20:02:49 #startmeeting tc 20:02:50 Meeting started Tue Mar 24 20:02:49 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:02:52 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:02:54 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 20:03:09 If I disappear due to network issues, just pretent I'm here and continue 20:03:14 Our agenda for today: 20:03:18 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee 20:03:30 #topic Final rubberstamping for library stable release procedures/policy 20:03:34 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/155072/ 20:03:44 I put a question mark on that one because it doesn't have the usual pile up of +1s 20:03:55 So it's more questionable than usual that it reached enough "consensus" for us to rubberstamp 20:04:03 That said, it's a niche topic, so a lot of people just don't care 20:04:14 Also, it's describing the process we are already following for Kilo cycle final stage 20:04:24 so I'd argue it's better to approve it (and refine it if necessary in the future) than pretend it's not there 20:04:33 although we do need the ptls for projects with client libraries to follow it, too 20:04:38 All people that had -1s in the past have reverted them to +1 later, except jeblair 20:04:46 so I'm at least waiting on that 20:05:21 dhellmann: do you think we should technically wait a bit more ? 20:05:30 Like raise a ML thread to push it over the edge ? 20:05:39 We discussed it twice at the cross-project meeting already 20:05:41 Is the goal to follow this for Kilo? 20:05:47 mikal: yes 20:06:09 ttx: at this point it seems a bit pointless to wait, but we can if you think that's going to mean more people understand it 20:06:50 dhellmann: we could send an email about the process we'll follow in kilo to the ML -- inadvertantly mentioning that it's the one being under review as a spec anyway 20:06:54 I assume there will be reminders towards the end of a release cycle to do these things? 20:07:00 * mikal worries about forgetful future me 20:07:04 we need a ML post at some point anyway 20:07:17 ttx: ok, I thought I posted once about it already but I can do it again 20:07:39 dhellmann: if you posted something already, I may have mlissed it, maybe no point in doing it again 20:08:08 I'm fine passing it if we can get 7 TC members to approve it 20:08:10 ttx: the thread I'm finding was tagged [oslo] so I'll start another 20:08:19 worst case scenario we'll revise it 20:08:23 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-December/051874.html 20:08:35 I'm fine with both options (thread or pass now) 20:08:36 So you need three more +2's then 20:08:46 what's the other TC members take ? 20:09:12 ttx: my vote was go with it 20:09:14 I think you should merge it 20:09:27 mikal: +1 20:09:28 jeblair: you fine reverting your past -1 ? 20:10:16 ttx: it was for an (important) clarification, so probably okay. but i have not read the latest revision yet, sorry. 20:10:43 ttx: (as in, i don't think i saw any major obstacles once i understood it) 20:11:28 OK, let's do both approaches then. I'll approve once it gets 7 TC yes (hopefully later this week) *and* let's have a thread to communicate the kilo strategy anyway 20:11:35 (one not blocking the other) 20:11:48 * dhellmann is composing that email right now 20:11:57 sounds good ? 20:12:08 ttx: works for me 20:12:17 + 20:12:19 ok, let's move on 20:12:24 #topic Magnum - OpenStack Containers Service 20:12:29 * adrian_otto is here for any Magnum related questions 20:12:30 This is a proposed project addition: 20:12:34 #link https://review.openstack.org/161080 20:12:39 We discussed it a couple weeks ago 20:12:48 My personal feeling is that this project team behaves like "one of us" 20:12:58 ++ 20:13:00 The only part we could question is whether they really help further the OpenStack Mission, and I think they help with the "platform" part... 20:13:10 ...without diluting the value of existing key components. 20:13:22 so I'm +1 20:13:31 +2 20:13:50 +1 20:13:51 questions, comments ? 20:13:57 So, I missed the meeting last time we discussed this 20:14:02 Remind me why we didn't +1 then? 20:14:14 * sdake__ here for magnum Q's as well 20:14:19 mikal: I think there were concerns whether we should freeze approvals 20:14:26 ttx: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059811.html for reference on the previous topic 20:14:28 and we clarified that last week 20:14:34 Oh, so process not magnum itself? 20:14:44 mikal: right 20:14:52 I'm +1 on this one - I think the are one of us and follow the 4 opens and they're don't do anything that makes me unhappy and adrian_otto is a nice guy 20:14:52 mikal: that was my understanding, maybe others opinion vary 20:14:57 Ok, cool 20:15:08 and we wanted to look at other applications, but it seems like we only had one other and we did that. :) 20:15:10 ;-) 20:15:10 mordred: he has nice hair too 20:15:22 mikal: this is very true. 20:15:25 Magnum was level 1. Let's move to level 2 20:15:29 adrian_otto reached out to me about how to address their elections without placing a burden on current tools 20:15:29 ttx: you have 9 +1's there 20:15:30 * dhellmann can't wait to meet adrian_otto now 20:15:43 adrian_otto: hope your hair doesn't let dhellmann down 20:15:47 alrighty, 30 secondsq left to record your approval 20:15:51 dhellmann: we met in ATL 20:15:55 before I press the button 20:15:57 LOL 20:16:03 adrian_otto has fine hair 20:16:04 * dhellmann is ashamed 20:16:14 * mordred hands dhellmann a web bunny rabbit of shame 20:16:17 gah 20:16:19 WET 20:16:21 * mordred is ashamed 20:16:27 now that you mention it -- nice hair is certainly hurting some of our key members pride 20:16:30 You got the bunny wet? 20:16:38 which definitely counts as "not one of us" 20:16:47 ttx: should we only accept projects with bad hair? 20:16:47 We could get TC toupes? 20:16:52 ok, approved 20:16:56 mordred: or bald guys 20:17:11 bald women too? 20:17:14 adrian_otto: you're in! 20:17:16 +1 anteaya 20:17:17 anteaya: absolutely 20:17:19 adrian_otto: I'm not sure whether to offer congratulations or condolences ;-) 20:17:20 * sarob is in trouble 20:17:22 Welcome to the tent 20:17:24 okay then 20:17:29 dhellmann: LOL 20:17:33 come in out of the rain (or something?) 20:17:40 so far this meeting is winning best TC meeting 20:17:47 * dhellmann wonders what was in everyone's coffee today 20:17:56 dhellman both ;) 20:18:05 dhellmann: I may have poured powerful drugs in the water supply this morning 20:18:09 sdake__: too true! :-) 20:18:09 who else is doing a google image search for adrian otto and marveling at the fact that _all_ adrian ottos have amazing hair? 20:18:10 #topic Add a tag for affiliation diversity 20:18:19 adrian_otto: please propose a patch to project-config to move the repos in the openstack namespace quickly. We have a rename sscheduled 20:18:27 #link https://review.openstack.org/163851 20:18:27 AJaeger_: yes sir. 20:18:32 jeblair: it comes with access to that namespace 20:18:35 More happiness all around! Great work going on here 20:18:48 adrian_otto, AJaeger_: next rename is scheduled for friday 20:19:02 ok, we will act on that swiftly. 20:19:05 The diversity tag is almost good to go, minor comments from anne and me 20:19:12 (if we miss it, we'll do it in a couple weeks) 20:19:20 really like the data-driven diversityt ag 20:19:23 tag even 20:19:51 liek I think a project were 2 orgs represent more than 80% or 90% of contributors could be considered "not diverse" the same way a project where one org has >50% is 20:19:58 so - I don't want to be a wet blanket on the otherwise awesome meeting 20:20:05 because I like this tag in many ways 20:20:07 HOWEVER 20:20:11 fear the wet mordred 20:20:18 there is an implication in it that corporate affiliation matters 20:20:29 in that it implies that because I work for HP I am working for HP's motives 20:20:37 and, while I understand and agree with the intent 20:20:46 * devananda hands mordred a towel to dry off 20:20:48 I do want to register taht I do not, inf act, make technical decisions based on HP's goals 20:20:50 mordred: I asked for "org" instead of "company" because I feel the same way 20:20:51 Not sure there is such implication 20:20:55 from the sense of the long term viability of a project, it might - if a company walks away from a project and takes their developers, that may hurt the remaining team's ability to continue producing the software 20:21:06 dhellmann: TOTALLY 20:21:08 mordred: the risk we are talking about here is a company pulling off all resources from a project in one go 20:21:09 mordred: I think the implication is slightly different. it implies that HP could prevent you from working on it any longer, if they chose to stop funding it 20:21:09 like I said, I support the tag 20:21:11 mordred: I kinda get what you're saying.. HOWEVER 20:21:13 :) 20:21:16 mordred: its about the risk that HP will assign you to a new task though right? 20:21:23 mordred: not about the decisions you make while assigned somewhere 20:21:30 I also think that the whole point is just "data" 20:21:35 mikal: well, they can try that - I'm pretty sure you'd offer me a new job if they did 20:21:44 it's not really about a company controlling a project as much as the brittleness of a project that lacks diversity 20:21:50 as per the comment I made, it's not a "judgement" 20:21:52 mordred: sure, but there this is a thing which has happened to other people in the past 20:21:54 yup 20:22:01 totally understand 20:22:03 totally agree 20:22:04 I think it's data driven and people can make their own assessments on whether affiliation means a particular behavior would occur 20:22:07 data is great 20:22:13 yeah, i think it's useful because it is a signal about how broad the support for a project is in our community 20:22:13 mordred: I bet they wouldn't oiffer a jhob to your whole team though 20:22:20 we'll do gender diversity data next right? :) 20:22:27 agentle: oh, good one :) 20:22:44 agentle: I can script that one easily... Its just a script which always returns "no". 20:22:48 agentle: and then geography or age? 20:22:49 mordred: but I see your point 20:22:50 because if I'm a woman I'll behave a certain way (which is what mordred is basically saying is a poor lumping?) 20:22:50 I think most folks know mordred *thinks* on is on behalf 20:22:55 heh 20:23:04 I just want to make sure we don't start judging people based on our impressions, good or bad, of their employer 20:23:15 and this seems like one tiny step down that road 20:23:16 mordred: very fair point 20:23:17 mordred: I think it's data and judgement occurs. 20:23:19 I know we're already down it 20:23:24 and I agree with agentle 20:23:24 I think it actually expresses something else very well - we all ignore the agency of individual developers to sustain a project because we (assume, probably correctly) that all openstack developers are paid t owork on openstack 20:23:25 * mikal also doesn't want to be the one to have to assign strict genders to people 20:23:34 mordred: maybe the tag definition could use wording to discourage this usage of the tag 20:23:39 if it doesn't enough already 20:23:47 ttx: maybe so - I may also be fine just having said it here in channel 20:23:50 i.e. assume good faith and all 20:23:54 mordred: no, but at the same time I could see a deployer not wanting to use something with only one company backing it, and I could see us deciding not to propose trademark use for a project that lacks some level of diversity 20:24:03 mikal: self-identification is the way to go 20:24:09 What do you all think of a cap on two-org share ? 20:24:11 I wondered if the sample size of the team matters, like if there are four team members, do we need to surface that? 20:24:27 like top two-org should represent less than 85% or so of the metrics considered ? 20:24:32 agentle: we used to require a min # of devs, yes 20:24:54 agentle: size of the core team would be another good metric for evaluating the long term health prospects for a project, so that could be another tag in this category 20:24:59 devananda: okay, then yeah I think I'm going the same line of thought as ttx 20:25:01 I'm wondering if people are reading this tag as something much more "important" than I am 20:25:16 we'll probably use the same for the future team:size tag 20:25:19 dhellmann: ok, that would work 20:25:34 jgriffith: I anticipate applying these rules when deciding whether I want to vote yes for trademark use for a project. 20:25:47 jgriffith: it's interesting data, and uncovers makeup of teams, and will be useful comparision/trending over time 20:25:50 mordred: one more thing this exposes is a lack of pluggability in an app. most of the IaaS tools have pluggable drivers, which increases the diversity of contributions. 20:26:04 dhellmann: ahh.. ok, then that's going to change a bit of my opinions on these things I think 20:26:09 * devananda cant type well tonight 20:26:15 * russellb here now 20:26:17 dhellmann: as well as make the process MUCH more difficult I think 20:26:31 jgriffith: difficult? 20:26:37 So... details to iron out, but since this tag definition has broad support, I plan to approve it if any patchset reaches 7 YES in the coming week, so that we don't block on another meeting. Does that sound fair ? 20:26:38 dhellmann: by process I mean process of setting up tags 20:26:48 dhellmann: you vote whether or not to use apply the trademark t oa project? 20:27:17 devananda: the bylaws say the TC is supposed to propose a sets of projects to the board for trademark consideration, so yes 20:27:35 at some point we'll have to 20:27:40 currently it's "the integarted release" 20:27:45 * dhellmann is sitting on a tag proposal for that 20:27:48 "TC approved release" 20:27:54 and tomorrow it will be "the TC approved release" 20:27:54 me proposes integarted tag 20:27:56 is the base that the rest of the trademark policy starts from 20:28:02 right, I'll submit that next week when I get back from vacation 20:28:05 ah. right. 20:28:07 mordred: yep, coming full circle :-p 20:28:14 russellb: :) 20:28:25 trademark usage was one of the late additions to the meaning of "the integrated release" 20:28:28 the last facet 20:28:33 some would say the last straw 20:28:36 * mordred would personally like to see the "proposed set of projects" stay static until someone else requests that we add something 20:28:39 geesh... I was taking all of that literally 20:28:40 but that's another conversation 20:28:52 yes, one step at a time :) 20:28:59 * mordred starts running 20:29:14 I need to figure out if Defcore wants one "tc-approved releas" or one per trademark program first :) 20:29:22 mordred: right, will be easier to define and agree if we keep the scope contained 20:29:23 fun with bylaws wording. 20:29:23 * sdague finally here, train late 20:29:34 sdague: you missed the fun bits 20:29:40 sdague: now we're just doing work 20:29:46 sdague: you missed the part where we just agreed 20:29:57 \o/ for agreeing 20:29:58 OK, so to reiterate, back on topic... 20:30:06 sdague: don't believe them... it's a conspiracy 20:30:08 since this tag definition has broad support, I plan to approve it if any patchset reaches 7 YES in the coming week, so that we don't block on another meeting. Does that sound fair ? 20:30:19 ttx: ++ 20:30:22 ttx: ++ 20:30:26 works for me 20:30:30 ttx: as my vote in gerrit reflects +1 20:30:49 ++ 20:30:58 ttx: I voted +1 after having whined in channel 20:31:01 If you think having a tow-org cap rule doesn't make sense, please chime in on review so that Russel knows how to do the next patchset 20:31:15 got it. 20:31:33 #topic Add proposal to rename core teams as maintainer teams 20:31:33 related data is on the review 20:31:37 to see what the new rule would impact 20:31:45 #link https://review.openstack.org/163660 20:31:59 This one is failing to pick up support afaict 20:32:14 most opinionated people (like me) so far with a -1 20:32:51 in docs, we have been establishing "specialty teams" for reviews of particular guides. 20:32:57 I understand we may have a problem to solve there, but I fear the remedy is worse than the disease 20:33:05 yep, agree there's a problem 20:33:06 so it sounds similar to what jogo is proposing, but I think core is an okay word for both 20:33:12 just don't think the name is it :) 20:33:24 ttx: russellb you'll have to enlighten me as to the problem 20:33:26 I'm not getting it 20:33:27 or at least changing it at this point isn't helpful enough 20:33:29 I be ok with it. I do think that often times the core teams assume their only responsibility is gerrit and not owning the code and fixing bugs in it. But I don't feel super strongly on it. 20:33:30 and I've avoided "subteam" in preference to specialty team 20:33:47 agentle: that sounds a bit like what we do in oslo, with separate teams for some of the libs 20:33:50 words do matter... but core is easy to type and already understood in the ecosystem... 20:33:57 dhellmann: yeah 20:34:23 jgriffith: I'd say the problem is that "core reviewers" teams call themselves "core teams" 20:34:29 ttx: do you have more context on the root problem "maintainer" would help solve (or encourage better behavior?) 20:34:32 I think I'd be more in favor of a proposal that tried to define the actual responsibilities of core teams, before renaming them. 20:34:35 and that implies caste/class where it should not 20:34:39 and "core teams" are treated as the almighty 20:34:45 ttx: that helps 20:34:54 meh.... 20:34:58 Well, its not as bad as it used to be 20:35:02 and then siolly companies gives you bonuses when you become a member 20:35:07 There were no core parties in Paris IIRC 20:35:09 I think mountains can be made out of mole hills 20:35:11 right, make it a primary employment goal 20:35:13 mikal: yah there was 20:35:18 mikal: the architecture thing 20:35:24 which gives the wrong incentive to be one 20:35:28 mordred: huh, I must have skipped it then 20:35:28 fun party, don't get me wrong 20:35:37 jgriffith: I agree we have way larger fishes to fry 20:35:38 ttx: hmmm... companies do that; 20:35:43 * jgriffith works up is resume 20:35:45 so ... 20:35:54 I think this will be naturally changed by big tent 20:36:00 changing the name won't fix the wrong incentive problem 20:36:05 sdague: ++ 20:36:09 yep, agree 20:36:19 So, I don't think changing the name fixes misunderstandings from manager 20:36:22 s 20:36:28 Managers want to measure things so they can incent behaviour 20:36:30 don't think anyone thinks so :) 20:36:34 Any group membership is easy to measure 20:36:37 So will be picked 20:36:38 agree although companies do use it as a metric of success of their staff at multiple places :) 20:36:40 managers want people to become core because they think it means their code will land faster, right? 20:36:51 sdague: especially if we change it to "maintainers" 20:36:56 dhellmann: and it gets bragged about 20:36:57 dhellmann: I think its also because its an easy concept for them to understand 20:37:03 dhellmann its a measure of influence not speed 20:37:10 mikal, russellb : fair 20:37:14 in reality, their code probably does land faster ... 20:37:18 but i don't have data to show that 20:37:30 sdake__: I think that's a distinction without a difference in this case, but sure 20:37:33 fwiw, companies who want to throw parties for core reviewers on projects are looking at an ever growing list of attendees. they're either going to have to scale back to some other criteria or stop altogether at some point anyway 20:37:37 anyway, not sure we need to debate the problem 20:37:44 companies want core because customers want to now people to be involved in openstack 20:37:52 russellb: agree, this seems more beer talk 20:37:53 now/know 20:37:58 mmm beer 20:38:01 anyway, this proposal in particular looks DOA -- but we may still want to pursue ways to address that issue 20:38:04 So, I think the point here is this is more complicated than a name 20:38:08 ttx: ++ 20:38:10 And needs further discussion, probably not on this review 20:38:12 Or maybe they just want their employees doing work they enjoy? 20:38:35 though I spent a lot of time training previous employer lawyers on what core reviewer meant for open source rules 20:38:38 or maybe the employers believe in OpenStack and making it better as much as a lot of the people workign on it? 20:38:42 solution might be to create more subteams 20:38:43 because they understood maintainer as a concept 20:38:44 You all are sooo jaded! 20:38:45 :) 20:38:46 and had a pattern around that 20:38:55 where core reviewers would just be one team amongst others 20:38:57 but this was all new and required lots of hand holding 20:39:10 sdague: interesting point 20:39:30 I think it's about more specialty teams and more cores in the big tent. 20:39:33 ttx imo that would create more hurdles for staff to jump to participate in openstack ;) 20:39:45 I feel "maintainers" (like "committers) would just entrench the elite dev thinking 20:39:46 but I like to say big tent a lot 20:40:05 i like the size of our tent, but we need to start decorating 20:40:11 agentle: the big tent changes everything! 20:40:22 next topic? :) 20:40:34 yep, next topic 20:40:44 #topic Adding the Murano Application Catalog to OpenStack 20:40:45 * serg_mel_ is here for any Murano related questions 20:40:50 OOoh. Level 2 20:40:58 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/162745/ 20:41:12 Havne't voted yet, but feels like a pretty sane complement to "the platform" 20:41:18 I'm less involved with them than I was with Magnum community-wise so i'll let others talk 20:42:35 don't talk all at the same time 20:42:39 I'm +1 on this one too 20:42:45 similar reasons - although I don't know serg_mel_'s hair 20:43:09 they operate as one of us, I know of people who like the thing they're doing, they've been working with other projects 20:43:20 It's been a long time Murano has been around and they always played by the openstack dev book 20:43:25 yup 20:43:32 yeh, this seems fine. I think my only concern is actually unrelated to murano directly, but about glance mission expanding for a new use case (when existing mission isn't being kept up with) 20:43:47 got a 404 for http://murano-docs.github.io/ - just me? 20:44:03 agentle: murano.readthedocs.org 20:44:27 http://murano-docs.github.io/ - outdated - we can't clean-up google from this url :( 20:44:40 * agentle fixes your wiki page 20:44:42 sdague: on that slightly off-topic tangent... I think on one hand Glance is indeed having trouble keeping up 20:44:43 ttx: you have seven there 20:44:50 on the other it may attract new contributors to it 20:45:07 mikal: thanks for keeping track :) 20:45:10 ttx: but if the new contributors aren't addressing the existing backlog, that doesn't seem useful to me 20:45:17 agentle: thank you! 20:45:24 was also going to ask about the glance ties 20:45:32 sdague: it's a tangent though, since Murano currently uses its own repo 20:45:39 ttx: agreed 20:45:51 30 more seconds to register your happiness on that review 20:46:16 I'm +1 on murano. I do think we should revisit the glance mission scope at some point. 20:46:43 I also think that should we ever do a TC retreat, I have found the right place for it - http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/nb/fundy/activ/camping/yourtes-yurts.aspx 20:46:50 so does voting +1 on murano mean a descoping for glance's mission? 20:46:57 no 20:47:14 Even if there was 100% overlap, we allow competition now right? 20:47:25 sdague: artifact repo is a FFE for glance in klilo though. If we thinnk it's a bad idea we need to move now 20:47:26 mikal: it's not an overlap concern 20:47:27 sdague: yurts _and_ bunkbeds! 20:47:32 approved 20:47:36 Top bunk! 20:47:55 jeblair: I stayed there 2 years ago, it was great 20:47:55 * serg_mel_ is dancing 20:48:00 serg_mel_: welcome to the OpenStack community 20:48:03 mikal: within reason ("not gratuitous") 20:48:07 * anteaya stretches out on the women's side of the yurt 20:48:09 ttx: Thank you! 20:48:18 ttx: well, they were already part of the community... 20:48:19 ttx: which "it" is meant for it's a bad idea? 20:48:27 again, with the condolences 20:48:30 jeblair: :) 20:48:40 mikal: arguably not, for some definition of it 20:48:48 #topic Housekeeping 20:48:52 sdague: we'll need yurt 4 since that is only one that allows pets otherwise we'll have to leave the kittens, wet rabbits and fluffy milk cows at home 20:48:57 Our weekly repo additions, all approved by their PTLs, will approve after meeting unless someone -1s: 20:48:58 agentle: it == feature freeze exception for potential glance scope creep 20:49:00 serg_mel_: as with magnum - you should make us a renaming patch soon 20:49:01 * Adds puppet-bandersnatch to Infrastructure (https://review.openstack.org/163734) 20:49:04 * Add oslo.cache to reference/projects.yaml (https://review.openstack.org/164342) 20:49:08 * Add coreos-image-builder to Ironic (https://review.openstack.org/164370) 20:49:12 jeblair: We will propose change ASAP 20:49:23 * ttx checks last one 20:49:30 * Add puppet-puppet project (https://review.openstack.org/165438) 20:49:35 yes it has Jim's +1 now 20:49:43 tripple puppet? 20:49:45 I approve all of these 20:49:46 just trying to make sure I understand 20:49:53 I'll have to figure in which order to approve them to minimize risk of conflict 20:50:18 ttx: or just rebase for folks, I'm perma +1 on housekeeping changes 20:50:22 * mordred thinks puppet-puppet should win the prize for name 20:50:24 agentle: Murano uses its own repo for artifacts, but said it would move to using Glance's if that feature appears there 20:50:35 ttx: ah ok that helps, thanks 20:50:41 mordred: no, bork-bork would be a better name 20:50:45 ttx: yeah, we agreed you could just rebase things we'd already approved. Let me know if you want me to do that again like last time. 20:50:50 sdague: HAHAHAHAHAHA 20:50:58 sdague: I literally lold 20:51:00 agentle: Sean was voicing concerns that Glance adds Artifact repo to its scope, since they have a hard time keeping up with just being an image thing 20:51:32 agentle: so the concerns are separate, but it's fair to raise the Glance scope/act ivity issue 20:51:41 ttx: yeah 20:51:41 ttx: ok 20:51:42 #topic Open discussion 20:51:54 So.. Bod/TC meetign in Vancouver 20:51:57 Note that the members who will still be on the TC in May will have a Board/TC joint meeting on the Sunday before the event 20:52:07 So plan travel accordingly if you want to join 20:52:17 well, and you're ALL invited, even if you're not on the TC again 20:52:18 Meeting would start at 2:30pm like last time (except if delayed again :) 20:52:27 So, 5pm start? 20:52:31 he 20:52:32 I've been asked to ask: 20:52:34 hee even 20:52:37 Would you be interested in common dinner after that, or just drinks ? 20:52:37 mikal: just bring a big bottle of vodka 20:52:43 I think we are owed martinis if it's delayed 20:52:53 ttx: at the most recent board meeting 20:52:56 I'm fine with both options 20:53:02 i guess i'm fine with both 20:53:05 we did a tapas style place that worked wellish for mingling 20:53:05 probably rather drinks 20:53:10 mordred: ++ 20:53:15