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

#sugar-meeting, 2012-05-03

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

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
00:10 Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso@> has joined #sugar-meeting
00:39 gonzalo_ <gonzalo_!~gonzalo@> has joined #sugar-meeting
00:54 gonzalo_ has quit IRC
00:57 Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC
00:59 Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso@> has joined #sugar-meeting
01:04 sridhar is now known as yama
01:04 yama <yama!~sridhar@ubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting
01:19 dogi <dogi!~omen@pool-108-20-111-50.bstnma.east.verizon.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
02:54 gonzalo_ <gonzalo_!~gonzalo@> has joined #sugar-meeting
03:05 dirakx <dirakx!~rafael@> has joined #sugar-meeting
04:36 gonzalo_ has quit IRC
05:48 kaametza` has quit IRC
05:48 kaametza <kaametza!~kaametza@2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting
07:42 meeting <meeting!~sugaroid@jita.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
07:57 ClaudiaU <ClaudiaU!~ClaudiaU@owl.laptop.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
07:57 meeting * ClaudiaU-es has joined
07:57 ClaudiaU_ has quit IRC
08:12 garycmartin <garycmartin!~garycmart@host-2-102-84-219.as13285.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:17 [scs] <[scs]!~scs@rev-18-85-44-66.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:19 aa <aa!~aa@2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:19 neyder` <neyder`!~neyder@2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:21 [scs]_ has quit IRC
08:21 ajay has quit IRC
08:21 aa` has quit IRC
08:21 m_anish has quit IRC
08:21 yama has quit IRC
08:21 neyder has quit IRC
08:22 sridhar <sridhar!~sridhar@2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:22 ajay <ajay!~ajay@2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:22 m_anish <m_anish!~anish@2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting
08:28 garycmartin has quit IRC
09:24 satellit_Tris55R has quit IRC
09:26 satellit_Tris55R <satellit_Tris55R!~satellit_@bc106151.bendcable.com> has joined #sugar-meeting
10:01 satellit_Tris55R has quit IRC
10:02 satellit_Tris55R <satellit_Tris55R!~satellit_@bc106151.bendcable.com> has joined #sugar-meeting
10:29 bertf_ is now known as bertf
11:14 gonzalo_ <gonzalo_!~gonzalo@> has joined #sugar-meeting
12:20 Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC
12:33 manuq <manuq!~manuq@host62.190-137-200.telecom.net.ar> has joined #sugar-meeting
13:16 ClaudiaU has quit IRC
13:17 ClaudiaU <ClaudiaU!~ClaudiaU@owl.laptop.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
13:17 meeting * ClaudiaU-es has joined
14:37 satellit__Tris55 <satellit__Tris55!~satellit_@bc106151.bendcable.com> has joined #sugar-meeting
14:37 satellit__Tris55 has quit IRC
14:59 dirakx gonzalo_: ping
14:59 gonzalo_ pong dirakx
14:59 dirakx gonzalo_: as it is now is memorize saving its actual state to the journal ?.
15:01 gonzalo_: i.e if i open a game..do some changes, exit...and resume from journal, I will go back to a new game or the modified one ?.
15:01 gonzalo_ dirakx, yes
15:02 dirakx gonzalo_: so I will go back to the modified one ?.
15:02 gonzalo_ the modified one
15:02 dirakx gonzalo_: but this is for versions that work under sugar-0.96 ?
15:03 gonzalo_ dirakx, for the last version
15:03 why?
15:03 dirakx I'm testing v41 ..
15:03 so the thing is that I cannot test this for sugar-0.94
15:03 gonzalo_: can this feature  be backported ?.
15:05 dogi has quit IRC
15:05 gonzalo_ dirakx, but the last version does not work in 0.94?
15:06 dirakx gonzalo_: yes..I'm getting.
15:07 gonzalo_: import error could not import gobject.
15:07 gonzalo_ dirakx, gobject? is strange
15:07 cjl has quit IRC
15:08 cjl <cjl!~chatzilla@c-98-204-202-184.hsd1.md.comcast.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:08 dirakx gonzalo_: exact trace on http://pastebin.com/zCfkBECb
15:10 gonzalo_: this is v41 from ASLO
15:11 gonzalo_ dirakx, you have another problem here:
15:11 File "/home/rafael/Activities/memorize/messenger.py", line 25, in <module>
15:11 11     from dbus.gobject_service import ExportedGObject
15:11 12   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packa​ges/dbus/gobject_service.py", line 27, in <module>
15:11 13     from gi.repository import GObject as gobject
15:12 dbus gobject  is looking at the gtk3 library
15:12 but is not in the activity
15:14 dirakx gonzalo_: oh gosh probably..is my new ubuntu  upgrade.
15:14 gonzalo_: I will try on an xo, but there are reports that saving to journal is not working..for v41.
15:14 gonzalo_ dirakx, arghhh :)
15:15 dirakx, better if the reports came with a patch ;)
15:15 dirakx gonzalo_: I'm diagnozing for now..
15:15 gonzalo_: confirming if this was supossed to work earlier.
15:17 gonzalo_ dirakx, the use of memorize changed a lot, a few versions ago (when changed the toolbar)
15:20 dirakx gonzalo_: should be also o.k if the writing to journal anytime is added next.
15:20 gonzalo_: confirmed not working..i.e it doesn't save the state.
15:21 gonzalo_: I'm going to see the git version.
15:48 Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso@> has joined #sugar-meeting
16:12 dogi <dogi!~omen@fw-1-user-net-flrs.cictr.com> has joined #sugar-meeting
16:31 garycmartin <garycmartin!~garycmart@> has joined #sugar-meeting
16:39 garycmartin has quit IRC
17:26 aa has quit IRC
17:27 aa` <aa`!~aa@2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:24 walterbender <walterbender!~chatzilla@2001:4830:2446:ff01:5a94:6bff:fe7a:1bc8> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:54 tonyf <tonyf!~webchat@jita.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:56 walterbender hi tonyf
20:56 tonyf hi walter
20:57 dirakx has quit IRC
20:59 bkuhn <bkuhn!~bkuhn@fsf/director/conservancy.president.bkuhn> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:02 walterbender can we have a raise of hands from SLOB members?
21:02 is here
21:02 keynote2k <keynote2k!~tony@conservancy/staff/keynote2k> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:03 walterbender cjb, icarito, alsroot. ?
21:03 icarito is here hello everyone
21:03 walterbender I also thought that Gerald would be here
21:03 cjl?
21:04 was expecting everyone except Adam
21:04 kaametza_ <kaametza_!~webchat@jita.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:04 cjb waves
21:05 bernie hello
21:05 let me move somewhere else
21:05 walterbender well, we should get started and when we have a quorum, we can make official decisions
21:05 #startmeeting
21:05 meeting Meeting started Thu May  3 21:05:58 2012 UTC. The chair is walterbender. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:05 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting
21:06 walterbender while we have bernie, let's start with the server discussion
21:06 #topic server
21:07 We are in need of replacing some servers (after deferring the decision for 2+ years
21:07 We had put aside some $s for this but never spent the money.
21:07 cjb sounds fine to me, let's do it
21:07 walterbender Seems we will finally do so.
21:07 cjl waves
21:08 +1 to new server
21:08 icarito yes good to have some good servers, and thanks for bernie's leadership of infrastructure team
21:09 walterbender Bernie will finish his investigation into exactly what we need and if we run slightly over, I will cover the rest from the $$s we have in the Gardner School grant
21:09 notes we now have a quorum
21:09 just wanted everyone to have a heads up about this. Goal is to make it all happen this month.
21:09 bkuhn walterbender: what's the budget for the servers?
21:10 walterbender bkuhn: we had put aside $2K
21:10 icarito bernie, uplink and collocation are sponsored by MIT?
21:10 cjl assume rackspace is for it sorted out?
21:10 bkuhn Sugar has $19,831.84 at the moment, so you could safely go over budget, I'd expect, if needed. ;)
21:10 walterbender icarito, cjl : MIT and FSF
21:11 bernie: the plan is to put one in each location or both at MIT?
21:12 bkuhn: I don't think we will be over budget by an order of magnitude :P
21:12 bernie i just reconnected, sorry
21:12 let me read the scrollback
21:12 bkuhn I meant, if you end up needing to spend $2,800 or something, it won't be that big of a deal.
21:12 cjl resisting temptation to relive my sysadmin days. will go with whatever Infrastructure Team (bernie) decides
21:13 bkuhn What's the Gardner school grant, BTW?  Just curious.
21:13 walterbender cjl: one of the motives for an upgrade is to enhance pootle performance
21:13 cjl yeah
21:13 bernie we had $1800 earmarked for infrastructure long ago, plus another $400 donated by fgrose (iirc) when a hard drive broke
21:13 GeraldA <GeraldA!~quassel@ool-457bee18.dyn.optonline.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:13 GeraldA_ <GeraldA_!~quassel@ool-457bee18.dyn.optonline.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:13 walterbender bkuhn: the grant that Caroline and I got way back when to work on Sugar on a Stick in Boston Public Schools
21:14 bkuhn Oh, the Gould grant.  Sorry.  I never thought of it that way. :)
21:14 bernie if we could double that, i'm pretty sure i could buy two very decent machines
21:14 bkuhn I didn't know which school it was used in.
21:14 walterbender bkuhn: Gould. Yes. that is the official name
21:14 GeraldA Sorry for joining late.
21:14 walterbender is a bit jetlagged... just off the plane from Korea
21:14 bernie one machine would work, but ideally we'd like to have some redundancy and not rely on donated / borrowed hardware any more
21:14 walterbender hi GeraldA
21:14 bernie: +1
21:14 cjl bernie +2
21:15 bkuhn Yeah, that number I quoted before includes $9,615.92 that remains in what was given by Gould.... it's not officially earmarked that way.
21:15 ... so you can spend it on other things, but I know you think of it separately nonetheless.
21:15 bernie I haven't checked what's available in the market yet, but the specs we're looking for are, more or less:
21:15 walterbender bkuhn: I am loath to spend it on things unrelated... but servers fit the mission
21:16 cjl Bernie, if we gave you approval to shop for two servers on a $5k budget would that work?
21:17 bernie a modern amd or intel machine, with 6-8 cores, 64gb of ram, 4 fast drives of 1TB or more, rackable (possibly 2U), possibly remotely manageable
21:17 cjl: yes, i think it would be perfect.
21:18 bkuhn We could also fundraise specifically to cover the cost of the servers, if you didn't want to spend the money you have on them.
21:18 manuq has quit IRC
21:18 bernie bkuhn: i'd be also happy to use the servers to host other free software projects besides us.
21:19 walterbender bkuhn: we need to get this done sooner than later... but fund-raising is anther topic we should discuss
21:19 bernie: at least as far as i18n, we are already hosting other projects
21:19 bernie bkuhn: we've always been sharing our infra with other related projects, and i don't mind the extra work to maintain the low-level infrastructure as long as the projects provide an experienced sysadmin to manage their services
21:19 walterbender plus we are hosting OLE and some other things?
21:20 bkuhn Yeah, that's all ok, as long as all projects are licensed freely (under licenses on OSI and FSF license lists both)
21:20 You should probably make it clear to them that hosting on Conservancy-held hardware doesn't make them a member project like Sugar Labs is.
21:20 walterbender there is the non-commercial restriction at MIT too
21:20 bernie walterbender: we're hosting OLE, OLE Nepal, Codewiz (me :-), Somosazucar and the other local labs, vueltaciclistica... probably others i forgot
21:21 walterbender we should wrap this topic up... lots more to discuss
21:21 bernie activitycentral is mostly running on its own machines except for mailing lists, iirc.
21:21 cjl bkuhn Etoys, AbiWord and Gnash L10n, all clear
21:21 bernie ah, we also host paraguayeduca.org
21:21 walterbender seems there is no issue with bernie spending the previously allocated money, but it was proposed we increase from 2K to up to 5K.
21:21 quick vote?
21:22 cjl +1 5k for two servers
21:22 walterbender +1
21:22 GeraldA +1
21:22 cjb +1
21:22 icarito +1
21:22 walterbender motion passes!!
21:23 bkuhn bernie: spec out and email me about purchasing.  Note we wanna order through Conservancy when possible, in part so we can save you from handling a reimbursement, and also so we can make sure we don't pay tax on purchase.
21:23 walterbender bernie and I will keep the community informed
21:23 bernie thanks, i'll work on it
21:23 walterbender shall we move to local labs... tony?
21:23 #topic Local Labs
21:23 cjl bernie, get yourself ILOM (remote mgmt), it will be a big win.
21:23 walterbender did everyone get a chance to read Tony's email?
21:24 icarito ah, sorry just saw it
21:24 bernie bkuhn: indeed, at microcenter they told me i couldn't use tax exemption through the SFC because it's not based in Massachusetts
21:24 bkuhn bernie: we have an MA tax exemption too.
21:25 bernie cjl: yes, that's important
21:25 bkuhn it's a special form.
21:25 walterbender keynote2k: do you want to get the discussion started?
21:25 gonzalo_ has quit IRC
21:25 keynote2k Sure.
21:25 bernie bkuhn: oh cool, then i gave them the wrong type of form
21:25 walterbender keynote2k: I had a few questions and I am sure others do too.
21:25 keynote2k should I provide a quick summary for those who didn't read the email?
21:25 walterbender sure
21:27 keynote2k So, we know that Sugar wants to acknowledge affiliate groups that help w/ education and deployment.  But, when we formalize that affiliation, we increase our exposure to liabilities
21:27 when it comes to local labs, I've categorized potential affiliates into three groups, based on how easy/difficult it will be for Sugar & Conservancy to contract with them and hold them to those terms:
21:28 1) US-based non-profit corps; 2) Non-profit corps based outside of the US; 3) unincorporated groups
21:28 walterbender keynote2k: which leads me to my first question... why the restriction to non-profits?
21:29 keynote2k Sure.  Non-profits are required to adhere to a specific mission that benefits the public.
21:29 (by non-profit, I mean 501(c)(3) public charities, not trade orgs, or other forms of non-profits)
21:30 walterbender but they don't have a monopoly on providing public benefit
21:30 and there are for-profits who work closely with us on Sugar devel and deployments
21:30 keynote2k Sugar already has a "Partner" program (at least, it's referenced on the Sugar wiki); that might be a better fit for socially-conscious for-profits
21:30 ...
21:30 I will also note that it's easier for Sugar/Conservancy to provide benefits to third party non-profits than it is to provide those benefits to for-profits
21:31 cjb what kind of benefits?
21:31 keynote2k web hosting, access to Sugar's domain name structure
21:31 ...
21:32 if we give those benefits to for-profits without getting compensated, we might be construed as providing "private benefits" to those for-profit entities
21:32 ...
21:32 which is a no-no in the eyes of the IRS
21:32 walterbender that makes sense...
21:33 keynote2k which then begs the question (at least for me):  why wouldn't the term "Sugar Labs partner" work for for-profit entities?
21:33 I confess that I don't know how that partner program works; if there's info about it on the wiki, I need to review that next
21:33 walterbender If need be, we can make that distinction... just wanted to know why we were doing so
21:34 keynote2k well, if Sugar/Conservancy plans to provide gratis benefits to Local Labs, then I think that distinction is important
21:34 walterbender keynote2k: it is coming up in the context of some vendors who are considering using Sugar.
21:34 keynote2k Public charities have to be careful to avoid endorsing specific for-profit companies
21:34 walterbender US based in a non-US market
21:35 they will want to promote Sugar and make a donation of some sort
21:35 keynote2k now, we can allow those for-profit entities to sponsor Sugar - and tell the world that they're "proud sponsors of Sugar"
21:35 walterbender that may be adequate. will bounce it off of them
21:35 keynote2k Sounds find.  We can create a "partnership program" for those kinds of contributors.  But we can't endorse, and we can't provide services back w/out being compensated
21:35 walterbender of course, they can say they are running Sugar
21:35 keynote2k re, sounds fine
21:35 of course
21:35 :)
21:36 walterbender shall we discuss the non-US cases?
21:36 bkuhn Yeah, it's always ok for a for-profit to promote us (Conservancy or Sugar Labs), the concern is always the other way around.
21:36 keynote2k So, for "Local Labs", I drafted an Affiliate Agreement that would govern their ability to use the "Local Labs" moniker
21:36 Now, for NGOs based outside of the US:
21:37 as I said in the email, standards of transparency and accountability  for registered NGOs vary from country to country. 
21:37 walterbender keynote2k: so how does, for example, Moodle manage this problem?
21:38 keynote2k I'm not familiar with Moodle.  If they have a means for handling it, I'd love to learn about it
21:38 here's my concern:
21:38 walterbender http://moodle.com/partners/about/
21:39 bkuhn walterbender: Is Moodle a USA non-profit?  I'm not sure they are.
21:39 walterbender I don't think that they are a non-profit, but they have a mechanism for accountability
21:39 keynote2k The Affiliate Agreement provides Conservancy with a quick-trigger termination clause in case a "Local Lab" goes rogue.  In the US, we have a good chance of enforcing that agreement - and the TM license
21:40 bkuhn So, if they aren't a USA-non-profit, they don't face the same issues .
21:40 cjl Aussie .com   http://moodle.com/hq/
21:40 keynote2k I don't profess to be an expert on Aussie law.  :P
21:41 But, if an Aussie Local Lab went rogue, enforcing the termination of the Affiliate Agreement would be *extremely* expensive
21:41 so, while I'm not 100% adverse to the idea, I strongly recommend that we don't enter Affiliate Agreements that we have low odds of enforcing.
21:42 cjb maybe we should just be making these agreements less powerful, so that we don't have to care so much about terminating them properly
21:42 keynote2k Instead, I propose that we create the term "Sugar User Community" for groups Sugar wants to recognize, but can't afford to monitor or be held liable for
21:42 cjb: that's what the "Sugar User Community" term would be for (in my proposal)
21:43 bkuhn cjb: that's precisely what the User Community thing might help with.  A lot of this depends on how strong an affiliation the local labs want.
21:43 cjb keynote2k: but we could even use the name Local Lab for that status
21:43 keynote2k well, I think there should be a distinction.  If you want to use "local lab" for that, then come up w/ a different name for the stronger affiliation
21:43 cjb at some cost to the benefits Local Labs currently get.  I don't know anything about how valuable those benefits are to them.
21:44 bkuhn cjb: are you basically saying that no Local Labs actually need the strong affiliation we've previously discussed?
21:44 cjb bkuhn: no, I don't have enough knowledge to be able to say that
21:44 keynote2k if that's the case, I'd clearly prefer that all affiliates use the TM policy and call it day
21:44 cjl Well, I'd like to hear from a local lab on that
21:44 icarito i'm not sure what the strong affiliation adds to the standard TM, except the term "Local Lab"?
21:44 bkuhn cjb: Sorry, I spoke to strongly: Is that the point you're wondering about.  i.e., "Maybe we're engineering a solution that's a strong affiliation but nobody needs it" ?
21:45 keynote2k so, here are the additional benefits under the stronger affiliation:
21:45    - a specific trademark license to use the "Sugar Labs Local Lab"
21:45     - identification of the affiliate as a "Sugar Labs Local Lab" on a  Sugar website
21:45     - dedicated web presence using a Sugar domain as part of Sugar's  website hierarchy
21:45 - and anything else the SLOBs want to add
21:46 kaametza_ hello, that's basically what we have already :o)
21:46 walterbender keynote2k: at one point we said that they could give out certifications if they got their programs approved by us... none have ever done that AFAIK
21:46 bkuhn kaametza_: what do you mean?
21:47 kaametza_ bkuhn the benefits you listed, are already in use
21:47 I mean without need of a formal agreement
21:48 bkuhn kaametza_: yes, this whole conversation started a few months ago primarily to formalize what was already being done in a way that doesn't create extra risk for Conservancy and works for Sugar Labs, etc.
21:48 keynote2k well, if memory serves, the goal was to codify the existing relationships in a way that protected Sugar and Conservancy.
21:48 icarito bkuhn each international "Local Lab" has a domain under country.sugarlabs.org and is hosted at Sugar Labs
21:48 cjb bkuhn: sort of, but I'm only wondering about it because it's apparently very difficult to enter into the appropriate agreement with the entities we want to enter into it with.
21:48 keynote2k ^right
21:48 So, my concern is:  if a Local Lab goes rogue, what happens?
21:49 walterbender keynote2k: of the 3 things on your list, we have direct control over #s 2 and 3
21:49 cjb keynote2k: we make fun of them on the internet
21:49 icarito cjb, lol - :-)
21:49 walterbender keynote2k: we stop hosting and we stop identifying them on the website
21:49 keynote2k ;)  True.  But,  if a suit is filed, is Sugar viewed as the parent?
21:49 cjl keynote2k: loss fo reputation capital is a significant penalty in the FLOSS world
21:49 kaametza_ well, it's true that been part of a community is about members behaviour and reputation
21:49 bkuhn cjb: I know your kidding, but this gets really bad quickly if, say, someone at a Local Lab abuses a child who came to learn how to use Sugar Labs software.  That's the "nightmare scenario" we're trying to deal with.
21:50 walterbender keynote2k: how is that different from being US-based?
21:50 keynote2k In my proposal, these services wouldn't be offered outside of a strong affiliate agreement that outlined what the affiliate could and couldn't do
21:50 ...
21:51 if the agreement is breached, we quickly terminate.
21:51 it also clearly articulates that the affiliate is a separate org, and not a part of Sugar or Conservancy
21:52 as it currently stands, Sugar's relationship w/ Local Labs is undefined.  Which means we don't have a good handle on what would happen in bkuhn's nightmare scenario
21:52 cjb that seems like a nightmare scenario regardless of whether we get to make them stop using our trademark afterwards
21:53 kaametza_ In my mind a local lab should be something like a mini-sugarlab
21:53 keynote2k well, it's a nightmare in a real life perspective, but we've mitigated the exposure of liability to the project and to Conservancy
21:53 walterbender keynote2k: I don't think anyone is arguing we should not have a well defined set of rules
21:53 but I don't see how it helps re either oversight or enforcement
21:53 kaametza_ in other words a replication of sugar labs community but some how "restricted" to a geographic perimeter
21:54 keynote2k walterbender:  to be honest, an agreement can only help with enforcement.  It doesn't help with oversight...
21:54 it provides a formal way for Sugar/Conservancy to cut ties with bad actors
21:54 icarito I think that if a Local Lab went rougue, terminating the hosting and domain services should be enough?
21:54 kaametza_ here in Peru, we came to the conclusion the easiest way to conform the local lab would be to have a local board
21:55 and then persons or ogranizations can be part of the local lab
21:55 under the local board supervision
21:55 that is under SLOBS and SFC supervision
21:55 keynote2k icarito:  if the original relationship was never defined, I don't know if merely terminating services will be enough
21:55 walterbender kaametza: that doesn't help re SFC oversight
21:55 kaametza_ so TM can be protected
21:55 bkuhn There's no way we can possible supervise something outside the USA.
21:55 icarito we came up with the policy that each person member of local lab needs to be a member of SL proper as well
21:56 in this way, a Local Lab is kind of a Sugar Labs Team
21:56 does this make sense?
21:56 walterbender bkuhn: I guess I need to reread tony's email, but I don't see how calling it a Sugar Community vs calling a Sugar Lab helps
21:56 bkuhn walterbender: it was an issue of the trademark licensing, I think.  Is that correct, keynote2k ?
21:57 cjb and the web hosting/DNS entry
21:57 sounds like we should probably take this to e-mail
21:57 keynote2k walterbender:  the listing of Sugar Communities would include caveats and disclaimers (e.g., "not a member of Sugar Labs/Conservancy/etc.) Basically, Sugar would list them, but wouldn't "own" them or provide any services to them
21:57 that's my preferred default
21:58 icarito keynote2k, Sugar Labs can provide services to its own members, correct?
21:58 cjb I think the response from me is: this new policy seems like it takes away everything useful from almost all of the people who currently use the Local Labs system, so I don't think it's what we want to do.
21:58 kaametza_ the process would work like this: a member of the local community (individuals, teams, ong, etc) requires use of the TM from the local lab oversight board
21:58 walterbender keynote2k: as per cjb's suggestion and looking at the clock, maybe another round of emails?
21:58 cjb since presumably we can't change the fact that you're uncomfortable with the liability, probably this means we have to change what we offer to Local Labs
21:58 cjl So OLE Nepal could be a "Sugar Community" if they wanted, I guess.
21:58 cjb so that it's an amount of liability everyone is comfortable with
21:59 icarito well I don't understand how SFC is comfortable with Sugar Labs offering hosting to unrelated Free Software projects but not Sugar Labs groups working in the field
21:59 keynote2k This has been helpful.  We want to create a structure that actually helps community efforts.  So this is good feedback.  If any of you have additional comments, we can take it to the thread.
21:59 bkuhn cjb: Certainly, if you can work directly with Tony to write up what Local Labs should be, that would be a huge help.  We've done our best with the limited info we have, but interactive development of a program that meets the needs of existing Local Labs and Conservancy's liability concerns would be helpful.
21:59 walterbender and maybe we come up with hosting through some other enforceable agreement?
21:59 bkuhn icarito: it's mostly a question of endorsement.
22:00 kaametza_ a local lab should be a community just like sugar labs is
22:00 bkuhn icarito: ... and the fact that we're talking about IRL actions by someone in a particular geographic area that Conservancy can have no hope of monitoring.
22:00 walterbender IRL?
22:00 bkuhn In Real Life.
22:01 If it's just an online community, the details work out differently.
22:01 cjb Is there some way to make it just be an online community?
22:01 bkuhn That's an interesting suggestion, and  consideration we should take to email.
22:01 cjl kaametza_ Sugar Labs is more than just a community, it is a member project of the SFC, which attaches legal liability to SFC.
22:01 cjb Local Labs tend not to currently have any real-life office space, for example
22:01 bkuhn cjb: do you have time to work with Tony further on this?
22:01 walterbender not sure what that even means..
22:02 cjb if they did (have office space), maybe we could use a stronger agreement
22:02 walterbender how do you draw a line between bits and atoms these days?
22:03 cjb bkuhn: I probably ought to say no, but maybe I can find someone who does have time and who knows more about what local labs actually do
22:03 icarito: how about you?  :)
22:03 walterbender also raises his hand
22:03 cjb sounds good
22:03 keynote2k The other way to resolve this is to tighten the TM policy to prevent local labs from calling themselves  "Sugar Labs <XYZ>."
22:03 icarito we are willing to be guinea pigs
22:03 keynote2k Is that moniker necessary?
22:03 walterbender keynote2k: maybe a call next week?
22:03 keynote2k that'd be fine w/ me
22:04 icarito we even have not incorporated ourselves in expectancy of this proposal which at this point isn't being helpful
22:04 cjb keynote2k: it's certainly convenient, but I don't know that it's strictly necessary
22:04 icarito but its a start
22:04 keynote2k cjb:  if we can create more organizational distance between Sugar/Conservancy and an independent "local lab," we might mitigate the liability.
22:05 cjb keynote2k: basically, we actually *like* the feeling of decentralization and "democracy" that's currently embodied
22:05 icarito keynote2k, what if we simply forget the "differnet organization" part and we are simply individual members of Sugar Labs?
22:05 bkuhn Thanks all, as I said, we didn't have a lot of info to go on at Conservancy and tried our best, but we would definitely appreciate more help.  Sounds like keynote2k and walterbender will talk more and put another proposal together
22:05 icarito using Sugar Labs infrastructure like any Team does
22:05 cjb and since the central Sugar Labs entity really does very little, I think it can be damaging to the community to make a big deal out of how we're powerful and the local labs aren't
22:05 icarito it's just a different kind of team...
22:06 cjb so that's my concern with this idea.  I understand that from Conservancy's PoV we *are* privileged over the labs.
22:06 but this is an area, I think, where our desired organizational structure differs a bit from what makes liability-sense.  so maybe that explains the conflict.
22:06 icarito walterbender, keynote2k - perhaps we as the Local Lab requesting this could be a part of this call?
22:06 bkuhn cjb: yeah, and it's not about power for us; it's just mainly considering what rights Local Labs have and how it impacts the liability situation.
22:07 walterbender icarito: yes... maybe sometime wednesday or thursday?
22:07 cjb icarito: I think you should be able to be part of the call regardless of how you're calling as :)
22:07 s/how/who/
22:08 icarito cjb,  :-)
22:08 walterbender, keynote2k wednesday is fine
22:09 keynote2k Wednesday works for me
22:09 cjl looking at clock are there other topics?
22:09 cjb there were a few other topics, I think they're short
22:09 icarito same time as today's meeting would be fine
22:10 walterbender next week?
22:10 cjb code of conduct, gpl enforcement, agreement with SFC
22:10 icarito if it ok with everybody
22:10 cjb bernie: did you have a code of conduct draft ready for us to sign off on?
22:11 maybe we should skip ahead if bernie's not around
22:11 GPL enforcement:
22:11 walterbender bradley?
22:11 bkuhn So, this is just a request from Conservancy.
22:11 cjb my feeling is that we're extremely unlikely to need this, but if it helps SFC to have our names on it there's no harm in signing up for it
22:11 bkuhn Simply put, Conservancy does a lot of GPL enforcement for some of our projects.
22:11 bernie cjb: i did not change it: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]l/Code_of_Conduct
22:11 bkuhn ... and it's mainly a request to "show solidarity"
22:12 .... with other projects who need to do enforcement.
22:12 bernie cjb: this was created in 2009 by dfarning, with the contribution of several others
22:12 bkuhn Basically, it'll only amount to Sugar Labs being in a laundry list of projects who have asked Conservancy to help them with GPL enforcement.
22:12 icarito i'm in favor of endorsing the SFC in this regard (GPL enforcement)
22:12 bkuhn ... We have helped Sugar Labs a bit on this, just in identifying violations.
22:12 cjb bkuhn: yeah, sounds fine.  we could vote on it now if people are ready.
22:12 bkuhn (or lack thereof, as the recent situation was)
22:13 cjb MOTION: Sugar Labs joins the SFC GPL enforcement program
22:13 +1
22:13 icarito +1
22:13 walterbender +1
22:13 cjl +1 for standing with SFC member projects in solidarity fo the enforcement of GPL (when needed).
22:13 cjb passes
22:13 that was easy :)
22:13 GeraldA_ +1
22:13 bernie fwiw, i'm also in favor
22:14 cjb bernie: the CoC page looks like it needs a bit more work
22:14 like "you can sign the [need link]"
22:14 walterbender next is the SFC / SL agreement
22:14 bkuhn Ok, I'll make sure sugar@sfconservancy.org gets a copy of the press release about the GPL enforcement program to comment on before it goes out.  As mentioned, it'll just list a bunch of projects who don't have active violations but would want help from Conservancy if they do.
22:14 cjb (and there's a typo "watch you language")
22:14 bkuhn: thanks
22:14 kaametza_ sorry, code of conduct topic is over?
22:15 cjb kaametza_: we skipped forward because bernie was afk
22:15 bkuhn And, if any GPL enforcement issues come up, feel free to include us, as you've done with some of the various questions that came up already about violation.
22:15 kaametza_ cjb: oks
22:15 bernie cjb: we could scrap the sign paragraph, i think it shouldn't be part of the CoC itself
22:15 cjb SFC/SL agreement: Walter and I signed a copy of it today, he'll mail it out
22:15 walterbender bkuhn: cjb and I signed off and it is in the mail
22:15 cjb bernie: sounds good
22:15 bernie cjb: it should go in the membership page, if we later decide to require members to sign it
22:15 bkuhn ok, that leaves a few still.
22:15 cjb bkuhn: any idea who's left on the agreement once Walter and I are done?
22:16 icarito I signed and will be sending it by email today
22:16 bkuhn yes, lemme pull up that email I sent.
22:16 icarito had to go to town to print it :-)
22:16 sorry for the delay
22:16 cjl will be mailing tomorrow
22:16 bkuhn coming into the meeting: Walter Bender, Sebastian Silva, Chris Ball, Aleksey Lim and Chris Leonard.  which means we're left with: Sebastian Silva, Aleksey Lim and Chris Leonard.
22:17 cjb ok, everyone should have mailed it by tomorrow except Aleksey, who isn't here right now
22:17 bkuhn The new agreement makes it so that future SLOBs won't need to formally sign in that way, so this should be the last time we need to do this, unless we want substantive changes to the agreement for any reason.
22:17 cjb alsroot: ^
22:17 bernie cjb: i fixed the typo as well
22:17 cjb bernie: thanks
22:17 cjl alsroot si back on Russian time, I'll ping him about this evening on #sugar
22:17 bkuhn cjl: thanks.
22:17 icarito maybe we should motion to adopt the CoC and have a consult with the community about it
22:17 cjb bernie: mail it out to iaep again as a formal proposal to adopt it with a vote at the next SLOBS meeting, etc etc?
22:17 unless people are ready to vote on it now
22:18 bernie cjb: ok
22:18 icarito i'm in favor of formally adopting a CoC
22:18 bkuhn Of course, if folks have questions/concerns about the FSA that they wanna ask before the sign, please do so.  Don't just sign it because everyone else is. :)
22:18 walterbender I'd like to discuss CoC more... the merits of the one Bernie proposed vs. the one we already have
22:18 but maybe not today
22:19 GeraldA_ I agree with Walter
22:19 icarito Whatever CoC gets adopted, we should tie it with the Membership process
22:19 cjl bkuhn, no concerns with FSA, jsut need to be pestered about it.
22:19 bernie bkuhn: i have a question regarding the donation of 10% of the funds to the SFC. Does it also work retroactively on existing funds? or only for future donations?
22:19 icarito which is something which also SLOBs should discuss
22:19 as our members list is out of date
22:19 cjl I like cjb idea (post to IAEP, vote next meeting.
22:20 walterbender icarito: I'll see if I can get luke to join us next week
22:20 bkuhn bernie: there's a clause in there about that.
22:20 bernie walterbender: ok. would you like to post on iaep to open the discussion, or should i do it?
22:20 bkuhn bernie: short answer: it's 10% of what was there as a balance (i.e., not gross, but net) the day it was drafted, then 10% on gross thereafter.
22:21 icarito walterbender, yes luke did not answer to members@sugarlabs
22:21 bkuhn bernie: exact quote: "The Project agrees to donate ten percent (10%) of its gross revenue (including, but not necessarily limited to, all income and donations) to Conservancy for its general operations. ... Additionally, the Project agrees that, on the Effective Date, $1,887.44 (10% of the existing Project Fund on the Effective Date), will be donated to Conservancy's general fund."
22:21 icarito and we still have a queue of new members
22:21 also I brought up some time ago that we have a policy of make sure membership is current
22:21 and we haven't done that either
22:21 walterbender bernie: I can try to summarize the discussion to date to IAEP
22:21 bernie icarito: btw, you might consider joinining lfaraone on the membership committee.
22:22 icarito this is relevant for the case of, e.g. quorum for referendums and such
22:22 bernie, I offered
22:22 bernie icarito: i'd step forward myself but i'm afraid i'd have not enough time to do it well
22:22 icarito in fact I formally offer now
22:22 bernie icarito: to whom? lfaraone or the board?
22:22 icarito with an email to the board a week ago or so
22:22 bernie icarito: oh, wait
22:22 icarito only cjl replied
22:22 bernie icarito: you can't
22:23 icarito ah.
22:23 buh.
22:23 bernie icarito: there's an obvious conflict in being a SLOB and someone choosing voting members
22:23 icarito sure
22:23 cjl icarito, the delay was as I predicted due to batching of requests
22:23 bernie ok, since i'm no longer a slob, i offer to serve on the membcomb.
22:23 icarito anyhow the subject isn't working out very well
22:23 bernie and to share the load of lfaraone.
22:24 icarito bernie, thanks!
22:24 does SLOBs decide this or how it gets done? it's a delegation of SLOBs powers I assume?
22:24 bernie cjl: we should do better communication with candidate members, though. it sucks to send an email and get no answer (or a meaningless automated answer like those that rt sends)
22:25 cjl bernie: agreed
22:25 icarito the organizational structure of the peru group currently depends on the membership comittee
22:25 bernie icarito: i think the members of the membcomb should be nominated by the slobs, but i don't remember how we did it
22:25 tonyf has quit IRC
22:25 icarito *membership process
22:25 maybe we should vote just in case :-)
22:26 cjl I nominate bernie fo rmemcomb
22:26 walterbender second
22:26 GeraldA_ +1
22:26 icarito +1
22:26 gonzalo_ <gonzalo_!~gonzalo@> has joined #sugar-meeting
22:26 bernie icarito: i think you could help with the mechanics of SL membership even if you can't approve new members. there's a lot of work to be done to manage the members in a more integrated way
22:26 dogi has quit IRC
22:26 bernie icarito: currently, it's done in a crap spreadsheet, disconnected from ldap and the wiki
22:27 icarito bernie, as a member of infrastructure team, I'm here to help :-)
22:27 bernie icarito: i have some ideas. the fsf is moving to civicrm to manage members
22:27 icarito talking of teams, I would like to breathe new life into the deployment team
22:28 bernie icarito: we might try something integrated with mediawiki (for sure the MWF dogfoods its software for membership management too)
22:28 icarito walterbender, it's off topic at this point, but could I be co-coordinator?
22:28 bernie cjl: we don't have quorum...
22:28 walterbender Actually, I don't think SLOB is supposed to oversee committee membership... that is for the committees to determine. but SLOB is is supposed to go to meetings
22:29 bernie walterbender: i agree, but the board elects the team coordinators
22:29 walterbender icarito: let's bring this new topic up next week
22:29 bernie walterbender: so perhaps we could say that lfaraone is the current coordinator and i'll ask him to join his team
22:29 icarito walterbender, ok, I can have a proposal for next meeting as I intend to nominate myself to coordinate this team
22:29 (deployment team) that is
22:30 cjl berie, I saw it that way, wasn't firing lfarone, just adding you. :-)
22:30 GeraldA_ I have to leave the meeting
22:30 icarito bernie, +1 for integration with the Single Sign On system alsroot has been working on
22:31 GeraldA_ has quit IRC
22:31 GeraldA has quit IRC
22:32 bernie cjl: yeah i wouldn't take the position without someone to share the load with :-)
22:32 walterbender can we finish the membership committee discussion when luke can join us? I am uncomfortable talking with him out of the loop.
22:33 cjl ok
22:33 walterbender you can discuss outside of the meeting, of course, but in the formal meeting, he deserves representation.
22:34 we should wrap up in any case...
22:34 icarito walterbender, maybe we should discuss Deployment Team informally and I can make my nomination as coordinator with your guidance
22:34 cjl sure
22:34 bernie cjl: i think i'll arrange things with luke to process all the requests we receive in spanish. he often complained that he couldn't read spanish
22:34 walterbender 5
22:34 4
22:34 3
22:34 2
22:34 1
22:34 thanks all... until next week...
22:35 #end-meeting
22:35 meeting Meeting ended Thu May  3 22:35:00 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4)
22:35 Minutes: http://meeting.ole.org/sugar-m[…]-03T21:05:58.html
22:35 Log:     http://meeting.ole.org/sugar-m[…]12-05-03T21:05:58
22:35 icarito maybe I missed the scheduling of next meeting? when shall we meet again?
22:35 thanks everyone!
22:35 walterbender in one week
22:35 same time, same IRC channel
22:36 http://www.urbandictionary.com[…]ame%20bat-channel
22:37 bernie walterbender: http://amiga.sourceforge.net/a[…]1_ReadBattClock.c
22:37 walterbender needs to leave in 10 minutes
22:37 bernie walterbender: (read the printf's)
22:37 icarito walterbender, let's dicsuss Deployment Team sometime when you can
22:37 keynote2k take care all
22:37 keynote2k has left #sugar-meeting
22:38 bkuhn Thanks for everything; Thanks for the support on the GPL enforcement in particular.  It's a huge help to our other projects that are violated frequently to know you stand with them.
22:38 bkuhn has left #sugar-meeting
22:38 bernie thanks everyone
22:39 icarito a similar phrase was used in "El Chavo del 8" a classic mexican tv show for children in the 80s
22:39 :-)
22:39 cjl walterbender: no disrespect meant to luke, just thought he would appreciate the help.
22:41 walterbender cjl: didn't take it that way... just wanted to make sure that the committee didn't reorganize itself without his input
22:41 and I don't know what all the issues are...
22:47 gonzalo_ has quit IRC
22:49 walterbender is signing off... CU
22:49 walterbender has quit IRC
23:13 Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC
23:49 manuq <manuq!~manuq@host62.190-137-200.telecom.net.ar> has joined #sugar-meeting

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

Powered by ilbot/Modified.