2006:Wikimania/Program/2006-04-13
Program meeting April 13, 2006
edit22:00, freenode#wikimania
agenda
edit- program status update -- what we have & what we need
- workshop reviewing process
condensed notes
editThis was a meeting to dicuss the reviewing process, particularly for workshop reviewing, which started on April 15, the deadline for workshops. The dicussion at the meeting primarily focussed on smoothing out the process and the reviewing questions, below.
reviewing process
edit- make sure you have a log-in in indico (http://cfp.wikimania.wikimedia.org) and have indicated your track interest on program team
- brassratgirl will add you into the system as a reviewer
- When you log in to Indico, on the left-hand side there's a link to "manage my tracks." Click on that, and then click on individual tracks to see abstracts
- For now, please only use the "comment" field, pasting in the questions below and your answers. You can modify your comments after posting them. Don't use the propose accept/reject/move buttons as those mess up the view for everyone else.
- for workshops: please have workshop reviews in by next Sunday, April 23; there are currently 12 in the system. This is few enough that I think everyone should try and review every workshop, regardless of track. (This is also a dry run for reviewing presentations; I hope we can work out the bugs this week).
- the questions below are fairly straightforward; the "championing" asks whether you'd be willing to champion a submission or whether you'll fight against it (the middle numbers indicate neutrality).
- remember, reviewing comments are confidential; please don't discuss the status of abstracts outside the program team.
- questions/comments on process to brassratgirl; problems with indico to Ivan. Thanks!
reviewing questions
edit(to be cut & pasted into indico)
<p><b>* Is this relevant to the theme? (for each theme the submission is classed under). 1 to 5 scale; 5 is very relevant, 1 is not at all relevant.</b></p> <p><b>Propose for another theme?</b></p> <p><b>* Expected participant interest in workshop? 1 to 5 scale; 5 is heavy interest, 1 is very little to no interest. </b> </p> <p><b>* Action to take: accept as is/reject/modify/combine with other submission? </b></p> <p><b>* Would this be better in a format other than a workshop?</b></p> <p><b>* If accepted, how long should this workshop be? (standard block is 1 to 1.5 hours)</b></p> <p><b>*Would you champion this submission? 1 to 5 scale. 5 means you'll fight for it; 1 means you'll actively fight against it.</b></p> <p><b>* How important is it to have these presenters? 1 to 5 scale; 5 = must have, 1 = you don't want them at all (please add comments to support your score). </b></p> <p><b>*Other comments?</b></p>
logtastic
edit[4/13/2006 3:13 PM] <_sj_> ok, shall we begin?
[4/13/2006 3:13 PM] <ngb> Ah, we've not started yet. Great. :)
[4/13/2006 3:13 PM] |<-- SethIlys has left freenode (Connection timed out)
[4/13/2006 3:14 PM] <_sj_> nope, just starting now.
[4/13/2006 3:14 PM] <_sj_> the sites are being uncooperative...
[4/13/2006 3:14 PM] <ngb> I can only stay for a few minutes, unfortunately. :/
[4/13/2006 3:14 PM] <ngb> Real life, who'd have one?
[4/13/2006 3:14 PM] <brassratgirl> ok. Hi ngb :)
[4/13/2006 3:14 PM] <_sj_> heh
[4/13/2006 3:14 PM] <ngb> :)
[4/13/2006 3:15 PM] <_sj_> brg, are you sending out notes on reviewing process
[4/13/2006 3:15 PM] <brassratgirl> real life? what are you talking about?
[4/13/2006 3:15 PM] <_sj_> or should we just go over them quickly here?
[4/13/2006 3:15 PM] <ngb> brassratgirl: I'm in the middle of a dinner party. :)
[4/13/2006 3:15 PM] <_sj_> at least indico is up :)
[4/13/2006 3:15 PM] <_sj_> ngb, stout fellow
[4/13/2006 3:15 PM] <ngb> Given I haven't made it to the last two meetings, I thought I would at least drop in and say hello tonight. :)
[4/13/2006 3:15 PM] <Amgine> brg: after this is over, ping me about an invitation I have for you.
[4/13/2006 3:16 PM] <_sj_> are you around this ewekend to lend a hand?
[4/13/2006 3:16 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: ok
[4/13/2006 3:16 PM] <brassratgirl> yes. I just sent out email about the reviewing process...
[4/13/2006 3:16 PM] <brassratgirl> which you should all get.
[4/13/2006 3:16 PM] <ngb> sj: Stout? After this dinner I am. :) Yep, the weekend should be no problem.
[4/13/2006 3:16 PM] <brassratgirl> In brief, we have eight workshop submissions to go through
[4/13/2006 3:16 PM] <brassratgirl> (plus a couple proposed ones that will hopefully trickle in this weekend)
[4/13/2006 3:16 PM] <brassratgirl> In indico (cfp.wikimania.wikimedia.org)
[4/13/2006 3:17 PM] <ngb> That seems a reasonably healthy number.
[4/13/2006 3:17 PM] <_sj_> ngb: great. would like your input on tech presentations & workshops
[4/13/2006 3:17 PM] <brassratgirl> there's a comments field, plus propose accept/reject/move buttons
[4/13/2006 3:17 PM] <ngb> sj: Sure.
[4/13/2006 3:17 PM] <brassratgirl> PLEASE just use the comments field for now;
[4/13/2006 3:17 PM] <brassratgirl> as the buttons change the view for the abstract in wierd ways
[4/13/2006 3:17 PM] <Amgine> <nods>
[4/13/2006 3:17 PM] <brassratgirl> there's six questions that I sent in the email to address ..
[4/13/2006 3:18 PM] <Amgine> There're
[4/13/2006 3:18 PM] <brassratgirl> pretty basic stuff. We want to know whether we want this submission, obviously, and also ..
[4/13/2006 3:18 PM] <_sj_> yes.
[4/13/2006 3:18 PM] <brassratgirl> (yes, thanks Amgine :) )
[4/13/2006 3:18 PM] <Amgine> <parent, sorry>
[4/13/2006 3:19 PM] <brassratgirl> whether the submission should be modified, what the expected interest is in it, etc.
[4/13/2006 3:19 PM] <brassratgirl> (when I type fast, it comes out like how I talk :P)
[4/13/2006 3:19 PM] <brassratgirl> so anyway. Since there are only eight submissions, I think that we can probably all review them
[4/13/2006 3:20 PM] <Amgine> These questions: Are they to be scored, or noted?
[4/13/2006 3:20 PM] <brassratgirl> Noted.
[4/13/2006 3:20 PM] <brassratgirl> The workshops are really a test run, before we get into presentations.
[4/13/2006 3:21 PM] <brassratgirl> We can see if this method works; if we need to come up with a more formal scoring mechanism..
[4/13/2006 3:21 PM] <brassratgirl> If there are problems, we can try taking discussion to a wiki page ..
[4/13/2006 3:21 PM] <brassratgirl> but I'd like to see if Indico can function first.
[4/13/2006 3:21 PM] <Amgine> <nod>
[4/13/2006 3:22 PM] <Amgine> <mods markup>
[4/13/2006 3:22 PM] <_sj_> sounds good. it will be convenient to all discuss the same submissions
[4/13/2006 3:22 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: yes, please do
[4/13/2006 3:23 PM] <_sj_> you can update indico comments, it's almost a wiki. but there's precisely one place to leave said comments :-)
[4/13/2006 3:23 PM] <brassratgirl> Ok, I just sent *another* email with a list of all the workshop titles submitted so far
[4/13/2006 3:23 PM] <brassratgirl> the eight, plus two that I know are coming ..
[4/13/2006 3:23 PM] <Amgine> link to indico again?
[4/13/2006 3:24 PM] <_sj_> cfp.wikimania.wikimedia.org/
[4/13/2006 3:24 PM] <brassratgirl> Also, I don't think I've set the permissions for everyone to see every track yet
[4/13/2006 3:24 PM] <brassratgirl> I will get to that tonight or tommorow morning; in the meantime, let me know if you can't see any tracks
[4/13/2006 3:25 PM] <Amgine> I have several possible workshops... and I have no submissions as yet. What would the committee wish me to do a workshop on?
[4/13/2006 3:25 PM] <brassratgirl> Most of the workshops are projects & content related, with some tech & social science
[4/13/2006 3:25 PM] <brassratgirl> Oh! And I'm thinking the deadline for reviews should be next weekend, April 23
[4/13/2006 3:25 PM] <Amgine> Yes.
[4/13/2006 3:26 PM] <brassratgirl> giving us enough time to hold another meeting & finalize things before contacting authors. Sound reasonable?
[4/13/2006 3:26 PM] <DirkRiehle> The proposed workshop on "wiki research"---is that wiki research in general or wikipedia research or is it using wikis in research?
[4/13/2006 3:26 PM] <_sj_> amgine, what are your potentials?
[4/13/2006 3:26 PM] <brassratgirl> DirkRiehle: ha, that confusion is part of why it's not submitted yet :)
[4/13/2006 3:26 PM] <brassratgirl> It would be for researchers studing wikis, in general
[4/13/2006 3:27 PM] <DirkRiehle> brassratgirl: Sounds good
[4/13/2006 3:27 PM] <_sj_> you might submit a single proposal describing your favorite ideas, and offering to do any [one]
[4/13/2006 3:27 PM] <brassratgirl> a workshop on actual methods that could be used for studying wikis - primarily from a social scientist perspective, but perhaps others
[4/13/2006 3:27 PM] <Amgine> _sj_: coding extensions/special pages, how to write an aggregations WN story, WMF project proposals, statistical research... I'm a generalist _sj_.
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <_sj_> *g*
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <DirkRiehle> brg: Who are the organisers?
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: submit what you care about most :)
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <Amgine> Sailing. Won't work.
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <Amgine> No water.
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <_sj_> hmm, sailing wiki?
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <Amgine> I have two of those...
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <DirkRiehle> On the Charles river?
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <brassratgirl> DirkRiehle: James_F, who is the Wikimedia Foundation Research Officer, Cormac and Andrea from the program team, Andrew Lih, and myself are all interested
[4/13/2006 3:28 PM] <_sj_> dirk: drop james_f or cormac a line
[4/13/2006 3:29 PM] <Amgine> <grin>
[4/13/2006 3:29 PM] <DirkRiehle> SJ: Will attending Wikimania 2006 give us access to the Harvard boathouse and rowing club?
[4/13/2006 3:29 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: I would take a sailing workshop
[4/13/2006 3:29 PM] <_sj_> dirk: in a manner of speaking
[4/13/2006 3:29 PM] <_sj_> amgine: that would be a super tutorial :-)
[4/13/2006 3:29 PM] <Amgine> <grin> I'd offer one; I've taught before.
[4/13/2006 3:29 PM] <brassratgirl> DirkRiehle: there's a page here for ideas -- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Program/Research_thingy
[4/13/2006 3:29 PM] <brassratgirl> (needs to be moved :) )
[4/13/2006 3:30 PM] <Amgine> "I want you to capsize the boat... this is sort of like having your article put up for AfD..."
[4/13/2006 3:30 PM] <brassratgirl> :)
[4/13/2006 3:30 PM] <Amgine> I have page loads from Meta.
[4/13/2006 3:31 PM] <_sj_> when harvard exchanged its land parcels along the charles w/ the city of cambridge, waay back in the day, it made a lasting arrangement to rent the boathouses out for a pittance ($1/year?)... so it's generally inexpensive to use them when they are open
[4/13/2006 3:31 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: I am all in favor of a little sailing. Maybe just before or after? :)
[4/13/2006 3:31 PM] <Amgine> <grin> Maybe. What kind of boats would be available _sj_?
[4/13/2006 3:31 PM] <brassratgirl> Anyway -- how does the reviewing process sound to people?
[4/13/2006 3:32 PM] <Amgine> Sounds good. I'd prefer to score; it avoids discussions which might become unruly.
[4/13/2006 3:32 PM] <_sj_> (I'll find out. small ones; sculls of various sizes)
[4/13/2006 3:32 PM] <brassratgirl> score how?
[4/13/2006 3:32 PM] <brassratgirl> (sculling!)
[4/13/2006 3:32 PM] <Amgine> Restate the questions, score on a 1-3 or 1-5 scale.
[4/13/2006 3:32 PM] <DirkRiehle> brg: Process sounds good; I like the feedback loop with the workshops first
[4/13/2006 3:33 PM] <DirkRiehle> amgine: How do you aggregate the scores?
[4/13/2006 3:33 PM] <Amgine> Dirk: Straight add them; that's why the questions may need to be restated for a scale.
[4/13/2006 3:34 PM] <brassratgirl> Well, some of those questions I think could be easily scored; others not. "how important is it to have these presenters?" could be scored;
[4/13/2006 3:34 PM] <_sj_> Some of them might be scorable. Some are not (multiple choice or yes/no, not priority)
[4/13/2006 3:34 PM] <_sj_> right
[4/13/2006 3:34 PM] <Amgine> <nod>
[4/13/2006 3:34 PM] <brassratgirl> that's the main one that jumps out at me. even that requires comments, though.
[4/13/2006 3:35 PM] <brassratgirl> for instance, it's important that Viegas present History Flow, even if they don't give this workshop. Etc.
[4/13/2006 3:35 PM] <DirkRiehle> As a sidenote, here is how most of the other conference I've been involved with (incl. WikiSym) handle reviewing: http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~oscar/Champion/
[4/13/2006 3:36 PM] <DirkRiehle> The main conclusion from that paper is that scores are not linear; you are either willing to fight for a paper (as a reviewer) you step back.
[4/13/2006 3:36 PM] <DirkRiehle> ... or you step back.
[4/13/2006 3:36 PM] <brassratgirl> right.
[4/13/2006 3:36 PM] <brassratgirl> quickly, how do you choose champions for papers?
[4/13/2006 3:37 PM] <brassratgirl> (I'll read through the whole document in a minute..)
[4/13/2006 3:37 PM] <DirkRiehle> Self-selection; the reviewer decides on A-D; A = will to figth to accept submission and D = willing to fight for rejection.
[4/13/2006 3:37 PM] <Amgine> We did the program for the NIH Native People's AIDS conference, which had a few hundred submissions, and used simple forms with scores.
[4/13/2006 3:37 PM] <DirkRiehle> brg: No need to read this now; I just wanted to have pointed to it.
[4/13/2006 3:37 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: out of those, how many did you accept & reject
[4/13/2006 3:38 PM] <brassratgirl> ?
[4/13/2006 3:38 PM] <brassratgirl> Thanks, Dirk!
[4/13/2006 3:38 PM] <Amgine> We accepted 64, rejected a more than a hundred.
[4/13/2006 3:38 PM] <brassratgirl> (I'd seen references to the championing process before, but wasn't sure how it worked)
[4/13/2006 3:38 PM] <_sj_> dirk: that's a great summary of methods.
[4/13/2006 3:38 PM] <_sj_> with links to c2 for extra credit :)
[4/13/2006 3:38 PM] <brassratgirl> Amgine: I think you have a point that scoring is useful, especially when we get to the presentations, and are dealing with lots more submissions
[4/13/2006 3:39 PM] <_sj_> the other important bit of process is avoiding talking about papers that are ranked too poorly
[4/13/2006 3:39 PM] <_sj_> and that don't have even one champion
[4/13/2006 3:39 PM] <Amgine> <nod>
[4/13/2006 3:40 PM] <brassratgirl> _sj_: explain a bit further?
[4/13/2006 3:40 PM] <_sj_> (so let's be sure to have ~4 available reviewers per theme, so any interesting paper is likely to find a champion.)
[4/13/2006 3:40 PM] <_sj_> just what you said abive.
[4/13/2006 3:40 PM] <_sj_> above*
[4/13/2006 3:40 PM] =-= James_F|Away is now known as James_F
[4/13/2006 3:40 PM] <Amgine> <wave @ James_F>
[4/13/2006 3:40 PM] <_sj_> the way you avoid having a 12-hour program meeting on discussion is you have preliminary rankings,
[4/13/2006 3:41 PM] <_sj_> which both help identify champions and allow you to weed out papers that don't need much discussion
[4/13/2006 3:41 PM] <brassratgirl> Question is how to do preliminary rankings. ..
[4/13/2006 3:42 PM] <Amgine> He's suggesting, I think, the comprehensive champion's scoring.
[4/13/2006 3:43 PM] <DirkRiehle> SJ: If we are talking about the same champion idea, it is also to get interesting papers. It happens easily that everyone says the paper is ok, nothing wrong, and the everyone yawns, and the paper gets accepted over some other paper that might have sparked more discussion and would be better because it had some controversy
[4/13/2006 3:43 PM] <_sj_> dirk: agreed.
[4/13/2006 3:43 PM] <_sj_> the ted nelson paper on why everything is wrong
[4/13/2006 3:43 PM] <_sj_> that will make half the team tear their hair out
[4/13/2006 3:43 PM] <_sj_> might be interesting :)
[4/13/2006 3:44 PM] <Amgine> btw: Have we considered inviting Orlowski? He had another article today, in the Guardian.
[4/13/2006 3:44 PM] <brassratgirl> Ok, well, if we use this, it seems to be something that has to be decided on ahead of time..
[4/13/2006 3:44 PM] <_sj_> amgine : we could have a tomatoes panel
[4/13/2006 3:45 PM] <James_F> Amgine> Hmm.
[4/13/2006 3:45 PM] <Amgine> Critics panel.
[4/13/2006 3:45 PM] <brassratgirl> DirkRiehle: in the situations where you've used this, did the reviewers meet in person, or remotely, or..?
[4/13/2006 3:45 PM] <DirkRiehle> brg: I've seen both; both works.
[4/13/2006 3:45 PM] *brassratgirl will bring fresh, California tomatoes
[4/13/2006 3:45 PM] <brassratgirl> ok
[4/13/2006 3:46 PM] <Amgine> James_F: can you purchase a copy of BBC Focus tonight or tomorrow?
[4/13/2006 3:46 PM] <_sj_> I think remotely will be fine.
[4/13/2006 3:46 PM] <brassratgirl> _sj_: it has to be fine; I don't think we're all getting together beforehand :)
[4/13/2006 3:46 PM] <_sj_> amgine: we'd have to craft it properly. but a critics panel is a great idea in principle
[4/13/2006 3:46 PM] <Amgine> Might need to pay for security for the panel, methinks.
[4/13/2006 3:47 PM] <DirkRiehle> brg: You don't have a budget to fly us to Boston and stay at the Ritz Carlton?
[4/13/2006 3:47 PM] <James_F> Amgine> I can do it tomorrow. Why?
[4/13/2006 3:47 PM] <_sj_> we have to get initial comments from reviewers before our meeting, at any rate
[4/13/2006 3:47 PM] <brassratgirl> Ok. Well, for workshop reviewing, I'll rephrase the questions to incorporate some simple scoring..
[4/13/2006 3:47 PM] <_sj_> so it's not a stretch to add champion-style questoins to the form
[4/13/2006 3:47 PM] <Amgine> James_F: They have an article in the May Issue (released today) about Wikipedia compared to other online encyclopedias.
[4/13/2006 3:47 PM] <brassratgirl> like what?
[4/13/2006 3:47 PM] <James_F> Amgine> Ah, interesting.
[4/13/2006 3:47 PM] <Amgine> Plus an interview with Mr Wales.
[4/13/2006 3:48 PM] <_sj_> brg: asking explicitly whether you would champion the presentation
[4/13/2006 3:48 PM] <_sj_> (or fight against it)
[4/13/2006 3:48 PM] <brassratgirl> _sj_: ok
[4/13/2006 3:48 PM] <_sj_> perhaps as the language for the 'how important' question
[4/13/2006 3:48 PM] <brassratgirl> Is that a scaled question, or..? I'm a little confused
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <_sj_> no, really not.
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <brassratgirl> Ah, ok (am just reading through)
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <Amgine> It's scaled 1-4, or A-D
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <brassratgirl> A = you would champion, D = you'll actively fight against?
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <_sj_> for instance, I would champion the pomo submission for interest, even though I wouldn't give it a top rating for 'importance'.
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <Amgine> 1 willing to fight for, 4 willing to fight against.
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <Austin> There's no neutral answer, eh?
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <Austin> Not -2 to 2?
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <_sj_> odd = good
[4/13/2006 3:49 PM] <_sj_> austin!
[4/13/2006 3:50 PM] <Austin> Hey. :)
[4/13/2006 3:50 PM] <brassratgirl> we can do -2 to 2 :)
[4/13/2006 3:50 PM] <brassratgirl> hey Austin
[4/13/2006 3:50 PM] <DirkRiehle> A=you champion it; B=it's good; C=it is not so good; D=you'll fight it. B and C also mean you don't mind if it goes the other way
[4/13/2006 3:50 PM] <brassratgirl> Ok, I have to go in ten minutes exactly.
[4/13/2006 3:50 PM] <DirkRiehle> It is a qualitative score/scale
[4/13/2006 3:50 PM] <Amgine> The point is that 2 and 3 are neutrally in favour or opposed
[4/13/2006 3:50 PM] <brassratgirl> Right.
[4/13/2006 3:50 PM] <brassratgirl> That sounds good and useful.
[4/13/2006 3:51 PM] <brassratgirl> I'm inclined to leave the question about the importance of having particular people present, because I see that as a possible factor in several of these submissions..
[4/13/2006 3:52 PM] <brassratgirl> but if that doesn't seem like a useful question we can take it out.
[4/13/2006 3:52 PM] -->| Angela (i=a_t@cust3058.vic01.dataco.com.au) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:52 PM] <Amgine> <waves>
[4/13/2006 3:53 PM] <Amgine> Works for me, brassratgirl
[4/13/2006 3:53 PM] <Angela> Morning.
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- asw has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- anthere has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- akl has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- mako has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- _sj_ has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- mattis^ has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- effeietsanders has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- delphine has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- neuralis has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] |<-- Austin has left freenode (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] <DirkRiehle> Hi Angela
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] <Amgine> Timing is exquisite.
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] <DirkRiehle> Oops...
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] <Amgine> <surfs the netsplit>
[4/13/2006 3:54 PM] <Amgine> Angela is still here... looks like Kornbluth alone fell off.
[4/13/2006 3:55 PM] <Amgine> That's Europe and East USA, I think.
[4/13/2006 3:55 PM] <James_F> No, we're on Kornbluth.
[4/13/2006 3:55 PM] <James_F> That's why it said "kornbluth.freenode.net".
[4/13/2006 3:55 PM] <Amgine> Ah. Well, this sucks.
[4/13/2006 3:55 PM] <brassratgirl> Hey Angela
[4/13/2006 3:55 PM] <brassratgirl> hrm.
[4/13/2006 3:55 PM] -->| _sj_ (n=rballen@wikipedia/sj) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:55 PM] -->| mattis^ (n=mattis^@p54BD5AAB.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] -->| anthere (n=Anthere@wikipedia/Anthere) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] -->| effeietsanders (n=chatzill@ip5451c821.direct-adsl.nl) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] -->| delphine (n=Delphine@wikimedia/notafish) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] -->| akl (n=chatzill@wikipedia/akl) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] -->| asw (n=asw@karuna.med.harvard.edu) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] -->| mako (n=mako@bork.hampshire.edu) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] -->| neuralis (n=krstic@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] -->| Austin (n=austin@wikipedia/Callidus) has joined #wikimania
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] <Amgine> <wonders why *some* of europe is here, and some not>
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] <_sj_> mmm, split
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] <Austin> Some of them are Old Europe.
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] <Amgine> I'm betting 5 minutes before lilo comes on.
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] <DirkRiehle> amg: I'm UTC + 1h + daylight savings... I can imagine another place I could be right now as well :-)
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] <brassratgirl> ok, well, I have to go anyway ..
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] |<-- effeietsanders has left freenode ("Read error 104 (Connection reset by apple)")
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] <James_F> DirkRiehle> Absolutely, the timing of these meetings isn't the best. :-)
[4/13/2006 3:56 PM] <brassratgirl> thanks for coming, DirkRiehle! and thanks for your input...
[4/13/2006 3:57 PM] <brassratgirl> ok! what time should future meetings be?
[4/13/2006 3:57 PM] <Amgine> <waves @ brassratgirl> I will email you about it.
[4/13/2006 3:57 PM] <brassratgirl> let's decide right now. :)
[4/13/2006 3:57 PM] <DirkRiehle> brg: I hope I'll make it more reguarly!
[4/13/2006 3:57 PM] <Amgine> A time convenient for Angela.
[4/13/2006 3:57 PM] <brassratgirl> Angela, could you make an earlier time?
[4/13/2006 3:57 PM] <brassratgirl> (Amgine: yes, please do)
[4/13/2006 3:57 PM] <Angela> Not unless you mean 6 hours earlier.
[4/13/2006 3:58 PM] <Amgine> <grins>
[4/13/2006 3:58 PM] <brassratgirl> I probably could do that, actually...
[4/13/2006 3:58 PM] <brassratgirl> maybe we should start switching them up.
[4/13/2006 3:58 PM] <DirkRiehle> Angela: is it 9am in your timezone?
[4/13/2006 3:59 PM] =-= oscar-away is now known as oscar
[4/13/2006 3:59 PM] <Angela> Yes, except I got back from California yesterday so I'm not exactly in that timezone yet.
[4/13/2006 3:59 PM] <brassratgirl> Anyway, I must go, back in an hour. Will send email with revised questions soon... if you all figure out a good time let me know, or I'll see it in the logs :)
[4/13/2006 3:59 PM] <brassratgirl> thanks everyone.
[4/13/2006 4:00 PM] <DirkRiehle> brg: thanks to you!
[4/13/2006 4:00 PM] <Amgine> k
[4/13/2006 4:00 PM] <DirkRiehle> Ok, I'll leave too; see you by email or next week!