Oversight Board/2010/Meeting Log-2010-01-22


 *   Hey, SeanDaly! I tried to make your email into discussion questions, posted http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2010/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22#Discussion_points (under the third bullet point)
 *  Hi mchua! yes, I read that earlier - very very helpful... it's not as "simple" a topic as it seems
 *   Do those look ok? I think the main thing is that I'm not used to having discussions like this, so it's taking a while to figure out how to respond to your example.


 * mchua	nods. it's a lot more complex than i thought it was a few months ago.
 *   really, *really* appreciate you being so patient with the rest of us about this.

It's tough to be the only one with a certain disciplinary framework - but that's also why it's so valuable
 *   time to start?
 *  mchua: my main concern is to not rush it, but to get it right... to consider scenarios
 * <--	yevlempy has left freenode (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
 *   #startmeeting
 *   Meeting started at 11:04 UTC. The chair is walterbender.

Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
 *   morning.
 *   We should capture the discussion in the minutes.

hi everyone. can we do a quick roll call?
 *  hi everyone
 *   bernie? tomeu? CanoeBerry?


 * mchua	here
 *   hi all!
 *   OK. Let's jump in. Mel did a great job of preparing background materials for all of our discussion topics
 *  yes
 *   http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2010/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22
 *   #topic finances

I have promised a review of our finances. I have been climbing a learning curve since taking over as interim finance officer
 *   #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2010/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22#Finances
 *   I keep pestering the SFC with questions and I am beginning to understand what is going on.

The trick is to use a mono-spaced font when reading the financial reports :)	then the numbers add up properly.
 *  i would be willing to do finances (competence), but I have hesitated since very short on time with current commitments
 *   That having been said, I get the impression that walterbender should be our interim finance director for as short a time as possible :)
 *   SeanDaly: we need to find someone else... we are all overcommitted
 *   Must the finance director be a SLOB?
 *  yes Courier font often used in SEC Edgar reports
 *   mchua: +1
 *   or would it be ideal to have a non-SLOB?
 *   mchua: I don't think it needs to be a SLOB
 *  ideally, a trustable reliable person :D not necessarily a SLOB (no ill-meaning intended :-)
 *   #action more effort into finding a new FD
 *   Ok, then it sounds like the only question from the finances Q&A is answered
 *   but in the meanwhile, are there any open questions I can answer?
 *   ("Should we have someone take on the action item of recruiting another treasurer (who would then have to be approved/appointed by a SLOBs motion)?")

walterbender: according to the wiki page, just that ^^ I got mine answered by walterbender on the list, and transferred those questions over to the finances section of our briefing notes, ahead of time ;)
 *   mchua: I think we need to all reach out... I've been mentioning it in the Digest, the Wiki, etc. I even met a potential candidate for lunch this week... but no luck so far
 *   #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vacants
 *   tomeu: yeah. I posted the job as soon as you created that page :)
 *   now we need a way to publicize it in the best way
 *   ("Vacancies" might be better)
 *   Anyone want to be HR director for a week?
 *   well, if there are no other questions, let's all spread the word and move on to the next topic?
 *   I'll do it, unless someone else wants to.
 *  wow hadn't seen a vacancies page... very useful
 *   oops, will rename


 * tomeu	didn't intended to write in french
 *  "We're pretty... Pretty Vacant"
 *   #action mchua take on temporary HR spot until next SLOBs meeting, report on Vacancies to be given at next meeting
 *   all of this suggests we still have the problem that our website doesn't communicate well, even to us
 *  FR : "postes à pourvoir"
 *   a topic for another day
 *   #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vacancies
 *   Yeah, that's something I'll take a look at with that HR hat on temporarylike.

next topic?
 *   #topic infrastucture
 *  our website needs the quick fix of the navbar, but a BIG fix later....
 *   bernie: can you take the lead on this?
 *  Late as usual, hiya.
 *   CanoeBerry: np. welcome
 *  Haiti grassroots community-building around OLPC/Sugar/EToys are becoming intense..


 * SeanDaly	greets CanoeBerry
 *  Plz participate this Saturday if you can, in your own city: http://crisiscamp.org
 *   we keep skipping infrastructure 'cause Bernie isn't here
 *   CanoeBerry: glad you connected with Tim
 *   #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2010/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22#Infrastructure
 *   although being in Paraguay is a better excuse than normal :-)
 *   cjb: he has been on line all morning
 *   cjb: BUT! background information and two motions are on that page!

So we can do infra today!
 *   do we want to discuss the Wikipedia machines?


 * mchua	plays "I am the wiki proxy"
 *   It's a small budgetary amount, I'd say yes.

#link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2010/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22#Wikipedia_servers
 *   mchua: well, the background says "if we successfully obtain Wikipedia servers then we don't have to authorize the big one yet"
 *   seems like the Wikipedia "investment" is worth making
 *   yeah, I think so
 *   Yep, I'm inclined to bring up the 2nd motion and just approve it
 *   even if a few machines are unreliable, it's a very large number of them

ok. let's do that.
 *   I doubt it will be a "solution" in and of itself, but it has potential for broadening our reach and community
 *   and then bring up the 1st and say no and give approval of the 2nd as the reason.

motion: Authorize Luke to ship some used hardware from the Wikipedia Foundation (12 servers) to various hosting sites. The cost should not exceed US$300.
 *   seconded
 *   walterbender: can you #info that motion?
 *   any final discussion?

#info motion: Authorize Luke to ship some used hardware from the Wikipedia Foundation (12 servers) to various hosting sites. The cost should not exceed US$300.
 *  dfarning had told me in November that hosting capacity was becoming critical
 *   cjb: any chance of hosting a server or two at 1CC?
 *  may I ask, what is holding us back for big new server(s), just finances?
 *   walterbender: not sure, but we do already have several hosting offers lined up for these machines
 *   SeanDaly: we are hoping that RIT and Luke's friends in DC will help too
 *   RIT, and TransInterSomethingOrOther
 *   I think Bernie's summary sums it up - $300 is going to potentially prevent us from having to spend $3000, and is $community_involvement++ - I can see nothing but wins on this.
 *   so let's vote


 * walterbender	yes
 *   aye
 * <SeanDaly> yea
 * <CanoeBerry> I vote what bernie votes.
 *   bernie isn't here


 * SeanDaly	CanoeBerry is data-driven on infra
 * <CanoeBerry> bernie's basically endorsing, yes?
 *   tomeu: ^

CanoeBerry: yes
 * <CanoeBerry> Aye
 *   mchua? tomeu?

-->|	yevlempy (n=yevlempy@117.201.97.175) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   yes!
 *   aye
 *   ok, passes
 *   walterbender: can haz #agreed ?
 *   OK. the motion passes 5 yea, 0 nay, 2 deferred
 *   YAY

I'd like to bring up the first motion now and deny it with "we'll see how the wikimedia servers work out, come back later if you end up really needing this" rationale
 *   shall we vote on the $3000 authorization now, rejecting it until we figure out what we've got from wikimedia?
 *   #agreed to Authorize Luke to ship some used hardware from the Wikipedia Foundation (12 servers) to various hosting sites. The cost should not exceed US$300.
 *   cjb: jinx!

Motion: Authorize Bernie to purchase a new server. The cost should not exceed US$ 3000.
 *   seconded

NAY :)
 *   NAY
 *   discussion?

I think we should defer rather than reject
 * <SeanDaly> was that cost HW only, or hosting costs e.g. bandwidth ?
 *   walterbender: there isn't intended to be a functional difference

SeanDaly: hardware only SeanDaly: we have hosting offers
 *   yeah, I see defer as "we don't have enough info to make a decision now"
 *   cjb: I suppose functionally yes, but spiritually no
 *   ok
 *   SeanDaly: I think this is hw only... but we have been soliciting (almost) free hosting.
 * <SeanDaly> I ask because I learned something vital from finance sheet... "small" donations larger amt than I expected
 *   but the motion is made and we need to act on it, unless it is withdrawn
 *   Basically, whatever communicates "since if we successfully obtain donated servers from the Wikimedia foundation, we may keep going a while more without this expense, let's keep going a while without it,and you let us know with another motion later - or bring up this one again - if that status changes."
 * <SeanDaly> which means we may want to look into small-donation funding drives e.g. "donate $25 for a new server"
 *   walterbender: can we vote "defer" on a motion instead of yes or no?
 *   SeanDaly: good idea
 * <CanoeBerry> I want more details on thie $3000 expenditure, including ground rules (SLA-like social contract) for RIT hosting, in comparison to GDK's offer for "free" Amazon hosting etc.
 *   cjb: I will have to ask Roberts :) but sure.

so shall we vote (to defer)?
 * <SeanDaly> well, beggars can't be choosers... it's not like we can threaten not to pay if we got sthing for free :D
 *   CanoeBerry: it's just the price for a beefy machine from HP or someone. everything else is to be worked out separately.

oh, by the way, I heard that OLPC's colo space is moving into the new media lab building in a month or so
 * <CanoeBerry> Very Interesting.
 *   cjb: I am persona non grata, but maybe someone else can ask...
 *   it may be easier (or harder!) to manage the space there than W91, which is quite awkward
 * <CanoeBerry> cjb: I still have concerns about buying a $3000 machine -- its uses / hosting arrangement should be more explicit.
 *   CanoeBerry: that's reasonable


 * SeanDaly	"colo space" "W91" "1CC"... must be Boston slang
 *   I think we have gathered enough info to definitely agree to not vote on this now
 *   SeanDaly: colo == co-location, where you give you server to someone else to host on their network
 *   #info need more info

#agreed need more info
 *   SeanDaly, I am in the process of working with RIT, Bernie, and Luke to create a infrastructure like http://osuosl.org/ to support Sugar Labs. Luke is now leading the project. It might be useful to ask him or bernie for a progess report as part of the SL infrastructure plan
 * <SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: I managed hosting a decade ago at work for 80 websites... on Internet, a rule of thumb is to get as much power/bandwidth/monitoring/security as you can afford... for the day the tsunami of visitors arrives
 *   #action get bernie to a SLOBs meeting to lead the infrastructure discussion
 *   Can we all vote 'defer' on this motion?


 * walterbender	is abusing his role as meeting chair :)
 * cjb	defer
 * <CanoeBerry> dfarning: very promising, thanks.


 * mchua	defer
 * walterbender	defer
 * <CanoeBerry> Defer
 * <SeanDaly> defer
 *   ok

what's up next?
 *   #topic Trademark
 *   TRADEMARK!
 * <SeanDaly> our favorite
 *   #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2010/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22#Trademark
 *   dfarning: wow, that will be great, understanding that it brings more sysadmin resources
 *   Background sections there for reading/quick-briefing/reference during discussion.

=-=	unmadindu is now known as unmad|away
 *   Should we go through the discussion questions one by one and see where we stand?
 *   We left things with some new language in the preamble and in Section 2
 *   The motion we want to be able to pass - asap - is "Approve the trademark policy listed at $some_link."
 *   Did we come to agreement re the written vs non-written confusion?
 *   so the discussion questions are the things we know we need to look at, in order to get there.
 * <SeanDaly> no, not asap
 *   SeanDaly: well, "asap with the requirement that we're doing it right, and not skipping things in haste."
 *   let's be systemic here. Section 2 wording first
 *   I think it would be good to take a step back

SeanDaly: do you see something like the draft trademark policy being ratified? we're spending a lot of meetings working on it, but I don't know if it's actually anything like what you think we're going to come up with
 * <SeanDaly> I see an iteration... Karen from SFC reviews, we discuss goals with her. Then we need to think of scenarios, with the most common scenario birthing a procedure which is light and efficient

but as far as voting an official policy... before that happens ^^needs to happen what's tough about this is not just protecting our marks, but encouraging others to do so
 *   SeanDaly: FWIW, Karen has been reviewing our progress
 * <SeanDaly> Mel raised a very important point... I had proposed our licensing always be free ; but charging for it may be a useful revenue generator for, say, an OEM
 *   so do you think it's worth having this meeting to refine the draft some more ourselves, or would you rather we just punted to Karen?
 *   SeanDaly: and we have the usage guideliens page as well, a work in progress
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender has said Karen following....
 *   SeanDaly: but I think this is going to me more like case law
 * <SeanDaly> for me, usage guidelines should be final with a final policy...
 * <CanoeBerry> dfarning: were you talking about Luke F (DC Area) or Luke M (Boston area RIT alum) ?
 * <SeanDaly> look at how tech companies publish... always a FAQ which explains typical cases and answers clearly what can/cannot be done
 *   SeanDaly: I am confused out how we can proceed
 * <SeanDaly> while... i am not myself sure yet what we should and shouldn't allow
 *   CanoeBerry, Luke F
 * <SeanDaly> i propose an approach:
 *   SeanDaly: we cannot have an FAQ without the guidelines
 * <SeanDaly> we work backwards from scenarios
 *   SeanDaly: I guess one way of saying this is that I don't feel like you're on-board with the draft, and that makes me not want to waste more time working on it. Sorry if that's an unfair perception.
 * <SeanDaly> for example, considering the SoaS case was extremely useful
 *   SeanDaly: we have a few more cases pending, e.g., dfarning's request
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: I'm sorry to say i don't have confidence in the draft yet... your perception is correct... if no one minds delaying further I can work on it more... i'd rather advance on other topics at the moment
 *   SeanDaly: but I think we need to settle on a set of guidelines to frame our decisions, or we will forever drift and be unpredictable
 *   SeanDaly: Okay. That's useful to know, and at least stops us from wasting time.
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: what i suggest is that we imagine scenarios and build consensus
 *   Does everyone else feel like it's okay to postpone getting trademark guidelines until SeanDaly reports back with new ideas?
 *   SeanDaly: I don't want to ratify prematurely, but I do want to make sure are heading down a path
 * <SeanDaly> ex: an Asian OEM uses marks, but the code is not Sugar
 *   cjb: I don't see how we have any choice really
 * <SeanDaly> ex: Trisquel

ex: a liveUSB with Sugar as dual-boot with sthing else
 *   SeanDaly: we have lots of examples... I guess I don't understand what you are afer.

^after writing them all down in one place?
 *   Do we want to lay out some action items for trademark between now and next week - maybe that's "SeanDaly finishes case study list that we'll next work on fleshing in and bringing to the community for discussion"?
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: a clear response to each

where we not only protect, but encourage use a wiki page with scenarios could help
 *   SeanDaly: Trisquel is a fine, real-world example of it working
 * <SeanDaly> we could put a deadline on it if there's concern about meandering
 *   SeanDaly: dfarning is proposing another real-world example
 *   SeanDaly: it would be good to have an answer for dfarning
 * <SeanDaly> Yes I agree... it's best-case scenario: initial contact, continuing contact
 *   if it were the case that we all agree that his is fine, we could tell him that
 *   SeanDaly: I am concerned about a lack of a clear process to completion, not the deadline for completion
 *   if we don't agree, he'll have to wait :)


 * mchua	agrees.
 * cjb	too
 * <SeanDaly> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuSugarRemix
 *   mchua: agrees with what?
 *   walterbender: your concern with the lack of a clear process to completion, rather than a deadline for completion
 *   SeanDaly: I would shut that site down due to spelling errors :)
 *   SeanDaly: What is the next step? A list of case studies to flesh in?
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: all it needs are some SL trademarks :D :D

mchua: yes
 *   SeanDaly: Ok - how does that list of case studies need to be generated, are there any particular things each case study should have
 *   SeanDaly: but seriously, it is not "sweetened by"
 * <SeanDaly> and, consensus in our responses: easy if we all say yes and no to the same things
 *   walterbender, My first hire was a local student to copy edit my writing.
 *   SeanDaly: (basically, "how would we know that list of case studies is 'finished enough' for us to go on to whatever step is next?)
 *   SeanDaly: so I am concerned about how it jives with the current draft text and with Marketing
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: it's a good test case scenario... dfarning is filling a gaping hole
 *   walterbender: under the current draft text, it would need our permission because it isn't a preapproved naming construction, right?
 * <SeanDaly> also I like "sweetened with" more than "sweetened by" ;-)
 *   Do we want to take dfarning's case as a special SLOBs decision consideration in the same way we did SoaS?

(for refernence, that's http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/2009/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-18#Resolve_outstanding_Sugar_on_a_Stick_decision_.28Q3.29)
 *   mchua: I'd be happy to, but only because I think it's incontrovertibly a reasonable use of the mark; i.e. if our trademark policy said no, we would have the wrong trademark policy.
 *   SeanDaly: I am still confused: we have an unratified set of guidelines and an application for a decision from the community. How do we proceed?
 *   walterbender: for SoaS, we used the general formulation: "Yes, $what_the_person_asked_for is approved, until such time when a trademark policy, agreement, and process is put in place: $project will be the Nth project to go through that process."
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: even bettter perhaps to have that project and SoaS be first to go through procedure
 *   Can we do the same for dfarning's proposal?
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: application you mean dfarning's

?
 *   SeanDaly: I agree, I want to treat this the same way we treated SoaS, I see it as the same situation - in the SoaS case we gave an interim ruling so that the project could move forward

and I'd like to do the same here if we can
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: we're not slowing down dfarning as far as I know?
 *   SeanDaly, mchua: I don't think it is fair to anyone to give them tacit approval and then say we reserve the right to pull the rug out from under you. we need to be predictable.
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: quite agree, which is why I think dfarning's project should go through procedure
 *   either we agree to pursue establishing guidelines and a process for doing it, or we agree to say to all comers, take your chances
 * <SeanDaly> in a sense dfarning's project closer to typical case
 *   SeanDaly: if we're not blocking dfarning, then perhaps we should defer discussion on dfarning's case until we have a trademark process for him to go through.
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: I'm working on establishing guidelines....
 *   dfarning: hi! are we blocking you? ;-)
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: isn't that what I just said :D
 *   SeanDaly: which is why we have been trying to establish a procedure... based on guidelines
 *   SeanDaly: ok, we're on the same page then :)
 *   so how do we get from here to having a set of procedures and guidelines?
 *   Well, Sean said the next step is to have a completed list of case studies.

That we can use as the basis of making those guidelines. SeanDaly: (am I totally misinterpreting?)
 * <SeanDaly> we list cases... I say yes because or no because... everyone agrees

mchua: you got it
 *   SeanDaly: Ok - what does that list of case studies look like? how does that get started, how will we know it's done?
 * <SeanDaly> and... if not everyone agrees... we refine


 * mchua	trying to get a clearer picture of our trademark to-do list
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: as I say a wiki page would be helpful
 *   how many case studies should we have before we're done? do we make them up, or are they real?
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: I agree with your earlier comment about the wrong TM policy
 *   SeanDaly: cool
 *   SeanDaly, I am in no hurry. I am focusing on a few specific customers. If Ubuntu-Sugar-Remix is unreasonably to Sugar Labs, I will just change the name. to some thing which does not include that word sugar.
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: if you could create the wiki page I could populate it with cases
 *   SeanDaly: would it be an extension of http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark/Guidelines

or something different?
 * <SeanDaly> dfarning: thanks for info

walterbender: great
 *   SeanDaly: I guess my concern is -- there's a bootstrapping problem here, because if you want *real* case studies, we have to be using some kind of policy to decide them.
 *   SeanDaly: I can create the wiki page - can you also, when you start putting cases in, make a "this is a template for a case / how to write a case" section, and a "these are the list of case types we are looking for" list? (I'll make stubs for those things on the page, so you can just write them in here)
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: scenarios
 *   ah, ok, so not real studies
 * <SeanDaly> I've listed some today and in previous meetings and in the e-mail on that topic
 *   mchua: for the moment, can you just add a scenario section to the usage guidelines page?

mchua: I worry about everything getting lost in the wiki...
 * <SeanDaly> I'd say: a well-working TM policy would *encourage* dfarning to license the marks
 *   walterbender: I'll transclude the case studies page in - I get the feeling this page is going to be a long one.
 *   mchua: +1
 * <SeanDaly> transclude is where it diabolically links to another page, automagically?
 *   includes another page, yeah
 *   SeanDaly: like an include
 * <SeanDaly> ok

my wiki skills remain basic
 *   that's what I'm here for :)

among other people
 *   well, we've got a minute left
 *   SeanDaly: ok - so 10m after this meeting, the stub will be up for you, can you fill it in and toss a note to iaep

and then we'll do a status check on that page at our next meeting
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: great
 *   ok, I'm satisfied with trademark-moving-forward now :)

walterbender: next meeting: 2010 goals, and the HR and trademark check-ins?
 * <SeanDaly> HR is human resources?
 *   #action create a scenario page in the wiki
 * <SeanDaly> IHA (I hate acronyms)
 *   #action check in on Trademarks scenario page at next meeting, SeanDaly driving
 *   Well, as they say on Car Talk each week, you've wasted another hour with us... Actually, we got a lot done today. Thanks.

and thanks to Mel for putting together the pre-meeting notes.
 *   We did get a lot done today - I'm very pleased.
 * <SeanDaly> I love it when those guys groan after hearning systems
 *   Same time next week?
 * <SeanDaly> os/systems/symptoms
 *   mchua: hey, what does "Make progress on a REL-based release of Sugar" mean, on the Goals?
 *   can someone take charge of Bernie?
 * <SeanDaly> or they say: "do you love that car?"
 *   Same time next week probably works for me - I'll be in a hackathon next Friday so I may be pseudohere or absent. Will let y'all know
 *   cjb: Redhat Enterprise Linux
 * <SeanDaly> same time ok
 * <rgs_> walterbender: I am calling bernie.. one sec I'll let him know you guys are looking for him
 *   but I'll be doing meeting prep again so you folks will know my thoughts ahead of time. ;)
 *   rgs_: no need for that
 *   rgs_: too late :)
 *   rgs_: the meeting's done now
 *   not according to meetbot it ain't yet!
 * <rgs_> cjb: ah.. oops
 *   #endmeeting
 * <SeanDaly> thanks for your patience re TM
 *   Meeting finished at 12:07.

Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/
 *   SeanDaly: thanks for your patience with my lack of patience on TM. :) lemme get you that stub page now, gimme 5m
 *   cjb: I think we are close to having something stable enough to put on a stable platform
 * <SeanDaly> can't work on it before tonight under pressure at work today
 *   walterbender: k. I forget which version of Fedora the new RHEL is based on, but I'm sure we have decent packaging in that Fedora ver
 *   cjb: I think they change it every fedora release cycle :p
 *   tomeu: heh, yeah

eventually they have to pick one, though :)
 *   walterbender: here I am

walterbender: back from lunch
 *   Thanks guy's I have put you in a place where you must make a decisions about how Sugar Labs will interact with customer driven partners. I _hope_ working theses issues out will make the Sugar ecosystem stronger.
 *   cjb: I think fedora should stop doing releases, so RH could make a decision
 *   bernie: just in time for #endmeeting :)
 *   SeanDaly, http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark_case_studies

#link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark_case_studies
 *   tomeu: LOL!
 *   SeanDaly: all ready for you whenever. :) I'm going to link that into our current draft (transclusion magic) so it doesn't get lost.
 *   dfarning: we'll get there... keep pushing us with good ideas and goals...
 *   d'oh!
 * <SeanDaly> dfarning: thanks
 *   bernie: I am going to use my special powers to get you to the meeting next week...
 *   #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Trademark_case_studies
 *   the long arm of walterbender
 *   (transcluded into the trademark draft page, no more getting lost)