Community Council Minutes 20080124

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
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 2008-01-24


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

IRC meeting commences 19:00 UTC (more or less)

IRC Log Community Council Meeting 2008-01-24
14:09:30 louis_to well, shall we start?
14:09:45 louis_to or wait for andre, matthias, cor?
14:09:46 *** CorNouws ( has joined the channel
14:09:59 louis_to guesses we wait a little longer
14:10:08 CorNouws Hi, sorry I late
14:10:51 louis_to np, several others are, too; hi
14:11:18 *** Thalion72 ( has joined the channel
14:11:51 Thalion72 Hi - sorry,i got the timezone calculation wrong
14:11:57 louis_to hi all
14:12:00 louis_to no problem
14:12:32 paveljanik Thalion72: date; date -u is my favourite ;-)
14:13:05 louis_to well, we can probably start
14:13:19 sophi paveljanik: ah great, I'll remember this one :)
14:13:26 sophi paveljanik: thanks #OOocouncil 14:14:46 1/24/08
14:14:46 Info The connection to the server has been established
14:14:47 *** You have joined the channel
14:14:58 louis_to sorry; got dropped
14:14:59 NickServ Notice: You have already identified
14:15:28 louis_to so, shall we start?
14:15:40 louis_to I pinged mhu; stefan cannot make it
14:15:48 sophi louis_to: yes
14:15:50 _Nesshof_ yes
14:15:57 paveljanik yes
14:15:58 CorNouws yep
14:16:10 jpmcc aye
14:16:13 louis_to the first item is the budget
14:16:36 louis_to but, oh, I forget, do we approve of the log from last meeting?
14:16:54 louis_to there are several action items on it that I failed to put into minutes
14:16:54 CorNouws who did hack the log?
14:17:02 louis_to hack?
14:17:20 CorNouws joke: logs are logs, isn't it:-)
14:17:30 louis_to yes, but I posted it to the wiki
14:17:37 louis_to I have to update the minutes page, however
14:18:17 louis_to so, I assume we approve the existence of the log and can go on to the budget....
14:18:25 CorNouws OK
14:18:31 Thalion72 so - yes, the log exists
14:18:34 louis_to have we all looked it over?
14:18:41 louis_to
14:18:48 sophi yes
14:19:14 CorNouws budget? yes
14:19:41 *** mhu ( has joined the channel
14:19:59 mhu hi all, sorry for being late.
14:20:00 _Nesshof_ the later the evening ...
14:20:04 louis_to hi matthias; we are beginning discussion oif the budget
14:20:16 mhu okay
14:20:49 louis_to let's go item by item on it
14:21:07 louis_to * budget items are maintained by a responsible team:
14:21:07 louis_to once the overall budget has been approved by the CC, an owner for
14:21:07 louis_to the sub-budget will be assigned. There should be one or three owners for
14:21:07 louis_to the sub-budget which are able to do quick decisions about spending money
14:21:07 louis_to for concrete tasks.
14:21:07 louis_to The burden for the CC might with this detailed plan move the need for
14:21:07 louis_to discussion to the beginning of the year, but gives that the freedom to
14:21:07 louis_to the owner of the sub-budget without getting the overall consensus of all
14:21:07 louis_to member of the CC.
14:22:04 _Nesshof_ idea is to have a small team to get quick decisions on spendings
14:22:09 CorNouws Number of 'owners' of the sub-budget: one is to few, three to much, IMO
14:22:23 CorNouws with two: they ave to come to concent
14:22:46 _Nesshof_ but one or three is a odd number
14:23:01 CorNouws I mean: with two: they have to come to consent (sort of concencus)
14:23:25 _Nesshof_ if we agree on consense also there, we also can have two
14:23:49 CorNouws Or do we expect difficult situations where voting by majorty is the only way out?
14:23:49 _Nesshof_ so, should we force also here consensus voting ?
14:24:01 _Nesshof_ CorNouws: no, not really
14:24:14 Thalion72 no .. wouldn't expect that
14:24:19 jpmcc I would suggest the owner of the budget has to get the agreement of one other budget holder.
14:24:42 CorNouws is the different between concensus and consent known? Or is that a typical Dutch invention?
14:24:56 _Nesshof_ jpmcc: then we will need voting of too many voters
14:24:58 louis_to consensus means all who vote
14:25:12 CorNouws Consent means: no argumented objection, sort of can live with it, though not my first choise
14:25:13 louis_to you may consent but not voice your consent
14:25:30 louis_to in this case, the issue is agility and speed
14:26:00 CorNouws I have no objection to vote by concensus :-)
14:26:05 jpmcc Consent is when a girl agrees to have sex with you; concensus is when everyone in the office thinks she should have sex with you
14:26:06 louis_to I think we should have three members for any committee of this nature and if there is disagreement, the others can help
14:26:28 CorNouws jpmcc: :-))))
14:26:32 louis_to wonders about the wisdom of having meetings after beer hour
14:26:59 louis_to so, back to the topic at hand....
14:27:02 paveljanik ;-)
14:27:23 louis_to I propose we use 3 members per sub budget
14:27:32 louis_to do we agree?
14:27:40 louis_to and they must operate by consensus
14:27:45 louis_to (all agree who vote)
14:28:20 Thalion72 this would mean how many members?
14:28:29 CorNouws 3
14:28:38 louis_to one could be a member of more than one subbudget, I'd imagine
14:28:54 Thalion72 3x7 = 21 voting members
14:28:56 _Nesshof_ do we expect that we can assign three people for each budget ?
14:29:07 louis_to no, Thalion72: one can duplicate membership
14:29:10 louis_to it's not unique
14:29:19 Thalion72 and if on is voting for several subbudgets this is not helpfull to me
14:29:28 louis_to the point is to have forced discussions and thus accountability and transperency
14:29:31 jpmcc I like the idea that if I want to spend some of the mktg budget, I should have to get the agreement of 2 other budget holders/authrisers. If they aren't mktg, so much the better.
14:29:34 louis_to Thalion72: why not?
14:29:37 Thalion72 this seems to add administration instead of taking it away
14:29:53 louis_to accountability always does add bureaucracy
14:30:23 paveljanik jpmcc: IIUIC, you'll have a team of 3 people to own mktg subbudget...
14:30:24 Thalion72 oh - does it?
14:30:34 paveljanik and you have to get consensus from these three people...
14:30:46 paveljanik or do I misunderstood?
14:31:19 louis_to paveljanik: as I see it, yes
14:31:24 sophi paveljanik: I understand the same
14:31:33 louis_to but I don't see a problem there
14:31:43 paveljanik louis_to: I don't too. I agree with it.
14:31:54 CorNouws nor do I, and if one is not available, there are still two
14:32:30 CorNouws 'nor do I' in relation to 'no problem'
14:33:04 mhu accountability is the point here, so I think John's idea doesn't sound too bad
14:34:14 _Nesshof_ jpmcc: so then we would need just one owner per budget ?
14:34:52 paveljanik I really would like to see people from mktg project to auth spendings instead of e.g. some developer...
14:34:55 jpmcc You could have more than one per budget, but I suggest their should be at least one 'independent' authoriser
14:35:01 paveljanik or owner of devel budget.
14:35:10 Thalion72 one owner and two who review?
14:35:30 louis_to Thalion72: something like that, yes.
14:35:53 jpmcc How about every budget has two authorisers. Any expenditure needs to be approved by three authorisers?
14:35:55 _Nesshof_ jpmcc: how about the treaserer of Team OOo as one independet authorizer ?
14:36:12 louis_to _Nesshof_ who is the treasurer now?
14:36:20 jpmcc _Nesshof_: that would be idea, but hard work for the treasurer
14:36:24 louis_to is just curious
14:36:32 mhu louis_to: me
14:36:37 jpmcc s/idea/ideal/
14:37:26 jpmcc mhu: what do you think?
14:37:29 louis_to mhu, would you be available for periodic reviews of budgets? I mean sub-bugets
14:38:08 jpmcc louis_to: good question, but could we settle the authorisers question first?
14:38:11 mhu well, I would probably need to review expenses anyhow, isn't it?
14:38:25 louis_to jpmcc: agreed
14:38:31 louis_to so, do we agree with the proposal?
14:38:56 _Nesshof_ louis_to: which one ?
14:39:03 louis_to one owner designated by CC, one reviewer, appointed by designee plus the treasurer of Team OOo
14:39:30 louis_to (or treasurer of record for CC, to be more general here)
14:40:01 jpmcc +1 if the treasurer agrees - they will need a deputy to cover vacations etc
14:40:23 louis_to the discussions of the sub-budget groiup must be public and consensual
14:40:28 mhu jmpcc: yes, that's what I just thought as well :-)
14:40:40 louis_to yes; that's why I made it more general...
14:40:50 mhu +1, and yes the treasurer also agrees
14:40:55 louis_to +1
14:41:05 sophi +1
14:41:06 Thalion72 +1
14:41:16 _Nesshof_ +1
14:41:30 louis_to CorNouws?
14:41:37 CorNouws (reading)
14:42:05 paveljanik +1
14:42:58 louis_to CorNouws: do you wish to abstain?
14:43:19 _Nesshof_ louis_to: the discussions should be done on a seperate mailing list ?!
14:43:21 CorNouws missed that start of the discussion, but it means that a sub-budget essentially has one owner?
14:43:50 louis_to _Nesshof_: no , IRC, or list, but that can be specified
14:43:54 louis_to as long as it is public....
14:44:13 louis_to CorNouws: yes, plus two others to discuss this with
14:44:23 CorNouws +1
14:44:24 jpmcc CorNouws: one owner designated by CC, one reviewer, appointed by designee plus the treasurer of Team OOo
14:44:50 louis_to okay, let's move on to the next item in Martin's proposal
14:45:00 louis_to Quarterly review of the budget
14:45:47 CorNouws remark: quarterly review to make moves between sub-bidgets possible ...
14:46:21 CorNouws this would not make muchs sense after Q1 and Q2, AFAIAC
14:46:45 _Nesshof_ CorNouws: so this could be a fast review ?
14:46:58 CorNouws _Nesshof_: indeed
14:47:24 jpmcc louis_to: Could I raise your admin questions again? Every month at work I sit down with the finance people and they tell me how much I have committed to spend, how much I have actually spent, and how much I have left to spend. How will this work in OOo?
14:47:39 _Nesshof_ I would think if the review is well prepared, this will be fast anyway
14:47:49 louis_to jpmcc: this is more or less what we are going to figure out
14:48:10 louis_to I have been wanting to do this for a while, esp. with upcoming events, travel, etc
14:48:49 louis_to so, the first step is to learn how much money we will have; we need as well to determine what we are going to spend it on--in detail, with lots of room for spontaneous spending
14:49:12 louis_to but Martin has categories for spending in this budget that are helpful
14:49:21 louis_to but, let's get back to quarterly review
14:49:23 louis_to any objections?
14:49:42 CorNouws no
14:49:51 sophi no for me
14:50:04 _Nesshof_ also not from me
14:50:29 louis_to I have a query:
14:50:36 jpmcc ok - let's assume the figures will be there for us to make a decision on ;-)
14:50:37 louis_to who will present the budget for quarterly review?
14:50:37 Thalion72 hmm .. we should mention, that ne numbers have to be prepared by the owners
14:50:44 louis_to :-)
14:51:27 Thalion72 I'd say budget owners - may be done via mail
14:51:29 _Nesshof_ chair of Team OOo ?!
14:51:32 CorNouws louis_to: the sub-budget owner of course. I don' t expect it to be a huge administration
14:52:16 louis_to There is a budget reserver (how much money we have in total) and there is the sub-budget array
14:52:43 louis_to who owns the first? I mean the capital reserve budget?
14:52:47 _Nesshof_ collaborative work of Team Ooo and budget owner I would think
14:53:04 louis_to who in Team OOO? Mhu? you?
14:53:50 CorNouws plus I thought the proposal was clear: sub-budget has freedom up to the level agreed upon
14:54:17 jpmcc CorNouws: I think it's just the mechanics we need to sort out.
14:54:26 mhu louis_to: collaborative work of Team OOo, I would think.
14:54:46 louis_to mhu: but to echo ST, we really need a single owner here
14:54:58 louis_to even if it is passed on to someone else
14:55:33 louis_to I can ask Team OOo to designate an owner for presenting the capital reserves budget to the CC; would that work?
14:55:40 _Nesshof_ louis_to: in doubt the treasurer of Team OOo, but I also volunteer as char of Team OOo :-)
14:55:44 mhu so, then what was the question? A single owner for what? money?
14:56:16 louis_to a single owner to present to the CC how much money there is to be argued over by the sub-budget owners
14:56:34 mhu ah, okay. I missed that piece.
14:56:44 louis_to and _Nesshof_sort of volunteered himself and you, choose :-)
14:56:53 _Nesshof_ that a representaive of team OOo, since there are more than one sub budget owners
14:56:54 mhu yes, that can be Martin or me or Stefan, ...
14:57:39 jpmcc I think we should get a couple of people to work out the mechanics of the admin process off-line?
14:57:40 mhu I'm sure we'll find someone.
14:57:55 louis_to jpmcc: deadline on this?
14:58:10 louis_to but, I'd be happy with that solution, too; we can use the list
14:58:20 louis_to as long as we have a deadline: next meeting.
14:59:00 jpmcc I can put a proposal together for discussion in a couple of days?
14:59:18 louis_to so, discussion on mechanics tabled until next meeting, with discusion to continue oin the council list
14:59:46 louis_to let's move then to the next items:
14:59:55 louis_to * sub-budget items are fully mutable within the sub-budget:
15:00:26 louis_to any objections to it?
15:00:47 louis_to the detailed sub-budget shall make decisions on expenses more easy and
15:00:47 louis_to transparent, but the owner(s) is(are) responsible for the overall
15:00:47 louis_to sub-budget. meaning he is free to change the items of his sub-budget as
15:00:47 louis_to long he do not exceed the overall budget of his area. Overspends have to
15:00:47 louis_to be approved by the CC _and_ Team OOo e.V.
15:00:55 jpmcc I think this is sensible for this first year. I have no idea what the 'actual' send was last year for comparison.
15:01:19 mhu no objections
15:01:22 sophi it's ok for me
15:01:26 paveljanik ok
15:01:26 CorNouws no objections from me
15:01:31 louis_to jpmcc: we can ask for data from Team
15:01:39 louis_to no objections fro me either
15:01:40 _Nesshof_ jpmcc: this need to evolve over the first few years
15:01:52 jpmcc _Nesshof_: agreed
15:02:21 _Nesshof_ to have detailed spendings from the detail from the years before helps to get to descision for the current year more easy
15:02:44 louis_to so if no objections, that provision stays.
15:03:04 louis_to next item: accountability and transperency
15:03:46 louis_to I propose we conduct discussion on the mechanics of this onlist
15:03:55 louis_to and present results next meeting
15:04:11 louis_to do we agree? please indicate
15:04:15 CorNouws ok
15:04:23 jpmcc +1
15:04:27 sophi +1
15:04:42 louis_to +1
15:04:52 paveljanik +1
15:05:08 Thalion72 abstains
15:05:26 _Nesshof_ when will next meeting be ?
15:05:55 louis_to _Nesshof_: we can have a special budget meeting next week, say Tuesday
15:06:10 louis_to that is, as soon as feasible
15:06:25 CorNouws so only three day to discuss ...
15:06:39 louis_to weekends don't count?
15:06:46 louis_to :-)
15:06:49 _Nesshof_ louis_to: :)
15:06:51 CorNouws not always, yes
15:07:36 louis_to so, we have no -1s; mhu?
15:07:43 mhu +1
15:07:48 CorNouws and are we in a hurry, suddenly?
15:08:00 louis_to no; but we end in 1/2 hour
15:08:09 louis_to and we still have the community awards program update to discuss
15:08:25 louis_to and we won't be able to resolve all the points raised by the budget anyway in 20 minutes
15:08:27 Thalion72 CorNouws: if you can be in a hurry when youu are talking already months about a problem ...
15:08:30 mhu CorNouws: usually I start complaining when we use more than a hour :-)
15:08:40 louis_to that too....
15:09:30 louis_to so, discussion on the mechanics of the process to be onlist and presented as soon as feasible....
15:09:52 CorNouws sorry, I read Thursday, but you wrote Thuesday
15:09:52 louis_to the CC will then vote on that, perhaps at a special meeting next week if we can all make it (would like to get ST involved)
15:09:56 CorNouws so OK for me
15:10:37 Thalion72 chages from abstain to +1
15:10:50 louis_to if no objections, shall we move onto the community innovation awards update?
15:10:58 jpmcc Can I just table something for awareness (not discussion) that there is only one week left for proposals for location for OOoCon and we haven't received any proposals yet ...
15:11:19 louis_to jpmcc: yes, and please remind remind remind people
15:11:32 paveljanik Bratislava, SK will surely send proposal.
15:11:41 jpmcc Thanks - on with the agenda;-)
15:11:46 louis_to okay,
15:12:25 louis_to as you recall, Pavel, John, Stefan and I formed the program committee to draft OOO's rules for the Community Innovation program Sun is funding
15:12:41 paveljanik so i think that there will be one another proposal..
15:12:42 louis_to we met late last year and drafted rough rules
15:13:16 louis_to sighs theatrically
15:13:59 jpmcc paveljanik: :)
15:14:07 louis_to early this year, I drafted them into a more coherent set; these were then implanted into Sun's basic template; John, Pavel have further made great edits and I'm workgin now on incorporating John's latest
15:14:57 louis_to the upshot: we should have the awards program ready by the the deadline, which is jjust before the end of the month
15:15:05 louis_to there will be six categories
15:15:13 louis_to for contestants to compete in
15:15:44 louis_to Technical
15:15:47 louis_to Community
15:15:49 louis_to Tools
15:15:53 louis_to OpenDocument Format
15:15:57 louis_to Documentation
15:16:01 louis_to Special
15:16:19 CorNouws Interesting :-)
15:16:26 louis_to The broad interests of the Community are appreciated by these categories
15:16:41 louis_to awards by us will be given only to meritious entries
15:16:54 louis_to ie, it's conceivable no one will win anything
15:17:27 jpmcc meritious => meritorious - i.e. we actually use them in the project or community
15:17:42 louis_to judging will be primarily by relevant project leads with the committee coordinating it
15:18:03 louis_to yes; john is right: this is not a subjective judgement or procedure but determined pragmatically
15:18:31 louis_to the sum of money can be considerable here: 175K is at stake, divided by the winners
15:18:46 louis_to there will be for each category Gold, Silver Bronze (olympic year....)
15:19:02 CorNouws is there distinction between first and second place, if so, the jury can choose not to point a winner, but only give second prizes, if necessary of course
15:19:17 CorNouws Ah, answered already, thanks
15:19:23 louis_to Right
15:19:36 louis_to We do have some questions we are still working on
15:19:50 CorNouws such as?
15:20:10 louis_to eg, we do not want to make it so that if there are no medal winners only meritorous winners, that they do not win all the 175K; that would be odd
15:20:25 louis_to I have proposed a limit for meritorious winners: 5K
15:20:51 jpmcc Note that the six categories are only there to give people an idea of what we are looking for...
15:21:09 jpmcc ...we could have three Golds in one category and none in another.
15:21:10 louis_to right. they are merely there to help, not limit
15:22:16 CorNouws I do not yet fully get the idea of meritorious winners. Is that a category apart from Gold etc.?
15:22:28 louis_to "honourable mention"
15:22:42 CorNouws ok
15:22:57 louis_to yes: someone who did not do truly excdptional work but who nevertheless has done something sufficiently interesting to merit an award
15:23:21 CorNouws ok, then the limited prize for them is justified
15:23:22 louis_to CorNouws: thanks. I will specify that
15:23:58 jpmcc Meritorious = something we use. If we use it, we pay for it. We aren't asking for freebies.
15:24:12 jpmcc For a change :)
15:24:15 louis_to :-)
15:24:28 CorNouws Yes, never heard of 'meritorious' before
15:24:55 jpmcc You didn;t go to an English speaking school ;-)
15:24:58 louis_to there are other points that need the CC's wisdom but as things are very much in flux it would make a lot more sense to discuss them at the budget meeting next week
15:25:16 CorNouws jpmcc: to old, won't accept me :-p
15:25:28 paveljanik I think we should at least mention the problem of e.g. Quebec or ...
15:25:31 louis_to CorNouws: then there is the word that confused me as a child, "meritricious"
15:25:38 louis_to paveljanik: sure
15:25:53 jpmcc Vive le Quebec libre!
15:26:00 louis_to a problem in the rules pertains to eligibility for cash awards from sun
15:26:02 sophi jpmcc: lol
15:26:41 CorNouws "problem of e.g. Quebec" ??
15:26:49 louis_to basically, as I understand it, Sun must approach each country to ascertain the legal status of those who would be able to compete in something like this
15:26:55 louis_to that means going to a lot of countries
15:27:28 louis_to we have requested that as many countries as contribute to OOo be included in the list of eligible countries
15:27:36 louis_to and Sun legal is going over that request
15:27:43 CorNouws :-)
15:27:53 louis_to I won't know of the outcome until next week--hence my reservations on this discussion
15:28:10 louis_to Quebec is, thanks to Napoleonic code, one of those entities
15:28:34 louis_to ie, one that may not end up being eligible b/c of legal conditions for entry in a contest like this
15:28:44 louis_to however, we came up with a solution
15:28:52 louis_to we is the program committee
15:29:08 louis_to we can award the honours- to all worthy contestants
15:29:16 louis_to independent of the cash prizes
15:29:21 louis_to in effect, two contests
15:29:36 louis_to And IFF we have the funds, we can even grant them money
15:30:21 louis_to that way, the community is involved
15:30:50 louis_to it is possible that with subsequent iterations of this program, more countries will be added, and I hope and anticipate that will be the case
15:31:31 louis_to questions (that I cannot really answer)?
15:31:50 Thalion72 not at the moment
15:31:52 CorNouws -
15:32:15 louis_to I hope to learn more tomorrow; there is a meeting then
15:32:29 jpmcc Louis_to: will we have a chance to circulate a copy of the rules to the CC before closing?
15:32:33 louis_to we will also finallize the rules today (me working on it with John's edits)
15:32:47 louis_to by tomorrow, I hope
15:32:57 louis_to I mean europe tomorrow
15:33:22 louis_to the web page and rules must go public by 28 Jan.k
15:33:54 louis_to jpmcc: unfortunately, or not, I had done serious edits prior to your excellent copy....
15:34:16 louis_to the program will end 23 June, allowing us several weeks to a month to go over the entries
15:34:48 louis_to questions?
15:35:01 CorNouws -
15:35:07 sophi louis_to: not for now
15:35:19 louis_to and I'll circulate a copy to the CC members my evening, your morning
15:35:29 louis_to (tomorrow)
15:35:32 sophi louis_to: thanks
15:35:43 CorNouws +1
15:37:43 louis_to so, if no further questions, I would like to adjourn the meeting. all approve?
15:38:01 jpmcc Aye
15:38:12 louis_to I will send to Stefan the transcript, of course
15:38:59 CorNouws Yes, did we agree to skip tradmakr and elections?
15:39:13 louis_to no, but I didn't think we had time to discuss them
15:39:29 louis_to we have been here 1.5 hours now. We will be meeting again next week.
15:39:46 CorNouws sorry, I'm not used yet to the shedule etc.
15:40:05 louis_to CorNouws: none of us is; this is new and is meant to get things done. I think it's working
15:40:45 louis_to so, to adjourn the meeting as requested above.... please indicate by voting
15:40:50 jpmcc Aye
15:40:51 CorNouws OK, but Thuesday is not easy for me, so maybe - by mail - we can find another day that is OK to everyone?
15:41:01 sophi +1
15:41:03 louis_to CorNouws: yes
15:41:03 CorNouws ++
15:41:10 Thalion72 we can discuss on list
15:41:11 CorNouws louis_to: thnx
15:41:19 Thalion72 (the ay of the meeting)
15:41:20 mhu +1
15:41:38 _Nesshof_ +1
15:41:54 louis_to +1
15:42:02 Thalion72 +1
15:42:39 paveljanik +1
15:42:53 _Nesshof_ by
15:42:57 CorNouws bye bye - till next week (I hope)
15:42:59 louis_to I think that is everyone. meeting adjourned.
Personal tools