Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
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 -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
+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 Limalsr...@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 Limalsr...@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
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
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). cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. Tony, could you please chime in? thanks. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org [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 ___ SLOBs mailing list sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
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. regards. -walter cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. Tony, could you please chime in? thanks. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org [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 ___ SLOBs mailing list sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs -- Aleksey -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
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
[IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
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. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. Tony, could you please chime in? thanks. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org [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 ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
Hi, I'm sorry I wasn't there; it conflicted with OLPC's weekly engineering meeting. I should be able to make the next meeting. Responding in reverse order: On Wed, May 30 2012, Walter Bender wrote: Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. I don't think this needs to be voted on -- we can talk to Tony without voting to decide to talk to Tony. Let's do that. 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. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Since we'd like to consider revising the third statement, I'll vote -1 on this motion -- my impression is that we don't all consider the proposed wording ready to be decided on, which is a good reason not to adopt it yet. (Voting this way now doesn't mean I'd definitely vote this way again on the same text in the future; it's because we're still looking into revising the text, not because I find the change unacceptable.) Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/ One Laptop Per Child ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
Hello, Not meaning to get in the way of the motion but after reading the log and the back and forth, may I suggest the following wording that I believe takes care of the legal, honors the concerns voiced, makes it more inviting, and suggests an informal non-legal association. Present: Sugar Labs Local Labs are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with Sugar Labs or the Software Freedom Conservancy. Revised: Sugar Labs Local Labs, although vital to the Sugar Labs community ecosystem, are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with Sugar Labs or the Software Freedom Conservancy. Hope it may help move the process forward. Best! John Tierney Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:13:26 -0400 From: walter.ben...@gmail.com To: h...@laptop.org; gerald.ard...@gmail.com; c...@laptop.org CC: t...@sfconservancy.org; bk...@sfconservancy.org; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org Subject: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion 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. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. Tony, could you please chime in? thanks. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org [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 ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Chris Ball c...@laptop.org wrote: Hi, I'm sorry I wasn't there; it conflicted with OLPC's weekly engineering meeting. I should be able to make the next meeting. Responding in reverse order: On Wed, May 30 2012, Walter Bender wrote: Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. I don't think this needs to be voted on -- we can talk to Tony without voting to decide to talk to Tony. Let's do that. As I noted in the meeting. I did reach out to Tony, and he has responded: I can't approve this edit. 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. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Since we'd like to consider revising the third statement, I'll vote -1 on this motion -- my impression is that we don't all consider the proposed wording ready to be decided on, which is a good reason not to adopt it yet. So noted. What do you suggest we do to get to the point were we can bring this to closure? (Voting this way now doesn't mean I'd definitely vote this way again on the same text in the future; it's because we're still looking into revising the text, not because I find the change unacceptable.) The revision proposed by Icarito was not acceptable to the SFC. Are there other revisions on the table? Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/ One Laptop Per Child regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
+1 Gerald On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com 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. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. Tony, could you please chime in? thanks. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org [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 ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
