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

#sugar-meeting, 2010-02-26

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
11:07 tomeu hi all
11:07 walterbender quick rollcall
11:07 waves
11:08 cjb here
11:08 tomeu raises hand
11:08 cjb did people get a copy of my mails to Karen yesterday?  I CC'd conservancy-sugar@sfc, not sure if that was right.
11:08 walterbender cjb: yes
11:08 shall we begin then
11:09 #TOPIC Trademark Policy
11:09 cjb, SeanDaly: can you summarize where we are at?
11:09 cjb that's good.  I actually don't have any further updates past that thread.
11:09 SeanDaly cjb: I just added to karen mail, but I didn't see SLOBs on copy
11:10 cjb SeanDaly: oh, I didn't see any mail from you
11:10 conservancy-sugar@softwarefreedom.org
11:10 was on the CC, and that's SLOBS
11:10 SeanDaly I'm at a loss as to how to advance on this
11:10 ok for CC
11:11 cjb anyway, the summary is much the same -- we have a disagreement on how onerous the trademark process should be, and the crux of the disagrement seems to be over whether automatic trademark licenses are enforceable, so that's what we're asking Karen.  Haven't heard a definite answer back yet, sorry for not sending the mail to her sooner.
11:11 SeanDaly granting a license to anybody with an e-mail means a totally ineffective policy
11:12 cjb right, that's the disagreement.
11:12 SeanDaly Not poossible to build a brand with a policy like that
11:12 cjb if Karen agrees about the unenforceability of that idea, we'll be getting somewhere, because it means we can take that disagreement off the table.
11:13 SeanDaly I understand some people are shy but still
11:13 walterbender IMHO, we should ask for written permission. If it seems too heavy-weight,we will know pretty wuickly.
11:13 CanoeBerry Late as usual, hi all!
11:13 walterbender it s the conservative thing to do, but it breaks the impass.
11:14 SeanDaly here's a litmus test for enforceability: a clearly infringing website that's been up for montths after permission was denied: http://schoolkey.net
11:14 cjb SeanDaly: okay!  so, let's take this example.
11:14 this is an example of how a trademark license is totally orthogonal to enforceability.
11:14 this site would not be covered by an automatic trademark license.
11:15 it does not meet our requirements for an automatic trademark license.
11:15 SeanDaly Although a cycle of application-review-feedback-license seems burdensome, Ii don't think it wiill be
11:15 cjb has this site applied for a trademark license?
11:16 SeanDaly cjb: ok, and it fulfills its role of damaging our marks through confusion
11:16 cjb it just seems like a totally separate issue.  you have an obviously infringing site, and we're reluctant to do anything about it, but I don't know why.  I don't think the answer has anything to do with trademark policy, because I think we've made it very clear that the site is against any trademark policy we might adopt.
11:16 walterbender cjb: the site has not been approved and permission, as far as I know, has never been sought for this site
11:16 SeanDaly Now just imagine a site like that, but financed and promoted
11:16 cjb walterbender: So, then, this situation is irrelevant to our trademark policy.
11:17 It's just a case of a site that's obviously using our marks without permission, and without seeking permission.
11:17 SeanDaly walterbender: we asked Caroline to apply for permission, she did so a few days after the SLOBs elections, we responded several weeks later denying permission in its current form
11:17 cjb We should ask Karen to tell the site to stop doing that, independent of any discussion about whether automatic trademark policies can work.
11:17 walterbender cjb: the reason we have been slow is because we haven't clarified our policies, but we have spoken with Solution Grove in general...
11:17 cjb: agreed.
11:18 SeanDaly Caroline made the effort which II appreciate to stop using sugaronastick.com, but use of our marks in that way is damaging
11:18 walterbender cjb: actually, I was unaware of this sight. I knew about soas.com, which did comply with our request.
11:18 cjb walterbender: Okay.  But there's a strong reason I'm reluctant to use this example as saying anything about enforceability of automatic trademark licenses is that there's no way it would ever come close to receiving an automatic trademark license from us; it wouldn't meet the conditions.
11:18 SeanDaly not soas.com, sugaronastick.com
11:19 walterbender SeanDaly: yes. my shorthand
11:19 SeanDaly cjb: it(s a question of the horses leaving the barn
11:19 bernie I was unaware of schoolkey.com too
11:19 SeanDaly To build the Sugar brand we need to protect it
11:19 If we are ineffective in protecting it, we can't build it
11:20 walterbender cjb: I guess I am once again confused. It seems to me that asking people to ask explicitly will force our hand--I think we will be more disciplined about enforcement with such a policy.
11:20 cjb please don't argue in absolutes; that statement can justify any level of trademark protectionism.  I hope we're trying to find a balance, not justify any behaviour that happens in the name of protecting ourselves.
11:21 walterbender cjb: but it is still up to us to do the work.
11:21 SeanDaly cjb: somebody has to build the brand and protect the marks
11:21 cjb walterbender: That might be.  But the point of the automatic license was that it (a) gives conditions up front, and (b) only applies to obvious cases of redistribution without modificattion, e.g. by Linux distros.
11:21 walterbender cjb: if things are auto, we'll tend to be auto as well. that is my experience.
11:22 cjb so having a limited automatic policy doesn't say anything about complicated cases like this one.  it just says something about simple cases of redistribution.
11:22 walterbender cjb: we can do (a) in either case
11:22 SeanDaly cjb: the distros should be promoting Sugar - right now they are hardly doiing so
11:22 walterbender and cjb: is there evidence that (b) is a problem?
11:23 cjb walterbender: just an intuition that we should be making it easier for distros to promote Sugar, but establishing a manual trademark procedure will make it harder for them.
11:23 walterbender cjb: wasn't a problem for Ruben and Triqsquel, or the opensuse guys, or dfarning and Ubuntu or for the Fedora guys
11:23 SeanDaly cjb: it's not the "simple" cases I'm concerned about... it's the complicated ones. Which is always the case with trademarks, which is why serious licensing will protect us better
11:24 for example, Sugar logo in Trisquel was fine
11:24 and, there was great communication and feedback
11:24 walterbender cjb: I think distros are a simple case; it is people who want to set up sugar-related sites that we need to be concerned about
11:24 cjb SeanDaly: sure.  that's why I'm only investigating an automatic license for the simple cases.  the complicated cases would not be covered by it; they would be manual.
11:24 walterbender: there is no disagreement.
11:24 SeanDaly cjb: some people are ill-intentioned
11:24 walterbender so if the auto example only handles a few simple cases, why bother?
11:24 SeanDaly and will arrange to fit in a simple case if it offers more loopholes
11:25 cjb I am trying to set up a *streamlined* process for distros and the simple case, while respecting that there should be an *approval* process for the complicated case.
11:25 walterbender: because the simple cases will be more prevalent than the complicated ones.
11:25 bernie SeanDaly, cjb: it seems the two of you are arguing two different arguments. cjb is not arguing against protecting the trademark, and Sean would not be opposed to some forms of automatic licensing if it did not create exploitable loopholes or weaken our ability to enforce TM protection in other cases.
11:25 SeanDaly, cjb: is my interpretation correct?
11:25 cjb lots of people may want to redistribute sugar.  most of them will not be modifying it.  most of them will be making it part of their own product.
11:25 SeanDaly cjb: I've proposed a two-track process: fast track and free of charge for noncommercial, slox-track for commercial
11:25 cjb bernie: That sounds right.
11:26 walterbender cjb: how many distros are out there? we've already spoken with Caixa Magica, Fedora, Suse, Triquel, Debian, GenToo, Triquel, Ubuntu, Mandriva,
11:26 SeanDaly bernie: yes - I want effective protection
11:26 cjb walterbender: and, if we pass a manual trademark process, we're going to have to speak with them all again.  perhaps some won't bother to speak to us.
11:26 SeanDaly cjb: distros are doing an inadequate job of promoting Sugar, we need to help them
11:27 cjb SeanDaly: you don't help distro people by making them sign legal agreements.  no-one wakes up thinking "I wish I had to enter into a trademark licensing agreement today".
11:27 SeanDaly cjb: why (besides shyness) might someone not want to speak with us? Someone well-intentioned I mean
11:27 CanoeBerry What's wrong with shyness?
11:28 walterbender cjb: we've already spoken will all of those... and as soon as we have our own agreement as to our policy, it is a cookie-cutter process to finalize
11:28 SeanDaly cjb: distros don't like dealing with trademarks... and look at their market share
11:28 walterbender cjb: actually, I think you do help distros... you protect them
11:28 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: :D
11:29 cjb SeanDaly: yes, mainly shyness, and perhaps a desire to avoid legal fees.
11:29 (not everyone is as willing to interpret legal documents themselves as we are.)
11:29 tomeu not a matter of workload?
11:29 walterbender cjb: If I were a distro and I could get a clear statement usage, I'd think that was a win... one less thing to worry about.
11:29 tomeu imagine if a distro had to understand the trademark license of each package they shipped
11:29 SeanDaly cjb: we don't do it ourselves, we have the SFC
11:29 walterbender and cjb: I think most distros are very tuned into these issues.
11:29 SeanDaly and distros *should* look into counsel
11:29 bernie SeanDaly: would something along these lines weaken our TM too much? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]mmunity_web_sites
11:30 cjb SeanDaly: no, I'm talking about them having to do it themselves
11:30 SeanDaly lots of pro bono available
11:30 sdziallas might have a link to contribute in a second... (hi)
11:30 SeanDaly look at SFLC
11:30 greets sdziallas
11:30 walterbender sdziallas: hi. see you next week??
11:30 sdziallas walterbender: oh yes, you will! :)
11:30 bernie sdziallas: maybe the same link I just posted?
11:31 cjb Another reason I'm against this manual policy is that it is a change from what every other notable free software project does.  Even strong brands like Firefox and Ubuntu do not require permission for redistribution.
11:31 sdziallas bernie: another one, but from Fedora, too.
11:31 SeanDaly bernie: yes we should certainly have a section in our FAQ for when license application not necessary
11:33 CanoeBerry Does anyone know the status of Sugar Labs's phone numbers?
11:33 Farning did a lot of work here last year.
11:33 SeanDaly cjb: thatt's not the case, if you change enough of Firefox or Ubuntu you can't use the trademarks
11:33 CanoeBerry If people perceive Sugar Labs as unapproachable, they will not approach.
11:33 bernie SeanDaly: well, I think this is the same thing cjb was asking for... more or less.
11:33 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: which phone numbers? I set up & paid for the press contact softphone
11:33 sdziallas I'm not sure where I saw it, but what I'm referring to is the point that things need to be (for Fedora) the way that downstream users wouldn't need another explicit permission if they took Sugar packages from Fedora.
11:33 CanoeBerry Same story with OLPC, rightly of wrongly.
11:33 sdziallas (actually, after re-thinking, I guess that's a non-issue)
11:34 (it just comes up almost every time people start talking about Mozilla's Firefox in Fedora)
11:34 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: ever wonder how journalists rreach us within the hour during media launches?
11:34 CanoeBerry I'm asking a serious question.
11:35 tomeu maybe CanoeBerry is not meaning a press contact?
11:35 SeanDaly Sugar Labs is in a unique position and it will be difficult to find historical examples to guide us
11:35 cjb SeanDaly: that's exactly what I'm asking for us to adopt.
11:35 sdziallas CanoeBerry: I think dfarning posted contact details in an e-mail quite some time ago... hang on.
11:35 SeanDaly we also set up feedback@sugarlabs.org which we put in our press releases
11:35 sdziallas CanoeBerry: how about this: Sugar Labs / P.O. Box 312 / Onalaska, WI 54650 / (608) 315-2406
11:35 SeanDaly and the SoaS pages
11:36 cjb If it's more clear for my argument to be "I think our trademark policy should be mostly the same as Firefox or Fedora's", I'm happy to make that argument instead.  I am not asking for any more or less than the policies they've adopted.
11:36 bernie sdziallas: what is that?
11:36 sdziallas CanoeBerry: don't ask me for the direct link to that, I just figured that I wrote it down, in case somebody asks for it. :)
11:36 SeanDaly sdziallas: the issue is, David thought the SFC would handle administrative, not just legal
11:36 CanoeBerry sdziallas: thanks, what's the link to that phone number?
11:36 sdziallas bernie: that's the address David set up (I recall an e-mail with it))
11:37 goes searching archives.
11:37 SeanDaly We use the SFC address in NYC as our official address, but unfortunately we can't ask the SFC to do all administrative stuff
11:37 bernie CanoeBerry: did you mean a press / PR phone number, or other kind of contacts, such as support lines?
11:37 CanoeBerry It's similar to the constant criticism of OLPC for not having a phone number.
11:37 Rightly or wrongly.
11:37 bernie sdziallas: oh yeah, I remember. did we advertise it anywherwe?
11:37 SeanDaly well, a support phone number means support staff to man the phones... so we point to #sugar
11:38 CanoeBerry Sugar Labs like OLPC will be perceived as unapprochable in exactly situations like this...
11:38 sdziallas bernie: I don't think so... (which is why I can't find it online anywhere right now, heh)
11:39 found it.
11:39 http://www.mail-archive.com/su[…]org/msg09742.html
11:39 CanoeBerry Thanks.
11:39 Bettee than no contact page at all ;)
11:39 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: SL is very well-referenced and contact phone number is in every press release; that number & e-mail have been used by journalists and nonjournalists alike to reach us
11:40 cjb SeanDaly: I disagree with your claim that an automatic trademark policy would make it any harder to protect against schoolkey.net.  Consider:  would Firefox find it hard to take down schoolkey.net?  Or Fedora?
11:40 sdziallas Heh. Took me to enter the phone number I had written down in google, so this has been pretty much a dead end, I guess. ;)
11:40 cjb the answer is no, they'd do it immediately, and their automatic trademark license is just irrelevant to that.  it makes the takedown neither easier nor harder.
11:40 tomeu just searched for "sugar labs phone number" without a too nice result, should we try to improve on that?
11:40 cjb we appear to have a different problem, which is that there's a site that's being obviously in violation of our marks for months, and we aren't doing anything about it.
11:41 bernie CanoeBerry: if you would like to be the person answering the phone, I would be glad to publish a number.
11:41 SeanDaly Well, Mozilla with huge funds for legal eagles would take it down in a snap. Fedora would call upon Red Hat legal eagles, who would take it down in a snap
11:41 cjb the answer to that problem is to do something about it, not to argue against having an automatic trademark policy that covers something totally different.
11:41 SeanDaly: argh!
11:41 CanoeBerry A contact page would be basic courtesy, regardless.
11:41 cjb if you don't have the power to *enforce* your license, it doesn't matter what license you have.
11:41 SeanDaly cjb: the thing to do about it is have an airtight case that any judge will agree with
11:41 cjb either we can take down infringing sites or we can't.  if we can't, who cares what our trademark policy is.
11:41 bernie CanoeBerry: oh, wait... I had not seen Sean's reply that the phone # is there already. So, shall we just advertise it better?
11:42 SeanDaly sure our legal resources are limited - all the more reason to provide tools to prevail
11:42 cjb: I care about a trademark policy because Ii want to build the brand... something not usually done in FLOSS projects
11:43 cjb SeanDaly: what tool are you missing?
11:43 currently, we have no policy, which means any site has to ask us for permission.
11:43 CanoeBerry bernie: yeah let's think about this -- if we want folks to contact us, we'd better not blame them for being "shy" when we're the ones being shy about out #!
11:43 *our number
11:44 tomeu heh
11:44 SeanDaly a license agreement which, if not respected, simplifies the work & effort to take down
11:44 cjb ok.  let us pretend that you have a license agreement now.
11:44 has this site signed it?  is it going to?
11:44 if not, the license agreement is irrelevant.
11:44 tomeu CanoeBerry: I would like to see someone to take ownership of the work area that contains making sure we are seen as contactable, maybe that would be a community manager?
11:44 cjb it's just a site that's using our marks without a license.
11:45 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: Walter, David and I have manned the pr@ and phone number these past 10 months... would you like to be on the response team?
11:45 bernie CanoeBerry, SeanDaly: maybe we should publish the phone numbers and snail mail addresses here? http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Contacts
11:45 SeanDaly cjb: we don't have licenses yet because we are still growing and haven't gotten around to it
11:45 cjb SeanDaly: no, I said we should assume that we do.
11:46 because one way to imagine whether something is a good idea is to assume that it has happened, and then investigate the properties of that world.
11:46 if we assume that we have a license agreement, how does that affect schoolkey.net?
11:46 bernie CanoeBerry, SeanDaly: the snail mail addr is at the bottom of the page. we could add another section for phone numbers.
11:46 SeanDaly: what's the PR phone you're using?
11:47 CanoeBerry bernie & SeanDaly: contact is Not an easy game but yes we can do better, yes i'll help.
11:47 cjb (my contention is that it doesn't.)
11:47 tomeu can/should we reuse the PR number for general contact?
11:47 cjb hm, perhaps we should move on to something else?
11:47 (15 mins left)
11:47 SeanDaly http://www.sugarlabs.org/press
11:47 walterbender #TOPIC: GSOC
11:48 SeanDaly cjb: had Caroline signed an agreement, no that site wouldn't be up today.
11:48 bernie cjb: for schoolkey.net, I think we might (politely) ask caroline to redirect it or remove the infringing trademarks.
11:48 cjb bernie: I agree.  I don't think that has anything to do with whether we adopt an automatic trademark policy for some cases -- it's just something we should do.
11:48 walterbender Tim and I are just starting to get our act together... expect some announcements in the coming week. But yes, we will apply.
11:48 bernie SeanDaly: I think she might just have not noticed, let's ask her nicely.
11:49 SeanDaly cjb: and we can go after any site which infringes our marks, with a likelihood to prevail if we can demonstrate that we are serious in our licensing
11:50 walterbender bernie: there is no reason not to be nice...
11:50 SeanDaly I had a nice talk with Caroline last week on a different subject
11:50 walterbender before we run out of time, can we discuss a process to reach consensus?
11:50 cjb SeanDaly: and your argument that projects that offer an automatic license cannot be serious about licensing fails, because Fedora, Ubuntu and Firefox are extremely serious about licensing concerns.
11:50 bernie SeanDaly: and I think cjb is right on this: sittes like schoolkey.net is would be clear violation of our TM, even if the owner never signed any agreement with us.
11:51 SeanDaly cjb: trademarks?
11:51 cjb SeanDaly: yes
11:51 Firefox has taken down sites that purported to offer Firefox downloads
11:51 walterbender we seem to be going over the same ground each week
11:51 cjb yeah
11:51 SeanDaly bernie: yes of course but to prevail you have to show you defend your marks
11:51 cjb here's a procedure:
11:51 * wait one more week for the thread with Karen
11:52 bernie SeanDaly: indeed.
11:52 cjb * if we're still stuck, consider formulating motions for SLOBs to vote on either way
11:52 SeanDaly cjb: Fedora, Ubuntu & Firefox have far vaster financing for legal defense
11:52 bernie SeanDaly: we won't say "do whatever you like with our marks, we won't enforce it on you"
11:52 cjb * also consider opening it up to iaep@ somehow
11:52 SeanDaly that's why we need to be smart
11:52 walterbender cjb: is it reasonable to ask that each board member write a brief position statement?
11:52 cjb SeanDaly: you keep changing your argument, though.  is it just about financing for legal defense?  has SFC said that they *don't* have financing for legal defense?
11:53 walterbender: that'd be fine with me.
11:53 SeanDaly cjb: what change?
11:53 tomeu cjb: do we have two clear positions on trademark?
11:53 cjb tomeu: I think you could make two clear positions this way:
11:53 SeanDaly cjb: but compating Mozilla, Canonical, & RRed Hat legal to the SFC is apples vs. oranges
11:53 bernie SeanDaly, cjb: how about we wait for Karen's response and then just vote?
11:54 cjb position 1:  SLOBs should adopt similar trademark policies to Ubuntu and Firefox, that allow simple redistribution of Sugar to happen without explicit permission subject to constraints, and require permission for more complicated cases.
11:54 position 2:  SLOBs should adopt a much stronger trademark policy than Ubuntu and Firefox, requiring explicit permission for everything.
11:54 SeanDaly bcjb: that''s for software not trademarks
11:54 cjb no, they have redistribution policies for both copyright and trademarks.
11:55 bernie cjb: put this way, I might not agree with either :-)
11:55 SeanDaly I think we should have as striong a policy as Dolby, without the fees for noncommercial
11:55 cjb without an automatic trademark policy to go along with the automatic copyright license, someone can not redistribute Sugar and call it Sugar.
11:55 okay, to rephrase:
11:55 SeanDaly and as strong branding as Intel, without being like Intel
11:55 cjb position 2:  SLOBs should adopt a much stronger trademark policy than Ubuntu and Firefox -- one that is as strong as Dolby and Intel -- requiring explicit permission for everything.
11:56 bernie cjb: I'd rather like to see the explicit text for what permissions are granted and under what conditions.
11:56 SeanDaly bernie: it's not a simple vote... if we can't build the brand, marketing becomes very limited
11:56 cjb bernie: yeah, that'd be useful.  it's in our old trademark policy draft.
11:56 walterbender cjb: I think that referring to asking for written permission vs auto approval in some cases is not a matter of the "strength" of the TM policy.
11:57 SeanDaly cjb: there's no "everything", there's a license which enumerates use cases
11:57 walterbender cjb: I think it is about the relationship we want to establish
11:57 cjb walterbender: well, it's hard to write concisely.  :)
11:57 bernie SeanDaly: I would be against a policy that would make brand protection hard or impossible... but I think we can find acceptable compromises.
11:57 cjb should we take how to proceed on trademarks to e-mail, and use our time together for other agenda items now?
11:57 SeanDaly cjb: we need to be talking to anyone who wants to distribute Sugar; why would we not want to?
11:58 bernie cjb: url?
11:58 cjb SeanDaly: because they might not want to talk to us.
11:58 walterbender cjb: and I don't see the harm in asking to have a conversation with the people who want to redistribute Sugar, esp. in these early days. and I think it would be good for us re discipline as well.
11:58 cjb walterbender: it's a very hard to measure harm.
11:58 people won't yell at you.  they just won't use your software.
11:59 bernie: sorry, url to what?
11:59 walterbender cjb: I wonder how we can get some data?
11:59 bernie cjb: of our current TM policy draft... the one you mentioned.
11:59 cjb bernie: oh, sorry
11:59 SeanDaly cjb: there is a small enough list of distros that we contact them directly
12:00 bernie: what is hard or impossible?
12:00 cjb bernie: I know you wanted to talk about buying a new machine -- did you want us to vote on that today?  If so, we should do it now.
12:00 walterbender cjb: again, from my interactions with the major distros, they haven't seen this as a problem... so I am assuming you are referring to some smaller operators.
12:00 bernie For the record, Firefox's brand protection policies were considered too strict by Debian.
12:00 cjb indeed.
12:00 walterbender bernie: it would be good to get some fsf feedback on this topic...
12:01 bernie therefore, they decided to create a rebranded fork called Iceweasel.
12:01 dogi iceweasel
12:01 walterbender but let's switch to bernie's topic in the minute we have left.
12:01 SeanDaly bernie: with all due respect to Debian which is a super project, their market share is just this side of unmeasurable and brand awareness is probably the same
12:01 bernie walterbender: ok, I'll ask rms et al.
12:01 walterbender #topic infrastructure
12:01 bernie solarsail is aging, and we need to replace it
12:01 cjb so, Debian/iceweasel is an example of the danger of adopting a strict trademark policy
12:01 as a result, the Firefox brand is not promoted at all
12:01 SeanDaly walterbender: FSF strong on copyright, but trademark not their thing
12:01 cjb because people on Debian use something called Iceweasel, even though the code is identical to Firefox
12:02 walterbender: yeah, I agree with SeanDaly about that -- the FSF is unlikely to take any position on trademarks.
12:02 but it's fine to ask.
12:02 walterbender hey... bernie has the floor
12:02 CanoeBerry It's 12 noon.  Let's please give lip-service to Walter's 3 other agenda items :)
12:02 Google Summer of Code, our
12:02 2010 goals, and our progress on 0.88
12:02 cjb bernie: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]ernance/Trademark , section 2.a., for that url
12:02 ok, over to bernie
12:03 bernie: it sounds like the WMF machines are much better than solarsail, though
12:03 walterbender bernie: can you up date us...
12:03 bernie ok
12:03 not only solarsail is way too slow to host some of our core services (trac), but it is becoming too unreliable even for the rest (wiki, planet).
12:03 ivan is in the process of acquiring a new machine for himself
12:04 SeanDaly cjb: Debian can't bring any marketshare to Firefox, so Firefox hasn't lost anything
12:04 bernie SeanDaly: they have lost mindshare and reputation within the free software community, but let's discuss it later
12:04 cjb I'm done arguing trademarks for today :-)
12:04 SeanDaly bernie: ok
12:05 bernie so, Ivan said he would be happy to continue hosting some SL services on the new solarsail
12:05 cjb bernie: since we have the WMF machines, I think comparisons to them make more sense than comparisons to solarsail
12:05 bernie however, there would be the usual strict policy for creating admin accounts
12:05 cjb it's probably best to move away from solarsail, right?
12:05 it made sense to use someone's personal machine while we had no others
12:05 bernie cjb: I think the WMF servers are nice for hosting the aslo cluster, because it can be made fully redundant
12:05 cjb but now there can't be very good reasons to do that
12:06 bernie but they'd not be reliable enough for our core services
12:06 cjb bernie: there are a *lot* of WMF servers!
12:06 more than you'd need for an ASLO cluster
12:06 bernie for those, I want a decent machine with redundant fans, PSUs, ecc memory, etc.
12:06 cjb I see
12:07 dogi andredundantharddrive
12:07 walterbender bernie: so how much $ do you want to spend?
12:07 bernie as bad as solarsail may seem, it's approaching 300 days of uptime.
12:07 the WMF servers and the two machines kindly provided by dogi are all consumer-grade hardware
12:08 cjb oh, and where would the new machine be hosted?
12:08 bernie walterbender: I think something in the $2000 range would suffice.
12:08 cjb that sounds good
12:08 bernie cjb: we have several good options, including the medialab, transworldix and rit.
12:08 cjb I was more worried about $3000, because it looked like we only had around $5000 free
12:09 but I think $2000 should be unobjectionable
12:09 bernie: okay.. do we know for sure that transworld and rit are happening?  have we got any machines into either space yet?
12:10 walterbender bernie: can you make a motion?
12:10 bernie my long-term goal is to consolidate Sugar Labs' infrastructure on just two main machines: a secure one for primary services (wiki, lists, git, trac) and another one for shell accounts and secondary services
12:10 cjb the new machine'd be the primary one?
12:10 bernie cjb: yes
12:10 cjb I'm a little worried about buying a machine before we know where to host it, and have checked that that's okay
12:10 but I guess you're right that there are many good-seeming options
12:11 would the motion be something like:
12:11 bernie cjb: we got authorized to rack machines at twix a while back, but then we shipped them nothing because the new server thing got swamped.
12:11 cjb: so we'd have to recheck with them. lfaraone said they were still ok a few weeks ago.
12:12 cjb MOTION:  Authorize Bernie to spec out a machine around $2000, send details to SLOBs/iaep for review, decide exactly where it will be hosted, then buy it.
12:12 bernie In my mind, this change would considerably reduce the amount of time I have to spend in managing the low-level infrastructure and let us concentrate more on running the services.
12:12 tomeu that sounds like a major gain
12:12 cjb bernie: second my motion if it's the one you agree with :)
12:13 bernie The current situation of small donated machines spread all over the world, is kind of ridiculously complex to manage:
12:13 http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/I[…]esources#Machines
12:13 cjb yeah
12:13 I agree with that
12:13 bernie I have never in my life seen an organization with so many machines :-)
12:13 I think that list is missing a few...
12:13 cjb bernie: let's get going with the motion?
12:13 we're over time
12:14 bernie I'm spending 80% of my time on keeping these up, and it's wearing me out very much
12:14 ok, the motion would be:
12:14 walterbender bernie: we need to save your strength... for teaching me more Python
12:15 bernie MOTION: authorize bernie to an expense of $2000 for acquiring a new primary server machine for SL
12:15 walterbender: lol :-)
12:15 cjb bernie: that's a bit shorter than mine
12:16 bernie cjb: where's yours? oh, I had not seen it
12:16 cjb MOTION:  Authorize Bernie to spec out a machine around $2000, send details to SLOBs/iaep for review, decide exactly where it will be hosted, then buy it.
12:16 walterbender I second CJB's motion
12:16 bernie cjb: I'm happy to run the specs through the board again, but couldn't we delegate the technical details?
12:16 CanoeBerry bernie: which hosting is most likely?
12:17 cjb bernie: they are delegated; it's up to you which machine to buy, but if you send out for review, we can at least offer opinions
12:17 (which you're free to not listen to)
12:17 bernie cjb: we're an *oversight* board, not an *executive* board. so I think that, in general, we should delegate executive powers to the various coordinators and other executive roles.
12:18 cjb yes, I didn't mean that we would need to vote again
12:18 bernie CanoeBerry: twix, I think
12:18 CanoeBerry twix is where/
12:18 dogi dc
12:18 walterbender notes that we all have different opinions on what needs oversight (TM, tech. decisions, etc.) :)
12:18 bernie cjb: I'm happy to send it out for review, of course... to the systems@ mailing list.
12:18 cjb bernie: I guess that's fine, yeah
12:18 bernie CanoeBerry: dc. it's a contact provided by lfaraone
12:18 CanoeBerry Is Luke Faraone managing the relationship with Twix?
12:18 Got it.
12:19 bernie walterbender: heh :-)
12:19 SeanDaly bernie: server under marketing review (joke)
12:19 bernie CanoeBerry: yes
12:19 CanoeBerry +1
12:19 bernie CanoeBerry: I would feel more at ease if we could rack it at  the Medialab, but we already have 3 machines there, so I'm not sure we can abuse their hospitality much more than this
12:19 cjb bernie: which machines are they?
12:20 CanoeBerry Good question.
12:20 dogi solarsail
12:20 housetree
12:20 walterbender bernie: we coudl swap it with solarsail...
12:20 bernie cjb: sorry, just 2: solarsail, housetree
12:20 walterbender and find a new home for solarsail
12:20 cjb I think a machine at the media lab is *much* easier to manage than one at a hosting company we have no experience of so far
12:20 so yeah, I agree with Walter
12:20 this machine is replacing solarsail for us
12:20 CanoeBerry Yes
12:20 bernie walterbender: twix would seem to be a good home for solarsail too...
12:21 cjb: I think so too... I don't know who to ask though... xxv is gone.
12:21 cjb hm
12:21 we don't have a current contact?
12:21 CanoeBerry We are driving to DC for the Mch 27/28 Book Sprint (XO 1.5's http://laptop.org.start) if that helps.
12:21 cjb what would we do if we needed physical access?
12:21 bernie cjb: yes, michailis
12:21 CanoeBerry Driving from Boston to DC..
12:21 cjb oh, ok
12:21 bernie dogi: maybe you can answer this?
12:22 cjb I think just tell Michailis that you're swapping out solarsail with another machine
12:22 I'm sure he'll be fine with that
12:22 bernie CanoeBerry: luke and the Sugar Labs DC folks are on site...
12:22 dogi +1
12:22 cjb dunno if he'd be fine with adding one, I wouldn't like to be the person asking :-)
12:22 bernie cjb: I'm also afraid the media lab cannot give us more than just a few IPs...
12:22 cjb hm, do we need any more?
12:23 solarsail will be getting a new one at twix
12:23 CanoeBerry Typo above: Mch 27/28 Book Sprint is creating a spanking-new version of Walter's http://laptop.org/start for the XO-1.5
12:23 bernie cjb: but anyway, I think all these details about the HW, the hosting options and what services go there belong to the infrastructure team meeting, not slobs.
12:23 dogi +1
12:23 bernie though I appreciate help in finding better hosting options
12:24 cjb bernie: yeah, broadly agreed.  (I think it's good form for SLOBs to at least ask questions about large expenditures.)
12:24 bernie I'll also ask the fsf, of course, but I know for sure that thier ruck is full  to the top, because I used the last slot for treehouse :-)
12:24 cjb but the fact that I'm asking question doesn't mean that I'm exerting executive control :)
12:24 CanoeBerry Can we move on?
12:24 cjb well, we haven't voted yet
12:24 let's do that
12:25 MOTION:  Authorize Bernie to spec out a machine around $2000, send details to systems@ for review, decide exactly where it will be hosted, then buy it.
12:25 walterbender seconded
12:25 cjb aye
12:25 CanoeBerry +1
12:25 SeanDaly aye
12:26 walterbender aye
12:26 cjb motion passes
12:26 walterbender ok.
12:26 I think we should wrap up for today...
12:26 CanoeBerry Walter's 3 other agenda items get not lip-service, sigh ;)
12:26 cjb ok.  GSOC next week, perhaps with less trademark arguing :)
12:26 CanoeBerry :)
12:27 SeanDaly :D
12:27 walterbender We need to bring the TM policy issue to closure, but let's try to do most of the work on the lists between meetings.
12:27 cjb ok
12:27 walterbender and bring concrete proposals to the table at the meeting.
12:27 thought that had been the plan for today as per last meeting
12:28 Well, thanks for attending. See you next week? (I think we need to meet again soon re GSoC)
12:28 CanoeBerry bernie: please communicate closely with me if you want solarsail transported to DC on/around Fri Mch 26
12:28 SeanDaly I'll be traveling, but hopefully 3G or wifi access available
12:28 cjb yup, next week
12:28 bernie CanoeBerry: ok
12:29 CanoeBerry: not the old one, ivan is buying a new one
12:29 walterbender #endmeeting

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.