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


  223. ralphm

    0. Welcome + Agenda

  224. ralphm

    Who do we have?

  225. Martin


  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


  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


  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


  246. Guus


  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


  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


  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


  278. Guus


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  479. nyco

    I lose messages, both on Conversations and Movim

  480. nyco


  481. nyco


  482. nyco


  483. nyco


  484. nyco


  485. nyco

    seems these were held somewhere

  486. lumi has left

  487. SouL has left

  488. ralphm


  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