XSF Discussion - 2017-12-21


  1. Holger has left
  2. nyco has left
  3. efrit has joined
  4. lumi has left
  5. @Alacer has left
  6. @Alacer has joined
  7. jjrh has left
  8. jjrh has left
  9. pep. has left
  10. sonny has left
  11. sonny has joined
  12. jubalh has left
  13. sonny has joined
  14. sonny has joined
  15. Tobias has joined
  16. lumi has joined
  17. efrit has left
  18. stefandxm has joined
  19. Tobias has joined
  20. uc has left
  21. uc has joined
  22. lumi has joined
  23. lumi has left
  24. uc has left
  25. uc has joined
  26. lskdjf has joined
  27. uc has left
  28. uc has joined
  29. uc has left
  30. uc has joined
  31. lskdjf has joined
  32. uc has left
  33. uc has joined
  34. uc has left
  35. uc has joined
  36. @Alacer has left
  37. @Alacer has joined
  38. uc has left
  39. uc has joined
  40. lskdjf has joined
  41. valo has joined
  42. uc has left
  43. uc has joined
  44. uc has left
  45. uc has joined
  46. Neustradamus has left
  47. lskdjf has joined
  48. uc has left
  49. ThurahT has left
  50. ThurahT has joined
  51. Ge0rG has left
  52. Ge0rG has left
  53. valo has left
  54. valo has joined
  55. uc has left
  56. Guus has left
  57. goffi has joined
  58. Guus has joined
  59. Ge0rG has left
  60. Ge0rG has joined
  61. zinid has left
  62. Ge0rG has left
  63. Ge0rG has left
  64. uc has left
  65. Ge0rG has left
  66. Guus has left
  67. ralphm has joined
  68. Ge0rG has joined
  69. uc has left
  70. Guus has joined
  71. ralphm has left
  72. @Alacer has left
  73. @Alacer has joined
  74. lskdjf has joined
  75. daniel has left
  76. daniel has joined
  77. remko has joined
  78. jere has joined
  79. ralphm has left
  80. Ge0rG has left
  81. uc has left
  82. lskdjf has joined
  83. Steve Kille has left
  84. Steve Kille has left
  85. Ge0rG has joined
  86. Ge0rG has left
  87. Ge0rG has left
  88. Steve Kille has joined
  89. Ge0rG has left
  90. Me has left
  91. jmpman has joined
  92. ralphm has left
  93. lskdjf has joined
  94. zinid has left
  95. jmpman has joined
  96. SouL has joined
  97. SouL has joined
  98. Ge0rG has left
  99. Alex has joined
  100. Ge0rG has left
  101. jubalh has joined
  102. Ge0rG has left
  103. uc has joined
  104. jere has left
  105. jere has joined
  106. @Alacer has left
  107. daniel has left
  108. Ge0rG has left
  109. @Alacer has joined
  110. jmpman has joined
  111. jmpman has joined
  112. Ge0rG has left
  113. jonasw has left
  114. marc Ge0rG, wow, XEP-0045 specificies an "invite" URI action. Did you know that?
  115. uc has left
  116. Ge0rG marc: you can use it to make your client invite somebody else, yeah. What's your point?
  117. marc Ge0rG, just didn't know that there is already a query action with the name "invite" ;)
  118. uc has joined
  119. uc has left
  120. Ge0rG marc: if you want to pass on invitations, ?join is the right action
  121. uc has joined
  122. lskdjf has left
  123. la|r|ma has joined
  124. lskdjf has joined
  125. Ge0rG has left
  126. marc Ge0rG, it just thwarted my plans to use "invite" as action for user invitation :P
  127. Ge0rG marc: Great! Then you can finally follow my suggestion of omitting the action altogether.
  128. Ge0rG marc: because you can't force a specific action on the receiver of the URI anyway.
  129. Ge0rG marc: depending on internal state, it can be any of roster, subscribe, chat
  130. marc Ge0rG, nah, I just define "invite23" as action for user invitation
  131. Ge0rG marc: https://memeexplorer.com/cache/550.jpg
  132. marc Ge0rG, I don't get your last statement. What's your point about "internal state"?
  133. Ge0rG marc: it depends on how far the invitee is enrolled into XMPP
  134. marc Ge0rG, yeah, but that's not related to URI query actions. It's a general problem if I got your point...
  135. Ge0rG marc: it is a problem of the URI action, because you try to tell the invitee client what to do with that action.
  136. Ge0rG marc: as the invitee's client, I would do the following on an action-less URI: - no account --> register first - have account without this contact --> add contact - have account with the inviter contact --> open chat
  137. Ge0rG marc: there is no proper action to add a contact, and the invitee can't know the right action anyway.
  138. marc Ge0rG, you can still do this with actions :D the action is just a pointer what this URI is about
  139. Ge0rG marc: yes, but a properly implemented invitee client will ignore the action anyway, so it's only adding complexity
  140. marc Ge0rG, what about "?register"? how would your client determine what to do without this action? :D
  141. Ge0rG marc: did you just switch use cases?
  142. marc Ge0rG, no, your point is that actions are useless in URIs, right?
  143. Ge0rG marc: the ?register action does make sense for the xmpp://account@server URI
  144. Ge0rG marc: my point is that actions are useless in "share my JID" URIs
  145. Ge0rG has left
  146. Ge0rG marc: so for user-invitation and for PARS, there is no benefit in an action
  147. marc Ge0rG, okay, not in general?
  148. Ge0rG marc: no
  149. Ge0rG marc: sorry that I didn't make that more explicit before.
  150. marc Ge0rG, okay, maybe I can follow you now...
  151. Ge0rG marc: MUCs are shared with the `join` action, proto-accounts are shared with the `register` action, contact invitations are shared with no action - can we agree on that? :)
  152. marc Ge0rG, what are proto-accounts?
  153. Ge0rG marc: the second use case of your proto-XEP, inviting users to your server.
  154. Ge0rG How did we call that? create-account?
  155. marc Ge0rG, okay, I think we can agree on that :)
  156. Ge0rG Phew! 😅
  157. marc :>
  158. daniel has left
  159. la|r|ma has left
  160. Ge0rG has left
  161. la|r|ma has joined
  162. lumi has joined
  163. Alex has left
  164. sonny has left
  165. sonny has joined
  166. efrit has joined
  167. Ge0rG has left
  168. uc has left
  169. uc has joined
  170. Ge0rG has left
  171. ralphm has left
  172. jubalh has left
  173. @Alacer has left
  174. @Alacer has joined
  175. efrit has left
  176. Ge0rG has left
  177. Alex has joined
  178. efrit has joined
  179. Alex has left
  180. Ge0rG has left
  181. ralphm has joined
  182. @Alacer has left
  183. @Alacer has joined
  184. Ge0rG has left
  185. @Alacer has left
  186. @Alacer has joined
  187. Ge0rG has left
  188. Ge0rG has left
  189. daniel has left
  190. jcbrand has joined
  191. Ge0rG has left
  192. jubalh has left
  193. ralphm has left
  194. Ge0rG has left
  195. Ge0rG has joined
  196. waqas has joined
  197. Ge0rG has left
  198. jcbrand has left
  199. ralphm has left
  200. Ge0rG has joined
  201. Holger has left
  202. nyco has left
  203. Holger has left
  204. efrit has left
  205. moparisthebest has joined
  206. moparisthebest has joined
  207. ralphm has left
  208. ralphm has left
  209. lumi has left
  210. daniel has left
  211. valo has joined
  212. Alex has joined
  213. Alex has left
  214. Alex has joined
  215. daniel has left
  216. valo has joined
  217. ralphm has left
  218. lovetox has joined
  219. Martin has joined
  220. ralphm set the topic to XSF Board Meeting | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings
  221. ralphm bangs gavel
  222. Guus o/
  223. ralphm 0. Welcome + Agenda
  224. ralphm Who do we have?
  225. Martin *wave*
  226. ralphm MattJ, nyco?
  227. ralphm Well, that's disappointing
  228. Guus my thoughts
  229. Guus In the interest of getting something done: we do have quorum.
  230. Martin We do indeed
  231. ralphm Indeed.
  232. ralphm Let's continue.
  233. ralphm 1. Char
  234. ralphm 1. Chair
  235. Guus tag, you're it?
  236. ralphm I've seen one volunteer in response to the e-mail I sent out.
  237. ralphm If anyone else wants to volunteer in this meeting, please step up. Otherwise I motion we appoint Ralph Meijer as the Chair of the Board of Directors for the 2017/2018 term.
  238. Guus +1
  239. Martin +1 to that motion
  240. ralphm I guess that's sufficient to carry the motion.
  241. ralphm Moving on then.
  242. ralphm 2. List discussion on meeting failures.
  243. ralphm First of all, thanks Dave Cridland for pitching in.
  244. ralphm I personally think that most of the discussion on alternative meeting "venues" is moot if we fail to attend to start with.
  245. Martin Agreed
  246. Guus agreed.
  247. ralphm I do agree we need to all send apologies to the list in case we can't make it
  248. ralphm and we might need to reconsider meeting times
  249. ralphm I understand that with the holidays this is a somewhat more difficult, so let's continue that part of the discussion on list
  250. Guus Although I'm open to changing meeting times, I wonder if that helps. We agreed on this one just weeks ago.
  251. ralphm My suggestion is to at least skip next week
  252. ralphm Indeed
  253. Guus ralphm: shall we skip the week after too?
  254. Guus has left
  255. Guus I at least will be spending my holidays away from home.
  256. Martin If we don't skip the 4th, I'll be sending my apologies. I'm busy at work with meetings all day
  257. ralphm I'm bit hesitant on that, because of FOSDEM nearing
  258. ralphm Ok that's good to know
  259. Martin Skipping next week makes sense to me
  260. ralphm I guess we'll have to do things on-list if pressing for FOSDEM
  261. Guus well, that's two of us being unvailable. I agree that FOSDEM is important, but we can do that on-list (and should perhaps do that more as SCAM instead of Boad anyways)?
  262. ralphm Guus are you still available for FOSDEM stuff?
  263. Martin But I agree with Guus. If asking "when can you reliably turn up for 30mins" burns out after a week or two, then that's a real problem, beyond arranging a time. The time's pointless if people can't commit.
  264. nyco sorry, late (obvious)
  265. ralphm sure, but if board would need to decide on things, it would be good to be able to without a meeting
  266. Guus ralphm: mail will not be an issue. An exact time/date will be (kids, holiday, swimming pool)
  267. ralphm ok, good
  268. ralphm nyco: welcome
  269. Guus nyco, as you've been missing most, I'm interested in our ideas on getting better attendance in these meetings.
  270. nyco voice+video
  271. nyco more fluid
  272. ralphm nyco: the venue is not relevant at all
  273. nyco also visualising
  274. ralphm you have missed all meetings up till now, video wouldn't change that
  275. Guus doorbell, afk for a bit
  276. ralphm I'm not having that discussion until we can reliably show up, on time
  277. Guus bak
  278. Guus back*
  279. Guus what Ralph wrote
  280. Guus althought voice/video might add something to the meetings, it won't make people appear if they didn't do so before.
  281. nyco that can motivate: listen and be heard
  282. nyco higher bandwidth interactions
  283. ralphm nyco: please stop ignoring the elephant in the room
  284. nyco but isn't our priority to setup the Board priorities for 2018?
  285. nyco please explain
  286. ralphm Our #1 priority is *showing up on time at meeting time*
  287. nyco it is also about committing, making it more attractive, what do you think?.
  288. ralphm After that, we can consider alternative media choices
  289. ralphm You committed to be on the board, there's 0 reason to make it more attractive just for showing up
  290. nyco not forcefully, the priority maybe to assume our role as a board, which is not attending meetings, but producing the valubale things for the foundation to go on
  291. ralphm (and with you I mean all of us)
  292. nyco that is the other way around
  293. Guus nyco, as a group, we agreed to be here
  294. Guus I am personally very annoyed to show up here, making my time available, only to find out that others are not.
  295. ralphm No it is not. We made a commitment (being on the board), then an agreement (meeting on Thursdays at 14:30 UTC).
  296. nyco we're still doing meta-dscussion, betting on the outcome, why not test instead? we'll then get feedback from real experimentation in our context
  297. ralphm nyco: I strongly disagree with you on this.
  298. nyco maybe that meeting shape and goals neeed to be "refactored"
  299. Martin This is not to do with experimentation, this is to do with obligations as a board member, and obligation #1 is to show up.
  300. nyco ralphm you haven't listened yet to what I have to say
  301. ralphm We've been having fruitful meetings since forever, and especially the last few weeks, with just text-based meetings.
  302. nyco I disagree that attending is the commitment, as long as the XSF goes on shrinking...
  303. ralphm nyco: I did, you are ignoring current practise over a wish to do things differently
  304. nyco I disagree it has been fruitful, taking a decision over the course of three meeting is not
  305. nyco ralphm I confirm
  306. nyco what frustrates me here, is that a short sentenced is considered enough to get a full understanding of what goes behind
  307. lumi has joined
  308. ralphm You have voiced your concerns with the way we do meetings, the role of the board, etc. before. I get that
  309. ralphm and might actually agree on several points
  310. nyco the first deliverable for this board is the set of priorities, not the commitment to be present on a text chat that goes nowhere
  311. nyco sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all
  312. ralphm but the thing is, that *first* we need to do things properly like we agreed (meeting on certain times, using whatever venue) so we *then* can discuss these things
  313. nyco I strongly oppose and disagree on this process of mind
  314. nyco our focus must be deliver on our duty
  315. ralphm Look, priorities are nice, but that's definitely not the first deliverable. Like any Board of Directors, we simply need to run the company.
  316. nyco a text chat meeting is only a mean
  317. nyco a Trello/JIRA board is another mean
  318. nyco sure, how does a text chat meeting runs the foundation?
  319. Guus has left
  320. ralphm Like it has for over 10 years.
  321. nyco again, meta-discussions
  322. nyco so we don't change
  323. nyco how performant do you believe it is?
  324. nyco what'st the outcome?
  325. Guus nyco, you're the only one doing meta-discussions at the moment. We simply ask if everyone can be here in time, as we agreed on before.
  326. ralphm The goal of this Foundation is do be a standards body. We are doing well at this, IMO. You might want to /also/ do other things. That's ok, but not a decided goal.
  327. nyco we need a great improvement
  328. nyco > sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all
  329. winfried has joined
  330. nyco > sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all I elaborate: what is the problem that we agree on?
  331. nyco (side observation: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=xmpp )
  332. Guus I don't see a reason to _not_ have these short, weekly meetings. They can be very effective, especially if everyone prepares by reading up on the mailinglist and trello.
  333. ralphm The problem and the current agenda item is meeting failures
  334. Guus (I would not object to discuss a change of venue, but as it stands, some kind of repeated get-together is something that I'd prefer)
  335. ralphm not alternative venues, alternative goals of the foundation, or how to be more effective
  336. ralphm So, I would like the commitment from all Directors to meet at an agreed-upon time and actually following through with that.
  337. nyco > I don't see a reason to _not_ have these short, weekly meetings. They can be very effective, especially if everyone prepares by reading up on the mailinglist and trello. that is the point: they are not effective nor efficient at all, as there is very few engagement (I am guilty here as well), nor there is any commitment at all text chat meetings are orthogonal to this switching the tool is a good practice for change of mindset
  338. nyco > The problem and the current agenda item is meeting failures I can agree on that
  339. Guus Ralphm, as I said on list, I am amazed that we need explicit commitment for that (but you have mine).
  340. nyco so again, and again, and again: what are the problems we agree on and the proposed solutionsSSS
  341. Martin And the sending of apologies ahead of time if you are unable to make the meeting
  342. ralphm I understand having a meeting next week or the week after might be difficult for getting everyone together, so let's focus on all being there on January 11 14:30 UTC.
  343. lovetox has left
  344. ralphm nyco: the number one problem for me is directors showing up at meeting time
  345. ralphm If we can't do that simple thing, all the other stuff is moot
  346. nyco > not alternative venues, alternative goals of the foundation, or how to be more effective you said we are a standards body, which is pretty much solidly no change we used to be JSF for example, we can definitely nurture development, and certainly image
  347. ralphm nyco: I'm not sure how involved you were back then, but JSF was a misnomer
  348. ralphm We've always been little more than a standards body
  349. nyco > nyco: the number one problem for me is directors showing up at meeting time that is not the problem for me, a more hurtful issue is the lack of engagement and commitment
  350. ralphm And as I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to having other goals, but that's not the topic of this discussion
  351. @Alacer has left
  352. waqas has left
  353. nyco ralphm please, again, and please again, what are your solutions?
  354. Guus Nyco, when you signed up for board, surely you knew that board typically commits to meeting once a week in chat? Although I'm open for changes, let's discuss that properly, instead of right now, out of the blue.
  355. ralphm nyco: Showing up at agreed upon times
  356. nyco how?
  357. Guus nyco, the first problem that we have now, is that not everyone is showing up for meetings that we agreed on. The solution is simple: be sure that you're here.
  358. nyco how?
  359. ralphm nyco: I set an alarm in my phone to make sure I'm on time
  360. nyco ok, what else?
  361. ralphm nothing else. seems to work
  362. Martin Are we actually having a discussion about how to remember a particular time of day, every week?
  363. nyco we all have information overload and notification fatigue, no one showed up 100%
  364. nyco Martin it seems
  365. ralphm FWIW I did since the elections. I think Guus did too
  366. ralphm But that's not the point
  367. nyco if that is the root cause, not sure how valuable my contributions can be
  368. Guus I was absent once, excused beforehand.
  369. ralphm We all should
  370. ralphm nyco: are you saying you don't want to commit to being on time at meetings?
  371. nyco so, I hear the problem is people missing, the solution is alarms, good, note that down in the minutes
  372. nyco now, can we focus on higher outcome?
  373. nyco > nyco: are you saying you don't want to commit to being on time at meetings? seriously ;-)
  374. ralphm Yes, seriously
  375. nyco that was a great debate, my dear colleagues
  376. nyco ;-)
  377. Martin I really don't want the official minutes for this organisation to include "how to remember time, and to set an alarm" that's utterly ridiculous
  378. Guus I'm still not getting why we're debating this in the first place.
  379. jonasw Am I really reading this?
  380. Martin Me neither
  381. Guus nyco, you appear to be on your own on this.
  382. Martin Turn. Up. It's really, really simple.
  383. ralphm I don't understand why we are having that discussion. Several people have expressed annoyance with people missing meetings unannounced. Why is it so bad to discuss that?
  384. nyco > nyco, you appear to be on your own on this. what are you talking about?
  385. Guus nyco: not committing to be in this chat every week.
  386. Martin I don't have a problem with discussing it, I have a problem with the idea that somehow turning up to a half-hour meeting is onerous, and blaming a lack of an alarm(!) for not remembering to turn up
  387. nyco sure, we debated this, we have a decision, goes to the minutes, no discussion, we must inform and share
  388. nyco > nyco: not committing to be in this chat every week. serisouly? but, seriously?
  389. Guus I seriously expect all of us to be here, or at least warn others in advance if you can't make it.
  390. jonasw I wonder whether there’s a massive misunderstanding going on here.
  391. nyco agree
  392. Guus that's ... common sense?
  393. nyco jonasw of course there is
  394. jonasw nyco, wanna clear that up maybe?
  395. nyco Guus yes
  396. ralphm nyco: why is that so weird? Is it so strange to just have a baseline of showing up at meetings as a prerequisite to having useful meetings?
  397. nyco jonasw did this, refocussed
  398. nyco what the next item on the agenda?
  399. ralphm nyco: given the clock, the next item is
  400. ralphm 3. Date of Next
  401. nyco January
  402. nyco ?
  403. ralphm I suggest the next meeting is on Thursday 11 January at 14:30.
  404. ralphm I expect all directors to be in attendance.
  405. nyco 4th
  406. nyco 11th is too far away
  407. ralphm nyco: 2 board members have expressed difficulty with 4 because of holidays.
  408. ralphm and work
  409. Guus Jan 11 works for me (I won't be able to make it 4th).
  410. Guus still
  411. Martin 11th works for me, I'm not available on the 4th, as mentioned at the start of the meeting.
  412. nyco still the rest of us can meet and discuss, not take decision because lack of rough consensus
  413. Guus before we convene
  414. ralphm nyco: we have been doing that for the last three weeks, and did make decisions
  415. nyco 4th with ralphm and MattJ (and nyco)
  416. Guus not convene, disperse...
  417. nyco sure, so 4th, with decisions
  418. Guus can we see if we can have a quick agreement on the young potentials thing? that might affect attendence plans for some people.
  419. ralphm Guus: can you expand on what you mean there? You want to discuss this now, or do you want to know at which meeting we will in January?
  420. Guus I'd be fine with simply making a motion, and vote here, with little discussion, if that's ok with ou.
  421. nyco who for 4th?who for 11th?
  422. nyco 4th
  423. Guus Ralphm: the sponsoring can affect people's descision to go to FOSDEM. Jan 11th is when most will have made their plans already.
  424. Guus So i'd like to see if we can decide on this now.
  425. marc has left
  426. nyco > who for 4th?who for 11th?
  427. Guus As for the meeting on Jan 4th: I don't see a reason for not having it, other than that at least two of us won't be there. If one of the others is not going to make it, you'll have reserved time for pretty much nothign.
  428. Guus I'll in any case be here the 11th, not the 4th.
  429. Guus has left
  430. ralphm Guus: I can see that, but I think we need more (financial) details before deciding on this
  431. ralphm I understood
  432. ralphm has left
  433. ralphm has joined
  434. ralphm has left
  435. ralphm has joined
  436. Guus ralphm: I propose to make the financial details small enough for them to not matter to the XSF (but potentially, to the recipients).
  437. @Alacer has joined
  438. ralphm wow I was unable to connect to any room at muc.xmpp.org
  439. ralphm Guus: that's a bit little to go on
  440. Guus I was going to suggest to offer last editions GSoC students a refund of hotel/travell expenses up to 150 euro, provided that they attend either the summit or FOSDEM.
  441. ralphm just GSoC?
  442. Guus that's a well defined group of people, a well defined requirement, and a low total amount for the XSF.
  443. Guus ralphm: let's start small this year, see if people want to take it. We can always expand that group later.
  444. daniel (and some of the money from google is more or less explicitly for that purpose)
  445. nyco > > who for 4th?who for 11th?
  446. nyco note: we did not bang the gavel, please we are still on the meeting
  447. nyco I had connection difficulties, messages lost
  448. Guus Daniel: that's debatable, but it makes for a natural selection of 'young potential', I think.
  449. Guus for the record: in that definition, we would have 3 eligable recipients.
  450. ralphm I'd be ok with that
  451. Martin Yeah, me too
  452. Guus It is official then?
  453. Guus (apologies for the rushed/messy procedure here)
  454. daniel (outsiders comment; i would tie that to the summit; not fosdem)
  455. ralphm nyco?
  456. Guus (daniel: I had considered that, but I don't thnk it's needed - I can elaborate outside of this meeting, unless others want to discuss that now)
  457. nyco what is the question?
  458. marc has left
  459. ralphm Guus proposed to provide limited sponsorship for people to attend the XMPP Summit
  460. Guus nyco: I motion that the XSF offers XSF students of last edition of GSoC be reimbursed 150 euro each, when attending next summit and/or fosdem.
  461. ralphm http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2017-12-21/#15:15:30
  462. ralphm Guus I thought you said only Summit
  463. Guus No I didn't, but I could live with that additional restriction (don't think it's needed though)
  464. ralphm2 has joined
  465. ralphm2 I'd like them to be at the Summit at least
  466. ralphm2 It seems, though that we are having issues with connecting to muc.xmpp.org from some servers
  467. ralphm2 I think we have to adjourn and then get consensus on your proposal on list
  468. Guus I had just one hiccup, but others appear more affected.
  469. Guus agreed.
  470. Guus has left
  471. ralphm2 bangs gavel
  472. Martin Thanks ralphm2 & ralphm
  473. winfried has left
  474. ralphm has left
  475. ralphm has joined
  476. nyco I agree, when did we get on the agenda item? did I mess messages? have we resolved the next board meeting date?
  477. nyco I lose messages
  478. nyco Test
  479. nyco I lose messages, both on Conversations and Movim
  480. nyco Test2
  481. nyco testtest
  482. nyco aaaaa
  483. nyco wow
  484. nyco sorry
  485. nyco seems these were held somewhere
  486. lumi has left
  487. SouL has left
  488. ralphm :-D
  489. ralphm I just sent a follow-up mail to the Board list
  490. SouL has left
  491. uc has left
  492. uc has joined
  493. marc has joined
  494. SouL has left
  495. Guus has left
  496. nyco I didn't receive it (yet?)
  497. nyco the Board ML has no archive, is it ok?
  498. SamWhited has left
  499. remko has left
  500. Martin has left
  501. intosi .
  502. Guus has left
  503. SamWhited has left
  504. jubalh has left
  505. nyco :
  506. nyco has left
  507. lumi has joined
  508. Martin has joined
  509. Martin has left
  510. Martin has joined
  511. lovetox has joined
  512. moparisthebest has joined
  513. la|r|ma has left
  514. moparisthebest has joined
  515. Steve Kille has left
  516. Steve Kille has left
  517. SouL has left
  518. waqas has joined
  519. Steve Kille has joined
  520. SouL has left
  521. SouL has joined
  522. jubalh has joined
  523. mimi89999 has left
  524. Martin has left
  525. Steve Kille has left
  526. sonny has joined
  527. sonny has joined
  528. SouL has left
  529. marc has left
  530. SouL has left
  531. Guus has left
  532. SouL has joined
  533. jubalh has joined
  534. ralphm has left
  535. zinid has left
  536. uc has left
  537. uc has joined
  538. Guus has left
  539. SouL has joined
  540. jubalh has joined
  541. Holger has left
  542. daniel has left
  543. zinid has joined
  544. SouL has left
  545. zinid has joined
  546. jubalh has left
  547. zinid has left
  548. ralphm
  549. daniel has left
  550. SouL has left
  551. SouL has joined
  552. SouL has left
  553. zinid has joined
  554. waqas has left
  555. SouL has joined
  556. jjrh has left
  557. waqas has joined
  558. waqas has left
  559. SouL has left
  560. waqas has joined
  561. SouL has joined
  562. SouL has joined
  563. ralphm has left
  564. jjrh has left
  565. jjrh has left
  566. lumi has joined
  567. jjrh has left
  568. jjrh has left
  569. ralphm has joined
  570. Tobias has joined
  571. SouL has joined
  572. SouL has left
  573. nyco ralphm wins
  574. nyco has left
  575. Guus has left
  576. jubalh has joined
  577. jubalh has left
  578. jubalh has joined
  579. Alex has left
  580. Guus has left
  581. lskdjf has joined
  582. Guus has left
  583. jubalh has left
  584. zinid has left
  585. ralphm has joined
  586. zinid has joined
  587. Guus has left
  588. goffi has left
  589. jubalh has joined
  590. jubalh has left
  591. lskdjf has joined
  592. ralphm has joined
  593. jubalh has joined
  594. tux has joined
  595. la|r|ma has left
  596. la|r|ma has joined
  597. tux has joined
  598. jmpman has joined
  599. jere has left
  600. jere has joined
  601. ralphm has left
  602. tux has joined
  603. jubalh has left
  604. la|r|ma has joined
  605. lskdjf has joined
  606. lovetox has left
  607. sezuan has left
  608. Guus has left
  609. @Alacer has left
  610. waqas has left
  611. waqas has joined
  612. @Alacer has joined
  613. Guus has left
  614. Syndace has left
  615. Syndace has joined
  616. jere has left
  617. jere has joined
  618. daniel has left
  619. lskdjf has joined
  620. marc has joined
  621. xnyhps has left