17:01 #startmeeting Community Council 17:01 Meeting started Thu May 15 17:01:09 2014 UTC. The chair is pleia2. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 17:01 17:01 Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 17:01 * pleia2 rounds up usual suspects 17:01 o/ 17:01 o/ 17:01 hi lyz, michael 17:01 o/ 17:01 #chair elfy cprofitt dholbach czajkowski 17:01 Current chairs: cprofitt czajkowski dholbach elfy pleia2 17:02 Hiya :) 17:02 hiza 17:02 #chair mhall119 17:02 Current chairs: cprofitt czajkowski dholbach elfy mhall119 pleia2 17:02 there we go 17:02 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda 17:03 oh, that was unexpected 17:03 oh, we're all chair, ok then 17:03 who's up first? 17:03 so first up on our agenda is Membership Board 17:03 #topic Membership Board catch up 17:04 I see Pendulum and s-fox here from the board, anyone else? 17:04 IdleOne might be coming (I've just poked him to check) 17:04 good to see you again Pendulum, haven't chatted with you in a long time :) 17:05 how have things been going on the Membership Board? :) 17:06 Generally okay, few items we'd like to go over with the cc though 17:06 In general things have been pretty good. 17:06 shall we talk about quorum? 17:06 oh hi 17:06 yeah, quorum seemed to be the biggest obstacle 17:07 sure, okay 17:07 that is, membeship meeting without enough people to actually vote on the applicants 17:07 In general, I think that's been improving. 17:07 I don't think that's the issue.. I think the issue is how many votes are required for an approval 17:08 it has been improving, but we're finding it hard to decide if someone is approved or not. 17:08 cjohnston: that's really dependent on how many people are there to vote though 17:08 some of us were chatting a bit about it since you last brought it up, and I can't remember who brought up the idea, but one approach we talked about was that we could ask applicants to hand in their application earlier (let's say a few days), so members of the board who can't make it could send in their vote by mail 17:08 for example if everyone votes +0 and then someone goes +1 it is technically approved. 17:08 it just doesn't look right with the lack of support 17:08 another idea was that if there weren't enough members of the board around to make a decision during the meeting, the vote could be taken to mail 17:08 ... which is what the DMB has been doing 17:09 If we do the voting by mail, we might as well not have meetings and just do all voting by mail 17:09 We have been moving applications when there isn't quorum to e-mail 17:09 the advantage of both ideas is that we wouldn't get into voting arithmetics :) 17:09 so let's tackle these one at a time, quorum first then what technically consitutes approval 17:09 Pendulum: so the voting and discussions continue over email after the meeting? 17:09 cjohnston, I disagree - it's always worth having a chat and resolving questions which might be not answered on the wiki 17:09 mhall119: If there isn't quorum it does 17:09 cjohnston: no, DMB still has public meetings so people can apply in public and everything is recorded 17:09 dholbach: in that case, the people who have already voted have voted without those answers 17:10 Pendulum: out of the number of times the discussion and voting went to email, how often was a final vote taken? 17:10 cjohnston, some might already know that person, etc 17:10 It could sway my vote, but was never given the opportunity to sway someone elses vote 17:10 cjohnston: afaik on list voting happens after the meeting 17:10 pleia2: +1 17:10 pleia2: that wasn't dholbach's suggestion 17:10 mhall119: I think we have had final votes on all of them. Very few in those situations have been rejected 17:11 ok, so that's been effective then, that's good to hear 17:11 We do have some meetings where a member who isn't going to make it has let us know in advance either on IRC or the mailing list what their vote would be. 17:11 We also, I think, have really mostly been making qorum 17:11 cjohnston: dholbach was suggesting votes via email as a fallback when you can't attend the meeting, not at the preferred method 17:12 mhall119, thanks for clarifying this 17:12 and it sounds like that's already been happening 17:12 Things have improved a lot in recent meetings, especially with regards to voting on the mailing list in advance if you are likely to be able to unattend 17:12 so it sounds like quorum typically isn't the issue, mostly it's a numbers thing, if quorum to hold a meeting is 4 does three +1s and one -1 equal approval 17:12 here 17:12 My impression is that it's the 12:00 UTC board that is having more problem, but that may just be due to my being on that board :) (the members who never show on that board are among those expiring at the end of the month) 17:12 pleia2: exactly 17:12 so do we need to officially endorse email votes as a fallback, or can we just say "carry on" with doing it? 17:13 "ask applicants to hand in their application earlier (let's say a few days), so members of the board who can't make it could send in their vote by mail" what is the point of turning them in earlier if the voting doesn't start until later? 17:13 mhall119: ^ 17:13 cjohnston: so people have longer time to read them 17:13 cjohnston: I read that as voting by mail after the meeting, not before 17:13 then they don't need to turn them in earlier. 17:13 cjohnston: shouldn't applicants already submit their application early enough for board members to review before the meeting? 17:14 I believe there already is a requirement 17:14 currently it's 24 hours on the wiki 17:14 so they have time to read app, read meeting, send in vote; I think the only time there would be an exception is if they know something specific about the applicant that would make them reject them regardless 17:14 so then there's no change to what's happening, just making what's happening officially approved 17:14 that sounds good to me :) 17:14 i do a review roughly 3 or 4 days before the meeting in my own time. i have been known to be a slow reader and also be sure i understand the applicant 17:14 pleia2: or when they would approve them regardless 17:14 mhall119: yeah 17:15 anyway, quorum 17:15 my impression was always that it was 4 to hold a meeting, then a majority of those folks had to +1 17:16 a majority had to vote +1, or the the final tally had to be >= +1? 17:16 We all agree on the 4.. it's the latter part as mhall119 says 17:16 majority had to vote +1 17:16 so +3-1 would be approved? 17:16 or a minimum of 4 +1's regardless of final tally 17:16 but when I was on the board it wasn't usually an issue because we had a back channel where we typically came to a consensus 17:16 if someone felt really strongly about a -1, we all took that pretty seriously 17:17 we end up with +0 and +1 normally in this situation 17:17 In most cases we do come to consensus 17:17 cjohnston: is that because of a lot of +0s, or because of a balance of +1 and -1? 17:17 Unless I am mistaken we had an applicant who was technically approved on the 22:00 UTC meeting but we were concerned by lack of +1's from the board and went to the mailing list. Can any of the board remember who it was? 17:17 so is 2 +0's and 2 +1's approved? 17:17 s-fox: are you refereing to the Canonical employee? 17:17 cjohnston: a majority of 4 would mean 3 :) 17:17 We do have a back channel. The question in my mind is do we need a majority in favor regardless of the number of voting members. or do we need a minimum of positive votes 17:18 if the rule is "majority of votes are +1" then 4 votes would require 3 +1s 17:18 No cjohnston , i think it was after that. 17:18 pleia2: I understand majority.. but that wasn't the only thing thrown out 17:18 hi folks, sorry to be late 17:18 welcome sabdfl 17:18 hello 17:18 it seems there was some confusion as to what the actual rule on approval was 17:18 hi sabdfl 17:18 hiya, sorry I was late 17:18 hi shadeslayer sabdfl 17:18 mhall119: correct. and that's what we need defined 17:19 pleia2: so the rule is "majority of votes are +1", regardless of final tally, and a quorom of 4, is that correct? 17:19 mhall119: that's always been my understanding 17:19 so 3 or more +1s, depending on how many votes are cast 17:19 that would make sense to me 17:19 The bot does give a verdict for us, but sometimes it just feels wrong. 17:19 then we should put this in writing somewhere 17:19 Can the bot be reworked? 17:20 yes it can 17:20 I think the bot does math, becasue that's how some teams do it 17:20 !meetingology 17:20 meetingology is a bot that runs !meetings and produces minutes - information at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology 17:20 ubottu: Error: "is" is not a valid command. 17:20 lol 17:20 bot fight 17:20 ok... shall we talk about the nominations as well? 17:21 can we tell meeting-ology about the decisions so far recarding quorum and approval rules? 17:21 so it's in the minutes 17:21 mhall119: it says there's a way to tell it a minimum number of +1s to pass 17:21 Pendulum: the bot does? 17:21 Pendulum: per session? 17:22 ah, yes, # votesrequired, nice 17:22 the bot has a command to set #requiredvotes 17:22 Pendulum: you just have to know how many votes will be cast ahead of time and calculate the majority value 17:22 so I just want to be clear.. to be approved it is 1/2 of the voters +1, correct? 17:22 mhall119: ^ 17:22 that is not the issue though, what we would like defined is what that number is 17:22 cjohnston: 50%+1 17:22 ack 17:23 can this be tested with the bot? 17:23 s-fox: yep, #meetingology is the playground for that 17:23 does anybody mind if I tell the bot about what's been agreed to so far about getting quorum via email votes when it's not achieved in the meeting? 17:23 mhall119: please do 17:24 #agreed when quorum is not reached in a meeting, votes can continue via email until quorum is reached 17:24 * mhall119 assumes the bot got that 17:24 yeah, it doesn't echo anymore 17:24 now, on that note, does voting via email automatically stop when quorum is reached? 17:24 Would you like us to test and come back to the CC, or is this something you will be looking into yourself ? 17:24 mhall119: I'd say so 17:25 pleia2: that wouldn't allow everybody to vote then 17:25 mhall119: nope, it's as it's always been 17:25 We can set a time limit for email voting 17:25 1 week? 17:25 IdleOne: that works for me 17:25 if there are 3 people at the meeting, there is no quorum, so it goes to email, then the very next person to vote would end the voting 17:25 I like seeing folks walk away from a meeting with an answer, not wait on email voting unless there is an issue 17:26 agreed 17:26 pleia2: that's ideal - but not what always happens 17:26 dholbach: agreed to which? 17:26 mhall119, sorry, what pleia2 said before 17:26 elfy: hence "unless there isan issue" :) 17:27 pleia2: I think we're all on the same page there, the preference is to have quorum at the meeting and give people a yes or no answer then and there 17:27 the question now is how to handle where there isn't quorum at the meeting 17:27 then it goes to e-mail 17:27 I think typically the meeting isn't held if there isn't quorum, or they grab CC members to fill in 17:28 if there are, say, 3 board members who are absent and it goes to email, do we wait for all 3 to vote or do we end voting as soon as quorum is reached and the others don't get a chance? 17:28 speaking of going to email: shall we move some of the discussion to mail? I'm just raising this because we're meeting up with the kubuntu folks today as well 17:28 mhall119: I think the best thing is to set a time limit on the email voting. Those members who get the vote in on time get counted. 17:28 IdleOne: but only if there isn't quorum at the meeting, right? 17:29 pleia2: correct 17:29 mhall119: if it goes to e-mail I see no reason why not just wait the week as IdleOne suggests and use all the votes 17:29 correct 17:29 wfm 17:29 and me 17:29 cool :) 17:29 if there is quorum (4 voting members) at the meeting there is no need for email votes 17:29 great 17:30 #agreed if voting goes to email for quorum, board members will be given a deadline of one week to cast their vote 17:30 can I note down the approval rule as agreed to? 17:30 "majority of votes cast must be +1"? 17:30 please do 17:30 so the other thing with membership boards should be pretty quick - we don't have enough applicants for the spaces available on the boards 17:30 it looks like we're lacking some nominations for the 12UTC meetings, so it probably might make sense to extend the time on the board for the expiring members and have another call for help? maybe ask the EMEA people on the loco contacts list? 17:31 * pleia2 nods 17:31 #agreed applicants are approved when a majority of votes cast are +1, regardless of the final total, as long as quorum is reached 17:31 Quite honestly, only 1 of the expiring members on 12UTC has shown up for meetings for at least a year 17:31 :\ 17:32 Pendulum, is the time popular among applicants? 17:32 that time zone region has always been tough to staff 17:32 I tried to stimulate getting this resolved by changing the time. It was generally not received well and people were saying they would struggle even more. 17:33 Part of what happened is that most of the 12UTC board is actually people on the East Coast of the US. So moving it earlier makes it more difficult for us, but moving it later means that the A/O folks can't make it 17:34 is it worth having a 12UTC board then? 17:34 My impression was that when we had 3 boards and that one met at 10UTC, there was even more trouble reaching quorum than we have at 12UTC 17:34 if it's difficult for the board, surely it's difficult for applicants too 17:34 It is a shame that time is in the middle of the working day in europe. 17:34 We do get applicants who would not be able to make 22UTC 17:35 mhall119: I think that it's more that it's difficult to get the board there rather than applicants from what I've seen 17:35 exactly 17:35 mhall119: we want more APAC applicants, I fear removing the board spot would make it harder for them and prepetuate the imbalance 17:35 We have never had a problem with applicants. the list is usually well populated 17:35 s-fox: thanks 17:35 the problem is the board voting. 17:36 I do think we've gotten better with getting quorum for 12UTC 17:36 and is that because it's in the middle of their work day and they can't attend? 17:36 or too early in the morning/late at night to attend? 17:36 can we try to mail locos in those regions? 17:36 mhall119: it's more because it's either really early or really late. I don't think there's anyone from EMEA on that board 17:37 dholbach: that's what I'm thinking 17:37 ok... I'll send a mail to the CC and membership board to organise this 17:37 I'm not actually sure if there are many, if any, EMEA folks on either board these days. 17:37 dholbach: thank you :) 17:37 dholbach: thanks :) 17:37 I would look to get myself put on that board, except it conflicts with my work day 17:38 is there anything else for membership boards, before we run out of time to sync with kubuntu folks? 17:38 thank you, mhall119 17:38 Pendulum, i think this is the time to mention the renewals 17:38 mhall119: That's it :) 17:38 #agreed extend nomination period for membership boards so we can reach out to locos to find more for 1200 slot 17:38 lol 17:39 I'd like to thanks everyone on the Membership Boards for their hard working and stepping in when other board members couldn't make it. It's fun to get to chat with aspiring Ubuntu members, but it's also hard to make a decision. So thanks a lot everyone! :) 17:39 #topic Kubuntu catch up 17:40 o/ 17:40 \o/ 17:40 hi folks, we took notes in advance of this meeting: https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/CCmeeting 17:40 hello everyone! 17:40 yay notes! 17:41 however I can put in the items one at a time so they are here in the backlog 17:41 first, thank you for asking to catch up with us 17:41 it's lovely to meet with y'all 17:42 so, since we last met, we've encountered some issues. Summing up: 17:42 heya 17:42 Since last year, the threats of legal action against Mint and other derivative distributions have upset our community. We were disappointed in the reaction of the CC -- it seemed to us that the CC was just doing as Canonical directed, rather than work with Mint to bring them into the community. 17:42 comments? 17:42 first I'd like to say that the CC intesely discussed this for months trying to A) understand it and B) come to consensus on it 17:43 we don't expect a change, frankly 17:43 but we're disappointed about that 17:43 it's a complex issue that has little to do with technology or community, and a lot to do with vague legal precedence and laws 17:44 from our pov, legal issues never had to come into it, if a friendly hand had been extended 17:44 extended to whom? 17:44 the mint community 17:45 I believe the Mint community is statisfied with what was offered and how it was offered 17:45 cool 17:45 we never heard anything from them, despite multiple requests for their input on the subject 17:46 I don't want to bang on about this, but as far as we know, their first contact was vague legal threats 17:46 speaking personally, I requested advice on this subject for Qimo and was given a similar trademark usage license from Canonical 17:46 rather than friendliness 17:46 I'm still quite fuzzy on how this works for ubuntu derivatives btw, does this mean trademarks are enforcable on packages just because the version has the string "ubuntu" in it? 17:46 valorie: we know there were many contacts, and again we never heard anything back from the mint community on it 17:46 we don't have control over what Canonical legal did, we didn't even know about this until after and thats when we attempted many times to make friendly contact 17:47 well, you are already rather friendly with ubuntu and canonical michael! 17:47 shadeslayer: no, it's much more complex and legally than that 17:47 we really did the best we could, for months, it was agonizing 17:47 valorie: doesn't matter to the legal team :) 17:47 or does this only extend to art assets and code specifically from Canonical which can be mis interpreted as being representative of the ubuntu trademark 17:47 pleia2: yeah, we realize that 17:47 mhall119: oh my :( 17:47 anyway, water under the bridge 17:48 the tl;dr of the whole story is that Mint was on questionable legal grounds with what they were doing, and the license offered to them firmed that up for them 17:48 OK. next item: We continue to feel apprehension over Wayland/Mir situation, which has brought the Ubuntu brand into controversy, and has caused a lot of bad feelings from our upstream. We hope for peace and technical excellence. 17:48 mhall119: okay, does this also extend to other ubuntu derivatives? 17:48 or was it something specific to Mint 17:48 we can make our input known to Canonical, and they do typically respond to us, but at the end of the day Canonical owns the trademarks and handles the legal team 17:48 sorry, shadeslayer 17:48 shadeslayer: as mhall119 said, his distro also approached legal and got a similar agreement offer 17:48 shadeslayer: it depends on whether what they are doing falls under an existing license grant or not 17:49 so anyone who doesn't sign the license grant could potentially face legal action? 17:49 for Qimo, because we weren't just a remix of packages in the archives, we didn't get the existing grant that covered the archives 17:49 valorie, are there specific technical points right now which are seen as problematic right now and should be raised anywhere? 17:49 oh, technical -- you are asking the wrong person 17:49 or am I mis interpreting :) 17:50 shadeslayer: Canonical isn't sueing people over this, we're giving them a cheap or free license that guarntees that we can't sue them over it 17:50 right now, things are OK 17:50 Mir isn't released 17:50 valorie, or anything concrete which needs to be resolved right now? 17:50 mhall119: roger 17:50 dholbach: as I understand it, as long as there is a libwayland 17:50 shadeslayer, yes, it does, which is why we have the remix framework to support people doing pretty much what they want 17:50 in other words, we went to a lot of trouble to enable freedom of remixing, both legally and in practice with supporting tools, processes and resources 17:50 we'll be fine 17:50 IIRC, there was some technical concerns about how we would support both Mir and Wayland compositors on the same system, especially if Mir was also running as a system-level-compositor 17:51 The technical point re Mir is really about Wayland support. 17:51 re Mir situation, I think the big concerns are patching things like mesa, drivers and how difficult/easy will it be for Kubuntu and KDE to use wayland since that's what our upstream is pushing for 17:51 with the move to SystemD and logind, I'm not sure if we're still going to have a system-level compositor or not, but that's out of scope for this meeting anyway 17:52 yes, I can only speak for the community concerns 17:52 If Wayland doesn't work well, we're in trouble. 17:52 right ^^ 17:52 I don't like the tone of the controversy 17:52 in any case we'd be happy to help bring people to a table together to resolve these technical issues and find solutions 17:52 ScottK: so is the concern over the amount of support and QA we'll give Wayland? 17:52 and it has made things touchy with our upstream people 17:53 we have very pointedly not been going around threatening people with legal action 17:53 however, we also would not be serving the community interest by failing to point out the rules of the community itself 17:53 we all feel good when the GPL is enforced, that depends on amongst other things respect for laws and rights 17:53 as far as I know, there's nothing to stop KDE and Kubuntu from using a Wayland compositor on Ubuntu 17:53 And the degree to which distro patches for Mir support hurt Wayland or upstream willingness to consider issues on our platform. 17:53 that sounds good, and I'm hoping for the best 17:54 ScottK: distro patches to what? 17:54 ScottK, are there current technical issues you're aware of? or is this about potential issues in the future? 17:54 Mesa etc. 17:55 ScottK, you can count on us to go beyond even reasonable lengths to accommodate alternative views of the world 17:55 Potential. 17:55 ScottK: so what exactly is the concern, than an upstream will refuse Mir patches, and they refuse to support KDE on a system that carries those patches? 17:55 in other words, we are not going to prejudice something on Wayland just because we like Mir 17:56 I think I speak for us all, that if there's ever a concrete issue regarding, the CC will be happy to help bring the right people together to find a solution 17:56 we have always managed to cross these bridges between the people who cared and were willing to do the work 17:57 dholbach: it's mostly that we would like people to be aware that no matter how well mir shold be integrated at least we'll need a system where mir stays out of the way, and the next CC/Kubuntu meeting will likely be after the time where issues might pop up 17:57 yeah, I think we can firmly state that both Mir and Wayland should be fully supported in Ubuntu, and if for any reason they are not then action should be taken (by the CC or others as appropriate) to correct that 17:57 ScottK: so, tl;dr, Wayland compositors will not be treated like second-class citizens in Ubuntu 17:57 yofel, if you are that concerned about a specific future issue, we should probably discuss it at the next UDS 17:57 mhall119, modulo that you can't bind others to do the work, you could reasonably say it would be anti-social to BLOCK someone doing the work 17:57 sorry, UOS 17:58 which is just in a few weeks 17:58 It's s challenge for Kubuntu because we've always leveraged Canonical work on the display stack and it's going to get harder for us to an unknown degree. That's good to hear. 17:58 sabdfl: yes, and also we can encourage people do help do the work 17:58 which brings me to our next point: we are missing our face-to-face UDS meetings with the rest of the Ubuntu community. Last year and again this year we've arranged a Kubuntu meeting at the KDE yearly meeting, Akademy. Last year we met in Bilbao, this year it will be held in Brno, in the Czech Republic. However, we really miss being able to touch base with the rest of the Ubuntu community. 17:58 10th – 12th June 2014 17:58 valorie: I think we all miss that 17:58 valorie, we miss you too! 17:59 Brno is beautiful, I hear..... 17:59 :-) 17:59 :) 17:59 valorie: as is everyone also :) 17:59 i'll be called to another commitment shortly, here's an update on the legal front 17:59 ofcourse, open invitation to anyone who wants to come and help kubuntu btw ;) 17:59 dholbach: ok, thanks, we'll try to bring things up there too so it's not forgotten :) 17:59 Czech should be nice :) 17:59 yofel, rock and roll! :) 17:59 we've worked through our public trademark, copyright and patent policy with SFLC 18:00 we will make some clarifications based on their advice 18:00 sabdfl: sounds excellent :D 18:00 much appreciated 18:00 that'll be great :) 18:00 ok, on to the present 18:00 the exact position of who can assert what is not simplistic - it varies a lot based on package, license, toolchain, jurisdiction 18:00 We have our own webserver now, at Kubuntu.co.uk. Kubuntu.org will be moved there soon. 18:01 we hope 18:01 still in the moving and testing phase 18:01 when folks have made sweeping assertions about "what can be claimed" they are quite obviously not aware of that complexity 18:02 sabdfl: I think that's primarily because things were quite vague in the beginning 18:02 the net position is this: if you are making a binary derivative of Ubuntu, including lots / most of the packages and pointing to Ubuntu repo's, you do in practice need to have an agreement with Canonical 18:02 People also get can and should mixed up. 18:02 we have made a "public agreement" in the form of the remix guidelines 18:02 valorie: will you be able to migrate your wiki docs to the new server? 18:02 that says "join the project and work in the archive and you can pretty much do what you want just call it a remix" 18:03 that's got good social karma - participate and benefit 18:03 mhall119: we're now using the KDE wikis to develop our user docs, and some community wiki pages. Moin moin is just not reliable. We've gained some more translations this way for the documentation. We ran out of people who were experts in Docbook, which is why we started using the MM wiki. http://userbase.kde.org/Kubuntu is for writing; when docs are done they are moved to the website. 18:04 Mint took the view that they did not have to contribute, breaking the social contract 18:04 that's what we did for Trusty and it worked ~pretty well 18:04 ok 18:04 re moin moin not being reliable, this is what I get when I tried to login today : http://imgur.com/Mcpajig 18:04 it's important for us to be clear that this is not acceptable, for me, or hopefully for anybody else too 18:04 moinmoin just got harder and harder to use 18:04 shadeslayer: ew, openid errors, that's not good 18:04 shadeslayer: did you file a bug? 18:04 which is what we used for saucy 18:04 mhall119: not yet, I just got it when I tried to use it after a long time today :P 18:05 sabdfl: thank you for the clarification 18:05 shadeslayer, valorie: it might be worth raising this in #canonical-sysadmin as well 18:05 yes, we've filed some tickets with them 18:05 mhall119: But it's just a pain to use with all it's timeouts and what not, the KDE MediaWiki instances is such a breeze to use :) 18:05 sabfl: Will you define what contribute means? 18:05 nonetheless, we didn't exactly beat Mint over the head with a lawyer, we asked them to sign an agreement that would enable them to keep doing what they do without contributing, though it did limit commercial activity 18:06 I think it shouldn't be just about packages. 18:06 mhall119: which is primarily we now house documentation and policies there 18:06 ScottK, upload to the archive, build from there 18:06 We had one derivative sponsor a sprint. 18:06 ScottK: mint has a lot of packages that don't get submitted to the archives, and changes to packages without those changes being submitted to the archive 18:06 valorie: shadeslayer can we follow what sabdfl is sayig right now and come back to wiki in a moment 18:06 and ScottK we have traditionally been generous in interpreting that, because sometimes you can't strictly build from the archive even if you are generally contributing / uploading there 18:06 it's getting lost in the conversation 18:06 ok 18:07 Mint is not doing this. There have been a fewother MUCH BIGGER companies that tried to do the same thing 18:07 Right. I'm not too worried about Mint per se. 18:07 ok 18:07 i am sure we'll work something out with Mint 18:08 We have a derivative that wanted 12.04 plus current KDE. 18:08 ScottK: it's impossible to make one blanket statement when there are so many ways for derivatives to operate, we cover the specifics we can clearly define (pure remixes) and take others on a case-by-case basis (Mint and Qimo) 18:08 Can't do that in the archive. 18:09 but it would help if there were a wider appreciation for the fact that Mint are fundamentally outside our social constructs 18:09 It'd be nice if that kind of derivation were clearly allowed. 18:09 ScottK: again though, "that kind" isn't a specific enough definition to give a license grant to 18:09 ScottK, we do allow for it in practice, we've never even raised an issue with folks doing an external build of stuff the way you describe 18:09 especially if "current KDE" is in a PPA or the main archive 18:10 in other words, if other members of the community can benefit from it 18:10 ok, have been called away 18:10 ScottK: the question isn't "what is allowed", it's "what is covered under an existing grant" 18:10 Agreed, but absent that understanding the discussion about Mint concerns others. 18:10 sabdfl: thanks :) 18:10 cheers 18:10 I will need to rush out now as well. Thanks a lot everyone! 18:10 ScottK: there was a fair amount of fear-mongering around that issue too, nobody was up in arms about Qimo needing a similar grant :) 18:11 we're 10 minutes over time, is there anything else before we wrap up? 18:11 well, Peppermint is for sale; you don't sell Qimo 18:11 yes, I was trying to finish.... 18:11 valorie: depends on how much you're offering :) 18:11 final present point: We are wondering about the state of donations. On the donations page, a report is promised, but we've not seen one, and none are linked to. http://community.ubuntu.com/help-information/funding/ 18:12 valorie: pleia2 has asked Jono for this 18:12 we'll ask him again for it. 18:12 as have I, and I will ask him again 18:12 so far, when we've asked for funding, we've gotten it 18:12 my apologies, I will get this out this week 18:12 ^^ Thanks alot for that 18:12