Oversight Board/2010/Meeting Log-2010-01-08

From Sugar Labs
Jump to: navigation, search
<rita> hi sean
<SeanDaly> hi rita
<SeanDaly> happy new year :-)
<rita> you are probably the right person to ask my question
<rita> thank you, happy new year to you too!
<rita> olpc Germany would like to produce german versions of soas and provide usb-sticks on events.
<rita> but we don't know how to call this, as a projects and as branding for the usb sticks.
<SeanDaly> great!
<rita> would "Sugar on a Stick - auf Deutsch" (means "Sugar on a Stick - in German") be ok?
<rita> is there any rule on how to do such local distributions?
<SeanDaly> well, naming depends how similar or not to Blueberry
<rita> if it would be a translated version of Blueberry?
<SeanDaly> if straight translation, i don't see problem using Sugar on a Stick name
<SeanDaly> but we haven't ironed out details yet... e.g., support
<SeanDaly> there is a concept that the SoaS name means bug reports & support via the SoaS team
<rita> I suspected that this would be not *that* easy.
<rita> there is an education fair in Germany in March, and OLPC Germany would like to give out some sticks there. it would be great to know how to name it before that event.
<SeanDaly> there is an soas meeting after the SLOBs meeting, perhaps we can discuss this with Sebastian?
<rita> would that be in about 1 hour?
<SeanDaly> yes
<rita> I will see that either I can attend or find someone else, who is involved
<walterbender> good morning/early afternoon everyone.
<walterbender> anyone seen mchua_afk ?
<walterbender> tomeu will not be able to join us
<walterbender> is bernie awake?
<walterbender> cjb, are you there?
<walterbender> CanoeBerry_: ditto adam?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: is it only you and me? (I guess people really need the reminder emails)
<satellit> listening
<walterbender> SeanDaly: we'll have to wait for a quorum... but we can talk in the meanwhile
<cjb> morning
<walterbender> hi chris... we just need one more for a quorum
<SeanDaly> i'm back
<SeanDaly> hi cjb happy new year
<cjb> you too :)
<walterbender> I was remiss in sending out the reminder and it seems people forgot.
<cjb> this waking up in the morning thing is hard work for some of us :-)
<walterbender> cjb: I am happy to meet later, but I don't know about our friends in Europe.
<cjb> yeah, I understand
<SeanDaly> later is ok but not too late :-)
<walterbender> adam, is that you?
<CanoeBerry> Hiya.
<CanoeBerry> Bernie up too late?
<SeanDaly> hi CanoeBerry!
<CanoeBerry> "Morning"
<walterbender> we have a quorum, so we should begin...
<CanoeBerry> May be tough for me to reschedule today.
<walterbender> #startmeeting
<meeting> Meeting started at 10:11 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
<meeting> Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
<walterbender> #TOPIC TM policy
<walterbender> We had made some changes to the TM policy last week but deferred a vote because we wanted to give people a chance to reflect
<walterbender> I sent a note to the lists, but I don't think there was much discussion, if any.
<cjb> yeah, that's weird
<CanoeBerry> I assume we're talking about: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy
<walterbender> I did create http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark/Guidelines
<walterbender> that did cause a little bit of a reaction
<SeanDaly> partly my fault, I had promised to write a mail explaining "sugarized" logo policy with examples
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: yes. that is the page
<SeanDaly> Rita has asked me about how policy would be applied to German translation of SoaS
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: with BOLD and STRIKE indicating changes
<walterbender> SeanDaly: seems to be an example of 2a
<walterbender> SeanDaly: but maybe we should be explicit about translation in that paragraph
<walterbender> BTW, I also never heard any feedback from SFC :(
<SeanDaly> more like 5a, they want to hand out sticks
<walterbender> Having slept on it, do people have any further thoughts?
<cjb> good idea, let's add ", including translations into other languages," into 2a text
<cjb> SeanDaly: hm, maybe they need to ask us, then
<rita> so translations would be minor changes?
<cjb> yes, I'd vote for translations as minor changes
<walterbender> rita, cjb: I agree
  • sdziallas looks up
<CanoeBerry> Sounds reasonable.
<cjb> so I think the changes to the SL software do come under 2a
<walterbender> FYI, I just added "translations into other languages," to the wiki page.
<cjb> but we have a specific mention of SoaS in 5a
<cjb> that says only Fedora-SoaS would be allowed to release SoaS products, without explicit permission
<cjb> there would be two ways around this:
  • SeanDaly on phone....
<cjb> (a) you could argue that, since there are only minor changes, this *is* still Fedora-SoaS, and so there's already permission that way, or..
<cjb> (b) you could just ask for permission. :-)
  • sdziallas would like to provide input on this topic.
<cjb> sdziallas: go for it
<sdziallas> First of all, I'll notice that bertf introduced me to somebody who said he was willing to do SoaS versions in German and asked for the way to do so.
<walterbender> cjb, sdziallas what is the Fedora policy re translation? seems that for SoaS, it would have to pass both the SL and Fedora hurdles.
<sdziallas> I explained the procedure and also noted that there'll need to be some discussion on how it'll be named, since the project had been introduced to me, adding that it might also including new content.
<sdziallas> So I'm not opposed to translations. However, adding content is in my opinion something that needs approval.
<walterbender> sdziallas: yes. let's separate those two issues.
<sdziallas> Additionally, I suggested that it'd be interesting to collaborate on the effort and to have the German version hosted in our GIT repo.
<sdziallas> walterbender: I'm done in a second, just explaining here.
<SeanDaly> agree translation not same as content change
<walterbender> sdziallas: and that is a topic I want to discuss at the SoaS meeting too.
<sdziallas> walterbender: yes, but then here's the thing:
<walterbender> but sdziallas, what is the Fedora policy re translations?
<sdziallas> originally, there was talk going on about SL granting the SoaS project the permission to use the Sugar name.
<sdziallas> walterbender: I don't know exactly. But I suspect that you can only call it Fedora in an unmodified form. (and not "substantially unmodified".)
<sdziallas> walterbender: however, if you don't add anything, this might be different.
<walterbender> sdziallas: can you look into the translation question for us when you get a chance?
<sdziallas> walterbender: there are kickstart files in Fedora's GIT repo that just change the language and haven't gone through the approval process.
<sdziallas> walterbender: however, those don't get actively built, which makes things different.
<sdziallas> walterbender: I'd like to finish my point before and will do that then, if it's okay.
<walterbender> sdziallas: please continue
<sdziallas> So if Sugar Labs decides to grant the SoaS project as it is a permission to use that name... I believe this thing becomes a SoaS issue.
<walterbender> sdziallas: well, the permission is incumbent on playing by the rules, so it is not a unilateral SoaS issue.
<sdziallas> walterbender: agreed. but does this mean that SLOBs decides SoaS stuff? so who'd take care of an approval, in case it was inquired.
<sdziallas> s/./?
<cjb> I agree that it could be just a SoaS issue -- I think it's helpful to use as an example of making our trademark policy better, though.
<sdziallas> cjb: I agree there, too.
<cjb> So I guess something could happen like:
<walterbender> sdziallas: SLOBS is trying to establish guidelines and as long as SoaS respects those guidelines, then it is cool to act unilaterally
<cjb> * someone brings the SoaS team a build they made and asks whether they need permission to distribute it:
<cjb> * if it's mostly unmodified, they don't need permission
<walterbender> sdziallas: also the SL guidelines do not supersede Fedora (and vice versa)
<cjb> * if there are modifications, they do
<cjb> * if the SoaS team declines permission:
<sdziallas> walterbender: I didn't say they did?
<cjb> * the project should choose a new name, and then ask SLOBS for permission to use *that* name, if the naem has Sugar in it
<sdziallas> cjb: +1.
<cjb> those asterisks didn't work out very well :)
<sdziallas> (the +1 comes with my SoaS-hat on)
<walterbender> Aren't we all in agreement here?
<sdziallas> walterbender: I'm basically asking who'd take care of things related to SoaS.
<SeanDaly> SLOBs decides use of SL trademarks

|<-- CanoeBerry has left freenode (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))

<sdziallas> walterbender: it looked like SLOBs would be approved SoaS remixes.
<walterbender> sdziallas: SoaS takes care of SoaS...
<sdziallas> s/approved/approving
<walterbender> sdziallas: and the more clarity SL can bring, the easier your job will be.
<sdziallas> walterbender: thanks for clarifying it :)
<sdziallas> walterbender: I agree.
<walterbender> sdziallas: what I would like to discuss are other types of changes we may want to implicitly approve.
<walterbender> sdziallas: for example, if someone wanted to add an ebook collection to their SoaS
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: for example i suggested to rita she participate in SSoaS meeting re german version
<rita> I asked on the german list and got confirmation that Raffael will participate in the meetng.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: I saw that some minute ago. But making clear whether SLOBs decides on SoaS things or not is a SLOBs matter.
<sdziallas> rita: cool!
<sdziallas> walterbender: *nod*
<sdziallas> walterbender: I've some opinion on that, but dunno whether we shouldn't defer that to the SoaS meeting
<mchua> Argh, my window didn't ping - I'm sorry about that, folks
  • mchua reads up
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: SLOBs are implicated on trademark level for sure
<walterbender> mchua: glad to have you join us :)
<cjb> SeanDaly: I don't see why that has to be the case
  • SeanDaly greets mchua
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: so somebody can approach SLOBs, ask for trademark permission and SLOBs approves something which is named "Sugar on a Stick $FOO"?
<SeanDaly> cjb: SL has to manage SL trademarks
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: is this an appropriate description of how the process should work?
<cjb> SeanDaly: we don't know anything about SoaS; if someone shows up with their custom SoaS build, we aren't going to be the people to examine it, the SoaS team is. I think it makes sense for them to make the call.
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: i wouldn't recommend that. What about support, bug filing etc.?
<cjb> SeanDaly: the SoaS team is part of SL, though.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: for example, right.
<sdziallas> I might pull up the Fedora example again.
<sdziallas> We've the Spins SIG there, which handles "technical approval".
<sdziallas> Once that is given, one may approach the Board for "trademark approval".
<SeanDaly> there is technical aspect, content aspect, trademark aspect
<sdziallas> Not receiving "technical approval" can be escalated to the board.
<walterbender> cjb, SeanDaly It is our responsibility to set guidelines for the people who use our TM and we need to at some level make sure that they follow our guidelines... that doesn't mean we do their decision-making for them, but we need some sort of auditing process
<walterbender> cjb, SeanDaly: maybe we need to ask for an annual report from our TM users?
<SeanDaly> walterbender: yes my feelings exactly... my hope is that policy will be clear enough to avoid having to decide every case
<walterbender> cjb, SeanDaly: something we can review to ensure that things are on track...
<cjb> that sounds good
<SeanDaly> walterbender: in previous meetings I mentioned that there should be conditions attached to tm use
<walterbender> back to rita's question, from the SL POV, translation is fine. But SoaS needs to make sure that fits the Fedora rules too.
<SeanDaly> one of those conditions should be I think informing us periodically of how tms are used
  • mchua caught up now. sounds like the question is "does exclusive right to use a trademark imply delegation of the decision of that trademark usage?"
<SeanDaly> mchua: i disagree, SL doesn't delegate any tm decision at all, it's still SFC with final say
<walterbender> mchua: I think it can within the context of our guidelines... but it cannot carve out new ground...
<mchua> Well, only decision-powers that a group has can be delegated
<walterbender> SeanDaly: maybe we are disagreeing about what "decision of that TM usage" means
<rita> walterbender: thanks for the clarification! so the other aspect will be talked abput in the soas meeting?
<mchua> and override privs from the folks who did the delegating could be implied
<sdziallas> mchua: that is what I said with regard to Fedora's process.

-->| CanoeBerry (n=Canoe@c-98-216-65-79.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined #sugar-meeting

<walterbender> SeanDaly: we are giving the "licensee" a sandbox to play in and within that sandbox, they can make decisions
<walterbender> SeanDaly: but we define the sandbox
<SeanDaly> walterbender: sure, but we need to be able to protect the marks
<walterbender> (or we could talk about basis functions)
<CanoeBerry> Internet problems hopefully overcome-- I'm back after 10min of outage.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: Is Sugar Labs protecting the Sugar mark and asking for approval for all "$DISTRO Sugar Spin" versions?
<mchua> SeanDaly: would an override function on the stuff that happens in the sandbox work?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: the sandbox we define with our guidelines is exactly for that protection.
<cjb> sdziallas: you haven't quite got the 2a wording, but you're right -- we don't police those. We've explicitly said they aren't covered by our trademark policy.
<sdziallas> cjb: I'm aware of the 2a wording.
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: the idea is a policy which easily grants a logo label within guidelines, but requires explicit decision in others; with SL/SFC reserving final tm rights
<cjb> (which is a bit different from saying that they're protected and someone else is going to handle protecting them for us, but maybe not that different.)
<SeanDaly> mchua: yes there has to be an override
<sdziallas> cjb: so if I went ahead and created a Fedora Sugar Spin, nobody would mind?
<mchua> SeanDaly: then I would like that override to have a timeout - maybe the override has to happen within 2 weeks of the sandbox event SLOBs wants to revert
<sdziallas> cjb: replace Fedora with Ubuntu and Spin with Remix, if you want. Or OpenSUSE. Or whatever.
<cjb> sdziallas: we might mind, but we would not be able to do anything about the fact that we mind.
<cjb> at least, using trademark law, with the current trademark policy, etc etc
<sdziallas> cjb: "do they require approval?"
<cjb> sdziallas: no
<SeanDaly> cjb: that doesn't work I'm afraid
<sdziallas> cjb: and if they don't, what happened if I did Sugar on a Stick outside of Sugar Labs?
<sdziallas> cjb: that'd be an equivalent case.
<cjb> sdziallas: it's not equivalent
<SeanDaly> cjb: SL needs to manage its marks
<cjb> Fedora Sugar Remix is a clear case of 2b
<cjb> SeanDaly: you keep repeating that as if we don't all agree. :/
<sdziallas> cjb: it isn't.
<SeanDaly> "Sugar Spin" won't be the name of anything
<sdziallas> cjb: "Ubuntu, joined with Sugar" is.
<SeanDaly> the phrase is not chosen yet
<sdziallas> Or I'm reading it wrong (which might be well possible).
<cjb> sdziallas: ok. I don't see why you chose a non-2b wording.
<SeanDaly> it's a marketing issue
<rita> I have to leave, thanks!
<cjb> SeanDaly: so the argument is that you don't consider the trademark policy finished, so we shouldn't trust anything it says?
<SeanDaly> i'm late on starting that thread in the list, but again the idea is to start a logo label program
<SeanDaly> cjb: certainly not finished, no
<cjb> SeanDaly: but then why did you vote to adopt it?
<--| rita has left #sugar-meeting
<walterbender> cjb: I think you are using hyperbole...
<SeanDaly> cjb: it's a draft
<cjb> walterbender: ok. sorry, I'll take a step back.
<walterbender> cjb: we had agreed that the example in 2a and 2b would be replaced by Marketing after a discussion, but otherwise we were happy with the document...
<SeanDaly> what I'm interested in doing is building Sugar awareness, but in a scalable way from quality associated with the brand
<walterbender> so to say we cannot trust *anything* it says is a bit extreme...
<cjb> walterbender: oh! ok.
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: but we all agree that having brand dilution would be a bad thing, marketing wise, right?
<SeanDaly> our granting tm use is to assure no confusion
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: yes of course
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: and at the same time, we want new people to come up with their work and to contribute, too...
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: yes exactly
<sdziallas> SeanDaly: (I'm trying to understand everything we want to accomplish better)
<SeanDaly> we are breaking new ground with this
  • sdziallas nods
<SeanDaly> historically distros & projects have treated the problem only from tech perspective
<sdziallas> but we want to put a strong marketing perspective on there, too.
<SeanDaly> and desktops too... who probably should have done the most marketing
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: yes... a strong brand stands for something, people know what it means
  • walterbender would like to interject
<SeanDaly> And,
  • sdziallas nods again.
<sdziallas> so I guess we would want to have *both* aspects.
  • sdziallas listens
<SeanDaly> sdziallas: yes both
<walterbender> maybe we should defer the final vote on the TM policy until after Marketing comes up with the final wording for 2a and 2b.
<walterbender> and we can take this interesting discussion to the lists???
<SeanDaly> walterbender: yes i would hope so
  • sdziallas nods (or for those who are able to, in the next hour)
<walterbender> we only have a few more minutes today. can we quickly switch topics?
<SeanDaly> yes, as I say I had previously promised to start thread, been swamped
<walterbender> #topic guidelines for interacting with the SFC
<walterbender> I am bringing this up more for informational sake... nothing to vote on, but I would like feedback on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/User_talk:Walter#notes_re_administrative_transactions_with_the_SFC
<walterbender> There are a few more details I am trying to work out with them so as to make things more transparent and predicatble
<walterbender> so when you get a chance, please look at that page and comment...
<walterbender> #topic infrastucture
<walterbender> Bernie is not here to argue for his new server... but maybe we do this one by email?
<walterbender> I have looked into the finances and the money is there if we decide to spend it
<walterbender> #topic finances
<mchua> Is there a finances update? I'm curious how much would be left after the new server if we say yes, and what else we might have to spend it on
<walterbender> I have been talking with Bradley about a few minor anomalies that had me confused... I think by next week I can give a coherent report.
<SeanDaly> I need to break out the 2009 marketing expenses
<walterbender> re mchua's question: we have lots of potential things to spend money on... marketing, deployments, etc.
<SeanDaly> it would be helpful for me if at least press releases could be covered...
<walterbender> mchua: but infrastructure is also important...
<walterbender> SeanDaly: can you put together a budget for the marketing team for 2010?
<SeanDaly> at SugarCamp Paris we studied budgeting approaches if you remember
<walterbender> we should have budgets for all the teams and use them to set some goals for fundraising
<SeanDaly> walterbender: sure
<CanoeBerry> 10:59AM aside, before we end: did I miss a vote when I lost Internet for 10-15min in the middle?
<mchua> CanoeBerry: no, no motions were proposed
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: no vote yet...
<walterbender> Meet again next week???
<CanoeBerry> Yes
<cjb> sure
<SeanDaly> OK for me
<walterbender> SeanDaly: would a bit later work for you?
<SeanDaly> walterbender: yes
<walterbender> 16UTC (to let cjb sleep a bit longer?)
<SeanDaly> fine with me
<mchua> worksforme
<mchua> Can we come with motions?
<walterbender> OK. let me sum up with some actions then.
  • SeanDaly not sure I could get up early for such a meeting :D
<walterbender> mchua: no motions yet, I am afraid
<walterbender> #action sean and the marketing team will lead the discussion about the final phrasing of 2a and 2b
<CanoeBerry> FYI bernie will be move 1 time-zone East, so will have even less excuses for sleeping in :)
<walterbender> from that action, we'll be able to make a motion re TM policy :)
<SeanDaly> yes
<walterbender> #action walter will finish up the budget discussion with SFC and present next week
<walterbender> #action team leaders will be asked to submit budget proposals for 2010
<walterbender> (I'll send that request)
<walterbender> #action we'll discuss bernie's request by email and (perhaps) vote on it before the next meeting
<walterbender> #action we will meet at 16UTC on 15 January 2010
<walterbender> Anything I missed?
<SeanDaly> looks good
<mchua> SeanDaly: could you come with a motion on the final phrasing of 2a and 2b?
<SeanDaly> mchua: no
<walterbender> thanks everyone... I'll end meeting and then we'll get going on the SoaS meeting.
<SeanDaly> needs to be discussed by marketing team
<mchua> or a series of concrete examples/proposals
<walterbender> #endmeeting
<meeting> Meeting finished at 11:04.
<meeting> Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/