Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 21:25 -0400, Walter Bender escribió: This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered lost. I'd like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit their requests so as to formalize them as well. I had all 3 requests in my inbox. I'm +1 for all 3 of them. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://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] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
On 07/12/2010 07:58 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 21:25 -0400, Walter Bender escribió: This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered lost. I'd like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit their requests so as to formalize them as well. I had all 3 requests in my inbox. I'm +1 for all 3 of them. Walter forwarded the 3 requests. +1 from me to all 3. If that's a +1 from Walter, Bernie, and myself, we need one more SLOBs +1 vote on each to pass it. --Mel ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
Hi, Walter forwarded the 3 requests. +1 from me to all 3. If that's a +1 from Walter, Bernie, and myself, we need one more SLOBs +1 vote on each to pass it. +1 vote on each from me too. Thanks for pushing on this, Mel! - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org 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] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
Mel Chua wrote: On 07/12/2010 07:58 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 21:25 -0400, Walter Bender escribió: This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered lost. I'd like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit their requests so as to formalize them as well. I had all 3 requests in my inbox. I'm +1 for all 3 of them. Walter forwarded the 3 requests. +1 from me to all 3. If that's a +1 from Walter, Bernie, and myself, we need one more SLOBs +1 vote on each to pass it. +1 on all 3 Thanks CL, AR, PY -- you're now Sugar Labs trademark-legal :) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
Yupi! Gonzalo SugarLabs Argentina :) On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Holt h...@laptop.org wrote: Mel Chua wrote: On 07/12/2010 07:58 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 21:25 -0400, Walter Bender escribió: This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered lost. I'd like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit their requests so as to formalize them as well. I had all 3 requests in my inbox. I'm +1 for all 3 of them. Walter forwarded the 3 requests. +1 from me to all 3. If that's a +1 from Walter, Bernie, and myself, we need one more SLOBs +1 vote on each to pass it. +1 on all 3 Thanks CL, AR, PY -- you're now Sugar Labs trademark-legal :) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- Gonzalo Odiard Responsable de Desarrollo Sistemas Australes ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 06:54 -0400, Mel Chua escribió: Our meetbot does some truly awful meeting minutes formatting, but here's the summary of http://me.etin.gs/sugar-meeting/sugar-meeting.minutes.20100711_0446.html: It was a wonderful SLOBs un-meeting, we should have more of these! * Local Labs TM applications can't be found, so we'll drop this topic until a Local Lab is indeed blocked by lack of TM permission, at which point they should ping SLOBs (via emailing the slobs and iaep lists with their request - doesn't have to be formal, just needs to be publicly documented somewhere) so we can +1 them. DONE! To minimize the overhead of funding future Local Labs, we may want to implicitly grant TM usage consistently with the approval of the lab itself. * Question from Kevin Mark: Who should be the deciding organization for who determines what version of sugar is used in the field? (Hitting the list shortly as a separate discussion thread, but no action really needed - just a good point to bring up.) My viewpoint is that Sugar Labs as a whole shouldn't officially endorse, recommend or support anything at all. The decision to take such commitment is up to the individuals (or teams, or companies) who are willing to put the weight of their professional expertise behind the projects they're interested in. In other words, we as a community-driven organization shall not interfere as long as the laws of self-organization are doing their job right :-) This reflects Mel's projects proposal and Tomeu's view that Sugar Labs is a place to work together, not one of the players itself. What else do people consider the most pressing topics to the future of SL? How are we doing? Are we reaching our goals? (What are they?) These should be the agenda items we discuss. Didn't we set goals for 2010 a while ago? It would be nice to review them now. In my mind, this year we're seing a huge leap forward in the Sugar Labs community. Relationships with OLPC have enormously improved and deployments are starting to get engaged in development. The relationship with Fedora is as strong as ever and Debian/Ubuntu are coming along. My #1 priority for this year was to close the gap between what our development team releases and what OLPC deployments are rolling out, which seems to be happening now. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://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] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 06:54 -0400, Mel Chua escribió: Our meetbot does some truly awful meeting minutes formatting, but here's the summary of http://me.etin.gs/sugar-meeting/sugar-meeting.minutes.20100711_0446.html: It was a wonderful SLOBs un-meeting, we should have more of these! * Local Labs TM applications can't be found, so we'll drop this topic until a Local Lab is indeed blocked by lack of TM permission, at which point they should ping SLOBs (via emailing the slobs and iaep lists with their request - doesn't have to be formal, just needs to be publicly documented somewhere) so we can +1 them. DONE! To minimize the overhead of funding future Local Labs, we may want to implicitly grant TM usage consistently with the approval of the lab itself. This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered lost. I'd like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit their requests so as to formalize them as well. * Question from Kevin Mark: Who should be the deciding organization for who determines what version of sugar is used in the field? (Hitting the list shortly as a separate discussion thread, but no action really needed - just a good point to bring up.) My viewpoint is that Sugar Labs as a whole shouldn't officially endorse, recommend or support anything at all. The decision to take such commitment is up to the individuals (or teams, or companies) who are willing to put the weight of their professional expertise behind the projects they're interested in. In other words, we as a community-driven organization shall not interfere as long as the laws of self-organization are doing their job right :-) This reflects Mel's projects proposal and Tomeu's view that Sugar Labs is a place to work together, not one of the players itself. OLPC and other downstreams should be deciding this for themselves. We can offer opinions of course, but the most important thing is to help downstream organize support and to continue to evolve the platform to meet the needs of learners. What else do people consider the most pressing topics to the future of SL? How are we doing? Are we reaching our goals? (What are they?) These should be the agenda items we discuss. Didn't we set goals for 2010 a while ago? It would be nice to review them now. In my mind, this year we're seing a huge leap forward in the Sugar Labs community. Relationships with OLPC have enormously improved and deployments are starting to get engaged in development. The relationship with Fedora is as strong as ever and Debian/Ubuntu are coming along. My #1 priority for this year was to close the gap between what our development team releases and what OLPC deployments are rolling out, which seems to be happening now. FYI http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22#Goals_for_2010_2 -walter -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ SLOBs mailing list sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs -- 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] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered lost. I'd like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit their requests so as to formalize them as well. Walter, can you send links to the Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay apps to these lists? (I'm really not trying to nitpick or block these applications, I just could not for the life of me find them while searching SLOBs and IAEP mail archives last night... it is entirely possible I missed them in plain sight, or they're somewhere I haven't looked. I would be super-thrilled to +1 them when we see the apps we are approving...) --Mel ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
