10,513
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-11-20 (view source)
Revision as of 12:15, 20 November 2009
, 12:15, 20 November 2009Created page with ':'''<cjb>''' morning * mchua yawns, crawls back into existence after a long week in Singapore :'''<tomeu>''' hi all! :'''<walterbender>''' do we have a quorum? :'''<mchua>''' tho…'
:'''<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/
* 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/