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

#sugar-meeting, 2010-01-08

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
10:11 walterbender #TOPIC TM policy
10:12 We had made some changes to the TM policy last week but deferred a vote because we wanted to give people a chance to reflect
10:12 I sent a note to the lists, but I don't think there was much discussion, if any.
10:12 cjb yeah, that's weird
10:12 CanoeBerry I assume we're talking about: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy
10:13 walterbender I did create http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]demark/Guidelines
10:13 that did cause a little bit of a reaction
10:13 SeanDaly partly my fault, I had promised to write a mail explaining "sugarized" logo policy with examples
10:13 walterbender CanoeBerry: yes. that is the page
10:14 SeanDaly Rita has asked me about how policy would be applied to German translation of SoaS
10:14 walterbender CanoeBerry: with BOLD and STRIKE indicating changes
10:14 SeanDaly: seems to be an example of 2a
10:15 SeanDaly: but maybe we should be explicit about translation in that paragraph
10:15 BTW, I also never heard any feedback from SFC :(
10:16 SeanDaly more like 5a, they want to hand out sticks
10:16 walterbender Having slept on it, do people have any further thoughts?
10:16 cjb good idea, let's add ", including translations into other languages," into 2a text
10:16 SeanDaly: hm, maybe they need to ask us, then
10:16 rita so translations would be minor changes?
10:17 cjb yes, I'd vote for translations as minor changes
10:17 walterbender rita, cjb: I agree
10:17 sdziallas looks up
10:17 CanoeBerry Sounds reasonable.
10:17 cjb so I think the changes to the SL software do come under 2a
10:18 walterbender FYI, I just added "translations into other languages," to the wiki page.
10:18 cjb but we have a specific mention of SoaS in 5a
10:18 that says only Fedora-SoaS would be allowed to release SoaS products, without explicit permission
10:18 there would be two ways around this:
10:18 SeanDaly on phone....
10:19 cjb (a) you could argue that, since there are only minor changes, this *is* still Fedora-SoaS, and so there's already permission that way, or..
10:19 (b) you could just ask for permission.  :-)
10:19 sdziallas would like to provide input on this topic.
10:19 cjb sdziallas: go for it
10:20 sdziallas First of all, I'll notice that bertf introduced me to somebody who said he was willing to do SoaS versions in German and asked for the way to do so.
10:20 walterbender cjb, sdziallas what is the Fedora policy re translation? seems that for SoaS, it would have to pass both the SL and Fedora hurdles.
10:20 sdziallas I explained the procedure and also noted that there'll need to be some discussion on how it'll be named, since the project had been introduced to me, adding that it might also including new content.
10:21 So I'm not opposed to translations. However, adding content is in my opinion something that needs approval.
10:21 walterbender sdziallas: yes. let's separate those two issues.
10:21 sdziallas Additionally, I suggested that it'd be interesting to collaborate on the effort and to have the German version hosted in our GIT repo.
10:21 walterbender: I'm done in a second, just explaining here.
10:21 SeanDaly agree translation not same as content change
10:22 walterbender sdziallas: and that is a topic I want to discuss at the SoaS meeting too.
10:22 sdziallas walterbender: yes, but then here's the thing:
10:22 walterbender but sdziallas, what is the Fedora policy re translations?
10:22 sdziallas originally, there was talk going on about SL granting the SoaS project the permission to use the Sugar name.
10:23 walterbender: I don't know exactly. But I suspect that you can only call it Fedora in an unmodified form. (and not "substantially unmodified".)
10:23 walterbender: however, if you don't add anything, this might be different.
10:23 walterbender sdziallas: can you look into the translation question for us when you get a chance?
10:23 sdziallas walterbender: there are kickstart files in Fedora's GIT repo that just change the language and haven't gone through the approval process.
10:23 walterbender: however, those don't get actively built, which makes things different.
10:24 walterbender: I'd like to finish my point before and will do that then, if it's okay.
10:24 walterbender sdziallas: please continue
10:24 sdziallas So if Sugar Labs decides to grant the SoaS project as it is a permission to use that name... I believe this thing becomes a SoaS issue.
10:25 walterbender sdziallas: well, the permission is incumbent on playing by the rules, so it is not a unilateral SoaS issue.
10:26 sdziallas walterbender: agreed. but does this mean that SLOBs decides SoaS stuff? so who'd take care of an approval, in case it was inquired.
10:26 s/./?
10:26 cjb I agree that it could be just a SoaS issue -- I think it's helpful to use as an example of making our trademark policy better, though.
10:26 sdziallas cjb: I agree there, too.
10:27 cjb So I guess something could happen like:
10:27 walterbender sdziallas: SLOBS is trying to establish guidelines and as long as SoaS respects those guidelines, then it is cool to act unilaterally
10:27 cjb * someone brings the SoaS team a build they made and asks whether they need permission to distribute it:
10:27   * if it's mostly unmodified, they don't need permission
10:27 walterbender sdziallas: also the SL guidelines do not supersede Fedora (and vice versa)
10:27 cjb    * if there are modifications, they do
10:28   * if the SoaS team declines permission:
10:28 sdziallas walterbender: I didn't say they did?
10:28 cjb     * the project should choose a new name, and then ask SLOBS for permission to use *that* name, if the naem has Sugar in it
10:28 sdziallas cjb: +1.
10:28 cjb those asterisks didn't work out very well :)
10:28 sdziallas (the +1 comes with my SoaS-hat on)
10:29 walterbender Aren't we all in agreement here?
10:29 sdziallas walterbender: I'm basically asking who'd take care of things related to SoaS.
10:29 SeanDaly SLOBs decides use of SL trademarks
10:29 sdziallas walterbender: it looked like SLOBs would be approved SoaS remixes.
10:29 walterbender sdziallas: SoaS takes care of SoaS...
10:29 sdziallas s/approved/approving
10:29 walterbender sdziallas: and the more clarity SL can bring, the easier your job will be.
10:29 sdziallas walterbender: thanks for clarifying it :)
10:30 walterbender: I agree.
10:30 walterbender sdziallas: what I would like to discuss are other types of changes we may want to implicitly approve.
10:30 sdziallas: for example, if someone wanted to add an ebook collection to their SoaS
10:30 SeanDaly sdziallas: for example i suggested to rita she participate in SSoaS meeting re german version
10:31 rita I asked on the german list and got confirmation that Raffael will participate in the meetng.
10:31 sdziallas SeanDaly: I saw that some minute ago. But making clear whether SLOBs decides on SoaS things or not is a SLOBs matter.
10:31 rita: cool!
10:31 walterbender: *nod*
10:31 walterbender: I've some opinion on that, but dunno whether we shouldn't defer that to the SoaS meeting
10:32 mchua Argh, my window didn't ping - I'm sorry about that, folks
10:32 reads up
10:32 SeanDaly sdziallas: SLOBs are implicated on trademark level for sure
10:32 walterbender mchua: glad to have you join us :)
10:32 cjb SeanDaly: I don't see why that has to be the case
10:32 SeanDaly greets mchua
10:32 sdziallas SeanDaly: so somebody can approach SLOBs, ask for trademark permission and SLOBs approves something which is named "Sugar on a Stick $FOO"?
10:33 SeanDaly cjb: SL has to manage SL trademarks
10:33 sdziallas SeanDaly: is this an appropriate description of how the process should work?
10:33 cjb SeanDaly: we don't know anything about SoaS; if someone shows up with their custom SoaS build, we aren't going to be the people to examine it, the SoaS team is.  I think it makes sense for them to make the call.
10:33 SeanDaly sdziallas: i wouldn't recommend that. What about support, bug filing etc.?
10:33 cjb SeanDaly: the SoaS team is part of SL, though.
10:34 sdziallas SeanDaly: for example, right.
10:34 I might pull up the Fedora example again.
10:34 We've the Spins SIG there, which handles "technical approval".
10:34 Once that is given, one may approach the Board for "trademark approval".
10:34 SeanDaly there is technical aspect, content aspect, trademark aspect
10:34 sdziallas Not receiving "technical approval" can be escalated to the board.
10:35 walterbender cjb, SeanDaly It is our responsibility to set guidelines for the people who use our TM and we need to at some level make sure that they follow our guidelines... that doesn't mean we do their decision-making for them, but we need some sort of auditing process
10:36 cjb, SeanDaly: maybe we need to ask for an annual report from our TM users?
10:36 SeanDaly walterbender: yes my feelings exactly... my hope is that policy will be clear enough to avoid having to decide every case
10:36 walterbender cjb, SeanDaly: something we can review to ensure that things are on track...
10:36 cjb that sounds good
10:36 SeanDaly walterbender: in previous meetings I mentioned that there should be conditions attached to tm use
10:37 walterbender back to rita's question, from the SL POV, translation is fine. But SoaS needs to make sure that fits the Fedora rules too.
10:37 SeanDaly one of those conditions should be I think informing us periodically of how tms are used
10:37 mchua caught up now. sounds like the question is "does exclusive right to use a trademark imply delegation of the decision of that trademark usage?"
10:38 SeanDaly mchua: i disagree, SL doesn't delegate any tm decision at all, it's still SFC with final say
10:38 walterbender mchua: I think it can within the context of our guidelines... but it cannot carve out new ground...
10:38 mchua Well, only decision-powers that a group has can be delegated
10:38 walterbender SeanDaly: maybe we are disagreeing about what "decision of that TM usage" means
10:38 rita walterbender: thanks for the clarification! so the other aspect will be talked abput in the soas meeting?
10:39 mchua and override privs from the folks who did the delegating could be implied
10:39 sdziallas mchua: that is what I said with regard to Fedora's process.
10:39 walterbender SeanDaly: we are giving the "licensee" a sandbox to play in and within that sandbox, they can make decisions
10:40 SeanDaly: but we define the sandbox
10:40 SeanDaly walterbender: sure, but we need to be able to protect the marks
10:40 walterbender (or we could talk about basis functions)
10:40 CanoeBerry Internet problems hopefully overcome-- I'm back after 10min of outage.
10:40 sdziallas SeanDaly: Is Sugar Labs protecting the Sugar mark and asking for approval for all "$DISTRO Sugar Spin" versions?
10:40 mchua SeanDaly: would an override function on the stuff that happens in the sandbox work?
10:41 walterbender SeanDaly: the sandbox we define with our guidelines is exactly for that protection.
10:41 cjb sdziallas: you haven't quite got the 2a wording, but you're right -- we don't police those.  We've explicitly said they aren't covered by our trademark policy.
10:41 sdziallas cjb: I'm aware of the 2a wording.
10:41 SeanDaly sdziallas: the idea is a policy which easily grants a logo label within guidelines, but requires explicit decision in others; with SL/SFC reserving final tm rights
10:41 cjb (which is a bit different from saying that they're protected and someone else is going to handle protecting them for us, but maybe not that different.)
10:42 SeanDaly mchua: yes there has to be an override
10:42 sdziallas cjb: so if I went ahead and created a Fedora Sugar Spin, nobody would mind?
10:42 mchua SeanDaly: then I would like that override to have a timeout - maybe the override has to happen within 2 weeks of the sandbox event SLOBs wants to revert
10:42 sdziallas cjb: replace Fedora with Ubuntu and Spin with Remix, if you want. Or OpenSUSE. Or whatever.
10:43 cjb sdziallas: we might mind, but we would not be able to do anything about the fact that we mind.
10:43 at least, using trademark law, with the current trademark policy, etc etc
10:43 sdziallas cjb: "do they require approval?"
10:43 SeanDaly cjb: that doesn't work I'm afraid
10:43 cjb sdziallas: no
10:43 sdziallas cjb: and if they don't, what happened if I did Sugar on a Stick outside of Sugar Labs?
10:43 cjb: that'd be an equivalent case.
10:43 cjb sdziallas: it's not equivalent
10:44 SeanDaly cjb: SL needs to manage its marks
10:44 cjb Fedora Sugar Remix is a clear case of 2b
10:44 SeanDaly: you keep repeating that as if we don't all agree.  :/
10:44 sdziallas cjb: it isn't.
10:44 SeanDaly "Sugar Spin" won't be the name of anything
10:44 sdziallas cjb: "Ubuntu, joined with Sugar" is.
10:45 SeanDaly the phrase is not chosen yet
10:45 sdziallas Or I'm reading it wrong (which might be well possible).
10:45 cjb sdziallas: ok.  I don't see why you chose a non-2b wording.
10:45 SeanDaly it's a marketing issue
10:45 rita I have to leave, thanks!
10:45 cjb SeanDaly: so the argument is that you don't consider the trademark policy finished, so we shouldn't trust anything it says?
10:45 SeanDaly i'm late on starting that thread in the list, but again the idea is to start a logo label program
10:45 cjb: certainly not finished, no
10:46 cjb SeanDaly: but then why did you vote to adopt it?
10:46 walterbender cjb: I think you are using hyperbole...
10:46 SeanDaly cjb: it's a draft
10:46 cjb walterbender: ok.  sorry, I'll take a step back.
10:47 walterbender cjb: we had agreed that the example in 2a and 2b would be replaced by Marketing after a discussion, but otherwise we were happy with the document...
10:47 SeanDaly what I'm interested in doing is building Sugar awareness, but in a scalable way from quality associated with the brand
10:47 walterbender so to say we cannot trust *anything* it says is a bit extreme...
10:47 cjb walterbender: oh!  ok.
10:48 sdziallas SeanDaly: but we all agree that having brand dilution would be a bad thing, marketing wise, right?
10:48 SeanDaly our granting tm use is to assure no confusion
10:48 sdziallas: yes of course
10:48 sdziallas SeanDaly: and at the same time, we want new people to come up with their work and to contribute, too...
10:49 SeanDaly sdziallas: yes exactly
10:49 sdziallas SeanDaly: (I'm trying to understand everything we want to accomplish better)
10:49 SeanDaly we are breaking new ground with this
10:50 sdziallas nods
10:50 SeanDaly historically distros & projects have treated the problem only from tech perspective
10:50 sdziallas but we want to put a strong marketing perspective on there, too.
10:50 SeanDaly and desktops too... who probably should have done the most marketing
10:51 sdziallas: yes... a strong brand stands for something, people know what it means
10:51 walterbender would like to interject
10:51 SeanDaly And,
10:51 sdziallas nods again.
10:51 so I guess we would want to have *both* aspects.
10:51 listens
10:52 SeanDaly sdziallas: yes both
10:52 walterbender maybe we should defer the final vote on the TM policy until after Marketing comes up with the final wording for 2a and 2b.
10:52 and we can take this interesting discussion to the lists???
10:52 SeanDaly walterbender: yes i would hope so
10:53 sdziallas nods (or for those who are able to, in the next hour)
10:53 walterbender we only have a few more minutes today. can we quickly switch topics?
10:53 SeanDaly yes, as I say I had previously promised to start thread, been swamped
10:54 walterbender #topic guidelines for interacting with the SFC
10:54 I am bringing this up more for informational sake... nothing to vote on, but I would like feedback on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/U[…]ions_with_the_SFC
10:55 There are a few more details I am trying to work out with them so as to make things more transparent and predicatble
10:55 so when you get a chance, please look at that page and comment...
10:55 #topic infrastucture
10:56 Bernie is not here to argue for his new server... but maybe we do this one by email?
10:56 I have looked into the finances and the money is there if we decide to spend it
10:56 #topic finances
10:57 mchua Is there a finances update? I'm curious how much would be left after the new server if we say yes, and what else we might have to spend it on
10:57 walterbender I have been talking with Bradley about a few minor anomalies that had me confused... I think by next week I can give a coherent report.
10:57 SeanDaly I need to break out the 2009 marketing expenses
10:58 walterbender re mchua's question: we have lots of potential things to spend money on... marketing, deployments, etc.
10:58 SeanDaly it would be helpful for me if at least press releases could be covered...
10:58 walterbender mchua: but infrastructure is also important...
10:59 SeanDaly: can you put together a budget for the marketing team for 2010?
10:59 SeanDaly at SugarCamp Paris we studied budgeting approaches if you remember
10:59 walterbender we should have budgets for all the teams and use them to set some goals for fundraising
10:59 SeanDaly walterbender: sure
10:59 CanoeBerry 10:59AM aside, before we end: did I miss a vote when I lost Internet for 10-15min in the middle?
10:59 mchua CanoeBerry: no, no motions were proposed
10:59 walterbender CanoeBerry: no vote yet...
11:00 Meet again next week???
11:00 CanoeBerry Yes
11:00 SeanDaly OK for me
11:00 cjb sure
11:00 walterbender SeanDaly: would a bit later work for you?
11:00 SeanDaly walterbender: yes
11:00 walterbender 16UTC (to let cjb sleep a bit longer?)
11:00 SeanDaly fine with me
11:01 mchua worksforme
11:01 Can we come with motions?
11:01 walterbender OK. let me sum up with some actions then.
11:01 SeanDaly not sure I could get up early for such a meeting :D
11:01 walterbender mchua: no motions yet, I am afraid
11:01 #action sean and the marketing team will lead the discussion about the final phrasing of 2a and 2b
11:01 CanoeBerry FYI bernie will be move 1 time-zone East, so will have even less excuses for sleeping in :)
11:02 walterbender from that action, we'll be able to make a motion re TM policy :)
11:02 SeanDaly yes
11:02 walterbender #action walter will finish up the budget discussion with SFC and present next week
11:02 #action team leaders will be asked to submit budget proposals for 2010
11:03 (I'll send that request)
11:03 #action we'll discuss bernie's request by email and (perhaps) vote on it before the next meeting
11:03 #action we will meet at 16UTC on 15 January 2010
11:03 Anything I missed?
11:04 SeanDaly looks good
11:04 mchua SeanDaly: could you come with a motion on the final phrasing of 2a and 2b?
11:04 SeanDaly mchua: no
11:04 walterbender thanks everyone... I'll end meeting and then we'll get going on the SoaS meeting.
11:04 SeanDaly needs to be discussed by marketing team
11:04 mchua or a series of concrete examples/proposals
11:04 walterbender #endmeeting
11:10 sdziallas #TOPIC Sugar on a Stick v3 Planning and Discussion
11:10 #TOPIC roll-call
11:10 okay, so let's see who's here...
11:10 mchua
11:10 SeanDaly here
11:11 walterbender waves
11:11 bertf too
11:11 raffael rafael
11:11 satellit listening
11:11 sdziallas cool! thanks everybody for joining in.
11:11 bertf I'm here just in case a German variant is being discussed
11:12 walterbender bertf: we were discussing it with Rita earlier
11:12 bertf walterbender: ah. didn't talk to her yet
11:13 any conclusions? meeting notes?
11:13 walterbender bertf: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]ng_Log-2010-01-08
11:13 bertf thanks
11:13 walterbender bertf: I haven't turned it into minutes yet
11:14 sdziallas: let me spew a few subtopic ideas for v3
11:14 sdziallas walterbender: yes, you mentioned you had some
11:14 walterbender * file system
11:14 sdziallas #TOPIC ideas for v3
11:14 walterbender * simple mods (e.g., adding books, custom activities, etc)
11:14 * some "cloud" features
11:15 sdziallas nods. the mods are related to the remix stuff, which SeanDaly wouldn't mind discussing, I guess :)
11:15 okay, let me start with a bummer and go through that list then?
11:15 SeanDaly topic idea: do we go for "first production version" with v3 Cloudberry, or do we stay "testing" ?
11:16 mchua wonders what decisions have already been made for v3, what requirements/schedule/etc. we have to work around (for instance, is it a given we're using 0.88, etc)
11:16 walterbender mchua: and F13?
11:16 sdziallas mchua: nod, that's what we're going to get to, and it concerns SeanDaly's idea, too.
11:16 so let me outline quickly what we already know about SoaS v3.
11:17 #info SoaS v3 will ship Sugar 0.88 and Fedora 13
11:17 that's confirmed and will happen.
11:18 (actually, I guess it'll need to be written in capitalized letters, so)
11:18 #INFO SoaS v3 will ship Sugar 0.88 and Fedora 13
11:18 #INFO SoaS v3 will be released this summer
11:18 walterbender sdziallas: maybe you mean #agreed?
11:18 mchua any range for a release date?
11:18 sdziallas walterbender: that's fine with me, too :)
11:18 mchua like "sometime between may 1st and june 1st?
11:19 sdziallas mchua: that sounds pretty reasonable, actually.
11:19 here's the thing:
11:19 (some quick personal background)
11:19 I'm a senior this year meaning that I'll be writing big final exams.
11:20 So my take on SoaS v3 is that it'll need to be as sustainable as possible.
11:20 However, that gives us the option to do it "right", to get something done. Probably even for production use.
11:21 Now the bummer.
11:21 I'm leaning for this release to have it built by Fedora - as a SL project.
11:22 This would give us daily nightly builds and an awesome QA team, together with taking some load - temporarily - away from me.
11:23 As a bonus, it'd allow me and others to improve the Fedora implementation of Sugar (which is what we're relying on anyway).
11:24 This would bring the release date to May 11.
11:24 walterbender sdziallas: so far I am not bummed out :)
11:24 sdziallas walterbender: *grin* :)
11:24 I'm aware of SeanDaly's points concerning diluting our marketing message, too.
11:25 I'll note though, that mchua is also not... let's say, uninvolved in Fedora Marketing.
11:25 SeanDaly not sure I see downside with what you're saying?
11:26 sdziallas That's even more awesome! (It took me quite some time to get to this point, admittedly, to pursue this way)
11:27 So there's a load of advantages. The only thing is that we can't influence Fedora 13's release date, obviously. So it'd be May 11 (or some week later, given that delays happen from time to time).
11:27 If everybody agrees that what I'm saying is reasonable... I'll spend my time on getting more activities into Fedora to get us a good, stable experience for this release.
11:28 SeanDaly: this is why I'm thinking it might not be a bad idea to release it with a slight production-ready note, though we'll need to figure this out.
11:28 SeanDaly My position is: if Cloudberry still "testing" version, release date can be anytime. But, if we will be announcing "production-ready", we will probably prefer later... to have time to make bulletproof
11:29 mchua From a Fedora Marketing point of view, I would be *super* happy to push whatever SeanDaly and the Sugar Marketing team come up with as marketing materials for this release, we'll just make it so they fit Fedora trademark guidelines (also meaning the spin has to get approved as a spin to be able to use the Fedora trademark, but sdziallas knows that process already)
11:29 sdziallas (I'd take care of that process, indeed)
11:30 mchua SeanDaly: in other words, "you lead, but we've got resources you can use"
11:30 SeanDaly we could also go like this: in May, "v3 Cloudberry beta" ; in (say) June or even later (but in time for September), "v3 Cloudberry"
11:30 sdziallas SeanDaly: the advantage we have is that we'd follow freezes strictly. and those would make sure that everything we do is stable.
11:31 SeanDaly our marketing policy with SoaS until now has been to avoid citing the underlying distro, in this case Fedora.
11:31 For several reasons, but chiefly:
11:32 * distros are weak brands, and desktops even weaker
11:32 * the possibility that SoaS be over another distro in the future
11:33 Although we developed that strategy ourselves, as it happens Jolicloud is doing the exact same thing
11:33 mchua nods, agrees
11:33 SeanDaly now, from a practical standpoint
11:34 I would not object to a fedora remix logo in the splash screen
11:34 oh yes another reason for policy:
11:35 * smart journalists figure out and report on what the distro is (cf ars technica, BBC, etc)
11:35 I consider it vital that Sugar not be called "linux"
11:36 one of many reasons I was so disappointed with OLPC's XO-3 media campaign
11:36 for my part i would be thrilled if Sugar experience over a Fedora install were improved
11:37 I installed F12 from scratch after my Sugar talk at the Fedora France event
11:38 and installing Sugar and some Activities was way too complictaed for a teacher who doesn't know fedora already
11:38 sdziallas SeanDaly: this would for example get much easier with the work I'd commit too. :)
11:39 SeanDaly I must say I really like the idea of a stable Sugar system :D
11:39 sdziallas grins.
11:39 SeanDaly put another way,
11:39 if quality fair to middling, marketing will help grow, but slowly
11:40 if quality excellent to sensational, word-of-mouth will grow very quickly
11:40 always much easier to market great products :D :D
11:40 mchua SeanDaly: I see "SL marketing the Sugar Spin as a release of a way to distribute and use Sugar" as separate from "Fedora marketing the Sugar Spin as an example of the kinds of cool things that can be done with a Fedora Spin," and I'd like to make sure that whatever we end up doing with the second doesn't intefere with what you're trying to do with the first.
11:40 Same thing for "SL marketing the ease of getting Sugar working on $your_existing_distro" vs "Fedora marketing the ease of getting Sugar working on your Fedora system" - though this part isn't SoaS.
11:41 But in any case we can sync up on this throughout the release cycle
11:41 SeanDaly mchua: well, several points
11:41 bertf sdziallas: does Fedora offer language-specific builds? or is it always just one image? i was thinking that if SoaS itself came in different language flavors, the naming issue would almost be moot
11:41 SeanDaly when $your_existing_distro is Windows or Mac
11:41 in other words, 98% of the dektop market
11:42 that's where SoaS is a game-changer
11:42 put another way:
11:42 98% of teachers will likely not grok the difference between Sugar and SoaS
11:43 sdziallas bertf: we've been providing the kickstart files in the repo, so that those could be used for builds. however, I don't think that there'll be threehundred different SoaS builds done by anybody alone.
11:43 SeanDaly that's why SoaS is central to SL marketing
11:44 sdziallas bertf: you can select a language in SoaS, for sure. however, when it comes to modifying SoaS, there needs to be a line. because otherwise everything would just be "SoaS".
11:44 SeanDaly and why i wish to reserve long-term choice of the underlying distro to SL
11:44 the FLOSS community hasn't dealt with this before, because KDE and Gnome haven't marketed to end users
11:45 sdziallas shuts up, one convo at a time. (though we might want to move through this at some point)
11:45 SeanDaly Sl needs to market to teachers and education buyers
11:45 OK quiet now :-)
11:45 sdziallas SeanDaly: as long as SL means the team, the people building it, I'm fine with the distro point.
11:46 SeanDaly sdziallas: yes, I mean Sugar Labs the community
11:46 sdziallas So what shouldn't happen is that SLOBs or whomever rules that SoaS is now suddenly based on $FOO (imo).
11:46 However, if I should ever... get hit by a bus, there should be a way out, agreed.
11:46 Whether that means somebody taking over more of the work I'm currently doing or moving it to a different distro is still to be determined.
11:46 SeanDaly prays you don't slip in the shower
11:46 bertf SeanDaly: precisely because of the marketing to teachers it's of utmost importance to have localized versions
11:47 sdziallas I think we should probably get back to the roadmap soon.
11:47 SeanDaly bertf: ii fully support localized versions, we mention that in every press release
11:48 bertf SeanDaly: sure, but it's still only a single download, English by default
11:48 sdziallas bertf: I don't see why we couldn't have appropriate (approved) kickstart files in the SoaS GIT repo, so that volunteers could build them.
11:48 SeanDaly well, how can we foster localization for SoaS?
11:48 sdziallas bertf: I suggested that in my e-mail, too.
11:49 mchua sdziallas: one thing I'm not clear on is the timeline of the work that needs to be done for SoaS v3, so people can see where the things they want to do (localization, shipping a certain Activity, etc.) can come in
11:49 bertf sdziallas: yes, sounds good. I'd actually prefer it that way, working directly in SoaS repo instead of separately
11:49 sdziallas yes, maybe... we can put the localization point on the sosa / marketing lists?
11:50 bertf: and that way, we make sure everything's documented and fine (and encourages collaboration anyway)
11:50 bertf sdziallas: precisely
11:50 sdziallas I'll note that as an action, if everybody's okay with it.
11:50 #ACTION localized versions of SoaS are encouraged to live in the GIT repo
11:51 bertf raffael: are you following the discussion?
11:51 sdziallas mchua: okay, let's get back onto the roadmap point quickly.
11:51 raffael bertf: yes
11:51 bertf :)
11:51 sdziallas mchua: the *very* last date to get something included is 2010-04-27.
11:51 (hi raffael, good to have you around!)
11:52 we'd have an alpha release on 2010-03-02, and a beta on 2010-04-06.
11:52 #LINK http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]eases/13/Schedule
11:52 #LINK http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.88/Roadmap
11:53 mchua sdziallas: what does that mean for the localization bertf wants to do, when would he need to get what things in by?
11:53 sdziallas that means that the "beta" (which wouldn't get too widely promoted, I guess, leaving it up to the appropriate teams, though) would ship with a Sugar 0.88 RC.
11:53 SeanDaly mchua: in fact Rita want to germanize Blueberry first I think
11:54 bertf SeanDaly: we want to have something ready by early March
11:54 sdziallas mchua: basically, whenever it's ready. well, if the file should be in the Fedora repo, the kickstart file needs to be ready by 2010-03-23.
11:54 walterbender sdziallas: note that the activity team (and Steve Parrish) have been revisiting the relationship between fructose and sucrose, which may impact when activity authors are thinking about schedules.
11:54 sdziallas walterbender: if necessary, I'll just package all the activities we need (hoping on the packaging effort to start off... finally).
11:55 walterbender: has he proposed his idea already? :)
11:55 walterbender sdziallas: no proposal yet... just discussion
11:55 sdziallas walterbender: okay, cool!
11:56 walterbender: another issue that we'll come across is the heavy bundling of dependencies in activities (but that doesn't need to be discussed here).
11:56 SeanDaly sdziallas: keep in mind we are marketing Sugar as having hundreds of Activities available... if a teacher downloads an Activity from ASLO which doesn't work right on Cloudberry, s/he will consider all of it unstable
11:56 sdziallas SeanDaly: it'll work.
11:57 SeanDaly sdziallas: so we may need to do a testing sprint for all Activities
11:57 sdziallas SeanDaly: well, sprints & test days would be good (like the last one; we might ask for a new one)
11:57 really quick: does anybody have questions about the schedule? (just to make sure we answer them before anybody needs to leave)
11:57 mchua is it on the wiki? ;)
11:58 SeanDaly sdziallas: dumb question, is this roadmap on the wiki?
11:58 mchua has to run, will read backlog upon return
11:58 SeanDaly: jinx :)
11:58 sdziallas grins.
11:58 SeanDaly :D
11:58 sdziallas I haven't posted anything, since I wanted to discuss the May 11 / Fedora thing with all of you first.
11:58 SeanDaly ah ok
11:59 my intuition is that we should do beta in May final later
11:59 by final I mean what we will formally call a production version
12:00 sdziallas well, let me make a point with the engineering-hat on ;)
12:00 the major advantage of following Fedora's cycle (which will presumably shift by a week or so anyway) is that we'll upstream everything now.
12:01 and by doing so, we'll profit from what Fedora can give (like I said, QA, daily builds, stuff that enhances our quality) and give them a solution, too.
12:01 However, if we have the "beta" done on May 11 and move to some other date then for the final, we'd start forking stuff again.
12:02 And that causes unneeded work (again, from an engineering point of view).
12:02 So basically, my proposal tries to... minimize everybody's work, enhance the stability and get even more folks (the Fedora ones, precisely) into the boat.
12:03 If it turns out to be entirely bad timing, we can still opt out of this.
12:03 SeanDaly sdziallas: OK I understand better...
12:03 sdziallas So contigency plan (which one should have) would be not to have it released on May 11 and put more work into it, if needed.
12:04 SeanDaly what I would like to do is work the dynamic of "v3 has the kinks out"
12:04 sdziallas SeanDaly: I *do* understand your concerns. And I'll not make the same mistake again and let it look as if I wouldn't (as with Strawberry). ;)
12:04 SeanDaly i would suggest our release timing be planned for teachers
12:04 sdziallas grins
12:05 SeanDaly so, for September deployment
12:05 sdziallas (about the kinks)
12:05 SeanDaly they would want it in hand by June for summer testing
12:05 this is btw what Dell did for their edu netbook
12:06 i guess we would know by end of May if stable enough to call production version?
12:06 sdziallas nods
12:06 SeanDaly production version implies lots of stuff around SoaS: the school server for example
12:07 sdziallas well, we'd know over the next months. and if everything goes well, we'd release by May 11 (+ probably two weeks, so around May 25; usually Fedora has some delay)
12:07 SeanDaly documentation for teachers
12:07 and of course localization
12:07 sdziallas right, agreed!
12:08 well, we'll get a beta release in April. that's already pretty close to how the release would look like.
12:08 SeanDaly sdziallas: again, I'd rather June 10th with great confidence than may 25th with so-so confidence
12:08 sdziallas if everything goes well, we could focus from then on writing docs.
12:08 SeanDaly that sounds great
12:09 sdziallas SeanDaly: well, June 10th means no cooperation with Fedora and me hacking the latest changes in a night before we go live. I feel that's not sustainable... (that's from where this proposal originated, heh)
12:09 SeanDaly sdziallas: I think we're misunderstanding each other...
12:10 there is tons of work for the launch which have nothing to do with Fedora
12:10 sdziallas oh yeah, agreed.
12:10 satellit sdziallas: will you also build appliance .vdi .vmx versions of v3?
12:11 SeanDaly i'm not suggesting changes to SoaS, but changes to what can impact the total experience
12:11 for example, buggy Activities
12:11 sdziallas satellit: I'm not going to promise that, knowing that the next months will be busy. We can certainly try, though.
12:12 SeanDaly: we'll hopefully kill those much easier than before.
12:12 satellit : ) if I can help there.....
12:12 SeanDaly very important to have VM versions ready for launch date
12:12 sdziallas SeanDaly: having nightly builds without putting any work in the setup is one major point.
12:12 satellit: :)
12:13 SeanDaly Our marketing to teachers is: runs on almost anything
12:13 sdziallas SeanDaly: I'll take the Jolicloud example as a point, yes.
12:13 SeanDaly also at least two very influential journalists run SoaS in VMs on Macs
12:14 sdziallas nods... so we should have something there. well, putting the .iso in a VM is not too hard, but we'll try to work something out.
12:14 SeanDaly this is why i suggest some time between SoaS code done over Fedora... to work on whats surrounds SoaS
12:14 I am not suggesting forking/hacking etc., but choosing launch date which serves us best
12:15 sdziallas SeanDaly: release candidates are composed from 2010-04-29 on, fyi.
12:15 that makes sense. however, it's important to take into consideration what work which release date implies, too.
12:15 SeanDaly ok noted thx
12:15 sdziallas ...as well as bad press, yes, I'll grant you that one :)
12:17 okay, so... looks like we can wrap this up?
12:17 SeanDaly put another way: if SoaS ready on May 25th, 10-20 days extra allow us to work on localization, school server testing, Activity testing, photos, press mailing list, etc
12:17 sdziallas SeanDaly: we can announce SoaS whenever we want.
12:18 SeanDaly yes that's what I'm saying :D
12:18 but June better than July or August :D
12:18 sdziallas SeanDaly: it'd be built, though (if we went for the "something around May with Fedora)
12:18 nods.
12:18 SeanDaly so teachers can deploy in September
12:18 sdziallas yes.
12:19 SeanDaly ok tis all sounds fabulous
12:19 s/tis/this
12:19 sdziallas suggests to work on the Fedora way and to see whether it works or not. we've a way out, in case it doesn't. several, even.
12:20 (like deferring our announcement. or issuing 0-day updates. or cancelling the Fedora build and reschedule our own.)
12:21 ...or just be lucky and get a nice stable version. ;)
12:21 SeanDaly this is actually the advantage in not tying SoaS to a distro: freer choice for when & how to release
12:21 touching wood for luck
12:21 sdziallas too.
12:22 SeanDaly (in marketing sense)
12:22 sdziallas grins, was about to shoot in engineering-wise ;)
12:23 I'm currently narrowing down my activities to keep as focused as possible, since I'm not planning to screw my A-levels either. in a perfect world, I get good A-levels and we all a nice SoaS release that's stable.
12:23 SeanDaly I meant tying in marketing sense but luck for everything :D
12:23 sdziallas doh! cool :)
12:24 SeanDaly yes do balance the two!
12:24 sdziallas enters an action for the meetbot and wraps the meeting
12:24 walterbender sdziallas: let's plan another meeting to talk about some of the other issues :)
12:25 sdziallas #ACTION continue to evaluate the Fedora Roadmap and continue to keep Marketing and others in the loop
12:25 walterbender: sounds reasonable, yes!
12:25 SeanDaly thanks sdziallas!
12:25 sdziallas (I'll note that there's an initial deadline for the Fedora thing, but once we're past that one, we can still drop out at any point)
12:26 thanks SeanDaly :) (and walterbender, satellit, mchua and the other attendees)
12:26 #endmeeting

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.
Webmaster