« Previous day | Index | Today | Next day » Channels | Search | Join
All times shown according to UTC.
| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 00:04 | manuq <manuq!~manuq 190.183.231.141> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 00:32 | meeting <meeting!~sugaroidjita.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 00:33 | alsroot has quit IRC | |
| 00:33 | alsroot <alsroot!~alsroot94.137.229.183> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 00:33 | alsroot has quit IRC | |
| 00:33 | alsroot <alsroot!~alsrootpdpc/supporter/active/antilopa-gnu> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 00:33 | bertf has quit IRC | |
| 00:34 | bertf <bertf!~quasselstatic-ip-62-75-165-16.inaddr.ip-pool.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 01:01 | Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso201.184.209.177> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 01:09 | Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC | |
| 02:10 | manuq has quit IRC | |
| 02:16 | CanoeBerry has quit IRC | |
| 02:35 | bertf has quit IRC | |
| 02:37 | bertf <bertf!~quasselstatic-ip-62-75-165-16.inaddr.ip-pool.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 02:44 | Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso201.184.209.177> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 03:05 | Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC | |
| 05:30 | Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso201.184.209.177> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 06:31 | yama` <yama`!~yama124-149-165-bcast.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 06:31 | yama` has quit IRC | |
| 06:31 | yama` <yama`!~yamaubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 06:34 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 08:35 | meeting <meeting!~sugaroidjita.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 08:44 | cjb has quit IRC | |
| 08:45 | cjb <cjb!~cjb2001:4830:1171:0:224:d7ff:fe18:2a20> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 09:06 | cjb has quit IRC | |
| 09:08 | cjb <cjb!~cjb2001:4830:1171:0:224:d7ff:fe18:2a20> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 10:04 | CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr190.196.202.215> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 10:12 | gonzalo <gonzalo!~gonzalo190.173.18.223> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 10:43 | inkyfingers <inkyfingers!577074a3gateway/web/freenode/ip.87.112.116.163> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 10:49 | inkyfingers has quit IRC | |
| 10:52 | Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC | |
| 11:41 | gonzalo_ <gonzalo_!~gonzalo190.173.40.30> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 11:44 | gonzalo has quit IRC | |
| 12:03 | manuq <manuq!~manuq190.183.231.141> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 12:11 | inkyfingers <inkyfingers!~inkyfinge163.116.112.87.dyn.plus.net> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 12:44 | gepatino <gepatino!~gepatino190.2.44.65> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 13:04 | CanoeBerry has quit IRC | |
| 14:22 | manuq has quit IRC | |
| 14:31 | walterbender <walterbender!~chatzilla146-115-134-246.c3-0.nwt-ubr1.sbo-nwt.ma.cable.rcn.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 14:41 | manuq <manuq!~manuq190.183.231.141> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 14:43 | kaametza <kaametza!~urk200.108.108.169> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 14:44 | kaametza is now known as acaire11 | |
| 14:45 | acaire11 is now known as kaametza | |
| 14:46 | Icarito-d234 <Icarito-d234!~urk200.108.108.169> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 14:51 | bkuhn <bkuhn!~bkuhnfsf/director/conservancy.president.bkuhn> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 14:53 | keynote2k <keynote2k!~tonyconservancy/staff/keynote2k> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 14:54 | jt4sugar <jt4sugar!~jtsugard192-24-234-153.try.wideopenwest.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 14:58 | walterbender | hi bkuhn |
| 14:58 | hi keynote2k | |
| 14:58 | cjl | hello |
| 14:59 | kaametza | hi everybody, this is laura v. |
| 14:59 | Icarito-d234 | hi all |
| 14:59 | bkuhn | greetings, walterbender and everyone. |
| 14:59 | walterbender | bkuhn: FYI, we just elected two new board members: cjl and gerald ardito |
| 14:59 | keynote2k | hello, all |
| 14:59 | hi walterbender | |
| 14:59 | bkuhn | walterbender: ok, thanks, can you send me an email that notes that, including their full names and email addresses? |
| 15:00 | walterbender | if SLOB members could wave, we can establish whether or not we have a forum |
| 15:00 | waves | |
| 15:00 | bkuhn: certainly... | |
| 15:00 | Icarito-d234 | waves and congratulates new slobs :-) |
| 15:00 | cjl | wavesd |
| 15:00 | cjb | waves |
| 15:00 | walterbender | OK... let's get started |
| 15:01 | #start-meeting | |
| 15:01 | meeting | Meeting started Fri Dec 2 15:01:02 2011 UTC. The chair is walterbender. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. |
| 15:01 | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting | |
| 15:01 | walterbender | hello all |
| 15:01 | #topic new SLOB members | |
| 15:01 | Just for the record, we held an election for 3 open seats and the results are in: | |
| 15:02 | walterbender is reelected to his seat | |
| 15:02 | chris leonard is a new member | |
| 15:02 | gerald ardito is a new member | |
| 15:02 | we say farewell to bernie and mel and thank you | |
| 15:02 | also many thanks to Luke for running the election | |
| 15:03 | I'd like to make a formal motion thanking Bernie and Mel, if everyone is agreeable? | |
| 15:03 | cjl | +1 |
| 15:03 | Icarito-d234 | +1 |
| 15:04 | cjb | +1 |
| 15:04 | bkuhn | walterbender: can you include in your email to Conservancy that Bernie and Mel are leaving too? Also, now that you've had an election, it would be the prefect time to execute the amended FSA we discussed in email a few weeks ago. |
| 15:04 | walterbender | Motion: The Sugar Labs Oversight Board would like to thank Bernie Innocenti and Mel Chua for their dedicated service to the community in their role as members of the oversight board. |
| 15:05 | bkuhn: I think at the next meeting, because one of our new members is not present | |
| 15:05 | we need to discuss schedules since Gerald teaches at this time of day ASAIK | |
| 15:05 | bkuhn | walterbender: Yeah, that's just fine, I'll send a new draft of the FSA next week with the new members names and you can put it on the agenda of the next meeting. |
| 15:05 | walterbender: Also, note that Bernie was just recently given authority to approve smaller expenses so you didn't have to. That authority is now presumably revoked? Do you want to grant someone else that authority? | |
| 15:05 | walterbender | bkuhn: the mailing list is updated |
| 15:06 | bkuhn: I think it is fine that Bernie keeps that role | |
| 15:06 | bkuhn | walterbender: ok. |
| 15:06 | walterbender | bkuhn: but the new board should discuss it. |
| 15:06 | back to my motion, any discussion, amendments? | |
| 15:07 | bkuhn | walterbender: meanwhile, do you mean the SLOBs mailing list? Note we keep a parallel an official list of who the SLOBs are for Conservancy's records, so I need all the details in an email so I can do that easily (and so I don't forget ;) |
| 15:07 | walterbender | bkuhn: yes, slobslists.sl.o |
| 15:08 | shall we vote? | |
| 15:08 | +1 from me | |
| 15:08 | Icarito-d234 | +1 |
| 15:08 | cjl | +1 |
| 15:09 | walterbender | while we wait for alsroot and cjb, let me bring up the schedule issue |
| 15:09 | I will ask Gerald for times that work for him and circulate them by email | |
| 15:10 | alsroot | scrolls back |
| 15:10 | walterbender | then we can settle into a new regular meeting time |
| 15:10 | cjl | cjb altready acked above |
| 15:10 | Icarito-d234 | yes i thought motion had passed already |
| 15:10 | walterbender | It seems that everyone is in relatively similar timezones these days. |
| 15:11 | cjl | peru shares a timezone with US eastern seaboard |
| 15:11 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: understood, ok about rescheduling meeting time |
| 15:11 | alsroot | +1 |
| 15:11 | raffael <raffael!5ddb1d63gateway/web/freenode/ip.93.219.29.99> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 15:11 | walterbender | one more +1 and it passes... the earlier +1s were for the idea of making a motion, not the motion itself |
| 15:11 | motion passes :) | |
| 15:11 | And again, welcome to our new members. | |
| 15:12 | a couple of more things before we move on: | |
| 15:12 | (1) there were a few issues with the election itself -- some lost ballots -- mako is working on a patch | |
| 15:13 | and no mechanism for tie-breakers. we should come up with one before next time | |
| 15:13 | (2) as per Bradley's interjection above, we should discuss new roles for board members and renewal of positions, such as finance director, etc. | |
| 15:14 | In regard to the latter, I have a very qualified volunteer whom I think I can recruit. A professional finance person | |
| 15:14 | more later... just wanted to raise these as things we need to discuss. | |
| 15:15 | Any other thoughts before we jump into the meat of the meeting? | |
| 15:15 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: maybe share these items in an prior agenda discussion on IAEP |
| 15:15 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: absolutely, which is why I don't want to go into detail now |
| 15:16 | cjl | Colecting agenda items for next meeting |
| 15:17 | walterbender | so, moving on... we should try to wrap up the Local Lab discussion from last time while we have Bradley and Tony here |
| 15:17 | #topic local labs / TM | |
| 15:18 | bkuhn and keynote2k: could you please summarize where you think we stand? | |
| 15:18 | keynote2k | sure |
| 15:19 | after looking into this further, I think this discussion goes beyond licensing TMs to local labs | |
| 15:20 | After doing some research, I think that the only way we can convey exclusivity (e.g, an "official" marker) is to provide oversight | |
| 15:20 | We still have a bit more work to do before coming up w/ a fleshed out proposal | |
| 15:21 | walterbender | so we need to rename all of the existing local labs to Ice Weasel? |
| 15:21 | keynote2k | :P |
| 15:21 | walterbender | Is there anything we can do to help? |
| 15:21 | keynote2k | actually, I think some simple additions to the organizational structure might suffice. But I want to do a bit more research to be definitive |
| 15:22 | I do have a few questions: | |
| 15:22 | are there any US-based local labs that have incorporated their own, independent 501c3 organizations? | |
| 15:23 | walterbender | keynote2k: I don't know, but the ND State lab would be part of the university, for example |
| 15:24 | bkuhn | walterbender: has the University actually recognized them as officially part of the University? |
| 15:24 | keynote2k | Really? I know that it would be comprised of NDSU-affiliated personnel, but would it be an official part of the NDSU strucdture? |
| 15:25 | walterbender | keynote2k: we need to ask each group for their details |
| 15:25 | keynote2k: but my impression is that they are like "clubs" within the universities | |
| 15:25 | kaametza | local labs are always going to have a diferent structure from each other, so we have been thinking that in order to obtain the benefits of the fiscal sponsorship, it would be easier to use the figure of teams and projects |
| 15:25 | walterbender | sometimes funded projects within the university |
| 15:26 | bkuhn | kaametza: Yes, we covered various issues related to the fact they have different structure in our last meeting and in previous conference calls. |
| 15:26 | walterbender | kaametza: I will be adding your questions re projects to the thread... |
| 15:26 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: which thread? bkuhn: conference calls? |
| 15:27 | bkuhn | Icarito-d234: We had a conference call with Sebastian about Sugar Labs Berlin. |
| 15:27 | kaametza | can we discuss them here? |
| 15:27 | walterbender | keynote2k: I will ask all of the local labs in the US to let me know their internal structures |
| 15:27 | keynote2k | that would be great. |
| 15:27 | kaametza | since we have the SFC staff |
| 15:27 | bkuhn | kaametza: did you get a chance to read the IRC log from the last SLOBs meeting were we discussed a lot about this? |
| 15:27 | kaametza | yes |
| 15:28 | bkuhn | Ok, great! If your questions could bounce off as follows up to that discussion, that would be probably most beneficial so we don't have to discuss again issues already addressed. |
| 15:28 | Icarito-d234 | kaametza's question to the list regarding SFC Agreement: "[2] Tienen los proyectos "oficiales" los beneficios |
| 15:28 | y obligaciones establecidas del acuerdo con la | |
| 15:28 | Software Freedom Conservancy? | |
| 15:28 | Does SFC Fiscal Soponsorship benefits/obligations | |
| 15:28 | apply to sugar lab's "official" projects?" | |
| 15:28 | sorry its in two languages | |
| 15:29 | kaametza | we want to move from the local lab figure to the teams/projects |
| 15:29 | walterbender | Icarito-d234 and kaametza: can we please finish the current discussion? |
| 15:30 | kaametza | :wal |
| 15:30 | sorry | |
| 15:30 | :P | |
| 15:30 | keynote2k | walterbender: getting us the info re: structure of US-based local labs would greatly help. |
| 15:31 | kaametza | okweare not us based |
| 15:31 | cjl | besides NDSU, I only know of a DC proposal in US |
| 15:31 | walterbender | cjl: they are the only two "official" SLs in the US |
| 15:32 | cjl | ok |
| 15:32 | kaametza | are they present in the meeting? |
| 15:32 | walterbender | cjl: there are "informal" efforts elsewhere, e.g., RIT |
| 15:33 | jt4sugar | walterbender: A list of questions SFC needs answered about local lab structure would be helpful to guide them in answering |
| 15:34 | cjl | walterbender: want to tag this point wit han action item? |
| 15:34 | walterbender | kaametza: neither Kevin or Jeff are here today |
| 15:34 | cjl: we need to find out from Tony what else they need from us so we can bring this topic to closure | |
| 15:35 | kaametza | We basically need to be able to provide srvices to third parties |
| 15:35 | bkuhn | jt4sugar: As has been pointed out already in this meeting and the last one, each local lab is structured differently, and as such we're pursuing those answers typically with each group that wants to form one. |
| 15:35 | kaametza | bkhun: exactly. |
| 15:35 | keynote2k | does the list of local labs on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Local_Labs represent the full, up-to-date list? |
| 15:36 | bkuhn | To answer walterbender's question from a while back, I think the main thing we need is a definitive list of contacts for each local lab. |
| 15:36 | walterbender | bkuhn: we need to establish both general guidelines and a process so that Laura and Raffael, for example, can get moving |
| 15:36 | kaametza | that's whywe want to move from the local lab structure to the teams/projects |
| 15:36 | walterbender | bkuhn: already in your inbox for US |
| 15:36 | bkuhn | walterbender: While I agree with that, I think the process will include a lot of discussion with each individual group to figure out what they're up to. |
| 15:36 | walterbender | agreed. |
| 15:36 | bkuhn | walterbender: thanks! |
| 15:36 | keynote2k | walterbender: we're in receipt. thx |
| 15:37 | walterbender | bkuhn: but I feel like we cannot seem to get these discussions moving forward |
| 15:37 | bkuhn: so there is pent-up frsutration | |
| 15:37 | kaametza | walter can I have a few wors? |
| 15:37 | words? | |
| 15:37 | walterbender | kaametza: sure |
| 15:37 | bkuhn | walterbender: I understand there's frustration. As I understood the situation, we were going to work with Sugar Labs Berlin to work out what the process is going to be. |
| 15:38 | kaametza | you move the discussion so fast that it is hard for me to express our ideas |
| 15:38 | bkuhn | As we discussed at the last meeting, there are a lot of complexities here regarding Conservancy's existence as a non-profit org in the USA. The USA local labs are probably much easier for us to deal with for that reason. |
| 15:38 | I don't see any reason we can't move forward with trying to get one USA one and one non-USA one organized in parallel. | |
| 15:39 | jt4sugar | bkuhn: A list of key things that local labs can or cannot do and how that does or does not fall under SFC would seem helpful-not everyone will be reading logs |
| 15:39 | bkuhn | Trying to pursue them all at once, though, is going to just overload Conservancy's extremely limited resources. |
| 15:39 | jt4sugar: I agree. The rules may be slightly different, based on the given structure of the local lab. | |
| 15:40 | kaametza | we have been requested to provide support services to a sugar deployment, we believe it would be easier for the SFC nad Sugar Labs to use the existing sponsorship agreement with the SFC |
| 15:40 | bkuhn | If we make *general* rules, they'd have to be particularly strict. That seems like a bad outcome. For local labs that can have withstand more oversight from Conservancy, they can of course do more. |
| 15:40 | kaametza | only10% it's to high |
| 15:40 | bkuhn | kaametza: who is "we" in this context? I always try to avoid that word. |
| 15:40 | kaametza | puno pilot deployment team |
| 15:40 | bkuhn | ... b/c there's always lots of "we"s as we all have different roles. :) |
| 15:41 | kaametza | bernie, sebastian, alksey, chris leonard, juan and me |
| 15:41 | cjl | bkuhn, is it fair to say that one of the primary concerns is that if money is involved, that "oversight" is essential to assure that all expenditures are consistent with SFC 5013(c) status? |
| 15:41 | 501(3)c | |
| 15:42 | bkuhn | cjl: that's definitely a major part of it. There are other issues too. Anything done in the Sugar Labs name reflects on Sugar Labs and ultimately Conservancy. If something goes wrong, Sugar Labs as a whole and/or Conservancy as a whole could easily get blamed. |
| 15:42 | It's Conservancy's job to protect Sugar Labs from any sort of problems, and that can only be done with oversight. | |
| 15:42 | kaametza | we are talking about support services |
| 15:42 | a responsability from sugar labs anyhow | |
| 15:43 | we would be an internal team | |
| 15:43 | under SLOBS supervision | |
| 15:43 | bkuhn | kaametza: typically with Conservancy projects, support services are done by third parties anyway. Can you explain better why Sugar Labs itself *must* be the "responsible" party here? |
| 15:43 | I see no specific reason that it needs to be. | |
| 15:44 | That's what Free Software is about: allowing others to have the freedom to use it commercially if they like, form their own work around it, etc. | |
| 15:45 | kaametza | you are right, i can be provided by a third party, the magic here is that this would test a sustainability model for sugar labs |
| 15:45 | CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr190.196.202.215> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 15:45 | keynote2k | kaametza: I'm not sure I follow |
| 15:45 | walterbender | kaametza: none of this has ever been discussed with SLOBs... |
| 15:46 | kaametza | we wok oluntarily but reality is that we need resources to circulate to be able to get work done |
| 15:47 | walterbender: I offered myself voluntarily to propose sustainability models some time ago | |
| 15:47 | been thinking and exploring ever since and lucky enouhg all ingridients mixed for us to able to get this eal in line | |
| 15:48 | deal* | |
| 15:48 | Icarito-d234 | s/eal/deal/g (kaametza is using a OLPC membrane keyboard |
| 15:48 | :-) | |
| 15:48 | kaametza | yes sorry |
| 15:48 | cjl | kaametza, One concern I can see is that a "support services" contract would certainly commit the party to certain actions that would become the legal responsibility of Sugar Labs and SFC and not just the the team involved. |
| 15:48 | I do understand the view from the other side though. The "customer" wants an entity to contract with and the team involved would like to be able to invoke Sugar Labs as their identity and thus SFC as their fiscal mgmt partner. | |
| 15:49 | kaametza | cjl: in fact we need another party to get the contract with the region |
| 15:49 | that would be escuelab puno | |
| 15:49 | cjl | which is under ATA? |
| 15:50 | walterbender | kaametza: then I don't understand why Bradley's previous answer is not adequate |
| 15:50 | kaametza | we [puno pilot deployment team] would provide the software support to them |
| 15:50 | we need to stablish a contractual relationship with escuelab puno | |
| 15:51 | to be able o get paid | |
| 15:51 | escuelab puno is an independent/local entity | |
| 15:52 | [we gave up in the local lab structure since it's not really oganic and requires duplicatd work] | |
| 15:52 | so, my questions are; | |
| 15:53 | 1. can official projects/teams get the fiscal sponsorpship benefits? | |
| 15:55 | 2. can we reduce the fee from 10% to 5%, at leasy on profesional services contracts? | |
| 15:55 | leasy=least | |
| 15:55 | walterbender | kaametza: I don't understand the distinction between doing a contract for the government vs doing a contract for escuelab puno |
| 15:55 | from the SL POV | |
| 15:56 | how does the oversight issue go away? | |
| 15:56 | or the issue of a contract? | |
| 15:56 | kaametza | we would have to be under overight of the board anyways |
| 15:57 | if you are getting in a contractual relationship you have a defined responsability | |
| 15:57 | Icarito-d234 | we agree with Sugar Labs organizational principles and democratic structure |
| 15:58 | and consider this project in the best interest of the Sugar Labs mission | |
| 15:59 | kaametza | we are integrating a local figure, since they will be able to handle paperwork and ocumentation with the local gobernment |
| 15:59 | we don't | |
| 16:00 | cjl | The question is what is possible / feasible within SL / SFC structure, I see two possible routes. |
| 16:00 | kaametza | escuelab puno will get the main contract |
| 16:00 | cjl | 1) EscueLab Puno enters contract with govt of Puno region to provide services, |
| 16:00 | kaametza | ys |
| 16:00 | walterbender | I still don't understand. What is the puno pilot deployment team and why does it need to have a contractual arrangement with SL to be able to consult? |
| 16:00 | cjl | 2a) Sugar Labs (via SFC, per SL status) forms a sub-contract with Puno Escuelab to support them. |
| 16:00 | 2b) a group of Sugar Labs members freely associate to provide services in support of EscueLab Puno under a sub-contract arrangement that does not commit SL (or SFC) to any deliverables, only the individual team members. | |
| 16:00 | kaametza | exaclty |
| 16:01 | Icarito-d234 | yes! |
| 16:01 | kaametza | please keep present that the main contract [esculab puno - gobernement] includes additional items, not just support |
| 16:01 | walterbender | what is the advantage of 2a? |
| 16:01 | cjl | kaametza: You are looking for 2a and walterbender is asking why 2b is not sufficient. |
| 16:02 | walterbender | it seems it incurs lots of overhead for everyone |
| 16:02 | including the 10% you don't like | |
| 16:04 | cjl | under 2a, fiscal mgmt goes though SFC, under 2B, it must be clear that the entity forming the contract is *not* Sugar Labs, the way that Activity Central operated, for example. |
| 16:04 | kaametza | we are willing to pay a fee since we belive the model needs to be scalble |
| 16:05 | no need for overheads if we are clear | |
| 16:05 | walterbender | kaametza: a fee to whom and what model? also, you could make a donation any time |
| 16:05 | kaametza | fee to SFC |
| 16:05 | walterbender | for what services? |
| 16:05 | bkuhn | Conservancy doesn't ask for fees for people to make good use of the software that projects like Sugar Labs produces to help the world. That's what I think cjl is getting at with 2(b) |
| 16:05 | kaametza | model of sus |
| 16:06 | sorry | |
| 16:06 | Icarito-d234 | to operate as a US NGO? |
| 16:07 | kaametza | by fee I mean the voluntary donation of 10% |
| 16:07 | I believe community members should be able to procure their sustainability | |
| 16:08 | using the existing mechanisms | |
| 16:08 | walterbender | it seems it is boiling down to some as yet explained need for there to be a US NGO operating in Peru? |
| 16:08 | kaametza | i dont understand the question |
| 16:09 | inkyfingers has quit IRC | |
| 16:09 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: we are not limited to operating in Peru |
| 16:09 | kaametza | exaclty |
| 16:09 | this would apply to any deployment team | |
| 16:09 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: regardless of where you want to operate, why do you need the SFC approval to offer consulting services? |
| 16:10 | kaametza | interested in sustainability |
| 16:10 | Icarito-d234 | also it would work for us as an administrative operator, for instance we already have a donor for seed funds for Puno project in the US |
| 16:10 | walterbender | kaametza: deployment teams are independent entities AFAIK |
| 16:10 | cjl | walterbender: I beleive there is a desire for administrative support (contract and money handling) as well as a desire to developing a model by which Local Labs can perform contractually funded activities |
| 16:10 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: we could use the Sugar Labs Deployment Team structure as you suggested |
| 16:11 | kaametza | walterbender: we need SFC assistance for keeping tranparency and objectiveness |
| 16:11 | walterbender | cjl: sounds really inefficient |
| 16:11 | Icarito-d234 | we once asked current coordinators (you and pilar) if we could be coordinators too but got no answer |
| 16:11 | (you=walterbender) | |
| 16:11 | bkuhn | cjl: Having Conservancy attempt to provide serious administrative support outside the USA makes little sense. We're in the wrong country, wrong currency, etc. |
| 16:11 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: if I didn't answer, I apologize. But I still don't understand the question |
| 16:12 | Icarito-d234 | we would like to provide a model to sustainably support the region's users |
| 16:12 | starting currently with a small pilot | |
| 16:13 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: I get that. But why the SFC role? |
| 16:13 | Icarito-d234 | smalish really |
| 16:13 | for the same reason SL uses it | |
| 16:13 | it alleviates complexity and provides transparency and advice | |
| 16:13 | kaametza | sugar labs is a global community, need a global management |
| 16:13 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: but I think that it alleviates complexity |
| 16:14 | as per this protracted discussion, it seems to add complexity | |
| 16:14 | Icarito-d234 | contractual relationships can be complex this is one area SFC can help us with, we think |
| 16:14 | walterbender | re transparency and advice, SFC/SL is happy to provide that in regard to Sugar regardless |
| 16:15 | Icarito-d234: but I think I hear bkuhn saying that they are not set up to do that | |
| 16:15 | that it is a complexity that will take time to work through | |
| 16:15 | kaametza | going back to my original question, do teams/projects get same benefits under the iscal sponsoship? |
| 16:15 | walterbender | in large part because they are US based |
| 16:16 | cjl | Peruvian contract law and non-profit status seems to be beyond SFC scope. |
| 16:16 | walterbender | cjl certainly at the moment. |
| 16:16 | cjl: down the road?? | |
| 16:16 | Icarito-d234 | surely SFC can enter contracts with foreign institutions / persons? |
| 16:17 | walterbender | bkuhn: ^^?? |
| 16:17 | bkuhn | keynote2k: can I ask you to comment on that? |
| 16:17 | keynote2k | Conservancy can enter into contracts w/ foreign institutions - although we do so carefully to address the difference in jurisdiction law |
| 16:18 | However, Conservancy is not structured to deploy or supervise go-to-market teams that bid for service engagements, which is what this sounds like. | |
| 16:19 | jt4sugar | If they go under 2b) they will still want to say or use Sugar Labs name(TM)in some way to help market and raise funds- can they? |
| 16:19 | Icarito-d234 | in this case we consider the contract to be for R&D which in this context includes some support to the local techincal team (escuelab puno) |
| 16:20 | walterbender | jt4sugar: that is back to Local Labs TM issue, which Bradley and Tony are still investigating |
| 16:20 | Icarito-d234 | *we will develop and document sugar* |
| 16:20 | jt4sugar | Ok |
| 16:21 | cjl | Icarito-d234: A question about Escuelab Puno, is it under ATA like EscueLab Lima? |
| 16:21 | Icarito-d234 | cjl, no its an entirely independent entity |
| 16:21 | keynote2k | lcarito-d234: it still sounds like income-generating contract. Conservancy projects fund development through donations, etc. |
| 16:21 | kaametza | keynote2k: we'll use the esuelab puno figure as they will get the structure required wih the local gobernmen |
| 16:22 | income will go to escuelab puno | |
| 16:23 | bkuhn | Ok, so that sounds like you don't need anything from Conservancy then to proceed with your work. This is pretty typical with Conservancy projects: there's usually lots of activity (mostly commercial, some non-commercial too) going on outside of the scope of Conservancy. The project benefits because patches and improvements get sent in. |
| 16:23 | But, in those cases, it's just that some unaffiliated volunteers -- from Conservancy's point of view -- are doing some excellent work to help us out. | |
| 16:23 | callkalpa <callkalpa!~callkalpa61.245.172.58> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 16:23 | walterbender | sound right |
| 16:24 | Icarito-d234 | we think it is an opportunity for Sugar Labs to be involved in a deployment |
| 16:24 | officially | |
| 16:24 | kaametza | we need to stablish a contractual relationship with escuelab puno |
| 16:24 | bkuhn | It's not that different from, for example, what happens with Google employees in the USA. Many of them get time from their jobs to do work that deploys Free Software in their organization for their own organizations need. As a side effect, Conservancy projects gets lots of useful patches from Google employees. |
| 16:24 | CanoeBerry has quit IRC | |
| 16:24 | bkuhn | But those Google employees aren't acting in Conservancy's name or in some official, affiliated capacity. From our point of view, they're just volunteers. |
| 16:24 | kaametza | and would need sugar labs backing for it |
| 16:25 | if sugar labs uses SFC a a legal figure | |
| 16:25 | Icarito-d234 | sugar is lacking in user feedback |
| 16:25 | kaametza | we need SCF as a legal figure |
| 16:25 | Icarito-d234 | Sugar the-software that is |
| 16:26 | bkuhn | kaametza: I haven't seen anything in this conversation that shows why escuelab puno "would need sugar labs's [and by automatic extension, Conservancy's] backing" for the proposed activities. |
| 16:26 | kaametza | to provide services as a team to escuelab |
| 16:26 | CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr190.196.202.215> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 16:26 | walterbender | kaametza and Icarito-d234: explain how "official" involvement helps resolve the feedback issue? |
| 16:26 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: sorry i'm off topic |
| 16:27 | kaametza | bkuhn: we as individuals need SL and SFC backing |
| 16:27 | cjl | kaametza: Does EscueLab Puno have a formal status, are they a company, are they a Peruvian established NGO (within applicable local law)? |
| 16:27 | keynote2k | Who is EscueLab Puno, for that matter? I'm trying to keep the parties straight here |
| 16:27 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: you get lots of backing from SL already, IMHO |
| 16:28 | bkuhn | kaametza: I'm just having trouble following it. It sounds like you are saying: "We need it because we need it.", which is a tautology, but not helpful to clarify the situation, unfortunately. |
| 16:28 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: and I don't understand what additional backing you need, other than "contractual support"? |
| 16:29 | kaametza | bkuhn: we need legal representation to provide services |
| 16:29 | bkuhn | walterbender: meanwhile, point of order, does this meeting have an end-time? I actually only scheduled an hour for it, and we're not 30 minutes past that, so and I'm unsure how much longer I can stay, as I'm getting ping'ed in many directions now by others, unfortunately. |
| 16:29 | walterbender | bkuhn: yes. we should have ended at 11. |
| 16:30 | we need to wrap up and obviously continue again soon | |
| 16:30 | bkuhn | kaametza: Conservancy doesn't provide legal representation to third-parties, unfortunately. It's not on our service plan. |
| 16:30 | kaametza | not a third party, a sugar labs team |
| 16:30 | walterbender | as far as action items, I sent bkuhn and keynote2k contact info for all of the local labs so they can ask whatever they need re the TM question |
| 16:31 | I would suggest that kaametza and Icarito-d234 clearly spell out what services that they think they need from SFC and why. | |
| 16:32 | bkuhn | kaametza: AFAICT, EscueLab Puno is currently a third-party. I realize you're *asking* for it to be part of Sugar Labs in some official way, but I don't see a consensus here about that. I think walterbender's follow up point would be helpful. After more than an hour discussing it, I'm still only hearing: "we need it because we need it". :-/ |
| 16:32 | kaametza | services included in the agreemnt |
| 16:32 | walterbender | meanwhile, I will coordinate with SLOBs (including Gerald) as to best times for meetings. |
| 16:32 | Icarito-d234 | bkuhn: escuelab puno would be the counterpart |
| 16:32 | I, kaametza and other SL members would be the Deployment Team (setup for Puno) | |
| 16:33 | keynote2k | Escuelab Puno is the customer, then? |
| 16:33 | kaametza | yes |
| 16:33 | Icarito-d234 | keynote2k: yes |
| 16:33 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: you brought up two new entities in today's discussion. I think the request for clarification is not unreasonable... |
| 16:33 | but we are out of time today | |
| 16:34 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: we only brought one question - can a SL Team enter a contract with a third party? |
| 16:34 | this is so we know if we start a team / project . | |
| 16:34 | bkuhn | Icarito-d234: Not in the name of Sugar Labs, no. The right to enter into contracts under the name Sugar Labs is reserved exclusively to Conservancy in the fiscal sponsorship agreement w/ Sugar Labs. |
| 16:35 | Icarito-d234 | bkuhn: this is the service we require from SFC |
| 16:35 | bkuhn | Icarito-d234: and then we're back to the same questions: "Who's the 'we' and why do you *require* that service?" It seems to me like a local entity focused on doing Sugar Labs deployment could do that. |
| 16:36 | walterbender | I would like to adjourn |
| 16:36 | cjl | Icarito-d234: The answer I am hearing from SFC is that they provide contract support for contracts where SL is the customer (e.g. buying conference supporting services, etc.), but not for cases where SL would be the vendor. |
| 16:36 | kaametza | we=Puno Pilot Deployment Team |
| 16:36 | walterbender | I think we know the questions that need to be answered in order to make further progress on these topics |
| 16:36 | Icarito-d234 | kaametza: Puno Pilot Deployment Team = Part of SL |
| 16:36 | bkuhn | cjl: That's probably an over-simplification, but it certainly is true that Conservancy is not a vendor to anyone for anything. |
| 16:37 | And it would be very rare (perhaps impossible) that being any sort of vendor would fit Conservancy's scope and mission. | |
| 16:37 | But, I'm sorry, walterbender moved to adjourn here, I think. | |
| 16:38 | kaametza | so sugar labs would never be able to monetize their work/ |
| 16:38 | walterbender | yes. ^^ is a Motion |
| 16:38 | 5 | |
| 16:39 | in respect to everyone's schedules | |
| 16:39 | 4 | |
| 16:39 | kaametza | would like thank you all |
| 16:39 | cjl | given the time, + t oadjounr, but I would be willing to hang out and try to clarify some questions |
| 16:39 | walterbender | 3 |
| 16:39 | cjl: +1 | |
| 16:39 | kaametza | will remain here is anyone interested |
| 16:39 | walterbender | 2 |
| 16:39 | 1 | |
| 16:39 | thanks all... to be continued | |
| 16:40 | #end-meeting | |
| 16:40 | meeting | Meeting ended Fri Dec 2 16:40:01 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4) |
| 16:40 | Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-02T15:01:02.html | |
| 16:40 | Log: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]11-12-02T15:01:02 | |
| 16:40 | walterbender | bkuhn, keynote2k: please let me know how I can help further re the TM issue |
| 16:40 | Icarito-d234 | if it will make it clearer, we're trying to avoid to replicate the governance and oversight structures locally |
| 16:40 | walterbender | or if you need more info from SL |
| 16:41 | Icarito-d234: but the governance and oversight you need for your contract are vastly different than the structure at the SFC | |
| 16:42 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: we don't need these for the contract! |
| 16:42 | walterbender: we need them because they are useful | |
| 16:42 | it's useful to have oversight | |
| 16:42 | CanoeBerry has quit IRC | |
| 16:42 | Icarito-d234 | a process |
| 16:42 | kaametza | walterbender: congrats for getting re-elected1 |
| 16:42 | walterbender | kaametza: thanks... |
| 16:42 | jt4sugar has quit IRC | |
| 16:43 | raffael has quit IRC | |
| 16:43 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: but SFC is seemingly not in the position to provide that oversight |
| 16:43 | Icarito-d234 | oversight is the role of SLOBs |
| 16:43 | SFC would provide fiscal sponsorship | |
| 16:43 | we would like to operate as Sugar Labs | |
| 16:43 | a Sugar Labs team | |
| 16:43 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: we are going around in circles... you just said: we don't need these for the contract! |
| 16:44 | Icarito-d234 | this way we don't have to worry about locally replicating governance |
| 16:44 | yes its not a contract requirement to work directly with Sugar Labs | |
| 16:44 | kaametza | walter, we need to provide income to the communiy |
| 16:44 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: you are a group of individuals who want to do a contract... or so I understand |
| 16:45 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: of sugar labs members |
| 16:45 | kaametza | how we do it, is the main challenge |
| 16:45 | cjl | kaametza: Income is a tricky issue for a non-profit. |
| 16:45 | walterbender | kaametza: how does the SFC help you with that goal? |
| 16:45 | kaametza | cjl: it's not tricky at all |
| 16:45 | walterbender | kaametza: it seems to me SFC hinders you |
| 16:46 | because it is constained | |
| 16:46 | ^constrained | |
| 16:46 | kaametza | as a non profit you can provide sevices |
| 16:47 | Icarito-d234 | we're willing to abide by the constraints to avoid having to replicate structures which is more overhead |
| 16:47 | walterbender | kaametza: that is not the issue. it is the oversight question and one of logisitcs: they (SFC) has no presence outside of the US, so they cannot not move quickly for these types of issues |
| 16:47 | kaametza | walter, I understand the SFC agreement is supposed to enable SL to get in contractual relationships |
| 16:48 | walterbender | kaametza: I think Tony was pretty clear on that topic |
| 16:48 | kaametza, Icarito-d234 but you are still not answering the question... what services and why? | |
| 16:48 | jt4sugar <jt4sugar!~jtsugard192-24-234-153.try.wideopenwest.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 16:48 | kaametza | we'll have to read again ;p |
| 16:49 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: we're working on documentation too: *Mission* |
| 16:49 | To measure and improve the user experience of learners from Puno-Region by localizing, distributing and supporting software based on their needs and conditions. | |
| 16:49 | walterbender | kaametza: the SFC and hence SL has a very narrow formal agenda... SL community members have many diverse agendas |
| 16:50 | Icarito-d234 | *Main Objective* |
| 16:50 | Field Testing + User Support + Product Development | |
| 16:50 | all of these processes feed into each other | |
| 16:50 | walterbender: as long as our agendas align in SFC and SL missions, it would be fine, as I understand it | |
| 16:50 | CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr190.196.202.215> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 16:50 | Icarito-d234 | *align with |
| 16:51 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: you are mixing apples and oranges. |
| 16:51 | kaametza | I personally believe SL should include sustainability in the agenda |
| 16:51 | walterbender | there is the TM issue, for which the jury is still out, and there is the contract issue |
| 16:51 | Icarito-d234 | it is true its not volunteers who work on sugar |
| 16:51 | not really | |
| 16:52 | cjl | Icarito-d234: Can you explain that? |
| 16:52 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: we've read the TM policy and that's fine for us too |
| 16:52 | cjl: sugar environment is developed by professional developers under contract for third parties | |
| 16:53 | kaametza | we will support Sugar learners in the Puno region |
| 16:53 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: but those developers are not SL employees |
| 16:53 | kaametza | we will get paid |
| 16:53 | :) | |
| 16:53 | cjl | But that work is donated t oSugar Labs on a voluntary basis |
| 16:53 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: exactly but characterizing them as volunteers is not accurate either |
| 16:53 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: you are putting words in my mouth |
| 16:53 | kaametza | so we just needto figure out the securest way |
| 16:53 | Icarito-d234 | so it is in the best interest of Sugar Labs to have people working and earning their living by developing, supporting and extending sugar |
| 16:54 | cjl | Icarito-d234: No one is disputing that |
| 16:54 | Icarito-d234 | i'm just stressing kaametza's point that SL should be concerned about sustainability |
| 16:54 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: sure... but it is not at all clear that SFC as a contract agent is the answer |
| 16:54 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: so we're open to other options |
| 16:55 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: as Bradley pointed out, the typical model is for individuals and third-parties to do contract work |
| 16:55 | which everyone supports as a model | |
| 16:55 | cjl | But note that (for example) Activity Central is an independent organization that takes on it's own legal liabilities. |
| 16:55 | walterbender | so the community members can sustain themselves |
| 16:55 | so is OLPCA | |
| 16:56 | Icarito-d234 | we believe it would be in the best interest of SL to be involved in the deployment process |
| 16:56 | walterbender | and so are other organizations that contribute to SL: ceibal, paraguay educa... |
| 16:56 | Icarito-d234: we are involved in deployments all over the world | |
| 16:56 | but through 3rd party contracts | |
| 16:56 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: none of these organizations have SL's interests and transparency policies |
| 16:57 | and this is hindering the user's experience with Sugar | |
| 16:57 | walterbender | perhaps |
| 16:57 | so why not set up a model of how to do it correctly? | |
| 16:57 | Icarito-d234 | at least from a R&D point of view, SL should be involved in deployments |
| 16:57 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: you keep implying that we are not... |
| 16:57 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: SL is a model to do it correctly |
| 16:58 | why replicate efforts? | |
| 16:58 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: but that model has constraints due to the relationship with the SFC |
| 16:58 | cjl | Icarito-d234: SL has limitations on what it can and cannot do that third parties do not have. |
| 16:58 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: so let's work with those constraints which are under negotiation |
| 16:59 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: if, for example, you want SL oversight, then invite SL members to be on your board |
| 17:00 | but it seems like an uphill battle to avoid "replicating efforts" | |
| 17:00 | kaametza | we ensamble a team that is already working |
| 17:00 | walterbender | kaametza: great :) |
| 17:00 | kaametza | yes i know |
| 17:00 | we also have a customer | |
| 17:01 | great too, right? | |
| 17:01 | walterbender | kaametza: you "know" what? |
| 17:01 | Icarito-d234 | walterbender: we don't have a board and would like to avoid having to have one |
| 17:01 | kaametza | that it's great |
| 17:01 | :o) | |
| 17:02 | we'll procure sustainablity for the team | |
| 17:03 | walterbender | Icarito-d234: I think you need to come up with the list of what you *do* want and what you *don't* want so we can discuss it with the SFC |
| 17:04 | kaametza | sorry, sebastian had to take care of mariana [our baby] |
| 17:04 | we'll be back in a sec | |
| 17:04 | bkuhn | Ok, I went idle for a while there. I read the backlog up until now. I don't have much to add that walterbender and cjl haven't already said, and I need to move on to other action items for other Conservancy projects for the rest of the day. So I'm going to /part now. |
| 17:04 | bkuhn has left #sugar-meeting | |
| 17:04 | cjl | Does EscueLab Puno have a formal status, are they a company, are they a Peruvian established NGO (within applicable local law)? |
| 17:04 | kaametza | cjl: they are getting soon |
| 17:05 | keynote2k | I'm also going to take off. walterbender: we'll reach out to local labs to learn about how they're structured. |
| 17:05 | Have a great weekend all. | |
| 17:05 | keynote2k has left #sugar-meeting | |
| 17:05 | kaametza | keynote2k; thanks, you too |
| 17:06 | walterbender | ciao tony |
| 17:06 | kaametza | thank y |
| 17:06 | cjl | kaametza: Part of what I am trying to understand is that if EscueLab Puno is being created, why does there need to be another contract involved. Why can't the individual Sugar Labs members participate in EscueLab Puno bringing their expertise wit hSugar? |
| 17:06 | satellit_ | note that I am an unpaid volunteer for sugarlabs. Retired and glad to help.... |
| 17:07 | walterbender | satellit_: we are all unpaid volunteers for Sugar Labs :P and glad you are among our numbers :) |
| 17:08 | needs to leave soon... | |
| 17:08 | satellit_ | : ) we do exist |
| 17:08 | kaametza | cjl: it can be done directly, we're just trying to stablish a model for teams sustainability |
| 17:08 | walterbender | Icarito-d234, kaametza: can you please take a stab at my to do ^^? |
| 17:08 | kaametza | Sugar Labs Teams I mean |
| 17:08 | walterbender | and we can discuss it next time? |
| 17:09 | kaametza: I appreciate the concern for sustainability, but I am not sure you are attacking the right place in the problem space. | |
| 17:09 | kaametza | sorr walter, don't understand " take |
| 17:09 | a stab a my to do | |
| 17:09 | " | |
| 17:10 | walterbender | kaametza: please come up with the list of what you *do* want and what you *don't* want so we can discuss it with the SFC |
| 17:10 | kaametza | I sent an email yesterday to SLOB's |
| 17:11 | cjl | kaametza: I think that part of the challenge that OLPC has faced was an attempt to maintain centrality. I think that sustainability for deployments necessarily involves independent operations tha appropriate Sugar and OLCP for their own goals. |
| 17:11 | walterbender | kaametza: it is not clear to me the advantage of sustaining a Sugar Labs team vs the individuals on the team |
| 17:11 | kaametza: we talked ad nausium about your question and have questions for you | |
| 17:13 | kaametza | cjl: that's why theescuelab puno figure is been formed |
| 17:14 | cjl: still, there is a need for legal representation to the providor of the software support | |
| 17:14 | in this case the "Puno Pilot Deployment Team" | |
| 17:14 | a Sugar Lbs Team | |
| 17:15 | so, regional gobenement contracts wih escuelab puno a set of services | |
| 17:16 | then escuelab puno contrats technical support with Sugar Labs | |
| 17:16 | Icarito-d234 | yes escuelab puno will deal with more than just software support |
| 17:16 | kaametza | it's very organic |
| 17:16 | Icarito-d234 | they will provide training for instance |
| 17:16 | CanoeBerry has quit IRC | |
| 17:16 | CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr190.196.202.215> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 17:16 | cjl | kaametza: It is perfectly fine for a group of Sugar Labs members together in free association to collaborate, it is another matter for them to enter contractual obligations on behalf of SL. |
| 17:17 | It if fine for them to gather for commercial purposes as well, but not under the "Sugar Labs" banner. | |
| 17:18 | kaametza | cjl: why not/ |
| 17:18 | ? | |
| 17:18 | walterbender | kaametza: for the reasons that bradley and tony said in the meeting |
| 17:18 | cjl | In spite of your contention that income is easy for non-profits, it is not. This is one of the reasons tha OLPC cannot get into the business of sellign individual units. |
| 17:20 | Providing services under contract is a "commercial activity" under applicable US law. Non-profits have to tread very carefully with commercial activity and hopw an dwhere the money flows. | |
| 17:20 | kaametza | cjl: it's a diferent problem, I'm talkng about the accountablity of "professional services" |
| 17:20 | Icarito-d234 | yes that is what the mission is about, not for profit |
| 17:20 | kaametza | it's doable |
| 17:21 | CanoeBerry has quit IRC | |
| 17:21 | Icarito-d234 | the service is in the public good |
| 17:21 | CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr190.196.202.215> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 17:21 | kaametza | since it is in line with the main reason for the non-profit: free software distribution |
| 17:22 | cjl | kaametza: If you wanted to do it for free, it would be no problem, but you want to get paid to do it. This brings in other considerations about permissable activities for 501(c)3 entities under US tax code. |
| 17:23 | kaametza | I have read the documentation |
| 17:23 | walterbender | kaametza, Icarito-d234 : I think we need to let Tony answer these questions... it is ultimately about how the SFC interprets the law... |
| 17:23 | cjl | Yes I can say that the work doene benefits the community and the mission, but if the money flows t oan individual, that is a commercial activity. |
| 17:23 | kaametza | and in my unerstanding it is doable, still I made the public questions to slob's so thy could adress them to the SFC |
| 17:24 | cjl | kaametza: I think walter is saying that they are not quite specific enough. Lawyers do not answer "general questions". |
| 17:24 | walterbender | kaametza, Icarito-d234: so again, I suggest that you please come up with the list of what you *do* want and what you *don't* want so we can discuss it with the SFC |
| 17:25 | kaametza | cjl: we are trying to stablish a procedure to get a sustainability model for active sugar members |
| 17:26 | cjl | lawters need to see very detailed information, in an ideal world, a draft of a contract, or at least an outline of the entitiesd involved, their legal statuses and the proposed arrangements. |
| 17:26 | walterbender | kaametza: yes. so you have said... but the details are missing |
| 17:26 | cjl | kaametza: You keep on wsaying that and that is a good thing, but the devil is in the details |
| 17:27 | sustainability is not a magic wand you can wave t omake legal issues go away because you mean well. The structures and arrangements must be detailed enouigh for a lawyer to offer suggested changes in the language. | |
| 17:27 | kaametza | walterbender: we needed the answers to the questions presented in order to evaluate how do we need to documentate the details |
| 17:27 | walterbender | kaametza: you got an answer: no. |
| 17:27 | cjl | Services contracts are (in general) painful. I have entered into many on behalf of my employers in the past and they are routinely quite a hassle to get past lawyers/contracting agents. |
| 17:27 | kaametza | procedures and documentation |
| 17:28 | walterbender | kaametza: but you also got an opening: if you can be concrete about a specific request |
| 17:29 | needs to go. back later | |
| 17:29 | kaametza | walterbender: would preffer a formal anwer from the SFC |
| 17:31 | thank you all [great talking to you chris] we have to go now | |
| 17:31 | cjl | kaametza: You need t oask a specific question to get a formal answer from a lawyer. |
| 17:31 | Icarito-d234 | thank you all |
| 17:32 | cjl | I really want to help you guys find the right structure to be able to obtain financial support. |
| 17:32 | No one is against people being paid for their services, it is a question of via what entities it is possible for tha tto happen. | |
| 17:32 | jt4sugar | kaametza: Set up as non-profit, charge for services, pay your employees, reinvest in yourselves, any excess gets donated to SL and SFC do all the paperwork that qualifies as Non-profit. If you act as non-profit you will need a Board. So when money flows in it's what you do with it that makes you Non-profit-i.e. no investors. Write up point by point issues or questions for SFC send to SLOBs list and SFC directly should get answ |
| 17:32 | you need | |
| 17:33 | satellit_ | how does dfarning structure his? would that be a model? |
| 17:34 | CanoeBerry has quit IRC | |
| 17:34 | Icarito-d234 | we'll work on this some more |
| 17:35 | jt4sugar: we are a non profit, we are called Sugar Labs, and we have a board, SLOBs - we don't want to do all that again | |
| 17:35 | callkalpa has quit IRC | |
| 17:38 | jt4sugar | Icarito-d234: But SL seems not ready to do the contract themselves so you will need a separate non-profit to do the deal(this new structure can become the sustainable structure your striving for), will help you in future and will allow agileness you will need to act locally and regionally. |
| 17:39 | cjl | Icarito-d234: Unfortunately activities in different jurisdictions may require legal advice from someone qualified (e.g. admitted to the bar or licensed) within that jurisdiction. It may not be possible for the US based SFC t oprovide adequate counsel on contracts under Peruvian law. |
| 17:40 | It also may be tha the nature of the activity (a services provision contract) does not fall within the scope of the services tha tSFC provides for member projects. | |
| 17:42 | It is a good thought to try to leverage existintg arrangements to the extent possible, but it is not an insult if those existing structures are not adequate for the scope of what you envision. Disappointing perhaps, but do not take that as a lack of support for the ideas. | |
| 17:44 | jt4sugar | Icarito-d234: A way to think of this is you would be starting the "Franchise Model"-Self sustainable Local labs generating revenue with excess revenue going to SL and SFC. A much needed model so the work you do will have far reaching benefits for everyone involved. A relationship with Business School/Law School at Local University might help tremendously in this area for ongoing sustainability . |
| 17:45 | Icarito-d234 | jt4sugar: this is the local labs model which has not worked very well |
| 17:46 | jt4sugar: because its overhead | |
| 17:46 | few people, lots of institutions | |
| 17:47 | for instance 3 members of Puno Deployment Project are SLOBs | |
| 17:50 | cjl | But AFAIK only one gets any money for Sugar work and that is via Activity Central |
| 17:53 | Icarito-d234: Can you follow up with Irma on quz files that were sent by Amos Batto? I will reach out to aym team by e-mail again, but we need to get people back to work on L10n. | |
| 17:54 | Icarito-d234 | cjl: yes we would like to improve that situation (only one getting paid) |
| 17:55 | cjl: will follow up with irma | |
| 17:55 | cjl | Icarito-d234: Another point that I think SomosAzucar might want to address that is less complex than fees fo rservices) are simple directed donations. |
| 17:55 | dirakx <dirakx!~rafael186.80.157.133> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 17:55 | Icarito-d234 | cjl: kaametza and I were just talking about that topic (directed donations) |
| 17:56 | cjl | For example, can SomosAzucar set up a page like http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Donate wit hany donations being directed via SFC to SomosAzucar or can it be set up seprate fo SFC. |
| 17:57 | That is a straght-forwqrd and direct qu3estion and if answered in a good way can at least provide a mechanism for supporting Somos Azucar activities (although disbursements might need to be accounted for carefully as being made in support of permitted activities). | |
| 17:57 | Icarito-d234 | cjl: earmarked donations have been discused previously by slobs and are generally accepted but not implemented, ie. process and details |
| 17:57 | jt4sugar | Icarito-d234: Understand. This is my opinion-In short term I don't see SL and SFC having capability-money/resources to get you the structure you need to get deal, therefore if this is a short term issue then the structure will need to be supplied by you. I am thinking of something like minded possibly here in Michigan USA and realize if I am to do it II will need to set up Non-profit-and that's a big decision |
| 17:58 | cjl | For instance, US 501)c)3 cannot make political contributions. . . |
| 17:58 | But they can pay for travel, reimburse for incidentals, etc. | |
| 18:00 | Icarito-d234 | jt4sugar: we shouldn't have to go thru the burden if SL/SFC already did it for us |
| 18:00 | cjl | Having an acceptable mechanism by which directed donations could be solicited would be a good start. Not an answer to the sub-contracting issue |
| 18:01 | jt4sugar | Icarito-d234: I here your point but I think what SL is saying is they don't do direct contracts, which in this case is what your asking. They do contracts through third parties which would be the entity you would set up |
| 18:02 | cjl | Icarito-d234: Unfortunately, non-profits generally don't get paid for providing services. It is typicaly that non-profits give away services. |
| 18:03 | Icarito-d234 | cjl: no problem there - tipically non-profits are funded too |
| 18:03 | have budgets | |
| 18:03 | cjl | They accept donations to be able to pay the overhead of providing those services. Non-profits may even hire people to provide those services. |
| 18:04 | Icarito-d234 | exactly |
| 18:04 | that's what we're proposing to design the process and document | |
| 18:04 | within sugar labs | |
| 18:05 | cjl | Icarito-d234: But SL has no employees and has made the arrangements wit hSFC in large part to avoid having to hire emplyesst odo things like file for non-profit status, etc. |
| 18:06 | Icarito-d234 | cjl: we don't need employees or payroll but to hire on a project-by-project basis |
| 18:06 | cjl: its kind if what we do with GSOC | |
| 18:06 | cjl | What you are requesting is that undertake specific activities and make payments to individuals to perform those activities. |
| 18:07 | jt4sugar | Icarito-d234: I think you can document and set up process in Sugar Labs it's just that SL isn't set up to do direct contract. It's the direct contract that requires you to set up the separate entity. |
| 18:07 | cjl | GSOC is not paid by SL, in fact SL gets money from GSOC. |
| 18:08 | Icarito-d234 | cjl people get hired on a project basis (in gsoc case, paid by google) |
| 18:08 | Escuelab Puno is not google | |
| 18:08 | :-) | |
| 18:08 | cjl: the complexity is this | |
| 18:09 | we would like to replicate the puno experience | |
| 18:09 | we would have to create a new entity everywhere we work | |
| 18:09 | we don't live in Puno | |
| 18:10 | cjl | I would not create an entity with a regional restriction. |
| 18:10 | manuq has quit IRC | |
| 18:11 | Icarito-d234 | cjl: SL is an entity without a regional restriction |
| 18:11 | Peru has 25 regions | |
| 18:11 | cjl | Icarito-d234: SL is an entity tha is restricted in the types of activities it can undertake. |
| 18:12 | Icarito-d234 | yes the big question is if our activities fall under what SL considers to be the activities it wants to undertake |
| 18:13 | jt4sugar | Icarito-d234: Flip this around for a second. Let's say you were in Sugar Labs. Who signs the deals? If money comes to SL meaning SFC How do you and others get paid? Who would do all the paperwork so you get paid. Understand if the deal was with SL money would come to SFC before it got back to you. |
| 18:13 | Icarito-d234 | it is not sustainable to create an institution in every region |
| 18:13 | cjl | Ceibal volunteer org is nationwide |
| 18:13 | Same with OLE Nepal | |
| 18:14 | Maybe exploring how OLE does things would be worth understanding. | |
| 18:14 | Icarito-d234 | cjl: we consider our interest to be Southamerica |
| 18:15 | cjl | Ther eare OLE's in various places |
| 18:16 | Look at the OLE requirements for a new OLE http://ole.org/apply/ | |
| 18:17 | You will see they do not do things from a central point either, they have strong decentralization. | |
| 18:20 | Icarito-d234 | OLE is interesting to us - it also failed in Bolivia so far |
| 18:21 | jt4sugar | Icarito-d234: Yes the activities your taking do fall under what SL wants but there is no one really at SL that gets paid to actually undertake the work you describe and to be effective there would need to be. Until SL did major fundraising and put these capabilities in place the 3rd party and local lab route seem to be only model to achieve deal in short run, I wish I could give you a different answer that allowed you to estab |
| 18:21 | things quickly!! | |
| 18:22 | Icarito-d234 | yes the reality is that we need this deal to be closed soon so we could use SL |
| 18:22 | *so we thought we could use SL | |
| 18:24 | jt4sugar | Icarito-d234: I think this all boils down to direct contract and money flow. SL and SFC from what I heard don't do the direct contract thing. This seems to be key question for them to clarify for you. That answer will then show you what path forward is necessary |
| 18:27 | cjl | Icarito-d234: Unfortunately OLE Bolivia is pretty much a one man show AFAICT. I know and like yamandu but I would not take the OLE Bolivia experience as offering much insight into the possibilities. |
| 18:27 | Icarito-d234 | ok we need to move on now - we'll figure out the best option - it's a pity SL can't be involved, its an opportunity for SL |
| 18:28 | *pity IF SL can't be involved | |
| 18:29 | thank you all | |
| 18:29 | cjl | Icarito-d234: please talk to Irma |
| 18:29 | Icarito-d234 | cjl: its in the plan for Puno deployment |
| 18:30 | jt4sugar | Icarito-d234: Best of luck, I know it's a tough road!! Will be in touch soon about OWL jr literacy project |
| 18:30 | Icarito-d234 | cjl: what do you need from Irma? Amos's files? shouldnt we ask Amos about them? |
| 18:31 | cjl | Iram wanted t oreview them, then upload them |
| 18:31 | Thye have not been uploaded yet (or sent to me for upload). | |
| 18:31 | Icarito-d234 | ok thanks |
| 18:31 | dirakx has quit IRC | |
| 18:31 | Icarito-d234 | bye for now |
| 18:32 | cjl | later |
| 18:32 | jt4sugar | Have a Great weekend! |
| 18:32 | Icarito-d234 has quit IRC | |
| 18:38 | kaametza has quit IRC | |
| 18:49 | dirakx <dirakx!~rafael186.85.36.214> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 18:54 | dirakx has quit IRC | |
| 18:54 | dirakx <dirakx!~rafael186.85.36.214> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 18:59 | dirakx has quit IRC | |
| 19:00 | dirakx <dirakx!~rafael186.85.36.214> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 19:07 | CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr8.10.7.242> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 19:18 | CanoeBerry has quit IRC | |
| 19:32 | jt4sugar has quit IRC | |
| 19:36 | dogi <dogi!~omen2001:4830:2446:ff01:213:e8ff:fed3:5e37> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 19:54 | jt4sugar <jt4sugar!~jtsugard192-24-234-153.try.wideopenwest.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:15 | dirakx has quit IRC | |
| 20:16 | walterbender has quit IRC | |
| 20:40 | manuq <manuq!~manuq190.183.231.141> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:00 | dogi has quit IRC | |
| 21:03 | yama` has quit IRC | |
| 21:08 | yama <yama!~yama124-149-112-181.dyn.iinet.net.au> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:08 | yama has quit IRC | |
| 21:08 | yama <yama!~yamaubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:17 | ClaudiaU has quit IRC | |
| 21:17 | meeting | * ClaudiaU-es has joined |
| 21:17 | ClaudiaU <ClaudiaU!~ClaudiaUowl.laptop.org> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:36 | gepatino has quit IRC | |
| 21:48 | manuq has quit IRC | |
| 22:02 | dirakx <dirakx!~rafael186.80.157.133> has joined #sugar-meeting |
« Previous day | Index | Today | Next day » Channels | Search | Join