Sugar meeting

Minutes | Index | Today Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time	Nick	Message
22:03	meeting_	Meeting started Mon Dec 13 22:03:08 2010 UTC. The chair is walterbender_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:03		Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting
22:03	walterbender_	hello everyone
22:03		there are agenda items here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]utes#Agenda_items
22:03		I
22:03		buendia <buendia!~buendia146-115-134-246.c3-0.nwt-ubr1.sbo-nwt.ma.cable.rcn.com> has joined #sugar-meeting
22:03		cjb` is now known as cjb
22:03	walterbender_	'd like to start with a quick finance update
22:03	cjb	hi all
22:04	CanoeBerry	thanks
22:04	walterbender_	#topic finances
22:04		Alex and I have been moving the reporting to the wiki
22:04	bernie	buendia: buen dia
22:04	walterbender_	http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]/Finances/2010-10
22:05		it is a first pass -- essential the raw data reported from the SFC
22:05		but Alex will be making some formatting changes to make it easier to read.
22:05		he is also adding a page that explains the data
22:05	bernie	yey
22:06	walterbender_	and what I'd like to discuss is a process where by we discuss spending proposals
22:06		for example, I want to spring for some more Sugar USB keys... I get a lot of demand for them
22:07		I'd like a system where by Alex can accumulate such requests and we can have an overview of them
22:07		then discuss them and decide
22:07		we have a few items in the queue as well: servers we never bought
22:08		and some income that is somewhat discretionary... a little anyway
22:08		and some that is earmarked, such as Gould and GSoC mentor income
22:08		the latter being earmarked for travel
22:08	cjb	needs to hear a "this is how much money we actually have to spend" number before talking about the extra spending.
22:08	walterbender_	in any case, I defer to Alex to propose a plan, perhaps to discuss at the next meeting
22:08	bernie	walterbender_: can we delegate decisions for small expenses (let's say, below $1000) to the ED or the treasurer without the need to bother the board?
22:09	cjb	(but yay for Alex making it more comprehensible.)
22:09		bernie: I'd rather not, because I think that's a significant fraction of our total assets.
22:09	walterbender_	bernie: maybe we should allocate a discretionary fund to the ED?
22:09	cjb	but I don't know for sure
22:10	bernie	cjb: so I guess we have opposite views here. I don't want the board to get in the way of whoever have executive powers.
22:10	cjb	bernie: I want to know how much money we have before deciding whether someone can spend all of it without asking.
22:11	walterbender_	cjb: my rough giess is we have about 7K of discretionary money
22:11	bernie	cjb: if you think about it, no sane organization (for profit or charity) asks the board to make decisions on each expense.
22:11	acaire11	hi i'm laura from colombia - question, where do the income come from?
22:11	cjb	bernie: those organizations probably know how much money they have.
22:11		bernie: we are not one of them yet. but soon we will be, and then we can talk about this more.
22:12		walterbender_: thanks, that's helpful, but I'm worried that you might be wrong or misremembering. I'm not saying it's likely, just that it could be the case, so we shouldn't make financial decisions based on it.
22:12	walterbender_	acaire11: our income is individual donations, google summer of code, and a grant from the Gould foundation
22:12	bernie	acaire11: some comes from donors, some comes from grants filed last year. I don't know the details, but they should be in the records that the Software Freedom Conservancy keeps for us.
22:12	walterbender_	cjb: it is very likely I am wrong
22:12		cjb: I'd like Alex to give us a report next meeting, now that he is beginning to get a handle on the books
22:12	acaire11	is there a projection for income and expensess?
22:13	bernie	cjb: ok, once we do know this, we can make a budget and set a limit for expenses that do not need board approval. ok?
22:13	walterbender_	acaire11: we have a few known income and expenses, such as the 2010 Google money and some commitments to interns on Gould
22:13	cjb	bernie: yup, no problem
22:13	SeanDaly	as soon as finances get serious enough (say $50k) it becomes helpful for a process to be in place; i should say a process adapted to allowing smaller and possibly urgent expenses through in an expedited way
22:14	bernie	acaire11: not yet. we got a new treasurer a few weeks ago and he's still figuring out how things work and how much money we have
22:14	walterbender_	acaire11: but no long-term projections because we essentially operate on 0 revenue
22:14	SeanDaly	however in my view even small expenses should be accountable
22:14	acaire11	is that a policy?
22:14	bernie	acaire11: yes, and we are all unpaid volunteers. until now the money has been spent for promotional items, travel reimbursements and student interns.
22:15	walterbender_	acaire11: not a policy... just a fact
22:15	SeanDaly	just not held up by board decisions
22:15	bernie	acaire11: not a hard policy, but I think we like the idea that Sugar Labs is entirely run by volunteers.
22:15		SeanDaly: hello!
22:15	cjb	bernie: hehe, I don't know that I like it; I'd rather we had money to pay people.
22:15		but that's a bit of a tangent. should we move on?
22:16	CanoeBerry	yes
22:16	walterbender_	acaire11: we have a few potential sources of income in the works, such as the Slipstream cycling team, but that is still a 'bird in the bush'
22:16	bernie	In truth, I'm not very familiar with how finances are regulated in organizations with an oversight board. could you do some research and post some examples of budgets?
22:16	icarito	bernie, acaire11 some are paid employees of OLPC
22:16	walterbender_	#action alex will report next meeting on more finance details
22:17	bernie	icarito, acaire11: oh yes... and there are paid employees of deployments too
22:17	walterbender_	and then we can discuss a strategy re whether Sugar Labs should try to raise money directly or help our affiliated programs raise money
22:17	acaire11	a team maybe?
22:18	walterbender_	perhaps this is a good lead in to icarito's topic of what is a team, etc?
22:18	bernie	walterbender_: we might also want to talk with the Sloan folks about fundraising activities
22:18	buendia	The ledger file is a simple text document (the ledger program is called Ledger). We can attach the file to the wiki so every transaction is visible.
22:18	bernie	acaire11: sorry, what?
22:19	SeanDaly	bernie: ;-)
22:19	walterbender_	#topic "What is a SL project?, team?, lab?
22:19	bernie	buendia: are you alex?
22:19	walterbender_	bernie: yes... buendia and alex are the same
22:19	acaire11	bernie: a financial team
22:20	icarito	walterbender, its not my topic, i was spreading the word about it in somos azucar list only, but I think its mchua_afk 's topic ;-)
22:20	bernie	buendia: yes, attaching the file to the wiki seems like a very good idea to me.
22:20	walterbender_	buendia: would you want to form a team?
22:20		acaire11: It took me a year to find anyone willing to do the finances... but now that we have some renewed momentum, maybe a team could form :)
22:20	bernie	acaire11: +1 on this idea. I guess whoever is interested in working on this should talk with buendia.
22:20	buendia	bernie: might be issues with names in the document, but it would be the simplest way to be transparent
22:21		walterbender: happy to talk with people but would like to know what the board wants to come out of it
22:21	bernie	is also happy to see interest raising in finance, fundraising and marketing!
22:21		I casn'
22:21	walterbender_	buendia: I think to begin with, we just want clarity as to our finances: assets, obligations, and a process for debating how to spend what money we have
22:22		thinks fundraising is a separate topic
22:22		m_anish is now known as m_anish_afk
22:22	buendia	walterbender: I've noted bernie's point regarding finding examples of how finances are managed in other orgs with oversight boards
22:23	walterbender_	buendia: part of your report at the next meeting?
22:23	acaire11	:walter accounting differs from finance
22:23	walterbender_	acaire11: agreed... but let
22:23	buendia	walterbender: yes, and anybody who has input on the subject please contact me
22:23	acaire11	:walter accounting supports financial strategies
22:23	walterbender_	's start with getting out accounting sorted out
22:23	acaire11	yes :-)
22:23	walterbender_	acaire11: +1 to developing strategies
22:24	bernie	buendia: it's a much bigger NGO than us, but t me the Wikimedia Foundation is an example of transparency and good governance to take inspiration from.
22:24	walterbender_	acaire11: we have had a de facto strategy which was alluded to earlier
22:24		Sugar 'central
22:25	buendia	thank you bernie
22:25	walterbender_	' stays poor while we help our teams, labs, projects raise money for their needs
22:25		acaire11: but it may be time to reconsider this strategy
22:25	JT4sugar	bernie, I had requested MarketLab team(Sloan) as one of the deliverables to try and come up with one-pagers to help with fundraising to our different audiences(Individual, Corporate, Philanthropic)
22:25	walterbender_	maybe a whole meeting devoted to the topic?
22:26	bernie	JT4sugar: fantastic. we should stay in touch with them.
22:26	walterbender_	but meanwhile, we really should move to the next topic
22:26	icarito	+1 for meeting devoted to financial / strategic meeting
22:26	walterbender_	meanwhile, #topic "What is a SL project?, team?, lab?
22:27	bernie	buendia, JT4sugar, acaire11: I think finance and fundraising are an important aspect of our organization. I would like you guys to form a team with a coordinator (probably alex) and get the widest possible autonomy to do this job successfully.
22:27	walterbender_	icarito: do you want to take the lead on this part of the discussion?
22:27	bernie	(probably you can use the marketing team list for now?)
22:27		shuts up
22:27	icarito	walterbender, as I said this is a motion from mchua_afk
22:28	buendia	bernie: widest possible autonomy? clarify please
22:28	SeanDaly	marketing <> fundraising
22:28	icarito	walterbender, in general i agree with her motion but i'm concerned with building bureacracy
22:29	walterbender_	icarito: well, I think we have no choice if we want to have a trademark
22:29	icarito	as I understand the objective is to incentivize official projects?
22:29	walterbender_	icarito: in practice, I don't think it has been onerous
22:30		icarito: I would add that we can help projects with fundraising
22:31	acaire11	walterbender_: also teams and labs?
22:31	walterbender_	icarito: and where we can, allocate some budget... e.g., some travel $ was allocated for SoaS
22:31	bernie	buendia: We have a teams structure within Sugar Labs in which each team has autonomy over a particular role (development, marketing, education...). Each team has a coordinator, some wiki pages for resources and contacts, and sometimes a mailing list.
22:31	walterbender_	acaire11: yes... also for teams and labs
22:31	acaire11	:-)
22:31	walterbender_	acaire11: for example, I helped write a major proposal for .py
22:31	bernie	buendia: anything you need that requires sysadmin work, just ask me (the infrastructure guy).
22:31	walterbender_	acaire11: and we explicitly mention the relationship with SL
22:32		so icarito, I'd say we add fund-raising to mchua_afk's proposal
22:32	bernie	icarito, walterbender_: in the past, people have been creating projects, teams and local labs informally: by just going on and doing it. I would like this tradition to continue.
22:32	walterbender_	as something SL can offer
22:32	icarito	walterbender, in general I think mel's proposal is an improvement over what we have - +1 for adding language about potential fundraising
22:33	bernie	Dextrose was an exception: I asked for approval on the mailing list and was almost denied it.
22:33		so I would rather let people setup whatever structures they like without asking for permission to anyone else.
22:33	icarito	bernie, +1
22:33	walterbender_	bernie: projects may begin informally, but at some level they become formalized.
22:34		bernie, icarito I agree that people can do what they think they need to do, but we have to take care to formalize certain transactions, such as use of the trademakr
22:34	bernie	walterbender_: good point. we should not require approval to START anything... only to move things to a more visible position. but even for the latter... it's probably a choice of the marketing team.
22:34	walterbender_	we have no choice or we lose our trademark
22:34		and if we fund raise jointly, we eventually need some more formality as well
22:35	JT4sugar	bernie, The MarketLab team will be presenting full findings and recommendations mid-january which should help on the full list of these topics-Teacher Awareness-Fundraising were key drivers of project
22:35	bernie	walterbender_: agreed. we could tell projects that they can use the Sugar mark (without "labs") freely, as we did with Dextrose, SoaS and others.
22:35	alsroot	prefers to separate stuff like trademarks/funds and doers things like providing environment for everyone who can participate in sugar related field
22:35	walterbender_	so I don't think we are asking for unnecessary bureaucracy.
22:35		alsroot: agreed and for the most part they are separate
22:36	bernie	JT4sugar: it would be useful if all this material could be wikified... or at least attached to some marketing wiki page.
22:36		walterbender_: I agree with you. I'm ok as long as we don
22:36	walterbender_	alsroot: but if someone wants to use our name in the context of some project -- outside of the bounds described in our trademark policy -- we need to formally give them permission
22:37	bernie	don't impose any barriers on whoever wants to get things done within our org
22:37	walterbender_	alsroot: a year ago we had a long discussion about how to impose as few barriers as possible, but we could not eliminate them all
22:38		alsroot: in practice, I don't think it has been a major issue... but I could be ignorant of examples of where people were deterred
22:38	JT4sugar	bernie, They will be presenting all research material via google docs page we can link to or transfer to wiki
22:38	SeanDaly	bernie: SL marketing is undergoing a major reset, MarketLab assisting
22:38	alsroot	walterbender_: I agree with stuff like trademark(and funds), but w/o if we are talking about mchua_afk's proposal, I'd prefer to -1 if "providing environment (if we are talking about InfraTeam)" will be in this proposal
22:39	icarito	walterbender, bernie i think its good that projects are reqd to work towards SL goals with proper licences for instance
22:39	bernie	JT4sugar: cool
22:39		SeanDaly: also cool
22:40	walterbender_	we should spend another meeting just talking about marketing
22:40	bernie	icarito: yes, agreed on that too (we also have a policy somewhere specifying this)
22:40	walterbender_	so one about accounting and finances and one about marketing
22:40	bernie	walterbender_: +1
22:40		walterbender_: +1
22:40	SeanDaly	walterbender_: +1
22:40		mchua_afk is now known as mchua
22:40	walterbender_	icarito: is there any action we need to take re this topic?
22:41	bernie	mchua: hey! hello
22:41	mchua	Hey, guys - 6:40am in Manila and I just woke up, reading backlog.
22:41		(This is the jetlag I warned y'all about)
22:41	walterbender_	icarito: I don't recall if we ever voted on mchua
22:41		's proposal
22:41	bernie	icarito: maybe, since mchua is now with us, we could let her catch up and reissue her topic with her input?
22:41	icarito	walterbender, you keep asking me to lead mchua 's proposed motion / topic
22:41	walterbender_	is typing on a tiny keyboard -- with lots of typos :(
22:42	icarito	welcome mchua
22:42	walterbender_	icarito: let me check to see if it ever came to a vote in the form of a motion
22:42		hi mel :)
22:42	icarito	walterbender, the motion is in email but it never came to a vote
22:43	bernie	icarito: I've not checked my email today :-(
22:43	cjb	could someone paste the motion?
22:43	icarito	bernie http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]-July/011345.html its in the agenda
22:44	walterbender_	icarito: but I see no motion or vote anywhere
22:44		cjb: will do... one sec
22:44	bernie	mchua: next time you post something regarding slobs please also cc the slobs list, as I have no time to check iaep very often.
22:44	mchua	Re-reading the agenda...
22:44		er, the motion.
22:44		bernie: noted.
22:45	bernie	oh wait, it was cc'd...
22:45	mchua	bernie: ...er, I think I did on that one, but whatever. :) It was in July.
22:45	bernie	ah, that post is from july :)
22:45	walterbender_	the short version
22:45		---------- MOTION -----------
22:45		First, the short version:
22:45		1. If your project helps SL, is all freely licensed, and has a wiki page
22:45		with certain info on it, you can apply for project status by emailing
22:45		slobs/iaep your wiki page URL and saying "here's our project page,
22:45		please raise a motion to make us a project."
22:45		2. If SLOBs passes the motion (4 votes of +1), you are a project. This
22:45		gets you a sidebar listing, do-it-yourself infrastructure access, and
22:45		permission to call yourselves a SL project.
22:45		3. Projects are obligated to update their project page and email that
22:45		project page URL to the list during the last month of each Sugar release
22:45		cycle. That's it.
22:45	icarito	walterbender, you posted in the agenda ""What is a SL project?" discussion - see email thread with motion." sorry if i caused confusion
22:45	walterbender_	4. If a project doesn't do this (SLOBs will check), its project status
22:45		is revoked, and it loses the sidebar listing and the ability to call
22:45		itself a SL project. Projects who have their status revoked may reapply,
22:46		see (1).
22:46		icarito: I thought you added it :)
22:46	icarito	walterbender, no i didnt! lol
22:46	mchua	Right. The intent was to create a process that would be clear in terms of (1) who's an official project (answer: check the sidebar listing)
22:46	icarito	checks wiki history
22:47	mchua	(2) clear in terms of what you need to do to be a project (send this email)
22:47	walterbender_	icarito: I though this whole discussion was in regard to the discussion last week about who should make reports to the board meetings: teams, projects, and labs
22:47	mchua	and take less than 30 minutes to execute for a group that wants to be a project.
22:47	walterbender_	mchua: I think the proposal was well received and reflects our current practices... just don
22:48	mchua	Those 3 things. That's it. I'm not really concerned about the specific criteria, only that they're consistent and fair and well-documented - I think confusion re: the process and membership of what a "project" is has hurt us in the past.
22:48	cjb	sounds unobjectionable to me
22:48	walterbender_	't recall ever formally voting on it
22:48	mchua	in terms of expectations from both sides (which are clarified further in the document.)
22:48		We never did, walterbender_ :)
22:48	walterbender_	then let
22:48		's
22:49	mchua	Any amendments?
22:49		There was a note on adding finances in here somewhere, but I'm not sure where that would go.
22:49		(I think this is independent of finances, a project doesn't imply financial support)
22:49	walterbender_	I'd just like to add the fund raising discussion to the fine print
22:49	mchua	(personally)
22:49	walterbender_	as an example of what SL can offer a project, not as a requisit
22:50	bernie	mchua: I like the definition you gave, although I'd make it even more informal. like, "(2) any 3 Sugar Labs members can sponsor a new Project" and "(3) projects which aren't being updated for more than X months are removed from the sidebar"
22:50		or something like that
22:50		rather than rely on procedures, I'd like to rely on self-organization
22:51	mchua	bernie: the thing is, the point of the process is that being a project Isn't A Big Deal
22:51	walterbender_	bernie: why even 3? why not any member? (a personal project)
22:51	mchua	you get a sidebar listing.
22:51	SeanDaly	a project means a technical project?
22:51	mchua	I mean, it gives you no additional manpower resources.
22:51	walterbender_	SeanDaly: not necessarily
22:51	mchua	Not becoming a project should never block anyone's work.
22:51		SeanDaly: walterbender_ +1
22:51		A project could be, for instance, a local deployment, or a group creating a how-to book, or a Catalan translation crew
22:52	bernie	walterbender_: it's to avoid dozens of insignificant or semi-dead projects...
22:52	walterbender_	bernie: we still need to approve it, so we are ultimately the ones to determine it... why restrict ourselves?
22:53	mchua	...er, any member can submit a project to the board.
22:53		by this proposal.
22:53		It just needs a SLOBs motion to approve it.
22:53		so a personal project could be submitted, and voted on by SLOBs.
22:54		These things are supposed to be fast, <30sec votes, because all the information is required to be submitted already in the email.
22:54	bernie	mchua: processes in FLOSS projects are not always beneficial. Before establishing a new process I would first wait until we have a problem (like, projects getting engulfed, or too many projects...)
22:54	mchua	If it's not all there, we just say "sorry, resubmit"
22:54		bernie: We have had a problem - it has not been clear in the past what "project" status means in terms of privilege
22:54		It was the direct inspiration for writing that this summer.
22:55	icarito	mchua, who will be responsible to ping projects each release?
22:55	bernie	walterbender_: wait, my point (2) was supposed to replace the original point (2), board approval.
22:55	walterbender_	+1 for clarity of process and since we have projects and a sidebar, we should have a process spelled out
22:55	mchua	Some teams assume "project status means we get resources and labor XYZ, and SL prioritizes allocation of our resources"
22:55		others think "project status means we get to say we're a SL project"
22:55		and the 2nd has been, in past discussions (remember, this is from July) closer to consensus
22:56		icarito: SLOBs, sine it's 1 email every 6 months - I'm guessing it should be added to a "to-do after each release" checklist.
22:56	SeanDaly	4 minute timelag not conducive to communication :-/
22:57	mchua	Sorry, SeanDaly :( I'm in the Philippines myself with slow wifi so I can sorta sympathize... respond and we'll thread your comments into the convo?
22:58	bernie	mchua: ok, I'm not arguing against a definition. I'm arguing against a process requiring board approval for a new process.
22:58	walterbender_	bernie: we only have to do it once and it is done...
22:59	mchua	bernie: A vote should have a 2-week latency and take SLOBs like, 30 seconds.
22:59	bernie	IMHO, we shouldn't get the board in the way of volunteers. we're just an oversight board, aren't we?
22:59	icarito	mchua, the first definition seems more interesting
22:59	walterbender_	bernie: we have a process for labs... now one for projects... we have a process for the TM...
22:59	mchua	You can literally look at the list of SLOBs, email them individually saying "hey does this sound sane?" and if you get 4 "yes" emails, you're set.
22:59		bernie: I believe - strongly - that our lack of clarity here gets in the way of volunteers.
22:59		it is, for the vast majority of people new to open source communities, intimidating to go via personal contats.
22:59		contacts.
23:00	bernie	walterbender_: but so far board approval was not required to create new labs, right? did we vote for the labs we have today?
23:00	mchua	It's very reassuring to see a known (albeit simple) process and timeline/
23:00	walterbender_	bernie: board approval is required to make a Sugar Lab
23:00	mchua	I've seen a lot of students struggle through this uncertainty. Also, I believe the language of the motion makes it really, really clear that not being a project does not block work.
23:00		and being a project doesn't help it. :) It's just a name.
23:00	bernie	mchua: let's separate clarity from the particular process. we're all in favor of clarity, I think.
23:00	mchua	But I think we benefit from knowing who is using our name, and how and why.
23:01		In fact, I believe we need to do that in order to maintain our trademark defense.
23:01		I'll also note that it's an hour past start time. Do we have an end time? :)
23:01	bernie	walterbender_: I don't remember us voting for Chile, Colombia, DC, Argentina and Peru...
23:01	walterbender_	bernie: we did...
23:02		all... we are running short of time...
23:02	cjb	bernie: I think we actually did vote.
23:02		(you might not have been there, I guess?)
23:03	SeanDaly	mchua: problem of people using Sugar Labs name is not if they are known members of the community... it's if they are unkowns
23:03	bernie	mchua: again, I'm not against clarity. let's just not require board approval ahead of time. the board should intervene only to resolve controversies within the community. otherwise it would be an executive board.
23:03	CanoeBerry	1hr's up, yeah i have another meeting now being encroached upon :(
23:03	icarito	walterbender, could we add language like "A SL project may apply for resources / fundraising"
23:03	CanoeBerry	+1 to mchua's proposal -- this once i don't quite understand bernie's concerns
23:04	icarito	i'll vote +1
23:04	walterbender_	icarito: +1...
23:04	bernie	I vote +1 to all points, except (2).
23:05	walterbender_	so bernie: you object to slobs having to approve projects
23:05	cjb	I don't think it's a big deal with either way, so I'll go +1 as written.
23:05	walterbender_	bernie: I will make a note in the minutes of that objection
23:05		any other votes?
23:06	bernie	walterbender_: yes. And, more generally, I object to slobs having to approve things ahead of time. Community members should be empowered without asking us for approval.
23:06	mchua	I vote +1.
23:06	alsroot	+1 if any mentions of "infrastructure access" will be removed, we didn't need SLOB for any providing infra for other projects before and I like current scheme
23:06	mchua	bernie: Community members are empowered without asking us for approval. A big point of the process articulation was to make it really, really clear that becoming "an official project" doesn't actually get you any more help.
23:07	walterbender_	bernie, alsroot: I think the confusion lies in the level of formality
23:07	bernie	We could have clerks for things that need approval, though: trademark, membership, finance... and even projects if you wish. As long as it doesn't require board votes to do everything I'm fine.
23:07	walterbender_	we can offer infrastructure without slobs approval... we do in fact already in git and the wiki, for example
23:07	mchua	alsroot: it says "do-it-yourself infrastructure access" - and "(2) full use
23:07		of SL infrastructure's resources (though projects must do the
23:07		administrative work themselves, they'll get machine access) if the
23:07		project isn't already using them"
23:07	walterbender_	this is about projects that want to advertise themselves as SL...
23:08		we need a process for that or we endanger our trademark.
23:08		I see no other way...
23:08	mchua	is that too much? it doesn't say non-project can't use infra resources, and doesn't commit any manpower from us
23:08	bernie	walterbender_: how about having the Wiki team approve them?
23:08	mchua	bernie: SLOBs votes should take 30sec on this, really.
23:08	bernie	as long as we decentralize decision power to the individual teams, I'm good.
23:08	SeanDaly	I wo
23:09		typo phone keyb
23:09	mchua	I believe we have a quorum, though - icarito, CanoeBerry, walterbender_, and mchua are all +1
23:09	bernie	mchua: then why don't we make the board decide on commits to git? it would be a lot faster than our code reviews...
23:09	cjb	too
23:09	walterbender_	bernie: whether it is one team or another, what is the difference... with SLOBs we have the advantage of (1) regular meetings, (2) a community approved group... I think it is our duty to the community to take on this responsibility
23:09	mchua	alsroot had a modification suggestion - alsroot, if you edit we can vote real quick on the amendment next time
23:09		okay, that's 5 +1's
23:09		with cjb
23:09	bernie	mchua: clearly, it's not just a problem of overhead (we vote once a week, so there's some overhead too). I think it's more of a problem of authority.
23:10	CanoeBerry	bernie: this motion gently encourages volunteers to get their act together and make something great to be posted on the sidebar, cool?
23:10	walterbender_	the motion passes 5 yeah, 2 nay
23:10		dirakx has quit IRC
23:10	icarito	project proposals should not have to wait for a formal meeting, they could be decided by email quickly - i can barely imagine a project refused
23:10	mchua	bernie: I'd like to point out that this is exactly the power that the Fedora board had at the founding of the Fedora board.
23:10		bernie: No more and no less. The only thing we get to decide is "who uses the SL name?"
23:10	walterbender_	I will note the objects in the wiki
23:10	mchua	We don't have authority over what individuals do or how.
23:10	walterbender_	we need to wrap up for this week.
23:10	CanoeBerry	yes
23:11	bernie	walterbender_: it's about delegating authority to the community. I think it would be bad if a company worked this way... that the CEO, the CTO and the CFO had to ask the board every time they want to do something
23:11	walterbender_	two quick items: next meeting:
23:11	mchua	bernie: I'm actively trying to remove authority from the board, and make it clear what we can and cannot do.
23:11	icarito	walterbender, you have info on Sugar Camp Peru?
23:11	mchua	bernie: that clarity is what delegates authority to the community.
23:11	walterbender_	icarito: alas no :(
23:11		icarito: I am writing to oscar again tonight and will mention it
23:12	bernie	mchua: remove? before, projects were just adding themselves up to the side panel!
23:12	walterbender_	bernie: that is not accurate
23:12	CanoeBerry	bernie: all too silently ;)
23:12	bernie	mchua: all but one (Dextrose) did this. and the result? Dextrose was the only one delayed for a few eeks.
23:12	CanoeBerry	stuff added to the sidebar should be celebrated..
23:12	buendia	must head out. I'll coordinate with acaire11 and keep JT4sugar in loop regarding a finance structure going forward (how to distribute money, apply for funds, disclose information...). #1 item is a wiki page with related action items that i've already noted locally.
23:12	walterbender_	bernie: SoaS was discussed first
23:13		bernie: as was satellit_ 's project
23:13	bernie	CanoeBerry: (I have a watch on the side panel page
23:13	walterbender_	so, can we meet again on Thursday since this is last week's meeting postponed?
23:13		and I have one more motion:
23:13	bernie	CanoeBerry: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/MediaWiki:Sidebar
23:14	icarito	walterbender, will you come to Colombia?
23:14	CanoeBerry	thx
23:14	bernie	ok
23:14	walterbender_	MOTION (#action): SL would like to acknowledge and celebrate the marriage of acaire11 and icarito : the first Sugar marriage!!!
23:14		icarito: maybe in January... not before :(
23:15	buendia	congratulations acaire11 and icarito !
23:15	icarito	:-D thank you
23:15	cjb	ooh :)
23:15	acaire11	lol thx walter! thx alex!
23:15	mchua	Congrats!
23:15		+1
23:15	SeanDaly	toutes mes félicitations aux mariés !!
23:15	walterbender_	+1
23:15	mchua	I have to head out, folks - 15m past the hour
23:15		:)
23:15		but I like this motion
23:15		waves
23:15		will read slobs
23:15		mchua is now known as mchua_afk
23:16	JT4sugar	+1 Cheers!
23:16	icarito	thanks again, see you all on thursday then
23:16	walterbender_	We should wrap up... let's try to continue on Thursday at the regular time...
23:17		ending meeting in 3...
23:17	bernie	I don't want to sound pedantic, but everyone please reflect on how governance works in all organizations out there -- business and non-profits -- and why the boards generally meet once or twice a year and delegate almost all the executive powers to a CEO and other officers. There are serious negative consequences in governance done by a committee.
23:18	walterbender_	bernie: as we discussed last time, we are trying to put processes in place to make things predictable and streamlines
23:18	bernie	I did not go to business school, but I feel that not delegating authority could be a big mistake.
23:18	icarito	bernie, perhaps we should study how to achieve this do you have specific recommendations?
23:18	bernie	walterbender_: processes are ok with me, but the board should not be a part of the process.
23:19	walterbender_	bernie: I agree, but certain things are hard to delegate... we could create a committee to vet projects
23:19	icarito	bernie, in general i agree
23:19	walterbender_	that is OK by me
23:19		and the same with Labs
23:19		but the ultimate responsibility lies with the board.
23:19	bernie	walterbender_: how about we let the Wiki team decide about projects? because projects mostly exist within the wiki...
23:20	walterbender_	bernie: I think that you are mixing up two things in this particular case
23:20		1: how we approve projects use of the SL name and 2: how we provide support for projects
23:21	bernie	walterbender_: ok, the wiki probably has little to do with projects...
23:21	walterbender_	#2 is entirely out of the hands of SLOBs
23:21	icarito	i'd like to get teams to be more visible, perhaps i'm missing some comm channel?
23:21	walterbender_	but #1 is ultimately need to be responsible for
23:21		SeanDaly has quit IRC
23:21	bernie	walterbender_: ok, bu isn't #1 a trademark licensing issue? can't we delegate it to the marketing team then?
23:22	walterbender_	bernie: we could decide to do that...
23:22	JT4sugar	bernie, important to have these processes in place to get ready for accelerated growth path-will lead to much less decision making like you are talking about down the road. Think of it as putting mechanisms for growth in place
23:22	bernie	walterbender_: someone observed not long ago that today OLPC is much more liberal with its trademark usage than Sugar Labs.
23:22	icarito	i would
23:23	walterbender_	bernie: I don't know that (a) it is an accurate assessment and (b) it is an intentional policy
23:23		SeanDaly <SeanDaly!~seandaly92.90.16.15> has joined #sugar-meeting
23:23	bernie	JT4sugar: yes, having a process is 100% OK with me. as long as it doesn't involve the oversight board.
23:24	SeanDaly	iffy 3G
23:24		buendia is now known as buendia_afk
23:24	icarito	i would agree on delegating to marketing team (so discussion would happen in marketing list) but i dont know process for being part of marketing team or making decisions there
23:24	bernie	walterbender_: I can't even remember who made this statement, but it was at SF and I remember it left me without words (a real rarity for me)
23:24	CanoeBerry	bernie: you're a democracy-hater, off to china 4 u :)
23:25	walterbender_	bernie: I will do some homework and report back... I am happy to amend #2 of the motion to defer to the marketing team, but I have some reservations
23:25	bernie	icarito: yup. good point
23:25	JT4sugar	bernie, You also first must have the process which in turn Slobs no longer becomes involved with. Who first must make process-Slobs
23:25	SeanDaly	icarito: it's sufficient to join marketing list and to attend some marketing meetings
23:25	bernie	CanoeBerry: democracies work by electing a government with ministries and letting them do governance without asking the parliament to approve things every day.
23:26	walterbender_	bernie: my concern is that when the marketing team goes on vacation, the decision is held hostage (you know how the French feel about August)
23:26		:)
23:26	bernie	walterbender_: good point
23:26	walterbender_	bernie: but I think it is within our 'power' to delegate
23:26	SeanDaly	icarito: meetings have been interrupted for awhile due to strategy shift
23:26	bernie	walterbender_: in the Infrastructure team, when I'm away from the keyboard for a few days I always delegate to others.
23:27	CanoeBerry	perhaps we should emphasize that projects/teams should not have to wait for weeks for a board meeting. any 4 votes-of-approval-from-board should be fine.
23:27	SeanDaly	walterbender_: hee hee well in 2011 the team will be built out, won't all go on vacation at once ;-)
23:28	walterbender_	CanoeBerry: I think it was the intention to do these votes by email... quick turn-around
23:28	bernie	CanoeBerry: yup, that would help mitigate the overhead problem, but there's a more fundamental problem of deciding what's the role of an Oversight Board in a community-driven project.
23:28	CanoeBerry	Great: proxy email "votes" coming in anytime in this case, rather than traditional in-meeting votes.
23:28	icarito	SeanDaly, bernie i wish we had a really cool voting system
23:28		buendia_afk has quit IRC
23:29	walterbender_	alsroot: something else to add to the meeting bot :)
23:29	bernie	icarito: perhaps we could use selectricity more. the quick votes are low-overhead. but I think overhead is still a secondary issue here.
23:30	walterbender_	used to have an even simpler voting system... maybe I can dust it off
23:30	bernie	icarito: my point is that we should delegate authority to the team leaders, like any other successful business, organization and government has been doing for centuries.
23:31	walterbender_	bernie: I think everyone agrees with that basic principle
23:31	icarito	bernie, i agree, walterbender, we probably all do
23:31	bernie	walterbender_: also the method we've been using in the past, of posting the motion on the list and replying YEA/NAY seems to work well
23:31	CanoeBerry	yes: email votes work remarkably well, and bonus focus issues/energies/teams pretty directly, so long as we don't overwhelm iaep with parliamentarianism.
23:32	walterbender_	bernie: and I don't think there is any reason why we cannot delegate our decision in this case to the Marketing team... we just need to decide to do it
23:32	CanoeBerry	meetings are not obsolete, no matter how much we all resent!
23:32	icarito	bernie, but I also think like someone said before, we have a duty to the community
23:32	bernie	ok, we may want to special case projects then because they are a big thing that happens infrequently
23:32		I'd be ok in this case.
23:32	walterbender_	bernie: 3 in two years...
23:33		well, we should wrap up...
23:33	bernie	it seems to make more sense to delegate trademark licenses, actually. (who's reading trademarksugarlabs.org ?)
23:33		ok yes
23:33	walterbender_	thanks all for participating...
23:33	bernie	sorry for this long ramble of mine.
23:33	walterbender_	bernie: maybe make a motion on Thursday to have the marketing team do this for us...
23:34	icarito	bernie, i think your point is important and it should be noted
23:34	SeanDaly	bernie: i would read it if I knew how
23:34	walterbender_	hurray for icarito and acaire11 :)
23:34	CanoeBerry	+2
23:34	SeanDaly	thanks to all :-)
23:34	walterbender_	#end-meeting
23:34	meeting_	Meeting ended Mon Dec 13 23:34:30 2010 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4)
23:34		Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-13T22:03:08.html
23:34		Log: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]10-12-13T22:03:08

Minutes | Index | Today Channels | Search | Join

#sugar-meeting meeting, 2010-12-13 22:03:08