Oversight Board/2010/Meeting Log-2010-02.26

<walterbender> bernie is here!!!

anyone else around? do we have a quorum?

<bernie> mchua, CanoeBerry, cjb, SeanDaly, tomeu?

<walterbender> bernie: :)

<bernie> walterbender: can we add one item to the agenda? the new machine

<SeanDaly> hi

<walterbender> hi sean

bernie: what new machine?

sean: are you and cjb ready to discuss our favorite topic?

<bernie> walterbender: the server we had money earmarked for

<walterbender> bernie: sure.

<cjb> morning.

<walterbender> hi cjb.

<bernie> walterbender: we can postpone this after the last item, no problem

<walterbender> we have a quorum... let's get started.

1. startmeeting

<meeting> Meeting started at 11:07 UTC. The chair is walterbender.

Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK

<tomeu> hi all

<walterbender> quick rollcall

• walterbender::waves

<cjb> here

• tomeu::raises hand

<cjb> did people get a copy of my mails to Karen yesterday? I CC'd conservancy-sugar@sfc, not sure if that was right.

<walterbender> cjb: yes

shall we begin then

1. TOPIC Trademark Policy

cjb, SeanDaly: can you summarize where we are at?

<cjb> that's good. I actually don't have any further updates past that thread.

<SeanDaly> cjb: I just added to karen mail, but I didn't see SLOBs on copy

<cjb> SeanDaly: oh, I didn't see any mail from you

conservancy-sugar@softwarefreedom.org

was on the CC, and that's SLOBS

<SeanDaly> I'm at a loss as to how to advance on this

ok for CC

<cjb> anyway, the summary is much the same -- we have a disagreement on how onerous the trademark process should be, and the crux of the disagrement seems to be over whether automatic trademark licenses are enforceable, so that's what we're asking Karen. Haven't heard a definite answer back yet, sorry for not sending the mail to her sooner.

<SeanDaly> granting a license to anybody with an e-mail means a totally ineffective policy

<cjb> right, that's the disagreement.

<SeanDaly> Not poossible to build a brand with a policy like that

<cjb> if Karen agrees about the unenforceability of that idea, we'll be getting somewhere, because it means we can take that disagreement off the table.

<SeanDaly> I understand some people are shy but still

<walterbender> IMHO, we should ask for written permission. If it seems too heavy-weight,we will know pretty wuickly.

<CanoeBerry> Late as usual, hi all!

<walterbender> it s the conservative thing to do, but it breaks the impass.

<SeanDaly> here's a litmus test for enforceability: a clearly infringing website that's been up for montths after permission was denied: http://schoolkey.net

<cjb> SeanDaly: okay! so, let's take this example.

this is an example of how a trademark license is totally orthogonal to enforceability.

this site would not be covered by an automatic trademark license.

it does not meet our requirements for an automatic trademark license.

<SeanDaly> Although a cycle of application-review-feedback-license seems burdensome, Ii don't think it wiill be

<cjb> has this site applied for a trademark license?

<SeanDaly> cjb: ok, and it fulfills its role of damaging our marks through confusion

<cjb> it just seems like a totally separate issue. you have an obviously infringing site, and we're reluctant to do anything about it, but I don't know why. I don't think the answer has anything to do with trademark policy, because I think we've made it very clear that the site is against any trademark policy we might adopt.

<walterbender> cjb: the site has not been approved and permission, as far as I know, has never been sought for this site

<SeanDaly> Now just imagine a site like that, but financed and promoted

<cjb> walterbender: So, then, this situation is irrelevant to our trademark policy.

It's just a case of a site that's obviously using our marks without permission, and without seeking permission.

<SeanDaly> walterbender: we asked Caroline to apply for permission, she did so a few days after the SLOBs elections, we responded several weeks later denying permission in its current form

<cjb> We should ask Karen to tell the site to stop doing that, independent of any discussion about whether automatic trademark policies can work.

<walterbender> cjb: the reason we have been slow is because we haven't clarified our policies, but we have spoken with Solution Grove in general...

cjb: agreed.

<SeanDaly> Caroline made the effort which II appreciate to stop using sugaronastick.com, but use of our marks in that way is damaging

<walterbender> cjb: actually, I was unaware of this sight. I knew about soas.com, which did comply with our request.

<cjb> walterbender: Okay. But there's a strong reason I'm reluctant to use this example as saying anything about enforceability of automatic trademark licenses is that there's no way it would ever come close to receiving an automatic trademark license from us; it wouldn't meet the conditions.

<SeanDaly> not soas.com, sugaronastick.com

<walterbender> SeanDaly: yes. my shorthand

<SeanDaly> cjb: it(s a question of the horses leaving the barn

<bernie> I was unaware of schoolkey.com too

<SeanDaly> To build the Sugar brand we need to protect it

If we are ineffective in protecting it, we can't build it

<walterbender> cjb: I guess I am once again confused. It seems to me that asking people to ask explicitly will force our hand--I think we will be more disciplined about enforcement with such a policy.

<cjb> please don't argue in absolutes; that statement can justify any level of trademark protectionism. I hope we're trying to find a balance, not justify any behaviour that happens in the name of protecting ourselves.

<walterbender> cjb: but it is still up to us to do the work.

<SeanDaly> cjb: somebody has to build the brand and protect the marks

<cjb> walterbender: That might be. But the point of the automatic license was that it (a) gives conditions up front, and (b) only applies to obvious cases of redistribution without modificattion, e.g. by Linux distros.

<walterbender> cjb: if things are auto, we'll tend to be auto as well. that is my experience.

<cjb> so having a limited automatic policy doesn't say anything about complicated cases like this one. it just says something about simple cases of redistribution.

<walterbender> cjb: we can do (a) in either case

<SeanDaly> cjb: the distros should be promoting Sugar - right now they are hardly doiing so

<walterbender> and cjb: is there evidence that (b) is a problem?

<cjb> walterbender: just an intuition that we should be making it easier for distros to promote Sugar, but establishing a manual trademark procedure will make it harder for them.

<walterbender> cjb: wasn't a problem for Ruben and Triqsquel, or the opensuse guys, or dfarning and Ubuntu or for the Fedora guys

<SeanDaly> cjb: it's not the "simple" cases I'm concerned about... it's the complicated ones. Which is always the case with trademarks, which is why serious licensing will protect us better

-->|::dirakx (rafael@190.156.118.95) has joined #sugar-meeting

<SeanDaly> for example, Sugar logo in Trisquel was fine

and, there was great communication and feedback

<walterbender> cjb: I think distros are a simple case; it is people who want to set up sugar-related sites that we need to be concerned about

<cjb> SeanDaly: sure. that's why I'm only investigating an automatic license for the simple cases. the complicated cases would not be covered by it; they would be manual.

walterbender: there is no disagreement.

<SeanDaly> cjb: some people are ill-intentioned

<walterbender> so if the auto example only handles a few simple cases, why bother?

<SeanDaly> and will arrange to fit in a simple case if it offers more loopholes

<cjb> I am trying to set up a *streamlined* process for distros and the simple case, while respecting that there should be an *approval* process for the complicated case.

walterbender: because the simple cases will be more prevalent than the complicated ones.

<bernie> SeanDaly, cjb: it seems the two of you are arguing two different arguments. cjb is not arguing against protecting the trademark, and Sean would not be opposed to some forms of automatic licensing if it did not create exploitable loopholes or weaken our ability to enforce TM protection in other cases.

SeanDaly, cjb: is my interpretation correct?

<cjb> lots of people may want to redistribute sugar. most of them will not be modifying it. most of them will be making it part of their own product.

<SeanDaly> cjb: I've proposed a two-track process: fast track and free of charge for noncommercial, slox-track for commercial

<cjb> bernie: That sounds right.

<walterbender> cjb: how many distros are out there? we've already spoken with Caixa Magica, Fedora, Suse, Triquel, Debian, GenToo, Triquel, Ubuntu, Mandriva,

<SeanDaly> bernie: yes - I want effective protection

<cjb> walterbender: and, if we pass a manual trademark process, we're going to have to speak with them all again. perhaps some won't bother to speak to us.

<SeanDaly> cjb: distros are doing an inadequate job of promoting Sugar, we need to help them

<cjb> SeanDaly: you don't help distro people by making them sign legal agreements. no-one wakes up thinking "I wish I had to enter into a trademark licensing agreement today".

<SeanDaly> cjb: why (besides shyness) might someone not want to speak with us? Someone well-intentioned I mean

<CanoeBerry> What's wrong with shyness?

<walterbender> cjb: we've already spoken will all of those... and as soon as we have our own agreement as to our policy, it is a cookie-cutter process to finalize

<SeanDaly> cjb: distros don't like dealing with trademarks... and look at their market share

<walterbender> cjb: actually, I think you do help distros... you protect them

<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: :D

-->|::yevlempy (~yevlempy@117.201.98.50) has joined #sugar-meeting

<cjb> SeanDaly: yes, mainly shyness, and perhaps a desire to avoid legal fees.

(not everyone is as willing to interpret legal documents themselves as we are.)

<tomeu> not a matter of workload?

<walterbender> cjb: If I were a distro and I could get a clear statement usage, I'd think that was a win... one less thing to worry about.

<tomeu> imagine if a distro had to understand the trademark license of each package they shipped

<SeanDaly> cjb: we don't do it ourselves, we have the SFC

<walterbender> and cjb: I think most distros are very tuned into these issues.

<SeanDaly> and distros *should* look into counsel

<bernie> SeanDaly: would something along these lines weaken our TM too much? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Trademark_guidelines#Noncommercial_and_community_web_sites

<cjb> SeanDaly: no, I'm talking about them having to do it themselves

<SeanDaly> lots of pro bono available

• sdziallas::might have a link to contribute in a second... (hi)

<SeanDaly> look at SFLC

• SeanDaly::greets sdziallas

<walterbender> sdziallas: hi. see you next week??

<sdziallas> walterbender: oh yes, you will! :)

<bernie> sdziallas: maybe the same link I just posted?

<cjb> Another reason I'm against this manual policy is that it is a change from what every other notable free software project does. Even strong brands like Firefox and Ubuntu do not require permission for redistribution.

<sdziallas> bernie: another one, but from Fedora, too.

<SeanDaly> bernie: yes we should certainly have a section in our FAQ for when license application not necessary

<CanoeBerry> Does anyone know the status of Sugar Labs's phone numbers?

<SeanDaly> cjb: thatt's not the case, if you change enough of Firefox or Ubuntu you can't use the trademarks

<CanoeBerry> Farning did a lot of work here last year.

If people perceive Sugar Labs as unapproachable, they will not approach.

<bernie> SeanDaly: well, I think this is the same thing cjb was asking for... more or less.

<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: which phone numbers? I set up & paid for the press contact softphone

<sdziallas> I'm not sure where I saw it, but what I'm referring to is the point that things need to be (for Fedora) the way that downstream users wouldn't need another explicit permission if they took Sugar packages from Fedora.

<CanoeBerry> Same story with OLPC, rightly of wrongly.

<sdziallas> (actually, after re-thinking, I guess that's a non-issue)

(it just comes up almost every time people start talking about Mozilla's Firefox in Fedora)

<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: ever wonder how journalists rreach us within the hour during media launches?

<CanoeBerry> I'm asking a serious question.

<tomeu> maybe CanoeBerry is not meaning a press contact?

<SeanDaly> Sugar Labs is in a unique position and it will be difficult to find historical examples to guide us

<cjb> SeanDaly: that's exactly what I'm asking for us to adopt.

<sdziallas> CanoeBerry: I think dfarning posted contact details in an e-mail quite some time ago... hang on.

<SeanDaly> we also set up feedback@sugarlabs.org which we put in our press releases

<sdziallas> CanoeBerry: how about this: Sugar Labs / P.O. Box 312 / Onalaska, WI 54650 / (608) 315-2406

<SeanDaly> and the SoaS pages

<cjb> If it's more clear for my argument to be "I think our trademark policy should be mostly the same as Firefox or Fedora's", I'm happy to make that argument instead. I am not asking for any more or less than the policies they've adopted.

<bernie> sdziallas: what is that?

<sdziallas> CanoeBerry: don't ask me for the direct link to that, I just figured that I wrote it down, in case somebody asks for it. :)

<SeanDaly> sdziallas: the issue is, David thought the SFC would handle administrative, not just legal

<CanoeBerry> sdziallas: thanks, what's the link to that phone number?

<sdziallas> bernie: that's the address David set up (I recall an e-mail with it))

• sdziallas::goes searching archives.

<SeanDaly> We use the SFC address in NYC as our official address, but unfortunately we can't ask the SFC to do all administrative stuff

<bernie> CanoeBerry: did you mean a press / PR phone number, or other kind of contacts, such as support lines?

<CanoeBerry> It's similar to the constant criticism of OLPC for not having a phone number.

Rightly or wrongly.

<bernie> sdziallas: oh yeah, I remember. did we advertise it anywherwe?

<SeanDaly> well, a support phone number means support staff to man the phones... so we point to #sugar

<CanoeBerry> Sugar Labs like OLPC will be perceived as unapprochable in exactly situations like this...

<sdziallas> bernie: I don't think so... (which is why I can't find it online anywhere right now, heh)

found it.

http://www.mail-archive.com/sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg09742.html

<CanoeBerry> Thanks.

Bettee than no contact page at all ;)

<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: SL is very well-referenced and contact phone number is in every press release; that number & e-mail have been used by journalists and nonjournalists alike to reach us

<cjb> SeanDaly: I disagree with your claim that an automatic trademark policy would make it any harder to protect against schoolkey.net. Consider: would Firefox find it hard to take down schoolkey.net? Or Fedora?

<sdziallas> Heh. Took me to enter the phone number I had written down in google, so this has been pretty much a dead end, I guess. ;)

<cjb> the answer is no, they'd do it immediately, and their automatic trademark license is just irrelevant to that. it makes the takedown neither easier nor harder.

<tomeu> just searched for "sugar labs phone number" without a too nice result, should we try to improve on that?

<cjb> we appear to have a different problem, which is that there's a site that's being obviously in violation of our marks for months, and we aren't doing anything about it.

<bernie> CanoeBerry: if you would like to be the person answering the phone, I would be glad to publish a number.

<SeanDaly> Well, Mozilla with huge funds for legal eagles would take it down in a snap. Fedora would call upon Red Hat legal eagles, who would take it down in a snap

<cjb> the answer to that problem is to do something about it, not to argue against having an automatic trademark policy that covers something totally different.

SeanDaly: argh!

<CanoeBerry> A contact page would be basic courtesy, regardless.

<cjb> if you don't have the power to *enforce* your license, it doesn't matter what license you have.

<SeanDaly> cjb: the thing to do about it is have an airtight case that any judge will agree with

<cjb> either we can take down infringing sites or we can't. if we can't, who cares what our trademark policy is.

<bernie> CanoeBerry: oh, wait... I had not seen Sean's reply that the phone # is there already. So, shall we just advertise it better?

<SeanDaly> sure our legal resources are limited - all the more reason to provide tools to prevail

cjb: I care about a trademark policy because Ii want to build the brand... something not usually done in FLOSS projects

<cjb> SeanDaly: what tool are you missing?

currently, we have no policy, which means any site has to ask us for permission.

<CanoeBerry> bernie: yeah let's think about this -- if we want folks to contact us, we'd better not blame them for being "shy" when we're the ones being shy about out #!

• our number

<tomeu> heh

<SeanDaly> a license agreement which, if not respected, simplifies the work & effort to take down

<cjb> ok. let us pretend that you have a license agreement now.

has this site signed it? is it going to?

if not, the license agreement is irrelevant.

<tomeu> CanoeBerry: I would like to see someone to take ownership of the work area that contains making sure we are seen as contactable, maybe that would be a community manager?

<cjb> it's just a site that's using our marks without a license.

<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: Walter, David and I have manned the pr@ and phone number these past 10 months... would you like to be on the response team?

<bernie> CanoeBerry, SeanDaly: maybe we should publish the phone numbers and snail mail addresses here? http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Contacts

<SeanDaly> cjb: we don't have licenses yet because we are still growing and haven't gotten around to it

<cjb> SeanDaly: no, I said we should assume that we do.

because one way to imagine whether something is a good idea is to assume that it has happened, and then investigate the properties of that world.

if we assume that we have a license agreement, how does that affect schoolkey.net?

<bernie> CanoeBerry, SeanDaly: the snail mail addr is at the bottom of the page. we could add another section for phone numbers.

SeanDaly: what's the PR phone you're using?

<CanoeBerry> bernie & SeanDaly: contact is Not an easy game but yes we can do better, yes i'll help.

<cjb> (my contention is that it doesn't.)

<tomeu> can/should we reuse the PR number for general contact?

<cjb> hm, perhaps we should move on to something else?

(15 mins left)

<SeanDaly> http://www.sugarlabs.org/press

<walterbender> #TOPIC: GSOC

<SeanDaly> cjb: had Caroline signed an agreement, no that site wouldn't be up today.

<bernie> cjb: for schoolkey.net, I think we might (politely) ask caroline to redirect it or remove the infringing trademarks.

<cjb> bernie: I agree. I don't think that has anything to do with whether we adopt an automatic trademark policy for some cases -- it's just something we should do.

<walterbender> Tim and I are just starting to get our act together... expect some announcements in the coming week. But yes, we will apply.

<bernie> SeanDaly: I think she might just have not noticed, let's ask her nicely.

<SeanDaly> cjb: and we can go after any site which infringes our marks, with a likelihood to prevail if we can demonstrate that we are serious in our licensing

<walterbender> bernie: there is no reason not to be nice...

<SeanDaly> I had a nice talk with Caroline last week on a different subject

<walterbender> before we run out of time, can we discuss a process to reach consensus?

<cjb> SeanDaly: and your argument that projects that offer an automatic license cannot be serious about licensing fails, because Fedora, Ubuntu and Firefox are extremely serious about licensing concerns.

<bernie> SeanDaly: and I think cjb is right on this: sittes like schoolkey.net is would be clear violation of our TM, even if the owner never signed any agreement with us.

<SeanDaly> cjb: trademarks?

<cjb> SeanDaly: yes

<walterbender> we seem to be going over the same ground each week

<cjb> Firefox has taken down sites that purported to offer Firefox downloads

yeah

<SeanDaly> bernie: yes of course but to prevail you have to show you defend your marks

<cjb> here's a procedure:

• wait one more week for the thread with Karen

<bernie> SeanDaly: indeed.

<cjb> * if we're still stuck, consider formulating motions for SLOBs to vote on either way

<SeanDaly> cjb: Fedora, Ubuntu & Firefox have far vaster financing for legal defense

<bernie> SeanDaly: we won't say "do whatever you like with our marks, we won't enforce it on you"

<cjb> * also consider opening it up to iaep@ somehow

<SeanDaly> that's why we need to be smart

<walterbender> cjb: is it reasonable to ask that each board member write a brief position statement?

<cjb> SeanDaly: you keep changing your argument, though. is it just about financing for legal defense? has SFC said that they *don't* have financing for legal defense?

walterbender: that'd be fine with me.

<SeanDaly> cjb: what change?

<tomeu> cjb: do we have two clear positions on trademark?

<cjb> tomeu: I think you could make two clear positions this way:

<SeanDaly> cjb: but compating Mozilla, Canonical, & RRed Hat legal to the SFC is apples vs. oranges

<bernie> SeanDaly, cjb: how about we wait for Karen's response and then just vote?

<cjb> position 1: SLOBs should adopt similar trademark policies to Ubuntu and Firefox, that allow simple redistribution of Sugar to happen without explicit permission subject to constraints, and require permission for more complicated cases.

position 2: SLOBs should adopt a much stronger trademark policy than Ubuntu and Firefox, requiring explicit permission for everything.

<SeanDaly> bcjb: that”s for software not trademarks

<cjb> no, they have redistribution policies for both copyright and trademarks.

<bernie> cjb: put this way, I might not agree with either :-)

-->|::dogi (~dogi@c-65-96-166-32.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined #sugar-meeting

<SeanDaly> I think we should have as striong a policy as Dolby, without the fees for noncommercial

<cjb> without an automatic trademark policy to go along with the automatic copyright license, someone can not redistribute Sugar and call it Sugar.

okay, to rephrase:

<SeanDaly> and as strong branding as Intel, without being like Intel

<cjb> position 2: SLOBs should adopt a much stronger trademark policy than Ubuntu and Firefox -- one that is as strong as Dolby and Intel -- requiring explicit permission for everything.

<bernie> cjb: I'd rather like to see the explicit text for what permissions are granted and under what conditions.

<SeanDaly> bernie: it's not a simple vote... if we can't build the brand, marketing becomes very limited

<cjb> bernie: yeah, that'd be useful. it's in our old trademark policy draft.

<walterbender> cjb: I think that referring to asking for written permission vs auto approval in some cases is not a matter of the "strength" of the TM policy.

<SeanDaly> cjb: there's no "everything", there's a license which enumerates use cases

<walterbender> cjb: I think it is about the relationship we want to establish

<cjb> walterbender: well, it's hard to write concisely. :)

<bernie> SeanDaly: I would be against a policy that would make brand protection hard or impossible... but I think we can find acceptable compromises.

<cjb> should we take how to proceed on trademarks to e-mail, and use our time together for other agenda items now?

<SeanDaly> cjb: we need to be talking to anyone who wants to distribute Sugar; why would we not want to?

<bernie> cjb: url?

<cjb> SeanDaly: because they might not want to talk to us.

<walterbender> cjb: and I don't see the harm in asking to have a conversation with the people who want to redistribute Sugar, esp. in these early days. and I think it would be good for us re discipline as well.

<cjb> walterbender: it's a very hard to measure harm.

people won't yell at you. they just won't use your software.

bernie: sorry, url to what?

<walterbender> cjb: I wonder how we can get some data?

<bernie> cjb: of our current TM policy draft... the one you mentioned.

<cjb> bernie: oh, sorry

<SeanDaly> cjb: there is a small enough list of distros that we contact them directly

bernie: what is hard or impossible?

<cjb> bernie: I know you wanted to talk about buying a new machine -- did you want us to vote on that today? If so, we should do it now.

<walterbender> cjb: again, from my interactions with the major distros, they haven't seen this as a problem... so I am assuming you are referring to some smaller operators.

<bernie> For the record, Firefox's brand protection policies were considered too strict by Debian.

<cjb> indeed.

<walterbender> bernie: it would be good to get some fsf feedback on this topic...

<bernie> therefore, they decided to create a rebranded fork called Iceweasel.

<dogi> iceweasel

<walterbender> but let's switch to bernie's topic in the minute we have left.

<SeanDaly> bernie: with all due respect to Debian which is a super project, their market share is just this side of unmeasurable and brand awareness is probably the same

<bernie> walterbender: ok, I'll ask rms et al.

<walterbender> #topic infrastructure

<bernie> solarsail is aging, and we need to replace it

<cjb> so, Debian/iceweasel is an example of the danger of adopting a strict trademark policy

as a result, the Firefox brand is not promoted at all

<SeanDaly> walterbender: FSF strong on copyright, but trademark not their thing

<cjb> because people on Debian use something called Iceweasel, even though the code is identical to Firefox

walterbender: yeah, I agree with SeanDaly about that -- the FSF is unlikely to take any position on trademarks.

but it's fine to ask.

<walterbender> hey... bernie has the floor

<CanoeBerry> It's 12 noon. Let's please give lip-service to Walter's 3 other agenda items :)

Google Summer of Code, our

2010 goals, and our progress on 0.88

<cjb> bernie: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark , section 2.a., for that url

ok, over to bernie

bernie: it sounds like the WMF machines are much better than solarsail, though

<walterbender> bernie: can you up date us...

<bernie> ok

not only solarsail is way too slow to host some of our core services (trac), but it is becoming too unreliable even for the rest (wiki, planet).

ivan is in the process of acquiring a new machine for himself

<SeanDaly> cjb: Debian can't bring any marketshare to Firefox, so Firefox hasn't lost anything

<bernie> SeanDaly: they have lost mindshare and reputation within the free software community, but let's discuss it later

<cjb> I'm done arguing trademarks for today :-)

<SeanDaly> bernie: ok

<bernie> so, Ivan said he would be happy to continue hosting some SL services on the new solarsail

<cjb> bernie: since we have the WMF machines, I think comparisons to them make more sense than comparisons to solarsail

<bernie> however, there would be the usual strict policy for creating admin accounts

<cjb> it's probably best to move away from solarsail, right?

it made sense to use someone's personal machine while we had no others

<bernie> cjb: I think the WMF servers are nice for hosting the aslo cluster, because it can be made fully redundant

<cjb> but now there can't be very good reasons to do that

<bernie> but they'd not be reliable enough for our core services

<cjb> bernie: there are a *lot* of WMF servers!

more than you'd need for an ASLO cluster

<bernie> for those, I want a decent machine with redundant fans, PSUs, ecc memory, etc.

<cjb> I see

<dogi> andredundantharddrive

<walterbender> bernie: so how much $ do you want to spend?

<bernie> as bad as solarsail may seem, it's approaching 300 days of uptime.

the WMF servers and the two machines kindly provided by dogi are all consumer-grade hardware

<cjb> oh, and where would the new machine be hosted?

<bernie> walterbender: I think something in the $2000 range would suffice.

-->|::dirakx (rafael@190.156.118.95) has joined #sugar-meeting

<cjb> that sounds good

<bernie> cjb: we have several good options, including the medialab, transworldix and rit.

<cjb> I was more worried about $3000, because it looked like we only had around $5000 free

but I think $2000 should be unobjectionable

bernie: okay.. do we know for sure that transworld and rit are happening? have we got any machines into either space yet?

<walterbender> bernie: can you make a motion?

<bernie> my long-term goal is to consolidate Sugar Labs' infrastructure on just two main machines: a secure one for primary services (wiki, lists, git, trac) and another one for shell accounts and secondary services

<cjb> the new machine'd be the primary one?

<bernie> cjb: yes

<cjb> I'm a little worried about buying a machine before we know where to host it, and have checked that that's okay

but I guess you're right that there are many good-seeming options

would the motion be something like:

<bernie> cjb: we got authorized to rack machines at twix a while back, but then we shipped them nothing because the new server thing got swamped.

cjb: so we'd have to recheck with them. lfaraone said they were still ok a few weeks ago.

<cjb> MOTION: Authorize Bernie to spec out a machine around $2000, send details to SLOBs/iaep for review, decide exactly where it will be hosted, then buy it.

<bernie> In my mind, this change would considerably reduce the amount of time I have to spend in managing the low-level infrastructure and let us concentrate more on running the services.

<tomeu> that sounds like a major gain

<cjb> bernie: second my motion if it's the one you agree with :)

<bernie> The current situation of small donated machines spread all over the world, is kind of ridiculously complex to manage:

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team/Resources#Machines

<cjb> yeah

I agree with that

<bernie> I have never in my life seen an organization with so many machines :-)

I think that list is missing a few...

<cjb> bernie: let's get going with the motion?

we're over time

<bernie> I'm spending 80% of my time on keeping these up, and it's wearing me out very much

ok, the motion would be:

<walterbender> bernie: we need to save your strength... for teaching me more Python

<bernie> MOTION: authorize bernie to an expense of $2000 for acquiring a new primary server machine for SL

walterbender: lol :-)

<cjb> bernie: that's a bit shorter than mine

<bernie> cjb: where's yours? oh, I had not seen it

<cjb> MOTION: Authorize Bernie to spec out a machine around $2000, send details to SLOBs/iaep for review, decide exactly where it will be hosted, then buy it.

<walterbender> I second CJB's motion

<bernie> cjb: I'm happy to run the specs through the board again, but couldn't we delegate the technical details?

<CanoeBerry> bernie: which hosting is most likely?

<cjb> bernie: they are delegated; it's up to you which machine to buy, but if you send out for review, we can at least offer opinions

(which you're free to not listen to)

<bernie> cjb: we're an *oversight* board, not an *executive* board. so I think that, in general, we should delegate executive powers to the various coordinators and other executive roles.

<cjb> yes, I didn't mean that we would need to vote again

<bernie> CanoeBerry: twix, I think

<CanoeBerry> twix is where/

<dogi> dc

• walterbender::notes that we all have different opinions on what needs oversight (TM, tech. decisions, etc.) :)

<bernie> cjb: I'm happy to send it out for review, of course... to the systems@ mailing list.

<cjb> bernie: I guess that's fine, yeah

<bernie> CanoeBerry: dc. it's a contact provided by lfaraone

<CanoeBerry> Is Luke Faraone managing the relationship with Twix?

Got it.

<bernie> walterbender: heh :-)

<SeanDaly> bernie: server under marketing review (joke)

<bernie> CanoeBerry: yes

<CanoeBerry> +1

<bernie> CanoeBerry: I would feel more at ease if we could rack it at the Medialab, but we already have 3 machines there, so I'm not sure we can abuse their hospitality much more than this

<cjb> bernie: which machines are they?

<CanoeBerry> Good question.

<dogi> solarsail

housetree

<walterbender> bernie: we coudl swap it with solarsail...

<bernie> cjb: sorry, just 2: solarsail, housetree

<walterbender> and find a new home for solarsail

<cjb> I think a machine at the media lab is *much* easier to manage than one at a hosting company we have no experience of so far

so yeah, I agree with Walter

this machine is replacing solarsail for us

<CanoeBerry> Yes

<bernie> walterbender: twix would seem to be a good home for solarsail too...

cjb: I think so too... I don't know who to ask though... xxv is gone.

<cjb> hm

we don't have a current contact?

-->|::tch (~be689871@gateway/web/freenode/x-hrycugilhkyxjyzm) has joined #sugar-meeting

<CanoeBerry> We are driving to DC for the Mch 27/28 Book Sprint (XO 1.5's http://laptop.org.start) if that helps.

<cjb> what would we do if we needed physical access?

<bernie> cjb: yes, michailis

<cjb> oh, ok

<CanoeBerry> Driving from Boston to DC..

<bernie> dogi: maybe you can answer this?

<cjb> I think just tell Michailis that you're swapping out solarsail with another machine

I'm sure he'll be fine with that

<bernie> CanoeBerry: luke and the Sugar Labs DC folks are on site...

<dogi> +1

<cjb> dunno if he'd be fine with adding one, I wouldn't like to be the person asking :-)

<bernie> cjb: I'm also afraid the media lab cannot give us more than just a few IPs...

<cjb> hm, do we need any more?

solarsail will be getting a new one at twix

<CanoeBerry> Typo above: Mch 27/28 Book Sprint is creating a spanking-new version of Walter's http://laptop.org/start for the XO-1.5

<bernie> cjb: but anyway, I think all these details about the HW, the hosting options and what services go there belong to the infrastructure team meeting, not slobs.

<dogi> +1

<bernie> though I appreciate help in finding better hosting options

<cjb> bernie: yeah, broadly agreed. (I think it's good form for SLOBs to at least ask questions about large expenditures.)

<bernie> I'll also ask the fsf, of course, but I know for sure that thier ruck is full to the top, because I used the last slot for treehouse :-)

<cjb> but the fact that I'm asking question doesn't mean that I'm exerting executive control :)

<CanoeBerry> Can we move on?

<cjb> well, we haven't voted yet

let's do that

<cjb> MOTION: Authorize Bernie to spec out a machine around $2000, send details to systems@ for review, decide exactly where it will be hosted, then buy it.

<walterbender> seconded

<cjb> aye

<CanoeBerry> +1

<SeanDaly> aye

• walterbender::aye

<cjb> motion passes

<walterbender> ok.

I think we should wrap up for today...

<CanoeBerry> Walter's 3 other agenda items get not lip-service, sigh ;)

<cjb> ok. GSOC next week, perhaps with less trademark arguing :)

<CanoeBerry> :)

<SeanDaly> :D

<walterbender> We need to bring the TM policy issue to closure, but let's try to do most of the work on the lists between meetings.

and bring concrete proposals to the table at the meeting.

<cjb> ok

• walterbender::thought that had been the plan for today as per last meeting

<walterbender> Well, thanks for attending. See you next week? (I think we need to meet again soon re GSoC)

<CanoeBerry> bernie: please communicate closely with me if you want solarsail transported to DC on/around Fri Mch 26

<SeanDaly> I'll be traveling, but hopefully 3G or wifi access available

<cjb> yup, next week

<bernie> CanoeBerry: ok

CanoeBerry: not the old one, ivan is buying a new one

<walterbender> #endmeeting

<meeting> Meeting finished at 12:29.

Logs available at http://me.etin.gs/sugar-meeting/sugar-meeting.log.20100226_1107.html