Community Council Log 20090514
From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Revision as of 16:41, 14 December 2009 by B michaelsen (talk | contribs)
IRC Log of Community Council Meeting 2009-05-14
Attendees
- Martin Hollmichel (_Nesshof_)
- Matthias Huetsch (mhu)
- Cor Nouws (CorNouws)
- André Schnabel (Thalion72)
- Pavel Janik (paveljanik)
- Louis Suárez-Potts (louis_to)
- Stefan Taxhet (stx12)
- Absent: * Sophie Gautier, John McCreesh
IRC log 2009-05-14 louis_to shall we start? louis_to okay, with that resounding call, yes, let's go! ;-) louis_to We cannot really approve the minutes, as we lack a full quorum, but equally, we do not really define a quorum for meetings louis_to so, to cut the gordian knot: louis_to do we approve the IRC log as posted? louis_to http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council_Log_20090430 stx12 yes louis_to I just posted it and it is a cut and paste of the log _Nesshof_ +1 louis_to others? please indicate your ... mhu +1 * louis_to pokes CorNouws * louis_to waves to paveljanik CorNouws No need to approve a log, IMO ;-) louis_to hello ;-) louis_to well, there ought to be, and following form is useful louis_to be that as it may, I didn't edit when I put them there louis_to and we can now moe on louis_to AIs (thanks to CorNouws) CorNouws Minutes are conducted, so must be approved. Logs are recorded, so are as they are ... louis_to Louis: schedule a conference call with CC members regarding budget issues louis_to Status: Not done. mhu meanwhile we agreed upon to meet next monday ... louis_to Schedule for me, at least, is easier (by a lot) next week CorNouws Yes, Matthias, André and I will meet next monday evening CorNouws Either by phone or by ..? do not know yet louis_to I can provide a phone number mhu louis_to: yes that would be fine, I guess phone fits better CorNouws Thanks, if we want to. We shall sort that out by mail - AFAIAC louis_to so: Resolution, members of CC, Mu, Andre, CorNouws, possibly Louis to meet Monday (next) to discuss budget issues louis_to meeting by phone CorNouws I find phone often hard to understand, sorry. mhu louis_to: that would 19:00 cet / 13:00 EDT louis_to okay, sort it out before hand CorNouws So Iprefer IRC louis_to one can do both louis_to but let's sort it out by email, as Andre is also to be involved CorNouws Good idea yes paveljanik can we please only UTC for time planning_ paveljanik ? louis_to +1 louis_to I dislike local times, get confused, too *** Thalion72 (n=sca@p3EE2A8A2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined the channel mhu paveljanik: that would be 17:00 UTC ... paveljanik the worst case is when you use two local times. louis_to hello Andre CorNouws paveljanik: Sorry, the link was UTC, the letters were CET - my mistake Thalion72 hi louis_to let's move on to #2 (Andre, did n't do much so far) louis_to Matthias: more clear on situation wrt taxes to pay? mhu can we leave the details for monday? otherwise, we are waiting to get back resolution from finance offices CorNouws Monday OK for me, of course mhu ...we are in the process to pay for 2003 ... 2006 louis_to I see no problems with that louis_to shall we move on? louis_to Resolution to #2: tabled until Monday evening meeting louis_to #3: Louis: Send and gather estimates for several important upcoming events to budget@ louis_to I sent a note to Project Leads list and Alexandro replied louis_to but no one else. I sent a reminder today CorNouws No response = no need ?! louis_to given the lack of response, I'll ping more, but will otherwise focus on those events that I know about and which are deemed by me and others (if hope) to be good mhu maybe, marketing project is the better source for event proposals? Thalion72 CorNouws: rather no long term planning :( louis_to CorNouws: no, there is need, as we are many communities louis_to Thalion72: alas, +1 Thalion72 louis_to: focus on the input you recieve ;) louis_to mhu: I'll do both, but project_leads list includes MP people louis_to that said, I'll do what I've done before, and use both lists louis_to (this is not the first time we've done this, I point out) mhu fine with me ... louis_to AI: LSP: ping more on this louis_to Trademark Policy louis_to The broad question is, Do we know by now why we need/want it louis_to I leave immediate answers to others; unfortunately, sophie is absent Thalion72 there have been more or less been two suggetions on this Thalion72 1st: we need a policy to prevent people who do not contribute all the code back to OOo to prevent our TM Thalion72 (this can easily be translated to "we do not want to allow go-oo based builds to use our Trademark") Thalion72 2nd: we need a TM policy that is supported by the community, so that the tm-holder cannot act on it's ohn behalf louis_to I do not see those proposals as in contradiction Thalion72 correct :) Thalion72 1st would cause a rather restrictive policy, 2nd a very liberate louis_to My impression is that we can finalize this, and I think given the current context, it would make sense to do so stx12 not to mention that it helps to point ast something if we see obious abuse Thalion72 stx12: correct louis_to And I'd think that we can have restrictions on a case-by-case basis, not as universal blanket CorNouws ?? CorNouws ??? Thalion72 louis_to: restriction on case-by-case is imho not possible (atlast not for products) .. this will be a no-go for debian CorNouws 1: I do not see those proposals as in contradiction <> 1st would cause a rather restrictive policy, 2nd a very liberate louis_to CorNouws: for particular queries, we decide on an individual basis louis_to CorNouws: not really; it depends on the rigour of interpretation and phrasing CorNouws 2. The idea of a policy was / is (often mentioned) not a one by one basis (not my idea, BTW) louis_to ie, we do not want folks to exploit the work of the communty, and that includes the copyright and trademark holder, who is part of the community louis_to hence, the idea of specific review of individual problematic cases--which is effectively done now Thalion72 louis_to: we should go and discuss this at the tm mailing list louis_to and I'm reviewing, for instance, valuesoft and also www.openoffice.co.tw louis_to Thalion72: yes Thalion72 as council we would sooner or later need to decide what way to choose (restrictive or liberate) CorNouws louis_to: www.openoffice.co.tw is not valid louis_to agreed louis_to CorNouws: was going by memory louis_to have we dealt with AI on trademark? louis_to can we move on to Elections? Thalion72 louis_to: is still have to bring my thoughts to a mail CorNouws louis_to: http://www.openoffice.com.tw/ seems to work Thalion72 (about TM) louis_to CorNouws: thanks louis_to Thalion72: on trademark list--yes? Thalion72 louis_to: yes CorNouws _Nesshof_: and mhu and paveljanik: do you have the idea that the TM discussion is clear anough and moving in rigth direction?? louis_to _Nesshof_, paveljanik--ping?? _Nesshof_ CorNouws: no, I think we need to be closed into a room until we have agreed on a proceeding ;-) louis_to then let's ;-) I'll be in Europe in June, btw, London CorNouws OK, I have a small one - works faster ;-) louis_to I'd be happy to meet in persoin mhu my personal opinon: we have a good proposal of Martin (ooo equals what a testsuite defines), unfortunately we dont have that te mhu st suite CorNouws _Nesshof_: But not kidding: I think try to make more clear on the tm-list now, is a valuable first step ?? louis_to mhu, _Nesshof_: can we issue that proposal *without* the actual testsuite? CorNouws mhu: and it is unlikely - AFAIU - that we will have that test suite rather soon? louis_to ie, have that in development? Thalion72 louis_to: we have a testsuite .. but this is not generic enough louis_to but it can be Thalion72 ... and it will (imho) never be louis_to my point is that we need the policy and the policy can be soft of in potential louis_to and rely on a dodgy technology that is refined CorNouws I think defining a policy, where you need a testsuite, that you know you do not have and will not in the coming year or so, is very very ad louis_to and that can be phrased in the policy CorNouws ad = bad of course louis_to why bad? louis_to governments do that all the time; that is the nature of modern governance louis_to to allow for realworld discprepancies CorNouws because you cannot use that policy, enforce it or how you may call that louis_to if it is phrased properly, you can louis_to ie, limit the test suite to those that exist at the moment CorNouws we are no governments, we must be able to stand for court to protext our TM Thalion72 louis_to: please stop here .. we shouuld move on with *decisions* here ;) louis_to and hold open the other instances where the test suite does not apply as requiring specific intervention CorNouws and we will faile with werecked rules /policy/ lacking testsuite ... louis_to Thalion72: agreed. louis_to let's move on to elections CorNouws louis_to: and pls read what hase been written about the test suite :-( Thalion72 louis_to: the testsuite we have does just not wor for this purpose .. fullstop ;) CorNouws Thalion72: indeed! louis_to Andre: do you want to give a quick summary of the elections situation ? louis_to and, thanks for the immense work done !! Thalion72 summary: we have the people to run the elections (means supervisor and observers are defined) Thalion72 list of project leads has been reviewed ... but we should officially confirm, that two projects do not exist anymore stx12 to be more precise: Thalion72 we need the mail adresses for the code contributor list Thalion72 and we need the announcement * _Nesshof_ will deliver the mail addresses until tomorrow morning Thalion72 ok .. I'm done with the stauts stx12 the accepted project utilities has been merged into framework (is now a subproject in CEE terms) stx12 so andre suggests that we approve this change here. louis_to is there any controversy or real reason to include the CC? Thalion72 louis_to: hmm .. I need to check the charter again, but it is up to the council to introduce new projects, mhu I dont think there is any controversy here stx12 i think project closure is as significant as a status change to accepted - but no controversy louis_to Thalion72: I am not certain it is.... but I see no controversy here, anyway louis_to then, if no controversy, let's vote on the action... stx12 +1 Thalion72 louis_to: no .it#s not controverse Thalion72 +1 mhu +1 louis_to +1 paveljanik +1 CorNouws +1 * _Nesshof_ is not sure what is being voted about Thalion72 _Nesshof_: that there is no utilities project anymore louis_to basically, cleaning up the projects as listed to conform with reality stx12 the closure of utilities as separate accepted project. _Nesshof_ ok, I see, agreed, +1 louis_to Resolution: Change to accepted project passed unanimously stx12 change from ... * stx12 should be quiet when native speakers talk... * louis_to notes he's not really a native speaker :-) Thalion72 :) louis_to but, change from accepted project status: utllities is no longer a project in existence, having been merged Thalion72 same procedure for ODFtoolkit - it now exists outside OOo and not as project within OOo anymore louis_to Correct. But was ODF Toolkit finally accepted? * louis_to checks Thalion72 it was incubator louis_to right, so it need not incur our vote louis_to I just delete it as needed Thalion72 oh .. incubator project leads are included in the electorate ;) stx12 odftoolkit moves to odftoolkit.org; we will retain the content within xml.ooo louis_to they are, and we can invoke the CC- for this--do we want to? louis_to my only point is procedural: at what point do you want the CC to authorize all admin things like that? louis_to I tend to avoid introducing democratic but seemingly needless bureaucratic procedures louis_to that's all... stx12 the news about odftoolkit was more as an fyi; i think we should for accepted projects Thalion72 louis_to: http://council.openoffice.org/councilcharter12.html#PowersoftheCouncil 3. b) louis_to I suppose that I read that thinking more of Accpeted, and not incubator or NLC mhu Thalion72: yes, that meant accepted projects originally louis_to I create, for instance, NLC projects routinely, and Charles and I handle inactive ones, too Thalion72 louis_to: so it should be up to the council to review and remove such inactive projects louis_to I would suggest that we thus modify the language there to be more precise and to refer to "Accepted Projects" only, not Incubator or NLC louis_to Thalion72: for all projects? Or just for Accepted? Thalion72 but istead of just doing this, we debate if we shoult do or not louis_to but this is actually not unimportant Thalion72 louis_to: if I speak of projects I speak of all projects Thalion72 I think, this thing here is called "Community Council" and not "Accepted Community Council" louis_to do you wish then to have to vote on authorizing the creation of every project? louis_to I think that's a silly intervention of bureaucracy louis_to and would suggest that the language be made more precise Thalion72 louis_to: I would have no problem, If there was a clear and reliable reference of what projects we have stx12 i think we continue the practise to delegate this to category leads for incubator and nlc Thalion72 stx12: last time I asced the incubator cat. lead, if the list of projects is up to date I got no answer louis_to I am the lead; I do not recall your email. louis_to when did you send it? louis_to and to what address? louis_to and, it was up to date until fairly recently stx12 folks, would somebody like to add an agenda item and a proposal? Thalion72 need to check .. bout three weeks ago CorNouws stx12: +1 CorNouws Can we do #.3.3? louis_to no matter, let's add this to the agenda: my proposal to specify th elanguage and also Stefan's, that we delegate CorNouws So looking at #3.3, we can say Yes, unless we find out later that we didn't need to say that? louis_to CorNouws yes. louis_to and further proiposal, that for accepted we decide as a body Thalion72 btw. as I asked to confirm that ODFToolkit is no project at OOo anymore .. and the council did not confirm this .. does it mean, the project is still existing? Thalion72 (ok .. no need to answer) louis_to I actually believe I asked dieter and the others and did not receive an answer, as I'm also curious louis_to but the situation now answers that :-) louis_to so, let us vote on the removal of the ODF toolkit project from Incubator, and its coinsequent cleanup louis_to +1 mhu I do confirm that odftoolkit does not exist anymore Thalion72 +1 CorNouws +1 _Nesshof_ agreed mhu +1 louis_to stx12? paveljanik +1 stx12 ok, odftoolkit will be removed from incubator louis_to okay, resolution as stated above * mhu needs to finish in about 10 min ... louis_to 4.1: L10n infrastructure louis_to 1. More news from discussion? stx12 i added an item about the election process Thalion72 stop louis_to ? Thalion72 correct: stx12 asked about the status of the election process stx12 status of Community_Council/Items/Election_Process_Proposal Thalion72 this is (according to the wiki) still a proposal stx12 http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Items/Election_Process_Proposal stx12 IIRC we agreed to move along this bylaws in beijing. stx12 so let stx12 so let's agre again and we don't start the elction based on a proposal mhu agreed +1 stx12 +1 Thalion72 as I know the proposal .. +1 CorNouws +1 louis_to +1 _Nesshof_ +1 * mhu needs to finish in about 5 min ... louis_to so, stx12: what did we just vote on? louis_to that the proposal for the election process that we agreed on be agreed on again? :-) CorNouws You can read that in the log, Louis ;-) Thalion72 louis_to: yes ... we've just not been shure that we already had a formal vote on it (htere is nothing in the logs or minutes) stx12 that this is no longer a proposal but a formaly agreed upon process louis_to then I am glad that was the what, as that was what I thought :-) louis_to but it;s specific relation to the infrasatructure? louis_to ie, to 4.1? stx12 hm, i think your browser plays games to you CorNouws Yes, pls CorNouws As Martin (IIRC) said last time, a discussion on the mail list started, but without clear end. Someone should use some leadership there ;-) Thalion72 hmm .. I could try, when the announcement for the elections is done * mhu is going offline now ... CorNouws Would be great. I can have a look as well, see if I can give some suggestions CorNouws mhu: Have a nice evening - CUlater Thalion72 mhu: bye mhu bye all, cu later louis_to mhu: bye louis_to paveljanik: would you like to vote on the proposal? *** mhu has quit IRC ("good night") stx12 i think the suggestions are on the table; it needs some action... louis_to I can actually dive into that, discussing on the list * louis_to notes it's about time... * louis_to he's done something ... louis_to ->paveljanik: ping CorNouws Better prepare #2.4 (L10n infrastructure) for next meeting ?? CorNouws And continue with #2.5, Project improvement page ?? Thalion72 +1 stx12 no, change of handling of the space management according to the suggestions raised on th elist. stx12 and this needs some leadership; that's correct. CorNouws stx12: Did that discussion lead to a clear proposal already?? stx12 at least to suggested next steps CorNouws OK, so that must be worked out further, CorNouws cause I've seen various suggestions, and possible problems with those as well ;-) louis_to I think as stx12 suggests and CorNouws, too, we need to demonstrate leadership there and get this done CorNouws stx12: Thalion72: CorNouws: we ca do that, OK? stx12 http://l10n.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=10839 Thalion72 CorNouws: no problem (stx12: website hangs :( ) * stx12 just searched the mail louis_to works now CorNouws Thanks, Stefan, good summary as I see now. CorNouws I see no further objections to move on .. louis_to are we closing then on 2.4.1? * louis_to notes with pride he got the numbering riight CorNouws Yes, And #2.5: I have not worked on this yet. CorNouws Simply because Internship (#3), is IMO more urgent now, and lacks a bit attention already louis_to okay, in progress CorNouws So I suggest to continue with #3: OpenOffice.org Internship louis_to Agreed louis_to stx12: do you have an update? CorNouws http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Marketing/OOoInternship#Planning_.2F_TODO stx12 no, not from my end CorNouws And I suggest that I try to find some people for marketing work for this tomorrow and Saturday * louis_to just fixed an error in spelling louis_to the key issue, I thought, was coordinating with would-be mentors.... louis_to so I am curious: do we have a roster (list) of such mentors? CorNouws The idea was to ask on project-leads list? stx12 i think the first step is to define the basic rules: who is eligible, how much do we spend, ... louis_to yes, but there is also the Hamburg connexion louis_to stx12: perhaps. stx12 if we copy an existing approach that's easy louis_to but I think having a sense of the availablity of mentors helps louis_to for instance, eric and I were often frustrated in education b/c lack of participation by project leads stx12 believe me, we will find > 5 mentors * louis_to has no choice but to believe stx12 :-) CorNouws stx12: I think so too louis_to then I might suggest that we also tie in Education project here louis_to but that can be further discussed on the proposed wiki stx12 i'm sure about that for poposed tasks; but even for adhoc proposals i would bet... CorNouws louis_to: yes pls. louis_to so, finally, the real 4.1 louis_to Council Co-ordinator louis_to http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/BrowseList?list=discuss&by=thread&from=2222504 CorNouws Proposal for role of council coordinator (#4) Start for discussion, where some people asked for, is made. Discussion not yet .. CorNouws So we cannot move on with this, IMO louis_to hm. I suggest we put a time line on this--yes? Thalion72 and then? CorNouws Why should you? louis_to sshh! CorNouws Grins louis_to just to see about getting it done CorNouws No, people just need to do what they say Thalion72 ok timeline: start discussion tomorrow CorNouws If not, setting time lines is usesles louis_to well, for me, that's actually still today (I mean tomorrow) louis_to be that as it may: resolution on this is ? louis_to undecided at present CorNouws André meant: tomorrow at latest ;-) _Nesshof_ puuhhh CorNouws Who did ask for discussion ? louis_to _Nesshof_: you wish to vote on this issue now? Thalion72 louis_to: we already *voted* on it louis_to yes, I know, but then went on to talk against our vote Thalion72 but some people then thought they misread the proposal .. louis_to quite louis_to so, I want to finalize this louis_to now would be fine Thalion72 louis_to: just do louis_to shoudl a coordianator be a CC member? louis_to is the issue that hung us up louis_to I'd say, Yes. louis_to as tha was what we voted on to start with and that is what makes sense Thalion72 huh? CorNouws louis_to: understood, thanks Thalion72 of course this was what we voted on _Nesshof_ I'd say, not necessarily louis_to then, if we agree that that is what we want and that is what we agreed to when we voted on... louis_to sigh... Thalion72 :) louis_to then if we disagree, we should revote or rewrite the proposal louis_to so, I propose: CorNouws _Nesshof_: why? louis_to A coordinator must be a CC member : please, let us discuss this now, briefly and then vote _Nesshof_ CorNouws: why should this be a CC member ? CorNouws Cause each member get his/her turn Thalion72 I'm fine with both ideas .. pleas send a loud ping if I should vote louis_to _Nesshof_: b/c iasking non-CC members to have nonvoting status here complicates the charter, to begin with, and introduces unneeded elements CorNouws And there is a logic, intelligence maybe, behind the roulating louis_to roulating? stx12 rotating CorNouws louis_to: that is a minor issue, not related to the logic of the proposal louis_to what is a minor issue? CorNouws stx12: thanks (my bad Enlgish sorry) louis_to we all agreed on the need of a coordinator and on its utility CorNouws louis_to: What you said about voting rights louis_to the nonmember bit is what stopped things last time, CorNouws CorNouws louis_to: did we ?? louis_to yes. louis_to if we include a coordinator, then do we give rights? CorNouws We voted for the proposal as is, all +1 * louis_to assumes not a CC member CorNouws I did not see any distintion in voting on one part of the proposal _Nesshof_ a non CC member has no right to vote louis_to CorNouws; the issue that was the showstopper was that some wanted to ask Terri Molini to be the Coordinator louis_to but Terri is not a CC member CorNouws There is no nead for the coordinator to vite, is there? CorNouws But that is not the problem louis_to thus, that introduced some elements that we did not vote on louis_to _Nesshof_ believes that is okay; I see problems in that _Nesshof_ louis_to: why ? CorNouws No, the proposal is about rotating, so that each gets a change to do the good work, and get more feeling with what we do louis_to the issue then, is that if we want a Coordinator,then that coordinator shoudl be a cc member CorNouws and gets more arware etc. louis_to _Nesshof_ for the reasons I ponted out: would she be voting? louis_to CorNouws; I know the issue we voted on; this is a subordinate issue louis_to in effect, we would be asking for free labour: someone to take notes, act as a sercretary, ec. louis_to etc., that is CorNouws I psopose that we focus on the proposal first louis_to CorNouws; -1 CorNouws Do we understand what is meant with it, what it reaches for? louis_to let's first nail who is eligible, yes? CorNouws No louis_to CorNouws; are you writing to me, or to us? I think we all appreciate the issue louis_to and understand its point *** Thalion72 is now known as Thalion72_away louis_to _Nesshof_: is there a good argument for including a non-CC member ? ;-) CorNouws louis_to: , all: try to understand the logic of the proposal, then (possibly) what we have to do with non cc members paveljanik ok, I nee to go out now. Bye louis_to CorNouws: I think we "got* the logic a while ago ;-) louis_to bye louis_to I too have to leave for another meeting, one I must stpeak at CorNouws louis_to: So how then can we talk about asking a non cc member for the post? louis_to CorNouws? louis_to Cor, I would say, obviously, we cannot, given the point _Nesshof_ louis_to: is there a good argument why only CC member should be candidates for this job ? louis_to yes, two louis_to 1. as CorNouws says, the logic of the proposal is not to get free labour but louis_to to get us aware of the requirements for engaging the CC members and community in participating stx12 _Nesshof_: because it shows the interest in the council work by council members. louis_to 2. introducing a nonCC member introduces issues with voting rights and the logistics of operation louis_to basically, we might as well hire a secretary louis_to it thus goes against the grain of the proposal CorNouws We often have been disappointed by how the cc works 9 or not) and had discussions louis_to and ialso makes our life more diffiuclt CorNouws on how to improve CorNouws rotating task (small) will help that :-) louis_to _Nesshof_: the question is therefore: why do you want a non-CC member? * _Nesshof_ doubt that _Nesshof_ why should we limit this job to CC members ? louis_to yes, I agree with _Nesshof_"s skepticism, but that's beside the immediate point; it might help others, and it certainly will help whoever is tasked with doing it feel less burdened stx12 _Nesshof_: why not give a try to remove the doubts in the next turn? louis_to _Nesshof_: because of the arguments I raised louis_to you have not responded to them. You have ignored them CorNouws _Nesshof_: Because cc member will not learn if someone else does their job louis_to but they are fatal to the idea of a non-CC member louis_to I **really* have to go very very soon louis_to I would thus ask that we rratify our vote stx12 CorNouws: but that's exactly the question whether coordination fosters the improvements you would like to see. louis_to and limit the coordinator to the CC as specified in the proposal _Nesshof_ maybe the need for a coordinator vanish with the election for a new CC louis_to _Nesshof_: I doubt it. the issue is distributing the burden of work, as much as anything else Thalion72_away and maybe earth will become a disc (scnr) Thalion72_away ;) * louis_to you mean it isn't? * _Nesshof_ is not insisting to have also non CC - members as a coordinator * louis_to thought that Web 2.0 meant the world was flat ;-) louis_to then let us vote on affirming the original vote and proposal for a coordinator louis_to let us vote now * stx12 would prefer to vote on the next voluntary coordinator * louis_to is unclear what that means but you mean after elections? _Nesshof_ stx12: do we have a volunteer ? CorNouws stx12: good idea: the one for the next 4 months, Plus the one for thereafter _Nesshof_ the one thereafter should be stx12, he the only one where we know that he will be CC member again _Nesshof_ ;-) stx12 that depends on the management... _Nesshof_ lol stx12 i guess the log is closed since some minutes, right? CorNouws stx12: you want to be the second one? CorNouws and in 4 moths we vote for the 3rd CorNouws than only there have to stand one up for now louis_to stx12: not quite CorNouws stx12: not mine ;-) louis_to but I do have to leave * _Nesshof_ sits down louis_to at :30 after hour CorNouws louis_to: is my proposal OK, than I can be the first louis_to thanks _Nesshof_ CorNouws: +1 louis_to but let it be stated that we are all now in agreement with the proposal that we oringally agreed to CorNouws louis_to: indeed, thanks! louis_to and that CorNouws has volunteered for the first round CorNouws ans Stefan - deo volente - for the 2nd *** Thalion72_away is now known as Thalion72 louis_to and that in future we really need to be more attentive to how we act .. *** Thalion72 is now known as Thalion72_away stx12 thanks Cor; how long are you already doing this? * CorNouws André is playing hide and seek with himself ;-) Thalion72_away jepp :) CorNouws stx12: doing what? stx12 we don't have a quorum was with what louis_to started the meeting ;-) stx12 CorNouws: some kind of coordination... Thalion72_away long enough to set a max. period of 4 months ;) CorNouws started 40 yrs ago - the called me cordinator at scouts ;-) Thalion72_away ok .. but finally .. can we get the votes done? stx12 hm, then you should ask whether a renewal is possible... Thalion72_away so that we approve the proposal of a council coordinator as suggest in http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=2032 * CorNouws really have to leave soon, otherwise I will be devorsed next week :-( Thalion72_away +1 from my side on the proposal CorNouws +1 stx12 +1 (again) CorNouws wrt the quorum: voting continued on the list ?! Thalion72_away yes .. seems to be the better idea Thalion72_away and also the vote for Cor as our first coordinator Thalion72_away I'll vote here +1for Cor (so no vote from my side later on the list) louis_to all agreed then.... louis_to who are here, still Thalion72_away and as we are now done with the agenda .. and i'Ts getting quite late, I'm going to leave louis_to I move that we adjourn CorNouws I'm glad that we (as far a present here) agreed on this and that is was so easy ;-) louis_to :-) CorNouws To be continued ... louis_to thanks, CorNouws! louis_to meeting adjourned, thanks all