Community Council Log 20100218
From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Time: 19:30 UTC (incl. warming up)
- Sophie Gautier (sophi, deputy of Louis Suárez-Potts)
- Christoph Noack (christoph_n)
- Martin Hollmichel (_Nesshof_)
- Matthias Huetsch (mhu)
- Cor Nouws (CorNouws)
- John McCreesh (jpmcc)
- Stefan Taxhet (stx12)
- Juergen Schmidt (jsc)
(20:42:17) jpmcc1: Go for it ...
(20:42:29) christoph_n: Okay, then "Welcome everybody!".
(20:42:45) christoph_n: Our today's agenda is located at: <a href="http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Agenda">http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Agenda</a>
(20:43:07) christoph_n: As far as I know we have to approve to the AIs - do all agree?
(20:43:16) christoph_n: (being silent means +1)
(20:43:53) christoph_n: Okay, then let's tart with: 1. Prepare wiki page for ‘Events’
(20:43:56) ***stx12 is silent
(20:44:04) christoph_n: (Wow, what a silence.)
(20:44:27) christoph_n: Sophie, you did write a mail concerning that, didn't you?
(20:44:52) sophi: christoph_n: yes, on the MarCon list, to get more feedback
(20:45:05) stx12: <a href="http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Events#Year_2010">http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Events#Year_2010</a>
(20:45:22) christoph_n: So is there any "action" left?
(20:45:38) christoph_n: (E.g. incorporating feedback, announcing, ...)
(20:45:41) sophi: yes, I thought you ask for that first
(20:46:13) christoph_n: My question is: Is it rather "done" or do we "wait" at the moment?
(20:46:28) sophi: I'm not sure we get more feedback, so it is rather done
(20:46:38) christoph_n: Okay. Thanks!!!
(20:46:50) christoph_n: Next one is: 2. Hold CC Elections (Martin, Pavel, John)
(20:47:07) christoph_n: As far as I know Louis started to prepare the initial mails.
(20:47:41) christoph_n: Currently I don't know how to support Louis ... but there is some movement at the moment.
(20:48:03) christoph_n: So, is it okay to go to the next step or is there something to clarify?
(20:48:38) sophi: it's okay for me
(20:48:40) christoph_n: (I'll take that for "go on".)
(20:48:46) stx12: christoph_n: you may want to have a look at the election process description and trigger the next steps.
(20:48:58) stx12: esp. collecting nominations...
(20:49:53) christoph_n: Okay, I'll do that. So I propose to ask Louis to publish the mail (he talked about that) and I try to jump in at this point.
(20:50:08) christoph_n: Anything else?
(20:50:26) christoph_n: Now there is: 3. Refresh Incubator and NLC Project processes
(20:50:50) christoph_n: Does anybody know something about that? I don't (because I'm not well informed...).
(20:51:04) sophi: I do not have any update from Louis on that
(20:51:22) CorNouws: Louis is working on this > next meeting..
(20:51:27) christoph_n: I assume that is valid for "4. Publicise the open slot at the start of the CC meetings", too?
(20:51:38) sophi: yes
(20:51:41) christoph_n: Okay.
(20:52:08) christoph_n: Let's continue with: "5. Work with Clayton on estimates for Developing developers documentation "
(20:52:42) jsc: Clayton send an initial draft to council-discuss. Sounds good and the proposed or realistic quote is 40K. I think we need some clarification how to process keeping this quote of 40K in mind
(20:53:06) jsc: process = procedd
(20:53:18) jsc: grrr -> proceed
(20:53:26) christoph_n: I've seen this, too. And it is somehow cool to see how things evolve :-)
(20:53:59) ***CorNouws Cannot find the command 'grrr ->'
(20:54:20) christoph_n: But one question: What do you mean with clarification? Getting the budget, ... ?
(20:54:26) mhu: hmm, USD 40K sounds somewhat heavyweight to me, compared to our budget; any idea how to fund that ?
(20:54:26) CorNouws: I've read part of it and looks good indeed
(20:54:27) jsc: it's Clayton's work ;-) We planned to talk today but i was too busy ...
(20:54:47) christoph_n: Spending 40K ? ;-)
(20:55:02) christoph_n: So we move that to the next meeting or to an non-IRC discussion?
(20:55:05) CorNouws: but indeed the sum - maintainability has to be on top of the list at least ..
(20:55:26) jsc: mhu: that is exactly what i mean. But i think it is realistic when i remember the work with the authors for the DevGuide ...
(20:55:38) mhu: yes, but that amount does not fit into any current budget
(20:56:02) CorNouws: christoph_n: we do not have to decide now, so some/all can have a closer look at the proposal..
(20:56:24) jsc: yes, the question is then if we want to proceed, postpone or cancel it
(20:56:26) mhu: yes, let think about it more, then discuss
(20:56:54) jsc: how long?
(20:57:09) CorNouws: before next CC meeting..
(20:57:14) christoph_n: Proposal: Everyone will have a look at it. I'll add a due date and will poke you if required :-)
(20:57:22) jsc: ok
(20:57:30) mhu: okay
(20:57:43) CorNouws: which 'due date' ?
(20:57:55) _Nesshof_: 2 weeks
(20:57:58) christoph_n: So the goal would be to decide whether (and maybe how) we continue with the proposal.
(20:58:13) _Nesshof_: next meeting
(20:58:22) mhu: what I would like to see is also a proposal how to fund this
(20:58:29) CorNouws: I would rather state 'how we proceed'
(20:58:40) stx12: or to break it in managable pieces...
(20:59:00) mhu: stx12: okay, thats a workable proposal :-)
(20:59:07) christoph_n: Okay, then: Look if it fits to our goal, then look if it fits into any budget, if not then look at the pieces...
(20:59:31) jsc: mmh, i am not sure ...
(20:59:43) christoph_n: Yep?
(20:59:57) jsc: it takes some time for anybody to dive into the development stuff
(21:00:53) christoph_n: So you mean the largest part of the work is to get used to our "processes and tools". The documentation itself isn't that time consuming?
(21:00:54) jsc: either we are willing to invest in this or we should simply skip it and should try to resolve it otherwise
(21:01:30) CorNouws: since we are going to study it, we are willing to invest...
(21:01:31) CorNouws: but not sure if we can make all ends right now ...
(21:02:01) jsc: no, it's both. It simply takes some time to get on speed
(21:02:43) CorNouws: of course, maybe 60% this year and 30 next or so?
(21:03:00) jsc: cor: i agree but my comment was related to split it manageable parts ... I think 6 month is necessary at minimum
(21:03:34) christoph_n: Good idea, Cor. But, would it be okay to discuss that after we all had a look at the proposal? I read it, but I cannot talk about the bits and pieces ...
(21:04:09) CorNouws: yip, of course
(21:04:16) jsc: yes, lets move forward and let us postpone this for the next meeting
(21:04:36) christoph_n: (Personally I'm happy that we talk about such an important topic...)
(21:04:43) christoph_n: Okay, then: 6. Talk to Google about 2010 SoC
(21:05:06) ***mhu still asks for a funding proposal for 5. for next meeting also
(21:05:19) jpmcc1: 6. Cor & I have sent off an email a day or two ago - no reply yet
(21:05:26) christoph_n: (Matthias, I'll add it to the minutes...)
(21:05:33) mhu: thanks
(21:05:52) christoph_n: Okay, I add this information to the minutes. So should we talk about this earlier or is the next meeting okay?
(21:06:49) christoph_n: Silence.
(21:06:51) mhu: next meeting is fine for me
(21:07:03) christoph_n: Okay, then: 7. Talk to Education Project Leads about structure and remit
(21:07:03) stx12: i don't have the GSoC timeline in mind but next meeting should work...
(21:07:14) jpmcc1: If we get a reply from Leslie Hawthorn at Google we'll let you all know
(21:07:36) christoph_n: Thank you John!
(21:07:42) stx12: We will begin accepting application from
(21:07:42) stx12: would-be mentoring organizations beginning March 8th at approximately
(21:07:43) stx12: 19:00 UTC, with applications closing on March 12th at 23:00 UTC.
(21:08:03) stx12: <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/google-summer-of-code-discuss/browse_thread/thread/d839c0b02ac15b3f">http://groups.google.com/group/google-summer-of-code-discuss/browse_thread/thread/d839c0b02ac15b3f</a>
(21:08:40) jsc: thanks for the pointer
(21:08:40) christoph_n: Mmh, according to my proposal (which will be presented later) we would meet 2010-03-11...
(21:09:04) stx12: so let's meet in 2 weeks
(21:09:08) CorNouws: John and I will act as needed, John?
(21:09:26) jpmcc1: CorNouws: ok
(21:09:30) CorNouws: Is it necessary to reschedule a meeting for one tipoc?
(21:09:44) stx12: no, but i hope there is another one
(21:09:56) CorNouws: stx12: ok ..
(21:10:15) stx12: you are going to ask anyway: may be there is progess on branding...
(21:10:26) christoph_n: Sorry, what is "tipoc"? Oh dear, there is so much to learn...
(21:10:33) stx12: ;-)
(21:10:39) CorNouws: I thought Kenai ;-)
(21:10:53) stx12: cor's keyboard exchanged o and i
(21:11:01) CorNouws: christoph_n: will help you after this meeting :-)
(21:11:10) christoph_n: Ah you mean "copit". Yes!
(21:11:26) ***CorNouws keyboard here is changing all the time
(21:11:27) christoph_n: ;-)
(21:11:51) christoph_n: So is there something left for 6. (Google SoC)?
(21:12:05) CorNouws: Not for this moment
(21:12:21) christoph_n: Great, let's (finally) move on to 7. Talk to Education Project Leads about structure and remit
(21:12:25) christoph_n: :-)
(21:12:44) CorNouws: Yes, still on the agenda - no update
(21:13:08) christoph_n: Okay, I'll ask the item to stay for some time :-)
(21:13:21) christoph_n: Cor, move on?
(21:13:23) jsc: how do we want to move forward?
(21:15:00) christoph_n: Cor, do you have something in mind? (Sorry for asking, but you are the "Who") :-)
(21:15:27) CorNouws: ah sorry - no, will probably just be contacting them soon
(21:15:38) CorNouws: keep you updated - promise
(21:15:52) jsc: ... maybe prepare a draft for discussion first
(21:16:59) CorNouws: I 'll come up with something
(21:17:15) christoph_n: If you need any help ...
(21:17:35) CorNouws: thanks, yes.
(21:18:34) christoph_n: Since Charles is unavailable, let's skip "8. Talk to NLC about ‘NLC of the Month’ for OOo Newsletter". Okay?
(21:18:37) jsc: i think it is important to reflect that is a CC opinion and not the opinion of an individual
(21:18:45) jsc: sorry too late ;-)
(21:18:53) christoph_n: Only this time ;-)
(21:18:53) sophi: christoph_n: Charles has work on this
(21:19:40) christoph_n: Cool. Could you please (just for the very personal matter of interest) outline what's going on?
(21:20:22) sophi: christoph_n: He sent a mail to the NLC list and he his grabbing some stats, but I didn't read the details sorry
(21:20:47) jpmcc1: I think Irish Gaelic is the first 'volunteer'
(21:20:50) christoph_n: Oh no, thank you!
(21:21:09) christoph_n: (Since everybody seems to know something, I'll never skip items...)
(21:21:14) sophi: yes, I think so, thanks to your query John ;)
(21:21:58) christoph_n: So what can the CC do at the moment? Keep it on the agenda until Charles is available?
(21:22:33) jsc: yes, next AI ;-)
(21:22:44) sophi: yes
(21:22:49) jpmcc1: I also pinged Kay to expect a newsletter contribution from the NLC and asking him to extract something from the CC minutes
(21:23:32) christoph_n: (Thank you very much, John!)
(21:24:29) jsc: "..asking him to extract ..." Mmh, should we exactly provide this information to prevent any confusion...
(21:25:07) CorNouws: jsc: some of us see the draf newsletter, so that should be fine
(21:25:17) jpmcc1: "The Minutes should be prepared in a form that anyone can understand without having to work through IRC logs. It should also be possible to copy and paste from the Minutes into the monthly OOo Newsletter to give a ‘This Month in the Community Council’ article."
(21:25:18) jsc: ah, ok
(21:25:33) christoph_n: Hey, that is 11 ;-)
(21:26:21) christoph_n: So do you agree to move on?
(21:26:22) jsc: jpmcc1: yes of course but maybe we don't want anything in a newsletter ;-)
(21:27:16) christoph_n: jsc: Then we should use invisible ink for the IRC log... :-)
(21:28:06) christoph_n: Silence? Then it is time for: 9. Talk to Marketing Project about OOoCon support for remote attendees
(21:28:10) jsc: well, i think it is a little bit different. Readers of the newsletter will probably not read IRC logs
(21:28:28) jsc: anyway move forward please
(21:28:30) christoph_n: (That was the reason for the smiley.)
(21:28:54) sophi: jsc: we are used to check the newsletter draft before publishing it, if something is wrong we will see it
(21:29:28) christoph_n: sophie: Oh I didn't knew that. And that is something very good to know.
(21:29:49) sophi: christoph_n: :-)
(21:30:33) christoph_n: :-) 9. anybody?
(21:30:36) jpmcc1: 9. This has been raised in an audio conference with the Hungarian team on Monday for OOoCon for 2010, and in an audio conference with the MarCons yesterday for OOoCon 2011 cfl.
(21:31:17) jpmcc1: Everyone is now aware this is an important issue for the CC
(21:31:21) christoph_n: So can we do anything at the moment to support?
(21:32:28) jpmcc1: The proposal that the MP should set up a 'permanent' arrangement for video for all OOoCons may need finance - probably next year's budget though.
(21:32:46) jpmcc1: The MP is still discussin if this is a better approach.
(21:33:21) jpmcc1: LS-P's proposal that we should have a fixed location(s) has not attracted any support.
(21:34:00) jsc: mmh, that is something that should be asked in a wider audience
(21:34:37) jsc: comparing to FOSDEM -> one location only can have several benefits
(21:35:25) jpmcc1: jsc: at the moment, OOoCon is the MP's 'baby' - it is their responsibility to run it for the community. I think Florian and others are aware of the FOSDEM approach
(21:36:02) christoph_n: And FOSDEM states to be a "european" meeting point for OSS. There are alternatives for the rest of the world which we do (currently) not have.
(21:36:21) jsc: yes, but other will contribute valuable input ... and we shoiuld think what's best
(21:37:32) jsc: JavaOne for example is internal and always in SFO. I don't get your point here
(21:37:36) jpmcc1: jsc: agreed
(21:37:48) jsc: internal = international
(21:37:55) christoph_n: jsc: got it :-)
(21:37:56) CorNouws: Apart from that: a 'permanent' arrangement for video's is not related to one or more conference locations
(21:38:19) CorNouws: just two different tipocs, I woudl say
(21:38:32) christoph_n: Bad keyboard, bad keyboard ;-)
(21:38:47) CorNouws: ah yes, woudl is would ;-)
(21:39:17) christoph_n: John, so we will wait and keep it on the agenda? Or is this "solved" from the CC's point of view - to ask that question.
(21:39:53) jpmcc1: I think the action is closed - the MP are working on it.
(21:40:07) christoph_n: Okay for everybody?
(21:40:26) mhu: okay
(21:40:39) christoph_n: Okay, then let's have a look at: 10. Reply to FSF Extensions Repository
(21:40:56) christoph_n: As far as I know, Louis sent the mail and the FSF already replied.
(21:41:42) christoph_n: To be closed?
(21:41:58) stx12: christoph_n: yes, this can be closed for now.
(21:42:14) jsc: yes, and Peter has replied already. I think we can wait how they will move forward and can go in the waiting position...
(21:42:28) christoph_n: Okay, then we put it on the agenda again - if needed.
(21:42:52) christoph_n: Now: 11. New template for CC meetings
(21:43:17) christoph_n: Current status: I summarized some of the proposals from our F2F meeting in Hamburg, and...
(21:43:42) christoph_n: ... started to work on a draft which is already available in the Wiki. Some things still require some work.
(21:44:12) christoph_n: Cor, you did read it. Is it worth that anybody should have a look at it?
(21:44:34) christoph_n: I mean, to get some feedback...
(21:44:45) CorNouws: Yes I think so - close to final, I woudl say
(21:44:53) christoph_n: By the way ... <a href="http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Proposed_Improvements">http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Proposed_Improvements</a>
(21:45:06) christoph_n: Okay, then I would like to ask you all to have a look at it.
(21:45:14) ***stx12 heard about close-to-final somewhere else...
(21:45:35) CorNouws: christoph_n: we can try to make is as brief as possible
(21:45:35) christoph_n: Please sent comments/suggestions via mail, add it to the talk page.
(21:46:01) CorNouws: stx12: ah, still there ;-)
(21:46:04) jpmcc1: One small suggestion - when I did the minutes for the f2f meeting I numbered the AIs according to the date of the meeting - e.g. 402.1 is the first AI from the 4th Feb meeting...
(21:46:04) jsc: talk page please -> let it evolve -> looks good so far
(21:46:05) christoph_n: If possible (wrt feedback), I'll try to finish it until the next meeting.
(21:46:28) jpmcc1: ...I think this is very useful to remind us how *old* some of our AIs are :-(
(21:46:49) _Nesshof_: jpmcc1: you forgot the year in it :-)
(21:47:00) CorNouws: :-D
(21:47:32) christoph_n: Yes, that is true. Currently I "solved" that with a "record date". If anybody agrees, we can surely use John's proposal ... at least for this meeting the old and new items would have been mixed somehow.
(21:48:08) christoph_n: And to stress it a bit further: Maybe we should include the product name, too ;-)
(21:48:29) jsc: proposal -> 02/18/2010-1: .... for new AI
(21:48:43) jsc: so we will easy keep it tracked
(21:49:25) jsc: 02/18/2010-2: ...
(21:49:27) jsc: 02/18/2010-3: ...
(21:49:28) jsc: ;-)
(21:49:36) ***stx12 thinks of a well-understood format 2010-03-03-3
(21:49:59) christoph_n: Mmh, will it help during the meeting. Currently the "usual numbering" helps to keep track during the meetings. With the new numbering, things would be mixed up a bit.
(21:50:04) jsc: you got it ;-)
(21:50:34) jpmcc1: But it maight help to embarrass some CC members ;-)
(21:50:34) jsc: i meant stx12
(21:50:45) christoph_n: John, the basic requirement is that we know how old the items are. Is this correct?
(21:50:52) jpmcc1: Yes
(21:51:15) jsc: yes, but you can order them anyway
(21:51:18) stx12: and we can easily point each other to items we are talking about...
(21:51:27) _Nesshof_: christoph_n: and they should be sortable after age
(21:51:39) christoph_n: Our age? ;-)
(21:52:14) christoph_n: Proposal: Let's stop here. I'll see what can be incorporated ...
(21:52:23) christoph_n: ... and what fits to the other requirements.
(21:53:06) CorNouws: yip!
(21:53:08) christoph_n: Still, I would like to ask you to have a look at it. Then I'll finalize until the next meeting so we can agree or disagree to go with that. As jsc pointed out, improvements/changes can be done anytime.
(21:53:17) jsc: keep it simple ;-)
(21:53:41) christoph_n: And efficient and effective :-)
(21:53:58) christoph_n: Everybody agrees with that. Moving on to the next topic=
(21:54:03) christoph_n: Sorry = --> ?
(21:54:25) christoph_n: Damn, and . --> ?
(21:54:42) christoph_n: (Cor, I got your keyboard.)
(21:54:50) jpmcc1: 12 apologies - I'll do it in the next week
(21:55:58) jsc: next?
(21:56:00) christoph_n: Since we already agreed on the budget (as far as I remember)...
(21:56:12) sophi: christoph_n: Cor get my FR keyboard at Fosdem, he found it strange, but too late ;-)
(21:56:23) christoph_n: Okay, then 13: Confirm/discuss proposed dates for future council meetings
(21:56:40) christoph_n: (sophie: Then we should call it FRosdem.)
(21:56:52) christoph_n: Here: <a href="http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Calendar">http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Calendar</a>
(21:57:01) christoph_n: ... are some proposed dates for the next meetings.
(21:57:26) stx12: i would like to propose that have the next meeting in 2 weeks.
(21:57:27) christoph_n: Cor already provided some hints that - during the summer - the schedule isn't that tight.
(21:57:39) christoph_n: stx12: only that?
(21:57:47) jpmcc1: stx12: +1
(21:58:01) mhu: stx12: +1
(21:58:02) CorNouws: and I see times are adapted to match daylight saving times - great - thanks
(21:58:03) jsc: the dates looks fine for me so far. But i will definitely not be available in May 13th.
(21:58:04) jsc: +1 next meeting in 2 weeks
(21:58:23) _Nesshof_: stx12: +1
(21:58:36) christoph_n: Okay. I'll adapt the page.
(21:58:47) CorNouws: alternative for May 13 ... 6 or 20 ?
(21:59:11) mhu: btw, is the diff between two meetings 3 weeks ?
(21:59:20) jsc: stx12: can i ask for a short update related to the branding? I would really like to use the new branding asap for the sDK etc.
(21:59:21) christoph_n: mhu: yes
(21:59:40) stx12: i'm not sure about the ongoing frequency. but i think there are many things going on and we should switch back to meetings every 2 weeks.
(21:59:56) stx12: at least for the next 2-3 times
(22:00:06) ***mhu thinks two weeks schedule was actually fine
(22:00:14) jsc: stx12: +1
(22:00:22) CorNouws: ok for me to
(22:00:32) christoph_n: Mmh, currently this is very tight for my current day job. I'll try to be there...
(22:00:37) jpmcc1: mhu +1 if it means the meetings can be kept to one hour
(22:00:59) ***sophi abstains :)
(22:01:02) ***mhu thinks 1 hour is better than longer
(22:01:20) CorNouws: christoph_n: yes, + that you have some extra tasks next months ..
(22:01:26) christoph_n: Mmh, if we have more to discuss in the next time and add meetings but shorten the time ...
(22:01:42) christoph_n: ... that wouldn't work :-)
(22:02:20) CorNouws: maybe we can try 2 months in a two week schedule
(22:02:26) christoph_n: Proposal: For the next 2...3 meetings we reduce the time inbetween to 2 weeks ...
(22:02:29) CorNouws: see what we learn about better preparing
(22:02:36) CorNouws: and charing meetings
(22:02:44) CorNouws: see how much that helps?
(22:03:02) mhu: okay, lets try something new :-)
(22:03:49) christoph_n: Cor, I'm fine with that. I'll add dates for the next two months and (maybe) keep the remaining entries with status "Proposed". Okay for everyone?
(22:04:04) mhu: yes
(22:04:06) CorNouws: +1
(22:04:52) christoph_n: (And I try to add a closing time to keep a reminder for one hour *g*)
(22:05:12) mhu: :-)
(22:05:45) jsc: one last question...
(22:05:46) jsc: stx12: do you have an update on the branding?
(22:06:10) stx12: yes, if there are 2 minutes left...
(22:06:30) jsc: i have 5 -)
(22:06:39) stx12: rosana brought the feedback from the CC to the branding working group. the main points (font, dominace of "office") have been tackled and there are now 2 proposals up for feedback in the group.
(22:06:53) christoph_n: (Okay, I don't bother anymore ... I take the dates for granted.)
(22:07:13) stx12: so opinions from those who are following the discussion are welcome...
(22:07:27) jsc: any feedback from the group, due date?
(22:07:44) jpmcc1: Folks, I have to go. Already 7 mins overdue...
(22:07:54) christoph_n: jsc: Bernhard (for example) has asked for two or three days more time.
(22:08:02) christoph_n: John: Have a nice evening!
(22:08:51) jpmcc1 hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: Night Night).
(22:09:04) jsc: i think we need a due date. What should it bring, to move it and move it and move it ...
(22:09:17) stx12: no feedback yet; i think the group should come to a conclusion next week.
(22:09:33) ***mhu has to leave now also, are we finished ?
(22:09:37) CorNouws: jsc: yes, but two/three days should be ok
(22:09:41) christoph_n: jsc: That depends on when the proposals have been provided. But yes, we should not move it forever :-)
(22:09:55) jsc: ... nobody expect a big change at all
(22:10:10) christoph_n: nobody = some people
(22:10:49) CorNouws: mhu: close to, I hope/expect/demand ;-)
(22:11:19) mhu: CorNouws: "demand" is fine :-)
(22:11:24) jsc: ok, we will see what happens next week
(22:12:05) christoph_n: Matthias, Cor: Have a nice evening!
(22:12:11) CorNouws: yes, falling over - have to leave now - sorry - bey all & thanks
(22:12:25) jsc: bye Cor
(22:12:39) CorNouws hat den Raum verlassen.
(22:12:52) jsc: anything else for today?
(22:13:00) christoph_n: Not from my side.
(22:13:03) sophi: stx12: I think that a follow up on trademark would have been nice for those interesting
(22:13:10) mhu hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: bye all, have a good night).
(22:13:16) sophi: on trademark list I mean
(22:13:34) jsc: stx12: i am interested
(22:14:42) stx12: sophi: yes, that's why i'm interested in a 2-week schedule...
(22:15:11) stx12: let's continue with tm in 2 weeks.
(22:15:14) christoph_n: Sorry for disturbing, may we close the "official" part?
(22:15:31) sophi: stx12: ok, thanks
(22:15:43) jsc: ok, let's finish for today
(22:15:45) jsc: bye
(22:15:51) sophi: christoph_n: +1