[IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
alsroot at sugarlabs.org
Thu May 31 12:34:49 EDT 2012
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:50:12AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> 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
> >> 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 . 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
> > work.
> > 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.
I hope it was clear what I was trying to say.
my +1 for the 
And for sure,  should not go to  directly and go to, e.g.:
because  is the start page for any LL related efforts, but  is very
specific matter and only for people who take care about legal treatment.
> >>  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
More information about the IAEP