Community Council Minutes 20080124

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 2008-01-24

Attendees

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

• Stefan Taxhet was unable to attend

---

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

IRC Log Community Council Meeting 2008-01-24
14:09:30 louis_to well, shall we start?
14:09:45 louis_to or wait for andre, matthias, cor?
14:09:46 *** CorNouws (n=cono@a80-100-71-226.adsl.xs4all.nl) has joined the channel
14:09:59 louis_to guesses we wait a little longer
14:10:08 CorNouws Hi, sorry I late
14:10:51 louis_to np, several others are, too; hi
14:11:18 *** Thalion72 (n=sca@p3EE2A0EA.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined the channel
14:11:51 Thalion72 Hi - sorry,i got the timezone calculation wrong
14:11:57 louis_to hi all
14:12:00 louis_to no problem
14:12:32 paveljanik Thalion72: date; date -u is my favourite ;-)
14:13:05 louis_to well, we can probably start
14:13:19 sophi paveljanik: ah great, I'll remember this one :)
14:13:26 sophi paveljanik: thanks
irc.freenode.net #OOocouncil 14:14:46 1/24/08
14:14:46 Info The connection to the server has been established
14:14:47 *** You have joined the channel
14:14:58 louis_to sorry; got dropped
14:14:59 NickServ Notice: You have already identified
14:15:28 louis_to so, shall we start?
14:15:40 louis_to I pinged mhu; stefan cannot make it
14:15:48 sophi louis_to: yes
14:15:50 _Nesshof_ yes
14:15:57 paveljanik yes
14:15:58 CorNouws yep
14:16:10 jpmcc aye
14:16:13 louis_to the first item is the budget
14:16:36 louis_to but, oh, I forget, do we approve of the log from last meeting?
14:16:54 louis_to there are several action items on it that I failed to put into minutes
14:16:54 CorNouws who did hack the log?
14:17:02 louis_to hack?
14:17:20 CorNouws joke: logs are logs, isn't it:-)
14:17:30 louis_to yes, but I posted it to the wiki
14:17:37 louis_to I have to update the minutes page, however
14:18:17 louis_to so, I assume we approve the existence of the log and can go on to the budget....
14:18:25 CorNouws OK
14:18:31 Thalion72 so - yes, the log exists
14:18:34 louis_to have we all looked it over?
14:18:41 louis_to http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=1364
14:18:48 sophi yes
14:19:14 CorNouws budget? yes
14:19:41 *** mhu (n=matthias@p548CF4C5.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined the channel
14:19:59 mhu hi all, sorry for being late.
14:20:00 _Nesshof_ the later the evening ...
14:20:04 louis_to hi matthias; we are beginning discussion oif the budget
14:20:16 mhu okay
14:20:49 louis_to let's go item by item on it
14:21:07 louis_to * budget items are maintained by a responsible team:
14:21:07 louis_to once the overall budget has been approved by the CC, an owner for
14:21:07 louis_to the sub-budget will be assigned. There should be one or three owners for
14:21:07 louis_to the sub-budget which are able to do quick decisions about spending money
14:21:07 louis_to for concrete tasks.
14:21:07 louis_to The burden for the CC might with this detailed plan move the need for
14:21:07 louis_to discussion to the beginning of the year, but gives that the freedom to
14:21:07 louis_to the owner of the sub-budget without getting the overall consensus of all
14:21:07 louis_to member of the CC.
14:22:04 _Nesshof_ idea is to have a small team to get quick decisions on spendings
14:22:09 CorNouws Number of 'owners' of the sub-budget: one is to few, three to much, IMO
14:22:23 CorNouws with two: they ave to come to concent
14:22:46 _Nesshof_ but one or three is a odd number
14:23:01 CorNouws I mean: with two: they have to come to consent (sort of concencus)
14:23:25 _Nesshof_ if we agree on consense also there, we also can have two
14:23:49 CorNouws Or do we expect difficult situations where voting by majorty is the only way out?
14:23:49 _Nesshof_ so, should we force also here consensus voting ?
14:24:01 _Nesshof_ CorNouws: no, not really
14:24:14 Thalion72 no .. wouldn't expect that
14:24:19 jpmcc I would suggest the owner of the budget has to get the agreement of one other budget holder.
14:24:42 CorNouws is the different between concensus and consent known? Or is that a typical Dutch invention?
14:24:56 _Nesshof_ jpmcc: then we will need voting of too many voters
14:24:58 louis_to consensus means all who vote
14:25:12 CorNouws Consent means: no argumented objection, sort of can live with it, though not my first choise
14:25:13 louis_to you may consent but not voice your consent
14:25:30 louis_to in this case, the issue is agility and speed
14:26:00 CorNouws I have no objection to vote by concensus :-)
14:26:05 jpmcc Consent is when a girl agrees to have sex with you; concensus is when everyone in the office thinks she should have sex with you
14:26:06 louis_to I think we should have three members for any committee of this nature and if there is disagreement, the others can help
14:26:28 CorNouws jpmcc: :-))))
14:26:32 louis_to wonders about the wisdom of having meetings after beer hour
14:26:59 louis_to so, back to the topic at hand....
14:27:02 paveljanik ;-)
14:27:23 louis_to I propose we use 3 members per sub budget
14:27:32 louis_to do we agree?
14:27:40 louis_to and they must operate by consensus
14:27:45 louis_to (all agree who vote)
14:28:20 Thalion72 this would mean how many members?
14:28:29 CorNouws 3
14:28:38 louis_to one could be a member of more than one subbudget, I'd imagine
14:28:54 Thalion72 3x7 = 21 voting members
14:28:56 _Nesshof_ do we expect that we can assign three people for each budget ?
14:29:07 louis_to no, Thalion72: one can duplicate membership
14:29:10 louis_to it's not unique
14:29:19 Thalion72 and if on is voting for several subbudgets this is not helpfull to me
14:29:28 louis_to the point is to have forced discussions and thus accountability and transperency
14:29:31 jpmcc I like the idea that if I want to spend some of the mktg budget, I should have to get the agreement of 2 other budget holders/authrisers. If they aren't mktg, so much the better.
14:29:34 louis_to Thalion72: why not?
14:29:37 Thalion72 this seems to add administration instead of taking it away
14:29:53 louis_to accountability always does add bureaucracy
14:30:23 paveljanik jpmcc: IIUIC, you'll have a team of 3 people to own mktg subbudget...
14:30:24 Thalion72 oh - does it?
14:30:34 paveljanik and you have to get consensus from these three people...
14:30:46 paveljanik or do I misunderstood?
14:31:19 louis_to paveljanik: as I see it, yes
14:31:24 sophi paveljanik: I understand the same
14:31:33 louis_to but I don't see a problem there
14:31:43 paveljanik louis_to: I don't too. I agree with it.
14:31:54 CorNouws nor do I, and if one is not available, there are still two
14:32:30 CorNouws 'nor do I' in relation to 'no problem'
14:33:04 mhu accountability is the point here, so I think John's idea doesn't sound too bad
14:34:14 _Nesshof_ jpmcc: so then we would need just one owner per budget ?
14:34:52 paveljanik I really would like to see people from mktg project to auth spendings instead of e.g. some developer...
14:34:55 jpmcc You could have more than one per budget, but I suggest their should be at least one 'independent' authoriser
14:35:01 paveljanik or owner of devel budget.
14:35:10 Thalion72 one owner and two who review?
14:35:30 louis_to Thalion72: something like that, yes.
14:35:53 jpmcc How about every budget has two authorisers. Any expenditure needs to be approved by three authorisers?
14:35:55 _Nesshof_ jpmcc: how about the treaserer of Team OOo as one independet authorizer ?
14:36:12 louis_to _Nesshof_ who is the treasurer now?
14:36:20 jpmcc _Nesshof_: that would be idea, but hard work for the treasurer
14:36:24 louis_to is just curious
14:36:32 mhu louis_to: me
14:36:37 jpmcc s/idea/ideal/
14:37:26 jpmcc mhu: what do you think?
14:37:29 louis_to mhu, would you be available for periodic reviews of budgets? I mean sub-bugets
14:38:08 jpmcc louis_to: good question, but could we settle the authorisers question first?
14:38:11 mhu well, I would probably need to review expenses anyhow, isn't it?
14:38:25 louis_to jpmcc: agreed
14:38:31 louis_to so, do we agree with the proposal?
14:38:56 _Nesshof_ louis_to: which one ?
14:39:03 louis_to one owner designated by CC, one reviewer, appointed by designee plus the treasurer of Team OOo
14:39:30 louis_to (or treasurer of record for CC, to be more general here)
14:40:01 jpmcc +1 if the treasurer agrees - they will need a deputy to cover vacations etc
14:40:23 louis_to the discussions of the sub-budget groiup must be public and consensual
14:40:28 mhu jmpcc: yes, that's what I just thought as well :-)
14:40:40 louis_to yes; that's why I made it more general...
14:40:50 mhu +1, and yes the treasurer also agrees
14:40:55 louis_to +1
14:41:05 sophi +1
14:41:06 Thalion72 +1
14:41:16 _Nesshof_ +1
14:41:30 louis_to CorNouws?
14:41:37 CorNouws (reading)
14:42:05 paveljanik +1
14:42:58 louis_to CorNouws: do you wish to abstain?
14:43:19 _Nesshof_ louis_to: the discussions should be done on a seperate mailing list ?!
14:43:21 CorNouws missed that start of the discussion, but it means that a sub-budget essentially has one owner?
14:43:50 louis_to _Nesshof_: no , IRC, or list, but that can be specified
14:43:54 louis_to as long as it is public....
14:44:13 louis_to CorNouws: yes, plus two others to discuss this with
14:44:23 CorNouws +1
14:44:24 jpmcc CorNouws: one owner designated by CC, one reviewer, appointed by designee plus the treasurer of Team OOo
14:44:50 louis_to okay, let's move on to the next item in Martin's proposal
14:45:00 louis_to Quarterly review of the budget
14:45:47 CorNouws remark: quarterly review to make moves between sub-bidgets possible ...
14:46:21 CorNouws this would not make muchs sense after Q1 and Q2, AFAIAC
14:46:45 _Nesshof_ CorNouws: so this could be a fast review ?
14:46:58 CorNouws _Nesshof_: indeed
14:47:24 jpmcc louis_to: Could I raise your admin questions again? Every month at work I sit down with the finance people and they tell me how much I have committed to spend, how much I have actually spent, and how much I have left to spend. How will this work in OOo?
14:47:39 _Nesshof_ I would think if the review is well prepared, this will be fast anyway
14:47:49 louis_to jpmcc: this is more or less what we are going to figure out
14:48:10 louis_to I have been wanting to do this for a while, esp. with upcoming events, travel, etc
14:48:49 louis_to so, the first step is to learn how much money we will have; we need as well to determine what we are going to spend it on--in detail, with lots of room for spontaneous spending
14:49:12 louis_to but Martin has categories for spending in this budget that are helpful
14:49:21 louis_to but, let's get back to quarterly review
14:49:23 louis_to any objections?
14:49:42 CorNouws no
14:49:51 sophi no for me
14:50:04 _Nesshof_ also not from me
14:50:29 louis_to I have a query:
14:50:36 jpmcc ok - let's assume the figures will be there for us to make a decision on ;-)
14:50:37 louis_to who will present the budget for quarterly review?
14:50:37 Thalion72 hmm .. we should mention, that ne numbers have to be prepared by the owners
14:50:44 louis_to :-)
14:51:27 Thalion72 I'd say budget owners - may be done via mail
14:51:29 _Nesshof_ chair of Team OOo ?!
14:51:32 CorNouws louis_to: the sub-budget owner of course. I don' t expect it to be a huge administration
14:52:16 louis_to There is a budget reserver (how much money we have in total) and there is the sub-budget array
14:52:43 louis_to who owns the first? I mean the capital reserve budget?
14:52:47 _Nesshof_ collaborative work of Team Ooo and budget owner I would think
14:53:04 louis_to who in Team OOO? Mhu? you?
14:53:50 CorNouws plus I thought the proposal was clear: sub-budget has freedom up to the level agreed upon
14:54:17 jpmcc CorNouws: I think it's just the mechanics we need to sort out.
14:54:26 mhu louis_to: collaborative work of Team OOo, I would think.
14:54:46 louis_to mhu: but to echo ST, we really need a single owner here
14:54:58 louis_to even if it is passed on to someone else
14:55:33 louis_to I can ask Team OOo to designate an owner for presenting the capital reserves budget to the CC; would that work?
14:55:40 _Nesshof_ louis_to: in doubt the treasurer of Team OOo, but I also volunteer as char of Team OOo :-)
14:55:44 mhu so, then what was the question? A single owner for what? money?
14:56:16 louis_to a single owner to present to the CC how much money there is to be argued over by the sub-budget owners
14:56:34 mhu ah, okay. I missed that piece.
14:56:44 louis_to and _Nesshof_sort of volunteered himself and you, choose :-)
14:56:53 _Nesshof_ that a representaive of team OOo, since there are more than one sub budget owners
14:56:54 mhu yes, that can be Martin or me or Stefan, ...
14:57:39 jpmcc I think we should get a couple of people to work out the mechanics of the admin process off-line?
14:57:40 mhu I'm sure we'll find someone.
14:57:55 louis_to jpmcc: deadline on this?
14:58:10 louis_to but, I'd be happy with that solution, too; we can use the list
14:58:20 louis_to as long as we have a deadline: next meeting.
14:59:00 jpmcc I can put a proposal together for discussion in a couple of days?
14:59:18 louis_to so, discussion on mechanics tabled until next meeting, with discusion to continue oin the council list
14:59:46 louis_to let's move then to the next items:
14:59:55 louis_to * sub-budget items are fully mutable within the sub-budget:
15:00:26 louis_to any objections to it?
15:00:47 louis_to the detailed sub-budget shall make decisions on expenses more easy and
15:00:47 louis_to transparent, but the owner(s) is(are) responsible for the overall
15:00:47 louis_to sub-budget. meaning he is free to change the items of his sub-budget as
15:00:47 louis_to long he do not exceed the overall budget of his area. Overspends have to
15:00:47 louis_to be approved by the CC _and_ Team OOo e.V.
15:00:55 jpmcc I think this is sensible for this first year. I have no idea what the 'actual' send was last year for comparison.
15:01:19 mhu no objections
15:01:22 sophi it's ok for me
15:01:26 paveljanik ok
15:01:26 CorNouws no objections from me
15:01:31 louis_to jpmcc: we can ask for data from Team
15:01:39 louis_to no objections fro me either
15:01:40 _Nesshof_ jpmcc: this need to evolve over the first few years
15:01:52 jpmcc _Nesshof_: agreed
15:02:21 _Nesshof_ to have detailed spendings from the detail from the years before helps to get to descision for the current year more easy
15:02:44 louis_to so if no objections, that provision stays.
15:03:04 louis_to next item: accountability and transperency
15:03:46 louis_to I propose we conduct discussion on the mechanics of this onlist
15:03:55 louis_to and present results next meeting
15:04:11 louis_to do we agree? please indicate
15:04:15 CorNouws ok
15:04:23 jpmcc +1
15:04:27 sophi +1
15:04:42 louis_to +1
15:04:52 paveljanik +1
15:05:08 Thalion72 abstains
15:05:26 _Nesshof_ when will next meeting be ?
15:05:55 louis_to _Nesshof_: we can have a special budget meeting next week, say Tuesday
15:06:10 louis_to that is, as soon as feasible
15:06:25 CorNouws so only three day to discuss ...
15:06:39 louis_to weekends don't count?
15:06:46 louis_to :-)
15:06:49 _Nesshof_ louis_to: :)
15:06:51 CorNouws not always, yes
15:07:36 louis_to so, we have no -1s; mhu?
15:07:43 mhu +1
15:07:48 CorNouws and are we in a hurry, suddenly?
15:08:00 louis_to no; but we end in 1/2 hour
15:08:09 louis_to and we still have the community awards program update to discuss
15:08:25 louis_to and we won't be able to resolve all the points raised by the budget anyway in 20 minutes
15:08:27 Thalion72 CorNouws: if you can be in a hurry when youu are talking already months about a problem ...
15:08:30 mhu CorNouws: usually I start complaining when we use more than a hour :-)
15:08:40 louis_to that too....
15:09:30 louis_to so, discussion on the mechanics of the process to be onlist and presented as soon as feasible....
15:09:52 CorNouws sorry, I read Thursday, but you wrote Thuesday
15:09:52 louis_to the CC will then vote on that, perhaps at a special meeting next week if we can all make it (would like to get ST involved)
15:09:56 CorNouws so OK for me
15:10:37 Thalion72 chages from abstain to +1
15:10:50 louis_to if no objections, shall we move onto the community innovation awards update?
15:10:58 jpmcc Can I just table something for awareness (not discussion) that there is only one week left for proposals for location for OOoCon and we haven't received any proposals yet ...
15:11:19 louis_to jpmcc: yes, and please remind remind remind people
15:11:32 paveljanik Bratislava, SK will surely send proposal.
15:11:41 jpmcc Thanks - on with the agenda;-)
15:11:46 louis_to okay,
15:12:25 louis_to as you recall, Pavel, John, Stefan and I formed the program committee to draft OOO's rules for the Community Innovation program Sun is funding
15:12:41 paveljanik so i think that there will be one another proposal..
15:12:42 louis_to we met late last year and drafted rough rules
15:13:16 louis_to sighs theatrically
15:13:59 jpmcc paveljanik: ClosedOffice.org :)
15:14:07 louis_to early this year, I drafted them into a more coherent set; these were then implanted into Sun's basic template; John, Pavel have further made great edits and I'm workgin now on incorporating John's latest
15:14:57 louis_to the upshot: we should have the awards program ready by the the deadline, which is jjust before the end of the month
15:15:05 louis_to there will be six categories
15:15:13 louis_to for contestants to compete in
15:15:44 louis_to Technical
15:15:47 louis_to Community
15:15:49 louis_to Tools
15:15:53 louis_to OpenDocument Format
15:15:57 louis_to Documentation
15:16:01 louis_to Special
15:16:19 CorNouws Interesting :-)
15:16:26 louis_to The broad interests of the Community are appreciated by these categories
15:16:41 louis_to awards by us will be given only to meritious entries
15:16:54 louis_to ie, it's conceivable no one will win anything
15:17:27 jpmcc meritious => meritorious - i.e. we actually use them in the project or community
15:17:42 louis_to judging will be primarily by relevant project leads with the committee coordinating it
15:18:03 louis_to yes; john is right: this is not a subjective judgement or procedure but determined pragmatically
15:18:31 louis_to the sum of money can be considerable here: 175K is at stake, divided by the winners
15:18:46 louis_to there will be for each category Gold, Silver Bronze (olympic year....)
15:19:02 CorNouws is there distinction between first and second place, if so, the jury can choose not to point a winner, but only give second prizes, if necessary of course
15:19:17 CorNouws Ah, answered already, thanks
15:19:23 louis_to Right
15:19:36 louis_to We do have some questions we are still working on
15:19:50 CorNouws such as?
15:20:10 louis_to eg, we do not want to make it so that if there are no medal winners only meritorous winners, that they do not win all the 175K; that would be odd
15:20:25 louis_to I have proposed a limit for meritorious winners: 5K
15:20:51 jpmcc Note that the six categories are only there to give people an idea of what we are looking for...
15:21:09 jpmcc ...we could have three Golds in one category and none in another.
15:21:10 louis_to right. they are merely there to help, not limit
15:22:16 CorNouws I do not yet fully get the idea of meritorious winners. Is that a category apart from Gold etc.?
15:22:28 louis_to "honourable mention"
15:22:42 CorNouws ok
15:22:57 louis_to yes: someone who did not do truly excdptional work but who nevertheless has done something sufficiently interesting to merit an award
15:23:21 CorNouws ok, then the limited prize for them is justified
15:23:22 louis_to CorNouws: thanks. I will specify that
15:23:58 jpmcc Meritorious = something we use. If we use it, we pay for it. We aren't asking for freebies.
15:24:12 jpmcc For a change :)
15:24:15 louis_to :-)
15:24:28 CorNouws Yes, never heard of 'meritorious' before
15:24:55 jpmcc You didn;t go to an English speaking school ;-)
15:24:58 louis_to there are other points that need the CC's wisdom but as things are very much in flux it would make a lot more sense to discuss them at the budget meeting next week
15:25:16 CorNouws jpmcc: to old, won't accept me :-p
15:25:28 paveljanik I think we should at least mention the problem of e.g. Quebec or ...
15:25:31 louis_to CorNouws: then there is the word that confused me as a child, "meritricious"
15:25:38 louis_to paveljanik: sure
15:25:53 jpmcc Vive le Quebec libre!
15:26:00 louis_to a problem in the rules pertains to eligibility for cash awards from sun
15:26:02 sophi jpmcc: lol
15:26:41 CorNouws "problem of e.g. Quebec" ??
15:26:49 louis_to basically, as I understand it, Sun must approach each country to ascertain the legal status of those who would be able to compete in something like this
15:26:55 louis_to that means going to a lot of countries
15:27:28 louis_to we have requested that as many countries as contribute to OOo be included in the list of eligible countries
15:27:36 louis_to and Sun legal is going over that request
15:27:43 CorNouws :-)
15:27:53 louis_to I won't know of the outcome until next week--hence my reservations on this discussion
15:28:10 louis_to Quebec is, thanks to Napoleonic code, one of those entities
15:28:34 louis_to ie, one that may not end up being eligible b/c of legal conditions for entry in a contest like this
15:28:44 louis_to however, we came up with a solution
15:28:52 louis_to we is the program committee
15:29:08 louis_to we can award the honours- to all worthy contestants
15:29:16 louis_to independent of the cash prizes
15:29:21 louis_to in effect, two contests
15:29:36 louis_to And IFF we have the funds, we can even grant them money
15:30:21 louis_to that way, the community is involved
15:30:50 louis_to it is possible that with subsequent iterations of this program, more countries will be added, and I hope and anticipate that will be the case
15:31:31 louis_to questions (that I cannot really answer)?
15:31:50 Thalion72 not at the moment
15:31:52 CorNouws -
15:32:15 louis_to I hope to learn more tomorrow; there is a meeting then
15:32:29 jpmcc Louis_to: will we have a chance to circulate a copy of the rules to the CC before closing?
15:32:33 louis_to we will also finallize the rules today (me working on it with John's edits)
15:32:47 louis_to by tomorrow, I hope
15:32:57 louis_to I mean europe tomorrow
15:33:22 louis_to the web page and rules must go public by 28 Jan.k
15:33:54 louis_to jpmcc: unfortunately, or not, I had done serious edits prior to your excellent copy....
15:34:16 louis_to the program will end 23 June, allowing us several weeks to a month to go over the entries
15:34:48 louis_to questions?
15:35:01 CorNouws -
15:35:07 sophi louis_to: not for now
15:35:19 louis_to and I'll circulate a copy to the CC members my evening, your morning
15:35:29 louis_to (tomorrow)
15:35:32 sophi louis_to: thanks
15:35:43 CorNouws +1
15:37:43 louis_to so, if no further questions, I would like to adjourn the meeting. all approve?
15:38:01 jpmcc Aye
15:38:12 louis_to I will send to Stefan the transcript, of course
15:38:59 CorNouws Yes, did we agree to skip tradmakr and elections?
15:39:13 louis_to no, but I didn't think we had time to discuss them
15:39:29 louis_to we have been here 1.5 hours now. We will be meeting again next week.
15:39:46 CorNouws sorry, I'm not used yet to the shedule etc.
15:40:05 louis_to CorNouws: none of us is; this is new and is meant to get things done. I think it's working
15:40:45 louis_to so, to adjourn the meeting as requested above.... please indicate by voting
15:40:50 jpmcc Aye
15:40:51 CorNouws OK, but Thuesday is not easy for me, so maybe - by mail - we can find another day that is OK to everyone?
15:41:01 sophi +1
15:41:03 louis_to CorNouws: yes
15:41:03 CorNouws ++
15:41:10 Thalion72 we can discuss on list
15:41:11 CorNouws louis_to: thnx
15:41:19 Thalion72 (the ay of the meeting)
15:41:20 mhu +1
15:41:38 _Nesshof_ +1
15:41:54 louis_to +1
15:42:02 Thalion72 +1
15:42:39 paveljanik +1
15:42:53 _Nesshof_ by
15:42:57 CorNouws bye bye - till next week (I hope)
15:42:59 louis_to I think that is everyone. meeting adjourned.