The following log is interrupted as I needed to leave and Jon kindly took the chair after it.
----
[10:11] You: 10.11, let's start
[10:11] Sudane Erato: kk
[10:11] Brian Livingston: Should we do a sim wide announce as a last reminder/
[10:11] Brian Livingston: ?
[10:11] You: we don't have an agenda today... i think i am to blame there 
[10:12] You: oh, ok, can anyone do that, please?
[10:12] Sudane Erato: no one else in the sim
[10:12] Jon Seattle: Let me send out the notice
[10:12] You: hi Nikki
[10:12] Nikki Maertens: Hi!
[10:12] Tanoujin Milestone: hi Nikki
[10:12] Brian Livingston: Hi Nikki
[10:12] Sudane Erato: hi Nikki!!
[10:13] Jon Seattle: Sent
[10:13] You: thank you
[10:14] You: ok guys
[10:14] You: we have two poinst from last meeting which have been tabled
[10:14] You: and which i would move to table again
[10:14] You: just let me get the points in question from last agenda
[10:14] You: one sec
[10:15] You: last agenda points were
[10:15] You: 1. Ultimate ownership and/or trust argument for Guild work for sim design and installation on public land. 2. The right of Guild members to free speech on matters of Guild policy. Do we want to have these? 3. Do we want to go forward with the 3rd sim design or postpone it until other issues are worked out?
[10:15] You: we discussed 1 for one hour and then tabled it
[10:16] You: tabled 2 directly, and 3 too, i fi recall correctly
[10:16] Jon Seattle: Yes.
[10:17] You: ok
[10:17] Sudane Erato: I think we should send #1 to the RA
[10:17] Sudane Erato: it is not benefitting th GUild to discuss it further\
[10:17] Jon Seattle: I do too. But I think Rose would like to have her say.
[10:17] Sudane Erato: fine... she can have that say in the RA
[10:17] Sudane Erato: everyone can have their say there
[10:18] Jon Seattle: I agree.
[10:18] Sudane Erato: it is tearing up the Guild
[10:18] You: i think
[10:18] You: that perhaps the guild should draw an explanation of the discussion points
[10:18] You: to the RA
[10:18] You: what do you think?
[10:19] You: sort of preparatory document, with the issues already spotted?
[10:19] Sudane Erato: yes... and those douments exist now... in the forums
[10:19] You: hmmm
[10:20] Sudane Erato: if we touch it further
[10:20] Sudane Erato: we will be sucked into the politics of it
[10:20] Sudane Erato: and that does not belong here
[10:20] You: yes, that is true
[10:20] You: so would you propose it as a motion?
[10:20] Sudane Erato: i feel the proponents of the various issues should present that to the RA
[10:21] You: btw, the first RA meeting will occur in the fist week of august
[10:21] Brian Livingston: Has the date been nailed down?
[10:21] You: but it is not predictable that the discussion will occur on that meeting, seeing other matters have precedence, like budget and executive
[10:21] Jon Seattle: The 5th at Noon is the RA
[10:22] Brian Livingston sighs
[10:22] Jon Seattle: I think the RA will take it up soon after. I have aready sent a request to Pat.
[10:22] You: so i would say that there is indeed a good period of time for proponets to prepare their argumentation
[10:22] You: what do you all say?
[10:23] Jon Seattle: So the proposal is that #1 be passed to the RA for consideration.
[10:23] Brian Livingston: I agree, but some part fo me feels that sending it to the RA is admission of an inability to solve our own problems and a sign of instability
[10:23] Jon Seattle: ?
[10:23] Sudane Erato: yes Jon
[10:24] Brian Livingston: But then again, keepign it in the GUild will likely serve to destablisize us even more
[10:24] Sudane Erato: and I support that, obviously
[10:24] Jon Seattle: Well, it is perhaps a problem we never should have tried to handle in the first place. I agree with Sudane.
[10:24] Nikki Maertens: Is the Guild an NGO?
[10:24] Brian Livingston: Yep
[10:24] You: i think that whatever the result of the deliberation on this
[10:25] You: the Guild can assure teh process of contacting builders (who are in the guild, most of them)
[10:26] You: and of course, it will organize teh process for future guild-created content
[10:26] You: you see taht i am drawing here a difference between the hmmm philosophical bit of teh issue and teh practical, processual bit
[10:27] Sudane Erato: well, i could see even the processes having "political" impact
[10:27] Sudane Erato: in which case we should be ready to send issues to the RA
[10:28] Jon Seattle: Exactly
[10:28] You: hmmm, i see what you mean
[10:28] You: but... we would be saving work
[10:29] You: in all cases, perhaps teh rA will also want to pronounce themselves on that
[10:29] You: so, let's vote the motion?
[10:29] Jon Seattle: Yes please.
[10:29] Sudane Erato: if there are issues of "rights"
[10:29] Sudane Erato: yes... lets
[10:30] You: motion being that we request RA to pronounce themselves over the issue as stated in teh point 1 of last week's agenda?
[10:30] You: votes, please
[10:30] Sudane Erato: yes
[10:30] Jon Seattle: Aye
[10:30] Sudane Erato: and... who are Guild members?
[10:30] Brian Livingston: aye
[10:30] Sudane Erato: can everyone vote?
[10:30] Jon Seattle: In theory there is a work requirement, but we have never tried to impose that.
[10:31] You: yes
[10:31] Nikki Maertens: Whether I can vote or not I am in agreement with it.
[10:31] Sudane Erato: hehe... great
[10:31] Jon Seattle: Tan?
[10:31] Tanoujin Milestone: let me learn listen, apply later...
[10:31] You: Jamie, hi!
[10:32] Nikki Maertens: Hi Jamie
[10:32] Brian Livingston: Hi Jamie
[10:32] Sudane Erato: hi Jamie
[10:32] Tanoujin Milestone: i would abstain, not enough orientation
[10:32] Jon Seattle: Hi Jamie
[10:32] Tanoujin Milestone: hi Jamie
[10:32] You: Jamie, we are in mid votation
[10:32] Jamie Palisades: Sorry to be late. Big log in failures. Hi all.
[10:32] You: motion is to apply to RA to pronounce themselves over the 1st point of last week's agenda
[10:33] You: 1. Ultimate ownership and/or trust argument for Guild work for sim design and installation on public land.
[10:33] Jamie Palisades: Ah. Thx, did not see mtg notice last week so didn't know.
[10:34] You: ehehe i find a bit hard to recall it from one week to the other even... have to go and check
[10:35] Jon Seattle: Jamie, you can vote if you wish
[10:35] Brian Livingston: As a side note, it might be worthwhile to have a notecard giver in wold that would give out the next weeks agenda
[10:35] Jon Seattle: Brian, yes a great idea
[10:35] You: yes, we can arrange that easily
[10:35] Jamie Palisades: As I recall Jon told Rose and us rather clearly he wanted RA approval of whatever contract, and ownership solution, is used. This is still that idea, yes? If so, certainly, ask them. If not, what did I miss?
[10:36] Sudane Erato: yes, thats a fair summary
[10:36] Jamie Palisades: so "yes"
[10:36] You: last week we discussed the issue and tabled it for further discussion
[10:37] You: the chat log is in teh guild forum, btw
[10:37] You: ok, so everyone has voted, except me?
[10:37] Jamie Palisades: thx - I really must develop the reflex to read those, sigh
[10:37] You: aye
[10:37] You: and lol, Jamie
[10:37] You: ok, motion passed
[10:38] Jon Seattle sighs with releif
[10:38] You: hmmm the guild will ask the RA for this to be included in tehir discussion asap
[10:38] Jamie Palisades: Just so I know, may I ask two things about how that will work?
[10:38] You: of course
[10:38] Moon Adamant listens
[10:39] Jamie Palisades: OK thx 1. is it the last draft I saw, which I thikn is about 2-3 weeks old and sent by Rose?
[10:39] You: hmm, i think so
[10:40] Sudane Erato: i don't know that we're sending anything specific, except for the issue
[10:40] Jamie Palisades: ok so if the RA wants to mess around with any little bits (like, who owns, guild or CDS), at least they can be working from a fairly solid draft.
[10:41] Jamie Palisades: ah - so they just approve the outline - which includes "Guild acts for CDS"?
[10:41] You: the draft is published in the forums, correct?
[10:42] Jon Seattle: Yes, that is an option. Yes, the draft is on the forum.
[10:43] You: Jamie, it was proposed that there is already a good deal of argumentation in teh forums (teh draft being there too) and that proponents can adress the RA
[10:43] Jamie Palisades: Gotcha, thx. Makes sense to me. Q2. have we, or anyone, figured out yet whether it *is* the Guild or CDS that should "own" stuff?
[10:44] Sudane Erato: no, we haven't, and now we won't!
[10:44] Sudane Erato: they will
[10:44] Jamie Palisades: eh? Ah. So are there known, competing points of view, at least? I seem to be a week or two behind
[10:44] Sudane Erato: i think that's fair to say
[10:45] Jon Seattle: Yes, there are, but we are saying in effect, it is the RA's job to sort it out.
[10:45] Jamie Palisades: Um, I can read all about it on the forums? (just a guess)
[10:45] Sudane Erato: hehe... at great length
[10:45] Jon Seattle: Actually Rose wrote a nice short summary
[10:45] Sudane Erato: yes... just a day or so ago
[10:46] Jamie Palisades: well I was tempted to post to Jon;s original announcement of Guilda's death, but sigh elected to be still for a bit
[10:46] Jamie Palisades: so when's the RA?
[10:46] You: the RA first meeting is scheduled for the 5th
[10:46] Jamie Palisades: Thanks this helps me tremendously figure out where the moving pieces are
[10:46] You: but it's a bit improbable that they have time to discuss it on taht day
[10:47] Jon Seattle: Ah, Guilda still exists, she is just hiding out for a while 
[10:48] Jamie Palisades: Smart avatar. I would too if I had had her week. So - other than the Guilda/Guild issue, do we think the rest of the trademark/rights/textures stuff prety much works?
[10:49] You: i think the rest of the text is great
[10:49] You: we are discussing one sentence 
[10:49] Jon Seattle: In my opion yes, apart from the "who owns public stuff" issue, Rose and you did an excllent job on the agreement.
[10:49] Jamie Palisades: hey in my world, if the reader only dislikes one piece, that's a win
[10:50] Jon Seattle:
[10:50] Jamie Palisades: So Jon, on to terraforming experiments, is the short version?
[10:50] Jon Seattle: lol, well that is one of the other points we tabled.
[10:51] Jamie Palisades listens placidly for agenda guidance
[10:51] You: yes
[10:51] You: sorry
[10:51] Jon Seattle: Moon, can you read out the other points
[10:51] You: point #2 was tabled directly last week hmmm
[10:52] You: 2. The right of Guild members to free speech on matters of Guild policy. Do we want to have these?
[10:52] Jon Seattle: Please table that for now.
[10:52] You: and speaking personaçlly... i would table it
[10:52] Jamie Palisades: er can I just ask, is there a record fomr last week that will inform me what was meant by that?
[10:53] You: motion to tbale point 2 then, please vote
[10:53] Jon Seattle: Yes, though I moved to have it tabled then also
[10:53] Jon Seattle: Yes, please table
[10:53] You: table*
[10:53] Jamie Palisades: soryr - literally saw no mtg notice so am not caught up, didn;t know of meeting
[10:53] You: ok, voting...
[10:54] Jon Seattle: Ah, the notice was sent out by DNate last meeting -- he used different channels that I usually do
[10:54] Jamie Palisades: Moon, in EU and US parlance table means two different things. Just to be clear, you mean, place it off the agenda until (if ever) re-introduced, right?
[10:54] You: yes
[10:55] Jamie Palisades: and if we "table" something now , that does not impair or preclude its future reintroduction?
[10:55] Jon Seattle: The point was to address the arguments going on in the forums that Guild Secretaries should not speak out on issues with political import -- that we should be non-political. I think Rose wants to address that.
[10:56] Jon Seattle: So its not a good idea for us to talk about that without her.
[10:56] You: jamie, i am introducing again last week's points
[10:56] Jamie Palisades: Assuming she returns, yes. But if "tabling" does not prevent a return of the topic, I'm all for tabling it for now as well.
[10:57] You: no, not at all
[10:57] Brian Livingston: I think it should be removed from the agenda until it is reintroduced, as it seems that we will not be addressing it any time soon an, in my opinon, I think that restricting the speech fo an NGO office is a bit ludicrous
[10:57] You: technically, it is reintroduced again untill a decision is reached, as what happened with point 1, which had been tabled also
[10:57] Brian Livingston: officer*
[10:58] Jon Seattle: I agree with Brian
[10:58] Brian Livingston: And borderline unconstitutional...
[10:58] Jon Seattle: We can take it off
[10:58] Jon Seattle: I agree with Brian on that too
[10:58] Brian Livingston: No, no... The border was a fwe miles back on thsi one
[10:58] Sudane Erato: hehe
[10:58] Jamie Palisades: Brian let's not have debate on the propriety of ANY of that constellation of actions now.
[10:58] Brian Livingston: I motion to remove this item from the agenda
[10:58] Jon Seattle laughs
[10:59] Jon Seattle: I second the motion
[10:59] You: ok, votes please
[10:59] Sudane Erato: yes
[10:59] Jon Seattle: Aye, to remove
[10:59] Jamie Palisades: And I encourage you to treat the concerns of all of our contributing members with respect.
[10:59] Jamie Palisades does not laugh.
[10:59] Jamie Palisades: I vote to remove it as well.
[11:00] Nikki Maertens: Yes, if it is appropriate.
[11:00] You: ok, we will respect Tan's wish to wait a bit before she actively votes
[11:00] You: and i vote aye as well
[11:00] Tanoujin Milestone: thank you
[11:00] You: so, point 2 removed from discussion
[11:00] You: point 3
[11:00] You: 3. Do we want to go forward with the 3rd sim design or postpone it until other issues are worked out?
[11:01] You: hi Arria
[11:01] Nikki Maertens: Hi Arria -
[11:01] Jon Seattle: Hi Arria
[11:01] Arria Perreault: Hi. Sorry that i am late
[11:01] Tanoujin Milestone: Hi
[11:01] Sudane Erato: hi
[11:01] Arria Perreault: )
[11:01] Jamie Palisades: now that I see that hat I feel like summer is officially here
[11:02] Arria Perreault: thank you
[11:03] Brian Livingston: This is a bit vague, can we specify the issues that we are concerned with? And what we will consider sim design? Does it inclue designing buildign models?
[11:03] Brian Livingston: Compiling texture banks and so on?
[11:03] Jon Seattle: I would make a distiction, perhaps mistaken, between draft work and final work. I think we ought not finalize any of our designs.
[11:03] Jamie Palisades: I agree with Jon
[11:03] Jon Seattle: Compiling texture banks is something that falls in to the "non-final" category
[11:04] Jamie Palisades: only thing that artists might want to hold up on is delivery and big-effort work on spec
[11:04] You: we can start researching for sure
[11:04] Brian Livingston: Agreed
[11:04] You: similarly to what was done with CN... reserach started early
[11:05] Jon Seattle: I have made two RAW files, showing different approaches. I am glad to contribute those to the effort.
[11:05] Jon Seattle: Both realy very drafty
[11:05] Brian Livingston: I've seen one in the forums... is the second one posted yet by chance?
[11:05] Jon Seattle: Not yet.
[11:05] Jamie Palisades: does just plunking them down on a small square of CN still make sense?
[11:05] Brian Livingston: I'm just curious as to the differences betweent eh two approaches
[11:06] Nikki Maertens: Thank you for making this work. I consider it in DRAFT form only, to show concepts of what could be done.
[11:06] Jon Seattle: Well, I have also started designing houses that I would be glad to contibute if they work with the overall design.
[11:06] Jon Seattle: That could be done on the small plot.
[11:06] You: i would say
[11:06] You: safely
[11:07] Brian Livingston: Then again, covenents need to be drafted to determine the architecture as well I'dimagine
[11:07] Brian Livingston: I mean, we do have the propossal which does a great job at outlining hte fel of the sim
[11:07] You: that research can be done, as also experimentation with buildings etc
[11:07] Brian Livingston: feel*
[11:07] Jon Seattle: Brian, very much so.
[11:08] You: yes, but convenants, i feel, do need Rose's input
[11:08] Nikki Maertens: Yes.
[11:08] Brian Livingston: Oh, I certainyl agree on that one
[11:08] Jon Seattle: Yes, I agree as well.
[11:08] You: for instance, i am not sure
[11:08] Nikki Maertens: Would that not be a topic for the RA?
[11:08] You: when she says chateaux
[11:09] You: what exactly is she reffring to: german baronial, etc
[11:09] Jamie Palisades: hm - other than object ownership, is it clear & uncontroversial that RA still wants Guild to coord the design Qs?
[11:09] You: Nikki, teh Guild can suggest and prepare a covenant draft, which then is voted by the RA
[11:09] Jon Seattle: I think that has not changed in any way
[11:09] Nikki Maertens: OK, I understand.
[11:09] You: that's part of our technical advice
[11:10] Arria Perreault: The RA can also give some inputs?
[11:10] You: yes, of course
[11:10] Jon Seattle: Yes, certainly, even set guildlines
[11:10] Jon Seattle: The RA has the last say
[11:10] Jamie Palisades: Arria asks a good Q. Any covenants from Guild go to RA for approval? or not?
[11:10] You: in fact, the RA needs to approve the budget before hand, thus commenting implicitly a lot of stuff
[11:10] Jon Seattle: Jamie, yes.
[11:11] Arria Perreault: when will we have a plan of parcels? It is an important point for some projects.
[11:11] Jamie Palisades: ha ha but of course Jon - the practical Q is to what degree they plan to re-do things, I expect that might strongly influence how much work is donated *here*
[11:11] Brian Livingston: Well, that will depend on the topography that is chosen it seems ,as reading over the proposal, it specifies the size of a main plot o neach terrace
[11:11] Jon Seattle: Jamie, in practice they set only broad strokes
[11:11] Jamie Palisades: Arria, I expect terraform *and8 some major design feature issues must be settled prior to prcalling
[11:12] Jamie Palisades: parcelling
[11:12] Jon Seattle: The let the design team do the details
[11:12] Brian Livingston: So the topography seems to need to be finalized in a sense with the entire Guild design team bfore we ge to plot maps
[11:12] Brian Livingston: Aaah, a few seconds after Jaime...
[11:12] Jon Seattle: Yes, it does
[11:12] Arria Perreault: ok
[11:12] Brian Livingston: Err, jamie*
[11:12] Jon Seattle: Brian, that is why I started with the RAW files
[11:12] Jamie Palisades: Jon & Moon, what do you see as the relation between the 'design team' and the 'Guild'?
[11:13] Jon Seattle: Really, if we cannot nail that down, its hard to move ahead with plot maps, etc.
[11:13] You: well, i suspect that the 'design team' and 'guild' are pretty much the same
[11:13] Jon Seattle: Jamie, our charter says the design team is led by the faculty.
[11:13] Jamie Palisades: which is a subset of the Guild, hm?
[11:14] Jamie Palisades: Accredited by - er - whoever really must do a chart someday
[11:14] Jon Seattle: In paractice Moon is more or less right, but the idea is to have expert input into the project leadership
[11:14] You: yes, but i don't think we are big enought atm to have clear subsets
[11:14] Jon Seattle: Jamie, the Factuly are rhe "masters" people who have recognized expertise
[11:14] Jon Seattle: They do not make policy
[11:15] Jon Seattle: They are more technical experts, but they can come here and vote just like the rest of us
[11:15] Jon Seattle: DNate is head of the faculty
[11:15] Jon Seattle: He was elected by the masters, some of us are here
[11:16] You: i think nevertheless
[11:16] You: that we should aim to have a consensus on terrain
[11:16] Jamie Palisades: Brian, to be fair to Arria's question, one COULD do some basic size/spreadsheet work in advance of a design, such as this: In CN there are xxxx m2 of common public, xxxx m2 of sold lots, xxxx m2 of prim land .. this implies a certain mix .. guidance theoretically could be given that Sim3 adheres to the same rough proportions .. or different ones ... or, significantly, a metadesign decision that to optimize sales success we want more bigger lots or smaller ones or a mix of x% or whatever
[11:16] Jon Seattle: yes, I agree with Moon on that
[11:17] Arria Perreault: it is a stupid question, but do we have a list of members of the Guild and the Faculty?
[11:17] Jon Seattle: The faculty yes. We never drew up a list of all members, because anyone can join
[11:17] Jon Seattle: But it is a good idea.
[11:18] Arria Perreault: yes, i think too
[11:18] Tanoujin Milestone: thank you Arria for your stupid question
[11:18] Arria Perreault:
[11:18] Nikki Maertens: Perhaps if you do a search for the group it will give a list of all members?
[11:18] Jon Seattle: very smart question actually
[11:18] Brian Livingston: Certianyl Jaimie, and reading over the proposal, there are some specific numbers proposed aroudn which one could coem up wit hthe rest of the plots for the proposed topography
[11:18] Jamie Palisades: Point of my longish comment: we can either let artists loose and see what lot sizes suggest themselves, or impose some financial/lot size goals up front as a more economic/less artistic matter -- and THAT seems like an RA concern to me mor ethan the Guild's
[11:18] You: Dnate has called to the concretization of a Faculty list already and several times... the faculty membership implies that a course be proposed
[11:18] Brian Livingston: I think it was a 2048m2 plot on each terrace for the chateaux?
[11:19] Jon Seattle: Jamie, yes it is. Actually though, Sudane more or less keeps us honest by working on the financial side of the project.
[11:19] You: yes lol
[11:19] You: you guys type too fact today 
[11:20] You: fast*
[11:20] Jamie Palisades: Well Brian, I guess what I;m saying is that the chart (which yes Rose did thoughtfully supply) actually is a thingie that y'all as our leigslative guys should decide they like, or not, *independently* of design considerations
[11:20] Tanoujin Milestone: 
ty
[11:20] Jamie Palisades: here's an exammple of an open issue
[11:20] Tanoujin Milestone: ) sorry
[11:20] Jamie Palisades: Des sells a lot of double prim lots -- use or avoid that option?
[11:21] You: but the development of a parcel plan has both a techicnal/artistic side as well as an economic one
[11:21] Jamie Palisades: (I don't care by the way. but whoever's responsible for selling Sim3 out fast should care.)
[11:21] You: technical*
[11:21] Jamie Palisades: Certainly Moon
[11:21] Arria Perreault: should the RA take position on this question?
[11:21] You: hmmm, they will take when approving the budget
[11:22] Arria Perreault: so many things are political in CDS. This one should certainly be one of them ...
[11:22] Jamie Palisades: but there will be 'residential' spaces that can be 4 1024s or eight 512s, so to speak ... and to me that's a *selling* decision. Or at least needs someone with land selling goals to look it over.
[11:22] You: Sudane is not here, or she could tell you that it is extremely difficult to preview a 'convenient' plot size
[11:22] Jon Seattle: Jamie, really the two are constrained by each other. You cannot come up with a good landscape plan without taking plot allocation in to consideration and you cannot come up with a reasonable plot map without taking terrain into consideration. If you do not do both in concert, you end up doing neither thing well.
[11:23] You: there appears to be more of a wave effect as regards the desirability of plots as anything else... sometime syou sell more small city plots... sometime syou sell more large off-city plots
[11:23] Jamie Palisades: Jon, you have done this before and I have not. I just want to make sure we keep the spreadsheet running & updated apace with the design, so to speak.
[11:24] You: yes, that's what we'll do
[11:24] You: mind also
[11:24] You: that there are tricks one can do in SL
[11:24] Jon Seattle: Indeed, after the first draft of the terrain, you do the plot map, and then go back and make adjustments
[11:24] Jamie Palisades: And thatr people who uniquely and clearly have economic roles here and not artistic ones are reviewing it.
[11:24] You: a vertical slope, say, isn't 'wasted' as it would be in RL... because it can become a prim pool
[11:25] Jon Seattle: Sudane has more experience than any of us on the financial side.
[11:25] Jamie Palisades: Sorry but there's a potential conflict risk for CDS there. That's why I am making the point. Every smart artists who can do math might, sometimes, accidentally be more artists than econoometrist.
[11:25] You: yes lol
[11:26] Jamie Palisades snickers, thinking about telling an architect about the math problems of artists
[11:26] You: but hmmm well, indeed Sudane is THE expert in sim economics here
[11:26] Jon Seattle: Jamie, well, the RA will look over the numbers. Remeber we just provide advice to the RA.
[11:26] Jamie Palisades: just in case you doubted my hubris, Moon
[11:26] Jamie Palisades: Sounds good
[11:26] You: lol
[11:26] Tanoujin Milestone: .)
[11:26] You: i am very aware of the many times i miss a reckoning myself
[11:27] You: that's why i always have a calculator near
[11:27] You: well, we're nearing one hour and a half of discussion
[11:27] Jon Seattle: I play a computer scientist / software develper when in RL ( )
[11:28] Jamie Palisades: Hell of a roleplay on the clothing budget
[11:28] Jamie Palisades: (I am sitting on route 128 in Boston as we speak, which I believe to the be world geocentre of pocket protectcor concentration)
[11:29] You:
[11:29] Jon Seattle: I move that we continue draft work only.
[11:29] Brian Livingston: Hehehe, I'm in that area pretty often and i certainly agree
[11:29] Jamie Palisades: "aye" to Jon's motion
[11:29] You: ok please vote
[11:29] Brian Livingston: Aye, agreed
[11:29] Jon Seattle: But avoid anything that Rose cannot review
[11:29] Jamie Palisades: It all started with Wang company, Brian
[11:29] Arria Perreault: aye
[11:29] Jon Seattle: aye
[11:30] Brian Livingston: That's a name i haven't heard ina while
[11:30] Jamie Palisades: Bldgs still there fulla techies, diff name
[11:30] Arria Perreault: i will the same for the monastery: only draft work
[11:30] You: Nikki?
[11:30] Brian Livingston: Although wasn't their placeu p in Lowell?
[11:30] Brian Livingston: Err north shore somewhere
[11:31] Jamie Palisades: (Rte 3 & 495 near Lowell yes, 'crosspoint' now)
[11:31] You: i vote aye too
[11:31] You: hmmm, while we ait for Nikki
[11:31] Brian Livingston: Hehe, Thought so. I've raised my fist in frustation a few times while stuck on Rt 3
[11:31] Brian Livingston: Bah
[11:31] Jamie Palisades: Q for our chair? Are these meeting chat records routinely kept w permissions sought?
[11:31] You: i'd like to inform everyone not reading the guild forums
[11:32] You: drat, i forgot to ask
[11:32] Arria Perreault: ok for me
[11:32] Jamie Palisades: ok for me now and always
[11:32] Tanoujin Milestone: sure, agree to record
[11:32] Brian Livingston: Alright with me
[11:32] Arria Perreault: for always too
[11:32] You: i'll have to hold the chat log untill i can ask Sudane
[11:32] Jamie Palisades: Jon is that already an approved routine, or do we need ot motion to make it so?
[11:33] You: ok for me as well (and sorry)
[11:33] Jamie Palisades: historically
[11:33] Tanoujin Milestone: is the agenda done?
[11:33] You: yes, it is
[11:33] Jamie Palisades: well Moon has an announcement I think
[11:33] Jamie Palisades: which I interrupted
[11:33] You: i would just like to point out Brian's course announcement on teh forums
[11:33] Jon Seattle: Its something that we do at all meetings in the CDS if they are to be recorded. I think we should record all meetings and post transcripts.
[11:33] Tanoujin Milestone: hum, if i promise to catch up with the discussion--- has this meeting the power to make me a guild member? Or do i have to show sth
[11:33] Jamie Palisades: I agree Jon. Is a motion here needed?
[11:34] Jon Seattle: Tan, you are a guild member, welcome
[11:34] You: welcome Tan
[11:34] Tanoujin Milestone: thanks, so i will vote next time,
[11:34] Jon Seattle: Jamie, no, I think the chair can just descide.. we can vote if you think it needed
[11:35] Brian Livingston: Hehe, thanks Moon. I'm still plugging away at it as Iget time. I'm hopign to have it done by the end of the week whe nI can get myself to buckle down and finish it
[11:35] You: hmmm, i would require that a warning of recording teh transcript should be giving though at each session
[11:35] Brian Livingston procrastinates way too much
[11:35] You: either actively, or passively, through a sign
[11:35] You: ehehe don't alk about proscratination to me
[11:35] Arria Perreault: like in other meetings, ok
[11:36] Brian Livingston: We can always start out each meeting with the disclaimer that all meetings are recorded for the public record and attendence implies permission?
[11:36] Brian Livingston: And have a sign posted outside teh room as well?
[11:36] You: yes lol, but better have a sign of that somewhere
[11:36] Brian Livingston: But then again, if someone enters after teh fact...
[11:36] Jamie Palisades:
[11:36] Brian Livingston: I suppose the sign will serve as secondary warnign as well
[11:36] You: namely for absent-minded chairs
[11:36] Jamie Palisades: reasonable protocol would be a sign and an announcement at beginning and end
[11:37] Jamie Palisades: anyone who does not wish to be recorded is free to be elsewhere
[11:37] Nikki Maertens: Perhaps there could be a recording device you have to touch for agreement to be recorded, like is used for the RA?
[11:37] You: ok, who moves to approve that?
[11:37] Brian Livingston: Approve what?? :p
[11:38] Brian Livingston: So many options, so little gray matter...
[11:38] You: meaning, that in future all sessions are considered public
[11:38] Brian Livingston: Ok
[11:38] Brian Livingston: aye
[11:38] Jamie Palisades: prob with device is, someone can fail to do so and thereby hold up transacript
[11:38] Brian Livingston: rather, I move to approve
[11:38] Nikki Maertens: Understoond.
[11:38] You: and that a log shall be taken, with an advice to effect in beginning and end, and the appropriate signs?
[11:38] Jamie Palisades: I vote "aye" for Brian's "all guild mtgs are public and recordable"
[11:38] Jamie Palisades: yeah what Moon said
[11:38] Jon Seattle: aye also
[11:39] Nikki Maertens: Yes.
[11:39] Tanoujin Milestone: aye
[11:39] Arria Perreault: aye
[11:39] Brian Livingston: aye
[11:39] You: i vote aye also
[11:39] Moon Adamant thinks Nikki is afk
[11:39] You: ah, no you're there sorry lol
[11:39] Nikki Maertens: : - )
[11:39] You: missed you
[11:39] Jon Seattle: lets wrap up
[11:39] Brian Livingston: lol
[11:40] You: <-- crazy chair person here
[11:40] You: yes, please do
[11:40] You: any other business?
[11:40] Arria Perreault: a short question
[11:40] You: yes?
[11:40] Arria Perreault: shall we sometimes meet in CN theater too?
[11:41] You: we can discuss that indeed
[11:41] Brian Livingston: To be honest, now that we have this building, I find it more condusive for smaller meetings
[11:41] Jon Seattle: I rather like this too
[11:41] You: we have this HQ, but nothing stops us from holding sessions - also for Guild Awareness - in all the CDS sims
[11:41] Jon Seattle: yes
[11:42] Brian Livingston: When it coems tiem to discuss specific models and buildigns and such, the space of the amphitheatre would be perfect
[11:42] Arria Perreault: ok
[11:42] Jamie Palisades: Hm are we finished for today?
[11:42] Nikki Maertens: I have a couple of questions.
[11:42] Nikki Maertens: I don't know if this is the best place to raise them.
[11:42] You: hm
[11:42] You: sorry guys
[11:42] You: but i need to go off
[11:42] Nikki Maertens: OK
[11:43] Jon Seattle: I think Moon has to go
[11:43] You: who can take the chair?
[11:43] You: yes, i really must
[11:43] Jon Seattle: Can we continue next week?
[11:43] Nikki Maertens: Yes.
[11:43] You: oh, you're ok to continue if someone take steh chair
[11:43] Jamie Palisades: Good night, M and thank you for chairing. Will wish to consult a bit with you later in the week at your convenience.
[11:43] Jamie Palisades: Jon can you chair?
[11:43] Jon Seattle: Any Guild member here would be glad to answer questions as well.
[11:43] Brian Livingston: Indeed
[11:44] Jon Seattle: I can if people wish.
[11:44] You: Jamie, sure, call me then
[11:44] Jamie Palisades: thx
[11:44] You: if everyone agrees
[11:44] You: i'll pass the chair to Jon
[11:45] You: and will record teh meeting up to this point
[11:45] Brian Livingston: aye
[11:45] Nikki Maertens: aye
[11:45] Arria Perreault: aye
[11:45] Tanoujin Milestone: yes
[11:45] You: holding the log only till Sudane gives me har permission to transcript it
[11:45] You: publish
[11:45] Jon Seattle: Thanks so much Moon for chairing
[11:46] You: thank you all for showing up