« Previous day | Index | Today | Next day » Channels | Search | Join
All times shown according to UTC.
| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 00:55 | yama` has quit IRC | |
| 01:01 | yama <yama!~yama 124-168-17-23.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 01:01 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 01:01 | yama <yama!~yamaubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 01:40 | lucian <lucian!~lucian78-86-217-168.zone2.bethere.co.uk> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 01:42 | satellit__MacAir <satellit__MacAir!~satellit_208-100-149-231.bendbroadband.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 01:43 | satellit_ | test |
| 01:46 | satellit__MacAir has quit IRC | |
| 01:49 | satellit__MacAir <satellit__MacAir!~satellit_208-100-149-231.bendbroadband.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 01:58 | satellit__MacAir has quit IRC | |
| 03:48 | garycmartin has quit IRC | |
| 04:00 | lucian has quit IRC | |
| 04:39 | dirakx <dirakx!rafael190.156.123.164> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 04:56 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 05:01 | yama <yama!~yama124-168-173-61.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 05:02 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 05:02 | yama <yama!~yamaubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 07:15 | garycmartin <garycmartin!~garycmart95.146.9.100> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 07:21 | garycmartin has quit IRC | |
| 07:48 | meeting_ <meeting_!~sugaroiddiabetes-3.media.mit.edu> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 07:48 | meeting has quit IRC | |
| 08:10 | alsroot has quit IRC | |
| 08:11 | alsroot <alsroot!~alsroot94.137.229.183> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 08:11 | alsroot has quit IRC | |
| 08:11 | alsroot <alsroot!~alsrootpdpc/supporter/active/antilopa-gnu> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 08:54 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 09:02 | yama <yama!~yama203-158-45-74.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 09:02 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 09:02 | yama <yama!~yamaubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 09:16 | mk8 <mk8!~torelloip-212-141.sn1.eutelia.it> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 09:41 | satellit__MacAir <satellit__MacAir!~satellit_208-100-149-231.bendbroadband.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 09:45 | satellit__MacAir has quit IRC | |
| 09:45 | satellit__MacAir <satellit__MacAir!~satellit_208-100-149-231.bendbroadband.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 09:58 | satellit__MacAir has quit IRC | |
| 10:03 | lucian <lucian!~lucian78-86-217-168.zone2.bethere.co.uk> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 10:27 | lucian has quit IRC | |
| 12:57 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 13:03 | yama <yama!~yama124-168-12-201.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 13:03 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 13:03 | yama <yama!~yamaubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 13:23 | yevlempy <yevlempy!~yevlempy115.248.34.146> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 13:44 | icarito <icarito!~icaro190.157.140.197> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 13:55 | icarito has quit IRC | |
| 14:05 | yevlempy has quit IRC | |
| 14:40 | ayushg_afk has quit IRC | |
| 14:40 | walterbender has quit IRC | |
| 14:40 | dfarning has quit IRC | |
| 14:40 | m_anish_afk has quit IRC | |
| 14:40 | manusheel_afk has quit IRC | |
| 14:40 | mukul_af` has quit IRC | |
| 14:40 | bernie has quit IRC | |
| 14:40 | anuragc_` has quit IRC | |
| 15:31 | dirakx has quit IRC | |
| 15:44 | mchua_afk is now known as mchua | |
| 16:13 | tch has quit IRC | |
| 16:16 | mchua is now known as mchua_afk | |
| 16:17 | tch <tch!~tch190.52.138.90> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 16:43 | scott0070 <scott0070!~scottuser-24-96-104-124.knology.net> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 16:46 | scott0070 has left #sugar-meeting | |
| 17:02 | yama` <yama`!~yama124-168-131-82.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 17:02 | yama` has quit IRC | |
| 17:02 | yama` <yama`!~yamaubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 17:04 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 17:15 | lucian <lucian!~lucian78-86-217-168.zone2.bethere.co.uk> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 17:36 | lucian has quit IRC | |
| 17:37 | lucian <lucian!~lucian78-86-217-168.zone2.bethere.co.uk> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 18:40 | garycmartin <garycmartin!~garycmart95.146.9.100> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 19:38 | cjb` <cjb`!~cjbpullcord.laptop.org> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 19:38 | cjb has quit IRC | |
| 19:39 | garycmartin_ <garycmartin_!~garycmart95.146.9.100> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 19:40 | garycmartin has quit IRC | |
| 19:40 | garycmartin_ is now known as garycmartin | |
| 20:12 | dirakx <dirakx!rafael190.156.123.164> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:13 | dfarning_afk <dfarning_afk!~dfarninggateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-tetqshjgnplktnjy> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:13 | ayushg_afk <ayushg_afk!~ayushggateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-expqicpfmeqiobus> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:13 | manusheel_afk <manusheel_afk!~manusheelgateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-drrlugtinjtbknts> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:13 | bernie` <bernie`!~berniegateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-ifkzvmntmgedudcz> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:13 | walterbender <walterbender!~waltergateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-wlfosowigisbvdzc> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:13 | mukul_afk <mukul_afk!~mukulgateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-hajbjclwnexxuqsp> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:13 | dirakx has quit IRC | |
| 20:14 | m_anish_afk <m_anish_afk!~anishgateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-rqtvcfjxjwoqkkfi> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:14 | anuragc_afk <anuragc_afk!~anuragcgateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-yddnwpqvbsrbmbbt> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:16 | bernie` is now known as bernie | |
| 20:29 | walterbender_ <walterbender_!~chatzilla146-115-134-246.c3-0.nwt-ubr1.sbo-nwt.ma.cable.rcn.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:30 | dfarning_afk is now known as dfarning | |
| 20:50 | icarito <icarito!~icaro190.157.140.197> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:02 | yama <yama!~yama124-168-49-167.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:03 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 21:03 | yama <yama!~yamaubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:03 | lucian has quit IRC | |
| 21:04 | yama` has quit IRC | |
| 21:48 | m_anish_afk is now known as m_anish | |
| 21:50 | dirakx <dirakx!~rafael190.27.230.221> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:55 | bernie | walterbender_, cjb`, mchua_afk, icarito, CanoeBerry, alsroot: meeting in 5? |
| 21:56 | cjb` | yep |
| 21:56 | icarito | yep |
| 21:56 | walterbender_ | seems we have a quorum :) |
| 21:59 | JT4sugar <JT4sugar!~JT173-109-185-224.pools.spcsdns.net> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:59 | bernie | JT4sugar: hello |
| 22:00 | JT4sugar | bernie, Hello |
| 22:00 | acaire11 <acaire11!~webchatdiabetes-3.media.mit.edu> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 22:00 | icarito | hello acaire11 |
| 22:01 | acaire11 | hello icarito |
| 22:01 | SeanDaly <SeanDaly!~seandaly92.90.16.49> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 22:03 | walterbender_ | #start-meeting |
| 22:03 | meeting_ | Meeting started Mon Dec 13 22:03:08 2010 UTC. The chair is walterbender_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. |
| 22:03 | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting | |
| 22:03 | walterbender_ | hello everyone |
| 22:03 | there are agenda items here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]utes#Agenda_items | |
| 22:03 | I | |
| 22:03 | buendia <buendia!~buendia146-115-134-246.c3-0.nwt-ubr1.sbo-nwt.ma.cable.rcn.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 22:03 | cjb` is now known as cjb | |
| 22:03 | walterbender_ | 'd like to start with a quick finance update |
| 22:03 | cjb | hi all |
| 22:04 | CanoeBerry | thanks |
| 22:04 | walterbender_ | #topic finances |
| 22:04 | Alex and I have been moving the reporting to the wiki | |
| 22:04 | bernie | buendia: buen dia |
| 22:04 | walterbender_ | http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]/Finances/2010-10 |
| 22:05 | it is a first pass -- essential the raw data reported from the SFC | |
| 22:05 | but Alex will be making some formatting changes to make it easier to read. | |
| 22:05 | he is also adding a page that explains the data | |
| 22:05 | bernie | yey |
| 22:06 | walterbender_ | and what I'd like to discuss is a process where by we discuss spending proposals |
| 22:06 | for example, I want to spring for some more Sugar USB keys... I get a lot of demand for them | |
| 22:07 | I'd like a system where by Alex can accumulate such requests and we can have an overview of them | |
| 22:07 | then discuss them and decide | |
| 22:07 | we have a few items in the queue as well: servers we never bought | |
| 22:08 | and some income that is somewhat discretionary... a little anyway | |
| 22:08 | and some that is earmarked, such as Gould and GSoC mentor income | |
| 22:08 | the latter being earmarked for travel | |
| 22:08 | cjb | needs to hear a "this is how much money we actually have to spend" number before talking about the extra spending. |
| 22:08 | walterbender_ | in any case, I defer to Alex to propose a plan, perhaps to discuss at the next meeting |
| 22:08 | bernie | walterbender_: can we delegate decisions for small expenses (let's say, below $1000) to the ED or the treasurer without the need to bother the board? |
| 22:09 | cjb | (but yay for Alex making it more comprehensible.) |
| 22:09 | bernie: I'd rather not, because I think that's a significant fraction of our total assets. | |
| 22:09 | walterbender_ | bernie: maybe we should allocate a discretionary fund to the ED? |
| 22:09 | cjb | but I don't know for sure |
| 22:10 | bernie | cjb: so I guess we have opposite views here. I don't want the board to get in the way of whoever have executive powers. |
| 22:10 | cjb | bernie: I want to know how much money we have before deciding whether someone can spend all of it without asking. |
| 22:11 | walterbender_ | cjb: my rough giess is we have about 7K of discretionary money |
| 22:11 | bernie | cjb: if you think about it, no sane organization (for profit or charity) asks the board to make decisions on each expense. |
| 22:11 | acaire11 | hi i'm laura from colombia - question, where do the income come from? |
| 22:11 | cjb | bernie: those organizations probably know how much money they have. |
| 22:11 | bernie: we are not one of them yet. but soon we will be, and then we can talk about this more. | |
| 22:12 | walterbender_: thanks, that's helpful, but I'm worried that you might be wrong or misremembering. I'm not saying it's likely, just that it could be the case, so we shouldn't make financial decisions based on it. | |
| 22:12 | walterbender_ | acaire11: our income is individual donations, google summer of code, and a grant from the Gould foundation |
| 22:12 | bernie | acaire11: some comes from donors, some comes from grants filed last year. I don't know the details, but they should be in the records that the Software Freedom Conservancy keeps for us. |
| 22:12 | walterbender_ | cjb: it is very likely I am wrong |
| 22:12 | cjb: I'd like Alex to give us a report next meeting, now that he is beginning to get a handle on the books | |
| 22:12 | acaire11 | is there a projection for income and expensess? |
| 22:13 | bernie | cjb: ok, once we do know this, we can make a budget and set a limit for expenses that do not need board approval. ok? |
| 22:13 | walterbender_ | acaire11: we have a few known income and expenses, such as the 2010 Google money and some commitments to interns on Gould |
| 22:13 | cjb | bernie: yup, no problem |
| 22:13 | SeanDaly | as soon as finances get serious enough (say $50k) it becomes helpful for a process to be in place; i should say a process adapted to allowing smaller and possibly urgent expenses through in an expedited way |
| 22:14 | bernie | acaire11: not yet. we got a new treasurer a few weeks ago and he's still figuring out how things work and how much money we have |
| 22:14 | walterbender_ | acaire11: but no long-term projections because we essentially operate on 0 revenue |
| 22:14 | SeanDaly | however in my view even small expenses should be accountable |
| 22:14 | acaire11 | is that a policy? |
| 22:14 | bernie | acaire11: yes, and we are all unpaid volunteers. until now the money has been spent for promotional items, travel reimbursements and student interns. |
| 22:15 | walterbender_ | acaire11: not a policy... just a fact |
| 22:15 | SeanDaly | just not held up by board decisions |
| 22:15 | bernie | acaire11: not a hard policy, but I think we like the idea that Sugar Labs is entirely run by volunteers. |
| 22:15 | SeanDaly: hello! | |
| 22:15 | cjb | bernie: hehe, I don't know that I like it; I'd rather we had money to pay people. |
| 22:15 | but that's a bit of a tangent. should we move on? | |
| 22:16 | CanoeBerry | yes |
| 22:16 | walterbender_ | acaire11: we have a few potential sources of income in the works, such as the Slipstream cycling team, but that is still a 'bird in the bush' |
| 22:16 | bernie | In truth, I'm not very familiar with how finances are regulated in organizations with an oversight board. could you do some research and post some examples of budgets? |
| 22:16 | icarito | bernie, acaire11 some are paid employees of OLPC |
| 22:16 | walterbender_ | #action alex will report next meeting on more finance details |
| 22:17 | bernie | icarito, acaire11: oh yes... and there are paid employees of deployments too |
| 22:17 | walterbender_ | and then we can discuss a strategy re whether Sugar Labs should try to raise money directly or help our affiliated programs raise money |
| 22:17 | acaire11 | a team maybe? |
| 22:18 | walterbender_ | perhaps this is a good lead in to icarito's topic of what is a team, etc? |
| 22:18 | bernie | walterbender_: we might also want to talk with the Sloan folks about fundraising activities |
| 22:18 | buendia | The ledger file is a simple text document (the ledger program is called Ledger). We can attach the file to the wiki so every transaction is visible. |
| 22:18 | bernie | acaire11: sorry, what? |
| 22:19 | SeanDaly | bernie: ;-) |
| 22:19 | walterbender_ | #topic "What is a SL project?, team?, lab? |
| 22:19 | bernie | buendia: are you alex? |
| 22:19 | walterbender_ | bernie: yes... buendia and alex are the same |
| 22:19 | acaire11 | bernie: a financial team |
| 22:20 | icarito | walterbender, its not my topic, i was spreading the word about it in somos azucar list only, but I think its mchua_afk 's topic ;-) |
| 22:20 | bernie | buendia: yes, attaching the file to the wiki seems like a very good idea to me. |
| 22:20 | walterbender_ | buendia: would you want to form a team? |
| 22:20 | acaire11: It took me a year to find anyone willing to do the finances... but now that we have some renewed momentum, maybe a team could form :) | |
| 22:20 | bernie | acaire11: +1 on this idea. I guess whoever is interested in working on this should talk with buendia. |
| 22:20 | buendia | bernie: might be issues with names in the document, but it would be the simplest way to be transparent |
| 22:21 | walterbender: happy to talk with people but would like to know what the board wants to come out of it | |
| 22:21 | bernie | is also happy to see interest raising in finance, fundraising and marketing! |
| 22:21 | I casn' | |
| 22:21 | walterbender_ | buendia: I think to begin with, we just want clarity as to our finances: assets, obligations, and a process for debating how to spend what money we have |
| 22:22 | thinks fundraising is a separate topic | |
| 22:22 | m_anish is now known as m_anish_afk | |
| 22:22 | buendia | walterbender: I've noted bernie's point regarding finding examples of how finances are managed in other orgs with oversight boards |
| 22:23 | walterbender_ | buendia: part of your report at the next meeting? |
| 22:23 | acaire11 | :walter accounting differs from finance |
| 22:23 | walterbender_ | acaire11: agreed... but let |
| 22:23 | buendia | walterbender: yes, and anybody who has input on the subject please contact me |
| 22:23 | acaire11 | :walter accounting supports financial strategies |
| 22:23 | walterbender_ | 's start with getting out accounting sorted out |
| 22:23 | acaire11 | yes :-) |
| 22:23 | walterbender_ | acaire11: +1 to developing strategies |
| 22:24 | bernie | buendia: it's a much bigger NGO than us, but t me the Wikimedia Foundation is an example of transparency and good governance to take inspiration from. |
| 22:24 | walterbender_ | acaire11: we have had a de facto strategy which was alluded to earlier |
| 22:24 | Sugar 'central | |
| 22:25 | buendia | thank you bernie |
| 22:25 | walterbender_ | ' stays poor while we help our teams, labs, projects raise money for their needs |
| 22:25 | acaire11: but it may be time to reconsider this strategy | |
| 22:25 | JT4sugar | bernie, I had requested MarketLab team(Sloan) as one of the deliverables to try and come up with one-pagers to help with fundraising to our different audiences(Individual, Corporate, Philanthropic) |
| 22:25 | walterbender_ | maybe a whole meeting devoted to the topic? |
| 22:26 | bernie | JT4sugar: fantastic. we should stay in touch with them. |
| 22:26 | walterbender_ | but meanwhile, we really should move to the next topic |
| 22:26 | icarito | +1 for meeting devoted to financial / strategic meeting |
| 22:26 | walterbender_ | meanwhile, #topic "What is a SL project?, team?, lab? |
| 22:27 | bernie | buendia, JT4sugar, acaire11: I think finance and fundraising are an important aspect of our organization. I would like you guys to form a team with a coordinator (probably alex) and get the widest possible autonomy to do this job successfully. |
| 22:27 | walterbender_ | icarito: do you want to take the lead on this part of the discussion? |
| 22:27 | bernie | (probably you can use the marketing team list for now?) |
| 22:27 | shuts up | |
| 22:27 | icarito | walterbender, as I said this is a motion from mchua_afk |
| 22:28 | buendia | bernie: widest possible autonomy? clarify please |
| 22:28 | SeanDaly | marketing <> fundraising |
| 22:28 | icarito | walterbender, in general i agree with her motion but i'm concerned with building bureacracy |
| 22:29 | walterbender_ | icarito: well, I think we have no choice if we want to have a trademark |
| 22:29 | icarito | as I understand the objective is to incentivize official projects? |
| 22:29 | walterbender_ | icarito: in practice, I don't think it has been onerous |
| 22:30 | icarito: I would add that we can help projects with fundraising | |
| 22:31 | acaire11 | walterbender_: also teams and labs? |
| 22:31 | walterbender_ | icarito: and where we can, allocate some budget... e.g., some travel $ was allocated for SoaS |
| 22:31 | bernie | buendia: We have a teams structure within Sugar Labs in which each team has autonomy over a particular role (development, marketing, education...). Each team has a coordinator, some wiki pages for resources and contacts, and sometimes a mailing list. |
| 22:31 | walterbender_ | acaire11: yes... also for teams and labs |
| 22:31 | acaire11 | :-) |
| 22:31 | walterbender_ | acaire11: for example, I helped write a major proposal for .py |
| 22:31 | bernie | buendia: anything you need that requires sysadmin work, just ask me (the infrastructure guy). |
| 22:31 | walterbender_ | acaire11: and we explicitly mention the relationship with SL |
| 22:32 | so icarito, I'd say we add fund-raising to mchua_afk's proposal | |
| 22:32 | bernie | icarito, walterbender_: in the past, people have been creating projects, teams and local labs informally: by just going on and doing it. I would like this tradition to continue. |
| 22:32 | walterbender_ | as something SL can offer |
| 22:32 | icarito | walterbender, in general I think mel's proposal is an improvement over what we have - +1 for adding language about potential fundraising |
| 22:33 | bernie | Dextrose was an exception: I asked for approval on the mailing list and was almost denied it. |
| 22:33 | so I would rather let people setup whatever structures they like without asking for permission to anyone else. | |
| 22:33 | icarito | bernie, +1 |
| 22:33 | walterbender_ | bernie: projects may begin informally, but at some level they become formalized. |
| 22:34 | bernie, icarito I agree that people can do what they think they need to do, but we have to take care to formalize certain transactions, such as use of the trademakr | |
| 22:34 | bernie | walterbender_: good point. we should not require approval to START anything... only to move things to a more visible position. but even for the latter... it's probably a choice of the marketing team. |
| 22:34 | walterbender_ | we have no choice or we lose our trademark |
| 22:34 | and if we fund raise jointly, we eventually need some more formality as well | |
| 22:35 | JT4sugar | bernie, The MarketLab team will be presenting full findings and recommendations mid-january which should help on the full list of these topics-Teacher Awareness-Fundraising were key drivers of project |
| 22:35 | bernie | walterbender_: agreed. we could tell projects that they can use the Sugar mark (without "labs") freely, as we did with Dextrose, SoaS and others. |
| 22:35 | alsroot | prefers to separate stuff like trademarks/funds and doers things like providing environment for everyone who can participate in sugar related field |
| 22:35 | walterbender_ | so I don't think we are asking for unnecessary bureaucracy. |
| 22:35 | alsroot: agreed and for the most part they are separate | |
| 22:36 | bernie | JT4sugar: it would be useful if all this material could be wikified... or at least attached to some marketing wiki page. |
| 22:36 | walterbender_: I agree with you. I'm ok as long as we don | |
| 22:36 | walterbender_ | alsroot: but if someone wants to use our name in the context of some project -- outside of the bounds described in our trademark policy -- we need to formally give them permission |
| 22:37 | bernie | don't impose any barriers on whoever wants to get things done within our org |
| 22:37 | walterbender_ | alsroot: a year ago we had a long discussion about how to impose as few barriers as possible, but we could not eliminate them all |
| 22:38 | alsroot: in practice, I don't think it has been a major issue... but I could be ignorant of examples of where people were deterred | |
| 22:38 | JT4sugar | bernie, They will be presenting all research material via google docs page we can link to or transfer to wiki |
| 22:38 | SeanDaly | bernie: SL marketing is undergoing a major reset, MarketLab assisting |
| 22:38 | alsroot | walterbender_: I agree with stuff like trademark(and funds), but w/o if we are talking about mchua_afk's proposal, I'd prefer to -1 if "providing environment (if we are talking about InfraTeam)" will be in this proposal |
| 22:39 | icarito | walterbender, bernie i think its good that projects are reqd to work towards SL goals with proper licences for instance |
| 22:39 | bernie | JT4sugar: cool |
| 22:39 | SeanDaly: also cool | |
| 22:40 | walterbender_ | we should spend another meeting just talking about marketing |
| 22:40 | bernie | icarito: yes, agreed on that too (we also have a policy somewhere specifying this) |
| 22:40 | walterbender_ | so one about accounting and finances and one about marketing |
| 22:40 | bernie | walterbender_: +1 |
| 22:40 | walterbender_: +1 | |
| 22:40 | SeanDaly | walterbender_: +1 |
| 22:40 | mchua_afk is now known as mchua | |
| 22:40 | walterbender_ | icarito: is there any action we need to take re this topic? |
| 22:41 | bernie | mchua: hey! hello |
| 22:41 | mchua | Hey, guys - 6:40am in Manila and I just woke up, reading backlog. |
| 22:41 | (This is the jetlag I warned y'all about) | |
| 22:41 | walterbender_ | icarito: I don't recall if we ever voted on mchua |
| 22:41 | 's proposal | |
| 22:41 | bernie | icarito: maybe, since mchua is now with us, we could let her catch up and reissue her topic with her input? |
| 22:41 | icarito | walterbender, you keep asking me to lead mchua 's proposed motion / topic |
| 22:41 | walterbender_ | is typing on a tiny keyboard -- with lots of typos :( |
| 22:42 | icarito | welcome mchua |
| 22:42 | walterbender_ | icarito: let me check to see if it ever came to a vote in the form of a motion |
| 22:42 | hi mel :) | |
| 22:42 | icarito | walterbender, the motion is in email but it never came to a vote |
| 22:43 | bernie | icarito: I've not checked my email today :-( |
| 22:43 | cjb | could someone paste the motion? |
| 22:43 | icarito | bernie http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]-July/011345.html its in the agenda |
| 22:44 | walterbender_ | icarito: but I see no motion or vote anywhere |
| 22:44 | cjb: will do... one sec | |
| 22:44 | bernie | mchua: next time you post something regarding slobs please also cc the slobs list, as I have no time to check iaep very often. |
| 22:44 | mchua | Re-reading the agenda... |
| 22:44 | er, the motion. | |
| 22:44 | bernie: noted. | |
| 22:45 | bernie | oh wait, it was cc'd... |
| 22:45 | mchua | bernie: ...er, I think I did on that one, but whatever. :) It was in July. |
| 22:45 | bernie | ah, that post is from july :) |
| 22:45 | walterbender_ | the short version |
| 22:45 | ---------- MOTION ----------- | |
| 22:45 | First, the short version: | |
| 22:45 | 1. If your project helps SL, is all freely licensed, and has a wiki page | |
| 22:45 | with certain info on it, you can apply for project status by emailing | |
| 22:45 | slobs/iaep your wiki page URL and saying "here's our project page, | |
| 22:45 | please raise a motion to make us a project." | |
| 22:45 | 2. If SLOBs passes the motion (4 votes of +1), you are a project. This | |
| 22:45 | gets you a sidebar listing, do-it-yourself infrastructure access, and | |
| 22:45 | permission to call yourselves a SL project. | |
| 22:45 | 3. Projects are obligated to update their project page and email that | |
| 22:45 | project page URL to the list during the last month of each Sugar release | |
| 22:45 | cycle. That's it. | |
| 22:45 | icarito | walterbender, you posted in the agenda ""What is a SL project?" discussion - see email thread with motion." sorry if i caused confusion |
| 22:45 | walterbender_ | 4. If a project doesn't do this (SLOBs will check), its project status |
| 22:45 | is revoked, and it loses the sidebar listing and the ability to call | |
| 22:45 | itself a SL project. Projects who have their status revoked may reapply, | |
| 22:46 | see (1). | |
| 22:46 | icarito: I thought you added it :) | |
| 22:46 | icarito | walterbender, no i didnt! lol |
| 22:46 | mchua | Right. The intent was to create a process that would be clear in terms of (1) who's an official project (answer: check the sidebar listing) |
| 22:46 | icarito | checks wiki history |
| 22:47 | mchua | (2) clear in terms of what you need to do to be a project (send this email) |
| 22:47 | walterbender_ | icarito: I though this whole discussion was in regard to the discussion last week about who should make reports to the board meetings: teams, projects, and labs |
| 22:47 | mchua | and take less than 30 minutes to execute for a group that wants to be a project. |
| 22:47 | walterbender_ | mchua: I think the proposal was well received and reflects our current practices... just don |
| 22:48 | mchua | Those 3 things. That's it. I'm not really concerned about the specific criteria, only that they're consistent and fair and well-documented - I think confusion re: the process and membership of what a "project" is has hurt us in the past. |
| 22:48 | cjb | sounds unobjectionable to me |
| 22:48 | walterbender_ | 't recall ever formally voting on it |
| 22:48 | mchua | in terms of expectations from both sides (which are clarified further in the document.) |
| 22:48 | We never did, walterbender_ :) | |
| 22:48 | walterbender_ | then let |
| 22:48 | 's | |
| 22:49 | mchua | Any amendments? |
| 22:49 | There was a note on adding finances in here somewhere, but I'm not sure where that would go. | |
| 22:49 | (I think this is independent of finances, a project doesn't imply financial support) | |
| 22:49 | walterbender_ | I'd just like to add the fund raising discussion to the fine print |
| 22:49 | mchua | (personally) |
| 22:49 | walterbender_ | as an example of what SL can offer a project, not as a requisit |
| 22:50 | bernie | mchua: I like the definition you gave, although I'd make it even more informal. like, "(2) any 3 Sugar Labs members can sponsor a new Project" and "(3) projects which aren't being updated for more than X months are removed from the sidebar" |
| 22:50 | or something like that | |
| 22:50 | rather than rely on procedures, I'd like to rely on self-organization | |
| 22:51 | mchua | bernie: the thing is, the point of the process is that being a project Isn't A Big Deal |
| 22:51 | walterbender_ | bernie: why even 3? why not any member? (a personal project) |
| 22:51 | mchua | you get a sidebar listing. |
| 22:51 | SeanDaly | a project means a technical project? |
| 22:51 | mchua | I mean, it gives you *no* additional manpower resources. |
| 22:51 | walterbender_ | SeanDaly: not necessarily |
| 22:51 | mchua | Not becoming a project should *never* block anyone's work. |
| 22:51 | SeanDaly: walterbender_ +1 | |
| 22:51 | A project could be, for instance, a local deployment, or a group creating a how-to book, or a Catalan translation crew | |
| 22:52 | bernie | walterbender_: it's to avoid dozens of insignificant or semi-dead projects... |
| 22:52 | walterbender_ | bernie: we still need to approve it, so we are ultimately the ones to determine it... why restrict ourselves? |
| 22:53 | mchua | ...er, any member *can* submit a project to the board. |
| 22:53 | by this proposal. | |
| 22:53 | It just needs a SLOBs motion to approve it. | |
| 22:53 | so a personal project could be submitted, and voted on by SLOBs. | |
| 22:54 | These things are supposed to be fast, <30sec votes, because all the information is required to be submitted already in the email. | |
| 22:54 | bernie | mchua: processes in FLOSS projects are not always beneficial. Before establishing a new process I would first wait until we have a problem (like, projects getting engulfed, or too many projects...) |
| 22:54 | mchua | If it's not all there, we just say "sorry, resubmit" |
| 22:54 | bernie: We have had a problem - it has not been clear in the past what "project" status means in terms of privilege | |
| 22:54 | It was the direct inspiration for writing that this summer. | |
| 22:55 | icarito | mchua, who will be responsible to ping projects each release? |
| 22:55 | bernie | walterbender_: wait, my point (2) was supposed to replace the original point (2), board approval. |
| 22:55 | walterbender_ | +1 for clarity of process and since we have projects and a sidebar, we should have a process spelled out |
| 22:55 | mchua | Some teams assume "project status means we get resources and labor XYZ, and SL prioritizes allocation of our resources" |
| 22:55 | others think "project status means we get to say we're a SL project" | |
| 22:55 | and the 2nd has been, in past discussions (remember, this is from July) closer to consensus | |
| 22:56 | icarito: SLOBs, sine it's 1 email every 6 months - I'm guessing it should be added to a "to-do after each release" checklist. | |
| 22:56 | SeanDaly | 4 minute timelag not conducive to communication :-/ |
| 22:57 | mchua | Sorry, SeanDaly :( I'm in the Philippines myself with slow wifi so I can sorta sympathize... respond and we'll thread your comments into the convo? |
| 22:58 | bernie | mchua: ok, I'm not arguing against a definition. I'm arguing against a process requiring board approval for a new process. |
| 22:58 | walterbender_ | bernie: we only have to do it once and it is done... |
| 22:59 | mchua | bernie: A vote should have a 2-week latency and take SLOBs like, 30 seconds. |
| 22:59 | bernie | IMHO, we shouldn't get the board in the way of volunteers. we're just an *oversight* board, aren't we? |
| 22:59 | icarito | mchua, the first definition seems more interesting |
| 22:59 | walterbender_ | bernie: we have a process for labs... now one for projects... we have a process for the TM... |
| 22:59 | mchua | You can literally look at the list of SLOBs, email them individually saying "hey does this sound sane?" and if you get 4 "yes" emails, you're set. |
| 22:59 | bernie: I believe - strongly - that our *lack* of clarity here gets in the way of volunteers. | |
| 22:59 | it is, for the vast majority of people new to open source communities, *intimidating* to go via personal contats. | |
| 22:59 | contacts. | |
| 23:00 | bernie | walterbender_: but so far board approval was not required to create new labs, right? did we vote for the labs we have today? |
| 23:00 | mchua | It's very reassuring to see a known (albeit simple) process and timeline/ |
| 23:00 | walterbender_ | bernie: board approval is required to make a Sugar Lab |
| 23:00 | mchua | I've seen a lot of students struggle through this uncertainty. Also, I believe the language of the motion makes it really, *really* clear that not being a project does not block work. |
| 23:00 | and being a project doesn't help it. :) It's just a name. | |
| 23:00 | bernie | mchua: let's separate clarity from the particular process. we're all in favor of clarity, I think. |
| 23:00 | mchua | But I think we benefit from knowing who is using our name, and how and why. |
| 23:01 | In fact, I believe we need to do that in order to maintain our trademark defense. | |
| 23:01 | I'll also note that it's an hour past start time. Do we have an end time? :) | |
| 23:01 | bernie | walterbender_: I don't remember us voting for Chile, Colombia, DC, Argentina and Peru... |
| 23:01 | walterbender_ | bernie: we did... |
| 23:02 | all... we are running short of time... | |
| 23:02 | cjb | bernie: I think we actually did vote. |
| 23:02 | (you might not have been there, I guess?) | |
| 23:03 | SeanDaly | mchua: problem of people using Sugar Labs name is not if they are known members of the community... it's if they are unkowns |
| 23:03 | bernie | mchua: again, I'm not against clarity. let's just not require board approval ahead of time. the board should intervene only to resolve controversies within the community. otherwise it would be an executive board. |
| 23:03 | CanoeBerry | 1hr's up, yeah i have another meeting now being encroached upon :( |
| 23:03 | icarito | walterbender, could we add language like "A SL project may apply for resources / fundraising" |
| 23:03 | CanoeBerry | +1 to mchua's proposal -- this once i don't quite understand bernie's concerns |
| 23:04 | icarito | i'll vote +1 |
| 23:04 | walterbender_ | icarito: +1... |
| 23:04 | bernie | I vote +1 to all points, except (2). |
| 23:05 | walterbender_ | so bernie: you object to slobs having to approve projects |
| 23:05 | cjb | I don't think it's a big deal with either way, so I'll go +1 as written. |
| 23:05 | walterbender_ | bernie: I will make a note in the minutes of that objection |
| 23:05 | any other votes? | |
| 23:06 | bernie | walterbender_: yes. And, more generally, I object to slobs having to approve things ahead of time. Community members should be empowered without asking us for approval. |
| 23:06 | mchua | I vote +1. |
| 23:06 | alsroot | +1 if any mentions of "infrastructure access" will be removed, we didn't need SLOB for any providing infra for other projects before and I like current scheme |
| 23:06 | mchua | bernie: Community members *are* empowered without asking us for approval. A big point of the process articulation was to make it really, really clear that becoming "an official project" doesn't actually get you any more help. |
| 23:07 | walterbender_ | bernie, alsroot: I think the confusion lies in the level of formality |
| 23:07 | bernie | We could have clerks for things that need approval, though: trademark, membership, finance... and even projects if you wish. As long as it doesn't require board votes to do everything I'm fine. |
| 23:07 | walterbender_ | we can offer infrastructure without slobs approval... we do in fact already in git and the wiki, for example |
| 23:07 | mchua | alsroot: it says "do-it-yourself infrastructure access" - and "(2) full use |
| 23:07 | of SL infrastructure's resources (though projects must do the | |
| 23:07 | administrative work themselves, they'll get machine access) if the | |
| 23:07 | project isn't already using them" | |
| 23:07 | walterbender_ | this is about projects that want to advertise themselves as SL... |
| 23:08 | we need a process for that or we endanger our trademark. | |
| 23:08 | I see no other way... | |
| 23:08 | mchua | is that too much? it doesn't say non-project can't use infra resources, and doesn't commit any manpower from us |
| 23:08 | bernie | walterbender_: how about having the Wiki team approve them? |
| 23:08 | mchua | bernie: SLOBs votes should take 30sec on this, really. |
| 23:08 | bernie | as long as we decentralize decision power to the individual teams, I'm good. |
| 23:08 | SeanDaly | I wo |
| 23:09 | typo phone keyb | |
| 23:09 | mchua | I believe we have a quorum, though - icarito, CanoeBerry, walterbender_, and mchua are all +1 |
| 23:09 | bernie | mchua: then why don't we make the board decide on commits to git? it would be a lot faster than our code reviews... |
| 23:09 | cjb | too |
| 23:09 | walterbender_ | bernie: whether it is one team or another, what is the difference... with SLOBs we have the advantage of (1) regular meetings, (2) a community approved group... I think it is our duty to the community to take on this responsibility |
| 23:09 | mchua | alsroot had a modification suggestion - alsroot, if you edit we can vote real quick on the amendment next time |
| 23:09 | okay, that's 5 +1's | |
| 23:09 | with cjb | |
| 23:09 | bernie | mchua: clearly, it's not just a problem of overhead (we vote once a week, so there's some overhead too). I think it's more of a problem of authority. |
| 23:10 | CanoeBerry | bernie: this motion gently encourages volunteers to get their act together and make something great to be posted on the sidebar, cool? |
| 23:10 | walterbender_ | the motion passes 5 yeah, 2 nay |
| 23:10 | dirakx has quit IRC | |
| 23:10 | icarito | project proposals should not have to wait for a formal meeting, they could be decided by email quickly - i can barely imagine a project refused |
| 23:10 | mchua | bernie: I'd like to point out that this is *exactly* the power that the Fedora board had at the founding of the Fedora board. |
| 23:10 | bernie: No more and no less. The only thing we get to decide is "who uses the SL name?" | |
| 23:10 | walterbender_ | I will note the objects in the wiki |
| 23:10 | mchua | We don't have authority over what individuals do or how. |
| 23:10 | walterbender_ | we need to wrap up for this week. |
| 23:10 | CanoeBerry | yes |
| 23:11 | bernie | walterbender_: it's about delegating authority to the community. I think it would be bad if a company worked this way... that the CEO, the CTO and the CFO had to ask the board every time they want to do something |
| 23:11 | walterbender_ | two quick items: next meeting: |
| 23:11 | mchua | bernie: I'm actively trying to *remove* authority from the board, and make it clear what we can and cannot do. |
| 23:11 | icarito | walterbender, you have info on Sugar Camp Peru? |
| 23:11 | mchua | bernie: that clarity is what delegates authority to the community. |
| 23:11 | walterbender_ | icarito: alas no :( |
| 23:11 | icarito: I am writing to oscar again tonight and will mention it | |
| 23:12 | bernie | mchua: remove? before, projects were just adding themselves up to the side panel! |
| 23:12 | walterbender_ | bernie: that is not accurate |
| 23:12 | CanoeBerry | bernie: all too silently ;) |
| 23:12 | bernie | mchua: all but one (Dextrose) did this. and the result? Dextrose was the only one delayed for a few eeks. |
| 23:12 | CanoeBerry | stuff added to the sidebar should be celebrated.. |
| 23:12 | buendia | must head out. I'll coordinate with acaire11 and keep JT4sugar in loop regarding a finance structure going forward (how to distribute money, apply for funds, disclose information...). #1 item is a wiki page with related action items that i've already noted locally. |
| 23:12 | walterbender_ | bernie: SoaS was discussed first |
| 23:13 | bernie: as was satellit_ 's project | |
| 23:13 | bernie | CanoeBerry: (I have a watch on the side panel page |
| 23:13 | walterbender_ | so, can we meet again on Thursday since this is last week's meeting postponed? |
| 23:13 | and I have one more motion: | |
| 23:13 | bernie | CanoeBerry: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/MediaWiki:Sidebar |
| 23:14 | icarito | walterbender, will you come to Colombia? |
| 23:14 | CanoeBerry | thx |
| 23:14 | bernie | ok |
| 23:14 | walterbender_ | MOTION (#action): SL would like to acknowledge and celebrate the marriage of acaire11 and icarito : the first Sugar marriage!!! |
| 23:14 | icarito: maybe in January... not before :( | |
| 23:15 | buendia | congratulations acaire11 and icarito ! |
| 23:15 | icarito | :-D thank you |
| 23:15 | cjb | ooh :) |
| 23:15 | acaire11 | lol thx walter! thx alex! |
| 23:15 | mchua | Congrats! |
| 23:15 | +1 | |
| 23:15 | SeanDaly | toutes mes félicitations aux mariés !! |
| 23:15 | walterbender_ | +1 |
| 23:15 | mchua | I have to head out, folks - 15m past the hour |
| 23:15 | :) | |
| 23:15 | but I like this motion | |
| 23:15 | waves | |
| 23:15 | will read slobs | |
| 23:15 | mchua is now known as mchua_afk | |
| 23:16 | JT4sugar | +1 Cheers! |
| 23:16 | icarito | thanks again, see you all on thursday then |
| 23:16 | walterbender_ | We should wrap up... let's try to continue on Thursday at the regular time... |
| 23:17 | ending meeting in 3... | |
| 23:17 | bernie | I don't want to sound pedantic, but everyone please reflect on how governance works in all organizations out there -- business and non-profits -- and why the boards generally meet once or twice a year and delegate almost all the executive powers to a CEO and other officers. There are serious negative consequences in governance done by a committee. |
| 23:18 | walterbender_ | bernie: as we discussed last time, we are trying to put processes in place to make things predictable and streamlines |
| 23:18 | bernie | I did not go to business school, but I feel that not delegating authority could be a big mistake. |
| 23:18 | icarito | bernie, perhaps we should study how to achieve this do you have specific recommendations? |
| 23:18 | bernie | walterbender_: processes are ok with me, but the board should not be a part of the process. |
| 23:19 | walterbender_ | bernie: I agree, but certain things are hard to delegate... we could create a committee to vet projects |
| 23:19 | icarito | bernie, in general i agree |
| 23:19 | walterbender_ | that is OK by me |
| 23:19 | and the same with Labs | |
| 23:19 | but the ultimate responsibility lies with the board. | |
| 23:19 | bernie | walterbender_: how about we let the Wiki team decide about projects? because projects mostly exist within the wiki... |
| 23:20 | walterbender_ | bernie: I think that you are mixing up two things in this particular case |
| 23:20 | 1: how we approve projects use of the SL name and 2: how we provide support for projects | |
| 23:21 | bernie | walterbender_: ok, the wiki probably has little to do with projects... |
| 23:21 | walterbender_ | #2 is entirely out of the hands of SLOBs |
| 23:21 | icarito | i'd like to get teams to be more visible, perhaps i'm missing some comm channel? |
| 23:21 | walterbender_ | but #1 is ultimately need to be responsible for |
| 23:21 | SeanDaly has quit IRC | |
| 23:21 | bernie | walterbender_: ok, bu isn't #1 a trademark licensing issue? can't we delegate it to the marketing team then? |
| 23:22 | walterbender_ | bernie: we could decide to do that... |
| 23:22 | JT4sugar | bernie, important to have these processes in place to get ready for accelerated growth path-will lead to much less decision making like you are talking about down the road. Think of it as putting mechanisms for growth in place |
| 23:22 | bernie | walterbender_: someone observed not long ago that today OLPC is much more liberal with its trademark usage than Sugar Labs. |
| 23:22 | icarito | i would |
| 23:23 | walterbender_ | bernie: I don't know that (a) it is an accurate assessment and (b) it is an intentional policy |
| 23:23 | SeanDaly <SeanDaly!~seandaly92.90.16.15> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 23:23 | bernie | JT4sugar: yes, having a process is 100% OK with me. as long as it doesn't involve the oversight board. |
| 23:24 | SeanDaly | iffy 3G |
| 23:24 | buendia is now known as buendia_afk | |
| 23:24 | icarito | i would agree on delegating to marketing team (so discussion would happen in marketing list) but i dont know process for being part of marketing team or making decisions there |
| 23:24 | bernie | walterbender_: I can't even remember who made this statement, but it was at SF and I remember it left me without words (a real rarity for me) |
| 23:24 | CanoeBerry | bernie: you're a democracy-hater, off to china 4 u :) |
| 23:25 | walterbender_ | bernie: I will do some homework and report back... I am happy to amend #2 of the motion to defer to the marketing team, but I have some reservations |
| 23:25 | bernie | icarito: yup. good point |
| 23:25 | JT4sugar | bernie, You also first must have the process which in turn Slobs no longer becomes involved with. Who first must make process-Slobs |
| 23:25 | SeanDaly | icarito: it's sufficient to join marketing list and to attend some marketing meetings |
| 23:25 | bernie | CanoeBerry: democracies work by electing a government with ministries and letting them do governance without asking the parliament to approve things every day. |
| 23:26 | walterbender_ | bernie: my concern is that when the marketing team goes on vacation, the decision is held hostage (you know how the French feel about August) |
| 23:26 | :) | |
| 23:26 | bernie | walterbender_: good point |
| 23:26 | walterbender_ | bernie: but I think it is within our 'power' to delegate |
| 23:26 | SeanDaly | icarito: meetings have been interrupted for awhile due to strategy shift |
| 23:26 | bernie | walterbender_: in the Infrastructure team, when I'm away from the keyboard for a few days I always delegate to others. |
| 23:27 | CanoeBerry | perhaps we should emphasize that projects/teams should not have to wait for weeks for a board meeting. any 4 votes-of-approval-from-board should be fine. |
| 23:27 | SeanDaly | walterbender_: hee hee well in 2011 the team will be built out, won't all go on vacation at once ;-) |
| 23:28 | walterbender_ | CanoeBerry: I think it was the intention to do these votes by email... quick turn-around |
| 23:28 | bernie | CanoeBerry: yup, that would help mitigate the overhead problem, but there's a more fundamental problem of deciding what's the role of an Oversight Board in a community-driven project. |
| 23:28 | CanoeBerry | Great: proxy email "votes" coming in anytime in this case, rather than traditional in-meeting votes. |
| 23:28 | icarito | SeanDaly, bernie i wish we had a really cool voting system |
| 23:28 | buendia_afk has quit IRC | |
| 23:29 | walterbender_ | alsroot: something else to add to the meeting bot :) |
| 23:29 | bernie | icarito: perhaps we could use selectricity more. the quick votes are low-overhead. but I think overhead is still a secondary issue here. |
| 23:30 | walterbender_ | used to have an even simpler voting system... maybe I can dust it off |
| 23:30 | bernie | icarito: my point is that we should delegate authority to the team leaders, like any other successful business, organization and government has been doing for centuries. |
| 23:31 | walterbender_ | bernie: I think everyone agrees with that basic principle |
| 23:31 | icarito | bernie, i agree, walterbender, we probably all do |
| 23:31 | bernie | walterbender_: also the method we've been using in the past, of posting the motion on the list and replying YEA/NAY seems to work well |
| 23:31 | CanoeBerry | yes: email votes work remarkably well, and bonus focus issues/energies/teams pretty directly, so long as we don't overwhelm iaep with parliamentarianism. |
| 23:32 | walterbender_ | bernie: and I don't think there is any reason why we cannot delegate our decision in this case to the Marketing team... we just need to decide to do it |
| 23:32 | CanoeBerry | meetings are not obsolete, no matter how much we all resent! |
| 23:32 | icarito | bernie, but I also think like someone said before, we have a duty to the community |
| 23:32 | bernie | ok, we may want to special case projects then because they are a big thing that happens infrequently |
| 23:32 | I'd be ok in this case. | |
| 23:32 | walterbender_ | bernie: 3 in two years... |
| 23:33 | well, we should wrap up... | |
| 23:33 | bernie | it seems to make more sense to delegate trademark licenses, actually. (who's reading trademarksugarlabs.org ?) |
| 23:33 | ok yes | |
| 23:33 | walterbender_ | thanks all for participating... |
| 23:33 | bernie | sorry for this long ramble of mine. |
| 23:33 | walterbender_ | bernie: maybe make a motion on Thursday to have the marketing team do this for us... |
| 23:34 | icarito | bernie, i think your point is important and it should be noted |
| 23:34 | SeanDaly | bernie: i would read it if I knew how |
| 23:34 | walterbender_ | hurray for icarito and acaire11 :) |
| 23:34 | CanoeBerry | +2 |
| 23:34 | SeanDaly | thanks to all :-) |
| 23:34 | walterbender_ | #end-meeting |
| 23:34 | meeting_ | Meeting ended Mon Dec 13 23:34:30 2010 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4) |
| 23:34 | Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-13T22:03:08.html | |
| 23:34 | Log: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]10-12-13T22:03:08 | |
| 23:34 | icarito | motion approved then :-) |
| 23:34 | +1 | |
| 23:35 | walterbender_ | icarito: yes. motion approved :) |
| 23:35 | bernie | SeanDaly: oh, trademark sends to walter and myself. But I never received any application request yet. |
| 23:36 | SeanDaly: you are on feedback, pr, publicrelations, marketing-phone | |
| 23:37 | SeanDaly: I was also on feedback@ and it's sending plenty of spam. | |
| 23:37 | SeanDaly | bernie: TM always thorny, always involves lots of explaining |
| 23:37 | bernie: pr/publicrelations gets lots of spam too | |
| 23:38 | bernie | if any board members wants to be on cc of any of our administrative contacts, just ask me. beware: they receive plenty of spam and very little real contacts. |
| 23:39 | SeanDaly: ok, now you're on trademarksl.o as well |
|
| 23:41 | SeanDaly | bernie: great thanks |
| 23:41 | bernie | SeanDaly: as stupid as it may sound, one effective way to limit the amount of spam is also limiting the number of contact addresses. maybe we could kill pr and publicrelations and keep only feedback? |
| 23:43 | SeanDaly | bernie: no, spam doesn't bother me but pr@ vital for 1) press mailings and 2) press contacts |
| 23:43 | bernie: there are no funds for advertising & promotion which is why we have been heavily press-oriented | |
| 23:45 | bernie | SeanDaly: I thought you were using feedback@ in all press releases? |
| 23:45 | SeanDaly | bernie: feedback is for the general Sugar-using public and will be important if our breakout comes |
| 23:45 | bernie | SeanDaly: ah, I think I got it. |
| 23:45 | SeanDaly: pr@ is for journalists to contact us. feedback is for readers. | |
| 23:46 | SeanDaly | bernie: journalists don't use Sugar, but they write about it |
| 23:46 | bernie: yes | |
| 23:48 | bernie: i hope to transfer my SL webmail to another webmail this weekend | |
| 23:48 | bernie | ok, understood. |
| 23:48 | SeanDaly: all these admin contacts are already going to your gmail account directly. | |
| 23:49 | SeanDaly | bernie: pr needs to be mailing alias so journalist can reply-to |
| 23:49 | bernie: you mean my SL webmail? | |
| 23:50 | bernie | SeanDaly: no, sdaly.be. |
| 23:50 | SeanDaly: as always, you can pretend to be "prsugarlabs.org" in your replies and replies will come back to you. |
|
| 23:50 | SeanDaly | bernie: not sure what you mean by admin contacts |
| 23:50 | bernie | SeanDaly: gmail lets you add any number of "identities" to your primary account, so you can vary what the "From:" field says when you write a new message or a reply. |
| 23:51 | SeanDaly | bernie: i understood that i can somehow set up to mail from pr but that's what I want to do from SL account |
| 23:52 | bernie | SeanDaly: so you can add an identity "Sugar Labs Press Relations <pr @ sugarlabs.org>" if you want to reply with an official admin contact in your From field. |
| 23:52 | SeanDaly | bernie: i just don't want to do that from my personal account |
| 23:53 | bernie | SeanDaly: if you want to keep email for pr@ separate from private email (like in another folder) you can configure GMail to do this automatically based on the recipient address (pr, feeback, etc.) |
| 23:53 | SeanDaly: so it won't mix up with your private stuff. | |
| 23:56 | acaire11 has quit IRC | |
| 23:56 | SeanDaly | bernie: not sure what you mean by admin contact |
| 23:59 | bernie: I don't want to do that in my personal account. At this point i think i will open a new gmail account |
« Previous day | Index | Today | Next day » Channels | Search | Join