Time |
Nick |
Message |
10:02 |
walterbender |
remembered--no hyphen this time |
10:02 |
|
#topic mailing lists |
10:02 |
SeanDaly |
greetings from the OLPC France / Sugar Labs booth at Educatice Paris |
10:02 |
mchua |
#link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]ng_Log-2009-11-13 |
10:03 |
|
for last week's logs on the subject |
10:03 |
walterbender |
we concluded last week's meeting with a motion regarding mailing lists, but we wanted to keep the discussion opne before the vote because three of you were absent |
10:03 |
|
shall we restate the motion? |
10:04 |
|
<cjb> MOTION: close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible |
10:04 |
|
any further discussion? |
10:04 |
mchua |
appreciated :) though I would also have been totally fine with the vote going forward (it's why we come up with the decision procedures, imo - because we trust SLOBs to do things in the absence of a few of us) |
10:04 |
|
none from me |
10:05 |
walterbender |
mchua: we could have voted, but we wanted the input... not a pressing issue |
10:05 |
mchua |
nods |
10:05 |
walterbender |
Adam, any thoughts? comments? |
10:05 |
mchua |
CanoeBerry: ^^ |
10:06 |
walterbender |
OK. the motion had been seconded, so let's bring it to vote. |
10:06 |
|
says aye |
10:06 |
tomeu |
+1 from me |
10:06 |
mchua |
aye |
10:06 |
SeanDaly |
aye |
10:07 |
mchua |
CanoeBerry, cjb, bernie: ^^? |
10:07 |
walterbender |
(is bernie actually awake?) |
10:08 |
cjb |
aye |
10:08 |
mchua |
(we do have a majority, enough to pass the motion) |
10:08 |
walterbender |
well, the motion passes and I'll make the changes this week (along with a notification to the current list members) |
10:09 |
|
(If I can remember the admin password for SLOBS :) ) |
10:09 |
CanoeBerry |
Ciao, just arrive late.. |
10:11 |
|
Still there all? |
10:11 |
walterbender |
CanoeBerry: we just voted on MOTION: close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible |
10:12 |
|
While Adam is reading the backlog, perhaps we can move through the rest of the agenda. |
10:12 |
|
without Bernie, I think we cannot discuss the Teams list idea |
10:12 |
|
and I have heard nothing from the DP. |
10:12 |
|
sdziallas: is a report ready yet? |
10:12 |
sdziallas |
walterbender: I'm not sure what the current state of it is. There's been some editing on the wiki going on. Side-noting that I didn't expected myself to be leading that thing (if only bias-wise) |
10:13 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: you are on DP too. Do you know the status? |
10:14 |
sdziallas |
history page basically says nothing's been changed since October 9. |
10:14 |
tomeu |
mtd may know more? |
10:15 |
walterbender |
I had proposed (but we never ratified) a deadline for their report. |
10:15 |
|
I suggest we give them one, as this seems to be stalled |
10:15 |
mchua |
+1. Do we need anything other than a firm final recommendation from the DP (along with the vote from everyone on the DP on that report?) |
10:15 |
sdziallas |
tomeu: I haven't been able to catch mtd lately. :/ |
10:16 |
cjb |
walterbender: well, we came up with lots of policy about timing out DPs at a previous meeting, but I think we were aiming it mainly at future DPs rather than this one |
10:16 |
|
yeah, we should offer them a timeout |
10:16 |
walterbender |
mchua: I don't think we need more than their report |
10:16 |
CanoeBerry |
great, what deadline? |
10:16 |
cjb |
of course, then we get into the question of "what happens when you create a DP and it times out before giving you an answer; how do decisions get made?" |
10:16 |
walterbender |
cjb: I'd perhaps use a strong word than offer :) |
10:16 |
cjb |
walterbender: so the reason I say offer, is that there are two possible outcomes |
10:16 |
|
one is that they finish everything within a week (say) |
10:17 |
|
if they can't do that, that's okay, and we should just cancel the DP |
10:17 |
walterbender |
cjb: I think it if times out, Slobs will have to table it or reconvene a new panel |
10:17 |
cjb |
so the offer is between the two outcomes |
10:17 |
|
ah. that would suck. |
10:17 |
walterbender |
cjb: agreed. It would suck. |
10:17 |
cjb |
will spare you all from grumping about Decision Panels this week. |
10:18 |
sdziallas |
notes that there are still people not having put their opinion down. |
10:18 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: no i don't my impression was that SJ was working toward the consensus positions |
10:18 |
mchua |
It would suck, but it would also unblock us. |
10:18 |
walterbender |
cjb: but the work they did is recorded, so we can use it as input. |
10:18 |
cjb |
mchua: no. |
10:18 |
|
the community is still as blocked. |
10:18 |
|
we get to pretend that it's unblocked, but it's just pretend. |
10:18 |
CanoeBerry |
a deadline would greatly help -- I happened to run into Caryl (on DP) in Dallas here and she'd love to bring this to an end. |
10:19 |
SeanDaly |
I am very concerned about sugaronastick.com situation, threatens Blueberry launch |
10:19 |
walterbender |
Let's try a deadline. |
10:19 |
tomeu |
cjb: well, the bigger we get, the harder it will be to reach consensus. I don't think we should say that our community is blocked when it doesn't reach consensus on something |
10:19 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: that is a different topic |
10:20 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: yes I'm changing subject, beg pardon |
10:20 |
cjb |
tomeu: mm. I guess I don't always think it's wrong to make a decision in the face of lack of consensus. |
10:20 |
tomeu |
cjb: sure, slobs is there for that |
10:21 |
cjb |
if I'm in a meeting, and half the room wants to do one thing and half the other, and talking isn't helping, I'm likely to say "okay, let's just flip a coin so we can move on" |
10:21 |
|
tomeu: ... |
10:21 |
|
tomeu: but we're obviously not. |
10:21 |
tomeu |
cjb: we were hoping that this DP will help us reach the best decision |
10:21 |
|
and it may help us even if they aren't presenting a report |
10:21 |
cjb |
help us to do what? |
10:21 |
tomeu |
because of what walterbender said: they have produced some kind of results |
10:21 |
cjb |
form a new panel afterwards? |
10:22 |
tomeu |
cjb: take a decision |
10:22 |
|
cjb: or not |
10:22 |
cjb |
walter just said we can't do that, |
10:22 |
|
AIUI |
10:22 |
tomeu |
(I would say no in this case) |
10:22 |
cjb |
10:12 <walterbender> cjb: I think it if times out, Slobs will have to table it |
10:22 |
|
or reconvene a new panel |
10:22 |
|
(note the lack of "or use their input to make a decision") |
10:22 |
tomeu |
what means to table it? |
10:22 |
walterbender |
motion: give a two-week deadline to the DP |
10:22 |
cjb |
tomeu: the drop the subject without deciding anything |
10:22 |
walterbender |
(two weeks because of the Thanksgiving Holiday) |
10:22 |
|
cjb: I am not sure we need a new panel |
10:22 |
|
I think we have learned a lot and I think there are some other ways to approach the issues |
10:23 |
cjb |
walterbender: yes, hopefully they'll come through with the deadline |
10:23 |
walterbender |
cjb: SLOBs can decide things based on the input, whether the DP reached consensus or not |
10:23 |
tomeu |
oh, in my view of DPs as helper instruments, I don't think slobs are bound to wait for them to decide something |
10:23 |
walterbender |
but we are jumping the gun. |
10:23 |
|
let's discuss my motion please |
10:23 |
cjb |
ok. let's wait two weeks, then; seconded. |
10:24 |
tomeu |
+1 if nobody needs it more irgently |
10:24 |
walterbender |
any further discussion about the deadline motion? |
10:24 |
mchua |
With the consequences of hitting the timeout as mentioned above? |
10:24 |
cjb |
mchua: which ones? |
10:24 |
walterbender |
mchua: yes. as those are general consequences of DPs |
10:24 |
CanoeBerry |
+1 on 2 week deadline |
10:25 |
SeanDaly |
aye to 2-week deadline |
10:25 |
cjb |
consequences: reconvene, or table the decision, or have SLOBs make a decision? |
10:25 |
walterbender |
cjb: and SLOBs will decide which of those options to take. |
10:26 |
cjb |
understood |
10:26 |
walterbender |
shall we vote? |
10:26 |
mchua |
nods |
10:26 |
walterbender |
aye |
10:27 |
cjb |
aye |
10:27 |
mchua |
aye |
10:27 |
SeanDaly |
aye |
10:27 |
CanoeBerry |
yea |
10:28 |
tomeu |
aye |
10:28 |
walterbender |
#action walter to inform the DP |
10:28 |
|
#action (forgot to say earlier) walter to update sobs list and inform communioty |
10:28 |
|
#topic trademark |
10:29 |
|
did everyone (anyone) see the questions I posted in the wiki? |
10:29 |
cjb |
I don't think so |
10:29 |
walterbender |
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]utes#Agenda_items |
10:29 |
cjb |
thanks |
10:30 |
CanoeBerry |
Aside: plz buzz yr NYC Sugar folk show up Saturday afternoon in Manhattan for our Community Summit.. |
10:30 |
|
http://www.olpcnews.com/countr[…]unity_summit.html |
10:30 |
walterbender |
I thin that if we sort these questions out, we'll have made a lot of progress re the DP questions and the soas.com questions |
10:31 |
|
CanoeBerry: I loved the graphic... |
10:31 |
SeanDaly |
agreed |
10:31 |
CanoeBerry |
I've asked everyone to call it "OLPC-Sugar Community Summit" but some anonymous losers keep dropping "Sugar" |
10:31 |
|
:) |
10:31 |
tomeu |
CanoeBerry: we are used to it :p |
10:31 |
walterbender |
Personally, I think the Fedora guidelines are very good. |
10:31 |
|
It is not restrictive except in the use of the name to ensure there is no implicit endorsement |
10:32 |
|
It is about being free but also being clear |
10:32 |
cjb |
walterbender: the Fedora Remix label (which OLPC uses) is interesting |
10:32 |
|
you don't have to pass any of their technical standards, AIUI |
10:32 |
walterbender |
cjb: yes |
10:32 |
tomeu |
yeah, would be great if we can have such a escape valve |
10:32 |
walterbender |
cjb: As long as there is no suggestion of endorsement from SL, I am comfortable |
10:33 |
cjb |
ok |
10:33 |
|
so perhaps we have a proto-motion to create Sugar Remixes |
10:33 |
walterbender |
if someone wants such an endorsement or affiliation, then there would be higher standards |
10:33 |
|
e.g., Free |
10:33 |
SeanDaly |
cjb: still a problem if Sugar is in the name |
10:34 |
cjb |
SeanDaly: not for Fedora, so you need to tell me why. |
10:34 |
tomeu |
anybody knows what ubuntu does about this? |
10:34 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]usiness_web_sites |
10:34 |
SeanDaly |
cjb: Fedora is a weak brand. So is Sugar, but the plan is to grow it |
10:35 |
cjb |
SeanDaly: I don't think I'm going to like a policy that says that what our community really needs is more legal protection than Fedora |
10:35 |
|
Fedora's been going for many years. We should walk before we run. |
10:36 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: I will look at that (not easy now greeting visitors to booth) |
10:36 |
|
cjb: not a question of legal protection, a question of protecting a trademark so it can grow |
10:37 |
cjb |
trademarks aren't legal protection? :) |
10:37 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: I don't expect we decide anything today, but I want to get the discussion going. |
10:37 |
SeanDaly |
The Firefox fork controversy more appropriate analogy |
10:37 |
cjb |
tomeu: I found https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Deriva[…]cs/DerivativeSpec |
10:37 |
|
tomeu: but I think it's not very useful |
10:38 |
walterbender |
hi erikos |
10:38 |
tomeu |
looks like ubuntu will learn from us :p |
10:38 |
walterbender |
erikos: feeling better? |
10:38 |
SeanDaly |
waves to erikos |
10:38 |
erikos |
hi walterbender - yes thanks ;p |
10:38 |
|
waves back to SeanDaly |
10:39 |
walterbender |
in any case, if we sort this out, many of the other decisions will be much easier to make |
10:40 |
SeanDaly |
important to find workable policy and not have to improvise |
10:40 |
walterbender |
on a related note, I was speaking with sdziallas about Carlo's recommendation re SoaS remixes |
10:40 |
cjb |
yeah, we should probably adopt the policy of another project |
10:40 |
sdziallas |
looks up |
10:41 |
tomeu |
the questions that walter put in the wiki look like quite hard to me |
10:41 |
cjb |
that's true, we haven't answered those properly yet |
10:43 |
tomeu |
but I guess that fedora's policy would be an answer to all them? |
10:43 |
walterbender |
cjb: we can avoid answering some of them with the remix idea |
10:43 |
|
but we have to face up to all of them if someone wants an affiliation with SL |
10:44 |
cjb |
that's right |
10:45 |
walterbender |
But if we can decide on a process, we are in much better shape than our ad hoc methods to date. |
10:45 |
SeanDaly |
agreed |
10:45 |
walterbender |
It is only fair to potential partners that we have clear guidelines |
10:45 |
cjb |
I think we could start with "anyone who wants to ship a Sugar distribution is a Sugar Remix, and they can talk to us to get a technical review that would lead to them becoming part of the brand officially" |
10:46 |
|
the questions that we ask and problems that we find aren't going to be very predictable ahead of time |
10:46 |
walterbender |
cjb: seems like a good place to start |
10:46 |
|
some questions are predictable, e.g., inclusion of non-Free packages |
10:46 |
SeanDaly |
cjb: I would hope if they wanted to help us grow the Sugar brand that they would contribute to marketing, within our guidelines |
10:46 |
cjb |
we'd want to decide, like Fedora, on which items of artwork and so on are brandable only to the Sugar brand |
10:47 |
walterbender |
and having some structure: where to put things, makes the process easier for everyone |
10:47 |
cjb |
SeanDaly: yes, that sounds necessary |
10:47 |
walterbender |
(Carlo's suggestion) |
10:47 |
mchua |
for reference: |
10:47 |
|
#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix |
10:47 |
tomeu |
btw, I'm not sure if the question of the derivatives is more a quality one or a community one |
10:47 |
mchua |
#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki[…]egal_requirements.3F |
10:47 |
|
and the trademark guidelines in |
10:47 |
|
#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki[…]ng_other_software |
10:48 |
walterbender |
tomeu: probably both--in terms of branding and support |
10:48 |
cjb |
mchua: thanks |
10:48 |
tomeu |
as in, if I will be the one maintaining the contribution, I will apply my quality standard to it. but if it's someone else who will maintain it, I do'nt care so much as there's some guarantees that that someone else will do a good enough job |
10:48 |
cjb |
we should probably go off and read everything linked from /Remix as homework |
10:48 |
walterbender |
mchua: can you add those links to the wiki? |
10:48 |
tomeu |
that's why accepting patches is a maintainer matter, and not a community one |
10:48 |
mchua |
do we want to get iaep discussion on the trademark questions on today's agenda? |
10:48 |
walterbender |
cjb: agreed. |
10:49 |
mchua |
walterbender: will do that now |
10:49 |
walterbender |
mchua: not sure I understand the question |
10:49 |
|
mchua: I was planning that we open this entire discussion up to iaep |
10:50 |
|
tomeu: re Sugar core, you are correct, but we also have the activities... a free-for-all... |
10:51 |
tomeu |
walterbender: hmm, how is different for activities? |
10:51 |
mchua |
walterbender: sorry, should rephrase - "at what point in our discusion today do we need to say 'ok, we need to take this to iaep now'? i.e. how much further SLOBs meeting discussion is helpful?" |
10:51 |
walterbender |
tomeu: each activity has a maintainer (at least in theory) |
10:51 |
CanoeBerry |
Just to confirm we're ending in 10min? |
10:51 |
mchua |
thinks this is in fact quite helpful, but we've got 10m left |
10:51 |
|
CanoeBerry: jinx :) |
10:51 |
tomeu |
ok, I guess this is better discussed in the ml |
10:52 |
|
any actions coming out from this? |
10:52 |
walterbender |
mchua: I think we have gotten a good start--enough to seed a community discussion |
10:52 |
mchua |
In addition to asking iaep, I'd like to see if folks both here and there can talk with other projects about how they do this |
10:52 |
walterbender |
#action: walter will seed a community discussion on the topic |
10:52 |
|
mchua: good idea. maybe we can each be responsible for one community |
10:53 |
|
and report back next time |
10:53 |
|
mchua: can I volunteer you for Fedora :) |
10:53 |
|
tomeu: you want to talk to GNOME? |
10:53 |
mchua |
walterbender: yes, and one other project we'd like to check in on, since Fedora's policies are pretty copiously documented :) |
10:54 |
tomeu |
walterbender: ok, will try to find someone |
10:54 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: you want to look at Mozilla? |
10:54 |
|
anyone wanna talk to Debian? |
10:54 |
|
Ubuntu? |
10:54 |
|
Other projects that come to mind? |
10:55 |
tomeu |
opensolaris? |
10:55 |
walterbender |
cjb: wanna to talk to OLPC about how they do it? |
10:55 |
tomeu |
fortunately, foss projects use to have their guidelines in quite public places |
10:55 |
walterbender |
and openSUSE |
10:55 |
tomeu |
http://live.gnome.org/Trademark |
10:55 |
cjb |
walterbender: ok |
10:55 |
walterbender |
I will talk to the openSUSE folks |
10:56 |
|
maybe we can assign Debian to Bernie :) |
10:56 |
mchua |
We can also ask for volunteers on iaep for other projects - I'm sure folks iwll have more they'd like to hear from, or that they can talk to. |
10:56 |
walterbender |
+1 |
10:57 |
|
Time is about up. Shall we skip next Friday and go for the following Friday? |
10:57 |
|
(Thanksgiving) |
10:57 |
tomeu |
gnome's is very drafty :/ |
10:57 |
cjb |
makes sense. |
10:58 |
walterbender |
tomeu has already finished his homework? :) |
10:58 |
tomeu |
I won't be able to report much ;) |
10:58 |
|
guess projects backed by big companies will have more developed trademark guidelines |
10:59 |
|
but they may not apply so well to us, dunno |
10:59 |
walterbender |
OK. any last comments before we close the formal meeting? |
10:59 |
CanoeBerry |
Thanks All. Apologies our "Honduras Church" in NYC has poor bandwidth tomorrow afternoon. |
10:59 |
|
But Mike Lee will provide partial workaround.. |
11:00 |
walterbender |
See you all here on 4 Dec? and in #sugar daily :) |
11:00 |
mchua |
Nice forward progress this meeting :) |
11:00 |
|
4 dec! |
11:00 |
CanoeBerry |
Bye! |
11:00 |
walterbender |
thanks everyone. |
11:00 |
|
#endmeeting |