Web   ·   Wiki   ·   Activities   ·   Blog   ·   Lists   ·   Chat   ·   Meeting   ·   Bugs   ·   Git   ·   Translate   ·   Archive   ·   People   ·   Donate

#sugar-meeting, 2009-07-10

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
09:06 walterbender #topic Elections
09:06 We have an oversite board that is elected annually.
09:06 See http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]e/Oversight_Board
09:07 We need to hold another election next month
09:07 So we need to solicit candidates now
09:07 tomeu btw, http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]r_Labs/Governance is still marked as a draft
09:07 walterbender and we need an election committee to run the election
09:07 tomeu: good catch. I suppose we can have a vote to make it official?
09:08 tomeu yeah, do we have a nice way to submit things to vote?
09:08 walterbender the role of the committee would be to solicit the candidates, put up a list for the community to vet, and then hold the election.
09:09 tomeu: last year, I set up a vote on Mako's tool, but it had some problems
09:09 the first thing the committee should do is select a tool.
09:09 (maybe Mako
09:09 s tool is better than it was a year ago.)
09:10 All of this is pretty straight forward. We just need to do it.
09:10 tomeu the slobs election was done with mako's tool?
09:10 walterbender tomeu: yes. I forget the name of it, but it was pretty easy to use... just flakey
09:11 and there was some concern voiced about transparency
09:11 It would be great if we could get a volunteer to head the committee who was not planning to run for the board.
09:11 tomeu ok
09:11 hmm
09:11 walterbender #action solicit volunteers :)
09:12 One detail that was also never resolved last time: we had planned to make 3 of the 7 seats be 1 year and 4 be 2 years
09:12 this was to stagger membership...
09:13 but we never determined which were which...
09:13 I propose that we just elect all 7 seats again...
09:13 FGrose backlog: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]0090710_0905.html
09:14 tomeu walterbender: I guess we don't need to make things more complex until people care enough to do what it takes
09:14 walterbender tomeu: +1
09:14 tomeu right now people may have been more worried about doing stuff
09:14 walterbender but we are obliged to have an election...
09:14 tomeu it will change in the future, but for now...
09:14 sure
09:14 walterbender any one interested in being on the election committee?
09:15 don't everyone speak up at once :)
09:15 garycmartin lol
09:16 sdziallas walterbender: maybe worth asking on-list for some people...?
09:16 walterbender sdziallas: +1. (I was just hoping to hand off that task now... but I will solicit on list and in the #sugar channel).
09:17 tomeu yeah, I think iaep will be best
09:17 sdziallas walterbender: heh, yeah... ;)
09:17 walterbender Any other thoughts re this topic?
09:18 We should probably target the week of 16 August as that is just about exactly one year.
09:18 bu that detail, the committee can decide.
09:18 OK... next topic...
09:18 #topic trademark
09:19 I posted a page in the wiki: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]ernance/Trademark
09:19 it is linked from the homepage.
09:19 it is a draft prepared by the SFC with a few edits by Fred at al.
09:19 There are comments on the discussion page.
09:20 We need to do some work on this document and then get the community to endorse it...
09:20 (I suppose SLOBs could ratify it??? Will have to ask the lawyers)
09:20 There seems to me to be two issues:
09:21 (1) confusion between Sugar Labs, the organization and Sugar, the learning platform
09:22 and (2) the extent to which we want to be gatekeepers, e.g., it was suggested we maintain strict quality control over the Sugar on a Stick name.
09:22 there are other ideas in play, such as one suggested this morning by lucychili
09:23 #idea it might be possible to use the trademark in some contexts but use a community mark for distributed purposes so that you can have a mark which is recognised but distributable and one which is legally defensible which is a cousin of that.
09:23 sdziallas walterbender: I'd have mentioned (2)... :)
09:23 walterbender sdziallas: sean beat you to it :)
09:23 maybe we can tackle (1) first?
09:24 sdziallas +1
09:24 walterbender As I recall, we had some concerns about trying to register Sugar as a stand-alone term, but maybe Sugar Learning Platform would be worth protecting excplciitly?
09:24 tomeu I don't know what to say about this issue, concrete use cases would help
09:25 walterbender then we can refer to Sugar as shorthand for SLP
09:25 tomeu: mostly this is about making it clear to the public our intentions to maintain clarity about our product in the market
09:26 we don't want thrid parties using Sugar Labs to represent something else
09:26 FGrose What were the concerns about the stand-alone term?
09:26 tomeu ok, is this something that other projects in the SFC are also doing?
09:27 walterbender As I recall, the concern had to do with whether or not we'd be able to get protection fo rthe word Sugar...
09:27 tomeu: yes. most projects use the trademark mechanism.
09:27 bernie present
09:28 FGrose We might have problems with a word like Windows, but is Sugar taken?
09:28 walterbender FGrose: I don't know. But it worth revisiting.
09:29 lfaraone walterbender: just searched the USPTO
09:29 walterbender: there's nothing related to technology currently registered.
09:29 tomeu ok, then I'm fine with that, as long as people can do derivatives and use a name that somewhat refers to sugar
09:29 walterbender lfaraone: search for Sugar?
09:29 lfaraone walterbender: Yes,  http://tr.im/rK7W
09:30 walterbender #action I will ask the SFC to look into Sugar and Sugar Learning Platform
09:30 lfaraone walterbender: granted, there are 2000 entries, but nothing so far.
09:30 walterbender note that these cost money... and we need to actively protect them... so we should be carefulas to how far we reach
09:31 re tomeu's point, I wholeheartedly agree, which is why the language of the policy is so important.
09:31 we tried to make it liberal without relinquishing the mark itself
09:32 FGrose here was one concern: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]o_Ideas#Sugar_CRM
09:32 cjb Hi all, sorry I'm late.
09:32 walterbender Personally, I would like to encourage the community to use the makr for Sugar-related activities.
09:32 cjb: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]0090710_0905.html
09:33 In some sense, this leads us to (2)
09:33 cjb Thanks, I'm caught up now.
09:33 walterbender to what extent do we want to be in the quality-control business?
09:33 lfaraone FGrose: Sugar != SugarCRM, I think the USPTO wouldn't mind it.
09:33 bernie walterbender: you mean QA?
09:34 lfaraone FGrose: SugarCRM would mind, but they wouldn't have any grounds to file suit.
09:34 walterbender control or assurance...
09:34 FGrose lfaraone: I would hope they wouldn't mind
09:34 cjb re trademark -- I think it actually depends on:  is Sugar on a Stick a product that SL makes, or not?  And, if it is, I think it is quite reasonable to ask other people not to use it.
09:34 sdziallas walterbender: for SoaS, I believe we should be.
09:34 walterbender lfaraone, FGrose let's let the lawyers sort it out...
09:34 sdziallas cjb: +1
09:35 lfaraone cjb: +1
09:35 walterbender I think we have community standards... perhaps not well articulated, that we want anything associated with Sugar Labs to uphold...
09:35 that would include SoaS
09:35 FGrose reasonable but strategic?
09:36 walterbender FGrose: can you expand?
09:36 lfaraone FGrose: er... SugarCRM owns both "Sugar" and "SugarCRM": http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/sho[…]4006:ah21n7.9.189
09:36 FGrose Control can limit growth
09:36 cjb walterbender: I'm not really talking about law here, but strategy.  Whether we encourage people to use SoaS for their own work or not.
09:36 walterbender lfaraone: but they probably don't own Sugar in the context of learning platforms
09:37 sdziallas cjb, walterbender: I think the way Fedora is actually interesting and might be appropriate (though with some different naming).
09:37 walterbender cjb: I would image 2 dimensions to the question
09:38 (1) the Fedora vs other distros question
09:38 and (2) a deployment organization making custom SoaS, e.g., Solution Grove
09:39 sdziallas walterbender: I think everybody should be able to make a custom SoaS and to call it - under certain circumstances - still Sugar on a Stick
09:39 walterbender sdziallas: re (1) or (2) or both?
09:39 sdziallas walterbender: re (2) (while stressing the "certain circumstances")
09:40 walterbender sdziallas: out job is to define those circumstances
09:40 sdziallas: and do they include a variant on (1)?
09:41 cjb walterbender: but I don't see how it helps anyone to have a Sugar Labs Sugar on a Stick and a Solution Grove Sugar on a Stick
09:41 it just makes it really hard to tell people what to download.
09:41 sdziallas walterbender: right, that is ;) heh. well, if SoaS is a SL product and the SoaS dev team, which is part of SL, decides to do a version with other distros, then there could be variants of (1).
09:41 lfaraone cjb: I agree.
09:41 garycmartin regarding 2, any deployer should be able to customize both initial Journal content, Activity set (perhaps we have minimum requirements), and default preferences.
09:42 walterbender cjb: I think it helps deployer XYZ to be able to say here is SoaS with our special sauce included
09:42 lfaraone sdziallas: however, I don't think we should say "as long as you do x y z you can call it sugar on a stick"
09:42 walterbender they'd want to differential that offering
09:43 cjb walterbender: but our proposed trademark policy wouldn't let them do that, I don't think.  It says you have to use basically unmodified sources.
09:43 walterbender maybe garycmartin is onto something concrete
09:43 sdziallas lfaraone: well, then it's *an all or nothing*, isn't it? "you're always able to call it SoaS" vs. "there's only one SoaS"
09:43 cjb yup, no argument with garycmartin
09:44 but I would describe that as "here is Sugar Labs Sugar on a Stick, and we changed the journal content a bit"
09:44 not "here is FooCorp Sugar on a Stick"
09:44 walterbender cjb: this is why we are discussing it... to make the *proposed* policy better... we have no *current* policy
09:44 cjb walterbender: sure, I understand
09:44 sdziallas cjb, walterbender: from what I read from the current trademark proposal, basically everybody can call everything SoaS
09:44 walterbender cjb: I am not sue that deployers would agree...
09:45 telmex wanted to brand SoaS, for example
09:45 lfaraone FGrose: hm, this looks like it *might* be a problem: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/sho[…]4006:ah21n7.9.695
09:45 walterbender (the Fedora version, :)
09:45 cjb walterbender: huh.  I can see someone wanting to brand it as in call it their own, but then I can't see why they want to continue to use "Sugar on a Stick" as the product name
09:45 that just seems like it's inviting a lot of confusion
09:46 sdziallas walterbender: well, let me bring the Fedora example. they have official approved Fedora Spins, which use the (trademarked) Fedora logo. And then there are "Fedora Remixes", using a secondary trademark (and not the official Fedora logo), which everyone can create.
09:46 tomeu is the name "sugar on a stick" so special? what is the value for the downstream to use the same name?
09:46 walterbender cjb: maybe it is like PC... first there was the IBM PC, but then lots of companies made PCs
09:47 cjb tomeu: I think the only reason I find it special is that I want it to be meaningful when I say it to someone
09:47 walterbender tomeu: there is a lot of buzz around that name... I don't know if it will be sticky
09:47 sdziallas cjb, walterbender: I'm with cjb on the naming thing. imo, there shouldn't be a <distro> Sugar on a Stick. If really needed, maybe Sugar on a Stick based on <distro>. But imo, definitely not more.
09:47 cjb rather than refer to n versions of software made by different people
09:47 walterbender cjb: you can say GNU/Linux and Fedora
09:47 to your point...
09:48 and Fedora makes sure people know it is GNU/Linux
09:48 tomeu wonder if we could create a committee composed by the marketing team, prospective deployers, packagers plus the soas team and let them make a unified proposal
09:48 walterbender tomeu: +1
09:48 bemasc walterbender: how much $$$!?
09:48 walterbender that Sean and caroline aren't here...
09:48 cjb tomeu: that sounds good.  (and we could just have a mailing thread rather than a full committee, probably)
09:48 tomeu we may have a hard time anticipating the needs of all those people
09:48 sdziallas tomeu: +1! :)
09:49 walterbender bemasc: for a trademark registration, ~1K.
09:49 bemasc: only because we get free access to lawyers from the SFC :)
09:49 cjb gosh
09:49 tomeu cjb: sounds even better
09:49 FGrose cost is in work of defining and defending
09:49 bemasc walterbender: $1000 for every trademark.  Renewed how often?
09:49 walterbender bemasc: no se
09:49 tomeu can be paid in xos? :p
09:49 bemasc walterbender: this seems like a hilariously awful way to spend money.
09:50 walterbender paid in Benderbucks
09:50 bemasc For $1000 we could make sure tomeu doesn't starve to death.
09:50 lfaraone walterbender: does the USPTO take volunteer hours?
09:50 walterbender lfaraone: no se
09:50 tomeu bemasc: not for too long, I eat a lot
09:50 lfaraone tomeu: hehe. you heard of "microsoft meals"? Using their plan you can eat for 18c a pop.
09:50 walterbender well, we seem to have consensus to put this out to committee
09:51 tomeu googles
09:51 walterbender #Action form a trademark committee
09:51 any volunteer to take the lead?
09:51 bemasc I don't see the point in trademarking these things.  It doesn't seem harmful, but... are you really going to threaten legal action against people distributing your own software?
09:51 walterbender more silence :(
09:52 lfaraone bemasc: No, but it's good to prevent stuff like what happens to OO.o
09:52 walterbender bemasc: you should be on the committee... a balance
09:52 bemasc fine
09:52 I also think "Sugar on a Stick" is a bad name.
09:52 cjb :)
09:53 lfaraone bemasc: but it's sticky, so we're prolly stuck with it.
09:53 walterbender OK. I guess I will solicit volunteers for that one on the lists too.
09:53 cjb SoaS re-naming committee!
09:53 walterbender can we go to the next topic?
09:53 sdziallas proposal: replace sugar on a stick with foobar! ;)
09:53 cjb walterbender: sure
09:53 lfaraone walterbender: I'd join the committee, but I can't lead.
09:53 lucian sdziallas: heh. "here's a stick with foobar, it's great for learning"
09:53 walterbender everyone should feel free to join the marketing team :)
09:54 sdziallas lucian: exactly :D
09:54 walterbender here is a foobar with Sugar. it is great for learning...
09:54 #topic Sugar Camp Bolzano
09:54 lucian we could call it foobar, verbatim :)
09:54 walterbender erikos has started a page: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/M[…]camp_Bolzano_2009
09:55 erikos returned
09:55 walterbender Not sure exactly what need to be discussed here, but it is a good opportunity for us...
09:55 a week-long hackfest, joined at the hip with the GNOME folks.
09:55 lfaraone walterbender: now, when's the next time we're going to have a sugarcamp in the states? :P
09:55 walterbender and a chance to see the IceMan... cool.
09:56 cjb lfaraone: maybe next fudcon?
09:56 walterbender lfaraone: maybe at the winter FUDCON in Boston
09:56 daveb walterbender: oh good, then I can go
09:57 walterbender yeah. Bolzano is beautiful, but quite a hike
09:57 but a great hostel... and good beer :)
09:57 tomeu is curious about the spek
09:57 erikos tomeu, 'ck'!
09:57 walterbender erikos, dfarning anything you wanted to add?
09:57 sdziallas will definitely try to make it but needs to see about planes and getting out of school for some time...
09:58 erikos tomeu, no need for a comma, though
09:58 walterbender tomeu: try the lardo... yum
09:58 erikos update
09:58 walterbender, for me the camp is for a) speaking about 0.88
09:58 walterbender, and hacking on it
09:58 walterbender erikos: +1
09:58 erikos walterbender, and get a joined hacking with the gnome folks
09:58 tomeu aha, lardo is what czechs call spek
09:59 walterbender erikos: do we want an Activity team thread?
09:59 erikos tomeu, 'c' is missing
09:59 tomeu erikos: not in czech
09:59 erikos tomeu, speck
09:59 tomeu, :p
09:59 tomeu speck is some kind of ham
09:59 erikos walterbender, at the camp?
09:59 walterbender yes...
09:59 erikos walterbender, of course, would be nice
10:00 walterbender, with sugarcamp I include activities as well :)
10:00 tomeu hmm, would be cool to work on making gnome apps work better in sugar and the other way around
10:00 walterbender has a hard deadline at 10am :(
10:00 cjb that's okay.  anything else on the agenda?
10:00 walterbender tomeu: yes. we should take advantage of the gnome connection
10:00 erikos tomeu, +1
10:01 tomeu, I really want to take advantage of the connection
10:01 tomeu would be interesting if collabora attended
10:01 walterbender cjb: that was my list... but there may be some other items
10:01 erikos tomeu, and define goals before we meet there
10:01 tomeu, and probably start working on it as well, already
10:01 walterbender dfarning may have a finance report, for example...
10:01 erikos walterbender, this endless roadmap discussion
10:01 tomeu erikos: sure
10:02 walterbender but I will end the meeting, since I started it and perhaps someone else can restart?
10:02 erikos walterbender, ok, have fun
10:02 cjb fyi, we're thinking about whether we should use 0.84 or 0.86 for the 1.5 build
10:02 tomeu cjb: and whether use f11 or f12?
10:02 cjb since the hardware's not in production until near the end of the year
10:03 tomeu: perhaps.. that seems more likely to be f11
10:03 walterbender erikos: we need more clarity about our roadmaps... many of the discussions convolve sugar features with up and downstream roadmaps...
10:03 cjb we're clearly leaning towards 0.84, since then there's no time pressure
10:03 tomeu walterbender++
10:03 walterbender we need to be cognizant of them but not confused by them
10:03 cjb but I thought I'd mention in case anyone has a compelling reason for using or not using 0.86
10:03 tomeu cjb: any of the proposed features for 0.86 is specially interesting for olpc?
10:03 erikos walterbender, the development roadmap is quite fixed
10:04 walterbender erikos: :)
10:04 erikos walterbender, and the sense that we are dependent on the distros
10:04 walterbender, for me: no reason to move away from that
10:04 walterbender erikos: maybe we need to trademark roadmap and have conditions on how people use it :)
10:05 erikos: I agree. You are doing a great job... real clarity.
10:05 erikos walterbender, as long as the rest of the labs is aware of that - I think we are fine
10:05 cjb tomeu: that's a good question.  perhaps mainly object sharing and tabs in browse.
10:05 walterbender cjb: I think tabs are really important...
10:05 cjb oh, and printing support might come in, right?  or is that 0.88?
10:06 walterbender has to run...
10:06 cjb (it's not on the 0.86 feature list)
10:06 walterbender #endmeeting

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.