| *** Pali has quit IRC | 00:34 | |
| *** M4rtinK has quit IRC | 01:40 | |
| *** ZogG_laptop has quit IRC | 01:46 | |
| *** kolp has quit IRC | 02:20 | |
| *** xes has quit IRC | 03:07 | |
| *** DocScrutinizer05 has quit IRC | 06:03 | |
| *** DocScrutinizer06 has joined #maemo-meeting | 06:03 | |
| *** DocScrutinizer06 is now known as DocScrutinizer05 | 06:03 | |
| *** ZogG_laptop has joined #maemo-meeting | 08:39 | |
| *** ZogG_laptop has joined #maemo-meeting | 08:39 | |
| *** Pali has joined #maemo-meeting | 08:40 | |
| *** Pali has quit IRC | 09:11 | |
| *** M4rtinK has joined #maemo-meeting | 09:21 | |
| *** kolp has joined #maemo-meeting | 09:44 | |
| *** M4rtinK has quit IRC | 10:00 | |
| *** starkwiz has quit IRC | 12:56 | |
| *** MartinK_N9 has joined #maemo-meeting | 13:14 | |
| *** MartinK_N9_ has joined #maemo-meeting | 13:28 | |
| *** MartinK_N9 has quit IRC | 13:30 | |
| *** MartinK_N9_ has quit IRC | 13:31 | |
| *** phr3akDom has joined #maemo-meeting | 15:41 | |
| *** Pali has joined #maemo-meeting | 15:55 | |
| *** phr3akDom has quit IRC | 17:06 | |
| *** kerio has quit IRC | 17:44 | |
| *** kerio has joined #maemo-meeting | 17:45 | |
| *** thedead1440_ has joined #maemo-meeting | 18:27 | |
| *** MentalistTraceur has joined #maemo-meeting | 19:52 | |
| MentalistTraceur | Hey all, I'm currently driving, so can't talk for the next few minutes. | 19:52 |
|---|---|---|
| qwazix | hi! | 20:03 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | hi | 20:03 |
| MentalistTraceur | Driving done. | 20:03 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | coffee not done yet :-) | 20:05 |
| qwazix | did you see Sailfish SDK? | 20:05 |
| qwazix | I don't know why, I have good feelings about Sailfish/Jolla | 20:06 |
| qwazix | especially after seeing SDK | 20:07 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | alas I had no time looking into it | 20:08 |
| MentalistTraceur | Ready to begin when you guys are. Also, once again apologies for falling behind minutes-wise, but good news is I just finished up a project that was keeping me busy all week, so hopefully this week minutes will happen promptly. | 20:09 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: no I did not. | 20:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and I hope x-fade will have some time for maemo autobuilder now that sailfish is out and hes not swamped with it anymore | 20:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: tbh I have no idea if and where the last 3 meetings' miinutes got published | 20:10 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: The last two haven't been, the one before that was. | 20:11 |
| *** Woody14619 has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:11 | |
| *** Woody14619 has quit IRC | 20:11 | |
| *** Woody14619 has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:11 | |
| qwazix | welcome Woody14619 | 20:11 |
| Woody14619 | :) | 20:11 |
| Woody14619 | I take it the meeting hasn't started yet? | 20:12 |
| qwazix | Not really | 20:13 |
| Woody14619 | K, time to run & get tea then. :) | 20:13 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: I don't get it, your minutes drafts been around since monday each time, why not publish them, they're way too good to not do | 20:14 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: I don't have drafts for the last 2 though? Unless I wrote them and forgot about them... | 20:15 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | minutes of meeting before last one, or even worse, in 2h, are useless | 20:15 |
| MentalistTraceur | The ones I get drafts out for, I (usually) publish as soon as we have all agreed on the contents. | 20:16 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I won't drive the meeting this time. Too sleepy | 20:17 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, do we have any news on third server? | 20:18 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | no | 20:18 |
| qwazix | :nod: | 20:18 |
| MentalistTraceur | (Also while significantly less useful, I'd say late ones are still useful, albeit a lot less. But I get what you're saying. It's not like I'm happy about myself not getting them out promptly, it's just the mix of my busy-ness and procrastinating nature doesn't work well.) | 20:18 |
| qwazix | I know tech stuff is overburdened, but I have to say this, MeeGo OBS is going down in a few months AFAIK and that will be a major blow for harmattan | 20:19 |
| qwazix | we need to start thinking about a solution for this | 20:19 |
| MentalistTraceur | Joerg: how soon will Board have the contract they need from IPHH to satisfy their we-must-have-a-contract stance? | 20:19 |
| MentalistTraceur | I.e. do you know, or is it just up to when folks at IPHH get it done? | 20:20 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I'm supposed to draft a contract for IPHH to sign and send to HiFo | 20:20 |
| MentalistTraceur | You have to do it? Why did you end up having this task? | 20:21 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | HiFo got the 3 documents related to server shipping and reception/handover | 20:21 |
| MentalistTraceur | (Yep, saw the e-mails) | 20:21 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | why did I end up having this task? because Rob is "busy" and HiFo not supposed to be bothered, and nobody else seems around willing to do it | 20:22 |
| Woody14619 | They must have some contract they normally use for existing customers? It may be in German, but translating should be a lot easier than constructing a whole new thing, no? | 20:22 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and IPHH not supposed to... | 20:22 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: they usually don't do that kind of cheap stuff | 20:23 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | aiui their usual customers are big enough to ask a lawyer draft a custom tailored contract for the project | 20:24 |
| Woody14619 | Ahh... | 20:24 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | anyway I'm supposed to ask IPHH for any drafts they might be able to share | 20:24 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: the don't even have an order webpage | 20:25 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | or quotes about their pricing | 20:26 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, just tell them you have to make a f2f meeting with council for approving preparing a contract draft that's scheduled for 2014 | 20:26 |
| qwazix | (with a voice recorder and all) | 20:26 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | hehe | 20:27 |
| qwazix | (oh, and beer, and send the bill to HiFo) | 20:27 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | today reinob sent a substantial donation to me, for server hw | 20:28 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=89273&page=2 | 20:28 |
| qwazix | thanks, reinob! | 20:28 |
| kerio | yay reinob | 20:28 |
| kerio | how substantial? | 20:29 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I'll try to find the rest of money for the ~340EUR we need for 2 HDD to have decent backups in new server | 20:29 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | 200 | 20:29 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I'd rather resign from all my maemo related jobs than starting another thread with HiFo about that immediate need for hw in our server | 20:30 |
| qwazix | :nod: | 20:30 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | honestly going begging in the street was less effort and PITA than this, and probably faster to yield results | 20:31 |
| qwazix | I wish I wasn't in so bad shape financially... | 20:31 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: I'll join you there shortly | 20:32 |
| Woody14619 | I can donate a bit as well. Will chat after the meeting. | 20:32 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I already got unused donations of 2 other guys from 2 weeks ago | 20:33 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | so it's another 100 needed | 20:33 |
| *** xes has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:33 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I already asked warfare to get the drives and mount them to server, I'll transfer the money to him anyway, no matter if it's my rent or breakfast or donations | 20:34 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | if somebody else in council feels like asking HiFo about that whole topic, go ahead. I'm available for short fact checks and feedback | 20:35 |
| kerio | but breakfast is the most important meal of the day! | 20:35 |
| * thedead1440 wonders what time is breakfast in JRTZV | 20:36 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | no breakfast here, sometimes I have brinner | 20:36 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | right now for example | 20:36 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: Looks like I'll be having to write another draft council-to-board mail soon, then. | 20:36 |
| thedead1440 | :D | 20:36 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | anyway, before I forget about it: http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=1325557#post1325557 happy birthday new server! | 20:37 |
| thedead1440 | happy birthday Doc's baby ;-) | 20:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and thedead got his own VM called scratchbox which he's master of, and will coordinate with Jussi to migrate data under same name there | 20:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Domain transfer is in a limbo it seems, while I hope Nokia will eventually come back to us for implementing our hidden-primary plan | 20:39 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619 made great progress getting a whole new shiny voting infra for maemo/HiFo | 20:40 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | X-Fade still MIA, autobuilder major PITA | 20:41 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: that scractbox VM is on what server? The HiFo one? | 20:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yes, our one | 20:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | *new* as I like to label it | 20:41 |
| Woody14619 | I see will chat about that after meeting too? :) | 20:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | sure | 20:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I failed terribly on sending a mail with all bug reports to Nemein | 20:42 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | sorry I have to delegate this task | 20:42 |
| qwazix | I can do it | 20:42 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | k | 20:42 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | :-) | 20:43 |
| thedead1440 | DocScrutinizer05: can't we refer Nemein to the roundup page where all the bugs are listed? | 20:43 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | it's friggin urgent | 20:43 |
| thedead1440 | all of the bugs there are for Nemein anyway | 20:43 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we're on day one of "beyond doomsday" already | 20:43 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | thedead1440: yes, that's the plan | 20:43 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | my plan last week was to interactively collect all known bugs/issues and filer/shape them and put them there to roundup | 20:44 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, do I just collect all bugs in roundup, and write a nice letter with them? | 20:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: we'll chat about that after meeting | 20:44 |
| qwazix | ok | 20:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: roundup tickets are meant to be 3rd level tech support class, not random nagging and noise from lusers | 20:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | (sorry no insult meant to anybody) | 20:46 |
| qwazix | so? | 20:47 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | first instance we got no bugmaster who would check and clean up the tickets in roundup | 20:47 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | so please discuss any new ticket with me first | 20:47 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | otherwise roundup might get rendered useless | 20:48 |
| qwazix | I didn't say I'll add any more tickets | 20:48 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | means: we need to filter out duplicates first, not after opening the ticket, etc | 20:48 |
| qwazix | but rather compile a nice letter describing the tickets already there | 20:48 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and make sure the ticket has proper reasoning and all | 20:49 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: we don't need a nice latter to support@nemein | 20:49 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we need a terse and crisp list of open issues | 20:49 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | one line per issue, *maximum* | 20:49 |
| qwazix | ok, that answers my question | 20:49 |
| qwazix | links to roundup? | 20:50 |
| thedead1440 | i think the bug title with a link would be enough | 20:50 |
| qwazix | I mean, should the letter include links to bugs | 20:50 |
| qwazix | ? | 20:50 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and an initial 3 sentences explaining we're not going to release Nemein from responsibility for fixing them | 20:50 |
| qwazix | :nod: | 20:50 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: exactly, links to roundup | 20:51 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | that's even what eero asked for | 20:51 |
| qwazix | ok | 20:51 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | ooh, related (though not for the mail): we of course migrated the nemein legacy accounts to *new* as well, so those guys are free to fix stuff there eventually | 20:52 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | formally it's still Nemein who's in control of both *old* and *new* | 20:53 |
| qwazix | Is nemein supposed to fix *old* or *new*? | 20:54 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and while we won't bother them about stuff like linux system updates, xen, etc (the stuff we had no access/allowance to on *old*), we still expect them to fix the maemo systems (autobuilder and whatnot) prior to handing stuff over to us | 20:55 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: whatever they like | 20:55 |
| qwazix | :nod: | 20:55 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | on *new* they will need to coordinate with me, like we coordinated with them on *old* | 20:56 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | not a big thing among sysops | 20:56 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | *we* don't need written contracts ;-) | 20:57 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | >> | 20:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | We reject kings, presidents and voting. | 20:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | We believe in rough consensus and running code. | 20:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | - David Clark | 20:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | << | 20:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | signature of Falk ;-) | 20:58 |
| * qwazix looking up david clark | 20:58 | |
| qwazix | Interesting bio | 20:59 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Clark | 21:00 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | anyway, I think my usual monologue is finished | 21:02 |
| qwazix | Do we have anything else? | 21:02 |
| * DocScrutinizer05 gets a second NICe BIG LATTE M. | 21:03 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | one more thing: I'd ask merlin1991 to give a quick review about state of "fix the hashsums2 project | 21:04 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | s/2/"/ | 21:04 |
| MentalistTraceur | Oh, for-the-future note: We need to formally write up a proper voting eligibility standard for HiFo, as HiFo community council, according to HiFo bylaws, do we not? | 21:05 |
| Woody14619 | You do. :) | 21:05 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | merlin1991: you got full maintainership of repos, what are your plans regarding this annoying hashsum issue that bits everybody's a** | 21:05 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | ? | 21:05 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | hmm, REM #3 for merlin1991 | 21:06 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | afk, bbiab | 21:07 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | re | 21:08 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: sorry for last time bickering, wasb't against you | 21:09 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: While reading meeting, I was also editing. I have a draft service/holding contract if interested. ;) | 21:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | sure | 21:09 |
| Woody14619 | Understood... We were both short. It was a bad friday for me. | 21:09 |
| Woody14619 | One sec, to put it up somewhere. | 21:10 |
| MentalistTraceur | Anyway, we should more thoroughly discuss the above about voting eligibility in the next meeting or two, but I'm not mentally up for it right now. | 21:10 |
| MentalistTraceur | So if no one else has anything else, I'm good with formally closing meeting here. | 21:10 |
| thedead1440 | I think for future planning Council should suggest some alterations to the by-laws of HiFo that could be passed in the next election such as the ability for X% of those who voted in a Board to be able to call for a re-election etc | 21:10 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | err | 21:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | % of voters? | 21:11 |
| Woody14619 | The default could be the current standard. Karma based, 10 to vote, 100 to run. I would actually up that a little, to say 50 to vote and 200 to run, but... That's me | 21:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | won't fly | 21:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: for me karma still isn't fixed | 21:11 |
| Woody14619 | Problem with % of voters is that even with new limits, there are thousands of potential voters. | 21:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I can't run for next council term (not that i'd ponder that) | 21:12 |
| Woody14619 | And only couple hundred (at best) actually vote. | 21:12 |
| thedead1440 | DocScrutinizer05: primarily I'm concerned about bringing changes to HiFo as we have seen recently the power they hold is disproportionate to Council/Community voices | 21:12 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: hence I said "those who voted in a Board" | 21:12 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | that can never get established in a legally correct way | 21:13 |
| qwazix | thedead1440, we discussed that last time and the killer argument was "everybody can gather 50 persons on tmo to overthrow a board" | 21:13 |
| qwazix | which in fact is legitimate fear | 21:13 |
| thedead1440 | qwazix: yeah but they must be the same 50 who did vote previously | 21:14 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | it would manifest the power of any rogue takeover, forbidding later intervention by the masses | 21:14 |
| thedead1440 | the tokens could be valid for two votes; one to vote in a Board and one if a call for re-election comes to submit your voice | 21:14 |
| qwazix | thought of that too, but the thing is that we don't want to keep too much data on who voted | 21:14 |
| thedead1440 | and if the same 50 who voted previously for the Board call for a re-election it means its legitimate | 21:14 |
| qwazix | (reality is that according to Woody we can already infer from other data who voted or not) | 21:14 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | thedead1440: that will never happen | 21:15 |
| qwazix | (but it's not readily available) | 21:15 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | it's nonsense | 21:15 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you basically establish a shadow government | 21:15 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | since thos 50 idiots that voted shit are the only ones to revise their bad decision, while the 5000 passive ones have no chance to do anything | 21:16 |
| Woody14619 | Right now there's a trigger to allow Council to force the Board to be re-elected, at the cost of calling for it's own election as well. If there's enough concern in the community about either body, the other should be able to take action to force the issue if needed. | 21:16 |
| thedead1440 | :nod: | 21:16 |
| thedead1440 | Ok moving from that how about Board meetings? Currently they are obliged to one meeting every 3 months | 21:17 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: sounds like a brilliant solution to me | 21:17 |
| qwazix | The only hole in the current system is that it doesn't deal with complete absense | 21:17 |
| Woody14619 | That should be more than sufficient, given that the two remain separate entaties with little to no overlap. | 21:17 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: It does actually. | 21:17 |
| qwazix | I mean if nobody cares, nothing can happen | 21:17 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: If the Board doesn't have at least a quarterly meeting, all Board members are considered "missing" and thus the positions are vacated. :) | 21:18 |
| Woody14619 | That's built in too. But yes, someone, somewhere, needs to care. | 21:18 |
| thedead1440 | Also establishing clear guidelines on how resignations should be handled; now the Board if they appoint a replacement for Ivan would be a two-thirds unelected | 21:18 |
| qwazix | I mean practically. It's council's responsibility to call elections if nobody cares, there's little that can be done | 21:18 |
| thedead1440 | So there should be a provision on the maximum percentage of unelected appointees | 21:19 |
| qwazix | s/elections if/elections. If/ | 21:19 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: Which is why I was anti-appointment. But was overrulled on that. Ironically, *I* may wind up being said appointed person. (Which, consider I placed 4th in the election... meh...) | 21:20 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I'd insist in council members which also are board members have to get excluded from council's supposedly unanimous vote for the big red button | 21:20 |
| thedead1440 | DocScrutinizer05: one thing even though I agree with you; "since thos 50 idiots that voted shit are the only ones to revise their bad decision, while the 5000 passive ones have no chance to do anything" <--- the 5000 can vote in a re-election then | 21:20 |
| Woody14619 | The bigger issue is, right now, we don't have the proper setup to hold an election. We need to fix that reguardless. | 21:20 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | thedead1440: there will be no re-election since people never revise own bad decisions | 21:21 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, wrong | 21:21 |
| thedead1440 | DocScrutinizer05: I said X% who voted can call for a re-election! So why not? | 21:21 |
| qwazix | They mostly revise even if decision wasn't bad | 21:21 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | it's absolutely useless | 21:21 |
| qwazix | Almost in every country we have a see-saw of two parties ruling | 21:22 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and unprecedented | 21:22 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and probably illegal | 21:22 |
| qwazix | why? people revising decision every X years | 21:22 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | none of those mechanisms I know of depends on you having voted previously | 21:23 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: If Tim resigns it would mean a totally unelected board. This is a bad precedent as it means future BoD can be voted in and soon a totally different BoD is in power due to resignations. I would say once unelected BoD exceed 33% of total then a re-election is called | 21:23 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | it doesn't feel right | 21:23 |
| * qwazix hates discussing internals of political systems because it's futile anyway | 21:24 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | in bylaws there's a passus about more than one BoD member resigning or a BoD position vacant for 7 days triggers revote automatically | 21:25 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: Reality is that 90% of all Boards are self appointing, with NO way to controll them post creation. Having a board with an anual reset button is amazing to start with. | 21:25 |
| Woody14619 | And yes, while if Tim left, the Board would be "unelected", they were voted in by those you elected to run the Board. | 21:26 |
| qwazix | ^^ Including for-profit corporations? | 21:26 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: it depends on what your viewpoint is. I view the BoD as a necessary creation to give the Community-at-large a signing authority. You may see them as rulers which I don't. | 21:26 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: Yes. Including NFP (which we, btw, are not) | 21:26 |
| qwazix | I mean it makes sense to have no way to control for-profit corporation board | 21:27 |
| qwazix | but not a NFP community based one | 21:27 |
| Woody14619 | I don't see them as rulers. I see them as people willing to take on the liability if something bad happens, with very little reward. In fact, NO reward, since no one is being paid. | 21:27 |
| qwazix | (NFP at least in spirit_ | 21:27 |
| qwazix | s/_/)/ | 21:27 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: In my home town we have over 90 NFP corporations. Not one of them has public elections. All Board elections are by Board members and/or share holders. | 21:28 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | ivglavez *officially* resigned from HiFo BoD with 2013-02-26 | 21:28 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: That's the point by share holders; in spirit the Community-at-large is the only shareholder of HiFo | 21:28 |
| Woody14619 | When creating the bylaws, I found 3 total, in all english speaking countries, that had a publibly eleted Board. | 21:28 |
| qwazix | thedead1440 +1 | 21:29 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: Execpt they're not. Most of them have commited little, and have no legal responsability if they do something that can get the company in trouble. | 21:29 |
| thedead1440 | Also if I set-up a NFP why should I have public elections? However here a Community set-up a NFP to give it a signing authority | 21:29 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: Actualy... 3 people setup this entity, on behalf of the community. I think you don't realize the liability factor in this. | 21:30 |
| qwazix | What liability factor? | 21:31 |
| Woody14619 | Every co-op, every foundation, every NFP, has at it's core those that are willing to take responsability for that group. | 21:31 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | well, I'd want to start at revisiting hiFo's anticipated/supposed "mission" and what they actually are meant to *control* and what for they only are the supervising entity that doesn't interfere with normal day-to-day business as long as nothing rogue happens | 21:31 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we have such supervising entities in all big companies | 21:32 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: Liability factor? You mean if anyone of the BoDs does something against the Community's interest its easy to prove they did something wrong and pursue and what's the cost vs benefit? | 21:32 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: Suppose, for example, someone takes a copywrited item and posts it in the repos. Let's say the flash-10 libaray, for example. | 21:32 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440:^^^ | 21:32 |
| qwazix | hmm... | 21:33 |
| Woody14619 | And Adobe comes along and sues over it. Does the person posting it get in trouble for it? | 21:33 |
| Woody14619 | No. | 21:33 |
| Woody14619 | The Board of Directors, and HiFo take that hit. | 21:33 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | they don't decide in any operational or technical subjects, only when it comes to appointments of major positions and the like, or revoking such positions, or reviewing reports about those positions' perfoming | 21:33 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, :nod: | 21:34 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: Well HiFo would be responsible and any financial costs would be borne by HiFo not the BoD personally. If HiFo goes down its the Community who loses the assets not the BoD | 21:34 |
| Woody14619 | Docscrutinizer05: That I agree on, but right now, because of the state of things, they need to be involved for legal reasons (contracts, coverage, etc). | 21:34 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: wrong. Read case law. If Adobe sues for $10K, and HiFo has $3, the rest will often fall legally onto the Board. | 21:35 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yes, but it seems they engage way too much in micromanagement and "visions for the future" which in my book isn't what HiFo been invented for | 21:35 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, !! | 21:36 |
| Woody14619 | IF you sold EVERYTHING Hifo "owns", being the servers and its funds, total liquidation, HiFo is at best $6K | 21:36 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: I'm not sure about American Law so yes I'll read up on how much a BoD is liable personally for actions of a Community-at-large | 21:36 |
| Woody14619 | Doc: Not arguing that... | 21:36 |
| qwazix | AFAIK S.A. companies in europe do not pass any liability to people | 21:37 |
| Woody14619 | It's true in most countries. Most LLC and Corps pay for insurance to indemnify their Board. HiFo can't afford that. | 21:37 |
| Stskeeps | same case in danish law, foundation members are liable, it's not a limited liability thingg | 21:37 |
| Stskeeps | just a construction | 21:37 |
| * Woody14619 nods | 21:37 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | example: why is HiFo worrying about server shipping and shit? Why don't they delegate this to a trusted volunteer who takes full (legal, monetary) responsibility, and hiFo just does supervision? | 21:38 |
| Woody14619 | You're used to seeing the Board being covered because most large companies get insurance. | 21:38 |
| Woody14619 | doc: again, I'm not arguing your points. Your points are all valid to some degree. | 21:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | HiFo BoD trusts in their own cahier Cosimo to handle $3+k | 21:39 |
| Woody14619 | But really, there are liabilites. If TMO goes poof, someone could easily come along and sue HiFo for not upholding it's mission. With current funds, they could hire a lawyer for all of about a week. | 21:39 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: food-for-thought: by the end of the month HiFo would be the legal owner of everything; what mechanisms are in place for the repo thing not happening? | 21:39 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | why can't they appoint and trust in a server responsible or simply an admin coordinator | 21:40 |
| MentalistTraceur | I think for someone to truly legally take full responsibility instead of Board, that itself would require contracts, that say if someone then sues HiFo about what happened with server shipping, you will cover the legal costs, etc. | 21:40 |
| MentalistTraceur | Idk, legalities are full of unnecessary b.s. | 21:40 |
| *** Pali has quit IRC | 21:40 | |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: You really need to educate yourself. repo issues are a technical issue, not related to the Board at all.. | 21:40 |
| qwazix | thedead1440 means if somebody uploads Flash to repos | 21:41 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: I meant the uploading of the flash 10 binary example you gave | 21:41 |
| thedead1440 | qwazix: thanks | 21:41 |
| qwazix | or something else falling under that example | 21:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: I'd rather do such conttract than a "HOSTING contract", honestly | 21:41 |
| Woody14619 | Right now, there isn't. Which is why those taking positions on the Board are taking a real risk. | 21:41 |
| thedead1440 | Also Woody14619 I'm being quite civil and throwing ideas/suggestions so I don't see why you need to be offensive with things like "you really need to educate yourself". I'm here as I thought this is a discussion point. | 21:42 |
| Woody14619 | If it happened 6 months ago, it would have been handled on Nemien's side, and their insurance (or Nokias) would cover it. | 21:42 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: Perhaps we could offer that to Board, then. Might get them off your back a bit... | 21:42 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: hence its food-for-thought like I said. | 21:43 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and if something bad happens to server, HiFo won't pull out their contract with IPHH but simply point at me and they're fine | 21:43 |
| Woody14619 | I agree. But food for thought to everyone. You have people working a thankless job, much like Council, except they're also taking on extrodinary risk in this. | 21:43 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yes, ack | 21:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | @woody | 21:44 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: The problem is that won't work. There are expections of due diligence, which means when entering into a contract, the BoD is resposible for ensuring that YOU can cover anything thrown at you. | 21:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you honestly been mad to locate HiFo in USA | 21:45 |
| qwazix | let's say that we put a mechanism to review uploaded content for copyrighted material. What other things we can help protect HiFo from | 21:45 |
| qwazix | ? | 21:45 |
| Woody14619 | IF you can not, and they accept the contract anyway, if things go south and you take a hit and can't stand, then legally in most countries they can follow that chain up the latter. | 21:46 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, +1e9 | 21:46 |
| Woody14619 | That is, in part I susspect, why Nokia is still hemming and hawing about handing things over to HiFo. | 21:46 |
| thedead1440 | qwazix: exactly; there must be some ways to protect BoD from liabilities for which they could do nothing much practically and liabilities they could cause themselves | 21:46 |
| Woody14619 | This is true is most countries. | 21:46 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | look, Nokia not even sold lots of their devices in USA. Ponder why (yes, there been other reasons as well) | 21:47 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | s/sold/offered/ | 21:47 |
| MentalistTraceur | It's not confined to the USA, this due diligence stuff would be an issue in most nations. | 21:47 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, yes, but risk of being sued in USA is much much higher | 21:47 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: Not entierly true. | 21:48 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: so options: A) full liability of HiFo for the server, B) full liability of HiFo for me and my liability for server | 21:48 |
| MentalistTraceur | For other issues, I agree, not-USA would've been better, but they were the ones that actually got the job of making a HiFo done, and them being in the US makes setting up elsewhere harder. | 21:48 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: In fact, most smaller companies aren't sued, because they're not worth going after. If the most they can offer is a few grand, and then it goes bankrupt, most won't bother with it. | 21:49 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: my parallel plan to create a "eV" in Germany been rejected since they been so cheerful about getting this thing done in US | 21:49 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: Depends on what exactly we're talking about being sued for. DocScrutinizer05: Oh, didn't know that. | 21:50 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | that's btw been the point in time where I stopped to bother much | 21:50 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, I don't know exact stats, but judging from insurance fees small companies ~10 employees have to pay for mistakes etc. here in Greece vs UK/USA you can see a huge difference | 21:50 |
| kerio | EU would've been better | 21:50 |
| Woody14619 | Doc: What are you talking about with the "eV" thing? | 21:50 |
| kerio | the community is pretty much all in europe | 21:50 |
| qwazix | So I think I can safely assume that chance of being sued is much bigger in UK/USA | 21:51 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | eingetragener Verein | 21:51 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: even if the companies are not worth going after; once you can get them to go bankrupt but you choose not to implies a higher inherent risk. Not arguing about chances of being sued but your example negates inherent risk. | 21:51 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | a well known and very common NFP entity here in germany | 21:51 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | form of setting up such entity | 21:51 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | there are like 10000 of such eV | 21:51 |
| Woody14619 | And why are we not setting that up? | 21:51 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | nfc | 21:52 |
| Woody14619 | No.. you said "been rejected"... by who? | 21:52 |
| Woody14619 | I ask becuase I was one of the founders of HiFo. | 21:52 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | because HiFo are US-citicens that don't bither about EU and particularly german "clubs"? | 21:52 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | well, sorry, I have no more backtraces for those events 9 months ago | 21:53 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | or was it 12? | 21:53 |
| Woody14619 | We asked tons of times about setting this up elsewhere, and got nothing but crickets and calls of being "Chicken little", even after Nokia's rep was saying "consider this yout 6 month warning" | 21:53 |
| Woody14619 | s/yout/your/ | 21:54 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | also I been very busy 12 months ago | 21:54 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I suggested it 2 or 3 times, it got turned down/rejected | 21:54 |
| Woody14619 | It was done in the US becuse frankly, 2 of the 3 active Council were in the US and had a clue about how to do it, and nobody else was offering anything else. | 21:54 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | that's the point, my point | 21:55 |
| Woody14619 | The other option was we did nothing, formed nothing. Was that preferable? | 21:55 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I was offering something else, but nobody was willing to look into it since the original plan already been such a demanding one | 21:55 |
| Woody14619 | I see no reason we still can't create a paired entity in another country. | 21:56 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | nobody was willing to have a look at German "vereinsrecht" | 21:56 |
| Woody14619 | Nokia had "Nokia USA" and "Nokia India" and such... | 21:56 |
| Woody14619 | Creating another group and coelesing into a single body happens all the time, as it could here. | 21:57 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | there are ready made bylaws templates for german eV | 21:57 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | with clear instructions about such things like meetings, voting, whatnot else | 21:57 |
| Woody14619 | Which is great, if you live in Germany, know about them, can read German, and have standing as a German citizen to found one. I can barely ask where the bathroom is in German, yet alone the rest. | 21:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and it's backed up by legislative | 21:58 |
| qwazix | Cosimo is also in Germany, no? | 21:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yes | 21:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: exactly my point again | 21:59 |
| Woody14619 | FWIW: From the Facebook page, registered location by users is "Germany, Spain, US" in that order. :) | 21:59 |
| Woody14619 | Doc: I'm misisng your point? | 21:59 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | HiFo found it more convenient obviously to invite own bylaws in English, than to translate and read thru those german eV bylaws | 22:00 |
| Woody14619 | Was your point that you should have been more active a year ago and helped set this up? | 22:00 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I suggested it 3 times, wasn't like insisting in it | 22:00 |
| Woody14619 | Yes... because those eV bylaws are written to be compatable with German country laws. | 22:00 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | *shrug* | 22:01 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you asked for it you got it | 22:01 |
| Woody14619 | Who knows, if once translated, they actually align with US laws. | 22:01 |
| Woody14619 | Wow. | 22:01 |
| Woody14619 | Well, sorry I we fucked it all up by making a US group then... our bad. | 22:02 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | honestly, what else do you ask for than 3 times suggesting an alternative? I won't come with a baseball bat and force you to consider it | 22:02 |
| qwazix | I think Doc means actually making the eV not using the eV bylaws in the US orga | 22:02 |
| Woody14619 | We clearly should have waited for a German to step up and make an eV instead. | 22:02 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: sure, exactly that | 22:02 |
| kerio | not sure if sarcasm | 22:02 |
| Woody14619 | kerio: more bitter than bad. | 22:02 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, no need to be bitter. | 22:03 |
| Woody14619 | Sorry, but having been there... I really don't recall ANYONE suggesting anything about where this should be. Nor do I recall anyone stepping up and offering to head the effort to form a legal entity. | 22:04 |
| qwazix | I sure can find something somebody suggested to Doc and he didn't go for it as he is overburdened, it's perfectly understandable | 22:04 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I already drummed up the needed 7 founding members, when pre-HiFo definitely gave me red light and "no support from us" | 22:04 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | so I went "MEH! then not!" | 22:04 |
| qwazix | So I think it's perfectly understandable that a suggestion was lost in the noise by people setting up HiFo | 22:05 |
| Woody14619 | I'm still trying to figure out who this "us" is.... Because frankly, I was 1 of 3 involved in creating HiFo. I recall NONE of this. | 22:05 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, probably this never reached you | 22:05 |
| Woody14619 | Were you chatting with Estel on IRC? or? | 22:05 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I can't recall such details, sorry | 22:05 |
| Woody14619 | And again... I see no reason this can't still be setup. | 22:06 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I wouldn't have considered estel as relevant for HiFo though | 22:06 |
| Woody14619 | You shouldn't have. Estel was out long before HiFo was even a gleam. | 22:06 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | sure | 22:07 |
| Woody14619 | He left shortly after CA awards, while Quim was just starting to change from "all is well and good" to "we're all doomed" | 22:07 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I honestly guess it's been SD69 | 22:07 |
| qwazix | sounds like him | 22:07 |
| qwazix | about the same response was received when jalyst proposed alt names for HiFo | 22:08 |
| Woody14619 | :( This is why I wanted all things pushed through coucil@m.o when I was there... even personal corrispondance with others on behalf of Council. | 22:08 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: That's a different story. | 22:08 |
| qwazix | >"there's another NFP named like that" >"but there's another NFP named HiFo too" >silence... | 22:09 |
| thedead1440 | qwazix: +1 | 22:09 |
| Woody14619 | The name thing he brought up after 4 months of hashing bylaws, all of which had the proposed name. | 22:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eingetragener_Verein#Eingetragener_Verein | 22:09 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, not exactly true | 22:09 |
| Woody14619 | And the paperwork was all signed and ready to be submitted when he started a thread on "lets come up with a name" | 22:09 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: Would you like a copy of the Council e-mail from that time period to check time stamps? | 22:10 |
| Woody14619 | It is quite true. | 22:10 |
| Woody14619 | I know... I was there. | 22:10 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | >>Eingetragene Vereine sind juristische Personen. Sie sind vollrechtsfähig, das heißt sie können als Rechtssubjekte selbst Träger von Rechten und Pflichten sein.<< | 22:10 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, me too, and while I do not remember exact dates, he was told to go for it and suggest names and then he was told it was too late | 22:11 |
| Woody14619 | That's awesome. Again.. I see no reason one could not be formed right now, and merged with HiFo. | 22:12 |
| Woody14619 | I was the one that told him to "go for it", with the cavet that we needed to settle this within 2 weeks. | 22:12 |
| Woody14619 | Because we had to update and submit that paperwork to meet a deadline or the tentative deal we struck with Quim was off. | 22:13 |
| thedead1440 | SD69 here suggested first to go for it: http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1258290&postcount=15 | 22:13 |
| Woody14619 | I could find the post on TMO if you like. | 22:13 |
| thedead1440 | Immediately suggestions started... | 22:13 |
| Woody14619 | Yes, most of them involving the word Maemo, which was clearly stated could not be used for legal reasons. | 22:14 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | <3 skeiron | 22:14 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, irrelevant | 22:15 |
| Woody14619 | There was a poll done, which I'll note wasn't started until 9/15 | 22:15 |
| Woody14619 | what's irrelevant? | 22:15 |
| qwazix | that most of them had the word maemo in them | 22:15 |
| Woody14619 | Nokia would disagee. | 22:15 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | it's about the few ones that clearly hadn't maemo in it | 22:15 |
| thedead1440 | qwazix: in fact your post said Aeolos Foundation and it was 3 posts after SD69's.... How that is related to Maemo I ponder... | 22:15 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | <3 aelos | 22:16 |
| qwazix | Yeah, we could strike those which had maemo, it is irrelevant to wether the others should be considered | 22:16 |
| Woody14619 | Ask GA and friends about how adimant they were about naming Council the Maemo *Community* Council. | 22:16 |
| Woody14619 | qwaxiz: And they were. The issue being, we ask him (and others) time and time again to do this in a time frame, and it was not done. | 22:16 |
| thedead1440 | Council to Community: Come up with an alternative name fast. Community debates while Council is involved slightly in debating names but no fixed time-frame publicly posted. | 22:17 |
| Woody14619 | Again, the "poll" on this wasn't started until 9/15, when we told him we had to submit paperwork by 9/17. | 22:17 |
| qwazix | I remember there was a reason for that, lemme find it | 22:18 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440:Wrong... I posted in that thread, AND in the thead jaylist started that we needed to know by 9/15 *at latest*. | 22:18 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: Yes.. because he was delaying for more names, because the poll could only be done once... | 22:18 |
| Woody14619 | And I'll note, that from that poll, in the thread used to debate all this, Hildon Foundation was and remains the choosen name from the list. | 22:19 |
| Woody14619 | We also noted that at any time, we could easily setup a DBA and rename the group. | 22:19 |
| Woody14619 | That we're still rehashing this dead horse into burgers 6 months later is making me sick. | 22:20 |
| Woody14619 | Sorry, but I'm frankly feeling like I'm being a bit shit on here. | 22:20 |
| Woody14619 | "You should have X" and "You should have Y", when both are still quite doable... But there's no action to do either still. | 22:21 |
| qwazix | No Woody14619 nobody says that hildon shouldn't be the name, in fact I couldn't care less and you can see I didn't even post after a date on either thread | 22:22 |
| qwazix | it's just that the process wasn't too friendly | 22:22 |
| Woody14619 | IF you're tired of following, then lead. Joerg did just that with this IPHH issue, and look where it's going. We're almost where we need to be, despite interference from others. | 22:22 |
| thedead1440 | I don't really care about the name either. Process was important and this post sums it up: http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1264800&postcount=93 | 22:22 |
| qwazix | and I just noted that, no bashing, no shit, it's just a simple view that that process could be better | 22:23 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: It was as friendly as it could be given the time frame. | 22:23 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | sorry? | 22:23 |
| qwazix | This is understandable too, I'm not attacking you, just stating how I saw it back then | 22:23 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I did wrong again? | 22:23 |
| thedead1440 | anyway I keep getting posts of SD69 giving go-aheads or stopping things in their track but Woody14619's time-frame is much later than SD69's post of the name being decided already. | 22:23 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | ooh, sorry, missread | 22:24 |
| Woody14619 | If You said to me: "Lets call this thing X", and spent 4 months chattering on about "the bylaws for X", and 2 weeks before a drop dead deadline I said "is X right? Why not Y or Z?" How would that go over? | 22:24 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: yeah, and I'm almost where I wouldn't want to be ever for the next maybe 30 years | 22:25 |
| * DocScrutinizer05 lost half his hair during last 4 weeks | 22:25 | |
| thedead1440 | Also I don't see why every opposing view-point is considered a bashing. | 22:25 |
| *** MentalistTraceur has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: Because SD69 was trying to lock it down, and say enough is enough, submit the paperwork. But Ivan and I were delaying as much as we could without riskign it all going to pot, to get this input. | 22:25 |
| qwazix | The name issue is on page 3 of the bylaws thread | 22:26 |
| Woody14619 | Doc: Do you not recall how much work it took you and the others to talk me into running for Board? | 22:26 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: Look at the time stamps, not the pages. Oh: And TMO bylaw thread started after a week or two of discussion in mailing list and in IRC/Council meetings. | 22:27 |
| Woody14619 | But I wasn't counting that time really... | 22:27 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: Now you know why I was so reluctant to do so, and why I quickly asked to NOT be in it once I knew there were enough people to fill the rolls. | 22:28 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: yeah when a Councilor posts its the end people are expected to still give input regardless of the other Councilor's own views which were not as public as the first Councilor's... Anyway its all done and dusted; what I think qwazix is alluding to is simply things have never been perfect even given the circumstances things could have been done better; at least I'm alluding to that too... | 22:28 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: well, *if* you were in, maybe I (and my hair) was in a better shape right now | 22:29 |
| qwazix | thedead1440, thanks | 22:29 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I get adrenaline shocks even from talking to my *own* lawyer | 22:29 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: I'm staying, if you really care: Do something about it. It can all still be changed. The name. The incorporation of an "eV". If you're incented enough to bitch about it, and fume about it 6 months later, why are you not ACTING on it? | 22:30 |
| thedead1440 | Also Woody14619 before we lose track; qwazix said all that in reference to SD69's attitudes... | 22:30 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | this one though feels like talking to the lawyers of, duh, Microsoft? | 22:30 |
| *** MentalistTraceur has joined #maemo-meeting | 22:30 | |
| * Woody14619 shutters at MS lawyers. | 22:30 | |
| qwazix | Woody14619, we might as well act, ofc not for the name, but if there is anything I can do to help forming an eV I'll do it. It's just a discussion here | 22:31 |
| MentalistTraceur | Sorry guys, lost connection briefly. | 22:31 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: I just found out about the eV thing; ofcourse where i can suggest i'll suggest things | 22:31 |
| MentalistTraceur | (In all my time having mobile internet on my plan, where I live always gets shitty T-Mobile signal, so I always have to swap from mobile to wifi when approaching home. *Ugh* | 22:32 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, I always wanted to be able to keep both online like you could on symbian… That way transition would be faster. | 22:33 |
| Woody14619 | I just get kind of fed up when people are complaining that we took action to save things from going into /dev/null, and how X and Y should have been done instead. But those same people are unwilling to take up the action of doing anything about it still, when the action is there for the taking. | 22:33 |
| thedead1440 | Again Woody14619; qwazix was illustrating SD69's style of doing things which is basically his way or no way even when his way is not always right. Why you keep considering everything to be a bashing on you I don't understand. Just because you were part of the Council doesn't mean you too had that attitude... | 22:33 |
| qwazix | ^^ exactly | 22:33 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: I get that. But Rob was not acting in a vacume. We were there, and at times were moderating that (or agumenting it to get things done). | 22:34 |
| qwazix | and this post illustrates just this attitude http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1270003&postcount=162 | 22:34 |
| thedead1440 | However now personally I think while you don't have that attitude you really are a hot-head who instead of looking at things objectively sees things more as a personal attack... | 22:34 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=1270003#post1270003 | 22:34 |
| Woody14619 | Frankly, *I* get accused of that as well, for doing what needs to be done while others would rather squable over some trivial technical thing that in the end doesn't really matter as much as getting the main thing done. | 22:35 |
| Woody14619 | Right now, I'm sure there are people saying the same about Joerg, in his actions around pushing ahead with IPHH. It's easy to throw the accusation when you're not doing work. | 22:36 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: funnily enough not person has agreed with Rob or disagreed with Joerg so how you jump to that I don't know... | 22:36 |
| thedead1440 | at least publicly; privately i wouldn't know who is thinking what... | 22:37 |
| Woody14619 | Not true. I agreed with Rob, in that I understand the need for HiFo to have a contract. He presented why that was important poorly, but the need is still there. | 22:37 |
| Woody14619 | I disagreed that all work should stop while that was not in place... | 22:37 |
| kerio | fwiw i doubt that you *need* the protection of a contract | 22:38 |
| kerio | ownership doesn't magically change because something was shipped somewhere | 22:38 |
| thedead1440 | Joerg is pushing for a sensible contract so what's the disagreement with Joerg then? | 22:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: please don't imply I ignored the need of proper papers! | 22:38 |
| Woody14619 | kerio: If IPHH decided to play polo with the server right now, HiFo is the one taking the hit on that. | 22:38 |
| Woody14619 | Doc: I don't. I know you were trying to find a middle ground as well. | 22:38 |
| Woody14619 | But as is often the case, you and Rob were in violent agreement. | 22:39 |
| kerio | Woody14619: it would still be illegal for IPHH to do so | 22:39 |
| qwazix | true, and contrast in reality changes nothing | 22:40 |
| Woody14619 | you were both saying similar things, but using different terms, and disagreeing over the use of those terms. Partially out of misunderstanding of them (on Rob's part) and from the confusion on why it was needed (on yours) | 22:40 |
| qwazix | contract* | 22:40 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | kerio: ack | 22:40 |
| kerio | but yeah, having a contract is still good | 22:40 |
| qwazix | If I buy a server, the reciept or invoice is proof enough that the server is mine | 22:40 |
| Woody14619 | kerio: how so.... by what laws? Right now, all agreement with them are verbal at best. | 22:40 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: according to german / EU laws no they mustn't play polo with the server | 22:41 |
| qwazix | If IPHH can't produce an invoice that proves that I sold the server, it's still mine | 22:41 |
| Woody14619 | well, that's good to know. :) | 22:41 |
| kerio | especially because playing polo with a server would probably damage it | 22:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | since hosting and taking care of servers is their advertised business model | 22:41 |
| qwazix | if they play polo with it, they are destroying other's property | 22:41 |
| Woody14619 | In US, possestion is 9/10ths of the law. | 22:41 |
| thedead1440 | also the email communications is good enough "paper-trail" | 22:41 |
| MentalistTraceur | kerio: illegal for IPHH to play polo with it, yes, but hifo could still be held liable for not making a sufficiently good effort to not give it to people who'd play polo with it. | 22:41 |
| kerio | qwazix: :P | 22:41 |
| Woody14619 | mentalistTraceur: Exactly | 22:41 |
| kerio | qwazix: to be fair, these are the dudes who moved a server between datacenters without shutting it off | 22:41 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, that still does not get solved with a contract | 22:42 |
| kerio | so they could probably play polo with the server while still having it work | 22:42 |
| kerio | like, *during the game* | 22:42 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: that's the problem: HiFo tries to get american contracts out of europen laws | 22:42 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: Yes, it can. | 22:42 |
| Woody14619 | Agreed... but because of the structure here, it must. | 22:42 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: It does, because a contract can be waved around in court as proof that yes, hifo DID make a sufficiently good effort to have IPHH not play polo with it. | 22:43 |
| qwazix | It's IPHH who should've asked for a contract as if the server emits blue smoke while in their possesion they are liable | 22:43 |
| Woody14619 | Reality, the agreement will likely be IPHH agreeing to things that, to them, are simply common sense. | 22:43 |
| Woody14619 | (eg: Don't play polo with the server.) | 22:43 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: we can't issue american laws conformant contracts here in EU | 22:43 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, MentalistTraceur, I don't think that in court a contract that states the obvious will have *any* effect | 22:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | if you're 2buying2 here in EU, you're under EU jurisdiction | 22:44 |
| Woody14619 | If that were true, there would be no international corporations anywhere. | 22:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | s/2/"/ | 22:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | g | 22:44 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: They have effect in US courts.. trust me. | 22:44 |
| Woody14619 | Ever notice how US products come with overly stupid warnings? | 22:45 |
| qwazix | (Another reason to create the eV asap) | 22:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: do you really think IPHH would show up in front of a CA court when HiFo would decide to sue them? haha | 22:45 |
| Woody14619 | Like toasters that say "don't use this in or near basins, bathtubs or other bodies of water"? | 22:45 |
| qwazix | ^^ I rest my case... | 22:45 |
| Woody14619 | Doc: Would be a PA count (or if the contract states it, a German court), but if they cared about doing business in the US, yes. | 22:46 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: we're not used to state the obvious in contracts here | 22:46 |
| Woody14619 | I get that... | 22:46 |
| qwazix | "Items in the mirror are closer than they appear" Muahahahaha | 22:46 |
| Woody14619 | That's why I'm trying to facilitate this. | 22:46 |
| kerio | "Objects in the mirror are bluer than they appear" | 22:46 |
| qwazix | kerio, rotlfmao | 22:47 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: You know why that label is there? Because some stupid person used it, and didn't "know" something was dangerious (or closer) and sued when they were injured as a result. | 22:47 |
| Woody14619 | Unfortunatly, being stupid is a "God given right" in the US. | 22:47 |
| Woody14619 | Not that I agree with that... but it is what it is. | 22:48 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | not here | 22:48 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | not even for US citizens | 22:48 |
| qwazix | Can I sue them because I crashed while distracted trying to read the label? | 22:48 |
| Woody14619 | .oO(There's a reason I've been vacationing in the EU and am hoping to move some day... just saying) | 22:48 |
| thedead1440 | qwazix: haha | 22:48 |
| Woody14619 | qwaxiz: Stop giving them ideas! ;) | 22:49 |
| qwazix | hehe | 22:49 |
| * qwazix imagines voice recording saying "objects in the mirrors…" when starting the car | 22:49 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: the point is: it's nonsensical to expect a german contract to mention "IPHH will not play polo with HiFo server" since that's self evident and covered by ~398 § in our jurisdiction | 22:50 |
| Woody14619 | reguardles.... Given the stupid that is US law, asking for a common sense contract should be easy. IPHH won't be taking on any more "liability", and it somewhat shields those putting their butt on the line by being on the Board and dealing with the US. | 22:50 |
| MentalistTraceur | Just a bit of clarification: It's not like the contract says "IPHH agrees not to play polo or other physical activities using our server in place of one of the usual objects used in such activities", or similarly obvious things, but the act of getting a legally binding agreement that expects IPHH to do things with the server on behalf of HiFo in a way that HiFo intends means that if ... | 22:50 |
| MentalistTraceur | ... something bad happens to the server and someone sues HiFo for not caring for the server, hifo can point to the contract and say "iphh agreed to be good with our server, they signed a contract so we had a good faith belief they would comply with it". | 22:50 |
| Woody14619 | Bingo ^^^ | 22:51 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: so all HiFo will ever get is "IPHH will handle the server according to applicable laws and the company's fineprint at see:URL" | 22:51 |
| Woody14619 | Where all the members of the Board non-US citizens, who did't care about coming to the US... Well, heck... I dont' know who that would leave. Probably the founders (which means Me an Rob, again.. since Ivan is outside the US) | 22:52 |
| Woody14619 | Which is likely all they need. | 22:52 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | unless Rob bother to write up all those funny anti-plo § for us | 22:52 |
| Woody14619 | Right.. I still have to upload that. | 22:52 |
| Woody14619 | or just mail it... one sec | 22:53 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | anti-polo even | 22:53 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | even then odds are IPHH will not want to sign it, since they are no lawyers and are comfortable with well proofread German laws but not with an undigestible § jungle of US flavour | 22:54 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | heck, in the end HiFo needs to blame Nokia for ordering the server in EU and not in USA | 22:55 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | that's insane and leads nowhere | 22:55 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | if you buy in EU, you're under EU legislative and jurisdiction. Period | 22:56 |
| Woody14619 | All the more reason to create an "eV" and merge the two together. | 22:56 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | if that's too bad for HiFo US-inspired sense of justice, too bad for them so | 22:57 |
| thedead1440 | If a eV is setup would Nokia be willing to transfer assets to it instead of HiFo? | 22:57 |
| Woody14619 | The problem is, Nokia cares. Because it IS doing business in the US, and DOES care when it comes to handing this stuff over. | 22:57 |
| thedead1440 | that may alleviate some of the purported fears Nokia may be having with dealing with a USA-based Foundation | 22:57 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: eV been an option I supported and persued 9 months ago, now i have no more time for such funny stuff | 22:57 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | at least during times of migration | 22:58 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, do you know if eV needs to have German founders or if EU citizens are good to go? | 22:58 |
| MentalistTraceur | The problem is that while the purchase of the server and the like falls under EU jurisdiction, HiFo's actions directing what is done with the server (wherever the server is) are still sue-able under US law. | 22:58 |
| Woody14619 | Don't go saying "Too bad for HiFo". Because right now, without HiFo, there's no one to Nokia to transfer to. | 22:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: according to EU legislative I bet every EU citicen can found a eV | 22:58 |
| qwazix | I suppose so. That makes it easier to gather the people to do it | 22:59 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: so if somebody buys optium in china in name of HiFo, will HiFo get arrested? | 22:59 |
| MentalistTraceur | No, BUT, if some community member decides opium purchases in the name of HiFo are contrary/damaging to HiFo's mission, they CAN be sued in US court for that. | 23:00 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: sure | 23:00 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: that doesn't make sense at all | 23:01 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and really nothing we here in EU can do about it | 23:02 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | if US legislative is asking for a all servers getting painted pink, who's to sue for HiFo getting donated a EU located server that isn't? | 23:02 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | if they feel it's unbearable, they simply have to reject that donation | 23:03 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | but they won't find ANy pink servers in EU | 23:03 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and asking us to paint them pink for them will ccause unpolite gestures in their genral direction | 23:04 |
| MentalistTraceur | That's different, because it's not about US laws reaching into US corp's stuff in other jurisdictions per se, it's about US corp's actions always being susceptible to lawsuit for not upholding their stated mission. Unless someone can make a convincing case in court that HiFo was neglecting/harming its mission by not painting that server pink, it won't be a problem. | 23:05 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | let's put it plain: there is NO way to ask a german serceprovider to provide a service in Germany under US contract | 23:05 |
| MentalistTraceur | But for opium purchases, it's easier to make that case in court, because of the stigma against drug use in general. | 23:05 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | serviceprovider* | 23:06 |
| kerio | for opium purchases, it's easier to use silkroad | 23:06 |
| thedead1440 | the eV just becomes more logical | 23:06 |
| warfare | 'evenin. | 23:06 |
| warfare | (just read through tons of backlog) | 23:07 |
| qwazix | warfare, good luck | 23:07 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | they not only dislike to do, it's even *illegal* to do | 23:07 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | hi warfare :-) | 23:07 |
| Woody14619 | Not that sounds silly to me. | 23:07 |
| qwazix | warfare, though the server-polo sport we just invented is at least funny :) | 23:07 |
| warfare | :) | 23:07 |
| Woody14619 | Again, if that were true: No German company would EVER have any company working with another company. | 23:08 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: what sounds silly to you? | 23:08 |
| Woody14619 | Is there a Nokia Germany? | 23:08 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yes, and they have to obey german laws | 23:08 |
| Woody14619 | Clearly Nokia German does businees with Nokia central. | 23:08 |
| Woody14619 | Yes... | 23:08 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | german laws render much of US contract BS void | 23:09 |
| Woody14619 | Which is fabulious. | 23:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | there are laws that can not get overridden by contracts | 23:09 |
| Woody14619 | But it doesn't mean it makes it void for the US side. | 23:09 |
| Woody14619 | And nobody is asking anyone to "override" any laws. | 23:09 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, while it doesn't, a company that offers a *donation* won't be willing to take additional liabilities due to US laws | 23:10 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: sorry, it seems you miss the point | 23:10 |
| Woody14619 | All that's being asked is that they agree to terms that frankly are probably FAR LOWER than the terms they have imposed on them already by German law. | 23:10 |
| warfare | Create an eV, call it "maemo infrastructure", make it a "förderverein" for providing services for maemo infrastructure. | 23:10 |
| Woody14619 | Again... This contract would pose no liability to them. | 23:10 |
| qwazix | Nokia Germany ofc has *profit* and finds a way to deal with the problem | 23:10 |
| qwazix | That's where we disagree | 23:11 |
| thedead1440 | where are $the_terms? Are they published? | 23:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: they woukd need to let those terms get checked by their lawyer. they wont do that | 23:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: that's incorrect | 23:11 |
| qwazix | Any sane european presented with a contract stating "U No Play Polo with our server" would think that that's kind of a way to force liabilities into them | 23:11 |
| Woody14619 | It's a page of terms. Most it saying they're not resposible for anything. | 23:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | a contract in Germany *always* implements legal right to both parties | 23:12 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | rights that cannot get overridden in the contract | 23:12 |
| qwazix | I for one wouldn't sign it, and give you your server back. Plain simple. | 23:12 |
| Woody14619 | Having not even seen it? | 23:13 |
| qwazix | I talk about the imaginary contract with the polo cause | 23:13 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | here we got *laws* | 23:13 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you got *contracts* | 23:14 |
| Woody14619 | We have *laws* as well. | 23:14 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we don't belive in contracts>laws | 23:14 |
| Woody14619 | Nor does the US | 23:14 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | so what's the problem then? | 23:14 |
| qwazix | If the contract is plain language stating that the server is HiFo's and all reasonable care would be taken to keep it safe I might sign it, but again, not sure. | 23:14 |
| Woody14619 | You can't contract someone into being a slave. | 23:14 |
| MentalistTraceur | To finish the above clarification, though discussion has moved on by now: So if someone says "opium purchases give HiFo a bad public image, thus harming HiFo's ability to do its mission", a judge could well say "k, I can see that, proceed to trial"; if someone tries to argue "All US servers are now mandatorily painted pink, thus HiFo not painting their EU server pink gives them a bad ... | 23:14 |
| MentalistTraceur | ... public image, etc", a judge is far more likely to just throw that case out because the connection between not-pink-servers and bad public image, is no where near as realisticly present as that between opium purchases and public image. But if opium suddenly became socially acceptable in the US (but not yet legal), the case against hifo in that situation would also likely be ... | 23:14 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you get a contract stating IPHH will obey German laws. oeriod | 23:14 |
| MentalistTraceur | ... dismissed. | 23:14 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | period even | 23:15 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | if you think german laws are too weak to protect your assets and rights, come up with particular concerns and why they are not covered by german laws | 23:15 |
| qwazix | I also suppose that IPHH would normally have contracts saying things like liability for data loss etc, which probably they are insured again, paying that insurance from a part of their fee | 23:16 |
| Woody14619 | Which is probably more than fine. Which is why Rob wanted *them* to write up this contract. | 23:16 |
| qwazix | They are offering us a free service so we are not in a position to demand such things | 23:16 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: indeed | 23:16 |
| qwazix | *against (previous comment) | 23:16 |
| Woody14619 | Assuming they have some base contract, that they could easily redact parts out of (like guarantees of data integrety and service up time) and pass along. | 23:17 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagervertrag | 23:17 |
| thedead1440 | Woody14619: why not publish the $terms and let Council decide on what they think instead of hypothetical examples? Of course this is assuming you have the one page of terms you mentioned above and not giving a hypothetical example too of what the $terms could consist of. | 23:18 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, I assume they don't. | 23:18 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: that's what i'm about to do | 23:18 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: Which is all fine and good. And if they have no way to offer it except with that, then charge HiFo the cost of that insurance and we're good. | 23:18 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | (base contract, redact) | 23:18 |
| Woody14619 | thedead1440: I'm constructing it right now, from US providers terms, removing what doesn't apply. | 23:18 |
| qwazix | Yes but we haven't got a CLUE what is HiFo that wants covered | 23:18 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: that's not feasible | 23:19 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | the insurance isn't calculated per contract | 23:19 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | IPHH would go out of business getting a separate insurance calculation for every server they host | 23:20 |
| Woody14619 | is there a german->english translator page somewhere? I can't grep most of the wiki | 23:20 |
| qwazix | Besides that, this was an example, as the VAT is another and many more things. If HiFo tell's us what is needed to have their ass covered we may be able to find a solution | 23:20 |
| qwazix | Like paying the insurance, or the VAT, or whatever that solution might be. Even if IPHH wanted to spend the time and give a contract it would probably not cover US laws so we are back at square one | 23:21 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rektapapier | 23:21 |
| MentalistTraceur | Anyway my last contribution on this for now: the point remains that no-contract-between-hifo-and-iphh -> hifo can't defend itself against claims that it didn't exercise due diligence in letting them have the server. One that joerg mentioned, just a simple "we'll host your server here for HiFo in full accordance with german laws", should, I imagine, be perfectly fine, the point is it ... | 23:21 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Entrepotschein | 23:21 |
| MentalistTraceur | ... just has to be something, anything, that a judge can look at and say "yeah, you did not handle this negligently". You COULD prove that without a contract in theory, it's just that it's vastly, vastly harder and less likely to work. | 23:21 |
| Woody14619 | Whats a good place to drop this document? | 23:22 |
| Woody14619 | council@m.o? | 23:22 |
| Woody14619 | I assume that's working again now? | 23:23 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | haven't checked yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepôt | 23:23 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | try it (council@mo) | 23:23 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, +1 re (we'll host…) | 23:24 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | last wikipedia wasn't to the point, sorry | 23:24 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/hgb/__467.html | 23:25 |
| Woody14619 | sent | 23:25 |
| MentalistTraceur | Yeah, council@mo works fine for all of us as of a few weeks ago, pretty sure. | 23:25 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/hgb/__475h.html | 23:25 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__688.html | 23:26 |
| Woody14619 | again, is there a site that does translation? I have the a sub second graders reading skills in German. | 23:26 |
| warfare | Woody14619: translate.google.com? | 23:27 |
| qwazix | translate.google.com | 23:27 |
| qwazix | oops, warfare beat me :) | 23:27 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | important contract details [Edit ]Contract points, which prior to the conclusion of a storage contract has an essential importance, include :Type and nature of the good sthe quantities delivered in a given perio dthe duration of storage. Basically, the depositor at any time reclaim the goods. [1 ]The different conditions of storage capacity such as stackable, hazardous according ADR etc .the completion of a stock insuranc ethe | 23:27 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | weight per pallet Einlagerungsgu tthe type of packaging (wood shrunk, IBC pallets, Euro, mesh ... )Exhibited stock papers (see below )The opening times of the cam pThe treatment requirements such as Moisture or heat, and the truck regulations that dictate the stacking propertie sThe individual storage room sThe warehouse receipt: This is to certify that the stockholder has received the goods .remuneration | 23:27 |
| Woody14619 | Yeah, but I can't seem to drag/drop the URL onto the box.. it keeps hateing me.:P | 23:28 |
| qwazix | paste the url into the left textarea | 23:28 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: that doesn't work actualy... but I got it to work with the drag/drop thing finally. | 23:32 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, I just used that, I don't know german either | 23:33 |
| Woody14619 | may be a browser issue. I'm reading some if it now, but frankly, it's partial enough that it's not easy reading. And it looks like it was technical to start with, assuming some base of knowledge of how German law works to start with. :) | 23:34 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | note however that usual German COLOCATION contracts have way less § nittygritty since everything is covered in laws anyway: http://www.limtec.de/downloads/ColocationEntry.pdf | 23:35 |
| Woody14619 | Yet there are parges 4 and 5, which are basically what I just sent out. :) | 23:36 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | all the § there are about stuff that service provider is NOT liable for, and stuff customer IS liable for | 23:36 |
| Woody14619 | pages 4 & 5 that is. | 23:36 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you're honestly better off without *any* of those § in p4,5 of http://www.limtec.de/downloads/ColocationEntry.pdf | 23:38 |
| Woody14619 | I see no reason one could not use this form, and stamp "Not Available" or "Not applicable" to the optional cost items (like admin assists and/or additional services provided) and call this a day. | 23:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | or traffic (ehich is way too low) or price of hosting at all (which doesn't exist) or location of datacenter (which is in HH) or .... | 23:39 |
| Woody14619 | Right. Strip out the non-applicable stuff, it's down to 1 or 2 pages. That's what I did with the one I e-mailed. | 23:40 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | it's down to zarro pages then | 23:40 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | this whole contract has not a *single* word helping HiFo to reclaim their server | 23:41 |
| Woody14619 | No.. Sections 4, 6, and 7 seem to apply. | 23:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | no, they don't | 23:41 |
| qwazix | People, I'm really tired, can I be excused? | 23:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | sure | 23:42 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, I can do the bug-mail tomorrow if that's okay | 23:42 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | seeya qwazix | 23:42 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | appreciated muchly | 23:42 |
| qwazix | seeya tomorrow then | 23:42 |
| qwazix | gn8 all | 23:42 |
| Woody14619 | Why would they not? 4 is about customers (and their agents) not interfering with neighboring servers in the colo. That would seem to apply... | 23:42 |
| thedead1440 | good night qwazix | 23:42 |
| Woody14619 | 6 is about spamming... I'm sure they don't want us to spam from their link. | 23:43 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: §4 is about CUSTOMER not doing rogue stuff, sth IPHH takes as granted. $6 is about provider not being liable for any shit customer does. §7 is provider not liable fro downtimes and the like | 23:43 |
| Woody14619 | 7 is a standard disclaimer for small interuptions in service. | 23:43 |
| Woody14619 | That all seems to apply. | 23:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | but it's all stuff IPHH *does not want to bother with* | 23:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | since the first instance never offered to provide any such stuff for us on a contractual basis | 23:45 |
| Woody14619 | *sigh* I get that. | 23:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | so IPHH not selling uptime to us, they not bother about downtime liability | 23:46 |
| *** xes has quit IRC | 23:46 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | please don't force § on IPHH that are in favour for them | 23:46 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | since those § would imply other stuff that is negative for them | 23:47 |
| Woody14619 | Yes. And we're all good and fine with that. But again, that's not something US law takes for granted. There's not a defacto law that covers all this. | 23:47 |
| Woody14619 | You see.. | 23:47 |
| Woody14619 | this is what I'm saying. | 23:47 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | this is a GERMAN company | 23:47 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | they won't obey US laws | 23:47 |
| Woody14619 | FUCKI}_1 | 23:47 |
| Woody14619 | NOBODY IS ASKING THEM TO FOLLOW FUCKING US LAWS | 23:47 |
| Woody14619 | Will you PLEASE stop saying that! | 23:48 |
| Woody14619 | For them, the *existance* of a contract comes with implications. | 23:48 |
| Woody14619 | For the US, the *non-existantce* of a contract comes with implications. | 23:48 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | IPHH will not sign a contract that rules out any liability they have, since they would imply they have other liabilities with such contract | 23:48 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | for German companies existance of a contract comes with unforseeable liabilities | 23:49 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | that's why they offered to host it for free and just give you maybe a low priced storage contract | 23:49 |
| Woody14619 | For US comanies the lack of a contract comes with unforseeable liabilities. Thus the reason to spell it out in a contract. | 23:49 |
| Woody14619 | Yes! Which is fine! | 23:50 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | since such storage contract has no regulations about downtimes, so no imlicit assumptions about uptimes | 23:50 |
| Woody14619 | A low priced storage contract is feasable. :) | 23:50 |
| Woody14619 | Yes... Which is why I said, get that contract, and send it over ASAP. :) | 23:50 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | which is what i'm about to do, since IPHH has no storage contract templates *SIGH* | 23:51 |
| Woody14619 | Even if it costs us a token ammount (like 20 Euro + VAT), that's worth it, since it covers the liability issue on our side. | 23:51 |
| Woody14619 | Right... Awesome.... Sigh... | 23:52 |
| Woody14619 | And you think they'll have no issue with signing a contract you make up.... because? It's based on German law I presume? | 23:52 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yes, exactly | 23:53 |
| Woody14619 | I really don't think there's going to wind up being a whole lot of difference in the end, honestly. | 23:53 |
| Woody14619 | But, right... | 23:53 |
| Woody14619 | So let's do this. You cut up a contract there. | 23:53 |
| Woody14619 | Then look at what I sent out, which is what it looks like from our side. | 23:53 |
| Woody14619 | I'm willing to bet there's 50% overlap. I can look at both as well, and see if theres anything that missing that's a "must have" on our side (all AFAIK, again IANAL) | 23:54 |
| Woody14619 | .oO(Not that you'd guess that from my work here...) | 23:54 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | the whole contract will look like "we store a server (ser# here) according to paper you sent at <date> here for you for one year, according to §§ 467 bis § 475h HGB, with no further liability taking usual care about it and than handing it out to you at your demand" | 23:55 |
| Woody14619 | I'd provide links to the legal refs as well, just to be safe (because again, someone will care, I'm sure). | 23:56 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | §§ 467 bis § 475h HGB | 23:56 |
| Woody14619 | yes. | 23:56 |
| Woody14619 | See, that's the thing. Here, there's no defacto "minimum standard" for doing business. | 23:57 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | here there is | 23:57 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you're even liable for goods somebody sent to you unsolicitedly | 23:57 |
| Woody14619 | There's no law to reference that says wonderful thigs like "if you hand me something, I'll take care of it reasonably". In the US, if you send someone something in the mail, it's theirs. They own it. | 23:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | (the requirements are rather low in that case, but anyway there *are* requirements even then) | 23:58 |
| Woody14619 | Here you are not. Once it was sent to you, it's yours. If the delivery person makes a mistake, it's the liability of the delivery service. | 23:58 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | see, that's the problem | 23:59 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | here it#s no question the server is HiFo's and IPHH is even supposed to know how to properly store and handle it | 23:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.1 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!