| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 11:11 | SeanDaly | lurking |
| 11:12 | bernie | * regular meeting times (mchua) |
| 11:12 | * posting meeting logs - this one should be short, just "we'll do it, here is where" (mchua) | |
| 11:12 | * setting goals and milestones for this release (mchua) | |
| 11:12 | * status update on aslo cluster (dfarning) | |
| 11:12 | * long-term infrastructure plans (bernie) | |
| 11:12 | #topic regular meeting times (mchua) | |
| 11:12 | Mel: (Bernie and i are using the same laptop right now, so we'll be swapping back and forth.) | |
| 11:12 | dfarning_ | Ahh I was confused |
| 11:13 | Friday ten oclock work fine | |
| 11:13 | SeanDaly | nick should be "berniemel" |
| 11:13 | bernie | mel: The purpose of my 3 agenda items is to answer the question "if I haven't been involved in the day-to-day of Infrastructure but want to find out what's going on and what I can do to help in <10min, what do I do (and what do we need to set up, as a team, for me to be able to do that?) |
| 11:14 | mel: weekly meetings, posted logs, and a release calendar are the fastest way I know to do that | |
| 11:14 | mel: "read last week's log, go to next week's meeting, and we're working through the milestones on this calendar" | |
| 11:14 | dfarning_ | yes, we have grown to the point where meeting as needed |
| 11:14 | bernie | SeanDaly: can't change nick without upsetting the meetbot |
| 11:15 | SeanDaly | learns something every day |
| 11:15 | dfarning_ | another very important thing is to shift bernie from wizard behind the curtain to teacher |
| 11:15 | bernie | dfarning_: +1 |
| 11:16 | dfarning_: I'm having a hard time finding trusted volunteers who are both capable and willing to take over entire pieces of infrastructure | |
| 11:16 | dfarning_ | every project has the trouble .. we need to start growing them |
| 11:16 | bernie | dfarning_: adam has suggested someone who seems to be the perfect candidate to maintain trac |
| 11:17 | I guess we should switch topic | |
| 11:18 | mel: before we move on - is it decided that this is going to be our weekly meeting time (until we need to switch it) | |
| 11:18 | and that everything will be logged via meetbot? | |
| 11:18 | bernie: +1 | |
| 11:18 | dfarning_ | sounds good |
| 11:18 | bernie | mel: ok, moving on now :) I figure we can lay out the issues on the rest of the agenda and then if we have time circle back and figure out what we want to do for this release cycle |
| 11:19 | ok, next topic | |
| 11:19 | #topic status update on aslo cluster (dfarning) | |
| 11:20 | dfarning_ | I think the majority of the hard work is now done |
| 11:20 | The abstraction of components is done and works. | |
| 11:20 | bernie | dfarning_: I agree |
| 11:20 | dfarning_ | next phase |
| 11:20 | testing and tuning | |
| 11:20 | bernie | dfarning_: I'm a little worried for the stability of treehouse as a virtualization host: I have seen VMs hang in the past |
| 11:21 | dfarning_ | Yes, would like to move it as soon as we have somewhere to put it. |
| 11:21 | bernie | dfarning_: we also need to bolt down network communication between the many VMs to make sure there's no way to eavesdrop and/or hijack the cluster at any level |
| 11:22 | dfarning_ | Yes, proxy and db are still not on interconnect |
| 11:23 | bernie | dfarning_: also, distributed systems are inherently more fragile. I feel like we have insufficient HA monitoring and failover at this time. |
| 11:23 | dfarning_: soon after we transition the aslo cluster into production, we should start making at least the db redundant. | |
| 11:24 | dfarning_ | Depending ou you available time, I would like to set up aslo-proxy2 some where and conect the proxies with heart beat |
| 11:25 | bernie | dfarning_: is it even possible to make the proxy redundant without some kind of IP takeover? |
| 11:25 | dfarning_ | heartbeat can handle ip takeover |
| 11:26 | one machine is the master | |
| 11:26 | bernie | mel: interjection from a non-sysadmin - since I can't help directly with infra team tasks, but am basically here to help drive a beat and grow the team's capacity, I'd like to get us in the habit of blogging non-sysadmin-readable summaries of the work that's being done. |
| 11:26 | dfarning_ | if it goes down the other can take over |
| 11:26 | bernie | mel: in other words, "what infrastructure's done for you today, and why you should care." this will help with recruiting. |
| 11:27 | mel: I'll take the first blogpost and will hit up mailing lists for explanations of something cool I see passing by, just a fyi. | |
| 11:27 | #action mchua take first infra blogpost | |
| 11:27 | mel: +1000 | |
| 11:28 | dfarning_: then the two machines need to run on different physical hosts, but share the same LAN so they can take over the IP. | |
| 11:29 | dfarning_ | yes, that is why I am push for a cluster at rit or the EU |
| 11:30 | bernie | dfarning_: treehouse and sunjammer would be ideal for the task |
| 11:30 | dfarning_: but we can't create new VMs besides sunjammer on the fsf machine. can we setup the proxy slave right on sunjammer? | |
| 11:31 | dfarning_: let's hope for the best | |
| 11:31 | dfarning_ | Is is possiable to first set up a second vm on treehouse for me to use to test before doing somethen this invasive to sunjammer |
| 11:31 | bernie | dfarning_: meanwhile, yesterday I had a quick talk with ivan on the phone. we might want to replace solarsail with a new machine. |
| 11:32 | dfarning_ | What is going to happen to solarsil? |
| 11:32 | bernie | dfarning_: me, ivan and SL may share the cost. hosting could be done at rit, the eu thing or transworldix, from which we already have an official free hosting offer. |
| 11:33 | dfarning_ | Can we host multiple machines as transworldix |
| 11:33 | bernie | dfarning_: we see that solarsail is aging: slow processors, fancy architecture that is hardly maintained upstream.... |
| 11:33 | dfarning_ | s/as/at/ |
| 11:34 | bernie | dfarning_: I think we were offered 2U of rackspace, but perhaps we could ask for 4U and stick 4 pizza boxes in it. |
| 11:34 | dfarning_ | not sure how big a u is in comparison to machines |
| 11:35 | cjb | most rackmount machines are 2u |
| 11:35 | your average desktop box is like 6u | |
| 11:35 | bernie | dfarning_: treehouse is 2U |
| 11:35 | dfarning_: solarsail is also 2U | |
| 11:35 | cjb | very small rackmount machines without much expansion space can be 1u |
| 11:35 | dfarning_ | thanks |
| 11:36 | bernie | cjb: these days, it wouldn't bother anyone: a 1U can happily house 3 1.5TB drives |
| 11:36 | cjb | bernie: well, that doesn't bother anyone who doesn't want to have more than 3 drives :) |
| 11:36 | bernie | cjb: for web services, we always saturate the cpu before disk and memory |
| 11:37 | cjb | perhaps you can't use a super-fast CPU on 1u because of the limited cooling possibilities |
| 11:37 | (but I'm just guessing.) | |
| 11:37 | dfarning_ | I must aplologize I don't know much about hardware |
| 11:38 | before tossing out solarsail-- I would like to test it as a web node for aslo | |
| 11:40 | proposed action bernie or dogi create aslo-proxy1 on treehouse to test and debuge heartbeat | |
| 11:43 | bernie | dfarning_: ok |
| 11:44 | dfarning_ | Do you think dogi would be willing to give me root on housetree? |
| 11:44 | bernie | dfarning_: we should ask him. he told me not to give it to anyone, and I can understand... |
| 11:45 | dfarning_ | now, you do all sorts of wizardly things to set up an maintain vms. I would like to see about simplifiy that process |
| 11:45 | bernie | dfarning_: (housetree is the spare machine hosted at pika) |
| 11:46 | dfarning_: I documented all the procedures I use in the wiki, but frankly many of those are to be tuned case by case | |
| 11:46 | dfarning_: unfortunately, the libvirt management tools are still very rudimental | |
| 11:46 | dfarning_ | yah, better to have me learning on housetree than a production treehouse |
| 11:47 | bernie | dfarning_: for example, moving a machine from a file to a partition cannot be automated in any way and required me to mount the partition with a fancy command |
| 11:47 | mount foo.img /mnt -o loop,offset=32256 | |
| 11:47 | or something like that | |
| 11:49 | dfarning_ | we can revisit this later |
| 11:49 | is there more on the angenda | |
| 11:49 | bernie | dfarning_: I'll try to consolidate a little bit and document a little more, but really there's not much we can do at this time to simplify VM management beyond a certain point |
| 11:50 | the best we could do is NOT create any more VMs. they are a huge cost in terms of maintenance | |
| 11:50 | dfarning_: ok. let's wrap up for today | |
| 11:51 | dfarning_: we need to talk with dogi, ivan on one side and with rit, eu and transworldix on the other | |
| 11:51 | I'm confident we can get one new box for our core services pretty easily at this point. | |
| 11:51 | dfarning_ | bernie, I agree -- but I see no alteratative for testing and demonstrating scaling proof of concepts. |
| 11:52 | bernie | I just hope we can make this happen before I leave the country in january. |
| 11:52 | dfarning_ | can I give you two small action items? |
| 11:53 | bernie | dfarning_: test machines are ok. we can have dozens of them, as they don't need backups, monitoring, updates and real security anyway. |
| 11:53 | dfarning_: I'd tend to limit the number of machines we have in production, just that. | |
| 11:53 | dfarning_: I still have to create 2 more: pootle and dns/ldap | |
| 11:54 | dfarning_: sure go on | |
| 11:54 | dfarning_ | ok, Can you give also-more memory? it started to swap |
| 11:54 | bernie | dfarning_: ok, but I'm riding the bus now and abusing mel's connection |
| 11:54 | dfarning_: can it wait until tonight or tomorrow? | |
| 11:55 | dfarning_: we have enough memory for now. | |
| 11:55 | dfarning_: which aslo machine do you need to expand? aslo-web? | |
| 11:55 | dfarning_ | and aslo-web is down |
| 11:55 | bernie | dfarning_: uh-oh |
| 11:55 | dfarning_: damn it's dog slow | |
| 11:56 | dfarning_ | it ran out or memory and crashed this morning -- or got really slow |
| 11:56 | bernie | dfarning_: aslo-web is eating up cpu time. weird |
| 11:57 | dfarning_: btw aslo-web should not swap because I didn't give it any swap :) | |
| 11:57 | dfarning_: it seems to be frozen the same way I've seen beamrider freeze | |
| 11:57 | dfarning_: beamrider certainly did not run out of memory, so it may be a different issue | |
| 11:58 | dfarning_ | Any why - that is it for me for now. |
| 12:03 | bernie, need to run. | |
| 12:03 | bye | |
| 12:04 | bernie | dfarning_: rebooted aslo-web |
| 12:04 | btw, resource usage on treehouse is still low: | |
| 12:04 | CPU: 66.6% Mem: 19456 MB (19456 MB by guests) | |
| 12:04 | CPU: 14.0% Mem: 19456 MB (19456 MB by guests) | |
| 12:04 | 24 R 0 2 4.9 0.0 67:57:00 trixbox | |
| 12:04 | 35 R 1 6 2.1 3.0 20:38:59 aslo-proxy | |
| 12:04 | 48 R 0 0 861 844 1.6 6.0 0:39.93 aslo-web | |
| 12:04 | 8 R 0 0 0.3 0.0 359:59.42 vig | |
| 12:04 | 44 R 0 1 180 0 0.2 6.0 214:35.03 aslo-db | |
| 12:04 | 42 R 0 1 180 0 0.2 12.0 29:45:14 beamrider | |
| 12:04 | 5 R 0 0 0.0 0.0 573:52.21 meeting | |
| 12:04 | - (template-karmic) | |
| 12:04 | ID S RDRQ WRRQ RXBY TXBY %CPU %MEM TIME NAME | |
| 12:05 | going offline | |
| 12:05 | over | |
| 12:05 | dfarning_ | bernie, do you have too #MMETING OVER |
| 15:07 | bernie | #endmeeting |
| 10:01 | walterbender | We have an agenda in the wiki... |
| 10:01 | the first topic is Bernie's but he is not here yet... | |
| 10:02 | the second topic is the DP. has anyone heard back from the committee? | |
| 10:02 | cjb | nope |
| 10:02 | SeanDaly | not I |
| 10:02 | walterbender | nor I :( |
| 10:02 | I know they got my message regarding the deadline | |
| 10:03 | I am afraid this process has not worked. | |
| 10:03 | bernie | This is Bernie, Adam, and Mel. |
| 10:03 | We're all here. | |
| 10:03 | walterbender | ciao bernardo |
| 10:03 | SeanDaly | greetings bernieadammel |
| 10:03 | walterbender | do you need the backlog? |
| 10:04 | bernie | no, we have it. |
| 10:04 | (Mel is typing) | |
| 10:04 | walterbender | since bernie is here, let's start with his topic. |
| 10:04 | bernie | which topic is that? |
| 10:04 | walterbender | #TOPIC teams@ lists |
| 10:04 | bernie | Ah, yes. I see. |
| 10:05 | walterbender | Bernie, can you summarize your proposal? |
| 10:06 | 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 |
| 10:06 | I'd propose a teams@ list for this kind of communication. | |
| 10:06 | SeanDaly | I like this idea |
| 10:07 | often worry about teams not interacting enough (fear justified or not) | |
| 10:07 | tomeu | I don't see why team coordinators would need to be much more involved in these discussions than other people |
| 10:07 | bernie | there's potential for abuse of course... as there was for the wide-audience slobs |
| 10:07 | walterbender | bernie: can you give a hypothetical example of how it would be used? |
| 10:07 | tomeu | do we have any past situations that support this need? |
| 10:07 | SeanDaly | A media campaign launch :-) |
| 10:08 | "all hands on deck" | |
| 10:08 | bernie | tomeu: for example, getting you and erikos in the loop regarding the nokia deal |
| 10:08 | tomeu: or the launchpad thing | |
| 10:09 | SeanDaly | or, my Osor meeting in which hosting possibilities were discussed (still have to write up a debrief) |
| 10:09 | walterbender | bernie: I am not sure I understand |
| 10:10 | each of these cases seems unique. what is the common denominator that a list would address? | |
| 10:10 | Doesn't each team, e.g., marketing or infrastructure already have a list? | |
| 10:11 | tomeu | frankly, I see that proposal dividing more than uniting our community |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | well, the problem is lack of interaction |
| 10:11 | walterbender | SeanDaly: can you please elaborate? |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | for example if marketing stuff which impacts development, |
| 10:11 | cjb | tomeu: yes, it does seem to elevate members into "trusted or untrusted", which is often a mistake |
| 10:11 | 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 |
| 10:11 | bernie | walterbender: team leaders is just a way to include everyone who is trusted enough to lead a team |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | there are problems real quick if developers not in the loop |
| 10:11 | bernie | tomeu: I also see the downside, that's true |
| 10:12 | SeanDaly | at the same time, not all devs want all marketing info all the time |
| 10:12 | 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 |
| 10:12 | SeanDaly | to put it mildly |
| 10:12 | bernie | i.e. each team would have a "SLOBs ambassador" |
| 10:12 | walterbender | bernie: in theory we have that already. |
| 10:12 | it is in our bylaws | |
| 10:12 | cjb | SJ was telling me about wikipedia does this |
| 10:12 | tomeu | bernie: as I said, I think we have coordinators, that may be defacto leaders, or not |
| 10:13 | cjb | they say you can *only* start a team if you can find a board member to sit on it, or something |
| 10:13 | bernie | walterbender: in practice, though? |
| 10:13 | walterbender | bernie: for the most part, yes. |
| 10:13 | 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 |
| 10:13 | bernie | walterbender:if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues? |
| 10:13 | walterbender | bernie: infrastruture-you; marketing-sean; etc. |
| 10:14 | activities-me | |
| 10:14 | bernie | bernie: but we only have 7 people on the board |
| 10:14 | walterbender | and not so many teams either |
| 10:14 | bernie | mel: but a SLOB can be an ambassador for 2 teams if needed |
| 10:14 | mel asks again: if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues? | |
| 10:15 | 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 |
| 10:15 | 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 |
| 10:15 | cjb | and if we do that, we haven't just split our community into people we like and people we don't |
| 10:15 | tomeu | cjb++ |
| 10:15 | cjb | at least not in a way that's obvious to them :) |
| 10:16 | 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 |
| 10:16 | (bernie had thought it was that a SLOB had to be leading the team) | |
| 10:16 | walterbender | bernie: in factr, in almost every case, the SLOBs member is NOT the leader, which is a good thing. |
| 10:16 | bernie | mel: cjb++ |
| 10:16 | cjb | so my thought is that this proposal has the potential to create much more harm than good |
| 10:16 | even though I can see that it could create some good | |
| 10:17 | walterbender | bernie: is a motion emerging from this discussion? |
| 10:17 | bernie | mel: I'd like to propose the motion that we have SLOBs ambassadors to each team, instead of a teams@ list |
| 10:17 | bernie: I would agree on that. | |
| 10:17 | cjb | what happens in the weird case of no-one wanting to be their ambassador? |
| 10:18 | walterbender | bernie: maybe the motion should be that we ensure that we execute on that structure, which is already in our by-laws |
| 10:18 | cjb | does the ambassador have to go to all that team's meetings? |
| 10:18 | SeanDaly | perhaps it's early to do this. If there were 3x the number of volunteers, i think it would more useful. |
| 10:18 | tomeu | btw, we have teams without coordinators, I don't see how we are talking about this before having found a coordinator for each |
| 10:18 | bernie | mel: cjb: it would be a requirement for a team to have /an/ ambassador, I'd say |
| 10:18 | tomeu | we don't even have a community manager yet |
| 10:18 | bernie | mel: cjb: but how the ambassador and the team interface doesn't have to be strictly defined right now |
| 10:18 | SeanDaly | or an education/content manager... |
| 10:19 | cjb | so, this idea is obviously much less objectionable |
| 10:19 | but I don't think it solves the same problem | |
| 10:19 | and I don't know that the problem it solves is actually one we have | |
| 10:19 | bernie | Adam: i think this is a useful conversation, but I'm not sure if we can encode these responsibilities easily. |
| 10:19 | walterbender | deserves the heat because making sure the by-laws are observed is probably the responsibility of the ED |
| 10:19 | 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 |
| 10:20 | tomeu | also, the only team with regular meetings is the marketing team |
| 10:20 | bernie | bernie: +1 |
| 10:20 | adam: +1 | |
| 10:20 | cjb | +1 |
| 10:20 | SeanDaly | regular as long as I'm not moving house :D |
| 10:20 | tomeu | and the only other one that has occasional meetings is the dev team |
| 10:20 | walterbender | in any case, it seems we are not planning to move forward with Bernie's original proposal at this time? |
| 10:20 | tomeu | so I don't know what sense makes to say that slobs attends team meetings |
| 10:20 | bernie | mel: that's what I think |
| 10:21 | bernie: that's fine | |
| 10:21 | SeanDaly | I think revisit the topic for the happy day we have enough volunteers that not everybody knows everybody |
| 10:21 | bernie | adam: I do like what mel said - as long as it's not enforced, to have that expectation... |
| 10:21 | walterbender | I will volunteer to crack the whip to ensure we have a mapping between SLOBs and teams. |
| 10:21 | bernie | adam: that the team coordinator builds a social relationship with slobs |
| 10:21 | mel: moving on then? | |
| 10:21 | walterbender | bernie: are you satisfied? |
| 10:22 | bernie | yes |
| 10:22 | walterbender | OK. |
| 10:22 | 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. | |
| 10:23 | #TOPIC SoaS DP | |
| 10:23 | Have any of you on the bus heard back from the DP? | |
| 10:23 | none of the rest of us have. | |
| 10:23 | bernie | all three: no |
| 10:23 | walterbender | :( |
| 10:24 | I think this means that we have to dissolve the panel | |
| 10:24 | as per our discussion last time. | |
| 10:24 | SeanDaly | when was deadline again pls? |
| 10:24 | walterbender | today. |
| 10:24 | SeanDaly | yes, disappointing. |
| 10:25 | bernie | mel: ok, so we dissolve the panel and then who handles the decision? slobs? |
| 10:25 | cjb | mel: that would be my preference |
| 10:25 | walterbender | that is what we need to decide |
| 10:25 | bernie | mel: mine as well |
| 10:25 | cjb | I don't think this situation is encoded in our bylaws |
| 10:25 | so we get to wing it :) | |
| 10:25 | bernie | mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs |
| 10:26 | cjb | seconded |
| 10:26 | walterbender | discussion? |
| 10:26 | cjb | this seems uncontroversial to me. any objections? |
| 10:26 | tomeu | I thought it was already like that |
| 10:26 | walterbender | in some sense, we already have that responsibility |
| 10:26 | cjb | tomeu: we hadn't really talked about it |
| 10:27 | bernie | bernie: I think we still ought to take into account the consensus of the DP that was summarized in the wiki |
| 10:27 | tomeu | cjb: does the slobs give any power to the dp when it's created? |
| 10:27 | cjb | tomeu: no, not really |
| 10:27 | tomeu | I thought it was only a consultative thing |
| 10:27 | cjb | bernie: I'm not sure about that |
| 10:27 | tomeu | then the slobs have always retained the responsibility of deciding on thast |
| 10:27 | SeanDaly | yes, SLOBs should inspect the status of work even if no consensus reached |
| 10:27 | cjb | of course, whoever proposes a new decision on the topic should read the DP's work first |
| 10:27 | walterbender | the DP is suppose to make a recommendation to SLOBs for some action. |
| 10:27 | cjb | but the DP's work is not complete |
| 10:27 | walterbender | in this case, no recommendation, but lots of fruitful discussion |
| 10:28 | we can make a decision based on that input or ask for a new DP | |
| 10:28 | cjb | so we shouldn't just take it as gospel or anything. it's just something to read and help educate us. |
| 10:28 | bernie | bernie: cjb: so do we disregard the DP decision even when there was a clear consensus? |
| 10:28 | cjb | bernie: yes. |
| 10:28 | that's what dissolving the DP means. | |
| 10:28 | bernie | cjb: ah, after reading your explanation., I'd tend to agree. |
| 10:28 | walterbender | bernie: and presumably get voted off the island as a result |
| 10:29 | cjb | :) |
| 10:29 | bernie | mel; so i had a motion and cjb seconded it... do we want to discuss it more, or vote? |
| 10:29 | (that would give us a way to move forward with the DP's decision and actually make a decision) | |
| 10:29 | 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 |
| 10:29 | bernie | mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs. |
| 10:29 | walterbender | shall we vote? |
| 10:29 | cjb | aye |
| 10:30 | bernie | mel: aye |
| 10:30 | SeanDaly | aye |
| 10:30 | walterbender | aye |
| 10:30 | tomeu | as I said, I don't understand why we vote this |
| 10:30 | bernie | adam: tends to agree with tomeu |
| 10:30 | cjb | tomeu: it's just a point of clarification |
| 10:30 | tomeu | is it said anywhere that the decision is removed from the slobs at any point? |
| 10:30 | cjb | nope |
| 10:31 | I think the reason it's slightly unintuitive is: | |
| 10:31 | * The bylaws say we get to solve conflict by starting a decision panel | |
| 10:31 | tomeu | well, then I think we need to leave very clearly that the decision is always left to the slobs |
| 10:31 | if someone thinks otherwise, it's bad | |
| 10:31 | cjb | tomeu: that's what the vote helps to do :) |
| 10:31 | * and if a DP fails... well, maybe we just start another one or something | |
| 10:31 | tomeu | ok, if people think it helps, I vote yes |
| 10:32 | bernie | adam: feels we've already voted on this previously |
| 10:32 | cjb | the vote passed already :) |
| 10:33 | next up: would someone like to volunteer to review the DP work, and create a motion to solve the original problem with? | |
| 10:33 | it should probably be several of us, or even all of us | |
| 10:33 | walterbender | adam: we certainly discussed it last week, but I think we were all holding out for a DP report :( |
| 10:33 | cjb: yes. I think that is the next step in regard to this particular issue. | |
| 10:34 | bernie | FYI: This computer will die in less than 5 min |
| 10:34 | cjb | heh |
| 10:34 | bernie | bernie, mel, adam will be offline then |
| 10:34 | walterbender | and I think we should make a decision next week. |
| 10:34 | bernie | Be quick! |
| 10:34 | cjb | bernie: which of you wants to be involved in coming up with a decision on the DP work? |
| 10:35 | walterbender: make a decision on the original request, right? | |
| 10:35 | walterbender | #ACTION: everyone reviews the DP work and comes prepared next week to discuss and decide. |
| 10:35 | cjb | ok |
| 10:35 | it might be good to have the motions available before the meeting | |
| 10:35 | walterbender | if there are questions, raise them BEFORE the meeting to the list |
| 10:35 | bernie | bernie: cjb: I'll leave this hot potato to someone else :) |
| 10:35 | cjb | so if folks could e-mail them as they come up with them |
| 10:35 | that'd be good | |
| 10:35 | walterbender | by list, I mean iaep [SLOBS] |
| 10:35 | cjb | I'll volunteer to try to review all their stuff and think about it/come up with a motion |
| 10:36 | would be good if others can too | |
| 10:36 | walterbender | thanks cjb |
| 10:36 | bernie | bernie: cjb: mel is currently busy with fudbus business |
| 10:36 | cjb | any other urgent business for this meeting? |
| 10:36 | walterbender | just discussion, I think |
| 10:36 | SeanDaly | well, I wanted to know if possible put e-books in ASLO |
| 10:36 | walterbender | the policies re ebooks, acitvities, etc |
| 10:37 | and of course, the trademark issue | |
| 10:37 | cjb | oh, yes! |
| 10:37 | bernie | adam: agreed..i'll remind SJ & Caryl to weigh in if they have final thoughts on DP's wiki page, even if defunct |
| 10:37 | SeanDaly | I haven't thought deeply on implications, was caught short with licensing issue |
| 10:37 | cjb | motion: no non-free software or content on ASLO, as judged by DFSG/OSI |
| 10:37 | walterbender | but we will have to carry on without our FUDCon friends :( |
| 10:37 | cjb | fudbus folks, what'd you think? |
| 10:37 | walterbender | #TOPIC non-FOSS content |
| 10:37 | tomeu | SeanDaly: it may be more convenient if we found one or more partners who wanted to take the content side of all this |
| 10:37 | SeanDaly: so we don't have to spread ourselves too thin | |
| 10:38 | bernie | bernie: ok, switching battery |
| 10:38 | SeanDaly | no, the context is helping parents/teachers get started with e-books |
| 10:38 | tomeu | SeanDaly: so not solving the whole content problem but some first step? |
| 10:39 | SeanDaly | there are hundreds, thousands out there, idea is to help newbies use in Sugar |
| 10:39 | yes, first step | |
| 10:39 | we wstarted wiki page for that | |
| 10:39 | walterbender | this parallels the debate we had at OLPC re content. |
| 10:39 | SeanDaly | wiki page may be better than ASLO |
| 10:39 | walterbender | we can never do more than plant seeds |
| 10:39 | tomeu | SeanDaly: so maybe there's enough free content out there? |
| 10:40 | walterbender | and show others how to take initiative |
| 10:40 | SeanDaly | tomeu: there's a vast amount, but when there isn't any with Sugar or close by, it's a technical barrier |
| 10:40 | idea is to have a few available, so people can try ereaders | |
| 10:40 | walterbender | I don't believe it is our mission to solve the content problem, but lowering technical and culture barriers is our mission |
| 10:41 | 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 |
| 10:41 | SeanDaly | and hint how to search in repositories, online etc. |
| 10:41 | tomeu: yes, we had put effort into finding a dozen nice books in half a dozen languages | |
| 10:42 | idea is to make first step easy: find, obtain, what format, which Activity | |
| 10:42 | walterbender | what is the SLOBs issue here? seems we are drifting off topic |
| 10:43 | tomeu | ok, so do we need to tackle the issue of non-free content on aslo right now? |
| 10:43 | cjb | walterbender: I made a motion and everything :) |
| 10:43 | there are two issues, related: | |
| 10:43 | * someone wants to put Skype etc on ASLO | |
| 10:43 | * someone wants to put non-free ebooks on ASLO | |
| 10:43 | walterbender | tomeu: yes in that there are some non-free activities waiting for approval |
| 10:43 | SeanDaly | issue was: ASLO a place for content bundles? |
| 10:43 | tomeu | oh, ok |
| 10:43 | cjb | in both cases this was kinda reasonable, because there was no-one saying "oh, we have a policy against doing those" |
| 10:43 | bernie | bernie: back in business |
| 10:43 | tomeu | in the skype case, I guess it's plain ilegal, even if we really wanted to do that, right? |
| 10:43 | cjb | tomeu: yes |
| 10:44 | tomeu | and is there any other non-free but freely-distributable software proposed for aslo? |
| 10:44 | cjb | tomeu: just the content, I think |
| 10:44 | walterbender | bernie: http://pastebin.be/22311 |
| 10:44 | bernie | mel: we do not have a license policy on what can go on ASLO, right? |
| 10:44 | SeanDaly | piles of flash stuff? |
| 10:44 | cjb | SeanDaly: flash stuff can be free |
| 10:45 | bernie: right -- currently no | |
| 10:45 | bernie: we'd be creating one now | |
| 10:45 | tomeu | SeanDaly: but isn't most flash stuff out there without any license info at all? |
| 10:45 | so we don't really know if it's actually freely-distributable | |
| 10:45 | SeanDaly | cjb: free as in 4 freedoms? |
| 10:45 | cjb | SeanDaly: legally, yes |
| 10:45 | you can make a Flash app and release it under the GPL | |
| 10:46 | bernie | I'd like to have something like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing |
| 10:46 | SeanDaly | huge amount of free-online in Flash has no license info, |
| 10:46 | cjb | I still think flash apps don't provide useful versions of the four freedoms, but that's a much more subtle point |
| 10:46 | bernie | which includes a list of acceptable licenses, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses |
| 10:46 | (this is Mel) | |
| 10:46 | cjb | SeanDaly: sure, I agree |
| 10:46 | SeanDaly | I think because offline Flash difficult so always assumed to be online |
| 10:46 | walterbender | cjb: not sure where you put or access the license info in Flash |
| 10:46 | 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) |
| 10:46 | cjb | Mel: We could do that, or just adopt the DFSG/OSI rules |
| 10:47 | Mel: The advantage of using the rules is that they cope with new licenses as well as current ones. | |
| 10:47 | bernie | mel: I'm happy with any non-ambiguous statement of what we do and don't allow license-wise, honestly. |
| 10:47 | cjb | walterbender: that's a good point |
| 10:47 | bernie | cjb: link? |
| 10:47 | cjb | http://opensource.org/docs/osd |
| 10:47 | bernie | mel: that sounds like a good idea to me though |
| 10:47 | cjb | the Debian Free Software Guidelines are basically identical |
| 10:48 | MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as the source for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content | |
| 10:48 | bernie | bus riders are looking at the link, one sec |
| 10:48 | SeanDaly | I'd rather read that first before voting on anything |
| 10:49 | cjb | ok. we could postpone. |
| 10:49 | walterbender | so another homework assignment so we can vote next week? |
| 10:49 | bernie | mel: I'm good with the list |
| 10:49 | mel: I've read it already | |
| 10:49 | tomeu | and I guess SFC has a say on this? |
| 10:49 | walterbender | but we seem to have consensus on the basic idea? |
| 10:50 | tomeu | because relates to their mission? |
| 10:50 | 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 |
| 10:50 | walterbender | I'll check with the SFC. They owe us a response re NC and ND licenses already :) |
| 10:50 | cjb | so I'm sure they're very much in agreement with the motion |
| 10:51 | (that was about SoaS, though, not ASLO) | |
| 10:51 | 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. |
| 10:51 | cjb | bernie: both are useful, neither are sufficient |
| 10:51 | bernie: if someone proposes Skype | |
| 10:51 | walterbender | bernie: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical |
| 10:51 | that is a list | |
| 10:51 | 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." |
| 10:51 | cjb | and I can't find "the Skype license" in Fedora's list |
| 10:51 | SeanDaly | ASLO is response to SoaS problem |
| 10:51 | cjb | I need a way to reject it |
| 10:51 | bernie | mel: walterbender: exactly |
| 10:51 | cjb | (legally happened to work in this example) |
| 10:51 | but anyway, many times random non-free software might be proposed | |
| 10:52 | it won't always have a license on that list, or a license at all | |
| 10:52 | so the motion helps by giving community guidelines on what *type* of software is permitted | |
| 10:52 | let's rephrase, though: | |
| 10:53 | 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/[…]ing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable | |
| 10:53 | bernie: does that cover your concern? | |
| 10:53 | walterbender | cjb: this still skirts the other issue though: does the content or s'ware abide by community standards... a tough one. |
| 10:53 | bernie | bernie: cjb aye |
| 10:53 | SeanDaly | I cannot rush into a vote without reading and understanding that page. |
| 10:53 | cjb | SeanDaly: that's fine. I won't push you to. |
| 10:53 | SeanDaly | Something I can't do in the next 30 seconds. |
| 10:53 | bernie | mel: Table for next meeting, reading homework for next week? |
| 10:53 | cjb | SeanDaly: I just want the motion to be clear. |
| 10:54 | 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) |
| 10:54 | (and $otherdistros if we can get them) | |
| 10:54 | walterbender | OK. I think we have enough background now to move quickly to a decision next week. |
| 10:54 | SeanDaly | walterbender: yes |
| 10:54 | cjb | mel: thanks! |
| 10:54 | that's a good idea | |
| 10:54 | bernie | #action mchua to blog licensing motion |
| 10:54 | walterbender | OK. Next topic? We have about 5 more minutes. |
| 10:55 | bernie | #action everyone to do their homework of reading OSD guidelines so we can be informed voters next Friday |
| 10:55 | mel: yeah, let's move on | |
| 10:55 | walterbender | #ACTION mel blog and the rest of us do homework with the intention of deciding next week |
| 10:55 | thinks only the person who typed #startmeeting can #action | |
| 10:56 | bernie | we'll find out :) |
| 10:56 | walterbender | #TOPIC trademark |
| 10:56 | bernie | walterbender: thanks for raising the nasty "community standards" issue we'll laaaater have to face.. |
| 10:56 | (adam) | |
| 10:56 | walterbender | we have a number of outstanding trademark policies to reach consensus on. |
| 10:57 | 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 |
| 10:57 | walterbender | adam: yes. an important, thorny topic. |
| 10:57 | mel: I agree. | |
| 10:57 | SeanDaly | very thorny indeed |
| 10:57 | 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 |
| 10:58 | walterbender | I'd like everyone to come to the next meeting with some opinion re the trademark usage. |
| 10:58 | from my homework, it seems the two extremes are Fedora and Suse | |
| 10:58 | bernie | mel: proposal everyone blog their opinion or email it to iaep |
| 10:58 | walterbender | to gist: Fedora will let anything be called a remix, but almost nothing be called Fedora |
| 10:58 | cjb | Fedora's not actually that extreme, because it offers both models: |
| 10:58 | .. yeah, those. :) | |
| 10:59 | walterbender | openSuse will not allow remix at all |
| 10:59 | cjb | it's easy to be a Remix, and it's hard to be Fedora |
| 10:59 | bernie | mel: we need to do more about starting discussion on slobs issues beyond the 7 of us imo |
| 10:59 | walterbender | cjb: yes. that is what I was trying to say |
| 10:59 | SeanDaly | concerning trademark, there are several kilos worth of e-mails in the lists |
| 10:59 | walterbender | and to contrast that with openSUSE, which as far as I understand, really doesn't have a remix option |
| 11:00 | SeanDaly: yes. it is time to distill it all into a policy | |
| 11:00 | SeanDaly | yes, fully aggree |
| 11:00 | s/gg/g | |
| 11:00 | bernie | bernie: walterbender, cjb: I'd like to point out that the fedora trademark policy is one of the strictest among linux distros |
| 11:01 | walterbender | bernie: seeming not as strict as openSUSE. |
| 11:01 | bernie | mel: I'd like to propose we wrap up this meeting |
| 11:01 | SeanDaly | my instinct is to look at trademark policy of better-known brands |
| 11:01 | walterbender | bernie: can you give an example of a less strict policy for us to consider? |
| 11:01 | bernie | mel: proposal - next week do ASLO and only ASLO - anything else we do is bonus... immediately after ASLO, then tackle trademark. |
| 11:01 | cjb | hm |
| 11:01 | walterbender | (everyone was going to research one for today's meeting) |
| 11:01 | bernie | mel: notes that bernie and I have to go to the infra meeting immediately after this |
| 11:02 | cjb | mel: this is instead of doing the SoaS DP next week? |
| 11:02 | 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 :) | |
| 11:02 | walterbender | I think we need to do both. the ASLO discussion will be quick. |
| 11:02 | bernie | cjb: because I think we can wrap up ASLO next week cleanly and be done with it |
| 11:02 | walterbender | (I predict) |
| 11:02 | bernie | (mel) |
| 11:02 | cjb | yeah, +1 on walter |
| 11:02 | bernie | mel: then I'd like to do ASLO first ;) |
| 11:02 | if we think it'll be that quick | |
| 11:02 | walterbender | but we should wrap up today's meeting. |
| 11:02 | cjb | well, okay.. yeah, was about to say that too |
| 11:03 | SeanDaly | There is a current case of trademark usage |
| 11:03 | cjb | (what mel said) |
| 11:03 | walterbender | any final words? |
| 11:03 | SeanDaly | in a way that shouldn't |
| 11:03 | bernie | mel: nope, happy to close now |
| 11:03 | walterbender | 3 |
| 11:03 | 2 | |
| 11:03 | 1 | |
| 11:03 | cjb | SeanDaly: let's talk about that now |
| 11:03 | bernie | Bye from the FUDbuss @ |
| 11:03 | cjb | but in the closed meeting |
| 11:03 | walterbender | thanks everyone |
| 11:03 | SeanDaly | cjb:ok |
| 11:03 | thanks all | |
| 11:03 | cjb | I mean, let's hang around and talk about it |
| 11:03 | thanks all | |
| 11:03 | walterbender | I'll post the minutes |
| 11:03 | #endmeeting |