16:01:18 <jsmith> #startmeeting Fedora Board Meeting
16:01:18 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Apr 12 16:01:18 2011 UTC.  The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:18 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:27 <jsmith> #meetingname Fedora Board
16:01:27 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
16:02:02 <zodbot> Announcement from my owner (jsmith): Fedora Board Public IRC meeting in #fedora-board-meeting
16:02:06 <jsmith> #chair jds2001 rdieter smooge spot abadger1999 ke4qqq jreznik
16:02:06 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 jds2001 jreznik jsmith ke4qqq rdieter smooge spot
16:02:19 * rbergeron passes out consolation hot dogs
16:02:20 <jsmith> Welcome everyone to our public IRC meeting!
16:02:33 <Sodium-300> rbergeron: Consolation hotdogs?
16:02:39 <brunowolff> Verne won.
16:02:43 <Sodium-300> Oh
16:02:46 <abadger1999> rbergeron: Are those like real hotdogs but with less fat?
16:02:55 <jsmith> As a reminder, we'll be using the protocol listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/IRC
16:03:26 <jsmith> My agenda for today is simple -- I have a few updates, then we'll spend the rest of the meeting discussing the spins proposal from last week's Board meeting
16:03:36 <jsmith> #topic Roll Call for Board Members
16:03:44 <smooge> here
16:03:48 * jsmith is here
16:03:55 <rdieter> here
16:04:25 * jreznik is here
16:04:32 <jsmith> spot is here, but said he's swamped and will be multitasking
16:05:00 * abadger1999 here
16:05:32 <jsmith> OK, we have a quorum :-)
16:05:36 <jsmith> #topic Updates
16:05:55 <jsmith> Just a couple of updates this week
16:06:02 <jsmith> FUDCon EMEA will be in Milan, Italy
16:06:15 <jsmith> (Thanks to everyone who worked on the bids -- all four bids were fantastic!)
16:06:38 <jsmith> We'll work with the bidders to nail down the exact dates, and let everyone know
16:06:47 <jsmith> The other announcement is the Fedora 16 release name
16:06:51 <smooge> ?
16:06:51 <jsmith> "Verne" was the winner
16:06:55 <jsmith> => smooge
16:07:00 <jreznik> ?
16:07:02 <smooge> that is for the year 2011
16:07:14 <jsmith> smooge: Yes, 2011...
16:07:30 <smooge> thanks
16:07:32 <jsmith> => jreznik
16:07:42 <jreznik> when can we expect final date for FUDCon EMEA?
16:07:51 <jreznik> eof
16:07:59 <jsmith> jreznik: Just as soon as I can schedule a meeting with the bidders, FAmSCo, etc.
16:08:06 <jsmith> jreznik: Hopefully not any longer than a week from now
16:08:11 <smooge> ?
16:08:14 <jsmith> => smooge
16:08:37 <smooge> were the numbers announced for how many votes for verne vs the beefy thing
16:08:44 <smooge> eof
16:08:49 <jsmith> smooge: Absolutely!
16:08:51 <Sodium-300> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/results/relnamef16
16:09:07 <jsmith> #info https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/results/relnamef16
16:09:26 <jsmith> smooge: Essentially 2204 votes for Verne, versus 1662 votes for Beefy Miracle
16:09:47 <smooge> thansk
16:10:06 <jsmith> We had a lot more voters turn up for this election, so that makes me happy :-)
16:10:10 * rdieter demands a recount, where are all the hanging chads?
16:10:43 <jsmith> rdieter: To be honest, I was a little surprised myself, so I had abadger1999 check the database to make sure it looked kosher :-)
16:11:10 * ke4qqq shows up late.
16:11:34 <jsmith> Ok... that's all I have for updates
16:11:36 <rdieter> sorry folks, my votes are generally a curse, I can take some of the blame for the beefy demise
16:11:51 <jsmith> Any questions/comments regarding updates before we move on to the next topic?
16:12:43 <jsmith> #topic Discussion regarding proposal to move to checklist system for Spins trademark approval
16:13:15 <jsmith> As I explained earlier, our major topic of discussion today is a proposal to move to a checklist system for Spins trademark approval
16:13:38 * rdieter likes that idea much better than the status quo
16:13:46 <jsmith> It's pretty clear that our current trademark approval process is cumbersome, and could use improvement
16:14:07 <jsmith> At last week's Board meeting, a proposal was put forward
16:14:14 <jsmith> And that's what we're here to discuss today
16:14:38 <jsmith> #info Last week's meeting notes are at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2011-04-05
16:15:16 <jsmith> The basic concept is to let individual SIGs and groups set their spin approval criteria, instead of having the Board trying to second-guess them
16:15:29 <smooge> ?
16:15:36 <jsmith> => smooge
16:15:53 <smooge> have you gotten any feedback from cwickert on this?
16:16:39 <jsmith> smooge: I haven't...
16:16:55 <jsmith> smooge: I tried to ping him last week, but the timing didn't work out -- he zigged when I zagged, and vice versa
16:17:15 <kanarip> cwickert is extremely busy with dayjob at this very moment, btw
16:17:21 <cwickert> indeed
16:17:26 <smooge> I just want to make sure we don't end up "kneecapping" spins
16:17:26 <kanarip> i know because he's my colleague ;-)
16:17:47 <rdieter> I can't imagine there being any objections to offloading the criteria to the groups that actually do the work
16:17:51 <jsmith> smooge: I agree -- the last thing we want to do is cause more pain for Spins... this proposal is intended to streamline the process
16:18:07 <jsmith> A couple of points that came up in last week's Board meeting:
16:18:38 <jsmith> 1) The individual SIGs can set their own approval criteria, but approval should be done via a public meeting, and noted in a ticket
16:19:04 <kanarip> ?
16:19:12 <jsmith> 2) Once you've gotten the approval from the various SIGs, open a Trac ticket for the Board
16:19:14 <jsmith> => kanarip
16:19:25 <kanarip> a public *board* meeting? wouldn't that restrict spin's trademark approval to once a month?
16:19:27 <kanarip> EOF
16:19:54 <jsmith> kanarip: No, I'm saying a Spins SIG meeting or a QA meeting or a Design team meeting
16:19:59 <cwickert> jsmith: once there is a proposal and I have time, I will definitely give feedback, but atm I'm very busy, sorry
16:20:14 <jsmith> cwickert: No problem... I appreciate your feedback, when you're able to share it
16:20:32 <abadger1999> jsmith: I don't remember agreeing with 1)
16:20:42 <jsmith> kanarip: The intent is to make sure that it's an approval from the group, and not just one member of a particular group
16:20:57 <kanarip> sure
16:21:18 <abadger1999> jsmith: I remember it as 1) The individual SIGs can set their own approval criteria, but how approval is granted must be documented so that it can be applied fairly.
16:21:43 <kanarip> why not just provide the checklist to "minimally" tick all boxes on before submitting for trademark approval
16:22:14 <abadger1999> jsmith: One of the things we seemed to have learned from SXSW is that notall groups are going to want/need a full "team meeting" to create approval.
16:22:21 <kanarip> e.g. an overview of all things having been taken into consideration by the board on previous occasions
16:22:46 <smooge> kanarip, eventually yes, but each of those groups needs to create the checklist. the board is trying not to dictate what they should be.
16:23:08 <kanarip> actually the board would create that checklist, or delegate such to the spins sig perhaps
16:23:10 <abadger1999> jsmith: Some groups may be willing to say "one/two/other finite number of members of a group are enough for approval".
16:23:19 <ke4qqq> kanarip: I think thats probably ok to have, the board just doesn't want to generate that itself. eg, we are poorly placed to define what things need to be present from a design, releng, et al perspective.
16:23:24 <jsmith> kanarip: Because it's painfully obvious that different people read different meanings in to the checklist items
16:23:46 <kanarip> jsmith, like is the case in anything put in writing, what's your point?
16:24:45 * kanarip is not going to argue about this, FWIW, you have your suggestion take it of leave it
16:25:08 <smooge> kanarip, if board creates the final checklist why have the subgroups do anything? the board can give guidance but if its going to dictate everything then there is no need for any "sub-group" to do anything.
16:25:17 <jsmith> kanarip: The point is to let the SIGs do what they're good at, and not have the Board trying to second-guess them, as I stated earlier.  Let the SIGs also be the ones to determine compliance with the checklist they create, as they're in the best position to do so.
16:25:51 <Viking-Ice> makes sense
16:26:33 <Viking-Ice> each group creates it's own SOP when handling these request
16:27:45 <jsmith> Yes, that's the intent
16:28:18 <jsmith> and the Board would be willing to mediate in the event of a dispute, but hopefully it wouldn't ever come to that
16:28:22 <kanarip> just for the record, we're not talking "individual SIGs" as in "The KDE SIG" but infra, rel-eng, spins, etc?
16:28:30 <BobLfoot> The problem will come when SIG-A has a 2 point chklist and SIG-B has a 99 point list.  Who is to say what's to much and what's too little.
16:28:45 <abadger1999> kanarip: correct.
16:29:21 <jsmith> kanarip: Correct.  We identified four SIGs we think are important to the process (Spins, Rel-Eng, Design, QA)
16:29:34 <kanarip> alright, i have an idea of what this is going to look like the way that it is going right now
16:29:40 <Viking-Ice> BobLfoot: I would think it's up to each SIG to determine what's needed for approval from their side be it 1 check or 1000
16:29:46 <rdieter> BobLfoot: obviously some oversight may be required in such a case.
16:29:55 <kanarip> jsmith, don't forget infra
16:30:25 <smooge> BobLfoot, I believe in that case the board would ask the 99 checklist group to "revisit to something manageble". Look we can play cornercase til the cows come home.. or we can try to assume that people will try and work together
16:30:27 <jsmith> kanarip: That list of SIGs isn't carved in stone yet -- we can certainly discuss other groups, such as infrastructure
16:30:28 <kanarip> and, don't forget the board as a group in this itself, it can in fact set criteria to meet before the ticket ends up in its trac instance
16:30:57 <abadger1999> kanarip: I think infra really only gets involved in terms of space... which doesn't really bear on individual approvals.
16:31:06 <jreznik> one thing we have to assure is transparency - it has to be documented somewhere, every step of approval from all groups (not like - for example releng says it's ok somewhere, other team somwhere etc. = one place)
16:31:40 <jsmith> jreznik: That's why I suggested that you open a Board ticket with links to the other individual tickets from the SIGs
16:31:47 <jsmith> jreznik: I'm open to other suggestions, though :-)
16:31:57 <kanarip> abadger1999, the essential difference is we *assume* infra to be a service, and while i would argue rel-eng and design are also services, apparently you do request those groups to come up with criteria
16:32:41 <rdieter> good point, what's the rationale to include rel-eng approval?
16:32:42 <abadger1999> kanarip: Well -- my general position would be -- consider as many teams as possible services.
16:33:00 <smooge> rdieter, can the spin be built using existing tools.
16:33:03 <abadger1999> kanarip: So I'd rather get rid of teams that must approve rather than add.
16:33:19 * jds2001 is here, late
16:33:22 <rdieter> smooge: ok, though I'd consider that something the spin-sig would cover, no?
16:33:38 <rdieter> maybe not, <shrug>
16:33:43 <smooge> rdieter, well the spins are built out of koji currently.
16:34:09 <rdieter> sure, based on the kickstarts provided by spins-sig
16:34:50 <kanarip> all that groups other then spins / board need to do is indicate outside of which boundaries exactly they start caring beyond the proverbial just pushing it through
16:34:51 <jsmith> rdieter: My rationale is some Spins (for various definitions of a Spin) might require additional resources and integration work from Rel-Eng
16:34:52 <rdieter> not a big deal, rel-eng's list may be 1 item:  does it build in koji?  which is fine.
16:35:03 <abadger1999> rdieter: I could agree with you  -- who's building the spins for rel-eng atm?  Should we ask them if there's other considerations?
16:36:06 <jsmith> rdieter: For the traditional spins, I don't see a huge checklist of items being created... For other items (like the EC2 images, which may or may not be argued to be spins), they might require more effort from Rel-Eng
16:36:24 <jsmith> rdieter: The idea is to let them make the call, so that they're comfortable making the spins
16:36:25 <rdieter> ok, fair enough
16:36:35 <jsmith> rdieter: No matter how smart I am, I'm not the guy in Rel-Eng who has to make it work
16:36:40 <rdieter> I was still thinking inside the "classic spins" box
16:36:47 <jsmith> rdieter: So I'd rather let that person be the one to make the call
16:37:11 <jsmith> Another complication is dealing with "new editions" of a previously approved spin
16:37:22 <jsmith> So let's say I create the VoIP Spin for Fedora 14, and it gets approved
16:37:34 <jsmith> Then Fedora 15 comes out -- do I have to get approval again for Fedora 15?
16:38:04 <kanarip> that horse has been beaten to death already, i'm sorry
16:38:16 <abadger1999> I'd like to say no need to get trademark approval again -- spins sig could define something if they want, though.
16:38:21 <jds2001> im not sure if we define "substantial change", but I'd say yes, if there was substantial change.
16:38:28 <rdieter> I'd say as long as no releases are skipped, re-approval should generally not be required
16:38:48 <smooge> I can see infrastructure checklist being as the following: 1) does the image wish to use mirrors (is there space?) 2) does the image wish to be torrented (is there space?)
16:38:55 <Viking-Ice> It will need to meet QA defined criteria each criteria
16:39:02 <Viking-Ice> release I mean
16:39:08 <kanarip> it was agreed to leave the spins sig to decide whether or not any considerable amount of changes justified pushing the recurring spin back into the trademark approval queue
16:39:09 <jds2001> rdieter: but i could take the fictictious VoIP sppin, and put beefy miracle wallpaer in F16
16:39:38 <rdieter> jds2001: and?
16:39:38 <jds2001> that would surely not meet with the design SIG's approval.
16:39:39 <abadger1999> smooge: I don't think that it's infrastructure's call to apply those to an individual spin -- but it is infrastructure's call to make that for the collection of all spins.
16:40:15 <jreznik> some fast track process? qa is needed, some response from releng too (it it still building, size etc.) but most of the check-list items could be skipped (the detailed ones)
16:40:29 <abadger1999> smooge: ie: we (infra) say spins have 50GB of mirror space; spin sig, you have to keep the total space requirements for all spins below that by whatever criteria you choose.
16:40:42 <smooge> abadger1999, in some way or another its going to end up as being "oopps no more allowed out of room".
16:40:48 <rdieter> jds2001: that would be unfortunate. :(
16:41:09 * jds2001 can see that. My example was obviously a little far-fetched, but you can make a change that makes it unacceptable. And not having something to review/block those seems wrong, but I could also be over-analyzing.
16:41:25 <jds2001> rdieter: a travesty indeed :D
16:41:49 <rdieter> jds2001: I'd say spins-sig could have oversight there, the ks files are in their git repo
16:41:59 <abadger1999> smooge: Yes,  I think we (infra) do quota the total space -- but the spins sig could determine that they want a new spin to take the place of an old spin to stay within the budgeted space.
16:42:31 <abadger1999> smooge: that's why I say it's not our (infra) call to say no to spins on an individual basis.  Just on an aggregate basis.
16:43:48 <jsmith> Ok, we're 45 minutes into the meeting
16:43:51 <jsmith> Let me ask this question:
16:44:07 <jsmith> Is there anybody who is largely opposed to the proposal as it stands?
16:44:13 <abadger1999> jds2001: I'd prefer that to go to the spins sig to decide whether to host rather than to re-require trademark approval.
16:44:28 <abadger1999> jsmith: To what level of detail?
16:44:40 <abadger1999> jsmith: For instance, my obejection to #1
16:45:15 <jsmith> abadger1999: In general -- there are still lots of minor details to work out
16:45:16 <rdieter> jsmith: not me, I like it generally (but do prefer abadger1999's clarification for item 1)
16:45:40 <jsmith> (and I'm perfectly fine with abadger1999's clarification on item 1, for the record)
16:46:15 <jds2001> abadger1999: yeah, i dont think the board needs to be involved.
16:46:20 <abadger1999> I'm fine with the propposal then :-)
16:46:30 <jsmith> The lack of opposition to the proposal is encouraging :-)
16:46:48 * spot is also fine with it
16:46:56 * jds2001 is fine with it
16:47:04 <smooge> Can we capture the clarified items please
16:47:09 <smooge> so I can put them in the notes
16:47:15 <jsmith> smooge: Absolutely... I was just about to do that:
16:47:35 <jsmith> OK, let's start w/ item 1 from above:
16:47:58 <jsmith> Actually, on second thought, I want to start a different way
16:48:23 <jsmith> 1) Each SIG should create a checklist or SOP for spin approvals
16:48:35 <jsmith> (each of the four/five SIGs listed above)
16:48:45 <jsmith> Any concerns with that point?
16:49:02 <jds2001> not from me
16:49:10 <smooge> Actually I would like a 0
16:49:18 <jsmith> smooge: Go right ahead!
16:49:37 <smooge> 0) The board will appoint SIG's that they think are appropriate for various trademark approvals.
16:49:55 <smooge> 1) Each appointed SIG should create a checklist or SOP for spin approval
16:49:55 <abadger1999> jsmith: Do we want to say something about trademark approval vs ongoing approval?
16:50:15 <rdieter> smooge: nice, extensible
16:50:17 <jsmith> abadger1999: That was going to be a later point, but yes :-)
16:50:26 <jsmith> smooge: I like it :-)
16:50:28 * abadger1999 will wait for the other points then :-)
16:50:33 <smooge> what was 2?
16:51:09 <smooge> actually 1 should be:
16:51:29 <smooge> 1) Each appointed SIG should create a checklist or SOP for item approval
16:51:38 <jsmith> 2) When an appointed SIG gives its approval for a Spin, it should do so in a public and transparent manner.  The SIG can decide the exact manner of approval, but it should reflect the will of the SIG as a whole.
16:52:02 * jsmith had a hard time with the exact wording on number 2 -- feel free to edit/modify/fold/staple/spindle/mutilate
16:52:27 <smooge> 3) When an appointed SIG gives its approval for an Item, it should do so in a public and transparent manner.  The SIG can decide the exact manner of approval, but it should reflect the will of the SIG as a whole.
16:52:30 <jsmith> abadger1999: Does that satisfy your concerns regarding how I worded item #1 originally?
16:53:39 <smooge> 3) The board can appoint a specific SIG to keep track of "trademarked" items and that SIG will set schedules and/or reasons for re-approval
16:54:20 <Viking-Ice> with regards to 2 I do belive the workflow should be the same for each SIG for consistency
16:54:49 <smooge> 4) The Board will settle issues of disputes between various SIGs or percieved problems of process
16:54:53 <jreznik> Viking-Ice: at least the output
16:55:04 <jsmith> Viking-Ice: The problem is, each SIG is different.  Some prefer tickets.  Some prefer meetings.  Some prefer both.  As long as they can document the approval publicly via a ticket, I'm happy :-)
16:55:05 <abadger1999> jsmith: I'd write [...]The SIG can decide the exact manner of approval but who and where the approval is granted should be specified in the SOP.
16:55:16 <jsmith> abadger1999: I like it :-)
16:55:18 <abadger1999> Which is slightly different in meaning.
16:55:53 <abadger1999> Cool.
16:56:18 <smooge> 2) When an appointed SIG gives its approval for a Spin, it should do so in a public and transparent manner. The SIG can decide the exact manner of approval but who and where the approval is granted should be specified in the SOP.
16:56:29 <abadger1999> wfm
16:56:30 <jreznik> works for me
16:56:35 <smooge> I propose 3 and 4 to act as general corner case items
16:56:35 <jds2001> wfm
16:57:24 <abadger1999> +1
16:57:29 <Viking-Ice> jreznik: possibly of 4 or 5 different process to go through as oppose to file a ticket in relevant trac instance which would be review and up to SOP and approved or denied on next weekly meeting
16:57:57 <smooge> basically 3 says "We can appoint Spins to keep track of spin/image items." and 4 says "We will deal with issues when things break down."
16:58:17 <abadger1999> <nod>
16:58:34 <jsmith> smooge: I think the only other thing we need in there is that once the other approvals have been collected for a new Spin, they should be submitted to the Board (via a ticket) for trademark approval.
16:59:57 <Viking-Ice> jreznik: also with different workflows the requester could have to wait a week with one SIG and 3 weeks for another SIG to decide etc.
17:00:14 <smooge> ok insert as 3) Once approvals from appointed SIGS are done, the item will be submitted to the Board (via a ticket) for trademark approval. Move 3,4 to 4,5
17:00:30 <smooge> Viking-Ice, but that may just be the nature of things
17:00:45 <jds2001> we can't dictate eachs SIG's workflow.
17:00:53 <jsmith> nor would we want to!
17:01:01 <jreznik> yep, I don't think it's a problem - some groups do not meet all the time
17:01:28 <abadger1999> We would probably be brought in to arbitrate if one SIG took 3 weeks to approve, though.
17:01:38 <jreznik> and of course - I think it's easy to talk to the group and ask for action
17:02:11 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: perhaps tacit approval if you let something sit for X weeks
17:02:20 <jreznik> but some deadline would be ok, to say - 3 weeks are maximum and if it takes more it means there's some probelm
17:02:52 <smooge> I would like to think that is covered under (5) :)
17:02:55 <jds2001> i would think that would be reasonable, but I'd like to not codify that.
17:03:06 <jds2001> smooge: +1
17:03:19 <jsmith> abadger1999: That brings up an interesting case... what if Rel-Eng for example says "I'd like to approve this, but I can't because I don't have the resources to change Koji", for example... An outright disapproval isn't really the answer (as I see it), but "We'll do that when we can" might be.
17:04:20 <ke4qqq> that's still a disapproval. just like infra running out of space.
17:04:20 <abadger1999> jsmith: Yeah -- seems like that is a slightly different thing but will get caught up in this policy:: bootstrapping new types of "spin" (ec2 images, multiboot dvd, etc)
17:04:59 <jsmith> ke4qqq: Yeah, that might work...
17:06:03 <jsmith> abadger1999: Might be worth waiting for some additional input from Rel Eng and the Spins SIG on their thoughts with regards to new types of images
17:06:40 <smooge> !
17:06:58 <abadger1999> Something like: new types of spins (new image formats, new ways of putting together images, etc) may require more than trademark approval before the spin can be hosted.
17:06:59 <jsmith> => smooge
17:07:14 <smooge> Please review http://fpaste.org/Xmts/ for approval of the motion. I will record this or the final one in the notes
17:08:23 <smooge> I can also paste in channel if that is what we want to vote on
17:08:35 <smooge> eof
17:08:45 * jsmith is reads over it again
17:09:31 <abadger1999> smooge: +1 for the draft
17:09:34 <rdieter> win +1
17:09:38 <spot> +1
17:09:49 <jds2001> +1
17:10:04 <jsmith> OK, propose that we send this draft to the advisory board list, get some additional feedback on it from the Spins SIG, Release Engineering, QA, and the Design Team, and then take a formal vote in next week's Board meeting.
17:10:13 <jsmith> s/OK, /OK, I/
17:11:04 <jreznik> +1
17:11:19 <smooge> ok I am not on each of those lists.. but will sent to the board list
17:11:19 <ke4qqq> +1
17:11:40 <jsmith> smooge: I'll contact the "assigned SIGs" and make sure it's on their radar
17:11:54 <smooge> thank you
17:11:58 <jsmith> #action jsmith to contact Spins SIG, Rel-Eng, QA, and Design team to solicit feedback
17:12:34 <jsmith> Any other votes up or down on my proposal?
17:13:27 <jsmith> #agreed Smooge to send draft to the advisory board list, jsmith to solicit feedback from assigned SIGs, and we'll take a formal vote next week
17:13:47 <jsmith> Any other comments, questions, or concerns on this topic?
17:13:56 <smooge> I want to point out this covers everything from hot dogs to EC2 images to live spins.
17:13:57 <jreznik> what about situation when other groups are needed/not needed for approval? how to add/remove it to the list of "assigned SIGs" case by case? or it's going to be always the list of these 4?
17:14:19 <jsmith> smooge: We agreed last week that chicken sandwiches were out... :-)
17:14:51 <jsmith> jreznik: I think the Board will vote on that as necessary -- I'm not sure we know enough yet to formalize it any more than that
17:15:17 <ke4qqq> jreznik: surely they can abstain if they don't feel they are needed.
17:15:18 <jreznik> ok
17:15:18 <smooge> I would say we say "Live Spins/Spin of spins" would be one thing, "clothing apparel" would get a different list each assigned by the board.
17:15:46 <jreznik> smooge: yep
17:15:48 <jsmith> jreznik: We could change the wording of item zero to say ", and the Board may change the list of appointed SIGs as necessary", but I think that's implicit
17:16:07 <jds2001> yes, i thought we agreed that the definition of the scope here was "something designed to install or run the Fedora distribution"
17:16:27 <jds2001> clothing apparel doesnt meet that definition
17:16:30 <abadger1999> jds2001: Correct.
17:16:30 <jsmith> smooge: Yes, this process is for trademark approval for distribution of something designed to install or run the Fedora distribution
17:17:07 <jsmith> In other words, this proposed process isn't for *all* trademark approvals, just trademark approvals for software media
17:18:00 <jsmith> OK, anything else on this topic?
17:18:27 <jsmith> #topic Any other business?
17:18:48 <jsmith> The next Board meeting will be next Tuesday (same time), and will be a phone meeting.
17:19:12 <jsmith> The next public IRC board meeting will be on April 26th, at this same time
17:19:17 <abadger1999> I'll be on vacation for the next two tuesdays
17:19:31 <abadger1999> so I'll almost certainly miss both Board meetings.
17:19:36 <jsmith> abadger1999: Noted.  Thanks and enjoy :-)
17:19:53 <jds2001> abadger1999: vacations are not allowed :D
17:20:24 <abadger1999> jds2001: :-P
17:20:34 <jreznik> hmm, vacations... a dream
17:20:43 <jsmith> If there's nothing further, I move that we adjourn.
17:20:49 <elad661> !
17:20:51 <jds2001> i think i remember what those are
17:20:55 <jsmith> => elad661
17:21:08 <smooge> My term will be up soon (depending on how many more release changes occur) and I will look forward to returning to "private" life.
17:21:18 <elad661> Just wanted to tell you board guys about our new SIG, the fedora sound SIG
17:21:28 <elad661> We want to create free sound themes for fedora
17:21:35 <jsmith> I saw that on the Planet.
17:21:42 <jsmith> Sounds very interesting...
17:21:47 * jds2001 too
17:22:00 <elad661> Thanks.
17:22:02 <elad661> eof
17:22:20 <abadger1999> Very nice.
17:22:46 <jsmith> #info elad661 informed the Board about a new Sound SIG
17:23:06 * jsmith waits another 60 seconds for any other items
17:23:08 * jds2001 runs to grab some semblence of lunch before the next meeting i've got :)
17:23:26 <jsmith> Thanks jds2001!
17:24:08 <gholms> ?
17:24:18 <jsmith> => gholms
17:24:31 <gholms> Err, that probably isn't a board question.  Never mind.
17:24:37 * gholms tries to type an upside down question mark
17:25:37 <inode0> ¿
17:25:42 * inode0 helps
17:25:47 <gholms> Heh, thanks
17:26:01 <jsmith> Last call for questions/comments...
17:26:23 <jsmith> #endmeeting