Working Group Minutes/SWG 2011-02-11
- chrisfl_:Chris Fleming
- cmarqu: Colin Marquardt
- Eugene: Eugene Usvitsky
- filbertkm: Katie Filbert
- Firefishy: Grant Slater
- JonathanB_: Jonathan Bennett
- mkl: Mikel Maron
- RichardF: Richard Fairhurst
- rweait: Richard Weait
- samlarsen1: Sam Larsen
- stevenfeldman: Steven Feldman
- toffehoff: Henk Hoff
- TomH: Tom Hughes
- twain47: Brian Quinion
- zere: Matt Amos
- Kate Chapman
- Review minutes of 04 February 2011 Minutes
- proposed: Henk Hoff
- seconded: Sam Larsen
- no objections. Minutes accepted.
- Agenda preview
- Budgeting process review. Kate and Stephen will present some things for discussion
- Final review of Tile layers scorecard and policy.
- New item, Wikimapia license issues
- Continue discussion of routing
- Formalizing the working group. Any details we missed last meeting?
- Workflow document to be simplified. Document revisions over the next week.
- Tile layers scorecard
- policy http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal
- scorecard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tiles
- Tiles policy and scorecard to be referred to Board for approval.
- Wikimapia issue
- does this belong in front of SWG?
- Summary. Wikimapia added an OSM tile layer and allowed people to trace off it. We set the tile server to serve them a single tile saying 'blocked'. They removed the direct tracing feature and we unblocked.
- for discussion next week.
- draft routing scorecard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_routing_services
- draft routing policy http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Routing_services_Guidelines_Proposal
- consensus support for draft policy and scorecard. Revise and refine this week for further review next meeting.
- Next meeting for 18 Feb 2011 1600UTC on #osm-strategic
- Move to adjourn
- Meeting adjourned at 64 minutes.
(10:59:07 AM) rweait: *** Starting logging *** (10:59:57 AM) mkl: ok time to start (10:59:57 AM) stevenfeldman: try that agin (Doh) It's friday afternoon here in London, I like this time for the call it sort of heralds wrap it up for the week time (11:00:04 AM) mkl: rweait: have apologies from wonderchook too (11:00:13 AM) rweait: shall note them (11:00:13 AM) toffehoff [email@example.com] entered the room. (11:00:24 AM) Eugene: rweait: mkl is right. Something more official would sound better for company. And though technically it isn't OSMF resources, I don't think they will be provided for absolutely anyone from community. So, some resouces allocation will be done and OSMF is the best party to do it. (11:00:31 AM) rweait: I've started on minutes etc, (11:00:49 AM) mkl: can we get a present from everyone: twain47, cmarqu Firefishy, JonathanB_ toffehoff, TomH, zere (11:01:01 AM) twain47: mkl: yo (11:01:11 AM) toffehoff: mkl: I'm here (11:01:15 AM) rweait: here. (11:01:17 AM) JonathanB_: here (11:01:27 AM) mkl: last week's minutes: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2011-02-04 (11:02:15 AM) samlarsen1 [firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room. (11:02:29 AM) mkl: proposal? (11:03:09 AM) rweait: still typing here, perhaps some others? (11:03:40 AM) mkl: can someone propose rweait's excellent minutes? (11:03:44 AM) toffehoff: I propose (11:04:40 AM) mkl: second? and we can get into agenda... (11:05:16 AM) mkl: tap tap.... (11:05:19 AM) stevenfeldman: Budgets? (11:05:31 AM) samlarsen1: second (11:05:39 AM) mkl: here's the agenda (11:05:52 AM) mkl: * Budgeting process review. Kate and Stephen will present some things for discussion (11:06:02 AM) mkl: * Final review of Tile layers scorecard and policy. (11:06:04 AM) rweait: Kate not present' (11:06:08 AM) mkl: * New item, Wikimapia license issues (11:06:14 AM) mkl: * Continue discussion of routing (11:06:19 AM) mkl: * Formalizing the working group. Any details we missed last meeting? (11:06:47 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: go for it. what has happened? (11:07:25 AM) stevenfeldman: OK not a lot because wonderchook was travelling and so was I but here is a link to a suggestion for a simplified process loop https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mzZwIcMFvwo0p9VzZVUcBd1untKzpFFAst-SWiDgJMk/edit?hl=en_GB&authkey=CJ6JwokN (11:09:35 AM) stevenfeldman: silence out there? (11:09:43 AM) rweait: reading. (11:10:38 AM) RichardF: this is for additional expenditure over and above core, right? (11:10:39 AM) mkl: thx reviewing (11:10:50 AM) rweait: I like it in theory. I suggest that we simplify a bit (11:11:15 AM) stevenfeldman: I like simple so what are you suggesting could simplify further (11:11:26 AM) mkl: RichardF: I think it would be wise for current expenditure to at least be documented in this way (11:11:33 AM) rweait: Rather than stating HOW the board will review and require more details how about if we just state that the board my require more details from larger projects. (11:11:58 AM) mkl: Should there be role for SWG here ... helping other groups get to proposal stage, collecting and presenting to Board? (11:12:17 AM) stevenfeldman: what are the range of sizes of requests for funding? $1k, $5k, £25k? (11:12:31 AM) rweait: stevenfeldman, leave that to BOard. (11:12:48 AM) rweait: our role should be first paragraph. (11:13:17 AM) rweait: "up to Board assess and rank" Then it 's on the board to ask for more if needed. (11:13:17 AM) stevenfeldman: mkl: we could help any WG who wanted first time round (11:13:24 AM) JonathanB_: Is it the intention that each WG is accountable for each funded project it starts? Wondering about individual project leadership. (11:14:00 AM) rweait: I think it is up to each funded project, whether the have WG backing or not. (11:14:12 AM) rweait: Wheter THEY have... (11:14:21 AM) stevenfeldman: reason for 2 stage suggestion for larger projects was to allow simple small ones through on a one pager but just saying board may ask for more would prob be ok (11:14:24 AM) Firefishy: And the TWG? (11:14:52 AM) rweait: TWG gets anything they want. (11:14:56 AM) mkl: TWG is already pretty much doing this. This just formalizes the process (11:14:59 AM) rweait: POnies for theTWG. (11:15:04 AM) stevenfeldman: surely someone needs to have ownership of a project that is using OSM funds and on which we are depending for delivery? (11:15:08 AM) Firefishy: I think we are currently the only group currently spending significant sums. (11:15:29 AM) toffehoff: and SotM, but they are self funding (11:15:38 AM) rweait: stevenfeldman: Yes. And for small projects, that shouldn't demand WG overhead / oversight. (11:16:02 AM) Firefishy: Formalizing TWG process more than we currently do, is difficult without putting yet more strain on the volenteers which make up this group. (11:16:45 AM) mkl: Firefishy: I don't see anything here that TWG doesn't already do. (11:16:55 AM) mkl: What's the concern in what you see? (11:16:58 AM) rweait: Firefishy: is there something here that is adding to the TWG burden? Or are we formalizing the process for other groups? (11:17:16 AM) stevenfeldman: rweait: depends what you call small I suppose, hence my question about scale (11:18:25 AM) rweait: stevenfeldman: yup, and "small" will depend on the project, and proposer. If a known OSM local community wants a donation of 10 GPSes that might be small. If a stranger wants 3 GPS that might need more details... (11:18:49 AM) stevenfeldman: just want to point out that Kate hasn't commented on this as she is travelling etc so this is my suggestion only at this stage (11:18:50 AM) mkl: rweait: somthing like that would be through GPSToGo (11:19:11 AM) zere: (belatedly here - was afk before) (11:19:12 AM) Firefishy: rweait: The document looks good. TWG is a special case. (11:19:21 AM) rweait: mkl: just an example. And it would still have to be funded, by GPS to go or somebody. (11:19:43 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: looks like there's three supplemental docs needed? the request for proposal (which should explain this process), and the simple template for proposal, and for monitoring (11:20:07 AM) stevenfeldman: rweait: a bit here and a bit there can add up to quite a lot, won't the treasurer want to have an overview for the year? (11:20:15 AM) mkl: I think monitoring should be blog posts or announcements of some kind, with pings to Board or SWG when they are posted (11:20:40 AM) rweait: mkl: I like that for public monitoring. (11:20:44 AM) stevenfeldman: mkl: if all think this is worth progressing i will try to hook up with Kate nxt week and draft something (11:21:00 AM) mkl: Firefishy: what specifically is special? (11:21:34 AM) stevenfeldman: mkl: +1 (11:21:58 AM) mkl: (and btw, we have the honor of meeting right as Mubarak has stepped down) (11:22:25 AM) rweait: Does that mean kml is now interim president? (11:22:45 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: i would be happy to see some iterations on these documents (11:23:08 AM) mkl: and whatever we come up with shouldn't really be any extra burden on TWG. so if that can specifically be identified, great (11:23:21 AM) Firefishy: TWG spending is on resources the project need to function, spending elsewhere is secondary. (11:23:43 AM) rweait: TWG has a budget set-aside for them. (11:23:44 AM) mkl: so that's just considered when Board looks at funding proposals, right? (11:23:47 AM) stevenfeldman: waves goodbye to 1 dictator and welcomes the tank drivers (11:24:15 AM) mkl: rweait: yes, but still requests go the Treasurer and are approved by Board (11:24:41 AM) stevenfeldman: mkl: is there an annual budgeting process at? (11:24:44 AM) rweait: And TWG already documents on the wiki as gear is received and installed. (11:25:16 AM) mkl: right. so what is extra then? to me, this just organizes things a bit (11:25:51 AM) chrisfl_ [~Adium@chrisfl.vm.bytemark.co.uk] entered the room. (11:25:52 AM) rweait: stevenfeldman: want to ping me as you work on the docs this week. I'll pitch in. (11:25:52 AM) mkl: stevenfeldman: we don't have that at all. that's why we're having this discussion :) (11:26:25 AM) stevenfeldman: mkl: emphasis on a bit, none of this should take more than a few mins (11:27:02 AM) mkl: fingers crossed :) (11:27:18 AM) mkl: ok, so looks good .. anything else on this, or are we ready to move on? (11:27:40 AM) rweait: Let's go. (11:27:50 AM) mkl: cool, Tile layers scorecard (11:27:57 AM) mkl: toffehoff? (11:28:07 AM) mkl: i think we were just mulling it over for a week? (11:28:24 AM) rweait: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tiles (11:28:26 AM) toffehoff: Sorry afk for a bit. (11:29:15 AM) mkl: i'm happy, what's next? (11:29:28 AM) mkl: ask TWG to go through this for mq, and then announce? (11:29:31 AM) RichardF: (just got to go out - apologies, hopefully back soon) (11:29:52 AM) filbertkm [~email@example.com] entered the room. (11:30:08 AM) rweait: announce tiles policy and scoresheet, then leave it to the community. (11:30:20 AM) chrisfl_: +1 (11:30:40 AM) toffehoff: back. (11:30:44 AM) toffehoff: rweait: +1 (11:30:47 AM) rweait: chrisfl_: thought you couldn't make it today. Welcome. (11:31:15 AM) stevenfeldman: +1 (11:31:21 AM) Eugene: +1 (11:31:32 AM) samlarsen1: +1 (11:31:36 AM) mkl: +1 (11:32:00 AM) chrisfl_: turns out we have wifi and managed to get here in reasonable time (11:32:01 AM) toffehoff: We may need to add a bit more text to the top to explain the reason for this scorecard.... (11:32:18 AM) rweait: Want to collect the links to the docs for tiles policy and send it to Communication WG to publish? (11:32:36 AM) zere: hmm... isn't the community just going to say "yes, please" to everything? i don't mean that in a bad way, just that many won't see a downside to having 1000s of layers in the switcher. (11:32:44 AM) rweait: I don't mind throwing Communication WG under the bus. (11:32:57 AM) zere: (for evidence, see map_features - the "commonly-used" tags) (11:32:59 AM) mkl: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tiles http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal (11:33:23 AM) stevenfeldman: won't there need to be a limit to the number of layers in the picker? as one goes in one goes out? (11:33:29 AM) rweait: zere: TWG gets final say on which layers, how many and how often, as I recal. (11:33:55 AM) zere: the community is being used to source suggestions, then? (11:34:06 AM) rweait: Yes. (11:34:28 AM) chrisfl_: I think we decided that lots of layers isn't necessarily a bad idea. (11:34:49 AM) mkl: yup. which then get graded and considered. if there turns out to be too many (and who knows), then something like featured tiles can be put in place to rotate (11:35:06 AM) mkl: i think too many good tiles would be a good problem to have :) (11:35:15 AM) rweait: chrisfl_: I recall otherwise. Lots of layers to consider is good. but only pick the best and only as they suit us. (11:35:16 AM) zere: lots of layers might not be bad, but lots of pointless layers certainly is. (11:35:20 AM) chrisfl_: and if we end up with *lots* of layers then there are technical ways to improve things. (11:35:28 AM) Eugene: rweait: the only question - why TWG has the final decision on what layers to include? Isn't it "Technical" working group? (11:35:47 AM) toffehoff: zere: that's why we have Uniqueness and Interestingness added to the scorecard. (11:36:02 AM) Eugene: rweait: Strategic/Communication WG would suit better (11:36:31 AM) zere: toffehoff: and if you trust them to be filled out in a fair and unbiased way, that's great. i don't. (11:36:32 AM) rweait: Eugene: You missed that part of the conversation weeks ago. It's because there are technical considerations that are not apparent from a simple overview of the tiles, and because TWG will have to actually implement it. (11:36:37 AM) chrisfl_: Eugene - TWG is happy to do this and it reduces layers of bureaucracy (11:36:57 AM) filbertkm: I'm not really part of WG but what about having user preferences and people can choose for themselves (11:37:25 AM) rweait: filbertkm: We already have that. Folks can shoose layers. (11:37:26 AM) Eugene: rweait: ok (11:37:37 AM) chrisfl_: filbertkm - someone will need to write the code, but can be looked at when we have lots of layers (11:37:38 AM) toffehoff: zere: it's totally subjective info. But having this on the scorecard can generate a discussion about it. (11:37:49 AM) filbertkm: One strength on wikipedia is that people can have personal css and js and gadgets (11:38:07 AM) filbertkm: rweait: Where? Link? (11:38:21 AM) rweait: filbertkm: layer switcher on the right. (11:38:28 AM) rweait: blue plus sign. (11:38:33 AM) zere: filbertkm: surely they can set their bookmark to a different site, then? the point of multiple layers is to showcase what can be done with OSM and provide useful information to mappers. not to make things infinitely and pointlessly configurable. (11:38:43 AM) ***chrisfl_ is happy that 2 kegs of beer have just entered the room. (11:38:55 AM) filbertkm: Yes but can I configure and customize beyond the given options? (11:39:02 AM) zere: and just because wikipedia does something doesn't mean we have to do it to. (11:39:08 AM) zere: s/to./too./ (11:39:12 AM) rweait: filbertkm: some other time perhaps? (11:39:24 AM) chrisfl_: not at the moment. But might make sense in the future if someone writes the code. (11:39:28 AM) zere: filbertkm: sure - go set up your own site. OL is free... (11:39:34 AM) chrisfl_: Not worth worrying about now. (11:39:38 AM) mkl: i like this idea of configurable tiles. why not? it's a simple cool feature, just needs to be written (11:39:54 AM) chrisfl_: yes. (11:39:58 AM) zere: i have to say i disagree - i think it's a misfeature (11:40:00 AM) mkl: zere: we can have a discussion of what goes on osm.org. diy is not always the answer (11:40:01 AM) rweait: mkl: off topic. can we get back to the agenda. (11:40:11 AM) mkl: yup ok (11:40:21 AM) mkl: anyhow (11:40:29 AM) rweait: SO tile spolicy is ready to send to CWG? (11:40:46 AM) mkl: we got the vote on that earlier (11:40:59 AM) rweait: next item then? (11:41:02 AM) mkl: cool! this is first start to finish job of SWG :) (11:41:13 AM) mkl: * New item, Wikimapia license issues (11:41:34 AM) mkl: what was the deal here? (11:42:13 AM) rweait: CAn we postpone that 'til after work in progress, or is this a simple go nogo decision for SWG? (11:42:55 AM) zere: iirc, the issue is whether the presence of OSM tiles on wikimapia is implicitly encouraging violation of our license. (11:43:18 AM) rweait: why is this before SWG, rather than LWG, DWG or board? (11:43:18 AM) mkl: legal wg issue? (11:43:24 AM) zere: and what to do, strategically, about people using our tiles in this way. (11:43:26 AM) chrisfl_: what is the question? (11:43:41 AM) ***chrisfl_ has been off email (11:44:21 AM) rweait: I presume this is regarding "do not encourage derivation from protected sources" (11:44:38 AM) rweait: But why is it in front of us. Who sent it to us? (11:44:46 AM) mkl: i can't find who raised this! :) but can we forward to LWG? makes more sense (11:44:53 AM) zere: they're not in violation of the license (not an LWG issue), they're not in violation of any techical policy (not a TWG issue). since it seems to be about whether we want certain people with a loose copyright stance implicitly encouraging copying of our data... (11:45:11 AM) zere: mkl: it's been there and back - it's not a legal issue, it's a policy issue. (11:45:33 AM) Firefishy: chrisfl_: Quick background summary: Wikimapia added an OSM tile layer and allowed people to trace off it. We set the tile server to serve them a single tile saying 'blocked'. They remove the direct tracing feature and we unblocked. (11:45:33 AM) mkl: are they copying the data into a db with the same license? (11:46:29 AM) rweait: The wikimapia DB is proprietary, as I racal. (11:46:34 AM) rweait: recall. (11:46:45 AM) mkl: then how is it not a legal issue? (11:47:18 AM) JonathanB_: Their actions alone do not violate the licence. The actions of their users do. (11:47:21 AM) Firefishy: wikimapia claim to now be CC-Non-Commercial, but only via their API and no published extracts or dumps. (11:47:23 AM) mkl: (we should finish this topic by :50, so we have a little time for routing) (11:47:51 AM) mkl: cc-nc would violate (11:48:10 AM) samlarsen1: is google aware of this - they have more layers than us (11:48:21 AM) rweait: samlarsen1: not our problem. (11:48:49 AM) RichardF: Google's attitude with Wikimapia is same as with any other tracing project - LALALA WE CAN'T HEAR YOU (11:49:19 AM) rweait: So is this us, or do we punt to the board? (11:49:26 AM) rweait: We can discuss next week. (11:49:38 AM) mkl: so i'm unclear. it seems like there's a legal issue, but LWG says there isn't. (11:49:50 AM) Firefishy: Wikimapia was/is quite big in Russia. OSM is very rapidly growing mapper community in Russia. (11:49:50 AM) zere: mkl: it's not a legal issue any more because we blocked them and they said "ok - we won't allow tracing off that layer any more". but the layer is still *visible*, so the question is whether its presence is implicitly encouraging people to trace our data. (11:49:52 AM) stevenfeldman: could we be clear what the question is (11:50:01 AM) RichardF: yep, as zere said (11:50:15 AM) Eugene: I would ask them to remove OSM layer and if they disagree, put the block again. They definitely know their users will violate OSM license. (11:50:39 AM) mkl: yea, that's sounds clear cut ... if it's technically possible on their site, just a warning doesn't seem sufficient (11:50:45 AM) mkl: anyway, let's come back next week (11:50:47 AM) mkl: next (11:50:50 AM) mkl: finally, routing (11:50:54 AM) chrisfl_ left the room. (11:50:54 AM) mkl: Eugene? (11:51:01 AM) Firefishy: There is also an argument, that them displaying OSM is a win for us. Shows people how great OSM is. (11:51:01 AM) rweait: But we're going to decide and recommend to board? (11:51:06 AM) stevenfeldman: eugene: that would certainly prompt a dialogue with them (11:51:22 AM) chrisfl_ [~Adium@chrisfl.vm.bytemark.co.uk] entered the room. (11:51:23 AM) Firefishy: (and could encourage more people to contribute to OSM) (11:51:36 AM) Eugene: so, for routing I put a routing services matrix - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_routing_services and draft for policy - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Routing_services_Guidelines_Proposal (11:51:39 AM) zere: Firefishy: next week ;-) (11:52:05 AM) stevenfeldman: firefishy: unlikely if they are already on wikimapia site with edit tools, most wont know difference (11:52:22 AM) Eugene: Thanks go to authors of Tile scorecard and policy which my work is based on :) (11:53:13 AM) Eugene: stevenfeldman: +1, there are always people asking how they can coy data from Wikimapia to OSM, not understanding the license difference (11:53:35 AM) mkl: Eugene: :) can you add columns for each thing in the policy that's missing in the scorecard? (11:53:57 AM) Eugene: ok (11:55:14 AM) mkl: any more suggestions, thoughts? (11:55:37 AM) mkl: is there any routing service that would even make the cut for consideration now? (11:56:03 AM) stevenfeldman: eugen: cos I am not very tech, can you explain are we going to run these services on OSM services or will they be hosted by the providers and return the route back to the osm page? (11:56:04 AM) rweait: I made a couple of edits Eugene. (11:57:30 AM) rweait: mkl: I think the available services are all found wanting in one way or another by TWG. (11:57:33 AM) zere: stevenfeldman: either is possible, but i think TWG would prefer to host a service that's on the front page, or at least the first alternative. (11:57:44 AM) Eugene: stevenfeldman: AFAIK, it depends on our/TWG decision. some services have API, so they can be called. Some don't have but they can be installed on our hardware. Unlike tiles, we can't have a lot of services, probably we should choose the best one. (11:58:49 AM) stevenfeldman: eugene: doesn't running on our servers mean that TWG have to do quite a lot of assessment of the performance etc of routing svc? (11:59:02 AM) rweait: stevenfeldman: yes. (11:59:08 AM) Firefishy: Eugene: So far the TWG has been heavily in favour of hosting our own service. (11:59:36 AM) chrisfl_: Yes I think that we would want to be hosting a primary service. (11:59:43 AM) stevenfeldman: sounds like a recipe for a good ruck to me (that's a brit word for a fight in a rugby game or similar) (11:59:49 AM) rweait: Is this the policy and scorecard that we want to refine and adopt? (11:59:50 AM) Eugene: Firefishy: In my opinion, we should ask ourselves: why we need routing? (12:00:10 PM) zere: Eugene: whether we need routing? (12:00:13 PM) chrisfl_: Good for testing connectivity. (12:00:29 PM) rweait: Eugene: in part that depends on the routing solution. If it is terrible; we don't need it at all. ;-) (12:00:36 PM) chrisfl_: Good for encouraging people to use osm.org which later may lead them to editing. (12:00:40 PM) Eugene: if to make osm.org more interesting for people, than we should make it feature-rich nd here some commercial providers will likely win (at least from start) (12:00:44 PM) Firefishy: Eugene: From my point of view. 1) Advertising OSM is good for it. 2) As a tool to mappers to help improve routing. (12:00:45 PM) stevenfeldman: There are other ways of testing connectivity that could mass test the database without need to deploy routing on front page (12:00:55 PM) zere: it's a bit of a moot point, since noone has written anything for routing within the rails port anyway - it's not like that's going to appear by magic. (12:01:07 PM) rweait: topic. what about this policy and scorecard? (12:01:12 PM) Eugene: if we need to test data and connectivity, than apparently something internal should be used (12:01:43 PM) chrisfl_: yes. an internal service wouldn't try and correct bad data... (12:02:20 PM) stevenfeldman: policy and scorecard are good starting point but this will be much more work for TWG than deciding on what tile sets to layer picker (12:02:24 PM) Eugene: rweait: thanks for edits (12:02:36 PM) mkl: i think the policy and scorecard are generally fine, need fine tuning. as far as routing on osm.org, i sense there's consensus around doing it (12:02:37 PM) rweait: I move that we consider and refine the current policy and scorecard drafts for further discussion next week. (12:02:43 PM) mkl: question then becomes, what it's going to take (12:02:48 PM) mkl: +1 (12:02:51 PM) mkl: we're overtime (12:02:57 PM) toffehoff: +1 (12:03:01 PM) Eugene: +! (12:03:07 PM) samlarsen1: +1 (12:03:24 PM) mkl: ok then! thx rweait for keeping us on topic. (12:03:33 PM) rweait: same time / channel next week? (12:03:51 PM) mkl: fine by me (12:03:56 PM) mkl: we can close the meeting (12:03:56 PM) chrisfl_: same time next week works for me, (12:04:03 PM) stevenfeldman: rweait: catch you during the week, mail me (12:04:06 PM) rweait: move to adjourn? (12:04:08 PM) stevenfeldman: laters (12:04:17 PM) stevenfeldman: proposed (12:04:17 PM) toffehoff: Have a good weekend! (12:04:23 PM) mkl: adjourn thanks all (12:04:26 PM) ***chrisfl_ has beer…. (12:04:34 PM) rweait: *** logging ends. ***