Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-12-11

Started logging meeting in #sugar-meeting, times are UTC.
 *   Has everyone seen the agenda?
 *   mchua: I tried to make them help us test SoaS with actual children and provide feedback.
 *   walterbender: yes
 *   Yep.
 *  walterbender: yes
 *   morning.
 *   cjb: ping


 *   #TOPIC non-FOSS activities
 *   Does anyone have further discussion/clarification regarding this topic?
 *  just to be clear, we are talking about ASLO right?
 *   SeanDaly: yes
 *   SeanDaly: we probably need additional discussion about eBooks
 *   I haven't heard any strong point in favour of non-foss stuff in aslo
 *   SeanDaly: I never heard back from the SFC :(
 *   tomeu: me neither.
 *  I've been thinking since your mail about kids uploading their work
 *  (your=wb)
 *  perhaps we could make a distinction between
 *   tomeu: I think the more controversial issues will be around censorship of content (e.g., violence)
 *  ASLO activities in the search engine
 *   SeanDaly: you me when kids upload their samples and code modifcations to a gallery?
 *  and e-book bundles, and uploaded content - separate policies for each clearly marked?
 *  walterbender: yes
 *   SeanDaly: while the line between content and code is pretty blurry, let's stick to the latter for this particular discussion
 *  e-book content, samples, Activities are similar (added to Sugar) but typology of content could be aligned with license policies
 *  ok yes code
 *   SeanDaly: a TA project would be kid's code... a hard line to draw there.
 *   walterbender: well, the discussion is on "what's allowed to be uploaded to ASLO"; I don't think we're limiting the question to just code
 *   but we could do
 *   so, what's the exact motion we're going to vote on?
 *   I made one last week
 *   Yeah, I was about to ask the same.
 *   I actually thought we were discussing only respect to the floss-ness of code
 *   cjb: let's see if we can reach consensus around code first and then see how far we can push it.
 *   Yeah, I thought we were going to do the "what are our acceptable licenses" motion
 *   cjb: but you are right, the motion talks about content as well.
 *   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
 *   personally, I'd like to say that all the licenses approved by fedora are also acceptable for aslo: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses's
 *   cjb: sorry to have confused things
 *  I read the Fedora page and I very much appreciate its clarity
 *   cjb: I couldn't have said it better
 *   walterbender: it's okay. I think you're right that there are different feelings about content.
 *  however, for legal matters, the SFC's input is vital
 *   SeanDaly: ++
 *   SeanDaly: for the purposes of this motion, there is no legal matter.
 *   SeanDaly: we may want to run that page through them...
 *   it's a philosophical question.
 *   cjb: in part it is a matter of establishing licenses for the things that the kids create... I had a new feature proposal re CC in the journal, but it looks like there is a lot of push-back on that one still.
 *   SeanDaly: although RedHat legal has certainly already approved that, and they're license lawyers too


 *  SeanDaly closet philosopher
 *   (of course I agree that if there was a legal matter, we should involve the SFLC.)
 *   walterbender: nod.
 *  bernie: good point, hadn't realized
 *   can we modify the motion to say it is pending final approval of the SFLA?
 *   Red Hat actually has more free software lawyers than any other company, that I know of
 *   walterbender: no
 *   oh
 *   I see why you say that now
 *   since we are part of the SFC, we need to abide by their by-laws
 *   you mean that the link to the fedora page in particular in pending acceptance by the SFC
 *   I think I would rather say something like:
 *   cjb: I mean whatever license policy we decide will probably need their ultimate approval


 *  tomeu feels ready to vote
 *   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, and always asking the SFC for advice when a particular license is under question.
 *   walterbender: since aslo is hosted by the FSF, we also need to respect their definition of what constitutes Free Software.
 *   walterbender: but I guess they won't have problems accepting whatever is acceptable for fedora. except for firmware, which we don't distribute on aslo anyway.
 *   cjb: yay
 *   bernie: well, I agree in that we should let them know what we are doing and they may not like it... in which case we may get booted out...
 *   I'd like us to try and hold back from getting all the way down the legality and making everyone happy rathole
 *   this is a motion that's ostensibly about something else
 *   which is, what do *we* want to do?
 *   bernie: but we are a part of the SFC, so it is a bit different.
 *   we can make it work with everyone else as soon as we've decided that we want to do it
 *   cjb: I think we want ASLO software and content to be FOSS
 *   walterbender: our distribution of firmware blobs within SoaS is merely being tolerated, but I know the FSF is strongly opposed to it.
 *   walterbender: ok; maybe we can vote now
 *  cjb: speaking philosophically :-) openness is central to Sugar's education mission
 *   bernie: that's extremely off-topic. please talk about it later.
 *   cjb: indeed
 *   cjb, bernie that is related to Agenda Item #3...
 *   ok. shall we vote on the amended motion?
 *   yes, please


 *  mchua tries to patch together the amended motion
 *   walterbender: ok, let's postpone it. I'm sorry I've derailed the aslo licenses motion with this unrelated topic
 *   cjb> 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, and always asking the SFC for advice when a particular license is under question.
 *   seconded
 *   walterbender: yay
 *   bernie: it's fine, it's not derailed, just trying to keep us moving quickly
 *   (I guess grammatically that should be s/asking/ask/, but everyone gets the idea.)
 *   bernie is yayish today... ;)
 *   yea
 *   yea
 *  yea
 *   aye
 *   yea
 *   yep
 *   Adam?
 *   CanoeBerry__: ?
 *   hm, guess he isn't here


 *  SeanDaly thinks CanoeBerry timed out but didn't come back
 *   he's double underscore today... must have had much networking trouble :)
 *   Seems the motion will pass... we can let Adam cogitate...
 *  Sorry, distracted.
 *   shall we move on to the DP topic?
 * <CanoeBerry__> Yes.


 *  mchua nods
 *   ok
 *   the motion passes.
 *   #ACTION walter will inform the community
 *   could someone volunteer to update the ASLO policy pages?
 *   or volunteer to find a volunteer?
 *   the DP work was actually extremely good, even though incomplete; we should thank them
 *   walterbender: I think we can follow up to your announce mail asking dfarning or alsroot
 *   #TOPIC SoaS DP
 *   they seem like the best candidates
 *   cjb: +1
 *   alsroot: ping ^^^
 *   cjb: I think their report is pretty comprehensive. Just don't understand why they never submitted it to SLOBs...
 *   yeah, I got the same impression
 *   shall we walk through the three subtopics?
 *   good idea
 *   cjb: can you point us at the wiki page where all the DP opinions were summarized? I can't remember the url
 *   I think mtd is pretty busy these days?
 *   http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Decision_panels/SOAS


 *  alsroot the quesion is what should be updated on ASLO policy pages
 *   ..and ASLO draft policy pages
 *   s/and/on/
 *   Q1: OS distributor v. upstream
 *   alsroot: text similar to "anything you upload must be under a free software license that meets the Open Source Definition's criteria at http://opensource.org/docs/osd"
 *   Q1: SL is already being a Linux distributor. It seems to be working out pretty well, and SoaS is something SL spends most of its effort on
 *   so I can't imagine answering no to this question
 *   alsroot: and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses is being used to disambiguate weird licenses.
 *   or maybe just FSF list
 *   alsroot: I don't think they have one
 *   in any case, no big different, let's use the Fedora one
 *   let's stay on topic on DP now, pls
 *   cjb: personally I'd answer no to maintain distro neutrality, but this time I prefer to second the DP decision with my vote rather than my personal opinion
 *   hmm
 *   how does SLs spend most of its efforts in soas?
 * <SeanDaly> cjb; SoaS central marketing pillar of SoaS, but not sure correct to say developers spend most time on it
 *   SeanDaly: yeah, didn't mean just developers
 *   and translators, etc
 *   they work upstream
 *   alsroot: the fsf has a list of licenses with a discussions of their pros/cons... it's not really a list of acceptable free licenses.
 *   true. sorry, didn't realize I was saying something contentious.
 *   maybe to put it another way: if you ask people what Sugar Labs does, lots of people will say that it makes Sugar on a Stick
 *   I think that the SoaS effort as with all our packaging efforts are almost all upstream...
 *   that point isn't in the DP wiki page, right?
 *   bernie: maybe http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses GPL compat. list
 *   I'd say SoaS is SL's primary deployment mechanism for Sugar.
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: not really contentious, but SoaS is a downstream of Sugar proper, and associates one distro in particular
 *   cjb: I'd rather not give this impression if possible
 *   tomeu: yes, I'm just quizzing Bernie on why he doesn't think that SL should distribute Linux
 *   because it seems to conflict massively with the reality of what we're actually doing
 *   mchua: then we get to if SLs should do deployments itself ;)
 *   cjb: I'd like to say that we also do Trisquel Sugar and the XO builds... or none at all.
 *   cjb: "endorse" rather than "do"
 *   bernie: Sugar Labs do not distribute the XO builds.
 *   cjb: distributing soas is ok. I'm not saying we shouldn't distribute it. we may even distribute ubuntu and fedora... that's not the point.
 *   ok
 *   Personally, I think SL should would with GNU/Linux distros and groups such as OLPC to distribute Sugar
 *   cjb: but we have soas-xo :p
 *   tomeu: true :)
 * <SeanDaly> tomeu: not for Blueberry yet though
 *   cjb: in fact, SL cannot sign builds for OLPC
 *   also true
 *   walterbender: should it only do that, or is that just one of the things it should do?
 *   (I mean.. "should it only work like that, or should it also distribute Sugar itself?"
 *   cjb: we should nurture projects like SoaS
 *   cjb: my point is that Sugar Labs does Sugar. SoaS is done by Sugar Labs people the same way the XO builds are being done by Sugar Labs people too (you and dsd)
 *   as I have said since long ago, I tihnk that SLs should try to keep being just an upstream, which is Sugar. and soas should get its own organization. but in the short/medium term, I agree with soas staying in SLs if that helps them
 *   bernie: ok
 *   tomeu: +1
 *   bernie: I guess I disagree
 *   tomeu: but SL will promote any and all good uses of Sugar...
 *   SL clearly makes press releases and talks about SoaS as if it's a product we distribute
 *   of which SoaS is a prime example
 * <SeanDaly> tomeu: makes sense from development POV, but only when there are enough hands to go around... from marketing POV, different
 *   and Sugar on OLPC another
 *   cjb: anyay, the DP wants us to say that we're a distributor in the Fedora Project sense, and as I said I'm going to second their decision.
 *   bernie: and I think this is a good thing, because it's good to have products that everyone knows you care about
 *   bernie: ok
 *   shall we vote on answering the first question, then?
 *   since I don't know of anyone who's arguing we should vote noj
 *   *no
 *   SeanDaly: I think SL can market and promote SoaS even if it is not a SL "product"
 *   cjb: it's not that I don't want us to care about SoaS. Of course I do. But I don't wanna make it look like we compete against Trisquel Sugar or other distros containing Sugar.
 *   bernie: do you write press releases about those other distros too?
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: yes... depends on trademark issues, branding
 *   if not, you're competing with them.
 *   SeanDaly: yes, I agree the longer term goal depends on having enough resources
 *   SeanDaly: the trademark and branding are of course our responsibility... but we can license our mark to non-SL products
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: when I draft the SL PR, I'm competing with the OSes preinstalled on computers in schools
 *   cjb: we have promoted Triquel, for example
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: yes of course
 *   cjb: don't think we are competing with them, but we are discriminating them, sure
 *   but I don't see how it can be otherwise
 *   tomeu: I agree
 *   tomeu: I agree


 *  alsroot updated http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Library/Editors/Policy#Reasons_for_removing licences line
 *   cjb: and I mention many distros whenever I talk publicly about SL
 *   tomeu: but Bernie doesn't
 *   walterbender: makes sense
 *   cjb: what we do today does not necessarily reflect what we'd do if 3 equally good live USB distros with Sugar existed.
 *   bernie: oh, that's true
 *   cjb: and that day will come (or is almost here already)
 *   bernie: so your reading of "should we be neutral about distros" is "in an ideal world, should we be neutral about distros?" rather than "today, should we be neutral about distros?"
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: a very good point. Put another way, if teachers could easily overcome installation barrier, we wouldn't have to put in so much effort promoting Sugar in a form which lowers that barrier
 *   trisquel and openSUSE have pretty solid products.
 *   Any seconds for voting and moving on past question 1?
 *   tomeu, cjb: Can we agree that we'd happlily distribute Trisquel Sugar from our servers and advertise it in our wiki? I actually offered them this option.
 *   cjb: we can be neutral and still work closely with specific distros that want to work with us
 * <SeanDaly> I'd like SL brandbuilding to lift all Sugar boats including Trisquel and openSUSE
 *   Do we have a motion?
 *   mchua: not yet :(
 *   MOTION: Question 1: Yes, SL is and should be a GNU/Linux distributor.
 *   cjb: yes
 *   bernie: is that a vote on the motion? we need to second it and call the vote
 *   shall we vote on that?
 *   can someone second it?
 * <SeanDaly> seconded
 *   I would have to vote yes and no on that question, as I said before
 *   ok. let's vote
 *   walterbender: no, I was just answering cjb... but I'd vote yes also on the motion so it doesn't matter :)
 *   tomeu: then you could abstain, I suppose


 *  cjb votes aye
 *   well, actually can vote no


 *  tomeu votes no
 *  mchua votes no
 * <SeanDaly> yea
 *   walter votes no
 * <CanoeBerry__> Abstain


 *  bernie votes aye
 *   huh, no has it
 *   apparently we're not a Linux distributor anymore :)
 *   seems we are 3 aye, 3 no, 1 abstain
 *   so the motion does not pass.
 *   oh, yes, I misread
 * <SeanDaly> now I'm confused :-)
 *   so, I think the right process is:
 *   * talk about why that just happened
 *   * come up with another motion
 *   agreed?
 *   CanoeBerry__: ouch you created ambiguity :-)
 * <CanoeBerry__> Sorry
 *   cjb: feel free to come up with a new motion...
 *   cjb: what if we phrased the motion "SLs should aim not to be a GNU/Linux distributor but will host SoaS as an strategic step"?
 *   cjb: agreed
 *   tomeu: I would agree to this one too
 *   tomeu: I think we could host many distros
 *   tomeu: I think we should say something stronger than just be upstream
 *   walterbender: or that, though some distros cannot be hosted in SLs
 *   I think we should say that we will actively seek out and work with distros interested in Sugar
 *   well, that all upstreams should do
 *   SeanDaly: answering to your last message to me, I agree that SL *marketing* can be biased towards one particular distro or another
 *   and help host and promote those efforts
 *   ok, that's something else
 *   tomeu: should do is one thing, but to say explicitly it is our policy is another
 *   SeanDaly: I understand the need to give one clear message such as "Download SoaS, it's great" rather than "find a distro you like and see if you can get it to boot with Sugar"
 * <SeanDaly> Proposal for motion: "SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar on all distros, and in so doing is and will be offering downloadable versions which may include one or more distros"
 *   SeanDaly: can we add something about working with distros to create downloadable versions?
 *   SeanDaly: s/offering/produce and offer/
 * <SeanDaly> s/is and will be/offers (more concise)
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: yes more clear yours
 *   walterbender: +1
 *   well, offering downloadable versions means just having links?
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: +1


 *  mchua is liking this
 * <SeanDaly> tomeu: I recently learned fedora downloadable in several different versions. But first contact I really liked pancake button and easy installation path
 * <SeanDaly> same for ubuntu netbook remix (but haven't installed yet)
 *   I imagine something like http://spins.fedoraproject.org/
 *   Instead of "based on Fedora" they'd be "runs Sugar"
 *   it's clear that Fedora itself isn't responsible for those spins
 *   and that they're done by the individual groups behind those spins
 *   Motion: SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar and consequently works with GNU/Linux distros to produce and offer downloadable versions.
 *   but there's a trademark approval process to go through to be able to call yourself a "Fedora Spin" so the quality of the brand association is preserved.
 *   walterbender: hm, it's not clear who's doing the production or offering there
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: true, but some people had issues with the "preferential" treatment of SoaS
 *   do we do it or does the distro? should make that explicit.
 *   SeanDaly: I agree, SL marketing should be left free to bias towards one particular distro if it helps promoting sugar better.
 *   cjb: we help the distro (or anyone else) do it
 *   cjb: I am trying to add a proactive element to our mission.
 *   but in the soas case, we actively host it
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: in fact, marketing as policy excludes distro promoting, but only because distro brands are weak
 *   SeanDaly: and I think the marketing team should be empowered to make such strategic decisions without interference from other teams.
 *   so we aren't merely working with a distro; that's why I think the motion is a bit unclear
 *   cjb: I don't see why that is contradictory
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: no argument from me there, but I prefer the community understanding & approving since decisions are rational and not capricious :D
 *   cjb: please help clarify the language
 *   walterbender: It's not contradictory, it just doesn't directly provide an answer to the question, because it leaves the main point "should SL be doing the distributing?" unclear/unanswered.
 *   cjb: yeah, at this time we're very biased towards SoaS, I admit it. I think we should just make it clear that it is a matter of fact and not a policy or a goal.


 *  cjb will try to help
 *   cjb: working with could include helping to promote and host
 *   walterbender: ok, let's add that for clarity
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: what's a policy is, I'd like to choose the best distro for the job to promote Sugar.
 * <SeanDaly> and that could change.
 *   walterbender: Motion: SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar and consequently works with GNU/Linux distros to produce and offer downloadable versions. This work can include helping to promote distros, and hosting them.
 *   Choose once for each release, perhaps?
 * <SeanDaly> and, I'd like to support all distros with Sugar
 *   +1
 *   cjb: seconded
 * <CanoeBerry> +1
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: no, more like which one should be in SoaS?
 *   shall we vote now?
 *   SeanDaly: right, I mean make that choice once every release cycle, so we know how often the issue will come up
 *   I think we are getting ahead of our selves...
 *   SeanDaly: we're having enough trouble moving past the easy question :)
 *   yeah. please stick to the question under debate only for now.
 *   cjb: yea
 *   let's stick to Q1, which is the subject of the motion
 *   we'll get to the question that encompasses all this stuff later.


 *  cjb votes aye.
 *   walter: aye
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: (I had suggested once per year on conditions)
 * <SeanDaly> yea
 *   yes
 *   yea
 *   CanoeBerry: ?
 *   (passes, in any case)
 *   question 2 is:
 *   Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
 *   well, seems we have a resolution of Q1 :) :)
 *   success!
 *   I can't possibly answer yes to this, because we already act in a way that is preferential to SoaS, and I don't think that's a bad thing
 *   so I feel like I either have to answer no, or encode why we treat SoaS differently in the answer
 *   what do others think?
 *   cjb: well, the question is about distros in general, not Live images
 *   hmm
 * <CanoeBerry> SJ writes: "SL should support effective distros; this can be done neutrally"
 *   walterbender: I wasn't aware of that
 *   walterbender: I think live images are distros.
 *   I think we treat distros with neutrality and think about the specific cases of their product offerings
 *   I think SL can provide identical infrastructure offerings to all interested distros, at the very least.
 *   Give them an equal playing field in that respect.
 *   CanoeBerry: as long as we maintain a shim of neutrality, I'm with SJ
 *   Marketing is the tough part, I think - SeanDaly?
 *   what if someone asked "SL should be neutral about programming languages and shouldn't endorse one over another?" after all, there are communities around languages, same as around distros
 *   mchua: +1
 * <SeanDaly> Well... if distro A offers Sugar as install and makes it easy to switch, and distro B makes it difficult to obtain & install & configure Sugar, do we have to be neutral?
 *   CanoeBerry: oh, I see. so SJ's answer might be "SL should pick a distro that it judges to be the most effective, and then support that extremely strongly, but it chooses that distro neutrally, based purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer activity"
 *   the answer seems to be: the development team focuses on whatever they need to focus on, but everybody is welcome to bring more resources and work on whatever they feel like within the SLs goals
 *   tomeu: if someone wants to do the work of refactoring Sugar in Java... more power to them
 *   tomeu: I'd actually agree to this one too. We do not endorse any one language, do we?
 *   walterbender: right, so we could say that the marketing team is focusing on soas, but if someone else would like to do marketing for another one...
 *   (I guess I like the SJ answer, as long as we make it clear which distro we currently endorse.)
 *   bernie: no, but I use to mention the pedagogic advantages of python in those cases
 *   tomeu: we choose languages based on technical merits, we don't have a policy that everything should be written in, say, Python or SmallTalk or C++.
 *   (the three main languages we use in our codebase)
 *   +1 to that; need to be clear what distro we endorse and what mechanism we use for choosing it.
 *   oh, and C
 *   bernie: not only technical merits
 *   actually, I don't want to enter into a discussion of what is better
 *   tomeu: well, consistency is a technical merit
 *   tomeu: we also ship LOGO... 2 different LOGOs :-)
 *   ok, we engineers see everything as technical problems :p
 *   tomeu: yes, you're right. let's postpone
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: by not promoting underlying distro, I am supporting neutrality - I'd like Sugar on ALL distros, and i feel the way to get there is to promote a good one, and right now & foreseeable future SoaS is a really good one


 *  cjb agrees strongly with SeanDaly
 *   I think we will chose what to do on technical merits but we should endorse all efforts that advance our mission
 *   SeanDaly: +1
 *   bernie: no need to postpone, we could rephrase as "SLs should only discriminate a distro because of availability of resources"
 *   walterbender: +1
 *   (which is education, not OSes or programming languages)
 *   so how do we turn Sean's statement into a motion?
 *   walterbender: I think it's compatible with the SJ argument I mentioned
 *   I mean, I think it's a rewording of it
 *   Motion: "SL should pick a distro that it judges to be the most effective, and then support that extremely strongly, but it chooses that distro neutrally, based purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer activity"
 *   cjb: we just need it in the form of a motion
 *   how's that?
 *   tomeu: hmm... I think it's better to put it in the positive way: "SL endorses distributions based on availability of volunteer resources to support them"
 *   OK
 *   cjb: nay
 *   cjb: maybe plural? picks distros...
 *   cjb: well, I think it's the marketing team which picks distros, not SLs
 *   tomeu: I am not sure about that...
 *   does SLs need to pick one distro for anything other than marketing?
 * <CanoeBerry> Time Check: 11am
 *   cjb: put this way, the motion contradicts sean's original proposal
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: i would go for even more flexibility. What if openSUSE got a huge education contract? In such a scenario I wouldn't pick, I would have my cake & eat it too: "Sugar is part of openSUSE blah blah, and can be tried on any PC, Mac, or netbook with Sugar on a Stick"
 *   tomeu: I think the marketing team *is* SL..
 *   can people hang in a bit longer?
 *   yes, I can stay
 *   cjb: ok, but not otherwise
 *   walterbender: I can
 *   which was: Proposal for motion: "SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar on all distros, and in so doing is and will be offering downloadable versions which may include one or more distros"
 * <SeanDaly> I can
 *   I can about 20 mins more
 *   bernie: um
 *   bernie: wasn't that question 1?
 *   OK. let's try to get this one sorted out.
 * <SeanDaly> it's the "refuse to endorse" part of the question I don't like.
 *   I think we have to allocate our limited resources efficiently but we will do it in a neutral way
 *   bernie: I don't see the contridiction; we can host other distros at the same time that we're endorsing one main one more than others
 *   SeanDaly: okay, will try to reord
 *   reword
 *   cjb: oops sorry... I quoted the wrong one. The DP quesiton was different though.
 * <SeanDaly> kind of like saying I refuse to endorse 220 volts over 110 volts
 *   Q2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
 *   and the DP consensus was YES
 *   Motion: Q2: "SL should pick a distro that it judges to be the most effective, and endorse that distro more strongly than it endorses other distros, but it chooses that distro neutrally, based purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer activity"
 *   anyone willing to second?
 *   second
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: again, no need to say we pick one
 *   I don't like that either
 *   hm
 * <SeanDaly> it's a policy question for me, not a one-distro-over-another question
 *   oh
 *   cjb: nay
 *   I see value in making explicit that only the marketing need has a strong need of picking one distro or another
 *   could we pick more than one?
 *   tomeu: +1
 * <SeanDaly> and in our marketing we don't endorse Fedora at all
 *   Q2: "SL should pick distribution(s) that it judges to be the most effective, and endorse that distro more strongly than it endorses other distros, but it chooses that distro neutrally, based purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer activity"
 *   is that good?
 *   cjb: could we not even say that we pick one distro at the SL level?
 *   SeanDaly: we are referring to soas as a distro
 * <SeanDaly> because we know smart journalists will ask the question and answer it themselves
 *   cjb: I'd stick to Q2 the way the DP discussed it
 *   bernie: we good, but then we would be failing to encode our preferential treatment of SoaS
 *   s/good/could/
 *   cjb: which, I think, is solely a marketing decision
 *   cjb: justified by availability of resources
 *   cjb: and quality
 * <SeanDaly> tomeu: ok... but then it needs to be explicit that SoaS is a distro
 *   ok. how about SL will endorse distros purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer acitvity... skip the who first part of the motion?
 *   SeanDaly: what else could it be?
 *   SoaS is certainly a distro.
 *   it's a remix :)
 *   it's based on a distro, which means it is one too. :)
 * <SeanDaly> again... SoaS pillar od marketing strategy because of market situation... will evolve when market evolves
 *   and a remix isn't a distro?
 *   walterbender: sure, I'll try that:
 *   "Question 2: No, SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity.
 *   walterbender: how does that work for you?
 *   add "And clearly publish the criteria under which that decisoin was made?"
 *   ...except with proper spelling
 *   Not sure why "No," is that the beginning...
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: no i prefer another formula
 *   walterbender: because it's the answer to the question!
 *   cjb: I'd still vote nay on this one
 *   Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
 *   we have to answer yes or no
 *   cjb: gotcha.
 * <SeanDaly> No, SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro to further its education mission
 *   SeanDaly: that's too vague for me, I think
 *   although I understand the idea
 *   cjb: The DP answered yes. I'd tend to respect their decision.
 * <SeanDaly> No, SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro to better spread the use of Sugar on all distros
 *   bernie: no, the DP answered timeout.
 * <SeanDaly> bernie: I was on the DP and did not answer yes!
 *   cjb: ok, but their consensus was yes.
 *   bernie: being neutral seems like a good idea to everybody except to those who need to make a choice ;)
 *   I think we all agree that, yes, we should be neutral as far as distros go and what we should endorse their products based on technical and educational merits.
 *   bernie: I don't find that compelling enough to move me away from what seems like a very common sense answer that describes how we do behave already, with no argument given for why we shouldn't be behaving that way.
 *   bernie: so I can't vote yes.
 *   SeanDaly: well, the way the quesiton is posed, I would say no too.


 *  mchua trying to rephrase = "SL should be neutral about providing *infrastructure* to Distros, but should not be neutral in our marketing/endorsement of them."
 *   and as cjb added early, we should be public and clear about our rationale
 *   will add that now
 *   mchua: that is good.
 *   walterbender: I still don't understand why anything other than the marketing team needs to pick one or another distro
 *   endorse is the broken word.
 *   "Question 2: No, SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity, and should publish the criteria it uses for making that decision."
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: yes, and whatever choices are made are in order to better spread Sugar use
 *   cjb: if we can only vote to ratify the status quo, then we're useless.
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: yes I was against it from the start
 *   bernie: I didn't say that
 *   I said I'm not going to vote *against* reality when no-one is persuading me why that reality is bad and should be avoided
 *   seandaly: promote?
 *   how about this?
 *   "Question 2: SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity, and should publish the criteria it uses for making that decision. Furthermore, SL should be neutral about providing infrastructure resources (hosting, etc) to distros."
 *   walterbender: promote sounds good to me, because promoting is a task of the marketing team
 *   mchua: very good point


 *  mchua just added the infra bit in, so that the separation of infra and mktg is clear.
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: "endorse"... since our policy is not to endorse any distros at this time. But... as I said above, that could change based on market conditions
 *   cjb: so, even if our past actions seem to suggest that we only endorse one distro, we may decide today that we're going to be neutral and endorse distros based on availability of resources and marketing strategy.
 *   bernie: that's what the motion says, IMO
 *   bernie: it doesn't limit us to one distro
 * <SeanDaly> I ratther never use "endorse" :-(
 *   cjb: which, in practice, may not have any visible effect for a long time.


 *  mchua has to leave now, but will read backlog later
 *  mchua already squishing things in overtime
 *   mchua: are you comfortable voting on that motion?
 *   I think it's the best one we've had yet, even if it's not what we end at
 *   could we vote on mel's motion with ^endorse^promote^
 * <SeanDaly> as i said, not contradictory to market several Sugars: OLPC, SoaS, hypothetical large distro deployment
 *   walterbender: good idea
 *   walterbender: +1
 *   cjb: I guess you're right, more or less. I'd rephrase it, though.
 *   let's vote and then tackle Q3 next week?
 *   MOTION: "Question 2: SL should not be completely neutral about promoting distros, but it should only choose to more strongly promote a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity, and should publish the criteria it uses for making that decision. Furthermore, SL should be neutral about providing infrastructure resources (hosting, etc) to distros."
 *   seconf
 *   cjb: the way it's phrased now suggests that we do not want to be neutral.
 *   ^f^d
 *   bernie: feel free to attempt a reword
 *   although walter has seconded this one
 *   so we should vote on it first


 *  cjb votes yes
 *   bernie: neutral about distros, but not neutral about the efforts that are being put into them
 *   I vote yes


 *  walterbender votes yes
 * <SeanDaly> votes yes


 *  cjb cheers :)
 *   CanoeBerry: mchua: still around for the vote?
 *   I think we lost mel, but we can record her vote later
 *   nay
 * <SeanDaly> all criteria concerning SoaS marketing is totally public :-)
 *   ok, we should get votes from CanoeBerry/mchua for completeness
 *   I'm rewording the motion, please give me one minute
 *   but the motion passes, if I can count today
 *   cjb: yes. I'll ask by email
 *   Let's finish Q3 next week? Same time? Same channel?
 *   walterbender: ok
 *   and then get into the remix topic?
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: ok
 *   thanks everyone. I think we got a lot done today :)
 *   bernie: you could provide an amendment to the decision next week, when we discuss q3
 *   bernie: yes. please circulate a revised wording by email
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: there are possible scenarios in which technical + maintainer outweighed by other factors...
 *   ok. we are almost 20+ so let's wrap up.
 *   SeanDaly: did we lose educational? :(
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: for example, a distro which would bring $20m USD in TV advertising campaigns :D
 * <SeanDaly> yes, would have liked to see educational in there...
 *   MOTION: "Question 2: SL endorses Sugar distributions based on availability of resources (i.e. volunteers) and technical merits. Hosting and infrastructure will be offered neutrally. SL marketing may choose to bias promotion resources towards strategically important distros.


 *  tomeu tries to imagine how a distro could impact education over the others
 *   SeanDaly: true enough. I don't think it's necessary to encode every use case, but we can provide an amendment for that too.
 *   walterbender, cjb: oops, ok
 *   tomeu: yeah, that's why I felt it was too vague to add
 *   I'll send this by email.
 * <SeanDaly> tomeu: if a government chooses e.g. openSUSE over Windows for 150,000 Classmates
 *   ok. let's formally close the meeting...
 *   bernie: I don't see that your motion does anything different to the one we passed, except for refuse to answer the question directly :)
 * <SeanDaly> running Sugar
 *   #endmeeting