18:29:55 <rbergeron> #startmeeting Fedora Board IRC Meeting
18:29:55 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Feb 22 18:29:55 2012 UTC.  The chair is rbergeron. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:29:55 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:30:02 * jds2001 here
18:30:12 * rbergeron looks at zodbot
18:30:16 <gholms> Umm...
18:30:30 <nirik> it's still announcing, so slow to answer.
18:30:41 * abadger1999 here
18:30:45 <rbergeron> Oh, sure, I shot myself in the foot then, eh?
18:30:58 * jreznik_ is here
18:31:18 * ke4qqq is here
18:31:34 * rbergeron wonders how much it will catch up with....
18:31:53 <rbergeron> nirik: if i start info'ing things will it catch those as well or do i need to wait for meetbot to kick in
18:32:11 <nirik> not sure actually.
18:32:23 <jds2001> you clogged the tubez!
18:32:30 <rbergeron> Dude, I'm all about tube-clogging.
18:32:31 <MarkDude> Bad zodbot
18:32:34 <rbergeron> Sigh.
18:32:37 * cwickert is here
18:32:59 <rbergeron> Well. I'll note some roll-call stuff and do some general announcements real quick. I'll just pretend like zodbot s here.
18:33:15 * cpuobsessed stuffs the turbine with more fire wood
18:33:26 <rbergeron> And not off makng slly announcements that someone asked to have done at a bad time. /me looks at herself guiltily
18:33:34 <rbergeron> #meetingname fedora_board
18:33:34 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
18:33:50 <rbergeron> Well. Okay
18:33:51 <rdieter> yo
18:34:06 <rbergeron> #topic Announcements and Agenda
18:34:23 <rbergeron> #info F17 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting is today, 2012-02-22, at 22:00 UTC (17:00 EST) in #fedora-meeting
18:34:26 <rbergeron> #info F17 Alpha Readiness Meeting is TOMORROW, 2012-02-23, at 20:00 UTC (15:00 EST) in #fedora-meeting
18:34:29 <rbergeron> #info Fedora Engineering "Open House" IRC Meeting is also tomorrow, at 18:00 UTC (13:00 EST) in #fedora-meeting
18:34:32 <rbergeron> #info For more info on the Open House, read http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2012-February/011353.html
18:34:41 <rbergeron> #info Agenda for today includes: Open Q&A Session, Review and possible adoption of draft trademark guidelines,
18:34:44 <rbergeron> #info Review of Board Member Rex Dieter's personal project goals, and a handful of Board Tickets, time permitting.
18:34:47 <rbergeron> #info Ticket #134: User of Fedora Logo in Boxes
18:34:49 <rbergeron> #info Ticket #133: Fedora LTS and a single rapid release proposal
18:34:52 <rbergeron> #info Ticket #130: Make the board less of a single point of failure
18:35:32 * abadger1999 notes no progress on ticket #130 to get ahead of the game.
18:35:44 <rbergeron> #info Present: rbergeron, abadger1999, jds2001, jreznik_, ke4qqq, cwickert, rudi, rdieter
18:36:02 <rbergeron> #info Regrets: peter robinson
18:36:19 <abadger1999> Also -- we decided to start with Q & A (not sure if that's an assumed part of the agenda or not)
18:36:28 <rbergeron> Yup.
18:36:43 <rbergeron> #info Not here yet: gomix
18:37:02 <rbergeron> Alrighty. Well: let's do it :)
18:37:07 <rbergeron> #topic Open Q & A
18:37:31 <rbergeron> #chair abadger1999 jds2001 jreznik_ ke4qqq cwickert rudi rdieter
18:37:31 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 cwickert jds2001 jreznik_ ke4qqq rbergeron rdieter rudi
18:37:48 <inode0> ?
18:38:02 <abadger1999> inode0: Go ahead
18:38:03 <rbergeron> inode0: take it away, sir
18:38:04 <inode0> mostly just because I somehow feel an obligation today :)
18:38:09 <abadger1999> :-)
18:38:09 <rbergeron> LOL
18:38:56 <inode0> I asked a question on the mailing list regarding the Board's role as an adviser to the project, only ke4qqq replied there. Anyone else care to share some thoughts?
18:39:45 * jds2001 believes that the board should provide advice and insight when asked, yes.
18:40:04 <jds2001> obviously qualified as "just" advice
18:40:08 <rdieter> "Requests for Advice from the Board" thread ?
18:40:14 <rbergeron> rdieter: that's the one
18:40:20 <jds2001> and not some type of mandate from on hight
18:40:34 * jds2001 swears he replied to that thread
18:40:46 <jds2001> certaintly read it with great enthusiam
18:41:07 <cwickert> smooge replied, too
18:41:22 * inode0 notes toshio replied but to something off topic (but important)
18:41:46 <abadger1999> <nod>
18:41:56 <inode0> smooge isn't on the Board though - lots of other people replied, several former members and several FPLs
18:41:58 * cwickert notes that smooge is not a board member, oops.
18:42:23 <cwickert> I have something in my drafts folder, but I was not sure if I should send it out
18:42:39 <cwickert> I promise I will but let me first go over it again
18:43:01 <abadger1999> I like the Board's role as advisor... but not as decision maker on a broad range of items brought to it.
18:43:04 <jreznik_> cwickert: the same, draft but wasn't sure about it
18:43:48 <rbergeron> I think I replied in a roundabout way perhaps in the other thread. But I'll say this: I think there's a fine line between being advice-givers  and permission-givers or broad mandate-makers
18:43:49 <rdieter> so, may be cause I'm a bit worn and tired from traveling a bit, but some comments in the thread (not directly answering the initial query from inode) really rubbed me a bit the wrong way.  in particular, those of the form "you there, board, do more, work harder".  especially when the work alluded to something really *anyone* could do... no board membership cards required.
18:44:05 <abadger1999> I remember that both you and Max had some good ideas -- listing issues that are requesting advice only be separate, having board members be guides in getting people in touch with the other groups that they really need to talk to.
18:44:41 <rdieter> which parallels our "single point of failure" topic too
18:45:14 <rbergeron> indeed
18:45:26 <rdieter> so, in general, I very much appreciated tatica's reply
18:45:35 <tatica> o0
18:46:07 * jds2001 doesnt think that the board should be traffic cops - directing people every which way
18:46:24 <inode0> what was tatica's point? I don't recall or see her post now
18:46:29 <rdieter> jds2001: we can be, just not the *only* ones
18:46:47 <jds2001> however, i also agree with mizmo - a future soccer star showing up to an empty field and "go start a league" isnt' inspiring either
18:47:16 * inode0 found it, sorry
18:47:21 <rdieter> every vested contributor has significant mentoring roles to play
18:48:13 <rbergeron> I think it's very much a case by case basis. I think it would help greatly if we can enable people more generally to find the information they need on their own - but often times it is more of a higher-level question or problem.
18:48:18 <rdieter> unfortunately, good mentoring is neither fast or easy.
18:48:33 <rbergeron> And while the board I don't think will mandate things - we do have an open list, and the project has the benefit of having a LOT of wise people on that list.
18:48:34 <rdieter> rbergeron: +gagillion
18:48:51 <inode0> to follow up, a lot of long time contributors also spoke the issues we have with travel subsidies - that isn't a problem with traffic direction or mentoring I don't think
18:48:57 <cwickert> jds2001: I diagree
18:49:13 <inode0> more just that we haven't landed on a good way to do it and some of us really want new ideas :)
18:49:38 <jds2001> cwickert: disagree with what?
18:49:42 <rdieter> inode0: true, I think there's no better way than to not follow the status quo of processing requests in order of submission
18:50:04 <rdieter> though, I suspect that may mean more work
18:50:23 <cwickert> jds2001: with mizmo's example: nobody becomes a soccer star if he does't start playing. all the soccer stars started out on the streets by just playing. no league, not team, no trainer or whatnot
18:50:54 <cwickert> same goes for opensource stars: you need to just start by doing it and don't need to ask for all the overhead
18:51:24 <pingou> cwickert: start playing isn't start building a league
18:51:42 <cwickert> somebody who waits for a trainer and a league and rules will not become an office guy but not a soccer star
18:51:49 <rdieter> pingou: and there's a multitude of experiece in between. :)
18:51:49 * rbergeron isn't sure that nitpicking a metaphor will get us anywhere
18:51:58 <rbergeron> :)
18:52:18 <cwickert> pingou: but a league is not a precondition to play, that's all I wanted to say
18:52:20 <cwickert> anyway
18:52:29 <pingou> cwickert: there I agree :)
18:52:39 <inode0> a league makes it easier for less motivated people to play
18:52:47 <rdieter> I think we can all agree lowering the bar for participation is an important goal
18:52:53 <cwickert> and the board is not a precondition to get stuff done in Fedora
18:53:37 <inode0> we've gone over the normal time for one topic, so thank you and eof
18:53:44 <cwickert> the board is just like the referee: if all play fair you should not need him
18:53:53 <cwickert> eof, I will reply on the list
18:53:59 <rbergeron> inode0: thanks.
18:54:03 <rbergeron> anyone else?
18:54:45 <cpuobsessed> ?
18:54:46 <jreznik_> cwickert: +1 for referee
18:54:57 <rdieter> it's just that achieving that goal isn't easy, and besides some relatively lofty ideas and unfunded mandates :), I failed to see much specific constructive ideas in the thread either.  so, not sure there's anything actionable yet.
18:54:58 <rbergeron> cpuobsessed: go ahead
18:55:46 <cpuobsessed> any word on respins or a permanent fix for media creator (forgot the name of it)
18:56:58 <rdieter> context?
18:57:03 * jds2001 is lost too
18:57:08 <rdieter> what about respins?  (and what is media creator?)
18:57:10 * rbergeron is lost, three
18:57:28 <Southern_Gentlem> cpuobsessed,  anyone can do respins anytime they want using pungi unless anaconda is borked
18:57:50 <jds2001> maybe livecd-tools is what cpuobsessed is referring to?
18:57:54 <rdieter> like, http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/live-respins/ ?
18:57:59 * jds2001 didnt know it was broken
18:58:14 <tatica> !
18:58:35 <cpuobsessed> revisor
18:58:47 <Southern_Gentlem> cpuobsessed,  revisor is dead
18:59:11 <jds2001> the tools of record are livecd-tools and pungi
18:59:23 <jds2001> pungi for install media, and livecd-tools for live cd's
18:59:30 <rbergeron> cpuobsessed: does that more or less answer your question? :)
18:59:51 <cpuobsessed> jds2001: ah! thank you; probably could have answered my own question with a quick google; thank yo
18:59:52 <cwickert> cpuobsessed: I work with kanarip and he is very busy in his dayjob, so as long as nobody steps up, revisor will remain a zombie
18:59:56 <cpuobsessed> u
19:00:03 <abadger1999> cpuobsessed: I think kanarip was looking at revisor at FUDCon -- I don't know what the post-FUDCon status/verdict was though.
19:00:05 <cwickert> ?
19:00:13 <abadger1999> cpuobsessed: You could ask him if there's any future there or not.
19:00:23 <rbergeron> tatica - go ahead
19:00:30 <tatica> sry, I reboot. did you guy finish talking about the travel subsidies?
19:00:40 <cpuobsessed> i've been flexing my python muscles lately; maybe i should take something up
19:00:47 <jds2001> tatica: we never really talked about them except in passing
19:00:48 <cwickert> tatica: we didn't even start ;)
19:00:51 <rbergeron> tatica: we weren't really discussing them fully in this meeting
19:00:57 <tatica> oh, oka
19:01:14 <tatica> ok, i just had a comment on that, will drop it just in case
19:01:17 <tatica> in our last week meeting (latam) the prizes and badges topic was brought by one of our contributors. At the end, it will always be hard to evaluate or ponder peoples activities as long as we try to compare them. A designer will never have the same acomplishments than a coder, or a translator compared with a marketing contributor. If we want to ponder contributions to have an idea of which users *deserve* sponsorship, we might be creating a black h
19:01:17 <tatica> ole somewhere.
19:01:24 <tatica> that's it, eof :)
19:01:45 <rbergeron> tatica: thanks. :)
19:02:32 <jds2001> cpuobsessed: releng uses the two tools that I mentioned to create media, revisor was an effort to frontend those tools with a bit more of a user-friendly interface
19:02:49 <rbergeron> cwickert: you're up.
19:03:20 <rbergeron> tatica: I think we've fairly well-covered the topic on the board list - I think it's simply a matter of balance, at the end of the day.
19:03:33 <cwickert> We are doing/hosting re-spins? I thought that this was a licensing issue, we might not have the SRPMs available if we include packages from updates. I don't see any srpm ISOs or a list of packages used in the corresponding-source git repo
19:03:40 <tatica> rbergeron, yeap
19:04:25 * cwickert wonder if the re-spins question has been dealt with by legal and infrastructure
19:05:00 <rbergeron> cwickert: I honestly have no idea.
19:05:22 <cwickert> who is responsible for these respins? who made them and who uploaded them?
19:05:28 <Southern_Gentlem> I did
19:05:32 <brunowolff> The unity project
19:05:33 * rbergeron wonders if perhaps just asking on infra-list would be the way to find out
19:05:42 <nirik> There are some respins being done by Southern_Gentlem of live media. He was hosting them on his fedorapeople space, but I recently addhim space on alt... they are not official fedora media
19:05:45 <Southern_Gentlem> and yes i have the srpms
19:05:59 * nirik would be happy to change any of that if there are problems or issues.
19:06:18 <Southern_Gentlem> brunowolff,  unity is not involved
19:06:18 <jds2001> Southern_Gentlem: can you commit that to the corresponding-source repo?
19:06:26 <cwickert> nirik: yet though we distribute them and we need to add some info on how to get the SRPMs
19:06:29 <brunowolff> Not now, but historically they were.
19:06:35 <cwickert> jds2001: I can commit
19:06:50 <jds2001> cwickert: problem solved then :)
19:06:59 * jds2001 loves easy problems :)
19:07:07 <cwickert> #action cwickert to create correspondingsource package lists for respins
19:07:25 <rbergeron> Any other Q's for Q and A?
19:07:29 <cwickert> #action Southern_Gentlem to ask infrastructure how to make the SRPMs of respins available
19:07:30 <rbergeron> A's are welcome too, lol
19:07:43 <cwickert> Southern_Gentlem: a text file in the directory would be nice
19:07:58 <Southern_Gentlem> ok
19:08:00 * rbergeron will give it another minute before moving on
19:08:29 * brunowolff Thinks rbergeron has gotten off to a really good start as FPL.
19:08:33 * rbergeron thanks everyone for bringing their Q's. :)
19:08:53 <rbergeron> brunowolff: aww. thanks ;)
19:09:03 * cpuobsessed is sorry for stirring the pot
19:09:27 <rbergeron> Okeedokee. ONWARDS!
19:09:47 <rbergeron> #topic Review of Trademark Guidelines Draft and possible approval
19:10:12 <rbergeron> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pchestek/TMGuidelinesDraft
19:11:09 * jds2001 notes the ambassador giveaways section has the requested changes in it
19:11:23 <rbergeron> indeed
19:11:42 <jds2001> has pam reviewed?
19:11:48 <rbergeron> #info ambassador giveaways section has requested changes to it
19:12:10 <inode0> ugh
19:12:23 <jds2001> ugh? what ugh?
19:12:50 <inode0> ugh that is going to be a lot of extra work we didn't have to do before to make a button
19:13:46 <ke4qqq> inode0: i voiced that objection
19:13:53 <Southern_Gentlem> this is getting right down stupid to create swag to advertise ourselfs
19:14:13 <jds2001> sadly, we need the information
19:14:25 <jds2001> so that when the next
19:14:46 <ke4qqq> essentially spot has informed us that RHT Legal needs exact information on when, what, and how much swag has been produced that contain the marks.
19:14:49 <jds2001> "register the TM in China" comes along, we have an authoritative source of "where have we used this design"
19:14:52 <Southern_Gentlem> there is talk of removing hurddles to get involved only to add more when involved
19:15:21 <inode0> yeah, I fear the only thing this will remove is swag from our tables
19:15:31 <rdieter> remove hurdles where you can, add ones that are required.  :(
19:15:39 <jds2001> inode0: it's going to be very low overhead
19:16:12 <rdieter> so, having legal be able to have a list of "where we have used swag" is one thing, but tracking *every* single use?  seems a bit overboard
19:16:17 <jds2001> in fact, we discussed just delegating "normal stuff" to legal
19:16:43 <inode0> this is not low overheard IMO
19:16:58 <pingou> I don't see anything wrt to online-store
19:17:00 <rdieter> I mean, it's more a "nice-to-have list" for legal's convenience, not particularly *required*.
19:17:01 <pingou> did I miss it ?
19:17:45 <inode0> reads more like filing for a patent to me :)
19:18:04 <jsmith> pingou: As I understand things, that discussion is still happening inside of Red Hat legal
19:18:18 <ke4qqq> pingou: there are still tons of problems with a store - and until spot gets those resolved it's still very much a dream
19:18:20 <pingou> rdieter: "the Ambassador must open a ticket in trac" doesn't read as 'nice-to-have' :)
19:18:21 <abadger1999> pingou: Spot's working on that separately w/ rh legal.  it's a bigger, more complex task
19:18:33 <pingou> ok :)
19:18:40 <rdieter> pingou: you read me wrong, I meant nice-to-have from legal's perspective
19:18:58 <pingou> ok :)
19:19:03 <rdieter> it's not a legal requirement
19:19:10 <pingou> but for us it becomes one
19:19:15 <jds2001> there's also a requirement that we dont engage in "naked licensing"
19:19:40 <rdieter> define that?
19:19:43 <jds2001> which is a legal concept where we dont exercise control over hte quality of goods using our mark.
19:20:08 * inode0 please talk with ambassadors who actually create the swag people enjoy before approving this
19:20:15 * ke4qqq does fear that this means all swag will become far more centralized than it has - and remembers the problems we had with this before that led to the way we do things now.
19:20:32 <ke4qqq> inode0: please start the discussion on fab :)
19:20:37 <jds2001> http://www.ivanhoffman.com/naked.html
19:20:38 <rdieter> though, it's not the end of the world to simply document swag production, which is what this really is.
19:21:12 <inode0> and asking bloody permission from you each time we do it :)
19:21:20 <ke4qqq> rdieter: no it's also asking permission - and it happens a lot...
19:21:34 <ke4qqq> in NA alone I'd guess 20-30 times a year
19:21:39 <rdieter> permission is required, I guess, else we fall into the "naked" trap.
19:21:53 <rdieter> and we'll risk losing the trademark
19:21:59 <Southern_Gentlem> rdieter,  so basicly any new swag request need to be vetted by redhat first is a slap in the face (we have proved time and time again we can produce swag faster and cheaper)
19:22:11 * rdieter is not disagreeing
19:23:01 <rdieter> Southern_Gentlem: though the vetting is done by fedora here, not RH
19:23:01 * rbergeron apologizes
19:23:04 <abadger1999> Question, would a similar process but vetted by famsco/famna/? be acceptable or still too much overhead?  (Just thinking of ideas that could be run by spot for a yay or nay)
19:23:29 <ke4qqq> that already happens now
19:23:43 <Southern_Gentlem> abadger1999,  in the past the designs were vetted by thedesign team
19:23:48 <rdieter> ke4qqq: so, you only object to the formalizing of the vetting?
19:24:04 <pingou> ke4qqq: not necessarily
19:24:27 <pingou> ke4qqq: quite often at event people have created goodies on their own, not necessarily advertising it before
19:24:28 <rdieter> in general, need to ensure the process is simple and fast, and folks should be happy
19:24:44 <ke4qqq> rdieter: /me hates that we add yet another layer - famna/famsco/emea folks do one layer, design does another and now we are adding yet another layer IMO
19:25:06 <pingou> there was time that people/entities were trusted to make good use of the trademark
19:25:08 <rbergeron> (and then that it gets paid for, and that we are able to track the payment, and able to bucketize it somehow....)
19:25:09 <rdieter> it's the same layer, just coordinated/centralized
19:25:09 <jds2001> ke4qqq: we can delegate that layer like we discussed last week.
19:25:28 <ke4qqq> yep - then someone at RHT has to approve and pay for it in most cases
19:25:36 <ke4qqq> unless it's a small order than the reg. credit cards can handle
19:25:38 <pingou> regional leaders/ famsco/entities having a trademark agreement
19:26:00 <inode0> almost every swag order can be handled by community credit cards
19:26:02 <rdieter> pingou: interesting... I wasn't aware of that.  could we decentralize this somehow?
19:26:54 <pingou> rdieter: I remember that when I started being involve in the french community, they had some sort of agreement that they could produce their own goodies
19:27:13 <pingou> unfortunately, we looked for email/traces of this agreement but couldn't find it last year
19:27:14 * rdieter wonders whatever happened to that ?
19:27:17 <inode0> Since I was just blindsided by this section I think I need time to think about it but my initial reaction is that ambassadors will stop producing swag
19:27:50 <pingou> rdieter: note that decentralizing is not against reporting production :)
19:27:52 <rbergeron> inode0: I think in many cases we have stopped producing swag anyhow
19:27:57 <cwickert> pingou: the times of trust are definitely over and I am not aware that regional leaders have signed a trademark agreement
19:28:03 <inode0> we produce all the swag there is now
19:28:12 <cwickert> question: who here has signed a TLA?
19:28:19 <ke4qqq> yes, - if there is swag it's community produced
19:28:19 <rbergeron> i mean in the past year - what have we bought aside from tee-shirts?
19:28:19 <inode0> and lots more than was produced before we started doing it
19:28:22 <ke4qqq> and rht payed for
19:28:33 <rbergeron> not counting media
19:28:42 <ke4qqq> badges? that maybe older than a year
19:28:52 <ke4qqq> stickers
19:28:53 <ke4qqq> pens
19:28:53 <rbergeron> i would look in hte budget page but
19:28:53 <Southern_Gentlem> rbergeron,  case badges pens, balloons
19:28:53 <ke4qqq> buttons
19:28:53 <rbergeron> ;)
19:28:56 <pingou> cwickert: I think the french npo did but I'd have to check that I'm not mixing up agreements :)
19:29:01 <ke4qqq> tattoos??
19:29:03 <Southern_Gentlem> stickers of 2 types
19:29:19 <rbergeron> IN THE PAST YEAR
19:29:22 <cwickert> pingou: the NPO is an exception because it is a NPO
19:29:26 <rbergeron> not in ye olden days
19:29:34 <jds2001> but again, the mere prescence of a TLA doesn't imply quality control.
19:29:41 <rbergeron> case badges
19:29:42 <cwickert> rbergeron: cheat-cubes
19:29:47 <rdieter> In the interest of not making perfect the enemy of the good, could we consider passing the draft *without* the additional ambassador section?  then consder adding something about it later?
19:29:55 <inode0> we control quality, I am not concerned about quality
19:30:02 <shaiton> cwickert, cheat cubes need refresh (systemd…)
19:30:03 <jds2001> inode0: im not either
19:30:07 <inode0> I am concerned about bureaucracy and paperwork
19:30:14 <jds2001> inode0: but RHT legal has an obligation here, sadly.
19:30:18 <pingou> jds2001: true, but when you produce a goodie you also want it to last for some time
19:30:20 <rbergeron> i mean i wonder if we're already suffering from bureaucracy and paperwork as is
19:30:33 <inode0> apparently they just recently discovered or decided to care about it
19:30:36 <ke4qqq> jds2001: i'd buy that except for the fact that it's gone on for years without needing this.
19:31:04 <cwickert> inode0: so am I. I have two major problems: One is quality control by lawyers and the second is the two examples of each batch
19:31:08 <rbergeron> perhaps understanding the reason why it's now needed would be more useful
19:31:20 <inode0> to make swag happen now I do not feel overwhelmed by paperwork or bureaucracy
19:31:23 <ke4qqq> perhaps the question is - is there a threat to the trademark operating as is - or is this to aid RHT legal in some way
19:31:28 <pingou> what has changed ? New legislations ?
19:31:44 <abadger1999> rdieter: I'm not sure but if we pass the new draft without that section, does it mean that ambassadors get no special treatment at all? ie: it's even harder for them to get stuff done?
19:31:56 <cwickert> and the third problem is: why does every design need to be re-approved? every single batch of ambassadors polos although they are exactly the same for years?
19:32:02 <rbergeron> ke4qqq: would you like to be in charge of asking the question to legal list?
19:32:05 <ke4qqq> if this makes the lives of RHT Legal easier, it's far less compelling - but I don't think that any swag gets made in secret.
19:32:11 <ke4qqq> rbergeron: sure
19:32:41 <rbergeron> cwickert: when is the famsco meeting
19:32:55 <rbergeron> or did it already fly by
19:33:14 <rdieter> abadger1999: sigh, so does the status quo trademark guidelines require approval too or not?
19:33:15 * rdieter reads
19:33:37 <cwickert> rbergeron: at 22:00 UTC but we are supposed to have a EMEA ambassadors meeting here in less than 30 minutes
19:34:11 <ke4qqq> rdieter: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Non-software_goods
19:34:28 <rbergeron> cwickert: famsco is at the same time as the go/no-go, heh
19:34:43 <rdieter> ke4qqq: ok, so approval was required before too, by the looks of it.
19:34:45 <cwickert> rbergeron: I thought that go/no-go was tomorrow?!
19:34:54 <rbergeron> go/no-go is today. readiness is tomorrow
19:34:59 <ke4qqq> rdieter: yeah and either ignored or perhaps some past board delegated it
19:35:15 <rdieter> so I don't understand what the hubub is all about
19:35:43 * abadger1999 proposes that we're not going to finish trademark guidelines today -- can inode0 or ke4qqqtake an action item to present proposed changes on fab?
19:35:55 <abadger1999> then we can have spot take it to rh legal.
19:36:11 <abadger1999> and we can take a brief look at the other two tickets.
19:36:15 <rbergeron> cwickert: i fumbled, you'll have to point go/no-go folks to -meeting-1
19:36:28 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: I have an action item to ask the earlier question about the impact of dropping that section from the guidelines
19:36:30 <rbergeron> we can talk laer ;) heh
19:36:34 * rbergeron can just hover in both places
19:36:56 <rdieter> abadger1999: +1
19:37:11 <rbergeron> ke4qqq: can you do the action of asking legal, and then come back with proposed changes?
19:37:12 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: an answer to that would impact any proposed change.
19:37:39 <ke4qqq> sure provided famsco/fams are willing to help draft said changes after we hear back
19:38:09 <rbergeron> i think there are at least 3 in here ATM who will help.
19:38:11 <rbergeron> :)
19:38:19 * ke4qqq wants to make sure the folks doing the work propose the changes
19:38:47 <abadger1999> #action ke4qqq will ask legal whether the new ambassadors portion of the policy attempts to protect the trademark or merely make tracking of something for legal easier
19:39:02 <rbergeron> cwickert, inode0, Southern_Gentlem - proliferate orders of swag, are you willing to help ke4qqq out?
19:39:58 <rbergeron> orderers
19:40:25 <cwickert> rbergeron: how exactly?
19:40:38 <cwickert> I mean, just removing the section or writing a new one?
19:40:50 <rbergeron> upon receiving answers to his q's - propose any changes
19:41:22 * cwickert has problems finding the questions here and is unsure how we could help
19:41:43 <cwickert> I am having questions myself, so why don't we just collect all questions and throw them at Pam?
19:42:06 <pingou> cwickert: one of them was pointed out by abadger1999 on his last #action
19:42:12 <ke4qqq> cwickert: worksforme - I'll send my initial questions after the meeting.
19:43:20 <cwickert> ke4qqq: that is a clear question, what need help here?
19:43:33 <abadger1999> ke4qqq: Are you willig to coordinate that (ie: summarize the answers that come back for the board/famsco/etc so everyone knows the questions asked and their answers)?
19:43:36 <ke4qqq> nothing on the question itself
19:43:41 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: yes
19:43:45 <rbergeron> THANK YOU
19:43:53 <cwickert> ok, I'll send my questions right now
19:43:55 * rbergeron looks at clock
19:44:17 * rbergeron proposes we shelve approval for this week pending responses and possible changes
19:44:36 <rdieter> indeed, +1
19:44:39 <abadger1999> #action ke4qqq to summarize questions and answers about the policy for interested parties to read.
19:44:39 <ke4qqq> worksforme
19:44:43 <abadger1999> +1
19:45:24 <rbergeron> #agreed approval of TM guidelines will wait another week pending responses to questions and possible proposed changes
19:45:41 <rbergeron> Tickets?
19:45:47 <abadger1999> yeah
19:45:52 <abadger1999> Ticket #134: User of Fedora Logo in Boxes seemed relatively straightforward  let's do it
19:46:05 <rbergeron> #topic Ticket #134 use of fedora logo in Boxes
19:46:15 <abadger1999> I fear we'll run out of time for the Fedora LTS ticket, though.
19:46:32 <rbergeron> abadger: and we have not covered rex's goals, either
19:46:39 <abadger1999> ah shoot.
19:46:48 <rbergeron> i think 134 is somewhat time sensitive at the moment though
19:46:53 <abadger1999> k
19:47:01 <abadger1999> I saw no reason to deny this request.
19:47:32 <jds2001> /me wonders how it differs from virt-manager request last year.
19:48:11 <rbergeron> I don't either, though I do wonder about what happens when "boxes" is shipped in a different distro - do they have to then ask for trademark approval for use of the logo as well? or is the upstream permission enough?
19:48:45 <jds2001> but i see no reason to deny it either
19:48:46 <jreznik_> good question
19:49:11 * jds2001 would think that upstream would be good, but IANAL
19:49:17 <rbergeron> jds2001: same here
19:49:26 * rdieter assumes they only need to ask once, otherwise about be silly.  lawyers tend to be silly though
19:49:38 <rbergeron> rdieter: see prevoius hour of logs ;)
19:49:45 * jds2001 thinks being silly is a prerequisite to being a lawyer :)
19:50:16 * rbergeron looks at ke4qqq, cwickert, rdieter for thoughts
19:50:24 <rbergeron> jreznik ;)
19:50:31 <rbergeron> rudi ;)
19:50:42 <rdieter> I say just +1 it, and be done with it.
19:50:47 * zeenix is here to answer any questions on this
19:50:52 <rdieter> whether boxes needs to ask more elsewhere isn't really our problem
19:51:02 * ke4qqq is parsing spots response again
19:51:05 * cwickert has no idea about this. I see no reason to deny it but I was not a board member last year
19:51:32 <abadger1999> jds2001: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-April/001611.html
19:51:36 <cwickert> zeenix: will the logo be shipped as part of the boxes rpm or will the boxes app just use the one installed in the system?
19:52:02 <zeenix> cwickert: it will be shipped as part of tarball and rpm
19:52:10 <abadger1999> jds2001: Which looks to me like it's just: Need explicit approval -- which spot has clarified this time as something that we, the Board, are allowed to grant.
19:52:17 <zeenix> cwickert: distros can decide to remove the logos if they wish
19:52:38 <cwickert> zeenix: this is a no-go in Fedora, we must not even distribute it in the tarball inside the srpm
19:52:51 <inode0> !
19:52:53 <jds2001> abadger1999: i see no reason to deny it.
19:52:57 <abadger1999> jds2001: in the virt-manager case, richard was more asking about the software being able to use logos from all the operating systems it was hosting... and that portion would not be up to us.
19:53:04 <abadger1999> inode0: Go ahead
19:53:06 <zeenix> cwickert: how should we distribute it then?
19:53:08 <inode0> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Promotional_events
19:53:17 <inode0> that is the current section covering ambassadors
19:53:33 <jds2001> why is ist verboten oo include it in the rpm?
19:53:37 <cwickert> zeenix: not that this is a technical problem. you can distribute them in the tarball and we remove them and repackage the tarball
19:53:39 <inode0> and as long as we do thing right it does not require permission
19:53:47 <jds2001> if they have a valid license...
19:53:50 <zeenix> cwickert: ah ok :)
19:53:54 <pingou> cwickert: that's the whole point of the question, being allowed to do it
19:53:54 <cwickert> jds2001: only fedora-logos rpm may contain the logo
19:54:37 * rdieter tries to remember why that is...
19:54:56 <cwickert> not sure where there guideline for this is, but I have a package that has the same problem. I want to use the logo in the panel and I need to add a requirement on the virtual Provides: system-logos
19:54:59 <jds2001> rdieter: probably to make it easier to remove
19:55:02 <jds2001> for respins
19:55:05 <rdieter> right.
19:55:23 <cwickert> the idea is, you can rebrand Fedora by interchanging one package
19:55:27 <jds2001> but i think an exception could be granted here, since upstream would have a valid TM license.
19:55:30 <cwickert> not sure if this idea applies here, though
19:55:33 <rdieter> so, would respins have less or no right to use the logo from boxes?  I'd argue no
19:55:39 <pingou> which would not be a problem here since upstream is allowed to have the logo
19:55:44 <jds2001> rdieter: +1
19:56:12 <cwickert> if upstream was granted the right, then I don't see any problems
19:56:20 * jreznik_ neither
19:56:29 <jds2001> but at any rate, this is really in the weeds, and we're over time.
19:56:32 <pingou> cwickert: it's up to you to grant this right
19:56:35 * jds2001 is +1 to the license :)
19:57:03 <abadger1999> +1
19:57:14 <cwickert> not even for inclusion, because we don't want to rebrand boxes but only Fedora. you might want to run Fedora in a box on a rebranded remix and therefor I am
19:57:16 <cwickert> +1
19:57:19 * ke4qqq is -1 to granting a license, but is ok with us granting specific permission in line with spots email (besides - who could sign for upstream - the gnome foundation)
19:57:42 <cwickert> can we say the question about packaging will be handled by FPC?
19:57:54 <rdieter> ke4qqq: granting permission in line with spot's mail is precisely what we're going.
19:58:05 <ke4qqq> rdieter: hmmm then why the talk of a TLA?
19:58:06 <jds2001> cwickert: sure, any packaging question should be handled by FPC, not just this one :)
19:58:16 <jds2001> ke4qqq: not a TLA, sorry
19:58:18 <pingou> zeenix: if I was you I'd include in the source the text allowing you to use XX trademark
19:58:19 <jds2001> ke4qqq: permission.
19:58:28 * ke4qqq is +1 with permission.
19:58:30 <abadger1999> cwickert: yeah -- probably want to specifically call out the guideline about the logo in packages other than fedora-logos for FPC to change.
19:58:54 <zeenix> pingou: you mean the text under the logos?
19:58:55 <jreznik_> +1 permission
19:58:55 <abadger1999> cwickert: Seems like a good general change as it has a wholly different rationale than this.
19:59:00 * rudi is +1 on permission
19:59:01 * rbergeron is +1 for permission
19:59:09 <cwickert> abadger1999: I think it is reasonable to have it in the package, even in the tarball
19:59:10 * rdieter already +1'd in the ticket
19:59:14 <pingou> zeenix: the email you will get officially allowing you to chip the fedora logo
19:59:30 <abadger1999> +1  on permission
19:59:49 <zeenix> pingou: s/chip/ship/ ?
19:59:53 * cwickert thinks agreed
19:59:54 <pingou> oups
19:59:55 <rbergeron> okay, that's +..8?
20:00:33 <rbergeron> who wants to word the permission response?
20:00:45 <pingou> maybe spot should ?
20:01:15 <ke4qqq> rbergeron: if you don't get another volunteer I'll spend my afternoon in email anyway
20:01:26 <rbergeron> ke4qqq: that's a big bus heading your way
20:01:46 <rbergeron> ;)
20:02:12 <rbergeron> #action ke4qqq to respond to ticket/email indicating permission granted
20:02:21 <rbergeron> thank you. sorry about the tire marks
20:02:27 <abadger1999> Thank you ke4qqq!
20:02:28 * cwickert wonders what we should do about the ambassadors meeting that is supposed to take place here NOW
20:02:38 <rbergeron> cwickert: I'm ending this meeting :)
20:02:41 <abadger1999> I think we should end the board meeting :-)
20:02:45 <cwickert> cool :)
20:02:45 * rbergeron is going to close out in 15 seconds, we're out of time
20:02:57 * rbergeron thanks everyone for coming and participating and giving feedback :)
20:03:04 <pingou> mais #info on the last tickets that it is postponed
20:03:11 <pingou> s/mais/maybe/
20:03:28 <rbergeron> #info Other tickets postponed until next meeting or otherwise indicated.
20:03:30 <rbergeron> #endmeeting