Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-12-04

From Sugar Labs
Jump to navigation Jump to search
<walterbender> #startmeeting
<meeting> Meeting started at 10:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
<meeting> Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
<walterbender> We have an agenda in the wiki...
<walterbender> the first topic is Bernie's but he is not here yet...
<walterbender> the second topic is the DP. has anyone heard back from the committee?
<cjb> nope
<SeanDaly> not I
<walterbender> nor I :(
<walterbender> I know they got my message regarding the deadline
<walterbender> I am afraid this process has not worked.
<bernie> This is Bernie, Adam, and Mel.
<bernie> We're all here.
<walterbender> ciao bernardo
<SeanDaly> greetings bernieadammel
<walterbender> do you need the backlog?
<bernie> no, we have it.
<bernie> (Mel is typing)
<walterbender> since bernie is here, let's start with his topic.
<bernie> which topic is that?
<walterbender> #TOPIC teams@ lists
<bernie> Ah, yes. I see.
<walterbender> Bernie, can you summarize your proposal?
<bernie> I worry that we'd end up using long cc lists too much if we do not have a standard way to share business/strategic communication with key people such as team leaders
<bernie> I'd propose a teams@ list for this kind of communication.
<SeanDaly> I like this idea
<SeanDaly> often worry about teams not interacting enough (fear justified or not)
<tomeu> I don't see why team coordinators would need to be much more involved in these discussions than other people
<bernie> there's potential for abuse of course... as there was for the wide-audience slobs
<walterbender> bernie: can you give a hypothetical example of how it would be used?
<tomeu> do we have any past situations that support this need?
<SeanDaly> A media campaign launch :-)
<SeanDaly> "all hands on deck"
<bernie> tomeu: for example, getting you and erikos in the loop regarding the nokia deal
<bernie> tomeu: or the launchpad thing
<SeanDaly> or, my Osor meeting in which hosting possibilities were discussed (still have to write up a debrief)
<walterbender> bernie: I am not sure I understand
<walterbender> each of these cases seems unique. what is the common denominator that a list would address?
<walterbender> Doesn't each team, e.g., marketing or infrastructure already have a list?
<tomeu> frankly, I see that proposal dividing more than uniting our community
<SeanDaly> well, the problem is lack of interaction
<walterbender> SeanDaly: can you please elaborate?
<SeanDaly> for example if marketing stuff which impacts development,
<cjb> tomeu: yes, it does seem to elevate members into "trusted or untrusted", which is often a mistake
<tomeu> and I don't like the word leader, each team needs a coordinator but several of its members can have a leader role in different areas
<bernie> walterbender: team leaders is just a way to include everyone who is trusted enough to lead a team
<SeanDaly> there are problems real quick if developers not in the loop
<bernie> tomeu: I also see the downside, that's true
<SeanDaly> at the same time, not all devs want all marketing info all the time
<bernie> mel: I have a counterproposal - instead of having a teams@ list, make it a req that each team has a slobs in the loop for that team
<SeanDaly> to put it mildly
<bernie> i.e. each team would have a "SLOBs ambassador"
<walterbender> bernie: in theory we have that already.
<walterbender> it is in our bylaws
<cjb> SJ was telling me about wikipedia does this
<tomeu> bernie: as I said, I think we have coordinators, that may be defacto leaders, or not
<cjb> they say you can *only* start a team if you can find a board member to sit on it, or something
<bernie> walterbender: in practice, though?
<walterbender> bernie: for the most part, yes.
<cjb> so it's sort of the opposite of our decision panel rules; rather than requiring no members of the board, they require at least one
<bernie> walterbender:if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
<walterbender> bernie: infrastruture-you; marketing-sean; etc.
<walterbender> activities-me
<bernie> bernie: but we only have 7 people on the board
<walterbender> and not so many teams either
<bernie> mel: but a SLOB can be an ambassador for 2 teams if needed
<bernie> mel asks again: if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
<cjb> we can "solve our confidentiality issues" by not being too lazy to write out addresses of individuals on e-mails when we need to, though
<walterbender> I guess I (a) don't understand what are confidentiality issues are and (b) don't understand how another list would solve the problem I don't understand
<cjb> and if we do that, we haven't just split our community into people we like and people we don't
<tomeu> cjb++
<cjb> at least not in a way that's obvious to them :)
<bernie> mel: bernie and I just clarified something between us - the "SLOBs ambassadors requirement" for teams would be for a SLOBs person to be actively watching that team, not necessarily leading it
<bernie> (bernie had thought it was that a SLOB had to be leading the team)
<walterbender> bernie: in factr, in almost every case, the SLOBs member is NOT the leader, which is a good thing.
<bernie> mel: cjb++
<cjb> so my thought is that this proposal has the potential to create much more harm than good
<cjb> even though I can see that it could create some good
<walterbender> bernie: is a motion emerging from this discussion?
<bernie> mel: I'd like to propose the motion that we have SLOBs ambassadors to each team, instead of a teams@ list
<bernie> bernie: I would agree on that.
<cjb> what happens in the weird case of no-one wanting to be their ambassador?
<walterbender> bernie: maybe the motion should be that we ensure that we execute on that structure, which is already in our by-laws
<cjb> does the ambassador have to go to all that team's meetings?
<SeanDaly> perhaps it's early to do this. If there were 3x the number of volunteers, i think it would more useful.
<tomeu> btw, we have teams without coordinators, I don't see how we are talking about this before having found a coordinator for each
<bernie> mel: cjb: it would be a requirement for a team to have /an/ ambassador, I'd say
<tomeu> we don't even have a community manager yet
<bernie> mel: cjb: but how the ambassador and the team interface doesn't have to be strictly defined right now
<SeanDaly> or an education/content manager...
<cjb> so, this idea is obviously much less objectionable
<cjb> but I don't think it solves the same problem
<cjb> and I don't know that the problem it solves is actually one we have
<bernie> Adam: i think this is a useful conversation, but I'm not sure if we can encode these responsibilities easily.

* walterbender deserves the heat because making sure the by-laws are observed is probably the responsibility of the ED

<bernie> mel: I think this is a good convo to take to Planet as a conversation starter, but we probably can't make much more progress on it right now
<tomeu> also, the only team with regular meetings is the marketing team
<bernie> bernie: +1
<bernie> adam: +1
<cjb> +1
<SeanDaly> regular as long as I'm not moving house :D
<tomeu> and the only other one that has occasional meetings is the dev team
<walterbender> in any case, it seems we are not planning to move forward with Bernie's original proposal at this time?
<tomeu> so I don't know what sense makes to say that slobs attends team meetings
<bernie> mel: that's what I think
<bernie> bernie: that's fine
<SeanDaly> I think revisit the topic for the happy day we have enough volunteers that not everybody knows everybody
<bernie> adam: I do like what mel said - as long as it's not enforced, to have that expectation...
<walterbender> I will volunteer to crack the whip to ensure we have a mapping between SLOBs and teams.
<bernie> adam: that the team coordinator builds a social relationship with slobs
<bernie> mel: moving on then?
<walterbender> bernie: are you satisfied?
<bernie> yes
<walterbender> OK.
<walterbender> to summarize: we will not implement the teams@ list at this time, but will mae a concerted effrot to ensure that there is SLOBs presence on all teams.
<walterbender> #TOPIC SoaS DP
<walterbender> Have any of you on the bus heard back from the DP?
<walterbender> none of the rest of us have.
<bernie> all three: no
<walterbender> :(
<walterbender> I think this means that we have to dissolve the panel
<walterbender> as per our discussion last time.
<SeanDaly> when was deadline again pls?
<walterbender> today.
<SeanDaly> yes, disappointing.
<bernie> mel: ok, so we dissolve the panel and then who handles the decision? slobs?
<cjb> mel: that would be my preference
<walterbender> that is what we need to decide
<bernie> mel: mine as well
<cjb> I don't think this situation is encoded in our bylaws
<cjb> so we get to wing it :)
<bernie> mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs
<cjb> seconded
<walterbender> discussion?
<cjb> this seems uncontroversial to me. any objections?
<tomeu> I thought it was already like that
<walterbender> in some sense, we already have that responsibility
<cjb> tomeu: we hadn't really talked about it
<bernie> bernie: I think we still ought to take into account the consensus of the DP that was summarized in the wiki
<tomeu> cjb: does the slobs give any power to the dp when it's created?
<cjb> tomeu: no, not really
<tomeu> I thought it was only a consultative thing
<cjb> bernie: I'm not sure about that
<tomeu> then the slobs have always retained the responsibility of deciding on thast
<SeanDaly> yes, SLOBs should inspect the status of work even if no consensus reached
<cjb> of course, whoever proposes a new decision on the topic should read the DP's work first
<walterbender> the DP is suppose to make a recommendation to SLOBs for some action.
<cjb> but the DP's work is not complete
<walterbender> in this case, no recommendation, but lots of fruitful discussion
<walterbender> we can make a decision based on that input or ask for a new DP
<cjb> so we shouldn't just take it as gospel or anything. it's just something to read and help educate us.
<bernie> bernie: cjb: so do we disregard the DP decision even when there was a clear consensus?
<cjb> bernie: yes.
<cjb> that's what dissolving the DP means.
<bernie> cjb: ah, after reading your explanation., I'd tend to agree.
<walterbender> bernie: and presumably get voted off the island as a result
<cjb> :)
<bernie> mel; so i had a motion and cjb seconded it... do we want to discuss it more, or vote?
<bernie> (that would give us a way to move forward with the DP's decision and actually make a decision)
<walterbender> I am not sure we need a motion because it is how I would interpret the staus quo, but a motion won't hurt for clarity's sake
<bernie> mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs.
<walterbender> shall we vote?
<cjb> aye
<bernie> mel: aye
<SeanDaly> aye
<walterbender> aye
<tomeu> as I said, I don't understand why we vote this
<bernie> adam: tends to agree with tomeu
<cjb> tomeu: it's just a point of clarification
<tomeu> is it said anywhere that the decision is removed from the slobs at any point?
<cjb> nope
<cjb> I think the reason it's slightly unintuitive is:
<cjb> * The bylaws say we get to solve conflict by starting a decision panel
<tomeu> well, then I think we need to leave very clearly that the decision is always left to the slobs
<tomeu> if someone thinks otherwise, it's bad
<cjb> tomeu: that's what the vote helps to do :)
<cjb> * and if a DP fails... well, maybe we just start another one or something
<tomeu> ok, if people think it helps, I vote yes
<bernie> adam: feels we've already voted on this previously
<cjb> the vote passed already :)
<cjb> next up: would someone like to volunteer to review the DP work, and create a motion to solve the original problem with?
<cjb> it should probably be several of us, or even all of us
<walterbender> adam: we certainly discussed it last week, but I think we were all holding out for a DP report :(
<walterbender> cjb: yes. I think that is the next step in regard to this particular issue.
<bernie> FYI: This computer will die in less than 5 min
<cjb> heh
<bernie> bernie, mel, adam will be offline then
<walterbender> and I think we should make a decision next week.
<bernie> Be quick!
<cjb> bernie: which of you wants to be involved in coming up with a decision on the DP work?
<cjb> walterbender: make a decision on the original request, right?
<walterbender> #ACTION: everyone reviews the DP work and comes prepared next week to discuss and decide.
<cjb> ok
<cjb> it might be good to have the motions available before the meeting
<walterbender> if there are questions, raise them BEFORE the meeting to the list
<bernie> bernie: cjb: I'll leave this hot potato to someone else :)
<cjb> so if folks could e-mail them as they come up with them
<cjb> that'd be good
<walterbender> by list, I mean iaep [SLOBS]
<cjb> I'll volunteer to try to review all their stuff and think about it/come up with a motion
<cjb> would be good if others can too
<walterbender> thanks cjb
<bernie> bernie: cjb: mel is currently busy with fudbus business
<cjb> any other urgent business for this meeting?
<walterbender> just discussion, I think
<SeanDaly> well, I wanted to know if possible put e-books in ASLO
<walterbender> the policies re ebooks, acitvities, etc
<walterbender> and of course, the trademark issue
<cjb> oh, yes!
<bernie> adam: agreed..i'll remind SJ & Caryl to weigh in if they have final thoughts on DP's wiki page, even if defunct
<SeanDaly> I haven't thought deeply on implications, was caught short with licensing issue
<cjb> motion: no non-free software or content on ASLO, as judged by DFSG/OSI
<walterbender> but we will have to carry on without our FUDCon friends :(
<cjb> fudbus folks, what'd you think?
<walterbender> #TOPIC non-FOSS content
<tomeu> SeanDaly: it may be more convenient if we found one or more partners who wanted to take the content side of all this
<tomeu> SeanDaly: so we don't have to spread ourselves too thin
<bernie> bernie: ok, switching battery
<SeanDaly> no, the context is helping parents/teachers get started with e-books
<tomeu> SeanDaly: so not solving the whole content problem but some first step?
<SeanDaly> there are hundreds, thousands out there, idea is to help newbies use in Sugar
<SeanDaly> yes, first step
<SeanDaly> we wstarted wiki page for that
<walterbender> this parallels the debate we had at OLPC re content.
<SeanDaly> wiki page may be better than ASLO
<walterbender> we can never do more than plant seeds
<tomeu> SeanDaly: so maybe there's enough free content out there?
<walterbender> and show others how to take initiative
<SeanDaly> tomeu: there's a vast amount, but when there isn't any with Sugar or close by, it's a technical barrier
<SeanDaly> idea is to have a few available, so people can try ereaders
<walterbender> I don't believe it is our mission to solve the content problem, but lowering technical and culture barriers is our mission
<tomeu> SeanDaly: I mean, there isn't enough free content to "solve the whole content problem", but there may be enough free content for that first step
<SeanDaly> and hint how to search in repositories, online etc.
<SeanDaly> tomeu: yes, we had put effort into finding a dozen nice books in half a dozen languages
<SeanDaly> idea is to make first step easy: find, obtain, what format, which Activity
<walterbender> what is the SLOBs issue here? seems we are drifting off topic
<tomeu> ok, so do we need to tackle the issue of non-free content on aslo right now?
<cjb> walterbender: I made a motion and everything :)
<cjb> there are two issues, related:
<cjb> * someone wants to put Skype etc on ASLO
<cjb> * someone wants to put non-free ebooks on ASLO
<walterbender> tomeu: yes in that there are some non-free activities waiting for approval
<SeanDaly> issue was: ASLO a place for content bundles?
<tomeu> oh, ok
<cjb> in both cases this was kinda reasonable, because there was no-one saying "oh, we have a policy against doing those"
<bernie> bernie: back in business
<tomeu> in the skype case, I guess it's plain ilegal, even if we really wanted to do that, right?
<cjb> tomeu: yes
<tomeu> and is there any other non-free but freely-distributable software proposed for aslo?
<cjb> tomeu: just the content, I think
<walterbender> bernie: http://pastebin.be/22311
<bernie> mel: we do not have a license policy on what can go on ASLO, right?
<SeanDaly> piles of flash stuff?
<cjb> SeanDaly: flash stuff can be free
<cjb> bernie: right -- currently no
<cjb> bernie: we'd be creating one now
<tomeu> SeanDaly: but isn't most flash stuff out there without any license info at all?
<tomeu> so we don't really know if it's actually freely-distributable
<SeanDaly> cjb: free as in 4 freedoms?
<cjb> SeanDaly: legally, yes
<cjb> you can make a Flash app and release it under the GPL
<bernie> I'd like to have something like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
<SeanDaly> huge amount of free-online in Flash has no license info,
<cjb> I still think flash apps don't provide useful versions of the four freedoms, but that's a much more subtle point
<bernie> which includes a list of acceptable licenses, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses
<bernie> (this is Mel)
<cjb> SeanDaly: sure, I agree
<SeanDaly> I think because offline Flash difficult so always assumed to be online
<walterbender> cjb: not sure where you put or access the license info in Flash
<bernie> mel: basically, have a legal req for content posted on ASLO (possibly extend that to other things that SL distributes, but ASLO seems to be the issue at present)
<cjb> Mel: We could do that, or just adopt the DFSG/OSI rules
<cjb> Mel: The advantage of using the rules is that they cope with new licenses as well as current ones.
<bernie> mel: I'm happy with any non-ambiguous statement of what we do and don't allow license-wise, honestly.
<cjb> walterbender: that's a good point
<bernie> cjb: link?
<cjb> http://opensource.org/docs/osd
<bernie> mel: that sounds like a good idea to me though
<cjb> the Debian Free Software Guidelines are basically identical
<cjb> MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as the source for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content
<bernie> bus riders are looking at the link, one sec
<SeanDaly> I'd rather read that first before voting on anything
<cjb> ok. we could postpone.
<walterbender> so another homework assignment so we can vote next week?
<bernie> mel: I'm good with the list
<bernie> mel: I've read it already
<tomeu> and I guess SFC has a say on this?
<walterbender> but we seem to have consensus on the basic idea?
<tomeu> because relates to their mission?
<cjb> tomeu: yes. we mentioned the idea that we might distribute something that isn't on this list (ebooks under CC noncommercial license), and they decided they'd have to talk to their board about it
<walterbender> I'll check with the SFC. They owe us a response re NC and ND licenses already :)
<cjb> so I'm sure they're very much in agreement with the motion
<cjb> (that was about SoaS, though, not ASLO)
<bernie> bernie: cjb: while I agree with the OSI definition of what constitutes an open source license, I'd much prefer a list of acceptable licenses rather than a set of rules that would force us to go through a lawyer every time we see a new license.
<cjb> bernie: both are useful, neither are sufficient
<walterbender> bernie: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
<cjb> bernie: if someone proposes Skype
<walterbender> that is a list
<bernie> mel: they're not incompatible, we can say "our legal thing is the OSD, here's a list of licenses we know fit these criteria, new ones come talk to us."
<cjb> and I can't find "the Skype license" in Fedora's list
<SeanDaly> ASLO is response to SoaS problem
<cjb> I need a way to reject it
<bernie> mel: walterbender: exactly
<cjb> (legally happened to work in this example)
<cjb> but anyway, many times random non-free software might be proposed
<cjb> it won't always have a license on that list, or a license at all
<cjb> so the motion helps by giving community guidelines on what *type* of software is permitted
<cjb> let's rephrase, though:
<cjb> MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable
<cjb> bernie: does that cover your concern?
<walterbender> cjb: this still skirts the other issue though: does the content or s'ware abide by community standards... a tough one.
<bernie> bernie: cjb aye
<SeanDaly> I cannot rush into a vote without reading and understanding that page.
<cjb> SeanDaly: that's fine. I won't push you to.
<SeanDaly> Something I can't do in the next 30 seconds.
<bernie> mel: Table for next meeting, reading homework for next week?
<cjb> SeanDaly: I just want the motion to be clear.
<bernie> mel: I'll take the homework assignment of blogging this so that others pick up on it on Planet (and hopefully Fedora folks can chime in as well)
<bernie> (and $otherdistros if we can get them)
<walterbender> OK. I think we have enough background now to move quickly to a decision next week.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: yes
<cjb> mel: thanks!
<cjb> that's a good idea
<bernie> #action mchua to blog licensing motion
<walterbender> OK. Next topic? We have about 5 more minutes.
<bernie> #action everyone to do their homework of reading OSD guidelines so we can be informed voters next Friday
<bernie> mel: yeah, let's move on
<walterbender> #ACTION mel blog and the rest of us do homework with the intention of deciding next week
  • walterbender thinks only the person who typed #startmeeting can #action
<bernie> we'll find out :)
<walterbender> #TOPIC trademark
<bernie> walterbender: thanks for raising the nasty "community standards" issue we'll laaaater have to face..
<bernie> (adam)
<walterbender> we have a number of outstanding trademark policies to reach consensus on.
<bernie> mel: can we line up the to-do list on those and then break for the week with homework? I don't think we have enough time to discuss and vote on anything else atm
<walterbender> adam: yes. an important, thorny topic.
<walterbender> mel: I agree.
<SeanDaly> very thorny indeed
<bernie> mel: and honestly ASLO licensing is kind of a big deal so if we line that up for next week's Big Goal I'm pretty happy
<walterbender> I'd like everyone to come to the next meeting with some opinion re the trademark usage.
<walterbender> from my homework, it seems the two extremes are Fedora and Suse
<bernie> mel: proposal everyone blog their opinion or email it to iaep
<walterbender> to gist: Fedora will let anything be called a remix, but almost nothing be called Fedora
<cjb> Fedora's not actually that extreme, because it offers both models:
<cjb> .. yeah, those. :)
<walterbender> openSuse will not allow remix at all
<cjb> it's easy to be a Remix, and it's hard to be Fedora
<bernie> mel: we need to do more about starting discussion on slobs issues beyond the 7 of us imo
<walterbender> cjb: yes. that is what I was trying to say
<SeanDaly> concerning trademark, there are several kilos worth of e-mails in the lists
<walterbender> and to contrast that with openSUSE, which as far as I understand, really doesn't have a remix option
<walterbender> SeanDaly: yes. it is time to distill it all into a policy
<SeanDaly> yes, fully aggree
<SeanDaly> s/gg/g
<bernie> bernie: walterbender, cjb: I'd like to point out that the fedora trademark policy is one of the strictest among linux distros
<walterbender> bernie: seeming not as strict as openSUSE.
<bernie> mel: I'd like to propose we wrap up this meeting
<SeanDaly> my instinct is to look at trademark policy of better-known brands
<walterbender> bernie: can you give an example of a less strict policy for us to consider?
<bernie> mel: proposal - next week do ASLO and only ASLO - anything else we do is bonus... immediately after ASLO, then tackle trademark.
<cjb> hm
<walterbender> (everyone was going to research one for today's meeting)
<bernie> mel: notes that bernie and I have to go to the infra meeting immediately after this
<cjb> mel: this is instead of doing the SoaS DP next week?
<cjb> I don't know why we'd prioritize something that's been a problem for a week over something that's been a problem for like four months :)
<walterbender> I think we need to do both. the ASLO discussion will be quick.
<bernie> cjb: because I think we can wrap up ASLO next week cleanly and be done with it
<walterbender> (I predict)
<bernie> (mel)
<cjb> yeah, +1 on walter
<bernie> mel: then I'd like to do ASLO first ;)
<bernie> if we think it'll be that quick
<walterbender> but we should wrap up today's meeting.
<cjb> well, okay.. yeah, was about to say that too
<SeanDaly> There is a current case of trademark usage
<cjb> (what mel said)
<walterbender> any final words?
<SeanDaly> in a way that shouldn't
<bernie> mel: nope, happy to close now
<walterbender> 3
<walterbender> 2
<walterbender> 1
<cjb> SeanDaly: let's talk about that now
<bernie> Bye from the FUDbuss @
<cjb> but in the closed meeting
<walterbender> thanks everyone
<SeanDaly> cjb:ok
<SeanDaly> thanks all
<cjb> I mean, let's hang around and talk about it
<cjb> thanks all
<walterbender> I'll post the minutes
<walterbender> #endmeeting
<meeting> Meeting finished at 11:03.
<meeting> Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/