15:07:29 <suseROCKs> #startmeeting  openSUSE Conference Program Committee
15:07:29 <bugbot> Meeting started Wed Jul 20 15:07:29 2011 UTC.  The chair is suseROCKs. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:07:29 <bugbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:07:42 <suseROCKs> Who on CFP is present?
15:08:34 <AlanClark> hope more than just me and suseROCKS
15:08:39 * vuntz is here
15:08:39 <suseROCKs> AlanClark,  dragotin  vuntz
15:08:40 <dragotin> me
15:08:52 <suseROCKs> jos does not seem to be here  nor yaloki
15:09:01 <suseROCKs> but I think we have enough people now  :-)
15:09:11 <AlanClark> yes let's push forward
15:09:30 <AlanClark> Agenda:
15:09:30 <suseROCKs> Before we go forward, quick question....   Has someone made sure all the "mailed" proposals are recorded in Indico?
15:09:49 <suseROCKs> #chair AlanClark dragotin vuntz
15:09:49 <bugbot> Current chairs: AlanClark dragotin suseROCKs vuntz
15:10:07 <AlanClark> I and Jos have tried to catch those that mail to cfp and direct them to indigo
15:10:32 <AlanClark> I know of 3 that are discussing, but haven't submitted cfp's yet
15:10:38 <suseROCKs> AlanClark,  and you're fairly certain we have caught them all?
15:10:52 <AlanClark> I hope so
15:10:57 <suseROCKs> ok
15:11:07 <suseROCKs> AlanClark,  you have the floor and agenda then  :-)
15:11:40 <AlanClark> Here's what I propose for the Agenda. (By the way I'd like to make this a fast meeting)
15:11:53 <AlanClark> 1. The process to complete the review of session proposals
15:12:06 <AlanClark> 2. Identify where we still have some holes in CFPs
15:12:20 <AlanClark> 3. Keynotes
15:12:24 <AlanClark> 4. BoFs
15:12:44 <henne> also there is a list of tasks for you guys here:
15:13:03 <henne> http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Conference_todo_list#Program
15:13:17 <suseROCKs> Thank you henne
15:13:23 <AlanClark> thanks, henne
15:13:35 <AlanClark> anything to add to the agenda?
15:13:48 <dragotin> AlanClark: I think we can not do 2. properly
15:13:59 <suseROCKs> I guess the "tasks discussion" would be concurrent with all the agenda items
15:14:02 <dragotin> because I guess most of us havent screened yet
15:14:09 <dragotin> but we can try
15:14:17 <dragotin> good agenda IMO
15:14:29 <suseROCKs> dragotin,    I sent an email to CFP that kind o helped categorize where we are.    Hav eyou seen it?
15:14:44 <suseROCKs> and I included my thoughts on "holes" as they exist
15:15:00 <dragotin> suseROCKs: seen yes, but not gone through in detail
15:15:29 <suseROCKs> ok let's move on to topic 1.   This is critical
15:15:33 <AlanClark> let's save that for #2.  Let's start with 31
15:15:40 <AlanClark> start with #1
15:16:09 <dragotin> I send a proposal around which hopefully works out utilizing Indico
15:16:20 <dragotin> have you guys seen/read it?
15:17:01 <AlanClark> yes - I liked it and would propose that we follow it; adding a timetable
15:17:05 <vuntz> simple process, works for me
15:17:05 <suseROCKs> dragotin,   yes.    What's unclear to me is  the process of voting.
15:17:31 <suseROCKs> I mean we can easily go through and "like/dislike" but then we need a process for which ones we like that will actually make it.
15:18:00 <suseROCKs> Actually, let's clear up one thing...  How many sessions do we have?
15:18:12 <dragotin> suseROCKs: well, the one with the most dislikes do not make it
15:18:15 <dragotin> IMO
15:18:51 <suseROCKs> yes that part is obvious  :-)  Its the likes I'm concerned with.   And number of sessions impacts number of likes to be accepted.
15:19:08 <suseROCKs> also, some sessions will not be standard 1-hour  (e.g. workshops or hacksessions)
15:19:35 <suseROCKs> but if we can get a ballpark figure, that would help our process immensely
15:20:13 <dragotin> I dont understand the "ballpark figure"
15:20:23 <dragotin> suseROCKs: can you explain?
15:20:38 <suseROCKs> ballpark figure  (I guess this is an American phrase)  means rough estimate
15:20:47 <AlanClark> To estimate low, I would say 3 rooms * 4 days * 6 sessions/room/day =  72
15:21:17 <dragotin> oh sure, we need the overall amount of possible sessions first
15:21:23 <AlanClark> so let's figure about 70 - that gives room for BoFs, Keynotes, Breaks, etc....
15:21:50 <suseROCKs> we had 70 last year  right?
15:22:06 <dragotin> last year we had 64 I believe, without BOFs
15:22:09 <suseROCKs> though many of the critical sessions were too short imo because we crammed so much into short time
15:22:36 <dragotin> or not completely without BOFs but lots of BOFs came in later
15:22:39 <dragotin> during the conf
15:22:53 <AlanClark> we have 4 rooms + main room
15:23:08 <suseROCKs> oh.  thought 4 rooms included the main room.
15:23:16 <suseROCKs> Is the ballroom also available during the day for sessions?
15:23:25 <dragotin> sure
15:23:31 <suseROCKs> so that's 6 rooms
15:23:41 * suseROCKs whistles... we can do a lot with that!
15:23:53 <dragotin> well, me counts 5
15:23:58 <AlanClark> 5 - ballroom = mainroom
15:23:58 <dragotin> but I might be wrong ;-)
15:24:33 <micha> (sorry, I missed the time)
15:24:34 <AlanClark> for today let's go with a target of 70 sessions.
15:24:46 <suseROCKs> dragotin,   4 regular rooms, 1 main room, 1 ball room.  Right?  Or am I reading wrong?
15:25:19 <dragotin> one moment
15:25:34 <dragotin> micha: nice that you made it :-)
15:25:34 <suseROCKs> AlanClark,   +1  although I request that we do not assume all sessions are just one hour.  Important to keep that flexibility open here
15:25:49 <dragotin> gents, micha is the suse labs man in the program committee
15:25:57 <suseROCKs> Hi micha   Nice to meet you!
15:26:01 <micha> anything of interest discussed up to now?
15:26:15 <suseROCKs> micha,   not really.  We're just trying to figure out actual room numbers  :-)
15:26:30 <dragotin> ok, we have:
15:26:44 <dragotin> the zentrifuge (main room)
15:26:47 * vuntz is grabbing food while everybody counts ;-)
15:27:01 <dragotin> - two rooms with 95 squaremeters
15:27:19 <dragotin> - one room with 321 sm
15:27:31 <dragotin> - one room wiht 144 sm
15:27:48 <dragotin> that makes four seminar rooms and the main hall
15:27:57 <dragotin> while the one with 321 sm is fairly huge
15:28:52 <suseROCKs> ok so that's 5 rooms
15:28:55 <dragotin> I would propose: We plan the main room, the Ballsaal (with 321 sm) and the two 100 sm rooms for the regular schedule
15:29:03 <dragotin> that makes four stages
15:29:27 <suseROCKs> ohhhh  I see
15:29:31 <dragotin> and we use the 5th room for spontanous BOFs etc.
15:29:37 <suseROCKs> +1
15:29:53 <dragotin> four tracks in parallel is quite a lot anyway IMO
15:29:55 <AlanClark> dont' we need the 5th room for a speaker room?
15:30:16 <suseROCKs> AlanClark,   No  they'll use some other room  (a small room) or even the beergarden
15:30:17 <dragotin> AlanClark: also possible, but what is the speaker room for?
15:30:42 <suseROCKs> dragotin,   A speaker room is used for speakers to relax, decompress, review their presentations and get away from the crowd
15:30:48 <suseROCKs> quite standard at most conferences
15:30:53 <dragotin> suseROCKs: yes, I see
15:31:05 <dragotin> yes, I would second the idea to use the 5th one for that
15:31:22 <dragotin> what is your opinion on the number of tracks in parallel ?
15:31:28 <suseROCKs> according to the discussion in previous meeting, we can use a room other than these set rooms
15:31:41 <suseROCKs> henne proposed to use the beergarden area in the daytime for the speaker room
15:31:44 <micha> four tracks is much
15:31:45 <dragotin> last year we had three main tracks in parallel
15:31:45 <dragotin> micha: I agree
15:32:08 <AlanClark> I'm thinking 4 track is to much
15:32:08 <suseROCKs> tracks and rooms are not the same IMO
15:32:16 <AlanClark> for the size of our audience
15:32:26 <suseROCKs> we had MORE than 4 rooms last year, didn't we?    We used rooms in the other building
15:32:27 <vuntz> how many people do we expect to attend?
15:32:32 <AlanClark> ok - 4 sessions at the same time is to many
15:32:34 <dragotin> ok, so is that a decision that we will go for three tracks in parallel?
15:32:38 <suseROCKs> vuntz,   500 expected, 45 registered so far  :-)
15:32:58 <vuntz> if we really expect 500, I don't think 4 is too much
15:33:02 <suseROCKs> "too many" is relevant to how many expecting.
15:33:04 <suseROCKs> right vuntz
15:33:17 <dragotin> so lets go for three.
15:33:32 <AlanClark> let's plan 3 tracks plus BoFs
15:33:37 <suseROCKs> but again, its quality, not quantity that counts.     Let's not have sessions just for the sake of sessions.
15:33:39 <dragotin> with two tracks with talks and one with BoFs
15:33:43 <suseROCKs> This is RWX after all
15:33:53 <dragotin> AlanClark: oh ;_)
15:33:57 <suseROCKs> guys
15:34:12 <AlanClark> funny ;-)
15:34:14 <suseROCKs> we're assuming stuff without a cursory glance at what we have thus far.      We're putting the cart before the horse here
15:34:51 <dragotin> suseROCKs: I don't really agree, but ok: Lets aim for three tracks, I think that is common ground
15:35:12 <suseROCKs> ok   + BoFs or including BoFs?
15:35:54 <dragotin> lets decide that when we have an idea how many good abstracts we have
15:35:56 <AlanClark> +1 dragotin; for today's purpose let's go with 3 tracks + a room for BoFs
15:35:59 <suseROCKs> good
15:36:09 <dragotin> ok
15:36:17 <AlanClark> ok - back to the original question
15:36:22 <micha> We have 91 submissions up to now, 22 BoFs, 15 workshop, rest Talks.
15:36:39 <suseROCKs> take off about 5 as there were duplicates
15:36:53 <dragotin> thats roughly 1.5 times as much as we had last year
15:37:10 <suseROCKs> Also some were listed as "hacksessions"
15:37:13 <micha> 3 sessions a 4 days, let's say 7 1 hour slots per day, are 84 hour slots.
15:37:19 <dragotin> and I haven't submitted my 12 yet ;-)
15:37:30 <suseROCKs> holy crap.  7 sessions in one day?    :-)
15:37:44 <micha> three before noon, four after.
15:37:55 <dragotin> but please, lets stay with the agenda
15:38:04 <dragotin> lets discuss the voting process
15:38:05 <suseROCKs> yes  you're right dragotin
15:38:06 <micha> That's hour slots, not necessarily sessions, as BoFs/workshops may quite possibly need longer.
15:38:13 <dragotin> did somebody read my mail to cfp?
15:38:25 <dragotin> about the process?
15:38:34 <vuntz> fwiw, with 50 talks and 22 BoFs, 3 rooms for talks & 1 for BoFs sounds weird
15:38:34 <AlanClark> yes
15:38:54 <dragotin> can we agree on that?
15:38:57 <micha> dragotin: I think the process was sensible.
15:39:06 <dragotin> does anybody have questions about?
15:39:07 <vuntz> dragotin: I thought we agreed on the process earlier in the meeting? :-)
15:39:17 <suseROCKs> I thought so too  :-)
15:39:17 <dragotin> vuntz: yes, you thought ;-)
15:39:21 <dragotin> ok, fine.
15:39:32 <dragotin> so we have the agenda item finished
15:39:36 <micha> dragotin: Are the propose to accept/reject counted somewhere?
15:39:59 <AlanClark> ok let's move on to agenda item #2
15:40:10 <dragotin> micha: well, at every abstract you see the list of who has proposed to accept/reject
15:40:19 <dragotin> micha: in indico
15:40:27 <dragotin> AlanClark: wait pls
15:40:33 <dragotin> what is the timeline?
15:40:45 <micha> dragotin: Yeah, I more though about in the overview list, so that one can quickly see how many rejects/accepts it had.
15:41:09 <dragotin> when do we plan the meeting where we finally decide about which we accept/reject?
15:41:13 <suseROCKs> dragotin,    ok so for timeline, we are firm that CFP closes this weekend, correct?    We should complete first pass-through of voting by end of next week then
15:41:18 <dragotin> micha: I am not sure honestly.
15:41:29 <micha> dragotin: Okay, doesn't matter much.
15:41:43 <micha> The CFP should close next monday, right?
15:41:53 <suseROCKs> after that, once we have gotten the rejections out of the way, then we need to determine number of slots truly available and decide which of the "likes" we can put in
15:41:53 <dragotin> suseROCKs: end of next week: +1
15:42:06 <vuntz> +1 for end of next week for first round of votes
15:42:15 <dragotin> suseROCKs: that would make our finally decision meeting on monday, august 1st for example
15:42:24 <micha> In any case, end of next week (meaning Friday or Sunday?) seems sensible.
15:42:25 <dragotin> does that sound cool?
15:42:28 <suseROCKs> So, if we work hard,  we can be done by Aug 5th
15:43:21 <AlanClark> so individual reviews are to be completed by July 29, next CFP meeting August 1st?
15:43:22 <suseROCKs> dragotin,   we should have a meeting on Aug 1 sure,  and hopefully we actually get done, but give us little room and assume unexpected with a hard finish by Aug 5th
15:43:29 <dragotin> AlanClark: +1
15:43:36 <dragotin> ok
15:43:55 <dragotin> so everybody on the committee has to do his indiv. voting by monday, august 1st
15:44:15 <dragotin> just that we're clear about that
15:44:23 <micha> Right.  Earlier of course is better :)
15:44:27 <dragotin> yes
15:44:28 <suseROCKs> Can I get some clarification about SUSE Labs tracks?   Do we vote on those?  or does SUSE Labs get to decide their own track?
15:44:48 <dragotin> There is AFAIK no such thing like a Labs Track
15:44:54 <suseROCKs> a large number of these sessions are led by SUSE Labs folks
15:45:05 <micha> We vote on all proposals based on their merit.
15:45:11 <suseROCKs> dragotin,   well that's what I want clarificaton on as past SUSE Labs was separate and private
15:45:25 <AlanClark> We do need to reserve some session space for the Labs
15:45:31 <suseROCKs> so this year SUSE Labs is wide open to the public.  Correct?
15:45:34 <micha> Yeah, but not much.
15:45:38 <micha> suseROCKs: Yes.
15:45:55 * dragotin hugs micha
15:45:59 <suseROCKs> That's newsworthy and we should use that as an important promotion for marketing
15:46:08 <AlanClark> let's make sure that those are entered into indigo - even if they are simply entered as place holders
15:46:10 <dragotin> suseROCKs: absolutely
15:46:32 <AlanClark> read - the sponsors brochure - in there we state that there are closed sessions
15:46:49 <micha> Though, I'll say that if too many of the Labs talks are rejected I'd force you to accept a separate Labs track for all those that interest me :)
15:46:54 <dragotin> AlanClark: yes, I complained about that two weeks ago I think ;-)
15:47:01 <suseROCKs> :-)
15:47:22 <suseROCKs> ok let's discuss the SUSE Labs stuff on Aug 1 after we have done the first voting round
15:47:28 <dragotin> I do not expect that we will come into the situation that we will reject too much labs tracks
15:47:42 <micha> Me neither.
15:47:43 <dragotin> that *could* happen but wont probably
15:48:02 <dragotin> ok, so bottomline:
15:48:07 <suseROCKs> dragotin,   shouldn't we be asking micha for a bribe first before making such implied promises?  :-)
15:48:13 <dragotin> everybody does his voting by august 1st
15:48:14 <micha> And I agree about discussing the setup of the labs talks once we've decided about acceptance and we are going to setup the schedule.
15:48:57 <dragotin> I mean, we will surely end up with tracks called Kernel, basesystem whatever, that is Labs
15:49:23 <micha> Generally I want to see them just included in the regular programme, not into some labs track.  We might have to reserve some slots for labs-only stuff, but I don't think the proposals submitted until now would be included therein.
15:49:30 <dragotin> And, AlanClark, if Labs people need private space to discuss something, we could use the 5th room as well
15:49:48 <AlanClark> guys, we've got to move on, I'm running out of time
15:49:52 <dragotin> k
15:50:02 <vuntz> just one quick question about the review process (after a test)
15:50:03 <dragotin> next agenda item?
15:50:19 <vuntz> when I click "propose to accept", I can choose a track; do we care about that?
15:50:29 <vuntz> if yes, what to do when there is no track in the combo box?
15:50:35 <dragotin> yes, tracks are important
15:50:45 <dragotin> than we have to add these
15:50:56 <vuntz> it seems we can only choose tracks that were suggested by the speaker
15:51:07 <dragotin> hmm, haven't investigated into that enough yet
15:51:15 <vuntz> ok, let's look at that after the meeting
15:51:16 <dragotin> vuntz: lets try to sort that offline, ok?
15:52:00 <dragotin> 2. Identify where we still have some holes in CFPs
15:52:06 <AlanClark> Ok - the action item for all cfp members is to review all the proposed sessions by August 1; marking each with a proposed accept or proposed reject"
15:52:27 <dragotin> I still feel we can not do 2. now properly
15:52:42 <AlanClark> I don't propose that we we try to tackle that today
15:52:52 <AlanClark> simply make an action that we begin to propose
15:53:00 <AlanClark> ideas over mail
15:53:07 <dragotin> and I feel, given that its not much time any more and we have >90 abstract, we simply DO NOT have wholes
15:53:18 <dragotin> yes, or ideas on the cfp list.
15:53:23 <suseROCKs> please refer to my email about thoughts on what we are missing so we can go ahead offline and ping people to propose those topics before the deadline
15:53:31 <dragotin> ok
15:53:37 <AlanClark> ok
15:53:50 <dragotin> next topic: 3. Keynotes
15:53:57 <dragotin> we have two Keynotes AFAIK:
15:53:58 <suseROCKs> I think we do have holes, but again, look at my email offline to think about it.  Doesn't need to be discussed here and now
15:54:05 <dragotin> - Greg KH about Linux 3.0
15:54:15 <dragotin> - Michael Miller about the new suse
15:54:30 <dragotin> and a third one could be Aaron Seigo about ...
15:54:43 <dragotin> ... nothing KDE- but community specific
15:54:45 <suseROCKs> One keynote per day?
15:54:59 <dragotin> suseROCKs: if we have enough, why not?
15:55:10 <suseROCKs> ok so 4 keynotes
15:55:18 <AlanClark> we have had several proposed
15:55:22 <vuntz> did anything happen with the mozilla one?
15:55:24 <AlanClark> stormy was also proposed
15:55:24 <dragotin> and we had the idea of getting somebody from Mozilla talking about the value of freedom
15:55:42 <AlanClark> I think that we should go with those 4
15:55:43 <dragotin> vuntz: YOU are asked to contact stormy, but I did not tell you :-(
15:55:45 <dragotin> sorry
15:55:47 <dragotin> forgot that
15:55:54 <suseROCKs> we also need one keynote that is an overview of openSUSE,  what's coming up in 12.1, where we are at as a community, bla bla bla
15:55:56 <vuntz> sure, no issue
15:56:06 * vuntz starts a mail
15:56:23 <dragotin> suseROCKs: or an opening session?
15:56:36 <suseROCKs> sure,  same thing in my book  :-)
15:56:56 <suseROCKs> there will be journalists there and they are there to find out what's awesome about openSUSE.     So one keynote needs to cover openSUSE
15:57:14 <dragotin> an opening session with reflection fo the openSUSE community and introduction of the Labs and the new combined conference
15:57:25 <dragotin> for example
15:57:54 <suseROCKs> yes  that's exactly what I am thinking
15:57:59 <AlanClark> I like the idea of an opening session
15:58:40 <suseROCKs> Should we ask Jos to lead this one?
15:59:22 <dragotin> +1 for asking him to do it together with a Labs guy
15:59:41 <micha> can't hurt, yes.
16:00:03 <suseROCKs> quick question.    will Labs topics also be covered in Michael Miller's keynote?   Or is there enough material that theere won't be overlap?
16:00:12 <vuntz> +1 (but I'd like the session to talk about what's after 12.1 too, so that it's of interest to more people :-))
16:00:15 <micha> (I'll note that I find four keynotes a bit over-the-top, though)
16:00:35 <vuntz> I'm not sure we need a keynote on the first day if we have an opening session
16:00:45 <dragotin> yes, thats true
16:00:46 <AlanClark> I think for is fine if we keep them to 30 minutes
16:00:56 <AlanClark> for=4
16:01:07 <suseROCKs> I consider opening session and keynote to be same in my book for the purposes of this discussion
16:01:19 <micha> Okay, that sounds reasonable.  I just don't want to "waste" four hours overall for pseudo-blah :)
16:01:25 <suseROCKs> Also, will we want a lightning talk at the end?
16:01:39 <dragotin> suseROCKs: submit it to Indico
16:01:55 <suseROCKs> dragotin,   do we want it?    Some find it useful, others don't.
16:02:21 <dragotin> suseROCKs: will come out through the voting, right?
16:02:36 <micha> We'll have to reserve a few slots with unknown topics anyway.  I.e. those that come up during the conference, and could result in lightning talks.
16:02:47 <suseROCKs> micha,   yes
16:02:48 <dragotin> micha: right
16:03:02 <dragotin> ok, that was keynotes
16:03:05 <suseROCKs> Flexibility is very important for our RWX theme
16:03:05 <dragotin> something to add?
16:03:21 <AlanClark> that's enough for today
16:03:24 <suseROCKs> Who will ping Jos for his keynote?   Want me to do it?
16:03:35 <AlanClark> suseROCKS I'll do it
16:03:37 <dragotin> suseROCKs: sure, cool
16:03:45 <dragotin> also cool
16:03:50 <suseROCKs> :-)
16:03:55 <AlanClark> actually - you and I will see him at the same time ;-)
16:04:06 <suseROCKs> that's what I was thinking  :-)
16:04:18 <dragotin> AlanClark: what are you guys doing?
16:04:34 <AlanClark> going to CLS
16:04:35 <suseROCKs> dragotin,   we're having a retreat in Tahiti
16:05:01 <AlanClark> oh - I thought it was hawaii
16:05:05 <dragotin> ok, last Agenda item is BOFs
16:05:17 <dragotin> do we want to handle that now?
16:05:21 <dragotin> what is it about?
16:05:27 <AlanClark> I put this on the list from the last meeting. I don't think we need to handle it now
16:05:33 <AlanClark> let's save this for next meeting
16:05:42 <dragotin> ok
16:05:44 <suseROCKs> dragotin,   last meeting was concerned with how we'll manage and advertise BoFs etc.
16:05:49 <micha> which is when?  1st Aug?
16:05:59 <suseROCKs> Frankly I think we're missing a bunch of BoF opportunities, like team meetings.
16:06:08 <dragotin> I'd say so, yes, 1st August
16:06:11 <suseROCKs> But if we remain flexible, we can allow many BoFs to be created onsite at the conference
16:06:27 <dragotin> yes, BOFs always have to be possible
16:06:31 <suseROCKs> e.g. team meeting BoFs are more likely to happen once people see who's actually present
16:06:33 <AlanClark> A question though - should we  come prepared at the next meeting with a draft layout of the program?  Would that help expidite the meeting?
16:06:54 <dragotin> AlanClark: yes, probably
16:07:03 <AlanClark> dragotin - does indigo help us draft a layout?
16:07:04 <suseROCKs> AlanClark,   meaning a map of the slots?
16:07:17 <dragotin> I volunteer to send a concrete proposal of the layout to the list beforehand
16:07:19 <vuntz> draft with specific talks allocated a specific time?
16:07:28 <vuntz> or draft as "schedule will look like that"?
16:07:42 <suseROCKs> I vote for the latter.   Makes it easier for us to fill in the blanks
16:07:53 <dragotin> suseROCKs: +1
16:08:01 <dragotin> I'll prepare that, ok?
16:08:08 <vuntz> cool
16:08:09 <suseROCKs> Thanks dragotin
16:08:09 <AlanClark> +1 dragotin
16:08:09 <dragotin> watch out for mail on cfp
16:08:24 <dragotin> thanks gentlemen
16:08:29 <AlanClark> dragotin - happy to help
16:08:30 <dragotin> that was a productive one I think
16:08:39 <dragotin> AlanClark: thanks
16:08:41 <suseROCKs> Very quick indeed  :-)
16:08:59 <dragotin> izabel also was quickly now ;-)
16:09:04 <AlanClark> great meeting all - thanks!  I have to run
16:09:06 <dragotin> ok, good night than.
16:09:13 <suseROCKs> #endmeeting