Difference between revisions of "Community Council Log 20091022"

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added CC template)
Line 1: Line 1:
== IRC Log of Community Council Meeting 2009-10-22 ==
== IRC Log of Community Council Meeting 2009-10-22 ==

Latest revision as of 14:36, 30 May 2010

Community Council

The Community Council members are your representatives



Ideas related to the community? Tell us!

IRC Log of Community Council Meeting 2009-10-22


  • Sophie Gautier (sophi)
  • Martin Hollmichel (_Nesshof_)
  • Matthias Huetsch (mhu)
  • Cor Nouws (CorNouws)
  • Louis Suarez-Potts (oulipo_to)
  • André Schnabel (Thalion72)
  • John McCreesh (jpmcc)
  • Pavel Janik (paveljanik)


  • Stefan Taxhet (stx12)
(20:37:56) Thalion72: anyway.. I think,we should start (if we get used to start at the agreed time, maybe people will learn to join in time)
(20:38:02) louis_to: if none, let's beign by gong over the action items
(20:38:15) louis_to: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/The_OpenOffice.org_Community_Council_Agenda
(20:38:54) louis_to: Do we approve of last week's minutes and action items? only indicate if you do not
(20:39:15) louis_to: all approve, no objections recorded
(20:39:23) louis_to: then AI 2:
(20:39:25) louis_to: Action items - from previous meeting(s)
(20:39:25) louis_to: 1. Budget
(20:39:25) louis_to: 1. Louis: continue on list of events selected for importance to the community and to OOo's goals (for marketing budget primirarly)
(20:40:29) louis_to: Update: there has been diminished discussion on the subject on the designated list and I've been drawing up a list of events upcoming this year and early next to present to the various lists, including the one that Sophie suggested
(20:41:11) louis_to: as well, I have, and the OOo community in general, been invited to a couple of other events, the most outstanding being one in Vietnam, end of November.
(20:41:28) louis_to: It is the Gnome event to be held there, and the idea is to reach out to OOo
(20:42:06) louis_to: There is also the Mozilla linkage at CeBit, but that is to be discussed later, on the list
(20:42:15) louis_to: Summary: In progress, with progress
(20:43:11) louis_to: shall we move on?
(20:43:16) Thalion72: +1
(20:43:18) jpmcc: +1
(20:43:21) sophie: =1
(20:43:49) louis_to: 2.2: Trademark
(20:43:49) louis_to: 1. Stefan et al: in process with progess among stakeholders
(20:43:49) louis_to: 2. then with comments on list: review by the cc (by November 4) and then start discussion on discuss@
(20:44:03) louis_to: I can provide a summary, I think
(20:44:25) _Nesshof_1 [n=martin@nat/sun/x-esqjliukytxvyhip] a rejoint le salon.
(20:44:30) louis_to: for 2.2.1, there has been, afaik, no discussion since 24 Sept. focused on the narrow subject of trademark
(20:44:37) louis_to: (hello Nesshoff)
(20:44:40) _Nesshof_1: sorry for being late
(20:44:42) louis_to: np
(20:44:53) louis_to: on 2.2., trademark
(20:45:55) louis_to: The issue is the same as before, reconciling the distributor's interests and copyright concern's with Sun's. We at Sun think it is possible to achieve a balance and thus resolve this but this iis taking more time than we like (than anybody likes)
(20:46:20) louis_to: I figure, and I'd guess others do, too, that we can have a useful discussion in Orvieto on this topic and get it done then
(20:46:20) Thalion72: louis_to: I'd like to get a tm-proposalby the end ofnextweek. otherwise I won't be able to vote on it in Orvieto
(20:47:32) louis_to: Thalion72: I'll see what I can do. Stefan returns from holiday next week, and, as well, I should have a response from Sun's legal group by then. I pinged them this morning (re-pinged, actually)
(20:48:20) louis_to: So: AI LSP (and ST) to provide to CC members offlist the proposal for voting
(20:48:33) louis_to: NOTE: I am not sure the final one would indeed be ready for voting by us in Orvieto
(20:48:58) louis_to: the idea is that AT Orvieto we can discuss with the distributors directly the issues that divide and I hope resolve them.
(20:49:07) Thalion72: louis_to: please set the date - at least send "something" before 1st of Nov.
(20:49:16) louis_to: Agreed
(20:50:19) Thalion72: others to comment on trademark?
(20:50:58) mhu: to comment, I would need to see a proposal, too. so, no comment right now.
(20:50:59) louis_to: Thalion72: you mean on the proposal to send to CC the proposed policy?
(20:51:25) louis_to: b/c otherwise all will have mhu's response
(20:51:38) Thalion72: louis_to: in general .. or (if no comments) move on to next topic
(20:51:44) jpmcc: Thalion72: I don't think we will ever please everyone ... we have to minimise the upset and make sure the benefits are greater than the upset
(20:51:57) louis_to: Thalion72: I ahall but I'm not as impatient as you seem to be
(20:52:03) mhu: indeed
(20:52:28) _Nesshof_1: hmmm
(20:52:29) louis_to: but, absent the possibility of discussing the TM proposal, let's move on to 2.3, Elections
(20:53:04) louis_to: 2.3.1: Elections process was announced and the nomination period has closed
(20:53:51) louis_to: however, Thalion72 raised the idea of extending the CCR by a couple of days to accommodate the single nominee ... who came in a little late
(20:53:59) mhu: so, do we have a list of candidates ?
(20:54:01) louis_to: Thalion72: do you want to make your proposal?
(20:54:16) louis_to: mhu; Not yet was compiling it jsut prior to this meeting
(20:54:24) mhu: fine
(20:54:24) sophie: louis_to: +1 on my side on extending
(20:54:27) Thalion72: I'd suggest to allow one late nomination that was suggestd by Jan Holesovsky
(20:54:56) mhu: how can anyone have missed the proposal time
(20:54:59) mhu: ?
(20:55:00) Thalion72: this should be sent in until Saturday
(20:55:14) Thalion72: mhu: e.g. being on vacation?
(20:55:19) paveljanik: mhu: e.g. holidays?
(20:55:38) mhu: ah okay, do we know that for sure ?
(20:56:11) Thalion72: mhu: no - but we have only one nomitation in this cathegory so far - and it was not approved yet
(20:56:11) louis_to: mhu given that Jan's nomination is the only one, that raises different issues
(20:56:24) jpmcc: If we are extending the timetable, we should do it by a general announcement to allow other late entries and not make a 'secret exception' for one candidate
(20:56:31) louis_to: as well, it allows us to shorten the voting in this case, at lesat, as there are no other contenders
(20:56:47) louis_to: jpmcc: I suggest we only allow it for the CCR role
(20:57:04) Thalion72: jpmcc:i second louis - only on exception.
(20:57:08) mhu: what is CCR by the way ?
(20:57:11) louis_to: but I have had zero other expressions of interest
(20:57:20) louis_to: community contributor representative
(20:57:26) Thalion72: It's not secret - it has been requested today
(20:57:41) Thalion72: louis_to: "Code Contributor ... not "Community"
(20:57:48) sophie: code contributor
(20:57:52) mhu: aha, but that CCR was not open for a vote ?
(20:58:10) Thalion72: Community COntributor is not to be elected this round
(20:58:19) louis_to: then I am confused on acronyms here, and sophi is right
(20:58:23) mhu: sophi: okay, thanks, that resolves it for me :-)
(20:58:29) louis_to: indeed, me too
(20:58:50) louis_to: but I still have no problems in extending it a little and opening it for more nominations
(20:59:06) louis_to: and then shortening the voting period, if none come in, or if only very few
(20:59:18) jpmcc: If we are extending it, then we should do it by public announcement
(20:59:25) Thalion72: louis_to: in this case we would not meet the "Orvieto" date for any of the elections
(20:59:26) louis_to: jpmcc: agreed
(20:59:33) mhu: I would also agree to jpmcc, and open it for all, not just one.
(20:59:33) louis_to: Thalion72: I know
(20:59:43) paveljanik: mhu: yes
(20:59:45) paveljanik: of course.
(20:59:45) louis_to: mhu: why all?
(21:00:02) paveljanik: open for anyone, not just for kendy.
(21:00:05) paveljanik: announce and wait
(21:00:07) louis_to: for CR
(21:00:07) mhu: I dont like special rules for single late comers
(21:00:30) louis_to: it is not for single late comers ; it is for otherwise absent seats that won't get filled
(21:00:31) Thalion72: ok - but if we open for all again, we can start voting only after Orvieto
(21:01:02) jpmcc: Thalion72: maybe we can enourage more nominations at Orvieto?
(21:01:09) sophie: mhu: we have been long to settle the process, others can be long to react too ;)
(21:01:14) louis_to: quite possible....
(21:01:21) Thalion72: jpmcc: yes .. and wait another year to do the elections :)
(21:01:47) sophie: jpmcc: you mean lobbying ;)
(21:01:48) louis_to: it seems as if all are arguing here now for voting to commence AFTER Orvieto and to use Orvieto as a stage to encourage more participation?
(21:02:01) mhu: sophi: sure, I just think, we should then re-open the nomination period, not just for a single nomination
(21:02:10) louis_to: if so, does someone want to phrase it as a proposal that we can vote on?
(21:02:14) Thalion72: louis_to: no I am *not* aruing *for* this solution
(21:03:04) mhu: proposal: re-open nomination period until this Sunday evening, for all open seats.
(21:03:12) Thalion72: louis_to: I'm only saying that this is the consequence, if we extend the nomination period (and imho this consequence is not welcome - at least to me)
(21:03:36) louis_to: mhu: why this Sunday?
(21:03:44) louis_to: and not, say, after Orvieto?
(21:03:52) mhu: counter proposal: do not accept further nomination, go directly to voting
(21:03:54) louis_to: Thalion72: yes, that is your argument
(21:04:12) louis_to: mhu: counter: to use the conference as a vehicle for engaging people
(21:04:33) Thalion72: mhu: there is not "go direct to voting" - thre is one week between end of nomination and starting to vote
(21:04:57) sophie: imho Orvieto should stay out of the election process
(21:05:01) mhu: as per announced plan, nomination period *is* already closed. so, we can go to voting. no need to discuss
(21:05:22) Thalion72: mhu: yes, if we do not extend, we can start votingnext week
(21:05:32) louis_to: mhu: no, not quite, the nominees have to have some time to announce their candidacies
(21:05:41) louis_to: so, next week, or so voting
(21:05:53) mhu: yes, sure. I was simplifying ...
(21:05:53) louis_to: if no extension
(21:06:01) Thalion72: mhu: and not all candidates approved the nominations yet
(21:06:12) paveljanik: OK, I have change my mind. I do not agree with extending the nomination period.
(21:06:14) mhu: ...or disapproved
(21:06:17) Thalion72: waht will prevent any vote
(21:06:53) louis_to: paveljanik: so jan is out of luck?
(21:07:00) louis_to: and we get no CR this wave of elections?
(21:07:04) mhu: ..we can go ask all nominees, if they are not familiar with the process, and come back themselves
(21:07:13) Thalion72: mhu: the process description is quite clear, that candidates needto agreeto the nomination
(21:07:55) jpmcc: Could we proceed with elections for the other positions, and re-advertise for the vacancy at/after Orvieto?
(21:07:59) mhu: ...then take it as "remind them"
(21:08:09) Thalion72: jpmcc: we can
(21:08:09) louis_to: jpmcc: that was my original suggestion :-)
(21:08:17) louis_to: glad to see you came around to it :-)
(21:08:20) sophie: Thalion72: so only Juergen has not react yet, may be we should ping him ?
(21:08:46) jpmcc: louis_to: I'm in the slow learners class
(21:08:55) Thalion72: sophi: yes .. we actually have to ping him (or we define the nomination as invalid)
(21:09:16) louis_to: so, I propose we extend ONLY the CR role process and proceed as written with the others
(21:09:21) louis_to: please vote on this
(21:09:24) jpmcc: +1
(21:09:31) Thalion72: +
(21:09:35) mhu: no extension was the proposal
(21:09:35) Thalion72: 1
(21:09:39) sophie: +1
(21:09:42) _Nesshof_1: +1
(21:09:44) mhu: -1
(21:09:58) paveljanik: -1
(21:10:00) Thalion72: mhu: no extension is the "default" ;)
(21:10:01) louis_to: mhu: no, actually, the proposal I just put forth was to extend only the CR role
(21:10:03) mhu: please vote on what we discussed
(21:10:25) louis_to: mhu: we discussed many things; I prefer precision, don't you?
(21:10:29) mhu: yes, and we discussed that we dont want to extend
(21:10:33) Thalion72: ok - so no extension of the nomination period - we need to ping Juergen and continue the process
(21:10:41) sophie: BTW I'll ping Juergen to react on the lists
(21:11:21) louis_to: to summarise the vote tally: as we need consensus, there is NO extension for ANY role up for election
(21:11:38) Thalion72: correct
(21:11:39) louis_to: Meanwhile, Sophie will contact Juergen for confirmation
(21:11:46) mhu: yes, that is the proposal we discussed
(21:12:10) louis_to: mhu: again, we discussed many things; please be precise
(21:12:25) mhu: ...and re-advertise the vacancy after Orvieto
(21:12:28) Thalion72: mhu: no . that is the default process - we discussed to have an exception - what was rejected
(21:12:30) louis_to: very well, ellections are to proceed as scheduled
(21:12:36) mhu: *I* am precise
(21:13:01) louis_to: The second wave of elections can and will include the CR role again
(21:13:08) Thalion72: mhu: if we go on with elections and uergen accepts nomination, there is no vacancy
(21:13:15) louis_to: that second wave has so far not been charted
(21:13:19) louis_to: Thalion72: correct
(21:13:50) louis_to: so, instead of can and will, I should write, "May"
(21:14:54) Thalion72: louis_to: it will, as all current members of the council are already to lon on duty
(21:14:56) louis_to: for the immediate future, the nominees are to confirm their interest and if confirm then engage in informing the community of their work
(21:15:36) louis_to: stefan taxhet (or someone like him) will set up the survey site for the vote, so that it can be used for the actual election
(21:16:04) louis_to: do we then agree to move on to the next item?
(21:16:16) mhu: yes
(21:16:18) Thalion72: louis_to / _Nesshof_1: we should get a current list of code contributors
(21:16:25) Thalion72: but - yes, move on
(21:16:26) louis_to: 2.4: Internships
(21:16:28) _Nesshof_1: Thalion72: ok
(21:16:47) _Nesshof_1: what's shall be the date for this ?
(21:16:49) louis_to: Cor (et all): Continue on the preparations,
(21:17:03) louis_to: Cor is away, but can others speak to the preparations?
(21:17:10) _Nesshof_1: Nov 1st ?
(21:17:16) Thalion72: _Nesshof_1: this date:=Today()
(21:17:23) _Nesshof_1: ok
(21:18:04) louis_to: if no one can speak to the preparations, then let us move on to 2.4.2 and .4
(21:18:12) louis_to: and .3, of course
(21:18:45) louis_to: The education event in Toronto is next week, and I anticipate that Cor and I can discuss the status of this, so I an communicate it to the Toronto people
(21:19:02) louis_to: others from Google, Red Hat (fedora), Moxilla, etc. will be there
(21:19:29) louis_to: 2.4.3: Louis and Matthias: working on suport (where neccesary) from project leads
(21:19:40) louis_to: I have not done this; mhu: have you?
(21:20:01) mhu: well, no; I am still unsure what is expected when
(21:20:38) louis_to: My understanding is that we need to engage the project leads in helping with mentoring or otherwise contributing to internships
(21:20:55) louis_to: but otherwise, I have the same question as you
(21:21:18) mhu: I would go and them if I had anything to ask
(21:21:23) louis_to: so, the actual sort of involvement expected of any project lead needs to be defined
(21:21:31) mhu: right
(21:21:45) CorNouws [n=cono@a80-101-151-17.adsl.xs4all.nl] a rejoint le salon.
(21:21:49) louis_to: and for that, I think, we need to talk to Stefan, Cor, Flo, and others involved in this.
(21:21:52) louis_to: CorNouws!
(21:21:57) CorNouws: hi all,
(21:22:02) Thalion72: Hi Cor!
(21:22:04) mhu: louis_to: yes
(21:22:09) mhu: hi Cor
(21:22:34) CorNouws: an 'this' is ?
(21:23:01) mhu: 'this' is 'internships'
(21:23:17) CorNouws: Ah, I thought so ;-)
(21:23:25) mhu: :-)
(21:24:25) louis_to: CorNouws: the issue is that mhu and I need further specifics about what precisely we must ask of the project leads so that they can be involved in the internship program
(21:24:37) louis_to: eg, are they to be mentors? or just overseers?
(21:24:53) louis_to: do they work on to-dos?
(21:25:12) louis_to: and leave it at that? That is what Seneca, for instance would want: just semester-sized to-dos for students
(21:25:20) louis_to: no mentoring, but yes to-dos
(21:25:25) louis_to: so, we need specifics
(21:26:13) CorNouws: louis_to: OK, I'll pick it up,
(21:26:13) CorNouws: from the internship -ToDo page
(21:26:13) CorNouws: and mail to you
(21:26:17) CorNouws: OK?
(21:26:47) louis_to: CorNouws: yes.
(21:27:16) louis_to: Let's also discuss this by phone or IM tomorrow or next week, so I can go to the Toronto Education events better prepared
(21:28:09) CorNouws: Maybe I have time tomorrow afternoon, else it will we Thursday next
(21:28:10) louis_to: as to 2.4.5: no updates. Since June, there has been minimal news from Tsiinghua (ie, none) and Seneca has been less clear than I would like, probably my fault
(21:28:24) louis_to: hm. okay.
(21:29:11) louis_to: unless objections, let's move onto 2.6:
(21:29:19) louis_to: l10n infrastructure
(21:29:54) louis_to: sorry, I missed 2.5
(21:29:54) louis_to: my error: Distribution Infrastructure
(21:29:54) louis_to: Wait for results of testing (pepared by Florian)
(21:29:59) louis_to: do we have those results?
(21:30:06) Thalion72: I have no news and afaik, Florian had no time to work on this
(21:30:24) ***louis_to imagines that Florian is fiendishly busy with OOoCon
(21:30:41) louis_to: Then let us move on to 2.6, unless others....?
(21:30:51) louis_to: l10n infrastructure
(21:30:51) louis_to: 1. Wait for nagios a.o. monitoring results
(21:30:51) Thalion72: no .. more with discuss&discover and the GErman Kongress
(21:31:00) louis_to: ah.
(21:31:16) louis_to: do we have nagios information? Sophie?
(21:31:36) Thalion72: for 2.6 I don't know about monitoring results, but pootle servers are still not really stable
(21:32:17) sophi: louis_to: more Stefan than me, but we do have to investigate Pootle services
(21:32:21) Thalion72: pootle developers suggested to update to a newer version, but this cannot be done before 3.2 release
(21:32:22) louis_to: I see. I expect then that Stefan can update on list and otherwise at OOoCon
(21:32:32) CorNouws: Yes, Stefan will know - later
(21:32:36) louis_to: Thalion72: right
(21:32:54) louis_to: then let us move on to 2.7:
(21:32:57) sophi: we need to know if this material, infrastructure or software, but it will be after 3.2 release
(21:33:10) louis_to: Louis: deliver final wording after the discussion that was on the mail list
(21:33:13) louis_to: not done yet
(21:33:35) louis_to: same with 8.1 : not done yet (aka, in progress)
(21:33:50) louis_to: so, 2.9
(21:33:54) louis_to: Meeting at OOoCon 2009
(21:33:54) louis_to: 1. compile an agenda on the mail list and also advertise the meeting date and agenda options to project leads
(21:33:55) louis_to: 2. extended meeting on Tuesday evening
(21:34:19) louis_to: afaik, we have not done this yet
(21:34:28) Thalion72: nope
(21:34:56) CorNouws: There is a small hint, at the bottom of the agenda-Wiki
(21:35:06) louis_to: can I suggest we then send in ideas to the cc list and also open the wiki and announce it, as we did last year?
(21:35:20) louis_to: CorNouws: yes, but it needs to be advertised as open
(21:35:23) louis_to: so, let's do that
(21:35:47) CorNouws: louis_to: open ?
(21:35:49) louis_to: by sending notice to the usual lists, discuss@, dev@, project leads, dev@native-lang, marketing, etc.
(21:36:04) louis_to: to encourage the communty to submit agenda items to the wiki for discussion at Orvieto
(21:36:04) mhu: ?
(21:36:11) mhu: !
(21:36:16) louis_to: ! ?
(21:36:28) louis_to: mhu: is that a probem?
(21:36:29) CorNouws: Are you sure? If we meet, we can make our own agenda
(21:36:31) mhu: louis_to: short for : what and aha
(21:36:40) Thalion72: hmm: first agenda item - welcome new Council members and say goodby to the retetired ;)
(21:36:51) louis_to: I should point out that the current wiki agenda is actually open always to all to submit items
(21:36:57) CorNouws: If members have their ideas, they want to discuss (with/for) us, thay canmail or phone
(21:37:19) jpmcc: In the past we invited email questions for the public Q&A session http://conference.services.openoffice.org/index.php/ooocon/2009/paper/view/149 which is different from the CC business meeting
(21:37:21) CorNouws: louis_to: Duhh
(21:37:38) CorNouws: Yes public Q&A is different
(21:37:57) mhu: jpmcc: yes, that should be prepared
(21:38:10) jpmcc: I would encourage public questions to the Q&A session and leave the business meeting for business
(21:38:28) mhu: jpmcc: yes, agreed
(21:39:05) louis_to: out of curiosity, as jpmcc has expressed exactly what I did, why the difference in reaction?
(21:39:33) jpmcc: It's my Scottish accent ;)
(21:39:40) louis_to: :-)
(21:39:44) mhu: louis_to: maybe you speak two different languages to me ... dont know
(21:39:47) CorNouws: which clarified some details ;-)
(21:39:53) louis_to: we used to, and still do, to an extent, advertise the openness of the agenda
(21:40:01) mhu: yes, more clear now
(21:40:29) louis_to: actually, I think the spectre of broadcasting the agenda's openness is what freaked people
(21:40:51) louis_to: but in fact it only underscores what we already do and what we want to do, ie, engage the community
(21:41:27) louis_to: so, when CorNouws; says, "public Q&A" he means, only in the room where we sit
(21:41:57) mhu: can you explain, please ?
(21:41:59) louis_to: but in Barcelona, we had the public in the room but we also had the agenda open for non-present people with questions and points, so we've done this before
(21:42:11) louis_to: mhu: explain what?
(21:42:47) mhu: louis_to: i did not understand your sentence, with the 2nd half comming in after my question
(21:42:49) CorNouws: To quote myself: " Yes public Q&A is different"
(21:42:49) CorNouws: No problem if people suggest /bring items for the agenda, but we as council make our own meeting
(21:42:49) CorNouws: which is not the same as the public Q&A
(21:43:34) jpmcc: CorNouws: +1
(21:43:36) louis_to: CorNouws: you may not know this but the agenda has always, always been open to items from the community and has frequently in the past included them
(21:44:02) louis_to: the CC has always then derived its agenda both from community items and from those internal things we need to discuss, as we do now
(21:44:11) louis_to: I would continue with our precendents
(21:44:30) CorNouws: louis_to: I know, but that is included in what I said
(21:44:37) louis_to: and have a Q&A session at OOoCon, as we did in Beijing and also in others
(21:44:55) louis_to: CorNouws: evidently, misunderstandings are as common here as fleas on a dog
(21:44:58) louis_to: :-)
(21:45:12) louis_to: and I'd like to be precise as to what it is we are doing and when
(21:45:51) jpmcc: louis_to: woof woof
(21:46:08) louis_to: so, I again state we need to inform the community of the Q&A to be held at OOoCOn and invite them to *suggest* items for discussion at the CC meeting *without* obligating us necessarily to including them in our actual agenda
(21:46:44) mhu: yes, that is precise, thanks and +1
(21:46:56) Thalion72: +1
(21:47:01) jpmcc: +1
(21:47:05) _Nesshof_1: +1
(21:47:09) sophi: +1
(21:48:07) louis_to: CorNouws?
(21:48:20) louis_to: paveljanik?
(21:48:43) ***CorNouws dis anyone start voting ? No need to vote on common procedures though
(21:49:17) CorNouws: pls next item, AFAIAC
(21:49:20) louis_to: CorNouws: you need not vote, but in this case, the vote is simply an index of our agenda
(21:49:46) louis_to: So, there are no objections. John, do you want to help out in advertising this, if you have time?
(21:49:54) jpmcc: louis_to: OK
(21:50:07) louis_to: part of it is to schedule the actual Q&A--your area, I think
(21:50:21) jpmcc: http://conference.services.openoffice.org/index.php/ooocon/2009/paper/view/149
(21:50:27) louis_to: thanks
(21:50:50) CorNouws: BTW: our agenda has 2.9 and 2.10 ;-)
(21:50:52) louis_to: Budget 2010
(21:50:52) louis_to: 1. Start budgeting (planning spending money) for the next year before the OOoCon by mail
(21:51:16) CorNouws: mhu: will you or shall I ?
(21:51:26) louis_to: Ij just asked John about #10... the schedule of the Q&A
(21:51:27) mhu: I think, Cor and I can propose a budget within the next days ...
(21:51:40) mhu: CorNouws: please go ahead
(21:51:48) CorNouws: mhu: thanks, looks as a good idea to me :-)
(21:51:49) louis_to: okay, but let me send you the actual events that would affect that. I can do that by my time tonight
(21:52:30) CorNouws: louis_to: yes pls send them
(21:52:46) louis_to: issue is, Cor, still a little bit of a mystery
(21:53:03) CorNouws: ??
(21:53:05) louis_to: but, let's move on to 2.3, Council Coordinator
(21:53:18) louis_to: (Cor: there are big ones, medium ones, and new big ones)
(21:53:20) CorNouws: Ah, sorry
(21:53:27) mhu: so, Cor and I discussed a budget in private mail, will send that to list within a couple days; will be a budget frame only, only details yet. that would be budget owers work
(21:53:31) louis_to: (but nothing that cannot be accommodated)
(21:53:40) CorNouws: that item was there for the meeting on Nov. 3
(21:54:15) mhu: s/only details/no details/
(21:54:25) louis_to: right....
(21:54:43) louis_to: okay, do we have new business we wish to raise here and now?
(21:55:34) jpmcc: Just to watch out for 100,000,000 downloads of 3.x http://marketing.openoffice.org/marketing_bouncer.html
(21:55:42) louis_to: :-)
(21:55:48) mhu: :-)
(21:56:16) louis_to: If no new business, I would like to adjourn the meeting
(21:56:33) louis_to: Cor, I can post the IRC record
(21:56:41) louis_to: and extract the AIs
(21:56:59) louis_to: are there any objections to adjourning?
(21:57:02) CorNouws: louis_to: thanks, but no need to do that. Sophie already did
(21:57:07) louis_to: if none, the meeting is adjourned
Personal tools