2008-04-12 Transcript

Second Life Bar Association Meeting
April 12, 2008

Transcript

[10:02] Solomon Cortes: Hi everyone

[10:02] Lincoln Beck: hello Lexis

[10:02] Solomon Cortes: Shall we go through?

[10:02] Jayson Watkin: hi Lexis

[10:02] Lexis Looming: How are you Sol?

[10:02] Lexis Looming: Hi Jayson

[10:02] Jessica Holyoke: hi Lexis

[10:02] Geri Kuhn: Hi Lexis

[10:02] Lexis Looming: Hello Jessica

[10:03] Jessica Holyoke: my turn to be behind you jayson

[10:03] Sam4 Courtois: May I join you?

[10:03] Solomon Cortes: Hello everyone.

[10:03] Geri Kuhn: Hi JD

[10:03] Geri Kuhn: Hi CAt.

[10:03] Solomon Cortes: Welcome everyone

[10:04] Solomon Cortes: Let's wait one more minute and then get started.

[10:05] Solomon Cortes: OK - well, just to start, I wanted to let you know that Ben has said he will try to join us, but he's having his baby shower today, so may not be able to make it.

[10:06] Solomon Cortes: If I may commence the meeting formally, this is just to remind everyone that we keep a transcript and post it on the SLBA forums.

[10:07] Solomon Cortes: So, the first item on the agenda related to a proposed name change for the organization.

[10:07] Solomon Cortes: As you probably know, Linden have posted a new trade mark policy. As a result, it has been suggested that we change the name of the association from the "Second Life Bar Association" to the "SL Bar Association".

[10:07] Solomon Cortes: Though I'm not convinced that trade mark law requires a name change, I don't see that holding out on this would be to our advantage. So I would propose that we change our name to the "SL Bar Association" and - where appropriate - also use the tag line "The association for lawyers and those interested in the law in the Second Life (R) Virtual World".

[10:08] Solomon Cortes: It has also been suggested that we might want to consider establishing the "Virtual Worlds Bar Association" (of which the SLBA would be one chapter). This would give us a brand and vehicle if we wish to establish in other virtual worlds. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this.

[10:08] Cat Galileo: would someone be able to TP Deco Straaf for me? My system is lagging too much I think

[10:08] Jessica Holyoke: I'll try it

[10:09] Cat Galileo: got him

[10:09] Deco Straaf: Good day Smiley

[10:09] Solomon Cortes: Hello deco, thanks for joining us.

[10:09] Lexis Looming: Would the Virtual Worlds Bar Association membership be optional or required Sol?

[10:10] Solomon Cortes: I'll just recopy what I said a moment ago so you can join the debate.

[10:10] Solomon Cortes: As you probably know, Linden have posted a new trade mark policy. As a result, it has been suggested that we change the name of the association from the "Second Life Bar Association" to the "SL Bar Association".

[10:11] Lincoln Beck: Virtual Worlds or Metaverse sounds better to me...

[10:11] Deco Straaf: Regarding the trademark change I dont see the argument for the modification, due that its Bar Association this denomination do not refers to the legal department of LL .

[10:11] Cat Galileo: If we were to establish a VWBA I would suggest keeing this one titled SLBar assocation since we do have the branding here

[10:11] Lexis Looming: I agree with you Sol there is no advantage to our group to resist the Linden's new policy

[10:11] Sam4 Courtois: I have a question - It appears that there are issues that might be of interest to lawyers in SL; however, I don't know a thing about other virtual worlds or gaming sites. Are there issues there?

[10:12] Cat Galileo: SL with its user-generated content is the most interesting atm but that will probably change

[10:12] Cat Galileo: (IMO on both counts)

[10:12] Solomon Cortes: Yes, Sam - there are: from issues relating to transfer of assets and avatars, gold pharming, online gambling, privacy issues and so on....

[10:13] Lexis Looming: We will over time perhaps wish to work closely with LL on projects such as dispute resolution ane we should be team players IMHO

[10:13] Jessica Holyoke: but again, that might be something for a different wider bar and not just one in SL

[10:13] Solomon Cortes: So perhaps we should break this into two questions.

[10:13] Jessica Holyoke: and remember the trademark changes are coinciding with a contractual requirement that we comply with the Lindens' request for trademark useage

[10:14] Sam4 Courtois: If there are such issues that have a legal twist to them, then I would be in favor of the name suggesting that we are part of a more global organization

[10:14] Lexis Looming: Good point we are each individually bound by the TOS

[10:14] Solomon Cortes: 1. Should we change our name as proposed (to the SL Bar Association)?

[10:14] Napsterista McCray: I'm new here, so forgive me if I missed this. but has LL approached SLBA about its name? What is their position on in-world use of 'Second Life' in conjunction with a group's name?

[10:14] Cat Galileo: right we are bound not just by US TM law but by the EULA - fwiw

[10:14] Solomon Cortes: And, 2. Should we establish a Metaverse / Virtual Worlds Bar Association?

[10:14] Solomon Cortes: Yes, Jessica, good point re the ToS.

[10:15] Solomon Cortes: Napsterista - they have posted a new policy that aims to significantly restrict how third parties use the term "Second Life". You can find the detail on the SL website.

[10:15] Cat Galileo: napsterista -- this is in relation to a new policy by Linden -- if you haven't seen it take a look at http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/03/26/sl-brand-center/

[10:16] Lexis Looming: Thanks Cat

[10:16] Solomon Cortes: Are we ready to take a vote on these two questions? I don't want to ruch anyone .... but I do want to keep to time.

[10:16] Napsterista McCray: Thanks for the link, I'll look now ...

[10:16] Solomon Cortes: Any further comments before we vote?

[10:17] Lexis Looming: I'll move we change the name to SL Bar Association

[10:17] Sam4 Courtois: SEcond

[10:17] Solomon Cortes: All those in favour - please say aye.

[10:17] Cat Galileo: question - should we put this to wider vote or shall the folks who made the meating decide?

[10:17] Caitlyn Thorne: Aye

[10:17] Quillen McClure: aye

[10:17] Sam4 Courtois: Aye

[10:17] Cat Galileo: aye

[10:17] Cat Queler: aye

[10:17] Lexis Looming: aye

[10:17] Napsterista McCray: aye

[10:17] Geri Kuhn: Aye

[10:17] Solomon Cortes: Any against?

[10:18] Wendell Holmer: No.

[10:18] Solomon Cortes: Wendell - are you against, or are you saying you aren't against???!!!!

[10:18] Wendell Holmer: I am saying I am against it.

[10:18] Wendell Holmer: But I can count votes.

[10:18] Solomon Cortes: Thank you Wendell. Do you want to comment why, or are you happy for us to check for abstentions?

[10:19] Wendell Holmer: Thanks for the opportunity. But we are in the vote and I didn't comment during the discussion.

[10:19] Wendell Holmer: So please go on.

[10:19] Solomon Cortes: OK. Thanks Wendell. Abstentions?

[10:22] Solomon Cortes: Right - I believe we have a decision in favour of the name change. Cat you asked about whether we should put this to the wider membership. I'm happy to post the results of the vote and ask anyone with any significant and material objection to let me know within the week. Unless we receive many, I think we can treat this as fully confirmed. I will also ask Henri to update our materials to reflect the name change.

[10:22] Solomon Cortes: On to the second question.

[10:22] Solomon Cortes: Should we establish a Metaverse / Virtual Worlds Bar Association?

[10:23] Lexis Looming: Will membership in both organizations be mandatory to stay in the SLBA?

[10:23] Lexis Looming: I would be opposed to that

[10:23] Cat Galileo: I propose that people interested in formaing a VWBA or MBA do so separatrely and then if they like and we like, affiiliate

[10:24] Solomon Cortes: I don not think that membership of one would be mandatory to permit membership of the other.

[10:24] Solomon Cortes: *do not

[10:24] Solomon Cortes: Shall we discuss further in the forums?

[10:24] Cat Galileo: I fdeel we as a group have plenty on our plate in SL Smiley I agree, to the forums

[10:25] Solomon Cortes: Any objections....

[10:25] Solomon Cortes: ?

[10:25] Dreamingen Writer is Online

[10:25] Lexis Looming: I think that is a good idea to test the waters in the forums first

[10:25] Solomon Cortes: Right - this one goes to the forums.

[10:25] Solomon Cortes: If I may, I'll move to the next item on the agenda. Credentialling.

[10:25] Sam4 Courtois: Hold on ofr a second

[10:26] Solomon Cortes: Go ahead Sam4

[10:26] Sam4 Courtois: I hve tried several times to get onto the forums, and have not succeede

[10:26] Sam4 Courtois: Is there a trick as to when you can get a response?

[10:26] Cat Galileo: hm

[10:26] Cat Galileo: shouldn't be

[10:27] Lexis Looming: I had no troubles

[10:27] Solomon Cortes: I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know why you've had that problem. Has anyone else?

[10:27] Cat Galileo: does it just time out or isi t refusing to give you an id?

[10:27] Sam4 Courtois: I'd like to participate in the discussions

[10:27] Solomon Cortes: Sam4 - we'd like you too, as well.

[10:27] Sam4 Courtois: It time out on me

[10:27] Sam4 Courtois: I mean like I get a notice back to check in, but the time to do so has long since passed

[10:27] Solomon Cortes: Sam4 - could I ask that you follow up with Ben and Henri, and let me know if you have any trouble with getting the problem fixed?

[10:27] Cat Galileo: as far as I know Ben and maybe Henri are the ones with admin privileges. Might have to contact them

[10:28] Sam4 Courtois: they give you 24 hours or something unreaonable

[10:28] Sam4 Courtois: *unreasonable

[10:28] Solomon Cortes: Sam - let me know if you can't get this issue resolved shortly.

[10:28] Sam4 Courtois: If they are not going to staff it routinely, then the check in time ought to be open ended or at lest several days

[10:29] Solomon Cortes: In the interests of time, we should move on to credentialling.

[10:29] Sam4 Courtois: Sorry

[10:29] Solomon Cortes: We now have a draft verification application form that has been posted on the forums for some time. The form is pretty much in final form. There were just a few questions that came up. 1. Should we require people as a condition of verification to include their RL details in their SL profile?; and 2. Should we require that an additional person sign the application form, as well as the applicant (ie a professional person such as a lawyer, doctor, teacher, etc?) Again, it would be great to get people's views.

[10:30] Solomon Cortes: Lexis - do you want to say anything before this is opened to the floor?

[10:30] Lexis Looming: IMHO it shhould NOT be required to have your rl name on your profile

[10:30] Deco Straaf: I agree forums..

[10:30] Solomon Cortes: While we wait for Lexis. I'd welcome views on the questions raised.

[10:30] Lexis Looming: I for one wish to be more selective

[10:31] Lexis Looming: and I am opposed to the other item

[10:31] Lexis Looming: I personally do not know any other lawyers in sl or individuals who would be willing to participate in that way

[10:32] Lexis Looming: I don't think either proposal protects SLBA any greater than the steps already proposed

[10:32] Jessica Holyoke: Is it about protection or service?

[10:33] Lexis Looming: They will just have a chilling effect on ppl willing to participate

[10:33] Jessica Holyoke: I mean, we are trendsetting what could be the standards for lawyer advertising in a metaverse

[10:33] Solomon Cortes: Sounds like the general view is that a credentialled lawyer should not be required to provide their RL details in their SL profile? If that's the case, would we require that a credentialled lawyer does not provide legal advice until they have provided their RL details to the client?

[10:33] Lexis Looming: The lawyers local bar rules apply to everything the lawyer does

[10:33] Lexis Looming: in sl or rl

[10:33] Jessica Holyoke: I'm not disputing that Lexis, but the local bar rules don't include what one should do with their SL profile

[10:34] Solomon Cortes: (My concern is that a client shold know who they are dealing with - so that they would have RL recourse (as well as SL recourse) if something went wrong.

[10:34] Solomon Cortes: I'm sure all the bar associations whose members we would be prepared to accept as credentialled lawyers would require this minimum level of transparency.

[10:34] Lexis Looming: I think that is a far more reasonable approach

[10:35] Deco Straaf: the thing is if the client agrees for a legal advice, then the lawyer shall sign a retainer where the RL information is matched with the avatar account.

[10:35] Solomon Cortes: So here's where it gets a bit tricky....

[10:37] Solomon Cortes: from the SLBA point of view (and from the PoV of its officers) I'm a little nervous that we all agree that a credentialled lawyer should tell their client who they are in RL, but that the only condition we would impose before credentialling someone is that they agree to do this. We can't check that. However, if we require that the info isin their SL profile - this is something we can check. In my view, it does reduce the SLBA's risk. Also, I'm not sure why any credentialled lawyer would have any reason to want to be anonymous.

[10:37] Deco Straaf: In my case I'm a Mexican RL attorney but most of my clients are U.S. the thing is I look for a U.S. partner in order to validate my counselling through my colleague, considering that maybe some RL actions may be taken.. derived from SL agreements or covenants.

[10:37] Deco Straaf: the credentialling seems fine for me..

[10:38] Lexis Looming: I don't think there is a reason for a credentialed lawyer to remain anonymous to his clients

[10:38] Lexis Looming: But there may be reasons non clients do not have to have this information

[10:39] Napsterista McCray: With regardto why a RL lawyer would want to remain anonymous: I think many would be concerned that their SL activities not reflect, or be able to be associated with, their RL firm

[10:39] Caitlyn Thorne: However, many of us have different interests in SL. I can see where posting it where it would be available to non-clients would lead to harassment in RL

[10:39] Lexis Looming: we can choose who are clients are we can not choose who reads our profile

[10:39] Jessica Holyoke is Offline

[10:40] Solomon Cortes: I think Lexis, you have really got to the heart of the issue.

[10:40] Deco Straaf: I consider the info disclosure could be made after the services engagement

[10:40] Solomon Cortes: The profile is public.

[10:40] Solomon Cortes: At the same time, I don't like the idea of credentialling someone when we have no idea if they are taking steps to ensure their clients know who they are.

[10:41] Lexis Looming: If a client complains to the SLBA that a credentialed lawyer did not make the disclosure, his/her credentials could be revoked

[10:42] Lexis Looming: We can add it to the affidavit on the form

[10:42] Solomon Cortes: Yes, I suppose we could have some kind of public statement on what credentialling means, and that credentailled lawyers are required to disclose their SL identities to clients. Though I guess we would still be reliant on hoping that clients read this material. Perhaps that's true re their lawyer's profile. What does everyone think?

[10:42] Deco Straaf: also to cover SLBA against "alledged lawyer or legal consultants"... there are matters in this platform that goes beyond and surpasses to RL..

[10:43] Cat Queler: i'm new and SL and still a law student, so this may be a foolish question - but is there some reason that the information cannot be given to the SLBA, perhaps notarized or with a letter from the person's state bar or local court, and then held there? with the organization giving a specific membership title to the internally verified member that says they've done so? eventually couldn't that be automated, like other kiosks in sl? giving the new client a password so the information is provided, and logged, but not public to any passerby?

[10:43] Lexis Looming: We also have no way to verify if a credentialed lawyer has informed us if his rl credentials are revoked

[10:43] Lexis Looming: We have to rely on the affidavit

[10:44] Solomon Cortes: Geri, Cat, Jessica - you're officers of the organization - so could have some liability. What are your thoughts? Should we require RL information to be provided in the SL profile, even if it means a proportion of people choose not to go through the accreditation process?

[10:45] Cat Galileo: i don't wish to require the RL info in the profile itself

[10:45] Deco Straaf: I agree RL info should be given in a credentialling process

[10:45] Cat Galileo: the verifyer should have it of course

[10:45] Lexis Looming: rl info is part of the credetialling process

[10:45] Lexis Looming: that is a given

[10:45] Deco Straaf: the SL profile can be free but the SLBA profile supported with RL info

[10:45] Jessica Holyoke is Online

[10:46] Solomon Cortes: Lexis - would you agree to a requirement that the SL profile states that any client of a credentialled lawyer can confirm the RL profile that we have with us?

[10:46] Lexis Looming: Yes

[10:46] Geri Kuhn: I think it boils down to what people want to do in SL. If people see it as a roleplay game, they won't want to be credentialed at all. I personally see no problem with putting RL in the profile if people wish to use SL for RL.

[10:46] Solomon Cortes: Of course, we'd first want to check that someone purporting to be a client is one, but that would ot be difficult.

[10:46] Lexis Looming: if there is verificatioin the person is a client

[10:46] Lexis Looming: exactly

[10:46] Deco Straaf: indeed

[10:46] Solomon Cortes: OK -so I think we have a way forward.

[10:47] Solomon Cortes: The SL profile must stae that any SL client of the lawyer may (subject to us confirming their status as a client of the relevant lawyer) confirm the RL details for the lawyer provided to us as part of the credentialling process.

[10:48] Solomon Cortes: *state

[10:48] Solomon Cortes: Any objections to this approach?

[10:48] Cat Galileo: i'm not sure that doesn't raise our liability risk, tho i think it assuages my worries about atty stalking

[10:49] Lexis Looming: I have none. I suggest we discuss your other issue and then move to adopt the form in th forums as amended by this change

[10:50] Solomon Cortes: Cat - we wouldn't be saying they are the RL person: just that these were the RL details provided to us and that we took reasonable steps to verify against the SL avatar. Or are you thinking of another source of risk?

[10:50] Cat Galileo: no... do we re-verify every year or so?

[10:50] Lexis Looming: There is a risk of expsoure to claims by the lawyers that disclosure violated privacy

[10:50] Deco Straaf: an annual basis renewal would be fine..

[10:50] Jessica Holyoke is Offline

[10:50] Lexis Looming: If the status as client was not properly verified

[10:51] Cat Galileo: i don't think so Lexis, wouldn't they expressly agree when they voluntarily credentialed?

[10:51] Lexis Looming: I am only agreeing to disclosure to clients

[10:51] Deco Straaf: there has to be also an ID client verification

[10:51] Cat Galileo: hm

[10:51] Lexis Looming: who has the risk on confirming client staus

[10:51] Solomon Cortes: I think credentialling shouldbe valid only for a year. Each credentialled person would need to join the relevant year group.

[10:51] Cat Galileo: i was kind of thinking the client ID would be verified by the attorney

[10:51] Cat Galileo: but I don't have the details in mind

[10:52] Solomon Cortes: Alright - I think we have a way forwards re provision of RL details.

[10:52] Solomon Cortes: On my other proposal (that we require a second person to sign the form) I don't think I have detected any significant level of support. So unless anyone decides to vociferously agree now, I suggest we proceed without such a requirement.

[10:52] Lexis Looming: I agree there may be methods to protect the SLBA but it is and additional exposure

[10:52] Lexis Looming: I object

[10:53] Cat Galileo: object to the requirement or to proceding w/o it?

[10:53] Lexis Looming: sorry I do not object to scrapping it

[10:54] Solomon Cortes: This is the proposal that a second person of professional standing sign the credentialling application form, in addition to the application.

[10:54] Solomon Cortes: Lexis, I thought you were not in favour of this proposal?

[10:54] Deco Straaf: as I understand three matters should be consider 1.- RL info of the attorney released after engagement; 2.- RL info client IDEM and 3.- SLBA release from any liability in the ID info of client attorney.

[10:54] Lexis Looming: I move we adopt the credentialling application form as piosted in the forum with the amendment that the lawyer agree that his rl credentials may be verified to clients by the SLBA

[10:54] Solomon Cortes: Can we have a second?

[10:55] Caitlyn Thorne: Second

[10:55] Solomon Cortes: All those in favour?

[10:55] Lexis Looming: aye

[10:55] Caitlyn Thorne: aye

[10:55] Solomon Cortes: Against?

[10:55] Geri Kuhn: Aye

[10:55] Jayson Watkin: nay

[10:56] Napsterista McCray: opposed

[10:56] Sam4 Courtois: aye

[10:56] Cat Galileo: abstain

[10:56] Solomon Cortes: Abstentions?

[10:56] Deco Straaf: aye

[10:56] Sam4 Courtois: (I'd like to see the form before I decide)

[10:57] Lexis Looming: It has been posted for 3 months

[10:57] Cat Queler raises her hand

[10:57] Sam4 Courtois: Understood

[10:57] Solomon Cortes: So, we have four in favour, two against and some abstentions (and presumably a few people afk (!)

[10:57] Jessica Holyoke is Online

[10:57] Solomon Cortes: Cat (Queler)?

[10:57] Cat Queler: oh sorry just acknowledging that i was abstaining

[10:58] Solomon Cortes: OK - thanks averyone. The motion is carried.

[10:58] Solomon Cortes: I'd like to thank Lexis for his carefule and diligent work on this project.

[10:58] Solomon Cortes: Lexis would you be willing to post the final version of the form on the forums?

[10:58] Lexis Looming nods appreciatively

[10:58] Lexis Looming: yes

[10:58] Solomon Cortes: Thank you.

[10:59] Solomon Cortes: OK - time is running short (though we have discussed some important projects).

[10:59] Deco Straaf: Solomon, foreign lawyers abroad US how can we participate more actively in this.

[10:59] Cat Galileo: hear hear (lexis)

[10:59] Solomon Cortes: Deco - may I follow up with you after the meeting? (I'm 'foreign' too!)

[10:59] Cat Galileo: durn furriners

[10:59] Lexis Looming: lol

[10:59] Solomon Cortes: Let's move to the seminar programme. Geri - could you update us briefly?

[11:00] Geri Kuhn: May I sit here?

[11:00] Solomon Cortes: Sure.

[11:00] Geri Kuhn: Okay, great.

[11:01] Geri Kuhn: We're presently checking whether we can get CLE credit in Calif. through Cat's law library in RL

[11:01] Geri Kuhn: Lawyers in the UK will be able to get CLE credit through Solomon's firm.

[11:02] Geri Kuhn: We will have a series of 4 speakers who will present topics on trademarks in Virtual reality, privacy issues in Virtual reality and internet research.

[11:03] Geri Kuhn: We will be looking to sometime in July for the presentations. I will post the details in the forum when I have confirmed the speakers and the dates.

[11:03] Geri Kuhn: Anyone who would like to obtain CLE credit in their state/jurisdiction, please feel free to IM me and we can see what we can do.

[11:03] Solomon Cortes: Thank you Geri. I appreciate the time and work you've already put into this.

[11:03] Cat Galileo: some states may have reciprocal with CA

[11:04] Cat Galileo: US states I mean

[11:04] Solomon Cortes: Can I suggest that any 'foreign' lawyers who can help with getting sessions accredited in their jurisdictions let Geri and me know?

[11:04] Solomon Cortes: And please do also tell us if you would like to offer a session, too.

[11:05] Lexis Looming: Geri this is very exciting. I will want to get with you fro Oklahoma accreditation

[11:05] Solomon Cortes: I know that Jessica would like to do a little more work on the symposium (and we may end up rolling it into Geri's seminar programme) so, unless Jessica there's anything you want to say at this stage, may I move to the website update and then AOB?

[11:05] Geri Kuhn: Okay, I will note this and will talk to, Lexis.

[11:05] Solomon Cortes: Thank you Lexis.

[11:06] Solomon Cortes: I really think that if we can get this programme off the ground it will demonstrate the great strengths of SL and be a testament to the group.

[11:06] Jessica Holyoke: Yes, you can move along

[11:06] Solomon Cortes: Thanks Jessica.

[11:07] Solomon Cortes: OK - here's the tough bit: seven minutes over and I'm about to ask for volunteers....

[11:07] Lexis Looming: hahahaa

[11:07] Cat Galileo: obviously anyone who's lasted this long is dedicated !

[11:07] Solomon Cortes: Specifically, it would be great if we could get the SLBA website home page developed into a more useful, interesting and informative online resource. For example, it could include more info on the group, its objectives, activities, key projects, officers, meeting dates and members, as well as info on how to join, plus links perhaps to useful online resources, and SL URLS to relevant SL sites as well. Perhaps some RSS feeds from sites like Virtually Blind and Terra Nova would be good, too. Henri has kindly agreed to update the site, but it would be fantastic to find a volunteer who would be prepared to work up some initial content for review and then inclusion on the site. Does anyone have capacity to help with this important task over the next few weeks?

[11:08] Cat Galileo: I wish I could but I'm really super busy until... um August

[11:08] Dreamingen Writer: it got really quiet

[11:08] Solomon Cortes: Didn't it!

[11:08] Geri Kuhn grins.

[11:09] Cat Galileo: I could probly do a bit of content , cribbed from my library website www.lawpspotonline.com pretty easily

[11:09] Dreamingen Writer: i am about to start finals but i would be happy to help after

[11:09] Jessica Holyoke: technology......

[11:09] Solomon Cortes: OK - well, if anyone has an attack of conscience, please let us know. Otherwise I think our website may continue to look like a bit of a place-holder for a little while....

[11:09] Solomon Cortes: Dreamingen - when do you finals finish? (Van't fault me for speed off the mark!!)

[11:10] Solomon Cortes: *Can't

[11:11] Solomon Cortes: Cat, Dreamingen, even if you could do this (with any other volunteer effort) in a gradual way, I'm sure we'd have a greatly improved site in a fairly short space of time. Do you think you might make a small attempt, along with Henri?

[11:11] Dreamingen Writer: i would be happy to work with such talented people

[11:11] Cat Galileo: sure...

[11:12] Solomon Cortes: While you mull that over - this is to ask the meeting if there is any other business?

[11:12] Cat Galileo: lol one day I would learn to say no

[11:12] Solomon Cortes: Dreamingen, Cat - you are both fantastic. But we all know that...

[11:12] Solomon Cortes: So, AOB?

[11:13] Solomon Cortes: Then this is to thank you all very sincerely for attending and giving up some of your valuable time to join and participate in today's meeting. Thank you so much.

[11:13] Cat Galileo: Thank you

[11:13] Napsterista McCray: Thanks!

[11:13] Geri Kuhn: Thank you Solomon

[11:13] Jayson Watkin claps

[11:14] Lexis Looming: Thanks Sol. good meeting

[11:14] Sam4 Courtois: TY!

[11:14] Cat Galileo: move to adjourn

[11:14] Solomon Cortes: I look forward to seeing you in-world, and at our next meeting, which will be on the 2nd Saturday in May.

[11:14] Solomon Cortes: Thank you everyone.

Second Life Bar Association MeetingApril 12, 2008

Transcript

Second Life Bar Association Meeting
April 12, 2008