Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-10-23

Log

15:03:42< mchua> #startmeeting
15:03:53< mchua> (for logging purposes, again - I'll post logs this time.)
15:03:57< mchua> #action mchua post logs
15:04:09< mchua> bernie: please please please fix meetbot soon. please.
15:05:09< SeanDaly> greetings karenesq
15:05:11 * tomeu looks in the wiki for the agenda
15:05:11< mchua> What's the agenda for today? I'm inclined to give karenesq the floor to go through whatever she has first, since we don't see her every meeting. ;) And then the only business I can think of is reviewing last week's action items, which I'll pull up in a moment.
15:05:46< mchua> karenesq: Walter said you had some materials for us on trademark, copyright, and financial procedures?
15:06:04< karenesq> mchua: as far as I know, I'm lurking here in case you need me.
15:06:10< mchua> tomeu: (yeah, if you find an agenda on the wiki that completely contradicts what I just said, let me know.)
15:06:56 * sdziallas thought he has seen his trademark proposal on some agenda (might have been in an e-mail, not sure...)
15:07:14< mchua> karenesq: Ok. Let's go through those three things (trademark, copyright, financial procedure) in order then, to let folks ask karenesq questions on those topics, if there are no objections.
15:07:16< karenesq> mchua: Oh, OK, Bradley and I are working on creating a definitive list of procedures  to confirm and clear up conservancy policies, including trademarks, but we're not quite done yet
15:07:17 * SeanDaly yes sdziallas, that was the case
15:07:20< mchua> Awesome.
15:07:47< sdziallas> SeanDaly: cool! good to know that my mind isn't tricking me, yet.
15:07:50< mchua> karenesq: Is there anything we can do to help, any way we can keep track of that process, any idea for when it might be done?
15:07:51< SeanDaly> karenesq, may I ask a question?
15:07:52< cjb> morning
15:07:59< mchua> hey, cjb!
15:08:03 * SeanDaly greets cjb
15:08:51< karenesq> mchua: I hope to get it to you next week.
15:08:51< karenesq> SeanDaly: sure, but bear in mind that IRC is not the best forum for legal advice...
15:09:01< SeanDaly> karenesq: no general question, briefly, what is difference between (r) mark and (tm) mark?
15:09:16< karenesq> SeanDaly: (r) means registered
15:09:38< karenesq> SeanDaly: Sugar Labs is a registered mark in the US so you can use the (r) designation
15:09:51< SeanDaly> karenesq: no general question, briefly, what is difference between (r) mark and (tm) mark? ,
15:09:56< SeanDaly> oops
15:10:18< SeanDaly> so (r) beyond (tm)?
15:10:23< SeanDaly> or vice versa?
15:10:34< karenesq> SeanDaly: tm lets people know that you are claiming trademark rights in your mark, logo, whatever.
15:10:42< karenesq> so (r) is more specific than tm
15:10:47< SeanDaly> ok I understand better
15:10:55< mchua> karenesq: another general question - is it "can use (r)" or "can and really should use (r)"?
15:11:09< karenesq> we have a little trademark primer in SFLC's legal guide
15:11:22 * mchua looks for link
15:11:28< SeanDaly> does registration in a country such as US allow registration overseas, Wipo "Madrid" or something?
15:11:35 * karenesq will find the link and post it here
15:11:41< mchua> karenesq: thanks!
15:11:55-!- CanoeBerry [i=CanoeBer@dhcp-49-133.media.mit.edu] has joined #sugar-meeting
15:12:11< mchua> karenesq: thanks for bearing with our questions, btw. Most of the board members here (myself included) have only been board members for... about 10 days now, so we're still learning on the job.
15:12:21< mchua> (and it's the first time board membership has transitioned - we're the second board.)
15:12:21< karenesq> mchua: I think so. really, under US law, notifying people that you are claiming trademark rights in the mark are probably enough, but I would use (r)
15:12:31 * mchua nods, ok.
15:12:51< CanoeBerry> Hiya, sorry I'm late. Listening to catch up.
15:12:53< karenesq> SeanDaly: there is something called the Madrid Protocol, which allows you to register internationally once you've registered in one of the treaty countries
15:12:54< mchua> #link http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html
15:12:57 * SeanDaly greets CanoeBerry
15:13:02< mchua> karenesq: ^^ is that it?
15:13:25< mchua> hey, CanoeBerry. I'm going to be posting logs right after, but lemme see if I can pastebin you a backlog now.
15:13:27< karenesq> SeanDaly: we haven't done that yet for Sugar Labs, but it's on the agenda
15:13:35< tomeu> CanoeBerry: http://pastebin.be/21523
15:13:46< mchua> ...except if tomeu beats me to it. :) yay!
15:13:47< SeanDaly> karenesq: thanks
15:14:04< karenesq> mchua: yes, the specific link is:
15:14:08< karenesq> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html#x1-600005
15:14:17< mchua> Ah, thanks!
15:14:34 * karenesq doesn't type as fast a she wishes she did
15:15:03< mchua> Ok. I know right now in terms of marks and trademarks, we have Sugar Labs, but there were some others under consideration (or that have come up in discussion on the mailing lists)
15:15:11< mchua> Sugar on a Stick, for one.
15:15:20< mchua> I'm not sure if this is a good time to mention it, just so it's on the radar.
15:15:36< mchua> Might be better to wait until karenesq and the SFLC finish those procedures.
15:15:56< mchua> but does anyone want to get out any pending questions/issues so we know what we have to deal with at some point?
15:16:09< karenesq> mchua: I'm aware of that, and we should probably consider registration of that mark as well, though there would be some protection under the existing registrations
15:16:13< mchua> sdziallas: did you want to post the link to your trademark procedure proposal thread?
15:16:23< tomeu> karenesq: I guess most projects register their project name plus one or more product names?
15:16:27< sdziallas> mchua: sure... well, here it is: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark#Sugar_on_a_Stick_Guidelines
15:16:27< CanoeBerry> Not urgent: in what countries is Sugar Labs trademarked?
15:16:54< SeanDaly> there were a couple of questions to us recently about copyrights/licensing issues
15:17:00< karenesq> tomeu: actually, I think most projects don't actually register their marks, but the ones that do usually trademark their name and logo
15:17:21< karenesq> tomeu: companies that run certain projects almost always register the marks :)
15:17:31< tomeu> I see
15:17:31< mchua> karenesq: Ok - so I suppose after the SFLC procedures are done, we should make sure the Sugar Labs mark is all set (and documented, and that SLOBs understands it) and then do the same for Sugar on a Stick.
15:17:36< SeanDaly> my instinct is to refer legale questions to the SFC but I mentioned on the list that it would be good if we could tag content with the copyright holders
15:17:38-!- satellit [n=robert@bc105154.bendcable.com] has joined #sugar-meeting
15:18:07< SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: karenesq has said it's on the agenda
15:18:12< tomeu> SeanDaly: what content?
15:18:15< karenesq> CanoeBerry: right now the US, but there's something called the Madrid Protocol that will help us register in a lot of countries at once
15:18:21< mchua> #info waiting for SFLC trademark procedures to be written, but then will address Sugar Labs mark (clarification/documentation), then Sugar on a Stick (possibly more involved)
15:18:39< SeanDaly> the Sugar on a Stick beauty shot by Philippe Cantinau for example
15:18:48< SeanDaly> the Dongyun Lee illustrations
15:18:49< karenesq> SeanDaly: legal questions go to SFLC, admin go to the conservancy :)
15:18:52< mchua> #info also on the SFLC/SL agenda for after procedures are written: Madrid Protocol (international mark registration)
15:19:27< sdziallas> mchua: is the SFLC procedure a blocker for us / SLOBs to discuss / decide on the SoaS trademark stuff?
15:19:27< SeanDaly> Mike Lee photos
15:19:55 * mchua slowly starting to build a picture of the various issues SLOBs will have to address over the next few months in addition to handling things as they come up
15:20:45< tomeu> SeanDaly: ok, so content not in the wiki?
15:20:48< mchua> sdziallas: Discuss, no. Decide, possibly. I think without the procedures and an understanding of how trademarks work and what they mean, we can't determine what decisions should be made, or their consequences.
15:21:06< SeanDaly> tomeu: soe of that is in the wiki, other in the static website
15:21:08< mchua> sdziallas: I can't think of anything that would block discussion on... just about anything, though.
15:21:12< SeanDaly> s/soe/some
15:21:29< sdziallas> mchua: well, but I mean SL can still work on SoaS naming policies, no?
15:21:34< tomeu> SeanDaly: but what is put in the wiki is not CC'ed automatically?
15:22:18< SeanDaly> tomeu: by default it is, but the copyright holders are not indicated for visuals likely to be reused
15:22:18< mchua> tomeu, SeanDaly: wiki content is automatically CC-BY.
15:22:36< mchua> according to the wiki, anyway.
15:22:38< SeanDaly> mchua: rather, by default unless stated otherwise
15:23:02< mchua> SeanDaly: ah, yes.
15:23:07< tomeu> SeanDaly: ok, so we need some guidelines for authors(everybody)?
15:23:19< karenesq> mchua: regarding the Sugar on a Stick guidelines at the link you posted, I think it's probably better to work it into the existing policy than to use the fedora guidelines
15:23:40< SeanDaly> for example, I would be uncomfortable with changed versions of our logo, or visuals
15:23:44< mchua> sdziallas: To some extent. I personally don't have a clear notion of how trademark law affects the boundaries of what SL can do with SoaS naming policies, but maybe one of the other SLOBs knows more about that kind of thing.
15:24:19< sdziallas> karenesq: oh, I was just saying (it's my proposal there) there that it's derived from the Fedora policies...
15:24:41< SeanDaly> mchua: sdziallas, myself, and others wish to protect the Sugar on a Stick product name and logo
15:24:44< mchua> karenesq: I think the proposal was that we would modify the Fedora policies and then adapt a separate version for Sugar Labs that's closer to our needs.
15:24:47< sdziallas> mchua: well, probably then the first question is what SL *wants* to do with SoaS.
15:25:10< CanoeBerry> Bad Joke: if SLOBS has no authority, we can always use France's new 3-strikes-and-your-out antipiracy law: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10381365-261.html
15:25:21< sdziallas> mchua: this includes the question whether the name can or will be licensed to third-parties.
15:25:30< sdziallas> SeanDaly: exactly. :)
15:25:33< karenesq> sdziallas: I think it's a good step, but I would simply apply the rest of the policy specifically to SoaS. I agree that it's completely subject to what the OB board wants to do :)
15:26:31< sdziallas> karenesq: by "the policy", do you mean SL's or Fedora's?
15:27:01< karenesq> sdziallas: I mean SL's policy, right now we already have provisions the prevent use if it's confusing
15:27:10< mchua> s/SL's/SL's hypothetical future proposed policy, or current?
15:27:17< SeanDaly> karenesq: I have suggested for some time that we trademark Sugar on a Stick
15:27:21< karenesq> sdziallas: it's tough to give advice on this in format, so bear with me
15:27:32< mchua> SeanDaly: +1
15:27:36< sdziallas> karenesq: I guess confusing depends on who judges it.
15:27:45< sdziallas> karenesq: yes, I understand that :)
15:28:18< karenesq> sdziallas: it's from the perspective of the consumer/user, generally. If they could be confused about the source of the product. That's the legal test
15:28:36< tomeu> that's good to know
15:29:05< karenesq> for Sugar Labs (the registered mark) we only permit use if  "the usage does not imply or make the user believe that the publication, domain name or book is supported or authorized by Sugar Labs. "
15:29:25< sdziallas> karenesq: I suggested this change because... well, to clarify stuff.
15:29:44< karenesq> and we include the same for use of the word "Sugar" as well. I would specifically include SoaS in the same way
15:29:55< mchua> karenesq: is the SoaS conversation something that would be easier to have after the SFLC procedures are out and we've read them, or does it make no difference (and we should therefore just have the discussion now as much as possible)?
15:29:58< karenesq> sdziallas: I'm for clarification, I'm just for consistency :)
15:30:09< SeanDaly> karenesq: may I ask, what should constitute authorization? Executive director decision, Oversight board decision?
15:30:24< SeanDaly> as marketing coordinator I am very sensitive to the topic
15:30:50< CanoeBerry> question: will we have time for other quick agenda items before I need to leave 11am? Some can defer til next week if nec.
15:31:00< mchua> CanoeBerry: What's on your list?
15:31:03< karenesq> mchua: how about we draft our policies, along with a modification of the trademark policy to specifically include SoaS and then we discuss? :)
15:31:25< mchua> karenesq: Ok. And that's something SFLC is doing, we at SL just wait for a week and check back in?
15:31:31< CanoeBerry> The list we set out last week: rules report, ombudsperson report, etc -- reporting back now after 1 week.
15:31:58< karenesq> SeanDaly: authorization is by the organization. Conservancy delegates that to SLOBs and SLOBs may delegate that to others under the appropriate authority.
15:32:15< SeanDaly> karenesq: thank you, very clear
15:32:18< mchua> CanoeBerry: Ah yeah, we should get through that. I think the only other thing we have with karenesq is financial procedure
15:32:44< karenesq> Only an appropriately authorized person may sign for Conservancy and that is generally done on a case by case basis (we need to make sure the Conservancy is aware of all of the obligations SL is taking on)
15:33:08< karenesq> mchua: that sounds good to me.
15:33:12 * mchua nods. karenesq, thanks for all the explanations - this makes things much clearer.
15:33:26 * sdziallas mentions that the SoaS v2 launch is less than a month away (which is why I'm bringing the branding stuff up over and over again)
15:33:29< sdziallas> mchua: +1
15:33:39 * sdziallas goes back lurking, not preventing people from moving on :)
15:33:40< SeanDaly> karenesq: contract should be part of the picture, right? what preference for jurisdiction?
15:33:51< karenesq> financial procedures are also something we are drafting in the same document - the document is basically Conservancy policies, as tailored for SL
15:34:00< mchua> karenesq: Ok - so no actions, mark-wise/legal-wise on our part, 'till next week. (Do you want to schedule another meeting? is this time good?)
15:34:02 * SeanDaly on same wavelength as sdziallas... launch approaching
15:34:18< mchua> #info SoaS v2 launch approaching, so there's a sense of urgency around the SoaS mark issues.
15:34:58< mchua> #info waiting on legal issues for a week until SFLC drafts policies, including modifying trademark policy to include SoaS.
15:35:15< karenesq> SeanDaly: if there are arrangements that outside of the set policies already, for example a trademark license beyond what is permitted by the policy, then yes, it should be done by contract. I'm a NY/US lawyer so I will choose that jurisdiction unless there's a reason to do otherwise.
15:35:32< mchua> #info mark authorization is delegated by Conservancy to SLOBs, and SLOBs may delegate that to others.
15:35:43< karenesq> mchua: sure, I can do another meeting, this time is fine.
15:36:00< karenesq> mchua: though I'm not sure we'll need one :)
15:36:15< SeanDaly> karenesq: sounds good
15:36:33< mchua> karenesq: oh, ok. less meetings == good! will we be discussing this on a mailing list then?
15:36:52 * mchua just wants to make sure we have a clear notion of how we'll touch base on the legal stuff next
15:37:07< karenesq> SeanDaly: I can't give legal advice in a jurisdiction I'm not admitted in, so I will generally just review the materials and let you know if I have any particular concerns if it's another jurisdiction. Then we can evaluate if we need to consult another lawyer
15:37:27< SeanDaly> karenesq: I understand
15:37:57< karenesq> mchua: why don't we see what kind of questions people have? It's easier for me if we collect all of the questions and then figure out the best way to respond but if that's impractical I understand
15:38:15< cjb> karenesq: if only "the internet" was a jurisdiction ;-)
15:38:35< mchua> SeanDaly: (sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt/cut-off your question-asking)
15:38:53< SeanDaly> cjb: I covered Copiepresse case for Groklaw, they attempted Internet-wide jurisdiction
15:39:11< mchua> SeanDaly: Do you want to drive the "let's queue up questions for karenesq" bus?
15:39:19< mchua> it seems like a lot of them are Marketing-related
15:39:21< SeanDaly> mchua: no problem perhaps other agenda items?
15:39:33< mchua> #action SeanDaly gathering questions for karenesq 
15:39:49< karenesq> SeanDaly: we can also talk offline if there are specific marketing questions you have
15:40:00< SeanDaly> mchua: not so fast, don't volunteer me :D my main questions are answered
15:40:00< mchua> #info financial procedures also waiting on SFLC procedure revision
15:40:16< SeanDaly> karenesq: ok thank you
15:40:52< SeanDaly> mchua: trademark issues are always marketing-related ;-)
15:40:54< mchua> karenesq: SeanDaly: request - if you do, could you post logs to list? I'd love to read and learn as well, and I'm sure others will be interested
15:41:06< mchua> SeanDaly: *grin* rapidly learning that, mostly by watching you
15:42:16< karenesq> mchua: it's tough - I hate when logs are posted because there was usually a context to the conversation and taken out of context I could be interpreted as giving legal advice that I wasn't giving. How about we post a summary?
15:42:35< mchua> karenesq: That would work, thanks!
15:42:38 * karenesq is sorry to be so lawyerly. she can't help it.
15:42:56< mchua> karenesq: no, no, *thank you* for being lawyerly.
15:43:06< karenesq> :)
15:43:30< mchua> I know that I personally (as an engineer and community wrangler) don't have a very clear picture of How Lawyers need To Think yet, so pushback on those boundaries is helpful.
15:44:18 * SeanDaly mchua: IANAL, but often got into lawyerly thinking at Groklaw
15:44:33< mchua> Ok. I think that's all the SFLC topics - karenesq, is there anything else you think we should cover while you're here?
15:44:46< mchua> otherwise, we should move onto the topics CanoeBerry wanted to bring up from the agenda last week.
15:45:06< karenesq> mchua: no, I can stay on channel in case you need me again though I may be a bit slow to respond.
15:45:10< CanoeBerry> When you're ready, we don't havve karensq every day.
15:45:12< mchua> SeanDaly: and that is why you are Awesome.
15:45:18< mchua> SeanDaly: well, one of the many many reasons.
15:45:38< mchua> karenesq: Thanks for taking the time to talk with us today!
15:45:41< mchua> CanoeBerry: Go!
15:46:01< karenesq> mchua: no problem! going to lurk mode...
15:46:22< SeanDaly> mchua: I prefer to be Modest ;-)
15:46:40< CanoeBerry> mchua: do you want to address rules with tomeu? I can then summarize my ombudsperson report from Bert and Michael Stone.
15:47:00< CanoeBerry> Or should i start?
15:47:10< mchua> CanoeBerry: Go for it.
15:47:13< CanoeBerry> OK.
15:47:20< mchua> since you have the time limit.
15:47:49< CanoeBerry> I had two quick discussions with BertF and MStone, on how Sugar Labs has (and more importantly has not) taken advantage of an ombudsperson role.
15:48:22< CanoeBerry> In fact both agree this role has worked, but they seem to be the only 2 people who have used it over the past year, regrettably.
15:48:50< mchua> isn't BertF the ombudsperson?
15:49:00< CanoeBerry> So it "worked" but not really. The charter of the ombudsperson says private conversatins who happen with the ombudsperson, towards conflict-resolution etc.
15:49:00< mchua> he used himself?
15:49:11< CanoeBerry> BertF is the ombuds.
15:49:13< tomeu> heh
15:49:26< CanoeBerry> MStone is the only person that contacted him all year in this capacity, as I understand it.
15:49:31< mchua> oh.
15:49:32< mchua> ok.
15:49:37< CanoeBerry> So the service is not advertised sufficiently.
15:49:50< CanoeBerry> And BertF apologizes for not being a bit more active.
15:49:54< mchua> Were there incidents that should have utilized ombuds but did not?
15:50:11< mchua> (I think it's pretty clearly 'yes' in my book)
15:50:15< CanoeBerry> Anyway MStone was very happy with the work BertF did in illuminating his disagreement with SLOBs perhaps 6 months ago.
15:50:18< CanoeBerry> End of story.
15:50:35< CanoeBerry> The sad part is that this role is not being taken seriously.
15:50:45< tomeu> ok, so next step is figuring out how to better advertise the ombudsman services?
15:50:54< CanoeBerry> So I want to think about it for another week and talk to others on how we can do better.
15:51:01< mchua> CanoeBerry: Can we ask m_stone and BertF to write up a short case study of how that process worked for them? That might help advertise
15:51:04< tomeu> CanoeBerry: who doesn't take this role seriously?
15:51:07< CanoeBerry> The ombuds is chartered with writing a monthly report.
15:51:12< CanoeBerry> This is not happening.
15:51:17< CanoeBerry> People don't know about it at all.
15:51:18< CanoeBerry> Etc.
15:51:21< CanoeBerry> We can do better.
15:51:39< mchua> #info ombuds valuable to keep, but not sufficiently utilized (or advertised)
15:51:45< CanoeBerry> Thanks.
15:51:52< CanoeBerry> Let's talk some more next week on this issue.
15:52:00< mchua> #info only one ombuds usage reported (m_stone) with very happy resolution, would like this to happen more
15:52:07< CanoeBerry> Next agenda item?  And thank Bert for his work.
15:52:09< mchua> #info ombuds chartered with writing a monthly report, but this isn't happening
15:52:50< mchua> CanoeBerry: can you come back next week with a plan for getting those monthly reports written (whether BertF will remind us or vice versa) and a report on how the service will be advertised?
15:52:58< mchua> so we move forward between now and then
15:53:08< CanoeBerry> Yes I will draft a plan with BertF and MStone.
15:53:33< CanoeBerry> Perhaps monthly reports are inappropriate, but some reporting (as Bert says "perhaps I could be more active/vocal") is necessary.
15:53:38< mchua> #action CanoeBerry to come back next week with a plan for getting those monthly reports written (whether BertF will remind us or vice versa) and a report on how the service will be advertised?
15:53:41 * mchua nods
15:53:47< mchua> thanks, Adam.
15:53:51< CanoeBerry> Not necessarily monthly, but yes.
15:54:03< mchua> who had dfarning/treasurer?
15:54:13< CanoeBerry> Was it Walter? Can't remember.
15:54:16< mchua> #info ombuds monthly reports may not be monthly, but some sort of reporting, yeah
15:54:20 * mchua looks at logs
15:54:59< mchua> it was indeed dfarning.
15:55:13< mchua> #action next meeting Walter report back with treasurer role clarification status (with dfarning)
15:55:20< SeanDaly> I believe dfarning has said he is willing to continue in the treasurer role for now
15:55:36 * mchua nods
15:55:59< mchua> I think the question was how the treasurer role will operate, how it will be passed on when dfarning decides he doesn't want to do it, etc
15:56:09< mchua> (are those bylaws? they're called something)
15:56:26< mchua> I was ED with Walter, and he wanted to have that conversation on the mailing lists, so I will drive those there for next week when he gets back from travels.
15:56:37< CanoeBerry> mchua: important questions i'm sure dfarning can illuminate well. Counting beans can get boring.
15:56:48< mchua> #action next meeting mchua report back with ED role clarification status (drive convo with Walter on mailing list, as per request)
15:57:10< mchua> CanoeBerry: Yep. I think he's already started to articulate some of them on the SLOBs list, but I'd like to get that publicly documented so that potential future treasurers can see what the role involves.
15:57:30< mchua> The last item I see from last week's meeting is
15:57:32< mchua> mchua and tomeu to propose voting structure to be (hopefully) approved at next week's meeting 
15:57:37< SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: boring yet vital... funders want to see clean books and not cooked books
15:58:03 * mchua *really* appreciates the accounting work dfarning is doing
15:58:17< CanoeBerry> SeanDaly: DFarning knows this well, we should be very thankful.
15:58:28< mchua> #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Requesting_a_SLOBs_decision
15:58:33< mchua> that is what tomeu and I came up with from last week
15:58:36< SeanDaly> Indeed I am thankful :-)
15:58:58< mchua> since we do not have full attendance today, we can't ratify anything
15:59:18< CanoeBerry> Partic w/o studying such a critical proposal carefully :)
15:59:24 * mchua points out this is why we need a different decision-making procedure than "eventually, if every single SLOBs member gives a +1, it's a go"
15:59:29< mchua> CanoeBerry: Exactly.
15:59:57< mchua> So I'd like to suggest that tomeu and I work on this for another week, and that everyone takes time between now and next meeting to read and consider the options we have
16:00:19< mchua> so we can have a good discussion (hopefully with full attendance) at the next meeting, and get this out of the way then
16:00:37 * mchua will work on getting full attendance at our next meeting if that sounds good
16:00:39< tomeu> mchua: guess we can send the proposals to the ml and let people discuss a bit?
16:00:41< SeanDaly> Wiki page is an excellent start
16:00:51< mchua> only a start, though
16:01:02< CanoeBerry> Great. End this meeting soon?
16:01:33< mchua> Yep.
16:01:38< mchua> one sec.
16:01:51< mchua> #action mchua and tomeu to finish http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Requesting_a_SLOBs_decision
16:02:00< mchua> #action everyone to read and consider options on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Requesting_a_SLOBs_decision before next meeting
16:02:08< mchua> #action mchua work on getting full attendance for next meeting
16:02:25< mchua> One thing I'd like to propose - and please tell me if this is a Bad Idea (if there's something more urgent that should trump it)
16:02:38< mchua> is that our next meeting goal be to walk away with a way to make decisions.
16:02:42< mchua> i.e, http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Requesting_a_SLOBs_decision should be done.
16:02:55< CanoeBerry> Will be challenging, but is a noble goal.
16:02:58< tomeu> mchua: I guess we really need it
16:03:00-!- cjb [n=cjb@18.85.46.20] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
16:03:04< mchua> That should make everything else we do *way* easier and faster in the future.
16:03:22< mchua> But it also means that we may /not/ have time to talk about trademark, etc. and other things next week.
16:03:33< mchua> or check in with those other action items (may have to defer to ml or a future meeting).
16:03:55< mchua> (then again, they're quick. so we might surprise ourselves. ;)
16:03:56< CanoeBerry> Also, are people happy with weekly meetings in general?  This is very relevant if it drives people nuts (too often, too infrequent, etc)
16:04:10< CanoeBerry> Reaching a quorum requires happy participants :)
16:04:22< mchua> CanoeBerry: good point. I'm happy with weekly meetings because it seems like we have enough agenda queued up right now to need them
16:04:37< mchua> but I'm hoping frequency will diminish, and... yeah, you're right, we need to make sure everyone is happy with the frequency.
16:04:39< SeanDaly> item: "add teeth to toothfree OB"? ;-)
16:04:50< CanoeBerry> OK weekly for now -- requesting full participation whenever possible.
16:05:06< mchua> #action find SLOBs a dentist ;)
16:05:15< SeanDaly> weekly good for me
16:05:20< CanoeBerry> Gotta run, anything else?
16:05:21< mchua> cool. are we done?
16:05:29< mchua> not from me
16:05:55< CanoeBerry> Hope to see a lot of the crew in Bolzano!
16:05:57< CanoeBerry> Bye!
16:06:00< mchua> ...and with that, I'm going to close the logs.
16:06:03< mchua> Thanks for a great meeting, all.
16:06:06< tomeu> sounds good
16:06:11< SeanDaly> will see you there! bye!
16:06:12< mchua> CanoeBerry: I'll see you in Toronto soon, I think :)
16:06:17< CanoeBerry> Indeed!
16:06:45< mchua> #endmeeting