Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-09-25

From Sugar Labs
Jump to: navigation, search
<tomeu> hi dfarning
<walterbender> hi everyone
<walterbender> shall we start meeting?
<walterbender> cjb:are you here?
<walterbender> greg said he could not attend
<cjb> walterbender:yeah
<walterbender> ok, then let's get started.
<walterbender> #start-meeting
  • sdziallas looks around and waves
<cjb> (It's 6am local time for me; if we could get the vote out of the way first that'd be helpful, since I might have trouble staying awake. ;-)
<walterbender> cjb, do you have a list of volunteers?
<cjb> Yup, I do.
<walterbender> cjb:coul you please share it
<cjb> But first we want to go ahead and vote on establishing a DP, I think
<cjb> okay, I'll paste it here:
<cjb> Sebastian Dziallas
<cjb> Luke Faraone
<cjb> Martin Dengler
<cjb> Bill Bogstad
<cjb> Faisal Khan
<walterbender> cjb:good pont
<cjb> Benjamin M. Schwartz
<cjb> Samuel Klein
<cjb> Sean Daly
<cjb> Tabitha Roder
<cjb> Caryl Bigenho
<tomeu> wow, so many?
<cjb> yeah, this is way better than SLOBS :)
<tomeu> we could make all those slobs and save the election :p
<walterbender> :)
<cjb> I'm surprised I don't have dsd's name on here; if someone remembers him volunteering, that'd be useful to know
<walterbender> so, we need to agree on exactly what we want them to decide... I thought cjb's email was a good statement of purpose
<cjb> perhaps we can have a "if someone thought they volunteered but I didn't put them on the list, the DP is able to add them itself by simple majority" kind of thing.
<lfaraone> I also expected Caroline to weigh in...
<walterbender> cjb:we can appoint him anyway :)
<cjb> lfaraone:oh! she did.
<walterbender> and her :)
<cjb> let's add Daniel too, then, and he can always turn it down.
<caroline> Caroline is pretty busy with the pilot, two classes and trying to keep my bills paid.
<cjb> caroline:howdy
<walterbender> caroline:what a light load :)
<caroline> I try to stay focused :)
<walterbender> any reason not to appoint all the volunteers?
<cjb> walterbender:good idea; let's vote for "appoint all of them", and if that votes fails, we can do it individually.
<walterbender> I second the motion
<tomeu> agree
<walterbender> any discussion before the vote?
<cjb> walterbender:Not sure which statement of purpose of mine you're referring to
<walterbender> for the vote itself, we need to just be slob members...
<cjb> I think in the main announce e-mail I just said "Sebastian Dziallas has asked for clarity on how the SoaS distribution
<walterbender> cjb:to appoint them all...
<cjb> he maintains is going to be treated and considered by SL. "
<cjb> walterbender:no, regarding what the decision to be made is
<walterbender> cjb:here is the text:Sebastian Dziallas has asked for clarity on how the SoaS distribution he maintains is going to be treated and considered by SL. It doesn't
<walterbender> seem that there's consensus, so we suggest forming a Decision Panel:
<cjb> ok
<cjb> so we're happy establishing the DP with a vague mandate
<cjb> rather than asking them a specific question
<walterbender> cjb:that will be the second vote...
<cjb> (I'm happy with that too.)
<walterbender> cjb:as you said that the beginning we are doing this a bit backwards...
<cjb> got it.
<cjb> okay, let's proceed with the vote for members. gets my +1.
<walterbender> so any final comments before we vote on the members of the decision panel?
<walterbender> all in favor?
  • walterbender is in favor
<cjb> tomeu:dfarning:^
<dfarning> abstain
<walterbender> all opposed?
<tomeu> I'm in favor
<walterbender> is bernie here?
<cjb> okay, that's 3 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain. we could still get 3 no, I suppose.
<walterbender> cjb:the motion passes.
<walterbender> now to the commission.
<walterbender> do we want to be more specific?
<cjb> I think there's value in not being more specific
<tomeu> what sdziallas thinks about it?
<cjb> sdziallas:if there's one question that you want to make sure gets answered, maybe we should get it in here
  • sdziallas looks up. more being specific than cjb said? well, there have been three questions being but up on the wiki page, if I recall correctly.
<CanoeBerry> FYI Abhishek Indoria also volunteered for the DP, for what it's worth his name was missed above.
<walterbender> sdziallas:and more questions were raised in the discussion
<walterbender> CanoeBerry:if we volunteered, then he should be included.
<sdziallas> this is where I think the question were asked to be added:http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board/Minutes#Friday_18_Sept_2009_-_14:00_UTC
<cjb> CanoeBerry:I think he wasn't yet decided on whether he wanted to join, but I agree that we should include him too.
<walterbender> sdziallas:I think that the decision panel should focus on SoaS
<cjb> so, of those, the main one would be:
<cjb> *
<cjb> o
<cjb> *
<cjb> o "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
<walterbender> sdziallas:if I were to generalize, I think the issue is more about the relationship between a project, its maintainer, and the overall community than the SL strategic plan
<sdziallas> well, I think the others go hand in hand with it.
<walterbender> sdziallas:not that this isn't a heated issue because it is so important to the strategic plan
<sdziallas> walterbender:I think "SL strategic plan" for it - if that's what its called - should be a topic for the maintainer, too. since this actually affects his decisions.
<cjb> so a proposed mandate based on that question could be "Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, including an answer to the question of 'Should "Sugar on a Stick" be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
<walterbender> cjb:maybe a different word than avoid? because one potential solution could be to qualify it rather than avoid it
<lfaraone> cjb:oh, and Sean just volunteered.
<walterbender> lfaraone:Sean was already on cjb's list
<cjb> walterbender:I like the bluntness -- the answer could be "No, but it should qualify it." without problems, I think.
<walterbender> cjb:OK. I think the smart people on the panel can sort that out.
<sdziallas> I think this is also about who's going to drive SoaS (SL as a distributor or the devs.)
<sdziallas> Heh.
<walterbender> cjb:et al. maybe we need someone from SFC on the panel because our trademark comes into play here too...
<cjb> sdziallas:you're welcome to encourage the DP to answer that.
<walterbender> or mayeb we taks the panel with consulting with the SFC
<walterbender> ^taks^task
<sdziallas> cjb:if that's outside of the DP's scope, I can't.
<sdziallas> cjb:well, I could, but it wouldn't help.
<cjb> sdziallas:the question at the end of the sentence is not the only question the DP may answer, it is merely a question that it *must* answer.
<cjb> I don't think your question is explicitly out of scope
<cjb> it's just that the DP itself, rather than us, gets to decide whether that one is in scope
<mtd> cjb:dsd did definitely volunteer
<cjb> makes sense?
<cjb> mtd:good, I expected so, just couldn't see an e-mail.
<mtd> cjb:(sorry, just virtually woke up)
<cjb> that's fine.
<sdziallas> cjb:but that's your interpretation... well, if you say so.
<cjb> sdziallas:well, it's in the text too -- "Investigate the situation [..]"
<cjb> and then "including an answer to", which is being clear that it's not the only possible output, just a necessary part
<caroline> I think the trademark issue is a different issue and shoudl be dealt with separately.
<cjb> but maybe someone has an improvement on that text?
<mtd> cjb:so in your mind are the three questions on that wiki page you cited in scope?
<sdziallas> cjb:I'm not trying to bikeshed here but I would prefer not have questions being deferred to other bodies all the time (I'm just afraid whether this might happen).
<mtd> cjb:...of that DP mandate.
<cjb> mtd:in my mind, they could be in scope if the DP decided that they are, but they aren't yet.
<mtd> cjb:ok. but that scope is up to the DP?
<walterbender> caroline:there are many facets to the trademark issue, but the DP should make sure they are working within accordance with the law.
<cjb> yeah
<mtd> cjb:understood, thanks.
<cjb> walterbender:what does that mean? we don't have a trademark yet.
<cjb> so there's no law to be in accordance with.
<cjb> (I agree with Caroline.)
<cjb> I think it would be fine for the DP to give a decision on if they think the SoaS term should be trademarked
<cjb> but only if they decide that that's in scope too
<walterbender> cjb:we have a trademark on Sugar Labs and we have established use of Sugar and Sugar XYZ which has implications in trademark law
<cjb> walterbender:oh, I didn't know we had the first trademark
<walterbender> cjb:yes. first thing I worked on with SFC when we started
<cjb> got it.
<walterbender> cjb:so we have an obligation to protect the mark...
  • mtd sees the use of "Sugar on a Stick" squarely in scope, since...well, becqause of what walterbender just said.
<walterbender> the DP should be aware of all of this... Karen at SFLA can help clarify
<cjb> ok. I don't think this needs to go in the mandate, but I agree that we should let them know.
<cjb> sdziallas:you mentioned not wanting the other questions (about SL strategy) to be deferred
<walterbender> cjb:OK, but if they recommend something that is contradictory to the law, we'll have to reject their proposal.
<cjb> sdziallas:so perhaps we should vote on whether the other questions on that page should make it in
<mtd> cjb:perhaps noting that they are not not in scope would be enough? :)
<sdziallas_> sorry folks, I just got disconnected :/
<cjb> mtd:it's enough for me, but I think sdziallas_ would like them to be a MUST instead of a MAY
<tomeu> sdziallas:I will paste the logs
<tomeu> sdziallas:http://pastebin.be/21086
<walterbender> well, I think question 1 is a bigger question than just SoaS...
<mtd> cjb:gotcha. I obviously think they're a MUST too FWIW.
<cjb> walterbender:I agree
<walterbender> SoaS is just one way to be a GNU/Linux distributor
<sdziallas> walterbender:if it was just about SoaS, I wouldn't ask SLOBs.
<cjb> walterbender:so we need to decide whether we want to ask a bigger question
<walterbender> cjb:I think we have no choice but to be distributing Sugar with a GNU/Linux distribution and to encourage others to do the same...
<walterbender> but I know there is not consensus on this.
<cjb> walterbender:all the reason to have a Decision Panel work on it :-)
<sdziallas> tomeu:thanks, btw :)
<walterbender> cjb:OK.
<tomeu> yw
<walterbender> cjb:then the DP is about much more than SoaS
<walterbender> which is OK by me, but maybe not to some of the volunteers :)
<cjb> walterbender:yup. I wouldn't say it's about anything that *isn't* SoaS, but it's about many of the related questions to the SoaS one.
<mtd> walterbender:that is OK by this volunteer.
<walterbender> cjb:well, I think we are asking too much from this DP, but they all smart, dedicated people, so hopefully they will rise to the challenge
<cjb> shall we adopt the four questions given on the minutes page, then? perhaps the DP can decline to answer those of them it doesn't want to, even though we're asking them to.
<mtd> walterbender:however if you think SLOBs can reach consensus with the same amount of time it would take to vote on a significant DP report, I urge you to do away with the DP and just spend the SLOBs time on the issue.
<cjb> (that's http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board/Minutes#Friday_18_Sept_2009_-_14:00_UTC )
<walterbender> cjb:yes. they can decline.
<walterbender> cjb:for the official record, can we ask re GNU/Linux instead of Linux :)
<cjb> mtd:SLOBs can't make decisions :)
<walterbender> Sugar needs an OS, not just a kernel :)
<mtd> cjb:gah :) :P
<cjb> walterbender:sure. I'll change the text now.
<walterbender> cjb:well, we ratify (or not) the DP decision
<cjb> yeah
<walterbender> cjb:we could decide to throw out their work and try again :P
<cjb> okay, so I think we're getting somewhere.
<cjb> Here's another shot at the mandate:
<cjb> "Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, and related questions, including answers to the following:
<cjb> *
<cjb> o "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
<cjb> *
<cjb> o "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
<cjb> *
<cjb> o "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
<cjb> *
<cjb> o Any other question the Decision Panel deems required to provide an answer to the original question:"Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?"
<cjb> "
<cjb> any improvements on that? do people feel ready to vote?
<tomeu> I like it
<walterbender> I think we are ready to vote
<walterbender> so, I propose cjb's text as the commission for the DP. anyone second my motion?
<cjb> excellent.
<cjb> yes
<walterbender> all in favor?
  • walterbender yes
  • cjb yes
<walterbender> all opposed?
<cjb> tomeu:^
  • tomeu is in favor
<walterbender> all abstain?
<dfarning> abstain
<walterbender> let the record show:3 in favor, none opposed, 1 abstained
<walterbender> and 3 absent :(
<walterbender> whew. got that done... back to coding :)
<walterbender> actually, there are a few other topics.
<tomeu> the elections will fix the absents ;)
<walterbender> but cjb, do you want to send an email reporting this decision re the DP?
<cjb> I think it makes sense for me to get some more sleep soon -- could I ask if any more topics require votes?
<cjb> walterbender:yes, happy to later.
<walterbender> cjb:I don't think the other topics need voting
<walterbender> cjb:get some sleep and thank you for all the help
<cjb> great, thanks all.
<sdziallas> cjb:yeah, right. thanks for all your work here :)
<walterbender> #new_topic
<walterbender> elections
<walterbender> lfaraone, dfarning:is the date set for sending the ballots?
<walterbender> lfaraone:you wanna give a quick status report?
<walterbender> dfarning:maybe you could report, as lfaraone seems to be ???
<walterbender> hello??? anyone here?
<dfarning> luke sent the emails adresses last night and mako sent the login yesterday, I will sent out a test ballot today.
<walterbender> dfarning:great. thanks
<walterbender> just to let people know, lfaraone has amassed a members list and we will be using selectricy again this year
<walterbender> (sp)
<walterbender> dfarning:we should make sure that the blurbs people wrote are available on the ballots
<dfarning> that is up to luke
<walterbender> lfaraone:I can help you with that.
<walterbender> any other questions re the election?
<dfarning> I am just referee
<walterbender> lfaraone:how many candidates do we have? quite a few as I recall
<walterbender> great to have lots of new blood
<tomeu> yeah, that's good
<walterbender> anyway, this was just a heads up.
<tomeu> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Oversight_Board/2009-2010-candidates
<walterbender> a nice diverse field... but I am afraid that there are no Windows hackers on the list :P
<walterbender> a couple of other topics that are more for mention than anything else if we are done re the election
<sdziallas> walterbender:the professor would be disappointed. somebody can get an omlet here? :p
<SeanDaly> walterbender:is there still time for me to put planks in my platform on my wiki page?
<walterbender> SeanDaly:yes, but ASAP
<tomeu> heh
<walterbender> SeanDaly:I had one, but there wasn't a link from the candidates page--just added the link
<SeanDaly> walterbender:ok will do that later today
<walterbender> SeanDaly:what I did last year was cut and paste those texts onto the "more info" section of the ballots
<bemasc> I strongly oppose the formation of a Decision Panel here
<bemasc> oh well, I guess I'm too late.
<walterbender> bemasc:I wish you had chimed in earlier
  • sdziallas has to run, thanks everybody.
<walterbender> bemasc:maybe you can send a note to slobs and the panel explaining why
<sdziallas> bemasc:oh? heh.
<walterbender> dfarning has left, which is a shame, because the next topic is the Bolzano meeting
<walterbender> maybe we defer that topic, but time is getting short
<walterbender> tomeu:there may be some additional travel money available...
<walterbender> tomeu:especially targeted for Siberians
<tomeu> well, that would be really great
<walterbender> tomeu:working on it.
<tomeu> I think silbe found a way to came as well?
<walterbender> tomeu:I hope so.
<caroline> Siberians = alsroot
<caroline> ?
<walterbender> tomeu:I will work with dfarning to try to pull all of this together over the next few days
<walterbender> caroline:yes :)
<bemasc> In the future, please e-mail out a SLOBS meeting a few minutes before the meeting.
<caroline> When is it again? I've been just saying to no to everything between now and Dec 10th when classes end but i should thnk about it.
<caroline> I would love to meet Alsroot
<bemasc> I am always plugged into e-mail, but I am not watching IRC. Adam Holt employs this tactic with success for his Contributors' team meetings.
<walterbender> bemasc:at least I remembered to send the note 24 hours in advance this time. I'll try to do better next time.
<tomeu> bemasc:I get notifications from google calendar
<caroline> I actually agree. an email sent out 5 min before meetings start is really useful.
<tomeu> not sure if I had to do anything to get that
<bemasc> tomeu:oh, we have a calendar?
<walterbender> caroline:2nd week of Nov.
<tomeu> bemasc:http://www.google.com/calendar/hosted/sugarlabs.org/
<walterbender> bemasc:yes. most of the meetings are in a google calendar
<walterbender> so more on Bolzano soon.
<tomeu> one great thing is that it translates the time to your TZ
<bemasc> that's nice
<tomeu> ok, any other topics?
<walterbender> just a couple of heads ups
<walterbender> Caroline and I submitted a grant to the Wal-Mart foundation--out reach to Massachusetts teachers
<caroline> the calendar is mostly empty for me
  • sdziallas is out now, talk to you all later :)
<caroline> One of our interns submitted a grant to the "Do Something" contest.
<walterbender> I am working on a grant to the NSF that is due in two weeks re Sugar and creativity
<caroline> David Han
<caroline> David Han is putting together a fund raising plan that includes quite a few grants.
<walterbender> and I am working on a grant to the National Academy of Sciences to set up a Suga Labs in Pakistan
<walterbender> and I am working with a group at the Kenyan MIT equivalent to set up a Sugar Lab
<walterbender> and I am negotiating with the UN to get Sugar into their refurbished computer program
<lfaraone> lfaraone:sorry, I was away.
<walterbender> so lots of birds in the bush...
<tomeu> nice, let's see how it goes
<walterbender> also, I am working with a group of Babson students who are preparing some marketing material for us... Sean, I'd like to introduce them to you.
  • walterbender bemoans the fact that there is so little time to code
<lfaraone> walterbender:We have 14 candidates. Ballot will be sent out by dfarning on 2009-10-01 via Selectricity to all members with an email on file.
<walterbender> Bernie will be teaching my seminar with me next week. my students want to learn Python
<walterbender> lfaraone:why wait until 10/1?
  • tomeu needs to go out, will read backlog later
<lfaraone> walterbender:Because it allows for any last minute changes. We announced the election date two days ago, it seemed useful to give notice.
<SeanDaly> walterbender:ok for Babson and ChristianV has found us a professor to speak with in Paris
<walterbender> lfaraone:OK.
  • walterbender has to run in a minute too
<walterbender> can we end the meeting now and continue with discussion over coffee?
<walterbender> thanks for participating everyone.
<walterbender> my apologies to bemasc for not sending the reminder
<walterbender> hi befana
<walterbender> we are just finishing up
<walterbender> but I will post the log shortly
<walterbender> any final words?
<walterbender> #end-meeting
<befana> walterbender:hi
<walterbender> (I don't think the logger was working, so I will cut and paste)