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

<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/