[IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
walter.bender at gmail.com
Thu May 31 07:50:12 EDT 2012
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Aleksey Lim <alsroot at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 07:13:26PM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
>> Buried in the meeting log  is a motion  to adopt three changes
>> [2, 3, 4] to the Trademark  and Local Labs  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
>> 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 . For me, it is clear that
> it is *only* about legal cases (and even  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
> And if I'm right in my vision, the only problem lays in presenting
>   in proper light, i.e., avoid treating  and  by people as
> a main policy regarding all possible relations between SL and SL labs
> ( and  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.
>> cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present.
>> Please respond to this email with your vote.
>> Also, there was motion , not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK
>> with a change in the wording of . There was not consensus on the
>> wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input.
>> Tony, could you please chime in?
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>>  http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10
>>  http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739410
>>  http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739421
>>  http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739445
>>  http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739570
>>  http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark
>>  http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Local_Labs
>>  http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739707
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the IAEP