=== freeflyi1g is now known as freeflying [19:03] o/ [19:03] Whos turn to chair? [19:03] and tsimpson topyli around? [19:03] * tsimpson is here [19:03] @random tsimpson topyli [19:03] tsimpson [19:03] LIES [19:03] hehe [19:04] wait for topyli [19:04] I swear we shpould exclude ourselves from the random selection :P [19:07] o/ [19:07] sorry i'm late === gpc is now known as IdleOne [19:08] heya topyli [19:09] ah tsimpson was democratically made chair [19:09] tsimpson: want to get us started? [19:09] @reload Random [19:09] The operation succeeded. [19:09] @random jussi topyli tsimpson tsimpson tsimpson tsimpson tsimpson tsimpson [19:09] topyli [19:09] hehe [19:09] cheater! [19:09] you cheated :P [19:09] * tsimpson looks all innocent [19:09] #startmeeting [19:09] Meeting started at 13:09. The chair is tsimpson. [19:09] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [19:09] your mistake was reloading here [19:10] [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda [19:10] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda [19:10] All those here stick a hand in the air o/ [19:10] o/ [19:10] o/ [19:10] wow, so many paying attention :/ [19:11] ok, so previous actions [19:11] I'm paying attention, I just thought you meant from the council [19:11] ahh, the bot records who attended by if you spoke duing the meeting time [19:11] [topic] remove idoru from #ubuntu for a 2 week trial and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen (nhandler) [19:11] New Topic: remove idoru from #ubuntu for a 2 week trial and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen (nhandler) [19:12] (review) === Tm_K is now known as Tm_T [19:12] o/ [19:12] this has actually been 4 weeks now [19:13] nhandler said: For idoru, we have had several instances where it would have been useful to have it in channel. It works well in conjunction with (not in place of) the floodbots. [19:13] I've not seen any problems without it [19:14] Personally from what I have seen, idoru did get some spammers (we have had a few that didnt get killed), but the number of false positives was too high for my liking. [19:14] so yeah, heaven did not fall [19:15] shall we keep idoru out for now then? [19:15] I would like a reconsider in 3-6 months after freenode have had a chance to review the code. [19:16] +1 [19:16] the only issue(s) with having the floodbots dealing with the spam is that, 1) other channels don't get protected when a spammer hits #u (which isn't technically _our_ problem), and 2) that we have more bans/quiets in our list [19:16] I think in essence its a good idea, but the implementation is not quite there yet. [19:16] but those aren't show-stoppers, just something to note [19:16] tsimpson: the latter is more of an issue imho. [19:16] the former is more of a courtesy issue [19:17] I wonder if there peoples who would be willing to volunteer to regularly double double check the FB bans (although we all should be doing this anyway) [19:17] if/when idoru gets some channel specific config, so we can fine-tune it, I'd be for all it [19:18] we do have some ops that regularly check the FB bans/mutes [19:18] and I'm pretty sure ubottu can nag about FB bans in -ops (or where ever) [19:18] as it nags in /msg to real ops [19:18] right, but we had complaints last time we did that? [19:18] tsimpson: it can, but was disabled afk [19:19] yes, it certainly can. [19:19] we really should be keeping a closer eye on FB bans/quiets [19:19] if you can set ubottu to nag me in PM about the FB bans/mutes I am willing to look them over [19:19] just generally, regardless of idoru or not [19:20] note: I believe the nags are in NOTICE form, so ... [19:20] IdleOne: it can nag people, but it can just send those messages to a channel instead [19:20] I mean we should do it anyway nag or not but it would make it more usefull to me [19:20] m4v: I think we cleared up the NOTICE-hate on the ML, right? [19:20] I would be ok with notice to channel [19:20] s/we/you/ [19:21] tsimpson: if the lack of input except for rww is "all cleared up", then yes. [19:21] Should we have it NOTICE the -ops-team channel? It would then only affect ops, not get to users [19:21] m4v: they can't say we didn't warn them ;) [19:22] jussi: that is a good idea also [19:22] jussi: I don't think NOTICES are logged anyway [19:22] tsimpson: oh, ok then [19:22] (that's kind of the point) [19:22] NOTICES aren't logged, that's the good thing about them [19:22] in that case we need to be stricter about the no idle policy in -ops [19:22] it may be more appropriate in -team, I don't think it makes a huge difference [19:22] Ahh, I thought it was just NOTICES as thats the rfc for bots in that situation iirc [19:23] o/ [19:23] if a user is in -ops they will see the notice [19:23] jussi: well, the IRC RFC says that nothing should "react" to a NOTICE [19:23] unless it notices only +users [19:24] topyli: you got an opinion here? [19:24] IdleOne: I don't think so, at least for these notices, as is just about bans ocurring in a public channels [19:24] put the notices in -ops-team and problem solved [19:24] i do have an opinion. let's have ubottu nag in -ops-team. it's not noise, it's relevant [19:25] tsimpson: shall we vote? Unless anyone wants to make a case against it? [19:26] I'm tired of making a case against it [19:26] the bot already pm's us [19:26] now it has to message us in a channel [19:26] well it can't /msg the floodbots now can it? [19:26] not about the floodbot bans/mutes it doesn't [19:26] ikonia: the bot doesn't pm anyone when flootbots own the ban [19:27] then stop the floodbots banning [19:27] or make them clean up [19:27] fed up of getting pm's from ubottu, now it's going to notice me in the channel [19:28] [vote] have ubottu nag -ops-team about floodbot bans/quiets [19:28] Please vote on: have ubottu nag -ops-team about floodbot bans/quiets. [19:28] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [19:28] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [19:28] taking care of your bans is part of the job [19:28] just house keep the bans as individuals on a regular basis, [19:28] topyli: yes, it is, getting hassled from the bot is not [19:28] Hrm, one solution may be to notice the -ops-monitor channel - then people who care get notices, others do not? [19:28] I'm "ok" with the pm's but in the channel is not good [19:28] +1 [19:28] +1 received from topyli. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [19:28] it used to message -ops and no-one liked it [19:28] jussi: if we get more people in -ops-monitor [19:28] so why are we doing this again [19:29] +1 [19:29] +1 received from CarlFK. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [19:29] CarlFK: please dont vote, only the ircc. [19:29] doh. [19:29] +1 [19:29] +1 received from tsimpson. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [19:30] we have had _many_ occasions of ban lists getting full or nearly full, the floodbots can't realistically manage it's own bans, that's the job of ops [19:30] So just to be clear the bot is going to /say in the channel and not /notice? [19:30] tsimpson: fully accept that [19:30] I don't need the bot to message the channel [19:30] i do [19:30] does no-one remember when it messaged -ops ? and you ended up disabling it was annoying [19:31] IdleOne: all nags, when send to a channel, are NOTICES. [19:31] thing is that it is easy to forget/ignore the bans that floodbot's set [19:31] sending a notice to the channel won't change that [19:31] as I said, it was done before and we disabled it [19:31] something we can take note for the bantracker rewrite, instead of pm ops (or use a less annnoyin pm), keep a list of uncommented bans/quiets/removes, list that the op can review and make the comments. [19:31] what's changed to make it not annoying now ? [19:31] so how about we just try it out in -ops-team, and see how things are at the next meeting? [19:32] we've tried it before [19:32] tsimpson: If thats included, ok [19:32] it failed [19:32] so we need an effective way of getting those bans removed to not clog up the ban list [19:32] IdleOne: no disagreememnt at all [19:32] +1 (with the review in 2 weeks) [19:32] +1 received from jussi. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4 [19:32] ikonia: ok, well the bots can't do it themselves and we are not doing it enough, reminders are needed [19:33] [endvote] [19:33] Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4 [19:33] IdleOne: I'll state it once more for the record then drop it, jussi enabled this before, and we disabled it because it was worthless and annoying [19:33] nothing has changed to make it less annoying, so I don't know why we are re-covering this [19:33] it's needed. live with it [19:34] no [19:34] [topic] Take "Define ubuntu namespace limits" to the mailing list. (topyli) (review) [19:34] New Topic: Take "Define ubuntu namespace limits" to the mailing list. (topyli) (review) [19:34] Just a clarification, this is only the week nag? or the nag on ban/remove/quiet [19:34] jussi: should only be "old" bans/quiets iirc [19:35] tsimpson: ok, thats what I was hoping to hear [19:35] (the issue before was it was nagging on every quiet and ban, when it happened) [19:35] m4v: is it ^ isn't it? [19:35] anyway, over to you topyli [19:35] * tsimpson has a foggy mind [19:36] oh that is not done [19:36] jussi: I disagree, but I'm told "live with it" so it's of no-point discussing it [19:36] iirc. if i did send mail, there's been no discussion. need to check [19:36] if it's on ban/quiet, we won't do it [19:37] ah i sent the mail but there's been no feedback [19:37] there were 3 replies, then it died [19:38] hrm. my search also fails [19:39] [topc] Add eir to #ubuntu (review) [19:39] (this is mine) [19:39] the plugin is pretty much ready, just need to test (in real channels) before going live [19:39] So, no info on the namespace linits? [19:39] this is being setup [19:39] IdleOne: feel free to restart the ML thread :) [19:39] also tsimpson you missed an i in [topic] [19:40] gerr [19:40] [topic] Add eir to #ubuntu (review) [19:40] New Topic: Add eir to #ubuntu (review) [19:40] so to summarise, testing over the next day or so, then hopefully we can get under way [19:40] wonderful [19:41] [topic] new bugs [19:41] New Topic: new bugs [19:41] So testing, then what happens - it goes into -ops-team and #ubuntu? [19:41] (running through as quick as I can) [19:41] jussi: if all is well, yep [19:41] it'll be a part of ubottu [19:42] I did file this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/788503 [19:42] Ubuntu bug 788503 in ubuntu-community "IRC Guidelines too #ubuntu centric" [Undecided,New] [19:42] we do have a new bug, the guidelines translation issue [19:42] ahh, this is important imho. [19:42] it has had some response so far, but I'd like more people to look at it too [19:43] to be clear, this one isn't about changing any policy/rules, but making the wording/content less specific to the #ubuntu channel [19:43] I think the guidelines are fine, any LoCo channels who want to modify can create a new wiki with the amendments they like. [19:43] I think this just needsw continued work - there isnt anything overly contentious here by the look of it [19:44] IdleOne: but, I really don't think starting the rules for all core channels with "The #ubuntu IRC channel..." [19:44] + is good [19:44] it's not just #ubuntu, we have other channels too [19:44] we might want to make it clear that translations need not be literal, as long as the message is the same [19:44] ok so we can change that part to "The Ubuntu IRC Core channels... [19:45] also, as it's linked to from the TOS, which we want heavily translated, it should be as easy to translate as possible [19:45] tsimpson: yes it might be a good time to review the language now that it's a hot topic [19:45] tsimpson: sorry, I had to leave for a while. I think we might have a issue there, I believe you can't have nags about week old bans/mutes without the nag about the comment setting a comment. But I think is fixable, I'll look. [19:45] m4v: thanks. ++ [19:45] if, as a side-effect, that allows locos to use it, all the better [19:46] m4v: ok, we'll just hold off until we get it working [19:46] IdleOne: making a new wiki with the o channels who want to modify can [19:46] ops [19:47] Consider this my pro-forma objection that the IRC Council owns anything in the Kubuntu namespace. AFAIK you all are invited guests to help out with OPS, but they aren't IRCC controlled channels. [19:47] I've covered the first item on the agenda, so we'll go on to the second [19:47] [topic] Policy on extra-namespace trolling [19:47] New Topic: Policy on extra-namespace trolling [19:47] [link] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-April/001289.html [19:47] LINK received: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-April/001289.html [19:47] IdleOne: I mean, it consumes everyones time, when basically all you do is change the wording for the same rules. [19:48] nhandler says: For the policy item, I agree in principle, but don't like the idea of including every possible rule in the guidelines. I think this is probably covered by the existing rules we have in place. [19:48] I disagree, I think this is important to insert. [19:49] ljl's idea does duplicate some freenode policy, but i think it does fit in our guidelines and is more useful than expensive [19:49] what does freenode have in it's policy pages about it? [19:49] IdleOne: I *was* going to write our own rules for u-es, but then I thought, gee, every channel out there would need to do this. Why are these rules worded like this, it would be simpler if it was the same for everyone. [19:49] can we just link and say "follow freenode policy"? [19:49] I like "follow fn..." [19:50] m4v: I suppose you are right, making the guidelines a little more generic could be useful to the greater ubuntu community [19:50] because I see the point nhandler is trying to make there, but I also see why we would want to have something like that in the rules (as long as it's not duplication) [19:51] I proposed an example for a translated guidelines, dunno if somebody looked at it. [19:51] err [19:51] tsimpson: are you suggesting we need something more restrictive than the freenode policy? [19:51] not "translated", "reworded" [19:52] CarlFK: no, I'm asking if it's already written in fn policy, if it is we can just say "follow freenode policy...". if not, we should write it down [19:52] actually the best thing i can find in freenode policy quickly is that they don't tolearate incitement of racial or religious hatred, "or any other behaviour meant to deliberately bring upon a person harassment, alarm or distress." [19:52] http://freenode.net/policy.shtml#offtopic [19:52] LINK received: http://freenode.net/policy.shtml#offtopic [19:53] or any other behaviour meant to deliberately bring upon a person harassment, alarm or distress. We do NOT tolerate discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual preference or other lifestyle choices and run with a zero-tolerance policy for libel and defamation. [19:53] That pretty much covers it, no ? [19:54] in legalese it does :) [19:54] perhaps fn policy could be a little more explicit though [19:54] agreed [19:54] but that's something we can talk to them about [19:54] Yeah, I think maybe for now its useful for us to add it, until freenode become more explicit? [19:55] I'd go along with that [19:55] it doesn't hurt to mention it in our guidelines anyway [19:55] vote? [19:55] we all know fn doesn't tolerate troll-pits, they just need to actually say so :) [19:55] I don't think adding text about this will change anyones behavior. It is handy for ops to have text they can reference when explaining to a user what is/isn't appropriate. [19:56] CarlFK: same can be said for any of the rules, but we still have them ;) [19:56] that can be said of the entire document [19:56] heh [19:57] we point people to the guidelines when they break rules, so they know what is/isn't acceptable, we don't want them to come back with "oh, but you didn't say I couldn't ...". we also don't want to have to write every little thing down either.. [19:58] [vote] Amend the guidelines in reference to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-April/001289.html [19:58] Please vote on: Amend the guidelines in reference to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-April/001289.html. [19:58] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [19:58] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [19:58] +1 [19:58] +1 received from jussi. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [19:58] +1 [19:58] +1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [19:58] +1 [19:58] +1 received from tsimpson. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [19:58] #endvote [19:58] [endvote] [19:58] Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3 [19:58] +1 for what it is worth [19:58] so who want's it? [19:59] i can take ljl's suggestion and try to translate it from legal to english [19:59] tsimpson: isn;t the coc have things not covered by fn policy? [19:59] ok [19:59] he's pretty much there [19:59] meh, too late, never mind. [19:59] [action] topyli to update the IRC Guidelines (until freenode policy includes it) [19:59] ACTION received: topyli to update the IRC Guidelines (until freenode policy includes it) [20:00] CarlFK: we have extra rules in addition to fn policy, but we think that this one is probably best in fn policy rather than in our policy [20:00] and we have covered the last item on the agenda too [20:00] tsimpson: that's what I was say-n :) [20:00] topyli: I filled an IRC Guidelines example in the bug report if helps. [20:01] m4v: grand, i'll have a look. thanks a lot [20:01] oh i even remember it [20:01] we should probably say this here too for those who don't know; [20:01] though I'm not sure anymore if we're talking about the same topic, got confused when I was away. [20:02] we have changed the time for the Saturday meetings to 11:00 UTC [20:02] m4v: not completely the same :) [20:02] topyli: ha I figured ;) [20:02] so any other business not covered? [20:03] if I may [20:03] go for it [20:03] Just a reminder to all that our next meeting time Has moved [20:03] jussi: I just said that ;) [20:03] jussi: tsimpson just... yeah :) [20:03] oh bah [20:03] I would like the IRCC to consider giving +o access to -ops to ikonia rww bazhang and perhaps a couple others by bypassing the application process in possible [20:04] s/in/if [20:04] They have been trusted members of the team long enough IMHO [20:04] oh it's true that more ops should have ops in -ops [20:04] what I don't understand is, when we opened the applications, we only had a couple of applicants [20:04] no-one just bothers to apply [20:05] it could be that the application process (for -ops) is a little too formal? [20:05] tsimpson: some of them are not keen on applying for something they cleary should already have. I tend to agree with them on this. [20:05] it's not hard to click a button on launchpad. the rest of the process can be quick because the applicants are (hopefully) well known [20:06] topyli: well, applicants to -ops must already be an op in one or more core channels [20:06] topyli: it's not that it is hard it's that it is hmm belittling (not sure that is the right word) but they don't feel they should have to apply and I agree. [20:06] Perhaps we can have a simple no need for application call for -ops, just simple approve/decline process? [20:06] tsimpson: indeed, so we don't need to go through the same scrutiny [20:06] jussi: just the "join the launchpad team" part [20:07] I'm thinking we make a very simple rule on who can and can't be an op in -ops [20:07] rather than having people apply at all, I mean [20:07] tsimpson: like? [20:07] jussi: that's the part I haven't really thought of ;) [20:07] heh [20:07] looks! [20:07] I think 6 months as a core op without major issue is a fair rule to get _o in -ops [20:07] maybe if you've been an (active) op for X amount of time, you get +o in -ops? [20:07] well, shouldn't someone have to do the click to get person to be member of the group in launchpad? [20:07] err +o [20:08] hrm, perhaps action yourself to come up with a proposaal for next meeting? [20:08] Tm_T: yes they should [20:08] And there may be some who dont feel ready or dont want the responsibility in there [20:08] hence i don't see why interested people won't click the "join group" button [20:08] I don't see how applying to be a group/team member is any reason to avoid doing it [20:08] jussi: those who don't want it don't have to use the +o [20:09] or can request it be removed [20:09] i'd rather see people who are not interested simply not join the launchpad team [20:09] Im all for the $time as a core op with out major issue, then you can apply and be approved. [20:09] imo it usurps the ops authority in other channels when they can't remove a problem user from -ops [20:10] IdleOne: that might be true [20:10] IdleOne: that's how -ops has been for a very, very, long time. not that it's how it should be, but that's how it is [20:10] if there isn't anyone around to do it it gives the problem user free rein to continue abusing [20:11] and -ops is a little special, as it can be _very_ tempting to abuse your +o in there [20:11] tsimpson: lots of things are "how it's been" time to fix some of them :) [20:11] especially in heated situations [20:11] the thing with ops is that most of the time there is a problem [20:12] "if you're involved and there's other ops around, let them do the action" as a guideline would help? [20:12] tsimpson: also why we are supposed to remove ourselves (back away) when we feel it getting personal [20:12] so you can't just remove people when there's a problem :) [20:12] catalysing is always the first step [20:12] but sometimes we just can't [20:13] even when other ops try to help [20:13] if you are getting worked up, take a break [20:13] even when it's in -ops [20:13] it is true that sometimes trolls just aren't removed when they should be [20:13] obviously you're the one who has to be convinced that isn't going to continue to cause an issue in [20:13] tsimpson: agreed but not being able to take appropriate action can be what is causing some ops to get worked up. [20:14] and if things are getting bad in -ops, it's unlikely that process is going well [20:14] right, so how can we resolve this? does anyone have an issue with: [29-May-11 22:09:36] Im all for the $time as a core op with out major issue, then you can apply and be approved. [20:14] I am +1 with that jussi [20:14] "IdleOne: if there isn't anyone around to do it it gives the problem user free rein to continue abusing" - if no one is around, can abuse happen? (tree falls in woods...) [20:14] jussi: I think that's reasonable [20:15] it's a good proposal. those not interested simply won't apply [20:15] CarlFK: so we should just let the log readers have their fun in -ops? [20:15] So what will be the $time? 6 months? [20:15] IdleOne: doesn't bother me. [20:15] CarlFK: bothers me some. [20:16] we don't allow trolling in other channels why should we just let it happen in -ops [20:16] CarlFK: the issue is that there might be other ops trying to resolve an issue with a user. but since they don't have ops in -ops, they can't remove the distraction [20:16] jussi: I think that is fair and it should be auto for current ops with 6+ months under their belt [20:16] topyli: that's a problem. [20:17] jussi: 6/12 months, pick your favourite [20:17] those ops who don't want the flag can just poke one of the IRCC to remove it [20:18] even if we make it 12 months, we'll get a good number of new ops and the situation improves immediately [20:18] Well 12 might be better, as then people have had a good amount of time to settle, learn the ropesetc. but Im not terribly against 6. [20:18] those who want to have the flag, can go and click the "join team" in launchpad themselves [20:18] I'd still want people to apply, it's just that it gets "automatic" approval [20:18] tsimpson: ++ [20:18] "apply" is really the wrong word there [20:18] "report for service" :) [20:18] ok we still need them to go click the button [20:18] IdleOne: personally I would rather let the troll burn up there time in an empty -ops than somewhere else. (empty taking into account people there that would be disturbed) [20:19] Shall we vote then? [20:19] IdleOne: ye, it's either the op or IRCC clicking the button, I don't see why IRCC should do the work for them/us [20:19] jussi: 6 or 12? [20:19] IdleOne: otherwise the other half will have to go and click "leave this group". what's the difference? [20:19] tsimpson: Id say 12. [20:19] +1 for 12 [20:19] topyli: 6/12? [20:19] topyli> even if we make it 12 months, we'll get a good number of new ops and the situation improves immediately [20:20] [vote] Allow "automatic" approval of +o in #ubuntu-ops after 12 months [20:20] Please vote on: Allow "automatic" approval of +o in #ubuntu-ops after 12 months. [20:20] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [20:20] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [20:20] so i say 12 [20:20] +1 [20:20] +1 received from tsimpson. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [20:20] +1 [20:20] +1 received from jussi. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [20:20] +1 [20:20] +1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [20:20] [endvote] [20:20] Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3 [20:20] [agreed] "automatic" approval of +o in #ubuntu-ops after 12 months [20:20] AGREED received: "automatic" approval of +o in #ubuntu-ops after 12 months [20:20] We need to write this down somewhere. [20:20] Thank you IRCC [20:20] :) [20:21] so, if anyone wants ops, https://launchpad.net/~irc-ubuntu-ops-ops [20:21] where the rest of the application process is. we'll add a little section about the special procedure for -ops [20:22] I can put something down on the op requirements page [20:22] thanks [20:22] [action] tsimpson to edit the operator requirements wiki page regarding auto +o in #ubuntu-ops [20:22] ACTION received: tsimpson to edit the operator requirements wiki page regarding auto +o in #ubuntu-ops [20:23] any other other business? [20:23] :) [20:23] Im ok here :=) [20:24] i'm in the middle of disaster here, but that's not for this meeting :) [20:24] [action] tsimpson to do post-meetings tasks [20:24] ACTION received: tsimpson to do post-meetings tasks [20:24] #endmeeting [20:24] Meeting finished at 14:24. [20:24] thank you all :) === yofel_ is now known as yofel === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan [20:57] hey all [20:57]