16:09:58 <abadger1999> #startmeeting board
16:09:58 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Aug 16 16:09:58 2011 UTC.  The chair is abadger1999. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:09:58 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:10:24 <abadger1999> #chair gomix ke4qqq rdieter jreznik jds2001 jsmith kital
16:10:24 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 gomix jds2001 jreznik jsmith ke4qqq kital rdieter
16:10:37 <jds2001> sorry
16:10:41 * jds2001 is here now :)
16:10:41 <abadger1999> #chair pbrobinson
16:10:41 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 gomix jds2001 jreznik jsmith ke4qqq kital pbrobinson rdieter
16:10:57 <abadger1999> jds2001: You were just hiding until someone else took resposibility ;-)
16:11:39 <jds2001> abadger1999: :)
16:11:48 <abadger1999> So, as discussed before we started loggin (oops), the only thing we seem to have on agenda is spins, images, and trademark.
16:11:53 <abadger1999> #topic spins, images, and trademark
16:12:13 <abadger1999> recap: For  the questions we sent to legal: [09:01:22] <jsmith> abadger1999: Still no update on that
16:12:34 <rbergeron> ?
16:12:36 <abadger1999> Need to think about how present policy is implemented/going to be implemented etc
16:12:44 <abadger1999> [09:08:32] <jsmith> As far as I know, there are only two new spins that asked for spins approval
16:12:46 <abadger1999> [09:08:46] <jsmith> the oVirt node spin, and one other which escapes me
16:12:47 <abadger1999> [09:09:00] <jsmith> and the oVirt node spin decided to become a remix for various reasons
16:12:49 <abadger1999> rbergeron: =>
16:13:12 * abadger1999 figures out what syntax he's supposed to be using while rbergeron has the floor
16:13:19 <rbergeron> was there a final list of questions published somewhere that got sent?
16:13:34 <rbergeron> I saw lots of mail, but I don't know that I saw something definitive that was the final list
16:13:56 <jsmith> rbergeron: The list was taken directly from the meeting notes of last week's meeting
16:15:07 <rbergeron> jsmith: are they aware that people are basically blocking on an answer, and it's not just asking for our health? :)
16:15:30 <jsmith> rbergeron: Yes... I'll follow up today as well
16:15:57 <rbergeron> okay
16:15:58 <rbergeron> EOF
16:16:50 <abadger1999> One thing that should be clarified for the present policy -- do prior spins need to be reapproved for trademark for every cycle?
16:17:18 <jsmith> As far as I know, they haven't in the past
16:17:28 <abadger1999> I think there were people who thought both ways at fudcon but there's been a lot of change in the board composition since hten.
16:17:40 <jsmith> (not saying whether they should or not, just clarify what has been done in the past)
16:18:04 * rdieter is ok with no formal trademark re-approval
16:18:11 * abadger1999 okay as well.
16:18:15 <jsmith> Personally, I'm fine with a single trademark approval, as long as they still follow the Spins SIG guidelines and there are no significant changes to artwork or image format
16:18:25 * gomix fine with it too
16:18:27 <jds2001> jsmith: +1
16:18:30 <jreznik> no trademark but there should be some go/no-go based on quality of spin
16:18:32 <rdieter> yup, then an exception can be made, and re-review
16:18:43 <rdieter> jreznik: that's a separate issue
16:19:05 * jds2001 belabored that point last week :)
16:19:08 <abadger1999> How about -- no reapproval for trademark but hte spins sig can still hold back a spin at the new release?
16:19:16 <rdieter> let's be careful not to tie the 2 together
16:19:26 <rdieter> abadger1999: +1
16:19:26 <abadger1999> And let definition of "significant changes to artwork, etc" fall under spins sig as well?
16:19:30 * ke4qqq is okay with that (or with any combination of fedora packages) though I think it's weird that we allow changes to a spins content and won't require approval despite the fact that it's why we say spins need approval in the first place.
16:19:50 <jds2001> ke4qqq: we require them to go through the spins sig process
16:19:53 <rdieter> ke4qqq: baby steps. :)
16:20:03 <rdieter> maybe someday we can get there
16:20:18 <ke4qqq> rdieter: :)
16:20:41 <rdieter> we need to here from legal if we can do that or not
16:20:47 * rdieter hopes so
16:21:19 <abadger1999> Proposal: No reapproval of a spin for trademark is needed when an existing spin is updated (for instance, for a new Fedora release).  Spins SIG can still approve or veto an updated spin but that's outside of trademark approval.
16:21:21 <abadger1999> +1
16:21:43 <ke4qqq> +1 as well - provided it gets documented somewhere on the wiki
16:21:49 <jds2001> +1
16:21:57 <jsmith> I'm fine with it, assuming Legal is
16:22:05 <gomix> +1 (assuming legal is)
16:22:12 * abadger1999 will add it to the trademark policy page as soon as it is approved here.
16:22:29 <rdieter> +1
16:22:30 <jsmith> And I'll bring it up w/ Legal
16:22:42 <ke4qqq> is there a question as to whether we need their blessing fotr ythis proposal
16:23:23 * rdieter thinks it fair to assume we're ok (so far), until shown otherwise.
16:23:28 <rdieter> but meh
16:24:23 <abadger1999> I'm with rdieter
16:24:32 <abadger1999> esp. since jsmith says its how things have been in the past.
16:24:46 <rdieter> else, we won't get anywhere fast. :)
16:24:50 <jreznik> +1 from me to proposal (and ok for legal)
16:25:10 * ke4qqq is of the opinion that this has been delegated to us, and until they take the ruler to our hand i assume we just move forward
16:25:31 <rdieter> ke4qqq: indeed
16:26:18 <abadger1999> Okay, 6 +1s so this is approved.
16:26:32 <abadger1999> I'll add it https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_approval_policy
16:26:41 <abadger1999> and jsmith can remove it if legal complains.
16:28:19 <abadger1999> next question on this subject: Do we want to go ahead with having someone take charge of hounding the SIGs for guidelines as per the Trademark approval policy page?
16:28:39 * jsmith can do that
16:28:39 <jds2001> would surely b enice.
16:29:18 <rdieter> jsmith: I can help too if you get busy or want to split up the job any.
16:29:25 <abadger1999> jsmith: Okay.  What do you think about deadlines for that so the spins waiting on approval know what they have to shoot for?
16:29:47 <jsmith> abadger1999: Two weeks?  Three weeks?
16:30:05 * jsmith wants to give the SIGs enough time to do an adequate job, but not make the process take forever
16:30:33 <rdieter> 2 weeks is enough for f16, imo, can be longer for any f17+ requirements
16:31:32 * rbergeron notes that some of the approval sigs are kind of swamped right now, what with it being constant release time and all for the next few months...
16:32:07 <abadger1999> rbergeron: Good point... alternatives...
16:32:09 <rbergeron> s/approval/approving
16:32:17 <abadger1999> So possibility: discard the policy for this release.
16:32:50 <abadger1999> we're already too late -- make something up ad hoc based solely on the board's judgement as (I get the impression) things have been in the past.
16:34:13 <abadger1999> possibility: tell the sigs that we don't seem to have time for the policy for this release but we'd like their input on things we should look for for this release if they can get it to us in two weeks.
16:34:40 <rdieter> abadger1999: even better +1
16:34:41 <abadger1999> possibility: let the sigs evaluate the spins without written criteria on their part for this release.
16:35:13 * abadger1999 ends his brainstorming
16:35:23 <ke4qqq> so I am going to play devils advocate - if we really feel that this is necessary then we should block spins for f16. if it's not necessary we should just jettison it all.
16:35:23 <jsmith> +1 for that one, because it helps the SIGs start thinking about what criteria they want
16:36:08 <jsmith> ke4qqq: Isn't that just throwing the baby out with the bathwater?  I don't think it has to be an "all or nothing" thing.
16:36:16 <jsmith> ke4qqq: Can't we judge each spin on its merits?
16:36:55 <ke4qqq> jsmith: we can, but why erect the barrier higher than it needs to be, if it is sufficient to judge a spin on its merit with some streamlined process then why not keep that in place
16:37:17 * abadger1999 leaning towards jettisoning as well -- would rather spins SIG took charge of deciding and arbitrating the QA aspects.
16:37:23 <jds2001> ke4qqq: we're trying to streamline the porcess *more*
16:37:39 <jds2001> abadger1999: we cant jettison trademark approval
16:37:40 * rbergeron hands ke4qqq a s/with/without
16:37:53 <jds2001> and im not in favor of micromanaging a spins sig, either
16:37:55 <abadger1999> jds2001: We can jettison the policy we have for approval right now.
16:38:13 <jds2001> the board has exactly *one* responsibility - approve trademarks.
16:38:16 <abadger1999> jds2001: as being too onerous for the trademark aspect.
16:38:34 <abadger1999> like we talked about on the phone... separate QA from trademark
16:38:40 <ke4qqq> jds2001: but we've set the requirement for TM approval to be lots of other approvals
16:38:42 <jds2001> exactly.
16:39:03 <jsmith> I'll reiterate what I said over the phone as well
16:39:04 * rdieter thought we already agreed that trademark approval and sig requirements are completely separate ?
16:39:16 <jsmith> We have a secondary mark (Remix) for folks that don't want a higher standard
16:39:38 <ke4qqq> technically remix is for people building fedora with non-fedora stuff.
16:40:01 <ke4qqq> actually not....tm page says with other stuff
16:40:03 <jsmith> ke4qqq: Not as I read it
16:40:13 * abadger1999 agrees with the spirit of what ke4qqq just said although not the "technically" part
16:40:26 <ke4qqq> but remix page says with or without.
16:40:34 <rdieter> remix still requires all fedora components, or so I thought
16:40:40 <jsmith> rdieter: It does not
16:40:49 <rdieter> oh, ok
16:40:50 <abadger1999> technically, it covers this, I think.  But in terms of how Fedora contributors view it, I think it follows what ke4qqq said.
16:41:46 <rdieter> (yay for remix then)
16:41:59 <rdieter> (and boo for my faulty memory)
16:42:16 <jds2001> rdieter: correctable ECC error :)
16:42:27 <gomix> remix as its understood by the community is fedora + something not-fedora approved
16:42:32 <abadger1999> We could have another secondary mark in addition to remix.
16:42:39 <abadger1999> gomix: +1
16:42:42 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: brand dilution?
16:42:53 <gomix> actually remix is kind of "dissapproved" by fedora
16:43:06 <ke4qqq> yeah, not good enough to be fedora :)
16:43:07 * jds2001 never thought of remix that way
16:43:12 <abadger1999> ke4qqq: Not sure... I was thinking aling hte lines of the debian modelk.
16:43:15 <gomix> so its not possitive as a fedora "brand"
16:43:21 <abadger1999> *along the lines
16:43:33 * jsmith is very uncomfortable with the Debian trademark model, for the record
16:43:49 <abadger1999> gomix: +1.  Which is why I would not support "Fedora Remix" as jds2001 wants to use it.
16:43:53 <ke4qqq> jsmith: uncomfortable legally, or in what sense?
16:44:35 <jsmith> ke4qqq: No, not speaking from a legal standpoint... more along the lines of seeing all kinds of uses of their trademark which I personally think dillute their brand
16:45:10 <jsmith> Anyhoo -- I think we're to the point in the discussion where we're talking past each other, and not making forward progress
16:45:20 <jsmith> I'd also like to leave time for open Q and A
16:45:35 <abadger1999> So... action?
16:45:56 <ke4qqq> has there been a proposal?
16:46:10 * abadger1999 makes one from the possibilities list4ed above real quick
16:46:24 <jreznik> gomix: disapproved by fedora? why? yes, it's one use case but ...
16:46:54 <rbergeron> !
16:47:05 <abadger1999> rbergeron: =>
16:47:06 * rbergeron would like to see sigs just directly ask the board for approval for $whatever for this cycle, and the board go and ask the SIGs if they have time/interest in writing any guidelines for their approvals in f17/beyond.
16:47:10 <rbergeron> err
16:47:14 <rbergeron> see spins just directly ask the board
16:47:54 <rbergeron> Frankly, it's a matter of manpower; we have people who want to make spins, but nothing really in spins sig is written up as to how, and the approving sigs for trademark, or just spin approval, are all swamped.
16:48:08 <abadger1999> Proposal for F16, spin creators directly ask the board for approval for $whatever for this cycle, and the board go and ask the SIGs if they have time/interest in writing any guidelines for their approvals in f17/beyond.
16:48:11 <rbergeron> Without anyone stepping up to do work, we either need to make it AS EASY AS POSSIBLE, or just tell people we don't do that anymore.
16:48:25 <rbergeron> We can't "streamline" by adding 45 layers of steps.
16:48:34 <rdieter> amen
16:48:36 <rbergeron> Where 9 people are suddenly single points of failure, instead of one.
16:48:42 <rdieter> abadger1999: +1
16:49:06 <ke4qqq> +1
16:49:45 * abadger1999 takes rbergeron's words as they're pretty darn sensible for working on the looming f16 release.
16:49:47 <jsmith> I'm worried about what criteria the Board would use in that case, and whether we're just going back to the Media Handout requirements can of worms we tried to get away from last fall?
16:49:49 <abadger1999> +1
16:50:07 <jsmith> I guess in general I'm OK with the concept, but worried about the details
16:50:09 <abadger1999> jsmith: we are.
16:50:10 <rbergeron> How about y'all's best judgement?
16:50:22 <rbergeron> I mean.... I think everyone undrestands we're between a rock and a hard place, here.
16:50:34 <rbergeron> It's not permanent.
16:50:39 <jsmith> OK, I'll give my +1 then
16:50:47 <abadger1999> Exactly.  it's for this release.
16:50:50 <rbergeron> Which means that at the end of the cycle, we need to make sure it's not permanent, or that it becomes permament.
16:51:14 <rbergeron> (Fix it, or make it law.)
16:51:14 <jds2001> rbergeron: it cant become permanent, i dont think
16:51:21 <jds2001> we need something to fix it.
16:51:30 <jds2001> when everyone isnt in firefighting mode, preferably
16:52:00 <rbergeron> well, I hate to be negative nancy, but I think we've all known this has been broken since... last fall. And here we are again. ;)
16:52:14 <rbergeron> Maybe it's a matter of trying something else, a different process.
16:52:41 <rbergeron> But someone's *got* to own it, and we have to have manpower in whatever area is needed, otherwise we're just making promises we can't keep to people. And I mean "we" as in Fedora, as a whole
16:53:27 <abadger1999> I think that nobody especially liked the current policy compromise so nobody took charge and made it happen.
16:54:07 <abadger1999> Or maybe the people that liked it were all too busy to make sure that it happened.
16:54:14 <abadger1999> In any case...
16:54:30 * rbergeron looks at proposal #'s
16:54:31 <abadger1999> For quorum, I think I think we need one or two more +1's
16:54:44 <abadger1999> (Not sure if jsmith's vote counts for quorum).
16:55:04 <gomix> abadger1999: +1
16:55:22 <abadger1999> Four board members and jsmith have voted +1.
16:55:28 <jsmith> WORKSFORME
16:55:30 <jsmith> :-)
16:55:50 <jds2001> +1
16:56:56 * jsmith notes that he has another appointment in five minutes
16:57:19 <abadger1999> #topic Q & A
16:57:37 <abadger1999> Any questions, shout 'em out.
16:58:21 <inode0> ?
16:58:27 <abadger1999> inode0: =>
16:58:48 <inode0> what do you see as a problem with the following spin setup?
16:59:11 <inode0> 1 - spins sig approves spins (whatever they decide that requires)
16:59:32 <inode0> 2 - 1st time a spin is approved by the spins sig the board is asked to approve trademark use
17:00:02 <inode0> 3 - when either the board or the spin sig or the spin owner ask for the trademark use to be reconsidered it is
17:00:06 <inode0> EOF
17:00:22 <jds2001> how about this:
17:00:33 <jds2001> 3- spins sig approves revisions to spin
17:00:34 <rdieter> no problems with that, is pretty close to where we want to go
17:00:48 <jds2001> but the rest is correct
17:00:56 <abadger1999> I think that's close to what we had before.  the issue was that the board started adding criteria.
17:01:09 <inode0> rdieter: I don't see why you can't just declare that is the new program? Something seems to be holding it back.
17:01:19 <abadger1999> But I think that it's more sensible to go back to that then to try to use what we have now.
17:01:30 <rdieter> inode0: well, we're waiting on feedback from legal on exactly what we can and can't do
17:01:53 <rdieter> but yeah
17:01:59 <abadger1999> (as what we have now canonifies the use of the additional criteria in approving trademark).
17:02:39 <rdieter> abadger1999: +1
17:04:39 <abadger1999> Other questions?
17:04:42 <inode0> hasn't legal already said the board grants permission to use the trademark however the board decides to do that?
17:05:57 * inode0 thanks the board anyway for the work they are now doing cleaning up and removing problems for contributors
17:05:58 <abadger1999> inode0: I think that's something jsmith needs to answer and he may be gone now.
17:06:32 <abadger1999> I have that impression from an IRC conversation I had with spevack but that's not the same as having actually talked to Legal recently.
17:06:36 <ke4qqq> inode0: thats my understanding within the scope of software (e.g. we can't have fedora chicken sandwiches blessed by the board)
17:07:11 <inode0> really?
17:07:13 * rbergeron scratches fedora bacon off her wish list
17:07:18 <inode0> why not?
17:07:21 <ke4qqq> thats what spot told us.
17:07:25 * gomix suddenly im hungry
17:07:35 <inode0> what is the merchandise stuff in the guidelines?
17:07:58 <inode0> you clearly grant permission to coffee mugs
17:08:00 <jreznik> merchandise fedora sandwich
17:08:00 * jds2001 wants fedora beefy miracles
17:08:15 <inode0> which aren't software
17:08:30 <abadger1999> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Non-software_goods
17:08:40 <jds2001> i think those went through legal and a non-sfotware agreement
17:08:43 <ke4qqq> hmmmm good question..... I wish I had brought that up.
17:08:43 <abadger1999> Yeah, I agree it seems to be in the guidelines that that's within our purview.
17:08:47 <jreznik> but it's tight to software as product, isn't it?
17:09:13 <ke4qqq> yeah - woohoo fedora chicken sandwiches we may have :)
17:10:21 * ke4qqq notes thats another section that is almost always ignored. we essentially trust ambassadors and others to make nice things and they do, and it's worked out pretty well IMO.
17:10:33 <abadger1999> <nod>
17:10:44 <abadger1999> Okay, it's 10 after.
17:11:06 <abadger1999> If someone else has a question they're dying to ask, do so now or I'll close in a minute
17:12:08 <abadger1999> #endmeeting