| 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 |