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 |