Community Council Log 20090514

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Revision as of 14:35, 30 May 2010 by ChristophNoack (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Community Council

The Community Council members are your representatives



Ideas related to the community? Tell us!

IRC Log of Community Council Meeting 2009-05-14


  • Martin Hollmichel (_Nesshof_)
  • Matthias Huetsch (mhu)
  • Cor Nouws (CorNouws)
  • André Schnabel (Thalion72)
  • Pavel Janik (paveljanik)
  • Louis Suárez-Potts (louis_to)
  • Stefan Taxhet (stx12)
  • Absent: * Sophie Gautier, John McCreesh

IRC log 2009-05-14

louis_to shall we start?
louis_to okay, with that resounding call, yes, let's go! ;-)
louis_to We cannot really approve the minutes, as we lack a full quorum, but equally, we do not really define a quorum for meetings
louis_to so, to cut the gordian knot:
louis_to do we approve the IRC log as posted?
stx12 yes
louis_to I just posted it and it is a cut and paste of the log
_Nesshof_ +1
louis_to others? please indicate your ...
mhu +1
* louis_to pokes CorNouws
* louis_to waves to paveljanik
CorNouws No need to approve a log, IMO ;-)
louis_to hello ;-)
louis_to well, there ought to be, and following form is useful
louis_to be that as it may, I didn't edit when I put them there
louis_to and we can now moe on
louis_to AIs (thanks to CorNouws)
CorNouws Minutes are conducted, so must be approved. Logs are recorded, so are as they are ...
louis_to Louis: schedule a conference call with CC members regarding budget issues
louis_to Status: Not done. 
mhu meanwhile we agreed upon to meet next monday ...
louis_to Schedule for me, at least, is easier (by a lot) next week
CorNouws Yes, Matthias, André and I will meet next monday evening
CorNouws Either by phone or by ..? do not know yet
louis_to I can provide a phone number
mhu louis_to: yes that would be fine, I guess phone fits better
CorNouws Thanks, if we want to. We shall sort that out by mail - AFAIAC
louis_to so: Resolution, members of CC, Mu, Andre, CorNouws, possibly Louis to meet Monday (next) to discuss budget issues
louis_to meeting by phone
CorNouws I find phone often hard to understand, sorry.
mhu louis_to: that would 19:00 cet / 13:00 EDT
louis_to okay, sort it out before hand
CorNouws So Iprefer IRC
louis_to one can do both
louis_to but let's sort it out by email, as Andre is also to be involved
CorNouws Good idea yes
paveljanik can we please only UTC for time planning_
paveljanik ?
louis_to +1
louis_to I dislike local times, get confused, too
*** Thalion72 ( has joined the channel
mhu paveljanik: that would be 17:00 UTC ...
paveljanik the worst case is when you use two local times.
louis_to hello Andre
CorNouws paveljanik: Sorry, the link was UTC, the letters were CET  - my mistake
Thalion72 hi
louis_to let's move on to #2 (Andre, did n't do much so far)
louis_to Matthias: more clear on situation wrt taxes to pay?
mhu can we leave the details for monday? otherwise, we are waiting to get back resolution from finance offices
CorNouws Monday OK for me, of course
mhu ...we are in the process to pay for 2003 ... 2006
louis_to I see no problems with that
louis_to shall we move on?
louis_to Resolution to #2: tabled until Monday evening meeting
louis_to #3: Louis: Send and gather estimates for several important upcoming events to budget@
louis_to I sent a note to Project Leads list and Alexandro replied
louis_to but no one else. I sent a reminder today
CorNouws No response = no need ?!
louis_to given the lack of response, I'll ping more, but will otherwise focus on those events that I know about and which are deemed by me and others (if hope) to be good
mhu maybe, marketing project is the better source for event proposals?
Thalion72 CorNouws: rather no long term planning :(
louis_to CorNouws: no, there is need, as we are many communities
louis_to Thalion72: alas, +1
Thalion72 louis_to: focus on the input you recieve ;)
louis_to mhu: I'll do both, but project_leads list includes MP people
louis_to that said, I'll do what I've done before, and use both lists
louis_to (this is not the first time we've done this, I point out)
mhu fine with me ...
louis_to AI: LSP: ping more on this
louis_to Trademark Policy
louis_to The broad question is, Do we know by now why we need/want it
louis_to I leave immediate answers to others; unfortunately, sophie is absent
Thalion72 there have been more or less been two suggetions on this
Thalion72 1st: we need a policy to prevent people who do not contribute all the code back to OOo to prevent our TM
Thalion72 (this can easily be translated to "we do not want to allow go-oo based builds to use our Trademark")
Thalion72 2nd: we need a TM policy that is supported by the community, so that the tm-holder cannot act on it's ohn behalf
louis_to I do not see those proposals as in contradiction
Thalion72 correct :)
Thalion72 1st would cause a rather restrictive policy, 2nd a very liberate
louis_to My impression is that we can finalize this, and I think given the current context, it would make sense to do so 
stx12 not to mention that it helps to point ast something if we see obious abuse
Thalion72 stx12: correct
louis_to And I'd think that we can have restrictions on a case-by-case basis, not as universal blanket
CorNouws ??
CorNouws ???
Thalion72 louis_to: restriction on case-by-case is imho not possible (atlast not for products) .. this will be a no-go for debian
CorNouws 1:  I do not see those proposals as in contradiction <> 1st would cause a rather restrictive policy, 2nd a very liberate 
louis_to CorNouws: for particular queries, we decide on an individual basis
louis_to CorNouws: not really; it depends on the rigour of interpretation and phrasing
CorNouws 2. The idea of a policy was / is (often mentioned) not a one by one basis (not my idea, BTW)
louis_to ie, we do not want folks to exploit the work of the communty, and that includes the copyright and trademark holder, who is part of the community
louis_to hence, the idea of specific review of individual problematic cases--which is effectively done now
Thalion72 louis_to: we should go and discuss this at the tm mailing list
louis_to and I'm reviewing, for instance, valuesoft and also
louis_to Thalion72: yes
Thalion72 as council we would sooner or later need to decide what way to choose (restrictive or liberate)
CorNouws louis_to: is not valid
louis_to agreed
louis_to CorNouws: was going by memory
louis_to have we dealt with AI on trademark?
louis_to can we move on to Elections?
Thalion72 louis_to: is still have to bring my thoughts to a mail 
CorNouws louis_to: seems to work
Thalion72 (about TM)
louis_to CorNouws: thanks
louis_to Thalion72: on trademark list--yes?
Thalion72 louis_to: yes
CorNouws _Nesshof_: and mhu and paveljanik: do you have the idea that the TM discussion is clear anough and moving in rigth direction??
louis_to _Nesshof_, paveljanik--ping??
_Nesshof_ CorNouws: no, I think we need to be closed into a room until we have agreed on a proceeding ;-)
louis_to then let's ;-) I'll be in Europe in June, btw, London
CorNouws OK, I have a small one - works faster ;-)
louis_to I'd be happy to meet  in persoin
mhu my personal opinon: we have a good proposal of Martin (ooo equals what a testsuite defines), unfortunately we dont have that te
mhu st suite
CorNouws _Nesshof_: But not kidding: I think try to make more clear on the tm-list now, is a valuable first step ??
louis_to mhu, _Nesshof_: can we issue that proposal *without* the actual testsuite?
CorNouws mhu: and it is unlikely - AFAIU - that we will have that test suite rather soon?
louis_to ie, have that in development?
Thalion72 louis_to: we have a testsuite .. but this is not generic enough
louis_to but it can be
Thalion72 ... and it will (imho) never be
louis_to my point is that we need the policy and the policy can be soft of in potential
louis_to and rely on a dodgy technology that is refined
CorNouws I think defining a policy, where you need a testsuite, that you know you do not have and will not in the coming year or so, is very very ad 
louis_to and that can be phrased in the policy
CorNouws ad = bad of course
louis_to why bad?
louis_to governments do that all the time; that is the nature of modern governance
louis_to to allow for realworld discprepancies
CorNouws because you cannot use that policy, enforce it or how you may call that
louis_to if it is phrased properly, you can 
louis_to ie, limit the test suite to those that exist at the moment
CorNouws we are no governments, we must be able to stand for court to protext our TM
Thalion72 louis_to: please stop here .. we shouuld move on with *decisions* here ;)
louis_to and hold open the other instances where the test suite does not apply as requiring specific intervention
CorNouws and we will faile with werecked rules /policy/ lacking testsuite ...
louis_to Thalion72: agreed.
louis_to let's move on to elections
CorNouws louis_to: and pls read what hase been written about the test suite :-(
Thalion72 louis_to: the testsuite we have does just not wor for this purpose .. fullstop ;)
CorNouws Thalion72: indeed!
louis_to Andre: do you want to give a quick summary of the elections situation ?
louis_to and, thanks for the immense work done !!
Thalion72 summary: we have the people to run the elections (means supervisor and observers are defined)
Thalion72 list of project leads has been reviewed ... but we should officially confirm, that two projects do not exist anymore
stx12 to be more precise: 
Thalion72 we need the mail adresses for the code contributor list
Thalion72 and we need the announcement
* _Nesshof_ will deliver the mail addresses until tomorrow morning
Thalion72 ok .. I'm done with the stauts 
stx12 the accepted project utilities has been merged into framework (is now a subproject in CEE terms) 
stx12 so andre suggests that we approve this change here. 
louis_to is there any controversy or real reason to include the CC?
Thalion72 louis_to: hmm .. I need to check the charter again, but it is up to the council to introduce new projects,
mhu I dont think there is any controversy here
stx12 i think project closure is as significant as a status change to accepted - but no controversy
louis_to Thalion72: I am not certain it is.... but I see no controversy here, anyway
louis_to then, if no controversy, let's vote on the action...
stx12 +1
Thalion72 louis_to: no .it#s not controverse 
Thalion72 +1
mhu +1
louis_to +1
paveljanik +1
CorNouws +1
* _Nesshof_ is not sure what is being voted about
Thalion72 _Nesshof_: that there is no utilities project anymore
louis_to basically, cleaning up the projects as listed to conform with reality
stx12 the closure of utilities as separate accepted project. 
_Nesshof_ ok, I see, agreed, +1
louis_to Resolution: Change to accepted project passed unanimously
stx12 change from ...
* stx12 should be quiet when native speakers talk...
* louis_to notes he's not really a native speaker :-)
Thalion72 :)
louis_to but, change from accepted project status: utllities is no longer a project in existence, having been merged
Thalion72 same procedure for ODFtoolkit - it now exists outside OOo and not as project within OOo anymore
louis_to Correct. But was ODF Toolkit finally accepted?
* louis_to checks
Thalion72 it was incubator
louis_to right, so it need not incur our vote
louis_to I just delete it as needed
Thalion72 oh .. incubator project leads are included in the electorate ;)
stx12 odftoolkit moves to; we will retain the content within
louis_to they are, and we can invoke the CC- for this--do we want to?
louis_to my only point is procedural: at what point do you want the CC to authorize all admin things like that? 
louis_to I tend to avoid introducing democratic but seemingly needless bureaucratic procedures
louis_to that's all...
stx12 the news about odftoolkit was more as an fyi; i think we should for accepted projects
Thalion72 louis_to: 3. b)
louis_to I suppose that I read that thinking more of Accpeted, and not incubator or NLC
mhu Thalion72: yes, that meant accepted projects originally
louis_to I create, for instance, NLC projects routinely, and Charles and I handle inactive ones, too
Thalion72 louis_to: so it should be up to the council to review and remove such inactive projects
louis_to I would suggest that we thus modify the language there to be more precise and to refer to "Accepted Projects" only, not Incubator or NLC
louis_to Thalion72: for all projects? Or just for Accepted?
Thalion72 but istead of just doing this, we debate if we shoult do or not
louis_to but this is actually not unimportant
Thalion72 louis_to: if I speak of projects I speak of all projects
Thalion72 I think, this thing here is called "Community Council" and not "Accepted Community Council"
louis_to do you wish then to have to vote on authorizing the creation of every project?
louis_to I think that's a silly intervention of bureaucracy
louis_to and would suggest that the language be made more precise
Thalion72 louis_to: I would have no problem, If there was a clear and reliable reference of what projects we have
stx12 i think we continue the practise to delegate this to category leads for incubator and nlc
Thalion72 stx12: last time I asced the incubator cat. lead, if the list of projects is up to date I got no answer
louis_to I am the lead; I do not recall your email.
louis_to when did you send it?
louis_to and to what address?
louis_to and, it was up to date until fairly recently
stx12 folks, would somebody like to add an agenda item and a proposal? 
Thalion72 need to check .. bout three weeks ago
CorNouws stx12: +1
CorNouws Can we do #.3.3?
louis_to no matter, let's add this to the agenda: my proposal to specify th elanguage and also Stefan's, that we delegate
CorNouws So looking at #3.3, we can say Yes, unless we find out later that we didn't need to say that?
louis_to CorNouws yes.
louis_to and further proiposal, that for accepted we decide as a body
Thalion72 btw. as I asked to confirm that ODFToolkit is no project at OOo anymore .. and the council did not confirm this .. does it mean, the project is still existing?
Thalion72 (ok .. no need to answer)
louis_to I actually believe I asked dieter and the others and did not receive an answer, as I'm also curious
louis_to but the situation now answers that :-)
louis_to so, let us vote on the removal of the ODF toolkit project from Incubator, and its coinsequent cleanup
louis_to +1
mhu I do confirm that odftoolkit does not exist anymore
Thalion72 +1
CorNouws +1
_Nesshof_ agreed
mhu +1
louis_to stx12?
paveljanik +1
stx12 ok, odftoolkit will be removed from incubator
louis_to okay, resolution as stated above
* mhu needs to finish in about 10 min ...
louis_to 4.1: L10n infrastructure
louis_to 	1.	More news from discussion?
stx12 i added an item about the election process
Thalion72 stop
louis_to ?
Thalion72 correct: stx12 asked about the status of the election process
stx12 status of Community_Council/Items/Election_Process_Proposal
Thalion72 this is (according to the wiki) still a proposal
stx12 IIRC we agreed to move along this bylaws in beijing. 
stx12 so let
stx12 so let's agre again and we don't start the elction based on a proposal 
mhu agreed +1
stx12 +1
Thalion72 as I know the proposal .. +1
CorNouws +1
louis_to +1
_Nesshof_ +1
* mhu needs to finish in about 5 min ...
louis_to so, stx12: what did we just vote on?
louis_to that the proposal for the election process that we agreed on be agreed on again? :-)
CorNouws You can read that in the log, Louis ;-)
Thalion72 louis_to: yes ... we've just not been shure that we already had a formal vote on it (htere is nothing in the logs or minutes)
stx12 that this is no longer a proposal but a formaly agreed upon process
louis_to then I am glad that was the what, as that was what I thought :-)
louis_to but it;s specific relation to the infrasatructure?
louis_to ie, to 4.1?
stx12 hm, i think your browser plays games to you
CorNouws Yes, pls    
CorNouws As Martin (IIRC) said last time, a discussion on the mail list started, but without clear end. Someone should use some leadership there ;-)
Thalion72 hmm .. I could try, when the announcement for the elections is done
* mhu is going offline now ...
CorNouws Would be great. I can have a look as well, see if I can give some suggestions
CorNouws mhu: Have a nice evening - CUlater
Thalion72 mhu: bye
mhu bye all, cu later
louis_to mhu: bye
louis_to paveljanik: would you like to vote on the proposal?
*** mhu has quit IRC ("good night")
stx12 i think the suggestions are on the table; it needs some action...
louis_to I can actually dive into that, discussing on the list
* louis_to notes it's about time...
* louis_to he's done something ...
louis_to ->paveljanik: ping
CorNouws Better prepare #2.4 (L10n infrastructure) for next meeting ??
CorNouws And continue with #2.5, Project improvement page ??
Thalion72 +1
stx12 no, change of handling of the space management according to the suggestions raised on th elist.
stx12 and this needs some leadership; that's correct.
CorNouws stx12: Did that discussion lead to a clear proposal already??
stx12 at least to suggested next steps
CorNouws OK, so that must be worked out further, 
CorNouws cause I've seen various suggestions, and possible problems with those as well ;-)
louis_to I think as stx12 suggests and CorNouws, too, we need to demonstrate leadership there and get this done
CorNouws stx12: Thalion72: CorNouws: we ca do that, OK?
Thalion72 CorNouws: no problem (stx12: website hangs :( )
* stx12 just searched the mail
louis_to works now
CorNouws Thanks, Stefan, good summary as I see now.
CorNouws I see no further objections to move on ..
louis_to are we closing then on 2.4.1?
* louis_to notes with pride he got the numbering riight
CorNouws Yes, And  #2.5: I have not worked on this yet.
CorNouws Simply because Internship (#3), is IMO more urgent now, and lacks a bit attention already
louis_to okay, in progress
CorNouws So I suggest to continue with #3: Internship 
louis_to Agreed
louis_to stx12: do you have an update?
stx12 no, not from my end
CorNouws And I suggest that I try to find some people for marketing work for this tomorrow and Saturday
* louis_to just fixed an error in spelling
louis_to the key issue, I thought, was coordinating with would-be mentors....
louis_to so I am curious: do we have a roster (list) of such mentors?
CorNouws The idea was to ask on project-leads list?
stx12 i think the first step is to define the basic rules: who is eligible, how much do we spend, ...
louis_to yes, but there is also the Hamburg connexion
louis_to stx12: perhaps. 
stx12 if we copy an existing approach that's easy
louis_to but I think having a sense of the availablity of mentors helps
louis_to for instance, eric and I were often frustrated in education b/c lack of participation by project leads
stx12 believe me, we will find > 5 mentors
* louis_to has no choice but to believe stx12 :-)
CorNouws stx12: I think so too
louis_to then I might suggest that we also tie in Education project here
louis_to but that can be further discussed on the proposed wiki
stx12 i'm sure about that for poposed tasks; but even for adhoc proposals i would bet...
CorNouws louis_to: yes pls.
louis_to so, finally, the real 4.1
louis_to Council Co-ordinator
CorNouws Proposal for role of council coordinator (#4) Start for discussion, where some people asked for, is made. Discussion not yet ..
CorNouws So we cannot move on with this, IMO
louis_to hm. I suggest we put a time line on this--yes?
Thalion72 and then?
CorNouws Why should you?
louis_to sshh!
CorNouws Grins
louis_to just to see about getting it done
CorNouws No, people just need to do what they say
Thalion72 ok timeline: start  discussion tomorrow
CorNouws If not, setting time lines is usesles
louis_to well, for me, that's actually still today (I mean tomorrow)
louis_to be that as it may: resolution on this is ?
louis_to undecided at present
CorNouws André meant: tomorrow at latest ;-)
_Nesshof_ puuhhh
CorNouws Who did ask for discussion ?
louis_to _Nesshof_: you wish to vote on this issue now?
Thalion72 louis_to: we already *voted* on it
louis_to yes, I know, but then went on to talk against our vote
Thalion72 but some people then thought they misread the proposal .. 
louis_to quite
louis_to so, I want to finalize this
louis_to now would be fine
Thalion72 louis_to: just do
louis_to shoudl a coordianator be a CC member?
louis_to is the issue that hung us up
louis_to I'd say, Yes.
louis_to as tha was what we voted on to start with and that is what makes sense
Thalion72 huh?
CorNouws louis_to: understood, thanks
Thalion72 of course this was what we voted on
_Nesshof_ I'd say, not necessarily 
louis_to then, if we agree that that is what we want and that is what we agreed to when we voted on...
louis_to sigh...
Thalion72 :)
louis_to then if we disagree, we should revote or rewrite the proposal
louis_to so, I propose:
CorNouws _Nesshof_: why?
louis_to A coordinator must be a CC member : please, let us discuss this now, briefly and then vote
_Nesshof_ CorNouws: why should this be a CC member ?
CorNouws Cause each member get his/her turn
Thalion72 I'm fine with both ideas .. pleas send a loud ping if I should vote
louis_to _Nesshof_: b/c iasking non-CC members to have nonvoting status here complicates the charter, to begin with, and introduces unneeded elements
CorNouws And there is a logic, intelligence maybe, behind the roulating
louis_to roulating?
stx12 rotating
CorNouws louis_to: that is a minor issue, not related to the logic of the proposal
louis_to what is a minor issue?
CorNouws stx12: thanks (my bad Enlgish sorry)
louis_to we all agreed on the need of a coordinator and on its utility
CorNouws louis_to: What you said about voting rights
louis_to the  nonmember bit is what stopped things last time, CorNouws
CorNouws louis_to: did we ??
louis_to yes.
louis_to if we include a coordinator, then do we give rights?
CorNouws We voted for the proposal as is, all +1
* louis_to assumes not a CC member
CorNouws I did not see any distintion in voting on one part of the proposal
_Nesshof_ a non CC member has no right to vote
louis_to CorNouws; the issue that was the showstopper was that some wanted to ask Terri Molini to be the Coordinator
louis_to but Terri is not a CC member
CorNouws There is no nead for the coordinator to vite, is there?
CorNouws But that is not the problem
louis_to thus, that introduced some elements that we did not vote on
louis_to _Nesshof_ believes that is okay; I see problems in that
_Nesshof_ louis_to: why ?
CorNouws No, the proposal is about rotating, so that each gets a change to do the good work, and get more feeling with what we do
louis_to the issue then, is that if we want a Coordinator,then that coordinator shoudl be a cc member
CorNouws and gets more arware etc.
louis_to _Nesshof_ for the reasons I ponted out: would she be voting?
louis_to CorNouws; I know the issue we voted on; this is a subordinate issue
louis_to in effect, we would be asking for free labour: someone to take notes, act as a sercretary, ec.
louis_to etc., that is
CorNouws I psopose that we focus on the proposal first
louis_to CorNouws; -1
CorNouws Do we understand what is meant with it, what it reaches for?
louis_to let's first nail who is eligible, yes?
CorNouws No
louis_to CorNouws; are you writing to me, or to us? I think we all appreciate the issue
louis_to and understand its point
*** Thalion72 is now known as Thalion72_away
louis_to _Nesshof_: is there a good argument for including a non-CC member ? ;-)
CorNouws louis_to: , all: try to  understand the logic of the proposal, then (possibly) what we have to do with non cc members
paveljanik ok, I nee to go out now. Bye
louis_to CorNouws: I think we "got* the logic a while ago ;-)
louis_to bye
louis_to I too have to leave for another meeting, one I must stpeak at
CorNouws louis_to: So how then can we talk about asking a non cc member for the post?
louis_to CorNouws? 
louis_to Cor, I would say, obviously, we cannot, given the point
_Nesshof_ louis_to: is there a good argument why only CC member should be candidates for this job ?
louis_to yes, two
louis_to 1. as CorNouws says, the logic of the proposal is not to get free labour but  
louis_to to get us aware of the requirements for engaging the CC members and community in participating
stx12 _Nesshof_: because it shows the interest in the council work by council members.
louis_to 2. introducing a nonCC member introduces issues with voting rights and the logistics of operation
louis_to basically, we might as well hire a secretary
louis_to it thus goes against the grain of the proposal
CorNouws We often have been disappointed by how the cc works 9 or not) and had discussions
louis_to and ialso makes our life more diffiuclt
CorNouws on how to improve
CorNouws rotating task (small) will help that :-)
louis_to _Nesshof_: the question is therefore: why do you want a non-CC member?
* _Nesshof_ doubt that
_Nesshof_ why should we limit this job to CC members ?
louis_to yes, I agree with _Nesshof_"s skepticism, but that's beside the immediate point; it might help others, and it certainly will help whoever is tasked with doing it feel less burdened
stx12 _Nesshof_: why not give a try to remove the doubts in the next turn? 
louis_to _Nesshof_: because of the arguments I raised
louis_to you have not responded to them. You have ignored them
CorNouws _Nesshof_: Because cc member will not learn if someone else does their job
louis_to but they are fatal to the idea of a non-CC member
louis_to I **really* have to go very very soon
louis_to I would thus ask that we rratify our vote
stx12 CorNouws: but that's exactly the question whether coordination fosters the improvements you would like to see.
louis_to and limit the coordinator to the CC as specified in the proposal
_Nesshof_ maybe the need for a coordinator vanish with the election for a new CC
louis_to _Nesshof_: I doubt it. the issue is distributing the burden of work, as much as anything else
Thalion72_away and maybe earth will become a disc (scnr)
Thalion72_away ;)
* louis_to you mean it isn't?
* _Nesshof_ is not insisting to have also non CC - members as a coordinator
* louis_to thought that Web 2.0 meant the world was flat ;-)
louis_to then let us vote on affirming the original vote and proposal for a coordinator
louis_to let us vote now
* stx12 would prefer to vote on the next voluntary coordinator
* louis_to is unclear what that means but you mean after elections?
_Nesshof_ stx12: do we have a volunteer ?
CorNouws stx12: good idea: the one for the next 4 months, Plus the one for thereafter
_Nesshof_ the one thereafter should be stx12, he the only one where we know that he will be CC member again
_Nesshof_ ;-)
stx12 that depends on the management...
_Nesshof_ lol
stx12 i guess the log is closed since some minutes, right?
CorNouws stx12: you want to be the second one?
CorNouws and in 4 moths we vote for the 3rd
CorNouws than only there have to stand one up for now
louis_to stx12: not quite
CorNouws stx12: not mine ;-)
louis_to but I do have to leave
* _Nesshof_ sits down
louis_to at :30 after hour
CorNouws louis_to: is my proposal OK, than I can be the first
louis_to thanks
_Nesshof_ CorNouws: +1
louis_to but let it be stated that we are all now in agreement with the proposal that we oringally agreed to
CorNouws louis_to: indeed, thanks!
louis_to and that CorNouws has volunteered for the first round
CorNouws ans Stefan - deo volente - for the 2nd
*** Thalion72_away is now known as Thalion72
louis_to and that in future we really need to be more attentive to how we act .. 
*** Thalion72 is now known as Thalion72_away
stx12 thanks Cor; how long are you already doing this? 
* CorNouws André is playing hide and seek with himself ;-)
Thalion72_away jepp :)
CorNouws stx12: doing what?
stx12 we don't have a quorum was with what louis_to started the meeting ;-)
stx12 CorNouws: some kind of coordination...
Thalion72_away long enough to set a max. period of 4 months ;)
CorNouws started 40 yrs ago - the called me cordinator at scouts ;-)
Thalion72_away ok .. but finally .. can we get the votes done?
stx12 hm, then you should ask whether a renewal is possible...
Thalion72_away so that we approve the proposal of a council coordinator as suggest in
* CorNouws really have to leave soon, otherwise I will be devorsed next week :-(
Thalion72_away +1 from my side on the proposal
CorNouws +1
stx12 +1 (again)
CorNouws wrt the quorum: voting continued on the list ?!
Thalion72_away yes .. seems to be the better idea
Thalion72_away and also the vote for Cor as our first coordinator
Thalion72_away I'll vote here +1for Cor (so no vote from my side later on the list)
louis_to all agreed then....
louis_to who are here, still
Thalion72_away and as we are now done with the agenda .. and i'Ts getting quite late, I'm going to leave
louis_to I move that we adjourn
CorNouws I'm glad that we (as far a present here) agreed on this and that is was so easy ;-)
louis_to :-)
CorNouws To be continued ...
louis_to thanks, CorNouws!
louis_to meeting adjourned, thanks all
Personal tools