| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 13:16 |
sdziallas |
hullos |
| 13:17 |
mchua |
Ok, I had some questions about the SoaS deployment/support/QA cycle. |
| 13:17 |
|
I'm almost certainly going to be doing a (very) small-scale SoaS deployment - small number of machines, sticks, and a very short limited and planned for one-time-only thing |
| 13:17 |
|
here in Boston |
| 13:17 |
|
and want to make sure we Do It Right. |
| 13:17 |
|
The pilot is 9 students (one very small 1st grade class) and 3 netbooks (not purchased, can be any model that we want - Peter has suggested an Aspire One model I'm looking at) |
| 13:18 |
|
and would run from mid-Feb through the end of May 2010. |
| 13:18 |
|
My role will be on-site support, QA, and documentation. |
| 13:18 |
|
The teacher is 110% on board. |
| 13:18 |
sdziallas |
That's really awesome! |
| 13:19 |
tomeu |
mchua: how many hours per week? |
| 13:20 |
sdziallas |
mchua: I'd like to make sure that we can help whenever needed. |
| 13:20 |
mchua |
tomeu: in the classroom full-time, they have "activity periods" during which they can choose what they want to do, and the laptops will be an option. |
| 13:21 |
|
tomeu: I'm not sure yet how much dedicated "we are doing a lesson with SoaS" time there will be. |
| 13:21 |
|
I'll see if I can walk next door and ask (the teacher == my aunt). |
| 13:21 |
|
sdziallas: Yep, and I want to make sure we're doing things so that we cause you as little work as possible. |
| 13:21 |
|
And have realistic expectations for how much people are going to be able to help. |
| 13:22 |
|
What I'm willing to do: Every weekend that the pilot runs, I can spend about 2 hours on a QA run. |
| 13:22 |
|
I may not always be able to use the physical netbooks they'll be using, but I can keep some test sticks up to date and test in emulation or my thinkpad - and most of the time I'll have access to the netbooks for the weekend, so it's the live setup. |
| 13:23 |
sdziallas |
nods, that sounds like a major advantage of this approach. |
| 13:25 |
mchua |
sdziallas: Given the Feb-May timeframe, and the (reasonable, I hope) QA turnaround time (in terms of getting new things tested and deployed, on my part), what release would you recommend going with? |
| 13:25 |
tomeu |
+1 to family support pilots ;) |
| 13:25 |
|
runs |
| 13:26 |
mchua |
enjoy dinner, tomeu! |
| 13:27 |
sdziallas |
mchua: well, that's a tough question. |
| 13:27 |
|
mchua: I'd usually recommend Blueberry, because it's the latest stable version. However, I'm also aware of Blueberry's state. |
| 13:27 |
|
On the other hand, it's not likely that we'll get all the activities approved in Fedora within a week. |
| 13:28 |
mchua |
I'd be willing to test the development version with the kids - we can revert things pretty easily within a week, and it'd be a good adventure for them. |
| 13:28 |
|
I'd just need to know how to calibrate expectations for the pilot. |
| 13:28 |
|
before we start it. |
| 13:28 |
sdziallas |
mchua: I haven't seen horrible results with pre-release sugar versions, in fact. |
| 13:29 |
|
mchua: however, while going for a v3 development version would help quite a bit, we'd need a hard deadline by which you'd need an image. |
| 13:29 |
|
mchua: basically, because not all activities are packaged, yet. |
| 13:31 |
|
mchua: issues we've seen with pre-release versions of SoaS were mostly that activities didn't work properly or that collaboration needed work. |
| 13:32 |
|
mchua: if you went with a development version; I'd suggest to run quickly through the activities a week or two before the hard deadline (I'll need to do such a sprint anyway for Fedora, so that'd be a good fit). |
| 13:34 |
mchua |
sdziallas: Okay. Now, is this the sort of thing we'd need to reflash their sticks for periodically, or can we do updates without worrying about backing up stuff, etc? |
| 13:34 |
sdziallas |
mchua: you mean updates, as in "sebastian pushes the red button and we just do yum update on all sticks", right? |
| 13:35 |
|
mchua: updates are either that, or a reflash, yes. |
| 13:35 |
|
mchua: we've been encouraging people to do reflashes so far and lack a strong experience of "real" updates. |
| 13:35 |
|
mchua: however, real updates are probably the way to go - you can't push a release without ever touching it again, I guess. |
| 13:37 |
mchua |
One moment, found Lynne May, asking some questions. |
| 13:37 |
sdziallas |
mchua: I'm not entirely sure how they're doing backup at the GPA, but I guess we could get that up, too. |
| 13:37 |
|
Sure thing! |
| 13:49 |
mchua |
back, apologies for the delay. |
| 13:49 |
sdziallas |
no worries! |
| 13:49 |
mchua |
reads scrollback |
| 13:50 |
|
#info Next step, CFS: get final +1 from principal |
| 13:50 |
|
oh, actually |
| 13:50 |
|
#action lmylim get approval from principal |
| 13:50 |
|
#action lmylim notify parents of pilot |
| 13:51 |
sdziallas |
whoa, cool :) |
| 13:51 |
mchua |
#action lmylim plan curriculum for remainder of year - themes are "community" and they're also looking at doing an investigation into animal shelters as a way to explore the topic of homelessness |
| 13:51 |
|
(the idea is that SoaS would be integrated into helping with that curriculum, rather than a Separate Standalone Unit that doesn't touch anything else) |
| 13:51 |
|
Sugar as a tool, basically |
| 13:51 |
|
as it ought to be. |
| 13:51 |
sdziallas |
nods. |
| 13:52 |
mchua |
This'll be happening over the weekend. |
| 13:52 |
bernie |
back |
| 13:52 |
mchua |
#action mchua purchase hardware |
| 13:53 |
|
wb, bernie - in the middle of a SoaS deployment talk with sdziallas, trademark stuff afterwards? |
| 13:53 |
sdziallas |
mchua: if you can get me a deadline, I can come up with a roadmap around it (for a fitting development version, that is) |
| 13:54 |
mchua |
sdziallas: Feb break is Feb 13-21 - I would want to deploy on Feb 22, 2010. |
| 13:54 |
|
Is that realistic? |
| 13:54 |
sdziallas |
mchua: I'd think so. so it'd be reasonable to have everything ready by Feb 13 to have the break, too? |
| 13:55 |
bernie |
sdziallas: the webcam now works on F11 |
| 13:55 |
sdziallas |
bernie: it does? I thought it was still in the work? |
| 13:56 |
|
mchua: how about Feb 13 for a... well, call it release candidate? |
| 13:58 |
mchua |
sdziallas: And then a week of testing? |
| 13:58 |
sdziallas |
mchua: well, last minute testing. |
| 13:59 |
|
mchua: probably some testing before, but that week would be intensive testing to make sure everything's good to go live. |
| 13:59 |
|
mchua: also, if there's a certain activity that'd be good to have, make sure to let me know - we can use that feedback for Fedora very well :) |
| 14:02 |
bernie |
sdziallas: they told me today that they have found a work around. if not, I would have worked on it |
| 14:03 |
sdziallas |
bernie: mhm, okay. interesting :) is this work around upstream or is there anything we need to do? |
| 14:04 |
bernie |
sdziallas: I'll ask. |
| 14:04 |
sdziallas |
bernie: cool, thanks! |
| 14:05 |
bernie |
oops, just noticed that another meeting is going on, I'll shut up now. |
| 14:05 |
mchua |
looking at schedule, making sure I can do testing that week |
| 14:05 |
|
sdziallas: Ooh, M-F that week I'll be at RIT. |
| 14:05 |
|
I can probably party with the RIT kids and have multiple people helping me hammer on it. |
| 14:05 |
sdziallas |
mchua: mhm :) |
| 14:06 |
|
mchua: well, we shouldn't schedule it too much on the edge, I guess. |
| 14:07 |
|
(just in case the RIT folks are busy with stuff) |
| 14:07 |
|
mchua: so let's keep Blueberry as a contigency plan and have me work on the development version, okay? |
| 14:09 |
mchua |
sdziallas: Sounds good. |
| 14:09 |
sdziallas |
Cool! |
| 14:09 |
mchua |
sdziallas: Well, I'm going to have time with the Sugar class, and we have to do *something*, so... |
| 14:09 |
sdziallas |
grins |
| 14:10 |
mchua |
Taking a break, back in 20. |
| 14:10 |
|
Will resume logging again then. |
| 14:10 |
|
#endmeeting |
| 14:17 |
|
#chair bernie |
| 14:18 |
|
Ok, Bernie - we want to make sure that when we put our trademark policy in place, that getting permission to use the Sugar Labs trademarks is a happy, pleasant, streamlined, easy process for people who're requesting it. |
| 14:18 |
|
bernie: At least that's what I've been hearing you saying. ;) |
| 14:18 |
|
And that they know that it is a happy process. |
| 14:18 |
|
bernie: right? |
| 14:18 |
bernie |
mchua: yep |
| 14:18 |
mchua |
bernie: Ok - what would that mean? |
| 14:19 |
|
bernie: what requirements does that experience have to meet, to be 'good enough'? |
| 14:19 |
bernie |
mchua: I think it's sufficient to say something along the line of what walterbender said during the meeting in the preamble of our TM policy |
| 14:19 |
mchua |
like, "no more than X days turnaround time" or "$this_kind of documentation" or etc. |
| 14:20 |
|
bernie: oh - is that your only req? if we put that line in and trademarks take 5 years to approve, that's probably not so great ;) |
| 14:20 |
bernie |
mchua: I do not think we need to make SLA guarantees, we just need to use friendly, human-readable language that encourages people to apply |
| 14:20 |
mchua |
so I was thinking we could write out some of the expectations we've got now, so that years later when folks look back at the process they know the assumptions we're making now. |
| 14:20 |
|
nods. |
| 14:20 |
|
bernie: not SLA guarantees, but some general standards to aim for |
| 14:20 |
|
like "1 week turnaround" might be an aim |
| 14:21 |
|
not a promise, but a goal |
| 14:21 |
bernie |
mchua: something like "we are looking forward to let projects use the Sugar and Sugar on a Stick trademarks for useful purposes. If you need a TM license, just write to licensing sugarlabs.org. All requests will be considered. |
| 14:22 |
|
mchua: "...we'll work hard to ensure all requests are approved by our oversight board within 1 week" |
| 14:22 |
mchua |
I liked Sean's idea of an examples list of past requests and the process they went through, so people can get an idea of what's happened in the past. |
| 14:22 |
bernie |
mchua: I like it too, although I'd want the process to be as simple as: 1) ask 2) ok |
| 14:22 |
mchua |
bernie: I'd rephrase that as "We try to have an approximately 1-week turnaround time for requests, though we may not be able to do this at all times." |
| 14:22 |
|
bernie: I like that process. |
| 14:23 |
|
bernie: (the rephrasing is so we don't *promise* that they'll have a decision in a week, though that's what we'll aim for) |
| 14:23 |
bernie |
mchua: if we really really really don't want to delegate approval to a licensing clerk, we can do 1) ask 2) board votes 3) ok |
| 14:23 |
|
mchua: I like your rephrasing. |
| 14:24 |
|
mchua: btw, I also appreciated you taking the initiative to write down the Licensing page |
| 14:24 |
|
mchua: please, feel free to add whatever wording you think it's best to the TM page and then we'll change it if people don't like it. |
| 14:24 |
|
mchua: it's a draft, after all |
| 14:24 |
mchua |
bernie: so the goal is "1) Email us, and 2) We'll try to respond with a yes within a week 3) look at these examples demonstrating how cool and easy the process is" ? |
| 14:24 |
|
bernie: ayup |
| 14:25 |
bernie |
mchua: do you want me to create licensingsl.o now? or are you a Google Apps admin already? |
| 14:25 |
mchua |
bernie: I am not an admin. |
| 14:26 |
|
bernie: I'm guessing we'll want that alias regardless, but I dunno where we want it to point |
| 14:26 |
bernie |
mchua: shall we talk about a "tradmark licensing clerk" in the preamble, and make it an official role like the ombudsman? |
| 14:26 |
|
walterbender: ^^^ what do you think? |
| 14:26 |
|
mchua: if you'd like to be an admin, just ask |
| 14:26 |
mchua |
bernie: I think we should draft these as proposals/motions and bring 'em up next week |
| 14:27 |
bernie |
mchua: (all you need is some basic experience with Google Apps) |
| 14:27 |
|
mchua: ok with me |
| 14:27 |
mchua |
bernie: thanks - if I'm doing something I think I'm going to need the privs for, I will - right now I don't think I do. |
| 14:27 |
|
ok, so... |
| 14:27 |
bernie |
mchua: only, I'm afraid I won't have time to push this forward myself. I'd be glad if you could do it. |
| 14:27 |
mchua |
#idea The goal of the trademark approval process is to make it as much like this as possible: (1) Email us. (2) SLOBs says OK. |
| 14:27 |
|
bernie: oh, in that case gimme privs. |
| 14:27 |
bernie |
mchua: you're much more an organizational person than anyone else here |
| 14:29 |
mchua |
#idea the trademark process doc should reflect this - basically, "The process is (1) email us, and (2) we'll try to respond with a decision within a week, but can't always promise to do so, and (3) we'll generally say yes - see some examples of prior proposals and the discussion about them and how long it took them to go through." |
| 14:30 |
|
#idea have a Licensing clerk who's responsible for initially receiving those proposals and helping them go through SLOBs in a timely manner |
| 14:30 |
|
#idea create an email alias for said clerk (licensingsl.o) |
| 14:30 |
|
bernie: anything else? I'm... out of ideas, actually. |
| 14:31 |
bernie |
mchua: https://www.google.com/a/cpanel/sugarlabs.org |
| 14:31 |
|
mchua: would you like me to drive you through the process of creating a new alias? |
| 14:31 |
mchua |
bernie: That'd be great. Close these logs (are we done here?) and open a new one and make that log a SOP? |
| 14:31 |
bernie |
mchua: they're called groups in the GA jargon |
| 14:32 |
|
SOP? |
| 14:32 |
mchua |
Standard Operating Procedure - uh... a howto, a set of instructions |
| 14:32 |
|
so that next time we can just point someone to these instructions and say "great, now create this other alias we need" |
| 14:35 |
|
I'll... take the silence as a "yes we're done here" |
| 14:35 |
|
#endmeeting |
| 14:38 |
|
sdziallas: where were we? |
| 14:38 |
sdziallas |
last thing was the roadmap to the development build. |
| 14:38 |
mchua |
#link http://meeting.olpcorps.net/su[…]0100115_1316.html |
| 14:38 |
|
#link http://meeting.olpcorps.net/su[…]0100115_1316.html |
| 14:38 |
|
for the old continuation. |
| 14:38 |
|
#topic roadmap for development build |
| 14:38 |
|
#chair sdziallas |
| 14:39 |
bernie |
joins in |
| 14:39 |
mchua |
#info Deployment contingency plan: Blueberry |
| 14:39 |
|
We're all agreed on that. |
| 14:39 |
sdziallas |
heh! okey dokey, so let's see. |
| 14:39 |
|
nods |
| 14:39 |
|
#link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.88/Roadmap |
| 14:39 |
|
mchua: from looking at that, I'd target getting you 0.87.4 |
| 14:40 |
mchua |
sdziallas: how about dates for (1) target development version ready for testing, (2) deployment, and (3) the go/no-go decision date on whether to go with Blueberry or dev version? |
| 14:40 |
sdziallas |
which would be equivalent to feature freeze. |
| 14:40 |
mchua |
nods |
| 14:40 |
sdziallas |
mchua: I guess testing should happen at some point in February. |
| 14:41 |
mchua |
I'm around and can go just about anytime. |
| 14:41 |
|
so it's about what works best for you. |
| 14:41 |
sdziallas |
okay. |
| 14:41 |
|
well, there are a few things I want to get done in time. |
| 14:41 |
|
for example the kids shouldn't get a hot-dog when it boots ;) |
| 14:42 |
|
so the boot screen has some priority. as well as getting new activities (basically, as many as possible) in. |
| 14:42 |
mchua |
awww! |
| 14:42 |
|
I'm actually not so worried about new Activities - they'll be using SoaS to support existing class work. |
| 14:42 |
sdziallas |
I think since we might have settled the TM issues for Fedora & SoaS, we could even get nightly builds sooooon. |
| 14:42 |
|
mchua: ah yeah, right! well, if there's anything that's *definitely* needed, just holler! |
| 14:42 |
mchua |
The ones I'd say are must-haves are Browse and Write, to be honest. |
| 14:42 |
|
That's it. |
| 14:43 |
|
I'd *like* to have TurtleArt and Speak. |
| 14:43 |
|
I'm not sure of the state of Record with various netbook webcams, but that would also be second-tier. |
| 14:43 |
|
nice to have but not vital to have. |
| 14:43 |
|
Everything else is a bonus, no matter how much I like it. |
| 14:43 |
sdziallas |
Those should be already all in! :) |
| 14:43 |
mchua |
Yep, so we're good already |
| 14:44 |
|
for Activities. |
| 14:44 |
sdziallas |
#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sugar_Activities |
| 14:44 |
mchua |
#info must-have Activities are Write and Browse |
| 14:44 |
|
#info good-to-have Activities are Record, TurtleArt, and Speak |
| 14:44 |
|
#info everything else is cool but not as important |
| 14:44 |
sdziallas |
#action state of activities will be tracked in the wiki |
| 14:45 |
bernie |
sdziallas: when you're done, please give me voice and I'll update you on some of the soas hacking I've done while flying to paraguay |
| 14:45 |
mchua |
sdziallas: now, how do you want that tracked - under the ASLO activity, under SoaS, under the deployment? |
| 14:45 |
|
I'd like to upstream my testing as far up the stream as possible. |
| 14:45 |
sdziallas |
bernie: whoa, cool :) I will. |
| 14:45 |
|
mchua: you mean whether they work or not or...? |
| 14:46 |
mchua |
sdziallas: Yeah, seems like we have 3 different places we can keep track of the state of activities - or maybe 4. ASLO for the activity, where-the-Activity-is-being-developed, SoaS tracker, CFS deployment tracker. |
| 14:47 |
sdziallas |
mchua: mhm! |
| 14:47 |
mchua |
sdziallas: so pick one and I'll use it. |
| 14:48 |
sdziallas |
mchua: I'd like to come back to you on that. |
| 14:49 |
mchua |
Sure. What do we need to address first? |
| 14:51 |
|
Oh, in the meantime: |
| 14:51 |
|
#info must-have Sugar features: back-up of Journal (even if it's a painful manual process) |
| 14:51 |
sdziallas |
(I'd like to comment on that, actually) |
| 14:52 |
mchua |
It would be nice to have Collaboration, but it's not vital. Same for view source. The kids are 6-7, we don't have time to cover Python with them... I think it'd be cool for them to discover it and play, but it won't block us if it doesn't work. |
| 14:52 |
|
sdziallas: go for it. |
| 14:52 |
sdziallas |
notes the collab point. |
| 14:53 |
|
mchua: there are two ways, I guess. you can either cp ~/.sugar from each key... or we try to implement a backup solution (which would mean that we'd need a school server). |
| 14:53 |
|
(the latter point includes some SoaS hacking which is why I'd need to know) |
| 14:53 |
mchua |
sdziallas: how much effort do you think it'd entail to do the school server? |
| 14:54 |
|
if it might take more than 8 hours total of work between the two of us, I'd say I'll just do cp. |
| 14:54 |
sdziallas |
mchua: I'm actually not sure. For SoaS on the client side, probably not much. On the server-side, I've absolutely no experience. |
| 14:54 |
|
mchua: daveb would probably know. |
| 14:54 |
mchua |
I have enough experience with testing the server side to think that 8 hours is likely to be a severe underestimate. ;) |
| 14:55 |
sdziallas |
grins |
| 14:55 |
mchua |
but that was a year ago, and things have likely changed since. |
| 14:55 |
|
still, I'd rather spend my time on... things other than catching up with that. |
| 14:55 |
|
And yours on things other than trying to figure it out. |
| 14:55 |
|
If we find free time and happen to do it along the way, that's a big bonus, but I don't think it's really a goal. |
| 14:55 |
|
from my point of view. |
| 14:55 |
sdziallas |
nods |
| 14:56 |
mchua |
Ok, let's talk about how the rhythm of how we're going to do QA/support/dev once the pilot actually gets underway. |
| 14:56 |
|
#topic Support cycle/infrastructure |
| 14:56 |
|
again, this is just end-of-Feb through end-of-May. |
| 14:56 |
|
So we have the luxury of being able to experiment with stuff. |
| 14:56 |
|
is quite adventurous. |
| 14:57 |
sdziallas |
:) |
| 14:57 |
mchua |
sdziallas: is the SoaS weekly meeting the place for me to come and catch up and give feedbacks and update on bugs found? |
| 14:57 |
|
or is there another/better one? |
| 14:57 |
sdziallas |
mchua: we've had the Fedora Sugar meetings so far. I guess we could just turn those into SoaS meetings. |
| 14:57 |
|
mchua: (since there's just a lot of overlap) |
| 14:57 |
mchua |
Oh, I would be all for doing it in the Fedora Sugar meeting - SoaS is a subset of that, this deployment is a subset of SoaS |
| 14:58 |
|
(I'd keep it a general Fedora Sugar meeting though since there's value in keeping that umbrella open to other things as well) |
| 14:58 |
sdziallas |
okay... (well, there's not much going on atm, but will be good!) |
| 14:59 |
|
so you'll want to drop by on Thursdays. |
| 14:59 |
bernie |
mchua: I think there should be more coordination between the various Fedora + Sugar distros: SoaS, F11 for XO.15, F11 for XO-1... |
| 14:59 |
|
*XO-1.5 |
| 14:59 |
mchua |
sdziallas: I can do that. |
| 14:59 |
sdziallas |
bernie: whoa, olpc is already at XO-15? :) can I have an omlet please? |
| 15:00 |
|
mchua: well, I need to organize those much better... |
| 15:00 |
mchua |
bernie: I agree, but I'm not sure what we can do to help with that within the scope of this particular pilot other than get really good testing done for SoaS with it, and push that to upstreams and other distros as much as possible. |
| 15:00 |
sdziallas |
mchua: but yeah, we can put this effort in there; I'd love to, infact. |
| 15:01 |
|
(bernie: actually, I'd like to bring a point up to you when we're talking about your SoaS hacking, too) |
| 15:01 |
mchua |
great. sdziallas, can you remind me what time/channel they are? |
| 15:01 |
|
(#info) |
| 15:01 |
|
could look it up, but is lazy ;) |
| 15:02 |
sdziallas |
#info Fedora Sugar Weekly Meetings happen on Thursdays, 1500 UTC in #fedora-olpc |
| 15:02 |
|
#link http://sdziallas.com/blog/seba[…]ing-to-sugar.html |
| 15:03 |
mchua |
#info We'll be doing our weekly sync-up and check-in for this deployment at that meeting. |
| 15:04 |
|
Ok. Now, where to keep notes and such in between meetings... |
| 15:04 |
bernie |
sdziallas: you know, OLPC had to keep up with the competition of Chritoph's XO-10... |
| 15:04 |
mchua |
sdziallas: bugtracker? |
| 15:04 |
sdziallas |
bernie: lol! |
| 15:04 |
bernie |
sdziallas: http://www.olpcnews.com/commen[…]pc_sugarlabs.html |
| 15:05 |
|
sdziallas: the talk is over 1h, but it's worth it |
| 15:05 |
sdziallas |
mchua: reply required now? well, here's the thing: if SL stays for a reasonable amount of time with trac, it doesn't make sense to have stuff excluded. or if we really want to, we should move towards Fedora, as we'll become part of their spin process. |
| 15:05 |
bernie |
mchua: I agree |
| 15:05 |
|
mchua: (regarding the "push everything upstream") |
| 15:06 |
sdziallas |
mchua: yeah, we need to set this straight (bugtracker-wise). sounds good to use one for inter-meeting-communication. |
| 15:06 |
|
bernie: cool, thanks - will look at it! |
| 15:06 |
mchua |
sdziallas: No reply required until I start testing (whenever that is - it's your call on when you give me things to test ;) but between then and end-of-pilot at the end of May I'll need a bugtracker. |
| 15:06 |
sdziallas |
bernie: do you know what the current plan for a SL bugtracker is? |
| 15:06 |
|
mchua: okay :) |
| 15:06 |
mchua |
It needn't stay the same throughout, but I'm not going to be the one doing the infrastructure/ticket/data migration if we switch. ;) |
| 15:06 |
|
I'm happy to relearn a new user interface every week, if it comes to that. |
| 15:06 |
bernie |
sdziallas: does everyone like launchpad, or shall we switch back to trac? |
| 15:07 |
mchua |
but I am not doing any admin stuff for the queue... I just want a place to put tickets, find them, and keep track of them. |
| 15:07 |
bernie |
sdziallas: the LP for sugarlabs thing is not going to happen anytime soon, I'm afraid |
| 15:07 |
|
sdziallas: if we move trac to sunjammer, we gain 4x the speed |
| 15:07 |
sdziallas |
mchua: well, I'd like to make it as easy as possible for you and continue to use what we use here then. |
| 15:07 |
bernie |
sdziallas: still bad, imho... and trac is unmaintainable piece of crap |
| 15:07 |
mchua |
I'll use any queue in any bugtracker. Heck, I'd use a wiki page or a long plaintext document. But I hope I don't have to do the latter. ;) |
| 15:08 |
sdziallas |
bernie: well, as I said... it doesn't make sense to have another seperate bug tracker - even less when it becomes a Fedora Spin. |
| 15:08 |
|
mchua: *grin* :) we won't let it get that far. |
| 15:08 |
bernie |
mchua: actually, I *do* use a plaintext document for my todo list... and I find it awesome. the best tracker I've ever used from a usability pov :-) |
| 15:08 |
|
is a weirdo |
| 15:08 |
mchua |
I don't know what SL/SoaS infra policies are, but if there's a proprietary bugtracker you want to use, I'll grimace, put up with it, and use that as a learn-about-usability-design experience for filing enhancement requests for open source bugtrackers. ;) |
| 15:09 |
sdziallas |
bernie: I noticed a significant decrease of SoaS triaging help from SL people after we switched to LP. |
| 15:09 |
mchua |
bernie: not a weirdo at all; I love plaintext + yum + grep as a system. |
| 15:09 |
bernie |
mchua: never heard of it... |
| 15:09 |
mchua |
s/yum/ack |
| 15:09 |
|
can't write today |
| 15:09 |
sdziallas |
mchua: I've actually found a quite good looking one, but I guess I don't want to have that additionally on my plate. |
| 15:09 |
bernie |
sdziallas: ok, we should probably switch back then |
| 15:10 |
|
sdziallas: do you think steven parrish would also like to use our trac? |
| 15:10 |
sdziallas |
bernie: I dunno - or probably RH's BZ. I guess those are the two choices we have. And I've been told BZ sucked. ;) |
| 15:10 |
|
bernie: we can ask! |
| 15:11 |
bernie |
sdziallas: yeah, I hate BZ even more than trac |
| 15:11 |
mchua |
doesn't care, just needs to know where. |
| 15:11 |
sdziallas |
mchua: yeah :) |
| 15:11 |
bernie |
sdziallas: I used BZ in my company for a long time, before switching to trac |
| 15:11 |
mchua |
sdziallas: can I #action you to just let me know at some point before you dump a test image on me? |
| 15:12 |
sdziallas |
bernie: however, if we drop LP, we'll need a new Q&A site. |
| 15:12 |
mchua |
I'll figure everything else out after that point. |
| 15:12 |
sdziallas |
mchua: sure thing! |
| 15:12 |
bernie |
sdziallas: was the LP Q&A good? |
| 15:12 |
sdziallas |
bernie: It was pretty popular, indeed. |
| 15:12 |
mchua |
#action sdziallas tell mchua what bugtracker to use before handing her a test image. |
| 15:13 |
|
I think the only other thing we need is an IRC channel and a wiki page. |
| 15:13 |
bernie |
sdziallas: we may want to discuss bug tracker options with tomeu and erikos later... let's postpone for now 'cause it will take a lot of time imho |
| 15:13 |
mchua |
#action mchua make pilot wiki page on SL wiki |
| 15:13 |
|
sdziallas: in between meetings, where should I ask questions (probably of you)? |
| 15:13 |
bernie |
sdziallas: we may also ask lfaraone an update regarding the LP branding saga |
| 15:13 |
mchua |
#fedora-sugar, #sugar, etc? |
| 15:14 |
bernie |
mchua: can we use the sl wiki and the #sugar channel? |
| 15:14 |
sdziallas |
mchua: #sugar, I guess. #fedora-olpc has been used for meetings only... |
| 15:14 |
mchua |
SL wiki is already a yes, and I would be happy with #sugar. |
| 15:14 |
|
#info default channel for the project is #sugar |
| 15:14 |
bernie |
mchua: if needed, I could setup a separate wiki... but there needs to be someone willing to maintain it |
| 15:14 |
mchua |
that makes sense, keep all the convos in one place. |
| 15:14 |
|
bernie: I don't want a separate wiki. |
| 15:15 |
|
I want to use existing tools and infrastructure whenever possible - I want to do as little work as possible, I'm lazy. ;) |
| 15:15 |
bernie |
mchua: I guess one day #sugar will become too crowded and we'll decide to split off subchannels such as #sugar-distro, #sugar-sys... |
| 15:15 |
|
mchua: as #fedora did... |
| 15:16 |
|
mchua: until the amount of traffic becomes annoying, there's connectivity value in keeping everything on #sugar |
| 15:17 |
mchua |
I agree completely. |
| 15:17 |
|
Anything else we need to figure out for the deployment before next Thursday's check-in? |
| 15:18 |
|
sdziallas, I think we're pretty good from my side... how about you? |
| 15:18 |
sdziallas |
mchua: same here! |
| 15:18 |
|
mchua: thanks for getting this rolling already :) |
| 15:19 |
mchua |
All righty. I'll make that page stub and throw these meeting notes on 'em. |
| 15:19 |
|
Thanks, everyone! |
| 15:19 |
|
#endmeeting |
| 11:01 |
walterbender |
#TOPIC Trademark Policy |
| 11:01 |
|
I think we are about done, except for the final wording of 2a/2b from Marketing |
| 11:02 |
|
Sean, do you want to comment? |
| 11:02 |
SeanDaly |
just a minute... |
| 11:02 |
walterbender |
FYI, I heard from the SFC re soas. |
| 11:02 |
SeanDaly |
looking for page :-( |
| 11:03 |
sdziallas |
hullos, lurking. |
| 11:03 |
walterbender |
"As far as Sugar on a Stick goes, we have in fact submitted the trademark |
| 11:03 |
|
application for it, so while it has not yet been granted, we're taking |
| 11:03 |
|
affirmative steps to protect the mark as SL's." |
| 11:03 |
SeanDaly |
excellent news |
| 11:03 |
mchua |
Awesome. |
| 11:04 |
walterbender |
The SFC did not have any problems with any of the proposed changes either |
| 11:04 |
SeanDaly |
still looking for page |
| 11:04 |
walterbender |
mchua: maybe while Sean is looking, we can try to answer the Fedora question? |
| 11:04 |
mchua |
Yes, let me find the link archive to Paul's message. |
| 11:04 |
walterbender |
Here are Paul's questions: |
| 11:05 |
mchua |
also trying to get Paul in here. |
| 11:05 |
walterbender |
Basically, the questions are these: |
| 11:05 |
|
1. Does Sugar Labs *currently* own the Sugar on a Stick trademark? |
| 11:05 |
|
2a. If not, are they comfortable with our using the name for this |
| 11:05 |
|
release, and revisiting next release to make sure we're in |
| 11:05 |
|
adherence with their guidelines? |
| 11:05 |
|
2b. If so, do the level of modifications in Sebastian's SoaS spin make |
| 11:05 |
|
it ineligible for their trademark? |
| 11:05 |
|
We just answered #1 |
| 11:05 |
SeanDaly |
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy |
| 11:05 |
walterbender |
I think 2b is no--the changes do not make it ineligible |
| 11:05 |
mchua |
#link http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]nuary/009838.html has the questions and some commentary, with Paul acting as a liason to the Fedora Board. |
| 11:06 |
|
#info Question from the Fedora Board: Does SL currently own the SoaS trademark? |
| 11:06 |
walterbender |
or restating, the changes are not "substantial" |
| 11:07 |
mchua |
(what's a quick restatement of the answer to #1, for #info-ing for the logs?) |
| 11:07 |
walterbender |
mchua: As per the message I relayed from the SFC, we do "own" the Sugar on a Stick trademark (pending) |
| 11:07 |
|
and will protect it |
| 11:07 |
mchua |
#info We do own the SoaS trademark (pending) and will protect it. |
| 11:07 |
|
#link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy |
| 11:08 |
|
being meetbot-friendly today, for faster lazy notes reading later ;) |
| 11:08 |
SeanDaly |
re the Sugar on a Stick tm, we have had an arguable claim, and are now registering formally |
| 11:08 |
walterbender |
so I think we are clear on our affirmative answer here. |
| 11:08 |
mchua |
Do we need a motion on 2b? |
| 11:09 |
|
think it's pretty clear |
| 11:09 |
walterbender |
do we also agree that the Fedora SoaS spin is eligible to be called SoaS? |
| 11:09 |
|
I think that is also clear... we have agreed to this already |
| 11:09 |
|
as per 5a |
| 11:09 |
mchua |
#info Yes, Sebastian's SoaS Fedora Spin is acceptable for the SoaS trademark; the changes are "not substantial" as per our trademark policy section 5a (see link above) |
| 11:10 |
|
That was easy. |
| 11:10 |
walterbender |
ok |
| 11:10 |
|
can we return to 2a/2b and Sean's edits? |
| 11:11 |
SeanDaly |
just a minute, what is the difference between SoaS and SoaS? i'm confused |
| 11:11 |
sdziallas |
stickster: hey! fyi: http://me.etin.gs/sugar-meetin[…]0100115_1101.html |
| 11:11 |
stickster |
Sorry I'm late -- thanks sdziallas. mchua is filling me in via PM |
| 11:11 |
mchua |
I just summarized our #info answers to 1 and 2b. |
| 11:11 |
sdziallas |
notes that he doesn't intend to do various SoaS's. |
| 11:12 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: can you restate your question? |
| 11:12 |
SeanDaly |
sdziallas: this is why i'm confused |
| 11:12 |
sdziallas |
walterbender: I think it's the "Fedora SoaS spin" phrasing. |
| 11:12 |
|
(which is a bit strange) |
| 11:12 |
SeanDaly |
mchau: i think it's your phrase confusing me, "fedora Spin" |
| 11:13 |
mchua |
SeanDaly: Oh - it was referring to sdziallas's decision to do this upcoming release of SoaS as a Fedora Spin. |
| 11:13 |
SeanDaly |
for me the SoaS name and mark refers to sdz's project |
| 11:13 |
|
there isn't another one? |
| 11:13 |
walterbender |
sdziallas, stickster, mchua: for the record: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]inutes-2009-12-18 is also relevant to Fedora Q2b |
| 11:13 |
sdziallas |
SeanDaly: Nope! |
| 11:13 |
SeanDaly |
ok less confused |
| 11:13 |
sdziallas |
That's why the phrasing might indeed be confusing. |
| 11:13 |
bernie |
I got disconnected, sorry |
| 11:14 |
sdziallas |
I've proposed that the next SoaS build gets build by Fedora as part of their spin process. |
| 11:14 |
mchua |
bernie: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy has backscroll. |
| 11:14 |
SeanDaly |
may I propose clearer wording for 5a? |
| 11:14 |
walterbender |
bernie: http://pastebin.be/22945 |
| 11:15 |
SeanDaly |
The "Sugar on a Stick" name and mark is associated with a specific Sugar Labs liveUSB project. You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key or other support, bbut you must choose a different name to avoid confusion. |
| 11:15 |
walterbender |
sdziallas: it seems the process of creating the spin is somewhat orthogonal... as it should be in my opinion |
| 11:16 |
|
SeanDaly: that is clear |
| 11:16 |
SeanDaly |
i find 2a and 2b a bit foggy |
| 11:16 |
sdziallas |
walterbender: well... I'm just saying that I certainly don't want several $DISTRO SoaS editions. |
| 11:17 |
walterbender |
seandaly: but other than switching the sentence order, is it really any different? |
| 11:17 |
SeanDaly |
sdziallas: i agree |
| 11:17 |
bernie |
finished reading backscroll |
| 11:17 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: but I am happy with that restatement... |
| 11:17 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: meaning is same, but I think is clearer |
| 11:17 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: you replaced required with must... I suppose that is a wash? |
| 11:18 |
bernie |
sdziallas: I agree |
| 11:18 |
SeanDaly |
"are required" is fine |
| 11:18 |
bernie |
sdziallas: the other existing live usb distros are already called something different |
| 11:18 |
mchua |
stickster: did we answer the questions the Fedora Board had? |
| 11:18 |
bernie |
sdziallas: I think it's pacific that SoaS means Fedora SoaS from now on |
| 11:18 |
sdziallas |
bernie: yes! I just don't want anybody to get the impression that the Fedora SoaS will be anything different than SoaS. - I want them to be the same for now. |
| 11:19 |
mchua |
folks, I know stickster has to run in about 15m so is there anything else we need to ask him/want to clear up? |
| 11:19 |
|
walterbender: you had something about translations? |
| 11:19 |
SeanDaly |
bernie: the idea with tm policy is protection from the ill-intentioned... |
| 11:19 |
sdziallas |
bernie: hehe ;) |
| 11:19 |
walterbender |
I would like to clear up the question Rita had last week |
| 11:19 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: +1 |
| 11:19 |
stickster |
mchua: Yes, my questions are all answered |
| 11:19 |
walterbender |
if she makes a .de version of SoaS, is Fedora OK with that? |
| 11:20 |
SeanDaly |
getting back to 2a and 2b, i think there is a clear case for making translated versions simple |
| 11:20 |
|
but, where are bug reports filed for translated versions? |
| 11:20 |
mchua |
stickster: ^^ walterbender's question |
| 11:20 |
SeanDaly |
what contact info is given? |
| 11:21 |
mchua |
#info All of Fedora's questions have been answered, w00t. |
| 11:21 |
SeanDaly |
is Activity set identical? |
| 11:21 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: but I want to make sure that Fedora is OK with translations too, since SoaS has to uphold both our and their stamdards. |
| 11:21 |
sdziallas |
walterbender: I'm encouraging them to work with the SoaS team to get the files into our GIT repo. |
| 11:21 |
stickster |
walterbender: That's permissible from our standpoint, which is 100% remixability. Usage of "SoaS" on that .de version would really be up to SL, but Fedora wouldn't have any problem with it. Helpful if it was labeled clearly |
| 11:21 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: that is a different question altogehter... |
| 11:22 |
|
stickster: thanks for the clarification. I'll let Rita know. |
| 11:23 |
bernie |
sdziallas: but would you object with them working on a separate repo if they prefer for interal reasons? |
| 11:23 |
|
*internal |
| 11:23 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: we have thus far skirted the issue of activities, additional content, etc., presuming it is all free... |
| 11:23 |
sdziallas |
bernie: if they decide to havily modify the system or content, yes. |
| 11:23 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: I think I would like to defer that set of mods to a separate discussion |
| 11:23 |
bernie |
sdziallas: then they should rename SoaS to something else, right? |
| 11:23 |
sdziallas |
bernie: exactly! |
| 11:24 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: if it's called Sugar on a Stick... |
| 11:24 |
sdziallas |
bernie: if they just want to change the language, it's certainly fine with me to be called SoaS. |
| 11:24 |
SeanDaly |
i believe translation is a special case of "remix" |
| 11:24 |
mchua |
#info Question for Fedora: Are translations (example: Rita's .de version of SoaS) of the SoaS Fedora Spin accepable for Fedora? |
| 11:24 |
bernie |
sdziallas: and, if I understand correctly, something like "German SoaS" or "Sugar on a SD Card" would be fine with us? |
| 11:25 |
sdziallas |
bernie: you mean when it's heavily modified or just the language changed? |
| 11:25 |
SeanDaly |
but translation to me means: same download page, same Activity set, same bugtracker |
| 11:25 |
mchua |
#info Yes, from Fedora's standpoint on Fedora Spins, it is permissible; their goal is 100% remixability. Usage of the word "SoaS" on that .de version is SL's decision. |
| 11:25 |
sdziallas |
SeanDaly: +1! |
| 11:25 |
SeanDaly |
just different language |
| 11:25 |
bernie |
sdziallas: let's say they have heavily modified to the point they can't use the plain SoaS name any more |
| 11:25 |
|
SeanDaly: +1 |
| 11:26 |
sdziallas |
bernie: German SoaS won't work from my point of view, then. |
| 11:26 |
|
bernie: because it's just not SoaS anymore. |
| 11:26 |
|
(since they don't follow the criteria SeanDaly just mentioned) |
| 11:26 |
SeanDaly |
put another way: how can we support sdz in bringing localization? |
| 11:26 |
walterbender |
does anyone else have any changes/comments re the TM guidelines? |
| 11:27 |
bernie |
sdziallas: then I think we're being even more restrictive than Fedora. It is acceptable to call something "Fedora Lab" or "Super Hacked Fedora" by Red Hat's trademark policy, I believe |
| 11:27 |
|
mchua: right? |
| 11:27 |
sdziallas |
bernie: nope. |
| 11:27 |
stickster |
bernie: not correct |
| 11:27 |
walterbender |
I think the issues re process are orthogonal... |
| 11:28 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: re my mail about tm and label program: I think we can't escape imposing as condition a request + authorization step |
| 11:28 |
stickster |
wants to make sure everyone understands his opinion was on the permissibility of a separately hosted .de version of SoaS -- Fedora is not being asked to build or maintain any separate SoaS at this point, other than sdziallas' spin |
| 11:29 |
|
correct? |
| 11:29 |
walterbender |
correct |
| 11:29 |
sdziallas |
stickster: what I'm suggesting is to have simple kickstart files for other languages, as some Fedora Spins already have, too (which haven't been approved, either). |
| 11:29 |
bernie |
stickster: I think we agree on this. I'm making a wider argument on permitted usage of the SoaS base name in derivatives. |
| 11:30 |
sdziallas |
bernie: if you alter it substantially, it's not SoaS anymore. |
| 11:30 |
walterbender |
the question is simply, if someone wants to make a .de version of SoaS, no matter what process is used to make it, as long as it is not a substantial change to Sugar (as per 2a) is it OK with Fedora as wll. |
| 11:30 |
stickster |
Yes. |
| 11:31 |
|
walterbender: ^^ Thanks :-) |
| 11:31 |
bernie |
sdziallas: well, "Funky SoaS" is clearly not SoaS. It's about how much we want to be restrictive about the name SoaS |
| 11:31 |
sdziallas |
bernie: sure, it is. |
| 11:31 |
walterbender |
bernie: are you wanting to reopen 2a? |
| 11:31 |
sdziallas |
bernie: you can't go and take Ubuntu and call it My Fedora, either. |
| 11:31 |
SeanDaly |
in my view we need to foster multi languages for SoaS , but we can't have those all over the Net |
| 11:31 |
bernie |
I'd like us to be as restrictive as the mark Linux (i.e. not too much) |
| 11:31 |
stickster |
notes that Fedora allows remixes that depart substantially by providing a secondary mark and logo. |
| 11:31 |
sdziallas |
stickster: that's probably the way to go, yes. |
| 11:31 |
stickster |
You'll find that information in our trademark guidelines page as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki[…]es#Secondary_mark |
| 11:32 |
|
oops |
| 11:32 |
sdziallas |
(it's actually a really cool policy) |
| 11:32 |
stickster |
You'll find that information in our trademark guidelines page as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki[…]es#Secondary_Mark |
| 11:32 |
bernie |
walterbender: did we already vote 2a? |
| 11:32 |
SeanDaly |
bernie: to build Sugar on a Stick brand, it has to be crystal clear what that means |
| 11:33 |
walterbender |
bernie: I was about to make a motion... |
| 11:33 |
tomeu |
bernie: on sugar, soas, or both? |
| 11:33 |
walterbender |
bernie: we have been discussing 2a for over 1 month |
| 11:33 |
SeanDaly |
the concept is to reserve the SoaS name to the SL project, while opening a label program with the Sugar mark for other, differently named projects |
| 11:33 |
bernie |
well, if there's general consensus abut 2a being appropriate, then I guess I'll withdraw my proposal |
| 11:33 |
|
walterbender: oh, good |
| 11:34 |
|
SeanDaly: I think it's too restrictive to reserve both SoaS and names based on SoaS such as "Funky SoaS" |
| 11:34 |
|
SeanDaly: Linux doesn't do that, although Ubuntu and maybe Fedora does |
| 11:34 |
SeanDaly |
bernie: we can't build the brand otherwise :-( |
| 11:34 |
walterbender |
Motion: We agree to adopt the 15 January 2010 draft of the Trademakr Policy (ref: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy) |
| 11:35 |
|
Discussion: |
| 11:35 |
SeanDaly |
bernie: "Linux" is a whopping failure as a brand, unfortunately |
| 11:35 |
walterbender |
This draft includes the various modifications discussed over the past 6 weeks. |
| 11:35 |
mchua |
listens to walterbender |
| 11:35 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: as i say, per my mail i don't think we can escape an authorization step |
| 11:36 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: Linux has a very strong brand exactly *because* its trademark policy was relatively liberal (although not in the same userbase we're interested in) |
| 11:36 |
walterbender |
The significant changes since our last meeting are the finalized language in 2a and 2b from Marketing |
| 11:36 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: I don't think the difference is that it's a failure, rather than people don't give support for "linux", but for fedora, ubuntu, etc |
| 11:36 |
|
that's why the fedora and ubuntu brands are more protected |
| 11:36 |
walterbender |
specifically: "sweetened by" |
| 11:36 |
SeanDaly |
i am talking about the *brand*, not the project |
| 11:36 |
mchua |
walterbender: I second the motion. We can refine and amend it later on, but this is a good start to have. |
| 11:36 |
tomeu |
we could be more liberal with sugar than with soas |
| 11:37 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: well, I agree that Linux as a brand is a failure in certain markets and a success in others. Exactly the same of Windows :-) |
| 11:37 |
walterbender |
and a minor modification in 5a--sentence order--for clarity |
| 11:37 |
mchua |
bernie, SeanDaly: can we take the Linux-as-a-brand convo to list? |
| 11:37 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: again, 2a nad 2b are not ready per my mail |
| 11:37 |
walterbender |
bernie: GNU/Linux :) |
| 11:38 |
bernie |
walterbender: lol :-) |
| 11:38 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: can we fix them now? |
| 11:38 |
SeanDaly |
anyone who wants to wiggle has a loophole |
| 11:38 |
bernie |
mchua: if we move the conversation to the list, then we can't vote now |
| 11:38 |
mchua |
bernie: No, just the "is Linux a strong brand" discussion. |
| 11:38 |
SeanDaly |
the way i see it is similar to GPL, certain restrictions apply |
| 11:38 |
bernie |
mchua: or we can just say it's been sufficiently discussed already and proceed with a vote anyway |
| 11:38 |
SeanDaly |
we need a basis to revoke a trademark license |
| 11:39 |
cjb` |
peers in briefly |
| 11:39 |
SeanDaly |
the best way is to have explicitly granted it |
| 11:39 |
walterbender |
hi cjb... happy hunting? |
| 11:39 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: I'd make the restrictions the same of the Linux TM or the Wikipedia TM: i.e. you can't use it in disparaging or confusing ways |
| 11:40 |
cjb |
walterbender: starts in 20 mins, just finished carrying some carloads over |
| 11:40 |
mchua |
walterbender, what else is on the agenda to get through today? I'd like to make sure we're not blocking anything else time-sensitive before we spent the rest of our 25 minutes on trademark. |
| 11:40 |
SeanDaly |
the several cases we have dealt with up to now show we are still finding sceanrios |
| 11:40 |
|
greets cjb |
| 11:40 |
walterbender |
bernie: that is what we are trying to do, but we need to define what we consider confusing |
| 11:40 |
cjb |
mchua: certainly finances |
| 11:41 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: yes, that's why request/auth cycle necessary: so we can decide if use of our mark confusing or not |
| 11:41 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: I'd be ok with a restrictive policy in our legal mumbo jumbo if we agree to be very liberal and quick in approving those requesting a license |
| 11:41 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: can you please restate exactly what remains problematic re 2a. 2b, other than scope, which Bernie has a problem with. |
| 11:42 |
SeanDaly |
explicitly, 2a and 2b require written permission, only 2c doesn't |
| 11:42 |
mchua |
cjb: Yeah, that would be my primary concern. |
| 11:42 |
|
I also don't want to block bernie getting any servers he needs. |
| 11:43 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: So if we just say that, then you are OK? |
| 11:43 |
CanoeBerry |
Is a compromise betwe bernie & SeanDaly's point-of-view possible, with notification required but not permission? |
| 11:44 |
SeanDaly |
yes - 2a and 2b we authorize explicitly (label program) |
| 11:44 |
bernie |
mchua: thanks, but I also don't want to delay the TM discussion any further... it's been going on for months |
| 11:44 |
SeanDaly |
CanoeBerry: no, because the ill-intentioned seeking a loophole will just claim they sent a mail they never did |
| 11:45 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: see the edits I just made to http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy |
| 11:45 |
SeanDaly |
i understand the motivation to get it done, but it's more important to get it right |
| 11:45 |
|
looking now |
| 11:46 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: can we amend 2a saying explicitly something that makes it clear that Sugar Labs generally grants free trademark licenses in most cases? |
| 11:46 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: yes much better for protecting & growing tm's |
| 11:47 |
|
bernie: why? |
| 11:47 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: seems like a good compromise between being liberal about the TM and defending it. |
| 11:47 |
SeanDaly |
our goal is to grow awareness, to do that we need to protect marks |
| 11:48 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: I don't think it hurts to suggest we are going to do our best to be coorperatve |
| 11:48 |
SeanDaly |
again, i'm not worried about the sincere, just the insincere |
| 11:48 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: my problem is that people will feel the need to call their product FrugBluz instead of "SoaS Paraguay" because they think they'd not get a license |
| 11:48 |
CanoeBerry |
SeanDaly aside: if we need ever need to enforce emails being received that is a solvable problem-- email notification could be accompanied by a requirement that someone post the hybrid/remix/whatever to a wiki listing of all such offshoots. |
| 11:48 |
mchua |
bernie: I think this is where we show things by our actions and deeds, not by words. |
| 11:49 |
SeanDaly |
bernie: that's easy, we link to a FAQ which explains how simple the procedure is and gives examples |
| 11:49 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: let's put it this way: will we be liberal in granting TM licenses if those asking them are not being abusive? |
| 11:49 |
SeanDaly |
CanoeBerry: see my mail on this topic to the marketing list - URLs part of request |
| 11:49 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: And, if so, do we have a problem in saying so explicitly? |
| 11:50 |
SeanDaly |
bernie: 1) why not? 2) sure - like I say, in the FAQ |
| 11:50 |
bernie |
mchua: words are cheap, if this is what we do, why not say so prominently at the top of the TM page? |
| 11:51 |
walterbender |
bernie: we have some language--maybe not enough--in the preamble |
| 11:51 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: ok, then I guess I agree with 2a with the FAQ clarifying this (or we could say so at the top of the page to make it easy to find) |
| 11:52 |
SeanDaly |
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]nuary/002621.html |
| 11:52 |
bernie |
walterbender: "The purpose of this policy is to protect the public, by ensuring that the identity, provenance, and open-source nature of Sugar Labs® remain clear." |
| 11:53 |
walterbender |
bernie: that might be the place to say "We try to be be very liberal and quick in approving those requesting a license" |
| 11:53 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: /me reads |
| 11:53 |
|
walterbender: +1 |
| 11:53 |
SeanDaly |
we could add to preamble our objective to spread Sugar and encourage use on different platforms |
| 11:53 |
bernie |
shall we add a licensingsugarlabs.org alias? |
| 11:54 |
SeanDaly |
i would oppose "liberal and quick" just look how long it took to resolve SoaS debate :-( |
| 11:54 |
walterbender |
we should also explciitly reference http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]s#License_request |
| 11:54 |
SeanDaly |
bernie: I think trademarkssugarlabs.org better, this is distinct from software licensing |
| 11:55 |
sdziallas |
"we will do our best to work with you on... blahblah" |
| 11:55 |
SeanDaly |
sdziallas: +1 |
| 11:55 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: this also looks good, I hadn't noticed it before: http://www.linuxmark.org/license.php |
| 11:55 |
sdziallas |
also curious where this alias would redirect |
| 11:56 |
SeanDaly |
bernie: yes, it's good... and more restrictive than ours :D |
| 11:56 |
bernie |
sdziallas: yeah, we should probably nominate a licensing person |
| 11:56 |
|
sdziallas: the fsf has one |
| 11:56 |
|
sdziallas: perhaps a panel? (jesus, not! :-) |
| 11:56 |
sdziallas |
bernie: DOH! :) |
| 11:57 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: the preamble is a good place to explain our objectives of spreading Sugar while protecting our marks |
| 11:57 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: +1 |
| 11:57 |
|
sdziallas, walterbender: can we make SeanDaly our "licensing panel" to start with? |
| 11:58 |
SeanDaly |
in my mind, auth by SLOBs vote if request is in order; just somebody to evaluate request and make reco to SLOBs (this could be me) |
| 11:58 |
sdziallas |
would like to have a SoaS team in the loop, obviously. |
| 11:58 |
bernie |
I may make mail for licensingsugarlabs.org (or trademarksugarlabs.org ?) go to Sean... and maybe also to marketing@, or slobs@? |
| 11:59 |
sdziallas |
(in case it concerns SoaS, at least) |
| 11:59 |
mchua |
so the "licensing person" makes sure it gets brought up as a proper motion in a SLOBs meeting, basically? |
| 11:59 |
|
if it passes general sanity tests? |
| 11:59 |
bernie |
sdziallas: then we should then distinguish licensing requests for SoaS from those for Sugar... I had both in mind at the same time. |
| 11:59 |
SeanDaly |
bernie: trademark@ is better this is for trademark licensing, not SW licensing |
| 12:00 |
bernie |
mchua: no, I was thinking that the licensing person would make the decision on his/her own |
| 12:00 |
walterbender |
OK. I added new language in the preamble and after Section 2b. Please have a look |
| 12:00 |
bernie |
mchua: to streamline the procedure |
| 12:00 |
walterbender |
Also, we have once again run out of time :( |
| 12:00 |
CanoeBerry |
will all decisions be public, or just the final verdict? |
| 12:00 |
SeanDaly |
mchua: yes, a procedure in place: mail arrives, response saying is under consideration, request evaluated, returned if incomplete, when complete passed for vote with reco |
| 12:00 |
sdziallas |
bernie: probably, yeah. well, at least I believe there should be technical approval before something which wants to use the SoaS name goes up SLOBs (Fedora has the Spin SIG which has to decide on the technical approval, the Board afterwards on the trademark one). |
| 12:00 |
mchua |
SeanDaly: +1 to that procedure. |
| 12:01 |
SeanDaly |
The purpose of this policy is to protect the public, by ensuring that the identity, provenance, and open-source nature of Sugar Labs® remain clear, while encouraging Sugar use and development on different platforms and in different languages. |
| 12:01 |
walterbender |
CanoeBerry: I would imagine that the organization requesting the mark would be asked if hey are OK wth a public discussion, but by default, for their privacy, it should be a closed discussion |
| 12:01 |
bernie |
mchua: requesting a slobs vote means that we delay by 1 week *minimum*. We could trust Sean to do a good job at licensing, and if he doesn't people can always appeal to the board |
| 12:01 |
|
dogi: ciao |
| 12:01 |
mchua |
bernie: I would rather work on improving the decision-making efficiency of SLOBs. |
| 12:01 |
SeanDaly |
sdziallas: i agree - eval will have several criteria, per my mail to mktg list linked above |
| 12:02 |
dogi |
cioa bernie |
| 12:02 |
mchua |
bernie: If people *know* they will have to wait a week, I think that's fine. |
| 12:02 |
bernie |
sdziallas: it seems a little overkill to me |
| 12:02 |
sdziallas |
SeanDaly: okay, cool :) (I wouldn't want a vote on SoaS to happen in private when I can't watch it) |
| 12:02 |
walterbender |
well, I must withdraw my motion and will make a new motion next weel--16UTC :) |
| 12:02 |
sdziallas |
bernie: so SLOBs would just vote on any SoaS thing in private without telling me? |
| 12:02 |
|
s/would/could |
| 12:03 |
walterbender |
#action: between now and then we should finalize the preamble |
| 12:03 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: legal stuff usually best confidential... because the ill-intentioned will do evil best to exploit dissent or weak arguments... |
| 12:03 |
bernie |
mchua: if it's really a week, thant it would be fine |
| 12:03 |
mchua |
People don't make things that need trademark decisions on the spur of the moment - to go from "idea to make $distro!" to "oh, I've got a testable $distro!" usually takes... at least a week. |
| 12:03 |
|
imo. |
| 12:03 |
sdziallas |
mchua: +1. |
| 12:03 |
walterbender |
I think the discussion about the process of implementing the guidelines should be a separate discssion. |
| 12:03 |
tomeu |
bernie: we do votes by email as well |
| 12:03 |
bernie |
sdziallas: yeah, for SoaS I would agree that you should be at least consulted :-) |
| 12:03 |
SeanDaly |
sdziallas: myself, I cannot imagine voting on anything SoaS without consulting you |
| 12:04 |
bernie |
tomeu: yeah right |
| 12:04 |
tomeu |
mchua: haven't we already improved decision making compared to what bernie says? |
| 12:04 |
mchua |
sdziallas: Yes, and I think we could do a better job of lining up and announcing the SLOBs meeting agenda in advance so that nobody gets blindsided. |
| 12:04 |
walterbender |
so can we please, please do our homework between meetings this time so we can reach some consensus? |
| 12:04 |
mchua |
tomeu: I believe we have - it's the making of motions we need to work on, not so much passing them. ;) |
| 12:04 |
|
walterbender: What's our homework? |
| 12:04 |
sdziallas |
bernie, SeanDaly: cool! :) (sounds like I'm fine then) |
| 12:05 |
walterbender |
clean up the TM policy language |
| 12:05 |
SeanDaly |
mchua: my homework is a preamble which shows how friendly we are and willing to grant tm licenses |
| 12:05 |
|
mchua: and, finalizing the procedure for the label program |
| 12:05 |
bernie |
tomeu: I guess it depends how controversial the decision is. for those where we're divided, we may take a lot of time... |
| 12:05 |
walterbender |
and a final review of the entirety of the document... |
| 12:05 |
bernie |
tomeu: which is not necessarily bad, it's how democracy is supposed to work :) |
| 12:05 |
|
sdziallas: yep |
| 12:05 |
SeanDaly |
mchua: and, probably putting the final text for the label program in 2a/2b |
| 12:06 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: +1 |
| 12:06 |
walterbender |
bernie: in fairness, we have been at this for over a month and there has been plenty of opportunity to raise these issues early... in fact many had been raised early and discussed. |
| 12:06 |
|
well, let's call it a day. |
| 12:06 |
mchua |
bernie, perhaps the two of us could figure out your requirements for what it'd mean for trademarks to be a non-PITA to get, so we can check the proposed motions againt that next week. |
| 12:06 |
walterbender |
thank you everyone. |
| 12:06 |
bernie |
SeanDaly: sorry for being so pushy about the friendly thing. I cared very much for it :-/ |
| 12:06 |
mchua |
Thanks, Walter. |
| 12:06 |
SeanDaly |
I admit I am cautious, but for good cause |
| 12:06 |
walterbender |
#endmeeting |