22:02:34 <gwolf> #startmeeting
22:02:34 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed May 11 22:02:34 2011 UTC.  The chair is gwolf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:02:34 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
22:02:54 * gwolf confesses he is not really familiar with MeetBot... but that should not be too much of a problem :)
22:03:07 <gwolf> #topic Anything regarding the ratings..?
22:03:31 <gwolf> So, before anything else, and trying not to want to strangle dkg for his un-dilligence ;-)
22:03:49 <gwolf> Anything you want regarding how/what to rate?
22:05:08 <gwolf> I have seen ratings by most of you, although not too many, but I guess that's fine - Currently we have three talks with just one rater, one with two, and the rest with 3+
22:05:34 <gwolf> I'd like to allow for all of them to have at least 4 (so half-team)... What do you say?
22:05:47 <dkg> i think that's reasonable
22:05:56 <dkg> and i'll be doing a ton of rating tomorrow during the day
22:06:01 <dkg> promise promise :)
22:06:09 <gwolf> (ah, and FWIW - The talks that have only 1 or 2 are one appearingly submitted by mistake, and 3 submitted after the deadline, so no problem)
22:06:34 <gwolf> The bulk of talks are currently at 3
22:06:59 <gwolf> #agreed We will call the decision period closed when all the relevant talks have been rated by at least 4 people
22:07:21 <gwolf> Ok, so I guess no questions on this point?
22:07:57 <gwolf> Moving on... appearingly monologuic ;-)
22:08:04 <dkg> does that mean that the 5th person can't rate them?
22:08:17 <nattie> dkg: "at least"
22:08:40 <gwolf> dkg: Well, I'd say that those rated by 5+ people (there are some already) will have the global score of all of the reviewers
22:08:49 <gwolf> but we call votes 4 enough
22:09:00 <biella> ok
22:09:05 <blarson> we should have a cutoff date when we need to decide no matter what
22:09:06 <biella> i rated a lot but need to go back
22:09:17 <gwolf> At some point we'll have to freeze it, to do the decision - I'd like to have it as soon as possible so we can work on schedule and proceedings
22:09:27 <gwolf> blarson: Agreed...
22:09:52 <gwolf> What should be the cutoff date? Raters who have not rated..?
22:11:29 <dkg> i'd be fine with a cutoff of friday or saturday
22:11:38 <gwolf> And I guess once we call it as enough, we will see how many talks fit in the available schedule (which we have to agree upon, with the global team, and mostly with the video team)
22:11:54 <dkg> do we have a rough version of the schedule?
22:12:07 <gwolf> #agreed We will anyway set a cutoff date of Saturday May 14, 23:59UTC
22:12:16 <gwolf> dkg: I don't, at least...
22:12:17 <blarson> do we even know how many rooms we have/
22:12:50 <gwolf> But I am sure the information is out there... We should check!
22:13:21 <gwolf> #action Before next meeting: Check on the available schedule. Available rooms, distribution of timeslots. Special atention: Video team.
22:13:49 <dkg> h01ger: should we assume max. 2 rooms statically configured to use video, like dc10?
22:14:07 <h01ger> yes
22:14:08 <gwolf> Ok... So it seems we will be facing a next meeting next week. Should we set a poll again, or we can decide now?
22:14:18 <h01ger> thats all the videoteam can handle atm
22:14:31 <blarson> Large, edium, and a couple of small would be nice.  only need video in large and medium
22:14:42 <dkg> h01ger: it's handled well :)
22:14:43 <gwolf> #info We assume max. 2 rooms statically configured to use video, like dc10. that's all the videoteam can handle atm     -h01ger
22:15:09 <gwolf> But we will anyway schedule some things (non-official talks, mainly BoFs) in smaller rooms
22:15:16 <h01ger> dkg, :)
22:15:23 <gwolf> Still, this is the talk selection team - we don't have to worry about it now :)
22:15:40 <gwolf> Ok. so, can we proceed to point #2 in my agenda?
22:15:49 <gwolf> #topic tracks
22:15:56 * h01ger is happy to see the team in action & bows to all of you
22:16:29 <gwolf> If you read among my last bunch of mails, I suggested some tracks, I'd like to know if you agree or if I'm missing anything
22:16:40 <dkg> i was happy to see those proposals
22:16:43 <gwolf> h01ger: /me bows back a thousand times to your work :-}
22:16:58 <h01ger> gwolf, dont get me started ;)
22:16:58 <dkg> i wouldn't want to announce them officially until we get someone to bottom-line them, though
22:17:05 <gwolf> Just for the sake of having the logs complete, the ideas are:
22:17:14 <gwolf> 1- Blends (Andreas Tille)
22:17:27 <gwolf> 2- Debian.org-related webservices (Martin Zobel)
22:17:35 <gwolf> 3- Large-scale deployment
22:17:41 <gwolf> 4- Social impact/structure
22:17:50 <gwolf> 5- Social activities pseudo-track
22:18:09 * micah doesn't want to interrupt, just apologize for being late
22:18:20 <gwolf> dkg: Agree with you - but the best way to bottom-line them is to get them rolling, at least in a meeting in front of all the interested people ;-)
22:18:23 <gwolf> micah: welcome!
22:18:34 <gwolf> so, /me shuts up and listens to your impressions regarding tracks :)
22:18:49 * blarson doesn't think maid fits in with the large scale track
22:19:11 <micah> someone had mentioned skill sharing on the list, and I wonder if it might make sense to try and do a skill sharing track?
22:19:37 <gwolf> micah: Right! Should it be a track, or just a long, unstructured session? (i.e. 2-3hr workshop?)
22:19:45 <nattie> micah: you mean for things like the knitting and (haha) fencing bofs?
22:19:56 <dkg> micah: isn't all of debconf a big skillshare?
22:20:38 <micah> gwolf: i think that having a track makes a little more sense because different things could happen at different times, rather than trying to do it all in a long session
22:20:45 <gwolf> blarson: yes, I agree with you - But it does target some sort (I am unfamiliar with the details) of a large-scale filesystem structure, right?
22:20:46 * blarson deosn't think skillshare makes a good track
22:20:51 <micah> dkg: sure, but having a little structure might help people connect and share
22:21:00 <micah> nattie: if you want to do them, sure!
22:21:15 <dkg> so last year, events within a track were all grouped together on a single day
22:21:22 <gwolf> micah: One of the things I liked about tracks in DC10 is that they were scheduled as a single block, as a thematic miniconf inside a DebConf
22:21:33 <dkg> so, for example, if you were into JAva, and it was thursday, you had back-to-back talks all day in one single room.
22:21:53 <dkg> i'm not saying we have to do things that way in dc11
22:22:02 <dkg> but if we do, does that make sense for skillshares?
22:22:03 <gwolf> Of course, the social activities pseudo-track is just pseudo- because it just colors the relevant activities in schedule...
22:22:22 <gwolf> (do we have examples of a skillshare so far? I don't think so...)
22:22:39 <dkg> or do we want to say something like "skillshare-type events all tend to happen at 3:00pm -- if it's the afternoon, get yer skillshare on"
22:22:53 <dkg> which is another way to consider organizing the time, though it might not be a "track".
22:23:03 * nattie like dkg's idea
22:23:03 <micah> huh, intersting
22:23:34 <micah> gwolf: someone asked for emacs, and something else, i forget what. i'm sure if we organized a call-out we could get more
22:23:35 <gwolf> so, you mean leaving an unallocated ~1hr time after lunch for various skillshares?
22:23:35 <dkg> of course, we can apply the term "track" however we like.
22:23:36 <nattie> it means one can try different activities over the course of the week
22:23:55 <nattie> i guess that would be a horizontal track rather than a vertical one
22:23:58 <gwolf> micah: ok, I don't remember seeing anything like that in penta, but yes - I agree that if we announce we will have
22:24:00 <dkg> yep :)
22:24:08 <dkg> unless your monitor is turned sideways :)
22:24:25 <gwolf> dkg: my monitor is turned sideways! :)
22:24:42 <dkg> tallscreens ftw!
22:25:06 <gwolf> So, do the 4 tracks +1 pseudotrack +1 skillexchange scheme work for you?
22:25:14 * micah likes it
22:25:21 <blarson> sounds good
22:25:26 <dkg> sounds good to me
22:25:49 <dkg> though we might also make clear that if someone gets a really good idea and wants to wrangle folks together around it, we're open to proposals
22:25:54 <dkg> but they need to be soon!
22:26:05 <nattie> isn't that kind of the nature of a BoF?
22:26:15 <gwolf> #agreed We will have four "official" tracks - Blends; Debian.org-related webservices; Large scale deployment; Social impact/structure. Besides, a "horizontal" track for skill exchange, and a pseudo-track for social activities.
22:26:34 <gwolf> An3as is the natural coordinator for track #1
22:26:41 <gwolf> Zobel signed up for #2
22:26:52 <dkg> gwolf programs in pascal, apparently
22:27:09 <dkg> 1-indexing your lists :P
22:27:18 <nattie> children, behave
22:27:21 <gwolf> dkg: Of course, I assumed track #0 was the social :-P
22:27:38 <dkg> :)
22:27:42 <marcot> Pascal is not indexed in 1.
22:27:43 <micah> heh
22:28:08 <nattie> get on with it :)
22:28:10 <gwolf> ok. We can ask rhonda for the large-scale track - There was his talk and another one, at least, right?
22:28:29 <dkg> that sounds reasonable
22:28:38 <dkg> there were folks talking about large-scale stuff from dc10 too
22:28:44 <dkg> the "enterprise" track
22:28:49 <blarson> you had 5 listed including maid in large scale
22:28:50 <dkg> maybe we can ask some of them if they want in
22:29:11 <gwolf> biella: Are you attending? Would you like to chair track #4?
22:29:21 <nattie> i believe she said she wasn't
22:30:02 <gwolf> blarson: Yes, we can check on whether maid goes in there or not... But I would try to "outsource" it to the track coordinator (who has still not yet even been informed of his responsability ;-) )
22:30:03 <nattie> (sorry for preempting you, biella - do confirm or deny though)
22:30:13 <dkg> you know, zack might have a pretty good overview of what's been going on -- do we want to ask him for a proposal for someone to chair social/structure?
22:30:18 <dkg> s/chair/wrangle/
22:30:26 <biella> no i am finishing my book gwolf :=(
22:30:27 <gwolf> #action gwolf has to create the tracks in penta
22:30:32 <biella> it is sad
22:30:35 <biella> so sad
22:30:39 <gwolf> dkg: very good idea :)
22:30:42 <dkg> are we using the term "track coordinator" again this year?
22:30:51 <gwolf> biella: that's a shame :( But I hope it is worth it!
22:30:54 <dkg> i can volunteer to follow up with zack and ask him for a suggestion
22:31:09 <biella> i think it will be gwolf and i will make the next one for SURE!
22:31:19 <gwolf> dkg: perfect :)
22:31:22 <gwolf> biella: :)
22:31:55 <gwolf> #action dkg contacts zack to make him track #4 coordinator
22:32:35 <micah> so we need to find a coordinator for skill share/exchange and social activities?
22:32:36 <gwolf> blarson: Do you want to check with rhonda regarding the large-scale track? (or even more... well, you have opinions on the topic, maybe you want to coordinate the track? It has not yet been offered to anybody)
22:32:55 <gwolf> #action gwolf contacts zobel
22:32:56 <dkg> micah: can you coordinate the skillshare stuff?
22:33:31 <gwolf> micah: social activities do not require a track-like coordination IMO
22:34:05 <blarson> gwolf: i can contact rhonda, but don't feel qualified to do the track.  never really done largescale
22:34:06 * h01ger not really following, but is debianday somehow on your agenda?
22:34:28 <gwolf> #action blarson contacts ronda regarding large-scale track
22:34:37 * micah is pondering skill share coordination
22:34:49 <micah> i'm timid of overcomittment
22:34:58 <blarson> debianday should be a track.  but few if any of the submitted talks fit it
22:35:03 <gwolf> #action micah might end up accepting to coordinate skillshare     ;-)
22:35:17 <dkg> debianday also needs a lot more feedback from the localteam
22:35:22 <dkg> is anyone here on localteam?
22:35:28 <micah> heh
22:35:29 <gwolf> h01ger: Regarding DebianDay... Well, earlier today we dropped that ball on aroundthfur ;-)
22:35:38 <blarson> localteam should be involved in debianday, especially if we want local language talks
22:35:51 <dkg> aroundthfur: are you here, or idle?
22:35:54 <gwolf> Last several years, DebianDay was handled completely independently of the talks team
22:36:18 <dkg> well, dc10 there was a fair localteam presence on the talks team -- so there was some coordination.
22:37:01 <micah> also talks had to be scheduled accordingly
22:37:23 <gwolf> Ok... So, Pentabarf can be used (or not) for DebianDay, according to whatever aroundthfur prefers
22:37:36 <gwolf> but I'll just push the topic for now, if you don't mind..?
22:38:01 <gwolf> (I think the logic of DebConf and DebianDay are somewhat parallel but the teams are quite different)
22:38:22 <gwolf> #topic What is official? What is not?
22:38:54 <gwolf> Ok... So, as every year, we have to at least agree on what is to be scheduled as official
22:39:19 <gwolf> I have the impression (which might be way off) that we have in the past excluded BoFs from the official track
22:39:36 <dkg> wait: let's not use the term "track" here
22:39:41 <gwolf> but the one who knows here is really h01ger /methinks (as he is videoguy)
22:39:43 * gwolf waits
22:40:00 <dkg> and i'd suggest we not use the term "official"
22:40:16 <dkg> there are also talks that we might approve that don't get video coverage
22:40:34 <dkg> so i think video coverage is not necessarily congruent with our "acceptance"
22:41:11 <gwolf> dkg: Right - But "official" / "featured" / "THOSE" talks are special in the way that no other official event is scheduled in parallel to them
22:41:21 <gwolf> Probably also that they get the preference of bigger rooms
22:41:38 <dkg> and bigger rooms == video coverage
22:41:51 <gwolf> And we will (that's really for the next topic) prompt submitters for full texts for the proceedings...
22:42:10 <dkg> isn't it possible for two "accepted" talks to happen simultaneously?
22:43:09 <gwolf> dkg: Well, that's what I remember from past confs - It's mainly the best way to differentiate between them AFAICT
22:43:12 <gwolf> but please ellaborate...
22:43:29 <dkg> my only experience is dc10, but here it is:
22:43:44 <dkg> we scheduled "approved" events in two main rooms that had video coverage
22:43:57 <dkg> often coinciding with each other
22:44:20 <dkg> we also scheduled "approved" events in a third, smaller room at overlapping times (with no guarantee of video coverage)
22:44:41 <gwolf> Umh, /me does not remember well then
22:44:51 <gwolf> So, what was the "gain" of being selected/approved/
22:44:52 <gwolf> ?
22:44:55 <dkg> the spaces that were left over in the schedule (in any of the 3 rooms) were then opened, first-come, first-serve to anyone who mailed talks@
22:45:06 <micah> http://meetbot.debian.net/debconf-team/2010/debconf-team.2010-05-26-23.07.txt
22:45:09 <dkg> but those spaces were not guaranteed video coverage even if they were in the main rooms.
22:45:10 <micah> AGREED: "accepted" and "rejected" will basically mean "will be pre-scheduled in a main room" and "will not be pre-scheduled in a main room"  (
22:45:44 <dkg> micah: where "main room" means any of the 3 rooms, not just the two video-capable, larger rooms.
22:45:52 <dkg> (at least, that's how it played out)
22:46:07 <gwolf> dkg: But with preference to the video-capable, I'd guess?
22:46:26 <micah> dkg: yeah, i think perhaps things changed a bit from that meeting, which was amzingly only 15 days difference from this one last year
22:47:05 <dkg> gwolf: when doing scheduling, i tried to make sure that accepted talks which really needed video got put in rooms that had video coverage
22:47:14 <dkg> i screwed that up in a few cases, unfortunately
22:47:24 <gwolf> dkg: impossible to be perfect :(
22:47:27 <dkg> but got it mostly right, i think.
22:47:54 <gwolf> ok... So the main difference is that the accepted talks will be pre-scheduled, and the others will have to request scheduling?
22:48:03 <gwolf> and we don't do any further differentiation?
22:49:00 <h01ger> "official" is a bad name indeed
22:49:01 <dkg> i think that's right
22:49:06 <micah> video coverage was a point of contention last year because there was no video team representative who attended the talks meetings to voice their opinon
22:49:12 <dkg> there's no reason to tell people they are "unofficial"
22:49:17 <h01ger> for videoteam it works best to say "room a is always covered, room b never"
22:49:19 <gwolf> (still, I guess we should anyway continue this discussion by mail - I want to finish the meeting fast, as I'll have to leave in ~20min)
22:49:28 <h01ger> of course its easy not to cover things in room a
22:49:33 <gwolf> #agreed "official" is a bad name
22:49:42 <dkg> h01ger: i think we should say "room a is covered for accepted talks"
22:49:53 <h01ger> while its hard^wimpossible (!) to switch things in room b
22:50:08 <dkg> so that if there's a gap in the schedule, the video-team isn't committed to videoing whatever shows up first-come-first-serve
22:50:11 <gwolf> #agreed The main difference between selected/unselected (official/unofficial or whatever) is to have them prescheduled
22:50:28 <gwolf> #agreed we should anyway continue this discussion by mail
22:50:55 <dkg> gwolf is agreeing with himself :)
22:51:07 <h01ger> :)
22:51:13 <gwolf> #idea (h01ger) for videoteam it works best to say "room a is always covered, room b never". of course its easy not to cover things in room a, while its hard^wimpossible (!) to switch things in room b
22:51:16 <blarson> better than arguing with himself
22:51:29 <gwolf> dkg: It's the best way to avoid arguments and still give the impression of being fair ;-)
22:51:42 <dkg> ha ha -- i agree with you too :)
22:51:47 <gwolf> now, as we have all agreed, I'll move on ;-) Last topic on my list before AOB
22:51:50 <gwolf> #topic Proceedings
22:52:14 <gwolf> So, will we (try to) have proceedings?
22:52:29 <gwolf> If so, we will have to prompt submitters for the papers in full
22:52:50 <micah> last year, this is what we agreed to about proceedings:
22:52:51 <micah> AGREED: We'll do proceedings just as a PDF, with titles+abstracts. sapphire will handle prodding for good abstracts + getting the PDF made
22:53:04 <gwolf> And get people to volunteer to coordinate the proceedings edition - right now we have an evil nattie signed up for copyediting
22:53:35 <dkg> do we even have standards we will be editing toward?
22:53:42 * nattie would like to know what distinguishes an evil nattie
22:53:46 <dkg> there could be a lot of variance in what people submit
22:53:50 <h01ger> dkg, ascii!
22:53:55 <micah> (just pointing out last year's decision as a point of reference, not to influence anything)
22:53:58 <gwolf> dkg: We had proceedings in the past (DC5/6/7 IIRC)
22:54:05 <gwolf> but right now... Well, whatever works :)
22:54:06 <dkg> h01ger: UTF-8!
22:54:11 <h01ger> .
22:54:31 <gwolf> dkg: I suggested them partly because we might have the funds to properly print them nicely... And it can be a very good plus!
22:54:38 * blarson tried to do dc9 proceedings, and only got two papers.
22:54:51 <dkg> yeah, it can be kind of cool in an old-skool way to get a dead-tree version
22:55:04 <dkg> but i dunno how my jessyink slides are going to fare in translation :P
22:55:13 <nattie> it makes us look all respectable ;)
22:55:26 <gwolf> nattie: right! And that's something I want ;-)
22:55:37 <micah> i want to look more like a gang of disrespectful thugs
22:55:49 <gwolf> micah: we have already achieved that over and over
22:55:51 <gwolf> :)
22:56:02 * dkg dyes his beard gray for xtra-respectabilitude
22:56:17 <gwolf> ok... So, a short vote before getting other gears moving
22:56:22 <h01ger> we're overachievers!
22:56:23 <nattie> dkg: with spraypaint?
22:56:29 <nattie> guys!  levity later!
22:56:42 <dkg> anyway, if people are actually volunteering to edit what might be a horrific mishmash, and we actually have printers, i won't object
22:56:50 <gwolf> Who is for (trying to) make proceedings? Who is for not spending extra energy on old-fashioned work?
22:56:53 * h01ger likes proceedings and getting more academicly respectable too
22:56:56 * gwolf likes proceedings
22:57:18 * blarson likes proceedings, but won't volenteer to do them
22:57:19 <dkg> i don't mind proceedings, but i won't push for them.
22:57:20 * nattie likes proceedings, and copyediting while lying by the millpond on a spring day
22:57:38 * dkg likes lying respectably by the millpond on a spring day
22:57:48 <nattie> dkg: you're not even in the right city for that
22:57:57 <dkg> brooklyn has millponds!
22:58:02 <gwolf> Ok, so basically... If we get a volunteer to do the editing we will do it, and if we don't, we won't push harder? :)
22:58:04 <nattie> you and your brooklyn
22:58:11 * micah doesn't like proceedings after seeing so many thrown out in the past without being opened
22:58:26 <micah> but I dont want to block people who are motivated from doing them
22:58:33 <gwolf> #agreed Proceedings would be nice... if there is somebody willing to coordinate the work
22:58:37 * nattie just likes wielding the red pen
22:58:50 <gwolf> micah: Well, that's why we added a long time ago the "want proceedings?" field in Penta
22:59:11 <gwolf> but I think we reached an agreement, and it will be up to me to spam/coert somebody into doing the proceedings
22:59:21 <gwolf> . o O (darst is a good coercer!)
22:59:39 <micah> gwolf: yep!
22:59:42 <gwolf> So... Anyway, on to the last point, yipee!
22:59:42 <dkg> that field might be confusing -- if proceedings were made, i would be happy to get a copy.  but i don't want my checking that box to encourage massive pointless deforestation and extra work.
22:59:53 <gwolf> #topic Any Other Business?
23:00:25 * gwolf blissfully listens to the sound of crickets...
23:00:26 <dkg> is someone going to poke aroundthfur more about debianday?
23:00:52 * blarson though most of the talk submissions were good
23:00:57 <nattie> in the fullness of time
23:01:06 <dkg> argh;  it seems like i'm volunteering to do it.
23:01:12 <gwolf> #action We are committed to having DebianDay (as the sponsors expect it!); we should poke^Wwork with aroundthfur to get it rolling!
23:01:29 <gwolf> #action dkg explicitly volunteered to poke aroundthfur ;-)
23:01:34 <micah> heheh
23:01:39 <nattie> that sounds very explicit, now
23:01:47 <dkg> ha ha
23:01:54 <nattie> can i watch?
23:02:04 <gwolf> blarson: I agree, the ratings are quite high, and I hope that's not because we are older and softer ;-)
23:02:05 <dkg> you'll have to read about it in the explicit version of the proceedings
23:02:11 <nattie> i am expecting full index-finger-on-rib action here
23:02:22 <micah> ok, it sounds like we are done, and I'm sitting on a hard floor in a cold, loud colocation facility, so I'm going to go and get on my bike
23:02:23 <gwolf> dkg: are you volunteering to prepare two versions of the proceedings? :)
23:02:34 <gwolf> yes, it seems we are done
23:02:40 <gwolf> Just one last point!
23:02:44 <gwolf> When do we re-meet?
23:02:49 <micah> not to stop people from making irc jokes, i just am pretty uncomfortable here :)
23:03:05 <micah> two weeks from now?
23:03:09 <micah> too much time?
23:03:11 <gwolf> next meeting should be even shorter than this one
23:03:14 <dkg> if our deadline is saturday
23:03:19 <gwolf> I'd say one, if our deadline is on Saturday...
23:03:32 * dkg shuts up and waits for the end of the ellipsis
23:03:43 <nattie> !
23:03:49 <nattie> (always end with a bang)
23:03:56 <micah> i agree with whatever you all decide for the next meeting
23:04:02 <micah> my two wheels await me
23:04:03 <gwolf> So, next week, same time?
23:04:10 <nattie> oh luciano
23:04:11 <h01ger> gn8
23:04:11 <gwolf> I fear we have no Europeans...
23:04:29 <dkg> next week same time won't work for me
23:04:40 <luciano> gwolf, late for the meeting?
23:04:41 <dkg> i have IRL bizness away from the machinery
23:04:42 <gwolf> (well, h01ger and nattie)
23:04:45 <gwolf> luciano: !!!
23:04:53 <nattie> luciano: kind of, sweetie
23:04:57 <gwolf> luciano: you are perfectly in time to... Set the time for the next meeting ;-)
23:05:26 <gwolf> So, another doodle post?
23:05:28 <luciano> hehe... sorry, a I has been in a computability class
23:05:33 <gwolf> Try to vote this time ;-)
23:05:34 <luciano> gwolf, as you wish
23:05:37 <luciano> sure
23:06:00 <nattie> #agreed next meeting time to be set by doodle poll
23:06:10 <nattie> or whatnot
23:06:11 <gwolf> nattie: I don't know if MeetBot will react to you, so
23:06:19 <gwolf> #agreed next meeting time to be set by doodle poll
23:06:33 <gwolf> Ok, so thank you all!
23:06:36 <gwolf> #endmeeting