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

#sugar-meeting, 2010-12-13

 « 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!~yama@ubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting
01:40 lucian <lucian!~lucian@78-86-217-168.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!rafael@190.156.123.164> has joined #sugar-meeting
04:56 yama has quit IRC
05:01 yama <yama!~yama@124-168-173-61.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting
05:02 yama has quit IRC
05:02 yama <yama!~yama@ubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting
07:15 garycmartin <garycmartin!~garycmart@95.146.9.100> has joined #sugar-meeting
07:21 garycmartin has quit IRC
07:48 meeting_ <meeting_!~sugaroid@diabetes-3.media.mit.edu> has joined #sugar-meeting
07:48 meeting has quit IRC
08:10 alsroot has quit IRC
08:11 alsroot <alsroot!~alsroot@94.137.229.183> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:11 alsroot has quit IRC
08:11 alsroot <alsroot!~alsroot@pdpc/supporter/active/antilopa-gnu> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:54 yama has quit IRC
09:02 yama <yama!~yama@203-158-45-74.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting
09:02 yama has quit IRC
09:02 yama <yama!~yama@ubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting
09:16 mk8 <mk8!~torello@ip-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!~lucian@78-86-217-168.zone2.bethere.co.uk> has joined #sugar-meeting
10:27 lucian has quit IRC
12:57 yama has quit IRC
13:03 yama <yama!~yama@124-168-12-201.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting
13:03 yama has quit IRC
13:03 yama <yama!~yama@ubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting
13:23 yevlempy <yevlempy!~yevlempy@115.248.34.146> has joined #sugar-meeting
13:44 icarito <icarito!~icaro@190.157.140.197> 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!~tch@190.52.138.90> has joined #sugar-meeting
16:43 scott0070 <scott0070!~scott@user-24-96-104-124.knology.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
16:46 scott0070 has left #sugar-meeting
17:02 yama` <yama`!~yama@124-168-131-82.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting
17:02 yama` has quit IRC
17:02 yama` <yama`!~yama@ubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting
17:04 yama has quit IRC
17:15 lucian <lucian!~lucian@78-86-217-168.zone2.bethere.co.uk> has joined #sugar-meeting
17:36 lucian has quit IRC
17:37 lucian <lucian!~lucian@78-86-217-168.zone2.bethere.co.uk> has joined #sugar-meeting
18:40 garycmartin <garycmartin!~garycmart@95.146.9.100> has joined #sugar-meeting
19:38 cjb` <cjb`!~cjb@pullcord.laptop.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
19:38 cjb has quit IRC
19:39 garycmartin_ <garycmartin_!~garycmart@95.146.9.100> has joined #sugar-meeting
19:40 garycmartin has quit IRC
19:40 garycmartin_ is now known as garycmartin
20:12 dirakx <dirakx!rafael@190.156.123.164> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:13 dfarning_afk <dfarning_afk!~dfarning@gateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-tetqshjgnplktnjy> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:13 ayushg_afk <ayushg_afk!~ayushg@gateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-expqicpfmeqiobus> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:13 manusheel_afk <manusheel_afk!~manusheel@gateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-drrlugtinjtbknts> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:13 bernie` <bernie`!~bernie@gateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-ifkzvmntmgedudcz> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:13 walterbender <walterbender!~walter@gateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-wlfosowigisbvdzc> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:13 mukul_afk <mukul_afk!~mukul@gateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-hajbjclwnexxuqsp> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:13 dirakx has quit IRC
20:14 m_anish_afk <m_anish_afk!~anish@gateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-rqtvcfjxjwoqkkfi> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:14 anuragc_afk <anuragc_afk!~anuragc@gateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-yddnwpqvbsrbmbbt> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:16 bernie` is now known as bernie
20:29 walterbender_ <walterbender_!~chatzilla@146-115-134-246.c3-0.nwt-ubr​1.sbo-nwt.ma.cable.rcn.com> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:30 dfarning_afk is now known as dfarning
20:50 icarito <icarito!~icaro@190.157.140.197> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:02 yama <yama!~yama@124-168-49-167.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:03 yama has quit IRC
21:03 yama <yama!~yama@ubuntu/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!~rafael@190.27.230.221> 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!~JT@173-109-185-224.pools.spcsdns.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:59 bernie JT4sugar: hello
22:00 JT4sugar bernie, Hello
22:00 acaire11 <acaire11!~webchat@diabetes-3.media.mit.edu> has joined #sugar-meeting
22:00 icarito hello acaire11
22:01 acaire11 hello icarito
22:01 SeanDaly <SeanDaly!~seandaly@92.90.16.49> 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!~buendia@146-115-134-246.c3-0.nwt-ubr​1.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!~seandaly@92.90.16.15> 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 trademark@sugarlabs.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 trademark@sl.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 "pr@sugarlabs.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

Powered by ilbot/Modified.
Webmaster