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

#sugar-meeting meeting, 2010-01-15 11:01:00

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
11:01 walterbender #TOPIC Trademark Policy
11:01 I think we are about done, except for the final wording of 2a/2b from Marketing
11:02 Sean, do you want to comment?
11:02 SeanDaly just a minute...
11:02 walterbender FYI, I heard from the SFC re soas.
11:02 SeanDaly looking for page :-(
11:03 sdziallas hullos, lurking.
11:03 walterbender "As far as Sugar on a Stick goes, we have in fact submitted the trademark
11:03 application for it, so while it has not yet been granted, we're taking
11:03 affirmative steps to protect the mark as SL's."
11:03 SeanDaly excellent news
11:03 mchua Awesome.
11:04 walterbender The SFC did not have any problems with any of the proposed changes either
11:04 SeanDaly still looking for page
11:04 walterbender mchua: maybe while Sean is looking, we can try to answer the Fedora question?
11:04 mchua Yes, let me find the link archive to Paul's message.
11:04 walterbender Here are Paul's questions:
11:05 mchua also trying to get Paul in here.
11:05 walterbender Basically, the questions are these:
11:05 1.  Does Sugar Labs *currently* own the Sugar on a Stick trademark?
11:05 2a. If not, are they comfortable with our using the name for this
11:05   release, and revisiting next release to make sure we're in
11:05   adherence with their guidelines?
11:05 2b. If so, do the level of modifications in Sebastian's SoaS spin make
11:05   it ineligible for their trademark?
11:05 We just answered #1
11:05 SeanDaly http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy
11:05 walterbender I think 2b is no--the changes do not make it ineligible
11:05 mchua #link http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]nuary/009838.html has the questions and some commentary, with Paul acting as a liason to the Fedora Board.
11:06 #info Question from the Fedora Board: Does SL currently own the SoaS trademark?
11:06 walterbender or restating, the changes are not "substantial"
11:07 mchua (what's a quick restatement of the answer to #1, for #info-ing for the logs?)
11:07 walterbender mchua: As per the message I relayed from the SFC, we do "own" the Sugar on a Stick trademark (pending)
11:07 and will protect it
11:07 mchua #info We do own the SoaS trademark (pending) and will protect it.
11:07 #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy
11:08 being meetbot-friendly today, for faster lazy notes reading later ;)
11:08 SeanDaly re the Sugar on a Stick tm, we have had an arguable claim, and are now registering formally
11:08 walterbender so I think we are clear on our affirmative answer here.
11:08 mchua Do we need a motion on 2b?
11:09 think it's pretty clear
11:09 walterbender do we also agree that the Fedora SoaS spin is eligible to be called SoaS?
11:09 I think that is also clear... we have agreed to this already
11:09 as per 5a
11:09 mchua #info Yes, Sebastian's SoaS Fedora Spin is acceptable for the SoaS trademark; the changes are "not substantial" as per our trademark policy section 5a (see link above)
11:10 That was easy.
11:10 walterbender ok
11:10 can we return to 2a/2b and Sean's edits?
11:11 SeanDaly just a minute, what is the difference between SoaS and SoaS? i'm confused
11:11 sdziallas stickster: hey! fyi: http://me.etin.gs/sugar-meetin[…]0100115_1101.html
11:11 stickster Sorry I'm late -- thanks sdziallas. mchua is filling me in via PM
11:11 mchua I just summarized our #info answers to 1 and 2b.
11:11 sdziallas notes that he doesn't intend to do various SoaS's.
11:12 walterbender SeanDaly: can you restate your question?
11:12 SeanDaly sdziallas: this is why i'm confused
11:12 sdziallas walterbender: I think it's the "Fedora SoaS spin" phrasing.
11:12 (which is a bit strange)
11:12 SeanDaly mchau: i think it's your phrase confusing me, "fedora Spin"
11:13 mchua SeanDaly: Oh - it was referring to sdziallas's decision to do this upcoming release of SoaS as a Fedora Spin.
11:13 SeanDaly for me the SoaS name and mark refers to sdz's project
11:13 there isn't another one?
11:13 walterbender sdziallas, stickster, mchua: for the record: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]inutes-2009-12-18 is also relevant to Fedora Q2b
11:13 sdziallas SeanDaly: Nope!
11:13 SeanDaly ok less confused
11:13 sdziallas That's why the phrasing might indeed be confusing.
11:13 bernie I got disconnected, sorry
11:14 sdziallas I've proposed that the next SoaS build gets build by Fedora as part of their spin process.
11:14 mchua bernie: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy has backscroll.
11:14 SeanDaly may I propose clearer wording for 5a?
11:14 walterbender bernie: http://pastebin.be/22945
11:15 SeanDaly The "Sugar on a Stick" name and mark is associated with a specific Sugar Labs liveUSB project. You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key or other support, bbut you must choose a different name to avoid confusion.
11:15 walterbender sdziallas: it seems the process of creating the spin is somewhat orthogonal... as it should be in my opinion
11:16 SeanDaly: that is clear
11:16 SeanDaly i find 2a and 2b a bit foggy
11:16 sdziallas walterbender: well... I'm just saying that I certainly don't want several $DISTRO SoaS editions.
11:17 walterbender seandaly: but other than switching the sentence order, is it really any different?
11:17 SeanDaly sdziallas: i agree
11:17 bernie finished reading backscroll
11:17 walterbender SeanDaly: but I am happy with that restatement...
11:17 SeanDaly walterbender: meaning is same, but I think is clearer
11:17 walterbender SeanDaly: you replaced required with must... I suppose that is a wash?
11:18 bernie sdziallas: I agree
11:18 SeanDaly "are required" is fine
11:18 bernie sdziallas: the other existing live usb distros are already called something different
11:18 mchua stickster: did we answer the questions the Fedora Board had?
11:18 bernie sdziallas: I think it's pacific that SoaS means Fedora SoaS from now on
11:18 sdziallas bernie: yes! I just don't want anybody to get the impression that the Fedora SoaS will be anything different than SoaS. - I want them to be the same for now.
11:19 mchua folks, I know stickster has to run in about 15m so is there anything else we need to ask him/want to clear up?
11:19 walterbender: you had something about translations?
11:19 SeanDaly bernie: the idea with tm policy is protection from the ill-intentioned...
11:19 sdziallas bernie: hehe ;)
11:19 walterbender I would like to clear up the question Rita had last week
11:19 bernie SeanDaly: +1
11:19 stickster mchua: Yes, my questions are all answered
11:19 walterbender if she makes a .de version of SoaS, is Fedora OK with that?
11:20 SeanDaly getting back to 2a and 2b, i think there is a clear case for making translated versions simple
11:20 but, where are bug reports filed for translated versions?
11:20 mchua stickster: ^^ walterbender's question
11:20 SeanDaly what contact info is given?
11:21 mchua #info All of Fedora's questions have been answered, w00t.
11:21 SeanDaly is Activity set identical?
11:21 walterbender SeanDaly: but I want to make sure that Fedora is OK with translations too, since SoaS has to uphold both our and their stamdards.
11:21 sdziallas walterbender: I'm encouraging them to work with the SoaS team to get the files into our GIT repo.
11:21 stickster walterbender: That's permissible from our standpoint, which is 100% remixability. Usage of "SoaS" on that .de version would really be up to SL, but Fedora wouldn't have any problem with it. Helpful if it was labeled clearly
11:21 walterbender SeanDaly: that is a different question altogehter...
11:22 stickster: thanks for the clarification. I'll let Rita know.
11:23 bernie sdziallas: but would you object with them working on a separate repo if they prefer for interal reasons?
11:23 *internal
11:23 walterbender SeanDaly: we have thus far skirted the issue of activities, additional content, etc., presuming it is all free...
11:23 sdziallas bernie: if they decide to havily modify the system or content, yes.
11:23 walterbender SeanDaly: I think I would like to defer that set of mods to a separate discussion
11:23 bernie sdziallas: then they should rename SoaS to something else, right?
11:23 sdziallas bernie: exactly!
11:24 SeanDaly walterbender: if it's called Sugar on a Stick...
11:24 sdziallas bernie: if they just want to change the language, it's certainly fine with me to be called SoaS.
11:24 SeanDaly i believe translation is a special case of "remix"
11:24 mchua #info Question for Fedora: Are translations (example: Rita's .de version of SoaS) of the SoaS Fedora Spin accepable for Fedora?
11:24 bernie sdziallas: and, if I understand correctly, something like "German SoaS" or  "Sugar on a SD Card" would be fine with us?
11:25 sdziallas bernie: you mean when it's heavily modified or just the language changed?
11:25 SeanDaly but translation to me means: same download page, same Activity set, same bugtracker
11:25 mchua #info Yes, from Fedora's standpoint on Fedora Spins, it is permissible; their goal is 100% remixability. Usage of the word "SoaS" on that .de version is SL's decision.
11:25 sdziallas SeanDaly: +1!
11:25 SeanDaly just different language
11:25 bernie sdziallas: let's say they have heavily modified to the point they can't use the plain SoaS name any more
11:25 SeanDaly: +1
11:26 sdziallas bernie: German SoaS won't work from my point of view, then.
11:26 bernie: because it's just not SoaS anymore.
11:26 (since they don't follow the criteria SeanDaly just mentioned)
11:26 SeanDaly put another way: how can we support sdz in bringing localization?
11:26 walterbender does anyone else have any changes/comments re the TM guidelines?
11:27 bernie sdziallas: then I think we're being even more restrictive than Fedora. It is acceptable to call something "Fedora Lab" or "Super Hacked Fedora" by Red Hat's trademark policy, I believe
11:27 mchua: right?
11:27 sdziallas bernie: nope.
11:27 stickster bernie: not correct
11:27 walterbender I think the issues re process are orthogonal...
11:28 SeanDaly walterbender: re my mail about tm and label program: I think we can't escape imposing as condition a request + authorization step
11:28 stickster wants to make sure everyone understands his opinion was on the permissibility of a separately hosted .de version of SoaS -- Fedora is not being asked to build or maintain any separate SoaS at this point, other than sdziallas' spin
11:29 correct?
11:29 walterbender correct
11:29 sdziallas stickster: what I'm suggesting is to have simple kickstart files for other languages, as some Fedora Spins already have, too (which haven't been approved, either).
11:29 bernie stickster: I think we agree on this. I'm making a wider argument on permitted usage of the SoaS base name in derivatives.
11:30 sdziallas bernie: if you alter it substantially, it's not SoaS anymore.
11:30 walterbender the question is simply, if someone wants to make a .de version of SoaS, no matter what process is used to make it, as long as it is not a substantial change to Sugar (as per 2a) is it OK with Fedora as wll.
11:30 stickster Yes.
11:31 walterbender: ^^ Thanks :-)
11:31 bernie sdziallas: well, "Funky SoaS" is clearly not SoaS.  It's about how much we want to be restrictive about the name SoaS
11:31 sdziallas bernie: sure, it is.
11:31 walterbender bernie: are you wanting to reopen 2a?
11:31 sdziallas bernie: you can't go and take Ubuntu and call it My Fedora, either.
11:31 SeanDaly in my view we need to foster multi languages for SoaS , but we can't have those all over the Net
11:31 bernie I'd like us to be as restrictive as the mark Linux (i.e. not too much)
11:31 stickster notes that Fedora allows remixes that depart substantially by providing a secondary mark and logo.
11:31 sdziallas stickster: that's probably the way to go, yes.
11:31 stickster You'll find that information in our trademark guidelines page as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki[…]es#Secondary_mark
11:32 oops
11:32 sdziallas (it's actually a really cool policy)
11:32 stickster You'll find that information in our trademark guidelines page as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki[…]es#Secondary_Mark
11:32 bernie walterbender: did we already vote 2a?
11:32 SeanDaly bernie: to build Sugar on a Stick brand, it has to be crystal clear what that means
11:33 walterbender bernie: I was about to make a motion...
11:33 tomeu bernie: on sugar, soas, or both?
11:33 walterbender bernie: we have been discussing 2a for over 1 month
11:33 SeanDaly the concept is to reserve the SoaS name to the SL project, while opening a label program with the Sugar mark for other, differently named projects
11:33 bernie well, if there's general consensus abut 2a being appropriate, then I guess I'll withdraw my proposal
11:33 walterbender: oh, good
11:34 SeanDaly: I think it's too restrictive to reserve  both SoaS and names based on SoaS such as "Funky SoaS"
11:34 SeanDaly: Linux doesn't do that, although Ubuntu and maybe Fedora does
11:34 SeanDaly bernie: we can't build the brand otherwise :-(
11:34 walterbender Motion: We agree to adopt the 15 January 2010 draft of the Trademakr Policy (ref: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy)
11:35 Discussion:
11:35 SeanDaly bernie: "Linux" is a whopping failure as a brand, unfortunately
11:35 walterbender This draft includes the various modifications discussed over the past 6 weeks.
11:35 mchua listens to walterbender
11:35 SeanDaly walterbender: as i say, per my mail i don't think we can escape an authorization step
11:36 bernie SeanDaly: Linux has a very strong brand exactly *because* its trademark policy was relatively liberal (although not in the same userbase we're interested in)
11:36 walterbender The significant changes since our last meeting are the finalized language in 2a and 2b from Marketing
11:36 tomeu SeanDaly: I don't think the difference is that it's a failure, rather than people don't give support for "linux", but for fedora, ubuntu, etc
11:36 that's why the fedora and ubuntu brands are more protected
11:36 walterbender specifically: "sweetened by"
11:36 SeanDaly i am talking about the *brand*, not the project
11:36 mchua walterbender: I second the motion. We can refine and amend it later on, but this is a good start to have.
11:36 tomeu we could be more liberal with sugar than with soas
11:37 bernie SeanDaly: well, I agree that Linux as a brand is a failure in certain markets and a success in others. Exactly the same of Windows :-)
11:37 walterbender and a minor modification in 5a--sentence order--for clarity
11:37 mchua bernie, SeanDaly: can we take the Linux-as-a-brand convo to list?
11:37 SeanDaly walterbender: again, 2a nad 2b are not ready per my mail
11:37 walterbender bernie: GNU/Linux :)
11:38 bernie walterbender: lol :-)
11:38 walterbender SeanDaly: can we fix them now?
11:38 SeanDaly anyone who wants to wiggle has a loophole
11:38 bernie mchua: if we move the conversation to the list, then we can't vote now
11:38 mchua bernie: No, just the "is Linux a strong brand" discussion.
11:38 SeanDaly the way i see it is similar to GPL, certain restrictions apply
11:38 bernie mchua: or we can just say it's been sufficiently discussed already and proceed with a vote anyway
11:38 SeanDaly we need a basis to revoke a trademark license
11:39 cjb` peers in briefly
11:39 SeanDaly the best way is to have explicitly granted it
11:39 walterbender hi cjb... happy hunting?
11:39 bernie SeanDaly: I'd make the restrictions the same of the Linux TM or the Wikipedia TM: i.e. you can't use it in disparaging or confusing ways
11:40 cjb walterbender: starts in 20 mins, just finished carrying some carloads over
11:40 mchua walterbender, what else is on the agenda to get through today? I'd like to make sure we're not blocking anything else time-sensitive before we spent the rest of our 25 minutes on trademark.
11:40 SeanDaly the several cases we have dealt with up to now show we are still finding sceanrios
11:40 greets cjb
11:40 walterbender bernie: that is what we are trying to do, but we need to define what we consider confusing
11:40 cjb mchua: certainly finances
11:41 SeanDaly walterbender: yes, that's why request/auth cycle necessary: so we can decide if use of our mark confusing or not
11:41 bernie SeanDaly: I'd be ok with a restrictive policy in our legal mumbo jumbo if we agree to be very liberal and quick in approving those requesting a license
11:41 walterbender SeanDaly: can you please restate exactly what remains problematic re 2a. 2b, other than scope, which Bernie has a problem with.
11:42 SeanDaly explicitly, 2a and 2b require written permission, only 2c doesn't
11:42 mchua cjb: Yeah, that would be my primary concern.
11:42 I also don't want to block bernie getting any servers he needs.
11:43 walterbender SeanDaly: So if we just say that, then you are OK?
11:43 CanoeBerry Is a compromise betwe bernie & SeanDaly's point-of-view possible, with notification required but not permission?
11:44 SeanDaly yes - 2a and 2b we authorize explicitly (label program)
11:44 bernie mchua: thanks, but I also don't want to delay the TM discussion any further... it's been going on for months
11:44 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: no, because the ill-intentioned seeking a loophole will just claim they sent a mail they never did
11:45 walterbender SeanDaly: see the edits I just made to http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/T[…]_Trademark_Policy
11:45 SeanDaly i understand the motivation to get it done, but it's more important to get it right
11:45 looking now
11:46 bernie SeanDaly: can we amend 2a saying explicitly something that makes it clear that Sugar Labs generally grants free trademark licenses in most cases?
11:46 SeanDaly walterbender: yes much better for protecting & growing tm's
11:47 bernie: why?
11:47 bernie SeanDaly: seems like a good compromise between being liberal about the TM and defending it.
11:47 SeanDaly our goal is to grow awareness, to do that we need to protect marks
11:48 walterbender SeanDaly: I don't think it hurts to suggest we are going to do our best to be coorperatve
11:48 SeanDaly again, i'm not worried about the sincere, just the insincere
11:48 bernie SeanDaly: my problem is that people will feel the need to call their product FrugBluz instead of "SoaS Paraguay" because they think they'd not get a license
11:48 CanoeBerry SeanDaly aside: if we need ever need to enforce emails being received that is a solvable problem-- email notification could be accompanied by a requirement that someone post the hybrid/remix/whatever to a wiki listing of all such offshoots.
11:48 mchua bernie: I think this is where we show things by our actions and deeds, not by words.
11:49 SeanDaly bernie: that's easy, we link to a FAQ which explains how simple the procedure is and gives examples
11:49 bernie SeanDaly: let's put it this way: will we be liberal in granting TM licenses if those asking them are not being abusive?
11:49 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: see my mail on this topic to the marketing list - URLs part of request
11:49 bernie SeanDaly: And, if so, do we have a problem in saying so explicitly?
11:50 SeanDaly bernie: 1) why not? 2) sure - like I say, in the FAQ
11:50 bernie mchua: words are cheap, if this is what we do, why not say so prominently at the top of the TM page?
11:51 walterbender bernie: we have some language--maybe not enough--in the preamble
11:51 bernie SeanDaly: ok, then I guess I agree with 2a with the FAQ clarifying this (or we could say so at the top of the page to make it easy to find)
11:52 SeanDaly http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]nuary/002621.html
11:52 bernie walterbender: "The purpose of this policy is to protect the public, by ensuring that the identity, provenance, and open-source nature of Sugar Labs® remain clear."
11:53 walterbender bernie: that might be the place to say "We try to be be very liberal and quick in approving those requesting a license"
11:53 bernie SeanDaly: /me reads
11:53 walterbender: +1
11:53 SeanDaly we could add to preamble our objective to spread Sugar and encourage use on different platforms
11:53 bernie shall we add a licensing@sugarlabs.org alias?
11:54 SeanDaly i would oppose "liberal and quick" just look how long it took to resolve SoaS debate :-(
11:54 walterbender we should also explciitly reference http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]s#License_request
11:54 SeanDaly bernie: I think trademarks@sugarlabs.org better, this is distinct from software licensing
11:55 sdziallas "we will do our best to work with you on... blahblah"
11:55 SeanDaly sdziallas: +1
11:55 bernie SeanDaly: this also looks good, I hadn't noticed it before: http://www.linuxmark.org/license.php
11:55 sdziallas also curious where this alias would redirect
11:56 SeanDaly bernie: yes, it's good... and more restrictive than ours :D
11:56 bernie sdziallas: yeah, we should probably nominate a licensing person
11:56 sdziallas: the fsf has one
11:56 sdziallas: perhaps a panel? (jesus, not! :-)
11:56 sdziallas bernie: DOH! :)
11:57 SeanDaly walterbender: the preamble is a good place to explain our objectives of spreading Sugar while protecting our marks
11:57 bernie SeanDaly: +1
11:57 sdziallas, walterbender: can we make SeanDaly our "licensing panel" to start with?
11:58 SeanDaly in my mind, auth by SLOBs vote if request is in order; just somebody to evaluate request and make reco to SLOBs (this could be me)
11:58 sdziallas would like to have a SoaS team in the loop, obviously.
11:58 bernie I may make mail for licensing@sugarlabs.org (or trademark@sugarlabs.org ?) go to Sean... and maybe also to marketing@, or slobs@?
11:59 sdziallas (in case it concerns SoaS, at least)
11:59 mchua so the "licensing person" makes sure it gets brought up as a proper motion in a SLOBs meeting, basically?
11:59 if it passes general sanity tests?
11:59 bernie sdziallas: then we should then distinguish licensing requests for SoaS from those for Sugar... I had both in mind at the same time.
11:59 SeanDaly bernie: trademark@ is better this is for trademark licensing, not SW licensing
12:00 bernie mchua: no, I was thinking that the licensing person would make the decision on his/her own
12:00 walterbender OK. I added new language in the preamble and after Section 2b. Please have a look
12:00 bernie mchua: to streamline the procedure
12:00 walterbender Also, we have once again run out of time :(
12:00 CanoeBerry will all decisions be public, or just the final verdict?
12:00 SeanDaly mchua: yes, a procedure in place: mail arrives, response saying is under consideration, request evaluated, returned if incomplete, when complete passed for vote with reco
12:00 sdziallas bernie: probably, yeah. well, at least I believe there should be technical approval before something which wants to use the SoaS name goes up SLOBs (Fedora has the Spin SIG which has to decide on the technical approval, the Board afterwards on the trademark one).
12:00 mchua SeanDaly: +1 to that procedure.
12:01 SeanDaly The purpose of this policy is to protect the public, by ensuring that the identity, provenance, and open-source nature of Sugar Labs® remain clear, while encouraging Sugar use and development on different platforms and in different languages.
12:01 walterbender CanoeBerry: I would imagine that the organization requesting the mark would be asked if hey are OK wth a public discussion, but by default, for their privacy, it should be a closed discussion
12:01 bernie mchua: requesting a slobs vote means that we delay by 1 week *minimum*. We could trust Sean to do a good job at  licensing, and if he doesn't people can always appeal to the board
12:01 dogi: ciao
12:01 mchua bernie: I would rather work on improving the decision-making efficiency of SLOBs.
12:01 SeanDaly sdziallas: i agree - eval will have several criteria, per my mail to mktg list linked above
12:02 dogi cioa bernie
12:02 mchua bernie: If people *know* they will have to wait a week, I think that's fine.
12:02 bernie sdziallas: it seems a little overkill to me
12:02 sdziallas SeanDaly: okay, cool :) (I wouldn't want a vote on SoaS to happen in private when I can't watch it)
12:02 walterbender well, I must withdraw my motion and will make a new motion next weel--16UTC :)
12:02 sdziallas bernie: so SLOBs would just vote on any SoaS thing in private without telling me?
12:02 s/would/could
12:03 walterbender #action: between now and then we should finalize the preamble
12:03 SeanDaly walterbender: legal stuff usually best confidential... because the ill-intentioned will do evil best to exploit dissent or weak arguments...
12:03 bernie mchua: if it's really a week, thant it would be fine
12:03 mchua People don't make things that need trademark decisions on the spur of the moment - to go from "idea to make $distro!" to "oh, I've got a testable $distro!" usually takes... at least a week.
12:03 imo.
12:03 sdziallas mchua: +1.
12:03 walterbender I think the discussion about the process of implementing the guidelines should be a separate discssion.
12:03 tomeu bernie: we do votes by email as well
12:03 bernie sdziallas: yeah, for SoaS I would agree that you should be at least consulted :-)
12:03 SeanDaly sdziallas: myself, I cannot imagine voting on anything SoaS without consulting you
12:04 bernie tomeu: yeah right
12:04 tomeu mchua: haven't we already improved decision making compared to what bernie says?
12:04 mchua sdziallas: Yes, and I think we could do a better job of lining up and announcing the SLOBs meeting agenda in advance so that nobody gets blindsided.
12:04 walterbender so can we please, please do our homework between meetings this time so we can reach some consensus?
12:04 mchua tomeu: I believe we have - it's the making of motions we need to work on, not so much passing them. ;)
12:04 walterbender: What's our homework?
12:04 sdziallas bernie, SeanDaly: cool! :) (sounds like I'm fine then)
12:05 walterbender clean up the TM policy language
12:05 SeanDaly mchua: my homework is a preamble which shows how friendly we are and willing to grant tm licenses
12:05 mchua: and, finalizing the procedure for the label program
12:05 bernie tomeu: I guess it depends how controversial the decision is. for those where we're divided, we may take a lot of time...
12:05 walterbender and a final review of the entirety of the document...
12:05 bernie tomeu: which is not necessarily bad, it's how democracy is supposed to work :)
12:05 sdziallas: yep
12:05 SeanDaly mchua: and, probably putting the final text for the label program in 2a/2b
12:06 bernie SeanDaly: +1
12:06 walterbender bernie: in fairness, we have been at this for over a month and there has been plenty of opportunity to raise these issues early... in fact many had been raised early and discussed.
12:06 well, let's call it a day.
12:06 mchua bernie, perhaps the two of us could figure out your requirements for what it'd mean for trademarks to be a non-PITA to get, so we can check the proposed motions againt that next week.
12:06 walterbender thank you everyone.
12:06 bernie SeanDaly:  sorry for being so pushy about the friendly thing. I cared very much for it :-/
12:06 mchua Thanks, Walter.
12:06 SeanDaly I admit I am cautious, but for good cause
12:06 walterbender #endmeeting

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.