Oversight Board/2008/Log-2008-12-12

From Sugar Labs
Jump to navigation Jump to search
<walter_> good morning
<tomeu> walter_: hi
-->|:marcopg (n=marco@host202-50-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) has joined #sugar-meeting
<tomeu> walter_: I'm a bit confused about the SL calendar
<tomeu> how many do we have?
<walter_> Me too.
<tomeu> one for meetings and one for events?
<marcopg> yeah it's very confusing
<walter_> There seem to be two of them
<marcopg> hello everyone btw, I'm late as usual
* erikos:listens
<walter_> But Greg's meetings seem to be listed on a separate calendar as well...
<marcopg> do we have an agenda?
<walter_> I didn't publish one--I'm lame--but yes, I have one
<walter_> I would like to give an update/discuss local labs
<walter_> and then do the same for corporate membership
<tomeu> sounds good
<walter_> Also, there has been a suggestion made about names
<walter_> any other topics people would like to add?
<tomeu> those look like big topics, and are somewhat pressing
<tomeu> in that we need to make progress soonish
<walter_> well, if something else comes up in discussion, we can add it at the end.
<walter_> One to Topic 1: Local Labs
<walter_> We had a good discussion this week during the deployment team meeting
<walter_> The minutes are in the wiki.
<erikos> walter_: not sure the 'sugar services' for customers is a sugar labs topic
<walter_> Also, I posted a draft MOU of what a local lab might look like...
<tomeu> erikos: well, at a minimum is something we should discuss ;)
<walter_> Erikos: is that phrase in the MOU?
<erikos> walter_: no, i wanted to bring it up as topic
<erikos> walter_: maybe i should do it like in gregs meeting and speak out at the end of the agenda
<walter_> OK. I am not sure what you mean... maybe you can explain further after the other topics?
<erikos> walter_: ok - thanks
<walter_> You should all speak out whenever you have something to contribute!!!
<walter_> That is the whole point of meetings... to exchange and critique ideas
<erikos> walter_: sure, i think i just confused people more than needed:)
<walter_> So the link to the MOU text is http://sugarlabs.org/go/DeploymentTeam/Local_Lab_MOU
<caroline_> My questions about the "Local Labs" model is how to it interact with existing companies deciding to offer Sugar Services, companies like Dell, who will not want to take on the Sugar branding that much.
<walter_> I've run it past several groups who have discussed with me the possibility of starting a local lab and in each case, the one thing they wanted to add was language about reaching across border... local goes global
<tomeu> caroline_: oh, dell would offer sugar services? what kind of scenario are you thinking of?
<walter_> Caroline: I think the company interaction model is complementary
<walter_> Let's table Dell until Topic 2, please
<caroline_> ok
<walter_> Hernan offered this feedback:
<walter_> f. organizará 2 encuentros al año denominados SugarCamp,donde se reunirán los representantes
<walter_> de Sugar Labs Internacionales y desarrolladores
<walter_> g. brindará "mentores" para el proceso de desarrollo de software.
<tomeu> that could be a lot of international events
<walter_> Mario offered this feedback:
<walter_> Can we include our cooperation in global terms based in the referred strategy to show our global commitment ?
<tomeu> but well, we can have lots of representants ;)
<walter_> I think non-exclusivity is important
<tomeu> walter_: non-exclusivity in which sense?
<walter_> I mean that, say a group at a university in Peru wants to create a Sugar Lab in Peru,
<walter_> they should feel free to do so...
<walter_> but not be able to prevent a separate group from forming.
<walter_> I hope these splinters don't happen, but I think we get into trouble if we grant exclusive rights
<tomeu> yeah, agreed
<walter_> What I would like to do is, until we have a better sense of how this will evolve, is to have the global Sugar Labs in the loop when new regions come on board.
<walter_> Let me make a bad analogy:
<walter_> A single country in the EU cannot vote in a new member... it is a matter of the federation as a whole
<walter_> But we want to encourage the individual labs to help bring new members in.
<walter_> I think some of the local Sugar Labs see growing an international presence as a good way to develop a strong base
<walter_> which is a good thing.
<walter_> Several things I want to be very explicit about:
<tomeu> specially regional presence
<walter_> tomeu: not necessarily regional
<walter_> maybe tied to existing trade relations
<tomeu> yeah, that I was thinking as well
<walter_> I could image the UK wanting to involve all the Commonwealth countries...
<tomeu> like happens between spain+portugal <-> latin america
<tomeu> or that, yeah
<walter_> So back to my list really quickly.
<walter_> (1) We say nothing about whether local Sugar Labs are non-profit or for-profit--I think that is a local choice
|<--:dogi has left freenode (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
<marcopg> (pity that Dave is not here since he thought a lot about local SL)
<walter_> (2) We do sy that the principles of free and open software and communication must be adhered to
<tomeu> marcopg: you mean dfarning?
<marcopg> yeah
<walter_> (3) We are not asking any branding or licensing fee--this is very different from many projects and it means we are not goign to have that as a possible revenue stream for the federation... I think this is an important decision--one we should discuss.
<tomeu> walter_: and we do say nothing about possible conflicts between local labs that have nothing to do with 2)
<tomeu> ?
<marcopg> walter_: what do local labs gets in exchange of meeting our principles? (sorry if that's been covered elsewhere!)
<walter_> @marco first: they get to use the Sugar brand, they get to be part of our network
<walter_> we help them find resources
<walter_> we help them bootstrap
<erikos> infrastructure to some extent i guess
<marcopg> ok
<walter_> but we do the latter through pointing them to groups that want to consult
<erikos> or do they only get the domain?
<walter_> I think if they want, we can give them more than the domain, like we are doing for Colombia.
<marcopg> about 3, I think we really need a bit of moneys to keep things running (travels, infra etc)
<marcopg> if we can't get those otherwise, maybe some kind of association fee would make sense
<erikos> marcopg: i guess other orgas do it with memberships
<walter_> @marcopg: yes... but I am not sure that branding is the way to do that...
<marcopg> I'm thinking more of membership
<walter_> I think we can discuss fees as part of Topic 2 as well.
<erikos> maybe membership - with a fee dependent on what the lab can pay
<walter_> I have been torn on this topic--because it is a pain to have to always beg for travel money...
<tomeu> if we want to be global, we are going to see that some local labs are much more affluent than others
<walter_> But I thin we can ask two things of local labs: (1) to pay our direct costs and (2) to organize meetings regionally where they bring people in...
<tomeu> I'm not sure we can ask the same amount of money to all while being as inclusive as possible and getting enough money for travel
<walter_> so it is less an issue for SL central...
<walter_> with the decentralized model, it is not our problem to decide how much they can afford.
<tomeu> I like that idea of conferences being organized by the local labs
<tomeu> that moves the problem to where it can be better solved
<walter_> the wealthier groups will be able to host more face-to-face time, but we can encourage them to invite people from the less wealthy regions.
<erikos> and sugar labs central has not the overhead
<walter_> I should make local meetings explicit in the MOU... it is an oversight.
<tomeu> yes, I think it's important enough to be there
<walter_> This doesn't cover all the travel needs... for example, Bernie's expenses to come to Boston, or mine to travel to Paris...
<tomeu> true
<marcopg> hm but that will not cover costs for development conferences, infrastructure, stuff like the interns caroline_ proposed
<walter_> I think I will be able to raise enough money by other means to cover these soerts of costs...
<tomeu> walter_: corporate sponsorship?
<walter_> That is where grants and corporate sponsorships come in
<marcopg> trough grants?
<walter_> both
<caroline_> One model is to ask everyone who is making money to contribute back, either in money or in time, this lets the places that have less cash still feel like they are contributing back equally.
<tomeu> wonder if a for-profit local lab could be a sponsor as well? or could there be a breach of all local labs are equal?
<walter_> so, for example, we have a small travel budget for next year from pinanfarina
<walter_> these are the gray areas we need to sort out...
<walter_> but the extent to which we can avoid being a tax on the local labs, the better.
<caroline_> tomeu, we shouldn't treat labs differently based on for ornon profit, non profits can have lots of cash, for prfits don't necessarily make profits.
<tomeu> caroline_: ok, but can a local lab be a corporate sponsor as well?
<walter_> I suppose I am in favor of small government in this case and no entitlements--a true Republican
<walter_> I think yes.
<walter_> In some cases this may be appropriate
<caroline_> If/when Solution Grove sets up paid services I would want to give a percentage of the profit to SL, but I would want it to be based on profit, not on gross, becuase at first we will lose money until we have volume.
-->|:cms_ (n=schmidt@ has joined #sugar-meeting
<walter_> Maybe we should jump to corporate sponsorship for a few minutes, as it is related to the funding issue.
<tomeu> sounds good, then SL may be able to face running costs such as fees, part of travel expenses, etc
<cms_> hi everyone, sorry i'm late
<marcopg> hi cms_
<caroline_> tomeu - thats what I'm unclear about, what is different between a Sugar Lab and a company that is offering sugar related support and services.
-->|:dogi (n=dogi@kuku.laptop.org) has joined #sugar-meeting
|<--:m_stone has left freenode (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
<walter_> That is a good question... let's try to make some categories:
<tomeu> caroline_: yeah, I see where both can be confused
<caroline_> and I think a third, is a large company that wants to support Sugar Labs for alturistic and business reasons. lets pick Belkin as an example
<walter_> (1) a manufacturer who want to be able to say, Sugar Inside
<tomeu> let's put tags to people ;)
<walter_> (2) a company that want to be affiliated with our good deeds
<walter_> (3) a company that is offering services and want to have our endorsement
<walter_> (3) could also be a local lab
-->|:m_stone (n=mstone@dhcp-47-72.media.mit.edu) has joined #sugar-meeting
<tomeu> ok, I see how 1 and 2 don't need to share our principles
<walter_> This gets back to an issue Tomeu raised in email this week too:
<walter_> people/companies that want to offer Sugar consulting.
<walter_> we need some mechanism to vet all three catgories
<walter_> or be open to everyone with a warning message that these are not vetted relationships.
<erikos> walter_: that was the topic i had in mind at the beginning of the meeting
<tomeu> erikos: 3), right?
<erikos> tomeu: yes
<walter_> I think leaving it open is the easiest thing to do...
<walter_> we could have a reputation service on the wiki...
<walter_> but let the community do the vetting
<tomeu> walter_: leaving open 1, 2 and 3?
<walter_> yes
<erikos> walter_: what vetting do you mean - the community decides which offer it takes?
<erikos> if there is company a and b listed
<walter_> the community might say that company A has been great to work with...
<erikos> ok i see
<walter_> that company B is new and untested
<erikos> like in ebay sort of
<walter_> But a local Sugar Lab is going to want advice on whom to lean on to get started.
<walter_> Regarding category 1, I think the most important thing is in-kind engineering support
<morgs> or individuals - Person A has been involved with Sugar for 18 months and is a core Sugar developer, Person B has been involved for 6 months and has written 5 activities, ...
<walter_> but a small membership fee may be reasonable as well
<walter_> we'll list them on the landing page and always sing their praises
<walter_> @morgs: yes, I think we could quantify some of this
<erikos> hmm if sugarlabs does do advices - we might get into moody distortion of competition
<walter_> or at least provide a common framework for people to use...
<walter_> @erikos: yes. I'd like to avoid that
<walter_> I think that SL direct involvement should be only at the structural level.
<morgs> in a meritocracy you can demonstrate proof of contribution quite easily...
<erikos> morgs: agreed
<erikos> walter_: yes - to say - here is a list of companies and individuals you can choose from
<erikos> might already be enough
<erikos> - so Sugar Labs providing the framework
<walter_> Hey. I just got a google calendar reminder that this meeting is at 15 GMT...
<erikos> decalage :)
<walter_> yes to erikos's simplifed restatement
<tomeu> we have tons of calendars ;)
<walter_> But if we ask a membership (sponsorship) fee, I suppose I need to think about what it is for and how much it is...
<tomeu> walter_: maybe we should try to estimate our costs?
<_bernie> walter_: I thought we were early
-->|:dfarning (n=dfarning@72-160-223-209.dyn.centurytel.net) has joined #sugar-meeting
<marcopg> hey dfarning!
<_bernie> dfarning: sorry, we're almost finished
<erikos> oups
<_bernie> ;-)
<erikos> dfarning: you must have been coding too much and forgot about time!
<walter_> Sorry. We all though the meeting was supposed to be 14 UTC. The google calendar is locked to EST, not UTC, so it never made the switch at Daylight Savings Time
<tomeu> I should be coding and forgetting about time as well ;)
<dfarning> ahh ok
<erikos> ;p
<walter_> Well, let's finish these first two topics by coming up with some action items...
<walter_> (1) I can continue to refine the MOU
<walter_> (2) maybe (Morgs) could come up with a template for which we would advertise contractors?
<walter_> we can then discuss the details
<morgs> OK
<walter_> (3) I'll work on a sponsorship model--I already promised to do that
<walter_> we can discuss that too...
<erikos> walter_: sponsorship is membership right?
<walter_> But are people OK with the general direction of the MOU and the 3 points I raised?
<walter_> @erikos: yes
<walter_> But not individual membership...
<tomeu> sounds good to me
<erikos> walter_: ok
<_bernie> walter_: ok
<walter_> (I will post the log so that Dfarning and Bernie can know what we are talking about_
<erikos> walter_: any specific point of the MOU you are mostly interested to get feedback?
<dfarning> thanks
<walter_> Just the three we discussed earlier
<erikos> ok
<_bernie> walter_: I have seen them in my backlog
<tomeu> it's very good that many of the people interesting in opening local labs have been with us since the beginning
<tomeu> so their feedback is quite informed
<tomeu> (on the MOU, I mean)
<walter_> to recap: (1) we don't dictate for or not for profit
<walter_> (2) we charge no fee
<walter_> (3) we have principles for free and open
<walter_> swap 2 and 3
<walter_> Time for one more topic, quickly?
<walter_> I have been talking to Dennis Wong, one of our Marketing Consultants.
<walter_> He is uneasy about the name Sugar. He thinks it doesn't communicate anything about what we do.
<erikos> oh :/
<walter_> He has been coming up with some ideas for alternative names...
<_bernie> (3) alternatively, we could say the Local Labs offer voluntary and proportionate contribution
<walter_> Some are quite interesting--I'll share them in a minute.
<marcopg> eeek, about the product or also the foundation?
<walter_> Well, here is what I was thinking:
<walter_> Just as Ubuntu brands its various
<walter_> releases, maybe we brand our Sugar releases. 9.1, due out this spring
<walter_> could be called Lauima. The Ubuntu releases have a lot of name
<walter_> recognition (as do various MS Windows releases: XP, VIsta, etc.) This
<walter_> may be a good path for us. What do you think?
<marcopg> sure that would be nice, but then we need cool names for each release ;)
* tomeu:googles lauima
<walter_> Lauima is a Hawaiian word. It means collaboration
<erikos> walter_: oh so it would be mostly about release names?
<walter_> well, maybe as a start...
<morgs> walter_: you mean 0.84, not 9.1?
<cms_> so, the proposal is to keep sugar, but to add release names?
<walter_> we could make the release name more or less important over time...
<tomeu> about the product, I think that most names that try to be descriptive, fail when it's a software product
<cms_> that sounds good...
<erikos> tomeu: +1
<walter_> as a marketing tool, .91 is not very exciting
<tomeu> oh, agreed
<marcopg> walter_: if it stays only as a release name it will probably not stick that much, since we do frequent releases
<morgs> yeah, particularly as our lauima is still so broken... :P
<marcopg> we would have to start using it elsewhere
<walter_> But Sugar Lauima Release is at least puzzling
<walter_> anyway, I just want to plant the seed
<tomeu> crazy idea: if we wanted for names to last longer, we could have early lauima and later lauima for the two yearly releases
<tomeu> marcopg: ubuntu release names have quite a bit of impact
<tomeu> they get forgotten eventually, but take some time
<tomeu> some years
<walter_> from Dennis:
<walter_> 1. Thought -- Go Hawaiian.
<walter_> The words sound cool, different and memorable, and have meanings that conveys what we stand for and offer.
<walter_> 2. Already some big name and very successful breakthrough Internet companies have Hawaiian names ...
<walter_> Akamai = smart, intelligent
<walter_> Wiki = fast (like in wikipedia)
<walter_> The latest hit is "hulu" = hair, hairy (like in BHAG - Big Hairy Audacious Goal)
<walter_> 3. Do you see any names below that you like ...
<walter_> Ho'oku'i = to join together
<walter_> Hui = group organization
<walter_> Kahuna = priest, skilled person, expert in a field
<walter_> Kokua = help, cooperation
<walter_> Lokahi = unity, agreement, harmony.
<walter_> Laulima = to work together, cooperate
<walter_> Lua'ole = unequalled, incomparable
<walter_> Ohana = family
<walter_> Ono = delicious
<erikos> osx - the name has not changed over the last years
<erikos> was quite effective
<cms_> i like "ono"
<morgs> Ubuntu release names are development code names, reflected in the name of the archive - the CDs have the official release name which is "8.10" etc.
<walter_> Maybe since out Laulima is still a work in progress, we go with Ho'oku'i for .91
<tomeu> ono is a cable company in spain
<cms_> though not that descriptive... ;)
<tomeu> kahuna reminds me something
<cms_> "hui" is nice
<walter_> I know a few big Kahunas
<cms_> heh
<walter_> +1 for hui
<marcopg> walter_: 0.84! :)
<erikos> Hui is great when marcopg made collaboration work
<tomeu> hui sounds to me a japanese car
<walter_> let's sleep on it, but I wanted to raise the topic
<tomeu> how is sugar in hawaiian? ;)
<walter_> I'll ask dennis
<morgs> Ubuntu release names make all the developers cringe at first, then they get used to it and take pride in the software... Everyone is still going "Jaunty Jackelope!?!"
<cms_> but we are keeping "sugar" and "sugarlabs", i presume?
<erikos> we cannot chnage that now imo
<cms_> in the identity, we could treat the release title as a suffix, similar to the badge designs
<_bernie> Apple goes after felines. we might do berries, or fruit
<_bernie> Sugar 9.1 Strawberry
<morgs> _bernie: 0.84!!!
<walter_> I think we cannot change them in the short term, but we could make the release name more important as a marketing tool...
<walter_> This is why I don't like release numbers!!
<morgs> :)
<erikos> walter_: that would be fine with me
<tomeu> hui laulima: http://www.neighborhoodplaceofkona.org/Hui_Laulima/hui_laulima.html
<_bernie> Sugar 0.84 Pancake
<tomeu> cms_: I like the relationship between badges and release names
<erikos> sugar is even hardcoded into our repository structure (i.e. jarabe)
<walter_> This is obviously a more entertaining topic than governance and finance :)
<tomeu> ;)
<marcopg> hehe
<tomeu> erikos: probably, we shouldn't let internal names used in engineering mess with marketing
<walter_> so we should end... we are well past the hour.
<erikos> yeah you need those distractions
<cms_> tomeu: yes, i think that could work well and it would be a nice extension of the identity system
<erikos> tomeu: i just like sugar i guess ;p
<tomeu> erikos: I like it as well, has many qualities of a good name
<erikos> tomeu: i am ok with the release names - thought as well already about it
<walter_> there might be a nice glyph associated with some of these words too.
<cms_> walter_: that could be interesting to look into, though generally i like the typographic approach we've adopted...
<walter_> @cms: turns out Hawaiian uses Latin glyphs anyway :)
<tomeu> walter_: OT: http://www.isidorfernandez.net/senior-lab-a-la-comunitat-blogger/
<tomeu> google translates quite well from catalonian to english
<walter_> @tomeu: where is this project?
<tomeu> walter_: catalonia
<walter_> http://melrosemirror.media.mit.edu/servlet/pluto
<walter_> this is a similar project I started in 1996...
<tomeu> walter_: I think my sister knows the blogger, both studied antropology at barcelona
<erikos> tomeu is now all for blogging it looks like ;p
<walter_> when we get Silver Sugar (Sugar Canas) going....
<tomeu> heh
<tomeu> I think there's a lot of potential there
<walter_> I agree
<erikos> tomeu: with elderly people?
<walter_> Well, I am going to sign off... gotta a call to make.
<tomeu> erikos: with all the people that find difficult to make big efforts in order to get to know how to use computers
<walter_> (See the Knight proposal I wrote with AARP when you get a chance---linked from th Deployment page)