCitizen> Yeah I have Gnome running on mine 21:40 But I can work around a httpd.conf file. 21:40 sheps description is similar to what my situation is 21:40 So what kind of systems need administrating? 21:40 <~psema4> ok, so to get back on topic... selection of it director. who should manage our department? 21:40 <~psema4> sheps: lots 21:40 Who are the names up on the roster? 21:41 <~psema4> it needs to be layed out on a wiki page 21:41 <~psema4> *laid* 21:41 <~psema4> lol 21:41 <&scshunt> we do need to lay things out 21:41 <&scshunt> and I honestly don't think we should keep everything going in current state either 21:41 <~psema4> so we know what needs to be taken care of and who can or is doing it 21:41 <~psema4> doesn't need to be on the wiki 21:42 <~psema4> just somewhere the committee can get to 21:43 < CCitizen> At the moment I'm unemployed so probably... that said those on the committee should probably bring different things to the table. If we have like 10 system admin types on it then we'd only ever have a system admin type decision... I like finding new stuff and figuring out how we can use it 21:43 If no one else, I'd be up to the task--if a lack of technical skill against the systems for the time being, at least from an administrative perspective I can manage the human resource aspect of the committee 21:44 that said, if someone wanted to go forward with both technical AND human management ability, then by all means 21:45 * psema4 wishes malix were here 21:45 <~psema4> khoover: any thoughts? 21:45 as do i. lol 21:45 <&scshunt> I don't think everyone needs to be good across all systems 21:45 <&scshunt> But mostly everyone should have some expertise in at least one of the Party's systems 21:45 <&scshunt> at least, that should be the goal 21:45 a director/manager should be able to recognize the skills of their team and allocate the work balance accordingly 21:46 < CCitizen> well what systems do we have aside from Gentoo? 21:46 <~psema4> lol 21:46 <~psema4> none 21:46 <~psema4> afaik 21:46 <&scshunt> The OS is not the only system 21:46 < CCitizen> Gentoo was the only type of Linux I found too much of a PITA 21:47 Gentoo was. Because expectations were too high as a distro that was suppposed to be the everymans linux 21:47 <~psema4> I like it in some ways (equery & portage are nice) but I'm not as comfortable as in debian/ubuntu 21:48 Being able to manage people is critical, esp with volunteers because there's a high risk of complacency when it comes to jobs which people are not paid for, combined with an escalated power over the systems. 21:48 <&scshunt> that's not what I meant, hah 21:48 <&scshunt> I meant that we have server software and the like 21:48 < CCitizen> Anyways back to the decision of seat warmer ... err I mean Chair 21:48 <&scshunt> Oh, the other important thing about the seat warmer is that they are on the EB 21:48 <~psema4> ^ 21:48 <&khoover> yeah, just noticed the time, sorry 21:49 <&scshunt> So they become the primarily liaison between the EB and the committee 21:49 <~psema4> my problem, as always, is a lack of time. 21:49 <&scshunt> in that role, CCitizen is doing an admirable job, but personally I want him chairing the PDC ;) 21:50 < CCitizen> Hah... I wouldnt want to try and run two committees. I'm just glad to have a chance to offer my opinions and advice here 21:50 <&scshunt> yeah 21:50 <&scshunt> two would probably not be great 21:52 <~psema4> I can continue to chair, but i won't be able to contribute as much sysadmin time. I could probably handle mail and some small dev work 21:52 < CCitizen> My Technical skills are a bit rusty too... but  I have good ideas (some of them to be covered later if we manage to get through this) 21:52 < CCitizen> Honestly I think the only two people we have for real consideration are psema4 and jhowell 21:52 <&scshunt> Unless someone else really steps up, I agree 21:53 < JohannWeiss1> I'm assuming we can't have them co-chair? 21:53 < CCitizen> mostly everyone else here is involved in other things too... EB, PC and leadership roles 21:54 <~psema4> CCitizen: whoever chairs becomes a member of the EB 21:54 < CCitizen> Actually if we can have two people handling the responsibility like a president/vp sorta deal if Scott cant make it to the EB meeting then like Jeremy could take the place or something? 21:55 that'd work 21:55 <~psema4> scshunt ? 21:55 <&scshunt> Not without amending the rules, and it's too late to do so in March 21:55 <&scshunt> that's a bad approach in my experience anyway 21:56 <&scshunt> the point of having a chair is to have someone to pin the responsibility on for making sure that the committee meets 21:56 <&scshunt> otherwise the other guy can do it, right? 21:56 <~psema4> hmm 21:57 it all makes sense now. The only way around this is a fight to the death. 21:57 <~psema4> vote? 21:57 <~psema4> lol! 21:57 < CCitizen> What sort of rules changing are we talking about? 21:58 <&scshunt> CCitizen: The rule defining the committee 21:58 <&scshunt> We'd have to change that to allow for co-chairs 21:58 Does anyone actually know where malix is ? he was the guy that was super wanting this role 21:58 was he not? 21:58 < CCitizen> Constitution or.. ah the special rules 21:58 <&scshunt> CCitizen: those, yes 21:59 <&scshunt> CCitizen: Fixing the wiki to make this all make more sense is on my list 21:59 <&scshunt> jhowell: You and he both expressed interest 21:59 < CCitizen> To be blunt... I havent seen or heard from him in 2 months... That alone in my mind limits my vote to psema4 or jhowell. 21:59 <&scshunt> I sent him an email about it a while ago; he said he had problems at home 22:00 <~psema4> ouch 22:00 <&scshunt> he asked when the next one was 22:00 okay cool 22:00 < CCitizen> ah... well in any event if he does show up later we can revisit this since the committee can determine it's own chair after all 22:00 <&scshunt> but :/ 22:00 yeah i get you 22:00 <&scshunt> CCitizen: No, the chair is appointed by GM 22:00 psema4, what do you think? 22:00 < CCitizen> ah well it told us to come up with a decision 22:00 <&scshunt> yeah 22:00 <&scshunt> so we are required to do that anyway 22:01 <&scshunt> jhowell: how much do you not want the job? 22:01 lol 22:01 <&scshunt> psema4: how much do you not want the job? 22:01 <~psema4> i want the job, time is a problem 22:01 < CCitizen> In any case ... if it goes to a GM vote odds are Scott would win because people recognize him more 22:01 <&scshunt> It will go to a GM to vote one way or another 22:01 I want to be most fair to the party, and pseema4's reason is the same as mine. 22:02 granted, I'm self-employed and doing well so i have flexibility 22:02 <~psema4> how much free-time do you have? 22:02 I'm also organized (when organization measures are in place) 22:02 < JohannWeiss1> Well you guys could still split the work between you, as long as one of you takes responsibility to attend the EB meetings. 22:03 < CCitizen> Simple way to handle it is to figure out who would do the best job given time and resources available 22:03 potentially.. 22:03 < CCitizen> EB meets Mondays at 9:30pm for the record 22:04 would depend on the amt of work I have on my projects and how many I am undertaking at a time. usually 2 clients at a time, about to finish with one on Thursday. 22:04 I also have a Project Management class on Saturdays 9-3 22:04 <&scshunt> Really, the chair is just the role of being an organizer and communicator 22:05 but aside from thatI don't have an 8hr workday 22:05 <&scshunt> while helping manage the party 22:05 < CCitizen> I think Johann hit the nail on the head... whoever is able to commit to attending the EB meetings should have it 22:05 <&scshunt> based on that, my instinct is to prefer jhowell 22:05 but i mean..i wake up at 10am..and typically do 4-6hrs a day :p 22:06 between that, casually learning C++ and playing League of Legends, while not doing schoolwork 22:06 so.. 22:06 < CCitizen> I'm fine with jhowell if he's willing then since really I think we're all here for the same purpose 22:06 I'm sure there's time to fit in :) 22:06 <&scshunt> not doing schoolwork is the best 22:06 <~psema4> one other aspect about the chair is that they get root 22:06 <&scshunt> psema4: I don't think it should be limited to the chair 22:07 no, i don't think so either... if i got hit by a bus tomorrow.. for instance 22:07 < CCitizen> I've been trying to learn Python myself anyways have we had enough discussion on the issue? 22:07 <~psema4> scshunt: to an extent I agree. the crm has to be guarded though 22:07 < CCitizen> thing is we need to make sure our sysadmin actions are accountable too (thats why I like Debian's sudo structure) 22:08 <~psema4> ^ +1 22:08 are changes/access etc all logged? (moot?) 22:09 <&scshunt> sudo logs them 22:09 and are those erasable through any means? 22:10 <~psema4> all files are erasable. 22:10 lol semantics! 22:10 like, as in can someone methodically erase a malicious activity from the logs with their access 22:11 < CCitizen> Technically anyone with sudo/root level access could alter the logs...only safeguard for that is a log server where the logs are sent to as they are created but meh.. we should in general be able to trust people that we give the proverbial root access to 22:11 <&scshunt> yeah 22:11 then accountability is automatically granted to whomever has it 22:11 it doesn't have to be anyone 22:11 < CCitizen> but then someone needs to be able to access that server so 22:11 just 2 trustworthy people 22:11 2nd person doesn't even need to be on the committee 22:11 if they were on the EB for instance 22:12 <&scshunt> you cannot both grant someone full acccess and make them fully trackable. 22:12 give the President the code as a failsafe 22:12 just so someone else has it 22:12 something like that 22:12 < CCitizen> or the secretary 22:12 yep 22:13 its literally if the director falls off the earth tomorrow 22:13 <~psema4> for the record, i'm fine with jhowell taking the lead. does the committee have a suggestion to make to the gm tomorrow for this role? 22:13 <&scshunt> I'm a member of the committee too ;) 22:13 < CCitizen> or really... maybe we should consider all the officers.. but I dunno 22:14 <&scshunt> I do have sysadmin experience, but I'm not prepared to commit time to this 22:14 i personally think it'd be a fantastic idea for Sean to be the other person 22:14 < CCitizen> alright so I take it we should put it to a vote to make it official? after 45 minutes of discussion 22:14 < JohannWeiss1> Yeah 22:14 <&scshunt> is it Jeremy? 22:15 < CCitizen> Hehe... you know the Heinz Ketchup recipe is known only by 7 people in the entire world 22:15 <~psema4> all in favour of jhowell? 22:15 < CCitizen> aye 22:15 <&scshunt> aye 22:15 < JohannWeiss1> ye 22:15 <~psema4> abstain 22:16 abstain 22:16 < CCitizen> is that enough votes to make it official? 22:16 <&scshunt> yes 22:16 <&scshunt> need half of quorum 22:16 <&scshunt> and that was 3 22:17 < CCitizen> congratulations then Jeremy our new IT Director (assuming the GM doesnt disagree)... I suppose now we should move onto other business 22:17 Thanks --where do i pick up my paycheque? :p 22:17 ;) 22:17 <~psema4> ok, next item: emergency powers for the it director 22:18 <~psema4> as a result of the recent capt compromise 22:18 <&scshunt> jhowell: in 2016 :P 22:18 <~psema4> by then I expect to be the first pirate on the hill :P 22:18 <&scshunt> :P 22:19 < JohannWeiss1> I'm in favour of the emergency powers, it sounds necessary 22:19 I'll maintain my budget without it for the time being. 22:19 <&scshunt> So, I'm going to take a different tack on emergency powers and question how much we need to call 'emergency powers' 22:19 <~psema4> i agree.  what emergency powers? 22:19 <&scshunt> I mean, it's expected that people with sysadmin access don't need to come back here regularly to ask questions 22:19 < CCitizen> I figure the simplest would be taking a compromised service or server down 22:20 <~psema4> ah. 22:20 <&scshunt> I think that's within the bounds of good sysadminnery 22:20 <&scshunt> If we need to make that an official decision, sure 22:20 < JohannWeiss1> What are the current bounds on what the admin can do without calling a meeting? 22:21 <&scshunt> They aren't well-defined 22:21 < CCitizen> I really dont know Johann 22:21 <~psema4> no they're not. we need to create a bunch of processes. 22:21 Order of business 1. Define boundaries of an Admin can do w/o calling a meeting 22:23 what is defined as admin, is currently either the director or the holder of root? or do we intend to give power user rights to certain people as well? 22:23 < CCitizen> Actually I was thinking we could get the emergency power out of the way and then get some of the other things that were on the agenda done... It's                 probably better to wait till next week to figure out exact policies 22:23 <~psema4> for now, i think it's safe to assume that the it director can use his or her discretion to deal with emergencies. 22:24 <~psema4> CCitizen: would you mind starting a wiki page outlining your take on emergency powers? we could review at the next meeting 22:25 <~psema4> (or just post a link to the mailing list and we can discuss it there) 22:25 < CCitizen> Agreed... So the IT Director can handle emergencies as they see fit for the time being 22:25 < JohannWeiss1> Yeah 22:26 < CCitizen> We can always work it out on a piratepad later the details we'd be proposing for both emergency powers and routine admin tasks 22:26 <~psema4> ok, anything else on emergency powers? next topic is regular meeting schedule 22:27 < CCitizen> So maybe we should put that to a vote for now.... 'Permit the IT Director to handle emergencies as they see fit for the time being. While we work on                 details on specifics' 22:28 < TravisMcCrea> Ummmm I don't think this committee gets to decide that 22:28 < TravisMcCrea> Not that I am against it, but a committee shouldn't set it's leaders level of powers 22:28 < CCitizen> Actually wasnt the IT Committee made by a GM... Technically it's the committee delegating it's power to act to the chair 22:29 Travis is right. its leaders should take it, by force. 22:29 :) 22:29 < TravisMcCrea> I just mean the executive board should decide what level of emergancy powers this committee and it's leader gets 22:30 < CCitizen> Well in terms of energencies we're talking IT emergencies like finding our server has been compromised at the root level 22:30 < TravisMcCrea> Yes, but still... the decision of giving emergancy powers needs to come from the PB 22:30 <~psema4> perhaps we should avoid voting on the issue until the EB has considered. it director should take the matter to the next EB meeting on monday 22:31 psema4 that sounds like a safe decision. 22:31 <&scshunt> TravisMcCrea: The Committee specifically has this power I think 22:31 <&scshunt> but I suspect the correct answer is "do whatever is appropriate in the circumstances" 22:31 < CCitizen> Actually I can see some issues if we shut our server down notably with party communications entirely relying on it... meh so hard to handle things 22:32 Well we need to establish a Disaster response plan as well of course 22:32 <&scshunt> yeah 22:32 < JohannWeiss1> ^ 22:32 <~psema4> +1 22:33 +1 to mine or CCitizens comment? :p 22:33 <&scshunt> Johann's :P 22:33 <~psema4> +1 disaster response plan 22:33 gotcha 22:33 <~psema4> we need one 22:33 < CCitizen> Yeah we need a plan but that's something that we cant handle in the next hour or so 22:33 right 22:33 < CCitizen> We should put that on a To Do list 22:33 <~psema4> ug 22:33 just like--highly unlikely a problem will arise between now and tomorrow's meeting 22:34 (knock on wood) 22:34 < CCitizen> haha 22:34 < CCitizen> I think the next thing on the schedule was determining a regular meeting time/place 22:34 ok 22:34 my take on it 22:34 frequency, we need to decide on 22:34 but I like the idea of Tuesday's at 8. 22:35 <~psema4> works for me 22:35 that way at least 1 meeting per month will occur before the general meeting 22:35 < CCitizen> Either weekly or every other week 22:35 < CCitizen> actually weekly is good 22:35 < CCitizen> if we have nothing to deal with we can just call it off 22:35 If we have nothing to talk about, we can talk about adjusting schedule 22:35 exactly 22:36 as long as we don't run through the motions and go through it needlessly every week we'll be fine 22:36 < CCitizen> We dont have to limit ourself to tuesdays we could make it fridays or sunday or whatever 22:37 <~psema4> the key is to make it regular and recurring. 22:37 < CCitizen> Though EC meets Mondays at 9:30, GM is every 3rd Wednesday at 8pm and PC is Thursdays at 9:30 pm 22:37 < CCitizen> all times EST 22:37 <~psema4> question: what timezone is everyone in? EDT here 22:37 EDT 22:37 < CCitizen> I'm EST/EDT 22:37 (EST) 22:38 < CCitizen> I know Travis/Jake/Johann are all on PST 22:38 wait, silly question.. acronyms.. EC and PC is? 22:38 < CCitizen> Executive Board and Political Council 22:38 < CCitizen> should have been EB actually 22:39 gotcha thx 22:39 <&scshunt> out for a bit 22:39 < CCitizen> Actually Fridays might be better for me but I know alot of people go out and get drunk on Fridays hehe 22:40 * psema4 likes quiet friday nights 22:40 yeah i'm totally never doing fridays/saturday nights :) 22:41 so, it still puts tuesdays on the map in terms of sequencing 22:41 if no conflicts 22:41 thursdays are good too 22:42 < CCitizen> Thursdays are PC we could meet earlier like 6pm so the two meetings dont conflict 22:42 <~psema4> ok, how about everyone states their preferred weekday and time (eg 20:00 or 21:30 EST/EDT) 22:43 Tuesdays/Thursdays 19:00 EST/ 22:43 actually 22:43 <~psema4> Tuesdays/Fridays 21:30 EST/EDT 22:43 Tuesdays/Thursdays 19:30 EST 22:43 < JohannWeiss1> I don't believe I'm going to be in this committee soon, so there's no point in working around my schedule. 22:44 i can agree with psema4 for tuesday 21:30 22:45 wait 22:45 <~psema4> just a reminder we need quorum to make this binding 22:45 is that 9:30 22:45 hm 22:45 yeah ok 22:45 < JohannWeiss1> Do we not have quorum? 22:46 <~psema4> i suspect some have dropped off 22:46 <~psema4> scshunt mentioned he's out for a bit 22:46 < CCitizen> Ok... so Tuesday at 21:30 or friday at 21:30 are good for me Thursday at 19:30 or earlier wouuld be good too (doesnt conflict with PC meeting) 22:46 < JohannWeiss1> I believe our rules state that they count for quorum as long as they don't sign out (assuming we get three votes) 22:47 <~psema4> 19:30 isn't a good time for me... when i'm in the office I won't usually be home before 20:30 22:47 < CCitizen> actually Tuesday 9:30pm seems good 22:48 < JakeDaynes> I'm here 22:48 < JakeDaynes> I count 22:49 < JohannWeiss1> (FYI: "members shall be required to check in specifically for that meeting in order to establish quorum. Once checked in, a member shall be                      assumed  present unless they disconnect." so were good as long as no one signs out) 22:49 <~psema4> JakeDaynes: have a preferred weekday and time for it meetings? 22:49 < CCitizen> Since tuesday seems to be the common thread should we make it Tuesday 9:30 pm and vote on it? 22:49 < JakeDaynes> Tuesdays at 21:30 EST/EDT work for me 22:50 <~psema4> ok, all in favour of Tuesdays at 21:30 EST/EDT for meetings of the IT Committee? 22:50 < JohannWeiss1> aye 22:50 <~psema4> aye 22:50 yep 22:50 < CCitizen> aye 22:50 < JakeDaynes> aye 22:50 aye 22:50 < TravisMcCrea> aye 22:51 <~psema4> very well. next item is the capt compromise 22:52 < CCitizen> Is there anything new on that one... also how does a torrent server get compromised... 22:52 <~psema4> cleanup is still outstanding. I'm not sure if jake or stephane have anything additional to report. 22:52 < JakeDaynes> I don't at this time, no. I believe we narrowed down the vulnerability though, yes? 22:52 <~psema4> CCitizen: it wasn't a torrent server... capt is the hostname of one box 22:53 < JakeDaynes> the PHPMyAdmin exploit that should have been patched when it was released back in July last year? 22:53 <~psema4> JakeDaynes: yes, and I disabled phpmyadmin 22:53 < JakeDaynes> Good 22:53 < JakeDaynes> We also determined that they didn't do anything when accessing the server, yes? 22:54 <~psema4> AFAIK and I believe that was Stephane's assessment as well. 22:54 i believe it wasn't a structured attack on the party itself. --the worst they would have done was put up a splash page to flaunt their works. 22:54 i've mentioned--seen that guy before in a different investigation I went through a year ago or so 22:55 < JakeDaynes> Yeah 22:55 <~psema4> CCitizen: to further expand: nothing critical was running on the compromised box, although that's where we were planning to put the irc server for integration with pirateirc.net 22:56 < CCitizen> Ok good... so all is well then. Is our IRC server currently on the same box as the forums/website stuff then? 22:56 <~psema4> i'd have to look it up lol 22:56 < JakeDaynes> I believe that is accurate 22:56 < CCitizen> Dont worry about it at the moment then lets get through the rest of the agenda since I dont think we really need to vote on the CaPT issue 22:57 < CCitizen> Although we do need to bring it up at the GM tomorrow for everyone to know 22:57 <~psema4> works for me. next topic is idenitfiable data collection (eg logs) 22:58 <~psema4> scshunt followed up by email on this regard. 22:58 <~psema4> "The EB agreed to direct the committee to anonymize the last digit 22:58 <~psema4> groupings of IP addresses where possible, and to inform the user where 22:58 <~psema4> that is not possible. Additionally, in general, we should not be 22:58 <~psema4> logging personally identifiable information, but we want to be keeping 22:58 <~psema4> non-personal information. 22:59 < JohannWeiss1> That sounds sensible to me. 22:59 yeah 22:59 <~psema4> this will require an audit of the various parts of all our applications 23:00 <~psema4> that's sysadmin time 23:00 < CCitizen> Perhaps we should refer this issue to the General Meeting tomorrow... I know there are some who want no logs and others who want some logging in                 place.... If we arent using our analytics and such to make our website better then all it's doing is sitting there waiting for a potential supeona 23:01 <~psema4> CCitizen: we are already directed to do so by the executive 23:01 <~psema4> the problem is we really don't have the manpower 23:01 < CCitizen> the manpower to do what 23:02 <~psema4> to audit all the places where such data is logged and reconfigure those software packages 23:02 its all a part of a process 23:02 <~psema4> agreed, but it's not going to happen quickly 23:02 the important part is to make the rationale for doing work 23:02 and assigning it 23:02 when it gets done, it gets done 23:02 <~psema4> :) 23:03 < CCitizen> Alright well it'll take time but it's on the proverbial to-do list then 23:03 we'll assign a timeline and jutify it 23:03 justify 23:03 Keep track of it for future projects 23:03 if people whine 23:03 then we'll put fire on it 23:03 < CCitizen> Well since there is no immediate action to take on that 23:04 <~psema4> next item: policy for creation and distibution of pirateparty.ca email addresses. 23:04 but otherwise, we're all volunteering our time. 23:05 < CCitizen> This is something we might need to vote on 23:05 yes 23:06 i'm still a bit leery of being able to give them rights to create their own 23:06 I know, the points circulated in the distro were fine 23:06 < CCitizen> I know we've been limiting access to @pirateparty.ca email addresses but the idea was something gneral like firstname.lastname@pirateparty.ca 23:06 < CCitizen> although that can get long 23:06 but just because they were legit, doesn't mean fluffymcpuffycakes@pirateparty.ca is proper 23:07 < JohannWeiss1> No, it was supposed to be different from pirateparty.ca 23:07 < JohannWeiss1> Wasn't it going to be piratemail or something similar to that 23:07 yeah 23:07 < CCitizen> Jake's project 23:07 < JakeDaynes> Yeah, only admins/elected officials were going to have pirateparty.ca 23:07 piratemail.ca would still have affiliation with the party ? 23:07 < CCitizen> it's not officially tied to the party it's gonna be a hushmail like service I think 23:07 < JohannWeiss1> That's an important diff in my opinion 23:07 hm 23:07 < JakeDaynes> my project - which is separate from the party right now - is piratemail.ca 23:07 so why do we have piratemail.ca at all then? 23:08 < JakeDaynes> you dont 23:08 < JakeDaynes> I do 23:08 ok, may I ask you to justify its existence? 23:08 <~psema4> he's a pirate? ;) 23:08 < JakeDaynes> I want to offer a hushmail style system to anybody that wants it 23:08 < JakeDaynes> I chose piratemail.ca because it was available and I'm a pirate :) 23:08 so just a free private email 23:08 < JakeDaynes> If the party ends up wanting to take it over, then it is available for that 23:08 < JakeDaynes> yes - correct 23:09 ok I think this doesn't fall under the juristdiction of the IT committee yet 23:09 < CCitizen> I feel we should permit people to use either their name or their commonly used alias for @pirateparty.ca addresses (IE. psema4@pirateparty.ca                 would be as acceptable as scott.elcomb@pirateparty.ca) 23:09 < JakeDaynes> jhowell: correct, it does not at this time 23:09 < CCitizen> Considering the PC voted to allow people to use their pseudonyms within the party 23:09 < JakeDaynes> but, if the IT committee would like to take it over, then it is available, and that is an option for discussion 23:10 < CCitizen> Yeah I dont think we can take it over without EB or GM approval 23:10 <~psema4> jhowell: would you mind taking the chair for a few moments? i need to step away temporarily 23:10 < JakeDaynes> Yeah we can - I donate the domain name 23:10 < JakeDaynes> if* I 23:10 < JakeDaynes> and part of our agenda is to look at distribution of member email addresses 23:11 sure 23:11 <~psema4> thx 23:11 < JakeDaynes> If I donate it, it becomes an asset of the party that would fall under the IT Committee's control 23:11 < JakeDaynes> (due to it being a domain name) 23:12 And rationale behind it being an asset of the party? 23:12 < JakeDaynes> For it to be used for member email addresses 23:12 but can't that be done as-is ? 23:13 < CCitizen> i think we should use @pirateparty.ca for intra-party communications when possible 23:13 < JakeDaynes> Kind-of, we wouldn't be able to, as a party, say, "Here you go, sign up for a member address through this site" 23:13 < CCitizen> and I like how Jake has @piratemail.ca setup 23:13 < JakeDaynes> It's a complicated thing to do with party assets and auditing etc for EC 23:14 hmm 23:15 well my only concern is image by association 23:15 We own it, administrate it, but allow users to assign anything they want 23:15 < CCitizen> read back a few lines... We should allow people to use their real name or their commonly used pseudonym for their @pirateparty.ca email address... Also I would say we should recommend picking up the piratemail.ca domain from Jake as our offering to the general public 23:15 If the lawyers don't see issues 23:16 then i won't either 23:16 i don't worry about party members so much as the general public :) 23:17 < CCitizen> Should we put it to a vote then 23:17 propose the vote 23:17 < JohannWeiss1> What's the Motion specifically? 23:18 one of two choices i think.. 23:18 < CCitizen> I propose we allow people within the party to use their real names or at their option their commonly used pseudonyms within the party for their                 @pirateparty.ca email address (IE. Scott could use psema4@pirateparty.ca if he so coosed) 23:18 All in favor? 23:19 < JohannWeiss1> aye 23:19 < CCitizen> aye 23:19 < JakeDaynes> aye 23:20 < CCitizen> I will note that the Political Council has a policy to allow people to use their pseudonyms within the party when legal names are not required by                 law so I figure this also goes in the spirit of that decision 23:20 (when one has the floor, do they also cast vote)? 23:20 < CCitizen> I think you can vote 23:20 aye 23:20 ok 23:21 so the motion has been past that we allow people within the party to use their real names or at their option their commonly used pseudonyms within                 the party for their @pirateparty.ca email address 23:21 < CCitizen> I think only for General Meetings theres rules that say like scshunt cant vote there unless it's a tie breaker 23:21 < JakeDaynes> passed* 23:21 passed sorry 23:21 < JakeDaynes> no worries :) 23:21 11:21 with league of legends on my mind 23:21 anyhow 23:21 so 23:21 < JakeDaynes> I'll be honest - I need to go to work, but I'm going to stay signed in and "here" for quorum 23:21 okay 23:21 < CCitizen> Also I'd like to make another motion to be voted on that we recommend the aquisition of @piratemail.ca from Jake for use for a publicly usable email service run by the party. 23:22 < CCitizen> It's part of the previous debate so lets skip ahead to voting? 23:22 before we cast it--does anyone need to still accept it from any other governing body? 23:22 or is it a non issue since it'd be a donation 23:23 < JakeDaynes> non-issue 23:23 ok 23:23 < CCitizen> We can reccomend it but it goes to the EB/GM to approve 23:23 gotcha 23:23 All in favor? 23:23 < JakeDaynes> aye 23:23 < CCitizen> thats why I didnt say do it 23:23 < CCitizen> aye 23:23 aye 23:23 < JohannWeiss1> aye 23:24 < CCitizen> We're almost done just 2 more easy things to handle... The next thing up is setting up a mumble server 23:24 the motion for recommendation of the aquisition of @piratemail.ca from Jake for use for a publicly usable email service run by the party has been passed 23:25 I don't have much familliarity with mumble 23:25 < CCitizen> Do you play video games and have you used Ventrillo or Teamspeak? 23:25 yep 23:25 < CCitizen> It's basically like that but open source and encryption for the voice channel built in 23:25 open source ventrillo basically 23:25 ok 23:26 with ssl 23:26 no opposition to it. 23:26 < CCitizen> The idea is it makes good audio conferencing solution as the Executive Board used it to do their last meeting though thtat was using a public mumble server 23:26 anything kept in-house and open source(free) is a good thing 23:26 < CCitizen> I was going to say we should run a Mumble server on our server somewhere 23:27 as long as we have the resources and bandwidth for it 23:27 which isn't probably much 23:27 how big do the conferences get? 23:27 < CCitizen> Yeah we can adjust the settings to limit to a number of users... It's not something that will be used for general meetings i dont think 23:27 I 23:27 ok 23:28 < CCitizen> I think most committees and EB/PC ahve about 6-10 people for meetings... Also can be used for just chatting by members too 23:28 < CCitizen> lemme get details 23:28 anyone have need for the debate? 23:28 we can basically assess its b/w usage later. 23:28 but this vote will be on in-house mumble as a candidate 23:29 < CCitizen> At medium settings it uses 58.8kbit/s, low setting is 17.4kbit/s 23:30 I call to vote the motion to consider Mumble as a possibilty for an encrypted voice conference medium, hosted in-house. 23:30 All in favor? 23:31 < JohannWeiss1> ate 23:31 aye 23:31 < CCitizen> Aye 23:31 < JohannWeiss1> aye** 23:31 motion passed 23:31 < CCitizen> Good and last order of business is the internal IM server 23:32 The next motion is to consider the Openfire Platform as a possibilty for an encrypted IM server, hosted in-house. 23:33 Anyone have other ideas or proposals 23:33 ? 23:33 < CCitizen> Does it work with any XMPP program or only the spark/ignite ones for the enrypted parts? 23:33 any one 23:33 gtalk exception 23:33 certain functions will only work with a client that supports it 23:34 < CCitizen> Either way it supports XMPP so I'm gonna support it since our members can use Pidgin+OTR if necessary 23:34 e.g. i think video doesn't work in pidgin 23:34 but its been a year, there was a new release in nov 23:34 but pidgin definitely works 23:34 < CCitizen> Alright lets get the vote done so it's official since I didnt see anyone really opposed to using it 23:35 I call to vote the motion to consider the Openfire Platform as a possibilty for an encrypted IM server, hosted in-house. 23:35 all in favor? 23:35 < CCitizen> Aye 23:35 Aye 23:35 < JohannWeiss1> aye 23:35 <~psema4> aye 23:35 < CCitizen> We got quite a bit done today 23:35 hell yes 23:36 The motion has passed 23:36 lets hope we keep this momentum 23:37 < CCitizen> Unless anyone has anything we didnt cover... I think we're done all the official business and can get to just chatting about the details 23:37 I think we're good 23:37 10mins to chat, then i gotta jet 23:37 < CCitizen> Cool 23:38 < CCitizen> Yeah we might as well officially adjourn then 23:38 <~psema4> i'd like to add a topic for next week 23:38 <~psema4> c30 23:38 ok 23:38 < CCitizen> Ah.. C30 rearing it's ugly head again? 23:39 <~psema4> if we don't prepare, we're in a doubleplusungood position 23:39 < CCitizen> Yeah... so get rid of any and all logging? 23:40 <~psema4> no, we'll be forced to keep them and make them available to law enforcement by law 23:40 < CCitizen> They cant order us to preserve what we dont keep 23:40 anything unnecessary, prolly doesn't need to be turned on anyhow 23:40 do i need to make an official statement that we'll talk about it? 23:41 <~psema4> in some respects, we are a telecommunications service provider 23:41 < CCitizen> Sure in the way any website is a telecom service provider 23:41 <~psema4> the problem is the vaguaries in the way the bill is written. it's unclear to what extent we are a telecom service provider 23:41 Topic Addition: Bill C30 re: Turning off all unnecessary logging for site traffic 23:41 is that accurate? 23:42 <~psema4> not quite; c30 may affect is in other ways. we need to identify them 23:42 ok 23:42 <~psema4> s/is/us/ 23:42 < CCitizen> I wonder 23:43 < CCitizen> if we could set up a trap on the directory in such a way that it cant be disabled so that whenever someone goes to look at the log files it would email the entire party :D 23:43 Review of C30, identify how it affects us, re: publicly accessed infrastructure assets 23:44 <~psema4> sounds good 23:44 <~psema4> CCitizen: which directory? 23:44 on my plate, I have addressed 3 new topics of discussion from this meeting, as follows: 23:44 Review of C30, identify how it affects us, re: publicly accessed infrastructure assets 23:44 Define boundaries of an Admin can do w/o calling a meeting 23:45 Develop procedure for Disaster Response Plan 23:45 Anything to add? 23:45 <~psema4> finding sysadmin volunteers 23:46 Procurement of Volunteer SysAdmin team 23:46 < CCitizen> Yeah we also got to set up a mumble server and openfire server 23:46 Including, but not limited to particular skillsets and proficiencies 23:47 ok 23:47 6 items 23:47 not bad 23:48 anything else to add? 23:48 < JohannWeiss1> no 23:48 Vote to call this meeting adjourned; All in favor? 23:48 < JohannWeiss1> aye 23:48 aye 23:48 <~psema4> aye 23:49 oh come on.. lol 23:49 < CCitizen> aye 23:49 Meeting adjourned1