10,579
edits
Changes
Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-12-04 (view source)
Revision as of 11:09, 4 December 2009
, 11:09, 4 December 2009Created page with ':'''<walterbender>''' #startmeeting :'''<meeting>''' Meeting started at 10:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender. :'''<meeting>''' Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED…'
:'''<walterbender>''' #startmeeting
:'''<meeting>''' Meeting started at 10:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
:'''<meeting>''' Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
:'''<walterbender>''' We have an agenda in the wiki...
:'''<walterbender>''' the first topic is Bernie's but he is not here yet...
:'''<walterbender>''' the second topic is the DP. has anyone heard back from the committee?
:'''<cjb>''' nope
:'''<SeanDaly>''' not I
:'''<walterbender>''' nor I :(
:'''<walterbender>''' I know they got my message regarding the deadline
:'''<walterbender>''' I am afraid this process has not worked.
:'''<bernie>''' This is Bernie, Adam, and Mel.
:'''<bernie>''' We're all here.
:'''<walterbender>''' ciao bernardo
:'''<SeanDaly>''' greetings bernieadammel
:'''<walterbender>''' do you need the backlog?
:'''<bernie>''' no, we have it.
:'''<bernie>''' (Mel is typing)
:'''<walterbender>''' since bernie is here, let's start with his topic.
:'''<bernie>''' which topic is that?
:'''<walterbender>''' #TOPIC teams@ lists
:'''<bernie>''' Ah, yes. I see.
:'''<walterbender>''' Bernie, can you summarize your proposal?
:'''<bernie>''' I worry that we'd end up using long cc lists too much if we do not have a standard way to share business/strategic communication with key people such as team leaders
:'''<bernie>''' I'd propose a teams@ list for this kind of communication.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I like this idea
:'''<SeanDaly>''' often worry about teams not interacting enough (fear justified or not)
:'''<tomeu>''' I don't see why team coordinators would need to be much more involved in these discussions than other people
:'''<bernie>''' there's potential for abuse of course... as there was for the wide-audience slobs
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: can you give a hypothetical example of how it would be used?
:'''<tomeu>''' do we have any past situations that support this need?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' A media campaign launch :-)
:'''<SeanDaly>''' "all hands on deck"
:'''<bernie>''' tomeu: for example, getting you and erikos in the loop regarding the nokia deal
:'''<bernie>''' tomeu: or the launchpad thing
:'''<SeanDaly>''' or, my Osor meeting in which hosting possibilities were discussed (still have to write up a debrief)
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: I am not sure I understand
:'''<walterbender>''' each of these cases seems unique. what is the common denominator that a list would address?
:'''<walterbender>''' Doesn't each team, e.g., marketing or infrastructure already have a list?
:'''<tomeu>''' frankly, I see that proposal dividing more than uniting our community
:'''<SeanDaly>''' well, the problem is lack of interaction
:'''<walterbender>''' SeanDaly: can you please elaborate?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' for example if marketing stuff which impacts development,
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: yes, it does seem to elevate members into "trusted or untrusted", which is often a mistake
:'''<tomeu>''' and I don't like the word leader, each team needs a coordinator but several of its members can have a leader role in different areas
:'''<bernie>''' walterbender: team leaders is just a way to include everyone who is trusted enough to lead a team
:'''<SeanDaly>''' there are problems real quick if developers not in the loop
:'''<bernie>''' tomeu: I also see the downside, that's true
:'''<SeanDaly>''' at the same time, not all devs want all marketing info all the time
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I have a counterproposal - instead of having a teams@ list, make it a req that each team has a slobs in the loop for that team
:'''<SeanDaly>''' to put it mildly
:'''<bernie>''' i.e. each team would have a "SLOBs ambassador"
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: in theory we have that already.
:'''<walterbender>''' it is in our bylaws
:'''<cjb>''' SJ was telling me about wikipedia does this
:'''<tomeu>''' bernie: as I said, I think we have coordinators, that may be defacto leaders, or not
:'''<cjb>''' they say you can *only* start a team if you can find a board member to sit on it, or something
:'''<bernie>''' walterbender: in practice, though?
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: for the most part, yes.
:'''<cjb>''' so it's sort of the opposite of our decision panel rules; rather than requiring no members of the board, they require at least one
:'''<bernie>''' walterbender:if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: infrastruture-you; marketing-sean; etc.
:'''<walterbender>''' activities-me
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: but we only have 7 people on the board
:'''<walterbender>''' and not so many teams either
:'''<bernie>''' mel: but a SLOB can be an ambassador for 2 teams if needed
:'''<bernie>''' mel asks again: if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
:'''<cjb>''' we can "solve our confidentiality issues" by not being too lazy to write out addresses of individuals on e-mails when we need to, though
:'''<walterbender>''' I guess I (a) don't understand what are confidentiality issues are and (b) don't understand how another list would solve the problem I don't understand
:'''<cjb>''' and if we do that, we haven't just split our community into people we like and people we don't
:'''<tomeu>''' cjb++
:'''<cjb>''' at least not in a way that's obvious to them :)
:'''<bernie>''' mel: bernie and I just clarified something between us - the "SLOBs ambassadors requirement" for teams would be for a SLOBs person to be actively watching that team, not necessarily leading it
:'''<bernie>''' (bernie had thought it was that a SLOB had to be leading the team)
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: in factr, in almost every case, the SLOBs member is NOT the leader, which is a good thing.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: cjb++
:'''<cjb>''' so my thought is that this proposal has the potential to create much more harm than good
:'''<cjb>''' even though I can see that it could create some good
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: is a motion emerging from this discussion?
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'd like to propose the motion that we have SLOBs ambassadors to each team, instead of a teams@ list
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: I would agree on that.
:'''<cjb>''' what happens in the weird case of no-one wanting to be their ambassador?
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: maybe the motion should be that we ensure that we execute on that structure, which is already in our by-laws
:'''<cjb>''' does the ambassador have to go to all that team's meetings?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' perhaps it's early to do this. If there were 3x the number of volunteers, i think it would more useful.
:'''<tomeu>''' btw, we have teams without coordinators, I don't see how we are talking about this before having found a coordinator for each
:'''<bernie>''' mel: cjb: it would be a requirement for a team to have /an/ ambassador, I'd say
:'''<tomeu>''' we don't even have a community manager yet
:'''<bernie>''' mel: cjb: but how the ambassador and the team interface doesn't have to be strictly defined right now
:'''<SeanDaly>''' or an education/content manager...
:'''<cjb>''' so, this idea is obviously much less objectionable
:'''<cjb>''' but I don't think it solves the same problem
:'''<cjb>''' and I don't know that the problem it solves is actually one we have
:'''<bernie>''' Adam: i think this is a useful conversation, but I'm not sure if we can encode these responsibilities easily.
* walterbender deserves the heat because making sure the by-laws are observed is probably the responsibility of the ED
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I think this is a good convo to take to Planet as a conversation starter, but we probably can't make much more progress on it right now
:'''<tomeu>''' also, the only team with regular meetings is the marketing team
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: +1
:'''<bernie>''' adam: +1
:'''<cjb>''' +1
:'''<SeanDaly>''' regular as long as I'm not moving house :D
:'''<tomeu>''' and the only other one that has occasional meetings is the dev team
:'''<walterbender>''' in any case, it seems we are not planning to move forward with Bernie's original proposal at this time?
:'''<tomeu>''' so I don't know what sense makes to say that slobs attends team meetings
:'''<bernie>''' mel: that's what I think
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: that's fine
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I think revisit the topic for the happy day we have enough volunteers that not everybody knows everybody
:'''<bernie>''' adam: I do like what mel said - as long as it's not enforced, to have that expectation...
:'''<walterbender>''' I will volunteer to crack the whip to ensure we have a mapping between SLOBs and teams.
:'''<bernie>''' adam: that the team coordinator builds a social relationship with slobs
:'''<bernie>''' mel: moving on then?
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: are you satisfied?
:'''<bernie>''' yes
:'''<walterbender>''' OK.
:'''<walterbender>''' to summarize: we will not implement the teams@ list at this time, but will mae a concerted effrot to ensure that there is SLOBs presence on all teams.
:'''<walterbender>''' #TOPIC SoaS DP
:'''<walterbender>''' Have any of you on the bus heard back from the DP?
:'''<walterbender>''' none of the rest of us have.
:'''<bernie>''' all three: no
:'''<walterbender>''' :(
:'''<walterbender>''' I think this means that we have to dissolve the panel
:'''<walterbender>''' as per our discussion last time.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' when was deadline again pls?
:'''<walterbender>''' today.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yes, disappointing.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: ok, so we dissolve the panel and then who handles the decision? slobs?
:'''<cjb>''' mel: that would be my preference
:'''<walterbender>''' that is what we need to decide
:'''<bernie>''' mel: mine as well
:'''<cjb>''' I don't think this situation is encoded in our bylaws
:'''<cjb>''' so we get to wing it :)
:'''<bernie>''' mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs
:'''<cjb>''' seconded
:'''<walterbender>''' discussion?
:'''<cjb>''' this seems uncontroversial to me. any objections?
:'''<tomeu>''' I thought it was already like that
:'''<walterbender>''' in some sense, we already have that responsibility
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: we hadn't really talked about it
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: I think we still ought to take into account the consensus of the DP that was summarized in the wiki
:'''<tomeu>''' cjb: does the slobs give any power to the dp when it's created?
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: no, not really
:'''<tomeu>''' I thought it was only a consultative thing
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: I'm not sure about that
:'''<tomeu>''' then the slobs have always retained the responsibility of deciding on thast
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yes, SLOBs should inspect the status of work even if no consensus reached
:'''<cjb>''' of course, whoever proposes a new decision on the topic should read the DP's work first
:'''<walterbender>''' the DP is suppose to make a recommendation to SLOBs for some action.
:'''<cjb>''' but the DP's work is not complete
:'''<walterbender>''' in this case, no recommendation, but lots of fruitful discussion
:'''<walterbender>''' we can make a decision based on that input or ask for a new DP
:'''<cjb>''' so we shouldn't just take it as gospel or anything. it's just something to read and help educate us.
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb: so do we disregard the DP decision even when there was a clear consensus?
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: yes.
:'''<cjb>''' that's what dissolving the DP means.
:'''<bernie>''' cjb: ah, after reading your explanation., I'd tend to agree.
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: and presumably get voted off the island as a result
:'''<cjb>''' :)
:'''<bernie>''' mel; so i had a motion and cjb seconded it... do we want to discuss it more, or vote?
:'''<bernie>''' (that would give us a way to move forward with the DP's decision and actually make a decision)
:'''<walterbender>''' I am not sure we need a motion because it is how I would interpret the staus quo, but a motion won't hurt for clarity's sake
:'''<bernie>''' mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs.
:'''<walterbender>''' shall we vote?
:'''<cjb>''' aye
:'''<bernie>''' mel: aye
:'''<SeanDaly>''' aye
:'''<walterbender>''' aye
:'''<tomeu>''' as I said, I don't understand why we vote this
:'''<bernie>''' adam: tends to agree with tomeu
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: it's just a point of clarification
:'''<tomeu>''' is it said anywhere that the decision is removed from the slobs at any point?
:'''<cjb>''' nope
:'''<cjb>''' I think the reason it's slightly unintuitive is:
:'''<cjb>''' * The bylaws say we get to solve conflict by starting a decision panel
:'''<tomeu>''' well, then I think we need to leave very clearly that the decision is always left to the slobs
:'''<tomeu>''' if someone thinks otherwise, it's bad
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: that's what the vote helps to do :)
:'''<cjb>''' * and if a DP fails... well, maybe we just start another one or something
:'''<tomeu>''' ok, if people think it helps, I vote yes
:'''<bernie>''' adam: feels we've already voted on this previously
:'''<cjb>''' the vote passed already :)
:'''<cjb>''' next up: would someone like to volunteer to review the DP work, and create a motion to solve the original problem with?
:'''<cjb>''' it should probably be several of us, or even all of us
:'''<walterbender>''' adam: we certainly discussed it last week, but I think we were all holding out for a DP report :(
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: yes. I think that is the next step in regard to this particular issue.
:'''<bernie>''' FYI: This computer will die in less than 5 min
:'''<cjb>''' heh
:'''<bernie>''' bernie, mel, adam will be offline then
:'''<walterbender>''' and I think we should make a decision next week.
:'''<bernie>''' Be quick!
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: which of you wants to be involved in coming up with a decision on the DP work?
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: make a decision on the original request, right?
:'''<walterbender>''' #ACTION: everyone reviews the DP work and comes prepared next week to discuss and decide.
:'''<cjb>''' ok
:'''<cjb>''' it might be good to have the motions available before the meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' if there are questions, raise them BEFORE the meeting to the list
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb: I'll leave this hot potato to someone else :)
:'''<cjb>''' so if folks could e-mail them as they come up with them
:'''<cjb>''' that'd be good
:'''<walterbender>''' by list, I mean iaep [SLOBS]
:'''<cjb>''' I'll volunteer to try to review all their stuff and think about it/come up with a motion
:'''<cjb>''' would be good if others can too
:'''<walterbender>''' thanks cjb
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb: mel is currently busy with fudbus business
:'''<cjb>''' any other urgent business for this meeting?
:'''<walterbender>''' just discussion, I think
:'''<SeanDaly>''' well, I wanted to know if possible put e-books in ASLO
:'''<walterbender>''' the policies re ebooks, acitvities, etc
:'''<walterbender>''' and of course, the trademark issue
:'''<cjb>''' oh, yes!
:'''<bernie>''' adam: agreed..i'll remind SJ & Caryl to weigh in if they have final thoughts on DP's wiki page, even if defunct
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I haven't thought deeply on implications, was caught short with licensing issue
:'''<cjb>''' motion: no non-free software or content on ASLO, as judged by DFSG/OSI
:'''<walterbender>''' but we will have to carry on without our FUDCon friends :(
:'''<cjb>''' fudbus folks, what'd you think?
:'''<walterbender>''' #TOPIC non-FOSS content
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: it may be more convenient if we found one or more partners who wanted to take the content side of all this
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: so we don't have to spread ourselves too thin
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: ok, switching battery
:'''<SeanDaly>''' no, the context is helping parents/teachers get started with e-books
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: so not solving the whole content problem but some first step?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' there are hundreds, thousands out there, idea is to help newbies use in Sugar
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yes, first step
:'''<SeanDaly>''' we wstarted wiki page for that
:'''<walterbender>''' this parallels the debate we had at OLPC re content.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' wiki page may be better than ASLO
:'''<walterbender>''' we can never do more than plant seeds
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: so maybe there's enough free content out there?
:'''<walterbender>''' and show others how to take initiative
:'''<SeanDaly>''' tomeu: there's a vast amount, but when there isn't any with Sugar or close by, it's a technical barrier
|<-- cklee has left freenode ("This computer has gone to sleep")
:'''<SeanDaly>''' idea is to have a few available, so people can try ereaders
:'''<walterbender>''' I don't believe it is our mission to solve the content problem, but lowering technical and culture barriers is our mission
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: I mean, there isn't enough free content to "solve the whole content problem", but there may be enough free content for that first step
:'''<SeanDaly>''' and hint how to search in repositories, online etc.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' tomeu: yes, we had put effort into finding a dozen nice books in half a dozen languages
:'''<SeanDaly>''' idea is to make first step easy: find, obtain, what format, which Activity
:'''<walterbender>''' what is the SLOBs issue here? seems we are drifting off topic
:'''<tomeu>''' ok, so do we need to tackle the issue of non-free content on aslo right now?
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: I made a motion and everything :)
:'''<cjb>''' there are two issues, related:
:'''<cjb>''' * someone wants to put Skype etc on ASLO
:'''<cjb>''' * someone wants to put non-free ebooks on ASLO
:'''<walterbender>''' tomeu: yes in that there are some non-free activities waiting for approval
:'''<SeanDaly>''' issue was: ASLO a place for content bundles?
:'''<tomeu>''' oh, ok
:'''<cjb>''' in both cases this was kinda reasonable, because there was no-one saying "oh, we have a policy against doing those"
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: back in business
:'''<tomeu>''' in the skype case, I guess it's plain ilegal, even if we really wanted to do that, right?
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: yes
:'''<tomeu>''' and is there any other non-free but freely-distributable software proposed for aslo?
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: just the content, I think
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: http://pastebin.be/22311
:'''<bernie>''' mel: we do not have a license policy on what can go on ASLO, right?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' piles of flash stuff?
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: flash stuff can be free
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: right -- currently no
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: we'd be creating one now
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: but isn't most flash stuff out there without any license info at all?
:'''<tomeu>''' so we don't really know if it's actually freely-distributable
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: free as in 4 freedoms?
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: legally, yes
:'''<cjb>''' you can make a Flash app and release it under the GPL
:'''<bernie>''' I'd like to have something like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
:'''<SeanDaly>''' huge amount of free-online in Flash has no license info,
:'''<cjb>''' I still think flash apps don't provide useful versions of the four freedoms, but that's a much more subtle point
:'''<bernie>''' which includes a list of acceptable licenses, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses
:'''<bernie>''' (this is Mel)
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: sure, I agree
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I think because offline Flash difficult so always assumed to be online
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: not sure where you put or access the license info in Flash
:'''<bernie>''' mel: basically, have a legal req for content posted on ASLO (possibly extend that to other things that SL distributes, but ASLO seems to be the issue at present)
:'''<cjb>''' Mel: We could do that, or just adopt the DFSG/OSI rules
:'''<cjb>''' Mel: The advantage of using the rules is that they cope with new licenses as well as current ones.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'm happy with any non-ambiguous statement of what we do and don't allow license-wise, honestly.
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: that's a good point
:'''<bernie>''' cjb: link?
:'''<cjb>''' http://opensource.org/docs/osd
:'''<bernie>''' mel: that sounds like a good idea to me though
:'''<cjb>''' the Debian Free Software Guidelines are basically identical
:'''<cjb>''' MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as the source for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content
:'''<bernie>''' bus riders are looking at the link, one sec
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I'd rather read that first before voting on anything
:'''<cjb>''' ok. we could postpone.
:'''<walterbender>''' so another homework assignment so we can vote next week?
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'm good with the list
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I've read it already
:'''<tomeu>''' and I guess SFC has a say on this?
:'''<walterbender>''' but we seem to have consensus on the basic idea?
:'''<tomeu>''' because relates to their mission?
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: yes. we mentioned the idea that we might distribute something that isn't on this list (ebooks under CC noncommercial license), and they decided they'd have to talk to their board about it
:'''<walterbender>''' I'll check with the SFC. They owe us a response re NC and ND licenses already :)
:'''<cjb>''' so I'm sure they're very much in agreement with the motion
:'''<cjb>''' (that was about SoaS, though, not ASLO)
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb: while I agree with the OSI definition of what constitutes an open source license, I'd much prefer a list of acceptable licenses rather than a set of rules that would force us to go through a lawyer every time we see a new license.
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: both are useful, neither are sufficient
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: if someone proposes Skype
:'''<walterbender>''' that is a list
:'''<bernie>''' mel: they're not incompatible, we can say "our legal thing is the OSD, here's a list of licenses we know fit these criteria, new ones come talk to us."
:'''<cjb>''' and I can't find "the Skype license" in Fedora's list
:'''<SeanDaly>''' ASLO is response to SoaS problem
:'''<cjb>''' I need a way to reject it
:'''<bernie>''' mel: walterbender: exactly
:'''<cjb>''' (legally happened to work in this example)
:'''<cjb>''' but anyway, many times random non-free software might be proposed
:'''<cjb>''' it won't always have a license on that list, or a license at all
:'''<cjb>''' so the motion helps by giving community guidelines on what *type* of software is permitted
:'''<cjb>''' let's rephrase, though:
:'''<cjb>''' MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: does that cover your concern?
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: this still skirts the other issue though: does the content or s'ware abide by community standards... a tough one.
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb aye
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I cannot rush into a vote without reading and understanding that page.
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: that's fine. I won't push you to.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' Something I can't do in the next 30 seconds.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: Table for next meeting, reading homework for next week?
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: I just want the motion to be clear.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'll take the homework assignment of blogging this so that others pick up on it on Planet (and hopefully Fedora folks can chime in as well)
:'''<bernie>''' (and $otherdistros if we can get them)
:'''<walterbender>''' OK. I think we have enough background now to move quickly to a decision next week.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: yes
:'''<cjb>''' mel: thanks!
:'''<cjb>''' that's a good idea
:'''<bernie>''' #action mchua to blog licensing motion
:'''<walterbender>''' OK. Next topic? We have about 5 more minutes.
:'''<bernie>''' #action everyone to do their homework of reading OSD guidelines so we can be informed voters next Friday
:'''<bernie>''' mel: yeah, let's move on
:'''<walterbender>''' #ACTION mel blog and the rest of us do homework with the intention of deciding next week
* walterbender thinks only the person who typed #startmeeting can #action
:'''<bernie>''' we'll find out :)
:'''<walterbender>''' #TOPIC trademark
:'''<bernie>''' walterbender: thanks for raising the nasty "community standards" issue we'll laaaater have to face..
:'''<bernie>''' (adam)
:'''<walterbender>''' we have a number of outstanding trademark policies to reach consensus on.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: can we line up the to-do list on those and then break for the week with homework? I don't think we have enough time to discuss and vote on anything else atm
:'''<walterbender>''' adam: yes. an important, thorny topic.
:'''<walterbender>''' mel: I agree.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' very thorny indeed
:'''<bernie>''' mel: and honestly ASLO licensing is kind of a big deal so if we line that up for next week's Big Goal I'm pretty happy
:'''<walterbender>''' I'd like everyone to come to the next meeting with some opinion re the trademark usage.
:'''<walterbender>''' from my homework, it seems the two extremes are Fedora and Suse
:'''<bernie>''' mel: proposal everyone blog their opinion or email it to iaep
:'''<walterbender>''' to gist: Fedora will let anything be called a remix, but almost nothing be called Fedora
:'''<cjb>''' Fedora's not actually that extreme, because it offers both models:
:'''<cjb>''' .. yeah, those. :)
:'''<walterbender>''' openSuse will not allow remix at all
:'''<cjb>''' it's easy to be a Remix, and it's hard to be Fedora
:'''<bernie>''' mel: we need to do more about starting discussion on slobs issues beyond the 7 of us imo
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: yes. that is what I was trying to say
:'''<SeanDaly>''' concerning trademark, there are several kilos worth of e-mails in the lists
:'''<walterbender>''' and to contrast that with openSUSE, which as far as I understand, really doesn't have a remix option
:'''<walterbender>''' SeanDaly: yes. it is time to distill it all into a policy
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yes, fully aggree
:'''<SeanDaly>''' s/gg/g
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: walterbender, cjb: I'd like to point out that the fedora trademark policy is one of the strictest among linux distros
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: seeming not as strict as openSUSE.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'd like to propose we wrap up this meeting
:'''<SeanDaly>''' my instinct is to look at trademark policy of better-known brands
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: can you give an example of a less strict policy for us to consider?
:'''<bernie>''' mel: proposal - next week do ASLO and only ASLO - anything else we do is bonus... immediately after ASLO, then tackle trademark.
:'''<cjb>''' hm
:'''<walterbender>''' (everyone was going to research one for today's meeting)
:'''<bernie>''' mel: notes that bernie and I have to go to the infra meeting immediately after this
:'''<cjb>''' mel: this is instead of doing the SoaS DP next week?
:'''<cjb>''' I don't know why we'd prioritize something that's been a problem for a week over something that's been a problem for like four months :)
:'''<walterbender>''' I think we need to do both. the ASLO discussion will be quick.
:'''<bernie>''' cjb: because I think we can wrap up ASLO next week cleanly and be done with it
:'''<walterbender>''' (I predict)
:'''<bernie>''' (mel)
:'''<cjb>''' yeah, +1 on walter
:'''<bernie>''' mel: then I'd like to do ASLO first ;)
:'''<bernie>''' if we think it'll be that quick
:'''<walterbender>''' but we should wrap up today's meeting.
:'''<cjb>''' well, okay.. yeah, was about to say that too
:'''<SeanDaly>''' There is a current case of trademark usage
:'''<cjb>''' (what mel said)
:'''<walterbender>''' any final words?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' in a way that shouldn't
:'''<bernie>''' mel: nope, happy to close now
:'''<walterbender>''' 3
:'''<walterbender>''' 2
:'''<walterbender>''' 1
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: let's talk about that now
:'''<bernie>''' Bye from the FUDbuss @
:'''<cjb>''' but in the closed meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' thanks everyone
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb:ok
:'''<SeanDaly>''' thanks all
:'''<cjb>''' I mean, let's hang around and talk about it
:'''<cjb>''' thanks all
:'''<walterbender>''' I'll post the minutes
:'''<walterbender>''' #endmeeting
:'''<meeting>''' Meeting finished at 11:03.
:'''<meeting>''' Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/
:'''<meeting>''' Meeting started at 10:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
:'''<meeting>''' Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
:'''<walterbender>''' We have an agenda in the wiki...
:'''<walterbender>''' the first topic is Bernie's but he is not here yet...
:'''<walterbender>''' the second topic is the DP. has anyone heard back from the committee?
:'''<cjb>''' nope
:'''<SeanDaly>''' not I
:'''<walterbender>''' nor I :(
:'''<walterbender>''' I know they got my message regarding the deadline
:'''<walterbender>''' I am afraid this process has not worked.
:'''<bernie>''' This is Bernie, Adam, and Mel.
:'''<bernie>''' We're all here.
:'''<walterbender>''' ciao bernardo
:'''<SeanDaly>''' greetings bernieadammel
:'''<walterbender>''' do you need the backlog?
:'''<bernie>''' no, we have it.
:'''<bernie>''' (Mel is typing)
:'''<walterbender>''' since bernie is here, let's start with his topic.
:'''<bernie>''' which topic is that?
:'''<walterbender>''' #TOPIC teams@ lists
:'''<bernie>''' Ah, yes. I see.
:'''<walterbender>''' Bernie, can you summarize your proposal?
:'''<bernie>''' I worry that we'd end up using long cc lists too much if we do not have a standard way to share business/strategic communication with key people such as team leaders
:'''<bernie>''' I'd propose a teams@ list for this kind of communication.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I like this idea
:'''<SeanDaly>''' often worry about teams not interacting enough (fear justified or not)
:'''<tomeu>''' I don't see why team coordinators would need to be much more involved in these discussions than other people
:'''<bernie>''' there's potential for abuse of course... as there was for the wide-audience slobs
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: can you give a hypothetical example of how it would be used?
:'''<tomeu>''' do we have any past situations that support this need?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' A media campaign launch :-)
:'''<SeanDaly>''' "all hands on deck"
:'''<bernie>''' tomeu: for example, getting you and erikos in the loop regarding the nokia deal
:'''<bernie>''' tomeu: or the launchpad thing
:'''<SeanDaly>''' or, my Osor meeting in which hosting possibilities were discussed (still have to write up a debrief)
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: I am not sure I understand
:'''<walterbender>''' each of these cases seems unique. what is the common denominator that a list would address?
:'''<walterbender>''' Doesn't each team, e.g., marketing or infrastructure already have a list?
:'''<tomeu>''' frankly, I see that proposal dividing more than uniting our community
:'''<SeanDaly>''' well, the problem is lack of interaction
:'''<walterbender>''' SeanDaly: can you please elaborate?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' for example if marketing stuff which impacts development,
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: yes, it does seem to elevate members into "trusted or untrusted", which is often a mistake
:'''<tomeu>''' and I don't like the word leader, each team needs a coordinator but several of its members can have a leader role in different areas
:'''<bernie>''' walterbender: team leaders is just a way to include everyone who is trusted enough to lead a team
:'''<SeanDaly>''' there are problems real quick if developers not in the loop
:'''<bernie>''' tomeu: I also see the downside, that's true
:'''<SeanDaly>''' at the same time, not all devs want all marketing info all the time
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I have a counterproposal - instead of having a teams@ list, make it a req that each team has a slobs in the loop for that team
:'''<SeanDaly>''' to put it mildly
:'''<bernie>''' i.e. each team would have a "SLOBs ambassador"
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: in theory we have that already.
:'''<walterbender>''' it is in our bylaws
:'''<cjb>''' SJ was telling me about wikipedia does this
:'''<tomeu>''' bernie: as I said, I think we have coordinators, that may be defacto leaders, or not
:'''<cjb>''' they say you can *only* start a team if you can find a board member to sit on it, or something
:'''<bernie>''' walterbender: in practice, though?
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: for the most part, yes.
:'''<cjb>''' so it's sort of the opposite of our decision panel rules; rather than requiring no members of the board, they require at least one
:'''<bernie>''' walterbender:if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: infrastruture-you; marketing-sean; etc.
:'''<walterbender>''' activities-me
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: but we only have 7 people on the board
:'''<walterbender>''' and not so many teams either
:'''<bernie>''' mel: but a SLOB can be an ambassador for 2 teams if needed
:'''<bernie>''' mel asks again: if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
:'''<cjb>''' we can "solve our confidentiality issues" by not being too lazy to write out addresses of individuals on e-mails when we need to, though
:'''<walterbender>''' I guess I (a) don't understand what are confidentiality issues are and (b) don't understand how another list would solve the problem I don't understand
:'''<cjb>''' and if we do that, we haven't just split our community into people we like and people we don't
:'''<tomeu>''' cjb++
:'''<cjb>''' at least not in a way that's obvious to them :)
:'''<bernie>''' mel: bernie and I just clarified something between us - the "SLOBs ambassadors requirement" for teams would be for a SLOBs person to be actively watching that team, not necessarily leading it
:'''<bernie>''' (bernie had thought it was that a SLOB had to be leading the team)
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: in factr, in almost every case, the SLOBs member is NOT the leader, which is a good thing.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: cjb++
:'''<cjb>''' so my thought is that this proposal has the potential to create much more harm than good
:'''<cjb>''' even though I can see that it could create some good
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: is a motion emerging from this discussion?
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'd like to propose the motion that we have SLOBs ambassadors to each team, instead of a teams@ list
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: I would agree on that.
:'''<cjb>''' what happens in the weird case of no-one wanting to be their ambassador?
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: maybe the motion should be that we ensure that we execute on that structure, which is already in our by-laws
:'''<cjb>''' does the ambassador have to go to all that team's meetings?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' perhaps it's early to do this. If there were 3x the number of volunteers, i think it would more useful.
:'''<tomeu>''' btw, we have teams without coordinators, I don't see how we are talking about this before having found a coordinator for each
:'''<bernie>''' mel: cjb: it would be a requirement for a team to have /an/ ambassador, I'd say
:'''<tomeu>''' we don't even have a community manager yet
:'''<bernie>''' mel: cjb: but how the ambassador and the team interface doesn't have to be strictly defined right now
:'''<SeanDaly>''' or an education/content manager...
:'''<cjb>''' so, this idea is obviously much less objectionable
:'''<cjb>''' but I don't think it solves the same problem
:'''<cjb>''' and I don't know that the problem it solves is actually one we have
:'''<bernie>''' Adam: i think this is a useful conversation, but I'm not sure if we can encode these responsibilities easily.
* walterbender deserves the heat because making sure the by-laws are observed is probably the responsibility of the ED
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I think this is a good convo to take to Planet as a conversation starter, but we probably can't make much more progress on it right now
:'''<tomeu>''' also, the only team with regular meetings is the marketing team
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: +1
:'''<bernie>''' adam: +1
:'''<cjb>''' +1
:'''<SeanDaly>''' regular as long as I'm not moving house :D
:'''<tomeu>''' and the only other one that has occasional meetings is the dev team
:'''<walterbender>''' in any case, it seems we are not planning to move forward with Bernie's original proposal at this time?
:'''<tomeu>''' so I don't know what sense makes to say that slobs attends team meetings
:'''<bernie>''' mel: that's what I think
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: that's fine
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I think revisit the topic for the happy day we have enough volunteers that not everybody knows everybody
:'''<bernie>''' adam: I do like what mel said - as long as it's not enforced, to have that expectation...
:'''<walterbender>''' I will volunteer to crack the whip to ensure we have a mapping between SLOBs and teams.
:'''<bernie>''' adam: that the team coordinator builds a social relationship with slobs
:'''<bernie>''' mel: moving on then?
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: are you satisfied?
:'''<bernie>''' yes
:'''<walterbender>''' OK.
:'''<walterbender>''' to summarize: we will not implement the teams@ list at this time, but will mae a concerted effrot to ensure that there is SLOBs presence on all teams.
:'''<walterbender>''' #TOPIC SoaS DP
:'''<walterbender>''' Have any of you on the bus heard back from the DP?
:'''<walterbender>''' none of the rest of us have.
:'''<bernie>''' all three: no
:'''<walterbender>''' :(
:'''<walterbender>''' I think this means that we have to dissolve the panel
:'''<walterbender>''' as per our discussion last time.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' when was deadline again pls?
:'''<walterbender>''' today.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yes, disappointing.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: ok, so we dissolve the panel and then who handles the decision? slobs?
:'''<cjb>''' mel: that would be my preference
:'''<walterbender>''' that is what we need to decide
:'''<bernie>''' mel: mine as well
:'''<cjb>''' I don't think this situation is encoded in our bylaws
:'''<cjb>''' so we get to wing it :)
:'''<bernie>''' mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs
:'''<cjb>''' seconded
:'''<walterbender>''' discussion?
:'''<cjb>''' this seems uncontroversial to me. any objections?
:'''<tomeu>''' I thought it was already like that
:'''<walterbender>''' in some sense, we already have that responsibility
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: we hadn't really talked about it
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: I think we still ought to take into account the consensus of the DP that was summarized in the wiki
:'''<tomeu>''' cjb: does the slobs give any power to the dp when it's created?
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: no, not really
:'''<tomeu>''' I thought it was only a consultative thing
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: I'm not sure about that
:'''<tomeu>''' then the slobs have always retained the responsibility of deciding on thast
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yes, SLOBs should inspect the status of work even if no consensus reached
:'''<cjb>''' of course, whoever proposes a new decision on the topic should read the DP's work first
:'''<walterbender>''' the DP is suppose to make a recommendation to SLOBs for some action.
:'''<cjb>''' but the DP's work is not complete
:'''<walterbender>''' in this case, no recommendation, but lots of fruitful discussion
:'''<walterbender>''' we can make a decision based on that input or ask for a new DP
:'''<cjb>''' so we shouldn't just take it as gospel or anything. it's just something to read and help educate us.
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb: so do we disregard the DP decision even when there was a clear consensus?
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: yes.
:'''<cjb>''' that's what dissolving the DP means.
:'''<bernie>''' cjb: ah, after reading your explanation., I'd tend to agree.
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: and presumably get voted off the island as a result
:'''<cjb>''' :)
:'''<bernie>''' mel; so i had a motion and cjb seconded it... do we want to discuss it more, or vote?
:'''<bernie>''' (that would give us a way to move forward with the DP's decision and actually make a decision)
:'''<walterbender>''' I am not sure we need a motion because it is how I would interpret the staus quo, but a motion won't hurt for clarity's sake
:'''<bernie>''' mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs.
:'''<walterbender>''' shall we vote?
:'''<cjb>''' aye
:'''<bernie>''' mel: aye
:'''<SeanDaly>''' aye
:'''<walterbender>''' aye
:'''<tomeu>''' as I said, I don't understand why we vote this
:'''<bernie>''' adam: tends to agree with tomeu
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: it's just a point of clarification
:'''<tomeu>''' is it said anywhere that the decision is removed from the slobs at any point?
:'''<cjb>''' nope
:'''<cjb>''' I think the reason it's slightly unintuitive is:
:'''<cjb>''' * The bylaws say we get to solve conflict by starting a decision panel
:'''<tomeu>''' well, then I think we need to leave very clearly that the decision is always left to the slobs
:'''<tomeu>''' if someone thinks otherwise, it's bad
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: that's what the vote helps to do :)
:'''<cjb>''' * and if a DP fails... well, maybe we just start another one or something
:'''<tomeu>''' ok, if people think it helps, I vote yes
:'''<bernie>''' adam: feels we've already voted on this previously
:'''<cjb>''' the vote passed already :)
:'''<cjb>''' next up: would someone like to volunteer to review the DP work, and create a motion to solve the original problem with?
:'''<cjb>''' it should probably be several of us, or even all of us
:'''<walterbender>''' adam: we certainly discussed it last week, but I think we were all holding out for a DP report :(
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: yes. I think that is the next step in regard to this particular issue.
:'''<bernie>''' FYI: This computer will die in less than 5 min
:'''<cjb>''' heh
:'''<bernie>''' bernie, mel, adam will be offline then
:'''<walterbender>''' and I think we should make a decision next week.
:'''<bernie>''' Be quick!
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: which of you wants to be involved in coming up with a decision on the DP work?
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: make a decision on the original request, right?
:'''<walterbender>''' #ACTION: everyone reviews the DP work and comes prepared next week to discuss and decide.
:'''<cjb>''' ok
:'''<cjb>''' it might be good to have the motions available before the meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' if there are questions, raise them BEFORE the meeting to the list
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb: I'll leave this hot potato to someone else :)
:'''<cjb>''' so if folks could e-mail them as they come up with them
:'''<cjb>''' that'd be good
:'''<walterbender>''' by list, I mean iaep [SLOBS]
:'''<cjb>''' I'll volunteer to try to review all their stuff and think about it/come up with a motion
:'''<cjb>''' would be good if others can too
:'''<walterbender>''' thanks cjb
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb: mel is currently busy with fudbus business
:'''<cjb>''' any other urgent business for this meeting?
:'''<walterbender>''' just discussion, I think
:'''<SeanDaly>''' well, I wanted to know if possible put e-books in ASLO
:'''<walterbender>''' the policies re ebooks, acitvities, etc
:'''<walterbender>''' and of course, the trademark issue
:'''<cjb>''' oh, yes!
:'''<bernie>''' adam: agreed..i'll remind SJ & Caryl to weigh in if they have final thoughts on DP's wiki page, even if defunct
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I haven't thought deeply on implications, was caught short with licensing issue
:'''<cjb>''' motion: no non-free software or content on ASLO, as judged by DFSG/OSI
:'''<walterbender>''' but we will have to carry on without our FUDCon friends :(
:'''<cjb>''' fudbus folks, what'd you think?
:'''<walterbender>''' #TOPIC non-FOSS content
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: it may be more convenient if we found one or more partners who wanted to take the content side of all this
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: so we don't have to spread ourselves too thin
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: ok, switching battery
:'''<SeanDaly>''' no, the context is helping parents/teachers get started with e-books
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: so not solving the whole content problem but some first step?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' there are hundreds, thousands out there, idea is to help newbies use in Sugar
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yes, first step
:'''<SeanDaly>''' we wstarted wiki page for that
:'''<walterbender>''' this parallels the debate we had at OLPC re content.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' wiki page may be better than ASLO
:'''<walterbender>''' we can never do more than plant seeds
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: so maybe there's enough free content out there?
:'''<walterbender>''' and show others how to take initiative
:'''<SeanDaly>''' tomeu: there's a vast amount, but when there isn't any with Sugar or close by, it's a technical barrier
|<-- cklee has left freenode ("This computer has gone to sleep")
:'''<SeanDaly>''' idea is to have a few available, so people can try ereaders
:'''<walterbender>''' I don't believe it is our mission to solve the content problem, but lowering technical and culture barriers is our mission
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: I mean, there isn't enough free content to "solve the whole content problem", but there may be enough free content for that first step
:'''<SeanDaly>''' and hint how to search in repositories, online etc.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' tomeu: yes, we had put effort into finding a dozen nice books in half a dozen languages
:'''<SeanDaly>''' idea is to make first step easy: find, obtain, what format, which Activity
:'''<walterbender>''' what is the SLOBs issue here? seems we are drifting off topic
:'''<tomeu>''' ok, so do we need to tackle the issue of non-free content on aslo right now?
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: I made a motion and everything :)
:'''<cjb>''' there are two issues, related:
:'''<cjb>''' * someone wants to put Skype etc on ASLO
:'''<cjb>''' * someone wants to put non-free ebooks on ASLO
:'''<walterbender>''' tomeu: yes in that there are some non-free activities waiting for approval
:'''<SeanDaly>''' issue was: ASLO a place for content bundles?
:'''<tomeu>''' oh, ok
:'''<cjb>''' in both cases this was kinda reasonable, because there was no-one saying "oh, we have a policy against doing those"
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: back in business
:'''<tomeu>''' in the skype case, I guess it's plain ilegal, even if we really wanted to do that, right?
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: yes
:'''<tomeu>''' and is there any other non-free but freely-distributable software proposed for aslo?
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: just the content, I think
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: http://pastebin.be/22311
:'''<bernie>''' mel: we do not have a license policy on what can go on ASLO, right?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' piles of flash stuff?
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: flash stuff can be free
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: right -- currently no
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: we'd be creating one now
:'''<tomeu>''' SeanDaly: but isn't most flash stuff out there without any license info at all?
:'''<tomeu>''' so we don't really know if it's actually freely-distributable
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb: free as in 4 freedoms?
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: legally, yes
:'''<cjb>''' you can make a Flash app and release it under the GPL
:'''<bernie>''' I'd like to have something like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
:'''<SeanDaly>''' huge amount of free-online in Flash has no license info,
:'''<cjb>''' I still think flash apps don't provide useful versions of the four freedoms, but that's a much more subtle point
:'''<bernie>''' which includes a list of acceptable licenses, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses
:'''<bernie>''' (this is Mel)
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: sure, I agree
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I think because offline Flash difficult so always assumed to be online
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: not sure where you put or access the license info in Flash
:'''<bernie>''' mel: basically, have a legal req for content posted on ASLO (possibly extend that to other things that SL distributes, but ASLO seems to be the issue at present)
:'''<cjb>''' Mel: We could do that, or just adopt the DFSG/OSI rules
:'''<cjb>''' Mel: The advantage of using the rules is that they cope with new licenses as well as current ones.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'm happy with any non-ambiguous statement of what we do and don't allow license-wise, honestly.
:'''<cjb>''' walterbender: that's a good point
:'''<bernie>''' cjb: link?
:'''<cjb>''' http://opensource.org/docs/osd
:'''<bernie>''' mel: that sounds like a good idea to me though
:'''<cjb>''' the Debian Free Software Guidelines are basically identical
:'''<cjb>''' MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as the source for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content
:'''<bernie>''' bus riders are looking at the link, one sec
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I'd rather read that first before voting on anything
:'''<cjb>''' ok. we could postpone.
:'''<walterbender>''' so another homework assignment so we can vote next week?
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'm good with the list
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I've read it already
:'''<tomeu>''' and I guess SFC has a say on this?
:'''<walterbender>''' but we seem to have consensus on the basic idea?
:'''<tomeu>''' because relates to their mission?
:'''<cjb>''' tomeu: yes. we mentioned the idea that we might distribute something that isn't on this list (ebooks under CC noncommercial license), and they decided they'd have to talk to their board about it
:'''<walterbender>''' I'll check with the SFC. They owe us a response re NC and ND licenses already :)
:'''<cjb>''' so I'm sure they're very much in agreement with the motion
:'''<cjb>''' (that was about SoaS, though, not ASLO)
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb: while I agree with the OSI definition of what constitutes an open source license, I'd much prefer a list of acceptable licenses rather than a set of rules that would force us to go through a lawyer every time we see a new license.
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: both are useful, neither are sufficient
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: if someone proposes Skype
:'''<walterbender>''' that is a list
:'''<bernie>''' mel: they're not incompatible, we can say "our legal thing is the OSD, here's a list of licenses we know fit these criteria, new ones come talk to us."
:'''<cjb>''' and I can't find "the Skype license" in Fedora's list
:'''<SeanDaly>''' ASLO is response to SoaS problem
:'''<cjb>''' I need a way to reject it
:'''<bernie>''' mel: walterbender: exactly
:'''<cjb>''' (legally happened to work in this example)
:'''<cjb>''' but anyway, many times random non-free software might be proposed
:'''<cjb>''' it won't always have a license on that list, or a license at all
:'''<cjb>''' so the motion helps by giving community guidelines on what *type* of software is permitted
:'''<cjb>''' let's rephrase, though:
:'''<cjb>''' MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable
:'''<cjb>''' bernie: does that cover your concern?
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: this still skirts the other issue though: does the content or s'ware abide by community standards... a tough one.
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: cjb aye
:'''<SeanDaly>''' I cannot rush into a vote without reading and understanding that page.
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: that's fine. I won't push you to.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' Something I can't do in the next 30 seconds.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: Table for next meeting, reading homework for next week?
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: I just want the motion to be clear.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'll take the homework assignment of blogging this so that others pick up on it on Planet (and hopefully Fedora folks can chime in as well)
:'''<bernie>''' (and $otherdistros if we can get them)
:'''<walterbender>''' OK. I think we have enough background now to move quickly to a decision next week.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' walterbender: yes
:'''<cjb>''' mel: thanks!
:'''<cjb>''' that's a good idea
:'''<bernie>''' #action mchua to blog licensing motion
:'''<walterbender>''' OK. Next topic? We have about 5 more minutes.
:'''<bernie>''' #action everyone to do their homework of reading OSD guidelines so we can be informed voters next Friday
:'''<bernie>''' mel: yeah, let's move on
:'''<walterbender>''' #ACTION mel blog and the rest of us do homework with the intention of deciding next week
* walterbender thinks only the person who typed #startmeeting can #action
:'''<bernie>''' we'll find out :)
:'''<walterbender>''' #TOPIC trademark
:'''<bernie>''' walterbender: thanks for raising the nasty "community standards" issue we'll laaaater have to face..
:'''<bernie>''' (adam)
:'''<walterbender>''' we have a number of outstanding trademark policies to reach consensus on.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: can we line up the to-do list on those and then break for the week with homework? I don't think we have enough time to discuss and vote on anything else atm
:'''<walterbender>''' adam: yes. an important, thorny topic.
:'''<walterbender>''' mel: I agree.
:'''<SeanDaly>''' very thorny indeed
:'''<bernie>''' mel: and honestly ASLO licensing is kind of a big deal so if we line that up for next week's Big Goal I'm pretty happy
:'''<walterbender>''' I'd like everyone to come to the next meeting with some opinion re the trademark usage.
:'''<walterbender>''' from my homework, it seems the two extremes are Fedora and Suse
:'''<bernie>''' mel: proposal everyone blog their opinion or email it to iaep
:'''<walterbender>''' to gist: Fedora will let anything be called a remix, but almost nothing be called Fedora
:'''<cjb>''' Fedora's not actually that extreme, because it offers both models:
:'''<cjb>''' .. yeah, those. :)
:'''<walterbender>''' openSuse will not allow remix at all
:'''<cjb>''' it's easy to be a Remix, and it's hard to be Fedora
:'''<bernie>''' mel: we need to do more about starting discussion on slobs issues beyond the 7 of us imo
:'''<walterbender>''' cjb: yes. that is what I was trying to say
:'''<SeanDaly>''' concerning trademark, there are several kilos worth of e-mails in the lists
:'''<walterbender>''' and to contrast that with openSUSE, which as far as I understand, really doesn't have a remix option
:'''<walterbender>''' SeanDaly: yes. it is time to distill it all into a policy
:'''<SeanDaly>''' yes, fully aggree
:'''<SeanDaly>''' s/gg/g
:'''<bernie>''' bernie: walterbender, cjb: I'd like to point out that the fedora trademark policy is one of the strictest among linux distros
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: seeming not as strict as openSUSE.
:'''<bernie>''' mel: I'd like to propose we wrap up this meeting
:'''<SeanDaly>''' my instinct is to look at trademark policy of better-known brands
:'''<walterbender>''' bernie: can you give an example of a less strict policy for us to consider?
:'''<bernie>''' mel: proposal - next week do ASLO and only ASLO - anything else we do is bonus... immediately after ASLO, then tackle trademark.
:'''<cjb>''' hm
:'''<walterbender>''' (everyone was going to research one for today's meeting)
:'''<bernie>''' mel: notes that bernie and I have to go to the infra meeting immediately after this
:'''<cjb>''' mel: this is instead of doing the SoaS DP next week?
:'''<cjb>''' I don't know why we'd prioritize something that's been a problem for a week over something that's been a problem for like four months :)
:'''<walterbender>''' I think we need to do both. the ASLO discussion will be quick.
:'''<bernie>''' cjb: because I think we can wrap up ASLO next week cleanly and be done with it
:'''<walterbender>''' (I predict)
:'''<bernie>''' (mel)
:'''<cjb>''' yeah, +1 on walter
:'''<bernie>''' mel: then I'd like to do ASLO first ;)
:'''<bernie>''' if we think it'll be that quick
:'''<walterbender>''' but we should wrap up today's meeting.
:'''<cjb>''' well, okay.. yeah, was about to say that too
:'''<SeanDaly>''' There is a current case of trademark usage
:'''<cjb>''' (what mel said)
:'''<walterbender>''' any final words?
:'''<SeanDaly>''' in a way that shouldn't
:'''<bernie>''' mel: nope, happy to close now
:'''<walterbender>''' 3
:'''<walterbender>''' 2
:'''<walterbender>''' 1
:'''<cjb>''' SeanDaly: let's talk about that now
:'''<bernie>''' Bye from the FUDbuss @
:'''<cjb>''' but in the closed meeting
:'''<walterbender>''' thanks everyone
:'''<SeanDaly>''' cjb:ok
:'''<SeanDaly>''' thanks all
:'''<cjb>''' I mean, let's hang around and talk about it
:'''<cjb>''' thanks all
:'''<walterbender>''' I'll post the minutes
:'''<walterbender>''' #endmeeting
:'''<meeting>''' Meeting finished at 11:03.
:'''<meeting>''' Logs available at http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/