20:00 #startmeeting Regular LoCo Council Meeting for October 2014 20:00 Meeting started Tue Oct 21 20:00:07 2014 UTC. The chair is skellat. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 20:00 20:00 Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 20:00 #topic Opening Business 20:00 #subtopic Listing of Sitting Members of LoCo Council 20:00 #info For the avoidance of uncertainty and doubt, it is necessary to list the members of the council who are presently serving active terms. 20:00 #info Marcos Costales, term expiring 2015-04-16 20:00 #info Jos� Antonio Rey, term expiring 2015-10-04 20:00 #info Pablo Rubianes, term expiring 2015-04-16 20:00 #info Sergio Meneses, term expiring 2015-10-04 20:00 #info Stephen Michael Kellat, term expiring 2015-10-04 20:00 #info There is currently one vacant seat on LoCo Council 20:00 #subtopic Roll Call 20:00 At this point we need to proceed with a roll call of LoCo Council members. 20:00 A quorum to transact business during today's meeting is 3. 20:00 During the following vote members of the council should vote "+1" to indicate their presence. 20:00 #voters PabloRubianes SergioMeneses skellat jose costales 20:00 Current voters: PabloRubianes SergioMeneses costales jose skellat 20:01 #vote LoCo Council Roll Call (All Members Present To Vote In Favor To Register Attendance) 20:01 Please vote on: LoCo Council Roll Call (All Members Present To Vote In Favor To Register Attendance) 20:01 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname) 20:01 +1 20:01 +1 received from skellat 20:01 +1 20:01 +1 received from PabloRubianes 20:01 +1 20:01 +1 received from SergioMeneses 20:01 +1 20:01 +1 received from costales 20:02 Are there any other members of LoCo Council wishing to indicate their attendance? 20:02 #endvote 20:02 Voting ended on: LoCo Council Roll Call (All Members Present To Vote In Favor To Register Attendance) 20:02 Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0 20:02 Motion carried 20:03 #topic Re-Verification: France 20:03 Before today is a re-verification application from the team in France. I will call upon the team's representative to speak to their application briefly. Members of the Council will, of course, have questions to ask as we discuss the matter. 20:03 The application is available for viewing on the wiki infrastructure. -- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FrenchTeam/ReVerificationApplication 20:03 Who is here to speak for the LoCo of France? 20:03 yes 20:03 IdrogN: will talk for us 20:03 Greetings IdrogN 20:03 Hi IdrogN! |o/ 20:04 Tell us a bit about what is happening in France 20:04 pleased to meet you all 20:05 Thank you 20:05 First, let me introduce myself, i'm David, the new head of Ubuntu-Fr board (we are a "legal" association) 20:06 mister president :) 20:06 cm-t & yoboy, who are also here, are members of the board too 20:06 hi 20:06 Shall we proceed to the lecture? 20:06 Certainly 20:07 You can find our application there: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FrenchTeam/ReVerificationApplication2014 20:07 bonsoir 20:08 (olive is also a member of the board) 20:08 (and maybe since the begining of ubuntu-fr if I am not false) 20:08 So, as you know, we organise a lot of events. The most important ones are the release party and the Paris Ubuntu Parties 20:09 maybe, maybe 20:09 really nice application 20:09 oups, i forgot to remove the "we need you", i remove it asap 20:09 We are currently organising the next Ubuntu Party which will be hosted at la Cité des Sciences by mid-november and that occupies us a lot 20:10 (done, no more ads "we need you") 20:10 Are you having any problem we can help in? 20:11 Next week, there will be the release party for the 14.10. During thisrelease party, we will meet to organise the next Ubuntu Party (UP) and train the volunteers 20:12 (this saturday more exactly) 20:12 @Pablo: for the next UP ? 20:12 IdrogN: Error: "Pablo:" is not a valid command. 20:13 Pablo: for the next UP? 20:13 IdrogN: I mean in the team 20:13 Pablo : everything seems to be quite ok 20:14 awesome guys! 20:14 What are your plans for 2015? 20:15 As usual, 2 UP (15.4 & 15.10), several meetings & meet-ups with local teams & other association from the Free Software ecosystem 20:15 Excellent 20:15 You're in a lot of social networks :)) Which of them is working better for you? 20:15 More webcafés in more festivals 20:16 twitter mostly 20:17 for 2015, we can add that we will try to develop the association by recruiting more volunteers and using new tools to be more efficient 20:17 Excellent. 20:17 IdrogN: great! 20:17 Fellow Council members, are we ready to vote? 20:17 yes 20:17 Yes 20:18 #vote That the re-verification application of France be approved and that the period of verification be extended for a period of two years from this date. 20:18 Please vote on: That the re-verification application of France be approved and that the period of verification be extended for a period of two years from this date. 20:18 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname) 20:18 +1 great work 20:18 +1 great work received from PabloRubianes 20:18 +1 This is one of the best applications I've ever seen. Really an awesome work, team! Thanks!! 20:18 +1 This is one of the best applications I've ever seen. Really an awesome work, team! Thanks!! received from costales 20:18 +1 congrats :D 20:18 +1 congrats :D received from SergioMeneses 20:18 +1 an excellent example to be followed 20:18 +1 an excellent example to be followed received from skellat 20:18 #endvote 20:18 Voting ended on: That the re-verification application of France be approved and that the period of verification be extended for a period of two years from this date. 20:18 Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0 20:18 Motion carried 20:18 thank you 20:18 keep the great work French Team 20:18 thanks you everyone for your support :) 20:18 Congratulations to the French team. We'll be updating things on Launchpad after this meeting concludes. 20:19 Congrats team! 20:19 thanks dear loco council <3, and thank to our new president to lead our lecture :') 20:19 #topic Update on open cases before the LoCo Council 20:19 May I have permission to put in the record a list of our pending verification and re-verification proceedings? 20:19 merci à l'équipe :) 20:20 ^^ 20:20 skellat: yes 20:20 #agreed That information may be placed in the meeting record as to the list of pending LoCo Council proceedings. 20:20 #info LoCo Council presently has before it pending verification and re-verification proceedings for the following LoCo Teams: Mauritius, Finland, Netherlands, Peru, Russia, Serbia. 20:20 #topic The loco-contacts thread "Our teams reject the new LoCo Council policy" 20:21 There are many things relevant to the most recent thread on loco-contacts. 20:21 I will bring up that, in parallel to this, Daniel holbach discussed on ubuntu-community-team various thoughts about recognizing and incorporating non-LoCo groups. -- https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2014-October/000044.html 20:21 The original start to this thread is available for reading and the thread did generate some rancor and heated discussion. -- https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/2014-October/006791.html 20:21 The new SubLoCo policy is what caused much of the concern in this thread. -- http://lococouncil.ubuntu.com/2014/09/16/new-subloco-policy/ 20:21 I don't want to discuss this for too long. 20:21 Is there anything we can add here today other than taking note of what Mr. Holbach is doing? 20:22 I think that the new policy is clear as it is 20:22 everything is there! 20:22 and have the proper workarounds 20:22 I recommend that the LoCo Council carefully consider how they represent policies in response to queries on the mailing list. 20:22 From my point of view, the "exceptions" are not clear, but I don't want to open the discussion here 20:23 Okay 20:23 thx 20:24 For instance, it was insinuated that independant status for LoCo teams of autonomous subregions would be somewhat of an uphill battle. 20:24 And then later insinuated that it would probably be a rote overview. 20:24 Good point nhaines 20:24 And skellat, you asked that conversation stop on the mailing list because this meeting was the only proper venue, and now you're saying that you don't want to spend much time on it. 20:25 nhaines: Coming up on the agenda will be consideration of requests from the Galician and Asturian teams. 20:25 It's clear from the actual announced policy that a great deal of thought was put into the general guidelines. 20:26 So when questions about hypothetical (or not so hypothetical) situations are met with mixed messages, that creates a lack of confidence. 20:26 let me clear some points here 20:26 nhaines: I do want to ensure we reach the Galician and Asturian requests before 2100 UTC 20:26 That is all 20:27 If there wasn't public discussion of this policy before it was established, that probably would have helped decrease confusion. Something to bear in mind for the future. 20:27 I don't see the confusion 20:27 Ah 20:28 Part of that is bringing Debian paradigms into Ubuntu 20:28 PabloRubianes: I think that regardless of the correctness of various emails on loco-contacts@, it's blatantly obvious that some people were confused. 20:28 if a team don't want to a subteam they can ask to be an independent loco 20:28 I think the confusion is that the policy (presumably) was designed to address existing LoCos who wanted "official" subteams, and the policy was designed to be an operating guidelines for those teams. 20:29 Now, personally I'm fine with the policy, but as a LoCo leader, I'd prefer that future policy not come out of nowhere from a public point of view. Hence, prior discussion. 20:29 PabloRubianes, "if a team don't want to a subteam they can ask to be an independent loco". Could we append that to the policy? 20:29 nhaines: the last 2 sentences of the policy are clearly address for teams who don't want to be sublocos 20:29 "In the event what is considered a sub-team wants to be considered a LoCo, it will need to present a request to the LoCo Council." 20:30 We have two of those requests coming up later in this meeting to address. 20:30 costales: the policy states "In the event what is considered a sub-team wants to be considered a LoCo, it will need to present a request to the LoCo Council." 20:30 thats the same! 20:30 I didn't read in the last days 20:30 I don't know if we are missing something but I don't get the point, I saw everything cover with the new policy 20:30 ;) sorry 20:30 Yes, but the fact that alarmed LoCo teams were told "read the policy" instead of being reassured is disappointing. 20:30 PabloRubianes: the policy is not clear for a group of people, so even in the case it is clear for you, it is obvious that there is a problem 20:31 I think that exixting LoCos were quite confused about being demoted fron LoCo to SubLoCo ;) 20:31 as nhaines said, the problem is that the policy was written from a point of view that is not reflected in the policy itsefl 20:31 Good point xuacu 20:31 xuacu: the problem is some existent locos where out of the old policy too 20:31 there is a lack of context, and the "policy" is going to be interpreted without that point of view 20:32 we made the new policy to contemplate them and have every loco on the same page 20:32 So once again, my advice is that the Council carefully consider the response to alarmed community members. "RTFM" is something the Ubuntu project was founded to eliminate. 20:32 nhaines: none made RTFM 20:33 I would be happy to provide links after the meeting. 20:33 No, nhaines, please provide them in the record 20:33 yes 20:33 sure 20:34 Is the LoCo Council willing to delay the Galacian and Asturian requests while I cross-reference my email with the web archives? 20:34 nhaines:yes 20:34 https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/2014-October/006802.html 20:34 Then I will do my best to be prompt. 20:34 José Antonio Rey: "Please, read the whole policy." Unique phrase 20:34 for me it's a RTFM 20:34 costales: agreed. 20:35 that's not 20:35 costales: +1 20:35 they where reading the first part 20:35 the end of the policy is where the independent locos are allow 20:35 the last 2 sentences 20:36 PabloRubianes... How can you know what the other people were reading? 20:36 I didn't like too this: The LoCo Council isn't listen their teams/users 20:36 "Please read the whole policy" and "read the fucking manual" are functionally identical. 20:36 If the users/teams like change something, we have to listen them :) 20:36 felipexil: it's pretty clear he didn't read the entire policy, but that's no excuse not to clarify. 20:36 felipexil: because as costales just did they where asking for something the policy states 20:37 I think "is the policy okay" and "were there issues with the way discussion proceeded before and after the announcement of the policy" are two different topics. 20:37 nhaines is quite clearly talking about the latter. Defending the policy is not addressing that. 20:37 Yes, the policy seems quite reasonable to me. A codification of current best practice. 20:38 I think we have a lot of teams and it's impossible a rule for all of them :) 20:39 And that is where internal debate among LoCo Council members filtered outward and one person's opposition to a majority vote brings us to today's discussion 20:40 amongst other issues, such as lack of prior communication, handling of the ensuing thread after announcement, etc. etc. 20:41 Which one person opposed which majority vote and how did that lead to this discussion today? 20:41 skellat: you can't avoid this kind of discussion sooner or later :) 20:41 wait a sec 20:41 lets get another angle of this 20:41 xuacu: for example 20:42 what do you think is wrong with the policy? 20:42 And... I would like to point out that the sentence "In the event what is considered a sub-team wants to be considered a LoCo, it will need to present a request to the LoCo Council." is not clear at all 20:42 "what is considered a sub-team" should be defined 20:42 (at least, it is not clear for me) 20:42 Okay 20:42 Pablo: just the point felixepil brings up 20:43 felipexil: it does seem to indicate that an autonomous region would need to become a subteam to the existing team before asking for consideration. 20:43 nhaines: +1 20:43 and, the two first sentences of the policy make this difficult 20:43 ok let me see if I get the point, you want to have 2 official subteams in the same city, right? ( by instance ) 20:44 Each team will be a country (or state in the United States). We will call this a ‘LoCo’. Each LoCo can have sub-teams. This sub-teams will be created at the will and need of each LoCo. 20:44 SergioMeneses, Nobody talked about cities ;) 20:44 and that begs the next question: could a subLoCo be denied to become a LoCO? 20:44 costales, city or state or region 20:44 SergioMeneses, It's not the same for us 20:44 xuacu: it depends on the case 20:45 and where are the guidelines to be accepted or rejected? 20:46 According to the two first sentences of the policy, only countries can be LoCo, and sub-teams will be created only at "the will and need of that LoCo", and it seems that to be promoted to a "LoCo", it is necessary to be a sub-LoCo. T 20:46 felipexil: that was the old policy 20:46 just that 20:47 so ubuntu-cat or ubuntu-ast were outside the policy 20:47 There was also a question about how a theoretical Basque LoCo would represent the Basque population found in the US. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/2014-October/006847.html 20:47 I would in turn ask how the Ohio LoCo is representing the interests of the Ohioan population outside of Ohio. 20:48 But this seems to indicate a predisposition to rejecting autonomous regions looking to become independent LoCos. 20:48 Good point too: The Basque LoCo would be in 2 countries 20:48 costales: a cultural identity with a unique language that happens to straddle two countries that came long later. 20:49 nhaines costales with that view all the latin america would be one 1 loco 20:49 PabloRubianes: I copied the text from the new policy... 20:50 felipexil: the old policy was just "one country one loco" 20:50 PabloRubianes: yes, but the exception is not clear 20:50 now we added the rest to let provinces or cities have their loco if they don't want to be part of the national loco 20:50 PabloRubianes: it is not clear who is a "what is considered a sub-team" 20:51 felipexil: any team that is not a country loco 20:51 felipexil, a group of people 20:52 yes 20:52 PabloRubianes: SergioMeneses: could that not be clarified in the policy? 20:52 I rather like the language "In the event that what is or would be considered a sub-team wants to be considered a LoCo". 20:52 PabloRubianes: SergioMeneses: (remove the "not" in my previous sentence) 20:53 PabloRubianes, then, we are treating a team without country as >>> "Sub" << this is bad in itself. 20:53 The problem is that the new policy immediately states "LoCos not meeting the criteria of country/state teams will be denied verification." 20:53 felipexil: it could be 20:54 but there's the fact that the only country that have locos working as independent at the moment is spain 20:55 but if you feel more confortable with that we can clarified this 20:55 I'd like to hear to Quebec, Brittany... 20:56 No all people read the mail list 20:56 I could point out the United States, but I expect that would just be pedantry ;) 20:56 rww: USA was the only exception when Locos where created 20:57 and I think is not fare to have different rules for them 20:57 rww: And the USA is definitely an exception as it a dual system of sovereigns. 20:57 PabloRubianes: I'm aware of the history involved, probably more than you are. I was pointing out a slight inaccuracy in your comment. 20:57 but the new policy give the same posibility to the rest of the world 20:57 That the LoCo Council knew that Spain had independant LoCos and was still completely unprepared to address their concerns is a little disappointing. 20:57 (my concerns, again, don't rest with the policy but the way it was communicated, hence me not really talking right now) 20:58 Right now I don't want to disappoint the Galician and Asturian teams but we're approaching 2057 UTC 20:58 Do they have representatives present to make their requests? 20:58 skellat: /me from the Galician Team 20:58 skellat: remaining unaddressed concerns should go where? List, next meeting...? 20:58 For Asturian Loco, varela or me 20:59 * ivarela too, for Asturian 20:59 rww: We will return to that matter in a few minutes 20:59 skellat: thank you 20:59 #topic Requests from the Galician and Asturian teams 20:59 Now that the Galician and Asturian representatives are present, we can proceed. 21:00 The policy, in its essentials, does not stipulate what the request should look like. 21:00 There was a lot of confussion in the mailing list. It was stated that existing LoCos will remain as indendent LoCos 21:00 I would like to confirm this 21:01 felipexil: We will address that later under "Any Other Business". Right now it is out of order. 21:01 felipexil: this is your request to be independent loco 21:01 PabloRubianes: yes 21:01 Representatives of the teams, for the purposes of today's meeting, need merely make the following request: "That the XX Team be considered an independent LoCo team notwithstanding representing less than a country" 21:02 With the name of the team substitute for XX 21:02 yes 21:02 Would the representatives of the teams please state their formal requests? 21:03 I think it's the same case for both. The two groups have cultures, languages ​​and history that allows us to work at the same level as a LoCo with state 21:04 xuacu, do you make the same request? 21:04 We (the Galician team) make the same request 21:04 I'm waiting for ivarela to do it, I could do on his behalf if he's not present 21:05 Fellow Council members, the requests have been made. Are you ready to vote on each item so as to dispose of the requests? 21:05 skellat, I'll no vote this time, because these teams are like brothers for me :) 21:05 ok, can I ask why you don't want to be part of the Spain Team? 21:05 Where do you live PabloRubianes ? 21:05 Uruguay 21:06 Do you feel you are argentinian? 21:06 That's the same. 21:06 no 21:06 you are in the same country 21:06 Asturian LoCo has it's own workflow. Despite our excellent relationships with es-LoCo we want to keep things as they are now 21:07 PabloRubianes: the Galician team is organized around our "culture", specially by our language 21:07 we want to collaborate with all the teams 21:07 and very specially with the teams in the Iberian Peninsula 21:07 felipexil: I respect that, and I know that you have your language 21:07 anyway, culture and language is not the same. And we will not go back. 21:08 ok 21:08 tebanpb, Llumex03 and dangerouspiper can say exactly the same 21:08 Yep 21:09 lets vote then 21:09 +1 21:09 of course, our collaboration with es-LoCo will go on as usual, but as independent teams 21:09 There will be two separate votes 21:10 #vote That the Galician Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo team notwithstanding representing less than a country. 21:10 Please vote on: That the Galician Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo team notwithstanding representing less than a country. 21:10 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname) 21:10 +1 21:10 +1 received from skellat 21:10 +1 21:10 +1 received from PabloRubianes 21:10 0 21:10 0 received from SergioMeneses 21:10 #endvote 21:10 Voting ended on: That the Galician Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo team notwithstanding representing less than a country. 21:10 Votes for:2 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1 21:10 Motion carried 21:10 #vote That the Asturian Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo Team notwithstanding representing less than a country. 21:10 Please vote on: That the Asturian Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo Team notwithstanding representing less than a country. 21:10 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname) 21:10 +1 21:10 +1 received from skellat 21:10 +1 21:10 +1 received from PabloRubianes 21:12 0 21:12 0 received from SergioMeneses 21:12 #endvote 21:12 Voting ended on: That the Asturian Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo Team notwithstanding representing less than a country. 21:12 Votes for:2 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1 21:12 Motion carried 21:12 #info Marcos Costales, in his capacity as leader of Ubuntu Spain and as a member of LoCo Council, stood aside from both votes. 21:13 The requests are granted. The Asturian team is reminded that re-verification is still due at the deadline specified on Launchpad. 21:13 Thanks! 21:13 #topic Any Other Business 21:13 What other business is there before the LoCo Council at this time? It is presently 2113 UTC. 21:13 Thank you all for hearing us 21:14 xuacu: If you had written to us as asked prior we could have disposed of this even more quickly. 21:14 What is the preferred forum for exception requests? 21:14 Thank you very much 21:14 felipexil, gracies home!! 21:15 nhaines: We're still debating that internally. This is the first time we've approached such since the policy was adopted so most of it was handled in a pro forma fashion. 21:16 If we had been written to, the turnaround would possibly have been quicker. We only hold one IRC meeting per month. 21:16 When in doubt, write to us. 21:16 We try to not let things get hung up due to the calendar if we can avoid it. 21:16 So provisionally, the preferred form of contact is via email to the LoCo Council? 21:17 For now, yes. 21:18 #info Those who have requests of the LoCo Council are advised to write to it at loco-council@lists.ubuntu.com for assistance. 21:18 rww: Do you wish to continue discussion of your matter? We're unfortunately not quorate at this point as Sergio and Pablo had to depart. 21:19 sorry, work matter. yes. 21:19 still, it's very likely that things goes out of control 21:19 Okay 21:19 so as I mentioned earlier, I was concerned (and I think nhaines was?) about the communication surrounding this policy 21:19 rww: that is an accurate representation of my concern. 21:19 Bad situations make for bad policy. 21:19 I've found this issue already in a bad state 21:19 For example, as I mentioned earlier, I didn't see public discussion of it beforehand, which I think is something that could be improved in the future. 21:20 May I tell some of the back story? 21:20 sure :) 21:20 Okay 21:20 First the Catalan team came up for re-verification 21:20 Under one country, one LoCo we said they didn't fit as they're still part of Spain 21:21 Yes, they're trying hard to have a separatist referendum but for now they're still part of Spain 21:21 The Catalan team didn't like that so they took the matter up with Community Council 21:22 After a long and not so happy meeting between both bodies, LoCo Council was tasked with trying to find a way to adapt what had existed prior to accommodate the Catalan situation 21:22 Why was it so important to disband the verified, fully-functional Catalan team? 21:22 nhaines: I second your question 21:23 nhaines: We were trying to clean up what we had in terms of policies and exceptions (written, unwritten, and some partially forgotten) to bring it into a coherent whole 21:23 This was also prior to the Scottish independence vote failing 21:23 After multiple rounds of LoCo Council deadlocking on trying to adapt policy so that forgotten understandings, barely documented exceptions, and the like could be cleaned up... 21:23 ...we voted via CIVS. 21:24 By majority vote we adopted what we had. 21:24 This stretched on for about 3 months. 21:25 We finally submitted the policy to Community Council to see if they felt it would help ameliorate the situation that arose with respect to the Catalan team, they were okay with it, and we then resolved the Catalan matter. 21:25 There were a couple different versions we voted on and this one was the one we felt would be flexible enough to accommodate the future. 21:26 As to the US, the exceptions for the individual states stay because of the unique system of dual sovereignties in play especially considering every Governor has their own army (## State National Guard) as well as the federal forces. 21:27 I think discussing the US fully would probably not be productive, so unless someone objects we can probably set that aside :) 21:28 (US sovereignty is... a fun topic) 21:28 Not the consideration that a US LoCo with 50 team leads and almost no geographical continuity would be completely unproductive? 21:28 rww: LoCo Council spent a week going round and round about it and there was a "red team" discussion of creating a single US LoCo undertaken. 21:28 Actually I like rww's better. 21:29 I have a question then. What about countries without their own army? :s 21:29 So yeah. Communication. I understand (and now more fully understand) that it was a difficult situation, and that bringing it up for public discussion was in some ways problematic. 21:29 tebanpb: :-) That was just one example of dual sovereignties in the US system. 21:29 rww: Yeah, you could say that. 21:29 Does it need work? Probably. 21:30 o/ 21:30 elfy: Hello comrade 21:30 However, as someone who part-manages a LoCo that occasionally threatens to try to be two LoCos, I would have appreciated *something* on loco-contacts@, even if it were just "we're pondering the one-LoCo-one-state policy, if you have input email the LoCo Council off-list" 21:30 But sovereignty is a political concept which is defined differently in each country 21:30 I mean, it's water under the bridge now, but please consider that for future issues :) 21:30 tebanpb: this is why the guidelines allow for exceptions on an individual basis. 21:30 As a matter of fact I don't get why we are getting so much into these politic issues :s 21:31 And I've said my piece, so back to the others for their comments I guess. 21:31 tebanpb, all it's politic 21:31 rww: We're all fairly exhausted from the Utopic Unicorn cycle getting the issues of the Iberian Peninsula settled. 21:31 tebanpb, our society and live 21:31 ;) 21:31 skellat you konw that in Spain is a system with dual sovereignties? 21:31 I mean institutional politics 21:32 dangerouspiper is right about that 21:32 Okay, does anybody else have anything else to raise before the LoCo Council at this time? 21:32 dangerouspiper, I tried to explain to the Council 21:33 and we could end discussing about what sovereignty means, it's pointless 21:33 Nothing being heard, this meeting is concluded. Thank you all for your participation. 21:33 I think is not a political issue, it's a cultural/language issue 21:33 #endmeeting