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

#sugar-meeting meeting, 2011-12-02 15:01:02

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

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!5ddb1d63@gateway/web/freenode/ip.> 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!~CanoeBerr@> 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!~callkalpa@> 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!~CanoeBerr@> 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

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.