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

#sugar-meeting meeting, 2010-01-08 10:11:00

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
10:11 walterbender #TOPIC TM policy
10:12 We had made some changes to the TM policy last week but deferred a vote because we wanted to give people a chance to reflect
10:12 I sent a note to the lists, but I don't think there was much discussion, if any.
10:12 cjb yeah, that's weird
10:12 CanoeBerry I assume we're talking about: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy
10:13 walterbender I did create http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]demark/Guidelines
10:13 that did cause a little bit of a reaction
10:13 SeanDaly partly my fault, I had promised to write a mail explaining "sugarized" logo policy with examples
10:13 walterbender CanoeBerry: yes. that is the page
10:14 SeanDaly Rita has asked me about how policy would be applied to German translation of SoaS
10:14 walterbender CanoeBerry: with BOLD and STRIKE indicating changes
10:14 SeanDaly: seems to be an example of 2a
10:15 SeanDaly: but maybe we should be explicit about translation in that paragraph
10:15 BTW, I also never heard any feedback from SFC :(
10:16 SeanDaly more like 5a, they want to hand out sticks
10:16 walterbender Having slept on it, do people have any further thoughts?
10:16 cjb good idea, let's add ", including translations into other languages," into 2a text
10:16 SeanDaly: hm, maybe they need to ask us, then
10:16 rita so translations would be minor changes?
10:17 cjb yes, I'd vote for translations as minor changes
10:17 walterbender rita, cjb: I agree
10:17 sdziallas looks up
10:17 CanoeBerry Sounds reasonable.
10:17 cjb so I think the changes to the SL software do come under 2a
10:18 walterbender FYI, I just added "translations into other languages," to the wiki page.
10:18 cjb but we have a specific mention of SoaS in 5a
10:18 that says only Fedora-SoaS would be allowed to release SoaS products, without explicit permission
10:18 there would be two ways around this:
10:18 SeanDaly on phone....
10:19 cjb (a) you could argue that, since there are only minor changes, this *is* still Fedora-SoaS, and so there's already permission that way, or..
10:19 (b) you could just ask for permission.  :-)
10:19 sdziallas would like to provide input on this topic.
10:19 cjb sdziallas: go for it
10:20 sdziallas First of all, I'll notice that bertf introduced me to somebody who said he was willing to do SoaS versions in German and asked for the way to do so.
10:20 walterbender cjb, sdziallas what is the Fedora policy re translation? seems that for SoaS, it would have to pass both the SL and Fedora hurdles.
10:20 sdziallas I explained the procedure and also noted that there'll need to be some discussion on how it'll be named, since the project had been introduced to me, adding that it might also including new content.
10:21 So I'm not opposed to translations. However, adding content is in my opinion something that needs approval.
10:21 walterbender sdziallas: yes. let's separate those two issues.
10:21 sdziallas Additionally, I suggested that it'd be interesting to collaborate on the effort and to have the German version hosted in our GIT repo.
10:21 walterbender: I'm done in a second, just explaining here.
10:21 SeanDaly agree translation not same as content change
10:22 walterbender sdziallas: and that is a topic I want to discuss at the SoaS meeting too.
10:22 sdziallas walterbender: yes, but then here's the thing:
10:22 walterbender but sdziallas, what is the Fedora policy re translations?
10:22 sdziallas originally, there was talk going on about SL granting the SoaS project the permission to use the Sugar name.
10:23 walterbender: I don't know exactly. But I suspect that you can only call it Fedora in an unmodified form. (and not "substantially unmodified".)
10:23 walterbender: however, if you don't add anything, this might be different.
10:23 walterbender sdziallas: can you look into the translation question for us when you get a chance?
10:23 sdziallas walterbender: there are kickstart files in Fedora's GIT repo that just change the language and haven't gone through the approval process.
10:23 walterbender: however, those don't get actively built, which makes things different.
10:24 walterbender: I'd like to finish my point before and will do that then, if it's okay.
10:24 walterbender sdziallas: please continue
10:24 sdziallas So if Sugar Labs decides to grant the SoaS project as it is a permission to use that name... I believe this thing becomes a SoaS issue.
10:25 walterbender sdziallas: well, the permission is incumbent on playing by the rules, so it is not a unilateral SoaS issue.
10:26 sdziallas walterbender: agreed. but does this mean that SLOBs decides SoaS stuff? so who'd take care of an approval, in case it was inquired.
10:26 s/./?
10:26 cjb I agree that it could be just a SoaS issue -- I think it's helpful to use as an example of making our trademark policy better, though.
10:26 sdziallas cjb: I agree there, too.
10:27 cjb So I guess something could happen like:
10:27 walterbender sdziallas: SLOBS is trying to establish guidelines and as long as SoaS respects those guidelines, then it is cool to act unilaterally
10:27 cjb * someone brings the SoaS team a build they made and asks whether they need permission to distribute it:
10:27   * if it's mostly unmodified, they don't need permission
10:27 walterbender sdziallas: also the SL guidelines do not supersede Fedora (and vice versa)
10:27 cjb    * if there are modifications, they do
10:28   * if the SoaS team declines permission:
10:28 sdziallas walterbender: I didn't say they did?
10:28 cjb     * the project should choose a new name, and then ask SLOBS for permission to use *that* name, if the naem has Sugar in it
10:28 sdziallas cjb: +1.
10:28 cjb those asterisks didn't work out very well :)
10:28 sdziallas (the +1 comes with my SoaS-hat on)
10:29 walterbender Aren't we all in agreement here?
10:29 sdziallas walterbender: I'm basically asking who'd take care of things related to SoaS.
10:29 SeanDaly SLOBs decides use of SL trademarks
10:29 sdziallas walterbender: it looked like SLOBs would be approved SoaS remixes.
10:29 walterbender sdziallas: SoaS takes care of SoaS...
10:29 sdziallas s/approved/approving
10:29 walterbender sdziallas: and the more clarity SL can bring, the easier your job will be.
10:29 sdziallas walterbender: thanks for clarifying it :)
10:30 walterbender: I agree.
10:30 walterbender sdziallas: what I would like to discuss are other types of changes we may want to implicitly approve.
10:30 sdziallas: for example, if someone wanted to add an ebook collection to their SoaS
10:30 SeanDaly sdziallas: for example i suggested to rita she participate in SSoaS meeting re german version
10:31 rita I asked on the german list and got confirmation that Raffael will participate in the meetng.
10:31 sdziallas SeanDaly: I saw that some minute ago. But making clear whether SLOBs decides on SoaS things or not is a SLOBs matter.
10:31 rita: cool!
10:31 walterbender: *nod*
10:31 walterbender: I've some opinion on that, but dunno whether we shouldn't defer that to the SoaS meeting
10:32 mchua Argh, my window didn't ping - I'm sorry about that, folks
10:32 reads up
10:32 SeanDaly sdziallas: SLOBs are implicated on trademark level for sure
10:32 walterbender mchua: glad to have you join us :)
10:32 cjb SeanDaly: I don't see why that has to be the case
10:32 SeanDaly greets mchua
10:32 sdziallas SeanDaly: so somebody can approach SLOBs, ask for trademark permission and SLOBs approves something which is named "Sugar on a Stick $FOO"?
10:33 SeanDaly cjb: SL has to manage SL trademarks
10:33 sdziallas SeanDaly: is this an appropriate description of how the process should work?
10:33 cjb SeanDaly: we don't know anything about SoaS; if someone shows up with their custom SoaS build, we aren't going to be the people to examine it, the SoaS team is.  I think it makes sense for them to make the call.
10:33 SeanDaly sdziallas: i wouldn't recommend that. What about support, bug filing etc.?
10:33 cjb SeanDaly: the SoaS team is part of SL, though.
10:34 sdziallas SeanDaly: for example, right.
10:34 I might pull up the Fedora example again.
10:34 We've the Spins SIG there, which handles "technical approval".
10:34 Once that is given, one may approach the Board for "trademark approval".
10:34 SeanDaly there is technical aspect, content aspect, trademark aspect
10:34 sdziallas Not receiving "technical approval" can be escalated to the board.
10:35 walterbender cjb, SeanDaly It is our responsibility to set guidelines for the people who use our TM and we need to at some level make sure that they follow our guidelines... that doesn't mean we do their decision-making for them, but we need some sort of auditing process
10:36 cjb, SeanDaly: maybe we need to ask for an annual report from our TM users?
10:36 SeanDaly walterbender: yes my feelings exactly... my hope is that policy will be clear enough to avoid having to decide every case
10:36 walterbender cjb, SeanDaly: something we can review to ensure that things are on track...
10:36 cjb that sounds good
10:36 SeanDaly walterbender: in previous meetings I mentioned that there should be conditions attached to tm use
10:37 walterbender back to rita's question, from the SL POV, translation is fine. But SoaS needs to make sure that fits the Fedora rules too.
10:37 SeanDaly one of those conditions should be I think informing us periodically of how tms are used
10:37 mchua caught up now. sounds like the question is "does exclusive right to use a trademark imply delegation of the decision of that trademark usage?"
10:38 SeanDaly mchua: i disagree, SL doesn't delegate any tm decision at all, it's still SFC with final say
10:38 walterbender mchua: I think it can within the context of our guidelines... but it cannot carve out new ground...
10:38 mchua Well, only decision-powers that a group has can be delegated
10:38 walterbender SeanDaly: maybe we are disagreeing about what "decision of that TM usage" means
10:38 rita walterbender: thanks for the clarification! so the other aspect will be talked abput in the soas meeting?
10:39 mchua and override privs from the folks who did the delegating could be implied
10:39 sdziallas mchua: that is what I said with regard to Fedora's process.
10:39 walterbender SeanDaly: we are giving the "licensee" a sandbox to play in and within that sandbox, they can make decisions
10:40 SeanDaly: but we define the sandbox
10:40 SeanDaly walterbender: sure, but we need to be able to protect the marks
10:40 walterbender (or we could talk about basis functions)
10:40 CanoeBerry Internet problems hopefully overcome-- I'm back after 10min of outage.
10:40 sdziallas SeanDaly: Is Sugar Labs protecting the Sugar mark and asking for approval for all "$DISTRO Sugar Spin" versions?
10:40 mchua SeanDaly: would an override function on the stuff that happens in the sandbox work?
10:41 walterbender SeanDaly: the sandbox we define with our guidelines is exactly for that protection.
10:41 cjb sdziallas: you haven't quite got the 2a wording, but you're right -- we don't police those.  We've explicitly said they aren't covered by our trademark policy.
10:41 sdziallas cjb: I'm aware of the 2a wording.
10:41 SeanDaly sdziallas: the idea is a policy which easily grants a logo label within guidelines, but requires explicit decision in others; with SL/SFC reserving final tm rights
10:41 cjb (which is a bit different from saying that they're protected and someone else is going to handle protecting them for us, but maybe not that different.)
10:42 SeanDaly mchua: yes there has to be an override
10:42 sdziallas cjb: so if I went ahead and created a Fedora Sugar Spin, nobody would mind?
10:42 mchua SeanDaly: then I would like that override to have a timeout - maybe the override has to happen within 2 weeks of the sandbox event SLOBs wants to revert
10:42 sdziallas cjb: replace Fedora with Ubuntu and Spin with Remix, if you want. Or OpenSUSE. Or whatever.
10:43 cjb sdziallas: we might mind, but we would not be able to do anything about the fact that we mind.
10:43 at least, using trademark law, with the current trademark policy, etc etc
10:43 sdziallas cjb: "do they require approval?"
10:43 SeanDaly cjb: that doesn't work I'm afraid
10:43 cjb sdziallas: no
10:43 sdziallas cjb: and if they don't, what happened if I did Sugar on a Stick outside of Sugar Labs?
10:43 cjb: that'd be an equivalent case.
10:43 cjb sdziallas: it's not equivalent
10:44 SeanDaly cjb: SL needs to manage its marks
10:44 cjb Fedora Sugar Remix is a clear case of 2b
10:44 SeanDaly: you keep repeating that as if we don't all agree.  :/
10:44 sdziallas cjb: it isn't.
10:44 SeanDaly "Sugar Spin" won't be the name of anything
10:44 sdziallas cjb: "Ubuntu, joined with Sugar" is.
10:45 SeanDaly the phrase is not chosen yet
10:45 sdziallas Or I'm reading it wrong (which might be well possible).
10:45 cjb sdziallas: ok.  I don't see why you chose a non-2b wording.
10:45 SeanDaly it's a marketing issue
10:45 rita I have to leave, thanks!
10:45 cjb SeanDaly: so the argument is that you don't consider the trademark policy finished, so we shouldn't trust anything it says?
10:45 SeanDaly i'm late on starting that thread in the list, but again the idea is to start a logo label program
10:45 cjb: certainly not finished, no
10:46 cjb SeanDaly: but then why did you vote to adopt it?
10:46 walterbender cjb: I think you are using hyperbole...
10:46 SeanDaly cjb: it's a draft
10:46 cjb walterbender: ok.  sorry, I'll take a step back.
10:47 walterbender cjb: we had agreed that the example in 2a and 2b would be replaced by Marketing after a discussion, but otherwise we were happy with the document...
10:47 SeanDaly what I'm interested in doing is building Sugar awareness, but in a scalable way from quality associated with the brand
10:47 walterbender so to say we cannot trust *anything* it says is a bit extreme...
10:47 cjb walterbender: oh!  ok.
10:48 sdziallas SeanDaly: but we all agree that having brand dilution would be a bad thing, marketing wise, right?
10:48 SeanDaly our granting tm use is to assure no confusion
10:48 sdziallas: yes of course
10:48 sdziallas SeanDaly: and at the same time, we want new people to come up with their work and to contribute, too...
10:49 SeanDaly sdziallas: yes exactly
10:49 sdziallas SeanDaly: (I'm trying to understand everything we want to accomplish better)
10:49 SeanDaly we are breaking new ground with this
10:50 sdziallas nods
10:50 SeanDaly historically distros & projects have treated the problem only from tech perspective
10:50 sdziallas but we want to put a strong marketing perspective on there, too.
10:50 SeanDaly and desktops too... who probably should have done the most marketing
10:51 sdziallas: yes... a strong brand stands for something, people know what it means
10:51 walterbender would like to interject
10:51 SeanDaly And,
10:51 sdziallas nods again.
10:51 so I guess we would want to have *both* aspects.
10:51 listens
10:52 SeanDaly sdziallas: yes both
10:52 walterbender maybe we should defer the final vote on the TM policy until after Marketing comes up with the final wording for 2a and 2b.
10:52 and we can take this interesting discussion to the lists???
10:52 SeanDaly walterbender: yes i would hope so
10:53 sdziallas nods (or for those who are able to, in the next hour)
10:53 walterbender we only have a few more minutes today. can we quickly switch topics?
10:53 SeanDaly yes, as I say I had previously promised to start thread, been swamped
10:54 walterbender #topic guidelines for interacting with the SFC
10:54 I am bringing this up more for informational sake... nothing to vote on, but I would like feedback on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/U[…]ions_with_the_SFC
10:55 There are a few more details I am trying to work out with them so as to make things more transparent and predicatble
10:55 so when you get a chance, please look at that page and comment...
10:55 #topic infrastucture
10:56 Bernie is not here to argue for his new server... but maybe we do this one by email?
10:56 I have looked into the finances and the money is there if we decide to spend it
10:56 #topic finances
10:57 mchua Is there a finances update? I'm curious how much would be left after the new server if we say yes, and what else we might have to spend it on
10:57 walterbender I have been talking with Bradley about a few minor anomalies that had me confused... I think by next week I can give a coherent report.
10:57 SeanDaly I need to break out the 2009 marketing expenses
10:58 walterbender re mchua's question: we have lots of potential things to spend money on... marketing, deployments, etc.
10:58 SeanDaly it would be helpful for me if at least press releases could be covered...
10:58 walterbender mchua: but infrastructure is also important...
10:59 SeanDaly: can you put together a budget for the marketing team for 2010?
10:59 SeanDaly at SugarCamp Paris we studied budgeting approaches if you remember
10:59 walterbender we should have budgets for all the teams and use them to set some goals for fundraising
10:59 SeanDaly walterbender: sure
10:59 CanoeBerry 10:59AM aside, before we end: did I miss a vote when I lost Internet for 10-15min in the middle?
10:59 mchua CanoeBerry: no, no motions were proposed
10:59 walterbender CanoeBerry: no vote yet...
11:00 Meet again next week???
11:00 CanoeBerry Yes
11:00 SeanDaly OK for me
11:00 cjb sure
11:00 walterbender SeanDaly: would a bit later work for you?
11:00 SeanDaly walterbender: yes
11:00 walterbender 16UTC (to let cjb sleep a bit longer?)
11:00 SeanDaly fine with me
11:01 mchua worksforme
11:01 Can we come with motions?
11:01 walterbender OK. let me sum up with some actions then.
11:01 SeanDaly not sure I could get up early for such a meeting :D
11:01 walterbender mchua: no motions yet, I am afraid
11:01 #action sean and the marketing team will lead the discussion about the final phrasing of 2a and 2b
11:01 CanoeBerry FYI bernie will be move 1 time-zone East, so will have even less excuses for sleeping in :)
11:02 walterbender from that action, we'll be able to make a motion re TM policy :)
11:02 SeanDaly yes
11:02 walterbender #action walter will finish up the budget discussion with SFC and present next week
11:02 #action team leaders will be asked to submit budget proposals for 2010
11:03 (I'll send that request)
11:03 #action we'll discuss bernie's request by email and (perhaps) vote on it before the next meeting
11:03 #action we will meet at 16UTC on 15 January 2010
11:03 Anything I missed?
11:04 SeanDaly looks good
11:04 mchua SeanDaly: could you come with a motion on the final phrasing of 2a and 2b?
11:04 SeanDaly mchua: no
11:04 walterbender thanks everyone... I'll end meeting and then we'll get going on the SoaS meeting.
11:04 SeanDaly needs to be discussed by marketing team
11:04 mchua or a series of concrete examples/proposals
11:04 walterbender #endmeeting

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.