19:11:03 <rda> #startmeeting
19:11:03 <Inigo_Montoya`> Meeting started Tue Oct 23 19:11:03 2012 UTC.  The chair is rda. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:11:03 <Inigo_Montoya`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:11:16 <rda> #chair tmb
19:11:16 <Inigo_Montoya`> Current chairs: rda tmb
19:11:22 <rda> chair ennael
19:11:28 <rda> #chair ennael
19:11:28 <Inigo_Montoya`> Current chairs: ennael rda tmb
19:12:09 <MrsB> morning meeting
19:12:28 <rda> :) evening here. craving for my pillow.
19:12:49 <rda> #topic member departure/time off/stay ?
19:13:06 <MrsB> it's always morning in qa :)
19:13:57 <rda> so, the last news are that boklm left mageia (both as sysadmin member and board member) and that marja planned to take a time off.
19:14:27 <rda> actually, it looks like that, since doc team reaction, marja is considering staying. or I'm not sure.
19:14:36 <rda> I have not much more news than that.
19:14:41 <rda> has anyone else more, or questions?
19:15:35 <MrsB> is 'what could be done better' a different topic?
19:15:50 <rda> no, it's part of it.
19:16:16 <rda> if you want my very subjective diagnosis of this, 2 main ingredients were in this.
19:17:34 <rda> 1. sysadmin team under staffed or under activity, or organization (no clear head, no mutual delegation/information on (incoming) tasks, no clear priorities or plans, in the end, most falling on a single person shoulders
19:17:42 <rda> not that everything went wrong there, quite the contrary.
19:18:03 <rda> but there's too much to do for a small team that needs to function differently.
19:18:20 <MrsB> I think it's an issue if there is no real route for new members to join it
19:18:36 <MrsB> it's maybe not been considered until now
19:18:53 <rda> 2. lots of private exchanges/discussions (direct mails) that should have been done on public channels, so that critical overview of it would have cooled things down, or made possible for a 3rd person to mediate/refocus the problems.
19:19:07 <rda> MrsB: in sysadmin ?
19:19:24 <MrsB> That is the impression I get, from the outside
19:19:55 <rda> yeah. same. the problem is that, you're either a member of it (with all keys in hand, or almost), or you're not. this very setup makes it extra hard to integrate new members.
19:20:48 <rda> there's a (private) discussion with current sysadmin team to see if a different setup can be designed, that would allow for progressive, or "modular" integration of new members.
19:20:53 <MrsB> The use of a VM was being looked at for the forums, maybe that's a way to try out/integrate new members.
19:21:23 <rda> I think so, but this should be perfectly agreed on and integrated with sysadmin.
19:21:42 <rda> the VM in itself won't solve everything, but that'd be a step toward something less monolithic.
19:21:49 <MrsB> Yes. It's something which needs to be discussed there really.
19:22:54 <rda> I expect us to have some progress in discussion with sysadmin this week. this can't be designed without them.
19:23:20 <MrsB> of course, yes. It's for their team to manage
19:24:12 <rda> other question or comment or idea on the topic?
19:24:32 <MrsB> Could the board have become involved sooner?
19:24:49 <MrsB> It seemed to be at the stage of people quitting before it reached discussions
19:26:07 <rda> it's not only about the board. and part of the problem was that it happened through private exchanges, and has been an accumulation of several things over time.
19:26:23 <tmb> MrsB: well, thats mostly because as long as arguments got exchanged in private mails, no board/council member was really aware of the critical state :/
19:26:59 <MrsB> From what I can gather though alot went on between forums team and nicolas before the recent exchanges
19:27:11 <rda> actually, I was aware of something "cooking" for some time (months) already, I already made my private comments to each when it happened to be appropriate, but that was not with the thinking that this would happen like that in the end.
19:27:26 <MrsB> That's what i mean yes
19:27:48 <rda> doing more, from my point of view, would have been seriously intrusive to these people. at some point, we're grown ups.
19:28:36 <MrsB> I'm not suggesting removing the decision from them
19:28:51 <tmb> Well, Code-of-Conduct states: If you witness others being attacked, think first about how you can offer them personal support. If you feel that the situation is beyond your ability to help individually, go privately to the victim and ask if some form of official intervention is needed.
19:29:01 <MrsB> An interjection at that stage could have kept discussions ongoing and less heated though perhaps
19:30:14 <tmb> and for those invoved in the dispute the C-o-C states: If necessary request mediation and attempt to resolve differences in a less highly-emotional medium.
19:30:55 <tmb> So C-o-C was not really followed on either side in this case :/
19:31:11 <MrsB> yes. it looked a bit messy
19:31:31 <MrsB> it would have benefitted from arbitration imho
19:31:52 <rda> certainly. but when arbitration is not requested, you can not force it.
19:32:32 <tmb> nope, but one can still offer it / remind of the possibility
19:32:35 <MrsB> when teams are falling out it's time for the board to take action i think
19:32:48 <MrsB> agree with tmb
19:33:05 <rda> I agree too.
19:33:57 <rda> but seriously, and without anger, I can say that when the conflict is dissymetric, and that the party feeling offensed does not ask for, or welcomes mediation, you can't help it.
19:34:02 <rda> is it a shame ? yes.
19:34:23 <rda> has the board some responsibility in this? I think not.
19:34:38 <rda> should something be done about this to avoid this to happen again (at various levels)? yes.
19:34:39 <ennael> (/me is reading)
19:34:42 <rda> how? I don't know.
19:34:43 <JohnR> Has the council/board consider (with some urgency) to approach a mediator for future problems. I've had experience in the past , very use for your backup system for disputes
19:34:44 <rda> ennael: I know :)
19:35:04 <rda> JohnR: no. so far, we use to do that ourselves.
19:35:11 <MrsB> I don't think it's a case of apportioning responsibility. It has to be more human than that in a community
19:35:13 <ennael> maybe having a mediator who is not in council or teams can help
19:35:16 <tmb> Well https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Org clearly states:
19:35:20 <tmb> keeping and advocating the project values, mission & direction;
19:35:20 <tmb> communication & resources management;
19:35:20 <tmb> Council and Teams coordination;
19:35:20 <tmb> conflict resolution;
19:35:28 <JohnR> rda. you can't, you are too close to the issues
19:35:36 <rda> ennael: well, the problem is that the issue was with a board and a council member.
19:35:44 <rda> JohnR: me? :)
19:35:56 <ennael> the problem was also very "human"
19:35:58 <rda> JohnR: why? I know 2 people who were close to the issues, that's all.
19:36:21 <MrsB> We should also begin to look at getting non-dev community representatin on the council/board
19:36:43 <ennael> MrsB: this will not solve the pb I think :)
19:36:45 <rda> MrsB: that's the case at the council lelve
19:36:49 <ennael> even if we have to di ut
19:36:53 <ennael> oups to do it
19:36:55 <JohnR> rda. no, it's a fact of dispute resolution kick it out of your space, bring in the mediator
19:37:33 <rda> JohnR: it was not in my space. it was in boklm's and marja's space. ennael tried to intervene, sadly it appears it did go the wrong way too.
19:37:54 <JohnR> rda. the you was a generic 'you not addressed to rda :-)
19:38:09 <MrsB> When it reached the open discussion at council things seemed to progress
19:38:20 <rda> JohnR: right, but that's the role of board to manage conflicts, when asked to do so.
19:38:46 <rda> MrsB: actually, when it reached the public stage, it seemed to progress. but it was already like everything was already set up for boklm.
19:38:46 <MrsB> I think it must go beyond 'when asked' and be 'when needed'
19:38:48 <JohnR> I was aware of it as well, I could find a way to proceed
19:39:01 <JohnR> could not! find ..
19:40:39 <rda> MrsB: what do you suggest then?
19:40:50 <MrsB> an early interjection
19:41:01 <rda> and?
19:41:04 <MrsB> open mediated discussion
19:41:16 <JohnR> Any comment from me, is based on counselling experience, any time I use "you" is is to be considered generic not personal
19:41:37 <MrsB> public resolution if no agreement can be reached
19:41:55 <MrsB> or at least public discussion to find a resolution
19:42:24 <rda> MrsB: the two people are the keys to the problem to solve. unless they willingly open the full thing in detail in public, we can't solve it.
19:42:52 <rda> they didn't.
19:42:54 <rda> case closed.
19:42:56 <MrsB> Ok, but it is public anyway, isn't it?
19:43:00 <rda> no it is not.
19:43:21 <MrsB> As I saw it, it was a team one side and a person on another
19:43:24 <JohnR> rda, there should be intervention, _directly_ as soon as possible after and dispute is detected - that's standard management technique ot skill
19:43:24 <rda> we don't know the details of what marja and boklm discussed. we're not sure whether it is related exactly to what happened in the past too (although I suspect it).
19:43:39 <rda> MrsB: it was one person and one person. no team in this.
19:43:56 <MrsB> With respect, that isn't what i saw
19:44:18 <MrsB> the falling out centered on two people in the end though
19:44:39 <tmb> I agree with MrsB. And if board cant "solve the issue" as such, a solution must be decided on how to move past the issue for the greater good of the project
19:44:43 <rda> MrsB: the issue is not at all about technical issues between sysadmin and someone else if that's what you think.
19:44:45 <MrsB> it needed 'handling' before it reached that stage
19:44:54 <rda> the core of the thing that made boklm leave is in the private discussions.
19:45:12 <ennael> indeed
19:45:26 <rda> MrsB: yeah, right, then at the sysadmin level, but there, the problem (malfunctioning team) has to be fully acknowledged by the team itself (it's on this path) and acted on.
19:45:33 <JohnR> IOT appeared from here, 12 hours ahead of most here that the sysadmin team appeared to one person, anyone else make that observation? :-)
19:45:35 <sebsebseb> hi
19:45:45 <MrsB> I wasn't talking so much about 'what made boklm leave' I was trying to focus on what could have been done differently and could be in future to prrevent disagreements reaching that stage
19:46:39 <rda> well, a lot of things could be done differently, the main problem is to lead most people toward this end.
19:46:40 <ennael> what are the real goals tonight ?
19:47:28 <tmb> ennael: Well, I think we are in the "lesson hopefully learned" phase
19:47:29 <rda> that was acknowledging/discussing what happened. but the thing is that we have little public info.
19:47:39 <JohnR> People, Please don't focus on the personalities and what has happened, prior to this moment - it is wasted bandwith - make the process VERY obvious - intervene if you see the mud start to fly!
19:47:50 <MrsB> rda, you say you knew there was a problem months ago
19:47:59 <MrsB> that is the stage I am getting at
19:48:28 <rda> MrsB: you mean, the forum issue that exploded months ago, has caused some to leave, some to stay, some to still feel resentment, some to move on?
19:48:38 <MrsB> no
19:48:39 <DavidWHodgins> I think all teams should ask all members to review the code of conduct, and remember that with text only communications, you must assume the other person has good intentions, and be as polite as possible.  Also remind people to ask for council to decide, when there are disagreements.
19:48:50 <MrsB> I'm not talking about what it has caused at all
19:49:02 <rda> then the fact that cultural/behaviour differences, and priorities differences, badly communicated, made inter personal discussions hard to sustain between some people?
19:49:24 <MrsB> I'm talking about a recognising and dealing with a potential problem in it's infancy
19:49:36 <JohnR> DavidWHodgins: I agree with your assessment
19:49:43 <rda> MrsB: that was part of the infancy of this very issue.
19:49:50 <tmb> DavidWHodgins: good point
19:50:02 <rda> now, dealing with it, frankly, we have done it for a long time.
19:50:19 <MrsB> If we can't learn from this then it has been a waste
19:50:25 <rda> because some people never healed from what happened them, and had to be constantly reassured they had to move on.
19:50:35 <rda> MrsB: oh yes, it has been, for some. sadly.
19:51:10 <rda> now, we can still move on.
19:51:12 <MrsB> rda, in honesty i feel you are too close to this to be objective. Please don't take that the wrong way.
19:51:25 <rda> I don't take it the wrong way. I did move on.
19:51:31 <rda> and I already did for the recent events.
19:52:04 <rda> but that requires people that can't move on those past failure to leave earlier than later. that's what I think.
19:52:26 <JohnR> true,but ...
19:52:52 <ennael> please could we avoid to argue on a conflict and move on some positive conclusion for Mageia?
19:52:55 <MrsB> My whole point is not to do with personalities or particular reasons or anything else specific to this issue. It is only that this was not 'handled' when it was still in the early stages and could have been, and perhaps should be in future.
19:52:57 <rda> I agree it's harsh.
19:53:05 <rda> ennael: we do. :)
19:53:15 <ennael> MrsB: It was but privately
19:53:22 <ennael> because it was asked to
19:53:23 <rda> ennael: exactly.
19:53:36 <ennael> it was about very personal discussions
19:53:47 <ennael> When I'm asked not to share something I don't do it
19:53:49 <MrsB> it seemed to be about forums
19:54:01 <MrsB> and forums team
19:54:08 <MrsB> and sysadmin team
19:54:10 <DavidWHodgins> It seemd to me, to be taken as being about trust.
19:54:16 <rda> MrsB: no. but that was part of the story, in the beginning.
19:54:18 <ennael> part of it was about forum
19:54:23 <MrsB> rda, exactly
19:54:29 <ennael> and it could have been solved as we saw in one meeting
19:54:49 <MrsB> that's exactly what I'm getting at
19:54:49 <ennael> but still we had some personal reasons that were not explained and solved
19:55:10 <MrsB> of ocurse, but perhaps they could have been avoided if the resolution occured earlier
19:55:21 <ennael> really ?
19:55:23 <JohnR> ennael: That's my ethic as well but! There are times when you must step in it! Both parties or a compulsory mediation
19:55:27 <ennael> I'm pretty sure it could not
19:55:48 <MrsB> Ok, well if we did everything right then there is no way to avoid this in future
19:55:52 <rda> MrsB: JohnR: there are personal levels one has no right to step into, sorry.
19:55:58 <ennael> it's very nice to wish to solve avery conflicts on earth
19:56:04 <ennael> but some will never
19:56:13 <ennael> it's life I would say
19:56:20 <MrsB> my understanding is that this began as an issue between forums team and sysadmin team
19:56:36 <rda> now, the positive steps can be to improve some technical elements that were part of this.
19:56:40 <rda> MrsB: no.
19:56:46 <MrsB> then it grew into person issues which arose as a result of that disagreement
19:56:50 <ennael> nope
19:56:53 <JohnR> rda, I guess you are correct after all I have the counselling training :-)
19:56:57 <ennael> contrary
19:57:29 <MrsB> either way though the disgreement between teams could have been tackled earlier
19:57:46 <ennael> I agree on this
19:57:58 <ennael> and forum is like a running conflict since ages now
19:58:16 <ennael> but I really think we should distinguish those 2 points
19:58:33 <MrsB> I was only refering to that point :)
19:58:34 <JohnR> ennael: as are all forums , even this one right now :-)
19:58:52 <ennael> :)
19:58:59 * ennael will not comment :p
20:00:17 <rda> ok. next topic?
20:00:25 <JohnR> ennael: with the greatest of respect, you are our leader, you slipped? Even a little?
20:00:38 <MrsB> did we agree to do anything differently?
20:00:46 <JohnR> nope
20:00:49 <tmb> Well, in my humble opinion one thing learned is "we really need to react faster and step in when problems arises" as "private or not" it's about an open community project
20:01:01 <JohnR> echo
20:01:03 <MrsB> agreed tmb, wholeheartedly
20:01:36 <rda> I don't know what "react faster" would have meant in this case.
20:02:03 <MrsB> the team disagreements
20:02:06 <ennael> JohnR: sorry ?
20:02:21 <JohnR> rda, with respect, then your peopleskills may need some massage?
20:02:34 <rda> MrsB: that's much more complicated than that. disagreement is normal. that it turns into that is not.
20:02:45 <MrsB> we're going in circles
20:03:05 <JohnR> ennael: I'll try andpostit a betterway
20:03:08 <rda> JohnR: I beg your pardon?
20:03:48 <JohnR> rda, I'm sorry, I'll rephrase, a moment please
20:04:06 <ennael> what we agree on and what tmb said is on the very technical points we could have been much faster to solve the situation
20:04:12 <rda> MrsB: you seem to think that the teams ddisagreement was an issue in itself.
20:04:35 <MrsB> rda it was an issue, that is enough reason to resolve it
20:04:48 <ennael> ok guys
20:04:49 <tmb> rda: well I think the "react faster" in this situation would have been something like "we need to find others to step in and do the job" :)
20:04:55 <MrsB> resolve early resolve often :)
20:04:56 <rda> yeah, but a technical issue/disagreement can take months to resolve. that's _normal_
20:05:12 <MrsB> it took one meeting rda
20:05:13 <rda> what is not normal is that it turns into harassment or misappropriate comments.
20:05:40 <rda> tmb: right, but you know like me that it's a slow process to get a team acknowledge that :)
20:05:50 <rda> MrsB: when?
20:06:03 <MrsB> 2 - 3 weeks ago
20:06:11 <rda> no.
20:06:18 <rda> it's not solved as long as it's not _done_.
20:06:36 <MrsB> a resolution was found, it wasn't done no, obviously
20:06:48 <MrsB> i'd rather not split hairs though
20:06:49 <rda> and frankly, I'm not saying that was not the right path (I believe it is). but we had several resolution of this magnitude in the past on the very same topic.
20:07:25 <tmb> rda: yes, it is, bot we should have made it clear to the teams earlier that we need to change some people/plans...
20:07:29 <JohnR> rda, With greatest respect, I mean this very sincerely, I read your comment in a negative way, I simply got the impression from your comment that you had no time to consider 'faster reaction  to be an option hence :your people skills may need some massage
20:07:42 <tmb> *but*
20:07:48 <rda> so as long as the forums don't actually have their own VM, admin, and that it's properly articulated with sysadmin, in one way or the other, it's not closed case.
20:08:33 <MrsB> nobody said it was
20:09:02 <rda> MrsB: re-read yourself a few lines above. I don't mean to be picky, but that's what I understood from you.
20:09:14 <MrsB> that wasn't my intention then.
20:09:36 <rda> JohnR: ok
20:10:01 <MrsB> rda my meaning is that positive progress was made in the course of a single meeting. That could have occured much earlier.
20:10:20 <rda> MrsB: it did. several times too. seriously. only it regressed after.
20:10:26 <MrsB> it defeated the deadlock
20:11:16 <rda> ok...
20:11:28 <MrsB> I'm not pointing fingers here, just suggesting improvements for the future...
20:11:41 <JohnR> People, once again we're are discussing history - we MUST look to tomorrow
20:11:54 <MrsB> indeed, yes.
20:12:01 <rda> I'm just not seeing improvements to do on the people management level (as I expect those people to behave a bit more like grown ups)
20:12:18 <rda> but on the technical/org level, yes. but that's been said, it's in progress.
20:12:27 <rda> so. next topic?
20:12:56 <JohnR> rda, even grown-ups need guidence :-)  look here - right now :-)
20:12:59 <MrsB> Ok, so refering to what tmb said about reacting faster, we're agreed then
20:13:12 <ennael> I guess so
20:13:39 <ennael> I also think it was mybe the only case we were not good since the beginning
20:13:43 <ennael> Am I wrong ?
20:13:58 <JohnR> ennael: I think so too
20:13:58 <rda> I don't know.
20:14:41 <ennael> so it's not too bad even if we failed there
20:14:56 <ennael> maybe we just did not plan to have to manage such case
20:15:05 <JohnR> ennael:  yes! that's my opinion
20:15:17 <ennael> do we have other pending conflicts?
20:15:24 <tmb> So... to move on, how about for future:
20:15:24 <tmb> 1. team leaders remind the team members of Code of Conduct
20:15:24 <tmb> 2. remind all that Council and Board are always available
20:15:24 <tmb> 3. team leaders inform board if they see a conflict rising
20:15:24 <tmb> 4. board members inform other board members of conflict rising, progress and hopefully resolution
20:15:36 <JohnR> me and umebouy :-)
20:15:48 <MrsB> peas in a pod
20:16:03 <ennael> tmb: yep so CoC :)
20:16:24 <ennael> it means also we *must* solve that forum issue
20:16:30 <ennael> quickly
20:16:32 <JohnR> yes!
20:16:41 <MrsB> agreed, on everything
20:18:03 <tmb> yep, as rda stated earlier, we are doing a "status check / discussion " on current sysadm team to see how to get things moving ....
20:18:27 <ennael> ok so forum issue will have to wait a bit more so that we have people to work on
20:18:39 <ennael> the solution was nearly found if I remember well
20:18:51 <JohnR> tmb, how many on the team please
20:19:48 <rda> JohnR: depends. cats, mice, brains (full time or part time) or hands? :-p
20:20:09 <JohnR> rda, all of the above :-)
20:20:21 <ennael> (/me will ask JohnR and rda to have a hug before end of this meeting :p)
20:20:22 <tmb> JohnR: I currently have a "headcount" running :)
20:20:36 <rda> 9/10 people
20:20:43 <JohnR> tmb ta muchly
20:20:58 <JohnR> rda Thx
20:21:26 <MrsB> is there a path for new members or if not would it be wise to think about one
20:21:44 <rda> that's part of the problem discussed with them
20:21:52 <rda> there were several candidates in the past
20:21:55 <MrsB> great :)
20:21:57 <ennael> as soon as ML is back :)
20:22:08 * JohnR doesn't hug, he sends Mrs Peel in
20:22:08 <rda> and they were not really handled (or not known how to be handled in a progressive path)
20:22:16 <rda> Mrs Peel \o/
20:22:25 <tmb> MrsB: that's also planned, but we need to discuss with team and look on some infra "redesign"
20:22:50 <MrsB> that's good then. Alot of good can come from this perhaps :)
20:23:23 <JohnR> tmb rda Are sysadmin team on same timezones?
20:23:53 <tmb> JohnR: pretty much, yes.
20:23:56 <rda> but for 2 of them, I think most are Central European Time
20:24:13 <JohnR> thx, that 'should' be to our advantage
20:24:44 <tmb> (but since some of us are up to ~4 in the morning, we are pretty good covered for critical issues) :)
20:24:49 <ennael> can I break all this love ?
20:25:06 <JohnR> There is no possibility of difficulties within the team?
20:25:48 <JohnR> tmb, I operate 12 hours ahead of most here
20:25:49 <tmb> JohnR: not so far / currently / ...
20:26:13 <JohnR> tmb, you must be a good manger :-)
20:26:20 <JohnR> manager!
20:26:34 <ennael> can we plan also to communicate *quickly* on this conflict?
20:26:48 <ennael> givent the messages we had on ML and forums
20:26:49 <JohnR> yes! very important!
20:26:50 <MrsB> I'll send an email tonight before I come off here
20:27:05 <ennael> would be nice to agree on a common content
20:27:11 <MrsB> pad?
20:27:40 <ennael> why not
20:27:56 <MrsB> JohnR: perhaps you could send the email to doc?
20:28:09 <JohnR> ennael: three strike works well we're told :-) ankles, knees  then neck
20:28:22 <ennael> gni ?
20:29:09 <JohnR> MrsB: good idea, I lift yours anduse my massaging skills
20:29:18 <ennael> JohnR: rda just explained me
20:29:26 <JohnR> :-)
20:29:47 <MrsB> JohnR: we'll plan the email ocntent between us on a pad
20:29:50 <MrsB> content*
20:30:03 <JohnR> MrsB: ok,
20:30:12 <MrsB> us = all of us
20:30:14 <ennael> http://bn.parinux.org/p/communication
20:30:15 <[mbot> [ Etherpad Lite ]
20:30:45 <ennael> to start on
20:30:46 <ennael> thanks
20:32:29 <MrsB> afterwards, yes?
20:32:36 <ennael> of course
20:36:53 <MrsB> shall we move on
20:37:29 <JohnR> pad comments please
20:37:52 <ennael> JohnR: pad will be done after meeting
20:38:19 <JohnR> enn, could well me done yesterday :-)
20:38:27 <JohnR> me>be
20:40:46 <MrsB> next topic, or shall we end there?
20:43:03 <tmb> well, we had "alpha2 debriefing" and "open questions" on the list, but iirc not even QA have had possibility to do post alpha2
20:43:47 <MrsB> I haven't personally
20:44:03 <MrsB> should return to normal next week though
20:44:13 <tmb> so maybe we postpone them to next week then ?
20:44:24 <MrsB> yep, seems a good idea
20:45:36 <tmb> rda, ennael: any objections?
20:45:36 <tmb> or is there anything else ?
20:46:35 <rda> yep
20:46:37 <rda> ok for that.
20:46:49 <rda> 1:45 of meeting, that's already quite a bit
20:47:45 <tmb> yep. so lets close the meeting and fininsh the pad
20:47:57 <tmb> finish
20:48:45 <ennael> sorry I'm falling asleep
20:49:15 <rda> #endmeeting