18:34:35 <jreznik> #startmeeting Fedora Board Meeting
18:34:35 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 24 18:34:35 2012 UTC.  The chair is jreznik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:34:35 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:34:45 <jreznik> #meetingname Fedora Board
18:34:45 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
18:34:45 * abadger1999 here
18:34:46 * cwickert is here
18:34:47 * gholms is here
18:34:56 <jreznik> you're toooo fast!
18:35:03 <jreznik> #topic Board Members Roll Call ;-)
18:35:04 <gholms> Heh
18:35:05 <cwickert> rbergeron is about to come in 10 minutes
18:35:07 * gholms is still here
18:35:15 * cwickert is, too
18:35:23 * inode0 here
18:35:30 <jreznik> #chair abadger1999 cwickert gholms inode0 rbergeron
18:35:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 cwickert gholms inode0 jreznik rbergeron
18:36:12 * pbrobinson is here
18:36:19 <jreznik> #chair pbrobinson
18:36:19 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 cwickert gholms inode0 jreznik pbrobinson rbergeron
18:36:39 * rbergeron is here now
18:36:49 <jreznik> #info abadger1999 cwickert gholms inode0 jreznik pbrobinson rbergeron present
18:36:53 <jreznik> hey, rbergeron!
18:37:02 * gholms waves
18:37:12 <rbergeron> sorry, juggling parent/teacher conferences - parked near the school for when they get out in precisely one hour
18:37:18 * ke4qqq shows up
18:37:31 <rbergeron> and then back in for the conferences :)
18:37:42 <rbergeron> jreznik: you look like you have this well under control, want to drive? :)
18:38:06 * rbergeron is pretty sure there is one hot topic on the agenda anyhow
18:38:19 <jreznik> rbergeron: any help would be nice, but of course I can drive (I have my driving licence not touched for several years now ;-)
18:38:19 <gholms> Certainly one time-sensitive one.
18:38:35 <jreznik> #info sparks regrets
18:39:02 * rbergeron thinks announcements and diving into name list sounds reasonable
18:39:16 <jreznik> noooooo, but let's move on
18:39:21 <jreznik> #topic Announcements
18:40:02 <jreznik> if you check channel's log, FESCo agreed to freeze Beta and continue with current schedule!
18:40:14 <rbergeron> hooray ;)
18:40:44 <gholms> Ooh
18:40:44 <jreznik> #info FESCo agreed to freeze F18 Beta today
18:40:49 <abadger1999> but the question of whether we can actually keep schedule or will slip further is still up in the air :-/
18:41:06 <abadger1999> we'll find out in the coming weeks.
18:41:15 <gholms> #info Whether the schedule will slip further remains to be seen
18:41:31 <jreznik> abadger1999: yep, from blocker bugs list it looks good (beta), fedup is the only blocker now...
18:41:39 <abadger1999> yeah.
18:42:27 <jreznik> who missed it - there's https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/960 ticket to find us time in case of worst case scenario
18:42:48 * inode0 wonders if this stuff shouldn't slip the F19 name deadlines :)
18:43:40 <inode0> if not we should get to it maybe
18:43:56 <rbergeron> ;)
18:44:06 <gholms> Yup
18:44:16 <jreznik> yep
18:44:21 * gholms hopes to get a lot done before switching to his phone in 15 minutes
18:44:23 <jreznik> any other announcements?
18:45:09 <jreznik> gholms: Q/A first ;-)
18:45:18 <gholms> Ah, right!
18:45:27 * jreznik is driver!
18:45:33 <rbergeron> oh, right
18:45:35 <jreznik> #topic Open Q&A
18:45:50 <gholms> Yay, Q&A!  Anyone have questions/comments for the board?
18:46:27 <jreznik> if so, please follow protocol https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board_public_IRC_meetings?rd=Board/IRC
18:47:52 <jreznik> let's wait for a minute, otherwise we can skip to release naming stuff
18:48:30 <inode0> We can always come back to Q&A if someone asks later ...
18:48:35 <gholms> True
18:48:38 * rbergeron whistles
18:49:29 * pbrobinson wonders what rbergeron is whistles
18:49:30 <jreznik> #topic Fedora 19 suggested names Board review
18:50:39 <jreznik> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Name_suggestions_for_Fedora_19
18:50:39 <gholms> Should we just go down the list and skip the ones with... um... minus signs?
18:51:06 <abadger1999> So -- there's about 30 that aren't done
18:51:07 <jreznik> gholms: expect when other members disagree with minus sign
18:51:10 <inode0> what about dealing with the ones that have nothing? or is my browser out of whack?
18:51:23 <jreznik> inode0: yep, some are still missing
18:51:39 <abadger1999> and then there's a few that were grey areas.
18:52:04 <jreznik> let's go through the list for missing/grey ones...
18:52:05 <gholms> Could we just scrub the obvious unmarked ones now and then research the rest after the meeting?
18:52:14 <jreznik> and then we can discuss the ones you don't agree
18:52:21 <abadger1999> maybe we should talk about the grey area ones and then just start working on the thirty or so that are completely untouched?
18:52:30 <gholms> Sure.  Let's do that.
18:52:31 <jreznik> abadger1999: better, go on
18:52:58 <abadger1999> There are several that are about "fixed term"s
18:53:08 <abadger1999> Is "cubical bull" a fixed term? If not, it doesn't pass the 'is-a' test. We should not just just combine random words.
18:53:18 <gholms> "fixed term" == "term with a known, fixed meaning"
18:53:28 * inode0 doesn't understand the is-a relationship
18:53:34 * cwickert wonders if this is really transparent
18:53:45 <cwickert> can we hold on for a moment?
18:53:46 <abadger1999> yeah I think so -- spherical cow is a fixture of the joke, for instance.
18:53:49 * inode0 votes to reject
18:53:57 * rbergeron thinks that there are probably some that got done above rather than below, so to speak
18:54:00 <rbergeron> cwickert: speaketh
18:54:11 <abadger1999> but random_adjective + random_noun isn't
18:54:12 <cwickert> The reason we are doing this in IRC and not in a phone meeting is that we want to have the votes recorded
18:54:35 <denis_> Hello
18:54:39 <inode0> And so the public can contribute if they care to
18:54:44 <cwickert> if we just speak about the grey areas, we rely on single board members instead of having us vote
18:55:07 <abadger1999> I disagree with the votes recorded thing.
18:55:16 <inode0> we aren't going to vote on 100 individually - I don't think we need to vote formally at all
18:55:18 <CubedRoot> !
18:55:18 <jreznik> cwickert: no, if other board members has objections to acked one, they can speak - otherwise they vote for it
18:55:18 <denis_> I'm a simple Fedora user, and I would vote for "Tiddalik"
18:56:02 <cwickert> jreznik: how do I speak up if something is not even discussed?
18:56:05 <jreznik> so let's say implicit vote by the whole board in case of no objections with ack by single board member
18:56:16 <pbrobinson> denis_: the time for general voting will be announced and it will be done through the voting system like all others
18:56:20 <inode0> are we now going through the list of uncertain ones in the filled out boxes?
18:56:27 <jreznik> cwickert: as we said, you can raise the question
18:57:02 <jreznik> cwickert: and the main reason for transparency was to at least say why we ruled out not ok names
18:57:07 <jreznik> that's the main reason
18:57:15 * gholms nods
18:57:16 <abadger1999> inode0: that was my hope.
18:57:23 <cwickert> right, but if we don't discuss something, it doesn't end up in the notes
18:57:29 * abadger1999 agrees with jreznik
18:57:41 <abadger1999> cwickert: The notes should be in the wiki page.
18:57:56 <abadger1999> cwickert: IRC is for discussion.  The wiki page is for the reasons to reject.
18:58:13 <cwickert> abadger1999: but not all board members have commented on all names
18:58:42 <pbrobinson> we discussed this for basically the full hour on the call last week. Can someone poke me when we're actually going to do some discussion about names
18:58:42 <netSys> good evening
18:59:06 <inode0> pbrobinson: consider yourself poked as your assigned names have not been done as far as we can see
18:59:15 <abadger1999> :-)
18:59:15 * gholms notes that CubedRoot has a question
18:59:22 <cwickert> I don't want to discuss the process again, but I would suggest we quickly go through the names and just ask if people agree with the reasoning given in the wiki instead of just skipping everythign
18:59:32 <abadger1999> CubedRoot: go ahead
18:59:43 <netSys> meeting has started?
18:59:53 <abadger1999> netSys: Board Meeting has started
18:59:59 <denis_> cheers
19:00:04 <netSys> oh, ok
19:00:04 <pbrobinson> inode0: I'm trying to get them done at the moment, had a few explosions in the $dayjob this week
19:00:07 <cwickert> netSys: this is the board meeting, not the EMEA ambassadors meeting. it is in an hour
19:00:09 <CubedRoot> gholms, and abadger1999 Thank you, It was a statement. I am not a board member but I would like to contribute to the naming process in some way.  I have made suggestions on the wiki already
19:00:19 <netSys> ok
19:00:34 <netSys> thanks cwickert & pbrobinson
19:00:37 <abadger1999> CubedRoot: Thank you.  we're vetting them for obvious issues before sending to legal now.
19:00:55 <gholms> #chair jreznik_
19:00:55 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 cwickert gholms inode0 jreznik jreznik_ pbrobinson rbergeron
19:01:19 <jreznik_> sorry, got disconnected... well, what was outcome?
19:01:40 <abadger1999> cwickert: well... that's not what we agreed on last week.  we could take a quick vote if that's the speeediest way to get us all on the same page.
19:01:52 <inode0> cwickert: if we go through all these names one at a time it will take many hours
19:02:02 <abadger1999> cwickert: will you go along with what we agreed on last week if we vote no to your proposal?
19:02:22 <cwickert> inode0: I don't think so. we just copy and past from the wiki and say +1 if we agree
19:03:19 <jreznik_> cwickert: but why?
19:03:33 <inode0> I just don't understand the purpose - we are not lawyers and we are trying to do lawyer's work here
19:03:45 <jreznik_> as I said - if anyboby objects, let's talk about it - otherwise the Board decided... we did it this way all the time
19:04:08 <jreznik_> inode0: it's a first pre-legal review to rule out as-is issues etc
19:04:10 <cwickert> abadger1999: I don't think we really agreed to anything in the last meeting
19:04:17 <abadger1999> fine.
19:04:17 <inode0> We are all going to do our best but it is still guessing
19:04:24 <jreznik_> inode0: yep
19:04:46 <jreznik_> but at least we do not feed legal with 150 names, where we can simple on as-is basis rule 90% of them :)
19:05:01 <jreznik_> abadger1999: let's take a quick vote on voting for every single name
19:05:16 <abadger1999> Proposal from swickert: vote on every single name
19:05:23 <abadger1999> s/swickert/cwickert/
19:05:23 <inode0> -1
19:05:24 <abadger1999> -1
19:05:26 <cwickert> that was not my suggestion, but anyway
19:05:36 <jreznik_> -1
19:05:39 <cwickert> ?
19:06:01 <jreznik_> cwickert: go on
19:06:39 <cwickert> we said we want to record votes of individual board members. how do I know what board member X thinks about a name when it was neither discussed in the meeting nor the board member commented on that name in the wiki?
19:06:57 <abadger1999> cwickert: we did not say we wanted to record votes of individual board members.
19:07:24 <inode0> anyone who cares what I think about cubical bull really needs to get a life
19:07:27 <pbrobinson> I don't see what recording the votes of individual board members gets us
19:07:28 <jreznik_> cwickert: the main issue before was, that we just ruled out some names, we never provided any info why...
19:07:37 <gholms> ^ That
19:07:42 <cwickert> we had a ticket about making board decisions transparent and that was the reason we did move the naming discussion to IRC
19:07:44 <pbrobinson> exactly.
19:08:03 <jreznik_> and this is the reason why we have this review in public
19:08:11 <jreznik_> to be transparent
19:08:18 <cwickert> but we are not
19:08:36 <abadger1999> cwickert: we don't need to have votes on every single name to have transparency.
19:08:37 <pbrobinson> making the decision transparent is not the same as recording exactly who votes for what it's about documenting the reasons why a name was accepted or rejected
19:08:43 * inode0 proposes we fill in the rest of these tables and squabble later about the rest of it
19:08:45 <cwickert> if we just skip everything there is no difference to the phone call
19:09:00 <abadger1999> +1 to inode0's proposal
19:09:05 <cwickert> abadger1999: I never said I want to vote, I want to confirm what is written in the wiki
19:09:09 <pbrobinson> there is if the reasons for rejection are properly documented
19:09:28 <jreznik_> cwickert: there is - we have a comment why we ruled it out, and also record who voted for it - in case nobody objects, accepts it... howg
19:09:47 * gholms switches to phone
19:09:51 <pbrobinson> (20:06:39) cwickert: we said we want to record votes of individual board members. how do I know what board member X thinks about a name when it was neither discussed in the meeting nor the board member commented on that name in the wiki?
19:09:52 <jreznik_> cwickert: implicit confirmation, anyone can object, even non board members
19:09:53 <cwickert> no, it is why an individual has ruled it out, not what others think
19:10:17 <cwickert> anyway, I don't want to delay this any further
19:10:21 <jreznik_> cwickert: and that's why we have this meeting to raise questions on ruled out names
19:10:41 <cwickert> go ahead, lets see how it worls
19:10:42 <cwickert> works
19:11:21 * jreznik_ read the names you ruled out, sometimes I think you were too nitpicking but I agree with resolution - so that's my formal vote on the rest names :)
19:11:21 <inode0> so back to cubical bull?
19:11:31 <abadger1999> Right
19:11:43 * inode0 thinks it fails the is-a test
19:11:46 <abadger1999> So cubical bull and others like it that are just ADJECTIVE + NOUN.
19:11:55 * ke4qqq agrees
19:12:21 <abadger1999> I think so too.
19:12:43 <abadger1999> Anyone want to give reasons we should accept those?  Raise your hand now.
19:12:56 <cwickert> define "others"
19:13:29 * inode0 is only speaking of cubical bull - others have different is-a relationships and some are fine
19:14:02 * jreznik_ is not sure - it's actually not in the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_release_names
19:14:14 <abadger1999> okay, we can do the others individually...
19:14:30 <cwickert> I don't think we should accept random word combinations, but as jreznik_ said there is no guideline
19:14:47 <abadger1999> By others I meant those names that are questioned on the basis that htey aren't a "fixed term"
19:15:00 <cwickert> -1 for cubical bull, if it's not a fixed term there is no 'is-a' link
19:15:39 <abadger1999> Next: Rhino-masked Platypus => Vote to reject, same rationale: not a fixed term
19:15:53 <ke4qqq> agreed
19:15:53 <pbrobinson> -1
19:16:00 <inode0> I'm sorry, what do we mean by fixed term again?
19:16:08 <rbergeron> not a real-world usage of the words together
19:16:21 <cwickert> .1
19:16:22 <inode0> hrm
19:16:26 <cwickert> -1
19:16:47 * jreznik_ notes EU just rejected exception for "Pomazankove maslo", very specific sort of butter - even it's fixed term :(
19:17:07 <cwickert> inode0: the problem is not the fixed term itself, but that the 'is-a' test fails if it is not a fixed term
19:17:25 <rbergeron> "spherical cow" is a multiple-word term, rhino-masked platypus, to my knowledge, is not anything you'd find in a dictionary, encyclopedia, etc.
19:17:30 <abadger1999> Is there such a thing as a "Rhino-masked platypus"?  Is it part of a meme?  Is it mentioned in any written documents?
19:17:31 <rbergeron> don't everyone go rushing to wikipedia to make it so. ;)
19:18:13 <jreznik_> rbergeron, abadger1999: I know who suggested it and I can tell you story in privacy what does it mean :)
19:18:24 <jreznik_> so no, it's not known internet meme :D
19:18:31 <abadger1999> heh okay.
19:18:46 <abadger1999> Okay next one: "Atomic Orbital"
19:18:55 * pbrobinson thinks it sounds like some form of plastic surgery treatment
19:19:01 * cwickert still thinks we should just copy the names and reasons from the wiki to the channel and than confirm with +1
19:19:03 <abadger1999> notes are: 'is-a' link is very weak, 'Atomic Orbital' is a model and not a metaphor. No violations found though.
19:19:03 * inode0 rejects the is-a premise that spherical cow is funny looking
19:19:45 <jreznik_> abadger1999: actually while google I found it as metaphorical model but...
19:19:53 <abadger1999> I think a spherical cow could be a model so I incline to accept this.
19:19:57 <inode0> how is atomic orbital used as a metaphor?
19:20:06 <pbrobinson> I like it simply because it gets us away from animals.
19:20:13 <cwickert> jreznik_: it's not a metaphor but a model
19:20:23 <abadger1999> I think people are saying metaphor a lot because they're reading wikipedia's spherical cow entry literally.
19:20:26 <cwickert> a metaphor is a placeholder for something else
19:20:46 <jreznik_> found a book Metaphor in Science 1979.pdf - IHMC Internal ;-)
19:21:03 * inode0 thinks atomic orbital fails the is-a test
19:21:04 <jreznik_> the orbit metaphor for atomic structure
19:21:18 * cwickert rejects Atomic Orbital. It's a model and not a metaphor, so "is-a" test fails
19:21:23 <jreznik_> it's citation... as I said, I think it's still weak
19:22:00 <jreznik_> I even put the ? at first there, I'm ok to rule it out (even if we consider spherical cow as a model)
19:22:03 * inode0 doesn't feel strongly
19:22:12 <abadger1999> A spherical cow is a model of real life entities and so is an atomic orbital.
19:22:23 <inode0> can accept it is "lame but acceptable" :)
19:22:35 <gholms> wfm
19:22:36 <abadger1999> I think that would be the way to phrase the is-a
19:22:48 <abadger1999> I sense... apathy :-)
19:22:56 <jreznik_> let's do it :D
19:23:18 <abadger1999> Okay :-)
19:23:21 * cwickert doesn't think so, Spherical Cow is not a model, but anyway...
19:23:32 <abadger1999> If someone feels the need to reject this, say so now.
19:23:49 <cwickert> did you count me already?
19:24:08 <abadger1999> okay, you feel we should reject?
19:24:15 <cwickert> yes, I said so already
19:24:30 <abadger1999> Counter proposal: If someone feels we should accept, say so now.
19:24:51 * inode0 wonders why cwickert did not just reject it to begin with
19:24:56 * ke4qqq likes that. reject by default
19:25:04 <cwickert> inode0: I did
19:25:13 <inode0> not in the table I am looking at
19:25:32 <abadger1999> Okay, first ten done.
19:25:45 <abadger1999> Next one: yin yang
19:26:00 <abadger1999> the note is:  Possible issues with http://www.yinyansw.com/; other possible conflicts with software exist.
19:26:17 <cwickert> inode0: because I can not make that call for all of us
19:26:36 <inode0> that business is a slightly different spelling, I have no idea if that matters
19:26:49 * cwickert wonders why we've put all the effort into the wiki and don't really use it
19:27:07 <jreznik_> cwickert: ?
19:27:17 <abadger1999> I'd vote no for this.  There are a lot of pieces of software with "yin yang" i nthe name too.
19:27:29 <jreznik_> +1 reject
19:27:54 <cwickert> jreznik_: we rephrase everything, we should just copy and paste and then confirm, but I'm afraid I sound like a broken record
19:28:18 * rbergeron has to depart for duties she normally wouldn nhot have to depart for - sorry, guys
19:28:26 * inode0 agrees to reject
19:28:42 <inode0> it is so widely used it isn't very interesting to me
19:28:46 <abadger1999> rbergeron: I guess we'll be continuing in #fedora-advisory-board when you get back :-)
19:28:46 <jreznik_> cwickert: if it's beatles broken record, then no :)
19:28:51 * rbergeron is all for rejecting yin yang. and not just because it is an excellent martini drink at a place i visit ;)
19:28:51 <pbrobinson> -1 on "yin yang"
19:29:00 * jreznik_ sleeps in the office today seems so...
19:29:01 <cwickert> reason for rejection?
19:29:02 <rbergeron> abadger1999: quite possibly. I may be on via phone typing in a bit
19:29:20 * abadger1999 rejects yin yang
19:29:34 <rbergeron> cwickert: multiple software name collisions/trademark stuff
19:29:37 <inode0> is something inadequate about the existing wiki comments?
19:29:51 <cwickert> ok, -1 to yin yang then
19:30:03 <abadger1999> Next: Martian Blueberries	link exists, but not sure it's incredibly strong.
19:30:10 <abadger1999> oops sorry
19:30:22 <abadger1999> That was a yes
19:30:25 <abadger1999> "Mindstream"
19:30:29 <abadger1999> 'as-is' ok (both are metaphors) but possible brand collisions - Mindstream Software Inc. and Mindstream Software - but seems more trainings etc. --Jreznik (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
19:30:53 <abadger1999> I'd say no.... if it involves computers or software, I think legal will reject it.
19:31:10 <jreznik_> ok
19:31:28 <abadger1999> If anyone feels we should accept mindstream, speak up now.
19:31:51 <cwickert> -1 for mindstream, there is way more software and computers out there with that name
19:31:57 <inode0> any clear computer related link suggests to reject to me
19:32:18 <pbrobinson> in the past anything with computers/software/tech has been rejected
19:32:31 <abadger1999> Next one: Electrical filament	 --
19:32:33 <abadger1999> no trademark collisions found for "electrical filament"
19:32:34 <abadger1999> There are for filament, though: https://www.filamentgames.com/
19:32:46 <abadger1999> not sure about this one.
19:33:04 <inode0> there is electricfilament.co.uk as well but I don't think it is tightly related
19:33:45 <jreznik_> home automation -> involves software probably
19:33:51 <abadger1999> <nod>
19:34:15 <abadger1999> Okay, Going to reject based on trademark collision with electricfilament.co.uk.  If anyone feels we should accept, speak up now.
19:34:17 <pbrobinson> can probably put it to legal and let them decide but I think its not likely
19:34:19 <jreznik_> but seems like they are only vendor..
19:34:34 * jreznik_ is ok with sending legal
19:34:43 <inode0> iirc they say they use software from another company (fluke)
19:35:26 <inode0> I didn't mention it before because I didn't think it was a reason to reject it really
19:35:31 <abadger1999> okay.
19:35:41 <inode0> and again it isn't an exact name match either
19:35:53 <jreznik_> yep
19:36:07 * inode0 would let this one pass and let legal decide
19:36:08 <abadger1999> Alright -- Counter proposal Going to accept and let legal decide:  If anyone thinks we should reject, speak up now.
19:37:04 <jreznik_> +1 to accept and let legal decide
19:37:50 <pbrobinson> +1
19:38:07 <gholms> +1
19:38:16 <ke4qqq> +1
19:39:00 <abadger1999> Next: Leviathan Rider	Does "leviathan rider" have a fixed meaning? If not, it doesn't pass the "is-a" test.
19:39:43 <abadger1999> I propose we reject similar to the other ones that lacked a fixed meaning to support the is-a test.
19:39:58 <gholms> worksforme
19:40:09 <inode0> It is a character from a book iirc - neither is a myth
19:40:19 <inode0> so reject the is-a relationship
19:41:19 <abadger1999> Okay:  Going to reject since neither is a "myth".  If anyone thinks we should accept, speak now.
19:42:49 <abadger1999> Next: One Hundred Troy Ounces of Silver
19:42:54 <abadger1999> This would clearly pass the "is-a" test if it was something like "silver ingot," "silver bar," or possibly just "silver," but this term is less clear in that regard.
19:43:05 <abadger1999> gholms: This was yours.
19:43:10 * inode0 doesn't really understand the is-a relationship for this one
19:43:20 <abadger1999> Should we just change it to "silver ingot" and accept?
19:43:37 <gholms> That'd work for me.
19:43:56 <abadger1999> inode0: gholms (and apparently this person) has heard a version of hte joke that ends with "given a spherical cow of uniform density in a vacuum..."
19:43:58 <inode0> is a spherical cow an object of uniform density?
19:44:27 <inode0> which means it isn't :)
19:44:32 <gholms> It was in my physics classes at uni.
19:45:00 <gholms> But that doesn't mean that's slways the case.
19:45:05 <gholms> *always
19:45:10 <inode0> given a spherical cow with a purple nose does make spherical cows have purple noses
19:45:42 <gholms> Good point.  Shall we reject it?
19:45:46 <inode0> that came out wrong but you know what I mean
19:46:11 <inode0> I'm sort of against changing proposed names to suit us
19:46:12 <abadger1999> Proposal: reject because spherical cows aren't necessarily uniform density.
19:46:27 <abadger1999> If anyone thinks we should accept 100 troy ounces of silver, speak up now
19:46:31 <inode0> and really a six word name is a bit much
19:47:47 <inode0> now what shall we do with the other 30?
19:48:23 <abadger1999> So we're out of time in this room
19:48:42 <abadger1999> I think we should move to #fedora-advisory-board and just start picking off names from the remaining 30.
19:48:46 <inode0> how about a short break and resume in #fedora-advisory-board?
19:49:05 <gholms> worksforme
19:49:15 <abadger1999> if it seems obvious to you, accept or reject.  If it's grey ask others in that channel.
19:49:20 <abadger1999> Cool.
19:49:23 <abadger1999> #topic open floor
19:49:25 <pbrobinson> I have another meeting in 10 mins but I can buzz between them as much as possible
19:49:41 <abadger1999> If anyone has something to bring up, please mention it now.
19:49:51 <abadger1999> if no one does I'll close the meeting in a few minutes.
19:49:57 * ke4qqq also needs to depart
19:50:09 * inode0 is guessing any name with GNU embedded but emphasized can be summarily rejected
19:51:12 <abadger1999> most likely
19:51:55 <inode0> we have 9 through!
19:52:20 <inode0> oops, 11
19:52:34 <abadger1999> Okay, ending meeting.  thanks for coming everyone!
19:52:36 <abadger1999> #endmeeting