On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 07:51:20AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> Robert Ancell [2010-12-01 17:40 +1100]:
> > I propose we keep this format for now on. Yes/no/should we change it?
>
> Thanks for this initiative! I like the format as it is now, it's a
> much more interesting read.
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 05:40:12PM +1100, Robert Ancell wrote:
> So this concludes the trial of the desktop meeting summary... Results
> are here:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Meeting/2010-11-30
>
> I propose we keep this format for now on. Yes/no/should we change it?
One other thought
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 05:40:12PM +1100, Robert Ancell wrote:
> I also bolded some key words to make it easier to skim-read, these are
> easy to add in the wiki as you enter items (use three apostrophes
> '''), and/or they can be quickly updated during the meeting (only
> takes a minute or so).
>
Hello Robert,
Robert Ancell [2010-12-01 17:40 +1100]:
> I propose we keep this format for now on. Yes/no/should we change it?
Thanks for this initiative! I like the format as it is now, it's a
much more interesting read. What we sohld perhaps point out even more
is the stuff that we are currentl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
So this concludes the trial of the desktop meeting summary... Results
are here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Meeting/2010-11-30
It seemed the consensus was the categories were important, so I
reformatted the list to include them. I
