Community Council Log 20100520

<br>

General

Date: 2010-05-20

Time: 18:30 UTC

Location: IRC

Attendees

• Christoph Noack (christoph_n)
  

• Eike Rathke (erAck)
  

• Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
  

• Matthias Huetsch (mhu)
  

• Louis Suárez-Potts (louis_to)
  

• Olivier Hallot (olivier__)
  

• Stefan Taxhet (stx12)
  

Absent

• Cor Nouws
  
• Charles-H. Schulz
  

Log

(20:41:36) louis_to: meeting starts
(20:41:51) louis_to: with 0 in status, <a href="http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Agenda#Agenda_and_Work_Status">http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Agenda#Agenda_and_Work_Status</a>
(20:41:56) louis_to: List of Action Items....
(20:41:59) louis_to: thanks
(20:42:11) louis_to: do we approve? only voice if object
(20:42:21) louis_to: if you object, that is
(20:42:43) louis_to: no ojbections, meeting minutes passed as approved
(20:42:57) louis_to: on to #2
(20:43:01) louis_to: no status change
(20:43:17) louis_to: that can be sent to this list, that is; more words but nothing substantial from last meeting
(20:43:20) christoph_n: Is there something to expect?
(20:43:38) louis_to: yes, the document for instructions on clsoing the projects
(20:44:10) christoph_n: I mean, we introduced the new naming scheme in march ... and even that time, the AI was rather old.
(20:44:14) louis_to: ie, Incubator and NLC, which previously have been done on a case-by-case basis and will continue to be doine so, but this will give some better insight into how to proceed for those wanting to move away
(20:44:18) ***erAck is momentarily away, brb
(20:44:48) louis_to: yes, it's an ancient AI and one that needs to be finished so as it woin't give me nightmares anymoer
(20:44:59) christoph_n: buuh ;-)
(20:45:13) louis_to: i"ll just post what is there and be doine with it
(20:45:39) louis_to: and send the url to the council for reviiew
(20:45:40) christoph_n: Do you require some feedback?
(20:45:54) louis_to: yes, but not much substantial
(20:45:55) christoph_n: Ah, okay. It seems we are doing multi-threading ;-)
(20:46:16) louis_to: shall we move on to #3?
(20:46:40) jsc: yes
(20:46:52) louis_to: "publicize...."
(20:47:04) jsc: i talked to Martin and he wants to finish this AI.
(20:47:05) louis_to: I suggest, "In progress."
(20:47:21) ***erAck is back
(20:47:23) jsc: i will push him to do it asap.
(20:47:47) christoph_n: At least before the OOoCon, where the community may ask us directly :-)
(20:47:48) jsc: "in progress" sounds good. Do we have due dates?
(20:47:55) louis_to: no
(20:48:02) jsc: too bad ;-)
(20:48:16) louis_to: well, we can suggest by mid-June
(20:48:30) louis_to: but that's two cycles or so away (cycle of CC meetings)
(20:48:47) louis_to: and figure two weeks of notice to the community
(20:49:22) jsc: i will try to finish this AI together with Martin asap
(20:49:30) christoph_n: Cool, thanks!
(20:49:31) louis_to: so, if we stipulate end of June, that gives us a week to prepare the language to invite the community to the session, but we need to clarify what exactly we are inviting them to, and also set up the apparatus for them to ask questions
(20:50:13) louis_to: # 4: Developer documentation
(20:50:24) louis_to: Jürgen.... Update?
(20:50:30) jsc: again me ...
(20:50:53) jsc: yes i talked with Clayton and i have updated the agenda with a link to the wiki page
(20:51:07) jsc: we worked mainly on the rules or guideline
(20:51:12) louis_to: thanks
(20:51:17) louis_to: you mean, "<a href="http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=2505">http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=2505</a>"
(20:51:43) jsc: yes
(20:51:44) jsc: if nobody complains about it we plan to announce it next week.
(20:51:46) jsc:
(20:52:12) jsc: we have some more bounties in mind and will extend the bounty list asap
(20:52:21) louis_to: ah, this: <a href="http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Bounties">http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Bounties</a>
(20:52:48) louis_to: cna I ask us all to review the proposals as sent by J and Clayton?
(20:53:08) christoph_n: of course
(20:53:18) louis_to: shall we move on to #5?
(20:53:22) olivier__: how do we evaluate he quality of the bounty outcome?
(20:53:32) jsc: yes, please review it, thanks
(20:53:33) jsc: depending on the feedback etc. we can extend the program later on to other documentation as well ....
(20:53:38) olivier__: I mean, the documentation quality
(20:53:47) jsc: we have assigned reviewers who are experts of the area
(20:53:53) olivier__: ok
(20:54:08) louis_to: #5 should have been closed
(20:54:31) louis_to: at least altered so that it reflects the internship program, not GSoC
(20:54:43) christoph_n: Yes, we should keep this for the minutes.
(20:54:46) louis_to: Google oiption is a non-starter, and we announced the internship
(20:55:20) christoph_n: I'll add a link to the announcement and mark it "finalized", okay?
(20:55:33) christoph_n: (Then we don't need to bother Cor afterwards.)
(20:55:34) louis_to: yes, please, but why noit, "done"?
(20:55:40) louis_to: Done is easier :-)
(20:55:53) christoph_n: Yes, but it isn't stated in the guidelines linked above.
(20:55:55) christoph_n: :-)))
(20:55:59) louis_to: sigh
(20:56:13) olivier__: gentlemen, just a question... is this internship available for people around the world, or just Germany?
(20:56:14) jsc: please, not so complicate
(20:56:18) ***louis_to suggests we change language
(20:56:28) louis_to: olivier__: all people, everywhere!!
(20:56:36) louis_to: why think it's just for Germans?????
(20:56:39) jsc: the internship is international
(20:56:53) louis_to: nothing in the PR would suggest that
(20:56:59) jsc: you can promote it in Brazil as i did last month
(20:57:04) louis_to: I mean that it is specific
(20:57:15) louis_to: I'm promoting it to india, china, latin america....
(20:57:16) stx12: it's not that people are really sitting in the office; mentoring and work is domne remotely
(20:57:16) louis_to: the world
(20:57:23) olivier__: thanks Juergen
(20:57:52) louis_to: shall we move onto #6?
(20:58:03) louis_to: Talk to Education Project Leads about structure and remit
(20:58:14) christoph_n: We may skip that, Cor commented on that in a mail.
(20:58:22) louis_to: I'd suggest that we refresh this AI offlist and change ownership away from John
(20:58:28) louis_to: yes, agreed
(20:58:30) louis_to: (to skipt)
(20:58:37) louis_to: so on to #7
(20:58:48) jsc: i think Cor asked to put it on "stalled" for the moment
(20:58:50) louis_to: NLC of the month....
(20:59:17) christoph_n: There has been some feedback by Charles (on #7). But my mail program "trashed" this thread. Grrr.
(20:59:32) louis_to: the status is stall, or "in progress"
(20:59:59) jsc: he got no response and is looking for a new project when i understand it correct
(21:00:06) louis_to: yes.k
(21:00:09) christoph_n: jsc: thanks!
(21:00:33) louis_to: so, we move to older #1
(21:00:42) louis_to: Community situation
(21:00:50) erAck: A question: what is expected there?
(21:00:55) louis_to: beats me
(21:01:00) christoph_n: As far as I remember, Cor asked to skip that, too.
(21:01:14) louis_to: agreed, on to CC election
(21:01:17) christoph_n: erAck: There is an ongoing discussion between Stefan and Cor to look for good and bad examples of collaboration.
(21:01:33) erAck: ah, ok.
(21:01:40) christoph_n: Currently stalled a bit, but is somehow related to 2010-04-29#2, missing OOo desktop presence
(21:02:18) christoph_n: louis_to: yes, we may continue with 2010-04-29#1
(21:02:29) louis_to: thanks
(21:02:40) louis_to: election?
(21:02:45) louis_to: it's your AI...
(21:02:53) louis_to: for Prod Dev Rep
(21:03:04) christoph_n: Currently there is the (slight) dependency: update of the bylaw --> updating wiki --> starting election
(21:03:11) louis_to: okahy,
(21:03:16) louis_to: on then to the point you raised,
(21:03:22) louis_to: desktop presence
(21:03:24) jsc: where exactly is your problem here?
(21:03:28) christoph_n: Therefore I asked several times to comment on the first, the bylaw update
(21:03:28) louis_to: new iissue
(21:04:22) christoph_n: It was about the "Sun", "Sun/Oracle", "Oracle" issue. At least, if this is an issue to us.
(21:04:24) stx12: christoph_n: I don't get the dependency; but anyway I think we shuold come to a conclusion about the update of the charter.
(21:04:59) jsc: i think it's no issue, it should be or is understandable to everybody
(21:05:02) louis_to: do we all agree on the update? and have we read christoph_n's proposal? please read first
(21:05:11) christoph_n: stx12: The dependency is, that we agreed on updating the bylaw before starting the elections. I changed the voting tooling section, and other update proposals have been made.
(21:06:00) christoph_n: Okay, to make it more formal: André said that the change in the bylaw requires also an update on the real charter ... and therefore the whole process when changing it.
(21:06:07) stx12: one could revert the change in discussion; but the better way seems to be to explain the situation, come to an agreement and move forward.
(21:06:21) louis_to: agreed, but are we talking about,
(21:06:22) louis_to: "To me, it looks most simple and time effective if the council expresses
(21:06:22) louis_to: that the fact that Sun has to be changed in Oracle, because of the
(21:06:22) louis_to: acquisition by Oracle, is not considered as a change in 'the terms' of
(21:06:23) louis_to: the charter.
(21:06:23) louis_to: Also saves us the wasting of time for ratification by the three ways
(21:06:24) louis_to: mentioned.
(21:06:39) jsc: +1, keep it simple
(21:06:40) louis_to: ?
(21:06:40) ***mhu thinks there can be no issue in updating documents mentioning "Sun" to mention "Oracle" instead. That is only legal successor, nothing to discuss.
(21:06:46) erAck: Seconded.
(21:06:52) christoph_n: +1
(21:07:14) christoph_n: mhu?
(21:07:29) louis_to: +1
(21:07:32) christoph_n: olivier?
(21:07:51) mhu: +1, yes keep it simple (and simply update docs)
(21:08:15) louis_to: a nominal not substantive change only
(21:08:22) christoph_n: mhu: sometimes simple is wrong, therefore the request
(21:08:23) stx12: +1 ; thanks; shall i update the charter?
(21:08:28) louis_to: ie, a change in name alone, not in its significance
(21:08:43) louis_to: yes, please.
(21:08:45) christoph_n: stx12: would be great, I'll do the bylaw ... do we change to Sun/Oracle or Oracle?
(21:08:56) louis_to: Oracle
(21:09:10) stx12: correct
(21:09:23) louis_to: with an asterisk, if needed, "Oracle acquired Sun in 2010" or completed the acquisition then
(21:09:35) christoph_n: Good. Then I'll provide the wiki page and all the stuff for the election.
(21:09:41) louis_to: thanksk!
(21:09:44) olivier__: +1
(21:09:44) christoph_n: By the way, this would have been easy on the mailing list...
(21:09:51) ***louis_to wishes he could type correctly
(21:10:05) christoph_n: louis_to: Blame the keyboard ;-)
(21:10:15) louis_to: :-)
(21:10:26) christoph_n: Next?
(21:10:27) louis_to: so, back to #2? missing desktoip presence....
(21:10:38) christoph_n: Well...
(21:10:55) christoph_n: The description is rather old. There has been some initial discussion on the mailing list ...
(21:11:21) christoph_n: ... at the moment it is about the following "Indeed, there might be two different levels ...First, are the "ODF
(21:11:21) christoph_n: only" icons _fully_ backed up by our available project goals? If yes,
(21:11:21) christoph_n: then no problem to adapt OOo to that. Second, if the change competes
(21:11:21) christoph_n: with our commonly agreed project mission, has there been a sufficient
(21:11:21) christoph_n: discussion and / or a common decision to ratify the change. The request,
(21:11:21) christoph_n: so it seams, claims that there have been shortcomings to both of the
(21:11:21) christoph_n: items. "
(21:12:35) louis_to: yes, and I pointed out, just a few minutes ago, that we have not (yet) altered our longstanding mission statement
(21:12:57) christoph_n: ???
(21:13:01) louis_to: however, it would make sense to do so, given the evident emphasis on ODF. that will require a discussion and plebiscite of and by the community
(21:13:05) louis_to: ah, did I misread?
(21:13:18) louis_to: I don't think so.... but perhaps?
(21:13:39) christoph_n: I didn't get it that way ... there is nothing about the mission statement in your mail: There has not really been a specific discussion on the latter, though there have been inclusive ones. I think having specific discussion is important.
(21:14:13) louis_to: yes?
(21:14:34) christoph_n: To jsc's question: It is about the change without the support by the community or - at least what some people think - without support by the community mission statement.
(21:14:54) louis_to: there has been no change in our mission statement, afaik
(21:15:00) olivier__: Is this discussion a no-brainer if the ODF icons get more beautiful?
(21:15:07) louis_to: but there has been discussion about a change in the mission itself
(21:15:18) christoph_n: olivier: no
(21:15:38) jsc: christoph_n: which question? My question was related to the update of the bylaw
(21:15:56) louis_to: so, my proposal is a specific discussion on a new mission statement that more directly addresses the change in mission to emphasize ODF over generic XML
(21:16:07) christoph_n: It is not about aesthetics ... it is about the change of presenting OOo on the desktop without any backup by the community.
(21:16:21) louis_to: I'd like to call to clarify the situations here....
(21:16:34) louis_to: and underscore the issues at hand
(21:16:35) christoph_n: louis_to: So the change came to early and is therefore not backed up :-)
(21:16:53) louis_to: ODF is not OOo and is not the OOo community
(21:16:57) louis_to: ODF is separate
(21:17:24) christoph_n: Correct. So - the opinion of the community (people who commented on that) - there is no reason for the changed icons.
(21:17:35) erAck: yet OOo strives to be the reference implementation of ODF.
(21:18:01) stx12: christoph_n: while i share some of the sentiments i think "without any backup" doesn't describe the situation well.
(21:18:04) christoph_n: erAck: That is correct, but it is one goal among others of the whole community.
(21:18:28) christoph_n: stx12 --> sorry, it is like in the movies, putting a bit emphasis on that :-)
(21:18:44) stx12: ... which triggered my comment.
(21:18:51) olivier__: IMHO: 1) community must decide or get involved to decide and 2) aesthetic matters, a lot by the way.
(21:19:13) christoph_n: So what I see is, that we all agree on supporting ODF. All of the people in the community do that, too.
(21:19:20) mhu: ...and too much emphasis does not help either
(21:19:25) christoph_n: But, the change addresses ODF without OOo. That is the concern.
(21:19:43) christoph_n: mhu: And too much ignorance by the i-team neither ... sigh
(21:20:11) mhu: "ignorance" is again over-emphasized
(21:20:27) christoph_n: mhu: then you didn't take part in the discussion :-)
(21:20:55) christoph_n: Well, what I think many people would be fine with, is a mission statement or a common agreement on making such a change.
(21:21:33) christoph_n: Maybe even re-adding a bit of OOo back to the icons ... among other things like usability (olivier, of course you are right, but nobody ever complained about the beauty, many people were quite satisfied with it)
(21:21:54) ***mhu does not take part in many discussions, but still has an idea of what has been discussed
(21:23:24) christoph_n: So what to do? Ask the community for their support / opinion / ... ? Keeping OOo unchanged until we update the mission statement? Asking "officially" for more discussion for such changes? Asking Bernhard (who brought this in) for his opinion how to proceed (since he is also in the branding team)?
(21:23:27) louis_to: christoph_n: I am confused
(21:23:33) louis_to: by your argument...
(21:23:49) louis_to: a mission statement about the change? or process for the change?
(21:23:51) louis_to: for ODF?
(21:24:10) louis_to: please be as utterly clear as you can be....
(21:24:17) louis_to: for again, ODf is distinct from OOo
(21:24:40) louis_to: OOo does use ODF, of course, and I propose a chagne in our mission statement to reflect that more precisely
(21:25:00) louis_to: but a change in ODF look and identity is not really in the remit of the community...
(21:25:03) louis_to: it's out of it
(21:25:07) louis_to: ODF is distinct
(21:25:10) christoph_n: Okay, a rationale to remove OOo from the icons and to keep ODF only.
(21:25:25) louis_to: a rationale where, what, how?
(21:25:29) olivier__: Well: OOo icons , OK, nice set. ODF icons: not OK. ugly. User will complain
(21:25:37) louis_to: again, please be precise and explicit
(21:25:38) christoph_n: We don't have an "ODF look" (their branding), we have some text in each of the icons.
(21:26:09) louis_to: please be precise in stating what you want, then
(21:26:34) louis_to: do you want an OOo identity look to overlay the ODF icon look?K
(21:26:52) louis_to: because we have many proposals here competing with each otehr
(21:26:54) louis_to: other, I mean
(21:27:10) christoph_n: louis_to: I'll try again "why does an document icon" only represent ODF, but shows no trace of OOo. Who decided on that for what reason? How to make sure that this (for some: major) change is supported by the community.
(21:27:13) louis_to: and I'd like to clarify the mess so that we know the threads and can then act on them
(21:27:32) jsc: but it was the idea to introduce this icons as the ODF icons. We wanted to be again the first and want to convince others ...
(21:27:34) jsc: That is at least my understanding
(21:27:35) jsc:
(21:28:51) christoph_n: jsc: An idea, that is correct. But who introduced it ... and who made sure that the community agreed?
(21:28:59) louis_to: I guess I wonder at the current phrasing, as I do not see how we can act, as the CC on the current language, as there is no specific proposal to act on.
(21:29:37) christoph_n: Louis - a clear proposal: Ask OOo to not include the icons in the current state until their use has been discussed with the community.
(21:29:43) jsc: christop_n: who introduced the former xml format, the base for ODF? Who agreed or better who understand it ...
(21:30:56) christoph_n: jsc: This is different, since a) we have a mission statement which names OOo first, b) it didn't cause many questions/critique by the community.
(21:31:31) christoph_n: Louis: "ask OOo" = "ask Sun/Oracle"
(21:32:06) louis_to: thanks for the clarification :-)
(21:32:34) louis_to: so, the proposal would be,
(21:32:37) christoph_n: And propose how to work on that ... together. As you pointed out: either by updating the mission statement with the community, or decide with the community whether to include some hints on OOo to soften the waves :-)
(21:33:15) louis_to: "Does the CC agree to ask Sun/Oracle to hold off using the new ODF icons until such time as the overall community has approved their use?"
(21:33:23) louis_to: would that be a fair re-statement of your desire?
(21:33:24) stx12: christoph_n: i think the odf icons have been discussed; it's just that the discussion hasn't come to a conclusion.
(21:34:04) olivier__: IMHO: get pretty ODF icons and the issue vanishes (noise stops). Why the community cannot suggest nicer ODF icons? (sorry to insist)
(21:34:04) louis_to: christoph_n: updating our mission statement has no bearing on the actual look and identity of the ODF icons under discussion
(21:34:06) christoph_n: stx12: To me, it clearly shows that there are still questions.
(21:34:25) christoph_n: ... which should be resolved, first.
(21:34:39) stx12: sure; but i can't share the conclusion that we should hold off.
(21:34:52) ***mhu too
(21:35:12) louis_to: christoph_n: do you agree with the phrasing I proposed, for the proposal you put forth?
(21:35:20) louis_to: It is something we can vote on
(21:35:40) christoph_n: stx12: Do you have something different in mind?
(21:36:40) stx12: i see the new efforts in i-teams or initiatives going quite well.
(21:36:42) christoph_n: louis_to: still thinking ...
(21:37:18) stx12: could we give the team around the icons another try?
(21:37:27) christoph_n: stx12: So you propose to re-work the icons within the branding project?
(21:37:42) christoph_n: Ah, or in the "original" i-team?
(21:37:44) stx12: btw, i'm looking forward to the feedback from the "user community"...
(21:38:15) louis_to: fwiw, the overall ODF adoption TC, where I sit, has been pretty tepid in its response to the icons for ODf
(21:38:17) christoph_n: stx12: btw, my questions to do some usability testing have been unanswered for many months :-)
(21:38:51) louis_to: can I suggest then a proposal?
(21:38:55) christoph_n: stex12: What would we propose if there is an improvement?
(21:39:12) christoph_n: To hold on the recent proposal, or to ship it until we have a new one?
(21:39:21) stx12: "we"? "there is"?
(21:39:52) christoph_n: we = Council, there is = from the i-team / branding group
(21:41:12) christoph_n: Stefan, did I get it right that you propose to give the i-team a new try? This would mean to invite the community / incorporate their feedback? If yes, what to do with the current icon proposal. I just want to get this right ...
(21:41:14) stx12: if the iteam comes up with an agreed-upon improvement then all is fine?
(21:42:43) stx12: its not a proposal. it's integrated and part of the milestone build. nevertheless i think it's worth to continue the work on it in the/a iteam
(21:42:59) christoph_n: To be honest, I think we will address the concerns of the icons ... which would be great in a first step. And then we should try to make sure that such changes are done with the community in the future. The question remains who will agree on the improvements. The community, the i-team, an advanced i-team, the CC?
(21:43:54) erAck: I think we can give only the advice to the i-team to publicly work out a solution backed up by the community.
(21:44:12) stx12: the smoothest way obviously is if an iteam comes up with an agreed-upon change.
(21:44:35) stx12: and this will more probably happen if...
(21:44:52) stx12: erAck's advice is followed.
(21:45:00) christoph_n: That sounds good. Maybe we can even support the i-team in getting this (let's call it) agreement ... if they like. I think it is crucial to help them.
(21:45:07) louis_to: again, the ODF Adoption TC has not really adopted these
(21:45:16) christoph_n: IBM disagree, too :-)
(21:45:21) christoph_n: +d
(21:45:33) louis_to: IBM is not the only member :-)
(21:45:54) louis_to: And they have branding considerations
(21:45:57) christoph_n: but IBM = is big member (sorry, couldn't resist) ;-)
(21:46:23) christoph_n: Louis, do you propose to ask them, too?
(21:46:38) louis_to: ask who? IBM? Ask them what?
(21:46:44) christoph_n: I mean, to suggest to the i-team to consider the requests by the ODF adoption TC?
(21:46:46) louis_to: or the Adoption TC?
(21:46:58) christoph_n: latter
(21:47:00) louis_to: I would leave that as a proposal as you phrased it and direct it to sT
(21:47:11) louis_to: please be precise
(21:47:18) louis_to: and restate what you think you just asked
(21:47:23) louis_to: so that I know and others, too
(21:48:06) louis_to: so, do you wish for me to ask the ODF TC... what?
(21:48:14) louis_to: or do you wish for me to ask IBM... What?
(21:48:27) christoph_n: I would like to cite erAck "we can give only the advice to the i-team to publicly work out a solution backed up by the community". And we should ask to do that before the next version of OOo ships; if this is possible.
(21:49:33) stx12: i don't think the latter part is feasible. but we should ping the iteam - that's where we agree.
(21:49:37) christoph_n: Louis - it was just a question. JSC stated what the original idea was. You stated what the ODF A TC replied. If we don't meet their requirements, then the initial idea won't work that well. Therefore I asked for your opinion if there are other things to consider ... among the current request by the community.
(21:50:34) louis_to: I would propose then that we ask stx12 to inquire with the i-team charged with ODF icons to re-assess their status and if they may be altered
(21:50:37) christoph_n: stx12: How to do this to be fair, transparent and efficient? Do you have some experience?
(21:50:41) louis_to: Do we agree with that?
(21:50:51) louis_to: christoph_n: can you hold off a minute?
(21:52:26) stx12: is would like to avoid the dependency on the release; the answer is obvious, they can be altered; the discussion will be about the constraints and the process towards imnprovement.
(21:53:27) stx12: but that's something a "refreshed" iteam could work upon.
(21:53:56) louis_to: can we arrange for the discussion to take place in a public forum, eg, dev@ux or whatever?
(21:54:06) louis_to: or at least ask for that?
(21:54:46) christoph_n: louis_to: Generally, that would be good.
(21:55:08) christoph_n: Also the new branding ML might be a place, but this is details...
(21:55:30) jsc: stx12: ... but that's something a "refreshed" iteam could work upon independent of the pressure of a release
(21:55:33) christoph_n: stx12: Sounds good. Especially that we may tell the community that we will work together.
(21:55:55) christoph_n: jsc: hehe, good move :-)
(21:57:06) christoph_n: If we do so, I would like to state that the recent icons are in some kind of transitional phase, if this is possible. As olivier pointed out (and I with regard to usability testing and such stuff), there may be more questions for the next release. However, I really appreciate Stefan's proposal.
(21:57:51) louis_to: we are nearly at the hour
(21:57:57) louis_to: where do we stand on this issue?
(21:59:03) christoph_n: No, we may move on. Stefan, may I summarize this and send this for review / acceptance to the list, or directly to you?
(21:59:14) stx12: christoph_n and i will look at the iteams working in this area and come to proposal
(21:59:21) stx12: christoph_n: yes
(21:59:27) louis_to: thanks. can you update the agenda work status with that, please?
(21:59:34) christoph_n: I'll do that.
(21:59:42) louis_to: thanks
(22:00:00) christoph_n: And thanks to everybody for the patience. I know that this is still a huge thing for many people ... so it is important for me.
(22:00:05) louis_to: shall we move on to the last two items?
(22:00:17) christoph_n: Yes, please.
(22:00:29) louis_to: Do not promote proprietary software through the OpenOffice.org extensions library
(22:00:40) stx12: please note that i have a quick update on openoffice.org in brazil
(22:00:40) louis_to: the user, Juca, put this up
(22:00:55) louis_to: I'd like to table it as not really a proposal we can act on
(22:01:10) jsc: as the extension project lead i have a very clear opinion on this. Yes we want promote every kind of extension to provide the best solution to our users.
(22:01:12) stx12: we acted on it
(22:01:14) louis_to: and also point out that we, the CC, have also prmooted a more inclusive extensions library
(22:01:18) christoph_n: stx12: yes
(22:01:22) mhu: isn't that only triggered by our private discuss with FSF ?
(22:01:25) louis_to: so, I'd like to then table it
(22:01:38) louis_to: as "invalid" or dismissed
(22:01:43) jsc: +1
(22:01:50) louis_to: the last item, Next council coordinator
(22:01:53) stx12: with a referral to the CC message sent to announbce@
(22:01:58) christoph_n: +1, let's just refer to our statement to the FSF, that covers it
(22:02:08) olivier__: +1
(22:02:08) louis_to: +1, to Christoph's point
(22:02:21) mhu: okay
(22:02:28) louis_to: jand, regariding coordinator
(22:02:34) erAck: It also seems the item was added before the statement, if I didn't confuse dates.
(22:02:38) louis_to: shall we discuss this on list and get now to the Brazil point?
(22:02:55) christoph_n: erAck: Oh, I didn't check that.
(22:03:03) louis_to: yes, I answer meself
(22:03:14) louis_to: stx12: would you provide the Brazil update, please?
(22:03:43) stx12: you will know that there was a longstanding legal conflict
(22:03:51) stx12: about the usage of the name OpenOffice.org in Brazil
(22:04:11) stx12: court now decided that we can use the name OpenOffice.org for our
(22:04:27) stx12: product and project in brazil
(22:04:40) stx12: the legal conflict has been resolved to our favor
(22:04:50) jsc: wow, that are good news
(22:04:52) christoph_n: This is _good_ news!!!
(22:04:53) stx12: so the efforts to remove the uncertainty had a positive outcome
(22:05:28) stx12: we can make use of the changed situation and come to a stronger uniform
(22:05:33) olivier__: STX12: That are news for me... can you point me where to look for?
(22:06:04) stx12: olivier__: i can bring you in contact with our legal team, if you like.
(22:06:28) olivier__: yes please... this is of extreme importance...
(22:06:47) louis_to: indeed.
(22:07:04) louis_to: but I think it will greatly help all in establishing a uniform identity
(22:07:16) stx12: be assured that i wouldn't raise it here in the public session if there were uncertainty.
(22:07:54) stx12: so we can about OpenOffice.org around the world including Brazil and
(22:07:54) stx12: promote one product.
(22:08:06) stx12: talk about...
(22:08:39) jsc: olivier: what do you think about it?
(22:09:06) jsc: well, maybe a difficult question because it was new to you as well
(22:09:16) olivier__: I need urgently to have more info on that... I dunno "who" did it in Brazil, if SUN or Oracle...
(22:09:57) stx12: olivier__: i will follow-up on this with you, ok?
(22:10:40) olivier__: thanks: I am <a href="mailto:ohallot@openoffice.org">ohallot@openoffice.org</a>, for these issues
(22:11:06) stx12: ok
(22:11:11) louis_to: shall we adjourn then for tonight?
(22:11:51) louis_to: and have an update posted to the wiki regarding the items above, as well as the Brazil update? I think the latter merits, after Olivier's response and discussion with stx12, a PR
(22:11:56) louis_to: aka press release
(22:12:04) christoph_n: all: I will send a mail concerning "council coordinator" to the list ... if we want to close the meeting
(22:12:20) louis_to: thanks, christoph_n!
(22:13:48) ***erAck has to leave now
(22:13:50) christoph_n: Okay, I'll publish the log of our meeting - if this is okay. And, please everyone, make sure to update your AI descriptions, so that e.g. the OOo newsletter gets some input :-)
(22:13:54) louis_to: and regarding Brazil branding... stx12, olivier, are you agreed with next steps: stx12: to communicate direclty with oliviier and then, to see about a PR on the changes available in branding?
(22:14:02) louis_to: christoph_n: please hold off a little
(22:14:23) louis_to: stx12: ping
(22:14:47) stx12: i'm not sure about PR.
(22:15:12) louis_to: that is a proposal but the change is important. it depends on your and olivier's agremeent, to be sure, not a CC issue
(22:15:42) louis_to: for now, then, there is nothing the CC is entitled to act on in this issue, yes?
(22:15:50) stx12: right; we might want to preparing openoffice.org build for pt-br...
(22:15:55) olivier__: I really regret not to have been informed sooner on this Brazil issue. We did a lot of spendings with our local BrOffice.org brand
(22:16:00) erAck: bye all, happy holidays
(22:16:14) louis_to: olivier__: my impression is that it just occurred
(22:16:26) erAck heißt jetzt erAck_away
(22:16:27) louis_to: "just" means, "very very very recently"
(22:16:27) ***mhu needs to leave now also, have a good evening / afternoon everybody, bye all
(22:16:48) louis_to: but this is not really within the remit of the CC.
(22:17:06) olivier__: yes but I was not aware there was actions taken directly by someone else than us...
(22:17:08) louis_to: I therefore call the meeting to an end and ask christoph_n: to post, indeed, the log of this IRC discussion to the Web
(22:17:25) christoph_n: Thanks to all!
(22:17:34) olivier__: Bye
(22:17:41) jsc: thanks and bye
(22:17:45) stx12: bye all
(22:17:45) louis_to: thanks, all, meeting is adjourne