10,579
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-11-06 (view source)
Revision as of 10:35, 7 November 2009
, 10:35, 7 November 2009Created page with ':'''<walterbender>''' #startmeeting :'''<meeting>''' Meeting started at 10:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender. :'''<meeting>''' Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED…'
:'''<walterbender>''' #startmeeting
:'''<meeting>''' Meeting started at 10:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
:'''<meeting>''' Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: don't forget I am only there 3 nights so upgrade to double room might not work either
:'''<walterbender>''' Welcome everyone
* SeanDaly is here :-)
:'''<walterbender>''' I'd like to start by asking if there were any additional topics people want to add the agenda.
* SeanDaly no
:'''<walterbender>''' The three topics outstanding are: mailing lists, positions, and dp
:'''<walterbender>''' let's get started on the first topic.
:'''<walterbender>''' #topic the SLOBs mailing list
:'''<walterbender>''' I had sent a note to IAEP regarding the ad hoc nature of the membership of the list
:'''<walterbender>''' I think that the more people on the list, the more likely we will use it instead of the public lists, which is in my mind, a bad habit.
:'''<walterbender>''' IMHO (not so humble, perhaps) we should be using it rarely, only for the most confidential matters, which suggests a very tightly controlled list.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' at the same time, I believe there is a need for a confidential list when discussing potential partners
:'''<walterbender>''' so I would propose it be ONLY board members, out ombudsman, and a representaive of SFC.
* _bernie waves
:'''<walterbender>''' SeanDaly: I agree. and we can invite people into discussions on an as needed basis.
-->| jsgotangco (n=JSG@ubuntu/member/jsgotangco) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' but right now, I couldn't even tell yo who is on the list, so I am uncomfortable sending confidential materials, so I by-pass the list with private emails, etc. a terrible habit
:'''<SeanDaly>''' or, as sometimes happens, there is an issue with a particular journalists, and as a rule I never refer to journalists by name on public lists... recipe for disastrous coverage
:'''<walterbender>''' I am simple-minded. I would like really needs to be private and everything else as my two options.
:'''<walterbender>''' the gray zone is a problem for me.
|<-- jsgotangco has left freenode (Client Quit)
-->| CanoeBerry (i=CanoeBer@dhcp-49-129.media.mit.edu) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: have you considered variations on a mailing list which are still email-friendly but which might offer more flexibility?
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: can you please elaborate?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Hiya, sorry I'm late.
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: bernie has a schema where by the list can be wite-only to the community...
:'''<walterbender>''' hi adam
:'''<m_stone>''' sure. some issue trackers like RT and Roundup have good email support.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' If anybody has a pastebin of the past 10 min?
:'''<m_stone>''' so some people use them like funny mailing lists -- they collect email from anyone who wants to send it.
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: http://pastebin.be/21779
* SeanDaly waves to CanoeBerry
:'''<m_stone>''' however, subsequent distribution is controlled on a per-thread basis
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: I think collecting the input from anyone is important
:'''<_bernie>''' CanoeBerry: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting.log.20091106_1001.html
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: sure. you can configure it so that anyone can send.
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: yes. Bernie confirmed this
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: you then provide several mail aliases for each group of people you want to distinguish as recipients.
:'''<_bernie>''' walterbender: I can change it now
:'''<walterbender>''' _bernie: let's wait until we get the whole matter decided.
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: and you can add and remove them from per-ticket CC lists as needed.
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: I still think having a list that is known to be small and private is the heart of the issue.
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: known to be private over what period of time?
|<-- FranXOphonie has left freenode (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
:'''<m_stone>''' and known to be private indefinitely for every thread, or just known to be private /by default/, until a thread is declassified and made public?
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: private always.
-->| bertf (n=bertf@p57AD24C1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Who has long-term access to the archives? All futures board members and all future ombuds?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' The independence of an ombuds is his/her strength, so we may want to think a bit.
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: I think that would have to be the case.
:'''<walterbender>''' In any case, we seem to be talking about implementation details, not the basic quesiton.
-->| lucian (n=lucian@77-98-240-65.cable.ubr09.newc.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' Is there any one opposed to the idea of a limited list?
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: I'm not sure yet
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' bertf: any recommendations?
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: please voice your concerns
:'''<cjb>''' I think it would be fine if just about every mail currently going to slobs@ moves to iaep@, but I'm having trouble working out whether that would actually happen.. I'll try to read over the archives and think some more
:'''<mchua>''' Hey all, sorry I'm late - plane *just* touched down (I'm still sitting in it). /me reads backlog
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: consider also the email not sent to slobs, but as private threads
:'''<cjb>''' in particular, we talk about things like grants quite a lot on slobs
:'''<bertf>''' CanoeBerry: I'm fine either way. I personally don't need archive access.
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: but I can only think of one or maybe two private threads this year
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: so I wouldn't optimize for those.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: some mails I don't send to slobs, so confidential I send privately
:'''<m_stone>''' cjb: only one or two private threads or only one or two private threads that you've been included on? :)
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: to me? I don't think I've received any from you.
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: so it seems like this change wouldn't affect that.
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: in fact, one problem with the private emails is that don't tend to reach all of the board.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: no not you yet... but in fact i would rather you did
:'''<walterbender>''' I send private email when I would rather send a message to the entire board
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: +1
:'''<cjb>''' so the argument is "I send private e-mail to a random subset of the board, and would like to send it to all the board instead, by typing in their e-mail addresses is too hard"? It just all seems a bit confused.
:'''<walterbender>''' but I don't always remember to do the 7 ccs and I always forget to include Bert
:'''<walterbender>''' and Karen
:'''<cjb>''' s/by typing/but typing/
:'''<bertf>''' fwiw I don't think the ombuds needs to be "kept in the loop" all that much, rather act when necessary
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' walter's point that emails will end up in private threads without the (added) transparency of archiving is very relevant.
* mchua all caught up now
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' bertf: thanks
:'''<walterbender>''' In any case, the SLOBs list as it stands is essentially useless.
:'''<mchua>''' I think there is a need for a list that is SLOBs and only SLOBs (to which I'd be fine adding ombuds and one SFC rep). I think other use cases we're discussing here may have their place, but independent of those and what they are and such, I think there /is/ a need for a list that is just SLOBs.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: well... not random... just the people I know well & trust. I'm saying I'd rather reach all the slobs on such issues
:'''<cjb>''' anyway, what I was going to say: we currently use slobs for things like talking about grants and stuff
:'''<cjb>''' and people who we've admitted to the list get to read that, offer their help with drafts and proofreading and so on
:'''<cjb>''' and that seems useful to me. we don't have to trust them, but we are doing so, and that seems helpful. the people reading know that the material is confidential.
:'''<tomeu>''' sorry, I'm late
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: observer status... was my case starting from some point although I felt uncomfortable responding, as a nonSLOB at the time
:'''<cjb>''' so that's my reservation. it seems like we want to cut down on something that's seemed useful to me, and the justification is to help reduce private threads, but I haven't seen any private threads other than one that I can recall, but apparently there are more going on without me, and I'm to believe that I'd be included in them if only there were an easy alias.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' i'm _not_ proposing this as an answer, but am intrigued by ideas like m_stone's old suggestion to make slobs' subject lines (more) public
:'''<_bernie>''' cjb: at this time we can freely discuss our relationship with Canonical on SLOBs just because nobody from Canonical is subscribed.
:'''<m_stone>''' CanoeBerry: that was somebody else's suggestion.
:'''<_bernie>''' cjb: would you agree that we'd have to use private cc's if Canonical were reading our board list?
-->| sdziallas (n=sebastia@fedora/sdziallas) has joined #sugar-meeting
* SeanDaly waves to sdziallas
:'''<cjb>''' _bernie: well, I think at the moment someone from Canonical asked to join our board list, we'd say "Hm, better not, we might want to talk about you."
* sdziallas waves to SeanDaly an all
:'''<sdziallas>''' s/an/and ...sorry, I'm late.
:'''<m_stone>''' I think that mchua is basically right that having an email address which gets things sent to The SLOBS and no one else is useful...
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: I guess you mean "you" as "Canonical" and not the person ;-)
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: :)
:'''<cjb>''' indeed
:'''<m_stone>''' and still orthogonal from controlling the actual audience of these threads /and/ from controlling their archiving status.
:'''<cjb>''' although both are possible!
:'''<mchua>''' cjb: but we have folks from Red Hat and OLPC on SLOBs; what if we'd want to discuss the relationship with them?
:'''<_bernie>''' cjb: then why do we admit people from OLPC, Red Hat, Solution Grove... even L'Oreal? :-)
:'''<cjb>''' mchua: then a private thread would be fine. note that *I'm* on SLOBs, which means that mailing list would not be appropriate either!
:'''<walterbender>''' Personally, I am comfortable talking to board members, regardless for whom they work
:'''<SeanDaly>''' mchua: wouldn't that board member have a role as relay to their org?
:'''<cjb>''' you'd have to use a private receipient list in either case
:'''<walterbender>''' they have a responsibility as a board member to SL, not their employer.
:'''<_bernie>''' walterbender: me too
:'''<walterbender>''' if they feel conflicted, they can opt out
:'''<mchua>''' walterbender: +1
:'''<cjb>''' that's fine too.
:'''<walterbender>''' when a board member act otherwise, they are viloating a trust
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' great discussion..just a time check en route: meeting is half over/half begun :)
:'''<cjb>''' anyway, I hope that was all some food for thought.
:'''<cjb>''' I think if the situation was like m_stone suggests, where we had some way of compensating for the decreased visibility of slobs work
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: so would you like to defer action on this topic for a week?
:'''<cjb>''' then I'd be happy about this proposal
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: that would be great
:'''<SeanDaly>''' here's a concrete example: we have been contacted by an EU institution willing to promote Sugar
:'''<cjb>''' I'll try and be more coherent about itby next week
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: so can I nominate you to make a proposal for next week?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' Having lived in Brussels I know that as soon as word gets out, the high-pais lobbyists get into action
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: yes, that sounds fair
:'''<mchua>''' So no voting on Walter's original proposal until it also includes "and what we're going to do to compensate for that list being membership limited is..." proposals?
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: I think we could use some clarity on if/when slobs@ gets to hear about that
:'''<walterbender>''' #action cjb will propose a SLOBs list configuration at the next meeting
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I'd like the board to be on board with our approach
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I think the idea of "alums" is important here too, as filthy as it sounds. EG. many people like David Farning are central, and they now partake (loosely) in the slobs@ mailing list. Some of that role will remain, no matter what we decide.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' no meeting set yet, but
:'''<SeanDaly>''' after meeting there will be topics to discuss...
* mchua suggests the usual "get community brainstorm going" approach for SLOBs list configurations
:'''<walterbender>''' So, I think we should move on to the next topic
:'''<cjb>''' mchua: that would be useful
:'''<mchua>''' cjb: use the page tomeu and I made as a template if it helps
:'''<walterbender>''' we have an action plan re mailing lists
* mchua ready to move on
:'''<walterbender>''' #topic SL appointments
* mchua thinks we need to have these discussions on-list rather than in-meeting, honestly, so we can spend our time in meetings Voting Very Quickly
:'''<SeanDaly>''' mchua: which list? (joke) :D
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' mchua: "Listening" to people live helps me personally.
:'''<walterbender>''' Summary: we have a number of appointed positions and no policy re how to continue the appointments
:'''<mchua>''' Any proposals on such that we can vote on?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: fixed terms, and vote by board to renew term or not?
:'''<mchua>''' If not, suggest we assign point person(s) like we just did for lists and regroup when there are proposals to select from
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Not that term limits are required (I don't know) but we should have an annual review or such.
:'''<tomeu>''' should we ask other orgs about their experience?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' not a bad idea to formalize it... the usual scenario is someone longserving in post, and less effective, or less motivated; bring new blood in etc.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Yes
:'''<SeanDaly>''' "canonical" example: FDR in office 34 years, led to 2-term limit
-->| erickTutorius (n=erick@132.210.76.198) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' 34 years?
:'''<walterbender>''' in a parallel universe, perhaps :)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I haven't heard much from Farning in the last 2 weeks about the treasurer role.. does he wish to continue?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Was someone supposed to talk this over with him?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I must be mixed up with 1934... he did 3 terms and change
:'''<walterbender>''' I was late in getting in touch with him
:'''<walterbender>''' I can sort things out in Bolzano with him.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Great.
:'''<walterbender>''' No one was tasked with talking to me re ED :)
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: I didn't see his dates on the Bolzano page, hope he will be there
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' And http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board specifies "sysadmin" is a 4th role.
:'''<walterbender>''' He is there all week, I believe
:'''<cjb>''' CanoeBerry: that doesn't seem necessary anymore
:'''<walterbender>''' SeanDaly: BTW, I am staying at the hostel
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: ok, if they don't have tomato juice there pop over to the hotel bar :D
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' hostel has no wifi FYI
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: yes, he's coming
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: :(
:'''<walterbender>''' so regarding actions on this topic...
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' They won't even allow us to plug into the wall.
:'''<walterbender>''' we have 2 issues: the policy and filling the roles
:'''<walterbender>''' can we focus on the policy first
:'''<tomeu>''' CanoeBerry: maybe you can catch up some sleep while there ;)
:'''<SeanDaly>''' canoeberry: my hotel has free wifi & if my 3G card roams at a decent rate I can loan
:'''<walterbender>''' personally, I think an annual review is a necessary requirement
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' SeadDaly: Don't get your card canceled!
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Putting some meat on the annual review would be great.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' canoeberry: no risk
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I think m_stone & hhardy have helped me & Bert a lot here in the ombuds case.
:'''<mchua>''' time running out... what are we trying to accomplish at this meeting? lots of forward momentum here, but no resolutions yet.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' 15min to go
:'''<tomeu>''' what is an annual review?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Are elections annual, speaking of which?
:'''<walterbender>''' tomeu: feedback
:'''<tomeu>''' and who does the review?
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: these are not elected positions: they are appointed by the board
:'''<walterbender>''' tomeu: the board
* _bernie notes that the sysadmin role is starting to become a full-time job. we need more volunteers on the Infrastruture Team.
:'''<walterbender>''' so I would propose an annyal review and as part of that review a discussion about mutual agreement to continue
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Understood, but what if the appointed positions where required to report within 1-month of the completion each "annual" election?
:'''<m_stone>''' _bernie: or to be more careful about what demands are placed upon them.
:'''<_bernie>''' finding people who are at the same time skilled, trustworthy and free is a challenge.
:'''<tomeu>''' _bernie: how is icarito going?
:'''<_bernie>''' m_stone: I've been turning down any request that would make our infrastructure much more complex.
:'''<_bernie>''' m_stone: outsourcing git, trac and business apps to hosted services is my attempt to reduce the burden and increase service reliability.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Let's also formalize: how to remove appointed persons (without hurting feelings)
:'''<walterbender>''' so a concrete proposal would be: appoints are reviewed annually by the board; continuation subject to mutual consent.
:'''<_bernie>''' tomeu: he seems both skilled and trustworthy, but does not seem to have much time. I'll bug him a little more.
:'''<tomeu>''' ok
:'''<_bernie>''' tomeu: as I said, we need people with all 3 of these requisites AT THE SAME TIME :-(
:'''<tomeu>''' heh
:'''<mchua>''' Folks, this is great, but maybe we should discuss Infra stuff at an Infra meeting.
:'''<_bernie>''' mchua: there's no infrastructure meeting at this time, because it would go mostly deserted :-)
:'''<_bernie>''' anyway, let's go on with the next point. sorry to interrupt.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' _bernie: can we talk by phone within 48hrs, since you refuse to come to Italy!?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Back to the agenda..
:'''<mchua>''' Are there any proposals we can vote on during this meeting, since our time is running short?
:'''<_bernie>''' CanoeBerry: haha ok :)
:'''<walterbender>''' mchua: any thoughts on my proposal
:'''<mchua>''' If not, perhaps we need to make sure we articulate a goal for our next meeting and make sure things happen between now and then so that we can decide then.
:'''<mchua>''' walterbender: I like it, is it a motion? ;)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Any thoughts on my defining "annually" as within about 1 month of each election?
:'''<walterbender>''' mchua: I am happy to make it a motion...
* mchua adds date, and puts forth MOTION: appointed positions reviewed annually by the board within a month of the new board's appointment, continuation subject to SLOBs approval vote and position-holder consent
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' *within about 1 month of the completion of each election
:'''<walterbender>''' motion: so a concrete proposal would be: appoints are reviewed annually by the board; continuation subject to mutual consent. (where annually means within 1 month of the board elections)
:'''<mchua>''' seconded
:'''<walterbender>''' discussion?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' fixed date?
:'''<mchua>''' "mutual consent" == SLOBs vote, and the position holder's acceptance
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I think a removal/impeachment process is important.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' So feelings are not hurt, when someone's life inevitably moves on.
:'''<cjb>''' CanoeBerry: maybe that can be a different motion :)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' OK
:'''<mchua>''' how about "appointed positions can be appointed/removed by SLOBs vote"
:'''<mchua>''' that takes care of both motions
:'''<SeanDaly>''' mchua: the idea is to have at least some barrier to quickly removing e.g. ombudsman
:'''<walterbender>''' sounds good. mchua: wanna restate the motion?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' But not too quickly.
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: the barrier's a SLOBs vote
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Ombuds should not be removable with 4 votes.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Ombuds needs independence, by definition.
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: I agree
:'''<cjb>''' CanoeBerry: unanimous vote for ombuds, then?
:'''<walterbender>''' +1
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Or perhaps a hypermajority.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' CanoeBerry: exactly. Impeachment <> voting somebody out; level of justification higher
:'''<mchua>''' someone restate motion?
:'''<cjb>''' MOTION: for the special case of removing the ombudsman, a unanimous SLOBs vote is required
-->| tuukkah (i=tuukka@tuukka.iki.fi) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<mchua>''' MOTION:appointed positions can be appointed/removed by
:'''<mchua>''' SLOBs vote
:'''<mchua>''' argh
:'''<cjb>''' shall we vote through them now?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Can treasurer and ED be removed by 4 votes?
:'''<cjb>''' CanoeBerry: treasurer can
:'''<cjb>''' ED's a little unclear
:'''<walterbender>''' speaking as ED, I am willing to be subject to a majority removal from office.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' OK, we have consensus, let's vote.
:'''<cjb>''' that settles that, then :)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' +1
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' On both motions.
:'''<walterbender>''' all in favor of the motion(s) which I will write up in the minutes:
:'''<cjb>''' likewise, +1 on both
:'''<SeanDaly>''' can someone restate motion??
:'''<cjb>''' motion 1: appointed positions can be appointed/removed by
:'''<cjb>''' SLOBs vote
:'''<cjb>''' motion 2: for the special case of removing the ombudsman, a unanimous SLOBs vote is required
:'''<walterbender>''' motion 3: positions are reviewed annually
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yea to both then
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yea to all three
:'''<walterbender>''' within 1 month of elections
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' (with annual reviews required for all appointed positions, subject to majority vote in each case..)
:'''<SeanDaly>''' i would just add that should take place after SLOBS elections not before
:'''<cjb>''' oh, yes, we already scheduled that motion
* walterbender votes yes to all three
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' +1 on all 3
* cjb too.
:'''<cjb>''' mchua and _bernie?
* mchua yea on all 3
:'''<tomeu>''' +1 on all 3
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie?
:'''<cjb>''' bernie's going to get a reputation for doing all his voting in e-mail :)
:'''<walterbender>''' while we are waiting on Bernie (the motion has passed in any case :) let me wrap up:
-->| BryanWB (n=BryanWB@c-68-48-36-68.hsd1.md.comcast.net) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Anything else?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Time's up..
:'''<walterbender>''' we haven't heard back from the DP, so that discussion needs to be deferred :(
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' OK
:'''<mchua>''' Next meeting's goal: decision on mailing list?
:'''<mchua>''' cjb to drive?
:'''<walterbender>''' let's plan to meet again next week, some time, same channel?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' at Bolzano?
:'''<--| BryanWB has left #sugar-meeting ("Ex-Chat")
* mchua thinks we're doing pretty well at taking one topic at a time
:'''<walterbender>''' (I think it will work re the Bolzano agenda for most of us)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Next week I may be a bad citizen, but will try my best.
* mchua in Singapore and may be also, but will try as well.
:'''<mchua>''' In any case you only need 4 for quorum anyway :)
:'''<mchua>''' and Bolzano should suffice
:'''<mchua>''' if the meeting is done in IRC despite everyone being physically together.
:'''<walterbender>''' thanks for all the feedback today.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I will be traveling back from Europe thru Germany at that time..
:'''<walterbender>''' mchua: absolutely--in IRC.
* mchua queries about next meeting's goal - is "the list thing" it?
:'''<mchua>''' forward motion, one concrete little step at a time. :)
:'''<walterbender>''' mchua: we'll have a proposal from CJB re the list thing
:'''<walterbender>''' and we'll have a DP report (I hope)
:'''<walterbender>''' and I think some other topics looming.
:'''<walterbender>''' so, I will end the meeting... thanks again everyone.
:'''<walterbender>''' #endmeeting
:'''<meeting>''' Meeting finished at 11:05.
:'''<meeting>''' Logs available at http://meeting.laptop.org/
:'''<meeting>''' Meeting started at 10:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
:'''<meeting>''' Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: don't forget I am only there 3 nights so upgrade to double room might not work either
:'''<walterbender>''' Welcome everyone
* SeanDaly is here :-)
:'''<walterbender>''' I'd like to start by asking if there were any additional topics people want to add the agenda.
* SeanDaly no
:'''<walterbender>''' The three topics outstanding are: mailing lists, positions, and dp
:'''<walterbender>''' let's get started on the first topic.
:'''<walterbender>''' #topic the SLOBs mailing list
:'''<walterbender>''' I had sent a note to IAEP regarding the ad hoc nature of the membership of the list
:'''<walterbender>''' I think that the more people on the list, the more likely we will use it instead of the public lists, which is in my mind, a bad habit.
:'''<walterbender>''' IMHO (not so humble, perhaps) we should be using it rarely, only for the most confidential matters, which suggests a very tightly controlled list.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' at the same time, I believe there is a need for a confidential list when discussing potential partners
:'''<walterbender>''' so I would propose it be ONLY board members, out ombudsman, and a representaive of SFC.
* _bernie waves
:'''<walterbender>''' SeanDaly: I agree. and we can invite people into discussions on an as needed basis.
-->| jsgotangco (n=JSG@ubuntu/member/jsgotangco) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' but right now, I couldn't even tell yo who is on the list, so I am uncomfortable sending confidential materials, so I by-pass the list with private emails, etc. a terrible habit
:'''<SeanDaly>''' or, as sometimes happens, there is an issue with a particular journalists, and as a rule I never refer to journalists by name on public lists... recipe for disastrous coverage
:'''<walterbender>''' I am simple-minded. I would like really needs to be private and everything else as my two options.
:'''<walterbender>''' the gray zone is a problem for me.
|<-- jsgotangco has left freenode (Client Quit)
-->| CanoeBerry (i=CanoeBer@dhcp-49-129.media.mit.edu) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: have you considered variations on a mailing list which are still email-friendly but which might offer more flexibility?
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: can you please elaborate?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Hiya, sorry I'm late.
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: bernie has a schema where by the list can be wite-only to the community...
:'''<walterbender>''' hi adam
:'''<m_stone>''' sure. some issue trackers like RT and Roundup have good email support.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' If anybody has a pastebin of the past 10 min?
:'''<m_stone>''' so some people use them like funny mailing lists -- they collect email from anyone who wants to send it.
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: http://pastebin.be/21779
* SeanDaly waves to CanoeBerry
:'''<m_stone>''' however, subsequent distribution is controlled on a per-thread basis
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: I think collecting the input from anyone is important
:'''<_bernie>''' CanoeBerry: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting.log.20091106_1001.html
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: sure. you can configure it so that anyone can send.
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: yes. Bernie confirmed this
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: you then provide several mail aliases for each group of people you want to distinguish as recipients.
:'''<_bernie>''' walterbender: I can change it now
:'''<walterbender>''' _bernie: let's wait until we get the whole matter decided.
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: and you can add and remove them from per-ticket CC lists as needed.
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: I still think having a list that is known to be small and private is the heart of the issue.
:'''<m_stone>''' walterbender: known to be private over what period of time?
|<-- FranXOphonie has left freenode (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
:'''<m_stone>''' and known to be private indefinitely for every thread, or just known to be private /by default/, until a thread is declassified and made public?
:'''<walterbender>''' m_stone: private always.
-->| bertf (n=bertf@p57AD24C1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Who has long-term access to the archives? All futures board members and all future ombuds?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' The independence of an ombuds is his/her strength, so we may want to think a bit.
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: I think that would have to be the case.
:'''<walterbender>''' In any case, we seem to be talking about implementation details, not the basic quesiton.
-->| lucian (n=lucian@77-98-240-65.cable.ubr09.newc.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' Is there any one opposed to the idea of a limited list?
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: I'm not sure yet
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' bertf: any recommendations?
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: please voice your concerns
:'''<cjb>''' I think it would be fine if just about every mail currently going to slobs@ moves to iaep@, but I'm having trouble working out whether that would actually happen.. I'll try to read over the archives and think some more
:'''<mchua>''' Hey all, sorry I'm late - plane *just* touched down (I'm still sitting in it). /me reads backlog
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: consider also the email not sent to slobs, but as private threads
:'''<cjb>''' in particular, we talk about things like grants quite a lot on slobs
:'''<bertf>''' CanoeBerry: I'm fine either way. I personally don't need archive access.
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: but I can only think of one or maybe two private threads this year
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: so I wouldn't optimize for those.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: some mails I don't send to slobs, so confidential I send privately
:'''<m_stone>''' cjb: only one or two private threads or only one or two private threads that you've been included on? :)
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: to me? I don't think I've received any from you.
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: so it seems like this change wouldn't affect that.
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: in fact, one problem with the private emails is that don't tend to reach all of the board.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: no not you yet... but in fact i would rather you did
:'''<walterbender>''' I send private email when I would rather send a message to the entire board
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: +1
:'''<cjb>''' so the argument is "I send private e-mail to a random subset of the board, and would like to send it to all the board instead, by typing in their e-mail addresses is too hard"? It just all seems a bit confused.
:'''<walterbender>''' but I don't always remember to do the 7 ccs and I always forget to include Bert
:'''<walterbender>''' and Karen
:'''<cjb>''' s/by typing/but typing/
:'''<bertf>''' fwiw I don't think the ombuds needs to be "kept in the loop" all that much, rather act when necessary
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' walter's point that emails will end up in private threads without the (added) transparency of archiving is very relevant.
* mchua all caught up now
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' bertf: thanks
:'''<walterbender>''' In any case, the SLOBs list as it stands is essentially useless.
:'''<mchua>''' I think there is a need for a list that is SLOBs and only SLOBs (to which I'd be fine adding ombuds and one SFC rep). I think other use cases we're discussing here may have their place, but independent of those and what they are and such, I think there /is/ a need for a list that is just SLOBs.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: well... not random... just the people I know well & trust. I'm saying I'd rather reach all the slobs on such issues
:'''<cjb>''' anyway, what I was going to say: we currently use slobs for things like talking about grants and stuff
:'''<cjb>''' and people who we've admitted to the list get to read that, offer their help with drafts and proofreading and so on
:'''<cjb>''' and that seems useful to me. we don't have to trust them, but we are doing so, and that seems helpful. the people reading know that the material is confidential.
:'''<tomeu>''' sorry, I'm late
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: observer status... was my case starting from some point although I felt uncomfortable responding, as a nonSLOB at the time
:'''<cjb>''' so that's my reservation. it seems like we want to cut down on something that's seemed useful to me, and the justification is to help reduce private threads, but I haven't seen any private threads other than one that I can recall, but apparently there are more going on without me, and I'm to believe that I'd be included in them if only there were an easy alias.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' i'm _not_ proposing this as an answer, but am intrigued by ideas like m_stone's old suggestion to make slobs' subject lines (more) public
:'''<_bernie>''' cjb: at this time we can freely discuss our relationship with Canonical on SLOBs just because nobody from Canonical is subscribed.
:'''<m_stone>''' CanoeBerry: that was somebody else's suggestion.
:'''<_bernie>''' cjb: would you agree that we'd have to use private cc's if Canonical were reading our board list?
-->| sdziallas (n=sebastia@fedora/sdziallas) has joined #sugar-meeting
* SeanDaly waves to sdziallas
:'''<cjb>''' _bernie: well, I think at the moment someone from Canonical asked to join our board list, we'd say "Hm, better not, we might want to talk about you."
* sdziallas waves to SeanDaly an all
:'''<sdziallas>''' s/an/and ...sorry, I'm late.
:'''<m_stone>''' I think that mchua is basically right that having an email address which gets things sent to The SLOBS and no one else is useful...
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: I guess you mean "you" as "Canonical" and not the person ;-)
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: :)
:'''<cjb>''' indeed
:'''<m_stone>''' and still orthogonal from controlling the actual audience of these threads /and/ from controlling their archiving status.
:'''<cjb>''' although both are possible!
:'''<mchua>''' cjb: but we have folks from Red Hat and OLPC on SLOBs; what if we'd want to discuss the relationship with them?
:'''<_bernie>''' cjb: then why do we admit people from OLPC, Red Hat, Solution Grove... even L'Oreal? :-)
:'''<cjb>''' mchua: then a private thread would be fine. note that *I'm* on SLOBs, which means that mailing list would not be appropriate either!
:'''<walterbender>''' Personally, I am comfortable talking to board members, regardless for whom they work
:'''<SeanDaly>''' mchua: wouldn't that board member have a role as relay to their org?
:'''<cjb>''' you'd have to use a private receipient list in either case
:'''<walterbender>''' they have a responsibility as a board member to SL, not their employer.
:'''<_bernie>''' walterbender: me too
:'''<walterbender>''' if they feel conflicted, they can opt out
:'''<mchua>''' walterbender: +1
:'''<cjb>''' that's fine too.
:'''<walterbender>''' when a board member act otherwise, they are viloating a trust
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' great discussion..just a time check en route: meeting is half over/half begun :)
:'''<cjb>''' anyway, I hope that was all some food for thought.
:'''<cjb>''' I think if the situation was like m_stone suggests, where we had some way of compensating for the decreased visibility of slobs work
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: so would you like to defer action on this topic for a week?
:'''<cjb>''' then I'd be happy about this proposal
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: that would be great
:'''<SeanDaly>''' here's a concrete example: we have been contacted by an EU institution willing to promote Sugar
:'''<cjb>''' I'll try and be more coherent about itby next week
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: so can I nominate you to make a proposal for next week?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' Having lived in Brussels I know that as soon as word gets out, the high-pais lobbyists get into action
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: yes, that sounds fair
:'''<mchua>''' So no voting on Walter's original proposal until it also includes "and what we're going to do to compensate for that list being membership limited is..." proposals?
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: I think we could use some clarity on if/when slobs@ gets to hear about that
:'''<walterbender>''' #action cjb will propose a SLOBs list configuration at the next meeting
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I'd like the board to be on board with our approach
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I think the idea of "alums" is important here too, as filthy as it sounds. EG. many people like David Farning are central, and they now partake (loosely) in the slobs@ mailing list. Some of that role will remain, no matter what we decide.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' no meeting set yet, but
:'''<SeanDaly>''' after meeting there will be topics to discuss...
* mchua suggests the usual "get community brainstorm going" approach for SLOBs list configurations
:'''<walterbender>''' So, I think we should move on to the next topic
:'''<cjb>''' mchua: that would be useful
:'''<mchua>''' cjb: use the page tomeu and I made as a template if it helps
:'''<walterbender>''' we have an action plan re mailing lists
* mchua ready to move on
:'''<walterbender>''' #topic SL appointments
* mchua thinks we need to have these discussions on-list rather than in-meeting, honestly, so we can spend our time in meetings Voting Very Quickly
:'''<SeanDaly>''' mchua: which list? (joke) :D
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' mchua: "Listening" to people live helps me personally.
:'''<walterbender>''' Summary: we have a number of appointed positions and no policy re how to continue the appointments
:'''<mchua>''' Any proposals on such that we can vote on?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: fixed terms, and vote by board to renew term or not?
:'''<mchua>''' If not, suggest we assign point person(s) like we just did for lists and regroup when there are proposals to select from
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Not that term limits are required (I don't know) but we should have an annual review or such.
:'''<tomeu>''' should we ask other orgs about their experience?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' not a bad idea to formalize it... the usual scenario is someone longserving in post, and less effective, or less motivated; bring new blood in etc.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Yes
:'''<SeanDaly>''' "canonical" example: FDR in office 34 years, led to 2-term limit
-->| erickTutorius (n=erick@132.210.76.198) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' 34 years?
:'''<walterbender>''' in a parallel universe, perhaps :)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I haven't heard much from Farning in the last 2 weeks about the treasurer role.. does he wish to continue?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Was someone supposed to talk this over with him?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I must be mixed up with 1934... he did 3 terms and change
:'''<walterbender>''' I was late in getting in touch with him
:'''<walterbender>''' I can sort things out in Bolzano with him.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Great.
:'''<walterbender>''' No one was tasked with talking to me re ED :)
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: I didn't see his dates on the Bolzano page, hope he will be there
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' And http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board specifies "sysadmin" is a 4th role.
:'''<walterbender>''' He is there all week, I believe
:'''<cjb>''' CanoeBerry: that doesn't seem necessary anymore
:'''<walterbender>''' SeanDaly: BTW, I am staying at the hostel
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: ok, if they don't have tomato juice there pop over to the hotel bar :D
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' hostel has no wifi FYI
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: yes, he's coming
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: :(
:'''<walterbender>''' so regarding actions on this topic...
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' They won't even allow us to plug into the wall.
:'''<walterbender>''' we have 2 issues: the policy and filling the roles
:'''<walterbender>''' can we focus on the policy first
:'''<tomeu>''' CanoeBerry: maybe you can catch up some sleep while there ;)
:'''<SeanDaly>''' canoeberry: my hotel has free wifi & if my 3G card roams at a decent rate I can loan
:'''<walterbender>''' personally, I think an annual review is a necessary requirement
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' SeadDaly: Don't get your card canceled!
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Putting some meat on the annual review would be great.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' canoeberry: no risk
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I think m_stone & hhardy have helped me & Bert a lot here in the ombuds case.
:'''<mchua>''' time running out... what are we trying to accomplish at this meeting? lots of forward momentum here, but no resolutions yet.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' 15min to go
:'''<tomeu>''' what is an annual review?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Are elections annual, speaking of which?
:'''<walterbender>''' tomeu: feedback
:'''<tomeu>''' and who does the review?
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: these are not elected positions: they are appointed by the board
:'''<walterbender>''' tomeu: the board
* _bernie notes that the sysadmin role is starting to become a full-time job. we need more volunteers on the Infrastruture Team.
:'''<walterbender>''' so I would propose an annyal review and as part of that review a discussion about mutual agreement to continue
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Understood, but what if the appointed positions where required to report within 1-month of the completion each "annual" election?
:'''<m_stone>''' _bernie: or to be more careful about what demands are placed upon them.
:'''<_bernie>''' finding people who are at the same time skilled, trustworthy and free is a challenge.
:'''<tomeu>''' _bernie: how is icarito going?
:'''<_bernie>''' m_stone: I've been turning down any request that would make our infrastructure much more complex.
:'''<_bernie>''' m_stone: outsourcing git, trac and business apps to hosted services is my attempt to reduce the burden and increase service reliability.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Let's also formalize: how to remove appointed persons (without hurting feelings)
:'''<walterbender>''' so a concrete proposal would be: appoints are reviewed annually by the board; continuation subject to mutual consent.
:'''<_bernie>''' tomeu: he seems both skilled and trustworthy, but does not seem to have much time. I'll bug him a little more.
:'''<tomeu>''' ok
:'''<_bernie>''' tomeu: as I said, we need people with all 3 of these requisites AT THE SAME TIME :-(
:'''<tomeu>''' heh
:'''<mchua>''' Folks, this is great, but maybe we should discuss Infra stuff at an Infra meeting.
:'''<_bernie>''' mchua: there's no infrastructure meeting at this time, because it would go mostly deserted :-)
:'''<_bernie>''' anyway, let's go on with the next point. sorry to interrupt.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' _bernie: can we talk by phone within 48hrs, since you refuse to come to Italy!?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Back to the agenda..
:'''<mchua>''' Are there any proposals we can vote on during this meeting, since our time is running short?
:'''<_bernie>''' CanoeBerry: haha ok :)
:'''<walterbender>''' mchua: any thoughts on my proposal
:'''<mchua>''' If not, perhaps we need to make sure we articulate a goal for our next meeting and make sure things happen between now and then so that we can decide then.
:'''<mchua>''' walterbender: I like it, is it a motion? ;)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Any thoughts on my defining "annually" as within about 1 month of each election?
:'''<walterbender>''' mchua: I am happy to make it a motion...
* mchua adds date, and puts forth MOTION: appointed positions reviewed annually by the board within a month of the new board's appointment, continuation subject to SLOBs approval vote and position-holder consent
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' *within about 1 month of the completion of each election
:'''<walterbender>''' motion: so a concrete proposal would be: appoints are reviewed annually by the board; continuation subject to mutual consent. (where annually means within 1 month of the board elections)
:'''<mchua>''' seconded
:'''<walterbender>''' discussion?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' fixed date?
:'''<mchua>''' "mutual consent" == SLOBs vote, and the position holder's acceptance
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I think a removal/impeachment process is important.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' So feelings are not hurt, when someone's life inevitably moves on.
:'''<cjb>''' CanoeBerry: maybe that can be a different motion :)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' OK
:'''<mchua>''' how about "appointed positions can be appointed/removed by SLOBs vote"
:'''<mchua>''' that takes care of both motions
:'''<SeanDaly>''' mchua: the idea is to have at least some barrier to quickly removing e.g. ombudsman
:'''<walterbender>''' sounds good. mchua: wanna restate the motion?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' But not too quickly.
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: the barrier's a SLOBs vote
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Ombuds should not be removable with 4 votes.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Ombuds needs independence, by definition.
:'''<walterbender>''' CanoeBerry: I agree
:'''<cjb>''' CanoeBerry: unanimous vote for ombuds, then?
:'''<walterbender>''' +1
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Or perhaps a hypermajority.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' CanoeBerry: exactly. Impeachment <> voting somebody out; level of justification higher
:'''<mchua>''' someone restate motion?
:'''<cjb>''' MOTION: for the special case of removing the ombudsman, a unanimous SLOBs vote is required
-->| tuukkah (i=tuukka@tuukka.iki.fi) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<mchua>''' MOTION:appointed positions can be appointed/removed by
:'''<mchua>''' SLOBs vote
:'''<mchua>''' argh
:'''<cjb>''' shall we vote through them now?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Can treasurer and ED be removed by 4 votes?
:'''<cjb>''' CanoeBerry: treasurer can
:'''<cjb>''' ED's a little unclear
:'''<walterbender>''' speaking as ED, I am willing to be subject to a majority removal from office.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' OK, we have consensus, let's vote.
:'''<cjb>''' that settles that, then :)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' +1
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' On both motions.
:'''<walterbender>''' all in favor of the motion(s) which I will write up in the minutes:
:'''<cjb>''' likewise, +1 on both
:'''<SeanDaly>''' can someone restate motion??
:'''<cjb>''' motion 1: appointed positions can be appointed/removed by
:'''<cjb>''' SLOBs vote
:'''<cjb>''' motion 2: for the special case of removing the ombudsman, a unanimous SLOBs vote is required
:'''<walterbender>''' motion 3: positions are reviewed annually
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yea to both then
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yea to all three
:'''<walterbender>''' within 1 month of elections
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' (with annual reviews required for all appointed positions, subject to majority vote in each case..)
:'''<SeanDaly>''' i would just add that should take place after SLOBS elections not before
:'''<cjb>''' oh, yes, we already scheduled that motion
* walterbender votes yes to all three
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' +1 on all 3
* cjb too.
:'''<cjb>''' mchua and _bernie?
* mchua yea on all 3
:'''<tomeu>''' +1 on all 3
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie?
:'''<cjb>''' bernie's going to get a reputation for doing all his voting in e-mail :)
:'''<walterbender>''' while we are waiting on Bernie (the motion has passed in any case :) let me wrap up:
-->| BryanWB (n=BryanWB@c-68-48-36-68.hsd1.md.comcast.net) has joined #sugar-meeting
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Anything else?
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Time's up..
:'''<walterbender>''' we haven't heard back from the DP, so that discussion needs to be deferred :(
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' OK
:'''<mchua>''' Next meeting's goal: decision on mailing list?
:'''<mchua>''' cjb to drive?
:'''<walterbender>''' let's plan to meet again next week, some time, same channel?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' at Bolzano?
:'''<--| BryanWB has left #sugar-meeting ("Ex-Chat")
* mchua thinks we're doing pretty well at taking one topic at a time
:'''<walterbender>''' (I think it will work re the Bolzano agenda for most of us)
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' Next week I may be a bad citizen, but will try my best.
* mchua in Singapore and may be also, but will try as well.
:'''<mchua>''' In any case you only need 4 for quorum anyway :)
:'''<mchua>''' and Bolzano should suffice
:'''<mchua>''' if the meeting is done in IRC despite everyone being physically together.
:'''<walterbender>''' thanks for all the feedback today.
:'''<CanoeBerry>''' I will be traveling back from Europe thru Germany at that time..
:'''<walterbender>''' mchua: absolutely--in IRC.
* mchua queries about next meeting's goal - is "the list thing" it?
:'''<mchua>''' forward motion, one concrete little step at a time. :)
:'''<walterbender>''' mchua: we'll have a proposal from CJB re the list thing
:'''<walterbender>''' and we'll have a DP report (I hope)
:'''<walterbender>''' and I think some other topics looming.
:'''<walterbender>''' so, I will end the meeting... thanks again everyone.
:'''<walterbender>''' #endmeeting
:'''<meeting>''' Meeting finished at 11:05.
:'''<meeting>''' Logs available at http://meeting.laptop.org/