| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 11:03 | sdziallas | waves, is here (though I don't count). |
| 11:03 | tomeu | hi all! |
| 11:03 | mchua | I'll wait a few minutes in case we do have quorum for an actual SLOBs meeting, then start trying to move forward the stuff on our agenda... I think moving to list is good. |
| 11:04 | hey tomeu! | |
| 11:04 | mostly wants to make sure we deal with these issues one way or another - I don't want to keep putting them off, they're important! | |
| 11:07 | Okay, pulling up agenda then. | |
| 11:08 | #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]utes#Agenda_items | |
| 11:08 | #topic TM applications | |
| 11:08 | I'll just move these straight to the list - my primary concern is that we don't actually have the applications themselves handy (I couldn't find them). | |
| 11:08 | tomeu | agrees |
| 11:08 | mchua | As in, "other than the names of countries on this list, I know nothing else about who's applying for what and why." |
| 11:09 | sends that email now | |
| 11:10 | #topic Ooo for kids brings up "partner acknowledgements" trademark issue | |
| 11:10 | #info Plus the OOo4Kids request to display our logo. MOTION: To pre-approve the entire class of requests such as "can I put Sugar Labs logo in my partners/acknowledgments page?", as they are very frequent and hard to abuse for bad purposes. (Bernie) | |
| 11:10 | While I'm sending that email... tomeu, thoughts? | |
| 11:11 | marcopg: Marco! | |
| 11:12 | tomeu | hmm, not sure how that's hard to abuse |
| 11:13 | if the logo will appear as a sign of endorsement from SLs, what value could have an automatic endorsement? | |
| 11:13 | if it's just for giving us publicity, then we could have a banner for that | |
| 11:15 | mchua | just sent the email |
| 11:15 | ponders | |
| 11:16 | So, I think it's easy for us to make an "I support Sugar Labs" banner/button/badge, if we don't already have it | |
| 11:16 | that other parties can put to show *their* endorsement of SL | |
| 11:16 | sdziallas | "I <3 SUGAR" :) |
| 11:16 | mchua | sdziallas: ...basically, yes! |
| 11:17 | tomeu | yup, that should be easy to do |
| 11:17 | mchua | and I'd say that should be usable without permission, it's free publicity for us. |
| 11:17 | Now, the other way around... something that implies that SL endorses something else, is exactly why we have the TM usage guidelines and request procedure. | |
| 11:17 | imo. | |
| 11:17 | It is hard for me to determine what the Ooo4Kids request is asking for. | |
| 11:17 | looks through iaep backlog to see if she can find that request | |
| 11:18 | (and again, it's hard to do this without a specific request to look at) | |
| 11:18 | #note Please link to original request/motion/proposal text when listing stuff as a SLOBs agenda item | |
| 11:19 | tomeu: er... i can't find the ooo4kids request on iaep, searching slobs, if you find it before I do, holler. | |
| 11:20 | has no luck finding it in her slobs archive either | |
| 11:20 | tomeu | tries |
| 11:21 | mchua | tomeu: if neither of us can find it, I'll clean this part of the log up and send it as an email to the list as well to kick that bit of the agenda forward. |
| 11:21 | tomeu | cannot find anything other than what you pasted from bernie before |
| 11:21 | nod | |
| 11:21 | mchua | Ok, I'll send that email also then. One moment. |
| 11:21 | While I do so... | |
| 11:22 | #topic Fedora 11 with Sugar 0.88 on XO-1 and XO-1.5 official project request | |
| 11:22 | * If the board approves, Bernie wil add a link to the sidebar, near Sugar on a, Stick, and create a top-level homepage with content directed iat users. * Bernie needs help picking a more pronounceable name than F11-0.88. | |
| 11:22 | MOTION: That the Fedora 11 with Sugar 0.88 builds for the XO-1 and XO-1.5 be a new official project. | |
| 11:22 | * It is sponsored jointly by Paraguay Educa and Activity Central, coordinated by Bernie Innocenti and hosted by the Sugar Labs infrastructure: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/D[…]t_Team/Sugar-0.88 and http://people.sugarlabs.org/be[…]lpc/f11-xo1-0.88/. | |
| 11:22 | I'll find the mailing list thread on that, hang on. | |
| 11:23 | #link http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]-June/011153.html | |
| 11:23 | tomeu | voted no |
| 11:23 | mchua | tomeu, you've already chimed in on http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]-June/011156.html |
| 11:23 | nods | |
| 11:23 | tomeu: beat me to pressing the enter key :) | |
| 11:24 | I'm also concerned about focus. | |
| 11:24 | And agree with the question tomeu brought up in his email: | |
| 11:24 | "About the perfect, definitive home, how would it look like? A | |
| 11:24 | volunteer-run organization whose mission is to support OLPC and their | |
| 11:24 | deployments? | |
| 11:24 | winces at copypaste there, but... | |
| 11:25 | David Farning also says no: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]-June/011159.html | |
| 11:25 | David's main concern was maintenance/responsibility. | |
| 11:25 | pbrobinson agreed. | |
| 11:26 | bernie replied that the capacity to do the work already existed - http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]-June/011168.html. | |
| 11:26 | tomeu | would be good to hear which are the upsides of having it as a project inside SLs so we can propose alternatives |
| 11:26 | mchua | Well, the main ones I can think of is "make it a Paraguay Educa project" |
| 11:26 | or "make it an Activity Central project" | |
| 11:27 | since those are the folks stepping up to do the work | |
| 11:27 | tomeu | make it a fedora project ;) |
| 11:27 | mchua | I think SL needs a notion of *partnering* with projects rather than purely absorbing them... |
| 11:27 | tomeu: That's another option, yeah :) | |
| 11:28 | tomeu | yeah, keep some focus on an area, and try to help the whole ecosystem by that |
| 11:28 | mchua | I mean, so far we only have SoaS as the sole "SL project" and it's not entirely clear to me what "project" means in this context. |
| 11:28 | This is a broader question that's somewhat out of scope, perhaps, for this discussion - but... what's the interface between SL and "SL Projects"? What does it mean to be a SL project? | |
| 11:29 | It is clear to me, for instance, what relationship a Fedora Spin has to Fedora. | |
| 11:30 | In exchange for demonstrating that you meet requirements A, B, and C via going through process X, you get resources foo, bar, and baz. | |
| 11:30 | I don't know that we have that sort of interface for SL projects at all. | |
| 11:30 | So I'm also not clear what we're agreeing to when we say yes or no to Bernie's proposal, to be quite honest. | |
| 11:31 | At the same time, I really don't want to block their work at all. | |
| 11:32 | I don't see how the work getting done would block on approval as a SL project, but I just want to sanity-check that to be sure... tomeu, can you think of any reasons why they'd *need* to be a SL project to move forward? | |
| 11:32 | sends out the email from the last topic while waiting | |
| 11:32 | tomeu | well, I guess that part of SL strategy as a whole is to try to make thier projects successful |
| 11:33 | my concern is when something that can be done to make a project successful conflicts with the goals of a partner of us | |
| 11:33 | probably because has a competing project | |
| 11:33 | or because it can confuse somehow to their customers | |
| 11:34 | walterbender | was in a different room :( |
| 11:34 | will look at the back-log | |
| 11:34 | cannot participate right this second :( | |
| 11:35 | mchua | walterbender: gotcha, no worries :) |
| 11:37 | tomeu: that hypothetical ideal upstream location you mentioned... what would it look like, to you? | |
| 11:38 | tomeu | mchua: it may make most sense if it was related to OLPC in some way, because after all the product of the project will only run there |
| 11:39 | mchua | looks to see if erikos or cjb or someone is around |
| 11:39 | cjb: I'd actually be especially curious to hear your take on this | |
| 11:40 | since you're, afaict, the one who'd eventually be responsible for fedora $foo with sugar $bar on XO-$baz no matter what | |
| 11:40 | tomeu | yeah, it doesn't make much sense me pretending to defend some interest of OLPC, but I think we could get in a similar case with other orgs |
| 11:42 | cjb | mchua: hi; I can't think of a strong opinion either way from OLPC's side |
| 11:42 | OLPC isn't currently producing builds with very-latest Sugar on, and that doesn't sound like something we're about to step up to do | |
| 11:43 | so I can't see a reason not to offer bernie_afk SL bandwidth/hosting/etc if he wants them. I'm more unsure, as you're both talking about, on what it would mean to say that it's now an official project of SL | |
| 11:44 | we should talk to bernie_afk about it more, when we can | |
| 11:45 | mchua | Yeah, I would have no opposition to having them use SL infra (I mean, Bernie wrangles that already, so... :) |
| 11:45 | cjb, tomeu, sdziallas, pbrobinson: Do you folks recall what it meant for SoaS to become a SL project? | |
| 11:46 | I'm not sure if we ever actually... defined that, or whether it was just decided "uh, that's what we'll call it!" and... wow, we need to make our meeting logs more searchable. | |
| 11:46 | cjb | I'd maintain that we've made SoaS something like a "product" of SL, with the legal/marketing focus that comes with that |
| 11:47 | sdziallas | mchua: argh. uh... :) |
| 11:47 | tomeu | yeah, basically I expect teams such as marketing, community, documentation, QA, etc having to support that project |
| 11:47 | mchua | cjb: Yeah, that's what it seems like to me as well... I'll also note that was decided before our TM policy was put in place. |
| 11:48 | cjb | yup |
| 11:48 | sdziallas | nods. yeah, I think something like that. though it also went hand in hand with the name itself, methinks. |
| 11:48 | tomeu | that derives from the believe that part of SLs mission is to support their projects |
| 11:48 | mchua | tomeu: hrm, that also gets into the question of "who gets to set direction for SL projects?" which has been a discussion topic elsewhere in the past... |
| 11:48 | ...of some debate. | |
| 11:48 | dfarning | Do you guys have question about the S.88onF11 project I can answer? |
| 11:49 | sdziallas | hi dfarning! :) |
| 11:49 | tomeu | so the question is, what should SLs do when in order to support one of its projects needs to enter into conflict with a partner? |
| 11:49 | dfarning | hey sdziallas |
| 11:49 | mchua | dfarning: Yes, please! We're trying to figure out what it is you're asking for by requesting that it become a SL project. |
| 11:49 | cjb | tomeu: well, I'm saying that OLPC doesn't necessarily feel conflicted about this |
| 11:49 | tomeu | cjb: that's fine, OLPC was just an example |
| 11:50 | cjb | tomeu: but I understand that your question has importance of its own.. right |
| 11:50 | mchua | dfarning: as in, "what resources did you want access to by doing that?" |
| 11:50 | tomeu | cjb: take soas and the opensuse guys, there was a conflict |
| 11:50 | dfarning | for a little background bernie and I are interanlly aruging about this:) |
| 11:50 | cjb | yeah |
| 11:50 | tomeu | ideally, SLs would support all downstreams without favoring anybody other than because of their own merits |
| 11:51 | but once a downstream is a SLs project, what do we do? | |
| 11:51 | mchua | notes time, we've got ~10m left |
| 11:51 | dfarning | from bernie_afk point of view it would be very help full to leverage the existing assests like wiki, bugstracker, download farm.... rather than reproduce them. |
| 11:51 | tomeu | I'm personally concerned about SLs growing to cover too many areas, which may be better covered by our partners |
| 11:52 | mchua | (although the remaining topics were "RM search," which is happily done now - yay for erikos! - and "sugar certification," which is... I have no idea, it's super-vague - so I think this is our last topic for the day) |
| 11:52 | tomeu | dfarning: that makes sense, wonder if SLs can offer that without endoring the project more than other similar efforts |
| 11:52 | mchua | tomeu: +1 |
| 11:52 | dfarning | I am concerned that the project should proceed as autonomously as possible. |
| 11:52 | cjb | dfarning: I think we're unanimous (so far) of being willing to let you do that regardless of whether this becomes an SL project |
| 11:53 | mchua | Yeah, 3 out of 7 SLOBs - 4 if Bernie agrees, and I'm pretty sure he will. |
| 11:53 | tomeu | yeah, I don't doubt that it's in SLs' interest that the project succeeds |
| 11:53 | mchua | (the others haven't chimed in yet) |
| 11:53 | dfarning | so I think it is a matter of finding a place on the sprectum where you guys feel comfortable. |
| 11:53 | mchua | dfarning: Is there anything the project is blocking on? |
| 11:53 | dfarning: (er, anything SL-related the project is blocking on, in order to proceed?) | |
| 11:54 | as in, "we can't do stuff because we have no hosting space," etc? | |
| 11:54 | That'd be my primary concern, making sure y'all weren't blocking on us for something | |
| 11:54 | because as everyone here has said, it's in SL's best interest that the project succeeds | |
| 11:55 | but that's a separate question from "can it have SL project status?" (and what, exactly, does that mean)? | |
| 11:55 | dfarning | no not yet:) but we are outgrowning the infrastructure resources in PY and are getting to the point where either AC must make that investment or find someone to work with. |
| 11:56 | mchua | dfarning: This might be a silly question, but... have you folks looked at fedorahosted? |
| 11:56 | cjb | or for that matter, hosting via OLPC :) |
| 11:56 | dfarning | We have a couple a week or months to make the decision. |
| 11:56 | mchua | cjb: Yep, that'd work too :) |
| 11:57 | dfarning: So the question was really one of "we need infrastructure, can you folks grant it to us?" rather than... project status, per se? | |
| 11:57 | dfarning | I don;t belive so... this is bernie's project so I try to stay out of his way until he need resources:) |
| 11:57 | mchua | trying to clarify what the request is for exactly |
| 11:57 | dfarning: Ah, okay. | |
| 11:58 | so, to summarize where I think we stand here... | |
| 11:58 | It sounds like tomeu, cjb, and myself (the SLOBs who've chimed in so far) are happy to grant this project access to SL infrastructure if they choose to use it. | |
| 11:59 | would personally say that it's SL Infrastructure's call whether and how to support this sort of thing, SLOBs approval shouldn't be needed, even. | |
| 11:59 | (but that may just be me.) | |
| 12:00 | tomeu | there may be some restrictions such as being FOSS because of some agreement |
| 12:00 | has to run | |
| 12:00 | mchua | tomeu: Aye, +1 to that |
| 12:00 | waves to tomeu, thanks! | |
| 12:00 | cjb | oh, yeah, that would certainly change my opinion. but no-one's implied that it wouldn't be FOSS; it sounds like it's just a Fedora + Sugar spin. |
| 12:00 | tomeu | sure, just talking in general |
| 12:01 | dfarning | Just to give an idea of where we are trying to go with the porject.... AC and PY will sponsor 2-3 developers physically located in PY to continue maintaining the release. Bernie will be retunring to boston and will start work on a new a S.90 on fedora something release. |
| 12:02 | mchua | ...and also, that cjb and tomeu and I are wondering whether that infrastructure access (which you *don't* need SL project status for!) was what the project was asking for, or if there was anything more to the request to become an "official project" - what resources, specifically, would they want from SL that they think becoming a "SL project" will grant them? (We need to figure out what being a "SL project" means, really.) |
| 12:02 | dfarning | I'll step back from the conversation:) thanks for you time. |
| 12:02 | mchua | dfarning: that's excellent news. :) thanks for doing this! |
| 12:02 | (and for being here to answer questions) | |
| 12:02 | tomeu | mchua: they would get the support from the SLs teams, at minimum |
| 12:03 | dfarning: cheers! | |
| 12:03 | dfarning | np -- oops I had promised to shush:) |
| 12:03 | mchua | tomeu: noted, I'll add that to the email text. |
| 12:03 | looks at the time | |
| 12:03 | I think we're out of it. :) | |
| 12:04 | Moving forward on some stuff here, though, which is good. | |
| 12:04 | will continue to kick these conversations forward on list. | |
| 12:04 | I'll send the past 2 agenda item emails out, then link 'em all in one big meta-email/blogpost to planet. | |
| 12:04 | Last words? | |
| 12:05 | This isn't an official SLOBs meeting because we don't have quorum, but nothing says that anyone (doesn't have to be a SLOB!) can't move these issues forward. | |
| 12:05 | We just need official SLOBs-fu for the vote. | |
| 12:06 | ...okay then, thanks folks for coming. | |
| 12:06 | sends gratitude in the direction of tomeu, dfarning, cjb, sdziallas_afk, and walterbender | |
| 12:06 | #endmeeting |