+1 to the motion adopting Tony's text.
Thanks for the hard work of so many.
On 6/1/2012 9:20 AM, Walter Bender wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Aleksey Lim<alsr...@sugarlabs.org> wrote:
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
We've not heard from Adam, but nonetheless, the motion passes, 4 for,
2 against. I will update the wiki ASAP.
Regarding Icarito's proposal, since Tony was not happy with the
language, it is moot.
Of course, we will entertain additional motions for refining the text,
but meanwhile, I suggest we invest effort in discussing New Co, which
is more liely to be able to accommodate some of the needs of local
community groups.
regards.
-walter
--
Help kids everywhere map their world, at http://olpcMAP.net !
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
