Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-11-20


 *   morning


 * mchua	yawns, crawls back into existence after a long week in Singapore
 *   hi all!
 *   do we have a quorum?
 *   though from what I've read it sounds like Bolzano went quite well :) wish I coul dhave been there!
 *   looks like we do.
 *   mchua: it was a very fun, productive week
 *   ok
 *   #startmeeting
 *   Meeting started at 10:02 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
 *   Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK


 * walterbender	remembered--no hyphen this time
 *   #topic mailing lists
 *  greetings from the OLPC France / Sugar Labs booth at Educatice Paris
 *   #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Log-2009-11-13
 *   for last week's logs on the subject
 *   we concluded last week's meeting with a motion regarding mailing lists, but we wanted to keep the discussion opne before the vote because three of you were absent
 *   shall we restate the motion?
 *  : MOTION: close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible
 *   any further discussion?
 *   appreciated :) though I would also have been totally fine with the vote going forward (it's why we come up with the decision procedures, imo - because we trust SLOBs to do things in the absence of a few of us)
 *   none from me
 *   mchua: we could have voted, but we wanted the input... not a pressing issue


 * mchua	nods
 *   Adam, any thoughts? comments?
 *   CanoeBerry: ^^
 *   OK. the motion had been seconded, so let's bring it to vote.


 * walterbender	says aye
 *   +1 from me
 *   aye
 *  aye
 *   CanoeBerry, cjb, bernie: ^^?
 *   (is bernie actually awake?)
 *   aye
 *   (we do have a majority, enough to pass the motion)
 *   well, the motion passes and I'll make the changes this week (along with a notification to the current list members)
 *   (If I can remember the admin password for SLOBS :) )
 *  Ciao, just arrive late..
 *   CanoeBerry: we just voted on MOTION: close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible
 *   While Adam is reading the backlog, perhaps we can move through the rest of the agenda.
 *  Still there all?

-->|	aa (n=aa@r190-135-189-132.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   without Bernie, I think we cannot discuss the Teams list idea
 *   and I have heard nothing from the DP.
 *   sdziallas: is a report ready yet?
 *   walterbender: I'm not sure what the current state of it is. There's been some editing on the wiki going on. Side-noting that I didn't expected myself to be leading that thing (if only bias-wise)
 *   SeanDaly: you are on DP too. Do you know the status?
 *   history page basically says nothing's been changed since October 9.
 *   mtd may know more?
 *   I had proposed (but we never ratified) a deadline for their report.
 *   I suggest we give them one, as this seems to be stalled
 *   +1. Do we need anything other than a firm final recommendation from the DP (along with the vote from everyone on the DP on that report?)
 *   tomeu: I haven't been able to catch mtd lately. :/
 *   walterbender: well, we came up with lots of policy about timing out DPs at a previous meeting, but I think we were aiming it mainly at future DPs rather than this one
 *   mchua: I don't think we need more than their report
 *   yeah, we should offer them a timeout
 *  great, what deadline?
 *   cjb: I'd perhaps use a strong word than offer :)
 *   of course, then we get into the question of "what happens when you create a DP and it times out before giving you an answer; how do decisions get made?"
 *   walterbender: so the reason I say offer, is that there are two possible outcomes
 *   one is that they finish everything within a week (say)
 *   if they can't do that, that's okay, and we should just cancel the DP
 *   cjb: I think it if times out, Slobs will have to table it or reconvene a new panel
 *   so the offer is between the two outcomes
 *   ah. that would suck.
 *   cjb: agreed. It would suck.


 * cjb	will spare you all from grumping about Decision Panels this week.
 * sdziallas	notes that there are still people not having put their opinion down.
 *  walterbender: no i don't my impression was that SJ was working toward the consensus positions
 *   It would suck, but it would also unblock us.

|<--	aa has left freenode (Remote closed the connection)
 *   cjb: but the work they did is recorded, so we can use it as input.
 *   mchua: no.
 *   the community is still as blocked.
 *   we get to pretend that it's unblocked, but it's just pretend.
 *  a deadline would greatly help -- I happened to run into Caryl (on DP) in Dallas here and she'd love to bring this to an end.
 *  I am very concerned about sugaronastick.com situation, threatens Blueberry launch
 *   Let's try a deadline.
 *   cjb: well, the bigger we get, the harder it will be to reach consensus. I don't think we should say that our community is blocked when it doesn't reach consensus on something
 *   SeanDaly: that is a different topic
 *  walterbender: yes I'm changing subject, beg pardon
 *   tomeu: mm. I guess I don't always think it's wrong to make a decision in the face of lack of consensus.
 *   cjb: sure, slobs is there for that
 *   if I'm in a meeting, and half the room wants to do one thing and half the other, and talking isn't helping, I'm likely to say "okay, let's just flip a coin so we can move on"
 *   tomeu: ...
 *   tomeu: but we're obviously not.
 *   motion: give a two-week deadline to the DP
 *   cjb: we were hoping that this DP will help us reach the best decision
 *   and it may help us even if they aren't presenting a report
 *   (two weeks because of the Thanksgiving Holiday)
 *   help us to do what?
 *   because of what walterbender said: they have produced some kind of results
 *   form a new panel afterwards?
 *   cjb: take a decision
 *   cjb: or not
 *   walter just said we can't do that,
 *   AIUI
 *   (I would say no in this case)
 *   cjb: I am not sure we need a new panel
 *   10:12 cjb: I think it if times out, Slobs will have to table it
 *   or reconvene a new panel
 *   (note the lack of "or use their input to make a decision")
 *   what means to table it?
 *   I think we have learned a lot and I think there are some other ways to approach the issues
 *   tomeu: the drop the subject without deciding anything
 *   walterbender: yes, hopefully they'll come through with the deadline
 *   cjb: SLOBs can decide things based on the input, whether the DP reached consensus or not
 *   oh, in my view of DPs as helper instruments, I don't think slobs are bound to wait for them to decide something
 *   but we are jumping the gun.
 *   let's discuss my motion please
 *   ok. let's wait two weeks, then; seconded.
 *   any further discussion about the deadline motion?
 *   +1 if nobody needs it more irgently
 *   With the consequences of hitting the timeout as mentioned above?
 *   mchua: yes. as those are general consequences of DPs
 *   mchua: which ones?
 *  +1 on 2 week deadline
 *  aye to 2-week deadline
 *   consequences: reconvene, or table the decision, or have SLOBs make a decision?
 *   cjb: and SLOBs will decide which of those options to take.
 *   understood
 *   shall we vote?


 * mchua	nods
 * walterbender	aye
 *   aye
 *   aye
 *  aye
 *  yea
 *   aye
 *   #action walter to inform the DP
 *   #action (forgot to say earlier) walter to update sobs list and inform communioty
 *   #topic trademark
 *   did everyone (anyone) see the questions I posted in the wiki?
 *   I don't think so
 *   http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Minutes#Agenda_items
 *   thanks
 *  Aside: plz buzz yr NYC Sugar folk show up Saturday afternoon in Manhattan for our Community Summit..
 *  http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/usa/olpc_nyc_community_summit.html
 *   I thin that if we sort these questions out, we'll have made a lot of progress re the DP questions and the soas.com questions
 *   CanoeBerry: I loved the graphic...
 *  agreed
 * <CanoeBerry> I've asked everyone to call it "OLPC-Sugar Community Summit" but some anonymous losers keep dropping "Sugar"
 * <CanoeBerry> :)
 *   Personally, I think the Fedora guidelines are very good.
 *   CanoeBerry: we are used to it :p
 *   It is not restrictive except in the use of the name to ensure there is no implicit endorsement
 *   It is about being free but also being clear
 *   walterbender: the Fedora Remix label (which OLPC uses) is interesting
 *   you don't have to pass any of their technical standards, AIUI
 *   cjb: yes
 *   yeah, would be great if we can have such a escape valve
 *   cjb: As long as there is no suggestion of endorsement from SL, I am comfortable
 *   ok
 *   so perhaps we have a proto-motion to create Sugar Remixes
 *   if someone wants such an endorsement or affiliation, then there would be higher standards
 *   e.g., Free
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: still a problem if Sugar is in the name
 *   SeanDaly: not for Fedora, so you need to tell me why.
 *   anybody knows what ubuntu does about this?
 *   SeanDaly: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Business_web_sites
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: Fedora is a weak brand. So is Sugar, but the plan is to grow it
 *   SeanDaly: I don't think I'm going to like a policy that says that what our community really needs is more legal protection than Fedora
 *   Fedora's been going for many years. We should walk before we run.
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: I will look at that (not easy now greeting visitors to booth)
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: not a question of legal protection, a question of protecting a trademark so it can grow
 *   trademarks aren't legal protection? :)
 *   SeanDaly: I don't expect we decide anything today, but I want to get the discussion going.
 * <SeanDaly> The Firefox fork controversy more appropriate analogy
 *   tomeu: I found https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DerivativeTeam/Specs/DerivativeSpec
 *   tomeu: but I think it's not very useful
 * -->|	erikos (n=erikos@g225094178.adsl.alicedsl.de) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   hi erikos
 *   looks like ubuntu will learn from us :p
 *   erikos: feeling better?


 * SeanDaly	waves to erikos
 *   hi walterbender - yes thanks ;p


 * erikos	waves back to SeanDaly
 *   in any case, if we sort this out, many of the other decisions will be much easier to make
 * <SeanDaly> important to find workable policy and not have to improvise
 *   on a related note, I was speaking with sdziallas about Carlo's recommendation re SoaS remixes
 *   yeah, we should probably adopt the policy of another project


 * sdziallas	looks up
 *   the questions that walter put in the wiki look like quite hard to me
 *   that's true, we haven't answered those properly yet
 *   but I guess that fedora's policy would be an answer to all them?
 *   cjb: we can avoid answering some of them with the remix idea
 *   but we have to face up to all of them if someone wants an affiliation with SL
 *   that's right
 *   But if we can decide on a process, we are in much better shape than our ad hoc methods to date.
 * <SeanDaly> agreed
 *   It is only fair to potential partners that we have clear guidelines
 *   I think we could start with "anyone who wants to ship a Sugar distribution is a Sugar Remix, and they can talk to us to get a technical review that would lead to them becoming part of the brand officially"
 *   the questions that we ask and problems that we find aren't going to be very predictable ahead of time
 *   cjb: seems like a good place to start
 *   some questions are predictable, e.g., inclusion of non-Free packages
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: I would hope if they wanted to help us grow the Sugar brand that they would contribute to marketing, within our guidelines
 *   we'd want to decide, like Fedora, on which items of artwork and so on are brandable only to the Sugar brand
 *   and having some structure: where to put things, makes the process easier for everyone
 *   (Carlo's suggestion)
 *   SeanDaly: yes, that sounds necessary
 *   for reference:
 *   #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix
 *   btw, I'm not sure if the question of the derivatives is more a quality one or a community one
 *   #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix#Are_there_other_legal_requirements.3F
 *   and the trademark guidelines in
 *   #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix#Including_other_software
 *   tomeu: probably both--in terms of branding and support
 *   mchua: thanks
 *   as in, if I will be the one maintaining the contribution, I will apply my quality standard to it. but if it's someone else who will maintain it, I do'nt care so much as there's some guarantees that that someone else will do a good enough job
 *   we should probably go off and read everything linked from /Remix as homework
 *   mchua: can you add those links to the wiki?
 *   that's why accepting patches is a maintainer matter, and not a community one
 *   do we want to get iaep discussion on the trademark questions on today's agenda?
 *   cjb: agreed.
 *   walterbender: will do that now
 *   mchua: not sure I understand the question
 *   mchua: I was planning that we open this entire discussion up to iaep
 *   tomeu: re Sugar core, you are correct, but we also have the activities... a free-for-all...
 *   walterbender: hmm, how is different for activities?
 *   walterbender: sorry, should rephrase - "at what point in our discusion today do we need to say 'ok, we need to take this to iaep now'? i.e. how much further SLOBs meeting discussion is helpful?"
 *   tomeu: each activity has a maintainer (at least in theory)
 * <CanoeBerry> Just to confirm we're ending in 10min?


 * mchua	thinks this is in fact quite helpful, but we've got 10m left
 *   CanoeBerry: jinx :)
 *   ok, I guess this is better discussed in the ml
 *   any actions coming out from this?
 *   mchua: I think we have gotten a good start--enough to seed a community discussion
 *   In addition to asking iaep, I'd like to see if folks both here and there can talk with other projects about how they do this
 *   #action: walter will seed a community discussion on the topic
 *   mchua: good idea. maybe we can each be responsible for one community
 *   and report back next time
 *   mchua: can I volunteer you for Fedora :)
 *   tomeu: you want to talk to GNOME?
 *   walterbender: yes, and one other project we'd like to check in on, since Fedora's policies are pretty copiously documented :)
 *   SeanDaly: you want to look at Mozilla?
 *   walterbender: ok, will try to find someone
 *   anyone wanna talk to Debian?
 *   Ubuntu?
 *   Other projects that come to mind?
 *   opensolaris?
 *   cjb: wanna to talk to OLPC about how they do it?
 *   fortunately, foss projects use to have their guidelines in quite public places
 *   and openSUSE
 *   http://live.gnome.org/Trademark
 *   walterbender: ok
 *   I will talk to the openSUSE folks
 *   maybe we can assign Debian to Bernie :)
 *   We can also ask for volunteers on iaep for other projects - I'm sure folks iwll have more they'd like to hear from, or that they can talk to.
 *   +1
 *   Time is about up. Shall we skip next Friday and go for the following Friday?
 *   (Thanksgiving)
 *   gnome's is very drafty :/
 *   makes sense.
 *   tomeu has already finished his homework? :)
 *   I won't be able to report much ;)
 *   guess projects backed by big companies will have more developed trademark guidelines
 *   but they may not apply so well to us, dunno
 *   OK. any last comments before we close the formal meeting?
 * <CanoeBerry> Thanks All. Apologies our "Honduras Church" in NYC has poor bandwidth tomorrow afternoon.
 * <CanoeBerry> But Mike Lee will provide partial workaround..
 *   See you all here on 4 Dec? and in #sugar daily :)
 *   Nice forward progress this meeting :)
 *   4 dec!
 * <CanoeBerry> Bye!
 *   thanks everyone.
 *   #endmeeting
 *   Meeting finished at 11:00.
 *   Logs available at http://meeting.laptop.org/