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

From Sugar Labs
Jump to: navigation, search
<cjb> morning
  • mchua yawns, crawls back into existence after a long week in Singapore
<tomeu> hi all!
<walterbender> do we have a quorum?
<mchua> though from what I've read it sounds like Bolzano went quite well :) wish I coul dhave been there!
<mchua> looks like we do.
<walterbender> mchua: it was a very fun, productive week
<walterbender> ok
<walterbender> #startmeeting
<meeting> Meeting started at 10:02 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
<meeting> Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
  • walterbender remembered--no hyphen this time
<walterbender> #topic mailing lists
<SeanDaly> greetings from the OLPC France / Sugar Labs booth at Educatice Paris
<mchua> #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Log-2009-11-13
<mchua> for last week's logs on the subject
<walterbender> we concluded last week's meeting with a motion regarding mailing lists, but we wanted to keep the discussion opne before the vote because three of you were absent
<walterbender> shall we restate the motion?
<walterbender>:<cjb> MOTION: close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible
<walterbender> any further discussion?
<mchua> appreciated :) though I would also have been totally fine with the vote going forward (it's why we come up with the decision procedures, imo - because we trust SLOBs to do things in the absence of a few of us)
<mchua> none from me
<walterbender> mchua: we could have voted, but we wanted the input... not a pressing issue
  • mchua nods
<walterbender> Adam, any thoughts? comments?
<mchua> CanoeBerry: ^^
<walterbender> OK. the motion had been seconded, so let's bring it to vote.
  • walterbender says aye
<tomeu> +1 from me
<mchua> aye
<SeanDaly> aye
<mchua> CanoeBerry, cjb, bernie: ^^?
<walterbender> (is bernie actually awake?)
<cjb> aye
<mchua> (we do have a majority, enough to pass the motion)
<walterbender> well, the motion passes and I'll make the changes this week (along with a notification to the current list members)
<walterbender> (If I can remember the admin password for SLOBS :) )
<CanoeBerry> Ciao, just arrive late..
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: we just voted on MOTION: close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible
<walterbender> While Adam is reading the backlog, perhaps we can move through the rest of the agenda.
<CanoeBerry> Still there all?

-->| aa (n=aa@r190-135-189-132.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy) has joined #sugar-meeting

<walterbender> without Bernie, I think we cannot discuss the Teams list idea
<walterbender> and I have heard nothing from the DP.
<walterbender> sdziallas: is a report ready yet?
<sdziallas> walterbender: I'm not sure what the current state of it is. There's been some editing on the wiki going on. Side-noting that I didn't expected myself to be leading that thing (if only bias-wise)
<walterbender> SeanDaly: you are on DP too. Do you know the status?
<sdziallas> history page basically says nothing's been changed since October 9.
<tomeu> mtd may know more?
<walterbender> I had proposed (but we never ratified) a deadline for their report.
<walterbender> I suggest we give them one, as this seems to be stalled
<mchua> +1. Do we need anything other than a firm final recommendation from the DP (along with the vote from everyone on the DP on that report?)
<sdziallas> tomeu: I haven't been able to catch mtd lately. :/
<cjb> walterbender: well, we came up with lots of policy about timing out DPs at a previous meeting, but I think we were aiming it mainly at future DPs rather than this one
<walterbender> mchua: I don't think we need more than their report
<cjb> yeah, we should offer them a timeout
<CanoeBerry> great, what deadline?
<walterbender> cjb: I'd perhaps use a strong word than offer :)
<cjb> of course, then we get into the question of "what happens when you create a DP and it times out before giving you an answer; how do decisions get made?"
<cjb> walterbender: so the reason I say offer, is that there are two possible outcomes
<cjb> one is that they finish everything within a week (say)
<cjb> if they can't do that, that's okay, and we should just cancel the DP
<walterbender> cjb: I think it if times out, Slobs will have to table it or reconvene a new panel
<cjb> so the offer is between the two outcomes
<cjb> ah. that would suck.
<walterbender> cjb: agreed. It would suck.
  • cjb will spare you all from grumping about Decision Panels this week.
  • sdziallas notes that there are still people not having put their opinion down.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: no i don't my impression was that SJ was working toward the consensus positions
<mchua> It would suck, but it would also unblock us.

|<-- aa has left freenode (Remote closed the connection)

<walterbender> cjb: but the work they did is recorded, so we can use it as input.
<cjb> mchua: no.
<cjb> the community is still as blocked.
<cjb> we get to pretend that it's unblocked, but it's just pretend.
<CanoeBerry> a deadline would greatly help -- I happened to run into Caryl (on DP) in Dallas here and she'd love to bring this to an end.
<SeanDaly> I am very concerned about sugaronastick.com situation, threatens Blueberry launch
<walterbender> Let's try a deadline.
<tomeu> cjb: well, the bigger we get, the harder it will be to reach consensus. I don't think we should say that our community is blocked when it doesn't reach consensus on something
<walterbender> SeanDaly: that is a different topic
<SeanDaly> walterbender: yes I'm changing subject, beg pardon
<cjb> tomeu: mm. I guess I don't always think it's wrong to make a decision in the face of lack of consensus.
<tomeu> cjb: sure, slobs is there for that
<cjb> if I'm in a meeting, and half the room wants to do one thing and half the other, and talking isn't helping, I'm likely to say "okay, let's just flip a coin so we can move on"
<cjb> tomeu: ...
<cjb> tomeu: but we're obviously not.
<walterbender> motion: give a two-week deadline to the DP
<tomeu> cjb: we were hoping that this DP will help us reach the best decision
<tomeu> and it may help us even if they aren't presenting a report
<walterbender> (two weeks because of the Thanksgiving Holiday)
<cjb> help us to do what?
<tomeu> because of what walterbender said: they have produced some kind of results
<cjb> form a new panel afterwards?
<tomeu> cjb: take a decision
<tomeu> cjb: or not
<cjb> walter just said we can't do that,
<cjb> AIUI
<tomeu> (I would say no in this case)
<walterbender> cjb: I am not sure we need a new panel
<cjb> 10:12 <walterbender> cjb: I think it if times out, Slobs will have to table it
<cjb> or reconvene a new panel
<cjb> (note the lack of "or use their input to make a decision")
<tomeu> what means to table it?
<walterbender> I think we have learned a lot and I think there are some other ways to approach the issues
<cjb> tomeu: the drop the subject without deciding anything
<cjb> walterbender: yes, hopefully they'll come through with the deadline
<walterbender> cjb: SLOBs can decide things based on the input, whether the DP reached consensus or not
<tomeu> oh, in my view of DPs as helper instruments, I don't think slobs are bound to wait for them to decide something
<walterbender> but we are jumping the gun.
<walterbender> let's discuss my motion please
<cjb> ok. let's wait two weeks, then; seconded.
<walterbender> any further discussion about the deadline motion?
<tomeu> +1 if nobody needs it more irgently
<mchua> With the consequences of hitting the timeout as mentioned above?
<walterbender> mchua: yes. as those are general consequences of DPs
<cjb> mchua: which ones?
<CanoeBerry> +1 on 2 week deadline
<SeanDaly> aye to 2-week deadline
<cjb> consequences: reconvene, or table the decision, or have SLOBs make a decision?
<walterbender> cjb: and SLOBs will decide which of those options to take.
<cjb> understood
<walterbender> shall we vote?
  • mchua nods
  • walterbender aye
<cjb> aye
<mchua> aye
<SeanDaly> aye
<CanoeBerry> yea
<tomeu> aye
<walterbender> #action walter to inform the DP
<walterbender> #action (forgot to say earlier) walter to update sobs list and inform communioty
<walterbender> #topic trademark
<walterbender> did everyone (anyone) see the questions I posted in the wiki?
<cjb> I don't think so
<walterbender> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Minutes#Agenda_items
<cjb> thanks
<CanoeBerry> Aside: plz buzz yr NYC Sugar folk show up Saturday afternoon in Manhattan for our Community Summit..
<CanoeBerry> http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/usa/olpc_nyc_community_summit.html
<walterbender> I thin that if we sort these questions out, we'll have made a lot of progress re the DP questions and the soas.com questions
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: I loved the graphic...
<SeanDaly> agreed
<CanoeBerry> I've asked everyone to call it "OLPC-Sugar Community Summit" but some anonymous losers keep dropping "Sugar"
<CanoeBerry> :)
<walterbender> Personally, I think the Fedora guidelines are very good.
<tomeu> CanoeBerry: we are used to it :p
<walterbender> It is not restrictive except in the use of the name to ensure there is no implicit endorsement
<walterbender> It is about being free but also being clear
<cjb> walterbender: the Fedora Remix label (which OLPC uses) is interesting
<cjb> you don't have to pass any of their technical standards, AIUI
<walterbender> cjb: yes
<tomeu> yeah, would be great if we can have such a escape valve
<walterbender> cjb: As long as there is no suggestion of endorsement from SL, I am comfortable
<cjb> ok
<cjb> so perhaps we have a proto-motion to create Sugar Remixes
<walterbender> if someone wants such an endorsement or affiliation, then there would be higher standards
<walterbender> e.g., Free
<SeanDaly> cjb: still a problem if Sugar is in the name
<cjb> SeanDaly: not for Fedora, so you need to tell me why.
<tomeu> anybody knows what ubuntu does about this?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Business_web_sites
<SeanDaly> cjb: Fedora is a weak brand. So is Sugar, but the plan is to grow it
<cjb> SeanDaly: I don't think I'm going to like a policy that says that what our community really needs is more legal protection than Fedora
<cjb> Fedora's been going for many years. We should walk before we run.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: I will look at that (not easy now greeting visitors to booth)
<SeanDaly> cjb: not a question of legal protection, a question of protecting a trademark so it can grow
<cjb> trademarks aren't legal protection? :)
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I don't expect we decide anything today, but I want to get the discussion going.
<SeanDaly> The Firefox fork controversy more appropriate analogy
<cjb> tomeu: I found https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DerivativeTeam/Specs/DerivativeSpec
<cjb> tomeu: but I think it's not very useful
-->| erikos (n=erikos@g225094178.adsl.alicedsl.de) has joined #sugar-meeting
<walterbender> hi erikos
<tomeu> looks like ubuntu will learn from us :p
<walterbender> erikos: feeling better?
  • SeanDaly waves to erikos
<erikos> hi walterbender - yes thanks ;p
  • erikos waves back to SeanDaly
<walterbender> in any case, if we sort this out, many of the other decisions will be much easier to make
<SeanDaly> important to find workable policy and not have to improvise
<walterbender> on a related note, I was speaking with sdziallas about Carlo's recommendation re SoaS remixes
<cjb> yeah, we should probably adopt the policy of another project
  • sdziallas looks up
<tomeu> the questions that walter put in the wiki look like quite hard to me
<cjb> that's true, we haven't answered those properly yet
<tomeu> but I guess that fedora's policy would be an answer to all them?
<walterbender> cjb: we can avoid answering some of them with the remix idea
<walterbender> but we have to face up to all of them if someone wants an affiliation with SL
<cjb> that's right
<walterbender> But if we can decide on a process, we are in much better shape than our ad hoc methods to date.
<SeanDaly> agreed
<walterbender> It is only fair to potential partners that we have clear guidelines
<cjb> I think we could start with "anyone who wants to ship a Sugar distribution is a Sugar Remix, and they can talk to us to get a technical review that would lead to them becoming part of the brand officially"
<cjb> the questions that we ask and problems that we find aren't going to be very predictable ahead of time
<walterbender> cjb: seems like a good place to start
<walterbender> some questions are predictable, e.g., inclusion of non-Free packages
<SeanDaly> cjb: I would hope if they wanted to help us grow the Sugar brand that they would contribute to marketing, within our guidelines
<cjb> we'd want to decide, like Fedora, on which items of artwork and so on are brandable only to the Sugar brand
<walterbender> and having some structure: where to put things, makes the process easier for everyone
<walterbender> (Carlo's suggestion)
<cjb> SeanDaly: yes, that sounds necessary
<mchua> for reference:
<mchua> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix
<tomeu> btw, I'm not sure if the question of the derivatives is more a quality one or a community one
<mchua> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix#Are_there_other_legal_requirements.3F
<mchua> and the trademark guidelines in
<mchua> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix#Including_other_software
<walterbender> tomeu: probably both--in terms of branding and support
<cjb> mchua: thanks
<tomeu> as in, if I will be the one maintaining the contribution, I will apply my quality standard to it. but if it's someone else who will maintain it, I do'nt care so much as there's some guarantees that that someone else will do a good enough job
<cjb> we should probably go off and read everything linked from /Remix as homework
<walterbender> mchua: can you add those links to the wiki?
<tomeu> that's why accepting patches is a maintainer matter, and not a community one
<mchua> do we want to get iaep discussion on the trademark questions on today's agenda?
<walterbender> cjb: agreed.
<mchua> walterbender: will do that now
<walterbender> mchua: not sure I understand the question
<walterbender> mchua: I was planning that we open this entire discussion up to iaep
<walterbender> tomeu: re Sugar core, you are correct, but we also have the activities... a free-for-all...
<tomeu> walterbender: hmm, how is different for activities?
<mchua> walterbender: sorry, should rephrase - "at what point in our discusion today do we need to say 'ok, we need to take this to iaep now'? i.e. how much further SLOBs meeting discussion is helpful?"
<walterbender> tomeu: each activity has a maintainer (at least in theory)
<CanoeBerry> Just to confirm we're ending in 10min?
  • mchua thinks this is in fact quite helpful, but we've got 10m left
<mchua> CanoeBerry: jinx :)
<tomeu> ok, I guess this is better discussed in the ml
<tomeu> any actions coming out from this?
<walterbender> mchua: I think we have gotten a good start--enough to seed a community discussion
<mchua> In addition to asking iaep, I'd like to see if folks both here and there can talk with other projects about how they do this
<walterbender> #action: walter will seed a community discussion on the topic
<walterbender> mchua: good idea. maybe we can each be responsible for one community
<walterbender> and report back next time
<walterbender> mchua: can I volunteer you for Fedora :)
<walterbender> tomeu: you want to talk to GNOME?
<mchua> walterbender: yes, and one other project we'd like to check in on, since Fedora's policies are pretty copiously documented :)
<walterbender> SeanDaly: you want to look at Mozilla?
<tomeu> walterbender: ok, will try to find someone
<walterbender> anyone wanna talk to Debian?
<walterbender> Ubuntu?
<walterbender> Other projects that come to mind?
<tomeu> opensolaris?
<walterbender> cjb: wanna to talk to OLPC about how they do it?
<tomeu> fortunately, foss projects use to have their guidelines in quite public places
<walterbender> and openSUSE
<tomeu> http://live.gnome.org/Trademark
<cjb> walterbender: ok
<walterbender> I will talk to the openSUSE folks
<walterbender> maybe we can assign Debian to Bernie :)
<mchua> We can also ask for volunteers on iaep for other projects - I'm sure folks iwll have more they'd like to hear from, or that they can talk to.
<walterbender> +1
<walterbender> Time is about up. Shall we skip next Friday and go for the following Friday?
<walterbender> (Thanksgiving)
<tomeu> gnome's is very drafty :/
<cjb> makes sense.
<walterbender> tomeu has already finished his homework? :)
<tomeu> I won't be able to report much ;)
<tomeu> guess projects backed by big companies will have more developed trademark guidelines
<tomeu> but they may not apply so well to us, dunno
<walterbender> OK. any last comments before we close the formal meeting?
<CanoeBerry> Thanks All. Apologies our "Honduras Church" in NYC has poor bandwidth tomorrow afternoon.
<CanoeBerry> But Mike Lee will provide partial workaround..
<walterbender> See you all here on 4 Dec? and in #sugar daily :)
<mchua> Nice forward progress this meeting :)
<mchua> 4 dec!
<CanoeBerry> Bye!
<walterbender> thanks everyone.
<walterbender> #endmeeting
<meeting> Meeting finished at 11:00.
<meeting> Logs available at http://meeting.laptop.org/