Difference between revisions of "Oversight Board/2008/Meeting Minutes-2008-07-18"

From Sugar Labs
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<noinclude>{{ GoogleTrans-en | es =show | bg =show | zh-CN =show | zh-TW =show | hr =show | cs =show | da =show | nl =show | fi =show | fr =show | de =show | el =show | hi =show | it =show | ja =show | ko =show | no =show | pl =show | pt =show | ro =show | ru =show | sv =show }}</noinclude>
 
<noinclude>{{ GoogleTrans-en | es =show | bg =show | zh-CN =show | zh-TW =show | hr =show | cs =show | da =show | nl =show | fi =show | fr =show | de =show | el =show | hi =show | it =show | ja =show | ko =show | no =show | pl =show | pt =show | ro =show | ru =show | sv =show }}</noinclude>
 
== Oversight Board Meeting Minutes 2008-07-18 ==
 
== Oversight Board Meeting Minutes 2008-07-18 ==
;Logs: [[Oversight Board/Log-2008-07-18]]
+
;Logs: [[Oversight Board/2008/Log-2008-07-18]]
 
;Attending: marcopg, walter, erikos, cjb, cjl, dfarning, tomeu, bemasc, erikg
 
;Attending: marcopg, walter, erikos, cjb, cjl, dfarning, tomeu, bemasc, erikg
 
=== Sugar Labs status ===
 
=== Sugar Labs status ===

Revision as of 08:41, 1 March 2011

Oversight Board Meeting Minutes 2008-07-18

Logs
Oversight Board/2008/Log-2008-07-18
Attending
marcopg, walter, erikos, cjb, cjl, dfarning, tomeu, bemasc, erikg

Sugar Labs status

We await feedback from the SFC and OLPC, but there was consensus that it is an adequate expression of the needs of Sugar Labs.
There was consensus that we have made sufficient outreach to the community that the initial list is a fair representation of Sugar Labs; we look forward to having the Membership Committee take it from here.
There was consensus that Walter would put together a strawman election process based upon the Selectricity tool. We are targeting an August election.
There was consensus that we begin with just Oversight and Members committees.
We agreed for the need to solicit more feedback in the wiki for the design direction being proposed by Luca.
  • Budget/Funding
    • Trademarks
We agreed that further discussions with the SFLA about the merits of trademark protection is needed.
    • Conferences
We agreed on the desirability of Sugar Labs participation at conferences around the world, but hope to meet the need by utilizing locals to whatever extent possible. We also discussed the desirability to have a meeting of Sugar Labs developers a couple of times per year. We discussed the possibility of an on-line meeting that leverages resources above and beyond IRC.
We agreed on the necessity of Sugar Labs participation in the learning community, but don't yet have a good handle on the best and most efficient means of accomplishing this.
    • Infrastructure
We briefly reviewed the current situation and will solicit a report from the ad hoc infrastructure committee for next week's continuation of the discussion.
    • Staff
We adjourned after agreeing to reconvene on the 25 July.