Difference between revisions of "Community Council Minutes 20080311"

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: == IRC log, Community Council Meeting 2008-03-11, 19:00 UTC == ===Attendees=== * Stefan Taxhet (stx12) * Martin Hollmichel (_Nesshof__) * André Schnabel (Thalion72) * Louis Suarez-Potts ...)
 
(Added CC template)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
 
+
{{Community_Council}}
 
== IRC log, Community Council Meeting 2008-03-11, 19:00 UTC ==
 
== IRC log, Community Council Meeting 2008-03-11, 19:00 UTC ==
 
===Attendees===
 
===Attendees===
Line 15: Line 15:
 
----
 
----
 
IRC meeting commences 19:00 UTC (more or less)
 
IRC meeting commences 19:00 UTC (more or less)
 +
<pre>
 +
 +
14:53 Info The connection to the server has been established
 +
14:53 *** You have joined the channel
 +
14:54 CorNouws Indeed, difference between CET en UTC is too difficult ...  for me when I rushing around ;-)
 +
14:54 paveljanik CorNouws: date -u; date ;-)
 +
14:57 *** stx12 (n=st@p548E3AE4.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined the channel
 +
14:57 stx12 hi all
 +
14:57 CorNouws stx12: Hi, hi *
 +
14:58 *** _nesshof_ (n=mh@p4FDE60C4.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined the channel
 +
14:59 _nesshof_ moin
 +
14:59 paveljanik Hi
 +
14:59 louis_to hello all
 +
14:59 CorNouws good evening
 +
14:59 louis_to sorry for late notice
 +
14:59 louis_to but appreciate that you could make it
 +
15:00 louis_to shall we set a hard time limit on this meeting? I propose not longer than 1 hour
 +
15:00 paveljanik +1
 +
15:00 CorNouws +1
 +
15:00 _nesshof_ +1
 +
15:01 stx12 sounds good to me
 +
15:01 louis_to Thalion72?
 +
15:01 Thalion72 +1
 +
15:01 CorNouws mhu wrote he had to finish his lunch, and would arrive in about 10 min (from now)
 +
15:02 louis_to okay, I'l ;assume that mhu is excited by that possibility
 +
15:02 louis_to ah
 +
15:02 louis_to we can start, anyway, with quick summary of john's post on budget holders
 +
15:02 louis_to you are all familiar with it?
 +
15:02 Thalion72 yes
 +
15:02 CorNouws yep
 +
15:02 paveljanik yes
 +
15:03 louis_to the issues/objections were not very substantial. I raised the idea of other categories. Ie, education
 +
funds
 +
15:03 louis_to Andre raised the logistics of ESC/developer approval
 +
15:04 louis_to (and I just noted that john is not quite here yet)
 +
15:04 *** jpmcc (n=user@92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.edin.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined the channel
 +
15:04 louis_to hi john
 +
15:04 louis_to I'll send you oin sidechannel the issue so far
 +
15:04 jpmcc evening all
 +
15:05 louis_to ->jpmcc: hi
 +
15:05 paveljanik Hi John
 +
15:05 CorNouws Hi
 +
15:05 jpmcc apologies - took ages to log on to irc
 +
15:05 louis_to no problem
 +
15:06 louis_to so, I summarized the issues; logistical, mostly, and also query on adding new budget categories
 +
15:06 CorNouws jpmcc: that's because your hate irc .. revence of the system
 +
15:06 stx12 and I would like to raise that the ESC is supposed to hold two budgets (Developer and Infrastructure). I
 +
think infrastructure  belongs to the council as it covers not only development. Whereas "Developer" is a perfect fit
 +
for the ESC.
 +
15:07 louis_to stx12: would you mean the ESC has total determination over that budget?
 +
15:07 paveljanik stx12: +1 to that idea.
 +
15:07 paveljanik ESC for development, CC for infrastructure
 +
15:07 Thalion72 +1
 +
15:07 louis_to what kind of things would development include?
 +
15:07 CorNouws +1 as Pavil explains
 +
15:08 stx12 no, i would like to change "Budget Holder: To be appointed by ESC " to appainted by COuncil" for
 +
Infrastructure
 +
15:08 paveljanik I do not like "to be appointed"...
 +
15:09 stx12 so you would like to see qa cc member as budget holder? fine with me
 +
15:09 paveljanik I think it is one additional level of references.
 +
15:09 stx12 the question is whether is has to be a member or a delegate of the committee.
 +
15:10 CorNouws prefer member: shorter lines, less extra coordination
 +
15:11 * Thalion72 seconds CorNouws
 +
15:11 stx12 fine with me for the budget holder; others?
 +
15:11 * stx12 is counting...
 +
15:11 jpmcc +1
 +
15:11 Thalion72 +1
 +
15:11 louis_to stx12: I'd like to see the final wording
 +
15:12 _nesshof_ stx12: +1
 +
15:13 louis_to eg, Infrastructure: Budget Holder: to be appointed by the CC; aurhorisers: two project leads proposed
 +
by budget holder and accepted by CC. Discussions on project leads (?) Budget: X?
 +
15:14 CorNouws "The Budget Holder for Infrastructure is choosen by the council from one of it's members"
 +
15:14 louis_to I'm fine with the changes; I just am curious about what further counts as "development"
 +
15:14 Thalion72 Infrastructure: Budget Holder: Member of the C, to be appointed by the CC; aurhorisers: two
 +
project leads proposed by budget holder and accepted by CC. Discussions on project leads and / or
 +
discuss@council ; Budget: 10,000.00?
 +
15:15 paveljanik +1
 +
15:15 stx12 authorisers: two members from the project leads group or from CC or from ESC
 +
15:15 louis_to for infra? that's fine
 +
15:15 louis_to +1
 +
15:15 jpmcc stx12 amendment +1 ... let's spread the responsibilities.
 +
15:16 Thalion72 +1 for stx12's suggestion
 +
15:16 CorNouws +1
 +
15:17 CorNouws Question: is ¨authorisers: xx  from the project leads group or from CC or from ESC¨ good as
 +
general rule?
 +
15:17 louis_to CorNouws: doesn't it depend on the issuse?
 +
15:17 CorNouws louis_to: ?
 +
15:18 louis_to p_ls is a large and varied group; ESC is developer/product focused
 +
15:18 Thalion72 CorNouws: as general rule for all budgets?
 +
15:18 CorNouws Just a suggestion. Reasons not to do that?
 +
15:19 louis_to perhaps we can discuss that on list
 +
15:19 Thalion72 yes - Marketing (marcons could be approvers)
 +
15:19 louis_to for now, if we are all agreed....
 +
15:19 louis_to so CC does infrastructure; ESC develper/development
 +
15:20 Thalion72 yes
 +
15:20 louis_to last point here; is the CC at all involved with development? ST had stated (but may have been for
 +
infra) that CC appoints the budget authorisers?
 +
15:21 louis_to my point: given that development is crucial to OOo's identity, I am concerned about CC's relevance
 +
15:21 stx12 i was talking about infrastructure only
 +
15:22 mhu hi all, I'm back now (even read the discussion log)
 +
15:22 Thalion72 development will stay at ESC
 +
15:22 louis_to stx12; ah.
 +
15:22 louis_to Thalion72: ESC appoints and discusses budget ? is CC involved at all, then? (beyond setting original
 +
sums)
 +
15:23 stx12 one could involve the CC / project leads as authorisers
 +
15:23 louis_to mhu: going over budget discussions; stx12 persuasively argued that CC should control appoint
 +
infrastructure budget. ESC development
 +
15:23 louis_to stx12: that would be my suggestion
 +
15:23 CorNouws louis_to: ? dunno understand. Budget holder Devel. from ESC, authorisers from other entities.
 +
That's what I think is OK.
 +
15:24 louis_to CorNouws: right
 +
15:24 stx12 CorNouws: yes
 +
15:24 mhu louis_to: thanks for the summary, I think I could follow reading the log
 +
15:24 Thalion72 louis_to: stx12 never suggested to change John's proposal for the development budget
 +
15:24 louis_to Budget Holder: To be appointed by ESC Authorisers: two Project Leads/CC members proposed by
 +
Budget Holder and accepted by CC Discussions on: project_leads Budget: Developer  €20,000.00
 +
15:25 louis_to Thalion72: yes, stx12 corrected my misunderstanding
 +
15:25 louis_to do we agree with the rephrased statement, then?
 +
15:26 CorNouws +1
 +
15:26 jpmcc louis_to: +1 (p.s. jpmcc wishes he had Euro sign instead of £ sign on keyboard)
 +
15:26 Thalion72 +1
 +
15:26 paveljanik +1
 +
15:26 stx12 +1
 +
15:26 louis_to +1
 +
15:26 _nesshof_ +1
 +
15:27 louis_to mhu?
 +
15:28 louis_to * one more point-- adding other categories, such as education: is that development? marketing?
 +
depends?
 +
15:28 stx12 IMO it depends
 +
15:28 Thalion72 +1 for depends
 +
15:28 mhu +1
 +
15:28 louis_to (mhu: we are set to finish in 31 minutes)
 +
15:29 mhu louis_to: yes, I noted your initial comment :-)
 +
15:29 Thalion72 we should start with the current categories and ann more in the next budgets
 +
15:29 CorNouws budget categories?
 +
15:29 Thalion72 (add, not ann)
 +
15:29 louis_to CorNouws: eg, marketing, development
 +
15:29 CorNouws must be choosen bij CC, IMO
 +
15:29 louis_to okay, agreed. Will discuss on council
 +
15:30 CorNouws About the suggestion¨authorisers come from the project leads group or from CC or from ESC¨
 +
good as general rule...
 +
15:30 CorNouws When choosing someone as authoriser, I guess that his/her feeling with the subject is taken into
 +
account. So what would be the objection (trying to prevent extra mail ;-) )
 +
15:30 louis_to :-)
 +
15:31 louis_to any more comments on the budget proposal sent by jpmcc?
 +
15:31 Thalion72 mhu had a comment (should we remove the extra OOoCon budget?)
 +
15:32 louis_to if not, modulo the changes made do we all agree with it, then?
 +
15:32 stx12 i still struggle with the all duties of the treasurer - but if mhu does not complain :-)
 +
15:32 mhu well, I don't see how I could get around all this...
 +
15:32 _nesshof_ stx12: maybe he don't want to be reelected this year again ;)
 +
15:33 mhu finally, I would need to send the money anyway.
 +
15:33 louis_to absent -1, the budget proposal is passed....
 +
15:33 CorNouws Thalion72: that was about the fact that the 18.000 spendings are covered by the same incomes
 +
15:33 stx12 yes, but now you need to hold the logs for all the budgets.
 +
15:33 louis_to friends, we have 26 minutes or so....
 +
15:33 louis_to and if possible, let's discuss a few other items
 +
15:34 Thalion72 louis_to: +1 for the proposal
 +
15:34 paveljanik sure, +1
 +
15:34 louis_to such as: elections, WWDC 2007 funding, template contest.
 +
15:35 stx12 what about the option that the budget holder holds the log?
 +
15:35 CorNouws details by budget holder, totals by treasurer
 +
15:36 mhu what are the issues with WWDC 07 funding and template contest? should I be aware of something?
 +
15:36 stx12 i'm just afraid that we will not find a treasurer once we burned mhu
 +
15:36 louis_to propsal: that we continue to work on the details of this but that we start with budgeting --now
 +
15:36 Thalion72 mhu: yes - people complain about missing payments
 +
15:36 louis_to mhu: the template contest winners have not been fully paid, I believe; wwdc2007 has some issues
 +
with reimbursement
 +
15:36 louis_to we can and should discuss this on list
 +
15:36 louis_to please read up...
 +
15:36 mhu stx12: you don't burn me so quickly :-)
 +
15:37 louis_to http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/The_OpenOffice.org_Community_Council_Agenda
 +
15:37 louis_to we would like to resolve this as quickly as possible
 +
15:37 CorNouws what I suggested on mail last Thursday -> pay-day
 +
15:38 mhu what people do complain about what? I don't know of any contest winner, nor when the contest has
 +
been, nor ...
 +
15:38 paveljanik 8)
 +
15:38 louis_to so: wwdc and template issues tabled for on-list discussion: yes?
 +
15:38 stx12 i paid those who had a paypal account. those where a bank transfer was needed could be lost by me.
 +
15:39 stx12 i will clarify this.
 +
15:39 Thalion72 stx12: so what would you suggest? Collect all missing requests and put it on a list for you to review
 +
and initiate the payments?
 +
15:39 CorNouws stx12: Florian will have details, I guess
 +
15:40 mhu yes, please someone tell me what to pay, whatfore, ..., and I might do. But not telling me doesn't help
 +
anyone.
 +
15:40 CorNouws stx12:  ?
 +
15:40 stx12 i should have the information about the template contest winners; but hints are welcome.
 +
15:41 _nesshof_ who was the owner for performing the contest ?
 +
15:41 CorNouws stx12: I?l ask Florian to do so
 +
15:41 louis_to Documentation project, in particular Gerry Singleton
 +
15:41 Thalion72 CorNouws: thanks!
 +
15:41 louis_to however, the trace of winners remains on the doc list
 +
15:41 stx12 the former documentation project lead.
 +
15:41 _nesshof_ stx12: oj, that explains the problem
 +
15:42 CorNouws _nesshof_:  hmm, partly, maybe
 +
15:42 mhu I'm sure, we can resolve this, even if late for some of the winners.
 +
15:42 Thalion72 I'd suggest AI for CorNouws: ask Florian (and other involved people) for missing payments, send
 +
list to stx12 and mhu
 +
15:42 CorNouws yep, next issue please
 +
15:43 louis_to +1
 +
15:43 mhu WWDC 2007 ?
 +
15:43 mhu I think this has been resolved meanwhile. Sophie?
 +
15:43 louis_to
 +
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/The_OpenOffice.org_Community_Council_Agenda/WWDC2007_Funding
 +
15:43 CorNouws For me no question on that, so without futher info I would say: pay
 +
15:43 louis_to sophie cannot make it..
 +
15:44 CorNouws So we?l contact Sophie. Resolved > OK, If not, we?l do it.
 +
15:44 jpmcc +1 for the CC to pay its debts :)
 +
15:44 CorNouws (sorry, problems with  ´  in Gaim)
 +
15:45 Thalion72 +1
 +
15:45 CorNouws no comment (= yes)
 +
15:45 mhu I payed, and Christian Hardy replied : "The 2000 Euros arrived to the CUSOON count yesterday.
 +
15:45 mhu Thank you very much.
 +
15:45 mhu Christian " on Feb 26th.
 +
15:46 louis_to so, the wwdc 2007 is resolved?
 +
15:46 mhu Stefan and Sophie have that as a copy.
 +
15:46 stx12 yes, this is resolved.
 +
15:46 louis_to okay; so Cor will contact Florian and correspond with MHU on resolving hte template issue
 +
15:47 louis_to other points on these items?
 +
15:47 CorNouws no
 +
15:47 CorNouws What about budget for the OOoCon
 +
15:47 CorNouws Could we think about extra's to help more developers from far to join?
 +
15:48 Thalion72 the payment for QATrack .. but florian knows about it
 +
15:48 louis_to Cor: shall we make that an agenda item for next time?
 +
15:48 CorNouws and coordinate with beijijng about rules
 +
15:48 Thalion72 +1
 +
15:48 louis_to that can be said of *new* issues/items...
 +
15:48 CorNouws louis_to: Yes and a proposal on mail first
 +
15:48 jpmcc CorNouws: there are a number of OOoCon items I'd like to take to the CC ...
 +
15:48 louis_to jpmcc: indeed
 +
15:48 louis_to John: let's do it this week, as soon as we can
 +
15:49 CorNouws hmm, curious
 +
15:49 louis_to Final for today: elections....
 +
15:49 jpmcc I've been talking to the Beijing team - I'll have a proposal by the end of the week
 +
15:49 CorNouws elections fro what?
 +
15:50 louis_to I'd like to propose we hold elections for CC members who are project leads
 +
15:50 louis_to I'll send out the proposed schedule this week
 +
15:50 louis_to I'd like to see if we can start the process then or early next week. It will take a couple of weeks
 +
15:50 stx12 let's move specs to accepted project first too.
 +
15:50 louis_to stx12: hm
 +
15:50 louis_to stx12: I had discussions with the specs lead when I was in Hamburg
 +
15:51 stx12 and?
 +
15:51 louis_to they declined to move; said it was a mistake
 +
15:51 * stx12 is surprised
 +
15:51 louis_to the conversation was good--we need, very much, to promote specs--
 +
15:51 Thalion72 has there been an official request?
 +
15:51 louis_to but they were not sure it merited or would benefit form being acepted
 +
15:51 CorNouws apart from that (or not) no need to wait for that?
 +
15:52 louis_to Thalion72: they had sent me an official request
 +
15:52 Thalion72 ah - ok
 +
15:52 louis_to I asked, why?
 +
15:52 CorNouws should that infulence the shedule for cc elections
 +
15:52 stx12 and now they are daunted :-)
 +
15:52 louis_to CorNouws: it wouldn't but stx12 wanted to finish pending business
 +
15:53 louis_to stx12: not at all, at least not by me :-)
 +
15:53 Thalion72 CorNouws: no (and I don't see how this is related)
 +
15:53 Thalion72 we will always have pending business :)
 +
15:53 CorNouws so let? talk about elections
 +
15:53 jpmcc btw I thought the way the ux project was promoted showed the community working well and could
 +
servfe as a model for the future
 +
15:53 louis_to jpmcc: how so? It merely followed the protocols....
 +
15:54 louis_to ie, it wasn't the first and won't be the last...
 +
15:54 mhu well thats a good start, isnt it?
 +
15:54 jpmcc apologies for the diversion - you were talking about elections...
 +
15:55 louis_to yes. AI me, to send the proposal for project lead elections. any disagreements?
 +
15:55 louis_to (they are a year overdue or so)
 +
15:55 Thalion72 no
 +
15:55 CorNouws agree
 +
15:55 paveljanik yes, ok
 +
15:56 mhu okay
 +
15:56 Thalion72 (rather two if not two)
 +
15:56 jpmcc +1
 +
15:56 stx12 go ahead
 +
15:56 louis_to okay
 +
15:56 louis_to unless there is more business , I'd like to adjourn today. I'd like to focus for next meeting on
 +
trademark issues/policy
 +
15:57 louis_to and OOoCon
 +
15:57 Thalion72 +1
 +
15:57 CorNouws I'll add some on the maling list
 +
15:57 jpmcc Are we finished 2 minutes early ?????????? O:-)
 +
15:57 CorNouws Yes, leaving now, Good bye all.
 +
15:57 *** CorNouws has left the channel ()
 +
15:57 mhu yes, and can we agree on a meeting date and time at leat 24h before.
 +
15:57 paveljanik if we have 2 minutes, I'd like to ...
 +
15:57 paveljanik late ;-)
 +
15:57 _nesshof_ when will next meeting be ?
 +
15:57 stx12 no, we have to find a date and time - this will take the next 2 hours
 +
15:58 Thalion72 jpmcc: those two minutes are planned to get a beer ;)
 +
15:58 jpmcc ;-)
 +
15:58 louis_to I propose in three weeks---Tuesday or Thursday
 +
15:58 paveljanik I'd like to change completely our time management method.
 +
15:58 stx12 paveljanik: yes?
 +
15:58 paveljanik meeting times should be not only proposed and voted on, but later announced.
 +
15:58 paveljanik there was no announcement of this meeting
 +
15:58 Thalion72 1st of April?
 +
15:58 paveljanik there was no timezone attached to 19:00
 +
15:59 paveljanik thus we all were just guessing that it is 19:00 UTC
 +
15:59 stx12 paveljanik: i think we - incl louis_to - agree on that
 +
15:59 louis_to paveljanik: are you going to continue to complain?
 +
15:59 Thalion72 UTC is written at the Agenda page
 +
15:59 louis_to :-)
 +
15:59 paveljanik louis_to: no
 +
15:59 paveljanik louis_to: I want to see the oslution
 +
15:59 paveljanik I do not want to complain
 +
16:00 paveljanik I'm used to some method to arrange meetings and the method we use right now is NONSENSE.
 +
16:00 louis_to then let's see if we can agree on 1 April for now and refine it later, but not later than 1 week.
 +
16:00 jpmcc 19:00 UTC Thurs March 27th? I'd really like the OOoCon stuff before Easter - maybe we can do it on
 +
list
 +
16:00 louis_to jpmcc: agreed; we will have to do a lot on the list, anyway
 +
16:00 mhu actually, I do agree with Pavel. I have more meetings than this, and cant always shift others in favor of
 +
this one. So some better planning is required.
 +
16:00 louis_to my concern is that easter is a big holiday
 +
16:01 paveljanik jpmcc: that time is OK for me.
 +
16:01 Thalion72 jpmcc: the time is ok .. but it is actually after Easter
 +
16:01 mhu thu mar 27 is fine for me as well
 +
16:01 louis_to mhu, pavel: I have created google calendar to which all have total control; and you are free to
 +
suggest times
 +
16:01 stx12 i will be on vacation the thursday before easter weekend
 +
16:01 jpmcc Why don't we diarise to meet every two weeks on Thursdays? it's always easier to cancel a meeting than
 +
arrange one?
 +
16:01 louis_to for now, agreeing on a date is required.
 +
16:01 louis_to jpmcc: that was once the goal
 +
16:02 mhu stx12: 27 is after easter
 +
16:02 stx12 oops; looking at a calender with holidays may help...
 +
16:02 louis_to okay, next meeting is 27 March, 19:00 UTC, unless otherwise noted. Changes should be made at
 +
least four days in advance and the list notified.
 +
16:02 paveljanik ok, proposal - voting - announcement.
 +
16:03 paveljanik can we at least agree on this principle?
 +
16:03 louis_to the google calendar should be updated to reflect this
 +
16:03 jpmcc and every two weeks after that?
 +
16:03 paveljanik e.g. this meeting was proposed.
 +
16:03 paveljanik some people voted on it
 +
16:03 paveljanik none announced the agreed time.
 +
16:03 stx12 and there is no chance to meet earlier in the day?
 +
16:03 mhu louis_to: is the a howto for that damn google calendar?
 +
16:03 * stx12 is sorry to ask this
 +
16:03 louis_to mhu; it's a puzzle
 +
16:03 louis_to stx12; issue was firewall
 +
16:04 stx12 jpmcc's firewall?
 +
16:04 louis_to stx12: we can meet before work, if you don't mind meeting at, say, 6 AM
 +
16:04 louis_to stx12: yes; andre, too
 +
16:04 jpmcc louis_to: I hate to admit this, but I now carry me EeePC with me so the firewall is not an issue for me
 +
now...
 +
16:04 louis_to :-)
 +
16:05 louis_to so, let's arrange a better time, which we can discuss on list: it's 5 minutes beyond end time
 +
16:05 stx12 we only need Thalion72's opinion
 +
16:05 Thalion72 well .. I can easily agree on 6 am (as long as we start electoins for project lead members soon)
 +
16:05 louis_to but I'd guess that 15:00, if Thalion72 can do it...
 +
16:05 mhu okay, bye for now. Have a good evening / day everyone.
 +
16:05 louis_to mhu: bye...
 +
16:06 Thalion72 no way before 17:00 UTC for me (or early in the morning)
 +
16:06 *** mhu has quit IRC ("Ex-Chat")
 +
16:06 Thalion72 bye mhu
 +
16:06 louis_to meeting adjourned; we will discuss time for next and subsequent meetins onlist
 +
16:06 louis_to okay, we'll work out a compromise; 17:30 is probably okay
 +
16:06 Thalion72 +1
 +
16:06 stx12 17:30 UTC sounds much more friendly to me compared to 19:00
 +
16:07 jpmcc louis_to: internet reception is not very reliable on the bus ;-)
 +
16:07 paveljanik is 17:30 acceptable for you louis_to ?
 +
16:07 louis_to of course
 +
16:08 louis_to even a meeting at 0600 UTC is
 +
16:08 louis_to but thanks for asking
 +
16:08 paveljanik louis_to: what is your timezone?
 +
16:08 paveljanik (at home)
 +
16:08 louis_to so, 17:30 27 March and thence every fortnight
 +
16:08 louis_to -0500
 +
16:08 louis_to but I got to sleep very late
 +
16:08 Thalion72 so next meeting march 27, 17:30 UTC (and every 2 weeks from that on)
 +
16:08 paveljanik +1
 +
16:08 louis_to yes.
 +
16:08 jpmcc I'd also like to discuss audioconference as an alternative (but not now)
 +
16:09 stx12 thanks, all; let's see whether sophie and others can make
 +
16:09 louis_to unless otherwise noted, in which case, warning 4 days in advance to the list and there must be some
 +
sort of receipt of reading
 +
16:09 Thalion72 ok
 +
16:09 louis_to thanks all...
 +
16:09 *** jpmcc has quit IRC ("night night")
 +
16:09 paveljanik bye
 +
16:10 stx12 bye all
 +
16:10 Thalion72 bye
 +
16:10 louis_to bye all
  
−
<pre>
 
−
louis_to hello all
 
−
CorNouws good evening
 
−
louis_to sorry for late notice
 
−
louis_to but appreciate that you could make it
 
−
louis_to shall we set a hard time limit on this meeting? I propose not longer than 1 hour
 
−
paveljanik +1
 
−
CorNouws +1
 
−
_nesshof_ +1
 
−
stx12 sounds good to me
 
−
louis_to Thalion72?
 
−
Thalion72 +1
 
−
CorNouws mhu wrote he had to finish his lunch, and would arrive in about 10 min (from now)
 
−
louis_to okay, I'l ;assume that mhu is excited by that possibility
 
−
louis_to ah
 
−
louis_to we can start, anyway, with quick summary of john's post on budget holders
 
−
louis_to you are all familiar with it?
 
−
Thalion72 yes
 
−
CorNouws yep
 
−
paveljanik yes
 
−
louis_to the issues/objections were not very substantial. I raised the idea of other categories. Ie, education funds
 
−
louis_to Andre raised the logistics of ESC/developer approval
 
−
louis_to (and I just noted that john is not quite here yet)
 
−
*** jpmcc (n=user@92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.edin.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined the channel
 
−
louis_to hi john
 
−
louis_to I'll send you oin sidechannel the issue so far
 
−
jpmcc evening all
 
−
louis_to ->jpmcc: hi
 
−
paveljanik Hi John
 
−
CorNouws Hi
 
−
jpmcc apologies - took ages to log on to irc
 
−
louis_to no problem
 
−
louis_to so, I summarized the issues; logistical, mostly, and also query on adding new budget categories
 
−
CorNouws jpmcc: that's because your hate irc .. revence of the system
 
−
stx12 and I would like to raise that the ESC is supposed to hold two budgets (Developer and Infrastructure). I think infrastructure  belongs to the council as it covers not only development. Whereas "Developer" is a perfect fit for the ESC.
 
−
louis_to stx12: would you mean the ESC has total determination over that budget?
 
−
paveljanik stx12: +1 to that idea.
 
−
paveljanik ESC for development, CC for infrastructure
 
−
Thalion72 +1
 
−
louis_to what kind of things would development include?
 
−
CorNouws +1 as Pavil explains
 
−
stx12 no, i would like to change "Budget Holder: To be appointed by ESC " to appainted by COuncil" for Infrastructure
 
−
paveljanik I do not like "to be appointed"...
 
−
stx12 so you would like to see qa cc member as budget holder? fine with me
 
−
paveljanik I think it is one additional level of references.
 
−
stx12 the question is whether is has to be a member or a delegate of the committee.
 
−
CorNouws prefer member: shorter lines, less extra coordination
 
−
* Thalion72 seconds CorNouws
 
−
stx12 fine with me for the budget holder; others?
 
−
* stx12 is counting...
 
−
jpmcc +1
 
−
Thalion72 +1
 
−
louis_to stx12: I'd like to see the final wording
 
−
_nesshof_ stx12: +1
 
−
louis_to eg, Infrastructure: Budget Holder: to be appointed by the CC; aurhorisers: two project leads proposed by budget holder and accepted by CC. Discussions on project leads (?) Budget: X?
 
−
CorNouws "The Budget Holder for Infrastructure is choosen by the council from one of it's members"
 
−
louis_to I'm fine with the changes; I just am curious about what further counts as "development"
 
−
Thalion72 Infrastructure: Budget Holder: Member of the C, to be appointed by the CC; aurhorisers: two project leads proposed by budget holder and accepted by CC. Discussions on project leads and / or discuss@council ; Budget: 10,000.00?
 
−
paveljanik +1
 
−
stx12 authorisers: two members from the project leads group or from CC or from ESC
 
−
louis_to for infra? that's fine
 
−
louis_to +1
 
−
jpmcc stx12 amendment +1 ... let's spread the responsibilities.
 
−
Thalion72 +1 for stx12's suggestion
 
−
CorNouws +1
 
−
CorNouws Question: is ¨authorisers: xx  from the project leads group or from CC or from ESC¨ good as general rule?
 
−
louis_to CorNouws: doesn't it depend on the issuse?
 
−
CorNouws louis_to: ?
 
−
louis_to p_ls is a large and varied group; ESC is developer/product focused
 
−
Thalion72 CorNouws: as general rule for all budgets?
 
−
CorNouws Just a suggestion. Reasons not to do that?
 
−
louis_to perhaps we can discuss that on list
 
−
Thalion72 yes - Marketing (marcons could be approvers)
 
−
louis_to for now, if we are all agreed....
 
−
louis_to so CC does infrastructure; ESC develper/development
 
−
Thalion72 yes
 
−
louis_to last point here; is the CC at all involved with development? ST had stated (but may have been for infra) that CC appoints the budget authorisers?
 
−
louis_to my point: given that development is crucial to OOo's identity, I am concerned about CC's relevance
 
−
stx12 i was talking about infrastructure only
 
−
mhu hi all, I'm back now (even read the discussion log)
 
−
Thalion72 development will stay at ESC
 
−
louis_to stx12; ah.
 
−
louis_to Thalion72: ESC appoints and discusses budget ? is CC involved at all, then? (beyond setting original sums)
 
−
stx12 one could involve the CC / project leads as authorisers
 
−
louis_to mhu: going over budget discussions; stx12 persuasively argued that CC should control appoint infrastructure budget. ESC development
 
−
louis_to stx12: that would be my suggestion
 
−
CorNouws louis_to: ? dunno understand. Budget holder Devel. from ESC, authorisers from other entities. That's what I think is OK.
 
−
louis_to CorNouws: right
 
−
stx12 CorNouws: yes
 
−
mhu louis_to: thanks for the summary, I think I could follow reading the log
 
−
Thalion72 louis_to: stx12 never suggested to change John's proposal for the development budget
 
−
louis_to Budget Holder: To be appointed by ESC Authorisers: two Project Leads/CC members proposed by Budget Holder and accepted by CC Discussions on: project_leads Budget: Developer  €20,000.00
 
−
louis_to Thalion72: yes, stx12 corrected my misunderstanding
 
−
louis_to do we agree with the rephrased statement, then?
 
−
CorNouws +1
 
−
jpmcc louis_to: +1 (p.s. jpmcc wishes he had Euro sign instead of £ sign on keyboard)
 
−
Thalion72 +1
 
−
paveljanik +1
 
−
stx12 +1
 
−
louis_to +1
 
−
_nesshof_ +1
 
−
louis_to mhu?
 
−
louis_to * one more point-- adding other categories, such as education: is that development? marketing? depends?
 
−
stx12 IMO it depends
 
−
Thalion72 +1 for depends
 
−
mhu +1
 
−
louis_to (mhu: we are set to finish in 31 minutes)
 
−
mhu louis_to: yes, I noted your initial comment :-)
 
−
Thalion72 we should start with the current categories and ann more in the next budgets
 
−
CorNouws budget categories?
 
−
Thalion72 (add, not ann)
 
−
louis_to CorNouws: eg, marketing, development
 
−
CorNouws must be choosen bij CC, IMO
 
−
louis_to okay, agreed. Will discuss on council
 
−
CorNouws About the suggestion¨authorisers come from the project leads group or from CC or from ESC¨ good as general rule...
 
−
CorNouws When choosing someone as authoriser, I guess that his/her feeling with the subject is taken into account. So what would be the objection (trying to prevent extra mail ;-) )
 
−
louis_to :-)
 
−
louis_to any more comments on the budget proposal sent by jpmcc?
 
−
Thalion72 mhu had a comment (should we remove the extra OOoCon budget?)
 
−
louis_to if not, modulo the changes made do we all agree with it, then?
 
−
stx12 i still struggle with the all duties of the treasurer - but if mhu does not complain :-)
 
−
mhu well, I don't see how I could get around all this...
 
−
_nesshof_ stx12: maybe he don't want to be reelected this year again ;)
 
−
mhu finally, I would need to send the money anyway.
 
−
louis_to absent -1, the budget proposal is passed....
 
−
CorNouws Thalion72: that was about the fact that the 18.000 spendings are covered by the same incomes
 
−
stx12 yes, but now you need to hold the logs for all the budgets.
 
−
louis_to friends, we have 26 minutes or so....
 
−
louis_to and if possible, let's discuss a few other items
 
−
Thalion72 louis_to: +1 for the proposal
 
−
paveljanik sure, +1
 
−
louis_to such as: elections, WWDC 2007 funding, template contest.
 
−
stx12 what about the option that the budget holder holds the log?
 
−
CorNouws details by budget holder, totals by treasurer
 
−
mhu what are the issues with WWDC 07 funding and template contest? should I be aware of something?
 
−
stx12 i'm just afraid that we will not find a treasurer once we burned mhu
 
−
louis_to propsal: that we continue to work on the details of this but that we start with budgeting --now
 
−
Thalion72 mhu: yes - people complain about missing payments
 
−
louis_to mhu: the template contest winners have not been fully paid, I believe; wwdc2007 has some issues with reimbursement
 
−
louis_to we can and should discuss this on list
 
−
louis_to please read up...
 
−
mhu stx12: you don't burn me so quickly :-)
 
−
louis_to http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/The_OpenOffice.org_Community_Council_Agenda
 
−
louis_to we would like to resolve this as quickly as possible
 
−
CorNouws what I suggested on mail last Thursday -> pay-day
 
−
mhu what people do complain about what? I don't know of any contest winner, nor when the contest has been, nor ...
 
−
paveljanik 8)
 
−
louis_to so: wwdc and template issues tabled for on-list discussion: yes?
 
−
stx12 i paid those who had a paypal account. those where a bank transfer was needed could be lost by me.
 
−
stx12 i will clarify this.
 
−
Thalion72 stx12: so what would you suggest? Collect all missing requests and put it on a list for you to review and initiate the payments?
 
−
CorNouws stx12: Florian will have details, I guess
 
−
mhu yes, please someone tell me what to pay, whatfore, ..., and I might do. But not telling me doesn't help anyone.
 
−
CorNouws stx12:  ?
 
−
stx12 i should have the information about the template contest winners; but hints are welcome.
 
−
_nesshof_ who was the owner for performing the contest ?
 
−
CorNouws stx12: I?l ask Florian to do so
 
−
louis_to Documentation project, in particular Gerry Singleton
 
−
Thalion72 CorNouws: thanks!
 
−
louis_to however, the trace of winners remains on the doc list
 
−
stx12 the former documentation project lead.
 
−
_nesshof_ stx12: oj, that explains the problem
 
−
CorNouws _nesshof_:  hmm, partly, maybe
 
−
mhu I'm sure, we can
 
−
resolve this, even if late for some of the winners.
 
−
Thalion72 I'd suggest AI for CorNouws: ask Florian (and other involved people) for missing payments, send list to stx12 and mhu
 
−
CorNouws yep, next issue please
 
−
louis_to +1
 
−
mhu WWDC 2007 ?
 
−
mhu I think this has been resolved meanwhile. Sophie?
 
−
louis_to http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/The_OpenOffice.org_Community_Council_Agenda/WWDC2007_Funding
 
−
CorNouws For me no question on that, so without futher info I would say: pay
 
−
louis_to sophie cannot make it..
 
−
CorNouws So we?l contact Sophie. Resolved > OK, If not, we?l do it.
 
−
jpmcc +1 for the CC to pay its debts :)
 
−
CorNouws (sorry, problems with  ´  in Gaim)
 
−
Thalion72 +1
 
−
CorNouws no comment (= yes)
 
−
mhu I payed, and Christian Hardy replied : "The 2000 Euros arrived to the CUSOON count yesterday.
 
−
mhu Thank you very much.
 
−
mhu Christian " on Feb 26th.
 
−
louis_to so, the wwdc 2007 is resolved?
 
−
mhu Stefan and Sophie have that as a copy.
 
−
stx12 yes, this is resolved.
 
−
louis_to okay; so Cor will contact Florian and correspond with MHU on resolving hte template issue
 
−
louis_to other points on these items?
 
−
CorNouws no
 
−
CorNouws What about budget for the OOoCon
 
−
CorNouws Could we think about extra's to help more developers from far to join?
 
−
Thalion72 the payment for QATrack .. but florian knows about it
 
−
louis_to Cor: shall we make that an agenda item for next time?
 
−
CorNouws and coordinate with beijijng about rules
 
−
Thalion72 +1
 
−
louis_to that can be said of *new* issues/items...
 
−
CorNouws louis_to: Yes and a proposal on mail first
 
−
jpmcc CorNouws: there are a number of OOoCon items I'd like to take to the CC ...
 
−
louis_to jpmcc: indeed
 
−
louis_to John: let's do it this week, as soon as we can
 
−
CorNouws hmm, curious
 
−
louis_to Final for today: elections....
 
−
jpmcc I've been talking to the Beijing team - I'll have a proposal by the end of the week
 
−
CorNouws elections fro what?
 
−
louis_to I'd like to propose we hold elections for CC members who are project leads
 
−
louis_to I'll send out the proposed schedule this week
 
−
louis_to I'd like to see if we can start the process then or early next week. It will take a couple of weeks
 
−
stx12 let's move specs to accepted project first too.
 
−
louis_to stx12: hm
 
−
louis_to stx12: I had discussions with the specs lead when I was in Hamburg
 
−
stx12 and?
 
−
louis_to they declined to move; said it was a mistake
 
−
* stx12 is surprised
 
−
louis_to the conversation was good--we need, very much, to promote specs--
 
−
Thalion72 has there been an official request?
 
−
louis_to but they were not sure it merited or would benefit form being acepted
 
−
CorNouws apart from that (or not) no need to wait for that?
 
−
louis_to Thalion72: they had sent me an official request
 
−
Thalion72 ah - ok
 
−
louis_to I asked, why?
 
−
CorNouws should that infulence the shedule for cc elections
 
−
stx12 and now they are daunted :-)
 
−
louis_to CorNouws: it wouldn't but stx12 wanted to finish pending business
 
−
louis_to stx12: not at all, at least not by me :-)
 
−
Thalion72 CorNouws: no (and I don't see how this is related)
 
−
Thalion72 we will always have pending business :)
 
−
CorNouws so let? talk about elections
 
−
jpmcc btw I thought the way the ux project was promoted showed the community working well and could servfe as a model for the future
 
−
louis_to jpmcc: how so? It merely followed the protocols....
 
−
louis_to ie, it wasn't the first and won't be the last...
 
−
mhu well thats a good start, isnt it?
 
−
jpmcc apologies for the diversion - you were talking about elections...
 
−
louis_to yes. AI me, to send the proposal for project lead elections. any disagreements?
 
−
louis_to (they are a year overdue or so)
 
−
Thalion72 no
 
−
CorNouws agree
 
−
paveljanik yes, ok
 
−
mhu okay
 
−
Thalion72 (rather two if not two)
 
−
jpmcc +1
 
−
stx12 go ahead
 
−
louis_to okay
 
−
louis_to unless there is more business , I'd like to adjourn today. I'd like to focus for next meeting on trademark issues/policy
 
−
louis_to and OOoCon
 
−
Thalion72 +1
 
−
CorNouws I'll add some on the maling list
 
−
jpmcc Are we finished 2 minutes early ?????????? O:-)
 
−
CorNouws Yes, leaving now, Good bye all.
 
−
*** CorNouws has left the channel ()
 
−
mhu yes, and can we agree on a meeting date and time at leat 24h before.
 
−
paveljanik if we have 2 minutes, I'd like to ...
 
−
paveljanik late ;-)
 
−
_nesshof_ when will next meeting be ?
 
−
stx12 no, we have to find a date and time - this will take the next 2 hours
 
−
Thalion72 jpmcc: those two minutes are planned to get a beer ;)
 
−
jpmcc ;-)
 
−
louis_to I propose in three weeks---Tuesday or Thursday
 
−
paveljanik I'd like to change completely our time management method.
 
−
stx12 paveljanik: yes?
 
−
paveljanik meeting times should be not only proposed and voted on, but later announced.
 
−
paveljanik there was no announcement of this meeting
 
−
Thalion72 1st of April?
 
−
paveljanik there was no timezone attached to 19:00
 
−
paveljanik thus we all were just guessing that it is 19:00 UTC
 
−
stx12 paveljanik: i think we - incl louis_to - agree on that
 
−
louis_to paveljanik: are you going to continue to complain?
 
−
Thalion72 UTC is written at the Agenda page
 
−
louis_to :-)
 
−
paveljanik louis_to: no
 
−
paveljanik louis_to: I want to see the oslution
 
−
paveljanik I do not want to complain
 
−
paveljanik I'm used to some method to arrange meetings and the method we use right now is NONSENSE.
 
−
louis_to then let's see if we can agree on 1 April for now and refine it later, but not later than 1 week.
 
−
jpmcc 19:00 UTC Thurs March 27th? I'd really like the OOoCon stuff before Easter - maybe we can do it on list
 
−
louis_to jpmcc: agreed; we will have to do a lot on the list, anyway
 
−
mhu actually, I do agree with Pavel. I have more meetings than this, and cant always shift others in favor of this one. So some better planning is required.
 
−
louis_to my concern is that easter is a big holiday
 
−
paveljanik jpmcc: that time is OK for me.
 
−
Thalion72 jpmcc: the time is ok .. but it is actually after Easter
 
−
mhu thu mar 27 is fine for me as well
 
−
louis_to mhu, pavel: I have created google calendar to which all have total control; and you are free to suggest times
 
−
stx12 i will be on vacation the thursday before easter weekend
 
−
jpmcc Why don't we diarise to meet every two weeks on Thursdays? it's always easier to cancel a meeting than arrange one?
 
−
louis_to for now, agreeing on a date is required.
 
−
louis_to jpmcc: that was once the goal
 
−
mhu stx12: 27 is after easter
 
−
stx12 oops; looking at a calender with holidays may help...
 
−
louis_to okay, next meeting is 27 March, 19:00 UTC, unless otherwise noted. Changes should be made at least four days in advance and the list notified.
 
−
paveljanik ok, proposal - voting - announcement.
 
−
paveljanik can we at least agree on this principle?
 
−
louis_to the google calendar should be updated to reflect this
 
−
jpmcc and every two weeks after that?
 
−
paveljanik e.g. this meeting was proposed.
 
−
paveljanik some people voted on it
 
−
paveljanik none announced the agreed time.
 
−
stx12 and there is no chance to meet earlier in the day?
 
−
mhu louis_to: is the a howto for that damn google calendar?
 
−
* stx12 is sorry to ask this
 
−
louis_to mhu; it's a puzzle
 
−
louis_to stx12; issue was firewall
 
−
stx12 jpmcc's firewall?
 
−
louis_to stx12: we can meet before work, if you don't mind meeting at, say, 6 AM
 
−
louis_to stx12: yes; andre, too
 
−
jpmcc louis_to: I hate to admit this, but I now carry me EeePC with me so the firewall is not an issue for me now...
 
−
louis_to :-)
 
−
louis_to so, let's arrange a better time, which we can discuss on list: it's 5 minutes beyond end time
 
−
stx12 we only need Thalion72's opinion
 
−
Thalion72 well .. I can easily agree on 6 am (as long as we start electoins for project lead members soon)
 
−
louis_to but I'd guess that 15:00, if Thalion72 can do it...
 
−
mhu okay, bye for now. Have a good evening / day everyone.
 
−
louis_to mhu: bye...
 
−
Thalion72 no way before 17:00 UTC for me (or early in the morning)
 
−
*** mhu has quit IRC ("Ex-Chat")
 
−
Thalion72 bye mhu
 
−
louis_to meeting adjourned; we will discuss time for next and subsequent meetins onlist
 
−
louis_to okay, we'll work out a compromise; 17:30 is probably okay
 
−
Thalion72 +1
 
−
stx12 17:30 UTC sounds much more friendly to me compared to 19:00
 
−
jpmcc louis_to: internet reception is not very reliable on the bus ;-)
 
−
paveljanik is 17:30 acceptable for you louis_to ?
 
−
louis_to of course
 
−
louis_to even a meeting at 0600 UTC is
 
−
louis_to but thanks for asking
 
−
paveljanik louis_to: what is your timezone?
 
−
paveljanik (at home)
 
−
louis_to so, 17:30 27 March and thence every fortnight
 
−
louis_to -0500
 
−
louis_to but I got to sleep very late
 
−
Thalion72 so next meeting march 27, 17:30 UTC (and every 2 weeks from that on)
 
−
paveljanik +1
 
−
louis_to yes.
 
−
jpmcc I'd also like to discuss audioconference as an alternative (but not now)
 
−
stx12 thanks, all; let's see whether sophie and others can make
 
−
louis_to unless otherwise noted, in which case, warning 4 days in advance to the list and there must be some sort of receipt of reading
 
−
Thalion72 ok
 
−
louis_to thanks all...
 
−
*** jpmcc has quit IRC ("night night")
 
−
paveljanik bye
 
−
stx12 bye all
 
−
Thalion72 bye
 
−
louis_to bye all
 
 
</pre>
 
</pre>
 +
[[Category:Community Council]]

Latest revision as of 14:41, 30 May 2010

Community Council

The Community Council members are your representatives

About


Communication


Ideas related to the community? Tell us!

IRC log, Community Council Meeting 2008-03-11, 19:00 UTC

Attendees

  • Stefan Taxhet (stx12)
  • Martin Hollmichel (_Nesshof__)
  • André Schnabel (Thalion72)
  • Louis Suarez-Potts (louis_to) (chair)
  • Matthias Huetsch (mhu)
  • Cor Nouws (CorNouws)
  • Pavel Janík (paveljanik)
  • John McCreesh (jpmcc)
  • Sophie Gautier (sophi) could not attend

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


14:53 Info The connection to the server has been established
14:53 *** You have joined the channel
14:54 CorNouws Indeed, difference between CET en UTC is too difficult ...  for me when I rushing around ;-)
14:54 paveljanik CorNouws: date -u; date ;-)
14:57 *** stx12 (n=st@p548E3AE4.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined the channel
14:57 stx12 hi all
14:57 CorNouws stx12: Hi, hi *
14:58 *** _nesshof_ (n=mh@p4FDE60C4.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined the channel
14:59 _nesshof_ moin
14:59 paveljanik Hi
14:59 louis_to hello all
14:59 CorNouws good evening
14:59 louis_to sorry for late notice
14:59 louis_to but appreciate that you could make it
15:00 louis_to shall we set a hard time limit on this meeting? I propose not longer than 1 hour
15:00 paveljanik +1
15:00 CorNouws +1
15:00 _nesshof_ +1
15:01 stx12 sounds good to me 
15:01 louis_to Thalion72?
15:01 Thalion72 +1
15:01 CorNouws mhu wrote he had to finish his lunch, and would arrive in about 10 min (from now)
15:02 louis_to okay, I'l ;assume that mhu is excited by that possibility
15:02 louis_to ah
15:02 louis_to we can start, anyway, with quick summary of john's post on budget holders
15:02 louis_to you are all familiar with it?
15:02 Thalion72 yes
15:02 CorNouws yep
15:02 paveljanik yes
15:03 louis_to the issues/objections were not very substantial. I raised the idea of other categories. Ie, education
funds
15:03 louis_to Andre raised the logistics of ESC/developer approval
15:04 louis_to (and I just noted that john is not quite here yet)
15:04 *** jpmcc (n=user@92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.edin.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined the channel
15:04 louis_to hi john
15:04 louis_to I'll send you oin sidechannel the issue so far
15:04 jpmcc evening all
15:05 louis_to ->jpmcc: hi
15:05 paveljanik Hi John
15:05 CorNouws Hi
15:05 jpmcc apologies - took ages to log on to irc
15:05 louis_to no problem
15:06 louis_to so, I summarized the issues; logistical, mostly, and also query on adding new budget categories
15:06 CorNouws jpmcc: that's because your hate irc .. revence of the system
15:06 stx12 and I would like to raise that the ESC is supposed to hold two budgets (Developer and Infrastructure). I
think infrastructure  belongs to the council as it covers not only development. Whereas "Developer" is a perfect fit
for the ESC.
15:07 louis_to stx12: would you mean the ESC has total determination over that budget? 
15:07 paveljanik stx12: +1 to that idea.
15:07 paveljanik ESC for development, CC for infrastructure
15:07 Thalion72 +1
15:07 louis_to what kind of things would development include?
15:07 CorNouws +1 as Pavil explains
15:08 stx12 no, i would like to change "Budget Holder: To be appointed by ESC " to appainted by COuncil" for
Infrastructure
15:08 paveljanik I do not like "to be appointed"...
15:09 stx12 so you would like to see qa cc member as budget holder? fine with me
15:09 paveljanik I think it is one additional level of references.
15:09 stx12 the question is whether is has to be a member or a delegate of the committee.
15:10 CorNouws prefer member: shorter lines, less extra coordination
15:11 * Thalion72 seconds CorNouws
15:11 stx12 fine with me for the budget holder; others? 
15:11 * stx12 is counting...
15:11 jpmcc +1
15:11 Thalion72 +1
15:11 louis_to stx12: I'd like to see the final wording
15:12 _nesshof_ stx12: +1
15:13 louis_to eg, Infrastructure: Budget Holder: to be appointed by the CC; aurhorisers: two project leads proposed
by budget holder and accepted by CC. Discussions on project leads (?) Budget: X?
15:14 CorNouws "The Budget Holder for Infrastructure is choosen by the council from one of it's members"
15:14 louis_to I'm fine with the changes; I just am curious about what further counts as "development"
15:14 Thalion72 Infrastructure: Budget Holder: Member of the C, to be appointed by the CC; aurhorisers: two
project leads proposed by budget holder and accepted by CC. Discussions on project leads and / or
discuss@council ; Budget: 10,000.00?
15:15 paveljanik +1
15:15 stx12 authorisers: two members from the project leads group or from CC or from ESC
15:15 louis_to for infra? that's fine
15:15 louis_to +1
15:15 jpmcc stx12 amendment +1 ... let's spread the responsibilities.
15:16 Thalion72 +1 for stx12's suggestion
15:16 CorNouws +1
15:17 CorNouws Question: is ¨authorisers: xx  from the project leads group or from CC or from ESC¨ good as
general rule?
15:17 louis_to CorNouws: doesn't it depend on the issuse?
15:17 CorNouws louis_to: ?
15:18 louis_to p_ls is a large and varied group; ESC is developer/product focused
15:18 Thalion72 CorNouws: as general rule for all budgets?
15:18 CorNouws Just a suggestion. Reasons not to do that?
15:19 louis_to perhaps we can discuss that on list
15:19 Thalion72 yes - Marketing (marcons could be approvers)
15:19 louis_to for now, if we are all agreed....
15:19 louis_to so CC does infrastructure; ESC develper/development
15:20 Thalion72 yes
15:20 louis_to last point here; is the CC at all involved with development? ST had stated (but may have been for
infra) that CC appoints the budget authorisers?
15:21 louis_to my point: given that development is crucial to OOo's identity, I am concerned about CC's relevance
15:21 stx12 i was talking about infrastructure only
15:22 mhu hi all, I'm back now (even read the discussion log)
15:22 Thalion72 development will stay at ESC
15:22 louis_to stx12; ah.
15:22 louis_to Thalion72: ESC appoints and discusses budget ? is CC involved at all, then? (beyond setting original
sums)
15:23 stx12 one could involve the CC / project leads as authorisers
15:23 louis_to mhu: going over budget discussions; stx12 persuasively argued that CC should control appoint
infrastructure budget. ESC development
15:23 louis_to stx12: that would be my suggestion
15:23 CorNouws louis_to: ? dunno understand. Budget holder Devel. from ESC, authorisers from other entities.
That's what I think is OK.
15:24 louis_to CorNouws: right
15:24 stx12 CorNouws: yes
15:24 mhu louis_to: thanks for the summary, I think I could follow reading the log
15:24 Thalion72 louis_to: stx12 never suggested to change John's proposal for the development budget 
15:24 louis_to Budget Holder: To be appointed by ESC Authorisers: two Project Leads/CC members proposed by
Budget Holder and accepted by CC Discussions on: project_leads Budget: Developer 	€20,000.00
15:25 louis_to Thalion72: yes, stx12 corrected my misunderstanding
15:25 louis_to do we agree with the rephrased statement, then?
15:26 CorNouws +1
15:26 jpmcc louis_to: +1 (p.s. jpmcc wishes he had Euro sign instead of £ sign on keyboard)
15:26 Thalion72 +1 
15:26 paveljanik +1
15:26 stx12 +1
15:26 louis_to +1
15:26 _nesshof_ +1
15:27 louis_to mhu?
15:28 louis_to * one more point-- adding other categories, such as education: is that development? marketing?
depends? 
15:28 stx12 IMO it depends
15:28 Thalion72 +1 for depends
15:28 mhu +1
15:28 louis_to (mhu: we are set to finish in 31 minutes)
15:29 mhu louis_to: yes, I noted your initial comment :-)
15:29 Thalion72 we should start with the current categories and ann more in the next budgets
15:29 CorNouws budget categories?
15:29 Thalion72 (add, not ann)
15:29 louis_to CorNouws: eg, marketing, development
15:29 CorNouws must be choosen bij CC, IMO
15:29 louis_to okay, agreed. Will discuss on council
15:30 CorNouws About the suggestion¨authorisers come from the project leads group or from CC or from ESC¨
good as general rule...
15:30 CorNouws When choosing someone as authoriser, I guess that his/her feeling with the subject is taken into
account. So what would be the objection (trying to prevent extra mail ;-) )
15:30 louis_to :-)
15:31 louis_to any more comments on the budget proposal sent by jpmcc?
15:31 Thalion72 mhu had a comment (should we remove the extra OOoCon budget?)
15:32 louis_to if not, modulo the changes made do we all agree with it, then?
15:32 stx12 i still struggle with the all duties of the treasurer - but if mhu does not complain :-)
15:32 mhu well, I don't see how I could get around all this...
15:32 _nesshof_ stx12: maybe he don't want to be reelected this year again ;)
15:33 mhu finally, I would need to send the money anyway.
15:33 louis_to absent -1, the budget proposal is passed....
15:33 CorNouws Thalion72: that was about the fact that the 18.000 spendings are covered by the same incomes
15:33 stx12 yes, but now you need to hold the logs for all the budgets. 
15:33 louis_to friends, we have 26 minutes or so....
15:33 louis_to and if possible, let's discuss a few other items
15:34 Thalion72 louis_to: +1 for the proposal 
15:34 paveljanik sure, +1
15:34 louis_to such as: elections, WWDC 2007 funding, template contest. 
15:35 stx12 what about the option that the budget holder holds the log? 
15:35 CorNouws details by budget holder, totals by treasurer
15:36 mhu what are the issues with WWDC 07 funding and template contest? should I be aware of something?
15:36 stx12 i'm just afraid that we will not find a treasurer once we burned mhu
15:36 louis_to propsal: that we continue to work on the details of this but that we start with budgeting --now
15:36 Thalion72 mhu: yes - people complain about missing payments
15:36 louis_to mhu: the template contest winners have not been fully paid, I believe; wwdc2007 has some issues
with reimbursement
15:36 louis_to we can and should discuss this on list
15:36 louis_to please read up...
15:36 mhu stx12: you don't burn me so quickly :-)
15:37 louis_to http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/The_OpenOffice.org_Community_Council_Agenda
15:37 louis_to we would like to resolve this as quickly as possible
15:37 CorNouws what I suggested on mail last Thursday -> pay-day
15:38 mhu what people do complain about what? I don't know of any contest winner, nor when the contest has
been, nor ...
15:38 paveljanik 8)
15:38 louis_to so: wwdc and template issues tabled for on-list discussion: yes?
15:38 stx12 i paid those who had a paypal account. those where a bank transfer was needed could be lost by me.
15:39 stx12 i will clarify this.
15:39 Thalion72 stx12: so what would you suggest? Collect all missing requests and put it on a list for you to review
and initiate the payments?
15:39 CorNouws stx12: Florian will have details, I guess
15:40 mhu yes, please someone tell me what to pay, whatfore, ..., and I might do. But not telling me doesn't help
anyone.
15:40 CorNouws stx12:  ?
15:40 stx12 i should have the information about the template contest winners; but hints are welcome.
15:41 _nesshof_ who was the owner for performing the contest ?
15:41 CorNouws stx12: I?l ask Florian to do so
15:41 louis_to Documentation project, in particular Gerry Singleton
15:41 Thalion72 CorNouws: thanks!
15:41 louis_to however, the trace of winners remains on the doc list
15:41 stx12 the former documentation project lead.
15:41 _nesshof_ stx12: oj, that explains the problem
15:42 CorNouws _nesshof_:  hmm, partly, maybe
15:42 mhu I'm sure, we can resolve this, even if late for some of the winners.
15:42 Thalion72 I'd suggest AI for CorNouws: ask Florian (and other involved people) for missing payments, send
list to stx12 and mhu
15:42 CorNouws yep, next issue please
15:43 louis_to +1
15:43 mhu WWDC 2007 ?
15:43 mhu I think this has been resolved meanwhile. Sophie?
15:43 louis_to
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/The_OpenOffice.org_Community_Council_Agenda/WWDC2007_Funding
15:43 CorNouws For me no question on that, so without futher info I would say: pay
15:43 louis_to sophie cannot make it..
15:44 CorNouws So we?l contact Sophie. Resolved > OK, If not, we?l do it.
15:44 jpmcc +1 for the CC to pay its debts :)
15:44 CorNouws (sorry, problems with  ´  in Gaim)
15:45 Thalion72 +1
15:45 CorNouws no comment (= yes)
15:45 mhu I payed, and Christian Hardy replied : "The 2000 Euros arrived to the CUSOON count yesterday.
15:45 mhu Thank you very much.
15:45 mhu Christian " on Feb 26th.
15:46 louis_to so, the wwdc 2007 is resolved?
15:46 mhu Stefan and Sophie have that as a copy.
15:46 stx12 yes, this is resolved.
15:46 louis_to okay; so Cor will contact Florian and correspond with MHU on resolving hte template issue
15:47 louis_to other points on these items?
15:47 CorNouws no
15:47 CorNouws What about budget for the OOoCon
15:47 CorNouws Could we think about extra's to help more developers from far to join?
15:48 Thalion72 the payment for QATrack .. but florian knows about it
15:48 louis_to Cor: shall we make that an agenda item for next time?
15:48 CorNouws and coordinate with beijijng about rules
15:48 Thalion72 +1
15:48 louis_to that can be said of *new* issues/items...
15:48 CorNouws louis_to: Yes and a proposal on mail first
15:48 jpmcc CorNouws: there are a number of OOoCon items I'd like to take to the CC ...
15:48 louis_to jpmcc: indeed
15:48 louis_to John: let's do it this week, as soon as we can
15:49 CorNouws hmm, curious
15:49 louis_to Final for today: elections....
15:49 jpmcc I've been talking to the Beijing team - I'll have a proposal by the end of the week
15:49 CorNouws elections fro what?
15:50 louis_to I'd like to propose we hold elections for CC members who are project leads
15:50 louis_to I'll send out the proposed schedule this week
15:50 louis_to I'd like to see if we can start the process then or early next week. It will take a couple of weeks
15:50 stx12 let's move specs to accepted project first too.
15:50 louis_to stx12: hm
15:50 louis_to stx12: I had discussions with the specs lead when I was in Hamburg
15:51 stx12 and?
15:51 louis_to they declined to move; said it was a mistake
15:51 * stx12 is surprised
15:51 louis_to the conversation was good--we need, very much, to promote specs--
15:51 Thalion72 has there been an official request?
15:51 louis_to but they were not sure it merited or would benefit form being acepted
15:51 CorNouws apart from that (or not) no need to wait for that?
15:52 louis_to Thalion72: they had sent me an official request
15:52 Thalion72 ah - ok
15:52 louis_to I asked, why?
15:52 CorNouws should that infulence the shedule for cc elections
15:52 stx12 and now they are daunted :-)
15:52 louis_to CorNouws: it wouldn't but stx12 wanted to finish pending business
15:53 louis_to stx12: not at all, at least not by me :-)
15:53 Thalion72 CorNouws: no (and I don't see how this is related)
15:53 Thalion72 we will always have pending business :)
15:53 CorNouws so let? talk about elections
15:53 jpmcc btw I thought the way the ux project was promoted showed the community working well and could
servfe as a model for the future
15:53 louis_to jpmcc: how so? It merely followed the protocols....
15:54 louis_to ie, it wasn't the first and won't be the last...
15:54 mhu well thats a good start, isnt it?
15:54 jpmcc apologies for the diversion - you were talking about elections...
15:55 louis_to yes. AI me, to send the proposal for project lead elections. any disagreements?
15:55 louis_to (they are a year overdue or so)
15:55 Thalion72 no
15:55 CorNouws agree
15:55 paveljanik yes, ok
15:56 mhu okay
15:56 Thalion72 (rather two if not two)
15:56 jpmcc +1
15:56 stx12 go ahead
15:56 louis_to okay
15:56 louis_to unless there is more business , I'd like to adjourn today. I'd like to focus for next meeting on
trademark issues/policy
15:57 louis_to and OOoCon
15:57 Thalion72 +1
15:57 CorNouws I'll add some on the maling list
15:57 jpmcc Are we finished 2 minutes early ?????????? O:-)
15:57 CorNouws Yes, leaving now, Good bye all.
15:57 *** CorNouws has left the channel ()
15:57 mhu yes, and can we agree on a meeting date and time at leat 24h before.
15:57 paveljanik if we have 2 minutes, I'd like to ...
15:57 paveljanik late ;-)
15:57 _nesshof_ when will next meeting be ?
15:57 stx12 no, we have to find a date and time - this will take the next 2 hours
15:58 Thalion72 jpmcc: those two minutes are planned to get a beer ;)
15:58 jpmcc ;-)
15:58 louis_to I propose in three weeks---Tuesday or Thursday
15:58 paveljanik I'd like to change completely our time management method.
15:58 stx12 paveljanik: yes?
15:58 paveljanik meeting times should be not only proposed and voted on, but later announced.
15:58 paveljanik there was no announcement of this meeting
15:58 Thalion72 1st of April? 
15:58 paveljanik there was no timezone attached to 19:00
15:59 paveljanik thus we all were just guessing that it is 19:00 UTC
15:59 stx12 paveljanik: i think we - incl louis_to - agree on that
15:59 louis_to paveljanik: are you going to continue to complain?
15:59 Thalion72 UTC is written at the Agenda page
15:59 louis_to :-)
15:59 paveljanik louis_to: no
15:59 paveljanik louis_to: I want to see the oslution
15:59 paveljanik I do not want to complain
16:00 paveljanik I'm used to some method to arrange meetings and the method we use right now is NONSENSE.
16:00 louis_to then let's see if we can agree on 1 April for now and refine it later, but not later than 1 week. 
16:00 jpmcc 19:00 UTC Thurs March 27th? I'd really like the OOoCon stuff before Easter - maybe we can do it on
list
16:00 louis_to jpmcc: agreed; we will have to do a lot on the list, anyway
16:00 mhu actually, I do agree with Pavel. I have more meetings than this, and cant always shift others in favor of
this one. So some better planning is required.
16:00 louis_to my concern is that easter is a big holiday
16:01 paveljanik jpmcc: that time is OK for me.
16:01 Thalion72 jpmcc: the time is ok .. but it is actually after Easter
16:01 mhu thu mar 27 is fine for me as well
16:01 louis_to mhu, pavel: I have created google calendar to which all have total control; and you are free to
suggest times
16:01 stx12 i will be on vacation the thursday before easter weekend
16:01 jpmcc Why don't we diarise to meet every two weeks on Thursdays? it's always easier to cancel a meeting than
arrange one?
16:01 louis_to for now, agreeing on a date is required. 
16:01 louis_to jpmcc: that was once the goal
16:02 mhu stx12: 27 is after easter
16:02 stx12 oops; looking at a calender with holidays may help...
16:02 louis_to okay, next meeting is 27 March, 19:00 UTC, unless otherwise noted. Changes should be made at
least four days in advance and the list notified.
16:02 paveljanik ok, proposal - voting - announcement.
16:03 paveljanik can we at least agree on this principle?
16:03 louis_to the google calendar should be updated to reflect this
16:03 jpmcc and every two weeks after that?
16:03 paveljanik e.g. this meeting was proposed.
16:03 paveljanik some people voted on it
16:03 paveljanik none announced the agreed time.
16:03 stx12 and there is no chance to meet earlier in the day? 
16:03 mhu louis_to: is the a howto for that damn google calendar?
16:03 * stx12 is sorry to ask this
16:03 louis_to mhu; it's a puzzle
16:03 louis_to stx12; issue was firewall
16:04 stx12 jpmcc's firewall? 
16:04 louis_to stx12: we can meet before work, if you don't mind meeting at, say, 6 AM
16:04 louis_to stx12: yes; andre, too
16:04 jpmcc louis_to: I hate to admit this, but I now carry me EeePC with me so the firewall is not an issue for me
now...
16:04 louis_to :-)
16:05 louis_to so, let's arrange a better time, which we can discuss on list: it's 5 minutes beyond end time
16:05 stx12 we only need Thalion72's opinion
16:05 Thalion72 well .. I can easily agree on 6 am (as long as we start electoins for project lead members soon)
16:05 louis_to but I'd guess that 15:00, if Thalion72 can do it...
16:05 mhu okay, bye for now. Have a good evening / day everyone.
16:05 louis_to mhu: bye...
16:06 Thalion72 no way before 17:00 UTC for me (or early in the morning)
16:06 *** mhu has quit IRC ("Ex-Chat")
16:06 Thalion72 bye mhu
16:06 louis_to meeting adjourned; we will discuss time for next and subsequent meetins onlist
16:06 louis_to okay, we'll work out a compromise; 17:30 is probably okay
16:06 Thalion72 +1
16:06 stx12 17:30 UTC sounds much more friendly to me compared to 19:00 
16:07 jpmcc louis_to: internet reception is not very reliable on the bus ;-)
16:07 paveljanik is 17:30 acceptable for you louis_to ?
16:07 louis_to of course
16:08 louis_to even a meeting at 0600 UTC is
16:08 louis_to but thanks for asking
16:08 paveljanik louis_to: what is your timezone?
16:08 paveljanik (at home)
16:08 louis_to so, 17:30 27 March and thence every fortnight
16:08 louis_to -0500
16:08 louis_to but I got to sleep very late
16:08 Thalion72 so next meeting march 27, 17:30 UTC (and every 2 weeks from that on)
16:08 paveljanik +1
16:08 louis_to yes.
16:08 jpmcc I'd also like to discuss audioconference as an alternative (but not now)
16:09 stx12 thanks, all; let's see whether sophie and others can make
16:09 louis_to unless otherwise noted, in which case, warning 4 days in advance to the list and there must be some
sort of receipt of reading
16:09 Thalion72 ok
16:09 louis_to thanks all...
16:09 *** jpmcc has quit IRC ("night night")
16:09 paveljanik bye
16:10 stx12 bye all
16:10 Thalion72 bye
16:10 louis_to bye all
Retrieved from "https://wiki-test.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Council_Minutes_20080311&oldid=169768"
Personal tools