*** Logfile started *** on Sun Dec 2 19:00:52 2012 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [19:00:52] Mode Channel modes: no colors allowed, no messages from outside, topic protection [Sunday 02 December 2012] [19:00:52] Created This channel was created on 30.10.2009 14:58. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [19:15:37] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to you. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [19:15:37] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to gac410. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [19:27:50] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to CDot. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [19:28:09] Mode OliverKrueger takes channel operator privileges from gac410. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [19:29:21] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to gac410. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [19:31:21] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to Lavr. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:34:24] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to padraig_lennon. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:34:24] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to JulianLevens. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:44:51] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to SvenDowideit. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:46:43] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to andreli. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:49:35] Conf call now open [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:55:51] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to Babar. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:55:52] padraig_lennon: feeling a bit alone in Dublin? Sorry I couldn't make it, but this time of year is really not a good one to travel, as I'm already going to Poland in 4 days [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:56:26] Who is going to be on the conf call? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:56:31] Shall I join? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:56:34] .... and I'm just back from Oz. And It's bloody freezing :-( [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:56:39] Michael and I are on now [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:57:03] what conf call? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:57:10] which software? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:57:18] Topic OliverKrueger sets the channel topic to "http://foswiki.org/Community/AgendaFourthGeneralAssembly". [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:57:23] --> http://pastebin.com/meDWwYtp [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:57:27] plain old telephone. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:57:40] For those of us not calling in, please appoint a scribe. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:58:10] no Uk number? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:58:26] maybe listed on the website. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:58:47] 0800 3581916 UK Freephone [Sunday 02 December 2012] [20:59:21] ah cool. A US number. hm... maybe I'll call in then. I had not even looked :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:00:03] If we do the GA mainly on the conference call, can you record it? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:00:14] hey guys. please add your names to the ga page listing the attendees. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:00:29] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to ArthurClemens. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:00:42] hi everybody [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:00:52] Notify SvenDowideit went offline (irc.freenode.net). [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:00:52] Mode brooks.freenode.net gives channel operator privileges to SvenDowideit. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:00:52] Mode ChanServ takes channel operator privileges from SvenDowideit. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:01:09] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to SvenDowideit. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:02:24] Notify pharvey is online (irc.freenode.net). [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:02:29] Hello [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:02:38] Sven you joining the call? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:02:47] Hi [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:02:49] 1800 668 000 Australia Freephone [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:03:13] sorry I'm late [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:03:17] heya [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:03:31] Mode OliverKrueger gives channel operator privileges to pharvey. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:03:33] yup, dealing with a few failures on my end [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:05:35] * CDot has put the phone on speaker [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:06:07] I'm dailed in, but CDot is hard to hear :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:06:14] true [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:06:24] yeah, not sure if we should phone or type [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:06:35] I like irc :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:06:38] *6 and #6 for muting [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:06:47] * CDot can pick up the phone if he needs to speak [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:06] so, sven, do you want to open the meeting? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:07] Unless we are recording, I think IRC is better for the record. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:18] gac410: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:19] good morning everyone :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:22] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:29] Ok, for me *6 toggles muting ;) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:30] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:34] welcome to the 2012 GA [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:49] http://foswiki.org/Community/AgendaFourthGeneralAssembly [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:07:57] is the agenda [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:08:02] I'll stay on the confcall, but lets start here. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:08:26] mmm, and for now, i have trouble getting to the web site :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:08:44] ok, well, if you want I can take over? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:08:52] you almost will anyway :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:08:57] :-) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:09:02] initially, [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:09:14] can someone confirm that we followed enough of the rules to make a quorum? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:09:39] I think that was confirmed, that we have no specific quorum requirements. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:09:53] true [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:09:55] just one - sufficient notice :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:09:56] that is also my recollection [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:10:42] alright, then, we need 2 vote counters - would anyone like to voluenteer? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:10:43] All members were invited by email 6 weeks ahead to this GA. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:10:54] hang on a mo - we need a minute taker [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:11:01] I volunteer. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:11:05] thanks oliver [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:11:08] for counting votes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:11:12] damn [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:11:12] mmm, that is missing :/ [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:11:38] can we have a minute taker please? someone to summarise/write up the log of the call? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:11:46] as long as we do it on irc, I will do the "official minutes" for the district court. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:11:58] sold :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:12:01] OliverKrueger: thank you [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:12:08] I'll also count votes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:12:26] excellent - thankyou JulianLevens and OliverKrueger [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:12:29] but as a non native english speaker, Im too slow for trascribing spoken language. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:12:36] We all have to make sure we echo significant phone discussions to irc, so that Oliver has a complete log. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:12:40] OliverKrueger: I can help there [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:12:44] I'll try to help too. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:12:53] and atm, it looks like we're all getting used to typing [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:12:53] ### vote counters: Julian and Oliver. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:13:09] ### official minutes: Oliver [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:13:29] phone + irc is too much for me [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:13:32] III: new members [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:13:35] padraig_lennon: is checking that everyone on the cc is also on IRC [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:13:45] MichaelDaum the fone's not doing anything atm :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:13:56] * MichaelDaum left the conf bridge [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:13:58] * CDot proposes that we drop the phone [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:00] Notify pharvey went offline (irc.freenode.net). [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:05] CDot: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:24] makes it easier... so +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:27] * OliverKrueger left the conf bridge too [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:33] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:36] would someone please second Alexis' membership? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:41] Second [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:42] s/w/c/ ? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:53] * OliverKrueger supports Alexis' membership [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:14:56] I will leave it open and redirect anyone that may join to IRC if that is ok? since we have made that avenue available [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:15:02] thank you very much :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:15:09] thanks padraig_lennon [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:15:13] padraig_lennon excellent - thankyou :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:15:33] I'll listen in and try to transcribe if there are non-irc participants [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:15:35] Notify kip3f is online (irc.freenode.net). [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:15:52] * uebera|| left the conf bridge [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:15:57] * SvenDowideit hangs up and has to worry about waking the kids less :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:16:03] hello [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:16:09] Hello kip [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:16:23] So, lets go on with III (new members)... [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:16:50] OliverKrueger: we just did - SvenDowideit proposed Alexis, and was seconded [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:16:58] kip3f what about you? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:06] Mode SvenDowideit gives channel operator privileges to kip3f. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:06] Mode SvenDowideit gives channel operator privileges to pharvey. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:09] yes, I would like to join [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:13] excellent [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:14] Seconded [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:14] There is still a ThierryPasquier on the list on CurrentFoswikiMembers [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:19] * CDot proposes Kip [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:22] OliverKrueger remove him [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:27] okay [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:28] okay NOW Seconded [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:29] he's not replied to q's from last time [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:40] kip, whats your full name? (for the records) ;) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:46] KipLubliner [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:50] excellent - 2 new members inducted :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:55] Welcome [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:17:58] my full name, legally speaking [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:18:01] is Kip Caswell Lubliner [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:18:01] welcome Kip [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:18:11] WikiName is sufficient. ;) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:18:13] thanks! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:18:22] We do have to vote on that. ^^ [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:18:42] now that more people have joined - welcome everyone to the GA ;) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:18:52] Are there any non-members here except Kip? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:18:54] nope, no vote, just seconded [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:19:28] well, you are right. sry. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:19:35] which brings us to election of new board members :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:20:01] MichaelDaum and I stand down (unless we have to be forced :)) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:20:07] and I hand over to CDot [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:20:12] thank you [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:20:24] thank you :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:20:31] we have 4 proposals for new board members [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:20:32] ### we have 14 voting members on this GA. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:20:52] Michael Daum, SvenDowideit are proposed for re-election [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:21:12] and KennethLavrsen and Paul Harvey for election [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:21:21] If Michael and Sven accepts to be re-elected I happily yield [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:21:25] are there any other proposals? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:22:04] and do all the proposees accept the nomination for election? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:22:05] darnit Lavr thats not fair! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:22:06] okay, no further proposals [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:22:41] yes I accept [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:23:04] pharvey: SvenDowideit: hows about youse guys? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:23:08] yes I accept :/ [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:23:28] I accept the terrible burden of being nominated :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:23:34] excellent :-) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:23:43] * SvenDowideit was looking forward to fighting Lavr for the priv! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:23:59] I accept too but i recommend that people vote for Michael and Svem [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:24:00] n [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:24:20] I agree with Lavr, they've done a great job. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:24:23] and now he's stacking the votes! vote for him! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:24:25] Lavr: thanks - you have an excellent record, so don;t count yourself out just yet :-) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:24:46] ok, so, who remembers how we organised the voting last time? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:24:54] 2 email addresses [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:25:06] right - of the 2 vote counters [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:25:07] Does any wants a secret vote? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:25:12] anybody [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:25:15] When we have two positions everyone votes for two people - sent by email to the two vote counters [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:25:19] we each send our 2 choices to those 2 email addresses [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:26:06] vote counter address: foswiki-vote@oliverkrueger.de [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:26:16] no winnings for the right answers [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:26:18] Julien: whats ur address? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:26:27] we could just list 2 choices each here next time (probably better to let people think that one through) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:26:28] julian@levens.eu [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:26:29] ok, to summarise: each person in this room to write the names of the two people they want to vote for into an email, and send it to the email addresses of the 2 vote counters, ad given above [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:26:58] ... except for me [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:26:59] please indicate here when you have voted, so we can cross-check that the votes are received [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:27:15] kip, you may vote, too. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:27:15] kip3f: you're a member now, I believe [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:27:16] I hold a proxy. Do you need 2 emails from me? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:27:22] gac410: yes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:27:37] please use a speaking subject to the emails [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:27:46] gac410: depending on the scope of your proxy. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:27:49] I've sent my vote [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:28:03] MichaelDaum: ? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:28:05] * SvenDowideit has sent vote for pharvey and Lavr >:} [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:28:25] Sven the disrupter [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:28:27] I'll send separate email. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:28:37] Mail sent. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:28:42] Mail sent [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:28:45] Mail sent [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:29:16] mail sent [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:29:23] mail sent [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:29:27] voted [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:29:35] * CDot has sent his votes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:29:52] sent my votes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:29:55] mail sent [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:30:24] Mail sent (2) Myself and MichaelTempest [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:30:43] OliverKrueger: JulianLevens: you will need to send mail too, to eachother at least :-) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:30:50] true [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:30:53] mail sent [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:31:18] * OliverKrueger waits for the last email. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:31:26] btw, haven't followed it all, but did anybody tell Tim about the GA? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:31:38] I mentioned it in some emails to him. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:31:54] But didn't give any specific details. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:32:01] Tim the Cloud? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:32:13] TimotheLitt? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:32:20] no, not Tim Cook :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:32:27] lol [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:32:56] nor Tim Toady. Yes, Litt. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:33:09] ok. So Oliver and Julian are counting. Man, that's taking forever :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:33:17] are you guys members of UMP? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:33:31] JulianLevens: are you still there? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:33:43] (too bad I'm the only French guy around to get my own jokes :() [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:33:44] I'm dropping the call. If you need me back to scribe, let me know. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:34:02] Google says that UMP stands for: Universiti Malaysia Pahang [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:34:23] pharvey: try: UMP vote [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:34:28] Julian is not answering... :( [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:34:36] ah, thanks Babar :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:35:06] JulianLevens: yoo hoo! cooo-eee! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:35:33] missed in action. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:35:57] want me to call him? If his number hasn't changed. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:36:09] Babar: please, that might help [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:36:10] have a try.+ [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:36:23] ringing... [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:36:31] he may be having a childcare moment or something [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:37:46] ok, he was busy counting [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:37:53] lol [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:38:16] taking fingers _and _ toes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:38:25] And checking for hanging chad [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:39:05] Sorry, I'm back [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:40:45] ok, we have to wait for the vote counters, I'm afraid, because one of them is also the treasurer and his report is due next :-( [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:40:45] JulianLevens we're happy that you're back - no need to apologise for it! :p [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:41:30] [off] we'll scold you later via e-mail, of course... :p [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:41:38] * CDot has a rather good bottle of cabernet shiraz which is making the wait more pleasant :-) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:42:39] okay, we have finished. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:42:59] * pharvey considers drinking the motel's instant coffee [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:43:07] no, we havent. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:45:48] Michael: 9, Sven: 8, Kenneth: 3, Paul: 10 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:45:58] Agreed [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:46:00] congratulations! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:46:16] So, congrats Paul and Michael. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:46:17] congrats! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:46:20] yes congrats [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:46:27] congrats [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:46:48] Virtual champagne all round [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:46:49] dito [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:47:01] congratulations [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:47:02] thank you all [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:47:11] btw big thanks to george: he released 116 today [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:47:32] Well! Thank you [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:47:33] Paul Harvey and Michael Daum are thus appointed to the GA board. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:47:42] Excellent. Congratulations and more ... thank you [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:47:47] * SvenDowideit joins Lavr in retirement :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:47:56] until next year :P [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:47:59] ok, let's move on when you are ready, OliverKrueger? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:48:01] Indeed [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:48:06] ready. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:48:41] I guess you all already had a look at http://www.foswiki.org/Community/Finance/FinancialStatement2012 and http://www.foswiki.org/Community/Finance/FinancialStatement2011 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:48:51] yes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:49:15] Both look good to me. As long as the money is in the bank all should be fine with both 11 and 12 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:49:42] Agreed. Move to accept the reports as written [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:49:43] OliverKrueger: do we have enough to pay the auditor? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:49:52] To summerize it, not much had happend so far. We have donations and fees coming in and some minor expenses for courts, bank fees and the tax advisor going out. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:50:11] Yes. The tax auditor is about 240€ / year. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:50:29] There is one item open in that the association owes money 60euro to Oliver as he transferred too much in 2011 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:50:40] We currently have a total of 1667€ on the bank account. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:50:47] * CDot is happy to accept the reports as written [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:50:55] * pharvey too [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:50:58] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:51:12] good job oliver. thanks. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:51:12] Yes, Padraig found a bug in the wiki accounting system. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:51:21] nice one! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:51:29] There was a duplicate item. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:51:31] as auditor I also agree [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:51:50] On the long run we need to spend some money... [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:51:52] * kip3f accepts the reports [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:52:03] according to our association goals. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:52:07] thanks padraig for the scrutinizing analysis [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:52:09] Sorry, what's with the open item? Will the sum be corrected or has it been corrected? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:52:11] ArthurClemens: padraig_lennon: anything else to add in your capacity as auditors? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:52:25] Well done, reports accepted by me [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:52:41] there are 60€ on the bank account which has to be transferred back to me. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:52:49] But I guess, I will donate that. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:52:50] OliverKrueger: I had a question with regards to this... Do all banks take banking fees in Germany? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:53:00] The accounts look good from my point of view after reviewing.Once the item is closed I will review again in Jan to finalize for the year 2012 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:53:06] Mode Babar gives channel operator privileges to Lynnwood. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:53:14] Yes. Ours is quite cheap. 2€/month. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:53:22] uebera||: the transfer can happen when Oliver is ready - so long as it's accounted for, the GA doesn't need to scrutinise further. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:53:34] May I ask a dumb question? What's happening when PayPal isn't sending the entire 10 or 20 euros to the recipient? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:53:35] yes, it looks good to me [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:53:36] Ah, ok. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:54:12] pharvey: depends on how you do the transfer, where paypal takes its pound of flesh [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:54:21] I would like to suggest to have the next years GAs in January, so we have a complete financial year to check. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:54:39] OliverKrueger: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:54:39] that is jan 2014, right? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:54:40] Babar: If we manage to get an additional >=3000KEUR a month on that account (and deduct it a couple of days later), it's easy to not pay for the account at all. ;) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:55:02] OliverKrueger: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:55:06] pharvey: In the past I accepted 9.53 (or whatever what was left ofter after pp fees) as the membership fee. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:55:15] MichaelDaum: yes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:55:32] Action for board: organise next GA in January to allow for accounting a full FY [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:55:41] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:55:54] uebera||: I think thats not feasable in our context. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:55:55] jan is fine. less end of year rush. n stuff. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:56:07] OliverKrueger: it shows 8.75 received from me - I wonder how I should do the transaction to avoid or compensate for fees at Foswiki's end [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:56:21] January is a good idea. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:56:27] ok, election of two auditors, please. Do we have any volunteers? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:56:28] pharvey send as a gift iirc [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:56:50] pharvey: some countries PP site offer to do a donation tranfers. Thats with no costs for the receipient. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:56:54] I can do it again [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:56:59] pharvey: not thats not an option for all. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:57:02] thanks padraig_lennon [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:57:15] need one more auditor, please [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:57:19] OliverKrueger, thanks, I'll think more carefully about it next time :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:57:41] I'll volunteer. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:57:44] I volunteer (again) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:57:49] ### Lynnwood joined. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:57:59] three volunteers - we need a vote, or..... [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:01] (just for vote counting) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:13] I trust Arthur, of course... :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:19] vote by applause? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:29] clap clap [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:32] clap [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:35] clap [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:37] clap [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:49] * CDot has no idea what people are voting for [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:50] clap [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:57] * Babar claps. That sounds fun [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:58:59] the new auditors [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:06] we have 3 now? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:07] CDot. Me either [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:09] funny [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:26] shall I unvolunteer? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:42] we need 2 auditors; we have 3 volunteers. So unless one stands down, we need a vote [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:42] Notify julian_work went offline (irc.freenode.net). [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:43] No, please do it again. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:50] We can have as many auditors as we want to. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:51] I'll stand down. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [21:59:59] uebera||: has stood down so Arthur, too slow ;-) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:00:26] auditors are padraig_lennon and ArthurClemens - thanks guys! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:00:36] great thanks. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:00:41] I didn't clap! clap. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:00:47] As a new member, do I need to pay dues for 2012 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:00:52] no. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:00:59] * MichaelDaum waits for a good moment to clap sometimes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:01:02] 2013 for the first time. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:01:11] * SvenDowideit claps for all :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:01:22] MichaelDaum: you can clap any time. Just explain what you are clapping for :-) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:01:40] Can we move on...? ;) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:01:42] ok, so, new bylaws. I see no new proposals? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:01:54] Notify julian_work is online (irc.freenode.net). [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:02:00] Notify julian_work went offline (irc.freenode.net). [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:02:04] is patting on the back (virtually) welcome as well? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:02:31] * Babar pats om Micha's back, but not too strongly so as not to spill his beer [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:02:53] I don't see any proposals either. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:03:00] OK, next agendum is to review task-teams - I guess to ask if there is any value in flogging a dead horse any more....? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:03:12] Babar, water today...sore throat [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:03:22] * CDot doesn;t know who proposed this agendum - SvenDowideit? Was it you? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:03:33] no that was me [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:03:36] * gac410 wants to see if someone will please breath some life into the MarketingTeam. I've done the RM for 1.1.6, but would appreciate help getting it announced. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:03:53] on mo [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:03:56] I believe the security team is still working when needed and I am happy to continue being the leader of that. That is not too much work for me at the moment [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:04:10] lets hope that one stays that way! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:04:27] two things to review [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:04:31] 1. current members [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:04:41] 2. overall activities of each team [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:05:20] * MichaelDaum holds back his view on the more general question whether we still need task teams as a concept [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:05:37] Some languages have been silent on the translations front. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:05:50] please review http://foswiki.org/Community/TaskTeam [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:06:03] * gac410 doesn't know about concept. But we do need the work to get done. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:06:16] gac410 - Is there a way we could automatically translate some languages? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:06:39] no idea. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:06:41] babelfish? :p [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:06:43] padraig_lennon yes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:06:58] there are a numbe rof coalitions of open source projects [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:07:00] I don't think so. Auto translation always ends up with crap [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:07:12] to refresh your memories: the task team construct was invented to organize work among the community. teams that form on special tasks. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:07:17] the idea of task teams depends on people taking leadership roles - which has not happened. Onstead, we have a lot more fluid situation, where people picth in as and when they can. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:07:30] * CDot is thinking of unicode here [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:07:41] right [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:07:41] So the list in order. InfrastructureTeam is probably working okay. members jump in as needed. infrastructure has been stable. Git change may challenge that a bit. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:07:45] Translation leader is Will? I thought it was Andre. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:07:52] * SvenDowideit finds that the sysadmin team works very well [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:08:08] SvenDowideit: we have a team? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:08:12] you do [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:08:22] me, myself and gac410? :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:08:22] Andre steps back a little bit since his focus changed. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:08:23] and your 'team lead' is constantly impressed [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:08:47] I think Infra, Release, and Security teams are working OK in practical. Translation is more a single person effort and that may be the right thing. And Wysiwyg is a progressing well but not in the team defined [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:09:10] gac410 has carried WYSIWYG task team almost entirely for 2012 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:09:17] * SvenDowideit suspects that MichaelDaum may need to voice his reasons for his opinion [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:09:26] MichaelDaum: do you have a alternative to Task Teams to propose? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:09:27] as it may be a mismatch in expetations [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:09:27] And has holes in feet to prove it. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:09:41] :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:10:20] CDot, I think what you said hits the nail on the head. in practice we form into teams in a more fluid way: people that like to contribute something do so. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:10:47] * gac410 would like to see some better way to engage the translation team and also pull in help on translations that have fallen behind [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:11:00] I agree that we're small enough that we don't need formal structures like this. But the TaskTeam topics are also a sort of rallying point around a specific theme of work. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:11:05] so what is your proposal? that we drop all mention of task teams and simply organise on an ad hoc basis? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:11:07] gac410: just learn a few more languages :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:11:20] * gac410 knows his limits. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:11:20] Maybe stupid question. Do we need to support all the languages? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:11:31] Babar: please learn mandarin [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:11:33] over the years I did not perceive any advantage of a formalized task team concept given the size of our community. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:11:47] CDot: sorry, I'm working on my Cantonese [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:04] I think the infra team is needed as the team that holds access privs to our servers. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:04] To me they help as a list to "go to" when challenges arise. Rather than shouting out to the ether. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:10] I would dearly love to do some surveys of users. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:12] MichaelDaum: the original idea was to have a framework in place for when - if - the community grew beyond our ability to handle it ad-hoc [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:14] MichaelDaum: the _only_ think I saw as advantage is who to address when things go wrong. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:18] in part, the team thing was created as a foil for the mgmt situations we were in [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:22] Release team is the current set of RMs. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:38] like when we had issues with the translations, Andre would take care of it, or at least coordinate. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:56] y. They are very valuable as a "who to contact" list. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:12:57] And security team is also a matter of a team of people that are well defined as the ones that get the notifications of security issues. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:13:05] MichaelDaum from my pov, the q becomes - how much does it hurt / hinder [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:13:07] my proposal is to drop the task team as a means to steer the project and just move on. we do just fine without. not that we will most probably still have special interest groups. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:13:33] I don't think we use the task teams to steer the project now [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:13:38] * SvenDowideit is impressed by the foswiki-discuss mailing list [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:13:47] but it's there as a framework, should we ever need it [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:13:51] the problem is: nobody maintains the task teams formally. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:13:52] I don't think the teams do any steering at this point. But without them I have no idea how we know who to ask. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:13:54] as an alternative to anarchy [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:00] I propose we keep the infra, release and security teams and close the others. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:20] "who to ask" is a valid point [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:23] convert team to 'contact person'? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:29] * CDot would be happy for the others to close, as they are effectively closed already [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:30] gac410 makes a point. Maybe WysiwygTaskTeam just needs to be a pointer on "These developers know about WYSIWYG..." [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:31] Hm... InterestedParties [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:33] ask on irc. people sure answer. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:34] SvenDowideit: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:42] well, sometimes. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:14:51] not on the w/e as much [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:15:03] we should roster board members on at all times :p [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:15:18] at least 2 should always be required to be on irc talking [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:15:21] For translations, it's a bit hit or miss. I harvested the email addresses from pootle, and then used it to ask for translation help. It's a bit of a pain. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:15:22] >grin< [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:15:29] no, board members already have too many duties. ex board members, on the other hand..... [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:15:38] hehe, good point [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:15:44] Lavr and I will be here 24/7 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:15:51] with a 99.999% uptime [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:02] * uebera|| claps [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:03] and a tie-in so you get a little shock when your name is mentioned [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:05] and a 99.90% idle time [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:19] 9 fives reliability [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:22] * SvenDowideit stops to allow real progress [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:25] ok, so we have a proposal from MichaelDaum: "drop the task team as a means to steer the project and just move on" [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:26] nother point: the task teams play no role in feature requests or decision making. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:39] O'm not sure what that means in terms of actions for the board / GA [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:41] I don't see any value in them [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:41] gac410: I think you mean 5 nines :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:43] which they weren't expected to [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:16:54] Babar... joke [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:17:10] oh. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:17:17] I do not want to drop the infra, release and security teams. They work today and we need the members defined [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:17:22] yay, Babar missed a cool joke :p [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:17:37] Lavr: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:17:40] MichaelDaum: I think we all agree that the task teams are not really doing much. But what would you replace them with, and how do they hurt the way they are? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:17:41] CDot, the other proposal was by Lavr: drop all but those really actioning. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:17:42] the task teams were envisaged as a way to create "special interest groups". [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:17:48] I think we are spending too much time on a topic which wasnt relevant in the past. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:17:55] * gac410 proposes that the role be changed to "Interested Parties" ... those willing to express a opinion or have expertiese or be a go-to list. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:18:03] gac410 +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:18:03] * CDot is mystified as to what "dropping" them involves [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:18:11] gac410: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:18:13] or what it gains [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:18:49] The infra team are the ones that have root and admin access to our servers. I cannot see that as an "interested parties" thing [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:18:59] MichaelDaum: can you propose some specific actions for the board/GA? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:19:01] right. agree there. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:19:08] yes of course. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:19:18] Lavr: same for security [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:19:28] How about moving this to feature proposals? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:19:31] CDot +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:19:35] Yes. They are the ones that are on the security ML [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:19:41] * gac410 finds it very important as a RM that I have some way to figure out who helps with translations. It's a pain as it is. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:19:42] I think the point we should make today is that many task teams need to be changed / reworked / dropped. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:19:48] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:20:02] Babar: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:20:12] first action point: team leaders to contact people on the team whether they are still active ... some seem to have left the building long time ago [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:20:28] ok [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:20:49] Okay, so Infrastructure, Security, and ReleaseManagers imply some special privileges so they continue. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:21:04] gac410: continue, but Micha's got a point. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:21:04] second action point: review actions of each team and see if they fulfilled their agenda so far and may be closed. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:21:17] or renewed [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:21:18] All other teams get rethought as a contact / special interest, / or disband. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:21:22] haven't seen Kwang or Will in a long time. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:21:54] sounds good. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:21:57] third action point: elect new leaders when the current one wants to step back or isnt responding. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:22:02] The other teams besides infra/security/release are de-facto dead. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:22:05] MichaelDaum: what you are proposing is the task team governance role that the board is supposed to fulfil..... so can we take an action for the board to do it's job, and close this item? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:22:27] CDot: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:22:28] CDot i think it already is a board role [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:22:35] CDot,I'd prefer to take it offline. not on the ga. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:22:37] but we forgot to do it [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:22:42] MichaelDaum: fine [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:23:00] * CDot proposes that MichaelDaum takes a specific action to follow this up [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:23:09] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:23:13] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:23:20] and that he requisitions help from whoever he sees fit [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:23:23] aye [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:23:27] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:23:34] the last point I'd like to make is to keep in the back of our mind that (a) either we have task teams, then use them or (b) take a more skeptic approach and forget about the concept [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:23:49] fair point. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:23:59] on that note, can we move on? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:24:10] pls [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:24:16] yes please [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:24:20] * gac410 still wants some marketing help on 1.1.6, but maybe that's a different agenda item. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:24:26] next item is cloud support; Sven, can you summarise and/or link to the issues please? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:24:39] yup [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:24:47] gac410: please add that as an AOB [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:24:55] AOB ??? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:01] a cloud services company has been contacting me and foswiki [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:06] gac410: Any Other Business [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:07] aob = any other business [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:11] with a proposal to add foswiki [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:19] SvenDowideit: can you tell us which one? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:20] SvenDowideit: TurnKeyLinux? :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:21] http://status5.com [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:36] er [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:37] mmm [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:42] * SvenDowideit has to go find it [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:25:56] looks twiki-ish [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:26:04] http://stratus5.com [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:26:08] darnit, typing [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:26:15] ArthurClemens: ? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:26:16] Warning lights are on [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:26:18] essentially [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:26:23] wrong url [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:26:44] essentially, they provide the entire server service including billing [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:27:04] and we can choose to market (or not) and support (or not) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:27:25] what are the risks? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:27:32] and we get a significant share of the revenues [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:27:40] I have a hard time understanding what they get out of it than that cannot just do. And what we get out of it - and at what price? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:27:52] so far from what i can discern, the risks are really reputation based [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:27:58] we can do whatever we want until money comes into play. Our non-profit status will be gone quite fast. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:07] OliverKrueger really? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:11] yep [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:14] yes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:15] The question is whether this is allowable when we want to retain the status as a registered non-profit organisation. (I have not read it up yet, there are some german Wikipedia links on that topic) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:18] ouch :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:21] ok, thats not how it has to work here [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:31] you'll need a corp to make profit [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:44] foswiki assoc isnt atm [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:48] so that means we need to redistribute all profit :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:28:48] profit != unable to receive monies for services (here) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:29:01] but this is not going to make much money [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:29:16] unless we suddenly have a lot of foswiki users [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:29:18] but thats fine - i'm happy to just tell them that the association feels it can't take it on [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:29:22] users = developers [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:29:39] They are still free to use foswiki, as long as they are not actually selling it. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:29:52] from my pov, a third party foswiki hosting system would just allow us to have somewere to direct people [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:03] and we can help them on irc, as we'll have an idea of how its done [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:07] SvenDowideit, the drift I get is that they are looking for partners or want to donate/spare profit with foswiki. right? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:07] What did they want from us? Advertising on our site or???? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:15] what is stopping them from hosting foswiki right now [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:24] nothing is stopping them [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:26] kip3f: knowledge, I assume. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:28] I find the idea intriguing (perhaps free marketing?) but it's a deal-breaker if this breaks our non-profit stuff [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:34] We have also been picked up by http://freenest.org/ [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:40] except they're not really wanting to do foswiki support [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:44] as in customer support [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:30:55] they provide a turnkey cloud service [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:06] and we cannot promise to deliver support within x hours [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:07] one they provide community based wise is [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:11] If what they need is support, then it is more a job for some of you consultants to take on. INcl the profits. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:11] gac410, interesting. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:18] vtiger.com [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:27] Lavr that is the other option [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:43] If they provide a turnkey cloud, I don't think we can promise to support them. We do best effort like for everything else ... or hire one of the consultants. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:44] but i thought it would be nice to ask if the community could / would like [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:53] making money via hosting is a lot more attractive than support. the former scales - not so the latter. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:31:56] gac410 that was the idea [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:32:05] free best effort [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:32:18] gac410: what about greenest? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:32:20] The non-profit needs checking more carefully. If the money was spent getting professional book written, it would still be non profit would it not? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:32:36] freenest dammit [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:32:46] JulianLevens: depends on the details. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:32:48] I do not think the association can start making money on giving support. We cannot commit such support from an org that is all volunteer based [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:32:59] As long as they are not charging for support, and then passing the requests through to us. Not that we can tell that it's happening. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:33:00] Lavr i am not proposing that [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:33:20] my concern is that "the community" is too loose a concept to take this on; and I feel that the board does not have the remit for it. After all, the board is just a placeholder for the trademark; it doesn't have any official governance role beyond that. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:33:43] true [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:33:53] it seems there is a misconception on their side what foswiki actually is [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:34:04] i dissagree [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:34:15] they have a service they make money from [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:34:18] I guess the other question is: what would we do with the money, assuming we can take it - I wonder how much it would cost to pay somebody to re-work the documentation, for example [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:34:20] or a misconception on our side as to what foswiki could be [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:34:37] and foswiki is a tool they're willing to run, and need someone to revenue/support share with [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:34:40] pharvey: a lot, I'm afraid [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:35:00] y - i asked around a few years ago [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:35:08] ~$100 per page ish [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:35:18] SvenDowideit, what exactly do they want from "foswiki" [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:35:22] Maybe we could give some rewards for certain (small, identified) tasks, be it documentation/programming/design/... [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:35:25] if the project is earning money from the support, surely they require some sort of guarantees? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:35:29] though this was experiences technical documentors [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:35:31] ArthurClemens: freenest is a common skin bundle of tools. They bundle Foswiki: http://freenest.org/about/tools [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:35:39] MichaelDaum very little [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:35:54] in that in exchange for a share of the revenue [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:02] we would market & support [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:04] * Babar remembers discussing the same kind of things with Eugen Mayer when we checked http://www.turnkeylinux.org/twiki [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:07] They will not give us money without contractual obligations. And we cannot give that as an org. Individual consultants can. And should [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:10] ie, if we don't market, no-one gets anything [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:18] gac410: but foswiki is not mentioned [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:19] ah ok got it [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:24] if we do market we both get money [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:30] and if we market and don't support [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:33] ArthurClemens: it is [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:34] we look like asses [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:34] they want to buy ads [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:36:55] really they want to buy support bodies [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:37:00] ArthurClemens: Based on Foswiki. On the knowledge Sharing tab, the wiki part [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:37:37] Foswiki cannot sell support bodies. The association cannot commit to anything releated to work. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:37:37] ok - can i close this as 'mostly not considered positivly for the association' ? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:37:38] I think, they should contact individual consultants. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:37:53] Lavr that is again not the idea [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:38:00] * CDot can see how it would work for them. And while they could work with consultants, they really want to engage the community [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:38:18] support as we do it now, on irc and mailing list would be step 1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:38:29] and when you needitnow you pay a consultant [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:38:51] now the thing is that the board has no right to sell any support on behalf of community members. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:38:54] the only difference is that the community has some interests, as the association gets a cut of the hosting presense [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:38:58] SvenDowideit: I don;t understand what "added value" Foswiki has to provide to justify the income [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:39:15] simple - reputation by association [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:39:23] and clear good will [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:39:40] we simply can't demand from the community to provide support for some companies hosting clients. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:39:46] I think the "cut of the" meaning money? That's out because of our non-profit status. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:39:49] we already do [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:39:50] and that foswiki.org is the focal point of the community [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:40:00] hmmm. OK, well, if that's the way it works then they have my good will. Now, what else does the FW project have to do, and who within the project will do it? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:40:04] income != profit, but I agree, that this sounds like profit [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:40:06] do we know what they *actually* want from us? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:40:09] we already 'demand' that the community help each other [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:40:17] and hosted users are still our community [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:40:23] irrespective of where they are [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:40:28] because this is a lot of guessing [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:40:41] what else does the FW project have to do, and who within the project will do it? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:40:54] who is going to run the conversation with them? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:41:04] do they have anything to return to FW except for money? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:41:16] i still get the feeling that too many are negative on the idea to proceed [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:41:19] Problem is not the income we can get as long as it is money that is spent for the association. The problem is that noone is employed by the association to perform whatwver support that want. We cannot make such a contract [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:41:23] hopefully marketing and users, somehow [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:41:23] f.i. they could hire documentation writers [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:41:23] to be fair, I'd rather know that some money goes back to the association if I were to help someone online using one of this solution. But I doubt I'd care much. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:41:40] Lavr they are _not_ wanting a support contract from the ass [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:41:48] SvenDowideit: I'm warming to the idea, but there are questions that need answers [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:41:54] as long as we get other values in return except for money [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:42:03] I think the whole problem is that we do not want what this is in the first place [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:42:11] they're not moding our code to do this [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:42:13] I'd rather see them contribute a developer to contribute to the project, which is more normal, rather than money sent to FA [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:42:19] and the first question is, who will run the conversation with them? Cos they will get fed up talking to a void pretty quickly.... [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:42:27] gac410: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:42:39] gac410 i've asked that [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:42:43] guys... [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:42:50] and they indicate that there is nothing they do that way [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:43:04] have you heard of http://www.turnkeylinux.org/ ? They have the very same "business model" [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:43:05] perhaps we need to see a more specific proposal [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:43:23] OK, same question as I fired at MichaelDaum; SvenDowideit, do you have specific actions to propose? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:43:33] yes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:43:40] So they want to sell a foswiki hosting service, but develop no local expertise, and kick over paid support for resolution to us. On that I'd vote no. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:43:50] 1. can those against the idea please indicate here clearly [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:44:18] I still do not understand what the idea is. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:44:27] Lavr: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:44:29] me neither [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:44:43] and me [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:44:47] ok [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:44:50] * CDot thinks he understands, but may have the wrong end of the stick [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:44:51] It sounds like they want to pay us for what we're already doing [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:44:55] Apart from the additional income, I do not see why granting a company a "special role" will be beneficial for the association. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:44:58] Y. I think that this needs a very specific proposal. What they want to do, what they want us to do, and what money changes hands. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:45:13] please let Sven explain [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:45:24] I think that what they really want from us is marketing ... e.g. a link on the main homepage [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:45:31] Could they provide some hosting for us? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:45:32] stratus5 proposes to provide a service [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:45:34] To make a decision on this we need to see a written proposal. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:45:36] in return? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:45:58] Just like I told the freenest people. They are welcome to add to the ExampleSites ... it'sAWiki [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:46:27] * MichaelDaum waiting for Sven to finish his explanations a bit more [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:46:51] that has the entire hosting business support stuff (signup billing etc) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:47:07] and an automagical create new foswiki instance thing [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:47:35] automatic updates as well? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:47:35] but, they do not provide foswiki support, and so don't (appear) to thus market what they don't support [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:47:47] i think yes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:47:51] but thats a tiny detail [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:48:04] okay lets skip the tech details [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:48:14] The question is what do they want from the association in return for the money. THAT is key [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:48:15] They are certainly free to do all of that within the confines of the GPL... [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:48:46] gac410: sure, but they do not want to offer something which won't have any support, as it will hurt their business [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:48:49] i'm presuming that they want to avoid marketing what they dont want to suport [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:48:59] (ie, the foswiki domain portion) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:49:10] okay [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:49:14] so initially look at the projects community [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:49:35] to see if they want to gain some cash in return for doing what the community does already [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:49:35] Lavr is right. I guess to help guide them, we need to clarify to them what the Foswiki Association *is*. Because so far we've defined it as a very very narrow thing (holding domains, trademark). So while we might be open to the idea, F.A. might not be the correct entity for it [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:49:50] Do we know of any other associations who cooperate with a hosting company in this way? E.g., a lot of VServer/WebSpace offers include wikis... but I never saw that the companies in question were "prominently" mentioned on the project's website. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:49:56] * SvenDowideit waits [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:07] correct me if I'm wrong, but they simply want to enable marketing-by-reference. Thus if someone asks FW "what turnkey should I use" we always say "them". And that's the value we add. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:19] sven: do they have the same arrangement with other projects similar to foswiki? If so, do you have a URL where we can see [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:20] uebera||, joomla is in bed with some hosters. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:32] they sponsor flyers and booths for the community [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:35] vtiger, openbravo [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:39] It sounds to me that they are free to implement their business model, and should contract with one of the consultants for support if they want paid support [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:40] are the ones they mentioned [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:47] joomla? Like what's used for the website Sven linked? :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:55] gac410 yes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:50:58] * MichaelDaum did not click [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:51:06] The association cannot commit its members and its community that are not members to indorse a specific company. The assocation cannot legally do that [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:51:17] Lavr there is not 'commitment' [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:51:18] And they can add an example to the ExampleSites, as can any other user. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:51:21] Lavr is right [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:51:27] please... guys. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:51:27] no, imo he is not [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:51:34] Notify jast went offline (irc.freenode.net). [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:51:44] but i'm _not_ going to push against it [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:51:55] okay let me summarize [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:52:01] The point is, that, as gac410 pointed out, they could very well do it today. Right now. And have us support their "customers" as any other. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:52:14] and we would get nothing from it. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:52:17] Is there a non-profit association behind JOOMLA? Or "only" NUGS who are free to speak for their own? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:52:34] The point is that the minute you accept money for something you also commit. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:52:47] Lavr that isn't really true [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:53:02] theres this hosting company (one between many). they can host but won't provide support or any service besides pure automatic hosting. they approached the foswiki board to ask for help in setting things up of that kind. they are looking for marketing via foswiki.org as well. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:53:06] as you say, there is little that the associuation can commit to [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:53:09] is that correct? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:53:24] * CDot thinks we are trying to guess too much here. There is no votable proposal here yet. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:53:26] 'help' no [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:53:39] CDot +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:53:48] CDot: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:53:56] Notify jast is online (irc.freenode.net). [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:02] ok, _i_ don't feel i can push them to propose in a way i dont' understand [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:08] so will leave that to the board [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:18] * SvenDowideit has to go soon :/ [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:25] * gac410 thinks they can be advised to work within our current model, and we really don't need any proposal. They can join the F.A. per the rules of the association. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:30] so, move on to git? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:38] yes please :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:38] y [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:39] y please [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:39] yes, pls. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:53] * CDot doesn't think git is GA business, but is willing to hear the specific proposal [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:54:56] i would like to as for a vote for and against moving from svn to git [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:05] non-binding perhaps [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:14] but as a fast survey of hopes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:18] ie [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:30] from http://svn.foswiki.org to http://git.foswiki.org [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:34] I had the impression that during the workshops last year at CERN everyone agreed to go git and that the issue was "ONLY" the work that had to be done to actually go and do it [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:46] First... is there anyone who objects? The proposal is "approved" as well. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:51] yes, and this would confirm it in a strong way [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:54] Thats what I thought as well [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:55] Lavr: which we have worked on a lot with gac410 and pharvey to make it happen. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:55:59] ok, not a lot :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:56:10] And 1.1.6 eliminates all of the SVN rev based revision numbrers [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:56:22] * SvenDowideit would like to kick the proposal into happening ASAP [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:56:26] as http://git.foswiki.org was created during the last GA, and hasn't changed much since [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:56:37] so: VOTE: please [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:56:38] We also need to commit (hah!) to a repo-per-module approach or "fat" repo, I think. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:56:42] VOTE: yes! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:56:47] pharvey stopit [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:56:55] (thats part2) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:03] roight [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:04] vote on what? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:14] did we decide on github or selfmade? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:17] i would like to as for a vote for and against moving from svn to git [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:17] non-binding perhaps [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:17] but as a fast survey of hopes [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:17] ie [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:17] from http://svn.foswiki.org to http://git.foswiki.org [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:31] make svn read-only and use git.foswiki.org as master repo? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:37] correct [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:37] Selfmade, mirrored to github. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:40] (so basically, invert the roles) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:40] I have no objections again git. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:42] and github as a backup [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:57:53] gac410: +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:07] as I've created most of it, I think everybody knows where I stand :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:17] +1 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:19] I vote for git [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:23] git sounds like TheRightThingToDo_tm [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:26] My hope is that we can go to git sooner rather than later. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:29] me too. as I've removed all the $Rev $date stuff from 1.1.6 [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:37] * kip3f votes for git [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:41] so the upshot is, I will need to throw away all my carefully crafted svn checkouts, with all their uncommitted changes, and convert to git? What's not to love about that proposal? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:46] yes, thank you very much gac410 for that. I never bothered enough to do it. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:58:57] I vote for git [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:59:00] * CDot needs a big clear out anyway [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:59:09] 1.1.6 and extensions was fully released using git. Only svn use was to tag the release. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:59:14] CDot: you've got a week to commit them back :) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:59:18] * SvenDowideit moved to git-svn a long time ago now [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:59:37] pfffft.... if I didn't commit in the last year, a week is nowhere [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:59:39] ok, Babar done [Sunday 02 December 2012] [22:59:54] the second question is pharvey [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:00:00] I don't know how to svn anyway [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:00:13] do we use the (widely reviled) one huge repo like now [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:00:18] * Babar wonders why his nick was between "ok, " and "done" [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:00:30] or to we move the other modern, hip, one git repo per extension [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:00:48] Babar cos you mentioned that you'd move us to git as soon as everyone agreed [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:00:50] HELP - I think my irc client did not save this session. Can anybody help me out with a log? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:00:51] and tada :p [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:00:53] how confused to we want to become? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:01:03] (for the record, I'm not sure the one-git-repo-per-extension is fully up-to-date with regards to branches) [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:01:07] OliverKrueger: will mail you [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:01:08] OliverKrueger: sure. right now? [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:01:09] OliverKrueger, will email it to you [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:01:14] great thanks. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:01:17] SPAMALOT! [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:01:18] * gac410 votes for repo per ext. Though we need to work out details. I HATE the duplication and syncing between branches. [Sunday 02 December 2012] [23:01:20] pharvey cna you expand on the one repo per child thing please?