Community Council Log 20091022

Community Council The Community Council members are your representatives

About Community Council Home Community Council Charter Communication Community Council Wiki Home Community Council Wiki Category Meeting Agenda and Working Status Mailing List Archives "council-discuss" Ideas related to the community? Tell us!

IRC Log of Community Council Meeting 2009-10-22

Attendees

• Sophie Gautier (sophi)
• Martin Hollmichel (_Nesshof_)
• Matthias Huetsch (mhu)
• Cor Nouws (CorNouws)
• Louis Suarez-Potts (oulipo_to)
• André Schnabel (Thalion72)
• John McCreesh (jpmcc)
• Pavel Janik (paveljanik)

Absent

• Stefan Taxhet (stx12)

(20:37:56) Thalion72: anyway.. I think,we should start (if we get used to start at the agreed time, maybe people will learn to join in time)
(20:38:02) louis_to: if none, let's beign by gong over the action items
(20:38:15) louis_to: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/The_OpenOffice.org_Community_Council_Agenda
(20:38:54) louis_to: Do we approve of last week's minutes and action items? only indicate if you do not
(20:39:15) louis_to: all approve, no objections recorded
(20:39:23) louis_to: then AI 2:
(20:39:25) louis_to: Action items - from previous meeting(s)
(20:39:25) louis_to: 1. Budget
(20:39:25) louis_to: 1. Louis: continue on list of events selected for importance to the community and to OOo's goals (for marketing budget primirarly)
(20:40:29) louis_to: Update: there has been diminished discussion on the subject on the designated list and I've been drawing up a list of events upcoming this year and early next to present to the various lists, including the one that Sophie suggested
(20:41:11) louis_to: as well, I have, and the OOo community in general, been invited to a couple of other events, the most outstanding being one in Vietnam, end of November.
(20:41:28) louis_to: It is the Gnome event to be held there, and the idea is to reach out to OOo
(20:42:06) louis_to: There is also the Mozilla linkage at CeBit, but that is to be discussed later, on the list
(20:42:15) louis_to: Summary: In progress, with progress
(20:43:11) louis_to: shall we move on?
(20:43:16) Thalion72: +1
(20:43:18) jpmcc: +1
(20:43:21) sophie: =1
(20:43:49) louis_to: 2.2: Trademark
(20:43:49) louis_to: 1. Stefan et al: in process with progess among stakeholders
(20:43:49) louis_to: 2. then with comments on list: review by the cc (by November 4) and then start discussion on discuss@
(20:44:03) louis_to: I can provide a summary, I think
(20:44:25) _Nesshof_1 [n=martin@nat/sun/x-esqjliukytxvyhip] a rejoint le salon.
(20:44:30) louis_to: for 2.2.1, there has been, afaik, no discussion since 24 Sept. focused on the narrow subject of trademark
(20:44:37) louis_to: (hello Nesshoff)
(20:44:40) _Nesshof_1: sorry for being late
(20:44:42) louis_to: np
(20:44:53) louis_to: on 2.2., trademark
(20:45:55) louis_to: The issue is the same as before, reconciling the distributor's interests and copyright concern's with Sun's. We at Sun think it is possible to achieve a balance and thus resolve this but this iis taking more time than we like (than anybody likes)
(20:46:20) louis_to: I figure, and I'd guess others do, too, that we can have a useful discussion in Orvieto on this topic and get it done then
(20:46:20) Thalion72: louis_to: I'd like to get a tm-proposalby the end ofnextweek. otherwise I won't be able to vote on it in Orvieto
(20:47:32) louis_to: Thalion72: I'll see what I can do. Stefan returns from holiday next week, and, as well, I should have a response from Sun's legal group by then. I pinged them this morning (re-pinged, actually)
(20:48:20) louis_to: So: AI LSP (and ST) to provide to CC members offlist the proposal for voting
(20:48:33) louis_to: NOTE: I am not sure the final one would indeed be ready for voting by us in Orvieto
(20:48:58) louis_to: the idea is that AT Orvieto we can discuss with the distributors directly the issues that divide and I hope resolve them.
(20:49:07) Thalion72: louis_to: please set the date - at least send "something" before 1st of Nov.
(20:49:16) louis_to: Agreed
(20:50:19) Thalion72: others to comment on trademark?
(20:50:58) mhu: to comment, I would need to see a proposal, too. so, no comment right now.
(20:50:59) louis_to: Thalion72: you mean on the proposal to send to CC the proposed policy?
(20:51:25) louis_to: b/c otherwise all will have mhu's response
(20:51:38) Thalion72: louis_to: in general .. or (if no comments) move on to next topic
(20:51:44) jpmcc: Thalion72: I don't think we will ever please everyone ... we have to minimise the upset and make sure the benefits are greater than the upset
(20:51:57) louis_to: Thalion72: I ahall but I'm not as impatient as you seem to be
(20:52:03) mhu: indeed
(20:52:28) _Nesshof_1: hmmm
(20:52:29) louis_to: but, absent the possibility of discussing the TM proposal, let's move on to 2.3, Elections
(20:53:04) louis_to: 2.3.1: Elections process was announced and the nomination period has closed
(20:53:51) louis_to: however, Thalion72 raised the idea of extending the CCR by a couple of days to accommodate the single nominee ... who came in a little late
(20:53:59) mhu: so, do we have a list of candidates ?
(20:54:01) louis_to: Thalion72: do you want to make your proposal?
(20:54:16) louis_to: mhu; Not yet was compiling it jsut prior to this meeting
(20:54:24) mhu: fine
(20:54:24) sophie: louis_to: +1 on my side on extending
(20:54:27) Thalion72: I'd suggest to allow one late nomination that was suggestd by Jan Holesovsky
(20:54:56) mhu: how can anyone have missed the proposal time
(20:54:59) mhu: ?
(20:55:00) Thalion72: this should be sent in until Saturday
(20:55:14) Thalion72: mhu: e.g. being on vacation?
(20:55:19) paveljanik: mhu: e.g. holidays?
(20:55:38) mhu: ah okay, do we know that for sure ?
(20:56:11) Thalion72: mhu: no - but we have only one nomitation in this cathegory so far - and it was not approved yet
(20:56:11) louis_to: mhu given that Jan's nomination is the only one, that raises different issues
(20:56:24) jpmcc: If we are extending the timetable, we should do it by a general announcement to allow other late entries and not make a 'secret exception' for one candidate
(20:56:31) louis_to: as well, it allows us to shorten the voting in this case, at lesat, as there are no other contenders
(20:56:47) louis_to: jpmcc: I suggest we only allow it for the CCR role
(20:57:04) Thalion72: jpmcc:i second louis - only on exception.
(20:57:08) mhu: what is CCR by the way ?
(20:57:11) louis_to: but I have had zero other expressions of interest
(20:57:20) louis_to: community contributor representative
(20:57:26) Thalion72: It's not secret - it has been requested today
(20:57:41) Thalion72: louis_to: "Code Contributor ... not "Community"
(20:57:48) sophie: code contributor
(20:57:52) mhu: aha, but that CCR was not open for a vote ?
(20:58:10) Thalion72: Community COntributor is not to be elected this round
(20:58:19) louis_to: then I am confused on acronyms here, and sophi is right
(20:58:23) mhu: sophi: okay, thanks, that resolves it for me :-)
(20:58:29) louis_to: indeed, me too
(20:58:50) louis_to: but I still have no problems in extending it a little and opening it for more nominations
(20:59:06) louis_to: and then shortening the voting period, if none come in, or if only very few
(20:59:18) jpmcc: If we are extending it, then we should do it by public announcement
(20:59:25) Thalion72: louis_to: in this case we would not meet the "Orvieto" date for any of the elections
(20:59:26) louis_to: jpmcc: agreed
(20:59:33) mhu: I would also agree to jpmcc, and open it for all, not just one.
(20:59:33) louis_to: Thalion72: I know
(20:59:43) paveljanik: mhu: yes
(20:59:45) paveljanik: of course.
(20:59:45) louis_to: mhu: why all?
(21:00:02) paveljanik: open for anyone, not just for kendy.
(21:00:05) paveljanik: announce and wait
(21:00:07) louis_to: for CR
(21:00:07) mhu: I dont like special rules for single late comers
(21:00:30) louis_to: it is not for single late comers ; it is for otherwise absent seats that won't get filled
(21:00:31) Thalion72: ok - but if we open for all again, we can start voting only after Orvieto
(21:01:02) jpmcc: Thalion72: maybe we can enourage more nominations at Orvieto?
(21:01:09) sophie: mhu: we have been long to settle the process, others can be long to react too ;)
(21:01:14) louis_to: quite possible....
(21:01:21) Thalion72: jpmcc: yes .. and wait another year to do the elections :)
(21:01:47) sophie: jpmcc: you mean lobbying ;)
(21:01:48) louis_to: it seems as if all are arguing here now for voting to commence AFTER Orvieto and to use Orvieto as a stage to encourage more participation?
(21:02:01) mhu: sophi: sure, I just think, we should then re-open the nomination period, not just for a single nomination
(21:02:10) louis_to: if so, does someone want to phrase it as a proposal that we can vote on?
(21:02:14) Thalion72: louis_to: no I am *not* aruing *for* this solution
(21:03:04) mhu: proposal: re-open nomination period until this Sunday evening, for all open seats.
(21:03:12) Thalion72: louis_to: I'm only saying that this is the consequence, if we extend the nomination period (and imho this consequence is not welcome - at least to me)
(21:03:36) louis_to: mhu: why this Sunday?
(21:03:44) louis_to: and not, say, after Orvieto?
(21:03:52) mhu: counter proposal: do not accept further nomination, go directly to voting
(21:03:54) louis_to: Thalion72: yes, that is your argument
(21:04:12) louis_to: mhu: counter: to use the conference as a vehicle for engaging people
(21:04:33) Thalion72: mhu: there is not "go direct to voting" - thre is one week between end of nomination and starting to vote
(21:04:57) sophie: imho Orvieto should stay out of the election process
(21:05:01) mhu: as per announced plan, nomination period *is* already closed. so, we can go to voting. no need to discuss
(21:05:22) Thalion72: mhu: yes, if we do not extend, we can start votingnext week
(21:05:32) louis_to: mhu: no, not quite, the nominees have to have some time to announce their candidacies
(21:05:41) louis_to: so, next week, or so voting
(21:05:53) mhu: yes, sure. I was simplifying ...
(21:05:53) louis_to: if no extension
(21:06:01) Thalion72: mhu: and not all candidates approved the nominations yet
(21:06:12) paveljanik: OK, I have change my mind. I do not agree with extending the nomination period.
(21:06:14) mhu: ...or disapproved
(21:06:17) Thalion72: waht will prevent any vote
(21:06:53) louis_to: paveljanik: so jan is out of luck?
(21:07:00) louis_to: and we get no CR this wave of elections?
(21:07:04) mhu: ..we can go ask all nominees, if they are not familiar with the process, and come back themselves
(21:07:13) Thalion72: mhu: the process description is quite clear, that candidates needto agreeto the nomination
(21:07:55) jpmcc: Could we proceed with elections for the other positions, and re-advertise for the vacancy at/after Orvieto?
(21:07:59) mhu: ...then take it as "remind them"
(21:08:09) Thalion72: jpmcc: we can
(21:08:09) louis_to: jpmcc: that was my original suggestion :-)
(21:08:17) louis_to: glad to see you came around to it :-)
(21:08:20) sophie: Thalion72: so only Juergen has not react yet, may be we should ping him ?
(21:08:46) jpmcc: louis_to: I'm in the slow learners class
(21:08:55) Thalion72: sophi: yes .. we actually have to ping him (or we define the nomination as invalid)
(21:09:16) louis_to: so, I propose we extend ONLY the CR role process and proceed as written with the others
(21:09:21) louis_to: please vote on this
(21:09:24) jpmcc: +1
(21:09:31) Thalion72: +
(21:09:35) mhu: no extension was the proposal
(21:09:35) Thalion72: 1
(21:09:39) sophie: +1
(21:09:42) _Nesshof_1: +1
(21:09:44) mhu: -1
(21:09:58) paveljanik: -1
(21:10:00) Thalion72: mhu: no extension is the "default" ;)
(21:10:01) louis_to: mhu: no, actually, the proposal I just put forth was to extend only the CR role
(21:10:03) mhu: please vote on what we discussed
(21:10:25) louis_to: mhu: we discussed many things; I prefer precision, don't you?
(21:10:29) mhu: yes, and we discussed that we dont want to extend
(21:10:33) Thalion72: ok - so no extension of the nomination period - we need to ping Juergen and continue the process
(21:10:41) sophie: BTW I'll ping Juergen to react on the lists
(21:11:21) louis_to: to summarise the vote tally: as we need consensus, there is NO extension for ANY role up for election
(21:11:38) Thalion72: correct
(21:11:39) louis_to: Meanwhile, Sophie will contact Juergen for confirmation
(21:11:46) mhu: yes, that is the proposal we discussed
(21:12:10) louis_to: mhu: again, we discussed many things; please be precise
(21:12:25) mhu: ...and re-advertise the vacancy after Orvieto
(21:12:28) Thalion72: mhu: no . that is the default process - we discussed to have an exception - what was rejected
(21:12:30) louis_to: very well, ellections are to proceed as scheduled
(21:12:36) mhu: *I* am precise
(21:13:01) louis_to: The second wave of elections can and will include the CR role again
(21:13:08) Thalion72: mhu: if we go on with elections and uergen accepts nomination, there is no vacancy
(21:13:15) louis_to: that second wave has so far not been charted
(21:13:19) louis_to: Thalion72: correct
(21:13:50) louis_to: so, instead of can and will, I should write, "May"
(21:14:54) Thalion72: louis_to: it will, as all current members of the council are already to lon on duty
(21:14:56) louis_to: for the immediate future, the nominees are to confirm their interest and if confirm then engage in informing the community of their work
(21:15:36) louis_to: stefan taxhet (or someone like him) will set up the survey site for the vote, so that it can be used for the actual election
(21:16:04) louis_to: do we then agree to move on to the next item?
(21:16:16) mhu: yes
(21:16:18) Thalion72: louis_to / _Nesshof_1: we should get a current list of code contributors
(21:16:25) Thalion72: but - yes, move on
(21:16:26) louis_to: 2.4: Internships
(21:16:28) _Nesshof_1: Thalion72: ok
(21:16:47) _Nesshof_1: what's shall be the date for this ?
(21:16:49) louis_to: Cor (et all): Continue on the preparations,
(21:17:03) louis_to: Cor is away, but can others speak to the preparations?
(21:17:10) _Nesshof_1: Nov 1st ?
(21:17:16) Thalion72: _Nesshof_1: this date:=Today()
(21:17:23) _Nesshof_1: ok
(21:18:04) louis_to: if no one can speak to the preparations, then let us move on to 2.4.2 and .4
(21:18:12) louis_to: and .3, of course
(21:18:45) louis_to: The education event in Toronto is next week, and I anticipate that Cor and I can discuss the status of this, so I an communicate it to the Toronto people
(21:19:02) louis_to: others from Google, Red Hat (fedora), Moxilla, etc. will be there
(21:19:29) louis_to: 2.4.3: Louis and Matthias: working on suport (where neccesary) from project leads
(21:19:40) louis_to: I have not done this; mhu: have you?
(21:20:01) mhu: well, no; I am still unsure what is expected when
(21:20:38) louis_to: My understanding is that we need to engage the project leads in helping with mentoring or otherwise contributing to internships
(21:20:55) louis_to: but otherwise, I have the same question as you
(21:21:18) mhu: I would go and them if I had anything to ask
(21:21:23) louis_to: so, the actual sort of involvement expected of any project lead needs to be defined
(21:21:31) mhu: right
(21:21:45) CorNouws [n=cono@a80-101-151-17.adsl.xs4all.nl] a rejoint le salon.
(21:21:49) louis_to: and for that, I think, we need to talk to Stefan, Cor, Flo, and others involved in this.
(21:21:52) louis_to: CorNouws!
(21:21:57) CorNouws: hi all,
(21:22:02) Thalion72: Hi Cor!
(21:22:04) mhu: louis_to: yes
(21:22:09) mhu: hi Cor
(21:22:34) CorNouws: an 'this' is ?
(21:23:01) mhu: 'this' is 'internships'
(21:23:17) CorNouws: Ah, I thought so ;-)
(21:23:25) mhu: :-)
(21:24:25) louis_to: CorNouws: the issue is that mhu and I need further specifics about what precisely we must ask of the project leads so that they can be involved in the internship program
(21:24:37) louis_to: eg, are they to be mentors? or just overseers?
(21:24:53) louis_to: do they work on to-dos?
(21:25:12) louis_to: and leave it at that? That is what Seneca, for instance would want: just semester-sized to-dos for students
(21:25:20) louis_to: no mentoring, but yes to-dos
(21:25:25) louis_to: so, we need specifics
(21:26:13) CorNouws: louis_to: OK, I'll pick it up,
(21:26:13) CorNouws: from the internship -ToDo page
(21:26:13) CorNouws: and mail to you
(21:26:17) CorNouws: OK?
(21:26:47) louis_to: CorNouws: yes.
(21:27:16) louis_to: Let's also discuss this by phone or IM tomorrow or next week, so I can go to the Toronto Education events better prepared
(21:28:09) CorNouws: Maybe I have time tomorrow afternoon, else it will we Thursday next
(21:28:10) louis_to: as to 2.4.5: no updates. Since June, there has been minimal news from Tsiinghua (ie, none) and Seneca has been less clear than I would like, probably my fault
(21:28:24) louis_to: hm. okay.
(21:29:11) louis_to: unless objections, let's move onto 2.6:
(21:29:19) louis_to: l10n infrastructure
(21:29:54) louis_to: sorry, I missed 2.5
(21:29:54) louis_to: my error: Distribution Infrastructure
(21:29:54) louis_to: Wait for results of testing (pepared by Florian)
(21:29:59) louis_to: do we have those results?
(21:30:06) Thalion72: I have no news and afaik, Florian had no time to work on this
(21:30:24) ***louis_to imagines that Florian is fiendishly busy with OOoCon
(21:30:41) louis_to: Then let us move on to 2.6, unless others....?
(21:30:51) louis_to: l10n infrastructure
(21:30:51) louis_to: 1. Wait for nagios a.o. monitoring results
(21:30:51) Thalion72: no .. more with discuss&discover and the GErman Kongress
(21:31:00) louis_to: ah.
(21:31:16) louis_to: do we have nagios information? Sophie?
(21:31:36) Thalion72: for 2.6 I don't know about monitoring results, but pootle servers are still not really stable
(21:32:17) sophi: louis_to: more Stefan than me, but we do have to investigate Pootle services
(21:32:21) Thalion72: pootle developers suggested to update to a newer version, but this cannot be done before 3.2 release
(21:32:22) louis_to: I see. I expect then that Stefan can update on list and otherwise at OOoCon
(21:32:32) CorNouws: Yes, Stefan will know - later
(21:32:36) louis_to: Thalion72: right
(21:32:54) louis_to: then let us move on to 2.7:
(21:32:57) sophi: we need to know if this material, infrastructure or software, but it will be after 3.2 release
(21:33:10) louis_to: Louis: deliver final wording after the discussion that was on the mail list
(21:33:13) louis_to: not done yet
(21:33:35) louis_to: same with 8.1 : not done yet (aka, in progress)
(21:33:50) louis_to: so, 2.9
(21:33:54) louis_to: Meeting at OOoCon 2009
(21:33:54) louis_to: 1. compile an agenda on the mail list and also advertise the meeting date and agenda options to project leads
(21:33:55) louis_to: 2. extended meeting on Tuesday evening
(21:34:19) louis_to: afaik, we have not done this yet
(21:34:28) Thalion72: nope
(21:34:56) CorNouws: There is a small hint, at the bottom of the agenda-Wiki
(21:35:06) louis_to: can I suggest we then send in ideas to the cc list and also open the wiki and announce it, as we did last year?
(21:35:20) louis_to: CorNouws: yes, but it needs to be advertised as open
(21:35:23) louis_to: so, let's do that
(21:35:47) CorNouws: louis_to: open ?
(21:35:49) louis_to: by sending notice to the usual lists, discuss@, dev@, project leads, dev@native-lang, marketing, etc.
(21:36:04) louis_to: to encourage the communty to submit agenda items to the wiki for discussion at Orvieto
(21:36:04) mhu: ?
(21:36:11) mhu: !
(21:36:16) louis_to: ! ?
(21:36:28) louis_to: mhu: is that a probem?
(21:36:29) CorNouws: Are you sure? If we meet, we can make our own agenda
(21:36:31) mhu: louis_to: short for : what and aha
(21:36:40) Thalion72: hmm: first agenda item - welcome new Council members and say goodby to the retetired ;)
(21:36:51) louis_to: I should point out that the current wiki agenda is actually open always to all to submit items
(21:36:57) CorNouws: If members have their ideas, they want to discuss (with/for) us, thay canmail or phone
(21:37:19) jpmcc: In the past we invited email questions for the public Q&A session http://conference.services.openoffice.org/index.php/ooocon/2009/paper/view/149 which is different from the CC business meeting
(21:37:21) CorNouws: louis_to: Duhh
(21:37:38) CorNouws: Yes public Q&A is different
(21:37:57) mhu: jpmcc: yes, that should be prepared
(21:38:10) jpmcc: I would encourage public questions to the Q&A session and leave the business meeting for business
(21:38:28) mhu: jpmcc: yes, agreed
(21:39:05) louis_to: out of curiosity, as jpmcc has expressed exactly what I did, why the difference in reaction?
(21:39:33) jpmcc: It's my Scottish accent ;)
(21:39:40) louis_to: :-)
(21:39:44) mhu: louis_to: maybe you speak two different languages to me ... dont know
(21:39:47) CorNouws: which clarified some details ;-)
(21:39:53) louis_to: we used to, and still do, to an extent, advertise the openness of the agenda
(21:40:01) mhu: yes, more clear now
(21:40:29) louis_to: actually, I think the spectre of broadcasting the agenda's openness is what freaked people
(21:40:51) louis_to: but in fact it only underscores what we already do and what we want to do, ie, engage the community
(21:41:27) louis_to: so, when CorNouws; says, "public Q&A" he means, only in the room where we sit
(21:41:57) mhu: can you explain, please ?
(21:41:59) louis_to: but in Barcelona, we had the public in the room but we also had the agenda open for non-present people with questions and points, so we've done this before
(21:42:11) louis_to: mhu: explain what?
(21:42:47) mhu: louis_to: i did not understand your sentence, with the 2nd half comming in after my question
(21:42:49) CorNouws: To quote myself: " Yes public Q&A is different"
(21:42:49) CorNouws: No problem if people suggest /bring items for the agenda, but we as council make our own meeting
(21:42:49) CorNouws: which is not the same as the public Q&A
(21:43:34) jpmcc: CorNouws: +1
(21:43:36) louis_to: CorNouws: you may not know this but the agenda has always, always been open to items from the community and has frequently in the past included them
(21:44:02) louis_to: the CC has always then derived its agenda both from community items and from those internal things we need to discuss, as we do now
(21:44:11) louis_to: I would continue with our precendents
(21:44:30) CorNouws: louis_to: I know, but that is included in what I said
(21:44:37) louis_to: and have a Q&A session at OOoCon, as we did in Beijing and also in others
(21:44:55) louis_to: CorNouws: evidently, misunderstandings are as common here as fleas on a dog
(21:44:58) louis_to: :-)
(21:45:12) louis_to: and I'd like to be precise as to what it is we are doing and when
(21:45:51) jpmcc: louis_to: woof woof
(21:46:08) louis_to: so, I again state we need to inform the community of the Q&A to be held at OOoCOn and invite them to *suggest* items for discussion at the CC meeting *without* obligating us necessarily to including them in our actual agenda
(21:46:44) mhu: yes, that is precise, thanks and +1
(21:46:56) Thalion72: +1
(21:47:01) jpmcc: +1
(21:47:05) _Nesshof_1: +1
(21:47:09) sophi: +1
(21:48:07) louis_to: CorNouws?
(21:48:20) louis_to: paveljanik?
(21:48:43) ***CorNouws dis anyone start voting ? No need to vote on common procedures though
(21:49:17) CorNouws: pls next item, AFAIAC
(21:49:20) louis_to: CorNouws: you need not vote, but in this case, the vote is simply an index of our agenda
(21:49:46) louis_to: So, there are no objections. John, do you want to help out in advertising this, if you have time?
(21:49:54) jpmcc: louis_to: OK
(21:50:07) louis_to: part of it is to schedule the actual Q&A--your area, I think
(21:50:21) jpmcc: http://conference.services.openoffice.org/index.php/ooocon/2009/paper/view/149
(21:50:27) louis_to: thanks
(21:50:50) CorNouws: BTW: our agenda has 2.9 and 2.10 ;-)
(21:50:52) louis_to: Budget 2010
(21:50:52) louis_to: 1. Start budgeting (planning spending money) for the next year before the OOoCon by mail
(21:51:16) CorNouws: mhu: will you or shall I ?
(21:51:26) louis_to: Ij just asked John about #10... the schedule of the Q&A
(21:51:27) mhu: I think, Cor and I can propose a budget within the next days ...
(21:51:40) mhu: CorNouws: please go ahead
(21:51:48) CorNouws: mhu: thanks, looks as a good idea to me :-)
(21:51:49) louis_to: okay, but let me send you the actual events that would affect that. I can do that by my time tonight
(21:52:30) CorNouws: louis_to: yes pls send them
(21:52:46) louis_to: issue is, Cor, still a little bit of a mystery
(21:53:03) CorNouws: ??
(21:53:05) louis_to: but, let's move on to 2.3, Council Coordinator
(21:53:18) louis_to: (Cor: there are big ones, medium ones, and new big ones)
(21:53:20) CorNouws: Ah, sorry
(21:53:27) mhu: so, Cor and I discussed a budget in private mail, will send that to list within a couple days; will be a budget frame only, only details yet. that would be budget owers work
(21:53:31) louis_to: (but nothing that cannot be accommodated)
(21:53:40) CorNouws: that item was there for the meeting on Nov. 3
(21:54:15) mhu: s/only details/no details/
(21:54:25) louis_to: right....
(21:54:43) louis_to: okay, do we have new business we wish to raise here and now?
(21:55:34) jpmcc: Just to watch out for 100,000,000 downloads of 3.x http://marketing.openoffice.org/marketing_bouncer.html
(21:55:42) louis_to: :-)
(21:55:48) mhu: :-)
(21:56:16) louis_to: If no new business, I would like to adjourn the meeting
(21:56:33) louis_to: Cor, I can post the IRC record
(21:56:41) louis_to: and extract the AIs
(21:56:59) louis_to: are there any objections to adjourning?
(21:57:02) CorNouws: louis_to: thanks, but no need to do that. Sophie already did
(21:57:07) louis_to: if none, the meeting is adjourned