Tuesday, November 14, 2017< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[01:19:59] meetecho joins the room
[01:25:16] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[01:25:16] Michael Richardson joins the room
[01:25:16] Brian Haberman joins the room
[01:25:41] Ratu Waqanitoga joins the room
[01:27:24] John Klensin joins the room
[01:28:13] Jason Livingood joins the room
[01:29:40] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[01:29:44] Jason Livingood joins the room
[01:30:01] Yoshiro Yoneya joins the room
[01:33:41] Joseph Hall joins the room
[01:34:34] Suzanne joins the room
[01:35:03] ted.h joins the room
[01:35:15] Barry Leiba joins the room
[01:35:32] joins the room
[01:35:34] amorris joins the room
[01:35:44] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[01:35:50] Martin Thomson joins the room
[01:35:56] joins the room
[01:36:04] <Martin Thomson> I'm going to scribe at
[01:36:06] John Levine joins the room
[01:36:08] has set the subject to: IASA 2.0 at IETF 100
[01:36:10] hildjj joins the room
[01:36:20] <> I'm your jabber scribe so say "mic" if you want me to relay or ping me directly.
[01:36:28] m&m joins the room
[01:36:28] sftcd joins the room
[01:36:32] Simon Pietro Romano joins the room
[01:36:37] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[01:36:40] JoeHallCDT joins the room
[01:36:57] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[01:37:04] <>
[01:37:08] <> p3 why are we here?
[01:37:10] Jason Livingood joins the room
[01:37:47] <> p4 problems
[01:39:29] Ray Pelletier joins the room
[01:40:16] <ted.h> Happy Birthday @JoeHallCDT
[01:40:36] <JoeHallCDT> :)
[01:40:47] <> p5 goals
[01:42:15] <> p6 goals (cont'd)
[01:42:59] JoeHallCDT leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[01:43:00] JoeHallCDT joins the room
[01:44:09] <> p7 transition options
[01:46:30] <> Jari now speaking
[01:46:35] <> p8 Reflections on feedback
[01:47:22] JoeHallCDT leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[01:47:22] JoeHallCDT joins the room
[01:47:39] JoeHallCDT leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[01:47:40] JoeHallCDT joins the room
[01:48:17] Joseph Hall leaves the room
[01:48:54] Joseph Hall joins the room
[01:49:17] akatlas joins the room
[01:49:49] <> p9 iasa 2.0 options feedback
[01:51:54] <> p10 isoc relationship
[01:53:46] <> p11 staff
[01:53:52] wood joins the room
[01:55:44] arusso joins the room
[01:55:58] <> p12 trust, roles
[01:57:34] <> p13 missing items
[01:57:54] <> p14 way forward
[01:59:35] <> Leslie presenting
[01:59:46] <> p15 Inter-organizational challenges for iasa++
[01:59:59] hta joins the room
[02:04:16] <> p16 cont'd
[02:04:48] akatlas leaves the room
[02:05:23] akatlas joins the room
[02:05:26] Lyle Bertz joins the room
[02:07:42] Lyle Bertz leaves the room
[02:08:09] <> John Levine
[02:09:18] <JoeHallCDT> can John be less mysterious here?
[02:09:27] <JoeHallCDT> not mic
[02:09:47] <Andrew Sullivan> less mysterious how?
[02:11:07] <JoeHallCDT> it was unclear to me if he mean IETF as a private foundation or raising money from such entities.
[02:11:45] <Suzanne> John is making a useful point here: "…never find this much money with this few strings". The problems iasa20 is trying to solve are real but maybe part of being able to tell when we're done is being able to say what strings we're accepting that we don't have now, and why it's worth it
[02:11:52] <Brian Haberman> Sign those five people up for the IAOC.
[02:11:57] <> I think he meant IETF as a private nonprivate foundation.  Which is what I thought was one of the options.
[02:12:05] <JoeHallCDT> ah
[02:12:13] <> As one of the five, er, no. :)
[02:12:28] <Brian Haberman> Dang, Rich...
[02:13:01] <> Tobias talking
[02:13:03] <JoeHallCDT> not bad from RLB:
[02:13:03] <JoeHallCDT>
[02:13:28] <> Well, maybe if SecAD doesn't come thru … :)
[02:14:18] <> Wendy Seltzer
[02:14:44] ted.h leaves the room
[02:16:02] <> (Sorry for that last comment it was out of place, but meant humorously)
[02:16:45] meetecho leaves the room
[02:17:28] meetecho joins the room
[02:17:54] sftcd joins the room
[02:18:09] <> Ted Hardie
[02:20:48] <> Brian Carpenter
[02:21:03] ted.h joins the room
[02:21:32] Ray Pelletier leaves the room
[02:23:02] <> Andrew Sullivan
[02:23:06] <John Klensin> Meetecho: don't know if it can be fixed, but the people at the microphone are in much worse focus than those several meters closer to the camera
[02:23:22] <> @meetecho: ^^^
[02:23:53] <meetecho> We'll try to zoom to prevent that (y)
[02:26:41] <> Joe Abley
[02:28:01] <> ekr
[02:29:48] <> Pete Resnick
[02:30:44] sftcd leaves the room
[02:31:03] <Andrew Sullivan> "Become a supporting member of the IETF Foundation" or whatever
[02:31:17] <Andrew Sullivan> Doesn't sound like a hard patch
[02:33:02] <Suzanne> If what you care about is the IETF, not ISOC more generically, it's stll hard, but it's much simpler.
[02:33:32] <> Sean Turner
[02:33:36] <ted.h> @Andrew setting it up as a membership organization has consequences.  A donor to the IETF AdminORG may be less problematic
[02:33:54] <Suzanne> The hidden assumption in the current arrangement is that ISOC is actually more interesting, on average, than the IETF would be by itself, so the IETF benefits from ISOC fundraising over what the IETF could do for itself.
[02:34:14] <> (oops sorry missed Gonzalo)
[02:34:40] <> +1, Suzann
[02:36:12] <Suzanne> (I don't know if it's true. It's very possibly true; ISTM there are many people who don't understand the role of open standards who can get excited about, for instance, access and other parts of ISOC's mission.  But I think the current arrangement assumes it.)
[02:36:19] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[02:36:37] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[02:38:22] <Andrew Sullivan> There's no question that a membership organisation has some consequences.  But the point is that it isn't membership in the IETF, and there are different ways to handle the "membership" of things.  Organisations seem capable of doing this: NANOG has, for instance.
[02:38:56] <> ?Jonah Ahlberg?
[02:39:11] <Andrew Sullivan> But all of that depends on deciding what problem we are trying to solve, and I still don't feel like we have established that.  
[02:39:21] <> at the mic, Jonne Soininen
[02:39:36] <> Perhaps looking at some open source foundations will provide useful info.  Instead of code, we produce documents. Other then that, could the ASF be a useful model?
[02:39:44] <> Thanks Wendy
[02:40:36] <> Tobias
[02:40:54] <> speaking from a membership org, it's really hard to do neutrality, openness, sustainability, and membership
[02:42:51] <> Gonzalo
[02:43:49] <> Barry Leiba
[02:45:29] <> ?who?
[02:45:34] <Barry Leiba> I*
[02:45:51] <Barry Leiba> Damian Muzzio, Cisco
[02:46:44] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[02:47:23] Ratu Waqanitoga leaves the room
[02:47:35] <> Richard Barnes
[02:48:58] <> Glen Deem
[02:50:53] ted.h leaves the room
[02:50:59] <> Alyssa
[02:53:10] <> Ted Hardie
[02:55:15] <Suzanne> friendly amendment to Ted at the mic: different communities, same organization
[02:55:33] <Suzanne> and the community relationship is what matters, the organizational details are an implementation
[02:56:25] <sftcd> I'm not convinced any of these "growing up" analogies are useful
[02:56:31] <> replace ward with "petulant infant wondering when it can drink"?
[02:56:33] <> Jonne
[02:56:45] ted.h joins the room
[02:56:55] <> (I agree, sftcd)
[02:58:32] <ted.h> @sftcd  So I should cancel my order for Gonzalo's Batman outfit?  Or should we keep that, just for the visual?
[02:58:53] <sftcd> clothing analogies are fine, yes:-)
[02:59:22] <JoeHallCDT> these are great fundraising ideas
[02:59:24] <akatlas> now I am quite sad not to be in the room
[02:59:59] <Brian Haberman> At some point, I think people need to get back to the idea that the possible solutions fall along a spectrum and we need to put points on the line.
[03:00:42] <> Isn't that what the ID does — pick three points on the line?
[03:01:13] <> Brian Carpenter
[03:01:27] <Brian Haberman> @Rich : I would classify it as identifying three regions along that line.
[03:01:49] <Brian Haberman> Some regions are tighter than others.
[03:02:02] <sftcd> +1 to brian's point at the mic there
[03:02:45] <> Lucy Lynch
[03:03:42] <> +1 to Lucy
[03:04:13] hta wonders if remote audio is adequate - mike seems to be barely picking up in-room for lucy
[03:04:18] <> Andrew Sullivan
[03:04:44] <Brian Haberman> Remote audio is quite clear for me.
[03:05:01] <> @JoeHall or other remotes — can you hear okay?  The mac line has gotten into the habit of holding the mic and not consistent in the distance to mouth.
[03:05:43] <JoeHallCDT> definitely there are some hard boundaries between subsidiary and independent org (I think John Levine pointed out that under US law a captive subsidiary is tax exempt under 509(a)(3) and that a free-standing one is under 509(a)(2) and to get from one to the other is a question of reincorporation, asset movement, etc.)
[03:06:01] <JoeHallCDT> yes can hear great
[03:06:15] <JoeHallCDT> video is hella unfocused, but that could be the coffee
[03:06:20] <JoeHallCDT> (it’s not the coffee)
[03:07:00] <Brian Haberman> @JoeHall : would that be coffee for people in Singapore or those of us who are remote?
[03:07:26] <> Unless I misunderstand, that's not quite true.  It's much easier to have a 501c6 (trade association) tax-exempt subsidiary than one that's 501c3 — those must be independant
[03:08:33] <> once you create a new 501(c)(3), you force all sorts of administrative separations and independent structure
[03:08:48] <> ? missed pseaker
[03:08:54] <> which creates a new principal with its own goals
[03:08:54] <> Bob Hinden
[03:09:32] <Andrew Sullivan> I don't have the impression that there is a lot of appetite for complete separation from ISOC, though.
[03:09:54] <Brian Haberman> Tobias' comment really ties into the impedance mismatch between the skills of the volunteers and the skills needed for IAOC roles.
[03:10:00] <JoeHallCDT> @richsalz these are the differences between a public benefit corporation and a private foundation (I think)
[03:10:18] <John Levine> Separate org would have tax problems due to private foundation rules. It's really not feasible.
[03:10:43] azmankin joins the room
[03:10:45] <JoeHallCDT> presumably due to the flow of money from ISOC?
[03:10:48] <JoeHallCDT> thanks, John
[03:11:05] azmankin leaves the room
[03:11:13] <> I agree private foundation (Gates/IETF anyone?) does not make sense.
[03:11:18] <John Levine> right, single funder as opposed to broadbased public support
[03:11:41] <John Levine> subsidiary does not have that problem but can have whatever management structure makes sense
[03:11:48] hta leaves the room
[03:12:02] <> Barry Leiba
[03:12:47] <sftcd> if 1==IASA++, 2==subsidiary and 3==independent org I think I'm currently at 1.2
[03:14:28] <> Gonzalo
[03:14:49] <Barry Leiba> SF: Yes, me too.
[03:15:08] <> I'm definitely <3
[03:15:13] <> er, less than three
[03:15:20] <Andrew Sullivan> hehe
[03:15:53] <> I'm around 1
[03:16:03] <JoeHallCDT> 2
[03:16:34] <> it would be fun to have a num where the options are "1, 2, 3"
[03:16:48] <> Kathy Brown
[03:17:05] <Brian Haberman> @Rich : Did you mean hum rather than num?
[03:17:12] <> ha yes
[03:17:33] <Andrew Sullivan> It appears to me that  several people who were most closely involved with IASA some time ago appear to feel strongly in favour of 1 and people who have been closely involved with IASA more recently appear to feel more inclined to go up the scale, but I may have a bias
[03:18:04] <Suzanne> @richsalz "1….more than one but less than 2….2…..more than two but less than 3…..3."
[03:18:14] <Suzanne> Mathematically speaking, we might be humming forever :)
[03:18:14] <> It's interesting, I am pushing OpenSSL through this exact same kind of thing right now.
[03:18:36] <Barry Leiba> Andrew: valid point, and we're certainly well served to pay attention to the opinions of the people who have to deal with it now and recently.
[03:18:41] <Brian Carpenter> @Andrew: maybe true, and I for one am not digging my heels in against option 2. Option 3 seems very high risk, however.
[03:19:07] <Andrew Sullivan> I haven't heard anybody arguing strongly for 3.
[03:19:18] <> I'm struck by how silent the room has been on other examples with which so many of us are familiar, such as ICANN
[03:19:27] <> Suzanne, or keep humming until you run out of breath.  "1 1.1 1.2 … 2 2.1 2.2 … 3"
[03:19:37] <JoeHallCDT> hook us up, @wseltzer
[03:19:40] <> maybe we can do a tonal hum
[03:19:55] <Brian Carpenter> ICANN is a good example of how not to do things, IMNSHO
[03:20:00] <> icann is the canonical counter-example
[03:20:01] <Andrew Sullivan> Well, the ICANN model has a whole bunch of additional structural issues
[03:20:26] <> exactly, but what safeguards could we construct to avoid ICANNing
[03:20:28] <Andrew Sullivan> but ICANN of course also has a pile of money available to it that is never going to be available to any IETF arrangement
[03:21:05] <> Not being incented to create new revenue streamsXXXXX TLD's will prevent that.
[03:21:34] <> I don't think ICANN's pathologies are only new TLDs
[03:21:35] <Suzanne> so basically the problem with ICANN compared to the ietf is both ambition and revenue for icann on a scale unavailable to the ietf.
[03:21:47] <Andrew Sullivan> ICANN doesn't even need new TLDs to create that revenue stream. People forget that it gets some money from every contracted TLD domain name registration-year
[03:22:23] <> I know it's not just the TLD'
[03:22:25] <Suzanne> part of ICANN's pathologies had to do with accountability to governments, one in particular. The IETF doesn't have that specific set of problems, and I don't see how we ever would
[03:22:55] <Andrew Sullivan> That's where its operational budget comes from, and we don't have anything like that tap anywhere on the horizon.  I think if we were to have that money tap problem in the future we would need to be worried, yes
[03:23:09] <> +1 Andrew, what I was just about to say
[03:23:13] <> Sean Turner at the mic.
[03:23:29] <Suzanne> @brian ICANN's structures and mechanisms solve a different problem than we have here. a blanket condemnation isn't required to make the case that it's not a helpful example for the IETF.
[03:23:32] <sftcd> listening to Sean I'm now at 1.19
[03:23:43] <> ekr at the mic
[03:25:09] m&m leaves the room
[03:25:19] m&m joins the room
[03:25:54] <> Lucy
[03:26:42] <> Alyssa up front now
[03:28:03] <JoeHallCDT> (here’s the page SPT was reading from, I believe: )
[03:28:08] <> Goals page
[03:29:49] <Andrew Sullivan> I'll also note that, despite the general disanalogy with ICANN and the dislike of the way ICANN has drifted, they did actually spend a lot of money on setting up a bunch of controls for some different legal entities ultimately controlled by ICANN the corporation.  We could do worse than to learn from some of the legal reasoning contained in all of that, most of which was published and is available for inspection.
[03:30:09] <> pg 1. Enough information?  (hum coming)
[03:30:36] <JoeHallCDT> hum
[03:30:39] <Barry Leiba> On jabber, hum A oor B
[03:30:48] <JoeHallCDT> (Hum A)
[03:31:09] <> rough consensus is that we have enough information
[03:31:27] <Barry Leiba> On jabber, hum A, B, C, or D (descriptions coming
[03:31:28] <> 2. which option?  a b c (1 2 3) or none of hte above
[03:31:34] <JoeHallCDT> hum B
[03:31:56] <Simon Pietro Romano> hum c
[03:31:56] <Michael Richardson> isoc subsidary.
[03:32:22] <> room silence for 2c.  minor for non of the above
[03:33:00] <Suzanne> I think there's a sortof null hypothesis that's also possible: we can live with the problems we have, becayse none of the identified alternatives makes us clearly better off when the tradeoffs are figured.
[03:33:45] <Brian Haberman> @Suzanne : Is that not 2(d)?
[03:35:03] <sftcd> i hummed for a, b and d, most strongly for a and for d because "best" in the questions isn't right - but I'm ok with the result from the room
[03:35:34] <Suzanne> I didn't go to the mic because I think 2(d) is close-ish,and I'm OK with where we ended up. But "none of the above" isn't the same as "keep what we have," exactly.
[03:36:04] <Suzanne> "none of the above" is silent on the choice not included (stand pat) so does it mean "keep trying" or "we're done"?
[03:36:31] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete is still showing his faith in the dubious proposition that people's desires are rationally transitive ;-)
[03:37:10] <> Pete Resnick at the mic BTW
[03:37:37] <Andrew Sullivan> The thing I love about the IETF is the litigation of hum questions and answers.
[03:37:48] <> and Pete wants a one-handed lawyer
[03:38:06] <> Leslie Daigle
[03:38:09] <JoeHallCDT> word up
[03:38:14] <Barry Leiba> To clarify for Pete: My hum for A meant that I would like the design team to write the docs in the direction of A, while dealing with the details.  If some details can't be worked out reasonably that way, we'll discuss it on the list and move as needed.
[03:38:17] <Suzanne> the reason it might matter when it comes down to making final decisions is that if people are making an informed, committed decision that the current arrangements are as close as we're going to get to our ideals, they're going to be committed to making it work. If they just feel we're stuck with what we have because we've failed to do better, we have a psychological problem of investment in the current arrangement.
[03:38:33] <> Nicely put Barry
[03:38:58] <Suzanne> No need to litigate the hums though, the direction given is reasonable
[03:39:21] <> we could spend all of IETF's fees on lawyers, and still find ourselves in the same conundrum
[03:39:33] Martin Thomson joins the room
[03:39:37] <Brian Haberman> @Barry : Should the DT look at some prioritization and implementation details of the documented goals?
[03:39:42] resnick joins the room
[03:40:04] <JoeHallCDT> but is the direction given, the following: “DT articulates the finer details between a captive subsidary/supporting org?”
[03:40:19] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[03:40:21] <Andrew Sullivan> @Wendy: yes, but if you have an actual legal question you should ask an actual lawyer, surely?
[03:40:31] <Barry Leiba> Brian, of course.  If we send you off in a particular direction, part of that means we need to know which things don't work or don't work well in that direction.
[03:40:40] <Barry Leiba> Prioritizations are always necessary.
[03:40:53] <Andrew Sullivan> (You need to ask a clear question, however, to get an unclear answer.  The clear answer is, "You haven't asked me a question I can answer.")
[03:41:06] <> @Andrew, but the question is often "at what cost?" rather than "is it possible?"
[03:41:13] <resnick> I’m still trying to figure out what a one-handed lawyer is. :-)
[03:41:24] <Suzanne> @ajs now who's showing his faith in a dubious proposition? ;)
[03:41:35] <> Stephen
[03:41:38] <Barry Leiba> Pete: related to a one-eyed king.
[03:41:42] <> @resnick: one who doesn't say "on the one hand, on the other hand" (or, "it depends")
[03:41:59] <JoeHallCDT> so proposal: fork non-structural issues and work on them in parallel
[03:42:00] richard.barnes joins the room
[03:42:12] <Andrew Sullivan> No, I've actually heard lawyers say, "You need to ask me a definite question.  I can't answer this."  I heard that repeatedly in the IANA work at ICANN, for instance.
[03:42:14] <Brian Haberman> @Barry : one-eyed Jack or Suicide King? ;)
[03:42:34] ted.h leaves the room
[03:42:52] <Suzanne> It's not reliably the outcome to asking an unclear question though. Sometimes they guess, or attempt to steer you like a kid away from a cliff.
[03:42:52] hta joins the room
[03:43:16] <richard.barnes> Much like asking engineers a question...
[03:43:23] <> Without the analogies, I'm saying that if we state our goals, lawyers should be able to help meet them, but shouldn't determine the course.
[03:44:01] <> Ted Hardie
[03:45:28] <JoeHallCDT> Blame John Levine, ted!
[03:45:30] <JoeHallCDT> :)
[03:45:31] <> ekr
[03:45:50] ted.h joins the room
[03:46:03] <Andrew Sullivan> @Suzanne: oh, sure.  Necessary, not sufficient.
[03:46:22] <> sean
[03:46:57] <> we have a clear consensus that the WG should design "if the IETF 'on the spectrum'?"
[03:47:17] <JoeHallCDT> we might even get a couple hours of a couple great org attorneys for free
[03:47:28] <JoeHallCDT> (initially)
[03:47:33] <> (On the spectrum often refers to Asperger's, etc)
[03:47:35] <> Jonne
[03:48:14] <Suzanne> @ajs :)
[03:49:06] <ted.h> Benoit Claise, Benoit Claise to the Yang telephone.
[03:49:24] <ted.h> (Sorry, we were joking about doing this as a Yang model earlier)P
[03:50:00] <JoeHallCDT> Is the governance model so obscure?
[03:50:28] Brian Carpenter leaves the room: offline
[03:50:37] <Suzanne> @joe I don't think so, it was kind of a scoping question I thought
[03:50:43] <resnick> I’m not clear how Jonne came to the conclusion that “it’s somewhere between a and b”. If we come up with the model, it might land between b and c.
[03:50:51] <richard.barnes> If people really want the oversight body to have hiring/firing capability, then it should be clear that 2(a) is not viable.
[03:50:58] <resnick> It’s coming up with the model that is key.
[03:51:15] <resnick> I suspect Richard is correct.
[03:51:16] <JoeHallCDT> what of the model do we not have?
[03:51:18] <Suzanne> @richard also spending money
[03:51:28] <JoeHallCDT> +1 rlb
[03:51:29] <Suzanne> or maybe more to the point, receiving money
[03:51:32] <> sean turner
[03:51:37] <> I know, we should merge with W3C!
[03:51:51] <ted.h> @wseltzer Which host?
[03:51:59] <Andrew Sullivan> Is this a "now you have $n problems" competition?
[03:52:02] <> there are aways to make 2a work.  we can have an agreement that ietf consensus is treated as "binding" by the parent org.
[03:52:03] <> the to-be-formed legal entity, of course
[03:52:12] <Barry Leiba> Wendy: does that mean we get Tim as our mascot?
[03:52:53] <JoeHallCDT> Portia is in line! Yayayay. (Treat her well, folks.)
[03:53:09] <> ?Tobias
[03:53:17] <> Harald Alvestrand
[03:53:18] <ted.h> @wseltzer  the combination of the usual CS approach (another layer of indirection) with the typical lawyers' responsible (another org can take the liability off our hands).  Nice work.
[03:53:24] <> duh, thanks.
[03:53:40] <> Portia interim IAD
[03:54:43] <> W3C — the 3 stands for "three corporations"
[03:54:47] m&m leaves the room
[03:54:56] <richard.barnes> “Which 3 corporations?”
[03:55:08] <ted.h> @richard  A new take on the 3 shells, for sure.
[03:55:34] akatlas leaves the room
[03:55:44] <Suzanne> I don't think talking about shell corporations is helpful guys :)
[03:56:19] <ted.h> @Suz
[03:56:37] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[03:56:56] <> Web's three-card monte.  Where'd my membership money go?
[03:57:03] John Levine leaves the room
[03:57:11] arusso leaves the room
[03:57:16] JoeHallCDT leaves the room
[03:57:20] sftcd leaves the room
[03:57:20] resnick leaves the room
[03:57:22] leaves the room: Stream reset by peer
[03:57:25] ted.h leaves the room
[03:57:40] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[03:57:40] Simon Pietro Romano leaves the room
[03:57:40] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[03:57:40] Joseph Hall leaves the room
[03:57:40] John Klensin leaves the room
[03:57:40] Michael Richardson leaves the room
[03:57:40] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[03:57:40] Brian Haberman leaves the room
[03:57:45] hildjj leaves the room
[03:57:45] Suzanne leaves the room
[03:57:46] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[03:57:48] amorris leaves the room
[03:58:01] wood leaves the room
[03:58:05] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[03:58:21] meetecho leaves the room
[03:58:44] hta leaves the room
[04:03:38] m&m joins the room
[04:09:45] richard.barnes leaves the room
[04:09:45] Yoshiro Yoneya leaves the room
[04:11:09] m&m leaves the room
[04:12:15] leaves the room
[04:13:34] hta joins the room
[04:29:52] Martin Thomson joins the room
[04:34:25] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[04:35:58] wood joins the room
[04:38:21] amorris joins the room
[04:38:33] richard.barnes joins the room
[04:41:07] richard.barnes joins the room
[04:41:15] richard.barnes leaves the room
[04:41:49] richard.barnes leaves the room
[04:51:31] wood leaves the room
[05:11:48] Yoshiro Yoneya joins the room
[05:13:14] Yoshiro Yoneya leaves the room
[05:17:17] amorris leaves the room
[05:21:27] joins the room
[05:22:22] resnick joins the room
[05:28:06] hildjj joins the room
[05:28:34] hta leaves the room
[05:28:43] hildjj leaves the room
[05:29:15] leaves the room
[05:32:50] wseltzer joins the room
[05:33:02] wseltzer leaves the room
[05:33:23] hta joins the room
[05:33:37] Martin Thomson joins the room
[05:37:15] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[06:25:00] hta leaves the room
[06:31:20] Martin Thomson joins the room
[06:43:22] amorris joins the room
[06:46:40] amorris leaves the room
[06:56:48] hta joins the room
[07:32:34] hta leaves the room
[07:33:00] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[07:49:38] Martin Thomson joins the room
[08:00:24] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[08:10:41] hta joins the room
[08:32:43] Suzanne joins the room
[09:07:00] akatlas joins the room
[09:07:07] akatlas leaves the room
[09:29:05] Suzanne leaves the room
[10:22:13] hta leaves the room
[14:39:15] hta joins the room
[14:39:43] hta leaves the room
[14:40:26] hta joins the room
[15:03:04] hta leaves the room
[22:02:09] azmankin joins the room
[22:06:28] azmankin joins the room
[22:06:29] azmankin leaves the room
[23:15:20] hta joins the room
[23:26:48] azmankin leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd - robust, scalable and extensible XMPP server Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!