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

#sugar-meeting, 2011-11-10

 « Previous day | Index | Today | Next day »     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
00:13 CanoeBerry_ has quit IRC
00:19 gonzalo_ has quit IRC
00:21 CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr@> has joined #sugar-meeting
00:25 CanoeBerry has quit IRC
00:31 CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr@> has joined #sugar-meeting
00:50 Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso@> has joined #sugar-meeting
01:27 cjb has quit IRC
01:29 cjb <cjb!~cjb@2001:4830:1171:0:224:d7ff:fe18:2a20> has joined #sugar-meeting
01:52 Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC
02:02 CanoeBerry has quit IRC
02:06 CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr@> has joined #sugar-meeting
02:16 CanoeBerry has quit IRC
02:22 CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr@> has joined #sugar-meeting
02:48 dogi has quit IRC
02:53 dogi <dogi!~dogi@pool-108-20-247-246.bstnma.east.verizon.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
03:18 dirakx <dirakx!~rafael@> has joined #sugar-meeting
03:28 CanoeBerry has quit IRC
03:32 dirakx has quit IRC
03:34 dirakx <dirakx!~rafael@> has joined #sugar-meeting
03:39 dirakx has quit IRC
03:39 manuq has quit IRC
03:45 dirakx <dirakx!~rafael@> has joined #sugar-meeting
05:33 dirakx has quit IRC
06:31 yama` <yama`!~yama@124-171-23-243.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting
06:31 yama` has quit IRC
06:31 yama` <yama`!~yama@ubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting
06:34 yama has quit IRC
07:06 rgs has quit IRC
07:15 rgs <rgs!~rgs@pasanda.collabora.co.uk> has joined #sugar-meeting
07:51 callkalpa <callkalpa!~callkalpa@> has joined #sugar-meeting
07:53 callkalpa has quit IRC
08:38 meeting <meeting!~sugaroid@jita.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:56 callkalpa <callkalpa!~callkalpa@> has joined #sugar-meeting
09:18 callkalpa has quit IRC
09:34 cjb has quit IRC
09:35 cjb <cjb!~cjb@2001:4830:1171:0:224:d7ff:fe18:2a20> has joined #sugar-meeting
10:05 gonzalo_ <gonzalo_!~gonzalo@> has joined #sugar-meeting
10:23 manuq <manuq!~manuq_@> has joined #sugar-meeting
10:43 manuq has quit IRC
10:44 manuq <manuq!~manuq_@> has joined #sugar-meeting
12:25 gepatino <gepatino!~gepatino@> has joined #sugar-meeting
13:18 Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso@> has joined #sugar-meeting
13:43 dirakx <dirakx!~rafael@> has joined #sugar-meeting
13:44 Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC
13:52 Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso@> has joined #sugar-meeting
13:58 Ariel_Calzada1 <Ariel_Calzada1!~aricalso@> has joined #sugar-meeting
14:00 Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC
14:01 manuq has quit IRC
14:17 manuq <manuq!~manuq_@> has joined #sugar-meeting
14:21 Ariel_Calzada1 has quit IRC
14:34 walterbender <walterbender!~chatzilla@> has joined #sugar-meeting
14:36 bkuhn <bkuhn!~bkuhn@fsf/director/conservancy.president.bkuhn> has joined #sugar-meeting
14:44 keynote2k <keynote2k!~tony@conservancy/staff/keynote2k> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:01 jt4sugar <jt4sugar!~AndChat@184-226-162-249.pools.spcsdns.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:01 bkuhn greetings!
15:03 walterbender bkuhn:
15:03 keynote2k hello, all
15:03 walterbender we should make sure we have quorum... could slobs members please raise their hands?
15:03 cjb morning.
15:03 walterbender is here
15:03 keynote2k: hello tony
15:04 keynote2k morning, walter
15:04 alsroot hi all
15:04 walterbender bkuhn: I haven't had time to read the documents you sent his morning.
15:04 we just need one more hand raised
15:05 bkuhn walterbender: I didn't expect that anyone would, and didn't expect that we would necessarily cover the issue in the meeting today.  I just wanted to get them out before the meeting in case anyone did have questions about it that I could answer today.
15:05 cjb bernie: bernie__: around?
15:06 walterbender bernie?
15:10 walterbender has quit IRC
15:15 bkuhn Looks like walterbender got disconnected...
15:17 cjb yeah, sorry we're disorganized today.  Sounds like we'll want to wait a few more minutes to see if we can get a quorum, or reschedule.  :/
15:18 walterbender <walterbender!~chatzilla@> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:18 walterbender hello... I seemed to have been on a broken connection while I was talking away
15:18 cjb walterbender: still no other SLOBs, I'm afraid.  perhaps try calling bernie's phone or something?
15:18 oh, yeah, we didn't get any of that
15:18 walterbender I can paste in my rant
15:18 <walterbender>#start-meeting
15:18 <walterbender>is the meeting bot not working either? bad karma today
15:18 <walterbender>I'll just grab the backlog and post it.
15:18 <walterbender>In any case, for those who don't know them, I'd like to introduce two guests
15:18 <walterbender>bkuhn (Bradley) runs the SFC (our parent organization) and keynote2k (Tony) is the SFC chief counsel
15:18 <walterbender>They are going to lead us in a discussion about our Local Labs programs
15:18 <walterbender>We are doing more and more work directly with deployments and the structure envisioned for Sugar Labs was to enable local organizations to form to do that work with support from Sugar Labs "central" and, in whatever way possible, the SFC
15:18 <walterbender>but how to structure things so that there is both freedom and accountability is a challenge
15:18 <walterbender>my network connection at MIT is really bad today... so I cannot share the link to the local labs page in the wiki... maybe someone else can paste it into the minutes?
15:19 <walterbender>but it describes how we have tried to frame the question to date.
15:19 <walterbender>we have no formal agreements with any of our local labs beyond MOUs...
15:19 <walterbender>this is something perhaps Bradley and Tony can discuss...
15:19 <walterbender>gentlemen...
15:19 #start-meeting
15:19 meeting Meeting started Thu Nov 10 15:19:07 2011 UTC. The chair is walterbender. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:19 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting
15:19 walterbender OK...
15:19 I tried calling Bernie... no answer, so we are not an official meeting :P
15:19 cjb ok
15:20 walterbender But I'd like to jump in an discuss the local lab situation with Tony and Bradley
15:20 not sure we need to make any decisions... but we do need to bring clarity to the situation
15:20 bkuhn So, first of all, as I mentioned in email earlier this week, what Sugar Labs seems to want to do with the local labs certainly seems to be fitting with the non-profit mission of Conservancy, and we can do them.
15:21 Obviously, any official charters or MoUs with local teams have be dealt with through Conservancy, since it's the legal entity for Sugar Labs.
15:21 Doing such local labs in the USA is a pretty straightforward process, and I think we can easily draft an agreement for local labs charters in the USA without too much trouble.
15:22 International agreements will be hairy for a variety of reasons, and we'll probably need to take those on a case-by-case basis and see what can be done.
15:22 walterbender we have two local labs in practice if not in name and many other sugar-related activities in the states
15:22 DC and NDSU
15:23 bkuhn Finally, I want to point out that the primary point of control over any local labs will be through the Sugar Labs trademark, since it's the only real restriction we can possible place.  We may need to rereview the trademark policy in place to make sure that the proper controls are in place.  It could be very bad for Conservancy (and Sugar Labs too) if local labs operate under the Sugar name without proper charter and control.
15:23 keynote2k: anything you want to add to that?
15:23 walterbender: What are the usual activities of DC and NDSU currently?
15:23 keynote2k Sure. In order for us to prepare an MoU template, we need to get a better understanding of what these local labs do,
15:23 exactly
15:24 walterbender each one has a slightly different agenda/set up
15:24 some are university groups... others trying to set up support service contracts (Peru)
15:25 some are advocating on behalf of Sugar (Chile) and others are writing software (Uruguay)
15:26 In every case, there is alignment with our overall mission
15:26 keynote2k how does each group interact with the SLOBs?
15:28 walterbender heard from bernie... he cannot join us
15:28 keynote2k: it really varies... there is little formal interaction with SLOBs... more interaction with the community
15:29 but occasionally, there is a request, for funding, for example, but that is not really tied to the fact that they are a local lab
15:29 just tied to the fact that they want help with a sugar-related activity
15:29 keynote2k understood
15:29 walterbender the initial "ask" is run past SLOBS for approval and that results in "permission" to use the trademark.
15:30 but as these groups want to enter into more formal activities with 3rd parties, we run into accountability issues
15:31 and to what extent do we have (or want to have) any association with some position that a local lab takes vis-a-vis a local project.
15:31 for example, there are times when a local lab member might be critical of a local deployment... are they speaking on behalf of Sugar Labs or themselves?
15:32 if they enter a contract, who is responsible for the deliverable?
15:32 keynote2k Right.  So, do you get the sense that these local labs want autonomy, or is it a situation where they'd be fine (in general) with being part of a more centralized structure?
15:33 walterbender my sense is that they generally want autonomy
15:33 but when they want something from us, they want a mothership relationship
15:34 for example, in negotiating a contract in country, it can be advantageous to say you are part of an international group
15:34 and if they can use our (SFC) incorporation status to avoid having to do something local, it saves time and trouble and money
15:35 but I have seen no evidence that they are looking for us to guide or direct them
15:35 keynote2k so, to summarize: each group has a slightly different focus, but they're all aligned w/ Sugar's overall mission. They (currently) operate with quite a bit of autonomy, and like it that way
15:36 bkuhn Walter's last point adds complexity for Conservancy.  If a local labs is acting on Sugar Labs officially, they need a certain amount of direction and guidance to ensure the activity remains in our charitable mission and is fitting with the Sugar Labs Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement.  So in some cases, we will have to push some structure and guidance onto them if they want this official affiliation.
15:37 walterbender bkuhn: I think that finding the balance is the key...
15:37 bkuhn s/a local labs is acting on Sugar Labs/local labs are acting on Sugar Labs' behalf/
15:38 walterbender I don't want to have to manage them... they are closer to their own communities than we could ever be... but so my preference would be as light a touch as possible
15:38 bkuhn I agree completely.  The FSA is structured in a way to make most software development and documentation efforts to happen basically completely autonomously to strike the balance.
15:38 walterbender while providing whatever protection the SFC thinks it needs
15:38 bkuhn The point is: Conservancy currently has absolutely no oversight or information about these local labs (until we talked in Prague, basically).  So, things are clearly out of balance right now.
15:39 I don't want to overcompensate for that, by any means, though.
15:39 walterbender I don't always agree with what they do... but as long as it is in keeping with the mission, it is not for me to do other than express my opinion
15:39 keynote2k as bkuhn said earlier, we'll have to strike a balance between "agreeing to disagree" and "and this point, you're no longer in alignment w/ Sugar's mission"
15:40 bkuhn walterbender: Meanwhile, the existing trademark policy gives a lot of leeway as to what folks can do with the name.
15:40 I'd say that the right first step in negotiation is to say: "Here's the trademark policy, does that give you leeway to do what you want?"
15:40 If so, then they there is no need for an MoU or formal agreement .
15:41 If they want more, then that's a negotiation, and probably should be had on a case-by-case basis.
15:41 walterbender in some sense, the MOU has been just an ACK of the trademark policy
15:41 bkuhn: case by case after that is fine with me...
15:42 maybe over time some patterns will emerge
15:42 bkuhn well, as it stands, the MoU drafts (example, the one that was drafted with NDSU) gives more authority (e.g., handling money in the name of "Sugar Labs") that is in Conservancy's purview.
15:42 Now, Conservancy has *not* agreed to any of the MoUs so they aren't legally in effect.  But, I expect NDSU probably has the mistaken belief currently that they are in effect.  DC may as well.
15:44 keynote2k at first look, I would think that an MoU would need to have a) a pledge/commitment to Sugar's mission, b) acknowledgment/acceptance of Conservancy as the official legal entity, and c) acknowledgment/commitment to some sort of light-handed oversight structure
15:45 walterbender bkuhn: I would hope that the local labs handle their own money and we don't handle it for them
15:45 bkuhn walterbender: well, there's the rub:
15:46 If they are merely under the trademark policy then there is no need for a formal MoU at all.  They simply unilaterally say: "We agree to the trademark policy".  This could likely be done in an email.  They go about their business.
15:46 If they want more or something more official, we have to talk about those issues.
15:47 It's not Conservancy's role to stamp out volunteer (or even separate organizational) involvement with Sugar Labs that's in compliance with the trademark policy you set.  *But*, I'd guess that the reason they want an MoU is so they can be officially declared as affiliated with Sugar Labs (and there are some reasons why that you mentioned).
15:47 raffael <raffael!5ddb2766@gateway/web/freenode/ip.> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:47 keynote2k e.g., contracts w/ local governments, etc
15:47 bkuhn In some sense, I think maybe there are too many unknowns here.
15:48 I'd suggest this: Why don't we set up parallel conversations between Conservancy and representatives from  each Local Labs we know about.  We can start the discussion as I suggested: "Does the trademark policy as it stands give you what you need to operate?"
15:48 If the answer is "yes", that's it, we're done.  They ack the trademark policy and go about their activities.
15:48 If the answer is "no, we need more" then it's a negotiation that Conservancy, Walter, and the local lab can have to try to get them what they need.
15:49 walterbender_ <walterbender_!~chatzilla@> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:49 walterbender_ sorry... MIT network again :(
15:49 bkuhn walterbender_ do you need backlog?
15:49 walterbender has quit IRC
15:49 walterbender_ I can check on the server
15:49 walterbender_ is now known as walterbender
15:49 walterbender did you get my rant about local labs raising money?
15:50 gists: let them raise money and it is their business
15:50 bkuhn walterbender: Your last utterance was: "<walterbender> bkuhn: I would hope that the local labs handle their own money and we don't handle it for them"
15:50 walterbender they can ask for $ from SFC/SL like anyone else and if they want to donate resources to SFC/SL, all the better... but I don't think we are asking the local labs for licensing fees and in my opinion, if the local labs bring in money... it is their business, not ours but then this would mean we would not be the ones engaging in any sort of contract...
15:50 bkuhn walterbender: I think that fits with what I'm saying: if they are in compliance with the trademark policy and need nothing else from Sugar Labs or Conservancy, we do leave them as you say to that.  If they need more, it's a negotiation about how we handle it.
15:51 walterbender +1
15:51 bkuhn ... and I also agree with you that a local lab that operates autonomously can always ask for funds in the usual way, subject to SLOBs and Conservancy approval.
15:52 walterbender: so, does that +1 also mean you like my suggestion: "we set up parallel conversations between Conservancy and representatives from each Local Labs we know about. We can start the discussion as I suggested: "Does the trademark policy as it stands give you what you need to operate?" If the answer is "yes", that's it, we're done.  They ack the trademark policy and go about their activities. If the answer is "no, we ne
15:52 then it's a negotiation that Conservancy, Walter, and the local lab can have to try to get them what they need.
15:52 walterbender bkuhn: I have on many occasions tried to help local labs raise money--help with grant applications and promote them locally,...
15:52 is that in a gray area?
15:52 do I need to do that as an individual instead of a SL member?
15:53 keynote2k walterbender: that doesn't bother me, so long as the local lab is a distinct entity
15:53 The approach of relying on the TM policy seems fine to me as well.  But, in the instance that a local lab wants a deeper relationship:  what are the concerns about the $ flowing through Conservancy's oversight?
15:53 bkuhn walterbender: I think keynote2k's right.  There might be a small grey part in the fact that your help looks like a more formal endorsement.
15:53 keynote2k ^agreed
15:53 walterbender bkuhn: +1 to setting up these 1-on-1 conversations to resync
15:54 bkuhn ok, great.  So, I think we can proceed with that.  I realize the SLOBs can't approve this now due to lack of quorum, but I am not sure we need formal approval just to set up conversations.
15:54 If there does need to be a formal agreement with any local lab, SLOBs will be included in the decision making of course.
15:55 walterbender keynote2k: re $ flows, I think that there may be times when a local lab might want to enter a relationship with backing from the SFC... but as pointed out earlier, that is a negotiation with the SFC
15:56 keynote2k agreed; I'm trying to better understand any concerns the local labs may have.
15:56 bkuhn keynote2k: I doubt we'll know that in detail until these conversations begin.
15:57 walterbender: can you take the action item of introducing me and keynote2k in turn to local labs leaders?
15:57 SeanDaly <SeanDaly!~chatzilla@> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:57 walterbender bkuhn: will do
15:57 bkuhn thanks.
15:57 walterbender anything else we need to cover on this topic as a group?
15:57 alas, none of the local lab reps are here today :P
15:58 raffael I am here ...
15:58 but was a bit late due to time changes here in germany
15:59 walterbender raffael: as we had discussed in Prague, we need to have a 1-on-1 discussion with the SFC
15:59 CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr@> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:59 walterbender hey Adam... we are just finishing up :)
16:00 Day Light savings seems to have gotten us all confused
16:00 go to "fall back" in Prague and then again one week later in Boston
16:00 bkuhn I had the same. :)
16:01 always uses gworldclock Meeting feature to figure out "when" in all cases more than one time zone is involved.
16:03 walterbender so, anything else while we have Bradley and Tony?
16:03 seems like we have a plan... do the rounds with each local lab to resync
16:03 raffael bkuhn, will we have the chance for a call theses days?
16:04 bkuhn raffael: depends on which days you mean by "these days". :)
16:04 walterbender and SFC will draft a standard take on the MOU based on the current trademark policy
16:04 if there seems to be a disconnect between the policy and the needs of the local labs, we can discuss it here
16:05 suspects there is not a disconnect in 99% of the cases
16:05 keynote2k walterbender: it's my take that, if a local lab is fine w/ the existing TM policy, then we wouldn't need an MoU
16:05 bkuhn walterbender: Agreed.  Although, ... I was writing what keynote2k just said and he beat me to it. :)
16:05 walterbender all the better
16:06 bkuhn raffael: is there a time next week, you, me, keynote2k and walterbender can have a phone call?
16:06 walterbender bkuhn: we do offer additional services to local labs: some hosting, links ...
16:06 bkuhn I'm somewhat booked schedule-wise until Monday.
16:06 walterbender we need not formalize any of that
16:06 has time on Monday for a call
16:06 bkuhn walterbender: well, anything that's related to software development/documentation indeed doesn't need to be formalized, since the FSA already delegates that fully to the project leaders' discretion, presuming it's all Free Software/ Free Documentation.
16:07 dirakx has quit IRC
16:07 bkuhn fires up gworldclock. :)
16:08 walterbender, raffael, keynote2k : So I'm available Monday from 14:30-22:30 UTC.  What times do you all like in there.
16:08 walterbender let's schedule off line... back to the meeting
16:08 bkuhn walterbender: sorry!
16:08 walterbender I think we covered the agenda topic... wrap things up?
16:09 3
16:09 2
16:09 1
16:09 #end-meeting
16:09 meeting Meeting ended Thu Nov 10 16:09:29 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4)
16:09 Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-10T15:19:07.html
16:09 Log:     http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]11-11-10T15:19:07
16:09 walterbender thanks tony, bradley
16:10 bkuhn Thanks for inviting us!  I'll attend regularly now.  Speaking of which, walterbender , were you going to put me on SLOBs list?
16:10 walterbender bkuhn: I think Bernie is the admin... but I will check
16:11 bkuhn ok, I'll ping bernie.
16:11 keynote2k thanks all
16:11 walterbender my apologies re the lousy connection...
16:14 raffael has quit IRC
16:19 SeanDaly has quit IRC
16:19 jt4sugar has quit IRC
16:20 manuq has quit IRC
16:20 manuq <manuq!~manuq_@> has joined #sugar-meeting
16:32 dirakx <dirakx!~rafael@> has joined #sugar-meeting
16:32 walterbender has quit IRC
17:29 mchua <mchua!mchua@gateway/shell/sugarlabs.org/x-hnwcmwmbbautyrht> has joined #sugar-meeting
17:36 manuq has quit IRC
17:52 mchua is now known as mchua_afk
18:02 bernie bkuhn: sorry for missing the meeting, i was having a root canal done and they kept me longer than i expected
18:03 CanoeBerry likewise my internet here in haiti melted down during most all the past 24hrs :(
18:03 bkuhn np
18:15 CanoeBerry has quit IRC
18:26 satellit_ bernie: I have revived your soas-v2 dd img file idea for f17 as a NTH feature in lists
18:35 bernie satellit_: nice!
18:36 satellit_: but what's an NTH feature?
18:36 satellit_ Nice To Have
18:36 http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]wnload_a_non-live.2C_ext3_File_Structured.2C_blueberry_USB
18:37 Cerlyn bernie: You had a root compromise?  We better reset all your passwords...
18:37 satellit_ spent too much time in #fedora-qa !
18:38 bkuhn has left #sugar-meeting
18:38 bernie Cerlyn: me?
18:39 Cerlyn they had to drill your tooth out
18:39 bernie Cerlyn: haha\
19:00 tch <tch!~tch@70.Red-79-147-92.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
19:26 gonzalo_ has quit IRC
19:41 tch has quit IRC
19:41 tch <tch!~tch@70.Red-79-147-92.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
19:44 keynote2k has left #sugar-meeting
20:04 mchua_afk is now known as mchua
20:05 mchua has left #sugar-meeting
20:32 cjl has quit IRC
20:34 cjl <cjl!~chatzilla@c-98-204-202-184.hsd1.md.comcast.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:40 tch has quit IRC
20:54 dogi has quit IRC
21:00 yama` has quit IRC
21:06 gepatino has quit IRC
21:08 yama <yama!~yama@124-149-34-109.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:08 yama has quit IRC
21:08 yama <yama!~yama@ubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:14 dogi <dogi!~dogi@pool-108-20-251-19.bstnma.east.verizon.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:31 dogi has quit IRC
21:35 Cerlyn has quit IRC
22:09 Mr_R <Mr_R!~Mr.R@host-1-148.b2.cvc.com.py> has joined #sugar-meeting
22:17 Mr_R has quit IRC
23:43 dogi <dogi!~dogi@pool-108-20-247-63.bstnma.east.verizon.net> has joined #sugar-meeting

 « Previous day | Index | Today | Next day »     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.