« 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 201.184.204.50> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 00:39 | gonzalo_ <gonzalo_!~gonzalo190.173.43.28> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 00:54 | gonzalo_ has quit IRC | |
| 00:57 | Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC | |
| 00:59 | Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso201.184.204.50> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 01:04 | sridhar is now known as yama | |
| 01:04 | yama <yama!~sridharubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 01:19 | dogi <dogi!~omenpool-108-20-111-50.bstnma.east.verizon.net> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 02:54 | gonzalo_ <gonzalo_!~gonzalo190.173.43.28> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 03:05 | dirakx <dirakx!~rafael190.159.157.143> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 04:36 | gonzalo_ has quit IRC | |
| 05:48 | kaametza` has quit IRC | |
| 05:48 | kaametza <kaametza!~kaametza2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 07:42 | meeting <meeting!~sugaroidjita.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 07:57 | ClaudiaU <ClaudiaU!~ClaudiaUowl.laptop.org> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 07:57 | meeting | * ClaudiaU-es has joined |
| 07:57 | ClaudiaU_ has quit IRC | |
| 08:12 | garycmartin <garycmartin!~garycmarthost-2-102-84-219.as13285.net> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 08:17 | [scs] <[scs]!~scsrev-18-85-44-66.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 08:19 | aa <aa!~aa2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 08:19 | neyder` <neyder`!~neyder2001:4830:134:7::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!~sridhar2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 08:22 | ajay <ajay!~ajay2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 08:22 | m_anish <m_anish!~anish2001:4830:134:7::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_!~gonzalo190.173.43.28> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 12:20 | Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC | |
| 12:33 | manuq <manuq!~manuqhost62.190-137-200.telecom.net.ar> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 13:16 | ClaudiaU has quit IRC | |
| 13:17 | ClaudiaU <ClaudiaU!~ClaudiaUowl.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!~chatzillac-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-packages/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!~aricalso181.135.28.96> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 16:12 | dogi <dogi!~omenfw-1-user-net-flrs.cictr.com> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 16:31 | garycmartin <garycmartin!~garycmart2.25.21.65> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 16:39 | garycmartin has quit IRC | |
| 17:26 | aa has quit IRC | |
| 17:27 | aa` <aa`!~aa2001:4830:134:7::11> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:24 | walterbender <walterbender!~chatzilla2001:4830:2446:ff01:5a94:6bff:fe7a:1bc8> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 20:54 | tonyf <tonyf!~webchatjita.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!~bkuhnfsf/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!~tonyconservancy/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_!~webchatjita.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!~quasselool-457bee18.dyn.optonline.net> has joined #sugar-meeting |
|
| 21:13 | GeraldA_ <GeraldA_!~quasselool-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 sugarsfconservancy.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. |
| 22:16 | ||
| 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 memberssugarlabs |
| 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_!~gonzalo190.173.43.28> 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!~manuqhost62.190-137-200.telecom.net.ar> has joined #sugar-meeting |
« Previous day | Index | Today | Next day » Channels | Search | Join