Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-12-04


 *   #startmeeting
 *   Meeting started at 10:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
 *   Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
 *   We have an agenda in the wiki...
 *   the first topic is Bernie's but he is not here yet...
 *   the second topic is the DP. has anyone heard back from the committee?
 *   nope
 *  not I
 *   nor I :(
 *   I know they got my message regarding the deadline
 *   I am afraid this process has not worked.
 *   This is Bernie, Adam, and Mel.
 *   We're all here.
 *   ciao bernardo
 *  greetings bernieadammel
 *   do you need the backlog?
 *   no, we have it.
 *   (Mel is typing)
 *   since bernie is here, let's start with his topic.
 *   which topic is that?
 *   #TOPIC teams@ lists
 *   Ah, yes. I see.
 *   Bernie, can you summarize your proposal?
 *   I worry that we'd end up using long cc lists too much if we do not have a standard way to share business/strategic communication with key people such as team leaders
 *   I'd propose a teams@ list for this kind of communication.
 *  I like this idea
 *  often worry about teams not interacting enough (fear justified or not)
 *   I don't see why team coordinators would need to be much more involved in these discussions than other people
 *   there's potential for abuse of course... as there was for the wide-audience slobs
 *   bernie: can you give a hypothetical example of how it would be used?
 *   do we have any past situations that support this need?
 *  A media campaign launch :-)
 *  "all hands on deck"
 *   tomeu: for example, getting you and erikos in the loop regarding the nokia deal
 *   tomeu: or the launchpad thing
 *  or, my Osor meeting in which hosting possibilities were discussed (still have to write up a debrief)
 *   bernie: I am not sure I understand
 *   each of these cases seems unique. what is the common denominator that a list would address?
 *   Doesn't each team, e.g., marketing or infrastructure already have a list?
 *   frankly, I see that proposal dividing more than uniting our community
 *  well, the problem is lack of interaction
 *   SeanDaly: can you please elaborate?
 *  for example if marketing stuff which impacts development,
 *   tomeu: yes, it does seem to elevate members into "trusted or untrusted", which is often a mistake
 *   and I don't like the word leader, each team needs a coordinator but several of its members can have a leader role in different areas
 *   walterbender: team leaders is just a way to include everyone who is trusted enough to lead a team
 *  there are problems real quick if developers not in the loop
 *   tomeu: I also see the downside, that's true
 *  at the same time, not all devs want all marketing info all the time
 *   mel: I have a counterproposal - instead of having a teams@ list, make it a req that each team has a slobs in the loop for that team
 *  to put it mildly
 *   i.e. each team would have a "SLOBs ambassador"
 *   bernie: in theory we have that already.
 *   it is in our bylaws
 *   SJ was telling me about wikipedia does this
 *   bernie: as I said, I think we have coordinators, that may be defacto leaders, or not
 *   they say you can *only* start a team if you can find a board member to sit on it, or something
 *   walterbender: in practice, though?
 *   bernie: for the most part, yes.
 *   so it's sort of the opposite of our decision panel rules; rather than requiring no members of the board, they require at least one
 *   walterbender:if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
 *   bernie: infrastruture-you; marketing-sean; etc.
 *   activities-me
 *   bernie: but we only have 7 people on the board
 *   and not so many teams either
 *   mel: but a SLOB can be an ambassador for 2 teams if needed
 *   mel asks again: if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
 *   we can "solve our confidentiality issues" by not being too lazy to write out addresses of individuals on e-mails when we need to, though
 *   I guess I (a) don't understand what are confidentiality issues are and (b) don't understand how another list would solve the problem I don't understand
 *   and if we do that, we haven't just split our community into people we like and people we don't
 *   cjb++
 *   at least not in a way that's obvious to them :)
 *   mel: bernie and I just clarified something between us - the "SLOBs ambassadors requirement" for teams would be for a SLOBs person to be actively watching that team, not necessarily leading it
 *   (bernie had thought it was that a SLOB had to be leading the team)
 *   bernie: in factr, in almost every case, the SLOBs member is NOT the leader, which is a good thing.
 *   mel: cjb++
 *   so my thought is that this proposal has the potential to create much more harm than good
 *   even though I can see that it could create some good
 *   bernie: is a motion emerging from this discussion?
 *   mel: I'd like to propose the motion that we have SLOBs ambassadors to each team, instead of a teams@ list
 *   bernie: I would agree on that.
 *   what happens in the weird case of no-one wanting to be their ambassador?
 *   bernie: maybe the motion should be that we ensure that we execute on that structure, which is already in our by-laws
 *   does the ambassador have to go to all that team's meetings?
 *  perhaps it's early to do this. If there were 3x the number of volunteers, i think it would more useful.
 *   btw, we have teams without coordinators, I don't see how we are talking about this before having found a coordinator for each
 *   mel: cjb: it would be a requirement for a team to have /an/ ambassador, I'd say
 *   we don't even have a community manager yet
 *   mel: cjb: but how the ambassador and the team interface doesn't have to be strictly defined right now
 *  or an education/content manager...
 *   so, this idea is obviously much less objectionable
 *   but I don't think it solves the same problem
 *   and I don't know that the problem it solves is actually one we have
 *   Adam: i think this is a useful conversation, but I'm not sure if we can encode these responsibilities easily.

* walterbender	deserves the heat because making sure the by-laws are observed is probably the responsibility of the ED
 *   mel: I think this is a good convo to take to Planet as a conversation starter, but we probably can't make much more progress on it right now
 *   also, the only team with regular meetings is the marketing team
 *   bernie: +1
 *   adam: +1
 *   +1
 *  regular as long as I'm not moving house :D
 *   and the only other one that has occasional meetings is the dev team
 *   in any case, it seems we are not planning to move forward with Bernie's original proposal at this time?
 *   so I don't know what sense makes to say that slobs attends team meetings
 *   mel: that's what I think
 *   bernie: that's fine
 *  I think revisit the topic for the happy day we have enough volunteers that not everybody knows everybody
 *   adam: I do like what mel said - as long as it's not enforced, to have that expectation...
 *   I will volunteer to crack the whip to ensure we have a mapping between SLOBs and teams.
 *   adam: that the team coordinator builds a social relationship with slobs
 *   mel: moving on then?
 *   bernie: are you satisfied?
 *   yes
 *   OK.
 *   to summarize: we will not implement the teams@ list at this time, but will mae a concerted effrot to ensure that there is SLOBs presence on all teams.
 *   #TOPIC SoaS DP
 *   Have any of you on the bus heard back from the DP?
 *   none of the rest of us have.
 *   all three: no
 *   I think this means that we have to dissolve the panel
 *   as per our discussion last time.
 * <SeanDaly> when was deadline again pls?
 *   today.
 * <SeanDaly> yes, disappointing.
 *   mel: ok, so we dissolve the panel and then who handles the decision? slobs?
 *   mel: that would be my preference
 *   that is what we need to decide
 *   mel: mine as well
 *   I don't think this situation is encoded in our bylaws
 *   so we get to wing it :)
 *   mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs
 *   seconded
 *   discussion?
 *   this seems uncontroversial to me. any objections?
 *   I thought it was already like that
 *   in some sense, we already have that responsibility
 *   tomeu: we hadn't really talked about it
 *   bernie: I think we still ought to take into account the consensus of the DP that was summarized in the wiki
 *   cjb: does the slobs give any power to the dp when it's created?
 *   tomeu: no, not really
 *   I thought it was only a consultative thing
 *   bernie: I'm not sure about that
 *   then the slobs have always retained the responsibility of deciding on thast
 * <SeanDaly> yes, SLOBs should inspect the status of work even if no consensus reached
 *   of course, whoever proposes a new decision on the topic should read the DP's work first
 *   the DP is suppose to make a recommendation to SLOBs for some action.
 *   but the DP's work is not complete
 *   in this case, no recommendation, but lots of fruitful discussion
 *   we can make a decision based on that input or ask for a new DP
 *   so we shouldn't just take it as gospel or anything. it's just something to read and help educate us.
 *   bernie: cjb: so do we disregard the DP decision even when there was a clear consensus?
 *   bernie: yes.
 *   that's what dissolving the DP means.
 *   cjb: ah, after reading your explanation., I'd tend to agree.
 *   bernie: and presumably get voted off the island as a result
 *   mel; so i had a motion and cjb seconded it... do we want to discuss it more, or vote?
 *   (that would give us a way to move forward with the DP's decision and actually make a decision)
 *   I am not sure we need a motion because it is how I would interpret the staus quo, but a motion won't hurt for clarity's sake
 *   mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs.
 *   shall we vote?
 *   aye
 *   mel: aye
 * <SeanDaly> aye
 *   aye
 *   as I said, I don't understand why we vote this
 *   adam: tends to agree with tomeu
 *   tomeu: it's just a point of clarification
 *   is it said anywhere that the decision is removed from the slobs at any point?
 *   nope
 *   I think the reason it's slightly unintuitive is:
 *   * The bylaws say we get to solve conflict by starting a decision panel
 *   well, then I think we need to leave very clearly that the decision is always left to the slobs
 *   if someone thinks otherwise, it's bad
 *   tomeu: that's what the vote helps to do :)
 *   * and if a DP fails... well, maybe we just start another one or something
 *   ok, if people think it helps, I vote yes
 *   adam: feels we've already voted on this previously
 *   the vote passed already :)
 *   next up: would someone like to volunteer to review the DP work, and create a motion to solve the original problem with?
 *   it should probably be several of us, or even all of us
 *   adam: we certainly discussed it last week, but I think we were all holding out for a DP report :(
 *   cjb: yes. I think that is the next step in regard to this particular issue.
 *   FYI: This computer will die in less than 5 min
 *   heh
 *   bernie, mel, adam will be offline then
 *   and I think we should make a decision next week.
 *   Be quick!
 *   bernie: which of you wants to be involved in coming up with a decision on the DP work?
 *   walterbender: make a decision on the original request, right?
 *   #ACTION: everyone reviews the DP work and comes prepared next week to discuss and decide.
 *   ok
 *   it might be good to have the motions available before the meeting
 *   if there are questions, raise them BEFORE the meeting to the list
 *   bernie: cjb: I'll leave this hot potato to someone else :)
 *   so if folks could e-mail them as they come up with them
 *   that'd be good
 *   by list, I mean iaep [SLOBS]
 *   I'll volunteer to try to review all their stuff and think about it/come up with a motion
 *   would be good if others can too
 *   thanks cjb
 *   bernie: cjb: mel is currently busy with fudbus business
 *   any other urgent business for this meeting?
 *   just discussion, I think
 * <SeanDaly> well, I wanted to know if possible put e-books in ASLO
 *   the policies re ebooks, acitvities, etc
 *   and of course, the trademark issue
 *   oh, yes!
 *   adam: agreed..i'll remind SJ & Caryl to weigh in if they have final thoughts on DP's wiki page, even if defunct
 * <SeanDaly> I haven't thought deeply on implications, was caught short with licensing issue
 *   motion: no non-free software or content on ASLO, as judged by DFSG/OSI
 *   but we will have to carry on without our FUDCon friends :(
 *   fudbus folks, what'd you think?
 *   #TOPIC non-FOSS content
 *   SeanDaly: it may be more convenient if we found one or more partners who wanted to take the content side of all this
 *   SeanDaly: so we don't have to spread ourselves too thin
 *   bernie: ok, switching battery
 * <SeanDaly> no, the context is helping parents/teachers get started with e-books
 *   SeanDaly: so not solving the whole content problem but some first step?
 * <SeanDaly> there are hundreds, thousands out there, idea is to help newbies use in Sugar
 * <SeanDaly> yes, first step
 * <SeanDaly> we wstarted wiki page for that
 *   this parallels the debate we had at OLPC re content.
 * <SeanDaly> wiki page may be better than ASLO
 *   we can never do more than plant seeds
 *   SeanDaly: so maybe there's enough free content out there?
 *   and show others how to take initiative
 * <SeanDaly> tomeu: there's a vast amount, but when there isn't any with Sugar or close by, it's a technical barrier
 * <SeanDaly> idea is to have a few available, so people can try ereaders
 *   I don't believe it is our mission to solve the content problem, but lowering technical and culture barriers is our mission
 *   SeanDaly: I mean, there isn't enough free content to "solve the whole content problem", but there may be enough free content for that first step
 * <SeanDaly> and hint how to search in repositories, online etc.
 * <SeanDaly> tomeu: yes, we had put effort into finding a dozen nice books in half a dozen languages
 * <SeanDaly> idea is to make first step easy: find, obtain, what format, which Activity
 *   what is the SLOBs issue here? seems we are drifting off topic
 *   ok, so do we need to tackle the issue of non-free content on aslo right now?
 *   walterbender: I made a motion and everything :)
 *   there are two issues, related:
 *   * someone wants to put Skype etc on ASLO
 *   * someone wants to put non-free ebooks on ASLO
 *   tomeu: yes in that there are some non-free activities waiting for approval
 * <SeanDaly> issue was: ASLO a place for content bundles?
 *   oh, ok
 *   in both cases this was kinda reasonable, because there was no-one saying "oh, we have a policy against doing those"
 *   bernie: back in business
 *   in the skype case, I guess it's plain ilegal, even if we really wanted to do that, right?
 *   tomeu: yes
 *   and is there any other non-free but freely-distributable software proposed for aslo?
 *   tomeu: just the content, I think
 *   bernie: http://pastebin.be/22311
 *   mel: we do not have a license policy on what can go on ASLO, right?
 * <SeanDaly> piles of flash stuff?
 *   SeanDaly: flash stuff can be free
 *   bernie: right -- currently no
 *   bernie: we'd be creating one now
 *   SeanDaly: but isn't most flash stuff out there without any license info at all?
 *   so we don't really know if it's actually freely-distributable
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: free as in 4 freedoms?
 *   SeanDaly: legally, yes
 *   you can make a Flash app and release it under the GPL
 *   I'd like to have something like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
 * <SeanDaly> huge amount of free-online in Flash has no license info,
 *   I still think flash apps don't provide useful versions of the four freedoms, but that's a much more subtle point
 *   which includes a list of acceptable licenses, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses
 *   (this is Mel)
 *   SeanDaly: sure, I agree
 * <SeanDaly> I think because offline Flash difficult so always assumed to be online
 *   cjb: not sure where you put or access the license info in Flash
 *   mel: basically, have a legal req for content posted on ASLO (possibly extend that to other things that SL distributes, but ASLO seems to be the issue at present)
 *   Mel: We could do that, or just adopt the DFSG/OSI rules
 *   Mel: The advantage of using the rules is that they cope with new licenses as well as current ones.
 *   mel: I'm happy with any non-ambiguous statement of what we do and don't allow license-wise, honestly.
 *   walterbender: that's a good point
 *   cjb: link?
 *   http://opensource.org/docs/osd
 *   mel: that sounds like a good idea to me though
 *   the Debian Free Software Guidelines are basically identical
 *   MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as the source for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content
 *   bus riders are looking at the link, one sec
 * <SeanDaly> I'd rather read that first before voting on anything
 *   ok. we could postpone.
 *   so another homework assignment so we can vote next week?
 *   mel: I'm good with the list
 *   mel: I've read it already
 *   and I guess SFC has a say on this?
 *   but we seem to have consensus on the basic idea?
 *   because relates to their mission?
 *   tomeu: yes. we mentioned the idea that we might distribute something that isn't on this list (ebooks under CC noncommercial license), and they decided they'd have to talk to their board about it
 *   I'll check with the SFC. They owe us a response re NC and ND licenses already :)
 *   so I'm sure they're very much in agreement with the motion
 *   (that was about SoaS, though, not ASLO)
 *   bernie: cjb: while I agree with the OSI definition of what constitutes an open source license, I'd much prefer a list of acceptable licenses rather than a set of rules that would force us to go through a lawyer every time we see a new license.
 *   bernie: both are useful, neither are sufficient
 *   bernie: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
 *   bernie: if someone proposes Skype
 *   that is a list
 *   mel: they're not incompatible, we can say "our legal thing is the OSD, here's a list of licenses we know fit these criteria, new ones come talk to us."
 *   and I can't find "the Skype license" in Fedora's list
 * <SeanDaly> ASLO is response to SoaS problem
 *   I need a way to reject it
 *   mel: walterbender: exactly
 *   (legally happened to work in this example)
 *   but anyway, many times random non-free software might be proposed
 *   it won't always have a license on that list, or a license at all
 *   so the motion helps by giving community guidelines on what *type* of software is permitted
 *   let's rephrase, though:
 *   MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable
 *   bernie: does that cover your concern?
 *   cjb: this still skirts the other issue though: does the content or s'ware abide by community standards... a tough one.
 *   bernie: cjb aye
 * <SeanDaly> I cannot rush into a vote without reading and understanding that page.
 *   SeanDaly: that's fine. I won't push you to.
 * <SeanDaly> Something I can't do in the next 30 seconds.
 *   mel: Table for next meeting, reading homework for next week?
 *   SeanDaly: I just want the motion to be clear.
 *   mel: I'll take the homework assignment of blogging this so that others pick up on it on Planet (and hopefully Fedora folks can chime in as well)
 *   (and $otherdistros if we can get them)
 *   OK. I think we have enough background now to move quickly to a decision next week.
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: yes
 *   mel: thanks!
 *   that's a good idea
 *   #action mchua to blog licensing motion
 *   OK. Next topic? We have about 5 more minutes.
 *   #action everyone to do their homework of reading OSD guidelines so we can be informed voters next Friday
 *   mel: yeah, let's move on
 *   #ACTION mel blog and the rest of us do homework with the intention of deciding next week
 *   mel: yeah, let's move on
 *   #ACTION mel blog and the rest of us do homework with the intention of deciding next week


 * walterbender	thinks only the person who typed #startmeeting can #action
 *   we'll find out :)
 *   #TOPIC trademark
 *   walterbender: thanks for raising the nasty "community standards" issue we'll laaaater have to face..
 *   (adam)
 *   we have a number of outstanding trademark policies to reach consensus on.
 *   mel: can we line up the to-do list on those and then break for the week with homework? I don't think we have enough time to discuss and vote on anything else atm
 *   adam: yes. an important, thorny topic.
 *   mel: I agree.
 * <SeanDaly> very thorny indeed
 *   mel: and honestly ASLO licensing is kind of a big deal so if we line that up for next week's Big Goal I'm pretty happy
 *   I'd like everyone to come to the next meeting with some opinion re the trademark usage.
 *   from my homework, it seems the two extremes are Fedora and Suse
 *   mel: proposal everyone blog their opinion or email it to iaep
 *   to gist: Fedora will let anything be called a remix, but almost nothing be called Fedora
 *   Fedora's not actually that extreme, because it offers both models:
 *   .. yeah, those. :)
 *   openSuse will not allow remix at all
 *   it's easy to be a Remix, and it's hard to be Fedora
 *   mel: we need to do more about starting discussion on slobs issues beyond the 7 of us imo
 *   cjb: yes. that is what I was trying to say
 * <SeanDaly> concerning trademark, there are several kilos worth of e-mails in the lists
 *   and to contrast that with openSUSE, which as far as I understand, really doesn't have a remix option
 *   SeanDaly: yes. it is time to distill it all into a policy
 * <SeanDaly> yes, fully aggree
 * <SeanDaly> s/gg/g
 *   bernie: walterbender, cjb: I'd like to point out that the fedora trademark policy is one of the strictest among linux distros
 *   bernie: seeming not as strict as openSUSE.
 *   mel: I'd like to propose we wrap up this meeting
 * <SeanDaly> my instinct is to look at trademark policy of better-known brands
 *   bernie: can you give an example of a less strict policy for us to consider?
 *   mel: proposal - next week do ASLO and only ASLO - anything else we do is bonus... immediately after ASLO, then tackle trademark.
 *   hm
 *   (everyone was going to research one for today's meeting)
 *   mel: notes that bernie and I have to go to the infra meeting immediately after this
 *   mel: this is instead of doing the SoaS DP next week?
 *   I don't know why we'd prioritize something that's been a problem for a week over something that's been a problem for like four months :)
 *   I think we need to do both. the ASLO discussion will be quick.
 *   cjb: because I think we can wrap up ASLO next week cleanly and be done with it
 *   (I predict)
 *   (mel)
 *   yeah, +1 on walter
 *   mel: then I'd like to do ASLO first ;)
 *   if we think it'll be that quick
 *   but we should wrap up today's meeting.
 *   well, okay.. yeah, was about to say that too
 * <SeanDaly> There is a current case of trademark usage
 *   (what mel said)
 *   any final words?
 * <SeanDaly> in a way that shouldn't
 *   mel: nope, happy to close now
 *   3
 *   2
 *   1
 *   SeanDaly: let's talk about that now
 *   Bye from the FUDbuss @
 *   but in the closed meeting
 *   thanks everyone
 * <SeanDaly> cjb:ok
 * <SeanDaly> thanks all
 *   I mean, let's hang around and talk about it
 *   thanks all
 *   I'll post the minutes
 *   #endmeeting
 *   Meeting finished at 11:03.
 *   Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/