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

#sugar-meeting meeting, 2012-05-30 21:08:10

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
21:08 meeting Meeting started Wed May 30 21:08:10 2012 UTC. The chair is walterbender. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting
21:08 walterbender welcome all
21:08 #topic Local Labs
21:08 Tony has some changes to the Sugar Labs wiki regarding Local Labs we should discuss.
21:08 he was here a few minutes ago, but I guess we lost him
21:09 I can pastebin his suggested changes
21:09 just a sec
21:10 #link http://fpaste.org/tHTo/
21:11 the idea is to somewhat distance SFC from the affiliations...
21:12 the first proposal is:
21:12 The popularity of the Sugar platform has inspired numerous unaffiliated volunteers, developers, and deployment specialists to use Sugar and educate others on how to use Sugar. We affectionately refer to these user communities as "Local Labs," and allow them to refer to themselves as Sugar Labs <Region Name> without written permission. For a partial listing of Sugar Labs Local Labs, see...
21:12 ...http://......."
21:12 kaametza_ <kaametza_!~webchat@jita.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:13 walterbender this lets sugar communities use the local lab name without our assuming responsibility...
21:13 cjl It is actually a fairly accurate description of reality.
21:13 walterbender seems a bit dicey in that it opens our good name up to abuse, but it makes the SFC comfortable
21:13 cjl: yes.
21:14 cjl More so than our existign text I imagine, which was de veloped speculatively.
21:14 walterbender I suppose we can police by only listing labs we know about...
21:15 let's get the other two passages into the minutes and then discuss them as a whole...
21:16 second proposal:
21:16 "Sugar Labs appreciates the efforts of Local Labs in making the Sugar platform relevant to their local communities. Local Labs around the globe do the following, and more:
21:16 * Adapt the technology and pedagogy to an area's culture and resources (e.g, developing activities and content specific to a region)
21:16 * Help translate Sugar to the local language(s)
21:16 * Support Sugar deployments in area schools
21:16 * Create a local community devoted to the Sugar Labs principles, making Sugar more open and sustainable
21:16 * Provide for communication,between the local communities and the global Sugar Labs community
21:16 * Develop Local content and software that can be used not only for local purposes but also for the overall community
21:16 * Host, co-host or partner in the organization of conferences, workshops, talks and meetings related to the use or development of Sugar
21:16 Sugar Labs seeks to foster a sense of ownership and associated entrepreneurship with the user communities who support Sugar. Sugar Labs, as the official representative of the project itself, maintains responsibility for setting clear goals and maintaining any necessary infrastructure needed by the project as a whole. In turn, Local Labs dedicate themselves to using Sugar to serve their local...
21:16 ...communities. But, what is the "business model" for a successful Local Lab? It seems that some necessary conditions for success would be:
21:16 * A university connection as a local human resource
21:16 * A local pilot user group from which to learn
21:16 * A local passion or sub-goal that provides a rational for the work
21:16 * Bi-directional communication with Sugar Labs and other Local Labs
21:16 * A sustainable and well-defined entrepreneurship model
21:16 * A program to reach out to local free-software communities and local industry
21:16 * A marketing program or roadmap
21:16 What are other considerations? And are these initial "conditions" correct? Your input would be of great value to the efforts of Local Labs everywhere. Please join the discussion.
21:17 We do appreciate these activities... even though we have little in the way of mechanisms to demonstrate our appreciation
21:17 finally,...
21:17 "Sugar Labs Local Labs are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with Sugar Labs or the Software Freedom Conservancy."
21:18 cjl That last one is a bit of an "ouch"
21:18 On the other hand, I can understand the SFC's stance
21:18 walterbender that is the one I think we have the least flexibility on, alas
21:19 I don't have any suggestions re alternative language
21:20 cjl The first two do sweeten it, but it is necessarily blunt to convey the SFC's disclaimer of responsibility for actions of local labs
21:20 walterbender tony is planning to go around to each of the groups with whom we have exchanged paper and ratchet back the agreements.
21:21 cjl: these are the recommendations from the SFC lawyer :P
21:21 cjl yes,  Icoudl tell that
21:21 Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso@> has joined #sugar-meeting
21:21 icarito lets take it one step at a time
21:21 first, i'm having difficulty to understand the verb "ratchet"
21:21 cjl icarito ratchet = adjust / modify
21:22 icarito thanks cjl
21:22 now, Local Labs are composed of people, mostly Sugar Labs members
21:22 walterbender icarito: the SFC doesn't not want to continue any formal relationships with Local Labs... so they want to undo the agreements.
21:22 icarito so "unnaffiliated" is relative
21:22 yes but Sugar Labs does have members
21:23 so maybe the wording can be improved
21:23 alsroot at the end the whole SL case is not regular for SFC's projects, I guess. so, what SFC thinks is acceptable from its pov, is fine. in any case, I hope it will be possible to make revise some points if we will face such need
21:23 cjl icarito, the term "unaffiliated" is specific legalese for "SFC is not responsible"
21:23 icarito cjl, so let's write that
21:23 walterbender icarito: Sugar Labs has members, yes... and those members can do things, but creating a local lab is not something they can do on behalf of SL or SFC
21:23 I think the word is the proper one.
21:24 icarito fine so let's define Local Labs as whatever its members do in a region?
21:24 as long as "SFC is not responsible" it should be fine?
21:24 cjl icarito, we want people t ohave autonomy in what they do in their region.
21:25 icarito cjl, we do have autonomy, and we are also part of a community
21:25 i think it would be fine to state just that
21:25 walterbender icarito: the point of the language is to make a distinction between individual affiliation and institutional affiliation
21:26 cjl icarito, Sugar Labs have the autonomy to form contracts, we have ceded that to SFC in the FSA.
21:26 Sugar Labs DOES NOT have
21:26 icarito walterbender, except for Colombia, there isnt any institution called Local Labs at least not in Latam
21:26 walterbender but I will run that question of language past Tony
21:27 icarito: Chile
21:27 cjl NDSU?
21:27 icarito walterbender, ah Educalibre, but they call their local labs Sugar Labs Chile
21:27 walterbender icarito: and there are other, non-Latam labs....
21:28 icarito: it doesn't really matter what names are used as per the first paragraph I pasted
21:28 icarito: what matters is the autonomy
21:28 cjl icaito I think walterbender makes the important distinction between the actions fo individuals and th eactions of organizations.
21:29 kaametza_ just for considerationof the board, SL is a Global "world wide" project
21:29 icarito the point is we can call Local Labs what members do in a region - I don't think we should simply "ratchet" what individual members initiatives there are in regions
21:29 walterbender cjl: NDSU is a Local Lab and has a MOU from us that Tony is reviewing (revoking?)
21:30 kaametza_ the fact that SFC has limitations of geograohy shouldn't result into denying a relationship with overseas local labs
21:30 walterbender icarito: I don't understand...
21:30 cjl icarito, no one wants to change what people are doing locally.  SFC jsut can't take responsibility for it.
21:30 walterbender kaametza: We are applying these rules everywhere, not just Latam. NDSU will have to change its affiliation status as well
21:30 icarito cjl, fine so let's state it in terms of SFC and not in terms of what people are doing locally?
21:31 walterbender icarito: I welcome suggestions for alternative language
21:32 kaametza_ walterbender: how are new rules been defined without having consult local labs?
21:33 walterbender kaametza: please read the backlog
21:33 icarito would "The SFC does not officially endorse the initiatives of individual members of Sugar Labs or groups." be accurate?
21:33 in fact I'm having some trouble understanding why this disclaimer should go in Local Labs page and not everywhere in the wiki
21:34 walterbender icarito: the SFC is not disassociating itself from everything SL does
21:34 it is happy to be associated with our efforts to create and promote Free Software
21:36 icarito walterbender, still, my version is accurate, they are not responsible for everything we do
21:37 walterbender icarito: I think we are having a language problem here...
21:37 icarito *we = SL in my last sentence
21:37 walterbender it is accurate to say "they are not responsible for everything we do" but
21:37 they are responsible for many things we do
21:37 cjl kaametza_: "new rules" are being defined by the SFC in consultation with member projects.  This discussion has been all about defining what relation, if any, SFC can or might have with Local Labs.
21:37 icarito you mean they endorse and are affiliated with some things we do?
21:38 walterbender the point of this whole exercise is to make a distinction between what they are and are not responsible for
21:38 they are responsible for FOSS development, but not Sugar deployments
21:38 icarito they are exactly affiliated with individuals who are members of the SLOBs and endorse exactly what?
21:39 kaametza_ cjl: member projects you mean all the community?
21:39 cjl icarito: SFC holds all of our money and is solely authorized to deal with legal and contractual matters under the terms of the FSA
21:39 icarito ok so then they only endorse Free Software development that's fine as a disclaimer?
21:40 walterbender icarito: they engage with us along many dimensions... please refer to the section in their website describing services
21:40 cjl kaametza by member projects I mean SFC member projects http://www.sfconservancy.org/members/current/
21:40 icarito it would be great if the disclaimer would not put us at such distance - they could say they are open to endorsing efforts by members of SL that help their mission of promoting Free Software but are not responsible for what Local Labs do
21:41 i'm not trying to undermine what SFC does, I appreciate them very much, just trying to also make it clear Local Labs are members of the Sugar Labs community
21:42 and so have access to the same services SFC provides for the rest
21:42 kaametza_ cjl: it's clear local labs have no legal relationship with SFC but it is also a fact local labs are part of Sugar Labs community
21:42 icarito the language suggests otherwise
21:42 kaametza_ SL is a community over all
21:42 it's all about people
21:43 walterbender kaametza: local labs presumably are collections of people... but as organizations, they have no formal affiliation
21:43 icarito Local Labs are initiatives of people who share the Sugar Labs principles, and as such they should be recognized, even if SFC can't enter into contracts with organizations spawning from such initiatives
21:44 alsroot I think we are arguing about nothing, there is a legal aspect where SFC is involved (and, obviously, it can't be responsible for what local labs do); and there is a community aspect (and nobody says local labs are not a part of global community)
21:44 kaametza_ walterbender: they dont with SFC but the do with SL Community
21:45 icarito kaametza_ actually organizations do not have formal relationships with SL
21:45 but members do
21:45 people
21:45 formal = defined in our governance model
21:45 i guess
21:46 walterbender alsroot: +1
21:46 kaametza_ alsroot: there is adifference to present our team as local lab, when there is no relationship with the SL community
21:46 walterbender alsroot: whether or not it is nothing, it is nothing we can really do anything about
21:47 kaametza that is your decision... how you present yourself. but you cannot present yourself as SL/SFC
21:47 alsroot kaametza_: but nobody says that there are no relationship with the SL community. just SFC declares its filed of responsibility
21:47 kaametza_ walterbender: of course not
21:48 alsroot *field
21:48 walterbender kaametza_ until recently, it was not so clear. now it is.
21:48 cjl kaametza The point of the first section is to allow you to call yourself part of the community.
21:48 kaametza_ from a local lab perspective I consider icarito's suggestion much more accurate
21:48 walterbender kaametza: which suggestion? he has made several
21:49 icarito "Sugar Labs Local Labs are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with Sugar Labs or the Software Freedom Conservancy."
21:49 that's tony's proposal
21:49 alsroot, that seems to imply there isnt a relationship with the SL community
21:50 walterbender icarito: but the other text suggests there is a relationship, just not a formal one
21:50 icarito I had suggested: "The SFC does not officially endorse the initiatives of individual members of Sugar Labs or groups."
21:50 alsroot icarito: between SFC and SL local labs, yes, but not for SL itself
21:51 kaametza_ actually from 2 local labs perspective as i'm also a member of SL Colombia ;o)
21:51 walterbender icarito: I don't think your language is either accurate or an improvement
21:52 icarito walterbender, how about starting from tony's proposal: "Sugar Labs Local Labs are valuable initiatives of Sugar Labs members but, as organizations, are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with Sugar Labs or the Software Freedom Conservancy."
21:54 alsroot icarito: I think you are getting SFC not in the exact light. SFC just provides some services for projects like SL, thats fine and help SL. but it can't provide more than that and what proposed text is trying to say is exactly declaring the responsibility field.
21:54 walterbender "Sugar Labs Local Labs are the initiatives of Sugar Labs members; they are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with Sugar Labs or the Software Freedom Conservancy."
21:55 but that is narrowing Tony's proposal to local labs requiring SL members... do we want to say that?
21:55 icarito i don't think we shuold allow people to call themselves SL [region] if they are not even members?
21:56 kaametza_ walterbender: just one question, how would you define "sugar labs" out of this statement?
21:57 walterbender kaametza: SL is a member project of the SFC
21:57 icarito: re requiring membership, that impacts the first paragraph, not the 3rd.
21:58 kaametza_ walterbender: and as a project, it is not possible to have any "affiliation" with local labs?
21:58 I mean not legal
21:58 but tecnical?
21:59 afiliation can be formal or informal
21:59 icarito much like we have teams and subprojects, I guess?
21:59 Ariel_Calzada has quit IRC
21:59 alsroot SFC is not affiliated, for sure, SL itself is affiliated at least by the fact that these are SL and SL local labal
22:00 icarito alsroot, exactly
22:00 kaametza_ thx alsroot that's what I was trying to state
22:01 alsroot so, I don't see the problem we are discussing. the proposed text is created from SFC pov and covers only what SFC is providing for SL
22:01 nothing more
22:02 walterbender so, how about voting on Tony's text?
22:02 I move that we adopt his changes
22:02 cjl ok, I vote +1 on his language as is
22:02 kaametza_ alsroot: the problem is that the proposed text (to be placed on local labs page) states otherwise
22:03 walterbender cjl:  can you please second my motion?
22:03 cjl: I guess we are still discussing :P
22:03 cjl I'll second and vote +1
22:03 icarito alsroot, the problem is the "not ... affiliated with Sugar Labs ..." bit
22:03 alsroot kaametza_: in fact, it is not right. the proposed text is covering only legal cases
22:04 SL and SL labs relations are mostly not in legal field (the legal is only the "SL" name)
22:04 walterbender icarito: affiliated with SL --> affiliated with SFC, so it is adding clarity without adding further restrictions
22:05 kaametza_ alsroot: I believ there is no motivation for a group to become a local lab if there is no afiliation with SL
22:05 icarito i guess we need to be more clear about the distinction between the SL Project and the SL Community then
22:05 I had not had that distinction clear until now
22:05 walterbender kaametza that may well be true.
22:06 alsroot kaametza_: no afiliation in legal field, yes, because, actually, in legal field SL is nothing more than just a anme
22:06 kaametza_ no problem stating there is no afiliation with SFC anyhow
22:06 alsroot there is noting to be affiliated with
22:06 ..in legal meaning
22:06 icarito alsroot, we surely are members of something
22:06 kaametza_ alsroot: there is a project, and afiliation doesn't necesary mean a formal (legal) relationship
22:07 cjl In legal field SL is an entity that has agreed to follow SFC rules.
22:07 alsroot kaametza_: yes, but propesed text does not covering all cases
22:07 walterbender kaametza there is a formal legal relationship between the project and the SFC
22:07 icarito cjl, in fact in legal field as I understand it, SL is a trademark of SFC
22:07 cjl, there is no "entity"
22:07 walterbender the proposed text is strictly about Local Labs
22:07 icarito only individuals
22:08 walterbender We've discussed this for an hour. I think it is time to vote. A motion was made and seconded.
22:08 +1
22:09 kaametza_ "Sugar Labs Local Labs are the initiatives of Sugar Labs members; they are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with the Software Freedom Conservancy."
22:09 could work?
22:10 icarito for the first time in my SLOBs term, -1 as it is - I would vote +1 on kaametza_'s proposal
22:10 alsroot kaametza_: generally, we don't need to put proposed text to local lab wiki (as you mentioned), we will remind this text only in one case, when we need to call some local group as a SL lab
22:10 walterbender kaametza: it is redundant since we are just redefining SL LL again
22:10 icarito walterbender, redundancy is good sometimes
22:10 walterbender icarito: your vote and comment are so noted.
22:11 kaametza_ alsroot: its about new local labs promotion as well
22:12 alsroot kaametza_: nope, promotion will happen how we will deicde, this text only for legal procedure
22:13 walterbender alsroot: I disagree. Local Labs should not promote themselves as something that they are not.
22:13 kaametza_ alsroot: i mean this is what a new team will be reading before deciding to become a new loca lab
22:13 if there is an explicit no afiliation statement there might not be any new local lab
22:13 icarito the point is promoting the creation of new local labs
22:14 cjl kaametza yes, it is going to be clear that SFC will not take on legal liability for them.
22:14 walterbender kaametza_: that doesn't mean that there won't be local groups doing things... at least I hope not
22:14 icarito cjl, again, the objection is the "not ... affiliated with Sugar Labs ..." bit
22:14 kaametza_ cjl: please note that I understood that the statement should mention no affiliation with SFC
22:15 cjl But SL exists as a member project of SFC
22:15 walterbender alsroot: do you want to vote or abstain?
22:15 kaametza_ cjl: of course
22:16 and it should follow SFC rules, still SL is also an open community
22:16 alsroot walterbender: will get a 10min timeout, if I can
22:16 walterbender alsroot: sure
22:16 kaametza_ and members should be entitled be afiliated with each other
22:16 cjl kaametzaOf course we are an open community
22:16 alsroot kaametza_: I think you are getting this document too serious, at the end it just a document created by a lower for cases when it makes sense. the final view face of SL is not changed at all
22:16 walterbender I will ask cjb, Gerald and Adam to vote by email.
22:17 cjl kaametza the text says nothing about individuals realting or affiliating wit heach other at all.
22:17 kaametza_ alsroot: this is not only a document but a "new rule" that's why I consider it serious
22:18 walterbender kaametza_ it is an articulation of a "new rule" that we have been discussing for 6 months now.
22:19 kaametza_ there is an afiliation (even if it is not legally defined yet) between local labs and sugar labs
22:19 walterbender kaametza_ the only thing that has changed is the possibility of still using the words Local Labs. I thought we were going to lose that possibility, but Tony thinks it is OK
22:20 alsroot kaametza_: it is not new rule, the exact what it says is "in current scheme when SFC is providing its services for SL, the part of SL that SFC is responsible for, is not affiliated w/ local labs"
22:20 and I don't see here new things
22:20 walterbender alsroot: agreed. not a new rule, but our understanding is "new" or more complete.
22:21 cjl a clarification
22:22 kaametza_ proposed text is "Sugar Labs Local Labs are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with Sugar Labs or the Software Freedom Conservancy."
22:23 alsroot the part of SL that SFC is covering, is entirely (except finances) in legal field, ie, pretty special matter
22:23 kaametza_ i'm just suggesting to eliminate the second SL
22:23 "Sugar Labs Local Labs are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with the Software Freedom Conservancy."
22:24 cjl We should take tha suggestion to Tony
22:24 alsroot well, it makes send for me but we need to ping SFC peopel
22:24 *sense
22:24 walterbender I disagree with that change for the reason I gave earlier: it is less clear.
22:25 cjl I think it is fine as it is.
22:25 kaametza_ walterbender: it may be less clear but a bit more accurate
22:25 walterbender is not sure what "it" is
22:26 kaametza_ on the contrary, it is no more or less accurate, just more misleading
22:26 kaametza_ walterbender: please explain
22:27 icarito walterbender, I don't think it's misleading, it is more accurate because SL is not only a SFC Project but also an open community
22:27 walterbender it could mislead someone into thinking that there could be an official endorsement by SL. there cannot be such an endorsement and we should be clear about that.
22:28 alsroot icarito: I think you missed "officially" part of this sentence
22:28 it is like "NO WARRANTY" in any FOSS project
22:29 walterbender icarito: you make my point for me by convolving the community with the project... that sort of confusion is what we need to avoid
22:29 cjl informal affiliation is obviously possible based on shared interests
22:29 kaametza_ cjl: +1
22:29 walterbender icarito: the SFC agreement is with SLOB members and we are bound by its terms
22:30 kaametza_ walterbender: I guess is clear there can not exist an official endorsement with a project
22:30 walterbender cjl: maybe "shared interested" could be added to Tony's open-ended list of suggestions in Paragraph 2
22:31 kaametza_ walterbender: but there is certantly an afiliation
22:32 walterbender kaametza_: I don't agree. Not when we are talking about entities.
22:32 kaametza_ afilitiation doesn't imply contract just trust
22:32 cjl kaametza I think a lawyer like Tony would disagree
22:32 kaametza_ walterbender: the entity SFC is getting what they need
22:33 walterbender kaametza_: I don't understand
22:33 icarito walterbender, that's why in my proposal I added ", as organizations..."
22:33 kaametza_ SL is an open comunity and it just welcome afiliation with international teams who want to perform as "local labs"
22:33 *should
22:34 cjl kaametza throwing words like community and affiliation around does not change the legal concerns.
22:35 kaametza_ cjl: legal concerns are in the hands of SFC, SL should dedicate to its community
22:35 cjl The statement as drafted by Tony is clear (and blunt).
22:35 walterbender icarito: a local lab is an organization, so I don't see how this sheds any light
22:35 kaametza_ walterbender: not every local labs is a formal organization
22:36 icarito walterbender, it does shed light into the possibility of individuals
22:36 alsroot cjl: I think the problem is not in exact text but how it is presented, if I got it right, icarito and kaametza_ just getting it in wrong way
22:36 walterbender kaametza_: the formality of the organization is not the issue... and icarito didn't use that word
22:36 kaametza_ cjl: out of all the text presented today, I agree with everything exept the no afiliation statemet for LL with SL
22:36 walterbender kaametza_: but you cannot disagree with that if you do not disagree with LL and SFC.
22:37 kaametza_: because we cannot make that distinction
22:37 kaametza_ all of this is completely orthogonal to how the SL community interacts
22:38 kaametza_ walterbender: I'm just concerned on the purpose of this "rule", why do you need to specificlly state there is no afiliation between Sugar Labs and Local Labs?
22:39 walterbender we seem to be making no progress on this topic.
22:39 cjl kaametza To make it clear there is no legal liability
22:39 among other things the lawyers may be concerned wit hI suppose.
22:39 walterbender I think we should stop here and ask Tony for some additional definitions of terms.
22:39 icarito cjl, so would it make sense to put this disclaimer in the page of every Team?
22:40 walterbender icarito: teams are structure we use to organize our work. they have no legal status. they don't enter into contracts, etc.
22:41 cjl icarito: are you really unclear on the distinction between the Infrastructure Team and a Local Lab?
22:41 walterbender alsroot: I will solicit your vote by email when I ask for cjb, adam, and gerald to vote.
22:41 alsroot kaametza_: btw, this affiliation statemet was made in exactly legal field, and thats true because spelling it in normal language is saying nothing more than "you have legal issues w/ local lab, there is no any relatesion between SL and local lab except trade marks", ie, this legal text says nothing useful for 99.99 of SL/SL-lab members, ie, no need to place it on every wiki page
22:42 icarito cjl, in terms of the risk to the SFC, yes
22:42 walterbender icarito: I don't see it that way, and apparently neither does the SFC...
22:42 icarito: but maybe you can explain the risk in an email
22:43 and please CC Tony
22:43 kaametza_ alsroot: i just believe other local labs should be consulted as well
22:44 walterbender Since we have a vote in process, I will continue it by email. And if we want to make a new or revised motion, that is always a possibility.
22:44 icarito walterbender, if there is no affiliation with SL then I don't see the point of the whole Local Lab concept
22:44 walterbender kaametza_: I don't know that anything is being done under cover of darkness.
22:44 cjl kaametzaDiscussion has been held on open lists, members are invited to announced meetings like this one, what do you propose?  Persoanl travel?
22:45 alsroot kaametza_: nothing was changed from the begging, SL is not designed to have any legal affiliation w/ local labs
22:45 walterbender icarito: I don't disagree re the relevance of LL as a concept. But that is why we have been discussing New Co.
22:45 alsroot like KDE org is not legally affiliated w/ some local KDE fans group
22:45 cjl alsroot +1
22:45 kaametza_ alsroot: not talking about legal affiliation., that part is clear
22:46 cjl Linus Torvalds acnnot be sued for the action of LUGs
22:46 kaametza_ but there is an informal affiliation
22:46 cjl kaametzaNo one is talking abou tchanging that
22:46 icarito here's a new motion, alsroot, would you second "To consult with tony if the text 'Sugar Labs Local Labs are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with the Software Freedom Conservancy.' would work equally as well and if so, to use it" ?
22:46 kaametza_ again is a matter of trust
22:46 alsroot kaametza_: but tony's text says noting about informal affiliation
22:47 walterbender kaametza_ but that is all we are talking about.officially endorsed by and affiliated with...
22:47 cjl "officially" modifying bot hparts fo speech tha follow.
22:48 kaametza_ cjl: text clearly states -no afiliation-
22:48 walterbender icarito:  I repeat that I think we cannot drop SL from the language.
22:48 alsroot icarito: your text mixes informal meaning to formal text, which is not right because it is exactly formal text and should say nothing about informal
22:49 cjl kaametzaPerhaps is is a localization issue.  Nothing forbids conversations, collaborations, etc.  In fact, much of tha is specifically encouraged in the section above.
22:49 walterbender icarito: we don't need a motion to consult with Tony...
22:50 icarito alsroot, maybe it should start with "For legal purposes..."  - the motion is to adopt the modified version if acceptable to the SFC
22:50 walterbender, ^
22:50 walterbender icarito: can you spell it all out in one place? I cannot parse the various bits and pieces.
22:50 icarito anyhow I agree we have spent much time on this, but I think kaametza_'s concerns are valid
22:51 this is my exact phrase I used to propose the motion:  "To consult with tony if the text 'Sugar Labs Local Labs are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with the Software Freedom Conservancy.' would work equally as well and if so, to use it"
22:52 alsroot icarito: well the whole topic is about legal issues (and most of SFC work in the same field)
22:53 icarito: as I said, your version says "if you have legal issues w/ local deployemnt, SLOBS can be sued as well", which is not right :)
22:53 cjl kaametza"affiliate" has a specific legal meaning in this sense  http://law.yourdictionary.com/affiliate
22:53 A corporation that is related to another corporation by one owning shares of the other, by common ownership, or by other means of control. See also company (parent) and subsidiary.
22:54 walterbender icarito: I will ask Tony for his opinion, but I think that we need to discuss your proposed language regardless of his opinion. As I said, I think it is misleading and would get a -1 from me.
22:54 cjl The statement is about making it clear tha SFC has no control (and therefore no liability) over the actions of LL
22:54 kaametza_ alsroot: that is not possible as SLOBS are directly signig an agreement for representation with SFC
22:55 walterbender icarito: so I would like to separate the asking for Tony's opinion from the "if so, to use it" part.
22:55 I need to go in 5 minutes.
22:56 I am not sure if I will be available next week or not... it depends on the Internet in Amazonas :P
22:56 icarito alsroot, SLOBs are individuals that have no relation with Local Labs
22:57 kaametza_ walterbender: good luck in Amazonas!
22:57 icarito cjl, the statement's purpose would be perfectly satisfied with my proposed changes
22:58 cjl icarito, I agree with walterbender that leaving out Sugar Labs is an attempt to blur the fact that SL is amember project (affiliate) of SFC.
22:58 walterbender icarito: SLOB members have a formal role vis-a-vis the SFC. As regarding the other things they do, they are individuals, but SLOB members must consider their SFC role when acting on behalf of SL
22:58 alsroot icarito: I don't think I know more than lowers, and if they composed the exact text and I trust on them (I trust SFC), I just do what they suggest
22:58 icarito ok thanks for your time everyone in hearing our concerns on this topic
22:59 walterbender icarito: I will act on the first half of your motion regardless of whether we vote on it and report back.
22:59 cjl icarito: Thar is why NewCo is being brought up for discussion.
22:59 walterbender I'll let everyone know if next Thursday works.
22:59 thanks for the input and feedback.
23:00 cjl Thank you all.
23:00 walterbender 5
23:00 4
23:00 3
23:00 icarito thanks
23:00 walterbender 2
23:00 1
23:00 #end-meeting
23:00 meeting Meeting ended Wed May 30 23:00:23 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4)
23:00 Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-30T21:08:10.html
23:00 Log:     http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]12-05-30T21:08:10

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.