| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 10:05 | walterbender | #topic email list |
| 10:05 | cjb | ok, here's what I was able to come up with, don't know if anyone will like it :) |
| 10:05 | a) new list: slobs-members@. goes only to slobs. | |
| 10:06 | bernie | waves |
| 10:06 | walterbender | ciao bernardo |
| 10:06 | SeanDaly | hi bernie |
| 10:06 | walterbender | cjb: is there a b) ? |
| 10:06 | cjb | yes, moment |
| 10:07 | bernie | cjb: I have a counter-proposal: creating a teams@ list for all team leaders and slobs, and unsubscribing non-slobs from slobs@ |
| 10:08 | cjb | bernie: wait for me to finish, though. |
| 10:08 | walterbender | is waiting for part b |
| 10:08 | cjb | b) slobs@ becomes the proper list for SLOBS business. |
| 10:08 | .. SLOBS business includes questions from the community about policy .. | |
| 10:08 | walterbender | cjb: for adding agenda items... |
| 10:09 | cjb | yeah! |
| 10:09 | walterbender | an open list, presumably |
| 10:09 | seems orthogonal to Bernie's suggestion | |
| 10:09 | SeanDaly | I thought we had said an agenda proposal went thru a SLOB? |
| 10:09 | cjb | yes. and, I think most of the mail currently on slobs@ can stay on that open list |
| 10:09 | tomeu | doesn't understand what team leaders have to do in all this |
| 10:10 | cjb | not everyone will want to subscribe to it |
| 10:10 | most of it will be organizational minutia, after all | |
| 10:10 | SeanDaly | also would hesitate to add team leader layer... |
| 10:10 | walterbender | cjb: I guess the only question is whether we couldn't just use iaep for the same purpose |
| 10:10 | cjb | walterbender: only for the reason I just gave |
| 10:10 | bernie | tomeu, SeanDaly: currently, we have almost all team leaders subscribed to slobs@. and it helps for coordination. |
| 10:11 | tomeu | bernie: how it helps to coordinate anything? |
| 10:11 | cjb | there may be people who want to read iaep@ and don't want to read boring financial details or policy questions |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | bernie: ok but they are all on IAEP too, no? |
| 10:11 | walterbender | I am genrally in favor of fewer lists and more sunject-line tags |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | maybe iaep with a subject slobs business? |
| 10:11 | walterbender | ^sun^sub |
| 10:12 | [SLOBS] | |
| 10:12 | bernie | SeanDaly: teams@ would not be open. it would be the same of the current slobs@, in my mind. |
| 10:13 | SeanDaly | imagines Mel reacting to phrase "would not be open" ;-) |
| 10:13 | walterbender | bernie: what team business needs to be private? hypathetical, pelase> |
| 10:13 | please? | |
| 10:13 | tomeu | bernie: team coordinators are chosen by a criteria that is not too related to their suitability to be aware of confidential matters |
| 10:13 | cjb | SeanDaly: we should probably ask the people on iaep whether they'd like that or not, if we go this route |
| 10:14 | tomeu | cjb: do you think we have sent too much administrative stuff already? |
| 10:14 | SeanDaly | cjb: I certainly agree governance minutiae boring for many, but then again, the day a complaint about e.g. finances comes in, financial discussions clear |
| 10:14 | cjb | tomeu: to iaep? no |
| 10:15 | tomeu: but I'm talking about moving ~80% of SLOBs list traffic there | |
| 10:15 | and it seems like that would be too much | |
| 10:15 | tomeu | don't think we have much traffic in slobs |
| 10:15 | SeanDaly | slobs fairly low-volume in my view |
| 10:15 | cjb | I guess that's true |
| 10:15 | tomeu | also, while some admin stuff could be boring, the discussions that could ensure could be very interesting |
| 10:15 | walterbender | cjb: the original motivation for my request for a private list was to keep the slobs traffic lower |
| 10:16 | tomeu | and chances are people would forget to forward to iaep and keep the discussion there |
| 10:16 | cjb | walterbender: could you elaborate? |
| 10:16 | you mean, keep the slobs@ traffic lower? | |
| 10:16 | walterbender | cjb: it is easy to ignore email with suitable [BORING SLOBS BUSINESS] subject tags :) |
| 10:16 | cjb: less slobs traffic and less private list traffic both | |
| 10:17 | cjb | ok |
| 10:18 | so, perhaps we have a MOTION | |
| 10:18 | walterbender | Anyway, I think we are really trying to decide between a new list and using [TAGS] on iaep |
| 10:19 | tomeu | tags++ |
| 10:19 | cjb | MOTION: close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible |
| 10:19 | walterbender | cjb: second |
| 10:19 | discussion? | |
| 10:19 | tomeu | likes that motion as-is |
| 10:19 | cjb | we'll have to explain this well. people will hear the "you can't be on slobs@ part" and think it's a negative for transparency. |
| 10:19 | s/ part"/" part/ | |
| 10:19 | SeanDaly | discussion: we need to explain policy to bootees |
| 10:20 | cjb | bootees? |
| 10:20 | walterbender | cjb: I'll try to explain it (and take the heat) |
| 10:20 | SeanDaly | bootee: somebody removed from list |
| 10:20 | cjb | oh :) |
| 10:20 | walterbender | any more discussion? |
| 10:20 | SeanDaly | not from me |
| 10:20 | cjb | I'm interested in what Mel and Adam think |
| 10:21 | walterbender | cjb: me too. we will get their votes. |
| 10:21 | (by email withing 96 hours?) | |
| 10:21 | cjb | the problem with all voting now is that we'll pass it without them, and then they'll point out the giant flaw in our strategy :) |
| 10:21 | walterbender | (I hope my talk goes better than my typing) |
| 10:21 | cjb | would people be opposed to having all of us postpone our vote until they've had a chance to join in the discussion? |
| 10:21 | walterbender | cjb: I am fine with it. |
| 10:21 | SeanDaly | or, could be amended |
| 10:21 | cjb | excellent. okay, I'd like to do that. |
| 10:22 | walterbender | we can vote on it first thing next week... |
| 10:22 | cjb | shall we move on for now, then, with that MOTION suitably transcribed? |
| 10:22 | walterbender | OK. |
| 10:22 | SeanDaly | ok |
| 10:22 | walterbender | #task write up the motion with the minutes |
| 10:23 | next topic? | |
| 10:23 | #topic lists for teams | |
| 10:23 | bernie: can you explain a bit more? | |
| 10:25 | bernie: ping? | |
| 10:26 | friends, I am going to be called to the podium in a moment and Sean will need to take off. | |
| 10:26 | can I propose a #task? | |
| 10:26 | cjb | ok. maybe that's our short meeting. :) |
| 10:26 | sure | |
| 10:26 | walterbender | #task: bernie: write a note about your proposal |
| 10:27 | #task: carlo has a nice document re the next topic I can circulate (to IAEP with suitable [TAG] when I get back to Boston | |
| 10:27 | #task: I'll bug the DP for closure. | |
| 10:28 | end meeting? | |
| 10:28 | tomeu | ok with me |
| 10:28 | SeanDaly | ok with me |
| 10:28 | tomeu | goes listen to the talk |
| 10:28 | walterbender | Sorry about the awkward timing... |
| 10:28 | cjb | np |
| 10:28 | walterbender | the conference gods weren't cooperating :( |
| 10:28 | SeanDaly | knows how much "fun" it is to miss a plane |
| 10:28 | walterbender | thanks for coming everyone. Same time next week. |
| 10:29 | SeanDaly | :-) |
| 10:29 | walterbender | SeanDaly: I'll tell you a Seymour/Piaget story some time :) |
| 10:29 | ok. | |
| 10:29 | #endmeeting |