From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [82.71.203.194] (helo=crown.reciva.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MdNH1-0002cP-Te for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:54:45 +0200 Received: from castle.reciva.com ([82.71.203.193] helo=lurch.internal.reciva.com) by crown.reciva.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MdN0I-00015v-JG for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:37:26 +0100 Received: from mill.internal.reciva.com ([192.168.106.87] ident=pb) by lurch.internal.reciva.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MdN0F-0003Xd-7i for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:37:23 +0100 From: Phil Blundell To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <20090818014359.GC18879@denix.org> References: <4A7D824D.7080103@balister.org> <1249899969.8248.95.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> <4A800434.4050603@balister.org> <20090818014359.GC18879@denix.org> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:37:19 +0100 Message-Id: <1250595439.27980.66.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 Subject: Re: OEDEM scheduling X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:54:45 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 21:43 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 07:27:48AM -0400, Philip Balister wrote: > > Phil Blundell wrote: > >> The November date had 100% approval among those who responded to the > >> doodle poll. (October was second best; September was least favoured, > >> and in any case the proposed September date is only four weeks away > >> which is probably too close for a lot of folks.) So, I would suggest > >> that we just go ahead with the November date rather than introducing new > >> alternatives at this stage. Either way, it'd be good to try to get the > >> date nailed down within the > >> next week or two so that everyone has adequate notice. Obviously > >> there's no statutory minimum notice period for this but you probably > >> need at least 6-8 weeks to avoid a large number of diary clashes. > > > > Agreed. Do we have a place to meet for those dates? > > Any updates on this item? I think the original proposal was for either Berlin or Frankfurt. Failing that I could probably arrange to host something in Cambridge so long as the number of attendees isn't too enormous. p.