Working Group Minutes/MWG 2019-09-30
- Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
- Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
- Thomas Barris (Thomas)
- Joost Schouppe (joost_schouppe[m])
- Member self service area
- Membership fee waiver program
- OSMF membership badge on openstreetmap.org pull request
- Improving the Membership Working Group page.
- membership fee by bitcoin
Minutes of last meeting
Previous minutes accepted
Voting by email (as alternative to in a meeting) for mwg issues
To discuss and decide on issues outside of the regular irc meetings. Allows decision without the need to find a time which fits everyone. Similar to "circulars"
First have a discussion. Then post a request for votes.
Vote is posted to the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list, which is distributed to all mwg members. The member then have one week (7 days, to the time the mail was sent) to vote on the issue. After that dead line has passed, only cast votes are counted for majority.
Proposal and vote result would be included in the next meeting (what was the question and what was the result)
There is a minimum of 2 votes necessary to accept a proposal. By vote we mean vote in favour, against, or actively abstain. In case of a tie, the vote is defered to the next meeting.
Votes in favor: datendelphin, joost schouppe, thomas_, SJFriedl
Fee waiver program
The idea is to drop the "financial hardship" altogether, and replace it with a slightly higher threshold of contribution.
We could imagine a catalogue of things that count as "serious contribution". If a member scores above the threshold for enough of these things, they get a conditional "yes". This can still be overruled by the MWG if they sense an issue with the subscription. These contributions are not just mapping, but can include other volunteering for OSM. If a minimum threshold is not gotten, they get a conditional "no". In case of doubt, they can be defered to the Board. In all cases, candidates can appeal to the Board.
The biggest issue with such a catalogue is that it will face intense scrutiny from the membership. Some people will complain about their edits not being valued enough, or they might change their mapping behaviour just for the prize. A simple alternative might be to simply count the number of mapping days over the last year.
mapping or something else
- mapping days over the last year
- a catalogue of mapping related activity, as currently available on HDYC. Scoring based on reaching a minimum threshold on various topics. End result is a minum score
- something else [please explain, just saying "I code" is not enough]
- active member of a WG
- code contributor
- event organizer
Membership fee by bitcoin
We think we can handle payments by bitcoin. Next: ask board and treasurer if it is ok to accept bitcoins as membership fee.
This meeting took place on the #osmf-membership channel on the OFTC IRC server.
20:01 < datendelphin> OK, I think it is time to start. 20:01 < SJFriedl> Minutes from last meeting: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/MWG_2019-07-19 20:02 < joost_schouppe[m]> oh I totally missed that there's a report in there about the Board questions 20:02 < datendelphin> I miss the "open issues" section 20:03 < datendelphin> Can we include the section from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/MWG_2019-02-22#Open_issues ? 20:04 < SJFriedl> sure 20:05 < SJFriedl> added 20:05 < datendelphin> thank you 20:06 < datendelphin> I accept the minutes 20:07 < joost_schouppe[m]> seconded 20:07 < Thomas_> me too 20:08 < SJFriedl> me three 20:09 < joost_schouppe[m]> so, agenda items: >> voting by mail (as alternative to in a meeting) for mwg issues >> fee waiver program >> membership fee by bitcoin 20:09 < datendelphin> Then may I present a potential new procedure for the mwg: voting by mail 20:09 < datendelphin> Purpose: 20:09 < datendelphin> To discuss and decide on issues outside of the regular irc meetings. Allows decision without the need to find a time which fits everyone. 20:10 < SJFriedl> is this like doing circulars? 20:10 < datendelphin> I think so, yes. I'm not so familiar with the word circulars, but it might be that 20:10 < joost_schouppe[m]> live reporting at https://pads.ccc.de/bRJhDQI3Vg 20:10 < SJFriedl> The board has "circular resolutions" for doing just this 20:11 < datendelphin> I imagine something similar 20:11 < datendelphin> Vote is posted to the email@example.com mailing list, which is distributed to all mwg members. The member then have one week (7 days, to the time the mail was sent) to vote on the issue. After that dead line has passed, only cast votes are counted for majority. 20:11 < joost_schouppe[m]> yeah, we use the Loomio platform 20:11 < SJFriedl> but the vote concludes early if *all* votes come in? 20:12 < datendelphin> Yes that makes sense 20:12 < Thomas_> will there be an archive to document the circulars? 20:12 < SJFriedl> and minute them for the next meeting? 20:13 < datendelphin> I would include them in the next meeting (what was the question and what was the result) 20:14 < Thomas_> does a circular allow a discussion or is it more a yes/no decision 20:14 < datendelphin> The discussion should be before the vote. 20:14 < joost_schouppe[m]> I would suggest cutting the proces in two 20:14 < joost_schouppe[m]> first have a discussion, when you feel like all the ideas have been heard condense it into a vote 20:15 < datendelphin> of course, I regarded that as a given. 20:16 < datendelphin> But don't want to overengineer it like a discussion must be that long before a vote or something 20:16 < SJFriedl> First discussion: what color is the bike shed? 20:17 < datendelphin> Not falling for that trap ;) 20:18 < joost_schouppe[m]> of course, we all know it should be green 20:19 < datendelphin> vote counting: whichever got more votes. 20:19 < joost_schouppe[m]> I'm in favor of the proposal (no further questions from me) 20:19 < datendelphin> No idea how we can break ties, probably go back to discussion and try again 20:19 < joost_schouppe[m]> (also there's a summary in the live reporting :)) 20:19 < joost_schouppe[m]> ahh, is there a minimum vote count? 20:19 < joost_schouppe[m]> yeah, or have a meeting anyway 20:20 < SJFriedl> a quorum for actions seems prudent 20:20 < datendelphin> I would say there is no minimum vote count, want to motivate people to participate :) 20:21 < SJFriedl> this would depend on everybody acting in good faith, which I think is reasonable for MWG 20:21 < datendelphin> I say no minimum mainly, because we always had a few less active members 20:22 < joost_schouppe[m]> the only manipulation I can think of, is when sending it out when you know everyone is on holidays 20:22 < joost_schouppe[m]> am I just not creative? 20:22 < SJFriedl> I think we should rule out the circumstance where the vote-proposer having the only vote, this should not count. 20:23 < SJFriedl> so: two people have to respond for anything to count ? 20:23 < datendelphin> ok 20:23 < SJFriedl> we presume the vote proposer will always vote. 20:23 < datendelphin> yes 20:23 < joost_schouppe[m]> I was thinking a "minimum of two votes" 20:24 < datendelphin> about the tie, lets say we will have a meeting, sounds reasonable 20:24 < SJFriedl> or even two *responses*, if somebody abstains 20:25 < joost_schouppe[m]> so this, right? There is a minimum of 2 votes necessary to accept a proposal. In case of a tie, the vote is defered to the next meeting 20:25 < Thomas_> without allowing a re-vote? 20:25 < SJFriedl> two *responses* to accept a propose. A +1 vote and an abstain will still pass; this just insures it's not a solo effort. 20:26 < datendelphin> responses sounds good 20:27 < SJFriedl> What prompted this idea? Did something come up that you wished you could use it for, or are you just looking ahead? 20:27 < joost_schouppe[m]> re: "without allowing a re-vote" > I think any decision can be overruled later, so no need to explicitly state so 20:28 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: I'm mainly trying to get the turn around time a bit down. We do a meeting only every few months 20:28 < SJFriedl> right 20:28 < datendelphin> and also to be more accomodating of more time zones 20:28 < joost_schouppe[m]> > two *responses* to accept a propose. A +1 vote and an abstain will still pass; this just insures it's not a solo effort. 20:28 < joost_schouppe[m]> this is unclear to me 20:28 < joost_schouppe[m]> by "response" you mean " a response from someone else than OP"? 20:29 < joost_schouppe[m]> and hence participation of 3 people? 20:29 < SJFriedl> A response is a +1 -1 or abstain 20:29 < SJFriedl> not a discussion resposne 20:29 < joost_schouppe[m]> right 20:29 < SJFriedl> ok, so if "abstain" is a vote, then two votes. 20:30 < joost_schouppe[m]> right, thanks, clear now 20:30 < SJFriedl> this is clearer anyway. 20:30 < datendelphin> OK, I like the summary on etherpad. I approve 20:31 < joost_schouppe[m]> +1 20:31 < Thomas_> +1 20:31 < SJFriedl> +1 20:31 < joost_schouppe[m]> yeay 20:31 < datendelphin> great, next would be the fee waiver program 20:32 < datendelphin> I had a discussion with Tobias from the board 20:32 < datendelphin> The idea is to drop any requirements like financial hardship, but 20:32 < datendelphin> raise the bar of contribution a bit 20:33 < datendelphin> so currently we have the 3 edits in 3 different months 20:33 < SJFriedl> "active mapper" 20:33 < datendelphin> The idea is to require a bit more effort in the past year. For example 100 addresses or something similar 20:34 < datendelphin> now we can't cover every contribution in a catalog to rate them, if they fullfill this higher bar or not, and still be fair 20:35 < Thomas_> this opens a difficult discussion about the importance of one feature over another 20:35 < datendelphin> exactly 20:35 < datendelphin> Tobias acknowledged that, and proposed that we would develop a limited catalog 20:35 < SJFriedl> This involves a *lot* of judgement calls; is it proposed that MWG would decide this, or the board would? This seems like more efficient if we handle it. 20:36 < datendelphin> and defer edge cases to the board 20:36 < datendelphin> ah let mi finish :) No the board would make the judgement calls 20:36 < Thomas_> why not a simply based on activity. edits in 6 of the past 12 month? 20:36 < Thomas_> sorry 20:36 < datendelphin> because that is very little 20:36 < Thomas_> 9 of 12 20:37 < joost_schouppe[m]> it can also be a lot 20:37 < datendelphin> you can split mapping a house across 5 months 20:37 < joost_schouppe[m]> I mean you can have 100 editing days and not make 6 out of 12 20:37 < SJFriedl> essentially we are trying to encourage active mappers, which we know when we see it, but may not be able to quantify well 20:38 < Thomas_> if you want to wait 12 months and split your mapping hours intentionally just to become a member, then something is strange 20:38 < joost_schouppe[m]> I would prefer a simple rule, but a non-binding one. E.g. 20 mapping days in the last year, unless we see you're taking the piss 20:38 < datendelphin> So the idea is more that we have a catalog of commonly mapped things, and a ballpark figure how much work they are 20:39 < SJFriedl> almost like translating into total hours worked 20:39 < joost_schouppe[m]> to make things even more complicated, there are also people who contribute a huge amount of OSM-related code or event support, but hardly map themselves 20:39 < SJFriedl> which should also be subject to consideration. 20:40 < datendelphin> for code and similar contributions, we can also take some of them into the catalog, or defer them to the board 20:40 < Thomas_> count specific edits would require new software 20:40 < Thomas_> even if you have a large catalog, you will still miss important work 20:41 < datendelphin> again, if something is missed, they are deferred to the board and they can accept them 20:44 < datendelphin> does the edge case handling make sense? Or I need to explain it better? 20:44 < joost_schouppe[m]> oh, we could use http://osmfight.neis-one.org/ 20:45 < SJFriedl> So MWG would decide: Yes, No, or Defer. ? 20:45 < datendelphin> yes that has come op several times in discussions with people at SotM :) 20:46 < joost_schouppe[m]> haha 20:46 < datendelphin> We would decide yes/no and everyone could appeal to the board I guess. We can encourage people who get a no to appeal to the board 20:47 < datendelphin> (the idea with osmfight was generally that we would maintain an account of the minimum activity we require and you have to win against it) 20:48 < joost_schouppe[m]> yes, that might actually work, especially if you can convince Pascal to make it. The HDYC profile contains more than enough info to make a balanced decision 20:49 < joost_schouppe[m]> and I'm guessing next step is to invite mappers who reach the threshold pro-actively and invite them to become a member 20:50 < datendelphin> so the other part? how to have an objective measure for acceptance for fast processing of the usual cases? 20:50 < datendelphin> I read about joost_schouppe[m] prefers only mapping days 20:51 < joost_schouppe[m]> nah, I'm fine with a balanced thing as well 20:51 < datendelphin> By the way, did you all read Tobias mail that he sent to the mwg? 20:51 < joost_schouppe[m]> e.g. number of mapping days, AND being an active mapper, AND having a minimum number of total edits AND etc. etc. and then scoring at least a perfect 5/7 20:53 < joost_schouppe[m]> can't seem to find that mail right now. what was the subject? 20:53 < datendelphin> It was on 29.9. Request for feedback fro [...] (truncated by otrs) 20:54 < datendelphin> Thomas_, SJFriedl what do you think about this? 20:55 < SJFriedl> This would have been yesterday? I don't think I've seen it. 20:55 < SJFriedl> looking in otrs now 20:55 < Thomas_> I found an mail from 2011 from him but none yesterday :( 20:56 < datendelphin> oh yes I can post the otrs link: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=16056 20:56 < joost_schouppe[m]> ah, it was ent to membership, not mwg 20:56 < SJFriedl> https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=16056 20:56 < joost_schouppe[m]> I got it on board@osmf, not as a mwg member 20:57 < datendelphin> you should have gotten a notification from otrs 20:57 < datendelphin> but maybe because it was a reply to an already open ticket, only I got the otification? don't know how otrs works in that case 20:58 < SJFriedl> I haven't seen any of this. It's all in OTRS and I love the AoA changes so far. 20:58 < joost_schouppe[m]> I don't ever get notifications from otrs I believe 20:58 < SJFriedl> https://hackmd.io/olrwWIUvQVmoZiwttumsuA 21:00 < Thomas_> I still don't think that an activity type based measurement works. There are people only fixing duplicate nodes, or broken borders and gaps in road networks...whatever. By providing a list you send a signal of work you are accepting+valuing and set mappers doing other things in a position to please. It will also open discussion even if you are pointing to the board for "edge cases". The discussions about previous models to quantify the 21:00 < Thomas_> contribution of mappers were harsh and ended without any outcome. I still think that it will cause troubles if it will be linked on the type of activity 21:02 < Stereo> Sorry, still in my meeting. 21:04 < SJFriedl> Measuring contributions is always going to be hard, and perhaps one way is to ask the person to explain *themselves* why their contribution is substantial or not. 21:04 < SJFriedl> but the AoA changes all look good to me. 21:05 < datendelphin> That is a valid point. Having to go by the board can be considered a different class 21:06 < joost_schouppe[m]> if we cast a wide net, and explain it's "just a wide net", then IMHO criticisms of "why is my particular editing not valued" are moot 21:07 < joost_schouppe[m]> we just have to explain that it's nothing but a tool, and that there's a free text field to explain your awesomeness 21:08 < joost_schouppe[m]> (it sounds a bit too much confict-avoiding to me; and there's no way to do anything without a little conflict in this community - oh dear is that a conflict I should have tried to avoid?) 21:08 < datendelphin> On the other hand we will have to accept that it will never be perfect. What we provide will be a base laine, and I think most active mappers will exceed it with a wide margin 21:08 < Thomas_> there is no tool yet for a wide net 21:09 < SJFriedl> is there any concern that people who were willing to pay to join before will now take the waiver route? 21:09 < joost_schouppe[m]> doesn't HDYC provide quite a net? 21:09 < datendelphin> That is true as well, but pasclas tool comes already pretty close with categorizing with the presets 21:10 < Thomas_> it provides 7 tags. but only "created" can be taken in my eyes. Otherwise you can simply move a city by 0.0005 milimeter and exceed any threshold as you modified thousands of objects 21:10 < joost_schouppe[m]> SJFriedl: you mean we might lose income? I've heard this before, but only in a non-concerned way. Generally. We're financially in a good place, the membership fees are not essential from a financial pov 21:11 < SJFriedl> I was hoping you'd say that. 21:11 < SJFriedl> GL never did apply for a corporate membership, did they? 21:11 < joost_schouppe[m]> Thomas_ : that kind of thing would make for an immediate ban, I'd say 21:11 < joost_schouppe[m]> I believe they did 21:11 < SJFriedl> they aren't on the wiki page for corp members 21:12 < joost_schouppe[m]> it's definitely not completed yet, but I do seem to remember an enquiry 21:12 < SJFriedl> ok 21:14 < datendelphin> Well yes moving something as a group like that is just evil. Of course we will revoke the membership of anyone making fraudulent edits 21:14 < Thomas_> is there any restrictions when you have to make this edits to be eligible? 21:15 < datendelphin> the last year, as the membership needs to be renewed yearly 21:15 < Thomas_> hdyc just says that you have created something, not when 21:16 < joost_schouppe[m]> you could look at activity days over the last year. I would say that someone who was a huge mapper before, and is still doing their bit, is still welcome 21:16 < joost_schouppe[m]> so I don't think that's a huge issue IF complemented with some "recent activity" measures 21:16 < datendelphin> I hope pascal will be accomodating. But otherwise we write a tool, it is not too difficult 21:16 < SJFriedl> We will have the ability to decide that somebody's contributes were done intending to game the system, so this doesn't seem to concern me much. We will know it when we see it. 21:17 < joost_schouppe[m]> Thomas, do you have an alternative proposal? 21:18 < Thomas_> I would go with mapping days in the last year. Personally I think any activity type based list will be a nightmare 21:19 < SJFriedl> this means that somebody who busted his/her ass to help make SotM work well doesn't count? 21:20 < joost_schouppe[m]> noooooo 21:20 < Thomas_> well, extend activity 21:20 < joost_schouppe[m]> any "mapping activity stats" 21:20 < datendelphin> No of course not. I would say being active in a working group is a clear case of yes 21:21 < datendelphin> That can and should be on the catalog 21:21 < joost_schouppe[m]> exactly. But wrt to "mapping activity", I think just "the number of mapping days in the last year" would be quite a good proxy in most cases 21:21 < datendelphin> I was quite sceptical as well. But I can live with the board deciding the edge cases. 21:23 < joost_schouppe[m]> can you have a look if I understand everyone's position on "threshold options" 21:24 < datendelphin> Well vor code contribution or advocate we need a threshold 21:24 < datendelphin> just opening a ticket on one of the software projects is not enough 21:24 < datendelphin> vor->for 21:25 < Thomas_> can't we extend "activity days" to this? 21:25 < datendelphin> no, not possible for software 21:25 < joost_schouppe[m]> that could work; however I think it is overkill. I'd say for "something else" you need to just explain your work 21:25 < Thomas_> in GitHub you see the stats 21:26 < Thomas_> if you say active in 30 days you can count the green days 21:26 < joost_schouppe[m]> you might have one pull request for code you worked on for a month, no? 21:26 < Thomas_> yes, true 21:26 < Thomas_> :/ 21:26 < datendelphin> you can not see on which day a line of code was written. That github graph is extremely dependent on your workflow 21:27 < datendelphin> Who is ok with a catalog for things mapping? 21:28 < SJFriedl> I like the idea of a catalog as a list of examples, but not some kind of checkbox you can gain automatic entry through. Final decision is judgement call by MWG or board. 21:29 * joost_schouppe[m] sent a long message: < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/mGiePYcznUXjXAWNxxwYdezR > 21:29 < SJFriedl> Hmmm. If you are a *paid* mapper who has huge contributions, can you apply for a fee waiver? 21:29 < SJFriedl> joost_schouppe[m], Yes. 21:29 < joost_schouppe[m]> if it is with your private account :) 21:30 < datendelphin> yes you can, the principle is "skin in the game" 21:30 < SJFriedl> This will surely save us time in the next election when all the GL mappers apply: no membership fee to refund :-) 21:31 < joost_schouppe[m]> it wouldn't matter because we'll have thousands of new members :) 21:31 < SJFriedl> that' 21:31 < SJFriedl> that's a good answer. 21:31 < joost_schouppe[m]> only if it happens 21:32 < datendelphin> ok, I think this discussion is not finished, but we are running out of time 21:32 < SJFriedl> a good discussion for sure. 21:33 < joost_schouppe[m]> do we need to set ourselves a deadline? 21:33 < datendelphin> So I think I will wrap that up in a mail and send to the board. And joost_schouppe[m] can also report from his side 21:33 < datendelphin> Well the next dead line is the nexd AGM 21:33 < Thomas_> by the way, Could I apply for fee waiver then? 21:33 < SJFriedl> me too! 21:34 < datendelphin> Not sure but the board can try 21:34 < SJFriedl> has the AGM been scheduled yet? 21:34 < joost_schouppe[m]> this can be implemented at any time, right? no need to coincide with afm 21:34 < joost_schouppe[m]> agm 21:34 < datendelphin> of cours you too can apply. But you can not process your own application ;) 21:34 < joost_schouppe[m]> nope, not scheduled yet 21:34 < datendelphin> no joost_schouppe[m] that needs a change of the AOA, and that needs an AGM 21:35 < joost_schouppe[m]> Fee waiver for mappers/contributors (This is not an AoA change.) 21:35 < datendelphin> someone would need to prepare the changes to the AoA, becose they currently spell out financial hardship and lack of suitable money transfer 21:35 < joost_schouppe[m]> (copied from https://hackmd.io/olrwWIUvQVmoZiwttumsuA) 21:35 < joost_schouppe[m]> ooooh 21:36 < joost_schouppe[m]> wait, I'm confused now 21:36 < joost_schouppe[m]> so is the hackmd document wrong then? 21:37 < datendelphin> the hackmd is a proposal for an AoA change 21:37 < joost_schouppe[m]> except for where it says the last part is NOT an AoA change 21:37 < datendelphin> but to get it through, you need the buy in of the members (to vote yes) 21:38 < datendelphin> oh true 21:38 < datendelphin> wait 21:39 < datendelphin> ok, I was wrong, that was not written to the AoA 21:40 < datendelphin> Still, It would be a change to the Membership Fees and I guess the same kind of vote we had in 2014 21:41 < joost_schouppe[m]> right, so AGM stuff but not AoA stuff 21:41 < datendelphin> So it needs to be presented to the membership. And in my opinion that should include a plan how to implement it. 21:42 < joost_schouppe[m]> I would reccon we also need to run it by the Board? Because then we could just share our thoughts already 21:42 < joost_schouppe[m]> and I'd say we have a few weeks tops if we want to decide on our side first 21:43 < datendelphin> yes that is why I propose I will answer the board mail formally with the result from this discussion (and hope joost_schouppe[m] will also report from his side) 21:43 < joost_schouppe[m]> ah yes, sorry, getting tired :) 21:43 < joost_schouppe[m]> makes sense 21:43 < datendelphin> so we can keep the back and forth going between mwg and board 21:44 < datendelphin> ok, I hope the last topic is quick 21:44 < datendelphin> we got a request for payment with bitcoin 21:44 < Thomas_> isn't Frederik the bitcoin investment expert here? 21:44 < datendelphin> We already accept donations 21:45 < datendelphin> Thomas_: no I think it was Tom who handled this. But this is about the principle anyway 21:46 < datendelphin> So should we aim to accept bitcoin payments? I think the board and the treasurer in particular should then also be in favour. But from our side 21:46 < datendelphin> Is that something we want to support? 21:46 < joost_schouppe[m]> what are the pro's and con's? 21:46 < datendelphin> pro: works across banking restrictions 21:47 < datendelphin> So the person in question seems to have the funds for the membership fee and does not want to apply for the fee waiver 21:47 < SJFriedl> Do we suspect any funny business? 21:48 < datendelphin> I don't 21:48 < Thomas_> it must be exchanged by someone at an unknown rate. And you need to maintain knowledge how to process and convert it 21:48 < Thomas_> with own procedures maybe 21:49 < datendelphin> well I gouess we would do most things like we do with the donations. 21:49 < SJFriedl> I think the general policy of most organizations is to immediately convert it to regular money. How one decides if X bitcoin is at least 15 pounds is unknown to me. 21:49 < joost_schouppe[m]> but we do have -some- bitcoin still floating around, so maybe they can just be added there? 21:49 < datendelphin> A bit of procedures for verifying the transfer, but conversion would be like donations 21:50 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: you can get quotes for the day. And even with paypal, a bit is always lost 21:50 < SJFriedl> ok 21:50 < joost_schouppe[m]> if the amount of extra work is not too much, I'm not against 21:50 < SJFriedl> I'm fine with it if everybody else is ok. Idon't know much about it. 21:51 < datendelphin> so if it is within the quote for the day the transfer was made, it is ok I guess 21:51 < Thomas_> only bitcoin or other currencies as well? 21:52 < datendelphin> only bitcoin for now. We don't handle other crypto currencies yet. 21:53 < datendelphin> ok, that's it. Sorry for extending this meeting for almost an hour. 21:53 < Thomas_> ^^ fine too 21:54 < datendelphin> Oh sorry Thomas_ forgot your vote. Thanks. 21:54 < datendelphin> But I think we had a fruitful discussion 21:54 < SJFriedl> very productive. 21:55 < datendelphin> I will finalize the minutes 21:55 < datendelphin> Have a nice day/good night 21:55 < joost_schouppe[m]> Thanks for the meeting! 21:55 < SJFriedl> thanks everybody! 21:55 < joost_schouppe[m]> Time to walk the dog 21:56 < Thomas_> Thank you, Have a good day 21:56 < Thomas_> bye everybody