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

#sugar-meeting, 2009-12-11

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
10:03 walterbender Has everyone seen the agenda?
10:03 bernie mchua: I tried to make them help us test SoaS with actual children and provide feedback.
10:03 walterbender: yes
10:03 mchua Yep.
10:03 SeanDaly walterbender: yes
10:04 cjb morning.
10:04 bernie cjb: ping
10:04 walterbender #TOPIC non-FOSS activities
10:04 Does anyone have further discussion/clarification regarding this topic?
10:05 SeanDaly just to be clear, we are talking about ASLO right?
10:05 walterbender SeanDaly: yes
10:05 SeanDaly: we probably need additional discussion about eBooks
10:05 tomeu I haven't heard any strong point in favour of non-foss stuff in aslo
10:05 walterbender SeanDaly: I never heard back from the SFC :(
10:06 tomeu: me neither.
10:06 SeanDaly I've been thinking since your mail about kids uploading their work
10:06 (your=wb)
10:06 perhaps we could make a distinction between
10:06 walterbender tomeu: I think the more controversial issues will be around censorship of content (e.g., violence)
10:06 SeanDaly ASLO activities in the search engine
10:07 walterbender SeanDaly: you me when kids upload their samples and code modifcations to a gallery?
10:07 SeanDaly and e-book bundles, and uploaded content - separate policies for each clearly marked?
10:07 walterbender: yes
10:08 walterbender SeanDaly: while the line between content and code is pretty blurry, let's stick to the latter for this particular discussion
10:08 SeanDaly e-book content, samples, Activities are similar (added to Sugar) but typology of content could be aligned with license policies
10:08 ok yes code
10:08 walterbender SeanDaly: a TA project would be kid's code... a hard line to draw there.
10:08 cjb walterbender: well, the discussion is on "what's allowed to be uploaded to ASLO"; I don't think we're limiting the question to just code
10:09 but we could do
10:09 bernie so, what's the exact motion we're going to vote on?
10:09 cjb I made one last week
10:09 mchua Yeah, I was about to ask the same.
10:09 tomeu I actually thought we were discussing only respect to the floss-ness of code
10:09 walterbender cjb: let's see if we can reach consensus around code first and then see how far we can push it.
10:09 mchua Yeah, I thought we were going to do the "what are our acceptable licenses" motion
10:09 walterbender cjb: but you are right, the motion talks about content as well.
10:09 cjb 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
10:09 bernie personally, I'd like to say that all the licenses approved by fedora are also acceptable for aslo: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses's
10:10 walterbender cjb: sorry to have confused things
10:10 SeanDaly I read the Fedora page and I very much appreciate its clarity
10:10 bernie cjb: I couldn't have said it better
10:10 cjb walterbender: it's okay.  I think you're right that there are different feelings about content.
10:10 SeanDaly however, for legal matters, the SFC's input is vital
10:11 bernie SeanDaly: ++
10:11 cjb SeanDaly: for the purposes of this motion, there is no legal matter.
10:11 bernie SeanDaly: we may want to run that page through them...
10:11 cjb it's a philosophical question.
10:11 walterbender cjb: in part it is a matter of establishing licenses for the things that the kids create... I had a new feature proposal re CC in the journal, but it looks like there is a lot of push-back on that one still.
10:11 bernie SeanDaly: although RedHat legal has certainly already approved that, and they're license lawyers too
10:11 SeanDaly closet philosopher
10:11 cjb (of course I agree that if there was a legal matter, we should involve the SFLC.)
10:11 walterbender: nod.
10:12 SeanDaly bernie: good point, hadn't realized
10:12 walterbender can we modify the motion to say it is pending final approval of the SFLA?
10:12 cjb Red Hat actually has more free software lawyers than any other company, that I know of
10:12 walterbender: no
10:12 oh
10:12 I see why you say that now
10:12 walterbender since we are part of the SFC, we need to abide by their by-laws
10:12 cjb you mean that the link to the fedora page in particular in pending acceptance by the SFC
10:13 I think I would rather say something like:
10:13 walterbender cjb: I mean whatever license policy we decide will probably need their ultimate approval
10:13 tomeu feels ready to vote
10:13 cjb 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, and always asking the SFC for advice when a particular license is under question.
10:13 bernie walterbender: since aslo is hosted by the FSF, we also need to respect their definition of what constitutes Free Software.
10:14 walterbender: but I guess they won't have problems accepting whatever is acceptable for fedora. except for firmware, which we don't distribute on aslo anyway.
10:14 cjb: yay
10:14 walterbender bernie: well, I agree in that we should let them know what we are doing and they may not like it... in which case we may get booted out...
10:14 cjb I'd like us to try and hold back from getting all the way down the legality and making everyone happy rathole
10:14 this is a motion that's ostensibly about something else
10:14 which is, what do *we* want to do?
10:14 walterbender bernie: but we are a part of the SFC, so it is a bit different.
10:14 cjb we can make it work with everyone else as soon as we've decided that we want to do it
10:15 walterbender cjb: I think we want ASLO software and content to be FOSS
10:15 bernie walterbender: our distribution of firmware blobs within SoaS is merely being tolerated, but I know the FSF is strongly opposed to it.
10:15 cjb walterbender: ok; maybe we can vote now
10:15 SeanDaly cjb: speaking philosophically :-) openness is central to Sugar's education mission
10:15 cjb bernie: that's extremely off-topic.  please talk about it later.
10:15 bernie cjb: indeed
10:15 walterbender cjb, bernie that is related to Agenda Item #3...
10:16 ok. shall we vote on the amended motion?
10:16 cjb yes, please
10:16 mchua tries to patch together the amended motion
10:16 bernie walterbender: ok, let's postpone it. I'm sorry I've derailed the aslo licenses motion with this unrelated topic
10:16 walterbender cjb>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, and always asking the SFC for advice when a particular license is under question.
10:16 mchua seconded
10:17 bernie walterbender: yay
10:17 cjb bernie: it's fine, it's not derailed, just trying to keep us moving quickly
10:17 (I guess grammatically that should be s/asking/ask/, but everyone gets the idea.)
10:17 tomeu bernie is yayish today... ;)
10:17 mchua yea
10:17 cjb yea
10:17 SeanDaly yea
10:17 tomeu aye
10:17 walterbender yea
10:17 bernie yep
10:18 walterbender Adam?
10:18 bernie CanoeBerry__: ?
10:18 cjb hm, guess he isn't here
10:18 SeanDaly thinks CanoeBerry timed out but didn't come back
10:18 bernie he's double underscore today... must have had much networking trouble :)
10:18 walterbender Seems the motion will pass... we can let Adam cogitate...
10:18 CanoeBerry__ Sorry, distracted.
10:18 walterbender shall we move on to the DP topic?
10:19 CanoeBerry__ Yes.
10:19 mchua nods
10:19 cjb ok
10:19 walterbender the motion passes.
10:19 #ACTION walter will inform the community
10:19 could someone volunteer to update the ASLO policy pages?
10:19 or volunteer to find a volunteer?
10:20 cjb the DP work was actually extremely good, even though incomplete; we should thank them
10:20 walterbender: I think we can follow up to your announce mail asking dfarning or alsroot
10:20 walterbender #TOPIC SoaS DP
10:20 cjb they seem like the best candidates
10:20 walterbender cjb: +1
10:21 bernie alsroot: ping ^^^
10:21 walterbender cjb: I think their report is pretty comprehensive. Just don't understand why they never submitted it to SLOBs...
10:21 cjb yeah, I got the same impression
10:21 walterbender shall we walk through the three subtopics?
10:21 cjb good idea
10:21 bernie cjb: can you point us at the wiki page where all the DP opinions were summarized? I can't remember the url
10:21 tomeu I think mtd is pretty busy these days?
10:21 cjb http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Decision_panels/SOAS
10:21 alsroot the quesion is what should be updated on ASLO policy pages
10:22 ..and ASLO draft policy pages
10:22 s/and/on/
10:22 walterbender Q1: OS distributor v. upstream
10:22 cjb alsroot: text similar to "anything you upload must be under a free software license that meets the Open Source Definition's criteria at http://opensource.org/docs/osd"
10:23 Q1: SL is already being a Linux distributor.  It seems to be working out pretty well, and SoaS is something SL spends most of its effort on
10:23 so I can't imagine answering no to this question
10:23 bernie alsroot: and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses is being used to disambiguate weird licenses.
10:24 alsroot or maybe just FSF list
10:24 cjb alsroot: I don't think they have one
10:25 in any case, no big different, let's use the Fedora one
10:25 let's stay on topic on DP now, pls
10:25 bernie cjb: personally I'd answer no to maintain distro neutrality, but this time I prefer to second the DP decision with my vote rather than my personal opinion
10:25 tomeu hmm
10:25 how does SLs spend most of its efforts in soas?
10:26 SeanDaly cjb; SoaS central marketing pillar of SoaS, but not sure correct to say developers spend most time on it
10:26 cjb SeanDaly: yeah, didn't mean just developers
10:26 tomeu and translators, etc
10:26 they work upstream
10:26 bernie alsroot: the fsf has a list of licenses with a discussions of their pros/cons... it's not really a list of acceptable free licenses.
10:26 cjb true.  sorry, didn't realize I was saying something contentious.
10:26 maybe to put it another way:  if you ask people what Sugar Labs does, lots of people will say that it makes Sugar on a Stick
10:27 walterbender I think that the SoaS effort as with all our packaging efforts are almost all upstream...
10:27 tomeu that point isn't in the DP wiki page, right?
10:27 alsroot bernie: maybe http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li[…]ompatibleLicenses GPL compat. list
10:27 mchua I'd say SoaS is SL's primary deployment mechanism for Sugar.
10:27 SeanDaly cjb: not really contentious, but SoaS is a downstream of Sugar proper, and associates one distro in particular
10:27 bernie cjb: I'd rather not give this impression if possible
10:27 cjb tomeu: yes, I'm just quizzing Bernie on why he doesn't think that SL should distribute Linux
10:27 because it seems to conflict massively with the reality of what we're actually doing
10:27 tomeu mchua: then we get to if SLs should do deployments itself ;)
10:27 bernie cjb: I'd like to say that we also do Trisquel Sugar and the XO builds... or none at all.
10:28 cjb: "endorse" rather than "do"
10:28 cjb bernie: Sugar Labs do not distribute the XO builds.
10:28 bernie cjb: distributing soas is ok. I'm not saying we shouldn't distribute it. we may even distribute ubuntu and fedora... that's not the point.
10:28 cjb ok
10:28 walterbender Personally, I think SL should would with GNU/Linux distros and groups such as OLPC to distribute Sugar
10:28 tomeu cjb: but we have soas-xo :p
10:29 cjb tomeu: true :)
10:29 SeanDaly tomeu: not for Blueberry yet though
10:29 walterbender cjb: in fact, SL cannot sign builds for OLPC
10:29 cjb also true
10:29 walterbender: should it only do that, or is that just one of the things it should do?
10:29 (I mean.. "should it only work like that, or should it also distribute Sugar itself?"
10:29 )
10:29 walterbender cjb: we should nurture projects like SoaS
10:29 bernie cjb: my point is that Sugar Labs does Sugar.  SoaS is done by Sugar Labs people the same way the XO builds are being done by Sugar Labs people too (you and dsd)
10:29 tomeu as I have said since long ago, I tihnk that SLs should try to keep being just an upstream, which is Sugar. and soas should get its own organization. but in the short/medium term, I agree with soas staying in SLs if that helps them
10:30 cjb bernie: ok
10:30 bernie tomeu: +1
10:30 cjb bernie: I guess I disagree
10:30 walterbender tomeu: but SL will promote any and all good uses of Sugar...
10:30 cjb SL clearly makes press releases and talks about SoaS as if it's a product we distribute
10:30 walterbender of which SoaS is a prime example
10:31 SeanDaly tomeu: makes sense from development POV, but only when there are enough hands to go around... from marketing POV, different
10:31 walterbender and Sugar on OLPC another
10:31 bernie cjb: anyay, the DP wants us to say that we're a distributor in the Fedora Project sense, and as I said I'm going to second their decision.
10:31 cjb bernie: and I think this is a good thing, because it's good to have products that everyone knows you care about
10:31 bernie: ok
10:31 shall we vote on answering the first question, then?
10:31 since I don't know of anyone who's arguing we should vote noj
10:31 *no
10:31 walterbender SeanDaly: I think SL can market and promote SoaS even if it is not a SL "product"
10:32 bernie cjb: it's not that I don't want us to care about SoaS. Of course I do. But I don't wanna make it look like we compete against Trisquel Sugar or other distros containing Sugar.
10:32 cjb bernie: do you write press releases about those other distros too?
10:32 SeanDaly walterbender: yes... depends on trademark issues, branding
10:32 cjb if not, you're competing with them.
10:33 tomeu SeanDaly: yes, I agree the longer term goal depends on having enough resources
10:33 walterbender SeanDaly: the trademark and branding are of course our responsibility... but we can license our mark to non-SL products
10:33 SeanDaly cjb: when I draft the SL PR, I'm competing with the OSes preinstalled on computers in schools
10:33 walterbender cjb: we have promoted Triquel, for example
10:33 SeanDaly walterbender: yes of course
10:33 tomeu cjb: don't think we are competing with them, but we are discriminating them, sure
10:33 but I don't see how it can be otherwise
10:33 cjb tomeu: I agree
10:34 alsroot updated http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/A[…]sons_for_removing licences line
10:34 walterbender cjb: and I mention many distros whenever I talk publicly about SL
10:34 cjb tomeu: but Bernie doesn't
10:34 walterbender: makes sense
10:34 bernie cjb: what we do today does not necessarily reflect what we'd do if 3 equally good live USB distros with Sugar existed.
10:34 cjb bernie: oh, that's true
10:35 walterbender cjb: and that day will come (or is almost here already)
10:35 cjb bernie: so your reading of "should we be neutral about distros" is "in an ideal world, should we be neutral about distros?" rather than "today, should we be neutral about distros?"
10:35 SeanDaly bernie: a very good point. Put another way, if teachers could easily overcome installation barrier, we wouldn't have to put in so much effort promoting Sugar in a form which lowers that barrier
10:35 walterbender trisquel and openSUSE have pretty solid products.
10:36 cjb Any seconds for voting and moving on past question 1?
10:36 bernie tomeu, cjb: Can we agree that we'd happlily distribute Trisquel Sugar from our servers and advertise it in our wiki? I actually offered them this option.
10:36 walterbender cjb: we can be neutral and still work closely with specific distros that want to work with us
10:36 SeanDaly I'd like SL brandbuilding to lift all Sugar boats including Trisquel and openSUSE
10:36 mchua Do we have a motion?
10:36 walterbender mchua: not yet :(
10:36 cjb MOTION: Question 1:  Yes, SL is and should be a GNU/Linux distributor.
10:36 bernie cjb: yes
10:37 walterbender bernie: is that a vote on the motion? we need to second it and call the vote
10:37 cjb shall we vote on that?
10:37 walterbender can someone second it?
10:37 SeanDaly seconded
10:37 tomeu I would have to vote yes and no on that question, as I said before
10:38 walterbender ok. let's vote
10:38 bernie walterbender: no, I was just answering cjb... but I'd vote yes also on the motion so it doesn't matter :)
10:38 cjb tomeu: then you could abstain, I suppose
10:38 votes aye
10:38 tomeu well, actually can vote no
10:38 votes no
10:38 mchua votes no
10:38 SeanDaly yea
10:38 walterbender walter votes no
10:38 CanoeBerry__ Abstain
10:38 bernie votes aye
10:39 cjb huh, no has it
10:39 apparently we're not a Linux distributor anymore :)
10:39 walterbender seems we are 3 aye, 3 no, 1 abstain
10:39 so the motion does not pass.
10:39 cjb oh, yes, I misread
10:39 SeanDaly now I'm confused :-)
10:39 cjb so, I think the right process is:
10:39 * talk about why that just happened
10:40 * come up with another motion
10:40 agreed?
10:40 bernie CanoeBerry__: ouch you created ambiguity  :-)
10:40 CanoeBerry__ Sorry
10:40 walterbender cjb: feel free to come up with a new motion...
10:40 tomeu cjb: what if we phrased the motion "SLs should aim not to be a GNU/Linux distributor but will host SoaS as an strategic step"?
10:40 bernie cjb: agreed
10:40 tomeu: I would agree to this one too
10:40 walterbender tomeu: I think we could host many distros
10:41 tomeu: I think we should say something stronger than just be upstream
10:41 tomeu walterbender: or that, though some distros cannot be hosted in SLs
10:41 walterbender I think we should say that we will actively seek out and work with distros interested in Sugar
10:42 tomeu well, that all upstreams should do
10:42 bernie SeanDaly: answering to your last message to me, I agree that SL *marketing* can be biased towards one particular distro or another
10:42 walterbender and help host and promote those efforts
10:42 tomeu ok, that's something else
10:42 walterbender tomeu: should do is one thing, but to say explicitly it is our policy is another
10:42 bernie SeanDaly: I understand the need to give one clear message such as "Download SoaS, it's great" rather than "find a distro you like and see if you can get it to boot with Sugar"
10:43 SeanDaly Proposal for motion: "SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar on all distros, and in so doing is and will be offering downloadable versions which may include one or more distros"
10:43 walterbender SeanDaly: can we add something about working with distros to create downloadable versions?
10:43 bernie SeanDaly: s/offering/produce and offer/
10:43 SeanDaly s/is and will be/offers (more concise)
10:44 bernie: yes more clear yours
10:44 bernie walterbender: +1
10:44 tomeu well, offering downloadable versions means just having links?
10:44 SeanDaly walterbender: +1
10:44 mchua is liking this
10:45 SeanDaly tomeu: I recently learned fedora downloadable in several different versions. But first contact I really liked pancake button and easy installation path
10:45 same for ubuntu netbook remix (but haven't installed yet)
10:45 mchua I imagine something like http://spins.fedoraproject.org/
10:46 Instead of "based on Fedora" they'd be "runs Sugar"
10:46 it's clear that Fedora itself isn't responsible for those spins
10:46 and that they're done by the individual groups behind those spins
10:46 walterbender Motion: SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar and consequently works with GNU/Linux distros to produce and offer downloadable versions.
10:46 mchua but there's a trademark approval process to go through to be able to call yourself a "Fedora Spin" so the quality of the brand association is preserved.
10:46 cjb walterbender: hm, it's not clear who's doing the production or offering there
10:47 SeanDaly walterbender: true, but some people had issues with the "preferential" treatment of SoaS
10:47 cjb do we do it or does the distro?  should make that explicit.
10:47 bernie SeanDaly: I agree, SL marketing should be left free to bias towards one particular distro if it helps promoting sugar better.
10:47 walterbender cjb: we help the distro (or anyone else) do it
10:48 cjb:  I am trying to add a proactive element to our mission.
10:48 cjb but in the soas case, we actively host it
10:48 SeanDaly bernie: in fact, marketing as policy excludes distro promoting, but only because distro brands are weak
10:48 bernie SeanDaly: and I think the marketing team should be empowered to make such strategic decisions without interference from other teams.
10:48 cjb so we aren't merely working with a distro; that's why I think the motion is a bit unclear
10:48 walterbender cjb: I don't see why that is contradictory
10:48 SeanDaly bernie: no argument from me there, but I prefer the community understanding & approving since decisions are rational and not capricious :D
10:48 walterbender cjb: please help clarify the language
10:49 cjb walterbender: It's not contradictory, it just doesn't directly provide an answer to the question, because it leaves the main point "should SL be doing the distributing?" unclear/unanswered.
10:49 bernie cjb: yeah, at this time we're very biased towards SoaS, I admit it. I think we should just make it clear that it is a matter of fact and not a policy or a goal.
10:49 cjb will try to help
10:49 walterbender cjb:  working with could include helping to promote and host
10:49 cjb walterbender: ok, let's add that for clarity
10:50 SeanDaly bernie: what's a policy is, I'd like to choose the best distro for the job to promote Sugar.
10:50 and that could change.
10:50 cjb walterbender: Motion: SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar and consequently works with GNU/Linux distros to produce and offer downloadable versions.  This work can include helping to promote distros, and hosting them.
10:50 mchua Choose once for each release, perhaps?
10:50 SeanDaly and, I'd like to support all distros with Sugar
10:50 mchua +1
10:50 walterbender cjb: seconded
10:50 CanoeBerry +1
10:51 SeanDaly mchua: no, more like which one should be in SoaS?
10:51 cjb shall we vote now?
10:51 mchua SeanDaly: right, I mean make that choice once every release cycle, so we know how often the issue will come up
10:51 walterbender I think we are getting ahead of our selves...
10:51 cjb SeanDaly: we're having enough trouble moving past the easy question :)
10:51 yeah.  please stick to the question under debate only for now.
10:51 bernie cjb: yea
10:51 walterbender let's stick to Q1, which is the subject of the motion
10:51 cjb we'll get to the question that encompasses all this stuff later.
10:51 votes aye.
10:51 walterbender walter: aye
10:51 SeanDaly mchua: (I had suggested once per year on conditions)
10:51 yea
10:52 tomeu yes
10:52 mchua yea
10:52 cjb CanoeBerry: ?
10:52 (passes, in any case)
10:52 question 2 is:
10:52 Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
10:52 walterbender well, seems we have a resolution of Q1 :) :)
10:52 tomeu success!
10:53 cjb I can't possibly answer yes to this, because we already act in a way that is preferential to SoaS, and I don't think that's a bad thing
10:53 so I feel like I either have to answer no, or encode why we treat SoaS differently in the answer
10:53 what do others think?
10:54 walterbender cjb: well, the question is about distros in general, not Live images
10:54 tomeu hmm
10:54 CanoeBerry SJ writes: "SL should support effective distros; this can be done neutrally"
10:54 cjb walterbender: I wasn't aware of that
10:54 walterbender: I think live images are distros.
10:54 walterbender I think we treat distros with neutrality and think about the specific cases of their product offerings
10:54 mchua I think SL can provide identical infrastructure offerings to all interested distros, at the very least.
10:54 Give them an equal playing field in that respect.
10:55 bernie CanoeBerry: as long as we maintain a shim of neutrality, I'm with SJ
10:55 mchua Marketing is the tough part, I think - SeanDaly?
10:55 tomeu what if someone asked "SL should be neutral about programming languages and shouldn't endorse one over another?" after all, there are communities around languages, same as around distros
10:55 bernie mchua: +1
10:55 SeanDaly Well... if distro A offers Sugar as install and makes it easy to switch, and distro B makes it difficult to obtain & install & configure Sugar, do we have to be neutral?
10:55 cjb CanoeBerry: oh, I see.  so SJ's answer might be "SL should pick a distro that it judges to be the most effective, and then support that extremely strongly, but it chooses that distro neutrally, based purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer activity"
10:55 tomeu the answer seems to be: the development team focuses on whatever they need to focus on, but everybody is welcome to bring more resources and work on whatever they feel like within the SLs goals
10:55 walterbender tomeu: if someone wants to do the work of refactoring Sugar in Java... more power to them
10:55 bernie tomeu: I'd actually agree to this one too. We do not endorse any one language, do we?
10:56 tomeu walterbender: right, so we could say that the marketing team is focusing on soas, but if someone else would like to do marketing for another one...
10:56 cjb (I guess I like the SJ answer, as long as we make it clear which distro we currently endorse.)
10:56 tomeu bernie: no, but I use to mention the pedagogic advantages of python in those cases
10:56 bernie tomeu: we choose languages based on technical merits, we don't have a policy that everything should be written in, say, Python or SmallTalk or C++.
10:56 (the three main languages we use in our codebase)
10:56 mchua +1 to that; need to be clear what distro we endorse and what mechanism we use for choosing it.
10:56 bernie oh, and C
10:57 tomeu bernie: not only technical merits
10:57 actually, I don't want to enter into a discussion of what is better
10:57 bernie tomeu: well, consistency is a technical merit
10:57 tomeu: we also ship LOGO... 2 different LOGOs :-)
10:57 tomeu ok, we engineers see everything as technical problems :p
10:57 bernie tomeu: yes, you're right. let's postpone
10:57 SeanDaly mchua: by not promoting underlying distro, I am supporting neutrality - I'd like Sugar on ALL distros, and i feel the way to get there is to promote a good one, and right now & foreseeable future SoaS is a really good one
10:58 cjb agrees strongly with SeanDaly
10:58 walterbender I think we will chose what to do on technical merits but we should endorse all efforts that advance our mission
10:58 bernie SeanDaly: +1
10:58 tomeu bernie: no need to postpone, we could rephrase as "SLs should only discriminate a distro because of availability of resources"
10:58 bernie walterbender: +1
10:58 (which is education, not OSes or programming languages)
10:58 walterbender so how do we turn Sean's statement into a motion?
10:59 cjb walterbender: I think it's compatible with the SJ argument I mentioned
10:59 I mean, I think it's a rewording of it
10:59 Motion:  "SL should pick a distro that it judges to be the most effective, and then support that extremely strongly, but it chooses that distro neutrally, based purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer activity"
10:59 walterbender cjb: we just need it in the form of a motion
10:59 cjb how's that?
10:59 bernie tomeu: hmm... I think it's better to put it in the positive way: "SL endorses distributions based on availability of volunteer resources to support them"
10:59 walterbender OK
11:00 bernie cjb: nay
11:00 walterbender cjb: maybe plural? picks distros...
11:00 tomeu cjb: well, I think it's the marketing team which picks distros, not SLs
11:00 walterbender tomeu: I am not sure about that...
11:00 tomeu does SLs need to pick one distro for anything other than marketing?
11:00 CanoeBerry Time Check: 11am
11:00 bernie cjb: put this way, the motion contradicts sean's original proposal
11:01 SeanDaly cjb: i would go for even more flexibility. What if openSUSE got a huge education contract? In such a scenario I wouldn't pick, I would have my cake & eat it too: "Sugar is part of openSUSE blah blah, and can be tried on any PC, Mac, or netbook with Sugar on a Stick"
11:01 cjb tomeu: I think the marketing team *is* SL..
11:01 walterbender can people hang in a bit longer?
11:01 cjb yes, I can stay
11:01 tomeu cjb: ok, but not otherwise
11:01 bernie walterbender: I can
11:01 which was: <SeanDaly> Proposal for motion: "SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar on all distros, and in so doing is and will be offering downloadable versions which may include one or more distros"
11:01 SeanDaly I can
11:01 tomeu I can about 20 mins more
11:01 cjb bernie: um
11:01 bernie: wasn't that question 1?
11:01 walterbender OK. let's try to get this one sorted out.
11:02 SeanDaly it's the "refuse to endorse" part of the question I don't like.
11:02 walterbender I think we have to allocate our limited resources efficiently but we will do it in a neutral way
11:02 cjb bernie: I don't see the contridiction; we can host other distros at the same time that we're endorsing one main one more than others
11:02 SeanDaly: okay, will try to reord
11:02 reword
11:02 bernie cjb: oops sorry... I quoted the wrong one. The DP quesiton was different though.
11:02 SeanDaly kind of like saying I refuse to endorse 220 volts over 110 volts
11:03 bernie Q2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
11:03 and the DP consensus was YES
11:03 cjb Motion:  Q2: "SL should pick a distro that it judges to be the most effective, and endorse that distro more strongly than it endorses other distros, but it chooses that distro neutrally, based purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer activity"
11:03 anyone willing to second?
11:03 walterbender second
11:03 SeanDaly cjb: again, no need to say we pick one
11:04 tomeu I don't like that either
11:04 cjb hm
11:04 SeanDaly it's a policy question for me, not a one-distro-over-another question
11:04 cjb oh
11:04 bernie cjb: nay
11:04 tomeu I see value in making explicit that only the marketing need has a strong need of picking one distro or another
11:04 cjb could we pick more than one?
11:04 bernie tomeu: +1
11:04 SeanDaly and in our marketing we don't endorse Fedora at all
11:04 cjb Q2: "SL should pick distribution(s) that it judges to be the most effective, and endorse that distro more strongly than it endorses other distros, but it chooses that distro neutrally, based purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer activity"
11:04 is that good?
11:04 bernie cjb: could we not even say that we pick one distro at the SL level?
11:05 tomeu SeanDaly: we are referring to soas as a distro
11:05 SeanDaly because we know smart journalists will ask the question and answer it themselves
11:05 bernie cjb: I'd stick to Q2 the way the DP discussed it
11:05 cjb bernie: we good, but then we would be failing to encode our preferential treatment of SoaS
11:05 s/good/could/
11:05 bernie cjb: which, I think, is solely a marketing decision
11:05 cjb: justified by availability of resources
11:05 cjb: and quality
11:05 SeanDaly tomeu: ok... but then it needs to be explicit that SoaS is a distro
11:06 walterbender ok. how about SL will endorse distros purely on grounds like technical ability and maintainer acitvity... skip the who first part of the motion?
11:06 tomeu SeanDaly: what else could it be?
11:06 cjb SoaS is certainly a distro.
11:06 bernie it's a remix :)
11:06 cjb it's based on a distro, which means it is one too.  :)
11:06 SeanDaly again... SoaS pillar od marketing strategy because of market situation... will evolve when market evolves
11:06 tomeu and a remix isn't a distro?
11:06 cjb walterbender: sure, I'll try that:
11:07 "Question 2: No, SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity.
11:07 walterbender: how does that work for you?
11:07 mchua add "And clearly publish the criteria under which that decisoin was made?"
11:07 ...except with proper spelling
11:07 walterbender Not sure why "No," is that the beginning...
11:07 SeanDaly cjb: no i prefer another formula
11:08 cjb walterbender: because it's the answer to the question!
11:08 bernie cjb: I'd still vote nay on this one
11:08 cjb Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
11:08 we have to answer yes or no
11:08 walterbender cjb:  gotcha.
11:08 SeanDaly No, SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro to further its education mission
11:08 cjb SeanDaly: that's too vague for me, I think
11:08 although I understand the idea
11:08 bernie cjb: The DP answered yes. I'd tend to respect their decision.
11:09 SeanDaly No, SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro to better spread the use of Sugar on all distros
11:09 cjb bernie: no, the DP answered timeout.
11:09 SeanDaly bernie: I was on the DP and did not answer yes!
11:09 bernie cjb: ok, but their consensus was yes.
11:09 tomeu bernie: being neutral seems like a good idea to everybody except to those who need to make a choice ;)
11:10 walterbender I think we all agree that, yes, we should be neutral as far as distros go and what we should endorse their products based on technical and educational merits.
11:10 cjb bernie: I don't find that compelling enough to move me away from what seems like a very common sense answer that describes how we do behave already, with no argument given for why we shouldn't be behaving that way.
11:10 bernie: so I can't vote yes.
11:10 bernie SeanDaly: well, the way the quesiton is posed, I would say no too.
11:10 mchua trying to rephrase = "SL should be neutral about providing *infrastructure* to Distros, but should not be neutral in our marketing/endorsement of them."
11:10 walterbender and as cjb added early, we should be public and clear about our rationale
11:10 cjb will add that now
11:10 walterbender mchua: that is good.
11:11 tomeu walterbender: I still don't understand why anything other than the marketing team needs to pick one or another distro
11:11 walterbender endorse is the broken word.
11:11 cjb "Question 2: No, SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity, and should publish the criteria it uses for making that decision."
11:11 SeanDaly mchua: yes, and whatever choices are made are in order to better spread Sugar use
11:11 bernie cjb: if we can only vote to ratify the status quo, then we're useless.
11:11 SeanDaly walterbender: yes I was against it from the start
11:11 cjb bernie: I didn't say that
11:11 I said I'm not going to vote *against* reality when no-one is persuading me why that reality is bad and should be avoided
11:12 walterbender seandaly: promote?
11:12 mchua how about this?
11:12 "Question 2: SL should not be completely neutral about endorsing distros, but it should only choose to more strongly endorse a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity, and should publish the criteria it uses for making that decision. Furthermore, SL should be neutral about providing infrastructure resources (hosting, etc) to distros."
11:12 tomeu walterbender: promote sounds good to me, because promoting is a task of the marketing team
11:12 cjb mchua: very good point
11:12 mchua just added the infra bit in, so that the separation of infra and mktg is clear.
11:12 SeanDaly walterbender: "endorse"... since our policy is not to endorse any distros at this time. But... as I said above, that could change based on market conditions
11:12 bernie cjb: so, even if our past actions seem to suggest that we only endorse one distro, we may decide today that we're going to be neutral and endorse distros based on availability of resources and marketing strategy.
11:13 cjb bernie: that's what the motion says, IMO
11:13 bernie: it doesn't limit us to one distro
11:13 SeanDaly I ratther never use "endorse" :-(
11:13 bernie cjb: which, in practice, may not have any visible effect for a long time.
11:13 mchua has to leave now, but will read backlog later
11:13 already squishing things in overtime
11:13 cjb mchua: are you comfortable voting on that motion?
11:13 I think it's the best one we've had yet, even if it's not what we end at
11:14 walterbender could we vote on mel's motion with ^endorse^promote^
11:14 SeanDaly as i said, not contradictory to market several Sugars: OLPC, SoaS, hypothetical large distro deployment
11:14 cjb walterbender: good idea
11:14 tomeu walterbender: +1
11:14 bernie cjb: I guess you're right, more or less. I'd rephrase it, though.
11:14 walterbender let's vote  and then tackle Q3 next week?
11:15 cjb MOTION: "Question 2: SL should not be completely neutral about promoting distros, but it should only choose to more strongly promote a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity, and should publish the criteria it uses for making that decision. Furthermore, SL should be neutral about providing infrastructure resources (hosting, etc) to distros."
11:15 walterbender seconf
11:15 bernie cjb: the way it's phrased now suggests that we do not want to be neutral.
11:15 walterbender ^f^d
11:15 cjb bernie: feel free to attempt a reword
11:15 although walter has seconded this one
11:15 so we should vote on it first
11:16 votes yes
11:16 walterbender bernie: neutral about distros, but not neutral about the efforts that are being put into them
11:16 tomeu I vote yes
11:16 walterbender votes yes
11:16 SeanDaly votes yes
11:16 cjb cheers :)
11:16 CanoeBerry: mchua: still around for the vote?
11:16 walterbender I think we lost mel, but we can record her vote later
11:16 bernie nay
11:16 SeanDaly all criteria concerning SoaS marketing is totally public :-)
11:17 cjb ok, we should get votes from CanoeBerry/mchua for completeness
11:17 bernie I'm rewording the motion, please give me one minute
11:17 cjb but the motion passes, if I can count today
11:17 walterbender cjb: yes. I'll ask by email
11:17 Let's finish Q3 next week? Same time? Same channel?
11:17 cjb walterbender: ok
11:17 walterbender and then get into the remix topic?
11:18 SeanDaly walterbender: ok
11:18 walterbender thanks everyone. I think we got a lot done today :)
11:18 cjb bernie: you could provide an amendment to the decision next week, when we discuss q3
11:18 walterbender bernie: yes. please circulate a revised wording by email
11:19 SeanDaly cjb: there are possible scenarios in which technical + maintainer outweighed by other factors...
11:19 walterbender ok. we are almost 20+ so let's wrap up.
11:19 SeanDaly: did we lose educational? :(
11:19 SeanDaly cjb: for example, a distro which would bring $20m USD in TV advertising campaigns :D
11:20 yes, would have liked to see educational in there...
11:20 bernie MOTION: "Question 2: SL endorses Sugar distributions based on availability of resources (i.e. volunteers) and technical merits. Hosting and infrastructure will be offered neutrally. SL marketing may choose to bias promotion resources towards strategically important distros.
11:20 tomeu tries to imagine how a distro could impact education over the others
11:20 cjb SeanDaly: true enough.  I don't think it's necessary to encode every use case, but we can provide an amendment for that too.
11:20 bernie walterbender, cjb: oops, ok
11:20 cjb tomeu: yeah, that's why I felt it was too vague to add
11:20 bernie I'll send this by email.
11:21 SeanDaly tomeu: if a government chooses e.g. openSUSE over Windows for 150,000 Classmates
11:21 walterbender ok. let's formally close the meeting...
11:21 cjb bernie: I don't see that your motion does anything different to the one we passed, except for refuse to answer the question directly :)
11:21 SeanDaly running Sugar
11:21 walterbender #endmeeting

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.
Webmaster