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

#sugar-meeting meeting, 2011-06-09 22:08:44

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
22:08 meeting Meeting started Thu Jun  9 22:08:44 2011 UTC. The chair is walterbender. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting
22:08 dogi +1
22:08 cjb hi folks
22:08 yama has quit IRC
22:08 yama <yama!~yama@ubuntu/member/yama> has joined #sugar-meeting
22:08 dogi hi cjb
22:09 walterbender Ah. We do have a quorum. Great.
22:09 cjb Adam's computer is having trouble, he'll be late
22:09 walterbender OK.
22:09 Let's get started.
22:09 I'd like to start with the license issues first
22:09 #topic acceptable licenses for Sugar/ASLO
22:10 Before we discuss Scratch specifically, RMS pointed out that our current policy is a bit suspect.
22:10 dogi :)
22:10 cjb huh, why?
22:10 I mean, how :)
22:11 walterbender We have a somewhat broken definition of FOSS and we endorse OSD, which may have some non-Free licenses.
22:11 Not many, but a few
22:11 dogi think it has to do with RMS liking Bruce Perens
22:12 cjb That's not too relevant, because we say that we will use the Fedora good licenses guide -- so if someone proposed the Microsoft Shared Source licenses (which OSD permits), we'd reject the license choice for that reason.
22:12 walterbender In any case, I would recommend that we point to the fsf.org definition of Free Software...
22:12 cjb So I'm not troubled by the OSD endorsement.  How's our definition of FOSS broken?
22:12 walterbender cjb: I thought we endorse both lists
22:12 bernie #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Licensing
22:12 #link http://opensource.org/docs/osd
22:13 alsroot walterbender: you mean Fedora good licences include non-FOSS from OSD list?
22:13 walterbender I would like to say something along the lines of we endose Free Softeware as defined here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
22:14 cjb walterbender: No.  Look at the motion text:  "We adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable, and always asking the SFC for advice when a particular license is under question."
22:14 bernie cjb: in our licensing page, we say that we accept any OSD-approved license, AND anything in the Fedora license list is also acceptable.
22:14 cjb bernie: No.
22:14 walterbender and we recommend a license either from the Fedora List or the Gnu List (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html)
22:14 alsroot btw in case of aslo
22:14 #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/A[…]/Policy/Licensing
22:14 bernie cjb: we do
22:15 cjb bernie: Not in the text I just posted, which is the motion we passed, which is our actual policy.
22:15 bernie All software and content distributed by Sugar Labs, including activity bundles uploaded to http://activities.sugarlabs.org , must be released under a license that fits the OSD guidelines.
22:15 Any licenses on the Fedora Project's list of acceptable licenses are acceptable; if you wish to use a license not on this list and believe it fits the OSD guidelines, please contact the Oversight Board.
22:15 cjb: ok then the wiki needs fixing
22:15 cjb bernie: I think the wiki text is fine too, actually.
22:15 It says that if you want to use a license not on Fedora's list, you have to talk to us.
22:15 Which is fine.  It's correctly saying that we're using Fedora's list as a first pass.
22:15 bernie cjb: ah ok. then why do we even mention the OSD?
22:16 cjb bernie: As a guideline for what's approximately acceptable.
22:16 dogi #link http://lists.debian.org/debian[…]/05/msg01285.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Perens
22:16 bernie cjb: let's scrap that part then... i was unaware that the OSD would match non-free licenses too...
22:16 dogi bernie why should they ...
22:16 walterbender cjb: it may be technically correct and I rather like the ODS definition, it is nonetheless confusing
22:17 dogi :)
22:17 cjb bernie: Well, people like guidelines.  If someone wants to know if non-commercial only is okay, pointing them at Fedora's good licenses page doesn't tell them.
22:17 But looking at the OSD where it says that you can't do that does.
22:18 walterbender: sure; I'm just saying it's a two-word change to be clearer that the Fedora list trumps the OSD guidelines.
22:19 walterbender cjb: As long as it is clear that the OSD list is not the same as the OSD definition...
22:19 bernie #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses's
22:19 cjb: quoting from the Fedora licesing page:
22:19 All software in Fedora must be under licenses in the Fedora licensing list . This list is based on the licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation , OSI and consultation with Red Hat Legal.
22:19 cjb honestly, I don't think this is a big deal at all
22:19 walterbender cjb and bernie: can you two come up with new wording that you both agree to offline and we can endorse the results by email?
22:20 dogi #link http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
22:20 cjb we already say that we're going to consult the SFC for contentious license choices
22:21 walterbender cjb: again, I think the wording could use improvement...
22:21 we obviously lack clarity about what is contentious :P
22:21 dogi by the way ... I am not against walters proposal
22:21 walterbender but I don't want to take more time up in word-smithing
22:21 cjb " must be released under a license that fits the OSD guidelines and is on Fedora's Good Licenses list"
22:22 can we just change the wiki wording to that?
22:22 dogi +1
22:22 cjb it's still in line with the motion, it's just a change to the summary of the motion of the wiki
22:22 bernie I'd prefer replacing the OSD with the Free Software Definition, which certainly wouldn't match non-free licenses
22:22 #link http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
22:23 walterbender I actually wouldn't mind referring to both... they are both worth reading
22:23 bernie cjb: if i knew that the OSD allows non-free licenses back when we passed the motion, i would have voted -1
22:23 walterbender and make it clear that the list we default to is the Fedora list
22:23 dogi walterbender: +1 :)
22:23 bernie walterbender: indeed
22:23 cjb okay, use a link to both
22:23 I don't think the FSF URL is nearly as clear as the OSD guidelines
22:24 walterbender cjb: it is clear in a different way
22:24 cjb if the FSF had a link of the same length and conciseness as a set of guidelines as the OSD ones, I'd be fine with using that instead
22:24 walterbender it is about the spirit
22:24 cjb yeah
22:24 bernie cjb: yes, it's not a guideline for software licensing, it's a definition of what constitutes free software.
22:24 cjb yup.
22:24 dogi is a big fan of http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
22:24 cjb so, let's finish up on this -- bernie, want to update the wiki page?
22:25 walterbender OK. Let's move on... I think we have consensus here
22:25 bernie cjb: i think there's nothing similar to the OSD on www.fsf.org or www.gnu.org... but there's a (short) list of licenses that are free software.
22:25 cjb bernie: right, that's not helpful -- if it was, we would have just left it at quoting the fedora url
22:25 bernie cjb: ok, i will (i've already linked the page to other pages in the wiki
22:25 cjb walterbender: yep!
22:25 walterbender #action bernie and cjb will sort out the wiki language
22:25 #topic Scratch
22:26 bernie walterbender: shall i talk about this?
22:26 cjb the Scratch license is problematic on many levels and we should stop distributing it.  I'm in favor of a notice period of a few weeks to Sugar/OLPC integrators so that they can update their build scripts, and with letting the Scratch team know what we're doing and why ahead of time.
22:26 dogi #link http://scratch.mit.edu/
22:27 walterbender This is pretty simple in my mind... the current license is not OK. So we need to take Scratch off of ASLO; that said, deployments are welcome to include it and we can/will work with MIT ro get this sorted out
22:27 bernie #link http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Sc[…]icense/1.4License
22:27 walterbender I think we need to have a liaison with the MIT team...
22:27 dogi #link http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Scratch_1.4_Download
22:28 walterbender since I am persona non grata at the Media Lab, I am probably not the right person
22:28 bernie cjb: agreed... would 3 weeks work?
22:29 cjb: maybe we could make mako forward the notice to the right person? i don't know anyone involved with scratch at the media lab
22:29 dogi #link http://activities.sugarlabs.or[…]/sugar/addon/4249
22:29 cjl wonders if Sayamindu is involved with Scratch
22:29 dogi <- it is all about this link?
22:29 bernie cjl: he told me he did something for the scratch website some time ago
22:30 dogi: yes, that's the only version of scratch we have
22:30 cjl me used t ocoordinate Scratch L10n hostign with Evelyn (evhan55) Eastmond, but thinks she moved on to RI.
22:30 bernie cjl: RI?
22:30 cjl Rhode Island
22:31 manuq <manuq!~manuq@> has joined #sugar-meeting
22:31 bernie manuq: hello there
22:31 manuq bernie: hi!
22:31 how are you?
22:32 cjl bernie She is DesignBlocks dev
22:32 bernie manuq: very good, and you? (but let's move to private messages, we're in the middle of a meeting here :-)
22:32 walterbender Well, we should move on...
22:32 bernie cjl: ah... wow... then i wonder, how many people are working on it?
22:32 walterbender any one volunteer to help coordinate the two sides of this?
22:33 bernie cjb: could you do that?
22:33 walterbender I could ask Claudia actually.
22:33 bernie cjb: you have the right contacts and the right sw licensing knoledge
22:33 knowledge
22:33 cjl I do have a L10n contact, I asked them to set up a lang for me.
22:33 bernie cjl: cool!
22:34 walterbender cjl: I expect this is something that Mitch will decide.
22:34 cjb (yes, Sayamindu's involved with Scratch)
22:34 dogi Downloads    35,684  .... dirakx1
22:36 walterbender let me propose that cjb contact Sayamindu, I'll contact Claudia and John.
22:36 dogi we could tell dirakx1 to temporaly deactivate it on aslo ...
22:36 cjb walterbender: sounds good.  I know mako was going to ping people too.
22:36 walterbender and we need to let the build-side of the house know too
22:36 cjb: yes... Mako offered to help
22:37 bernie cjb: we should ping mako too... i guess.
22:37 walterbender Who are active in making their own builds these days? .uy, .py,...
22:38 cjl dsd 11.2.0
22:38 cjb walterbender: Hernan, too
22:38 of course, Dextrose people
22:39 I think that should cover most of it
22:39 Australia, I guess
22:39 walterbender OK. alsroot can tell the Dextrose folks.
22:39 cjb most of these people read the OLPC devel list
22:39 bernie and TOAST
22:39 and SoaS
22:39 walterbender I'll tell Ruben and Peter
22:39 cjb: wanna tell dsd?
22:39 I can tell Hernan
22:40 bernie the TOAST folks need to be sent a notice too, but for the opposite reason of the others :-)
22:40 walterbender and fiorella
22:40 bernie i'll tell the AC folks
22:40 walterbender Shall we move on to the next topic?
22:40 bernie sure
22:40 cjb yep
22:41 dogi +1
22:41 walterbender #topic membership fees
22:41 Bernie: you have the floor
22:41 bernie Hmm... where do i start from?
22:41 this is not intended to be a proposal, just a question to  the board
22:42 what do we consider acceptable and beneficial to Sugar in terms of asking members for (voluntary?) (yearly?) donations?
22:42 i understand that most people would prefer a voluntary donation
22:43 i think this is appropriate because we already approve members based on merit
22:43 alsroot do we have so many members for now that more productive discussion will make sense?
22:43 bernie alsroot: we have 230 members now
22:44 alsroot: the fsf asks $120 per year per member
22:44 cjb bernie: hm, I don't think asking for more than $20/year/member would be plausible, and I don't think we'd get many members who'd do that
22:44 so it seems like you'd end up with $1k a year or so, for a relatively large amount of hassle
22:44 what do you think?
22:44 bernie alsroot: this would be $27600 maximum, if all members renewed at this rate.
22:45 cjb: currently we're more restrictive than the fsf. we ask people to show that they have done some work for sugar.
22:45 cjb (maybe I'm miscalibrated on how much people would give to SL?)
22:45 alsroot bernie: btw, fsf has 60$ for students :)
22:45 bernie cjb: i met people who wanted to be members, but felt they hadn't done enough for sugar to deserve it
22:45 alsroot: ah yes
22:45 alsroot: and $500 to be listed on their website
22:45 alsroot: (a lot of people do that... really a lot)
22:46 walterbender thinks all fees should be voluntary... there are so many other ways people contribute
22:46 bernie #link http://www.gnu.org/thankgnus/
22:46 walterbender: i agree. what would be a good suggested donation for yearly membership renewals?
22:47 dogi bernie: http://debconf11.debconf.org/sponsorship.xhtml
22:47 something like this ....
22:48 alsroot thinks if we need members fees, maybe having platinum membership for people who can't do big things for being regular members but can just donate on regular basis :)
22:48 bernie the question is further complicated by the fact that all members have a vote... this way, we can't accept members based solely on a donation.
22:49 cjl Call them contributors (not members)
22:49 walterbender well, there is nothing wrong with asking for voluntary donations... we should have a page were we both thank people and also let them know what the money is going towards
22:49 bernie alsroot: i guess donating many is also a form of contribution that we value alongside with writing code and other useful activities
22:49 walterbender and it would be good to have an incentive program for corporate donations of some sort
22:50 we should draft some wiki pages and see how it feels
22:50 satellit_ use trisquel model of listing donations on web page?
22:51 cjb yeah, it seems like encouraging people who deploy sugar widely to give significant (~$1k?) donations to SL would generate more money than asking our volunteers for money
22:51 and be somewhat more appropriate
22:51 bernie cjb: to respond to your last question (how much people are willing to donate), i think it's much more than $1000 per year. in our first year (when we had only 154 members) we got a few thousands dollars in donations.
22:51 alsroot satellit_: whats the link?
22:52 cjb bernie: well, I'm sure the distribution of donation size wasn't uniform
22:52 bernie cjb: i think this is just because we ASKED explicitly for donations (to buy infrastructure, trademarks, etc)
22:52 cjb probably one person gave us $1000 and some others gave us ten bucks, I'd imagine
22:52 satellit_ http://trisquel.info/en/trisquel-sugar
22:52 bernie cjb: sure, it wasn't uniform... and it won't be uniform also in 2012.
22:53 cjb: it's also very dishomogeneous at the fsf... some members donate thousands of dollars.
22:54 cjb *nod*
22:54 cjl http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Thank_You
22:54 dogi cjl: :)
22:54 satellit_ http://trisquel.info/en
22:54 bernie anyway, would everyone be OK with _voluntary_ donations for voting members (who also have to prove other forms of contributions) and obligatory for non-voting members (which we currently don't have)?
22:54 cjl # This page was last modified on 22 July 2010, at 18:27.
22:55 bernie cjl: which page?
22:55 cjl: ah, the Thank You page
22:55 cjl: we should update it, yeah...
22:55 cjl bernie: yep
22:55 walterbender maybe a good lead in to the next topic... we could subcontract the generation of our gifts
22:55 satellit_ http://trisquel.info/en/new-as[…]embership-program
22:55 bernie cjl: the SFC isn't even named...
22:55 alsroot bernie: too complicated for me.. who and how it will judge..
22:55 dogi by the way cjl we have to remove gsoc ... it is old
22:56 cjl dogi It's a wiki :=)
22:56 bernie alsroot: we already do it this way... the membership committee judges the membership requests
22:57 dogi cjl :) ok
22:57 bernie #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members
22:57 dogi: they've already removed the GSoC, i think
22:58 alsroot bernie: though, if we really need (maybe we need) members fees, I like more having separate membership, ie, just like fsf has in addition to the current one
22:58 bernie dogi: from the side bar
22:59 alsroot: i agree... in other organizations, members mean "someone who paid a membership fee" and then there's a higher rank such as "maintainer" or "advisor" which grants voting privileges
22:59 alsroot: i'm a member of the Linux Foundation, for example.
22:59 alsroot: and also a member of the Free Software Foundation (since 2008)
23:00 The Linux Foundation asks for $100, iirc...
23:00 alsroot then we can shift current members one level higher, and have regular membership (w/ fees)
23:00 cjb shall we think about this more and come back to it next time?
23:00 walterbender we paid a fee to attend the meeting in Montevideo independent of membership
23:00 cjb: +1
23:01 bernie alsroot: we could also ask members to renew their memberships every year. currently, i see a number of people in the list who have not been involved with sugar for a long time.
23:01 walterbender we should take a few minutes for Dogi who has been waiting patiently
23:01 bernie cjb: sure... this was supposed to be just an initial discussion
23:01 cjb: how do you feel about it, btw? you didn't say much...
23:01 dogi walterbender: +1
23:01 walterbender bernie: and lots of people who are involved who are not on the list
23:01 bernie walterbender: indeed
23:02 ah, before we switch topic, one last thing:
23:02 cjb bernie: not sure yet :)
23:02 bernie yesterday i spoke on the phone with John Tierney... he had an important piece of advice for us
23:02 walterbender #topic 3rd party Sugar merchandising (Dogi)
23:03 cjb (3rd party merchandising sounds fine to me, but Bradley seemed worried about it for some reason?  Anyway, fine with me if fine with SFC.)
23:03 dogi hope bernie will help me a little bit
23:03 bernie John's advice is: before you ask for donations, make sure you agree on what the money will be spent for and communicate it to the donors. very often, this is forgotten.
23:03 cjb bernie: yeah, that's what I've been pondering
23:04 of course we paid for the conference in Montevideo, because there were costs to offset
23:04 dogi +1 bernie
23:04 walterbender cjb: my point... we pay for things we need
23:04 cjb if SL is going to be in the business of taking money and doing good with it, we need to first convince people that the good we'll do is important and that we're the best people to do it
23:04 bernie cjb: bradley recommended against using an official-looking domain name such as shop.sugarlabs.org for something that could be seen as a for-profit activity
23:05 cjb bernie: oh yeah, that's right
23:05 is that what dogi wants to do, though?
23:05 walterbender let's hear from Dogi
23:05 cjb or did he just want to set up dogi's sugar shop.com or whatever
23:05 dogi lets start from the beginning
23:05 satellit_ http://trisquel.info/en/store
23:06 bernie cjb: regarding communication of what we do: i guess it's up to the marketing team, the people working on the new website, etc. we (the SLOBs) could make an official statement too...
23:06 dogi I was wondering if we can create a community toy ala xo for olpc
23:06 bernie satellit_: interesting
23:06 cjb satellit_: that's a nice-looking store
23:06 dogi and that brought me to http://codewiz.org/wiki/pictur[…]eman/img_2529.jpg
23:06 cjb dogi: what do you mean by toy?
23:07 bernie satellit_: they use Zazzle.com
23:07 dogi this is an usb stick which is and XO viewfinder aslo
23:08 bernie dogi: and a keychain?
23:08 dogi we could add the keychain too ...
23:09 satellit_ http://trisquel.info/files/usbmin.jpg
23:09 dogi so basically i wanted toi give this token as a gift for persons how pay membership fee
23:09 and maybe offer more in something like a shop ...
23:10 bernie tshirts?
23:11 bernie dogi: if you make t-shirts, i'll help you out.
23:11 dogi: and i'll buy 1-2 for myself :-)
23:11 dirakx1 thinks that the triquel store is a good model to follow.
23:11 cjb Sorry folks, think I should relocate home now that the thunderstorm has sort of passed.
23:11 bernie cjb: all right, i guess we could wrap up
23:11 dogi satellit_: like the trisquel shop
23:11 cjb Again, I don't have any strong opinion other than that we should not irritate Bradley.
23:11 So let's a full proposal from dogi on what he wants to do, and then send it to Bradley for feedback.
23:11 walterbender cjb: thanks...
23:11 bernie i guess the questions for this point are:
23:11 cjb (and then decide whether *we* think it's a good idea.)
23:12 bernie 1) is the board OK with licensing Sugar's trademarks to 3rd parties like dogi who want to create merchandise?
23:12 walterbender bernie: I think that has always been OK
23:12 bernie 2) shall we have a page with links to people selling 3rd-party produced Sugar merchandise? or something like that?
23:12 cjb bernie: that part sounds fine to me as long as we get to tell him to stop if something we don't approve of happens
23:12 bernie: sure, that sounds fine too
23:12 walterbender bernie: we just need to approve it
23:13 bernie cjb: ok, i guess it's called a terminable trademark license?
23:13 cjb bernie: sure, something like that.  all trademark licenses are terminable unless there's a contract or something.
23:13 walterbender I need to wrap up soon too... is the action a concrete proposal from Dogi?
23:13 bernie whatever we do, i'd be very opposed to giving exclusive licenses. I want to see some competition in this area :-)
23:14 cjb: ok
23:14 cjb bernie: yeah, me too
23:14 dogi walterbender: yes
23:14 walterbender OK...
23:14 JT4sugar Quick update on website revamp-Planned meeting tomorrow for RIT Co-op students Mike and JT to hand off collected content to Christian Marc Schmidt to allow him to finalize Beta design(2 to 3 weeks out). Things have progressed slower than planned as calls for content did not garner as much as we would of liked.Will look to send out update email with Christian to update community after meeting
23:14 walterbender we should end soon...
23:15 bernie JT4sugar: ah, we should have done that first thing! :-)
23:15 JT4sugar Thats fine
23:15 cjb heading out, thanks
23:15 bernie JT4sugar: thank you very much for taking care of the new website, it's much appreciated.
23:15 and much needed
23:16 walterbender I do want to ack the issues that cjl raised re i18n...
23:16 JT4sugar Persons to thank will be Christian and RIT guys they are doing heavy lifting
23:16 walterbender so maybe we should meet again next week?
23:16 bernie walterbender: pls remember to #endmeeting before dropping off!
23:16 walterbender bernie: will do...
23:16 bernie (i wonder what it would take to fix the meetbot to accept #endmeeting from anyone
23:16 walterbender #endmeeting
23:16 meeting Meeting ended Thu Jun  9 23:16:58 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4)
23:16 Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-09T22:08:44.html
23:16 Log:     http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]11-06-09T22:08:44

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.