On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:50:12AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Aleksey Lim <alsr...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 07:13:26PM -0400, Walter Bender wrote: > >> Buried in the meeting log [1] is a motion [5] to adopt three changes > >> [2, 3, 4] to the Trademark [6] and Local Labs [7] pages in the wiki. > >> The motion was seconded and we began a vote, but whereas it seemed to > >> be a controversial decision, I though it prudent to ask those who were > >> not able to attend today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting to also > >> vote. > >> > >> So far, > >> > >> walter +1 > >> cjl +1 > >> > >> icarito -1 > >> > >> alsroot has not voted yet. > > > > My purpose for not [yet, until making the situation clear] voting is > > that I still don't see any difference between arguing sides, because > > the only difference I see is that arguing sides are talking about > > different subjects. > > > > If I got it right, the conflict point is [4]. For me, it is clear that > > it is *only* about legal cases (and even [4] is changing nothing because > > it is exactly how community driven FOSS projects behave), i.e., where > > SFC is providing services for SL. And actually it is 0.01% of all SL > > work. > > > > And if I'm right in my vision, the only problem lays in presenting > > [6] [7] in proper light, i.e., avoid treating [6] and [7] by people as > > a main policy regarding all possible relations between SL and SL labs > > ([6] and [7] are only about legal/official relations and it is 0.01% of > > all possible relations). > > I think your analysis is correct. The SFC is asking us to make changes > to the language on our wiki to reflect the actual facts regarding the > relationship between the project and the Conservancy. While we may > quibble about the niceties of the wording, the facts don't change. I > think the language is clear. There was one proposal made to change it, > which the SFC rejected for reasons I need not repeat again here. I > don't understand the need to discuss it further. In fact, in some > ways, since we are discussing facts, not opinion, I am not sure that > we have any role here other than to acknowledge the facts and to > communicate clearly to our community what those facts are. I think the > current language does that. > > Please cast your vote or abstain, as we need to bring this matter of > fact to closure one way or another.
I hope it was clear what I was trying to say. my +1 for the [5] And for sure, [5] should not go to [7] directly and go to, e.g.: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Local_Labs/Legal_treatment because [7] is the start page for any LL related efforts, but [5] is very specific matter and only for people who take care about legal treatment. > >> [1] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10 > >> [2] > >> http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739410 > >> [3] > >> http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739421 > >> [4] > >> http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739445 > >> [5] > >> http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739570 > >> [6] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark > >> [7] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Local_Labs > >> [8] > >> http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739707 -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep