Community Council Minutes 20080109

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Revision as of 14:40, 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!

Log, Community Council Meeting 2008-01-09 20:00 UTC


  • Sophie Gautier (sophi)
  • Martin Hollmichel (_Nesshof__)
  • André Schnabel (Thalion72)
  • Louis Suarez-Potts (louis_to)
  • Stefan Taxhet (stx12)
  • Matthias Huetsch (mhu)
  • Cor Nouws (cornouw1, CorNouws)
  • Pavel Janík (paveljanik)
  • John McCreesh (jpmcc)

IRC meeting commences 20:00 UTC (more or less)

louis_to so, let's start. Stefan (st) will be a few minutes late, he indicated
louis_to First, welcome CorNouws!
Thalion72 Welcome Cor!
CorNouws Thanks, Louis, Pleasure to be here!
sophi ok CorNouws: welcome and good evening
CorNouws Thanks, André, for the suggestion ;-)
louis_to Cor, in case you do not know....
CorNouws Thanks, Sophie, for your support,
louis_to mhu: Matthias Huetsch
* Thalion72 is accepting the thanks before Cor changes his mind
CorNouws :-)))
louis_to _Nesshof_: Martin Hollmichel
CorNouws OK, the rest of the names i know.
louis_to right
louis_to so, the agenda is on the wiki:
mhu Hi all; welcome Cor.
CorNouws Hi Matthias
paveljanik Hi
louis_to The last meeting was 06 Dec. Minutes, AIs, etc.:
CorNouws Hi Pavel. Sorry I forgot to say hello to you.
louis_to please review them.... 
Thalion72 i have no additions
paveljanik CorNouws: ;-)
louis_to I move to approve last meeting's minutes. All in favour? (note formal process)
louis_to +1
Thalion72 +1
paveljanik +1
mhu +1
CorNouws (no comment)
sophi +1
jpmcc (no comment)
_Nesshof_ +1
louis_to minutes approved
louis_to Items for this week continue from last time
louis_to sophi: any news on the next AB meeting?
sophi louis_to: no every body seems in holliday at its turn, so no news till the end of the month
CorNouws I have read 17-12 was planned, was it posphoned?
Thalion72 do we know a date for the next AB meeting?
Thalion72 CorNouws: yes
sophi no, not now, at the end of january I think
louis_to okay. I'd urge us all to read the minutes of the AB meeting.
CorNouws done, of course.
louis_to please consider discusisng items of concern next CC meeting
*** stx12 ( has joined the channel
paveljanik yes, for sure.
louis_to eg, license
* stx12 wishes happy new year
louis_to hi stx12
paveljanik Hi Stefan!
Thalion72 hi stx12 .. to you too
sophi hi Stefan, thanks and same for you
mhu Hi stx12
CorNouws Hi Stephan, the best wishes for 2OOo8
Thalion72 louis_to: maybe we should discuss, what we as a community ecpect from the AB
louis_to now or next time?
* louis_to suggests next time
Thalion72 e.g. I've completely missed points, what the AB is going to help the community
sophi as soon as I've a new date for the AB meeting, I'll post it
louis_to I agree with Andre
louis_to and would propose:
Thalion72 louis_to: next time .. we may prepare this on mailing lists
louis_to (yes)
louis_to we ask the community what it expects and wants from the AB
sophi Thalion72: I can enlight what have been discussed on the CC list by the end of the week
louis_to with a range that can be deduced from the minutes sophi sent
CorNouws Aren't AB members part of the community? (discussion already started ;-) )
louis_to CorNouws: debatable point
CorNouws Ok, w?l do that on the list or so
Thalion72 CorNouws: moire or less but I have e.g. no idea, what the current contributions of Canonical and Google are
jpmcc Thalion72: or IBM
CorNouws The fact alone that 2 of the 3 are know as suporters is an important contribution.
* sophi hopes you know her ;)
CorNouws allthough the project cannot thrive from such contributions alone, of course
louis_to so: who wants to own this AI?
* louis_to suggests Andre
CorNouws AI - agenda item?
louis_to yes.
louis_to action item, actually
Thalion72 ok ok...
CorNouws or shre it, André
Thalion72 I'll take this
louis_to thanks; 
louis_to CorNouws: I have learned from the master that better to have a slingle owner for any action item
Thalion72 CorNouws: I'd be happy to share (we can discuss this later)
CorNouws One owner, one supporter. OK for me (sorry for typoooos)
louis_to on to next item....
louis_to sophi: would you have more updates on the certication process?
sophi louis_to: not much more than what I'v wrote to the list, work in progress
louis_to Okay, some questions, then....
louis_to are we ready to work with ECDL?
sophi louis_to: no, not yet, we are not finishet with the syllabus
louis_to okay. 
louis_to should we move ahead with funding a contributor to work on this?
sophi louis_to: yes, this is what we have said, so we should do it :)
louis_to do you or the team have anyone in mind?
sophi louis_to: Franz Jacob and Leif Lodal have work hard on that
sophi louis_to: Franz have written all and is maintaining the documents
CorNouws can I ask a related question?
sophi CorNouws: of course :)
Thalion72 ok, sophie -can you write a breif proposal, what the fund would be used for?
sophi Thalion72: ok
CorNouws when we have the criteria, is the accreditation pickud up automatically? how does that work?
sophi CorNouws: it's a bit long to explain here, may be I'll sum up the process on the CC list
CorNouws Ok, maybe there? omething in the archive alraedy, that you can point to
louis_to sophi: thanks
louis_to CorNouws: I don't think so....
CorNouws well, in that case thanks for the info to come!
sophi louis_to: we can find most of the process on the certification list
louis_to AI: sophie to write up a proposal for how the funding of a contributor would work and what it would produce...
sophi louis_to: ok
louis_to sophi: ah, good. < i think
louis_to shall we move on then to the next item?
sophi louis_to: yes, between Evan and me, the sum up is done, but I'll post on the CC list
louis_to sophi: thanks!
louis_to next item....
louis_to I had suggested adding nonvoting members to the CC discussions
jpmcc for exmaaple?
louis_to at present, we only exceptionally allow non CC members to post to the list and do not allow them to attend the IRC meetings. I would like to modify the rule
stx12 hm, how would we benefit from that?
louis_to jpmcc: example would be, say, to allow people from the AB to particiipate in discussions but not vote
mhu what do you intend with this addition?
louis_to stx12; hm. assuming we benefit from anything, I would imagine we could bring in more of the stakeholder interest this way and also engage them in our interests more efficaciously
louis_to mhu: to include more stakeholder discussions.
stx12 i can imagine that we follow jpmcc's suggestion to present proposals and that a CC member invites a non-voting member to present; but permanemt participation...
louis_to example: the ESC has nonvoting members, I believe
* Thalion72 agrees to stx12
jpmcc I would have no issue if the AB wanted to nominate one observer / liaison member to the CC
louis_to jpmcc: you mean, besides sophi?
mhu louis_to: the ESC has guest members, intention is to promote them to full members after some time
jpmcc The CC has one member on the AB (sophi), maybe the AB should have one member on the CC
sophi for my opinion it's too early, the AB has to find his place and define itself first
mhu sophi: yes, absolutely
Thalion72 sophi: you may ask this at the next AB meeting 
sophi after the second meeting, if there has been some work done, we will discuss it
jpmcc I think to get the AB to agree on a single rep would be a test of its effectivenes and maturity
louis_to uhm, it's only had one meeting, john :-)
jpmcc Yes, but look at the collective salary of the people there :)
Thalion72 anway .. I'm open to the idea of non-voting / presenting "guests" at Council meetings (asl long as anybody from the community could present here)
louis_to I'm open to Thalion72's and stx12's modulation
sophi Thalion72: yes I agree also with this idea
jpmcc louis_to: can you play it back as a proposal?
louis_to yes...
louis_to To allow nonvoting participation in discussions by exponents of proposals or those implicated 
louis_to is that fair?
mhu sounds good
sophi louis_to: yes
jpmcc yes, not sure it's English ;-)
stx12 hm, sounds complicated to me
* louis_to aside to jpmcc: it's not, really, but telegraphs the message
louis_to stx12: how so?
stx12 non-voting members may participate on invitation to present on proposals.
jpmcc "CC members may request that non-members attend meetings on a non-voting basis where they have particular expertise to contribute, subject to the apporval of the chair"
paveljanik chair?
jpmcc LS-P
mhu jmpcc: good, and even English :-)
*** CorNouw1 ( has joined the channel
CorNouw1 seems I was out of connction, some time...
jpmcc Cor suffers from split personality
_Nesshof_ louis_to: where do you want to add this statement ? in the charter ?
Thalion72 no .. why should we?
stx12 in the unwritten bylaws :-)
mhu yes, bylaws.
louis_to Ithink it would have to be where we specify it
_Nesshof_ stx12: just want to ask for written bylaws
louis_to I mean where we specify the current rule
jpmcc Yes, I propose we note this on the CC page on the website
*** sophi has quit IRC (Excess Flood)
louis_to the current rule may be in the charter; I forget. if it is, then we must amend it as normal
stx12 website is fine with me; but let's stick with consensus for the veto against participation of a non-voting member (instewad of chair).
louis_to hm. we lost sophie....
louis_to stx12: +1
*** sophi ( has joined the channel
Thalion72 moment .. what is a "consensus for the veto against participation ..."?
louis_to so, AI: LSP to a) determine where the current rule is stated and also to add to the website for Council the provisions that john wrote up, modulo ST's comment that vetoing a presence should not be up to the chair but determined by a consensus of the council members.
louis_to Thalion72: I think I answered your query
Thalion72 hmm .. if one council meber needs to propose the participation we will never reach a consensus veto
jpmcc "CC members may request that non-members attend a meeting on a non-voting basis where they have particular expertise to contribute. Requests may be turned down by a majority vote of members."
Thalion72 jpmcc: yes - this would work
stx12 a CC member can invite a non-voting member; by default that's ok - unless there is a consensus between the other members to veto.
mhu john, but we don't have majority votes.
*** CorNouws has quit IRC (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
Thalion72 and we cannot reach real consensus
Thalion72 so .. anyway I'm fine with the consensus (at least, as long as I suggest someone for participation ;) )
louis_to Thalion72: no evidence we cannot reach consensus. We usually do....
CorNouw1 My IRC prog is bugging me, but ...
jpmcc "CC members may request that non-members attend a meeting on a non-voting basis where they have particular expertise to contribute. Requests can be rejected if a majority of CC members object".
CorNouw1 the agenda states 'adding nonvoting members'
_Nesshof_ mhu: I think we can have mojority votes for items described in the bylaws
CorNouw1 thus I have to read that': allowing them to attend one meeting' ?
mhu yes, but I do favour consensus votes over majority votes
Thalion72 CorNouw1: the current discussion is about guests for one meeting - yes
stx12 _Nesshof_: but we shouldn't;  we should stick to operate on consensus
louis_to CorNouw1: I thnk we agreed on the latest wording, but I would actually urge consensus. I don't think majority voting is good here
Thalion72 let'S stick with consensus .. even if we will never reach it
jpmcc let's vote on that;-)
CorNouw1 consensus is ok for me for sure
* _Nesshof_ think that for internal procedures majority votes are considerable, but also have no problem with consensus voting
Thalion72 CorNouw1: the problem I see is, we agrred that one Council Members needs to suggest a guest - but it needs consensus to deny ths proposal
louis_to so, reframed from above, AI.. LSP using "consensus."
Thalion72 this would mean, the proposing council members need to agree to deny
louis_to shall we continue?
Thalion72 yes - please
sophi yes
CorNouw1 ok
mhu yes
jpmcc +
louis_to trademark:
louis_to the discussion (nonexistent) is on
louis_to the points are:
louis_to * use Mozilla's trademark policy, written to apply to OOo
louis_to ie, only OOo from the OOo repository is officially OOo (redistribution is okay)
louis_to additions, enhancements, substractions, are "based on code"
louis_to that is one part
Thalion72 this should really be disussed at large on the lists before we vote
louis_to right, we cannot vote on it now. I am merely giving update 
Thalion72 esp. wehn we are going to use Mozilla'S tm policy
louis_to yes.
Thalion72 and are going to defend it in the same way
louis_to so, discussion is on trademark@council
louis_to I have really dragged on this
Thalion72 hmm?
louis_to I have been lazy; mea culpa. But also the issue is that until fairly recently our stakeholders were not exactly seeing eye to eye
Thalion72 sorry, I cannot remember many posts about a clear policy at this list
louis_to there have not been many, aka, none
Thalion72 can we please think more about what the community wants and needs on this issue?
louis_to so, shall we table this until discussions on trademark@ have matured?
sophi louis_to: yes
louis_to Thalion72: that is what we are talking about
sophi louis_to: we should first formulate it on the list then present it to the community
CorNouw1 Question: Is defending the tm  the same issue as using one official OOo repository?
mhu louis_to: we need at least a proposal to think about and then discuss
louis_to sophi: yes
Thalion72 If we only think about stakejolders, we will easily end up in a situation, where we sue John Haller and our own community members for Building OOo Portable
louis_to mhu yes, that's why I asked to table this until discusison has matured
louis_to Thalion72: of course.
mhu louis_to: I simply wanted to agree :-)
*** stx12 has quit IRC (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
louis_to so, on to next item?
Thalion72 do we have an AI defined?
jpmcc could we set ourselves a target date for the trademark policy?
*** stx12 ( has joined the channel
louis_to it's the old one: establish a trademark policy
louis_to jpmcc: I'd be happy to go with that
sophi louis_to: the new one is based on Mozilla ;)
louis_to say, two weeks? That would be for initial proposal that can be discussed by the community
jpmcc +1
Thalion72 +1
sophi +1
CorNouw1 first on trademark@council ?
_Nesshof_ +1
sophi CorNouw1: yes
Thalion72 yes
CorNouw1 +1
* stx12 needs help what we are voting on
louis_to CorNouw1: yes. you may join
CorNouw1 pls, thanks
louis_to stx12: deadline for initial trademark policy to be subsequently discused by community; discussions for proposal creation on trademark@council
mhu +1
Thalion72 louis_to: can you please add Mark Moeller (if hi is not yet on the tm list)
louis_to sure
Thalion72 (he knows the problems of Portable apps and Mozillas TM-policy quite well)
louis_to indeed....
stx12 I'm happy to vote vote on deadlines for other people's AIs
stx12 who owns this?
Thalion72 louis?
CorNouw1 that's what I thought when voting +1
mhu louis_to: [side note: sorry, but the hour is over, and I want to leave; can we come to an end for today?]
louis_to Louis owns it
louis_to mnu: one hour is too short but let's see if we can end this for today
CorNouw1 budget ?!
louis_to are all in favour of adjourning for today?
Thalion72 looking at the agenda - do we need urgendly vote about something?
louis_to CorNouw1: we can discuss budget on the list; might be better there, anyway
Thalion72 louis_to: what's about Fosdem budget?
CorNouw1 OK for me.
louis_to Thalion72: there are no specifics to it yet
mhu louis_to: if one hour is too short, we need to start earlier (UTC wise).
louis_to I asked on conference@ for the committee to form. But we have no specficifs as to who will be going besides the committee
Thalion72 well.. Eric B. asked for funds .. and costs will raise if booket to late
louis_to Eric B asked for funds before the committee had been formed
louis_to but I am sure that he and other presenters will be funded
louis_to I am ware of the cost issue.
CorNouw1 about ending this meeting: what does 'account of AB meeting' means?
jpmcc Can we agreed to fund EB now (and maybe save money?)
louis_to I would suggest that we can assure the committee members of funding
louis_to shall we vote on that?
jpmcc What's the total exposure (roughly)?
louis_to Proposal: to fund fosdem committee members and early participants of travel and lodging
sophi +1
Thalion72 EB's estimation was about 300EUR
louis_to for EB, about 300-400 eur
louis_to I would rather do this, however:
jpmcc So 300-400 per person for how many people?
Thalion72 commitee is 3 people afaik
louis_to jpmcc for the comittee it's just three
louis_to plus me
louis_to dieter, juergen, eric
louis_to diter and juergen are sunnies; as am I
louis_to so, just eric for no
louis_to now, I mean
sophi but may be others will attend ? no ?
CorNouw1 so that? about 35% of the 2008 budget?
louis_to yes, but this is just for funding for the committee
mhu so, only eric is requesting funding (others are funded by Sun, I assume) ?
louis_to eric requested funding early--before we had formed the committee to evaluate who will even be going
sophi If one other community member want to attend, he won't be funded?
louis_to sophi: no. the propsoal is for *early* 
louis_to requests.
Thalion72 ok .. so I would suggest we vote for EB .. and ask the committe to come up with a budget for other spendings
louis_to I would rather set aside a lot more money for all funding requests
louis_to Thalion72: +1
sophi but this was proposed ont the lead list, what if other developers want to participate?
louis_to we should allow them to, if possible.
jpmcc I propose we authorise refund of Eric's expenses to a max of 400 Euro. If any others come along later we can vote on them at a later meeting.
louis_to we have two days at fosdem
Thalion72 jpmcc: +1
louis_to I'd guess max 10 people may participate, and some of those will be sun
mhu jmpcc: yes, sounds acceptable
stx12 louis_to: i wouldn't assume that sunnies are funded by default
louis_to jpmcc: i'd suggest we ask the fosdem committe to supply us a budget
louis_to stx12: good point
paveljanik stx12: funded by...?
sophi ok for me, but let some others to be funded too
paveljanik by Sun?
stx12 louis_to: i wouldn't assume that sunnies are funded by default by sun
paveljanik or by "us"?
louis_to my guess is that we will be talking about 2000 eu. 
Thalion72 stx12: so they should request funds from other sources early ;)
paveljanik hmm, I'd like to see some result of the committee first. Who and how many people will go there.
jpmcc Eric has acted promptly and got his funding request in early. We should reward enthusiasm and forward planning.
Thalion72 sorry, but I see no reason to delay one request, just because we are not aware of other requests yet
paveljanik I do not want to vote about EB's spendings if we do not know if he is selected to be there.
louis_to eric will be there, I have no doubt; he is also on the committee
louis_to I have no doubt he will be there as there has not been that enthusiastic a response
Thalion72 paveljanik: so.. we can make clear tha money will nly be spend, if he presents at FOSDEM
Thalion72 (I never thought about this, as this is obvious to me)
sophi louis_to: some dev from my company would like to participate, but nothing has come public yet
paveljanik Thalion72: well, hmm. I'd like our project to be represented there. I do not want our project ot be there (only).
louis_to please make it public. I asked on the project leads list to publicize it among your communities... 
louis_to thanks
paveljanik and I'm not very satisfied with Eric's skills to represent our project. Unfortunately.
paveljanik I'd like to see more developers there.
louis_to paveljanik: more than eric will be there
sophi louis_to: ok, so I let the commitee knows about them, they are already known in the OOo community
paveljanik as this is for developers.
Thalion72 well .. so we can vote anyway
louis_to erici is but one. thorsten, Dieter will be there; Juergen too, I am sure
louis_to but this is uncertain b/c the committee has yet to go over submissions
paveljanik did they requested funding as well?
louis_to paveljanik: no
louis_to or at least not yet. holidays really affected timing
paveljanik so we can only vote about EB now. If at all.
louis_to paveljanik: prcisely
louis_to I would like to call a vote on the proposal raised
paveljanik so, my vote is +1 for covering travel and lodging for EB if we (the formed committee) can't find better candidates.
Thalion72 ok: as this has been on the agenda for long, I also call for a vote
louis_to paveljanik: hm. that is a little offensive
sophi +1
paveljanik offensive? Sorry?
louis_to and I dont' think we can vote on that
paveljanik how offensive?
paveljanik I do not understand.
stx12 paveljanik: with this restriction one (EB) can't make the preparations
Thalion72 "the formed committe" is the FOSDEM commitee?
paveljanik Thalion72: yes.
louis_to "if we cannot find better candidates"?
louis_to I would urge a vote as john put it:
louis_to limit to 400 euros to present at fosdem
Thalion72 so it is up to the FOSDEM committe (where EB is member) to send EB to Fosdem or not?
stx12 out of the markting budget
paveljanik Thalion72: yes.
louis_to and to urge the fosdem committee to come up with a budget for travel/lodging
paveljanik out of marketing? ;-) +10 ;-)
louis_to Thalion72: yes
Thalion72 so I have no problem with pavel's wording
* stx12 is following _Nesshof_'s proposal
paveljanik Thalion72: if the fosdem committee (where EB is a member) will realise that we as a project can send 10 core OOo devs there, ...
louis_to which is?
paveljanik people who can answer questions?
paveljanik ;-)
louis_to how is this different form 400 eu. for prsenting?
louis_to not just for being on the committee?
paveljanik ?
jpmcc I'm losing the plot (and the will to live :-). I propose: "This meeting authorises the refund of Eric's expenses to a max of 400 Euro to enable him to present a paper on OOo at FOSDEM."
mhu does this discussion lead us anywhere?
louis_to jpmcc: i think the trend is to have it iff and only if
paveljanik ... if fosdem committee will select his proposed paper.
paveljanik ok?
louis_to mhu: yes, a vote on allocating funds
louis_to paveljanik: yes
Thalion72 paveljanik: this is exactly what Eric requested btw.
paveljanik Thalion72: :-)
paveljanik then +1.
Thalion72 Eric Bachard asked for funding (in case his presentation is accepted). 
Thalion72 (quote from agenda)
paveljanik accepted by fosdem or by committee?
Thalion72 ok .. vote on jpmccs wording: +1
CorNouw1 +1
louis_to +1 on proopasl modulo acceptance of paper (or whatever is presented)
* stx12 would agree for the sake of shorten the meeting; but...
stx12 so, do we (CC) grant the funds to EB or to the committee?
* sophi has already voted +1
* Thalion72 loves consensus voting :)
Thalion72 to Eric
paveljanik because he asked for funding.
Thalion72 maybe we shouold have asked *not* to fund Eric 
paveljanik that's clear.
paveljanik and terrible at the same time.
* mhu would refund EB's expenses, but not allocate a fund (that's what Martin is preparing)
* stx12 thinks we should reorder the agenda next time
paveljanik :-(
Thalion72 one -1 vote was enough to approve the funds
paveljanik Thalion72: ?
paveljanik -1? approve?
louis_to stx12: I agree. last time I tried reordering the agenda, it didn't go over well
louis_to however, this is going on....
jpmcc ...and on...
louis_to all, have we voted on this item?
stx12 then it woul dbe clear who is in charge of marketing funds 
louis_to stx12, _Nesshof_?
* mhu asked to come to an end 30min ago ...
Thalion72 mhu: yes ... but you know - conensus voting
_Nesshof_ stx12: that will make live more easy
louis_to if we cannot agree, then please lt us continue this on the list and set a deadline:
louis_to Friday
Thalion72 louis_to: this is nonsense .. sorry
louis_to but I would urge us to consider calling this meeting to a close
Thalion72 ant state that we cannot reach consensus
jpmcc Has anyone voted -1 ?
louis_to by my tally we do have a consensus of +1s and no -1s
paveljanik no
louis_to but not all have voted.
stx12 +1
_Nesshof_ I would vote if there is a promise that we are going to approve the budget and will never these endless discussion again
_Nesshof_ +1
louis_to _Nesshof_ we can also use the list
CorNouw1 +1
mhu +1 (and agreeing to Martin's comments)
louis_to and this discssion has not been endless, btw: it just ended. And we spent only 25 minutes o nit
stx12 can we please have the topic budget on the upper half of next meeting's agenda
louis_to yes.
louis_to and we can also use the list.
mhu and we're only 35min over time :-(
Thalion72 yes
Thalion72 (yes - using the list)
louis_to mhu: there is no statement that the meeting is 1 hour. historically, we do 1.5 hours and I anticiapted that this time
louis_to so, we are all tired of this and I call this meeting to end.
jpmcc +1
Thalion72 ok
sophi louis_to: ok
louis_to AI for funding Eric's trip to fosdem: ST?
mhu louis_to: but not at this time of day (night in western europe)
CorNouw1 about ending this meeting: what does 'account of AB meeting' means?
louis_to CorNouw1: a report as we had it from Sophie of the Advidosry Board meeting
CorNouw1 OK, so can wait
louis_to CorNouw1: we had it
stx12 i think this should be an AI of a committee member;
louis_to stx12: but I have no part in Team; Does Dieter?
sophi CorNouw1: I've already done it, I will make an update on the list
stx12 the money transfer - if appropriate - is the smallest part.
Thalion72 and what input we got from AB  .. and will give to the AB
louis_to stx12: ah.
mhu all, I'm now leaving; good night.
jpmcc Here's some bedtime reading for those who have kids:
louis_to okay, will take it
stx12 i think this should be an AI of a FOSDEM committee member;
paveljanik good night
Thalion72 cu mhu
louis_to bye mnu
louis_to mhu
sophi good night
louis_to meeting adjoruned, good night all

--- Meeting adjourns, 21:40

Personal tools