deegree PSC meeting, 2010-02-23, IRC #deegree

(20:00:24) JensFitzke: Hi all
(20:00:32) anpo: Hi!
(20:00:50) JensFitzke: while we are waiting for herman to join us, here's the tentative agenda (copied from psc tracker):
(20:01:16) JensFitzke: ... wait, needs some formatting...
(20:03:04) JensFitzke: 805 OGC WFS compliance
(20:03:04) JensFitzke: 838 Release management guidelines
(20:03:04) JensFitzke: 921 Application-specific artefacts in deegree SVN
(20:03:04) JensFitzke: 1047 Remove external libraries from deegree 3 repository
(20:03:04) JensFitzke: 1048 (Re-)Packaging of deegree 3 configuration files
(20:03:04) JensFitzke: 1126 new ECW libraries for deegree
(20:03:04) JensFitzke: 1253 Finalize process documentation
(20:03:04) JensFitzke: 1297 OSGeo incubation follow-up
(20:04:16) JensFitzke: BTW Herman is having trouble to connect (see e-mail). Anybody could help? He's using Chatzilla ... Can you suggest something else for Windows? (Pls use direct mail to Herman)
(20:04:48) kgreve: He should try -- Web Inferface
(20:05:23) Herman_ [~d42d3f62@gateway/web/freenode/x-qcznbsieqmdszvec] hat den Raum betreten.
(20:06:34) Herman_: Hi everybody, I succeeded to connect using
(20:08:10) JensFitzke: cool. Welcome. Can you see the agenda, Herman?
(20:09:01) JensFitzke: ... perhaps not. Posting it again. Hold on...
(20:09:38) JensFitzke: 805 OGC WFS compliance
(20:09:38) JensFitzke: 838 Release management guidelines
(20:09:38) JensFitzke: 921 Application-specific artefacts in deegree SVN
(20:09:38) JensFitzke: 1047 Remove external libraries from deegree 3 repository
(20:09:38) JensFitzke: 1048 (Re-)Packaging of deegree 3 configuration files
(20:09:38) JensFitzke: 1126 new ECW libraries for deegree
(20:09:38) JensFitzke: 1253 Finalize process documentation
(20:09:38) JensFitzke: 1297 OSGeo incubation follow-up
(20:10:05) JensFitzke: Any suggestion for agenda item order? Or should we simply start from the top?
(20:10:35) Herman_: OK to start from the top
(20:10:40) anpo: I think starting from the top is OK
(20:10:52) kgreve: ok
(20:11:25) JensFitzke: What we could do about 805 is decide about importance of WFS 1.0.0 compliance certificate. That might include a fee...
(20:11:52) JensFitzke: ... which is a bit stupid for open source projects. But it looks like the OGC is not willing to consider this issue.
(20:11:57) kgreve: how much is it?
(20:12:12) JensFitzke: price depends on turnover as far as I know
(20:12:23) JensFitzke: ... image Bonn University would apply...
(20:12:29) JensFitzke: imagine
(20:12:41) kgreve: good idea
(20:13:03) anpo: since still a lot of clients only supports WFS 1.0.0 I think it's a good idea to a certificate
(20:13:15) JensFitzke: klaus: good idea that bonn university applies for the compliance certificate?
(20:13:21) kgreve: right
(20:13:23) JensFitzke: ... could be a nice experiment....
(20:14:06) JensFitzke: Then the issue might come up that deegree products are listed at the OGC compliance product page under two different organisations ...
(20:14:15) Herman_: OK, it's allways a strong argument, ogc-wfs compliance
(20:14:18) JensFitzke: ... which is not really the best situation
(20:14:50) kgreve: there is an old idea..
(20:15:20) JensFitzke: My feeling is that there is consensus that we want the OGC WFS 1.0.0 compliance certificate.
(20:15:21) kgreve: to distinguish between deegree framework and deegree products
(20:15:46) JensFitzke: ok, but that does not solve the two-organizations issue
(20:16:01) kgreve: I think so...
(20:16:09) JensFitzke: pls explain
(20:17:00) kgreve: Different institutions can contribute with products to the framework
(20:17:33) Herman_: How much is the fee, does anyone have an idea? is the price really an issue?
(20:17:41) JensFitzke: understood. but that nevertheless leads to the situation that you find deegree products under different orgs.
(20:17:58) JensFitzke: No, the price is not an issue. It's more a question of a strange concept.
(20:18:09) JensFitzke: ... at least for open source projects...
(20:18:38) Herman_: Can we change anything about that?
(20:18:42) kgreve: not only for the fee, we need a strategy fpr a community process that involves contributers
(20:19:33) JensFitzke: sounds like a more mid to long-term solution.
(20:19:53) kgreve: right
(20:20:24) JensFitzke: OK, let's try to summarize what has been said...
(20:20:38) JensFitzke: there is consensus that we want the OGC WFS 1.0.0 compliance certificate
(20:21:04) kgreve: right
(20:21:09) Herman_: yes
(20:21:14) anpo: OK
(20:21:28) JensFitzke: then for the certificate I'd suggest that we (lat/lon) try to manage this and if we get into trouble or the fee is an issue, I'll come back to you.
(20:21:41) kgreve: o.k.
(20:21:45) Herman_: ok
(20:22:03) JensFitzke: the other thing is that we have mid to long term issue to resolve regarding organisational structure and product management.
(20:22:22) JensFitzke: ... Here the OGC compliance certificate seems to be a good show case.
(20:22:47) JensFitzke: I'd suggest to make this a new issue in the tracker (willing to do this after the meeting)
(20:23:01) anpo: sonds like a good idea
(20:23:06) kgreve: yes
(20:23:37) JensFitzke: Herman? Agreed?
(20:23:57) Herman_: I agree, deegree needs a strategy / approach to involve other contributors
(20:24:09) JensFitzke: OK. Lets move to "838 Release management guidelines"
(20:24:27) JensFitzke: ... Andreas can you do something about this (as the official RM)?
(20:25:07) anpo: don't know exactly what to say...
(20:25:32) anpo: I guess there are difference between deegree 2 and deegree 3 ...
(20:26:07) JensFitzke: The original issue text in the tracker is "The PSC shall take an action to make guidelines for release management available in the wiki. "
(20:26:10) kgreve: is it right, it´s an issue from 2008?
(20:26:31) JensFitzke: There is something that Markus should translate something, but he's off now.
(20:26:52) JensFitzke: What's the status of any RM guidelines?
(20:27:03) Herman_: Is the German text a good starting point or are there examples from other projects available?
(20:27:45) anpo: current release guidelines have version 0.7.2 from august 2008
(20:28:03) kgreve: are they still uptodate?
(20:28:24) anpo: a bit difficult to explain, but I'll try ...
(20:29:25) anpo: Whne we adapted guidlines the last time, we thought release 2.2 would be testcase for it. But it took nearly one year to have 2.2 release
(20:29:52) anpo: this was because a lot of things did not work like expected.
(20:30:32) JensFitzke: Can we say that all the experience might be a good input for an updated document?
(20:30:43) anpo: yes ...
(20:31:06) anpo: next release (2.3) will be available next moths and it worked much better ...
(20:31:14) JensFitzke: That means we'd just need the update and the translation.
(20:31:35) JensFitzke: Let me try a practical approach...
(20:31:35) anpo: so I think we can get a stable version of the guidles after oublishing 2.3
(20:32:24) JensFitzke: ... Herman, in case you'd be interested to participate here...
(20:32:30) Herman_: One of our employees caan do the translation; I am willing to comment on the document
(20:32:52) JensFitzke: ... how about sending the old document to Herman, together with some bullet list items for things to be changed?
(20:33:33) Herman_: OK, with me if Andreas is doing final editing
(20:33:39) anpo: I can send it to Herman, but to get a more or less complete list of thing we changed, I have to talk to Rutger and Judit
(20:33:56) kgreve: sounds perfect
(20:34:07) JensFitzke: cool
(20:34:15) anpo: Ok ...
(20:34:17) Herman_: ok
(20:34:33) JensFitzke: I'll update the tracker item then...
(20:34:45) JensFitzke: Can we move to "921 Application-specific artefacts in deegree SVN"?
(20:34:50) anpo: because this week there will not much time and next week there is FOSSGIS it may takes two weeks to get the list
(20:35:11) JensFitzke: sound great
(20:35:19) JensFitzke: sounds
(20:35:37) JensFitzke: Can we move to "921 Application-specific artefacts in deegree SVN"?
(20:35:40) anpo: OK, let's move to 921
(20:35:50) kgreve: ok
(20:36:14) JensFitzke: Copied from the tracker item: "And here is the motion: The PSC shall approve this proposal. Implementation will be done by deegree staff as far and soon as possible."
(20:36:31) kgreve: there is a question from Markus...
(20:36:53) kgreve: ..the suggested SVN structure IMHO only makes sense of all artifacts stored in 'applications' are independent of a specific version of deegree. Is this the case?
(20:37:33) anpo: I must confess that I do not realy understand want is meant by this issue
(20:38:54) JensFitzke: @klaus: regarding Markus remark: It is clear that the application specific artefacts might be deegree version-dependent. That has to be reflected by the SVN structure to be implemented.
(20:39:14) Herman_: I suppose it makes sense to include app spec artefacts if you can build an app from it. To achieve this you need all dependencies such as deegree and other libs.
(20:39:49) JensFitzke: @Andreas: It is basically about configurations files, schema files, database schemas and so forth for applications like those mentioned in issue 921.
(20:40:24) JensFitzke: @Herman: that's about the build process. I'd say that's another issue.
(20:40:32) Herman_: In our svn system we made repositories for complete web applications, including deegree
(20:41:24) JensFitzke: ... let's try to take one step after the other...
(20:41:48) JensFitzke: artefacts first, then build process, then turnkey applications. Agreed?
(20:42:15) Herman_: OK, a good start would be to just put config files etc into the svn.
(20:43:00) Herman_: Next step is to include some docs to describe how the artefacts caan be used
(20:43:51) JensFitzke: That should be it.
(20:43:57) JensFitzke: Klaus, Andreas?
(20:44:25) JensFitzke: Do you think, we could go for the original motion from the tracker item?
(20:44:39) kgreve: but that does not solve the versioning problem
(20:44:52) kgreve: äh yes
(20:45:05) anpo: sorry, but I can not follow
(20:45:58) JensFitzke: does not solve the versioning problem, right. We should leave that to the TMC to resolve.
(20:45:59) kgreve: sounds we have different ideas of the structure and content of the svn
(20:46:26) JensFitzke: I think the PSC should not consider fine-grained discussion about deegree SVN structure.
(20:46:31) kgreve: may be the TMC can tell us how they use the svn
(20:46:59) JensFitzke: I'd say the TMC can decide about the fine-grained structure...
(20:47:32) JensFitzke: below the top-level structure (which we'd like to consider, wouldn't we?)
(20:48:02) kgreve: agreed
(20:48:06) JensFitzke: @anpo, saying "sorry, but I can not follow". What can we do to explain?
(20:48:48) anpo: I think, you have to explain it to me tomorrow on the phone; sorry
(20:49:07) Herman_: As I understand the intention of putting app. artefacts into the svn is to give the deegree community access to usefull app results, agree?
(20:49:24) JensFitzke: yes. Like for IMRO, XPlanung and the like.
(20:50:27) JensFitzke: @anpo: Taking RO-Online as an example...
(20:50:45) JensFitzke: We made this application for the Dutch government under an open source approach.
(20:51:01) JensFitzke: This means the project artefacts have to be available within deegree.
(20:51:19) JensFitzke: The issue 921 is about a "home" for artefacts like these.
(20:51:28) anpo: OK, but RO online is an pplication for the Dutch government and OGC CityGML is a generic solution, or isn't it?
(20:51:50) JensFitzke: The same for the Utah demo examples or the demo
(20:52:11) JensFitzke: RO-Online is based on the IMRO standard. CityGML is another standard.
(20:53:03) kgreve: do they have to be availible or do they have to be availible in deegree?
(20:53:48) JensFitzke: have to be available as open source. but the solution was made by using deegree. so it's a natural thing to consider them part of the deegree project.
(20:54:02) Herman_: I suggest to make a folder for every app under "applications" and a readme which describes the dependencies with certain deegree versions (and other software)
(20:54:03) JensFitzke: ... as you can not really make something useful about them without deegree
(20:54:42) kgreve: right no question, But are they allway part of deegree version x?
(20:55:00) JensFitzke: @Herman_: agreed. I think that was the intention of the original motion (without saying it)
(20:55:29) JensFitzke: @kgreve: Version dependencies should IMHO be considered in the application folders themselves
(20:55:46) kgreve: right so we distinguish between deegree core components and artefacts helpful forr projects using deegree?
(20:55:56) JensFitzke: correct
(20:56:44) kgreve: I think thart is an anser to Markus question
(20:56:53) kgreve: answer
(20:58:07) Herman_: @Jens & Andreas: Perhaps you both want to discuss it tomorrow. You can let us know through updating the tracker
(20:58:21) JensFitzke: Anything else to add to the discussion? Can we go back to the motion?
(20:58:30) anpo: Yes
(20:58:39) Herman_: OK
(20:59:11) kgreve: ok
(20:59:24) JensFitzke: cool... so, the motion was...
(20:59:33) JensFitzke: The PSC shall approve this proposal. Implementation will be done by deegree staff as far and soon as possible.
(20:59:44) JensFitzke: Here's my YES
(21:00:01) kgreve: yes
(21:00:02) Herman_: +1
(21:00:05) anpo: yes
(21:00:32) JensFitzke: Great. Moving to next agenda item. Does anybody need a brake?
(21:00:53) Herman_: 5 min to get something to drink
(21:00:56) kgreve: if you send uns some coffee...
(21:01:35) anpo: we should set a time limit, if we go on like this will take a few hours
(21:01:47) JensFitzke: 5 min sounds great. I'll get me a beer. We'll be back in 5 min, ok?
(21:01:55) JensFitzke: @Andreas, what's your limit?
(21:02:13) anpo: would 22°° OK?
(21:03:12) Herman_: Agree, not later then 22.00
(21:03:49) kgreve: o.k.
(21:04:33) JensFitzke: limit 2200 is fine with me
(21:06:54) Herman_: I am ready to start next item on the agenda
(21:06:56) JensFitzke: I am back. Ready to restart
(21:06:59) anpo: OK
(21:07:02) kgreve: back again
(21:07:10) JensFitzke: Next one is "1047 Remove external libraries from deegree 3 repository"
(21:08:02) anpo: maybe I am a bit old fashion but I still believe all things required to work with deegre should be available through deegree SVN
(21:08:30) JensFitzke: the issue came up during library review....
(21:09:13) JensFitzke: ... there seems to be a legal issue with this. Imposing you to document the license, when keeping the lib in your own repository. But I do not remember very well...
(21:09:33) JensFitzke: during library review within the incubation process
(21:10:23) anpo: was this the only reason?
(21:10:28) JensFitzke: I do not have a strong interest here. I think if there's something available on the internet, that's sufficient....
(21:10:43) kgreve: if it´s availible ...
(21:10:46) JensFitzke: ... modern build tools are known to be able to handle this, I was told.
(21:11:21) kgreve: as long as the URL´s are stable
(21:11:30) JensFitzke: @kgreve: yes, but the deegree SVN has the same availability issue
(21:11:34) anpo: ... and the servers are up
(21:11:40) Herman_: Most important in my opinion is that a deegree user can easily collect all dependencies. I must confess I am not familiar with all techniques available to achieve this goal.
(21:12:20) JensFitzke: @Herman_: A deegree *user* IMHO uses the turnkey demos.
(21:12:49) JensFitzke: ... the demos are not within the SVN. They are downloads.
(21:13:17) Herman_: OK, clear
(21:13:55) JensFitzke: The discussion sounds to be focussed on a fallback-solution mechanism....
(21:14:16) kgreve: right - and that is not the deegree svn
(21:14:17) JensFitzke: ... I'd say that's a question not of the SVN, but of something else.
(21:14:50) kgreve: so we need an external lib´s cache in case of ...
(21:15:14) anpo: @jens way not deegree svn
(21:15:31) JensFitzke: I'd like to know, what user class (or user type) needs that cache. Aren't these all developers?
(21:15:53) JensFitzke: @anpo: Are you asking "Why not deegree svn?"?
(21:15:59) anpo: yes
(21:16:28) JensFitzke: It's a duplicate of digital stuff which nobody needs.
(21:17:10) JensFitzke: I know myself that I still have that download attitude, but even this changes slightly...
(21:17:11) anpo: not realy agree to this, but OK
(21:18:08) JensFitzke: How about asking the TMC to make sure that all users (including developers) have to be satisfied in a reasonable manner?
(21:18:33) anpo: agree; seems that we can not find a solution this evening
(21:18:35) kgreve: goog idea
(21:18:38) kgreve: good
(21:18:47) Herman_: OK
(21:19:13) JensFitzke: The only problem of course remains to define "reasonable manner"...
(21:19:26) JensFitzke: ... but we can leave that to the TMC as a first attempt.
(21:19:35) kgreve: convinience for consumers...
(21:19:45) Herman_: yes
(21:19:49) JensFitzke: If they do not succeed we could change this decision easily, can't we?
(21:20:04) kgreve: right
(21:20:22) Herman_: ok
(21:20:59) JensFitzke: Sounds like we could go for "1048 (Re-)Packaging of deegree 3 configuration files", couldn't we? @anpo?
(21:21:09) anpo: OK
(21:21:52) kgreve: sounds like a decision ready proposal
(21:22:09) Herman_: 1048 looks like a minor issue to me.
(21:22:19) JensFitzke: cool. I'll try to move that to the TMC as their tracker item.
(21:22:35) JensFitzke: 1048 is about namespaces as far as I understand.
(21:22:47) anpo: Is 1048 still an issue ? ...
(21:22:53) JensFitzke: I do not think we should consider this be an PSC item.
(21:23:03) Herman_: agree
(21:23:08) JensFitzke: Don't know about the status of 1048...
(21:23:10) kgreve: right
(21:23:19) JensFitzke: ... but nevertheless I do not think we should consider this be an PSC item
(21:23:36) Herman_: agree
(21:23:59) anpo: there has been some installations with deegree 3 services. And these installations must have configuration files. They must have implement somethng that works.
(21:24:11) JensFitzke: Here's a draft motion: The TMC shall resolve this issue.
(21:24:39) kgreve: agree
(21:24:45) anpo: ok
(21:24:49) Herman_: OK
(21:25:20) JensFitzke: wonderful. let's go to the next item, which was ...
(21:25:32) JensFitzke: "1126 new ECW libraries for deegree"
(21:25:44) JensFitzke: sounds like something for anpo and Herman_...
(21:26:24) anpo: I think we agreed that new ECW libraries can not be used with deegree because of license problems.
(21:26:25) JensFitzke: ... there was some discussion on
(21:26:50) JensFitzke: What was the latest result of the discussion?
(21:27:43) Herman_: We like to move to another solution then ECW, because of the license problems
(21:27:45) anpo: What is left open was using JPEG2000 library instead suggested by Herman. But license implications has not been clear because it does not use a standard opensource licesne
(21:28:24) JensFitzke: So how can we close the issue (if we can)?
(21:28:45) kgreve: I think so
(21:28:57) Herman_: We explored the possibilities of implementing JPEG2000 support, but it is not a small job. We need a few months to realize this and thus some sponsoring...
(21:29:23) JensFitzke: @Herman_: ... and there is a license issue to be resolved first?
(21:29:44) anpo: @Herman: can you make license of used library available to us?
(21:30:24) Herman_: No, we think of another solution which does not a have a license problem, but this takes time and money
(21:30:55) anpo: sounds like we can close this issue
(21:31:14) JensFitzke: @anpo: What is the solution?
(21:31:20) kgreve: so we have to postpone the issue?
(21:31:36) Herman_: I suggest to collect our findings on JPEG2000 with Reijer Copier in an email and send it to the PSC
(21:32:18) JensFitzke: @Herman_: Sounds good. Can you pls update the tracker item accordingly?
(21:32:27) Herman_: OK
(21:32:35) JensFitzke: ... if everybody agrees, of course. I do.
(21:32:42) kgreve: OK
(21:32:56) anpo: i'm not so fast in writing ...
(21:33:08) JensFitzke: @anpo: Take your time
(21:33:32) anpo: To answer Jens' question: a) we can not use new ECW b) we still can use old version but it seems to have a few problems c) we must wait till a JPEG 2000 implementation is available an may support it as good as possible
(21:34:16) JensFitzke: @anpo: sounds like Herman_'s suggestion is fine with you...
(21:34:36) anpo: OK
(21:35:09) JensFitzke: good. next one is...
(21:35:23) JensFitzke: " 1253 Finalize process documentation"
(21:35:50) JensFitzke: I'd be happy if somebody else would volunteer to continue with these documents...
(21:37:06) Herman_: Can all work on it? It's in the wiki?
(21:37:33) anpo: @Jens: what is the status of these document?
(21:39:09) JensFitzke: documents have to be finalized. They are in the wiki. URLs are in the issue
(21:40:51) Herman_: I suggest we all review these documents and change them if needed in the next month. OK?
(21:40:54) JensFitzke: I already worked a lot on them. "Review" would mean that somebody else takes a look ...
(21:41:14) JensFitzke: @Herman_: great. Then they are on our next meeting's agenda.
(21:42:39) JensFitzke: This means that we have a problem if the review has not been done until the next meeting ...
(21:42:45) kgreve: I support Hermann
(21:43:13) Herman_: @Andreas & Klaus: Will you also review the documents?
(21:43:22) kgreve: sure
(21:43:29) anpo: yes
(21:43:57) JensFitzke: OK. We put that issue again on the next meeting's agenda. Let's go to the last but one item which is ...
(21:44:07) JensFitzke: ... "1297 OSGeo incubation follow-up"
(21:44:23) JensFitzke: The issue says: "This leaves the PSC to select one of its members "to report to the foundation board periodically on project status" (as well as a PSC chair)."
(21:44:47) kgreve: I think the person of choice i Jens ....
(21:44:54) JensFitzke: Are we willing to resolve this issue today (and elect a chair)?
(21:45:01) anpo: yes
(21:45:11) kgreve: yes
(21:45:16) Herman_: yes
(21:45:33) JensFitzke: Are we assuming that the chair is the person in charge of reporting?
(21:45:50) Herman_: I agree with Klaus, Jens is the one!
(21:45:59) anpo: That's exaclty the question like to ask.
(21:46:11) kgreve: ... but we should use the PSC chat to prepare the statements
(21:47:02) kgreve: it´s good to have some kind of progress reports - espc. for us
(21:48:15) Herman_: Is a summary of TMC meetings usefull to add to the progress report?
(21:48:30) JensFitzke: @Herman_: Good idea.
(21:48:34) kgreve: right
(21:48:38) anpo: ok
(21:48:51) JensFitzke: ... that means that we have to establish periodical progress reports from TMC to PSC...
(21:49:00) JensFitzke: ... something I'd like to have anyhow
(21:49:07) Herman_: Indeed!
(21:49:23) kgreve: yes please
(21:49:24) anpo: sounds usefull
(21:49:52) JensFitzke: OK. Let's go back to: "Are we assuming that the chair is the person in charge of reporting?"
(21:50:12) kgreve: yes
(21:50:13) JensFitzke: ... supported by TMC reports and PSC chat discussion
(21:50:14) anpo: how do other osgeo projects handle this?
(21:50:26) JensFitzke: @anpo: Don't know
(21:50:54) Herman_: Can we ask osgeo about other projects?
(21:51:17) JensFitzke: @Herman_: Why not? Would you like to?
(21:51:48) Herman_: OK
(21:52:17) JensFitzke: Does this mean, that we postpone the PSC chair election?
(21:52:26) kgreve: no
(21:52:30) Herman_: no
(21:52:32) anpo: no
(21:53:06) JensFitzke: Sounds great ;-) ... as we already had two promising proposals...
(21:53:23) kgreve: any other?
(21:53:25) JensFitzke: ... which both would impose as much as possible work on me
(21:53:45) kgreve: not nessecary
(21:54:33) JensFitzke: @kgreve: Sorry, what is not nessecarry (how do you spell that btw?)?
(21:54:48) kgreve: I think the PSC is responsible for the reports
(21:55:03) JensFitzke: Sounds good.
(21:55:25) kgreve: necessary
(21:55:35) JensFitzke: This means we could seperate report preparation from PSC chair...
(21:55:52) JensFitzke: we could even rotate report preparation...
(21:56:00) kgreve: right
(21:56:31) Herman_: Good idea to rotate report preparation!
(21:56:39) anpo: ok
(21:57:14) JensFitzke: So let's elect somebody for preparing the first report (for the next meeting and the first reporting period to OSGeo)
(21:57:31) JensFitzke: Any volunteers?
(21:58:03) anpo: when it must be finished?
(21:58:15) JensFitzke: Our choice, I guess
(21:58:19) Herman_: What is the dead line
(21:58:24) anpo: OK, i will do
(21:58:50) Herman_: @Andreas: thanks, I will be next
(21:58:50) JensFitzke: yeehaa
(21:59:29) JensFitzke: (we're approaching our deadline)
(21:59:30) kgreve: do we need secret voting for the chair?
(21:59:41) Herman_: no
(21:59:55) kgreve: my vote for Jens
(22:00:05) anpo: i don't think so, i think we all agree that jens should be
(22:00:30) Herman_: Yes, I agree
(22:00:50) Herman_: ... agree with Jens being chairman.
(22:01:04) JensFitzke: Thank you. I accept to be elected to be a PSC chair for a, let's say, year...(?).
(22:01:12) kgreve: good
(22:01:15) anpo: ok
(22:01:21) Herman_: thanks
(22:01:37) JensFitzke: Duties to be specified within the docs (to be reviewed by Herman_ and kgreve)...
(22:01:51) kgreve: right
(22:02:08) Herman_: ok
(22:02:10) JensFitzke: which leaves us with the last agenda item which is ...
(22:02:21) JensFitzke: "other business and next meeting"
(22:02:32) JensFitzke: any other business?
(22:02:38) anpo: no
(22:02:46) Herman_: no
(22:02:46) kgreve: no
(22:03:15) JensFitzke: next meeting round March 23rd? Fine to find an appointment using doodle?
(22:03:23) Herman_: OK
(22:03:26) kgreve: yes
(22:03:44) anpo: OK, maybe not so late
(22:04:07) JensFitzke: very cool. Thanks all for your great participation! Looking forward to our next meeting.
(22:04:35) JensFitzke: @anpo: I'll prepare the doodle enquiry to include earlier meetings as well
(22:04:45) kgreve: Thanx
(22:05:08) anpo: OK, thanx and have a nice evening
(22:05:19) JensFitzke: Wait! OK to publish the meeting transcript?
(22:05:30) kgreve: ok
(22:05:38) anpo: OK
(22:05:43) Herman_: OK, Thanks to all of you and have a nice evening
(22:05:56) JensFitzke: Great. Thanks to all! I am off now.