Sure, we can (and should) indicate that. And obviously not CH, as there we're limited to ~20 participants. So we can call this one a mini-GHM if that's clear enough ;-)
On 11/11/19 3:12 PM, John Darrington wrote: > I think one (and only one) of these meetings should be nominated the > canonical GHM.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
