| 1 |
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 11:53 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Luca/lu_zero whats up? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Well, I didn't plan to be busy neither times, I just happen to got worse |
| 6 |
> than I expect (I was still ill from a bad pneumonia). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Sorry to hear that. I hope you start to feel better soon. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Yesterday I hoped to be completely recovered but looks like I was still |
| 11 |
> too weak... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Well sucks to be me ^^; |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Beside that, having twice the meetings means more than doubling the |
| 16 |
> chances to miss them for a reason or another, so I think the whole idea |
| 17 |
> of the slacker token could be revised accordingly. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The so called slacker mark was intended for the 12 month * 1 meeting per |
| 20 |
month strategy. If you guys moved to a 24 meetings in a 12 month period |
| 21 |
then yes w/o a doubt it should be revised accordingly. |
Archives