[19:00] <nhandler> Meeting Time! jussi, tsimpson, topyli, Pici
[19:00] <nhandler> #startmeeting
[19:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:00. The chair is nhandler.
[19:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:00] <jussi> o/
[19:00]  * tsimpson waves
[19:00] <topyli> o/
[19:00] <czajkowski> aloha
[19:00] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:00] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:01] <jussi> awesome, we have quorum
[19:01] <nhandler> czajkowski: Looks like you are up. Care to explain this item a bit
[19:01] <tsimpson> we need a [topic] :)
[19:01] <czajkowski> hey, well this was something I discussed at UDS
[19:01] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Logging bot in all LoCo IRC channels
[19:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  Logging bot in all LoCo IRC channels
[19:02] <czajkowski> Do loco teams have to have the logging bot in their channels, be they are approved or unapproved they are using the ubuntu namespace
[19:02] <czajkowski> as some teams are removing the logging bot from their channels and then having very non CoC disucsions in thee
[19:02] <czajkowski> *there
[19:03] <czajkowski> I've mentioned to a few people and most think the logging in ubuntu-iso for all teams would be good
[19:04] <czajkowski> so it's a loco council and IRCC issue I thought best disucssed here
[19:04] <topyli> czajkowski: you're talking about the main #ubuntu-iso channel, not things like #ubuntu-iso-offtopic or any subchannels like that?
[19:04] <czajkowski> topyli: not offtopic channels no
[19:04] <czajkowski> just the main -iso channel
[19:04] <nhandler> I know at least a few LoCos who would probably not be happy with this requirement. Although discussion might comply with the CoC, it is still a LoCo channel, and some more personal/offtopic discussions will (by their nature) take place in them. This does not belong on the web
[19:04] <tsimpson> if the issue is people removing the log bot from their channels, how will forcing all -iso channels to be logged help?
[19:05] <czajkowski> I've no problem with off topic items in channel tbh, it really depends on the loco
[19:05] <tsimpson> surely the same people would just remove the bot again, right?
[19:05] <jussi> nhandler: I tend to disagree, its a public channel after all.
[19:05] <czajkowski> tsimpson: well now it'd be seen as something they have to have
[19:06] <tsimpson> czajkowski: and what will happen if they remove it?
[19:06] <nhandler> jussi: Yes, but it is a bit different when there are public logs on the web
[19:06] <czajkowski> tsimpson: O'm not sure, hence the discussion.
[19:06] <czajkowski> *I'm
[19:07] <tsimpson> nhandler: they can use a -offtopic sub channel for that probably, though it's an inconvenience
[19:07] <nhandler> I'm just worried that requiring the log bot will hurt the friendly/welcoming atmosphere in some loco channels
[19:07] <topyli> the loco council might remove the official loco status from the team maybe?
[19:07] <czajkowski> nhandler: most teams do have some form of non topic in their channels, I've seen some locos create -chat channels and that has KILLED their main ubuntu channel
[19:07] <topyli> but i have the same worry as nhandler
[19:07] <nhandler> tsimpson: Yeah, I agree. Especially for small locos, it is silly to have multiple channels
[19:07] <itnet7> nhandler: in the past when there isn't a channel, usually the team will not be so inviting
[19:07] <itnet7> Yes they could remove it
[19:07] <tsimpson> topyli: unapproved LoCos' would still be required to be logged
[19:08] <itnet7> oops
[19:08] <czajkowski> as an example the Irish channel is rather samall, we have all chats in there, while remaining CoC  friendly and it works well
[19:08] <itnet7> when there isn't a bot in the channel
[19:08] <topyli> tsimpson: ah. evryone in the namespace. i get it
[19:08] <nhandler> czajkowski: And how will requiring the log bot fix the underlying problem of some LoCos not following the CoC?
[19:08] <tsimpson> czajkowski: have you (or others from the LoCo council) discussed this with the teams?
[19:09] <czajkowski> nhandler: well if channels were logged, and there are issues in channel and people bring this to our attention they can point us to the logs, very hard to point us to an unlogged channel conversation
[19:10] <nhandler> czajkowski: Was there ever an issue regarding the CoC not being observed where nobody in the channel had logs?
[19:10] <czajkowski> tsimpson: I've mentoned it to a few, but it;s not been offical, we wanted to get discussion going on here between the two councils
[19:11] <tsimpson> right, ok
[19:11] <nhandler> I think having private logs available to the IRC/LoCo council would be another possible solution to the problem
[19:11] <czajkowski> nhandler: tsimpson topyli itnet7 is here from the council also, so don't feel you need to put all the questions to me :)
[19:11] <tsimpson> nhandler: I think it's more about having "trusted" logs
[19:11] <nhandler> Ah, I missed him
[19:11] <topyli> :)
[19:11] <itnet7> nhandler: +1
[19:11] <topyli> nhandler: i like that
[19:12] <tsimpson> private logging would be a solution, respecting privacy
[19:12] <jussi> I recently suggested this to the CC, with regard to a few other chans.
[19:12] <czajkowski> nhandler: nice idea, but again needs someone to keep logs, having the logging bot is an impartial bot
[19:12] <itnet7> Yes, I think most of us would understand the sensitivity of the logs
[19:12] <topyli> that of course implies that everyone trusts the council(s)
[19:12] <czajkowski> jussi: see pm
[19:12] <tsimpson> topyli: if councils are not trusted, we have bigger issues ;)
[19:12] <topyli> yeah :)
[19:13] <czajkowski> the idea of this agenda item was to create a discssion - so far it's a lotta questions being fired at me, I'd like to hear the councils ideas/thoughts on the subject
[19:13] <tsimpson> maybe if we have some "locked-down" section on the logging server
[19:14] <topyli> still, i don't know. "logs available to topyli" and "logs available to the whole internet" is a facebook-like situation
[19:14] <jussi> I think the thing with public logs is that people other than the council can bring up any issues. councils dont have infinite time and manpower
[19:14] <tsimpson> czajkowski: we were just curious as to why it's needed, I think we get that now
[19:14] <topyli> jussi: good point
[19:14] <nhandler> I think it is also worth remembering that people should generally be trusted unless there is a reason otherwise. So if multiple people from a LoCo channel present the council with the same logs, I think it is generally safe to assume they are accurate
[19:15] <topyli> private logs just gives you evidence after the fact
[19:16] <tsimpson> it's true that the main problem is the CoC not being respected in channels
[19:16] <czajkowski> I know from one loco in question where they were acting up, we pointed it out to them and pointed out we can view the logs, and soon enough they removed the bot
[19:16] <jussi> For me, we are an open community, and I see no reason not to be unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.
[19:16] <tsimpson> that's really an issue for the individual LoCo teams to enforce it though
[19:16] <itnet7> In one use case tsimpson: when people come to the LoCo Council and are looking for mediation, they tell us that there have been conflicts within the team, and often it takes place within their unlogged channel
[19:17] <nhandler> It just seems that the only reason that is being proposed to add the log bot is to "spy" on teams to make sure they are behaving. In all other channels, it is being used because the logs in those channels provide a useful reference
[19:17] <nhandler> itnet7: And nobody keeps private logs?
[19:18] <czajkowski> nhandler: I'd say using the word spy is rther inflamatory tbh
[19:18] <tsimpson> itnet7: sure, but if a LoCo has an offtopic/unlogged channel, they'd just move there and continue
[19:18] <czajkowski> nhandler: and those kinda words tends to set some folks off on rants which isn't very helpful
[19:18] <itnet7> Some of them are unestablished teams, and don't realize how easy they could request the bot to begin with
[19:18] <topyli> itnet7: but shouldn't that just teach them to log the channel voluntarily so you can help them better? forcing the log bot is quite another thing
[19:18] <itnet7> so I doubt they have private logs
[19:19] <jussi> private logs often tend to be patchy.
[19:19] <czajkowski> tsimpson: for the teams I've seen who created an unlogged channel or a chat channel, most of the conversation ends up there and the other main channel ends up rather ghost like
[19:19] <nhandler> jussi: Yeah, it would be important to get logs from multiple people in the channel to confirm
[19:20] <tsimpson> private logs can also be easily falsified
[19:20] <itnet7> I guess in a way topyli, It just seems that if we make it part of registering the primary LoCo channel, that it would help out new teams and get everyone on the same sheet of music from the beginning
[19:20] <czajkowski> itnet7: exactly
[19:21] <nhandler> Have we even checked with Canonical if they would be fine with this? I thought we were using the Ubuntu-EU bot for logging loco channels
[19:21] <itnet7> Then we can suggest when someone is having coversations that aren't CoC friendly we can suggest that they, create an off-topic channel, and encourage them
[19:21] <topyli> generally speaking, i do think public logs would be the most appropriate way for an open community. i would like to decide based on that
[19:21] <jussi> Just one thing to note, the new GMS is planned to have logging available without the use of personal log bots. SO that may change things.
[19:21] <tsimpson> nhandler: it's just a discussion right now, no implementation has been looked at
[19:21] <itnet7> I think the effort here was to see if there was any buy-in and too make sure you folks would be fine with it
[19:22] <itnet7> And if it was technically possible and no huge opposition, then speak with Canonical on it
[19:22] <nhandler> I would like to hear some more feedback from the LoCo teams before going any further with this decision. Their feedback would be very useful
[19:23] <topyli> itnet7: making it part of channel creation is certainly a good idea. enforcing it to existing ones after the fact is more difficult
[19:23] <czajkowski> I can add it to our council meeting so
[19:23] <czajkowski> there are at present 78 approved team and 138 unapproved teams
[19:23] <tsimpson> I think it will be difficult to enforce logging in non-approved LoCo's, as we don't know when/if they are created
[19:23] <itnet7> The LoCo Teams should have logging based on the getting started wiki's
[19:23] <jussi> perhaps this should go to both the loco contacts and the irc ML's?
[19:23] <tsimpson> unless someone adds it to the wiki and then someone else checks the channel
[19:23] <czajkowski> would a suggestion be to add it to the unapproved teams and work from there ??
[19:24] <nhandler> I would also like to try and get a list of pros/cons of this change put together.
[19:24] <czajkowski> jussi: I suggested the council meeting, but mailing list also would be fine. I'd just suggest one list rather than two as otherwise folowing threads will get noisey
[19:24] <tsimpson> would it be easier to say a channel being logged be a part of the approval prerequisites?
[19:25] <czajkowski> tsimpson: I'd like to do that going forward with the 138 that are there atm
[19:25] <nhandler> Would someone like to take the action to start documenting some of the pros/cons on the wiki ?
[19:25] <nhandler> I think this would be useful to summarize the IRC/ML discussions
[19:26] <czajkowski> nhandler: you seem to want to drive that, I like to hear more of your thoughts on it
[19:26] <tsimpson> if we move the discussion to a ML, it should be the LoCo list I think
[19:26] <nhandler> tsimpson: Agreed
[19:26] <czajkowski> tsimpson: +1
[19:26] <topyli> yeah
[19:26] <topyli> is the loco list moderated?
[19:27] <nhandler> czajkowski: I can create the initial page. I would appreciate some help keeping it updated (especially once the ML discussion starts)
[19:27] <nhandler> topyli: loco-contacts is not
[19:27] <topyli> nhandler: ok
[19:27] <jussi> +1 for taking it to loco-contacts ml
[19:27] <nhandler> Who wants to start that ML discussion?
[19:28] <topyli> czajkowski does :)
[19:28] <czajkowski> nhandler: would you like it to come from the loco council
[19:28] <czajkowski> topyli: hush you or I'll start to give you some of my action items :p
[19:28] <tsimpson> I think gathering the opinion of the LoCo teams will help us here, the man objection is based on how people would feel if the channels were all logged
[19:28] <nhandler> czajkowski: That is fine
[19:28] <tsimpson> s/man/main/
[19:28] <topyli> czajkowski: oh good point. should the initiative come from the irc council instead?
[19:28] <czajkowski> tsimpson: I know of course you are going to get the 1-2 people who hate cannot abide logging
[19:29] <nhandler> topyli: I think LC would be best to start this discussion, but that is just me
[19:29] <tsimpson> czajkowski: absolutely, we need to try not to be overwhelmed by the vocal minority here
[19:30] <nhandler> So should we give the LC the action to start the initial ML discussion?
[19:30] <czajkowski> tsimpson: indeed and I think in some cases we tend to shy away from some things due to the few people who kick up for what ever reason tbh
[19:30] <czajkowski> and think of the greater community
[19:30] <tsimpson> it may be an idea to use LP to poll the teams? or am I being crazy here?
[19:30] <czajkowski> nhandler: myself and itnet7 wil get cracking on it
[19:30] <nhandler> tsimpson: That won't let us get comments/other feedback easily
[19:30] <czajkowski> tsimpson: LP poll?
[19:30] <nhandler> czajkowski: Great
[19:30] <czajkowski> nhandler: glad you're happy! :)
[19:30] <nhandler> [ACTION] czajkowski and itnet7 to send out initial email to loco-contacts@ requesting feedback
[19:30] <MootBot> ACTION received:  czajkowski and itnet7 to send out initial email to loco-contacts@ requesting feedback
[19:30] <tsimpson> czajkowski: can't launchpad be used to poll a team? or am I dreaming?
[19:30] <czajkowski> itnet7: my dear ;) do not run away on me
[19:30] <itnet7> cya
[19:31] <itnet7> j/k
[19:31] <czajkowski> tsimpson: it's not at all nice to use, plus mail will give people tons of space to give us feedback
[19:31] <nhandler> tsimpson: It can. But only for yes/no style polls. You can't add a textbox asking for an explanation or anything like that
[19:31] <tsimpson> nhandler: yes, a ML discussion as well
[19:31] <tsimpson> I mean in addition
[19:31] <czajkowski> which I'm sure we're going to get some large text boxes from people :)
[19:31] <topyli> i do hate democracy in these decisions though
[19:31] <tsimpson> the poll will let us see a "cold" view of the issue
[19:32] <nhandler> Would someone like to assist me with the pros/cons wiki page? I doubt I will be able to keep it updated myself once the ML discussion begins
[19:32] <tsimpson> *would, not will
[19:32] <jussi> yes, tsimpson is correct.
[19:32] <czajkowski> topyli: aye I do wonder in some cases would it just be easier to add the bot and deal with the 3-4 people who wont like logging afterwards
[19:32] <tsimpson> ie: the shouting few will not be able to drown out others
[19:32] <topyli> czajkowski: there is that. just announce, "there's been a change"
[19:33] <jussi> itnet7: or czajkowski could one of you or another loco council memebr help nhandler with the pros/cons page?
[19:33] <itnet7> I will check it for updates
[19:33] <nhandler> tsimpson: I would prefer to wait to do that until after at least some initial discussion takes place. Otherwise, people will be voting without knowing much about the issue.
[19:33] <czajkowski> jussi: I cant say for sure they're not here atm.
[19:34] <tsimpson> nhandler: yes, defiantly
[19:34] <nhandler> [IDEA] Create a LP poll after some initial discussion to poll LoCo members about this change
[19:34] <MootBot> IDEA received:  Create a LP poll after some initial discussion to poll LoCo members about this change
[19:34] <itnet7> and help add and additions to the wiki page
[19:34] <czajkowski> topyli: soemtimes that's easier than ml debates knowing how well some discssions turn out.
[19:34] <nhandler> Thanks itnet7
[19:34] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler and itnet7 to work on pros/cons wiki page
[19:34] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler and itnet7 to work on pros/cons wiki page
[19:35] <topyli> czajkowski: yeah well, let's get feedback. sometimes you get good arguments from there, might as well use it
[19:35] <tsimpson> so start off the ML discussion first and get some general feedback, then poll uses on the idea. that way we should get a decent overview of the perception
[19:35] <Pici> ohey, this is now.
[19:35] <topyli> Pici! <3
[19:36] <czajkowski> topyli: well I figured we weren't going to just do it
[19:36] <czajkowski> :)
[19:36] <tsimpson> we're all here? well well :)
[19:36] <Pici> Sorry guys, got sidetracked playing with my arduino.
[19:36] <nhandler> tsimpson: And we'll have a pros/cons wiki page created based on the general feedback that we will include in the poll
[19:36] <czajkowski> Pici: aloha! where were you!
[19:36] <itnet7> no then was now, and now is now Pici  :-)
[19:36] <nhandler> But remember, all of this is just to get some feedback. Even the poll. We will need to meet and discuss again before deciding anything imo
[19:37] <czajkowski> nhandler: don't worry, I understand
[19:37] <nhandler> :)
[19:37] <topyli> can we wrap this up then?
[19:37] <nhandler> So is there anything more to discuss here about that topic?
[19:37] <czajkowski> nhandler: dont oanic not gonna go making folks add bot till it's discssed
[19:37]  * nhandler hugs czajkowski
[19:38] <nhandler> Alright, I think we can move on.
[19:38] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Fixed Agenda Items
[19:38] <MootBot> New Topic:  Fixed Agenda Items
[19:38] <nhandler> tsimpson: You checked out the bugs before the meeting, right?
[19:39] <tsimpson> yeah, there is the ever-present "#ubuntu is too noisy" which is not going away any time soon
[19:39] <topyli> heh
[19:39] <tsimpson> and the Guadalinex issue https://bugs.launchpad.net/guadalinex/+bug/513915
[19:39] <tsimpson> which seems to have stalled in progress
[19:39] <jussi> it had a fixed release at one point
[19:39] <topyli> it was so promising at some point in time
[19:40] <nhandler> jussi: The Guadalinex Edu task is Fix Released
[19:40] <tsimpson> for those who don't know, that's about IRC clients joining #ubuntu by default
[19:40] <tsimpson> and sub-distributions picking up those same settings
[19:40] <tsimpson> which is not so good for other-language distros
[19:40] <nhandler> I'm not sure what needs to be done for the Guadalinex task to be closed as well
[19:41] <tsimpson> neither am I, we should get back in contact with them and poke for a progress update
[19:41] <nhandler> Does someone want to take that action?
[19:41] <tsimpson> I'll comment on the bug
[19:41] <nhandler> [ACTION] tsimpson to comment on Guadalinex bug for status update on Guadalinex task
[19:41] <MootBot> ACTION received:  tsimpson to comment on Guadalinex bug for status update on Guadalinex task
[19:41] <topyli> that should be enough, the maintainers will get mail
[19:41] <jussi> yeah, agreed
[19:41] <Pici> hopefully.
[19:41] <tsimpson> if by the next meeting there is no response, I'll look in to it further
[19:41] <jussi> hai Pici!
[19:41] <nhandler> And any volunteers for the post-meeting tasks? If not, I'll handle them.
[19:41] <tsimpson> I/we
[19:42] <Pici> nhandler: What needs to be done?
[19:42] <nhandler> Pici: Everything but the first fixed item on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:42] <topyli> isn't that one of the perks that go with chairing? :)
[19:42] <tsimpson> monthly report/minutes
[19:42] <nhandler> Pici: So team report, wiki, minutes, etc
[19:42] <nhandler> topyli: If nobody else wants to, then yes ;)
[19:43] <tsimpson> any other issues anyone wants to bring up while we're all still here?
[19:43] <nhandler> So Pici, want to do it? Or should I take care of it?
[19:43] <Pici> nhandler: ooh. As much as I feel bad for missing most of the meeting, I'll let you take care of it ;)
[19:43] <nhandler> :)
[19:43] <topyli> rofl
[19:43] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler to take care of post-meeting tasks
[19:43] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to take care of post-meeting tasks
[19:44] <nhandler> So, last call for any other topics to be discussed?
[19:44] <nhandler> err s/?/./
[19:45] <jussi> one sec
[19:45] <jussi> Could we breifly touch on the -lts issue? breifly!
[19:45] <Pici> Remind me, when do we check back up on our operator candidates' probationary period thing?
[19:45] <topyli> i can touch the -lts issue with initial disagreement
[19:46] <tsimpson> 16th July
[19:46] <tsimpson> Pici: ^
[19:46] <Pici> tsimpson: okay.  I know you keep telling me, but I keep forgetting.
[19:47] <nhandler> topyli: Want to briefly explain the issue
[19:47] <topyli> ok
[19:48] <topyli> on the mailing list, someone suggested that lts users should have a separate support channel
[19:48] <topyli> that's because most people don't run lts on desktop, and support can be poor
[19:48] <topyli> because the helpers don't remember what life was like on hardy :)
[19:48] <tsimpson> this is mostly for LTS desktop only, not server
[19:49] <jussi> The thing is, for me, there is a reasonable size group who do run it on the desktop.
[19:49] <topyli> yeah, servers would still be on -server
[19:49] <Pici> Wouldn't we get into the same scenario where we're ferrying people from #ubuntu into other channels?  May I remind people what #ubuntu starts to look like when +1 gets close to release?
[19:50] <topyli> there are a number of newbies that got ubuntu preinstalled, or a friend installed lts for them
[19:50] <jussi> There are people who are more than happy to not upgrade - and I think that a -lts channel woul actually be very suitable to have.
[19:51] <jussi> Pici: there is that to a point - but lts's could be patched to default to that channel instead.
[19:51] <topyli> it is a reasonable idea, but i still tend to disagree
[19:51] <tsimpson> personally, I think the bulk of question in #ubuntu are not that release-specific
[19:51] <topyli> most newbie questions are generally understandable to helpers
[19:51] <nhandler> jussi: Would LTS support still take place in -lts when it is the current release then?
[19:51] <tsimpson> the only issues are when the desktop goes under a major transition
[19:51] <Pici> jussi: Then you aren't going to see this go into effect for another 2 years.. at least.
[19:51] <tsimpson> like when we switched to KDE4 in #kubuntu
[19:52] <nhandler> Pici: That is what I was thinking
[19:52] <nhandler> But even with a major change, the same questions tend to come up over and over, so the helpers tend to remember the differences.
[19:52] <Pici> I don't see this as a valid SRU, and even if it was, we wouldn't be touching the default channel for people who already have an LTS installed.
[19:52] <topyli> i also don't know if help would actually be available on -lts
[19:53] <nhandler> I think several of the points brought up on the ML could also be solved by people only interested in helping with LTS issues utilizing the meta bot
[19:54] <jussi> Perhaps it needs more thought. I guess we can come back to it next meeting or the one after.
[19:54] <nhandler> Is there anything we (IRCC) can do to help the discussion on the ML?
[19:54] <tsimpson> I'm generally opposed to splitting #ubuntu, so there needs to be an extremely good reason to do so
[19:55] <topyli> tsimpson: likewise
[19:55] <Pici> tsimpson: agreed.
[19:56] <jussi> right. so shall we agree to take this up at a later date if need be?
[19:56] <tsimpson> nhandler: I think the main issues have already been brought up on the ML, like turning #ubuntu in to a "please ask in #..." channel
[19:56] <topyli> nhandler: we can state our worry about the quality of the future -lts channel (will any helpers actually join it), and we can acknowledge the existance of lts desktop users on the positive side
[19:56] <Pici> : Please join #ubuntu+1 for Lucid/10.04 support/discussion.
[19:56] <Pici> oops
[19:56] <topyli> i can take action if that sounds sane
[19:56] <nhandler> That might be useful. We can then come back to this topic at a later date to make a formal decision
[19:57] <tsimpson> I think we should respond to let people know we are discussing it at least
[19:57] <topyli> i'll try and summarize all the points made in the ml discussion and here
[19:57] <Pici> tsimpson: Since no one reads our meeting logs? :P
[19:57] <topyli> tsimpson: yes let's not let the thread die
[19:57] <nhandler> [ACTION] topyli to send email regarding -lts channel to ML to express some of our views and let them know the issue is being discussed
[19:57] <MootBot> ACTION received:  topyli to send email regarding -lts channel to ML to express some of our views and let them know the issue is being discussed
[19:57] <nhandler> [AGREE] We will discuss this issue more at a future meeting after more discussion
[19:58] <topyli> hahaha
[19:58] <nhandler> Anything else that we need to cover?
[19:58] <tsimpson> I think that's all, and we went an hour with only one agenda item ;)
[19:58] <jussi> nope
[19:58] <topyli> yes. why is getting-things-gnome broken? :/
[19:58] <nhandler> #endmeeting
[19:58] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 13:58.
[19:58] <nhandler> Good meeting everyone.
[19:59] <nhandler> topyli: #ubuntu for support (or #ubuntu-lts if you are running lucid ;) )
[19:59] <topyli> thanks guys
[19:59] <topyli> :)
[19:59] <Pici> sorry again, and I'll set an alarm for the next one ;)
[20:00]  * tsimpson suggests KAlarm, because it's just so good