IRC meeting 080505 @ 1800 GMT on #transportempire, Quakenet

[Hyronymus]

I don't fully understand why noone created this thread anywhere during last week. I've raised the issue 2-3x, hoping the chairman (or someone else) of the previous meeting would've created the topic. Unfortuntely noone did, it gives me the feeling veryone thought 'if you're so upset about it, create it yourself'. That's 1 way to look at it of course...

During last meeting no agenda was set for tonights meeting (way to go chairman). If you think of anything interesting to dicuss tonight: don't keep it for yourself.

[Hellfire]

Just a rule of thumb: (this is not directed at Hyronymus, but in general)

If there's nothing to talk about, don't hold a meeting.



--

What would the meeting be about?

[jfs]

I can think of two possibilities:

Website talk -- but that's better conducted just in the forum, I think.
DD progress report -- but that's really just a monologue that could be posted on the forum.

So, how about just cancelling the meeting?

An idea: People can post things they'd like to discuss in a next meeting in some thread, and when enough points for the agende are collected, a meeting will be scheduled.

[Hyronymus]

Just a rule of thumb: (this is not directed at Hyronymus, but in general)

If there's nothing to talk about, don't hold a meeting.



--

What would the meeting be about?

I know Hellfire, don't worry. If there's nothing to discuss during the meeting I don't mind cancelling it. But I strongly ask anyone who does have a task assigned to him to post a small progress indication, I'm afraid we'll loose touch otherwise.

[ChrisCF]

During last meeting no agenda was set for tonights meeting (way to go chairman).

Since when do you use time in a meeting to decide the agenda for the next meeting?

[Hyronymus]

It's common practise to at least set the standard topics as agenda for the next meeting. Also, if you discussed a certain issue and agreed on evaluating it next meeting it makes very much sense to put that on the agenda too. Standard topics btw are topics like minutes approval, any other business and when relevant incoming messages (from other devs/departments/management) and planning review. But I'm actually quite surprised since when that's common because the times that I chaired the meeting I always ended up with creating a preliminary agenda for the next meeting. In fact, I even believe other chairman did so too. You must've noticed it at least once, Chris.

[ChrisCF]

It's common practise to at least set the standard topics as agenda for the next meeting.

That tends to go without saying, so to speak. If there are things you know are on the agenda every time, they don't need to be set at the meeting, because whoever's setting the agenda knows they'll be there.

Also, if you discussed a certain issue and agreed on evaluating it next meeting it makes very much sense to put that on the agenda too.

I don't believe we made any such decision at the last meeting, so that's out.

But I'm actually quite surprised since when that's common because the times that I chaired the meeting I always ended up with creating a preliminary agenda for the next meeting.

That would typically be when we had the RFDs to get through. We knew which ones we hadn't done, so we knew which ones were left to do.

None of this is the same as the business of setting the agenda.

Incidentally, it doesn't look like we have anything to discuss tonight.

[Hyronymus]

I reject remarks being escorted by 'it tends to go'. If everybody does their work by claiming certain 'logical' things 'tend to go' with or without active input this world would soon dive into an eternal gridlock. And didn't I write IF you discussed a certain issue and agreed on evaluating it next meeting it makes very much sense to put that on the agenda too?! The true conclusion of that sentence would be that if you didn't there isn't something to put on the agenda, so yes: it's out (duh).

I seriously wonder if we would've had something to discuss tonight if this meeting was announced properly. So nothing quite so incidentally about that.

[Zuu]

seriously wonder if we would've had something to discuss tonight if this meeting was announced properly. So nothing quite so incidentally about that.

Agree, and if someone whould have had anything to discuss he/she would have brought up the meeting in time, or at leaset broght it up at all.

[Hyronymus]

I suggest we come up with a new date now then. How about Sat, 210505 @ 1800 GMT?

[ChrisCF]

And didn't I write IF you discussed a certain issue and agreed on evaluating it next meeting it makes very much sense to put that on the agenda too?! The true conclusion of that sentence would be that if you didn't there isn't something to put on the agenda, so yes: it's out (duh).

Now there's no need to be rude ...

[Hyronymus]

There was no need in pointing out the obvious either, ChrisCF (unless your intention was to score a point but I hope that wasn't so). No agreements on the new date sofar?

[Zuu]

I suggest we come up with a new date now then. How about Sat, 210505 @ 1800 GMT?

I should be avilable at that date. But I think you should write UTC instead of GMT, as that is what we have done earlier, so it wont confuse people.

Also, I personaly prefere the 2005-05-21 form over 210505, as its a standard, and it is clearer. (largest unit first, and then smaller and smaller units.)


However, In general as I said, I am not against your proposal to have a meeting 2005-05-21 @ 1800 UTC. Actually that weekend is much better than the previous.

EDIT: changed 2005-05-05 to 2005-05-21 in the last paragraph.

[Hyronymus]

You mean May, 21st I guess. Kinda hard to have a meeting in the past . Steve and I discovered GMT and UTC are the same so why not use GMT, the only true time .

[Zuu]

You mean May, 21st I guess. Kinda hard to have a meeting in the past . Steve and I discovered GMT and UTC are the same so why not use GMT, the only true time .

I meant 2005-05-21 , which I have fixed now.


While I know that GMT and UTC is the same, it might be confusing to use GMT, as some people might not be awhere that their local time will have a different offset from GMT + 0 during the summer than during the winter. And GMT wont change when we change from winter to summer time and back again.

Another reson is that somebody might think that GMT is the same as brittish time, which is untrue during the summer.


Isn't GMT a bit oldish, while UTC is the new freash thing.

[Hellfire]

I won't be there on may 21st. I also can't be there on the 14th or the 28th. This month is really bad for me in the weekends.

[Hyronymus]

The weekends entirely, proposing the 22nd (29th) won't make a difference?

[Hellfire]

No, sorry. I'm playing in a wind band (in Dutch: muziekvereniging) that has its 125th anniversary this year (No, that's not a typo. It was constituted in 1880). We're preparing for a big gala concert on june 4th, which takes about all my time in the upcoming weekends.

[Hyronymus]

Nice, congrats to you and the band. I hope we'll make progress without you then.

[Zuu]

In addition, I am in verry short of time for TE untill somewhere around 10-14 june, as I have quite some school stuff that must be finnished before I end school. Also at the begining of june befere I have moved home, I won't have any internet connection at my apartment.

Eaven troght I ceck the forums quite often, I might not login everytime, so if someone wants to contact me in private it is probably best to email me. Either use SF.net, or my contact form at my homepage (www button) if you don't know my email adderess.