<rehrar> let’s start a minute early
<rehrar> so we can end a minute early
<dEBRUYNE> Why would 0.12.1.0 only have auto popping for Windows? 😛
<cryptochangement> i’m down
<cryptochangement> that’s precious time
<erciccione_[m]> solid plan
<rehrar> 0. Introduction
<rehrar> Hi everyone, welcome to the meeting.
<pwrcycle> hi all
<rehrar> 1. Greetings
<cryptochangement> wazzup errybody
<_Slack> <sean> Hey
<rehrar> It appears we have a quorum
<rehrar> 2. Community highlights
<rehrar> So…stuff has happened in the community.
<rehrar> sgp usually has stuff prepared, but he’s dead to us for the next day or so
<rehrar> and he asked me last night so I didn’t have much time to prepare, I apologize.
<xmrscott[m]> Thanks to rehrar and pigeons our Taiga instance is upgraded to 3.3 This introduces two noteworthy features: being able to assign multiple members to a task and tasks having Due Dates to help priortize tasks. Hopefully both should be useful to whatever workgroup(s) you find yourself in. More release notes can be found here: https://blog.taiga.io/taiga-picea-mariana-release-330.html
<rehrar> let’s do it this way: “Have you done anything exciting recently for Moenro?”
<cryptochangement> endogenic and MyMonero team has their dope MyMonero app in pre-release
<rehrar> oh yeah, das purty cool
<pwrcycle> not exactly for monero, but i coded up sterlingVPN.com to use extend my PaymentID usage for signups.
<erciccione_[m]> the guide for the GUI is ready and a i published a PDF release
<erciccione_[m]> the pony will embed it wit the binaries of the GUI
<rehrar> which we have hope will be done one day
<parasew[m]> michael from open hw and other monero community members met up in paralelni polis yesterday, they also have been discussing defcon.
<rehrar> “faith is believing what you know cannot be true” ~ Abraham Einstein
<erciccione_[m]> yeah iirc he ha some problems with a failed hard drive
<fluffypony> erciccione_[m]: is there any value in embedding an HTML version in the actual GUI?
<cryptochangement> you mean like package it into the .zip?
<fluffypony> no I mean like embed it in an HTML viewer in a window
<cryptochangement> or tarball
<cryptochangement> or whatever
<fluffypony> so you click help and it shows that
<cryptochangement> oh cool
<erciccione_[m]> fluffypony: that would be cool actually
<erciccione_[m]> but maybe with the markdown version
<rehrar> alright, any other updates?
<rehrar> ok, let’s get down to the nitty gritty
<rehrar> We’ll jump to 4. Core Team FFS funds reallocation discussion – when/how should funds be reallocated to other projects?
<rehrar> pinging fluffypony ArticMine luigi1111w binaryFate smooth NoodleDoodle othe
<rehrar> For those who may or may not know, there was some discussion last meeting about reallocating XMR to the hardware fund
<rehrar> specifically from the seemingly failed Tracking Challenge
<rehrar> the Tracking challenge did not just not reach funding goals (and expired), it also had some pretty bit problems that as of yet have not been reconciled regarding proving authenticity of someone winning the challenge
<rehrar> i.e. people thought it was too easy to game. take the money for themselves, since there is a good amount of trust involved in the set up
<rehrar> both proposals are available for viewing in “Funding Required”: https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required
<ArticMine> So the FFS was not properly conceived from the beginning?
<dEBRUYNE> If you reallocate funds to a specific proposal you automatically presume the donors are okay with that particular proposal
<dEBRUYNE> Which they may not be
<rehrar> it would seem so ArticMine
<rehrar> dEBRUYNE: but if a proposal expires, doesn’t the XMR go to the general fund anyways?
<pwrcycle> If it didn’t reach the goal in time, re-allocating seems resonable, aside from any other issues with a proposal.
<dEBRUYNE> Yes, which is the preferred option in my opinion
<fluffypony> rehrar: yes, but we’ve never had a proposal expire because they didn’t have due dates
<cryptochangement> it seems like the other logical option would be to send it to the hackerone bounty since it is in the same spirit so the donors would most likely be OK with that
<rehrar> we have to remember that the forum funding system is not meant to be a completely trustless option. It relies on trust of the core team. Meaning people should know when they donate to a FFS proposal that it might expire, and fall under stewardship of the core team.
<selsta> who funded the hardware wallet?
<fluffypony> selsta: Monero is a private cryptocurrency…
<rehrar> If this makes them uncomfortable (cuz it might be given in ways they don’t agree with) they can choose not to donate, or seek other funding arrangements (ala fireice)
<selsta> fluffypony: 😛
<ArticMine> My preference is the general fund since it is neutral.
<erciccione_[m]> i think the point here is to decide a general workflow for expired proposals
<parasew[m]> +1 for open hw wallet, the guys are rly doing a great job, but need more funds to proceed
<dEBRUYNE> Their proposal is fully funded already fwiw
<rehrar> dEBRUYNE: proposal was also made before the crash
<xmrmatterbridge> <michael> Yes, funds are enough.
<luigi1111w> as the administrator, I just buy an occasional lambo. I figure it equals out.
<cryptochangement> I kinda feel like the FFS terms (which I think is in an unmerged PR to the meta repo) should be worked into the FFS so it is easier to find
<dEBRUYNE> rehrar: That’s the responsibility of the proposer though
<fluffypony> luigi1111w: you should bring a Lambo to Consensus 2019, really get the scandal going
<rehrar> you guys need to show up in rag clothing. Opposite end of the spectrum.
<luigi1111w> license plate: tks ffs
<dEBRUYNE> Lambogate soon^tm
<rehrar> show how really down to earth and humble Moenro is
<cryptochangement> “look at fulffypony looking like a hobo after Monero tanked”
<cryptochangement> – r/monero probably
<rehrar> most upvoted and commented thread in the subreddit
<rehrar> either way, there’s many many FFS growing pains. Simply because many situations haven’t happened.
<rehrar> 0mq, firceice’s, etc. This is just another.
<rehrar> And how this is handled will set precedent.
<floam412> fluffypony in cargo shorts, moon shirt, a 24K gold “MEA”, riding shotgun in luigi’s lambo
<rehrar> ArticMine says general fund since it’s the most neutral
<floam412> whatta photo op
<rehrar> I would agree with that.
<cryptochangement> the general fund usually contributes to FFSes so why not just move them to the general fund and send a good portion of the reallocated funds to new FFSes that need funding
<erciccione_[m]> this is why i think we should define what to do with expired/unsuccesfull workflow instead of focusing on what to do with this specific one. what about a separed wallet for failed proposal, and we can decide on meetings where those money should go
<rehrar> two formalization proposals available for discussion: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/pull/87 https://github.com/rehrar/meta/pull/1
<cryptochangement> erciccione_: It would need to be made clear to donors that funds get reallocated if a deadline isn’t met
<rehrar> the second one, by ajs to my repo is the one we worked on together so is the freshest one
<erciccione_[m]> the problem is that people donated for that specific proposal, so i think a feedback from the community would be necessary, before moving those funds and use them for something else
<ArticMine> cryptochangement makes a very good point. The failed proposals can be used to offset part of the cost to the general fund of funding and providing seed funding to FFS
<floam412> why not have the funds go into a separate wallet like erciccione was saying, but have a dedicated time bi-annually to decide on where to allocate funds and deem projects as “unsuccessful”… maybe it can follow the hardfork schedule time frame
<erciccione_[m]> cryptochangements: that’s why i feel we really need to define what to do with failed proposals and keep that as a standard for the future
<rehrar> but this begets the question to be asked from the core team, should the ffs terms be formalized?
<rehrar> ArticMine fluffypony luigi1111w binaryFate
<rehrar> or should it be fluid and flexible (at the will of the core team, since it relies on you guys anyways)
<endogenic> end of the day, humans have to guide it imo
<ArticMine> They can be formalized but it is important from the perspective of de centralization to keep it as simple as possible
<erciccione_[m]> floam412: we don’t have that many failed proposals, i think we can decide during meetings, but we need a pattern to follow anyway
<rehrar> Option 1: Core Team accepts formalization and abides by the formalized rules agreed upon by the community. Doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility for edge cases, and if something isn’t done exactly like in the rules, it gives ammunition to outsiders
<rehrar> Option 2: We say it’s better to have the flexibility on the edge cases since they are so rare, and thigns work pretty smoothly without formalization, and trust the core team to come up with good decisions on said edge cases
<rehrar> (meaning we abandon a formalization endeavor)
<endogenic> opt 1 sounds unnecessary and dangerous, kind of defeats the point..
<rehrar> current guidelines: https://forum.getmonero.org/7/open-tasks/2379/forum-funding-system-ffs-sticky
<erciccione_[m]> fwiw, i was proposing a minimal pattern to follow, where community is involved. since they put the money
<pwrcycle> I vote for Option 2. flexibility is better. This is an edge case anyway. give the funds to Core team and let them re-allocate.
<endogenic> binaryFate for ex is a comp scientist, who else do we trust to give opinions on what’s worth funding?
<ArticMine> Or a simplified option 1 where the funds go to the general fund and in effect creates option 2, since the core team controls the general fundd
<rehrar> the risk we take in option 2 is the fact that because things are ill defined, a lot of people will whine (as has happened in the past couple months) “We demand explanations for what happened to this money. It just went to the core team? How do we know they’re not just enriching themselves at the expense of the community.”
<luigi1111w> because we never have company dinners 🙁
<rehrar> ArticMine: I think that’s the way forward, yes.
<rehrar> There has also been some discussion about open accountability and transparency regarding the general fund moneys
<endogenic> is the wallet view key up for publishing?
<selsta> it is I think
<rehrar> I think it is published, but it only does incoming, not outgoing, correct?
<luigi1111w> it used to be
<luigi1111w> not sure where it is now
<floam412> I say option 2 as well.. but I think it would be nice to have the decision making process available out in public via a detailed explanation on reddit, bitcointalk, etc. and then people can respond to it. If there is an overwhelmingly large amount of users that are unhappy with the decision for whatever reasons, maybe decide on what to do from there
<endogenic> (does that pose a danger to output taint? lol)
<erciccione_[m]> rehrar: i propose again a different wallet for failed proposals for that very reason
<selsta> the viewkey is in the bitcointalk post
<rehrar> we can keep track via view key of all donations made TO the general fund, but if luigi buys a new coffee mug with it, we’d never know
<endogenic> rehrar can we look at what amounts contributed to a given proposal?
<dEBRUYNE> Only the viewkey of the general dev fund is public afaik
<endogenic> rehrar: if so we can have greater insight into accountability
<dEBRUYNE> If you have the view key of the FFS wallet you can sort by payment ID
<rehrar> any core team member want to remark on general fund transparency?
<vp11> I don’t think we will see that many failed proposals. Usually an idea is moved to “funding required” when the community already provided good feedback and intention to donate.
<endogenic> yeah dEBRUYNE they could just have done multiple txs too youre right
<erciccione_[m]> dEBRUYNE: that sound like a good solution
<vp11> I agree with ArticMine for a simplified option 1. funds go to general fund and stewards can apply this money elsewhere immediately if necessary.
<endogenic> erciccione_[m]: pid is not required tho no?
<endogenic> plus getting phased out
<dEBRUYNE> There’s two things here -> 1. The general dev fund, whose view key is public | 2. The FFS wallet, whose view key is not public
<dEBRUYNE> For the latter you could sort by payment ID to get donations to a specific proposal
<luigi1111w> rehrar you mean like publishing key images or something?
<dEBRUYNE> But you’d need the private view key
<vp11> endogenic, pid is necessary when donating to specific ideas, but sometimes people can forget and talk directly to a core team member with proof of payment to allocate the resources.
<erciccione_[m]> endogenic: iirc it should be
<endogenic> vp11 ah i didnt realize that was still the case
<erciccione_[m]> because that’s how you know which proposal you are funding
<rehrar> luigi1111w: that’d probably be the way it’d have to be done, yeah
<rehrar> not my idea, mind. Just saw some talk of that over the past couple months in a few threads.
<rehrar> although it is telling that these people never seem to find their way into meetings to discuss this stuff, and so could just be ‘concern trolling’
<vp11> I know that this is not the focus of the discussion, but maybe the FFS wallet view key should also become public so people can audit it if they want.
<selsta> this whole talk started with the forum software being buggy and showing 404s for old proposals
<rehrar> my above concern trolling comment applies to both the general fund and the ffs btw
<cryptochangement> selsta: guess who made a big deal about that lol
<rehrar> yes, my reimplementation of the ffs (which can be viewed at getmonero.org/forum-funding-system) is awaiting a couple final touches from the pony man
<luigi1111w> both viewkeys being public is fine by me
<dEBRUYNE> I am not sure what the benefit is of making the second view key public
<rehrar> and it is Git run like the rest of the site, so everyone has a view of everything always
<rehrar> no more server reliance
<erciccione_[m]> dEBRUYNE: +1, that wouldn’t be useful at all imho
<vp11> dEBRUYNE, you mean, for the FFS wallet?
<rehrar> Here’s my final thoughts on the matter. The fact that nobody who has had these ‘significant problems’ with the ffs or general fund attends these meetings, or is here to discuss these things at the appropriate times, signals to me that it’s not that big of an issue. They just like to whine about things and don’t want to see changes.
<selsta> cryptochangement: our favorite concern troll lol
<dEBRUYNE> vp11: yeah
<cryptochangement> dEBRUYNE: yea as long as none of the people using the FFS complain about getting stiffed then there is no reason to think the core team is pocketing the money
<luigi1111w> wink wink
<erciccione_[m]> rehrar: the problem is not about who made the proposal but about who funded it
<dEBRUYNE> You wouldn’t be able to see if they pocketed the money with merely the view key though
<dEBRUYNE> One sweep_all by luigi1111w and itsgone^tm
<endogenic> rehrar: i don’t necessarily agree.. have we confirmed they know they must come to these meetings?
<endogenic> and are able to
<luigi1111w> that sounds like an administrative headache
<luigi1111w> “where did this output go”
<rehrar> erciccione_[m]: and for this, we implement articmine’s proposal. An expiry date on all ffs proposals. Goes to general fund if not.
<dEBRUYNE> I’d propose to keep it simple
<dEBRUYNE> And just adhere to -> An expiry date on all ffs proposals. Goes to general fund if not.
<vp11> FFS projects were never “very” formal, so I don’t think the authors knew about expiring dates, or that they should come and report to the community meetings, etc.
<endogenic> vp11: not the authors, the funders
<erciccione_[m]> that’s ok for me dEBRUYNE but i would still like an imput for the community for failed proposal
<vp11> as far as I’m concerned, both 😛 the community funded your project, both the funders and the funded have an informal obligation to do follow ups.
<rehrar> we should have somewhere posted “PLEASE READ the terms of the ffs BEFORE you make a proposal or donate to one”
<vp11> rehrar, you’re absolutely right
<luigi1111w> also please remember to start with [your name]:
<monerobux> erciccione_[m] meant to say: that’s ok from me dEBRUYNE but i would still like an imput for the community for failed proposal
<vp11> once these ‘rules’ and ‘terms’ are defined, they need to be written in a very clear form and in an accessible way to everyone participating
<cryptochangement> erciccione_: this kinda is input from the community. sgp posted on reddit saying this would be discussed so if somebody is concerned but didn’t show up that’s kinda their fault
<rehrar> “By donating to the ffs, you agree to the informal terms laid out in xyz document”
<endogenic> we should bury “free lambo” in there since no one reads those anyway
<rehrar> and it’s a good first barrier too. If we see a ffs proposal that doesn’t meet at least those bare minimum requirements, then how can we trust them enough to actually follow through on the proposal?
<erciccione_[m]> cryptochangements: yes, i’m just saying we should use this process every time we face this issue
<rehrar> although, it may not be as uncommon as we think
<rehrar> Kasisto and Monero Observer have fallen off
<rehrar> Although I talked with Kasisto guy and he’s still going, just not as quickly as he’d have hoped.
<rehrar> And I’m impressed with his work so far so I’m inclined to believe.
<rehrar> I messaged Monero Observer guy, and I know he had a kid or something, so his time evaporated, but still haven’t heard a response from him.
<rehrar> These types of situations actually happen a decent amount
<vp11> rehrar, in fact the ideas that do not adhere to the “rules” won’t even be moved to “funding required”.
<cryptochangement> see what children do…
<rehrar> and this is an issue, because the people, in their proposals, set a timeline for themselves
<rehrar> i.e. “be done by January” or whateer
<rehrar> and if it’s not done by January, does it just automatically go to general fund, or give them an opportunity to explain themselves via meeting
<rehrar> maybe they have good reason, etc.
<rehrar> this needs to be in the rules too
<vp11> I think you might want to remove the “judge” role as much as you can from the core team.
<erciccione_[m]> yes, that was exactly my point rehrar
<vp11> How milestones work? Once I declare that I finished my proposal/milestone the core team releases the fund?
<rehrar> yes, usually
<vp11> so I think one viable course of action would be…
<rehrar> I will remake my FFS terms proposal to be simpler along the lines of what ArticMine said
<vp11> once the expire date arrives, the author has a 1 or 2 weeks grace period to go to the community meeting and “close” his project, like explaining what he did, etc.
<vp11> if he can’t it goes automatically to the general fund
<rehrar> and PR those to the meta repo. I’d hope you all comment on it so there can be some consensus there.
<rehrar> Something like that seems reasonable, but I would give a month.
<vp11> if the guy comes back and the community really wants to get this project back, then he creates a new proposal and the “remaining amount” (that is now on general funds) can be moved again to the new ffs
<rehrar> Since we have one of these meetings every two weeks, if he can’t make one meeting, he’s screweed
<vp11> like this at least you don’t have a core team member “judging” if someone “deserves” more time
<cryptochangement> that’s true, a month is probably better
<endogenic> rehrar: it doesnt have to just happen at meetings
<endogenic> the individual could ping anyone anytime
<rehrar> scroll to the bottom of the ‘Contributing’ page
<rehrar> that is actually the standing way things are resolved (in theory)
<rehrar> (i.e. it has not yet been superseded as far as I know)
<erciccione_[m]> vp11: i don’t like that at all, the community put the money, the community should decide, not the core team.
<vp11> that’s exactly the goal
<rehrar> erciccione_[m]: that’s what he’s saying 🙂
<endogenic> erciccione_[m]: imo the core team is usually deciding based on what the community really wants
<rehrar> this is true
<rehrar> they have yet to go against the community as far as I have seen
<erciccione_[m]> oh, sorry, i misread
<rehrar> anyways, regarding the Monero Tracking (the immediate issue)
<rehrar> I say General Fund
<erciccione_[m]> ok i got it, maybe i’m too picky on this, but i still think a final word from the community is needed. to avoid accusation of centralization
<rehrar> erciccione_[m]: the ffs is centralized, and it’s pointless to pretend it’s not
<shillo> we need a ceo who is responsible for all decisions and can be fired
<rehrar> the core team acts as arbiters, and they can set their own rules for that arbitage process
<rehrar> if I don’t like it, I can make the RFS (rehrar funding system) and act as an arbiter and set my own rules
<vp11> I say vp11 fund so I can quit my normal job and dedicate my life to crypto. jokes, general fund should be.
<erciccione_[m]> rehrar: well, if we can decentralize it a bit, why we shouldn’t?
<rehrar> Monero is not centralized, but the ffs is
<rehrar> it’s up to the core team, not us, since it’s their system
<rehrar> that’s what this all comes down to
<vp11> remember that ffs projects expiring should be an exception. I don’t see anything wrong in going through the community first (instead of directly to the core team to decide). even if takes one extra step, everyone will be happy like that.
<rehrar> they’re the ones putting themselves and their reputations on the line for this, not us
<rehrar> and they are setting their terms. If we propose terms (via PR) and they accept them (via merging), which they would do with community consensus, I’m sure, then we’re golden
<endogenic> shillo what happened to our chief entertainment officer??
<erciccione_[m]> yes, but the money are from the community, we shouldn’t say, it’s their system so it’s everything up to them. That’s a very bad way to deal with this imho
<shillobear> endogenic he fell of a cliff and died on impact
<rehrar> you have to understand the process erciccione_[m], the flow of money given via ffs is the following:
<rehrar> community –> Core Team –> individual
<vp11> the core team is a representation of the community anyway, it should never have a conflict there. one could argue it’s a non necessary step, but it does no harm and the community will have a chance to express themselves
<vp11> how bad can that be
<rehrar> not community –> individual
<erciccione_[m]> vp11: +1
<endogenic> vp11: i’m curious to hear that argument 😛
<rehrar> ultimately I agree with you both erciccione_[m] and vp11
<vp11> I mean, the money goes to the general fund, Then the author has to create a new proposal, community will pitch in again, it will be approved and the previous “remaining funds” will just be moved.
<rehrar> just trying to clear up some misconceptions about how the ffs currently operates
<vp11> sounds like an ok process
<rehrar> alright, almost out of time
<rehrar> any last thoughts from anyone about anything?
<erciccione_[m]> rehrar: i know how ffs works, that’s not the point 🙂
<erciccione_[m]> vp11: that’s good for me
<rehrar> thanks for your discussion on this by the way. It’s been great. 🙂
<rehrar> not just talking to you erciccione_[m], there will be people reading these logs later 😉
<rehrar> and the public definitely has misconceptions
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> Do logs for these still get posted?
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> They used to but I haven’t seen them in a while
<rehrar> 1. I’ve asked for the website to be frozen while I finish the multilingual reimplementation
<rehrar> 2. dEBRUYNE? 😀
<erciccione_[m]> you have to understand the process erciccione_[m], the flow of money given via ffs is the following: <– i pointed that out because this is what you wrote
<erciccione_[m]> rehrar ^
<rehrar> ah, I see. Apologies then erciccione_[m].
<erciccione_[m]> cryptochangements: i don’t think anybody is posting those actually
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> Maybe I’ll post them somewhere if somebody else doesn’t do it :p
<erciccione_[m]> rehrar: np 🙂
<rehrar> you can start formatting them for submission to the website cryptochangements
<rehrar> alright, end of meetig
<rehrar> kthanksbai two weeks next meeting
<erciccione_[m]> no other points for the meeting?
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> Same time?
<rehrar> oh, we can keep going I guess.
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> (Sgp wouldn’t have forgotten to mention the time :p)
<rehrar> it’s just been an hour
<rehrar> as we all well know, I’m not sgp
<rehrar> I can only aspire :'(
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> It’s ok we <3 rehrar too
<xmrmatterbridge> <michael> Defcon meeting is in 1 week in case anyone is interested.
<erciccione_[m]> that’s something i pointed out before, we shouldn’t cut meetings just before the hour is gone. i mean, today there shouldn’t be too much to talk about, but we shouldn’t get use to it
<rehrar> 5. Open ideas time
<erciccione_[m]> sometime ago we agreed for 1,30 hours meeting if needed
<rehrar> Share your ideas of how to make Monero a better community.
<shillobear> play more pubg
<shillobear> monero pubg tournament
<erciccione_[m]> there is also my point for the localization workgroup
<rehrar> I actually think the Monero community sponsoring a tournament of some kind would be cool.
<vp11> “how to explain to people that monero is money and that it should be used”
<erciccione_[m]> we can cut that if nobody has questions, i have not much to say actually. except i started testing pootle (the localization platform). and 21 languages of the GUI will be updated
<rehrar> I remember we were trying to get pootle to work back in the day
<rehrar> any luck with it?
<erciccione_[m]> that was weblate. i got pootle working, but i have some dubt about the integration with git. could have some issues
<erciccione_[m]> ecause if i understood correctly there will be one “pootle” user committing, and not the actual contributor
<erciccione_[m]> that could create a mess about attributions
<rehrar> oooh, yeah that’s rough
<erciccione_[m]> but i still need to test it and see if i found a workaround for that
<rehrar> but it does make things easier for people who just want to translate but not learn git
<rehrar> and don’t care about attribution
<erciccione_[m]> tht’s true, but if we use it for the standard workflow, it could mess thing up
<erciccione_[m]> i mean, weblate works correctly from that point of view
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> Can’t we just list translators in a translator section in release notes?
<erciccione_[m]> will make further tests and keep you updated
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> So we can say we <3 you without crediting the git commit
<erciccione_[m]> we could cryptochangements, i mean. i could just keep a list updated, but if we can avoid it, i would prefer it
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> True
<rehrar> alright, anything else?
<rehrar> updates from anyone? topics to discuss?
<xmrmatterbridge> <cryptochangements> I think we’re good now
<rehrar> 6. Confirm next meeting date/time
<rehrar> 9th of June, 17 UTC
<rehrar> 7. Conclusion
<rehrar> Thanks for coming. Remember, change starts with ME!