16:23:21 <mchua> #startmeeting
16:23:21 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Jul 20 16:23:21 2010 UTC.  The chair is mchua. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:23:21 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:23:27 <mchua> #chair research_ rbergeron
16:23:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: mchua rbergeron research_
16:23:39 <mchua> ( rbergeron - in case I drop out, so someone else can #endmeeting :)
16:23:48 <mchua> #topic Background context
16:23:53 <mchua> (I'll paste what research_ just told me...)
16:23:56 <mchua> We are a team of research fellows at Hamburg University of Technology in Germany. Our focus is in the field of open source innovation management. We are currently researching the interaction between firms and communities, focusing in particular on communities involved in the development of physical products.
16:24:01 <mchua> We are mainly interested in two aspects: 1)The openness of open source innovation projects - Hereby we are looking at basically two aspects: the openness of the product itself and the openness of the organization and participation structures
16:24:06 <mchua> 2) Company and community interactions - How do companies and communities interact, especially when it comes to the production of a physical asset, and how does the potential involvement of companies influence the openness of the community project
16:24:10 <mchua> We're going to start out by talking about OLPC, with the following 4 aspects
16:24:14 <mchua> * Community and structure (Open Content and open design)
16:24:16 <mchua> * Type of product (production, users of product)
16:24:19 <mchua> * Organziation of community (communication tools, coordination of work tasks, etc.)
16:24:22 <mchua> * development over time (changes and reason for that)
16:24:25 <mchua> #topic Begin the interview
16:24:28 <mchua> research_: I can talk about OLPC (and Sugar Labs, which is an interesting story as well) and has some Fedora-related backstory that others in this channel may know better than I do.
16:24:53 <mchua> research_: A number of us here can also talk about Fedora/Red Hat, and that community/company dynamic, which might be even more interesting, but we can see where things go. :)
16:25:08 * mchua has also suggested #teachingopensource's Jefro on the beagleboard and Jeff_S on OSU's OSWALD, for the record
16:25:10 <research_> ok perfect, why don´t we start with OLPC / Sugar Labs so we don´t get mixed up ;-)
16:25:15 <mchua> Cool.
16:25:19 <mchua> #topic OLPC/Sugar Labs
16:25:23 <mchua> research_: Ready for questions. :)
16:25:55 <research_> Could you briefly describe your role within the OLCP/Sugar Labs project
16:27:08 <mchua> The brief description would be "I've done a little bit of everything by deciding to work on what I thought was most important at any given point in time." :)
16:27:11 <mchua> Formally speaking, I'm a board member of Sugar Labs - a member of the Sugar Labs Oversight Board (which we jokingly call "SLOBs")
16:27:34 <mchua> and my last job title as an employee of OLPC was "QA/Support engineer," though I did a lot of community work as well.
16:27:53 <research_> Ok, could you specify the "little bit of everything" - what tasks were included in that?
16:28:25 <mchua> That means I was responsible (with half my time) for being one of 2 people supporting every single XO deployment in the world, and (with the other half of my time) managing all community testing efforts for every bit of hardware and software in the OLPC stack - it was a lot of work. :)
16:28:32 <mchua> (my last job at OLPC, I mean.)
16:29:03 <research_> ok, how did you come involved?
16:29:51 <mchua> Literally everything - deciding there needed to be a QA team that volunteers could join because we didn't have enough employee manpower to do it and we had a lot of volunteers who wanted to help, for instance, and getting test cases set up for them, helping them get started on mailing lists, running meetings on IRC, etc... I did some testing, a bit of coding, I ran a lot of hackathons to get people involved - I'm an engineer by training, so I
16:29:59 <mchua> That's on the OLPC side.
16:30:08 <mchua> (hang on, answering your last question first, then I'll talk about how I got involved - it's a fun story :)
16:30:21 <research_> great
16:31:49 <mchua> Still OLPC: I ran an office in Chicago (with volunteers, again our own idea- nobody told us to do it), got university chapters started so college students would have a way to participate, coached leaders of a few other teams within OLPC on how to build communities, some writing, some web layout, some publicity, a little marketing, some speaking and presenting, hardware repair... it really was "whatever I thought was most important at the time
16:33:14 <mchua> Sugar Labs: I focus mostly on governance (we're still just getting started, so it's stuff like licensing and trademarks, what our structure of governance is in the first place, what *are* the most important problems within the SL community to solve, and so on) - and also work on the Sugar on a Stick (SoaS) project doing... similar odd jobs, more or less "everything that's isn't direct technical implementation" so far.
16:33:22 <research_> wasn´t any central organizing team that you aligned yourself with?
16:33:31 <mchua> I used to be a developer, but it's been some time since I wrote code for my dayjob. :) I miss it a bit.
16:33:42 <mchua> Central organizing team? Mmm... yes, and no.
16:34:06 <mchua> I've always felt like I had a high degree of autonomy to choose what I wanted to do.
16:34:22 <mchua> For OLPC, there was the core organization, with executives and such.
16:34:43 <mchua> But they're not really community leadership - in fact, they rarely talked with volunteers at all. The volunteer community didn't know their names, and vice versa.
16:34:58 <research_> how was the interaction with the core organization?
16:34:58 <mchua> and honestly, there wasn't much they did that could affect what we could do.
16:35:11 <mchua> Well, they hired me multiple times, so they must have liked me at least a bit. :)
16:35:21 <mchua> Maybe this is a good time to answer your question on how I got started.
16:35:29 <research_> were there any guidelines how to work ?
16:35:35 <mchua> Not when I started. :D
16:36:02 <research_> but they evolved over time (guidelines)?
16:36:12 <mchua> That was part of the problem. (And I like the fact that you used the word "guidelines" there rather than "rules" - it's more like "suggestions on how to get started if you don't know what else to do, but you can have your own ideas and push back on and change these guidelines if they don't work for you.")
16:36:21 <mchua> Yep, they have evolved over time. They started existing, for one. :)
16:36:45 <research_> who pushed for the guidelines?
16:37:05 <mchua> Mm... people didn't so much "push for" them as they just... made them by acting the way they thought people ought to act.
16:37:26 <mchua> It's not like there's a centrally mandated, top-down dictated set of "this is how you shall act when participating in this project."
16:37:28 <research_> so the guidelines were more implicit than explicit
16:38:04 <mchua> Yep, though they sometimes got codified - but in a way that was more like "we are writing down what we already do" rather than an external decree saying "you shall change your behavior to follow these instructions."
16:38:50 <mchua> A lot of things are by consensus, a lot of consensus is driven by a collection of independent individual actions (I've noticed a tendency in FOSS communities to do, then talk - rather than talk about doing before you even try doing anything.)
16:38:57 <mchua> I'm getting pretty general here now, though. :)
16:39:02 * mchua zooms back to how she started with OLPC
16:39:19 <research_> but when you were hired, did you have a specific job/task  description
16:39:31 <mchua> Ah, that's the thing. I did not start out being hired. :)
16:39:57 <mchua> (And even when I was hired, I didn't really have a job description. It was more of a "we're going to pay you to keep doing what you're doing, whatever it is" sort of thing.)
16:40:20 <research_> was it a full time involvment
16:40:47 <mchua> I started my senior year of college - I'd been trying to get involved with OLPC for years, but it was difficult to find out how people could volunteer, though they said "we're open source! volunteers welcome!" (they didn't say what volunteers were welcome to do, or how one would begin doing anything.)
16:41:51 <mchua> So no, it wasn't full-time, since I was finishing 2 capstone projects and a full load of classes, working 2 part-time jobs, and working on the curriculum revision committee. :D
16:42:35 <research_> whow, seems like a bussy time
16:42:50 <mchua> I just started showing up at the OLPC office (it was about an hour commute each way from my school) out of sheer stubbornness - I decided I was going to help no matter what, so I just started going to the office and sitting down, listening to the engineers, and picking up whatever tasks I could see lying around.
16:43:43 <mchua> (I started getting in the door because SJ Klein, who I'd worked with on the Wikimania conference in Boston a few years back, worked for OLPC and invited me to the office when he saw me again, and then I kept on coming back and calling him to let me in, and badgering him to give me tasks. ;)
16:44:26 <research_> when did you start your first volunteer group
16:44:56 <mchua> Getting to that. :) Pretty soon I started thinking "well, this is silly. These engineers are working overtime, clearly they have too much to do... and there are all those volunteers like me trying to help and they can't, and most of them can't just come to the office and be stubborn."
16:45:11 <mchua> So I started task-hunting and just writing down those tasks for other people to pick up on, and remote volunteers started doing that.
16:45:19 <mchua> Didn't really think of it as "starting a volunteer group."
16:45:37 <mchua> There was already a small one that had been even more stubborn than me. :)
16:46:02 <mchua> They were remote, for the most part, hacking on things over the internet and talking with developers in the office (the employees) on IRC (which I soon learned to do as well).
16:46:03 <research_> and how much are you still involved in olpc?
16:46:39 <mchua> With the organization itself? Not very much at all - I've moved my involvement upstream to Sugar Labs and Fedora, since I was working on the software stuff that got split out to those two groups in January 2009.
16:47:15 <mchua> I still know a bunch of the people there, though, and continue to work with them on Sugar/OLPC stuff once in a while.
16:47:15 <research_> could you lay out how it was split up in different groups (HW / SW/ Content)
16:47:29 <mchua> Loosely and fuzzily. :)
16:47:40 <research_> :-)
16:47:57 <research_> we´ll write that in our paper ;-)
16:48:19 * mchua grins
16:49:01 <mchua> It's all a loose collection of volunteers doing what they want to do, and self-organization sort of emerges from that, and *then* we go "ah, I guess we're kind of like a content team" in retrospect, and start acting a bit more that way.
16:49:57 <research_> so the board members and employees are not involved in organising the different groups
16:50:30 <mchua> They... are, but not as "board members and employees," usually.
16:50:56 <research_> so they act as volunteers in there spare time?
16:51:03 <mchua> Er, I mean "people who are involved in organizing the different groups may be board members and employees, but the fact that they are board members and employees is usually almost incidental"
16:51:08 <mchua> Mm... not quite.
16:51:19 <research_> ok, understood
16:51:49 <mchua> Yeah, it's like "I am wearing a black-tshirt right now, and I 'organize groups' - but the fact that I'm wearing a black t-shirt doesn't matter"
16:52:34 <research_> so they don´t have a higher authority just because the are members of the board
16:52:46 <mchua> Yes. In my opinion - and I think others in this channel share it - community members are community members. It doesn't matter who you get your paycheck from, everyone should have the same level of privilege, everyone should have to earn privileges and responsibilities the same way.
16:53:08 <mchua> This... works better in theory than in practice - I'm not saying that OLPC was perfect (we were not) nor that Fedora is (we certainly are not) but I think that's something we aim for.
16:53:36 <mchua> Companies may pay you to *be* a community member, to make sure you have time to do the work they want you to do in that community, to make you accountable for doing work they want you to do in that community.
16:54:11 <research_> However there are people who are defining goals, like "we have to deliver 1000 laptops by ..."
16:54:25 <mchua> For instance, I was for a time paid by Red Hat to work with the Fedora Marketing team - and I did end up leading that team - but the team didn't go "oh, Red Hat pays her, therefore we must obey her and she is automatically the leader."
16:55:46 <mchua> I was accountable to my boss at Red Hat for the work I was doing with the Marketing team, and I got paid for it because the company was interested in that part of the community, but the community could (at any time) have said "we don't like this Mel person, we're not going to listen to her, and we don't really care that it's part of her job to do this." I started as a newbie and worked and earned my respect the same way as everyone else.
16:55:59 <mchua> (Or at least I'd like to think that, though rbergeron, rrix, and others in this channel can certainly disagree. :D
16:56:26 <mchua> Well... okay, so re: your question about goals - going back to OLPC for a moment (and then I'll talk about the same situation in Fedora)
16:56:53 <mchua> There were executives who said things like "Uruguay needs 10,000 laptops by this date, and we need to release this software before that date."
16:57:20 <mchua> And the engineers those executives employed - including myself, for a time - would work towards that goal, as part of our jobs. That's what we were paid for, that's what we were accountable to them for.
16:57:35 <mchua> Some of it we would have done anyway as volunteers, some of it we may not have done if we weren't getting paid for it.
16:58:26 <research_> how transparent was that goal for the community or was it only transparent for the employees
16:59:07 <mchua> As transparent as the employees working towards that goal made it.
16:59:10 <mchua> It varied a lot.
16:59:15 <mchua> Mostly by individual.
16:59:29 <mchua> (And sometimes by goal, since there were some things we could not talk about publicly like deals with certain governments and so forth.)
16:59:48 <mchua> I tended to make all my assignments public, if I could make them public, because I knew I'd get more help that way.
17:00:06 <research_> in your opinion, did it work better if you made the goal public?
17:00:07 <mchua> Other engineers might choose to work on it themselves for a while, or only mention it to a few volunteers that were close friends, because they found that to be a more efficient way of getting their work done.
17:00:33 <mchua> For me, it did. And in my opinion, you're always better off in the long term if you do, no matter who you are or what you work on.
17:00:51 <research_> was the goal setting process top-down or bottom up from the community
17:00:57 <mchua> But I can definitely see why other people wouldn't - if you need to get something done ASAP and you know you can do it quickly by yourself, why bother asking for help?
17:01:01 <mchua> Both.
17:01:11 <research_> could they say "we don´t like the goal, let´s change it a bit
17:01:13 <mchua> Well, it's different at OLPC and in Fedora, I'll talk about OLPC first.
17:01:47 <mchua> OLPC had some goals set top-down from executives, and they basically never changed them (they didn't engage with the community much, if at all - there were a few emails and phone calls but that was more or less it).
17:02:15 <mchua> Engineers assigned to those goals would occasionally reshape them somewhat, and reshape the methods used to reach them, in response to community feedback (changing things so it's easier for people to help, mostly).
17:02:40 <mchua> There were also things individual people decided to do because they thought they were important (not because they were told or hired to do so).
17:02:54 <mchua> So someone might stand up and say "I think we need a Spanish translation" and just start making one.
17:03:07 <mchua> And others might find out about it and go "oh, I have the same goal" and join forces.
17:03:30 <mchua> Or look at it and say "yeah, that seems like a good goal... hrm, maybe I can use most of the structures you've put up for Spanish translation and do Portuguese translation instead" and so on.
17:03:48 <mchua> But those goals weren't necessarily seen (or cared about) by OLPC's executives.
17:04:01 <mchua> In contrast, I think Fedora is a lot better at that sort of community/company integration.
17:04:47 <mchua> In part because there are a number of us Red Hat pays to do exactly that - it's something Red Hat values - and if you look at who's employed by Red Hat to work on Fedora, you'll find people, generally speaking, who were volunteers first, and who still spend a lot of time in Fedora doing things they *aren't* being specifically paid to do.
17:06:08 <research_> so the difference is, that Red Hat hires more people directly from the community
17:06:27 <research_> and how does olpc does that
17:06:44 <mchua> OLPC doesn't hire much. It's much smaller. :)
17:07:06 <mchua> Oh - another thing that's nice about Fedora is that there *is* crossover of community goals to the corporate side.
17:07:12 <research_> how many people work with the olpc community and how many are employeed
17:07:28 <research_> interesting the crossover
17:08:34 <mchua> Sometimes cool things that volunteers have started working on are noticed (not suddenly - you work alongside everyone else so you see it growing) and sometimes RH goes "huh, that would make a cool feature for our customers"
17:08:39 <research_> crossover in the sense that overlap or transition
17:08:51 <mchua> and assign an employee or two to help polish it up some, and maintain it, and get it into RHEL, and it becomes a feature there.
17:08:58 <research_> ok understood
17:08:59 <mchua> (That's a drastically oversimplified idealized version of the process)
17:10:04 <mchua> within Fedora, community members set goals (and some community members are employees, but not many)
17:10:14 <mchua> for instance, here's how our social marketing strategy was decided:
17:10:16 <mchua> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh9Yi_2jI_g
17:10:20 <mchua> rrix is in that video :)
17:10:26 <mchua> a bunch of us got together and just worked on it.
17:10:34 <mchua> but it's also not necessarily accepted as canonical by the rest of the Fedora community!
17:10:51 <mchua> it's the social media strategy we're working on, they can choose to ignore it or help or disagree with it.
17:11:00 <mchua> or start another one of their own if they think they can do it better.
17:11:17 <research_> interesting, we are just watching it
17:11:35 <mchua> Neville Cross, Ryan Rix, and Paul Frields are the folks in that video, in order of appearance.
17:11:46 <mchua> Neville is from Nicaragua, Ryan is from Arizona, Paul is from Virginia.
17:12:12 <research_> whow, multination ;-)
17:12:26 <mchua> Paul was also the Fedora Project Leader and a Red Hat Employee (he still is, just in a different role) but that didn't matter to the setting of the social media strategy
17:12:31 <research_> could we jump back how the community is structured in different working groups right now -seperation of HW and SW (concerning OLPC) ?
17:12:34 <mchua> Sure.
17:13:26 <mchua> There were OLPC employees assigned to work on hardware, OLPC employees assigned to work on software... (and for that matter, Red Hat employees assigned to work on software within the OLPC ecosystem) (and volunteers from all communities that worked on all of the above)
17:13:44 <mchua> Volunteers tended to work on one or the other, depending on what they were interested in.
17:13:49 <mchua> But some (myself included) worked on both.
17:14:07 <mchua> And some OLPC employees worked on whatever they weren't assigned to, for fun, and to help each other out (on things beyond the stuff they were directly accountable for in their dayjob.)
17:14:26 <research_> so only two basic groups?
17:14:50 <mchua> I wouldn't call them basic groups, really. Just... another tag you could apply to the sort of work you were doing.
17:15:15 <research_> did other firms beside red hat (like AMD) sent any employees to work in the community?
17:15:18 <mchua> Some people thought of themselves as "hardware people" and some thought of themselves as "focused on a deployment in Alabama" people, etc.
17:15:28 <mchua> A few, yes.
17:15:46 <research_> but the majority were volunteers
17:16:25 <research_> since you worked in different groups, did you notice a difference between software and hardware
17:16:29 <mchua> And some people weren't explicitly assigned by their employer to work with OLPC, but found it to be a good way to reach the goals their employer had set for them.
17:17:09 <mchua> For instance, someone developing educational games might think "ah, that's a good platform to deploy on, since my boss would like more people to play our game" and decide out of their own initiative to work on making their game available in Sugar.
17:18:12 <mchua> I noticed differences and similarities between all volunteers, all groups, all projects... it wasn't a binary thing, though I realize you're trying to come up with categorizations for research because otherwise this would be a long paper. :)
17:18:25 <mchua> Some aspects of hardware development were limited by hardware availability (but same with software).
17:18:31 <mchua> (one second, need to find a power outlet)
17:18:51 <ianweller> sigh
17:18:52 <ianweller> next flight (MSP > RDU) is delayed by exactly 90 minutes
17:21:59 <research_> could you specifiy the limitation a little bit further
17:23:27 <mchua> research_: There were some things (fewer than people thought) that could only be done with XO hardware.
17:23:48 <mchua> So only people who could get access to XO hardware could do that work.
17:25:11 <mchua> I think the "I need hardware!" barrier was more psychological than anything else, really - people thought you needed an XO to do work when you really didn't. (It helped as a motivational thing and to make testing more concrete, and the more involved software development did benefit from having hardware available, and it was an already-set-up platform so you didn't have to do a lot of emulator tweaking and configuration.)
17:25:12 <research_> so it question of suppliening laptops and not of the access right for modifyining the hardware
17:25:35 <mchua> Right, it was the laptop supply problem. OLPC was equipped to ship large numbers of laptops internationally, not tracking individual shipments to small numbers of volunteers.
17:26:27 <mchua> It's easier to say "get 1000 laptops to Mongolia" than it is to say "get 1 laptop to Juan in Costa Rica, and 1 laptop to Erica in California, and 2 to Ben and Susan in the UK (and so forth)"
17:27:29 <mchua> Once you had the hardware, there were instructions on the wiki on how to tweak just about everything you could (if you could find that information - finding it or realizing it was out there somewhere to be found was sometimes not communicated.)
17:27:50 <mchua> Not because of a desire to exclude people, but because folks were so busy they didn't realize those people should be told.
17:28:26 <research_> ok, but since you were using parts from other suppliers (AMD for example) were there any restrictions of modifying or using it
17:29:14 <mchua> There were parts of the embedded firmware that only Richard Smith (an OLPC engineering employee) could see.
17:29:48 <research_> could you elaborate a little bit on what was open and what was closed
17:31:01 <mchua> Ok - so first I'll make a differentiation between "open-licenced" and "open as in transparent and available to the community."
17:31:05 <mchua> Almost everything was open-licensed.
17:31:15 <mchua> Almost everything, if you directly asked, you could get access to.
17:32:27 <mchua> A lot of it was not necessarily out and available for people to find out about, though, so they didn't ask because they didn't know they could.
17:32:57 <mchua> So in the first aspect - the only things I can remember being not open-licensed were some of the firmware stuff, and the layout of the board itself.
17:33:08 <mchua> (though you could open up your XO and just look at the layout.)
17:34:05 <research_> was that developed by the community or by a closed community (or bought from a company)
17:34:24 <mchua> The layout was done by the manufacturer in China, so I guess I'd call that "bought from a company"
17:34:34 <mchua> and the firmware that was closed, also, I think, purchased.
17:34:40 <mchua> Though what Richard was doing was cleanrooming it.
17:34:45 <rrix> stickster: wassup?
17:34:55 <mchua> That is, he had access to the closed-source code, and stood "behind the wall"
17:35:24 <mchua> and the goal was to duplicate the functionality with open source code, but Richard could not write that open source code because he had been "contaminated" by looking at the closed-source code.
17:35:32 <mchua> But someone needed to look at the closed code so they could open it up.
17:35:48 <research_> so the whole firmware stuff was bought and just modified by richard
17:35:59 <mchua> So what Richard did, basically, was to read the closed code and then talk to folks in the community about it - "It has this functionality, we need this functionality to be implemented"
17:36:09 <research_> and the community only did the testing of the hardware but was not involved in the development?
17:36:10 <mchua> telling them what the code needed to do without showing them the closed code.
17:36:43 <mchua> And then the folks who *hadn't* seen the closed code would write the open equivalent of that closed code, and slowly the closed code started being replaced by open-licenced code. Does that make sense?
17:36:50 <mchua> Oh, hardware testing was hardly done by anyone. :)
17:37:04 <mchua> The physical machine design was done by OLPC engineers before volunteers got involved, for the most part, yeah.
17:38:28 <mchua> There was a bit of feedback and testing from the community (informal testing - by testing I mean "a lot of volunteers filed this bug report so maybe there's a problem") that got taken into account on the newer designs.
17:38:39 <mchua> Like "this touchpad is problematic, please get a new component" (which they did).
17:38:41 <research_> so sum up, the hardware part was done inside OLPC, and the volunteers worked on the software around it
17:38:59 <mchua> ...you could... generalize it that way, sure.
17:39:36 <mchua> Volunteers did a lot of the repairs and repair documentation for the hardware, but things like "what processor will we use?" and "it is going to be colored green!" were internal decisions made early-on by the nonprofit.
17:39:56 <research_> but where there discussion in the community which hardware to use " like get this touchpad or another one"
17:40:41 <research_> you already answered that you are fast ;-)
17:41:18 <research_> so if the hardware was already set, what was the focus of the hardware volunteer community
17:42:05 <mchua> Firmware, in large part.
17:42:53 <research_> i thought the firmware was all set at beginning?
17:43:29 <mchua> There was an initial release, but the firmware can be erased and changed, so it was developed afterwards also.
17:43:55 <mchua> research_: (oh - I also found a video of Paul I was looking for earlier, on the Fedora side - it's shiny and made by Red Hat but explains things relatively well, http://www.youtube.com/user/RedHatVideos#p/u/5/xu81frqUtlc)
17:44:02 <mchua> research_: (albeit with shiny marketing-ness applied)
17:44:12 <research_> just to clarify the firmware is more like the basic operation system
17:44:24 <research_> operating system
17:44:57 <mchua> no, no, the operating system on the OLPC XO was (and is) Fedora.
17:45:11 <mchua> firmware is even lower-level than that.
17:45:13 <mchua> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Firmware
17:45:32 <research_> ok thanks for the clarifaction ;-)
17:45:34 <mchua> firmware does stuff like "how do I charge the battery"
17:45:42 <research_> got it
17:47:00 * mchua has to go soon
17:47:05 <mchua> any other questions?
17:47:15 <research_> even though the hardware set, how transparent was it "what components where in it, and how could you interact (interfaces) with it
17:47:46 <mchua> research_: (also, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hardware_enablements_in_Fedora_13#Color_Management is a good example of the corporate/community role crossover in Fedora)
17:48:13 <mchua> research_: The information was available to anyone who could find it.
17:48:34 <mchua> It wasn't always easy to find - http://wiki.laptop.org will let you search for all the same stuff anyone else could see.
17:48:36 <research_> ok thank you very much, you really helped us a lot
17:48:54 <mchua> It's not like there was a huge secret knowledge database somewhere that was deliberately locked away from the community, if that's what you're asking :)
17:50:14 <research_> could we ask some follow up questions, maybe another time, your really helped us a lot and gave us great insights
17:50:17 <mchua> Sure.
17:50:20 <mchua> I'm usually in this channel.
17:50:40 <mchua> The #olpc channel will have other OLPC folks in it (cjb is a good person to talk with in general)
17:51:04 <mchua> and this channel will have a lot of Fedora people in it, which is where I spend most of my time these days (I feel more able to talk about recent Fedora happenings than recent OLPC ones).
17:51:13 <mchua> research_: Any last questions, or should I end the logs here?
17:51:25 <research_> ok, we´ll just contact you: maybe we can then dive deeper into different licencing models governance you mentioned earlier
17:51:30 <mchua> (And you'll get a lot of interesting community/corporate crossover comments with Red Hat & Fedora, I can tell you that. :)
17:51:35 <research_> you can close the log
17:51:44 <mchua> #endmeeting