17:13 <pleia2> #startmeeting Community Council
17:13 <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Oct  2 17:13:42 2014 UTC.  The chair is pleia2. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
17:13 <meetingology> 
17:13 <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
17:13 <pleia2> running a bit late, but we're here :)
17:13 <elfy> hi
17:13 <czajkowski> aloha
17:13 <pleia2> #chair elfy YokoZar czajkowski
17:13 <meetingology> Current chairs: YokoZar czajkowski elfy pleia2
17:14 <pleia2> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
17:15 <pleia2> so, anyone from the Membership board or Kubuntu around?
17:15 <elfy> popey might be
17:15 * popey awakens
17:16 <popey> wassup?
17:17 <pleia2> hggdh, jared, marcoceppi, cyphermox_, about?
17:17 <marcoceppi> pleia2: aye
17:17 <pleia2> just checking in with the membership board, seeing how things are going, if there's anything we can do to help
17:18 <popey> Sorry, I wasn't prepared for this, didn't realise we were going to be called to chat.
17:18 <elfy> especially I suspect - are meetings being held with another members for quorum now in general?
17:18 <popey> However I have some comments if you want them ☻
17:18 <czajkowski> sure that would be great thanks popey
17:18 <valorie> o/
17:19 <pleia2> valorie: yay :) can you stick around for a few minutes so we can chat about kubuntu after membership board?
17:19 <valorie> sure
17:19 <shadeslayer> hiya
17:19 * shadeslayer passes around some blueberry icecream
17:19 <valorie> shadeslayer: we're second on the agenda
17:20 <valorie> yum!
17:20 <shadeslayer> cool :)
17:20 <czajkowski> popey: comments?
17:20 <popey> So my observations being back in the membership board...
17:20 <popey> 1) Not may people are applying.
17:20 <pleia2> yeah, that's been the case for a couple years now :(
17:20 <popey> 2) Those that do apply aren't motivated to actually turn up to meetings
17:21 <elfy> the second seems odd
17:22 <pleia2> yeah, I don't know why that would be
17:23 <popey> I have a theory ☻
17:23 <popey> That there's less cache with being an ubuntu member now
17:23 <popey> it's not "special"
17:23 <elfy> real life perhaps - but if it was me - I'd contact the board to at least say so
17:23 <popey> so why bother
17:23 <popey> i mean, in the past we always had no-shows.
17:23 <popey> and I don't have hard data for how many we had then vs now
17:24 <popey> I guess it's more obvious now, when you have only one person apply, and they don't turn up...
17:24 * pleia2 nods
17:24 <czajkowski> popey: do you think more of a fan fair needs to be made or moe visability of what happens?
17:25 <popey> Not sure of the solution.
17:25 <popey> I think it's probably a symptom of a general decline in contributions
17:25 <elfy> was just going to say similar
17:26 <elfy> that's something that almost everyone without exception has said in these catch ups
17:26 <Riddell> hola
17:27 <czajkowski> I did think at one point meeting should be less frequent and do them in larger bunches so people cna tune in and watch
17:27 <czajkowski> so more people may become excited about the process
17:27 <czajkowski> Riddell: ola once membership is over we'll move to Kubuntu cheers.
17:27 <elfy> maybe quarterly
17:28 <popey> then you get the problem that "I applied 3 months ago..."
17:28 <pleia2> trouble with that is life/timezones get in the way and they miss one chance...
17:28 <popey> yeah
17:29 <czajkowski> pleia2: nods
17:29 <popey> and its not much effort for us to turn up to irc once a month and say "Hello?" if nobody is tehre
17:29 <pleia2> could see about encouraging more community members to attend in general, I know I don't really attend anymore :\
17:29 <YokoZar> I may've asked this question before, but does it even need to be a meeting?
17:29 <czajkowski> or we could do a monthly meeting adn once a quarter the CC joins the meeting to meet the new people and welcome them
17:29 <pleia2> YokoZar: transparency is nice
17:29 <czajkowski> what about moving it to a hangout ?
17:30 <czajkowski> or at least an option of a hangout
17:30 <YokoZar> pleia2: I meant as opposed to something like asynchronous public emails.  czajkowski's suggestion would make it more personal, which could be an interesting twist in the other direction
17:30 <pleia2> hangouts are not an option for younger folks or those on slower connections
17:30 <pleia2> and seems more intimidating to me :)
17:30 <czajkowski> pleia2: I don;t think moving completely away from IRC would be good
17:30 <pleia2> 4 people judging me is bad enough, when they're looknig at me, eek!
17:31 <czajkowski> trying to find a middle ground
17:31 <popey> I dont think its a problem with the meeting
17:31 <pleia2> also rough on non-native speakers who are better at typing (and we can google translate)
17:31 <popey> I think it's a problem with us having no new contributors
17:31 <popey> no "pipeline" as they say
17:31 <pleia2> yeah, it does seem like a broader issue
17:32 <czajkowski> nods
17:32 <pleia2> newcomers who I see doing great work are going for membership, there just aren't many of them
17:32 <pleia2> popey: do you know if folks working on phones are going for membership?
17:32 <popey> Well, thats two areas.
17:32 <pleia2> that's where Canonical's team has moved focus to, but I don't see much of them
17:33 <popey> 1) people working on the phone platform
17:33 <popey> 2) people working on apps
17:33 <popey> I see them as two distinct areas
17:33 <pleia2> I'm thinking apps
17:33 <popey> yes, we encourage core apps contributors to go for membership
17:33 <popey> and some have already
17:33 <popey> (and got it)
17:33 <pleia2> that's good :)
17:33 <popey> e.g. people working on clock, email client etc have got their membership as a direct result of phone contributions
17:34 <popey> which isn't just "making apps" but providing good feedback / bugs to SDK & platform developers
17:34 <popey> we invited some along to sprints as well, which is quite a commitment for them
17:34 <elfy> mmm
17:35 <elfy> so no-one out in the wider community is going to know about that
17:35 <popey> about what?
17:35 <czajkowski> popey: aye saw that in peoples blogs and on G+
17:35 <popey> I tend to announce like a lunatic when a core app dev gets membership
17:35 <elfy> popey: ones getting membership directly
17:35 <popey> and turn up and cheer
17:35 <popey> "directly?"
17:35 <elfy> popey: oh ok - not seen it
17:35 <popey> they go through the same process as anyone else
17:35 <elfy> yes - but do they go to meetings?
17:35 <popey> yes
17:35 <popey> same process
17:36 <popey> no different at all
17:36 <elfy> aah ok - read it wrong then - sorry :)
17:36 <popey> np
17:36 <popey> but traditionally speaking a member was someonw working on the platform
17:36 <popey> not someone creating apps _for_ the platform
17:36 <YokoZar> Maybe this decline in contribution isn't as big a problem as we think.  Maybe people are shifting to upstream contribution, or we have fewer problems drawing active demand, or similar
17:36 <YokoZar> Maybe it's good to be a functional boring piece of software.
17:36 <popey> but core apps are a bit "special" in that many  ship by default on the device which is quite a big contribution
17:37 <popey> as far as I can see we have fewer people working on things like ubiquity or unity or other desktop bits
17:38 <popey> I believe many desktops / distros have this problem.
17:38 <popey> (maybe I'm wrong)?
17:38 <pleia2> I don't think we'll come to much of a conclusion here
17:39 <popey> indeed.
17:39 <pleia2> we should continue a discussion about whether contributions are a problem and how to improve things though, maybe on the new community discussion list
17:40 <pleia2> ubuntu-community-team@lists.ubuntu.com
17:40 <popey> happy to start that
17:40 <pleia2> thanks popey
17:40 <czajkowski> popey: excellent!
17:40 <pleia2> shall we move on to Kubuntu Council?
17:41 <pleia2> #topic Kubuntu Council check-up
17:41 <Riddell> hola chicos
17:41 <pleia2> hey valorie, shadeslayer and Riddell!
17:41 <sgclark> hi
17:41 <Riddell> shadeslayer gone home but sgclark also here from kubuntu
17:41 <pleia2> ah ok, hi sgclark :)
17:42 <valorie> greets
17:42 <pleia2> during these once-per-cycle checkins, we try to see how things are going with the team, and if you need us in any way
17:42 <pleia2> so, how are things?
17:43 <Riddell> some points I came up with..
17:43 <valorie> exciting times for us imo
17:43 <Riddell> We seem to be getting funds from the ubuntu community donations in acceptable time and I see the latest report has been published which is good
17:43 <Riddell> Our Kubuntu Plasma5 images are being produced from a PPA and being published on cdimages which is great
17:43 <pleia2> \o/
17:43 <Riddell> the ubuntu website uses the deprecating term
17:44 <Riddell> "derivatives" for ubuntu flavours such as ourselves
17:44 <Riddell> would be good to have that fixed http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/derivatives
17:44 <pleia2> is there an open bug for it on ubuntu-website in lp? I can chime in
17:44 <Riddell> nope, I can file one
17:44 <pleia2> (this is something I worked to fix in the latest Official Ubuntu Book, it was a lot of s/derivatives/flavors!)
17:44 <valorie> this was discussed years ago
17:45 <pleia2> Riddell: thanks
17:45 <valorie> and I thought the whole "derivitives" word was banished
17:45 <pleia2> yeah, I did too, totally feel your pain here
17:45 <Riddell> The technical problems that I feared from Canonical moving away from
17:45 <Riddell> community made software are coming true, KDE is recommending SDDM
17:45 <Riddell> having moved away from LightDM because of the need to agree to a
17:45 <Riddell> special licence to Canonical.  I'm now having trouble making SDDM work
17:45 <Riddell> with our images and have nowhere in Ubuntu to turn to for help.
17:46 <Riddell> And you've already discussed the lack of new community members which I feel is also due to canonical moving away from community made software
17:46 <Riddell> I think it's a sane business decision but I do worry we'll come across a problem in future such as with wayland that we won't be able to fix
17:47 <pleia2> yeah
17:47 <valorie> me too
17:48 <Riddell> this article is about a massive Kubuntu rollout https://insights.ubuntu.com/2014/07/07/ubuntu-and-open-source-help-the-city-of-munich-save-millions/
17:48 <Riddell> but doesn't mention kubuntu once
17:48 <pleia2> :\
17:48 <Riddell> canonical needs to credit the community that builds ubuntu
17:48 <pleia2> I didn't realize it was Kubuntu either
17:48 <Riddell> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/1339508 "Misspelling in insights article"
17:48 <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1339508 in Ubuntu Website "Misspelling in insights article" [Undecided,In progress]
17:49 <Riddell> it's actually a really great process there, they come to akademy and we're have sprints in munich which effectively replace UDS
17:49 <Riddell> they didn't contact either munich or us when they wrote that article
17:49 <pleia2> that's unfortunate to hear
17:50 <Riddell> Reviewing the licence policy situation the Ubuntu liceensing page says all the right stuff http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing "Must allow these rights to be passed on along with the software. You should be able to have exactly the same rights to the software as we do."
17:50 <Riddell> which is correct.
17:50 <Riddell> The Canonical IP policy continues to be incorrect however http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-rights-policy "Any redistribution of modified versions...will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries"
17:50 <Riddell> This is incorrect, as all software is free software once it is
17:50 <Riddell> distributed to someone that person can further distribute it all they
17:50 <Riddell> want under the relevant free software licence.  To claim otherwise is
17:50 <Riddell> an insult to the copyright holders, the upstreams who write our
17:50 <Riddell> software, and goes against the Ubuntu policy above. It causes worry for our
17:50 <Riddell> supporters and is one reason why Blue Systems are looking at other
17:50 <Riddell> distributions.  It needs to be changed and I strongly feel it is the
17:50 <Riddell> task of the community council to stand up to Canonical on this topic.
17:50 <pleia2> we don't seem to have dholbach or mhall119 here today, so I'll be sure to point them at this log to see what can be done to follow up with Canonical on this
17:51 <pleia2> (I'm not sure who to contact)
17:52 <pleia2> to your last point, this is really difficult, we've tried interacting with lawyers but it seems to be their lawyer language we can't get past
17:52 <valorie> it worries me to see Canonical stop pushing freedom as a value
17:52 <pleia2> other CC members should chime in here, but we've spent months on this, mostly banging our heads against the wall
17:52 <valorie> this could be basic as to why we're not drawing new people
17:52 <beuno> pleia2, I think dpm is the person to talk to nowadays
17:52 <pleia2> so I assure you we have stood up to canonical, we just don't get anywhere
17:53 <Riddell> if they continue to claim something which isn't true the CC should put out a statement saying so
17:53 <elfy> pleia2: agree witht hat
17:53 <pleia2> we don't actually have any power when it comes to canonical IP, trademarks, etc
17:53 <Riddell> the CC statement that was put out was as wishy washy as canonical's public statements on the topic
17:53 <Riddell> talking about how lawyers are needed and copyright law is complex is a poor excuse
17:53 <pleia2> that's because it was really really hard to write
17:54 <pleia2> it's the truth
17:54 <pleia2> we can only do so much :(
17:54 <Riddell> the canonical IP statment is incorrect, it's that simple
17:54 <Riddell> it claims restrictions which go against the core values of ubuntu and free software
17:54 <Riddell> it's badly hurting our community
17:55 <valorie> I agree
17:55 <Riddell> and I'm astonished that nobody outside of kubuntu thinks this is an issue
17:56 <valorie> I think most are confused, or just turn off when the whole idea of intellectual property is discussed
17:56 <valorie> but ignoring it just weakens the freedoms we have
17:57 * Riddell reports bug 1376860
17:57 <ubottu> bug 1376860 in Ubuntu Website "Use of term "derivatives" to describe flavours" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1376860
17:57 <valorie> if we don't stand up for our own rights, who will?
17:57 <YokoZar> I should comment.
17:57 <pleia2> Riddell: thanks
17:57 <hggdh> pleia2:  I am here now, if you need me
17:58 <pleia2> hggdh: thanks, we had some other membership board folks turn up so we don't :)
17:59 <YokoZar> As a non-canonical CC member, I independently checked Canonical's copyright claims with my own legal consultation from a copyright expert.
17:59 <hggdh> yeah, just read the backlog -- I agree with popey, FWIW
17:59 <YokoZar> It is "unclear" whether stuff like the build infrastructure (mere compiling) generates a new copyright, particular in non-US copyright situations.
18:00 <Riddell> I have never heard of anyone anywhere suggesting that a compiler adds extra copyright restrictions
18:00 <Riddell> some tools like yacc do because they copy their own code into the output, compilers do not
18:01 <Riddell> even if they did, to then claim further restrictions would be against the GPL
18:01 <YokoZar> I am 100% with you tehre Riddell
18:01 <Riddell> and if it was to be added to BSD type licenced packages only then that would need to be stated before that copy is given
18:01 <YokoZar> The new copyright would obviously be a derivative of the code itself
18:01 <Riddell> but it's not, ubuntu is distributed around the world on hundreds of mirrors
18:01 <Riddell> there is no extra copyright licence added to it
18:02 <popey> Riddell: it specifically says "modified versions"
18:02 <popey> mirrors are not making modified versions
18:02 <Riddell> I review every package in the archive as an archive admin and none of them have any extra restrictions from canonical
18:02 <Riddell> popey: regarless, this is free software, you can modify all you like
18:02 <Riddell> else it's not free software
18:02 <popey> This is a trademark issue though surely?
18:02 <popey> <- not a lawyer
18:02 <Riddell> sure
18:02 <YokoZar> And arguably any package built this way is being licensed the same as its code via the license attached to it.
18:02 <Riddell> the canonical IP policy talks about that and that's fine
18:02 <popey> not a software licensing issue
18:03 <valorie> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
18:03 <popey> this has nothing technically to do with licensing the software, its use of the name
18:03 <popey> "Ubuntu"
18:03 <Riddell> but it also talks about needing to recompile binaries, which is nonsense
18:03 <mdeslaur> Riddell: how else do you remove the trademarks?
18:03 <popey> that sounds like anti-mint-ification to me
18:03 <YokoZar> The problem is that "arguably" in there.  The only context this came up was in granting Mint a license to keep doing what they were doing for free and not actually contest it, so I didn't see it as a particular issue at the time
18:03 <valorie> "Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. "
18:04 <Riddell> that popey and YokoZar are talking about different laws suggests this issue is just deliberately made murky by canonical in the hope of putting off anyone from making a derivative distro
18:04 <beuno> it isn't
18:04 <beuno> and there's no evidence to that
18:04 <popey> indeed, it's not.
18:05 <popey> I wasn't involved in the discussion, so my input here is speculation and interpretation.
18:05 <Riddell> YokoZar: no, the context I care about is support from Blue Systems who are worried by what it means for kubuntu's freedom
18:05 <hggdh> Riddell: I doubt it is canonical murkying it -- copyright, etc is extremely murky due to pressure from old players
18:05 <popey> This needs input from Steve George IMO.
18:05 <popey> directly.
18:05 <Riddell> hggdh: they are making it murky by not stating where the extra restrictions are and if they are copyright of trademark
18:05 <popey> His team "owns" that document.
18:06 <popey> If it's inaccurate or misleading, or against a license we use, then he is the person who should be accountable for that.
18:06 <YokoZar> Riddell: On the particular copyright issue, my best belief is that there is a colorable legal argument to Canonical's claim that you need to recompile to wash away all their rights.  They might lose in court though, but it won't be tossed instantly.
18:06 <hggdh> Riddell: ack. I suld suggest the CC pinging canonical's legal
18:06 <hggdh> (as popey just stated, BTW)
18:07 <beuno> I don't think it's about recompiling, it's about re-packaging things so they don't have "ubuntu" in the name
18:07 <YokoZar> And I don't particularly ascribe any maliciousness here, as so far I haven't seen any actual action come out of that policy other than granting Mint 100% permission.  If they took a stand against Blue Systems I'd probably join your side Riddell
18:07 <popey> Indeed, this sounds very much like Red Hat -> CentOS rebuilding of yore to me.
18:08 <hggdh> yeah
18:08 <YokoZar> beuno: The trademark issues are well-established.  But hypothetically they wouldn't require recompiling to remove the branded marks, merely covering them up (eg dpkg-diversions)
18:09 <YokoZar> On another technical note, this whole issue gets mooted by reproducible builds
18:09 <beuno> sure
18:10 <hggdh> in copyrights and trademarks experience has shown that a lot of times what could be ascribed to malice is actually a communication issue
18:11 <elfy> I'm not sure that a short catch up meeting with us will do this subject service, we can do as popey suggests and contact Steve George
18:11 <YokoZar> And lawyers speak an entirely different language.
18:11 <hggdh> +1 (FWIW)
18:11 <valorie> it's not like this is a new issue; rather a long-simmering one
18:12 <hggdh> I think Riddell's questions are important enough to be looked at
18:12 <YokoZar> The specific question I'd have will be regarding how reproducible builds will be affected by copyright (ie, in a world where anyone produces identical binaries to the canonical infrastructure)
18:12 <YokoZar> I can only imagine that clarifying they're free
18:12 <YokoZar> or, rather, the same license as the package itself
18:12 <pleia2> valorie: indeed, and we really have put a lot of work and discussion into this
18:13 <Riddell> I would expect the CC to ask that the statement that derivatives "will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries" be removed
18:13 <Riddell> which won't happen, this is hardly a new issue
18:13 <popey> But you're not a derivative, so why does this affect you?
18:13 <Riddell> in which case ask for exactly what restriction allows this to be claimed and how it's compatible with the ubuntu licence policy
18:14 <Riddell> popey: because I care about my derivatives
18:14 <hggdh> Riddell: at least a more expanded explanation of why this is considered as needed
18:14 <popey> okay.
18:14 <valorie> we are a derivitive according to the derivitives page
18:14 <Riddell> we have large rollouts and people interested in using and investing in kubuntu and I don't want them to be put off as they are being
18:14 <valorie> unfortunately
18:14 <popey> It does explicitly say you're a special kind of derivative, a flavour, although also spells it flavor.
18:15 <popey> Ok, understood.
18:15 <valorie> lol
18:15 <pleia2> valorie: kubuntu is a flavor, the derivitives page is a bug :)
18:15 <popey> I disagree
18:15 <pleia2> heh
18:16 <popey> ☻
18:19 <pleia2> alright, we'll start a thread on the CC list to have other CC members look at this too, I don't know that we can come up with any other conclusion at this point
18:20 <pleia2> I think YokoZar has some todo list items too
18:21 <YokoZar> Yeah I'm gonna consult independent copyright experts again (not Canonical-legal, who must "zealously" represent Canonical only)
18:21 <valorie> I hope you can make the needle move
18:21 <pleia2> thanks YokoZar
18:21 <elfy> thanks YokoZar
18:21 <valorie> because this is definitely a problem for us
18:21 <elfy> we know valorie
18:21 <pleia2> thanks for coming valorie, Riddell and sgclark, you all do great work
18:22 <pleia2> #topic Any other business
18:22 <pleia2> do we having anything else?
18:22 <elfy> not here
18:22 <pleia2> ok, thanks everyone
18:22 <pleia2> #endmeeting