[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Board IRC Meeting 2009-08-06 log
- From: "Paul W. Frields" <stickster gmail com>
- To: fedora-advisory-board redhat com
- Subject: Board IRC Meeting 2009-08-06 log
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:47:50 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
16:02:49 <stickster> #startmeeting
16:03:31 <stickster> Hm, I expected Zodbot to reply
16:03:40 <spot> botfail
16:04:10 <stickster> #topic Introduction
16:04:31 <stickster> Welcome everyone to a Fedora Board public IRC meeting.
16:04:39 <stickster> We have a short agenda to get through first, then we'll take community Q&A.
16:05:15 <stickster> You can join #fedora-board-questions and we'll queue people from there to ask questions in this channel, when we reach that point.
16:05:53 <stickster> Sorry caillon, I'll remedy that when we're through. It's supposed to be automatic.
16:06:04 <stickster> #topic roll call
16:06:06 <caillon> ;)
16:06:46 * mdomsch raises hand
16:06:48 * poelcat
16:06:51 * glezos waves
16:07:08 * notting is here
16:07:32 * jwb is here
16:08:12 * spot is here
16:08:13 <stickster> spot: should be here
16:08:16 <stickster> And speak of the devil!
16:08:24 * stickster pinged dgilmore, anyone seen him?
16:08:26 <stickster> Let's get started.
16:08:36 <stickster> #topic Russian Fedora initiative
16:09:40 <stickster> This is still pending a couple things -- waiting for (1) one detail from RH Legal for a non-software goods license, and (2) a name from Alexey for the domain license.
16:09:59 <stickster> Re-pinged Legal earlier today. Otherwise, nothing further to report right now.
16:10:39 <glezos> stickster: can you give some more details on the non-software goods issue?
16:10:45 <stickster> glezos: Sure
16:11:10 <stickster> We only have one group, the EMEA NPO, that holds a non-software goods license currently.
16:11:46 <stickster> It was designed for them because at the outset we had someone nearby (Max Spevack, community architecture team manager) who could initially determine that the goods made were of a quality commensurate with the trademark.
16:11:59 <glezos> stickster: I was wondering if we have somewhere documented the requirement for a non-software goods license.
16:12:11 <stickster> We don't yet, because we've only done it once.
16:12:49 <glezos> stickster: understood. If we could documented it now (following the one, two, many rule) for future reference, it'd be great.
16:12:54 <stickster> That was a special situation because there is a backing organization (the NPO) and a bit more accountability from Red Hat.
16:13:15 <stickster> So this application is a chance for me to ensure that we can turn this into a model.
16:14:16 <stickster> What I'm seeking from Legal is their comfort with the Board assessing and giving out these licenses.
16:14:42 <stickster> Once we've got that, then it's just a matter of writing up some mutually acceptable guidelines, such as we do with our other trademark matters.
16:15:23 <stickster> Anything else on this?
16:15:31 <glezos> stickster: Yes, this is my own endeavor too. We should ensure that parties feel comfortable with the Board taking these decisions, as the highest decision-making body in Fedora.
16:15:41 <poelcat> stickster: thanks for all your continued work on the TM stuff!
16:16:09 <stickster> glezos: Right, and I think that we've developed a good basis for doing that with our other trademark duties.
16:16:25 <stickster> OK, if there's nothing further, let's move on
16:16:33 <glezos> thanks for making sure the outcome of these discussions with legal are brought in the open. Looking forward to even more openness. :)
16:16:36 <glezos> (eof)
16:16:54 <stickster> #info Awaiting contact back from Legal and Russian Fedora reps
16:17:10 <stickster> #action stickster to continue follow-up responsibilities
16:17:24 <stickster> #topic BitTorrent stats counter
16:17:30 <stickster> glezos: Care to give an update on this one?
16:17:47 * glezos looks up for the ticket.
16:17:56 <stickster> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1456
16:18:00 <stickster> #link https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1456
16:18:10 * stickster still getting the hang of the bot, sorry.
16:18:31 <glezos> We were looking to increase the publicity on the days of our releases
16:19:02 <glezos> Now we have two separate pages for torrent and torrent stats (and no stats for the rest of downloads and yum master server pings)
16:19:13 <glezos> It seems it'll require some work from Infra to achieve what we want
16:19:19 <mdomsch> get.fp.o + a moksha applet would be slick
16:19:26 <stickster> glezos: You mean, no dynamic page, right?
16:19:32 <glezos> And we should decide if we'd like to ask this work to be done from Inra.
16:19:40 <stickster> We do have numbers at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics -- but those are updated manually on a weekly basis.
16:20:04 <glezos> stickster: right, we'd like to have something updated on a per-hour basis, or even more often if it's possible. A download counter or something.
16:20:29 <glezos> Ideally we could get aggregated and useful info from http://torrent.fedoraproject.org:6969/ and add this in get.fpo and torrent.fpo.
16:20:43 <stickster> glezos: skvidal may have some status to share here
16:20:49 <skvidal> hi
16:21:03 <skvidal> literally years ago, now, I wrote a bttrack.dat parser
16:21:14 <glezos> skvidal: Hi Seth. Do you know how much time we'll need to achieve what you 've written in https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1456#comment:7 ?
16:21:19 <skvidal> I still have it (somewhere). getting it to kick out relatively simply-formatted values wouldn't be hard
16:21:39 <skvidal> I'm not sure how we get the info from that file over to fcomm/moksha but I'm sure that can be worked out
16:21:44 <stickster> I'm surprised there's not a python lib for that in Fedora somewhere
16:21:51 <stickster> (the bttrack.dat part.)
16:21:51 <jwb> glezos, you want to add stats to get.fp.o?
16:21:52 <skvidal> stickster: for what? parsing bttrack?
16:22:07 <stickster> skvidal: Right.
16:22:09 <skvidal> stickster: why? it's torrent-specific - a complete one-off - a giant dict of dict of dict
16:22:11 <jwb> glezos, i'm not sure that matches up well with the simplified page
16:22:16 <glezos> jwb: I'd like to have *some* stats. If we could get bittorrent ones, great. If we could get combined ones, even better.
16:22:27 <jwb> glezos, but where do you want to display those?
16:22:29 <skvidal> glezos: what's the goal of having the stats?
16:22:45 <notting> isn't the issue with combined ones that things get redirected to the mirrors, and therefore you lose any tracking of 'completed' downloads?
16:23:01 <stickster> skvidal: No idea; it exists, therefore a py-lib is inevitable
16:23:11 <skvidal> stickster: umm, ok
16:23:19 <glezos> "t we are looking for is a marketing item, for the interest of our users and journalists mostly. They will go to page with a different port and see a page which is very, very technical. We want a 'wow' factor like the one raised by this page:"
16:23:26 <glezos> Oops, repasting.
16:23:32 <glezos> What we are looking for is a marketing item, for the interest of our users and journalists mostly. They will go to page with a different port and see a page which is very, very technical. We want a 'wow' factor like the one raised by this page:
16:23:33 <glezos> http://downloadstats.mozilla.com/
16:23:40 <jwb> isn't ianweller working on stats?
16:23:47 <jwb> i thought that was his summer internship
16:24:08 <stickster> ianweller's internship is over now, but he's still doing some stats work AIUI.
16:24:19 <jwb> maybe he and seth and luke can work together
16:24:27 <skvidal> sure
16:24:40 <jwb> win
16:24:41 <skvidal> so the goal of this is not to represent the numbers BETTER
16:24:53 <skvidal> but to represent them glitzier and on a different page
16:25:18 <mdomsch> I'm unclear what the Board's action here would be. Combine this request into the "make get.fp.o better" request from last week?
16:25:21 <stickster> skvidal: At the risk of conflating the problem space, it might also be able to solve the "Paul updates the wiki manually" problem
16:25:31 <stickster> mdomsch: No, I don't think that's the same problem
16:25:34 <skvidal> stickster: updates the wiki manually for what?
16:25:47 <skvidal> stickster: you update the wiki with torrent download stats?
16:25:48 <stickster> skvidal: Recording weekly stats from direct downloads, yum check-ins, and BT downloads.
16:25:50 <jwb> mdomsch, i think they're entirely different
16:25:52 * glezos would love to see even a few numbers... "Hhow many users are downloading Fedora X the moment or the bandwidth we're serving via bittorrent.
16:25:56 <skvidal> stickster: why do you do that? :)
16:26:03 <stickster> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics
16:26:16 <stickster> skvidal: Because many people look for it and use it in other places -- press, community members among them
16:26:24 <skvidal> ah
16:26:25 <skvidal> okay
16:26:46 <skvidal> yah - I can setup a job to dump bttrack data to some other format or what not for fcomm
16:26:57 <stickster> OK, so glezos, why don't you get with the folks mentioned above -- ianweller, skvidal, lmacken -- to figure out what we want to do, and how.
16:27:07 <glezos> stickster: okie dokie.
16:27:11 * glezos will send an email.
16:27:25 <stickster> #action glezos to talk to ianweller, skvidal, lmacken to move this item forward for better stats tracking and presentation.
16:27:43 <stickster> #topic Extended Life Cycle
16:28:20 <stickster> This particular item is waiting on an updated proposal from kanarip or someone on his team of people
16:29:17 <stickster> That update was supposed to clarify what exactly they're seeking from the Board and from Fedora in terms of resources, infrastructure, etc., so we know what we're trying to answer.
16:29:27 <jwb> the only updates i have seen are that people keep expressing interest via the existing page
16:29:48 <jwb> which is great. there's a rather large number now. but yeah, we don't really know what they are volunteering for with clarity :)
16:30:00 <stickster> Then I don't see any further action for us for right now.
16:30:21 * poelcat moves to close this ticket and reopen when a proposal is submitted
16:30:41 <poelcat> is that too hasty? how many weeks has it been?
16:31:03 <stickster> First meeting was 2009-07-16
16:31:09 <stickster> Three weeks ago.
16:31:12 * mdomsch thinks just table it
16:31:26 <jwb> i can email kanarip and see what the hold up is
16:31:35 <dgilmore> stickster: there has been no update, and the questions i asked on fab remain unanswered
16:31:59 <caillon> in any case, i think the recent changes the board has been doing with goals/defaults may impact this
16:32:05 <caillon> so it may be best to table it regardless
16:32:10 <caillon> until all that is sorted
16:32:23 <dgilmore> jwb: i get the feeling that he is upset we are doing some due dilligance. since the changes would be so far reaching
16:32:46 <jwb> i wouldn't care to speculate on that either way
16:32:54 <poelcat> dgilmore: i don't think we should speculate
16:32:59 <stickster> Agreed.
16:33:03 <dgilmore> im not speculating
16:33:11 <poelcat> we either have a clear proposal we can review or we don't :)
16:33:18 <dgilmore> we dont
16:33:19 * poelcat votes for moving on
16:33:33 <stickster> OK, we'll leave this open for now and revisit next week, tabling if needed.
16:34:01 <caillon> stickster, just table until proposal comes back
16:34:34 <stickster> OK, let's make this simple so we can move on. Vote to close the issue until the proposal is rewritten to pose precise questions
16:34:43 <spot> +1
16:34:48 <poelcat> +1
16:34:48 <caillon> +2
16:34:52 <notting> +1
16:34:57 <jwb> aye
16:35:13 <glezos> +1
16:35:26 <dgilmore> stickster: i think we should close it and reopen when we have the information requested
16:35:27 <mdomsch> +1
16:35:28 <poelcat> stickster: s/questions/desired goals, actions, etc.
16:35:32 <stickster> (I didn't think skvidal was going to vote there, just cleaning up) :-)
16:35:42 <stickster> poelcat: Noted, thanks.
16:36:05 <stickster> OK, 8-0, mmcgrath is not here today.
16:36:16 <stickster> #action Close ELC issue until proposal is refined as requested.
16:36:23 <stickster> #topic Thai community request from FAB
16:36:56 <stickster> We had a request for both a domain license for a .th domain, and a th.fedoracommunity.org domain
16:37:51 <stickster> Note for the record that we recently granted a .ru domain for a Russian community group, but after our guidance, are going to be transitioning to a ru.fedoracommunity.org domain
16:38:17 <notting> their community site was pre-existing, correct?
16:38:36 <spot> I think the only way we should permit country-code specific domains is as blind redirects to the code.fedoracommunity.org site
16:38:37 <stickster> Correct
16:38:41 <notting> the thai site does not exist yet, as i understand it
16:38:47 <stickster> notting: that is correct too
16:39:01 <mdomsch> spot, how can we enforce that though?
16:39:20 <notting> i'd be more comfortable only doing exceptions to the fedoracommunity.org in the case of a pre-exisitng community site
16:39:25 <notting> but then that can lead to gaming the system
16:39:45 <spot> mdomsch: i think it should be fairly simple to determine that
16:40:06 <stickster> I'm in favor of fedoracommunity.org domains for several reasons:
16:40:06 <stickster> 1. They make it clear the community owns the content and not the Fedora Project. Community members are free to populate that content as they wish.
16:40:06 <stickster> 2. They help prevent any site problems at the local community level from resulting in outages of previously well-known sites.
16:40:06 <stickster> 3. They allow us to more easily build and maintain later an attractive portal that can bring international users to a supportive community.
16:41:11 <poelcat> TLD fedoracommunity.org is already held by Fedora, correct?
16:41:14 <stickster> 4. They also make for an easier transition to a future where we have better localized central sites already.
16:41:17 <stickster> poelcat: That's correct
16:41:28 <stickster> We simply put in a DNS entry pointing to whatever hosting the local community is using.
16:41:52 <stickster> It also means the local community does not have to pay for DNS services, although that's a pretty minor cost in some areas. (And not so minor in others.)
16:42:02 <mdomsch> I too would much prefer to have the "center of gravity" for these localized communities being still around the Fedora central websites, as opposed to splintered off
16:42:14 <poelcat> are there any specific disadvantages of fedoracommunity.org approach?
16:42:33 <jwb> glezos mentioned the perception of .org vs. .<locale>
16:42:41 <jwb> aside from that, i don't know of any
16:42:45 <glezos> poelcat: the fact that local communities don't like them. :)
16:43:01 <stickster> Yes, this was an issue -- ".org" is not seen as very localized, while ".xx" is
16:43:01 <poelcat> a good thing to consider :)
16:43:24 <glezos> I believe we should give the choice to our local communities. If they prefer a .xx and are ready to take the costs, that's fine by me.
16:43:42 <stickster> Unfortunately, we don't have the ability to buy dozens (or more) of fedoracommunity.xx domains.
16:43:53 <notting> i can't really say 'just leave it up to the local community' when it involves trademark stuff
16:44:22 <stickster> We already give a huge amount of flexibility with the trademarks in terms of using them on web sites, promotional material, and so on.
16:44:27 <mdomsch> glezos, which is more important, the content on the site, or the name of the site?
16:44:28 * glezos reminds we already give great confidence to our local communities in a dozen other topics, like representation to local events and stuff.
16:45:08 <notting> glezos: sure. which does not have binding legal issues surrounding it.
16:45:10 <glezos> mdomsch: I believe we should ask that to the local communities. Depending on the country, the local community might believe it's important to have a .xx domain.
16:45:12 <stickster> glezos: For me, it's not an issue of trust. It's also an issue of flexibility for our infrastructure team and planning for the future.
16:45:38 <spot> fwiw, i stand by my statement that i'd approve an .xx domain if and only if it redirected to the xx.fedoracommunity.org domain
16:45:40 <glezos> stickster: I think maximum flexibility for our Infra team would be not to have to bother *at all* with a domain, no?
16:46:14 <jwb> spot, i agree
16:46:22 <stickster> glezos: Not if we wanted later to provide better localized infrastructure that served all communities.
16:46:36 <stickster> s/Not/Not necessarily/
16:46:52 <glezos> stickster: that'd be great, and we could offer this to the local communities to use. I'm sure a lot of them would be very happy to also have a page on this service.
16:47:28 <dgilmore> i perfer xx.fedoracommunity.org it allows for much easier migration between people if people no longer remain in the project
16:47:56 <stickster> dgilmore: That's a good point, because I've already had to deal with this in one region in the last six months.
16:48:06 <poelcat> spot: how do you keep track of them all and couldn't it be unknowingly changed later?
16:48:07 <dgilmore> if we could buy and manage all the domains then more local domains would be nice but that is cost prohibitve
16:48:21 <spot> poelcat: a wiki list could keep track.
16:48:23 <stickster> I think spot's idea is best.
16:48:29 <glezos> Keep in mind one more thing here: We have NO way to ensure that these groups will not register and use the domain. The only way would for Red Hat to take them to court. Which is something done only in very, very extreme circumstances.
16:48:43 <notting> stickster: there is still a budgetary issue with .xx domains, in that 1) we can't really afford to buy them across all locales, and 2) we do not have a donation framework to allow the local community to offset the costs
16:48:49 <stickster> glezos: But with the trust we put in people, I'm sure that's not going to be the case.
16:48:52 <spot> and i'm inclined to trust the community on that point. we could script that check if you don't trust them.
16:48:53 <glezos> So in my ears, the whole discussion leads only to extra trouble and red tape, and no real guarantees.
16:49:21 * poelcat isn't clear... fedora would hold TM to both domains .xx and xx.f.o ?
16:49:33 <notting> glezos: saying "well, the community can register whatever, and we'd have to sue them" seems sort of a defeatist attitude to me
16:49:40 <mdomsch> poelcat, we hold the trademark; we don't hold the domain ownership of .xx
16:49:48 <dgilmore> spot: i think that is perfectly ok. but can easily be removed if someone leaves and decides to cause trouble
16:49:54 <poelcat> mdomsch: right, just going to clarify that
16:49:57 <stickster> poelcat: We're not really discussing the option of buying them a domain
16:50:17 <glezos> notting: my point is that it will never happen from our community. And even WITH the controls suggested, if someone wants to do harm, he'll do it anyway.
16:50:17 <spot> dgilmore: if someone decides to cause trouble, we'll pursue legal action.
16:50:24 <dgilmore> spot: without us having the control of the .xx domain its much harder to enforce
16:50:26 <glezos> So we're putting more burden to the good people and we're not catching the real bad people.
16:50:33 <poelcat> if we don't hold ownership of .xx then redirect could be changed w/o us knowing... but maybe this is getting off in the weeds
16:50:49 <stickster> I think we should center in on one way to do this, and spot's way makes sense to me. We license the .th domain to that community, and request that they alias it to th.fedoracommunity.org -- did I capture that correctly, spot?
16:51:04 <mdomsch> s/request/requier/
16:51:06 <mdomsch> require
16:51:13 <glezos> Rephrasing: If we *make* our community to use *.FCo domains, they'll do it. But the bad guys will create local domains and use them anyway.
16:51:27 <stickster> I think we should further require them to use the 'th.fedoracommunity.org' site name in publicity so that there's some assurance of continuity
16:51:31 <notting> glezos: and there are policies for that
16:51:41 * glezos is reminded of the airport checks for finger clippers now.
16:51:50 <jwb> "locks are to keep good people honest"?
16:51:58 <stickster> glezos: I don't buy this idea of mythical bad guys. We're approaching this purely from the practical standpoint of continuity, IMHO.
16:52:25 <poelcat> stickster: can you reset the decision we are trying to move towards? i'm getting a little lost
16:52:28 <mdomsch> if we require them to use th.fc.o in publicity
16:52:34 <glezos> stickster: The local communities have my FULL trust that they'll figure out continuity and make great things happen. :)
16:52:41 <mdomsch> and we require them to HTTP redirect from .th to th.fp.o
16:52:53 <mdomsch> then what's the point of having the .th name in the first place again?
16:52:55 <spot> stickster: i don't care so much if they use th.fc.o in publicity or not, if there is an HTTP redirect.
16:53:06 <stickster> spot: Ah, good point.
16:53:12 <stickster> This is why I'm not a sys admin.
16:53:26 <stickster> That's what FESCo is for :-)
16:53:27 <spot> it would be nice if they'd agree to transfer DNS ownership to us
16:53:34 <glezos> mdomsch: there's no reason, you are right, so I don't think this idea is good.
16:53:54 <notting> glezos: given the recent centos.org domain registration kerfluffle, i don't feel confident having full trust, if the domain is registered to any one particular local community person
16:54:10 <glezos> spot: why wouldn't we trust eg. the local leader of Fedora to have the DNS ownership? These guys have spent man-months for our project and a ton of money and energy.
16:54:13 <mdomsch> spot, over time, wouldn't we then be required to pay for any such domains someone wanted to craete and then transfer to us?
16:54:16 <dgilmore> notting: i agree with you
16:54:17 <notting> glezos: lance davis.
16:54:26 <notting> that's why we wouldn't.
16:54:33 <glezos> spot: I'm sure if he wants to step away he'll agree to transfer the ownership to Fedora or the new local lead.er
16:54:37 <spot> So basically, my proposal is this: If you want to have permission to use the fedora trademark in a .xx country code specific name, that is fine, as long as it redirects to the xx.fedoracommunity.org page.
16:54:56 * caillon is sort of saddened that the websites stuff is not going to come up in today's meeting due to time
16:55:15 <jwb> spot, agreed
16:55:40 <stickster> So just to be clear, you guys are proposing that we change the domain guidelines overall?
16:55:52 <dgilmore> glezos: it depends on the terms and reasons he is leaving
16:55:54 <notting> spot: which is then redirected to some non fp.o-hosted site designated by 'the local community' (in total)
16:56:07 <poelcat> stickster: how does this change from the current guidelines?
16:56:13 <dgilmore> glezos: if its not the most plesent of terms he/she could be nasty about it
16:56:15 <spot> notting: i'm not sure how they'd manage that one.
16:56:25 <glezos> My argument is that the local community trust and empowerment is greater than the risk we're taking.
16:56:33 <spot> notting: but even if they did, we would deal with that anyways
16:56:40 <stickster> Right now we offer a choice and leave it up to the community member(s) to decide whether they want to seek a domain license for a .xx domain, or use a xx.fc.o domain instead.
16:56:53 <notting> spot: well, xx.fc.o is just some non fedora site, where we set the DNS to 'something the local community asks us to set it to'
16:57:20 <glezos> I have a question: Why don't we ask the community itself? Maybe we could get a good suggestion out of the discussion.
16:57:21 <spot> notting: okay. i don't care which way the redirect works honestly.
16:57:30 <spot> as long as they're equivalent
16:58:00 <stickster> glezos: spot: Why don't you guys work to create a proposal on the wiki that we can decide on in the next meeting. Publicize on FAB and we'll invite input that way.
16:58:32 <glezos> stickster: I'm wondering why we are having this discussion, since there is the license agreement the person is required to sign. We could put in the agreement "Should you fail to follow these terms after a period of time, you agree to transfer the domain to X."
17:00:09 <stickster> glezos: We're having it because the applicant didn't really make a choice but wants to do both
17:00:25 <stickster> Let's revisit this next week after some more discussion on the FAB list.
17:00:31 <glezos> stickster: then let's deny "both" and remind him that he can choose one of the two.
17:01:11 <glezos> +1 for revisiting after a FAB discussion. I'll bootstrap the discussion.
17:01:27 <mdomsch> stickster, +1
17:01:32 <stickster> #action glezos to ask .th community member to revisit the Local community domains page, and ask him to choose an option.
17:01:44 <stickster> #topic Q&A
17:01:45 <mdomsch> glezos, I think you raise good points about trust and empowerment
17:02:03 <stickster> I realize we're cutting over the hour, but let's see what's in the Q&A queue.
17:02:20 <spot> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/FedoraCommunityWebsites
17:03:25 <notting> can we go over an hour?
17:03:26 * notting can
17:03:30 * stickster can
17:03:36 * dgilmore can
17:03:37 <spot> my stomach is growling, but i can
17:03:44 <jwb> i can
17:03:49 * glezos can
17:03:49 <caillon> i can for 15 minutes only
17:03:56 <mdomsch> yep
17:04:59 <quaid> do we have or should we have ...
17:05:14 <quaid> guidelines for durable goods vendors who want to sell Fedora-branded goods
17:05:34 <quaid> and are willing to do transaparent bookkeeping, profit sharing by supporting regional events, etc.
17:05:37 <quaid> ?
17:06:14 <stickster> We currently do not, because one of the purposes of TM protection is to make sure the TM is not associated with substandard goods or services. Therefore it behooves the TM holder to keep an eye on what's being branded and that it's of sufficient quality. (Q.v. earlier discussion about Russian Fedora and non-software goods branding.)
17:06:17 <stickster> But
17:06:41 <stickster> That isn't to say it's not possible to do so, and I've been looking into this precisely because of Russian Fedora's request.
17:06:51 <quaid> we've done this, in essence, for media for a number of years.
17:07:07 <stickster> Yes, but media are specifically granted an exemption in the TM guidelines. On purpose.
17:07:16 <quaid> OK
17:07:29 <stickster> If you're giving out official Fedora media, you're automatically permitted to use the Fedora trademark on it.
17:07:45 <stickster> There are many other uses we now provide for in the TM guidelines.
17:07:46 <quaid> despite quality of goods?
17:07:46 <mdomsch> and we don't say how much you can charge for that
17:08:22 <mdomsch> (that being a supply/demand driven pricepoint for what is presumed to be a commodity)
17:08:22 <stickster> quaid: There's a limited variance in what the quality of goods could be for, say, a CD. It works or it doesn't, and there's very little value imparted from that to Fedora as a whole.
17:08:29 <quaid> ok, then, just a request that we specifically address this in some way, even if the answer is, "Engage in a relationship via f-a-b so we can learn you are cool and will do as you say, etc."
17:08:46 <quaid> perhaps as an outfall of the Russia-related work.
17:08:56 <stickster> quaid: Exactly. We have usually denied random requests from people to sell Fedora schwag and give us a cut of the profits.
17:09:37 <quaid> stickster: right, just looking for an enumeration transparently of how one can overcome that situation, so we can point people there, etc.
17:09:55 <quaid> <eoq>
17:11:39 <Southern_Gentlem> is there a contract with BrandFuel for Fedora items at this current time, if so when does that contract end?
17:12:20 <spot> Yes, and I don't know.
17:12:39 <poelcat> Southern_Gentlem: why do you ask?
17:12:45 <stickster> There is, and it's not exclusive AFAIK.
17:12:49 <Southern_Gentlem> and that contract is through Redhat and not the Fedora project?
17:13:14 <spot> Southern_Gentlem: "Fedora project" is not a legal entity.
17:13:19 <spot> can't sign contracts. :)
17:13:23 <stickster> Southern_Gentlem: Since this isn't a court of law, can you give us some background so we can answer more fully where needed?
17:14:00 <Southern_Gentlem> stickster, you mainly answered my question that it is not exclusive
17:14:07 * stickster likes to take opportunities to be clear where possible, since he sometimes doesn't do well at it
17:14:28 <dgilmore> Southern_Gentlem: why do you ask?
17:14:50 <stickster> Brand Fuel is sort of a pre-existing business relationship Red Hat has had for
100 31715 100 31715 0 0 64127 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 73414
a while. Red Hat took the opportunity early in the Fedora Project's existence to use that relationship to provide some schwag.
17:15:11 <Southern_Gentlem> dgilmore, there are alot of people in the community who would like to produce a fedora store type situation where Fedora goods could be sold
17:15:24 <stickster> It's generally very high quality, but it's also a bit expensive in some people's estimation. So it's good that we aren't bound to use or buy Brand Fuel only.
17:15:34 <caillon> it's also got a limited selection
17:15:39 <jwb> caillon, indeed
17:15:40 <stickster> caillon: Very true!
17:15:56 <stickster> Southern_Gentlem: I'd like to think that was true, but the experience over the past few years in the Fedora Marketing team seems to indicate otherwise.
17:16:04 <stickster> Here's what I think --
17:16:04 <Southern_Gentlem> stickster, in the past the quaility of items from brandfuel has been very questionable
17:16:29 <stickster> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. My experience is the opposite.
17:16:32 <stickster> But regardless..
17:17:15 <stickster> I think if we want a store, then we should do something that gregdek suggested earlier, which is simply get proper licensing set up, and a no-profit site through CafePress or somewhere agreeable.
17:18:06 <notting> stickster: pre-existing, 'local-ish' relationship
17:18:13 <notting> stickster: ew, cafepress? (speaking of quality)
17:18:14 <stickster> notting: *nod
17:18:21 <stickster> Yeah, I'm not touting CafePress, don't get me wrong.
17:18:24 * glezos agrees with the KISS principle.
17:18:57 <stickster> We still have to deal with the trademark issues, but I'm sure that can be managed.
17:19:41 <stickster> The easy answer might be for someone at Red Hat to set up the store to assuage any worries about the trademark licensing, and move forward from there.
17:20:02 <stickster> We haven't wanted to do that before because of the desire to have the entire process, from supplier to shipping, be transparent like Fedora is.
17:20:17 <dgilmore> stickster: sure. I guess knowing what products people want might help also
17:20:24 <stickster> But that nut is apparently very difficult to crack, or else it would have been done any of the previous times people have tried.
17:20:36 * spot has to bail, i really need to eat lunch...
17:20:39 <stickster> dgilmore: The nice thing about a pre-fab store is, it doesn't matter -- most of them provide everything people want.
17:20:48 <stickster> OK, we're well into b'storm mode anyway.
17:21:30 <stickster> The next public IRC meeting is scheduled for 2009-09-03, but the Red Hat Summit is then and at least one of us (me) won't be available.
17:21:38 <stickster> #topic next meeting
17:21:52 <stickster> I'll bring this up on FAB and suggest we reschedule for 2009-09-10.
17:22:09 <stickster> #action stickster to go to FAB with next public IRC date of 2009-09-10
17:22:23 <stickster> Thanks everyone for coming, I'll stick around for a few in #f-b-q for follow-up
17:22:30 <stickster> #endmeeting
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]