Oversight Board/2010/Meeting Log-2010-05-07

From Sugar Labs
Jump to: navigation, search
<meeting> Meeting started at 11:03 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
<SeanDaly> walterbender: saw mchua nm change status an hour ago
<walterbender> Thanks everyone for coming today.
  • mchua:waves
<walterbender> I have had a bit of an upside down schedule lately, so finding a regular meeting time has been difficult.
I have a few items for today: TM, 0.90, and community
any other topics people want to discuss?
<mchua> Those sound exactly right to me.
  • mchua:is particularly looking forward to finishing up the TM discussion. :)
<walterbender> Well, feel free to raise additional topics as we go along.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: I wouldn't mind talking about release schedule & release manager position if possible
<walterbender> #topic TM
  • sdziallas:is also here and lurking, gearing up slowly again after the past month.
  • SeanDaly:greets sdziallas
<walterbender> Sean has made some nice edits to the TM policy draft in keeping with the discussion we had last month.
<sdziallas> hi SeanDaly!
<SeanDaly> in fact there are a few more edits I thought I could get done before the meeting, but
bumped into my limited wiki editing powers
<walterbender> #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy
<mchua> walterbender: #topic?
<SeanDaly> here are a couple more links for context:
<walterbender> Maybe everyone could take a quick look. The changes are in bold.
<SeanDaly> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2010-January/002621.html
<walterbender> mchua: the topic is already set to TM
<SeanDaly> And John Tierney's notes from our Boston meeting:
plase noe didn't bold my edits.. sorry
  • mchua:actually reads up and goes *d'oh*. So it is.
<walterbender> The new opening paragraph tries to be more welcoming and also refers to the label program
<SeanDaly> s/noe d/note I d/
<walterbender> Does it accomplish those stated goals?
SeanDaly: did you have some proposed wordsmithing for 2a/2b?
<SeanDaly> I added a ink to trademark registration itself at end of intro
I'd like to refer to label program
<walterbender> (Sorry. I misspoke. Not all the changes are in bold...)
<SeanDaly> 2b should make it clear that permission is not jumping through lots of hoops
<walterbender> #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ASugar_Labs%2FGovernance%2FTrademark&diff=51797&oldid=49361
<SeanDaly> wow that is serious wiki magick
<cjb> SeanDaly: perhaps a "We expect that permission will be quickly granted in most cases." line or something?
<SeanDaly> cjb: yes, and to be honest I feel permission would be much more streamlined for FOSS projects than businesses
someone I think Bernie had mentioned a webform
on a webform we could ask for basic contact info and nature of org: FOSS project? business?
<cjb> SeanDaly: perhaps.. "We expect that permission will be quickly granted in most cases, and permission is especially likely for FOSS projects; the policy is mainly interested in uses by for-profit business." ?
<CanoeBerry> Hiya
<SeanDaly> cjb: yes quite, although
<cjb> that's not very eloquent, but could try something like that that basically says "really, don't be scared to apply if you're a FOSS project, you aren't what we're trying to protect against"
  • SeanDaly:greets CanoeBerry
<SeanDaly> cjb: I agree
<CanoeBerry> Mornin/Afternoon
<cjb> mchua: any ideas on wording? you're good at writing :)
(I presume all of this wording will be sent through Karen for her to reformulate anyway.)
  • mchua:re-reads wiki page and diff
<walterbender> cjb: I don't think she'll have much to "refomulate" actually.
<SeanDaly> "We expect that permission will be quickly granted in most cases. Speedy permission is especially likely for FOSS projects; for-profit businesses may require further evaluation."
<cjb> SeanDaly: great
<walterbender> +1
<SeanDaly> for info, Intel label program (for OEMs) uses webform, returns written license for signature, becomes active when both copies signed on Intel side & returned to requestor
<mchua> cjb: "We need to write this agreement because of Legal Stuff - we hope you'll understand. We want to embrace and welcome FOSS project; please don't feel like this policy is intended to keep you out! In fact, we hope that it will do the opposite, and make clear what arrangements Sugar Labs can give you for trademark usage - and we encourage you to talk with us if you have any questions."
cjb: I've never been much for formality. ;)
I think that if that is the sentiment, we ought to just say it. I have seen other sites that have similarly human-sounding intros to their Long Legal Disclaimers, and I've always appreciated that.
<cjb> mchua: I think that's pretty excellent, actually
<walterbender> "Legal Stuff" is a bit too informal, IMHO
<cjb> yeah, we could choose a different phrase there
<SeanDaly> let's keep in mind though that we do want Sugar referred to (even by FOSS projects) in ways unique to us
<cjb> just s/because of Legal Stuff/for legal reasons/ ?
<SeanDaly> for example, we want to avoid "desktop" and "applications"
<mchua> cjb: worksforme.
Who's wiki-wrangling today? I don't want to edit-collide.
<CanoeBerry> cjb:SeanDaly:mchua:walterbender: if 1 of you 4 doesn't become a real lawyer (and paid appropriately) within 10 yrs i will be suprised :)
-->|:tch (~tch@mail.paraguayeduca.org) has joined #sugar-meeting
<mchua> CanoeBerry: if *I'm* the one who becomes a lawyer, I will be incredibly surprised. :P
<SeanDaly> and ideally horrid formulations such as "Sugar Coated Frosted Bombs Edition"
  • mchua:almost spews water all over her laptop
<CanoeBerry> ;)
<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: at Groklaw I interviewed lots of lawyers ;-)
<walterbender> where is Mel's informal graph going?
<cjb> walterbender: 2b
<walterbender> OK.
<SeanDaly> yes 2b
what I don't like is last phrase of 2a
I'd be happy if a distro said: "features the Sugar Learning Platform"
<walterbender> SeanDaly: we could eliminate the example... short is sweet
<SeanDaly> but, unhappy if they said "features the Sugar desktop and some apps"
the label program phrase should be in 2b
<walterbender> SeanDaly: OK with me to make those changes
<SeanDaly> we had two finalists on shortlist: "sweetened with Sugar" and "Sugar added"
  • mchua:happy with both, honestly
<cjb> yeah, whatever you think is best
  • walterbender:defers to marketing...
<SeanDaly> I had said I preferred the former, but now I'm ambivalent
our designers like the brevity & catchiness of the second
<mchua> Can we do both? Or is it better to just have one option?
<SeanDaly> onl downside is it's non-nutritious to pile Sugar on food
mchua: better to do one... branding means clear nified message ;-)
<walterbender> Learning added
<SeanDaly> need that sugar logo o the label!
<walterbender> Well, we should move on... and leave that wordsmithing to Marketing
Is the new text in place yet?
<SeanDaly> I had postponed choosing the exact label (and its graphi layout) but probably better to move ahead on that... more concrete & easier for everyone to understand
walterbender: ok
<walterbender> I think we can vote on the policy while leaving the specifics of the label to Marketing
<cjb> sure
<walterbender> but I'd like to see Mel's and Sean's revisions in the wiki before we bring it to a vote.\
<cjb> when we're done 'smithing, it might be worth talking a bit about the risk of adopting the policy, and how we can work on that:
<SeanDaly> walterbender: just did it, please look at my new phrase
<bernie> btw, shall we make trademark@sugarlabs.org an rt queue?
I'd like to be on cc, for informational purposes
anyone else?
<cjb> yes please
<mchua> Yes please.
Actually, should slobs@ just be on that?
<walterbender> +1
<SeanDaly> what's an rt queue?
<cjb> * we're trying to do (almost) exactly what Firefox does with trademarks, but I'm worried that people only put up with this because Firefox has huge market share and already has a strong brand.. see e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/384417/
<mchua> Since I would presume the trademark rulings would be granted by a motion anyhow?
<SeanDaly> this text in 2b should talk about the label program instead: "you may refer to your product as "derived from", "based on", or "a derivative of" a Sugar Labs mark"
<cjb> and: * Firefox makes it easier for you to ship an unbranded Firefox than we make it easy to ship an unbranded Sugar
  • mchua:grabs current text and throws it into an etherpad for easier "what's going on?" editing
<mchua> one moment.
<cjb> (maybe we should come back to those bullet points after we finish editing)
<SeanDaly> cjb: it's quite possible... since Firefox has talented marketing (with a budget). But we have far more of a remix/adaptation need & probablity than they do too
<mchua> http://typewith.me/sugar-labs-trademark
SeanDaly: I'm merging my edit in - that's from the wiki page as of 1 minute ago, I'd be happy to merge yours in too.
<SeanDaly> cjb: I guess main objective is for projects to contact us; due to complexity of deployment, size of ecosystem - I believe quite more complicated than Firefox's
<cjb> so, reading the first paragraph of the LWN article I cited, it points out that Debian re-brands projects with trademark policies like ours, and that there's a movement for Fedora to do the same.. that movement's a minority so far, but I think that's primarily because the Firefox brand is large already
<bernie> SeanDaly: rt is a tool we use to handle various queues of technical support requests.
<cjb> SeanDaly: I know, but I think distros won't see it that way
<bernie> SeanDaly: it's an email based CRM
<cjb> they might think "oh, Sugar doesn't have a free trademark anymore, we should call it something else"
<mchua> SeanDaly: Basically, an RT queue is like a shared inbox with task-items instead of emails
<bernie> cjb: like is happening with Firefox :-)
<cjb> bernie: yeah
<SeanDaly> cjb: whereas, I'd rather they contact us, then use the trademark
<cjb> SeanDaly: yeah, I'm not sure about that
<mchua> SeanDaly: so multiple people can log in and see "ah, here are the trademark discussions that are going on, this person is handling this one, this other person is handling this other one, these two are finished, and this one is new"
<cjb> we have a small brand now. if all the distros decide to stop using that brand, that seems like it leaves us with a much smaller brand. I guess it depends how important you think having Sugar be in distros is.
what do others think?
<SeanDaly> Firefox is strongest FOSS brand, by orders of magnitude. With all due respect distro & desktop projects do not have successful track record with brand awareness
<cjb> I mean, about whether this risk that we'll be tossed out of the distros is worth it
SeanDaly: I agree with you
<SeanDaly> cjb: yes our brand is as weak as distros & desktops; I want to break out -> successful brand, teachers aware
<cjb> hm. so, that would be great if it works, but I'm worried that the distros actually are our key to doing that.
I'm not convinced that we can spread Sugar to teachers etc. without being able to say "oh, you just apt-get install sugar"
<SeanDaly> cjb: concerning distro risk: we (I) could explain individually to each of them what we are trying to do
cjb: distros have extremely tiny market share... 95% plus of teachers will ask does it run on Windows or Mac?
<cjb> I don't want this to be a back and forth between SeanDaly and me, though -- I'm really interested in what everyone else thinks
<mchua> cjb, SeanDaly, walterbender, bernie, CanoeBerry, tomeu: I added my intro paragraph on http://typewith.me/sugar-labs-trademark and am trying to figure out what the other edits are and where they fit.
<walterbender> cjb: While I think it is important to be able to apt-get install sugar, I don't think that has anything to do with reaching teachers
<mchua> Can you folks take a look real quick and see what text changes remain to be made?
<cjb> walterbender: hm, ok. why's it important?
<mchua> I think there's still the Marketing wordsmithing pointer that needs to go somewhere but I'm not sure where.
<walterbender> cjb: we'll reach teachers because programs like OLPC are successful... driving demand...
<SeanDaly> I believe Sugar will come to be known as "the software used by OLPC"
<cjb> walterbender: that makes sense. but then I'm curious why you think "apt-get install sugar" *is* important, and how important that is.
<walterbender> it is important to broaden out reach into the FOSS community and it is the way many teachers will get Sugar given to them via third partys
<cjb> bernie, mchua: what do you think? would it be a huge deal if we had to use a name in distros that isn't Sugar?
maybe sugarium, following chrome->chromium :)
<bernie> mchua: I don't know, that paragraphs sounds a little... false. as if it were written by some corporate CEO hoping to convince the foss community that they've not done anything bad :-)
<walterbender> e.g., I can tell Dell, who already ships Ubuntu, you can offer Sugar with apt-get install sugar and they will understand how easy it is...
<cjb> bernie is cynical of plain-sounding language :)
<mchua> cjb: I... am not sure what benefit that would give us yet, and I would personally be confused
<tomeu> cjb: I'm ok with splitting the brand in two if that makes life of marketing easier
  • mchua:also can't keep chrome/chromium and fructose/glucose/sucrose/etc straight, though
<mchua> bernie: Patches welcome. :)
<tomeu> there are many tensions because different people want to do very different things with codebase
<bernie> cjb: "our customers asked us to do this and we listened" :-))
<tomeu> s/codebase/a single codebase
<cjb> mchua: it wouldn't be done by us, it would be done by the distros in response to our trademark policy, because they might not want to have to ask our permission to modify our software.
(which is why Debian renamed Firefox to Iceweasel)
<SeanDaly> tomeu: splitting a brand in two is like King Solomon's solution for the child
kills the por thing
<tomeu> SeanDaly: we can still say both things are done by Sugar Labs
<walterbender> SeanDaly has trouble with his o key too :)
<mchua> cjb: Is the sugar/sugarium decision one that can be discussed later, separate from the "sugar" trademark discussion?
<walterbender> mchua: I think so.
<tomeu> SeanDaly: otherwise, we are going to step each others toes as we do more and more
<mchua> cjb: maybe the split's a good idea, maybe not - I don't think I'll be able to think it through well right now
but it seems like something we can do later
<SeanDaly> again, I think sipler to go to distros rather than wait for problems to crop up
<mchua> and that having a trademark policy for "sugar" alone, right now, gives us a start, and a place to stand on
<SeanDaly> m key too, and i key
<cjb> mchua: no
mchua: I'm not talking about a split *we* will initiate
<walterbender> mchua: I don't see your edits in the wiki...
<cjb> Firefox did not initiate changing their name to Iceweasel
Debian did it *in response to* Firefox's trademark policy
<mchua> walterbender: they're on http://typewith.me/sugar-labs-trademark right now
<SeanDaly> mchua: I added a phrase to intro on your Web v4 site
<cjb> I'm saying that our trademark policy may cause distros to unbrand their Sugar code, and wondering whether that's good or bad or indifferent.
<mchua> walterbender: easier to avoid edit collisions there, then merge to wiki when we're all happy with the text
SeanDaly: ah! I see you, that looks awesome
<SeanDaly> cjb: i would wish to avoid replicating Mozilla's bridge burning
<cjb> SeanDaly: yeah, if we can
<walterbender> mchua: I think your intro text need not be part of the policy itself, but an intro on the page where we post the policy
<SeanDaly> objectively, my analysis is that Mozilla cares not a whit about debian since market share so marginal
<mchua> walterbender: oh! yes, I think that is ideal
walterbender: I'll mark it as such.
<SeanDaly> Not my point of view
<cjb> SeanDaly: I agree, but they can afford not to care *because* Firefox's market share is so huge.
We don't have huge market share.
So being alienated by the distros could be a big deal for us.
<SeanDaly> I would like to say to distros: "here's a plan to make your distro more atractive & recognizable to educators"
cjb: distros are marginal, and we are marginal, so neither would lose more than the little they have :D
<walterbender> cjb: I don't think out text as stands is alienating, but if it is, then we can revisit...
<SeanDaly> what i'd like is for both to be less marginal
<mchua> We're not going to win distros over by saying "hey! we're both marginal!" :)
but yeah, I agree. I'm happy to work on things from the Fedora side however possible, but I can only really do things in that one space.
<SeanDaly> mchua: the truth hurts, there's no way to pretty it up
  • mchua:grins.
<SeanDaly> from an honest assessment comes a plan to break out
<bernie> walterbender: I'm only preoccupied of how RH legal would interpret "minor modifications" etc.
<SeanDaly> I am aware that talking lke this upsets people sometimes
<mchua> SeanDaly: Sure. I've got no problem with bluntness - it's what's made Fedora marketing actually grow over the past 9 months. (Not much, but at least we've started.)
bernie: And I would personally walk to the offices of RH legal if questions were to come up.
<bernie> walterbender: they may think it's no longer open source because you cannot make the background black and change the XO icon with a red hat.
mchua: +1
<mchua> I can only really do things from the Fedora/RH side here, but I will do *anything* I can to make stuff happen on that front.
<bernie> mchua: can you show them this policy and ask their opinion about it?
<mchua> bernie: RH legal?
bernie: Well, I'll be down at headquarters in a week, I can certainly try. :)
<SeanDaly> bernie: we can and should explain everyone's interest in keeping system iconography unified
<mchua> bernie: It's more likely to be "hi! can haz favor?" than "Red Hat cares deeply about Sugar Labs as a potential business partner!" (imo) but I'll certainly ask the folks I know to take a look.
<bernie> SeanDaly: I'd be ok approving our TM policy now with the provision that we'll make the necessary adjustments to please linux distributors in case of problems.
<walterbender> bernie: personally, I think that those changes are fine for an individual, but pretty extreme for a distro and we should chime in...
bernie: but what I am more concerned with is whether our concern would be off-putting to them...
<mchua> bernie, SeanDaly, cjb: and even a "let us approve our TM policy now, and set an immediate next agenda item to be the distro-brand-forking question."
<bernie> walterbender: indeed. but in the past RH, SuSE and Ubuntu even dared changing all the icons of Gnome and KDE and adding/removing menu entries
<SeanDaly> bernie: distros without marketing strategies?
<mchua> bernie, SeanDaly, cjb: with specific lists of distros/companies/etc. we want to have these conversations with
I just don't want to block *having* a TM policy any longer
<bernie> walterbender: KDE and Gnome cried aloud and outraged, but it was really in the best interest of users.
<walterbender> bernie: I think that is apples and oranges...
<bernie> SeanDaly: it was necessary for *their* branding strategy to rebrand KDE and Gnome. You know, replace the foot with the distro logo, make icons and colors consistent...
<SeanDaly> mchua: yes, as I say i think we should take the plan to them. but downside could be endless discussions & controversy, time beter spent working on beakout
<mchua> My question is: is this TM policy right enough? Is it written so that at the very least, nothing can irreversibly hurt us? Can we talk with distros later?
<walterbender> bernie: our ultimate motivation is kids learning, but I think we want to discuss with the distros the merits of messing around...
<mchua> SeanDaly: Yeah, I don't want to block on endless distro discussions either.
<walterbender> as oppose to being indifferent.
  • mchua:looks at the time.
<mchua> Our hour is almost up, and I would *very* much like to pass v.1.0 of this.
<SeanDaly> mchua: 2b needs to evoke label program I'll try an edit
<mchua> And make note of the further discussions we need to have wrt additions and whatnot later on.
<cjb> mchua: let's get the latest text back into the wiki, then
<mchua> SeanDaly: thanks!
<cjb> so we know what we're passing
<mchua> cjb: wait for Sean's edit
<cjb> also, what does it mean to pass it -- is it "this is live immediately", or "we're going to send this to Karen, and it'll be live later, but here it is so you know what our intent is"?
<mchua> cjb: The latter, I would think?
<walterbender> cjb: I'll run it by Karen after we reach cnsensus
and then replace the main page
<SeanDaly> mchua: I don't know how to validate edits on that site o' yours
<cjb> k
<bernie> mchua: I never said we should block the vote on this
mchua: SeanDaly: I'd be ok approving our TM policy now with the provision that we'll make the necessary adjustments to please linux distributors in case of problems.
<walterbender> bernie: I think we are always going to be open to revising the policy if it is not working for some aspect of our community
I wouldn't single out GNU/Linux distros
<mchua> SeanDaly: Validate? You just type, it's all the same document.
<SeanDaly> bernie: I don't agree, since I haven't seen breakout marketing at the distros... I believe they are cpable of it, but I haven't seen it
<cjb> SeanDaly: the reason to want to please distros is not only a marketing reason
it's a developer-pool reason, and a make-it-easy-for-people-to-get-sugar reason
<SeanDaly> cjb: of course
|<--:dirakx has left freenode (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
<cjb> 'k
<mchua> SeanDaly: Are all your edits in?
Are we ready to merge this back to the wiki and take a vote?
<walterbender> cjb, bernie: I don't think we are so far off the mark, but if we are, we'll come back to this forum and fix it.
<mchua> Does anyone have any objections, concerns, last revisions...?
<bernie> walterbender: k
<SeanDaly> mchua: do you see "we strongly encourage" ?
<bernie> SeanDaly: seen. very good
<walterbender> just say no to adverbs
<SeanDaly> I don't know what 5c refers to, Activities? Necessary? I don't like "Sugar Ready", is that an artifact?
walterbender: hee hee ok
<mchua> SeanDaly: "we strongly encourage you to participate in our label program, designed to help educators recognize your project as a good choice for learning." Yep.
<SeanDaly> I just took out that strongarm adverb
<walterbender> SeanDaly: :)
<SeanDaly> We need to refer to Activities, but that's a can of worms. :-(
<CanoeBerry> timecheck / aside when we get to it: are we meeting next week fri 11am EDT? 0.90 / community thoughts whenever..
<SeanDaly> in plain English, we need to say that we want to foster the growth of a vibrant ecosystem of Activities
<cjb> SeanDaly: hm, what does that have to do with trademarks?
<SeanDaly> that rev can wait for later though, not critical.
<walterbender> cjb: I agree... we are getting into marketing here
<cjb> I mean, I agree that we want to do that, but I don't see how the trademark policy is involved in it
<SeanDaly> cjb: Activity authors may be scared by our policy, we need to reassure & invite
<cjb> oh, right
<SeanDaly> I mean, 5c they might think applies to them
"Do I need certification for my Activity"?
<cjb> yes, this is a great point
<SeanDaly> I'd rather not go there, but reassure Activity authors
<mchua> #info Trademark policy for Activity authors - later revision<br\>#info Conversations with distros on trademark policy - later revision, discussion
There we go, all logged :)
So, how about that text we've got up there? ;)
<SeanDaly> So can I zap 5c ?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: OK
<cjb> yeah
<mchua> SeanDaly: certification? Yeah, I don't think we know what that means now anyhow.
<bernie> SeanDaly: +1
<SeanDaly> section 6: we need a link to that logo page
that will also be a rev since the marketing team has worked a bit on merchandising
<mchua> I'll find it.
SeanDaly: Logo page URL inserted, line 92.
<SeanDaly> I added some words under "Contact information"
I volunteer to work up a FAQ from existing questions/answers section
<mchua> Awesome.
#action SeanDaly work up FAQ from existing quesitons/answers section
  1. action mchua ask for informal thoughts on TM policy from RH/Fedora legal-type folks
(I'll do that once we approve this. ;)
<SeanDaly> I can approve this text as a v1, subject to revision concerning labelng program
here's an idea: I instigate consultations with distros once the label logo is ready?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: sounds like a plan in any case
<mchua> I like it. :)
I'm happy with this text as a v1 as well.
walterbender, tomeu, cjb, CanoeBerry, bernie?
<walterbender> OK. Anyone wanna make a motion to approve v1?
<SeanDaly> intro: please come talk with us: we should make it easy with link
MOTION: Approve current trademark policy text as v1, subject to refinements concerning label program currently in preparation?
  • walterbender:seconds the motion
<walterbender> any further discussion before we vote?
  • SeanDaly:is ready
<tomeu> the text from the wiki? or typewithme?
<SeanDaly> typewithme needs to be merged to wiki
<mchua> I will merge it now!
One moment.
<bernie> mchua: as you merge, make sure you slip in a clause "42b. all your base are belong to us"
<mchua> #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_Trademark_Policy
bernie: too late ;)
<walterbender> bernie: we only want first born children and bags of gold
OK. Let's bring the motion to a vote...
  • walterbender:yes
-->|:dirakx (rafael@ has joined #sugar-meeting
<mchua> bernie: I proposed accepting genie wishes as well but was turned down on account of they are sometimes nontransferable, and subject to export restrictions in certain countries
  • mchua:aye
<SeanDaly> yea
<bernie> yea
<cjb> aye
<bernie> yarrrr
<mchua> CanoeBerry: ^
tomeu: ^
Well, we have a pass anyhow. :) and they can chime in via email.
<walterbender> the motion passes!!!
<SeanDaly> =whew=
  • mchua:breaks out the party hats
  • walterbender:has beads of sweat pouring from his brow :)
<mchua> Who wants to do the big announce? :D
<walterbender> Marketing?
<sdziallas> mchua: possibly Red (party) Hats? ;)
<walterbender> In parallel, I'll run the final text by Karen this weekend.
<mchua> I'm happy to do wiki cleanup - actually, lemme start http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark and a bunch of redirects so Sean has a clean place to start with
<walterbender> #action ED to run TM text by SFC
<SeanDaly> yes, text should run by Karen
  • mchua:will put a "this is the final text that is running by the SFC" big banner at the top
<walterbender> OK. We are already over time...
<mchua> sdziallas: two-color party hats - when you click them, the color combo randomly changes.
walterbender: next meeting bring up 0.90, community, release schedule/manager?
<walterbender> Can I quickly move to two other topics, just to queue them up for next week?
<mchua> that works too :)
<walterbender> mchua: exactly
<SeanDaly> personally, I'd just as soon see a mere mention in the next Sugar Digest - I propose to announce on marketing list OK ?
<walterbender> SeanDaly: will do.
So, we do need to discuss the positives (and negatives) of 0.88 and make a solid plan re 0.90.
And somewhat related, we need to have a discussion about the state of the community.
I am generally pleased with the overall direction we are heading, but there has been some friction of late that has led to some more heated discussions than is usual for our community.
<bernie> SeanDaly: what if karen totally hates our TM policy and asks us to rewrite it from scratch? :-)
<mchua> #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark
<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry, tomeu: is there a reason you two didn't vote?
<mchua> SeanDaly: ^^ for you - I put in a big draft banner too
SeanDaly: I think they're afk
<bernie> walterbender: the thread between me and tomeu about the development process is one example
<SeanDaly> mchua: yes I think you're right
<bernie> tomeu: I'm sure we can both keep our technical disagreement separate from our personal relationship and work as slobs
<SeanDaly> mchua today is the 7th in Europe ;-)
<walterbender> bernie: actually, I was thinking of a different thread altogether...
<SeanDaly> bernie: have no fear, she told me the important thing is that we agree on the policy objectives
<walterbender> SeanDaly: Mel is in OZ :)
  • mchua:does a bit of wiki syntax cleanup to Trademark
<mchua> but... are we done, meetingwise?
<bernie> walterbender: I need to read the other lists, I guess :)
<walterbender> I think we are done... let's target next Friday, the 14th.
thanks everyone
<SeanDaly> OK
<walterbender> #endmeeting
<meeting> Meeting finished at 12:29.
Logs available at http://me.etin.gs/sugar-meeting/sugar-meeting.log.20100507_1103.html