Difference between revisions of "Oversight Board/2010/Meeting Minutes-2010-03-05"
(Created page with 'In attendance: SLOB members: walter, tomeu, mchua, bernie, canoeberry, cjb Some community members (including alsroot, dogi) attended the meeting. == Agenda == # ASLO # Tradema…') |
(→Log) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:Discussion of [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.laptop.olpc.sugar/21243 Not fully bundled .xo] ASLO question<br>Request could be shorten to: | :Discussion of [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.laptop.olpc.sugar/21243 Not fully bundled .xo] ASLO question<br>Request could be shorten to: | ||
:* Making a statement that current ASLO workflow is pretty unreliable, since ASLO is deployment agnostic, trying to bundle binaries to .xo is a fragile practice. At the same time taking one particular decision would either affect basic Sugar workflows (fully bundled .xo) or leave situation fragile. | :* Making a statement that current ASLO workflow is pretty unreliable, since ASLO is deployment agnostic, trying to bundle binaries to .xo is a fragile practice. At the same time taking one particular decision would either affect basic Sugar workflows (fully bundled .xo) or leave situation fragile. | ||
| − | :* Thus it (could) require non-technical agreement to follow either ''"activities should not rely on non-SP dependencies and we should make it clear that we are not going to deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO"'' or ''"we will deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO and lets take the right tech decision (out of SLOBs) but (maybe) accept moratorium like [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.laptop.olpc.sugar/21244] to not make situation worse until we take right technical decision."'' | + | :* Thus it (could) require non-technical agreement to follow either (A) ''"activities should not rely on non-SP dependencies and we should make it clear that we are not going to deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO"'' or (B) ''"we will deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO and lets take the right tech decision (out of SLOBs) but (maybe) accept moratorium like [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.laptop.olpc.sugar/21244] to not make situation worse until we take right technical decision."'' |
:* [http://idea.olpcorps.net/ideatorrent/ideatorrent/idea/20/ Poll] results | :* [http://idea.olpcorps.net/ideatorrent/ideatorrent/idea/20/ Poll] results | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
== Log == | == Log == | ||
| − | [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Log-2010-03-05|Meeting Log]] | + | [[Oversight_Board/2010/Meeting_Log-2010-03-05|Meeting Log]] |
[[Category:Oversight board]] | [[Category:Oversight board]] | ||
| − | |||
[[Category:Meeting minutes]] | [[Category:Meeting minutes]] | ||
[[Category:Decision panels]] | [[Category:Decision panels]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:32, 1 March 2011
In attendance:
SLOB members: walter, tomeu, mchua, bernie, canoeberry, cjb
Some community members (including alsroot, dogi) attended the meeting.
Agenda
- ASLO
- Trademark policy
- Google Summer of Code
- Goals for 2010
ASLO
Aleksey (alsroot) solicited a policy statement from SLOB regarding the hosting of activity bundles with non-Sugar dependencies on activities.sugarlabs.org.
- Discussion of Not fully bundled .xo ASLO question
Request could be shorten to:- Making a statement that current ASLO workflow is pretty unreliable, since ASLO is deployment agnostic, trying to bundle binaries to .xo is a fragile practice. At the same time taking one particular decision would either affect basic Sugar workflows (fully bundled .xo) or leave situation fragile.
- Thus it (could) require non-technical agreement to follow either (A) "activities should not rely on non-SP dependencies and we should make it clear that we are not going to deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO" or (B) "we will deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO and lets take the right tech decision (out of SLOBs) but (maybe) accept moratorium like [1] to not make situation worse until we take right technical decision."
- Poll results
Motion: (1) Bundles with non-Sugar dependencies be clearly marked in ASLO; (2) We work towards a mechanism for supporting access to non-Sugar dependencies--a specific endorsement of being open; and (3) We do not restrict ASLO while we progress towards #2.
Approved: 4 in favor; 2 abstaining; 1 absent.
Action: mchua to write up a position statement regarding a policy of marking certain activities as supported for discussion at our next meeting.
Trademark
Walter made some edits to our draft trademark policy that bifurcated Section 2.a into no-written-approval required and written-approval required sections. It was a welcome change for those attending the meeting.
Action: Walter will discuss this proposed change with seandaly before the next meeting.
Google Summer of Code
It was just mentioned that Walter and Tim McNamara are working on our application. There was favorable reaction to a proposal to steer project proposals towards alignment with existing Sugar projects with existing open tickets.
Goals for 2010
Not discussed due to lack of time.
Action: Walter to draft 5-year goals to parallel 1-year goals.
Next meeting
Friday, 12 March 2010 16:00 UTC (Note: As usual, we will again be meeting one hour later than usual.)