Working Group Minutes/MWG 2018-11-26

From OpenStreetMap Foundation


  • Paul Norman (pnorman)
  • Guillaume Rischard (Stereo)
  • Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
  • Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
  • Jonathan Witcoski (jonwit)
  • Joost Schouppe (joost_schouppe[m])

Open issues

Minutes of last meeting

accepted 2 yes, 2 abstain

Fee waiver program

(requires logging in to

  • Western Balkans is replaced by Kosovo as the only Country of that region where we think that transfers are not supported by paypal. We will look for more feedback from members of that region.
  • Question: what if their form requests financial hardship but they fill in *nothing* for the free-form field > send back to sender

odd member signups

Voted with 1 abstain and 3 in favour, to inquire in a friendly, positive way about the motivation of these new members to join the OSMF.

OTRS as tracking system

  • Paul is already setting it up
  • membership@ would go to otrs, but we could still email mwg@ and not make a ticket
  • it will be the same instance that sysadmins and DWG use for tracking their work
  • access only for those who signed the non-disclosure agreement (NDA)
  • should be added to MWG front page

Improving Membership Working Group page

  • Joost & Michael will get in touch and work on it


  • Stereo takes the lead in making it more user-friendly to read
  • add a note about not being able to run for board if associate member?

Policy on MWG members accessing CiviCRM while running for board

MWG members running for board may continue to serve on the MWG, but are bound by their NDA. If they want to use the membership register for election-related purposes they must request it. They may use the existing export functionality for their own request. Board members may also view the same exports at any time on request, as set out in the AoA, including while running for re-election.

22:08 < pnorman> I guess I can chair in his absense, but does anyone know if we had an agenda?
22:08 < Stereo> Sorry, still unpacking my luggage
22:08 < jonwit> i dont recall one
22:08 < SJFriedl> I don't remember seeing one. I did review the minutes from before, and I know there has been a lot of fee waiver stuff.
22:09 < jonwit> but i assume its fee waiver and 100 users from the same address in india
22:09 < SJFriedl> Is that for us to look into? 
22:09 < pnorman> So, fee waiver got pushed to the forefront with people on osmf-talk@ suggesting to email to request it. We shouldn't have let it languish for months, but a more orderly launch not a month before the AGM would have been better
22:09 < SJFriedl> +1
22:09 < Stereo> Unless someone has something they want to add to the agenda, let's go with that
22:10 < pnorman> Ya, got more admin stuff.
22:10 < joost_schouppe[m]> I would like to propose having an issue tracker to make sure we keep track of all the tasks
22:10 < Stereo> I think it was good that it got introduced after the election cut-off, that way we have a full year to see its effects.
22:10 < pnorman> I think we're up and working reasonably well for lack of money transfer applicants, anyone finding otherwise? 
22:11 < joost_schouppe[m]> One of those tasks being setting up OTRS to keep track of all the applicants
22:11 < pnorman> Oh, do we have approval of last minutes?
22:11 < SJFriedl> SJFriedl says +1 to minutes; 
22:11 < pnorman> +1 to minutes
22:11 < jonwit> +1 to minutes
22:11 < joost_schouppe[m]> +1 to minutes
22:11 < pnorman> er, +0, i wasn't there.
22:12 < Stereo> I won't vote either, same as pnorman 
22:12 < SJFriedl> It was a brief meeting.
22:12 < pnorman> Ya, we'll get to OTRS, but any other money transfer things? I'm concerned we're not getting any feedback on other countries
22:12 < joost_schouppe[m]> Mind if we use to make some notes as we go?
22:12 < SJFriedl> joost_schouppe[m], sounds as good as any
22:12 < joost_schouppe[m]> what do you mean?
22:12 < pnorman> sure. but let's make sure we get it off of there so we don't lose it ;)
22:13 < joost_schouppe[m]> heh
22:13 < jonwit> We have no way to confirm or deny money transfers other than to take their word for it. 
22:13 < pnorman> We have the countries we know about from Paypal. I'm pretty sure some of the other countries people have applied from have either unreasonable fees or lack of access to money transfers, but we've not gotten responses
22:13 < SJFriedl> Well, we can do *some* due diligence
22:13 < SJFriedl> Most of our applicants have been for financial hardship
22:14 < joost_schouppe[m]> Could we say that lack of response is ground for refusing membership?
22:14 < joost_schouppe[m]> That was basically what we outlined in the workflow before
22:15 < pnorman> Yes, they don't get the fee waiver on money transfer grounds if they're from a country outside the list and don't provide information
22:15 < Stereo> The Paypal list has some slightly crazy things too. Western Balkans includes Croatia, which has perfectly normal EU banking
22:15 < SJFriedl> Most of the early applicants were making a general application: it was not a cut-and-dried A or B choice.  
22:16 < pnorman> I propose replacing Western Balkans with Kosovo, because that's the one country in the Western Balkans that we've identified as having money transfer problems
22:16 < SJFriedl> Now we have an application form that's more clear
22:16 < SJFriedl> Fine with me. I don't know the neighborhood at all
22:16 < Stereo> Kosovo is "it depends". I'm meeting the community there in a few days, I can report then.
22:16 < pnorman> Kosovo doesn't have paypal access without resorting to addresses in other countries.
22:17 < SJFriedl> Oh: our page already includes Kosovo
22:17 < jonwit> my wife is from bosnia and ive been there several times and its hit or miss
[comments unrelated to mwg removed]
22:17 < pnorman> Anything else on this topic, or move to OTRS?
22:18 < Stereo> I'll report on Kosovo then.
22:18 < SJFriedl> I think the current fee-waiver page reflects our best understanding of money-transfer countries; we deal with changes as they come up
22:19 < pnorman> k, so we'll decide on Kosovo after Stereo visits. I agree it reflects our best understanding.
22:19 < Stereo> It seems to be unclear, to our applicants, what we mean by the whole thing.
22:19 < joost_schouppe[m]> Shouldn't we move forward with some sort of policy proposal to take this back out of the hands of the board?
22:19 < pnorman> I think that's on the agenda
22:19 < Stereo> A lot of those submitted forms come from countries that are perfectly capable of using paypal
22:19 < SJFriedl> We *already* have Kosovo on the waiver form.
22:20 < Stereo> SJFriedl: the question is whether we should take them off
22:20 < SJFriedl> Oh, duh, sorry.
22:20 < pnorman> k, so no action except remove "Western Balkans"?
22:20 < SJFriedl> Where do you find "Western Balkans"? 
22:20 < SJFriedl> am I reading a different document?
22:20 < pnorman> Paypal's list
22:20 < Stereo> First paypal list
22:20 < Stereo> Yeah, there's two lists
22:20 < jonwit> yep its in their because of alot of scams coming from that area
22:21 < SJFriedl> I'll stay out of EU matter then.
22:22 < pnorman> Someone must have edited the form, it doesn't list Western Balkans anymore, so the point is moot
22:22 < datendelphin> Hi, sorry for my lateness
22:22 < pnorman> OTRS then?
22:22 < pnorman> ah, good, datendelphin can take over ;)
22:22 < SJFriedl> Hi Michael.
22:22 < Stereo> Hi datendelphin!
22:22 < datendelphin> I'm reading
22:23 < joost_schouppe[m]> hi Micheal; I tried to summarize at
22:23 < pnorman> I'll kick off OTRS while he reads
22:24 < pnorman> OTRS is what the DWG and sysadmins use, and there's no issues sharing an instance.
22:24 < datendelphin> I just read the last few lines. Yes I edited that because Western Balkans is silly, and Kosovo sounded convincing
22:24 < pnorman> I've started setting it up, and it can be configured that emails to membership@osmf like the fee waiver automatically create a ticket
22:25 < Stereo> pnorman: would you and I, being both mwg and dwg, have just one login?
22:25 < pnorman> We can also have standard replies
22:25 < pnorman> Yes.
22:25 < Stereo> dwg is quite happy with otrs
22:25 < SJFriedl> so membership@ would go to otrs, but we could still email mwg@ and not make a ticket?
22:25 < pnorman> We were unhappy for ages, but then we forced *everything* to go through it and made it automatically handle tickets
22:25 < pnorman> Yes
22:25 < Stereo> If you're josm users, you'll know the kind of feeling. Quirky at first, but then it's good.
22:26 < pnorman> mwg@ would be for internal use.
22:26 < Stereo> Yeah, we have something like that for dwg actually
22:26 < SJFriedl> Will only Stereo and pnorman have access due to the sharing? Or will some of other of us be able to work tickets as well?
22:26 < joost_schouppe[m]> is there an URL? How do you get an account?
22:26 < pnorman> No, everyone can have access
22:27 < datendelphin> That sounds good with OTRS
22:27 < pnorman> but you can't log in without an account, which, because I started last night, isn't set up for anyone yet
22:27 < datendelphin> I think everyone who signed the NDA can have access
22:28  * SJFriedl has an NDA on file
22:28 < pnorman> I think that's it for OTRS. I want to get everyone with an NDA an account, set up the workflow for the fee waiver in it, test it, and then we can switch to it
22:28 < SJFriedl> I'm happy to help pilot this
22:28 < joost_schouppe[m]> great
22:28 < SJFriedl> It's nice that MWG has real work to do now :-)
22:28 < datendelphin> I agree, great :)
22:28 < pnorman> We'll no longer need to sift through what are now hundreds of emails.
22:29 < joost_schouppe[m]> when it's finished, we should add some info about this to the MWG "front page"
22:29 < pnorman> Next item? We had starting the financial need policy, the odd member signups, and I'd like to add reporting statistics about fee waivers
22:29 < datendelphin> I thought of improving the mwg page
22:30 < joost_schouppe[m]> You mean this page, right?
[comments unrelated to mwg removed]
22:30 < datendelphin> yes
22:30 < Stereo> Ah, and not
22:31 < joost_schouppe[m]> I'd be happy to give you a hand with that, datendelphin
22:31 < Stereo> I've updated some very minor things on it, e.g. removing that membership lets you attend sotm for cheaper
22:31 < datendelphin> yes, I don't want to confuse prospective member
22:32 < datendelphin> thanks joost, will be glad for help
22:32 < Stereo> Actually I'll update join.o.o to reflect change rates and explain the difference between 'normal' and 'associate' on those pages too.
22:32 < datendelphin> normal and associate is already described quite well, no?
22:33 < Stereo> Yeah but not on for example
22:34 < SJFriedl> We should note that running for the OSMF board requires that one be a Normal Member; I remember spending a lot of time looiking for this a week ago.
22:34 < datendelphin> Be aware that that page is also shown when renewing
22:35 < joost_schouppe[m]> SJFriedl: should be noted somewhere, but shouldn't that just be part of the election process and not really at signup
22:35 < SJFriedl> it's helpful to be in a place where we can find it when the question comes up.
22:35 < Stereo> "FYI: Membership is GBP 15, which is around EUR 17 or USD 20."
22:35 < SJFriedl> I spent 30 minutes trying to answer that question last week because it wasn't on this page.
22:36 < joost_schouppe[m]> yes, ok. maybe the associate member page is the right place to describe all the ins and outs of being that kind of member
22:36 < Stereo> (If someone finds out how to get a wordpress form with a captcha to feed directly into OTRS, DWG would be delighted to retire
22:36 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: it is on each call for candidates, I think that is the right place and a place where candidates will see it
22:37 < SJFriedl> ok
22:37 < datendelphin> What I wanted to ask, who would be willing to help process the waivers? It has been mainly me and pnorman and I think it would be a good time to spread the load. To shorten answer times but also because somtimes I'm on holidays and so on
22:38 < datendelphin> sorry if that was already discussed
22:38  * SJFriedl has been doing a lot of them too, though mainly the ad hoc emailed ones.
22:38 < SJFriedl> I'm happy to help with a real workflow
22:38 < Stereo> Hmm, it's funny that corporate membership is in € and human membership in £ - I'd never noticed
22:38 < datendelphin> Yes that is the question. Is the work flow clear?
22:39 < pnorman> It should be reasonably clear for money transfer applicants
22:39 < datendelphin> pnorman did a good job I think, I could follow it well, but then again I am already used to civicrm
22:39 < joost_schouppe[m]> For the notes, where is the workflow again?
22:39 < pnorman> how to create a member in civicrm should be linked in from the end of the worklow
22:40 < Stereo>
22:40 < datendelphin> joost_schouppe[m]: mentioned in every application:
22:40 < Stereo> Can we put it in the topic?
22:40 < SJFriedl> It's not clear until we have issue tracking.  And with regards to financial hardship, I'm not sure how much MWG should vet these before passing onto the board.  Obviously if they do not qualify based on not being an "Active Mapper", they don't get past us, but what if their form requests financial hardship but they fill in *nothing* for the freeform field?   Pass it onto Board to be rejected, or go back and have the member re-apply with m
22:40 < SJFriedl> ore details?
22:41 < pnorman> I'd say have them reapply as it appears they didn't fill out the form
22:42 < datendelphin> yes
22:42 < datendelphin> Stereo: what topic do you mean?
22:42 < SJFriedl> IRC ?
22:42 < datendelphin> ah
22:43 < datendelphin> can't, im not operator.
22:43 -!- mode/#osmf-membership [+o datendelphin] by ChanServ
22:44 < Stereo> /topic
22:44 -!- mode/#osmf-membership [+o pnorman] by ChanServ
22:44 -!- pnorman changed the topic of #osmf-membership to:
22:44 <@datendelphin> oh magic
22:45 <@datendelphin> so SJFriedl WILL HELP. joost_schouppe[m] and Stereo? no pressure...
22:45 < joost_schouppe[m]> I'll have to kind of sign off. Do keep putting stuff into if you think that's useful
22:46 < joost_schouppe[m]> that was awkward timing :)
22:46 < SJFriedl> hahahahhaa
22:46 < SJFriedl> Good night, sir.
22:46 <@datendelphin> ok, thanks :)
22:46 < Stereo> Hahaha
22:46 < Stereo> Well done joost
22:46 < Stereo> I will after the election, I should have more time then
22:46 < SJFriedl> Hmm, I think the written procedures for fee waiver needs some work.
22:47 < joost_schouppe[m]> I'll give it a shot. I'm quite busy the following days, and then I'm off to Colombia for a month. I'll see what is going on when I'm back, half January
22:47 < Stereo> I'm reformating the procedures now, but we can edit them as needed
22:47 <@datendelphin> ok, SJFriedl what needs work?
22:48 < SJFriedl> If they are filing under financial hardship, the country doesn't matter.  If they leave the freeform for hardship circumstances blank, we tell them to try again.  What do we do once we have vetted a hardship application?  Email the board? Assign them a ticket?
22:48 <@pnorman> hardship is new so not documented yet
22:48 <@datendelphin> oh yes the procedures do not yet reflect the hardship case, sorry
22:48 < SJFriedl> I emailed the fee-waiver conversation today re: how do we hand this off.
22:49 < SJFriedl> s/emailed/emailed the board conversation/
22:49 <@pnorman> and the country is required for everyone, including those who pay
22:49 < SJFriedl> Oh.
22:50 <@datendelphin> I think we can soon document the hardship case as well, but will need a bit of time.
22:50 < SJFriedl> Yes, there it is.  Those who omit required fields get bounced back to them for clarification.   On the fee-waiver form, maybe note that OSM usernames are case sensitive; people have submitted the wrong case before.
22:51 <@datendelphin> Yes that is super annoying that for historical reasons, OSM user names are case sensitive
22:51 <@datendelphin> I was usually generous, if it was just the capitalisation of the first letter
22:51 < SJFriedl> so can I sign up for "stereo"? :-)
22:52 <@datendelphin> not anymore
22:52 <@pnorman> Ah, they are case insensitive *now*
22:52 <@pnorman> Well, for detecting duplicates.
22:52 <@datendelphin> but there are still case sensitive collisions I think
22:52 < SJFriedl> awesome.  pnorman I'll take a crack at procedures for financial need.
22:53 < SJFriedl> but want to get my arms around OTRS first. THings like rolling multiple submissions into a single ticket, etc. all will make life easier for us.  People have already submitted things more than once.
22:54 <@datendelphin> true. Let's see if we can get up to speed fast enough
22:54 <@datendelphin> I am doing way too many spread sheets currently for notes
22:54 < SJFriedl> Me too.
22:55 < Stereo> Can we do reports on how many fee waivers we've granted?
22:55 <@pnorman> I had that on the agenda
22:55 < Stereo> Actually, now that I think of it, someone asked me whether we could have automatic reports by country
22:56 <@datendelphin> Stereo: automatic basic statistics would be nice
22:56 < Stereo> Something like automatically. I was thinking I could do something at the next hackwochenende if datendelphin shows up ;)
22:56 <@pnorman> I'd like to report how many submissions we have, country breakdown, and what % of them have submission problems, and what % get rejected because they don't meet the criteria
[comments unrelated to mwg removed]
22:56 <@datendelphin> right now I download the csv once in a while and run a script, because in civicrm I can't find the answer
22:56 < SJFriedl> Hmmm. pnorman's request means we can't answer these queries with just CiviCRM
22:57 < Stereo> Ah, that's a job for OTRS
22:57 < Stereo> We close the ticket with the appropriate tags
22:57 <@pnorman> I was thinking as a short-term once-off to try to get people interested and get feedback on additional countries
22:58 <@datendelphin> By the way that is a huge topic, what is the situation in which country, and we will need people doing reserach on that if we never get answers from applicants
22:59 <@pnorman> are there any other statistics we should generate?
22:59 < SJFriedl> How long it takes the board to approve each hardship applicant? :-)
22:59 <@datendelphin> We ask all applicants of uneligible countries to give feedback, bot no one has done so.
22:59 < Stereo> SJFriedl: by country :)
22:59 < SJFriedl> +1
23:00 < Stereo> I suppose that's a good question to end our first report
23:00 <@pnorman> Some people believe the active mapper criteria is too strict, I wouldn't mind something showing that the people applying easily exceed that, and are very active mappers
23:00 < Stereo> Seriously, we're not asking for a lot.
23:00 < Stereo> I think it's too lax
23:01 <@datendelphin> I think so as well. But we yes we can show that with statistics
23:01 <@pnorman> Just a "Yes, money transfers cost 40 GBP here and you can only do them from a couple banks" would be enough
23:01 <@datendelphin> One more thing: we have two prospective new MWG members. I would like to make a chat session with them for introduction and to see what they want to help with
23:01 <@pnorman> +1
23:02 <@datendelphin> I have mailed them to negotiate a time. I don't think the whole MWG has to be present, but I don't want to do it alone either. So my plan is to set up a doodle
23:02 < SJFriedl> I'm happy to join in with that.
23:03 <@datendelphin> and hope that one or two mwg members will also join in to welcome them, anser questions and ask them a few maybe
23:03 <@pnorman> next item?
23:03 < jonwit> i warned you that some board members don't meet the criteria of an the active mapper. but I think its entirely fair and should be included
23:04 < SJFriedl> I think it's fine for a fee waiver as well. We can tune if we find we're excluding people that really should be represented in the membership
23:04 < SJFriedl> (or the board can choose that)
23:05 <@datendelphin> which item?
23:05 < Stereo> jonwit: they'll have to pay their membership fee then :)
23:05 < jonwit> :) 
23:06 <@datendelphin> I mean, are we through with the agenda?
23:06 <@pnorman> back to on-topic?
23:06 <@pnorman> No
23:06 < Stereo> Back to on-topic
23:06 <@datendelphin> ok yes pleas back to topic
23:06 <@pnorman> let me check notes
23:07 < SJFriedl> Somebody mentioned the 100 members from a single IP, but I believe the board accepted them and I'm not sure there's anything actionable for us?
23:07 <@pnorman> The board accepted them but nothing was said about investigating. The MWG could decide to investigate, but I'm staying out of that discussion.

[ Closed session: MWG decided to keep the discussion private with 3 in favour and one abstain. Summary:
Discussion about should MWG gather more information about this concentration of sign ups, with a final poll: 1 abstain and 3 in favour.
MWG will try to inquire in a positive way about the motivation of these new members to join the OSMF. ]

23:29 < Stereo> Ah, just got an update from Kosovo: they're not in SEPA. Doing transfers is complicated there then.
23:30 <@datendelphin> I can do the minutes on wednesday and give aheads up to the board
23:30 < SJFriedl> thank you
23:31 < Stereo> Ah, good
23:32 <@datendelphin> ok, any other important topics? It is getting a bit late
23:32 <@pnorman> Yes, two here I'd like to raise
23:33 < SJFriedl> and I don't know about the MWG <--> BOard handoff for hardship procedures.
23:33 <@pnorman> One is we should start brainstorming about a policy for financial need applicants, not the ad-hoc stuff. I propose taking that offline to email
23:33 < SJFriedl> +1 for me
23:33 < Stereo> +1
23:33 <@datendelphin> that is reasonable
23:34 <@pnorman> The other is Policy on MWG members accessing CiviCRM while running for board. There's been some musings about what is appropriate and isn't, and it's best if we get out ahead of them.
23:34 < SJFriedl> does the Board typically have access ?
23:34  * SJFriedl is not running for the board so is safe :-)
23:34 <@pnorman> Board has access according to the AoA, in practice, not sure if they have civicrm accounts
23:34 < Stereo> Even if the conclusion could be that we retain adhoc - I'm a member of commissions for the city of Luxembourg and some of that stuff is, some isn't.
23:35  * SJFriedl has no opinion on this subject.
23:35 <@pnorman> It's worth differentiating between the membership register here and the full CiviCRM details
23:36 < Stereo> I'll abstain on the decision, being a candidate running for the board. But I feel like I should defend myself a little bit.
23:36 < SJFriedl> what is the concern? Access to member emails so tthey can spam them "Vote for me" ?
23:36 < Stereo> The emails are in the member register export
23:37 < Stereo> There's not much in civicrm that Christian Quest didn't get the other day
23:37 <@pnorman> by law they can get the register with that, the concern is, as far as i can tell, they have access other canidates don't
23:37 <@datendelphin> I think it is ok, but they have to follow the NDA. Which means getting membership lists for advancing the candidacy should bo formally processed as a request to get the register
23:37 < Stereo> Other candidates should join mwg or request the lists - which so far no one has
23:37 < SJFriedl> oh, so this is a thing? I had no idea.   Would the policy be that any candidate can have the email list?
23:38 < Stereo> Any member can have the full member list
23:38 <@pnorman> Yes, I'd be +1 to requiring any canidate to formally request the list if they want to use it, even if they're on the MWG
23:38 < SJFriedl> is there anything in CiviCRM that would benefit a candiate but is not in the member list?
23:38 < Stereo> If they want to use it *for electoral purposes*, I'd like to add.
23:38 < SJFriedl> other than deleting memberships for people who you think won't vote for you :-)
23:38 < Stereo> SJFriedl: as a candidate, I don't think so.
23:38 <@pnorman> even if they run the export for their own request ;) it makes it clear that they're getting access independent of the MWG
23:38 < Stereo> Yeah, that'd be fraud.
23:39 <@datendelphin> and we have backups
23:39 <@pnorman> you'd get fee-waiver status, you could go to operations for IPs, some other stuff probably. Payment methods. Nothing really interesting
23:39 <@datendelphin> at least Tom sais so
23:40 < SJFriedl> How about: requests for the membership list for campaigning purposes has to be made formally, and a public log of this is made? THese 7 people requeested the membersihp lists in <timeframe> ?
23:40 <@pnorman> Not sure about the public log, we don't do that otherwise. But +1 on the first part
23:40 < Stereo> So, on my local level, this is how it's handled.
23:41 < SJFriedl> I don't know what problem this would solve by logging it publicly or not.
23:41 < Stereo> There is a voter register, which political parties are allowed to request a copy of.
23:41 < Stereo> There's no public log
23:41 <@datendelphin> ok, looks pretty clear to me then.
23:41 < Stereo> People find it creepy when you send them a letter with their name, and it's expensive, so no one does it
23:42 < Stereo> Political parties look at those lists to try to guess where it would make sense to canvas and drop leaflets, but that's it
23:42 <@pnorman> How about this. "MWG members running for board may continue to serve on the MWG, but are bound by their NDA. If they want to use the membership register for election-related purposes they must request it. They may use the existing export functionality for their own request.
23:42 < Stereo> Of course we're bound by our NDA!
23:42 < SJFriedl> Reminders are good, and I have no objection to pnorman's wording
23:43 <@datendelphin> I agree as well
23:43 < Stereo> how about: but are, like all MWG members, etc.
23:43 <@pnorman> Board members may also view the same exports at any time on request, as set out in the AoA, including while running for re-election.
23:43 < Stereo> Any members, in fact
23:44 <@pnorman> Board members don't have to do a request with the form of the companies act, they can just say "I want to look at it"
23:44 < Stereo> Ah
23:44 < Stereo> Hmm
23:45 < SJFriedl> I concur with whatever you folks suggest.
23:45 < Stereo> I think these reflections came from misunderstanding that all access can get access to this kind of information. Mikel and I argued about it. I ended up telling him to go read the companies act and that I wasn't his legal help. Maybe I could have phrased that more diplomatically.
23:46 < SJFriedl> +1? :-)
23:46 <@pnorman> I'd like to be able to say that we have rules for this.
23:46 <@pnorman> +1
23:46 < Stereo> I can't think of any unfair electoral advantage I would get from being on MWG
23:47 < Stereo> I'm happy doing a formal request for the lists if I ever decide to use them, though, in the spirit of fair play
23:47 <@datendelphin> of course you get an advantage, but it is based on community work and not unfair :)
23:47 < SJFriedl> that's exactly right.
23:48 <@pnorman> You get an advantage that you know you can request it
23:48 < Stereo> I wouldn't want MWG to attract criticism through the appearance of impropriety.
23:48 < SJFriedl> pnorman, you get that advantage by being involved and serving.
23:49 <@datendelphin> ok, I would really like to go to sleep now. Anything else important?
23:49 <@pnorman> Not from me
23:49 < Stereo> I +1 sleep :)
23:49 < SJFriedl> I'm good
23:49 < SJFriedl> Thank you everybody. Great meeting.
23:50 <@datendelphin> Thank you too :)
23:50 <@datendelphin> bye
23:51 < Stereo> Good night Europeans :)