Meeting Report for 3/26/2009

by

Unfortunately life intruded this week and we never formed a proper quorum at any particular point in time.  However overall we did spend nearly an hour and a half chatting and during this time every member (Jecel Mattos de Assumpção Jr, Ken Causey, Bert Freudenberg, Craig Latta,  Andreas Raab, Randal Schwartz, and Igor Stasenko) did show up at some point.

We did manage to finalize the decision to change the name of this team and our name is now the ‘Squeak Oversight Board’ (SOB it is, so be it).

Otherwise we chatted about issues freely.  This was by no means a total waste.  We have new members and some new topics and it is useful for us to be able to casually voice our thoughts and hear the comments of others.  This should help up make faster progress during the next meeting.

The topics of discussion included: the current status of  SFC membership  and relicensing, licensing and rewriting methods to be license compliant,  the status of 3.11, the teams model, a mission statement for 2009, teams/board/foundation content of www.squeak.org website, and release team processes.

Homework for next week includes: ideas for a 2009 mission statement, publicizing this blog, schedule meeting with SFC to discuss relicensing, query existing teams for current status and near term goals, and talk to 3.11 release team further.

Our next meeting is scheduled for April 2nd, 2009.  An agenda for that meeting should appear here in the next couple of days so check back and contribute discussion topics.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Meeting Report for 3/26/2009”

  1. Marcin Says:

    If you reach a consensus, rather than trying to have a quorate meeting, why not have someone write minutes, you can revise and agree the minutes, and then have a meeting to formally agree that you had the meeting in the form minuted. That would only require a very brief quorate meeting.

  2. Ken Causey Says:

    Perhaps my use of the word quorum made this sound more formal than it really is. It’s not that we had something we all needed to vote on. Instead it’s that we wanted to be sure that all opinions were heard. Also we are still somewhat at a catch-up phase where members are updating other members, especially new members, on the status of projects.

  3. Randal L. Schwartz Says:

    In fact, we don’t really have by-laws that I am aware of, so the idea of “quorum” is informal at best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: