All right. Thank you, everyone. We're back on Tuesday afternoon. It's going to pick up on a conversation on an age 96 pretty. But first I just get a mail from Katie McClean that said that she is available at 10 after four for us. And I'm just going to check my phone here and see if anyone else got that. So Kira, can you post that? Okay, so online is is the new draft of date of 244. I suspect with that one change on it, but we can look at it at 10 after four representative. I know you'll be in another committee. We can hold it open for you. I don't want to take a vote in advance for you. So thank you all for the conversation on 329. That's what we'll have. I did reach out to see representative graph. And ask Ron to set up a time to meet with them. Looks like on Thursday. So that still works for us. We just have to make sure Damien's available. Time on this week. Each 96 is also on our list of priorities. I've also shared based on the notes that I have from our previous conversations and also from the document that I shared with you from the International Center of Transitional Justice. The comments that were made by our friends down there. And so Damien is working on a new draft that he'll provide for us before tomorrow. That again, I'll take responsibility for listening to the comments that we've heard thus far. And also with the notion of pulling back a little bit. Just to say, what is it we're trying to create? Trying to get there. And Howard, yeah, it's the same question we've been working on. With the bill. And so I just wanted to open the floor of conversation on 96 to see what people thought about. The comments that were made by ICPJ or anything that you contemplated during the break. So I just wanted to take a little bit of a moment on it and just kind of take today as a, as kind of a preview. We're pretty much going to be doing all 96 for the next two days to see if we can finish it. And so I just wanted to take today. It's kind of a, as a, as a preview for the next two days. I read the memo from the ICPJ and I, I do have a lot of the same. Concerns about the size of the stakeholder group, even though I have advocated to have as many voices, different voices as possible to reflect the eugenics apology. And also. I think that the sheer breadth of this bill. It's not specifically about one particular wrong. Like for instance, the Maryland truth commission. Is specifically about one. Issue, which was lynching. And the Canadian one was specifically targeted for one typical, one type of population. Indigenous peoples. So I feel like this is, it's really broad and big. Broad isn't necessarily bad in my mind, but big, big in scope, in vision. So I just wanted to, I just wanted to look at, to see, to understand what this bill is about. And share numbers of people and also in. The amount of funding that it's going to take. So those are just some thoughts, but I was pleased to see. This group of experts, global experts. Also raised some of the same concerns that I have. Well, I guess I've left everybody speechless. I think when I re-read the document, I hadn't looked at it, I printed it out before we left and I didn't want her to stay married, so I didn't open it up all of a sudden on vacation. Yeah, it was great. Dinner was great. Had I opened up this document, I think I would have gone, you know, very far away. I'd be just arriving at St. Lawrence. And I think it was surprising to me whether between that and the comments, first the comments, because the comments were like, oh my God, this is so broad. Oh my God, the stakeholders are in the selection panel and I kept thinking, that's not what you've been talking about. But there was in version 3.1 was saying that the stakeholder group and the selection panel would have, I think, an oversight over the commissioners that I wasn't intending. In my thinking, and I hadn't been thinking of it in that way. So the conversation was always based on they would peel off or they would peel off and the commissioners would be the ones who are running it as autonomously and independently as possible. And with the input, the inclusion comes in with whatever groups, whatever commissions get formed that obviously the commissioners would be working with each of the interested stakeholder groups. And so, but I did see that. Again, counted my blessings that I didn't open up the bill, I was gone. It was 24 hours or so just working on it to get shared with Damien, just like some of these comments that were made here to go through the bill and just to try to streamline it back again. And I think details we'll talk about tomorrow, but I'm just so grateful that ICTJ is following us and is providing us with this kind of guidance because it's really, it's really good. Are they going to be around again tomorrow, like a Zoom available? I don't know that they've been invited, I just, you know, I did, they always at least watch on YouTube. And we can make sure that they have the Zoom link for our work again. And again, I think Ron has changed the agenda so you can see it on the computer. So it's, it's pretty much all 96 tomorrow I had to check in with Matt on bumping the alcohol bills down the week a little bit. I hope we're on the same page. And again, the theory behind the alcohol bills is to get something. We've talked a lot about some of the bills, some of the pieces, but we want to get more than the technical with the assumption that it's going to come back to us because the Senate will add something, but they won't. And we'll reverse our work, especially there's so many pieces that we know that we have to deal with the alcohol bill, but we'll have more time this week. Well, I just want to share that I did take some of this committee's work with me on my holiday and in Maryland, in one of the public libraries that my grandchildren and I went into. The last case exhibit in the entrance way of the committee, the committee collecting soils, there were large jars with soil that was from areas where lynchings had been. There was a description of the project I was looking for my pictures because there are a few pictures might have my daughter take I can't find it, but I just I thought it was for me it was a connection to what we're doing here and it was a tangible of what we see as an outcome agreeing with Lisa that if there was some specific we're looking at and maybe it happens after this next, but as a goal where there's something out in the public domain that people really can connect to emotionally and and with understanding that this was part of history and I think that's been a successful piece of reconciliation commission outcomes of I was up in Quebec City and went to the Museum of Civilization which I didn't get to four years ago because our town meeting break coincides with school break. And so four years ago when we went, it was impossible to get in. And for probably COVID reasons, we could get in this time and so in the museum of civilization, they had a dedicated space for their indigenous and Indian populations. That was really well done. And it's part of, I don't know celebration is the right word but commemoration and and and it was written in their language, like we did this, and this happened with us with so much, you know so much art so much. In other words, including a section that included the recent 2021 conversations about the findings of the of the bodies at the schools. And it really was, again, given the context of our work it was really kind of powerful but it was an example to of where can this go. I don't think we can say in our, we can't say in our legislation that this is what the commissioners and everybody and the stakeholders will determine now. And so this is part of pulling back and saying, well, it's, we know that the commemoration is necessary we know, perhaps that something kind of is it a museum is it a series of public concerts or public, you know whatever, whatever the outcome is at the end of this process, it should cap all of the work that went into it. And in Canada, right now it's this museum in Quebec and it's just, you know, it's, it's crazy good and very powerful stuff. Listening, listening to somebody there in the video of someone being interviewed and he was in the back of the back of a pickup truck and he's driving through their neighborhood that the government had given them it's all houses, totally normal to us neighborhood he was just talking about how this is just so it feels like jail. Yeah, because of the connections that are connected to the wilderness and the outside of this that it can no longer participate in and I don't think it would have been as powerful to me to learn in this context right now. I think increasingly more comfortable with the openness of it at the beginning, because I feel like it. In the four years that I've served here I've learned so much. History experiences. And with a lot of the framing and even the bills that are on walls dealing with kind of systemic harm. And I think what's really missing is for us in Vermont to understand the harm in Vermont that's happened to our different populations. And I think this is an opportunity here to really be Vermont specific about issues, and have that as as as the filter I think it was community input. Both about what are the harms we should investigate. And then with the commissioners. It's like, what are the steps that are needed. It's not saying we're going to do this and we have a conceptually anyway these three commissioners and we have conceptually chosen three different communities right those communities may choose other than the three that we chose the BIPOC community the disabled community. Right. And so I think in terms of kind of self determination of community voices. I think this is a great process. And I think it's one that can work in Vermont, because we cannot take only national data on kind of systemic racism in banking or in anything, unless we really investigate in Vermont and then we can say, what do we owe Vermont in this process so I, you know, we don't have a single incident that we're trying to redress. But I think this is a great way to understand if there are issues to address, you know, and, and what those issues are and what those communities are. So I I'm very comfortable with the openness of it. And I've gone to like it more and more. I went to other big city in Canada Montreal, my partner for a couple of days and went to a really good museum that if you haven't been there before the McCord Museum. And it's a, it's a cultural museum. And there's a very I was not extensive, but it's a really interesting, diverse exhibit on indigenous culture in Canada. And a fair amount of it went into, you know, the work of truth and reconciliation and there was one, there was one paragraph that stuck out for me and, you know, reading these different panels and I just thought I'd share it with you is the reason so many indigenous voices have been raised against the idea of reconciliation is that it must necessarily be preceded by healing. Imagine that reconciliation is possible without change is too easy. There are actions that must be taken before a true encounter between the different populations occupying this territory can take place. And that, you know, and it, and I, we may use the word reconciliation in a long term goal. But I think that the truth part is, you know, is key to that healing. And, and, you know, there were several people who talked about, you know, something that this committee has certainly heard about language, how language and it, and its absence, you know, how many, how many different languages were lost in indigenous cultures in Canada and, and that, you know, the first steps some of folks were arguing is, you know, that you need to make it a little bit of an attempt to understand that there are these languages. And, and that that's we communicate and we find languages to do that and I am sorry I'm going on. It just was a, it, it was, I couldn't get away from age 96 when I went on vacation. I was really struck by the, by the email we got from the truth and trust this group and thinking, oh my God, you know, does this mean we've got a scrappy sections of the sending style all over again. But no, I don't think so. Let's look at the details. I was also a little bit disheartened frankly at the end of the week, before we went on break and we heard testimony that sounded like you guys are going way too far. You're supposed to be dealing only with the people who are affected by the eugenics project that not talking about history that happened long before the eugenics project. That message would seem to be coming from a couple of people. So I think we do have to remain broad, but I do think we do have to remind you have to look at the original set of stakeholders you know is it up to 37 I don't know what the total is anymore. We have to make sure that we have sufficient. Representation of the affected populations. But, you know, doesn't mean that the group has to be that big it can't become unwieldy clearly. Right. So I'm ready to charge ahead on this. A couple of hard days. I'll bring something. Cookies with espresso beans. Barbara, I think. Cheryl, if you can just like, because you had a context, like when you saw the display that you were like, yeah, the one degree of Barbara separation. It was, I guess I told my daughter and she said she had actually seen that we had it because she peaks at our work sometimes. I did find my photographs and one that I can pass around is, I don't know who can see it so send it but it's three jars ones from pools filled to her from Rockville, and it's soiled from the area where these lynchings were they and, and then this. Yeah, read the sign. The sign is from Brian Stevenson who is. He is the director of the equal justice Institute he was the movie that just mercy. Jordan this. So he's an attorney in Montgomery. He's been on death row wrong commitment. He's quoted heroes reconciliation with a difficult past cannot be achieved without truth believe that public history and finding a way forward as thoughtful and responsible. And I thought in conjunction with you put you said john that they really looking at Vermont. And what occurred here. And, and you know that that's the piece that brings it to a focus as Lisa was saying having a somehow pulling a focus and obviously that's still a very broad focus maybe that needs to be further but but that it is that Vermont. What did what did Vermont do or not do what did we permit to happen. And so there's other, but that was the only one I downloaded. But it was it was two glass case you know you walk in a library and you got those cases. They had done this display and I think they're doing them in all of the county live all the libraries that. And is it one batch of soil per lynching. Yes, and that has the person's name on it and the date of the lynching. So it's, and obviously it's current day soil so right, but, but it is that, and they also collected and sent to. There's a display where I think all of them are for the whole project. And so, because these three they're, they're where they were there in the communities where they were here to it. And there's also a collection somewhere of all of the lynchings, and they had similar jars that have been sent for that. So simplistic in a way but it's very moving and very connected. I think that's part of my issue with the broadness of this first of all I really did think Tommy that we were going to be addressing the eugenics apology with this legislation. So I guess I was mistaken from the get go, and with respect to the broadness of all of this. I, I feel like we need to identify what we're trying to solve what we're trying to make better, not what we're trying to solve but what we're trying to make better, what harm that happened that we are trying to make better by this by establishing the reconciliation committee because I think you need to know the harm before you convene a committee to study the effects of whatever that misdeed was or misdeeds. And I don't feel like we have identified that. That's it's an interesting point. I mean I think we don't know that that's the point so we don't know the car. We know that people feel that harm was committed we know that I was, I was visiting with him today. And the picture we gave him to commemorate when we rewrote the alcohol lines. And the book was from the 20s, or maybe the 30s. It was just a Xerox of that. And his comment was along the lines of, you know, things that you see when you go back and look and hold statute. You know that is the system that we lived in the things that we did that we put down on paper. I think the goal of this is to not know what the harm is. We need to have the folks feel like they can tell us and literally really again. I mean we've heard a limited number regarding eugenics but in terms of the larger history or the larger feelings of feelings of discrimination of bothering. That's what this is. This is trying not to prescribe what the end game is supposed to be. We're not used to that as legislators we're used to having. We want, we want to do legislation that has a definitive outcome. And I'm not sure this is in that category. It's just my personal thoughts on it. Yeah, it is like, we're trying to create a container, right? That is safe and supported within which people can do this work as they essentially define it. And the scary thing I think for a legislature is that it's iterative. It has its own kind of, you know, hopefully it will learn as it goes along. Things that will somewhat shift direction or require more. I guess I just, I, I haven't ever thought about this. Legislature, a legislator's terms in that, like, you know, I'm comfortable. When I was running a nonprofit, allowing things to be iterative, we had strategic goals and all that but, but, but here we like to, we like to nail everything down, you know, and we like to be able to anticipate every situation. And, and I think that this kind of a process just, it, it defies that or, or if you, if you stick to a, we will make a great mistake. I think if we try to spell everything out, you know, it's, it's not really fully ours to spell out. It's not really ours to support and provide an established an interest in, but anyway, it's unusual, it is, it is different. Just in response to you representative. Yeah, so that's, that's my biggest problem is I like concrete. So it is really hard for me to have a big broad open ended piece of legislation to write because I mean yes we have identified certain harms that have been done, but we're not targeting those harms and I think that's where I've gone off the rails with this. Because it's too open ended for me it's too broad I can't. I don't know how to write that type of legislation. So, that's, that's me. I'm sorry to defend our other bill. Bring our bill home. If I'm not that in a reasonable amount of time, do you want to take the vote without me on 244. It's not even open. Come back here and, and I will, I can, I can send Karen down to like post her head and just go. We'll see you. I'll be here. Representative Trump. So one of the things that I recall from ICJ and from Chief Joseph and his daughter were consistent message that you need to identify that harm was done. I think we've done that. I think we've done that in a big way. I think the time we spent researching eugenics apology last year was just a total eye opener or it should have been to everyone on the committee. As far as that we that the state of Vermont had done such a gastronomy. I think to extend on what the chair said, I think that we need to be told what that harm was, because as outsiders, we cannot identify what happens.  I mean, how is that what how can you live that way. And the reason she didn't is because she was in fear that someone would come and do something to her. Now that fear is just unimaginable to all of us. And it's so we need to be told, we need to be told these stories we need to be told how this has impacted the lives of the people. And that being said, I do think that the state, the number of stakeholders is unwieldy. You know, I've spoken numerous times in this, in this body about study committees and various committees that are just too large. So, you know, I think a little work should be done on that as far as seeing if we can whittle it down. And, and going to the fears that were the concerns that I see TJ as far as keeping or the stakeholders being in some sort of some position of power over the committee and the possibility of intimidation and and steering things within the committee is probably not a fair way to go as far as I can see. So the interview that we had with Chief Joseph's daughter Karen, as well, just the idea of, you know, her admonition to us, you know, just acknowledging, you know, to represent a Pango's point. It's not. Susan Aronaut, but she said her vision would be to have county by county or section by section. They're all passed and present legislators sit and listen, which is possible. Right. It could be possible to have that other destruction is what I see. But it's just, yeah, I'm sorry, go ahead. I would say, I, I, what, what Chip representative Trayana said about, you know, we, we heard the harm in conjunction with eugenics work we did and I think that's the piece that Lisa was putting on the table that that's the connection we had and again back to John that that that's the harm that's the point of the Vermont piece that we've seen not to say that's the only harm Vermont is done or, or, you know, piece but that was kind of the vocal piece. And I think that's where this is trying to do so much more and for good or bad I'm not saying but but that's the difference like you were saying this is a natural what it is but again you tied it to the eugenics work we did. That's that harm point and that's very different from what this has become. This is much bigger than that. Well, it expands on it to a point where we learned so much more during that eugenics apology as to the expanse of what the, these things were in Vermont had I mean, we didn't expand on it. We didn't expand it as far as taking children out of the home because it was determined that that it was an unsanitary condition and putting them in Brandon training school. You know, you know, to the eugenics moment though that's still the 1930 1920 and, and that's what I'm saying that that's narrower than what this is. Well, I mean we heard about apartheid I mean how how broad was that trying to reconcile apartheid. Right, but that's, that's not the moment. Well, it's not in South Africa but it certainly has an impact on what you know I heard from my CTJ. Of course of course I mean that's the work they do is is so much broader but when we're looking at our piece. I mean again going back to the Maryland where it was a very specific action, not even really. You know it was very narrow and they were, they in some ways it was concerned that it was too narrow that it didn't allow. And so I think there is a. And we also heard from the main commission, right, that said, we started with the schools, right, and it went this way, right, you know, so again, we're all unique. Yeah, shape or form to represent. Well, yeah, I was just going to say, you know, I. And in many of the discussions we've had. I mean, why were these groups of people focus of eugenics. Because we thought of these groups of people as lesser human beings, and that has, and that has a history. We could isolate genics, but many of the indigenous people who have talked to us have also talked about, you know, their connection to the land and what it has meant for for them not to have that same connection. It's not just about ownership, it's about like this Western notion of ownership, right. And, and stewardship so so I don't know how you talk about something about it. I think that it ends up being a broader discussion, because it has deep roots. And, and I, I guess we would have to trust commissioners and committees to decide just how broad and deep to go. Right because we're the engineers like we're creating the tool, creating the process of all of this stuff that we want. And we think that we should hear about. We're not going to be privy to that at first that's that's the work of the commission. It's our. I mean, represent moving on we're on a short phone call with it yesterday and one of the comments that they made was that it felt like we were already starting the commission's work by allowing the conversations that we were hearing from. And they mentioned Susan in particular just about her thoughts about how it should be handled and, and that's different than what we're trying to do, which is to create the process where that can happen. And that's, again, it's a little it is a little scary, you know, I don't think it's not scary. I worry more about how do we make people to listen to what we're trying to do. And the reasons why we're trying to do it. What's that about the lynching conversation, which was that the last known lynching in Maryland was 33. You know, like, well, in the time frame, you know, we passed bill in 1931. You know, about it about each other. So the time thing is really interesting. The broadness of it is. And I can make conjecture about what people are going to find record keeping in Vermont was pretty pathetic between 1793 and whatever, you know, and. But just interesting to see how that. Yeah, we're, we're, we are doing something that we haven't really done before. So, represent a blackie. Well, I, we have we certainly did learn, I do a lot. But I think there's so much more to learn different communities. And, like all of us, we exist in many communities. Three years ago when we had a disability awareness day here, people in wheelchairs were told they couldn't come into the well of the house. It was like, how can we have a disability where to say literally outside in the hall. And it was like, no, this can't be. And, you know, just because people didn't know. Right. They didn't know. So, I had to scramble around to different people. And of course people were invited. But can you imagine coming here. Just they were in a state and wheelchair and be told to sit in the hall. It's happened two years ago, pre covid. Okay. And I now sit on the prevention discrimination prevention panel. And so one thing we did, we just invited people to work in the disability world. Just give us your perceptions of what it's like to come into the state house. And they said it's not our house. We all call it the people's house. How can we come in. And when we come in, we're told we can only have five minutes. And if you're in a wheelchair, a wheelchair could not get in this room. So, so if we really mean this, we'd have to go to a different room. And we can invite people in. Okay. And, you know, we heard today that we're going to address this subtitling thing. It's like you're on acid reading those lines of what we're saying. It's incomprehensible. And people have been bragging about how transparent we are and how much more open we are. And it's like to who. And on Thursday. Last week. I went and asked for an ADA accommodation for Friday. Because there was going to be five inches of snow. And I couldn't take my role to do the five inches of snow. And I said, no, it's not part of the resolution. So I sat there on Friday. I wanted to be, I had never missed a boat. I did not vote on Friday, but I sat on the screen. Every time someone said it's so great to be in the people's house. I remembered someone saying, who's people house are we talking about? I'm sitting here. Not able to vote. Because I can't walk through five inches of snow. And so I think it's essential that the openness of this. Because. We're all not dissimilar. We're all pretty similar. And even with our disparate life experiences. There's a certain thing here. And we're not reality. We're not the lived experiences of all these people, especially people who are invisible. People who are marginalized, who've never given a voice. And so I think this process allows us to build from eugenics. And hear about systemic harms.  And so we have to understand it, but not from our perspective. We have to understand the impact of community. So, you know, I think. You know, this institution has to learn a lot about disability. As I'm learning every day myself, but it's like, so this is going to benefit all of us. And this cannot be a top-down thing that all of us understand, because the people houses a construct for us. Not from communities that we don't let in here. So, you know, I just think that this process I really like. And we're going to learn things that we don't already know. So I have, you know, we're like a border collar. I want to get things right focus, but I think it's been great that this has taken as much time. But we have to learn from those, not us. Personally. Was not aware of all the difficulties. People with disabilities had until my husband had to use a wheelchair. And then you realize the sidewalks. Trying to find a way to get into a building. And then it was like, you know what, we're going in a lesion because they are certainly more tolerable.   Well, in any community, I mean, that's, yes. True. True. Yeah. In the disability community, we say that those of you are temporarily able. So what are you looking for, Tom? Yes. What do you hope that we do next year? Your next on the bill. Yes. Yes. It's sort of, I had that too. It's like, what, what is building it now? So tomorrow. Damian, he's there listening, not that we're talking about specific policy changes, but. And I shared. My thoughts on what I've heard. So what are you looking for, Tom? Yes. What do you hope that we do next year? Your next on the bill. Yes. Yes. It's sort of right. That too. It's like, what, what is building it now? So tomorrow. We're going to review the draft. And we're just going to put our heads down and engineer. Do the best we can. To bring. Bringing the next version forward. That addresses some of the concerns. Right. Including the. Including the stakeholder issue. It's not, not done, but. Tomorrow's going to be. We're going to review the draft. And we're just going to put our heads down and engineer. To the best we can to like. Make sure that everything that we've talked about for the last two months on this bill that we. Kind of put our blinders on and say, what do we think works best? There's not. There's going to be questions. There's going to be arguments. There's going to be pressure to get it done by, you know. We should all be well hydrated. And, you know, We should all be well hydrated. Make sure we have. Take our breaks. All day. Or all morning and then after lunch. So. Keep it in the spirit of again, I appreciate that there are going to be differences. On this. I also appreciate it's not comfortable. Doing something that. We're going to start tomorrow morning and. Work our way through the bill and see what. Together, which. Two terribly different from. There are some radical changes in terms of the beginning of the bill. In terms of trying to deal with based on some of the stuff that I see TJ recommended. And some questions that still have to be answered, but. Yeah. So here you go. See what he shows up with. And so we're talking tomorrow, the 3.1. I believe it'll be a 4.1. Okay. So we're 3.2. It's more than the 3.2. It'll be a 4. It'll be a 4. Okay. Yeah, I started doing some work when I finally did open my computer on 2.1 and I'm going, God, I thought we changed this already. We did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Let's. Finish with 96. Thank you, everybody. That was the, that was the conversation. I appreciate taking the time to just sort of.


Sousa has a team of engineers in Taiwan and I used to work on preloaded Linux on laptops and we work with numerous companies in order to get them to contribute to the community Get our to get their hardware working. Well, it's Taiwan's great They have lots of lots of Linux use and great engineers. I really like the place How difficult and challenging it is to talk to them and you know, that's my day job So that I'm not gonna talk about what I do for my company I do do that as part of my day job because that was our Business I don't find them challenging. It's just it's an education process on how this this development model is different than Development models better operating systems in the way things have previously done once people realize what the development model is There is usually very low There's not any problems or if there are we work to solve them. Okay, so now. Yeah, the Taiwanese companies are doing great


The original idea of this meeting was to talk about more formal organization for IT and stuff. Building an IT and team. So I had a rough idea, which we talked about informally. And I've been summarized by Super Nechal, who made this meeting. Hi, thank you. About building a translation team. Currently, the status is very easy. People use the translation and the people who are the more active are the de facto translation coordinator. And that's all. That is not possible. We probably don't want something too formal, but we still need to identify some important people. In case something is brewing for the, say, we have no Dutch around. So for the Dutch team, we want to have somebody to talk about. So that's basically what Nicolas summarized around here. On the screen. Do they see the screen yet? No. You can display it or not? We can't see that the camera doesn't take that. The camera doesn't take that, but this? Maybe you've made it bigger or lower. Because this is a wrong resolution? Wrong resolution and it does not agree. Okay, that doesn't matter. I will just read and sorry for the people who are just watching. So the point was building an IE team with the coordination from the old Vivian localization team. Meaning having at least one person per language. And make this the IE team. That was one of the most important stuff. The team could then define milestones for various stuff. Stable release. Stable freeze. The I release will not. I'm reading at the same time. Yeah, that would avoid each team to go some way and without maybe different things completing at the same time. And having a rush at freeze time, etc. And better coordinate interaction with the others. I think I tried to summarize what you said. You have the right to speak. You're speaking well. What could we do about it? Yeah, the proposal was to set up a periodic IE team of the IE team. Which would help in the beginning because very certainly at the beginning we would be very few. But improving the communication. And something very periodic. Something trying to something that fits everybody. Which is not easy for localization team. Because we have people. I know that at the beginning we would have people from Japan. Without certainly someone from Brazil. Many people from Europe. Probably from India too. That could happen. So, on the point would be to find the right time. With Felipe we also decided to have some IRC meeting. Something like every two or three weeks. You guys together. Yes, for the development of tools. And of course everybody will be welcome to join us. Maybe we should announce them on the IE team. Maybe on the first one. So, 1-L10N-TVEL. At least not IOT. But the VN.org on IOT. This is mainly on IOT. And that's supposed to be the place where we need to talk about infrastructure. And stuff like that. So, yeah, Nikola and Faw will have some cabal meetings together. They are having already. Which is why they interact very well. And they're building things in my bag. Without me knowing. So, that's interesting. What frequency could we set for such kind of meetings? Mostly. You're doing every two weeks or so. But we do not currently. Working together was really successful. During Mr. Pomf and also during the previous extra module meeting. We think that we need to just have some brainstorming. And some peer review of just to get some ideas together. The IOT meeting with people that tries to coordinate. Not developing infrastructure, but using that. That can be every 45 days or two months. Because it's more for setting the north. And reassess what's... Something more formal. Because we already know it would be difficult to... To organize and need an effort by everybody. From the DI experience. Each time in the past when we were doing real meeting. Don't watch my screens here. When we were doing real meeting it was always a hassle for me to find the right hour. Of course I was tempted to always choose the hour that fits my schedule. When somebody is plus nine hours and someone else is minus four, minus five. It cannot be convenient for everybody. So that would be a hassle then. And we had two more. For the conference meetings of the sponsor team. They have 20 people from very different countries and areas. And we use a doodle. Which is the way you can fold. Is someone taking notes or not? Nobody? Try to send some links to ILC. Because they are... I'm reading their ILC to see if there's anything to talk about. Yeah. What I've been told is that... Is someone monitoring ILC? I am monitoring ILC. Martin said that someone is sitting just in front of me. So I don't know what he's meaning by this way. I think that he has... Are you watching stream, right? It should be of work. That was a joke. Continue please. And then we use a doodle. We fold the lines and days every two hours. So like... We said we are going to have a meeting on one of these two weekends. And then we have several slots. And everybody says I can... I can do this time, this time, this time. And when we see a slot that everybody can do. Then we pick this and make them. So I can do the doodles for... Okay. You would volunteer to be the meeting organizer. That's good. What about the idea of having one coordinator? One coordinator per language? Are there any objections, comments or whatever on ILC maybe? I think it would be interesting to define what would be the role of that coordinator. I mean, it would be really interesting to have some common ILC sessions where the coordinator could meet and of course the other ones if they want. The point is also that if we do not define anything special, I'm not thinking about power to do something. Just more about commitment. Yes, yes. The very same comment on ILC by Martin Baguio-Pronter. Depends on what that coordinator should do. Caronaca, maybe not everybody knows about Caronaca. Utopia in Caronaca is either of the In-Linux project and it knows a lot about localization in big languages. So what about Caronaca? I think the first coordinator task would be to represent to be the voice of the team of Caronaca. Of course for one person teams it's obvious. For bigger teams like German, Spanish, French, I forget a few, Brazilian, etc. Most often we have some people who are already quite coordinated, that's more the task. We present the team and also report back to it which involves some commitment of course. Any other idea of what would be the task of the coordinator? Whenever you search for what other projects you're doing last year or next month or in December, Fedora has the most well-documented groups, Sides of Wound. They have a coordinator with pictures, they have the logs of their meetings, they have the schedule for each language team and also for the IATN team. They have the contact of the coordinator and they have a formal structure. I think they even have a kind of election stuff. Yes, it's recently been changed. It's not exactly what we're usually doing that in, but as we said, maybe we can start with the teams that we know are organizing and doing this experiment. So we start with two, three, four teams that volunteers try to have because they already have a coordinator. It's just not something for, I know that for several projects there are coordinators. You are coordinating the DI and you have translation coordinators for each language which actually are your content. Yes, inside DI, this is what I was about to explain but mostly inside the IATN I already had to separate some such things. And for the web pages there are also coordinators. If you go just to the international page, there is who is the coordinator for that language. I don't know if they overlap, but there is this option. Maybe for the other teams there are no coordinators but then it's just a matter of having the team just acknowledge it because it's more to set common goals. And of course if it's one, only one person team, it's doing the best they can. The person can, but for the other teams, it's best if they can coordinate to release notes now and then peel that conflict again because we are not in freeze and then DI and all this is not the time to work in DI because it's a strong development. So that's working something else. What are the roles for a coordinator probably going to be when certain members still accept submissions directly from the DI because you have got closed or subscribed only mainly for some language team. Yes. And maybe there will be a half to 70 volume and it will fall back to the core later. It's the message to the main post. Yeah, I see your point. Given and for the use of... I think it would work for us. More than one email address. Yeah, translation. You can use the PCC. I'm thinking about the Vietnamese names. They use something on Google Roots. Yeah. But it can overload a coordinator for all the more active team that can overload a coordinator. Yeah, that's a good way. You should take care to not overload. But after all, we could have more than one person. I don't think there is a need to have a boss from one to one only for every team. We could have two. You mentioned Felipe. I think I know the person who is responsible for French for the web. That's not me. I generally act as coordinator of the French team, but I don't know everything about the French team work so that we could be two persons for French and there could be two for Spanish or whatever. I think we should not limit that. If a given team wants to dominate more than one person, as long as these people are in agreement and contact group, that will be even better. I'm thinking about the problem that I experienced also from the experience when using pure-dead conflict with you. I think it could be something that I can put in the pure-dead conflict with you to ensure that there are no policies. Excuse me. For the future, I think we need to also be coordinators for the translation of the instructions. Something like this with some special commands to make a more technical coordinator. What Philippe showed me a while a few minutes ago about his work, the way he works, and yes, there is some technical stuff and all the people who post the to-do messages for pure-dead conflict as well, that can be internal to each team or it comes to my next point, advertise. If we have coordinators for teams, do we advertise them somewhere? Do we mention the website, the names? We already have for the I and for the website, they are already advertising. Which in the IRC they are talking about is that our divided leadership, their situations of faults, large teams can be harder. If we go for a coordinator for language, it can be very hard for one coordinator to coordinate all the texts like translations, EI, PLDOM, website. This is the four major documentation and in our upstream, I think this is the main six areas that we work. So one coordinator for six, for the larger teams, for the larger branch, Brazilian, Japanese, German, Spanish, they are very... Dutch check. Then the largest teams, let's say, maybe the coordinator can be the only one person, but still, maybe the coordinator doesn't need to... Do the larger... Yeah, but then the larger teams tend to be easier. He can have the teams active and talk with them and he only needs to be the point to bring the meetings to say, hey, our translators are complaining that we miss this feature in this tool or that we are lacking this for the infrastructure or that the mountaineers are not helping with this to get through so we can go as an IT and make a request. Because we don't have any doubts who is going to be the IT and coordinator if we have one IT and coordinator, right?  It's unclear for me if... For Brazilian Portuguese, for instance, it would be like for meritocracy because I'm doing this for quite a while and everybody knows that when they have doubts, I can mostly solve the problem. But I know that the German team is not that united. They have some... I think me and Ronda can say better about it, but from my point of view, it's not very well-connected all the parts of the translation, right? Yes. The translations of the package description, for instance, are done by most of the random people Jens, that sent this mail to the main user and David and I can add. David is a German, of course, for people to work on translations and given that the interface is anonymous and doesn't require any login, there's no real trace of who is actually doing stuff. There seem to be some people who do stuff in there with various of quality, but different styles and things like that. It's not really... It's not coordinated at all. It's hard to get that into some shape to see a way how to get feedback through to the people that did this thing there. For the website team, it's mostly currently on the area transplanting the translation for the website. For the I, I think it's Dennis. Dennis vanished a while ago, I'm afraid. Dennis Stamper. Most of the work for the I is done if I remember either by Helge for once again or Jens, maybe Jens Seiden. Yes. The only thing that is really done in a coordinated way from what I see is a few different translations or maybe even more broader PO files for different things too or some other pages. These all go through the robot and actually effectively is working with the robot and getting the review system through that. But most of the other parts are not really well coordinated. It's different papers to each of the areas. That would be... I think it's German. It would be an example of a team who could have problems to define its own coordinator. Definitely. What's the meaning of coordinated? Some sort of person who has an overview of the bigger system. That's the thing how I see a coordinator. Someone who sees the big picture and who knows what's going on in the different areas. It's not someone who really has to do the work but he should know whom to follow with a specific area and whom to hand on people if not proxy. Should know the best practices. The right times. When we have the eye working fully with no freeze, there is no point in translating things in the eyes because we are going to lost your work very soon because the templates are changing very fast so we have to wait. You should let 12 months pass but you don't need to do that every week as we do freeze time. So best times to do the things and best tools. I think that's also part of the coordination and closing package description. It's a solo. I think that one of the questions that is probably around the stuff is that for Brazilian Portuguese everybody knows that everything must pass through the list. We have this rule when I arrive and we have this rule now. Nobody should send anything without passing through the list. These forces have a full key way on everything. Even DTDP. Nobody should start translating on DTDP before talking to the list because there are rules for everything. Which is something that I may interrupt that is theoretical practical. Everybody can hear you go to the DTDP and translate for Brazilian. Yes, they can but usually I keep track of it. What? Not something. I'm not blocking anything. I'm keeping track because in the past we had bad experiences with people not using the menu to review things and sending bad translations. But this is what I want to ask. This brings the questions that do we want to force all the things to have the same key process and do not accept bad translations? For Vietnamese for instance we know that we have only two or three people. We're working if at all two or three. Yes, actually we are there I think there are more people but like he is boxing everything and in practice she guarantees she is guarantee I don't know how she ensures guarantee guarantee yes, of the quality but I have no idea if this is right or not. We can see if the Russian translation is well done because most of us don't speak Russian but for the QA team it's for larger teams like we know German is large we know French is large for those teams then maybe because we are dead and we do things right and there is the copyright thing and there is the QA thing and there is all this stuff if you can force the things then we can force the translator and say guys you have to vote here is the system to vote choose somebody and the process now I don't know I think this is not right no I think this is two points first of all the coordination different thing if I coordinate translation that's never two person translates the same at the same time this is coordination the other is QA it's a different thing and if you have a rule in Portuguese if you like to get every translated description I can give you this I can automatically every upload every new change to your menu if you like I think it's not nice that if you have some Portuguese if you like to translate something oh you must remember in this you must use my words I think this is not good and I talk some words of Nicolá and with Christian about this loss of translation I think have we some translations that was in the beginning and now go to have we loss of translators from our team this is not the way I see this happen I see people going that's a problem so I see people I've not seen people quitting the French team to go to the open to localization team but as a natural process the French team is losing some people who are losing interest et cetera and you doesn't come and I suspect that this is a feeling that the more new people go to the open to because this is easy it fits one some of your concerns some people indeed I'm pretty sure go to the open to and Rosetta because you just have to register and blah blah but that leads to quality assurance problem you have to find this balance between guarantee the quality assurance without being too strict this is what you meant be too strict versus people so that they still enjoy it it also haven't really depends on which area the translation is for especially if it's some package documentation stuff I don't think it's that important that it has good quality because not everyone is going to read it and they are usually reading it only for help if they need to get deeper into it but this is my biggest concern with package descriptions it's the first thing that they use the seas of a package and we really should aim for some sort of quality in that area because a bad translation will tell the user it's only drugs pumping around here it brings new us again to the quality problem so I think we are all that quality good quality translation but it's needed to start some different areas that's what I wanted to say it's more important in some areas than in others also some if you want to get a new translator it has to be full translator the entry point has to be brand-new that's the wiki techniques or whatever if I agree with you that there has to be some quality control but this quality control probably will be done by formally this translation it doesn't have to be obvious it has to be very easy for instance if I want to get my wife involved it can't be harder than wikipedia if you manage to develop wikipedia so we need to find a way to I know people to join easily yeah that was the commenter Eddie Petizio joined the Romanian coordinator I would say just joined that was the comment Puzo can be an easy entry point it's very similar in some way to Rosenta who can offer this easy access but still we need a way to implement the review processes which are needed what I mean is that I don't want to force all the names I mean one of the ways to do that is if you force you have to elect a coordinator and then these coordinators can say nobody translates without if not using Rosenta then this is the call of the coordinator but how a team can decide right now how a team can decide that we don't want anybody to use Boto or DTTP everybody will use only DTTSS you only use the main interface like Japanese guys because they are working together but how can they say if one guy came to us and said please turn off the Japanese interface on DTTSS because we will use the main interface it's not clear for me how we can decide that for them how we can take the decision how it's technical it's not public no technically it's not a problem but socially because it's their team they manage that it's their team right? your point is that still we need to give coordinators a way to control the process to the use of the team and probably the philosophy or the way to see things can be different from the German to the Brazilian even if it's a very cultural change some cultures will want to do it and they will want to exclude certain instruments even if they have 5 coordinators 1 for each area or 6 coordinators then it's easier because you know this is the Japanese coordinator it's selected but he can say please turn off the DTTSS or turn off the main interface it's not technically a problem but we don't have this person I like to have something like this we have it in the past we have it in the past 40dp and he was I like to get 1, 2, 3, 5 he was this key person for this decision and I don't like to read the Japanese email and see 2 persons are for 4, 5, 4 1 for you you say you need a coordinator who can speak for the team yes for the team and I think it is useful for the future that brings us the point we cannot decide everything now suddenly we will have more discussions about this but we are still converging on the idea of this but I think we are converging to the idea that we will have multiple coordinators in their expertise areas as Martin mentioned on ISE about the loan provider doing the work of course the system should not refrain these people to do it Martin did a lot of work recently for Swedish but this is because there was nobody actually there was no coordinator for the work he is doing suddenly he popped up and he is the coordinator you are the coordinator Martin you were nominated and so de facto there is a coordinator for everything at one time he was one for Romania now there are more there is more than one person but he is still the coordinator right no global objection to the idea of having at least one person and trying to nominate even for the loan cowboy loan cowboy I have many of these for the art for the most I would say because exotic languages of course I have only one person and we lose them sometimes we don't regard everybody still so we would advertise these people also so I need something maybe think about some easy way to do that because for the ISE crappy XMN file bad node database whatever you know me could we add a page on the wiki to I don't know maybe something like ISE team and start listing the the teams and the coordinators on the wiki yes why not I'm just looking on ISE what's said Eddie Eddie is more in favor apparently it's the control method of work so I think we would quite easy most of the team would converge to a control system if someone wants more open system especially when there are very few people and it's up to the coordinator to not scare away those people who come and want to translate one point for the QA it was one to do list for tomorrow for the next high-end session for ISE the problem with the quality if we get the translation stable and the stable needs manager say we will be allowed in future to make updates for stable and for the point releases or some amount or some kind of system and I have a problem with somebody use the email interface and put spam maybe in the translations and then maybe one day before the releases and then this spam go to the release of some kind of system and it's quite really for updates to stable package we definitely need to do some review for tomorrow I'd like to make some pictures and show it that I'd like to put the normal translation in the current system go only to unstable then we have some group reviewers official they can put click on the web page that's an interesting idea put some translations to the stable set that we have a frozen stable set and somebody can change something and you get to do this for this little team which you can put it on the other side maybe you should create a set of trust in the DDSS or in DTTP some sort of trust accounts and all those accounts do not get added officially to the database until a coordinator approves or something like that we make a website we make a website a site of one way as a task that everybody can put translations if you find some errors or something like this fix a mail to the manager of the language then everybody from the language coordination team can get it and put it on the other side fix the spelling error can put it in the system for normal feedback we have some comments on IC I must agree with the mountain the detail of the implementation we need time to do it and I think currently we are setting up the global at least coordinators I like the idea of the DDSS being easy to do in unstable and some really easy manager for package description that would be but if it's possible to implement that's an interesting idea so I don't know about this idea of coordinators that's fine I think we went around we have a few potential coordinators around for few language teams one for Brazilian probably one for French we have probably one for Catalan over there taping we have for Romanian he said nominate and I will nominate anyway so maybe I don't know who for German what would you guys think about two months meeting schedule he was not there and we talked about that so maybe we have time to react on ISE Corona car is okay so that's good Corona car if you are listening to me I would very much welcome if you could act as a kind of super coordinator for the English language because you know we have 10 minutes left and because we know that you know the guys yes you do it okay, thank you and he did not react so he is nominated as well for Romanian no position for two months meeting I would like to have the reaction of Japanese people then she is probably too late probably their opinion for that kind of comment we quote that yes we quote that and that will be nice we have more free time okay what about ISE team and that stuff we discussed that the first meetings maybe yes maybe on the screen you can go to the federal meetings meetings now go to ISE I sent the link okay I go to ISE before I think that has always been the question of who is part of the team who enters the team example of federal ISE meetings I hope I could explain some very sensitive stuff I am watching porn site or whatever on the right what do you want me to put on the right on the left agosha I can use I think the people on ISE can go to this Fedora project Wiki and 10M meetings so yes okay this is displayed so you wanted to make a comment Nikolaas just give some idea of what they are doing can you go down there is a list of meetings past meetings past meetings okay ISE, log, summary et cetera can you give some idea they met three times in April and then in July this is the release the release was I remember that they had some problems in the end of 2007 and it was very sparse or very little people but they have strong meetings also we should report a bug because it's written 2008 and anyone knows about the Fedora bug it's a tracking system okay fix it yourself okay we will fix the bug online or we must log in blah blah blah this is our user you see this is the problem yes this is the problem it makes 1.2% but who knows if I'm right to change 2008 to 2007 so finally seriously speaking that's very interesting to see you can also remove meeting in the URL yes maybe everybody is doing the same thing on your laptop so now we are wiki you can jump to teams I think there is a link 1.3 teams teams teams are completely managed and translated Fedora project this is the one you wanted me to this way you can learn some French as well yeah okay whoa they have a lot so there are a lot of things they have a coordinator for all these languages I don't think okay that makes what was the estimation about what was the estimation about could it be that they've got coordinators for the rest but those ones that are out of date these teams do not have any coordinator this team doesn't have any coordinator you can see your mouse on the explanation mark it will appear as far as French but not in French yeah just click on the gym and you will see the list of coordinators and maybe a list of translators we'll make your favorite for Kaonaka we'll pick on Indy and I hope you will discover this is Kaonaka I don't think he's an Indy speaker I don't know I was back so Kaonaka was asking who is next to you who is next to me Andrea Stille Kaonaka Wunderbar so this is the next example yeah so the team I'm with Rajesh Pancham the coordinator with an IAC yeah that's interesting because they have formalized the structure and it's interesting how you need to keep and put this in a database we had 5 minutes less 5 minutes ago so I think we will shut this meeting down the next IATNM meeting for this is meant for the people okay and if you missed I do not have this anyone having this yes 15 this is tomorrow tomorrow okay it's reloading 8 o'clock 20 hours 20 so that makes it quite late for people in Europe I'm sorry for that even more late for people in India and well enough for the people from Japan so I can see the DDP and preparation for the point will be DDP and preparation of the extremadura meeting maybe we will cut in half so we will have to be very concise about both one part about the status of the DDP to the list and another part preparing the extremadura meeting probably in November okay thank you so much


in the starting lineup you went from that to two home runs seven RBI's how did you do it? You know I mean honestly you know every day I come to the ballpark I'm just trying to execute whatever that role is for that day some days it's a big pinch hit spot some days it's you know starting and some days it's kind of a late one like today but you know just trying to execute whatever that role is come out prepare every day like you're gonna play so when stuff like this happens you're ready to go. It had been a little while since you had made a start how do you stay ready when you're not seeing live pitching on a daily basis? You know I just put in the work you know I've come out early and take swings and I'm stood in a couple bullpens and you know I've done this role before you know a lot of it's just you know how you prepare when the game's not you know being played and so just trying to try to do the best you know do that to the best of my ability and you know help our team however we can. How personally satisfying is it to have this type of an impact on a game? Oh it's pretty it's a lot of fun you know to do it here at Yankee Stadium in front of this crowd pretty special. And you weren't the only one a lot of runs put up 18 what's it like when the offense is going the way they are this afternoon do you guys run in to get into that batter's box? I mean I've said it a thousand times that I'll keep saying and it's a really special group you know I mean it's it's like nine on one every day you know the lineup everyone's pulling for each other helping each other out we're all in the game plan we're all on the same page and you go out and you execute it and the talent's obviously here but when you do it with the way we do it you know it shows up in a big way.