| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 15:01 |
meeting |
Meeting started Fri Dec 2 15:01:02 2011 UTC. The chair is walterbender. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. |
| 15:01 |
|
Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting |
| 15:01 |
walterbender |
hello all |
| 15:01 |
|
#topic new SLOB members |
| 15:01 |
|
Just for the record, we held an election for 3 open seats and the results are in: |
| 15:02 |
|
walterbender is reelected to his seat |
| 15:02 |
|
chris leonard is a new member |
| 15:02 |
|
gerald ardito is a new member |
| 15:02 |
|
we say farewell to bernie and mel and thank you |
| 15:02 |
|
also many thanks to Luke for running the election |
| 15:03 |
|
I'd like to make a formal motion thanking Bernie and Mel, if everyone is agreeable? |
| 15:03 |
cjl |
+1 |
| 15:03 |
Icarito-d234 |
+1 |
| 15:04 |
cjb |
+1 |
| 15:04 |
bkuhn |
walterbender: can you include in your email to Conservancy that Bernie and Mel are leaving too? Also, now that you've had an election, it would be the prefect time to execute the amended FSA we discussed in email a few weeks ago. |
| 15:04 |
walterbender |
Motion: The Sugar Labs Oversight Board would like to thank Bernie Innocenti and Mel Chua for their dedicated service to the community in their role as members of the oversight board. |
| 15:05 |
|
bkuhn: I think at the next meeting, because one of our new members is not present |
| 15:05 |
|
we need to discuss schedules since Gerald teaches at this time of day ASAIK |
| 15:05 |
bkuhn |
walterbender: Yeah, that's just fine, I'll send a new draft of the FSA next week with the new members names and you can put it on the agenda of the next meeting. |
| 15:05 |
|
walterbender: Also, note that Bernie was just recently given authority to approve smaller expenses so you didn't have to. That authority is now presumably revoked? Do you want to grant someone else that authority? |
| 15:05 |
walterbender |
bkuhn: the mailing list is updated |
| 15:06 |
|
bkuhn: I think it is fine that Bernie keeps that role |
| 15:06 |
bkuhn |
walterbender: ok. |
| 15:06 |
walterbender |
bkuhn: but the new board should discuss it. |
| 15:06 |
|
back to my motion, any discussion, amendments? |
| 15:07 |
bkuhn |
walterbender: meanwhile, do you mean the SLOBs mailing list? Note we keep a parallel an official list of who the SLOBs are for Conservancy's records, so I need all the details in an email so I can do that easily (and so I don't forget ;) |
| 15:07 |
walterbender |
bkuhn: yes, slobs lists.sl.o |
| 15:08 |
|
shall we vote? |
| 15:08 |
|
+1 from me |
| 15:08 |
Icarito-d234 |
+1 |
| 15:08 |
cjl |
+1 |
| 15:09 |
walterbender |
while we wait for alsroot and cjb, let me bring up the schedule issue |
| 15:09 |
|
I will ask Gerald for times that work for him and circulate them by email |
| 15:10 |
alsroot |
scrolls back |
| 15:10 |
walterbender |
then we can settle into a new regular meeting time |
| 15:10 |
cjl |
cjb altready acked above |
| 15:10 |
Icarito-d234 |
yes i thought motion had passed already |
| 15:10 |
walterbender |
It seems that everyone is in relatively similar timezones these days. |
| 15:11 |
cjl |
peru shares a timezone with US eastern seaboard |
| 15:11 |
Icarito-d234 |
walterbender: understood, ok about rescheduling meeting time |
| 15:11 |
alsroot |
+1 |
| 15:11 |
|
raffael <raffael!5ddb1d63gateway/web/freenode/ip.93.219.29.99> has joined #sugar-meeting |
| 15:11 |
walterbender |
one more +1 and it passes... the earlier +1s were for the idea of making a motion, not the motion itself |
| 15:11 |
|
motion passes :) |
| 15:11 |
|
And again, welcome to our new members. |
| 15:12 |
|
a couple of more things before we move on: |
| 15:12 |
|
(1) there were a few issues with the election itself -- some lost ballots -- mako is working on a patch |
| 15:13 |
|
and no mechanism for tie-breakers. we should come up with one before next time |
| 15:13 |
|
(2) as per Bradley's interjection above, we should discuss new roles for board members and renewal of positions, such as finance director, etc. |
| 15:14 |
|
In regard to the latter, I have a very qualified volunteer whom I think I can recruit. A professional finance person |
| 15:14 |
|
more later... just wanted to raise these as things we need to discuss. |
| 15:15 |
|
Any other thoughts before we jump into the meat of the meeting? |
| 15:15 |
Icarito-d234 |
walterbender: maybe share these items in an prior agenda discussion on IAEP |
| 15:15 |
walterbender |
Icarito-d234: absolutely, which is why I don't want to go into detail now |
| 15:16 |
cjl |
Colecting agenda items for next meeting |
| 15:17 |
walterbender |
so, moving on... we should try to wrap up the Local Lab discussion from last time while we have Bradley and Tony here |
| 15:17 |
|
#topic local labs / TM |
| 15:18 |
|
bkuhn and keynote2k: could you please summarize where you think we stand? |
| 15:18 |
keynote2k |
sure |
| 15:19 |
|
after looking into this further, I think this discussion goes beyond licensing TMs to local labs |
| 15:20 |
|
After doing some research, I think that the only way we can convey exclusivity (e.g, an "official" marker) is to provide oversight |
| 15:20 |
|
We still have a bit more work to do before coming up w/ a fleshed out proposal |
| 15:21 |
walterbender |
so we need to rename all of the existing local labs to Ice Weasel? |
| 15:21 |
keynote2k |
:P |
| 15:21 |
walterbender |
Is there anything we can do to help? |
| 15:21 |
keynote2k |
actually, I think some simple additions to the organizational structure might suffice. But I want to do a bit more research to be definitive |
| 15:22 |
|
I do have a few questions: |
| 15:22 |
|
are there any US-based local labs that have incorporated their own, independent 501c3 organizations? |
| 15:23 |
walterbender |
keynote2k: I don't know, but the ND State lab would be part of the university, for example |
| 15:24 |
bkuhn |
walterbender: has the University actually recognized them as officially part of the University? |
| 15:24 |
keynote2k |
Really? I know that it would be comprised of NDSU-affiliated personnel, but would it be an official part of the NDSU strucdture? |
| 15:25 |
walterbender |
keynote2k: we need to ask each group for their details |
| 15:25 |
|
keynote2k: but my impression is that they are like "clubs" within the universities |
| 15:25 |
kaametza |
local labs are always going to have a diferent structure from each other, so we have been thinking that in order to obtain the benefits of the fiscal sponsorship, it would be easier to use the figure of teams and projects |
| 15:25 |
walterbender |
sometimes funded projects within the university |
| 15:26 |
bkuhn |
kaametza: Yes, we covered various issues related to the fact they have different structure in our last meeting and in previous conference calls. |
| 15:26 |
walterbender |
kaametza: I will be adding your questions re projects to the thread... |
| 15:26 |
Icarito-d234 |
walterbender: which thread? bkuhn: conference calls? |
| 15:27 |
bkuhn |
Icarito-d234: We had a conference call with Sebastian about Sugar Labs Berlin. |
| 15:27 |
kaametza |
can we discuss them here? |
| 15:27 |
walterbender |
keynote2k: I will ask all of the local labs in the US to let me know their internal structures |
| 15:27 |
keynote2k |
that would be great. |
| 15:27 |
kaametza |
since we have the SFC staff |
| 15:27 |
bkuhn |
kaametza: did you get a chance to read the IRC log from the last SLOBs meeting were we discussed a lot about this? |
| 15:27 |
kaametza |
yes |
| 15:28 |
bkuhn |
Ok, great! If your questions could bounce off as follows up to that discussion, that would be probably most beneficial so we don't have to discuss again issues already addressed. |
| 15:28 |
Icarito-d234 |
kaametza's question to the list regarding SFC Agreement: "[2] Tienen los proyectos "oficiales" los beneficios |
| 15:28 |
|
y obligaciones establecidas del acuerdo con la |
| 15:28 |
|
Software Freedom Conservancy? |
| 15:28 |
|
Does SFC Fiscal Soponsorship benefits/obligations |
| 15:28 |
|
apply to sugar lab's "official" projects?" |
| 15:28 |
|
sorry its in two languages |
| 15:29 |
kaametza |
we want to move from the local lab figure to the teams/projects |
| 15:29 |
walterbender |
Icarito-d234 and kaametza: can we please finish the current discussion? |
| 15:30 |
kaametza |
:wal |
| 15:30 |
|
sorry |
| 15:30 |
|
:P |
| 15:30 |
keynote2k |
walterbender: getting us the info re: structure of US-based local labs would greatly help. |
| 15:31 |
kaametza |
okweare not us based |
| 15:31 |
cjl |
besides NDSU, I only know of a DC proposal in US |
| 15:31 |
walterbender |
cjl: they are the only two "official" SLs in the US |
| 15:32 |
cjl |
ok |
| 15:32 |
kaametza |
are they present in the meeting? |
| 15:32 |
walterbender |
cjl: there are "informal" efforts elsewhere, e.g., RIT |
| 15:33 |
jt4sugar |
walterbender: A list of questions SFC needs answered about local lab structure would be helpful to guide them in answering |
| 15:34 |
cjl |
walterbender: want to tag this point wit han action item? |
| 15:34 |
walterbender |
kaametza: neither Kevin or Jeff are here today |
| 15:34 |
|
cjl: we need to find out from Tony what else they need from us so we can bring this topic to closure |
| 15:35 |
kaametza |
We basically need to be able to provide srvices to third parties |
| 15:35 |
bkuhn |
jt4sugar: As has been pointed out already in this meeting and the last one, each local lab is structured differently, and as such we're pursuing those answers typically with each group that wants to form one. |
| 15:35 |
kaametza |
bkhun: exactly. |
| 15:35 |
keynote2k |
does the list of local labs on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Local_Labs represent the full, up-to-date list? |
| 15:36 |
bkuhn |
To answer walterbender's question from a while back, I think the main thing we need is a definitive list of contacts for each local lab. |
| 15:36 |
walterbender |
bkuhn: we need to establish both general guidelines and a process so that Laura and Raffael, for example, can get moving |
| 15:36 |
kaametza |
that's whywe want to move from the local lab structure to the teams/projects |
| 15:36 |
walterbender |
bkuhn: already in your inbox for US |
| 15:36 |
bkuhn |
walterbender: While I agree with that, I think the process will include a lot of discussion with each individual group to figure out what they're up to. |
| 15:36 |
walterbender |
agreed. |
| 15:36 |
bkuhn |
walterbender: thanks! |
| 15:36 |
keynote2k |
walterbender: we're in receipt. thx |
| 15:37 |
walterbender |
bkuhn: but I feel like we cannot seem to get these discussions moving forward |
| 15:37 |
|
bkuhn: so there is pent-up frsutration |
| 15:37 |
kaametza |
walter can I have a few wors? |
| 15:37 |
|
words? |
| 15:37 |
walterbender |
kaametza: sure |
| 15:37 |
bkuhn |
walterbender: I understand there's frustration. As I understood the situation, we were going to work with Sugar Labs Berlin to work out what the process is going to be. |
| 15:38 |
kaametza |
you move the discussion so fast that it is hard for me to express our ideas |
| 15:38 |
bkuhn |
As we discussed at the last meeting, there are a lot of complexities here regarding Conservancy's existence as a non-profit org in the USA. The USA local labs are probably much easier for us to deal with for that reason. |
| 15:38 |
|
I don't see any reason we can't move forward with trying to get one USA one and one non-USA one organized in parallel. |
| 15:39 |
jt4sugar |
bkuhn: A list of key things that local labs can or cannot do and how that does or does not fall under SFC would seem helpful-not everyone will be reading logs |
| 15:39 |
bkuhn |
Trying to pursue them all at once, though, is going to just overload Conservancy's extremely limited resources. |
| 15:39 |
|
jt4sugar: I agree. The rules may be slightly different, based on the given structure of the local lab. |
| 15:40 |
kaametza |
we have been requested to provide support services to a sugar deployment, we believe it would be easier for the SFC nad Sugar Labs to use the existing sponsorship agreement with the SFC |
| 15:40 |
bkuhn |
If we make *general* rules, they'd have to be particularly strict. That seems like a bad outcome. For local labs that can have withstand more oversight from Conservancy, they can of course do more. |
| 15:40 |
kaametza |
only10% it's to high |
| 15:40 |
bkuhn |
kaametza: who is "we" in this context? I always try to avoid that word. |
| 15:40 |
kaametza |
puno pilot deployment team |
| 15:40 |
bkuhn |
... b/c there's always lots of "we"s as we all have different roles. :) |
| 15:41 |
kaametza |
bernie, sebastian, alksey, chris leonard, juan and me |
| 15:41 |
cjl |
bkuhn, is it fair to say that one of the primary concerns is that if money is involved, that "oversight" is essential to assure that all expenditures are consistent with SFC 5013(c) status? |
| 15:41 |
|
501(3)c |
| 15:42 |
bkuhn |
cjl: that's definitely a major part of it. There are other issues too. Anything done in the Sugar Labs name reflects on Sugar Labs and ultimately Conservancy. If something goes wrong, Sugar Labs as a whole and/or Conservancy as a whole could easily get blamed. |
| 15:42 |
|
It's Conservancy's job to protect Sugar Labs from any sort of problems, and that can only be done with oversight. |
| 15:42 |
kaametza |
we are talking about support services |
| 15:42 |
|
a responsability from sugar labs anyhow |
| 15:43 |
|
we would be an internal team |
| 15:43 |
|
under SLOBS supervision |
| 15:43 |
bkuhn |
kaametza: typically with Conservancy projects, support services are done by third parties anyway. Can you explain better why Sugar Labs itself *must* be the "responsible" party here? |
| 15:43 |
|
I see no specific reason that it needs to be. |
| 15:44 |
|
That's what Free Software is about: allowing others to have the freedom to use it commercially if they like, form their own work around it, etc. |
| 15:45 |
kaametza |
you are right, i can be provided by a third party, the magic here is that this would test a sustainability model for sugar labs |
| 15:45 |
|
CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr190.196.202.215> has joined #sugar-meeting |
| 15:45 |
keynote2k |
kaametza: I'm not sure I follow |
| 15:45 |
walterbender |
kaametza: none of this has ever been discussed with SLOBs... |
| 15:46 |
kaametza |
we wok oluntarily but reality is that we need resources to circulate to be able to get work done |
| 15:47 |
|
walterbender: I offered myself voluntarily to propose sustainability models some time ago |
| 15:47 |
|
been thinking and exploring ever since and lucky enouhg all ingridients mixed for us to able to get this eal in line |
| 15:48 |
|
deal* |
| 15:48 |
Icarito-d234 |
s/eal/deal/g (kaametza is using a OLPC membrane keyboard |
| 15:48 |
|
:-) |
| 15:48 |
kaametza |
yes sorry |
| 15:48 |
cjl |
kaametza, One concern I can see is that a "support services" contract would certainly commit the party to certain actions that would become the legal responsibility of Sugar Labs and SFC and not just the the team involved. |
| 15:48 |
|
I do understand the view from the other side though. The "customer" wants an entity to contract with and the team involved would like to be able to invoke Sugar Labs as their identity and thus SFC as their fiscal mgmt partner. |
| 15:49 |
kaametza |
cjl: in fact we need another party to get the contract with the region |
| 15:49 |
|
that would be escuelab puno |
| 15:49 |
cjl |
which is under ATA? |
| 15:50 |
walterbender |
kaametza: then I don't understand why Bradley's previous answer is not adequate |
| 15:50 |
kaametza |
we [puno pilot deployment team] would provide the software support to them |
| 15:50 |
|
we need to stablish a contractual relationship with escuelab puno |
| 15:51 |
|
to be able o get paid |
| 15:51 |
|
escuelab puno is an independent/local entity |
| 15:52 |
|
[we gave up in the local lab structure since it's not really oganic and requires duplicatd work] |
| 15:52 |
|
so, my questions are; |
| 15:53 |
|
1. can official projects/teams get the fiscal sponsorpship benefits? |
| 15:55 |
|
2. can we reduce the fee from 10% to 5%, at leasy on profesional services contracts? |
| 15:55 |
|
leasy=least |
| 15:55 |
walterbender |
kaametza: I don't understand the distinction between doing a contract for the government vs doing a contract for escuelab puno |
| 15:55 |
|
from the SL POV |
| 15:56 |
|
how does the oversight issue go away? |
| 15:56 |
|
or the issue of a contract? |
| 15:56 |
kaametza |
we would have to be under overight of the board anyways |
| 15:57 |
|
if you are getting in a contractual relationship you have a defined responsability |
| 15:57 |
Icarito-d234 |
we agree with Sugar Labs organizational principles and democratic structure |
| 15:58 |
|
and consider this project in the best interest of the Sugar Labs mission |
| 15:59 |
kaametza |
we are integrating a local figure, since they will be able to handle paperwork and ocumentation with the local gobernment |
| 15:59 |
|
we don't |
| 16:00 |
cjl |
The question is what is possible / feasible within SL / SFC structure, I see two possible routes. |
| 16:00 |
kaametza |
escuelab puno will get the main contract |
| 16:00 |
cjl |
1) EscueLab Puno enters contract with govt of Puno region to provide services, |
| 16:00 |
kaametza |
ys |
| 16:00 |
walterbender |
I still don't understand. What is the puno pilot deployment team and why does it need to have a contractual arrangement with SL to be able to consult? |
| 16:00 |
cjl |
2a) Sugar Labs (via SFC, per SL status) forms a sub-contract with Puno Escuelab to support them. |
| 16:00 |
|
2b) a group of Sugar Labs members freely associate to provide services in support of EscueLab Puno under a sub-contract arrangement that does not commit SL (or SFC) to any deliverables, only the individual team members. |
| 16:00 |
kaametza |
exaclty |
| 16:01 |
Icarito-d234 |
yes! |
| 16:01 |
kaametza |
please keep present that the main contract [esculab puno - gobernement] includes additional items, not just support |
| 16:01 |
walterbender |
what is the advantage of 2a? |
| 16:01 |
cjl |
kaametza: You are looking for 2a and walterbender is asking why 2b is not sufficient. |
| 16:02 |
walterbender |
it seems it incurs lots of overhead for everyone |
| 16:02 |
|
including the 10% you don't like |
| 16:04 |
cjl |
under 2a, fiscal mgmt goes though SFC, under 2B, it must be clear that the entity forming the contract is *not* Sugar Labs, the way that Activity Central operated, for example. |
| 16:04 |
kaametza |
we are willing to pay a fee since we belive the model needs to be scalble |
| 16:05 |
|
no need for overheads if we are clear |
| 16:05 |
walterbender |
kaametza: a fee to whom and what model? also, you could make a donation any time |
| 16:05 |
kaametza |
fee to SFC |
| 16:05 |
walterbender |
for what services? |
| 16:05 |
bkuhn |
Conservancy doesn't ask for fees for people to make good use of the software that projects like Sugar Labs produces to help the world. That's what I think cjl is getting at with 2(b) |
| 16:05 |
kaametza |
model of sus |
| 16:06 |
|
sorry |
| 16:06 |
Icarito-d234 |
to operate as a US NGO? |
| 16:07 |
kaametza |
by fee I mean the voluntary donation of 10% |
| 16:07 |
|
I believe community members should be able to procure their sustainability |
| 16:08 |
|
using the existing mechanisms |
| 16:08 |
walterbender |
it seems it is boiling down to some as yet explained need for there to be a US NGO operating in Peru? |
| 16:08 |
kaametza |
i dont understand the question |
| 16:09 |
|
inkyfingers has quit IRC |
| 16:09 |
Icarito-d234 |
walterbender: we are not limited to operating in Peru |
| 16:09 |
kaametza |
exaclty |
| 16:09 |
|
this would apply to any deployment team |
| 16:09 |
walterbender |
Icarito-d234: regardless of where you want to operate, why do you need the SFC approval to offer consulting services? |
| 16:10 |
kaametza |
interested in sustainability |
| 16:10 |
Icarito-d234 |
also it would work for us as an administrative operator, for instance we already have a donor for seed funds for Puno project in the US |
| 16:10 |
walterbender |
kaametza: deployment teams are independent entities AFAIK |
| 16:10 |
cjl |
walterbender: I beleive there is a desire for administrative support (contract and money handling) as well as a desire to developing a model by which Local Labs can perform contractually funded activities |
| 16:10 |
Icarito-d234 |
walterbender: we could use the Sugar Labs Deployment Team structure as you suggested |
| 16:11 |
kaametza |
walterbender: we need SFC assistance for keeping tranparency and objectiveness |
| 16:11 |
walterbender |
cjl: sounds really inefficient |
| 16:11 |
Icarito-d234 |
we once asked current coordinators (you and pilar) if we could be coordinators too but got no answer |
| 16:11 |
|
(you=walterbender) |
| 16:11 |
bkuhn |
cjl: Having Conservancy attempt to provide serious administrative support outside the USA makes little sense. We're in the wrong country, wrong currency, etc. |
| 16:11 |
walterbender |
Icarito-d234: if I didn't answer, I apologize. But I still don't understand the question |
| 16:12 |
Icarito-d234 |
we would like to provide a model to sustainably support the region's users |
| 16:12 |
|
starting currently with a small pilot |
| 16:13 |
walterbender |
Icarito-d234: I get that. But why the SFC role? |
| 16:13 |
Icarito-d234 |
smalish really |
| 16:13 |
|
for the same reason SL uses it |
| 16:13 |
|
it alleviates complexity and provides transparency and advice |
| 16:13 |
kaametza |
sugar labs is a global community, need a global management |
| 16:13 |
walterbender |
Icarito-d234: but I think that it alleviates complexity |
| 16:14 |
|
as per this protracted discussion, it seems to add complexity |
| 16:14 |
Icarito-d234 |
contractual relationships can be complex this is one area SFC can help us with, we think |
| 16:14 |
walterbender |
re transparency and advice, SFC/SL is happy to provide that in regard to Sugar regardless |
| 16:15 |
|
Icarito-d234: but I think I hear bkuhn saying that they are not set up to do that |
| 16:15 |
|
that it is a complexity that will take time to work through |
| 16:15 |
kaametza |
going back to my original question, do teams/projects get same benefits under the iscal sponsoship? |
| 16:15 |
walterbender |
in large part because they are US based |
| 16:16 |
cjl |
Peruvian contract law and non-profit status seems to be beyond SFC scope. |
| 16:16 |
walterbender |
cjl certainly at the moment. |
| 16:16 |
|
cjl: down the road?? |
| 16:16 |
Icarito-d234 |
surely SFC can enter contracts with foreign institutions / persons? |
| 16:17 |
walterbender |
bkuhn: ^^?? |
| 16:17 |
bkuhn |
keynote2k: can I ask you to comment on that? |
| 16:17 |
keynote2k |
Conservancy can enter into contracts w/ foreign institutions - although we do so carefully to address the difference in jurisdiction law |
| 16:18 |
|
However, Conservancy is not structured to deploy or supervise go-to-market teams that bid for service engagements, which is what this sounds like. |
| 16:19 |
jt4sugar |
If they go under 2b) they will still want to say or use Sugar Labs name(TM)in some way to help market and raise funds- can they? |
| 16:19 |
Icarito-d234 |
in this case we consider the contract to be for R&D which in this context includes some support to the local techincal team (escuelab puno) |
| 16:20 |
walterbender |
jt4sugar: that is back to Local Labs TM issue, which Bradley and Tony are still investigating |
| 16:20 |
Icarito-d234 |
*we will develop and document sugar* |
| 16:20 |
jt4sugar |
Ok |
| 16:21 |
cjl |
Icarito-d234: A question about Escuelab Puno, is it under ATA like EscueLab Lima? |
| 16:21 |
Icarito-d234 |
cjl, no its an entirely independent entity |
| 16:21 |
keynote2k |
lcarito-d234: it still sounds like income-generating contract. Conservancy projects fund development through donations, etc. |
| 16:21 |
kaametza |
keynote2k: we'll use the esuelab puno figure as they will get the structure required wih the local gobernmen |
| 16:22 |
|
income will go to escuelab puno |
| 16:23 |
bkuhn |
Ok, so that sounds like you don't need anything from Conservancy then to proceed with your work. This is pretty typical with Conservancy projects: there's usually lots of activity (mostly commercial, some non-commercial too) going on outside of the scope of Conservancy. The project benefits because patches and improvements get sent in. |
| 16:23 |
|
But, in those cases, it's just that some unaffiliated volunteers -- from Conservancy's point of view -- are doing some excellent work to help us out. |
| 16:23 |
|
callkalpa <callkalpa!~callkalpa61.245.172.58> has joined #sugar-meeting |
| 16:23 |
walterbender |
sound right |
| 16:24 |
Icarito-d234 |
we think it is an opportunity for Sugar Labs to be involved in a deployment |
| 16:24 |
|
officially |
| 16:24 |
kaametza |
we need to stablish a contractual relationship with escuelab puno |
| 16:24 |
bkuhn |
It's not that different from, for example, what happens with Google employees in the USA. Many of them get time from their jobs to do work that deploys Free Software in their organization for their own organizations need. As a side effect, Conservancy projects gets lots of useful patches from Google employees. |
| 16:24 |
|
CanoeBerry has quit IRC |
| 16:24 |
bkuhn |
But those Google employees aren't acting in Conservancy's name or in some official, affiliated capacity. From our point of view, they're just volunteers. |
| 16:24 |
kaametza |
and would need sugar labs backing for it |
| 16:25 |
|
if sugar labs uses SFC a a legal figure |
| 16:25 |
Icarito-d234 |
sugar is lacking in user feedback |
| 16:25 |
kaametza |
we need SCF as a legal figure |
| 16:25 |
Icarito-d234 |
Sugar the-software that is |
| 16:26 |
bkuhn |
kaametza: I haven't seen anything in this conversation that shows why escuelab puno "would need sugar labs's [and by automatic extension, Conservancy's] backing" for the proposed activities. |
| 16:26 |
kaametza |
to provide services as a team to escuelab |
| 16:26 |
|
CanoeBerry <CanoeBerry!~CanoeBerr190.196.202.215> has joined #sugar-meeting |
| 16:26 |
walterbender |
kaametza and Icarito-d234: explain how "official" involvement helps resolve the feedback issue? |
| 16:26 |
Icarito-d234 |
walterbender: sorry i'm off topic |
| 16:27 |
kaametza |
bkuhn: we as individuals need SL and SFC backing |
| 16:27 |
cjl |
kaametza: Does EscueLab Puno have a formal status, are they a company, are they a Peruvian established NGO (within applicable local law)? |
| 16:27 |
keynote2k |
Who is EscueLab Puno, for that matter? I'm trying to keep the parties straight here |
| 16:27 |
walterbender |
Icarito-d234: you get lots of backing from SL already, IMHO |
| 16:28 |
bkuhn |
kaametza: I'm just having trouble following it. It sounds like you are saying: "We need it because we need it.", which is a tautology, but not helpful to clarify the situation, unfortunately. |
| 16:28 |
walterbender |
Icarito-d234: and I don't understand what additional backing you need, other than "contractual support"? |
| 16:29 |
kaametza |
bkuhn: we need legal representation to provide services |
| 16:29 |
bkuhn |
walterbender: meanwhile, point of order, does this meeting have an end-time? I actually only scheduled an hour for it, and we're not 30 minutes past that, so and I'm unsure how much longer I can stay, as I'm getting ping'ed in many directions now by others, unfortunately. |
| 16:29 |
walterbender |
bkuhn: yes. we should have ended at 11. |
| 16:30 |
|
we need to wrap up and obviously continue again soon |
| 16:30 |
bkuhn |
kaametza: Conservancy doesn't provide legal representation to third-parties, unfortunately. It's not on our service plan. |
| 16:30 |
kaametza |
not a third party, a sugar labs team |
| 16:30 |
walterbender |
as far as action items, I sent bkuhn and keynote2k contact info for all of the local labs so they can ask whatever they need re the TM question |
| 16:31 |
|
I would suggest that kaametza and Icarito-d234 clearly spell out what services that they think they need from SFC and why. |
| 16:32 |
bkuhn |
kaametza: AFAICT, EscueLab Puno is currently a third-party. I realize you're *asking* for it to be part of Sugar Labs in some official way, but I don't see a consensus here about that. I think walterbender's follow up point would be helpful. After more than an hour discussing it, I'm still only hearing: "we need it because we need it". :-/ |
| 16:32 |
kaametza |
services included in the agreemnt |
| 16:32 |
walterbender |
meanwhile, I will coordinate with SLOBs (including Gerald) as to best times for meetings. |
| 16:32 |
Icarito-d234 |
bkuhn: escuelab puno would be the counterpart |
| 16:32 |
|
I, kaametza and other SL members would be the Deployment Team (setup for Puno) |
| 16:33 |
keynote2k |
Escuelab Puno is the customer, then? |
| 16:33 |
kaametza |
yes |
| 16:33 |
Icarito-d234 |
keynote2k: yes |
| 16:33 |
walterbender |
Icarito-d234: you brought up two new entities in today's discussion. I think the request for clarification is not unreasonable... |
| 16:33 |
|
but we are out of time today |
| 16:34 |
Icarito-d234 |
walterbender: we only brought one question - can a SL Team enter a contract with a third party? |
| 16:34 |
|
this is so we know if we start a team / project . |
| 16:34 |
bkuhn |
Icarito-d234: Not in the name of Sugar Labs, no. The right to enter into contracts under the name Sugar Labs is reserved exclusively to Conservancy in the fiscal sponsorship agreement w/ Sugar Labs. |
| 16:35 |
Icarito-d234 |
bkuhn: this is the service we require from SFC |
| 16:35 |
bkuhn |
Icarito-d234: and then we're back to the same questions: "Who's the 'we' and why do you *require* that service?" It seems to me like a local entity focused on doing Sugar Labs deployment could do that. |
| 16:36 |
walterbender |
I would like to adjourn |
| 16:36 |
cjl |
Icarito-d234: The answer I am hearing from SFC is that they provide contract support for contracts where SL is the customer (e.g. buying conference supporting services, etc.), but not for cases where SL would be the vendor. |
| 16:36 |
kaametza |
we=Puno Pilot Deployment Team |
| 16:36 |
walterbender |
I think we know the questions that need to be answered in order to make further progress on these topics |
| 16:36 |
Icarito-d234 |
kaametza: Puno Pilot Deployment Team = Part of SL |
| 16:36 |
bkuhn |
cjl: That's probably an over-simplification, but it certainly is true that Conservancy is not a vendor to anyone for anything. |
| 16:37 |
|
And it would be very rare (perhaps impossible) that being any sort of vendor would fit Conservancy's scope and mission. |
| 16:37 |
|
But, I'm sorry, walterbender moved to adjourn here, I think. |
| 16:38 |
kaametza |
so sugar labs would never be able to monetize their work/ |
| 16:38 |
walterbender |
yes. ^^ is a Motion |
| 16:38 |
|
5 |
| 16:39 |
|
in respect to everyone's schedules |
| 16:39 |
|
4 |
| 16:39 |
kaametza |
would like thank you all |
| 16:39 |
cjl |
given the time, + t oadjounr, but I would be willing to hang out and try to clarify some questions |
| 16:39 |
walterbender |
3 |
| 16:39 |
|
cjl: +1 |
| 16:39 |
kaametza |
will remain here is anyone interested |
| 16:39 |
walterbender |
2 |
| 16:39 |
|
1 |
| 16:39 |
|
thanks all... to be continued |
| 16:40 |
|
#end-meeting |
| 16:40 |
meeting |
Meeting ended Fri Dec 2 16:40:01 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4) |
| 16:40 |
|
Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-02T15:01:02.html |
| 16:40 |
|
Log: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]11-12-02T15:01:02 |