Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Minutes-2009-12-23

< Oversight Board‎ | 2009
Revision as of 11:27, 23 December 2009 by Walter (talk | contribs) (Created page with 'In attendance: SLOB members: walter, tomeu, cjb. bernie Some community members (including satellit, bemasc) attended the meeting. == Agenda == # Further discussion of policy f…')
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In attendance:

SLOB members: walter, tomeu, cjb. bernie

Some community members (including satellit, bemasc) attended the meeting.

Agenda

  1. Further discussion of policy for using Sugar trademark
  2. Guidelines re transactions with the SFC
  3. Infrastructure proposal

Further discussion of policy for using Sugar trademark

We had consensus that we wanted to clarify the policy regarding the inclusion of Sugar in products as per Section 2.b. of our [policy].

MOTION 1: Add "For example, "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar" or other "<product>, <joined with> Sugar" language would be a use that does not require permission" to trademark policy Section 2.b.

The motion was seconded and we agreed to open discussion on the lists and bring it to vote at the next meeting.

We also discussed the confusing language throughout Section 2.

<bemasc> It looks like the whole trademark policy was just a string interpolation
<bemasc> based on organizations whose name is the same as the name of their product
<cjb> I think there are two choices:
<cjb> either change "Sugar Labs" to "Sugar" in most places, or
<cjb> change "Sugar Labs" to "the Sugar Labs marks" in most places

And we discussed making more explicit the requirement to keep the Sugar Labs mark secondary in advertising materials, as per Section 4.

<cjb> ... Note that "Foo" must be being used more prominently than "Sugar" in advertising materials in this case."

We also discussed the confusion regarding Section 5.a., which refers to Sugar on a Stick ("You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key and refer to it as 'Sugar on a Stick'"), in respect to [2] from last week, where we state "'Sugar on a Stick' should be reserved by Sugar Labs for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution so that Sugar can be marketed effectively".

Guidelines re transactions with the SFC

We did not discuss Sugar_Labs/Governance/Transactions.

Infrastructure proposal

We did not discuss Bernie's infrastructure proposal.

Other business

<cjb> I'd like to get a better idea of our finances
<cjb> the last ledger from Bradley was pretty confusing to me
<walterbender> cjb: I am acting finance director :(
<cjb> do you think you could try and come up with a "this is how much money is in our account and spendable on new items" number for next week?
<walterbender> cjb: I'll try.

Next meeting

Wednesday, 30 December 2009 15:00 UTC

Log

Meeting Log