20:01:02 #startmeeting tc 20:01:02 Meeting started Tue Oct 11 20:01:02 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:01:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:01:05 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 20:01:14 o/ 20:01:18 First of all, congratulations to the recently-elected (and reelected) members! 20:01:20 o/ 20:01:25 * edleafe cranes his neck to see the new people 20:01:27 /me multi-lurking an not typing well 20:01:32 welcome new TC! 20:01:36 For the first meeting of the Ocata TC membership, I focused on urgent stuff 20:01:50 Huzzah! 20:01:52 And deferred to next week more long-term stuff, to give time for new members to consider those 20:01:55 when do i learn the secret handshake? 20:01:57 * bauzas waves late 20:01:59 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee 20:02:05 stevemar: in person only 20:02:10 :) 20:02:15 (remember to use #info #idea and #link liberally to make for a more readable summary) 20:02:22 #topic Welcome Ocata membership ! 20:02:28 First a bit of housekeeping 20:02:32 * Gerrit rights 20:02:42 I set up your Gerrit rights, so you should all be able to RollCall-Vote +1/-1, let me know if you can't 20:02:52 * -tc ML access 20:03:00 We use the openstack-tc mailing-list for administrative communication between TC members. 20:03:06 Like meeting reminders 20:03:09 The list is moderated for non-members 20:03:18 I removed the moderation bit for all the people who were already subscribed 20:03:27 Couldn't find Emilien nor Jeremy though, so please subscribe and let me know when you have 20:03:37 I did subscribe this morning 20:03:45 #link http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc 20:03:48 ah! let me fix that for you then 20:04:13 alright, mod bit cleared 20:04:22 #action fungi to subscribe to openstack-tc and let ttx know so that he can clear the moderation bit 20:04:28 o/ 20:04:32 * Update member roster (https://review.openstack.org/384543) 20:04:42 This one updates the member list, I think it's good to go 20:05:13 yep, +1 20:05:15 * johnthetubaguy is listening but having connection troubles 20:05:27 (it removes the {chair} thing so that we actually record the selection of the chair as a specific change 20:05:44 will approve now unless someone objects 20:06:06 done 20:06:16 so it's official now, welcome :) 20:06:24 * Select chair 20:06:34 We need to select the chair, I'm happy to continue in that role 20:06:43 Especially since Doug continues to take most of the release management weight off my shoulders in Ocata 20:06:53 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384546/ 20:06:54 If someone else wants it, please propose something similar to my candidacy: 20:06:58 ^ 20:07:07 ttx: gordc had a comment on that one, can you shed light on your reply? :) 20:07:38 stevemar: I trained dhellmann and flaper87 in the various tools and techniques I follow. I can train anyone else interested 20:07:39 stevemar : the first rule is you don't ask ttx about his cloning experiments in public 20:08:05 dhellmann: my bad, i'm still new to this 20:08:08 ttx: sounds good 20:08:12 35 20:08:35 rattboi: 42 20:09:00 stevemar: geez, even I knew that 20:09:22 ok, looks like I'm still the only candidate 20:09:28 ttx : happy to have you continue. +1 20:09:33 so I'll approve the change now unless someone asks me to pause 20:09:36 +1 20:09:38 same here 20:09:39 +1 20:09:52 ok done 20:09:59 * Confirmation of change approval rules & agenda buildup process 20:10:08 Small reminder of how we currently operate... 20:10:24 (we can change it of course but here is the status quo) 20:10:34 Changes or resolutions must be proposed before Thursday 20:00 UTC for discussion at the next meeting 20:10:47 Sometimes we defer stuff if there is too much for one meeting 20:10:54 We also need to discuss/mention them at at least one TC meeting before approving them in a formal vote on the review 20:11:07 Ultimately things are approved if there are more approvals than rejections, and at least 5 approvers 20:11:18 Though in most cases we just merge them when the majority (7 votes) is reached 20:11:34 There are a number of standing exceptions to that rule (to remove most of the useless discussions), all documented in 20:11:38 #link http://governance.openstack.org/reference/house-rules.html 20:11:50 For example, a team adding a new repository, change will be approved after one week if there is no objection. 20:12:07 (it's part of the funny role of the chair to keep that relatively fluid) 20:12:13 (If there is an objection then it will be discussed at the following meeting) 20:12:28 To facilitate finding the things we actually have to vote formally on, I mark them with topic: formal-vote 20:12:38 Questions ? 20:12:54 it might be a good idea to write down the baseline rules on that house-rules page, too 20:13:03 I can take that if you'd like 20:13:09 it sounds clear, and mostly documented in governance.o.o 20:13:12 dhellmann: it's kind of what's written in the charter 20:13:19 ah, ok 20:13:21 I didn't want to duplicate 20:13:41 #link http://governance.openstack.org/reference/charter.html#motions 20:13:59 Note that releasemanagement team is talking about moving most of the release details stuff out of the TC governed file, since that's mostly noise governance-wise 20:14:10 EmilienM: ++, i re-read them recently, if i have questions i'll ask 20:14:24 but it might not be as easy as we think :) 20:14:40 * Barcelona reminders 20:14:51 A few reminders for those who will be in Barcelona 20:14:57 There will be a joint Board/TC/UC meeting, Monday at 2:30pm 20:15:04 (we'll discuss the agenda in next topic) 20:15:14 This will be followed by the "Marketplace Mixer Booth Crawl Happy Hour" (whatever that is) between 5:00 and 7:00pm 20:15:27 probably involves alcohol 20:15:31 do we have the location for the meeting, yet? 20:15:38 let me see 20:15:53 it was probably in the announcement email for the board meeting 20:15:56 dhellmann: not according to the schedule, nio 20:16:01 was "CCIB Level 2 (Plata 1 in Spanish)" in an email I received in July 20:16:16 checking the Board wiki page 20:16:44 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/24Oct2016BoardMeeting 20:16:45 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/24Oct2016BoardMeeting 20:16:55 not any more precise 20:17:03 "CCIB Level 2 (Plata 1 in Spanish)" 20:17:07 just a shade slower than dhellmann :) 20:17:16 Then dinner with the BoD, UC and Foundation Staff at 7:30pm, you should all have rezceived an RSVP for that 20:17:30 mordred: around? 20:17:44 mordred wanted to set up some ex-and-current-TC dinner 20:17:54 no news about that though 20:18:01 please not on Monday, I'm already triple-booked 20:18:20 there is no official party day so avoiding Monday should be easy 20:18:45 Questions on that before we move on ? 20:18:49 ttx any way I can get an invitation to the dinner with the BoD, UC and Foundation Staff at 7:30pm? 20:19:10 piet_: it's probably a closed set, I can ask around though 20:19:38 #topic Discuss BoD/TC meeting agenda 20:19:58 So... any topic you want to see discussed at the BoD+TC+UC meeting in Barcelona ? 20:20:02 I'd like to get back to Alan Clark with this ASAP, since we haven't synced yet 20:20:06 and time is running out 20:20:15 Looks like the UC already has an item on the agenda, discussing the charter 20:20:24 Let's take notes on: 20:20:28 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bcn-bod+tc+uc-topics 20:20:40 I already added a couple there, based on past discussions with Alan and a number of TC members 20:20:57 - A lot of Board members are confused with our criteria for project acceptance, so I think we could spend some time discussing that 20:21:12 - I also would like to discuss the recent drops in upstream developer investment, with layoffs at multiple member companies 20:21:16 and the risk that poses to OpenStack as a whole 20:21:19 ++ 20:21:24 UX project would like to do a quick overview of the six studies that were conducted on behalf of the community over the last six months. This is a general overview of issues that were identified. 20:21:25 ttx: is worth having a topic on the dco again? I can't remember why we haven't dropped the cla yet 20:21:33 ttx : ++ 20:21:33 ttx: yeah those are both good topics 20:21:37 +1 on the upstream developer investment 20:21:50 mtreinish: we can get a status update on DCO yes 20:21:52 yeah, nice to see that addressed and not ignored 20:21:53 * smcginnis is concerned about that as well 20:22:02 Last time I asked it was blocked on infrastructure more than on the Board though 20:22:49 yes 20:23:03 ttx: tbh, I never understood the details on that. What would be blocking that in infra 20:23:04 whatever openid provider we have 20:23:11 openstackid/ipsilon 20:23:13 how is that coupled? 20:23:40 clarkb: do you have more on this? 20:23:44 mtreinish: aiui the boards dco decision us contingent on us using openstack member accounts for auth 20:23:47 I mean I understand the desire to get off of launchpad's sso, but what does that have to do with with dropping the cla 20:23:59 so that they can map users to corp cla signers easily 20:24:04 clarkb: ah, ok 20:24:16 piet_ : I'm not sure I understand how your proposed presentation fits in with the intent of the joint meeting. Can you explain that a bit? 20:24:52 piet_ : that's not usually the sort of thing we do at these meetings, since we don't have a lot of opportunities for the board, tc, and uc to all be together and discuss issues 20:24:58 mtreinish: with that in mind, is it still useful to get an update there ? 20:25:03 clarkb: I'm not sure I really buy that it'll make it easier. But, I'll just file it under board decision in my head 20:25:21 dhellmann: also I expect we'll spend a lot of time on the UC charter part 20:25:27 ttx: probably not, although I think bringing it up just to make sure people don't forget about it is useful 20:25:31 ttx: whether or not it's a bod topic, it seems like a thing we should figure out how to have some regular checkpoint 20:25:33 ttx: yes, that seems likely 20:25:50 it only seems to get looked at when there is a joint tc/bod session 20:25:59 probably should have eyes on it more often than that 20:26:03 mtreinish, sdague: ok 20:26:26 if only to say "this time we are not really waiting on you" :) 20:26:37 dhellmann Sure, but I could make the argument that most of the issues are related to usability. However, the board and TC are not always aware of these issues. Also, PWG has also been given slots at these meetings. 20:27:22 piet_ : yes, I didn't consider that a good use of time but that was a thing the board asked to have on the agenda for that meeting. 20:27:57 I would much rather we spend time discussing issues that need to be resolved than seeing presentations. So is this related to a community or governance issue in some way? 20:28:04 dhellmann Not quite understanding you 20:28:19 piet_: the pwg has a slot because the board would like to see a roadmap of what's being worked. 20:28:36 whoever proposed the goal overview: it wouldn't hurt to present that initiative yes 20:28:43 piet_ : are you going to do an information dump, or are you asking for us to decide something for you? 20:28:56 the point about PWG is that it's the board scheduling the time, not us 20:30:17 if anyone wants to see what items we had in Austin it's here (https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk) 20:30:29 * dhellmann thinks people are typing in the etherpad instead of here in conversation 20:30:53 piet_ : does line 20 apply to the goals thing or to the user research thing? (I think that's your pink on the etherpad) 20:31:24 anyway, we won't get to the bottom of the agenda within the hour. 20:31:31 let's continue the brainstorm on the etherpad, I'll communicate with Alan later this week and we can cobble together the agenda from that 20:31:52 please add your name next to the suggestion 20:31:58 so that we know who would drive it 20:33:09 Removed 20:33:45 Anything else on that ? or moving on to next topic ? 20:34:11 #action TC members to brainstorm and add suggestions on the joint agenda etherpad before end of week 20:34:39 #action ttx to reach out to Alan Clark to build the final agenda 20:35:13 #topic Discuss when next election period shall happen 20:35:22 So.. this is one of the most urgent changes for us to discuss 20:35:40 The PTL and TC election timeframes are defined in the TC charter, but the wording there assumes there is a thing called "the Design Summit" and that it happens at the same time as the thing called "the Summit". 20:35:50 So we need to change the charter to account for the PTG + Summit change 20:36:05 I raised a thread about that a month ago, but it started on a wrong assumption, and quickly rabbit-holed on a detail 20:36:11 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-September/103115.html 20:36:22 Roughly speaking we have 3 options 20:36:28 1/ Vote a few weeks before PTG 20:36:36 2/ Vote a few weeks before Summit 20:36:40 3/ Get more creative 20:36:51 My original plan was (2), to avoid switching PTLs in the middle of the PTG prep 20:37:03 (and to avoid reducing terms for the recently-elected folks) 20:37:11 my preference is #1, because that feels very close to what we currently do 20:37:14 but then elections always fall in the middle of something interesting 20:37:21 1/ implies Ocata PTL won't be PTL during 6 months, right? 20:37:23 ttx: for 2 though, doesn't that mean the ocata ptl serves into pike 20:37:28 quite a lot of folks view the PTL as a release manager, too, so seem to want it to sync up with the release cycle 20:37:33 EmilienM : right 20:37:33 EmilienM: yep 20:37:34 sdague: for me too, I also favour option 1 20:37:37 dhellmann: I agree 20:37:59 1 implies short PTLs and shorter terms for the Ocata membership of the TC 20:38:00 #1 feels the closest to what we do today 20:38:14 ttx: the ptl and tc elections don't need to be at the same time 20:38:14 (unless we decouple the PTL and TC elections) 20:38:15 imho, it would make sense to keep release schedule in account 20:38:17 one time cost ttx? 20:38:30 ttx: it does, though I'm not sure that we really need to keep TC and PTL elections in sync 20:38:45 ++ sdague 20:38:47 sdague: thats an interesting point... 20:38:47 sdague: yeah.. that is an option 20:38:52 probably doesn't need to be sync'ed at this point 20:38:59 could avoid some election fatigue I guess 20:39:14 It may make sense to do #1 for PTL and #2 for TC 20:39:16 it seems to me the TC is more like the BOD, especially as the election is already for more than 1 cycle 20:39:16 or create some 20:39:17 * edleafe understands "election fatigue" 20:39:18 Also lets us spend more time on the TC election to allow one week of campaigning for exmaple 20:39:27 I'd be fine with #1 for PTL, and #2 for TC 20:39:33 dtroyer: yeah I kinda like that 20:39:55 +1 dtroyer 20:39:59 ok, I can try to come up with some strawman before the next 20:40:01 dtroyer: that sounds like the best choice 20:40:03 meeting* 20:40:11 is it ok to change the length of the ptl term for ocata now that those folks have been elected? 20:40:26 #1 for PTL, #2 for TC fits quite well 20:40:27 dhellmann: we're calling it ocata PTL right? 20:40:30 we won't see how bad it is until we draw it 20:40:35 ocata is an exception schedule-wise, I suspect making this change now isn't going to be much of a surprise 20:40:36 dtroyer: does the charter explicitly say 6 months or is it by cycles? 20:40:38 I honestly think a lot of PTLs assumed it would be a shorter term 20:40:46 s/dtroyer/dhellmann 20:40:47 because we call it named after a cycle 20:40:48 I know some folks were assuming they would PTL for last time 20:40:52 mtreinish: I don't know 20:40:52 mtreinish: the by laws specify time 20:40:54 dhellmann: or extend it to a longer term 20:40:54 oops 20:40:56 less time 20:41:00 +1 sdague 20:41:04 dhellmann: as a PTL, I don't feel hurt by this thing 20:41:08 dtroyer: sry, tab complete fail :) 20:41:15 :) 20:41:28 EmilienM: same :P 20:41:31 mtreinish: http://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/ 20:41:50 anteaya: we're talking about ptls though 20:42:03 mtreinish: ah sorry, not that I've come across 20:42:16 #link http://governance.openstack.org/reference/charter.html#election-for-ptl-seats 20:42:17 sdague: indeed, we all knew Ocata was short. I don't think PTLs will be surprised 20:42:18 mtreinish : good point 20:42:20 that says 6 months 20:42:22 mtreinish: we need to update teh charter anyway 20:42:26 yeah 20:42:38 but better if we don't have to modify bylaws appendixes 20:42:50 so keeping (2) for teh TC would be a good bet 20:43:08 I'll re-read all of this and make sure we can come up with something that works 20:43:20 and have it up for you to consider before next meeting 20:43:31 ttx: ok, sure that's fine. But we probably should say it also applies to cycles in progress somewhere when we merge it then 20:43:34 ttx: ++ 20:43:39 assuming we change it to be per cycle 20:43:41 then if that's the thing we want to propose, communicate it to a wider set of PTLs and check that they don't mind having a short cycle :) 20:43:50 #link http://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/ 20:43:55 sounds like a good plan 20:43:59 so the bylaws also say 6 months for tc members 20:44:02 ttx: ++ 20:44:13 #action ttx to build a strawman with PTl elections aligned with PTG and TC elections aligned with summit, see how it flies 20:44:23 dhellmann: that shouldn'y be a problem if we keep tc elections to #2 20:44:44 mtreinish : right, but since it's in the bylaws if we do want to change it it's going to be harder 20:44:52 I worry about elections for PTL being aligned with some super critical point in the release, so we need to double check all that for sure 20:45:17 bylaws mean all members have to vote? 20:45:31 johnthetubaguy: where do you read that? 20:45:32 johnthetubaguy : yes 20:45:33 johnthetubaguy: 25% or something 20:45:45 anteaya: just attempting to remember 20:45:45 johnthetubaguy: ah a change in the by laws 20:45:46 anteaya: he means bylwas changes mean foundation members vote 20:45:51 well, right, not "all members" but we can't change them on our own 20:45:54 ttx: yes, thanks 20:46:05 OK, sounds like we have a way forward 20:46:05 yeah, sorry, thanks for translating me! 20:46:17 moving on to next topic ? 20:46:27 johnthetubaguy: I thought you were saying the by laws made voting mandatory 20:46:41 ttx: ++ 20:46:42 #topic Easy cleanups 20:46:49 just a few things that we can probably quickly merge: 20:47:00 (scream if we shouldn't) 20:47:02 * wording tweaks on the tc-approved-release tag definition (https://review.openstack.org/382064) 20:47:26 need to refresh the +1s on this one 20:47:30 (it has been revved) 20:47:39 since I forced a last-minute refresh on it :) 20:47:49 alright, 7 20:47:54 approving 20:48:03 * Simplify governance website title (https://review.openstack.org/382399) 20:48:16 could use one more 20:48:24 needs one more 20:48:48 alright, approving 20:49:04 * Record OpenStack-Salt as a Legacy project (https://review.openstack.org/382536) 20:49:18 this one has all it needs 20:49:35 * Record Fuel repos that were retired (https://review.openstack.org/382633) 20:50:16 so I don't disagree with this one (though it will conflict with the one just before)... but it's first time we actually record specific repositories being dropped vs. full teams 20:50:38 since I'm not convinced of the utility of this file I'm fine with it 20:50:41 ttx : y, i can rebase depending on which goes first 20:50:56 whatever fungi says is helpful to generating voters lists 20:50:57 ttx : checked with fungi about the data in the diff, he was ok 20:51:09 yes, we said this was a case we needed to account for in case someone only contributed to a dropped repo for voting rights 20:51:13 * EmilienM realizes we called a project "shotgun" :-O 20:51:28 EmilienM :) 20:51:32 ok, approving it now, and it will likely fail to merge 20:51:32 at some point, I guess we empty the file, after the contributions are no longer within the voting window? 20:51:33 ttx: hmm, that does make it look a little confusing. It seems like we retired fuel 20:51:52 mtreinish: yeah, that's why I was questioning it 20:51:53 although I don't have any suggestions on doing it better 20:51:55 that partial bit is quite... subtle 20:51:55 mtreinish : see "partial" key :) 20:51:58 johnthetubaguy : either that or we make sure fungi's voter roll building script pays attention to the dates 20:51:58 ttx: yes he also doesn't know the benefit of the file yet, he wants to work with integrating it with the tooling when he gets a chance 20:52:08 johnthetubaguy : right 20:52:09 dims: I missed that, and I'll continue to miss it :) 20:52:19 dhellmann: I was just wondering how to stop the file from growing for ever 20:52:24 dims: as I expect most people will 20:52:24 ok, let's record the info there and continue to ignore the contents of that file 20:52:27 he being fungi 20:52:30 I'm happy to take this as-is, and let fungi propose an alternate schema if it makes his tool work easier 20:52:38 ++ dhellmann 20:52:46 johnthetubaguy : yeah, we should probably schedule cleanup on a regular basis 20:52:49 I'm also fine with deleting that file if it proves more of a hassle than a useful thing 20:52:57 johnthetubaguy : like with extra-atcs 20:53:00 but in the mean time, let's record data 20:53:10 dhellmann: yeah, good point, very similar 20:53:13 dims: conflict generated 20:53:24 * ttx approves anyway 20:53:31 ack ttx will rebase after the meeting 20:53:38 #topic Open discussion 20:53:43 dhellmann Sorry for the outburst on the etherpad - there is a bit of frustration happening on my part 20:53:49 I published the cross-project workshop schedule last week: 20:53:54 #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/global-search?t=Cross%20Project%20workshops 20:53:59 stevemar: you wanted to suggest an adjustment ? 20:54:14 piet_ : I'm just trying to understand what you're looking for to help you find the right venue. 20:54:52 ttx: yep, i am listed as a chair for scaling-review-teams-and-subsystem-maintainers-part-1 but have a conflict 20:55:01 I think it's doable to swap the two sessions at 5:05pm with the sessions at 3:55pm... Any objection ? 20:55:11 ttx: if we could swap the 5:05 session with 3:55 that would be wonderful 20:55:29 we'll keep the pairs together since we know they don't generate (too much) conflict 20:55:40 just swap the timeslots 20:55:40 ttx: I would like to keep the goals sessions where they are 20:55:46 ah. hm 20:55:52 * ttx checks 20:55:53 ttx: but you can swap the others 20:56:13 ISTR that generated a conflict 20:56:16 it seems better to have the general discussion of goals before the specifics, but maybe that's not so important 20:56:24 * ttx digs in his memory 20:56:42 dhellmann I don't always get the impression that the TC or board really deeply understands some of the issues that are being confronted by operators and/or app developers. It's having a significant impact on adoption. 20:57:12 ttx: you could also -1 my request, the scaling review team is a two-parter 20:57:20 piet_: are these issues documented? 20:57:33 dhellmann: so you'd rather not swap "goals" and "decomposition" ? 20:57:40 piet_ : you're probably right. I'm not sure the format of this meeting is necessarily the best way to solve that. 20:57:57 ttx: sorry, I was looking at 5:55 not 5:05 20:58:09 piet_: I would love to read more about what is known around those 20:58:18 ttx: if you want to swap 3:55 and 5:05 that would be ok 20:58:24 piet_ : we could do a hangout or equivalent even before barcelona once there's some material for us to chew on 20:58:26 ttx: swap proprietary drivers and scaling review teams? 20:58:30 to be clear, I propose to swap "goals" with "decomposition" and ""capabilities" with "cross-service comms" 20:58:35 piet_: happy to work with you to get those issues from unknown to known, and see how to make that happen 20:58:46 piet_: or get an ML thread started with that feedback 20:58:50 ttx: I have no issue with that. 20:58:55 EmilienM We are starting to document our findings. However, the TC and Board really need to help drive 20:58:59 yeah, ML thread would be a great start 20:59:02 the things happening at 3:55pm with the things happening at 5:05pm 20:59:05 Feeling better 20:59:16 #action ttx to swap the two CPW sessions at 5:05pm with the sessions at 3:55pm 20:59:20 piet_: yes, I also think a mailing list thread would help set some context 20:59:21 I know that bringing specific feedback from the ops meetup back to the Nova team via the ML got a whole lot of things worked on 20:59:21 ++ to ML thread sdague piet_ 20:59:27 piet_: I would be happy to help too 20:59:45 piet_ : yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I didn't think it was important, just that the meeting may not be the right venue 21:00:16 dhellmann: ++ 21:00:18 piet_: meetings are best for decisions, if folks have no context it can be a waste of time to introduce material at a meeting 21:00:24 ok, time is up 21:00:24 Just as a distraction, what is the biggest challenge for operators in terms of documentation? 21:00:25 piet_ : that feedback might also go into setting some goals, once we have specific ideas for addressing the issues 21:00:28 piet_: OSIC wants to remove blockers, if I can get more data on that, we might be able to help 21:00:40 we make OpenStack for our users - http://governance.openstack.org/reference/principles.html#openstack-is-built-for-our-users - so let's gatter your feedback 21:01:00 thanks ttx 21:01:03 Time to close it, thanks everyone 21:01:07 thanks! 21:01:08 #endmeeting