[12:56] <popey> @schedule
[13:00] <dholbach> hello
[13:00] <dholbach> who's here for the CC meeting?
[13:01] <Technoviking> me me me
[13:01]  * sbc is
[13:01] <dholbach> mako?
[13:01] <Seeker`> o/
[13:01] <dholbach> sabdfl and elmo will join us in a bit
[13:02] <dholbach> sbc: I guess you are SørenBredlundCaspersen?
[13:02] <sbc> dholbach: Yes.
[13:02] <dholbach> great
[13:02] <elmo> avril's chasing down mark
[13:03] <dholbach> sbc: so as far as I can see the only agenda item today is yours, so let's wait a bit for Mark to join in
[13:03] <sbc> dholbach: I see the issue is also on LoCoCouncilAgenda - so if that is the place to go, I will wait for tomorrow. But if this meeting will adress the issue I will be happy with that.
[13:03] <sbc> dholbach: Fine by me.
[13:03] <dholbach> alright
[13:04] <dholbach> sbc: do you have some kind of summary of the discussion or a clear proposal or clearer question?
[13:04] <sbc> Question: Does canonical / ubuntu object against LoCo teams forming legal entityes?
[13:05] <dholbach> Ok, we'll take the discussion from there in a bit then
[13:06] <sabdfl> hello all, sorry for the delay
[13:07] <dholbach> sabdfl: hi Mark - the only agenda item is sbc's - his question is " Does canonical / ubuntu object against LoCo teams forming legal entityes?"
[13:07] <Technoviking> sabdfl: hello Mark
[13:07] <sabdfl> do we have quorum?
[13:07] <sabdfl> hey Technoviking
[13:07] <dholbach> sabdfl: it's Technoviking, elmo, you and me
[13:07] <sabdfl> okdokey
[13:07] <Technoviking> sbc: What type legal entity, I assume some kind of non-profit.
[13:07] <sabdfl> folks want to comment on the question at hand?
[13:08] <sbc> Technoviking: non-profit yes.
[13:08] <sabdfl> sbc: what would it be called, and where would it be registered?
[13:08] <mako> greetings
[13:08] <Technoviking> hey mako
[13:08] <ompaul> the issue that might occur with something like this is the transfer of the organisation to "new" hands, costs and overheads etc
[13:08] <sbc> Technoviking: I wont (and can't) comment on specific legal aspect of the legislation in denmark (where i'm from), but it is very common here to form a 'forening' when ever you work towards some goal.
[13:09] <juliux> hi all
[13:09] <sbc> sabdfl: It would be registrered in Denamark and would proberly be called Danish LoCo team or "foreningen til fremme af ubuntu i danmark" (assosiation for the advancement of Ubuntu in Danmark).
[13:10] <sabdfl> how would officers or managers or trustees be appointed?
[13:10] <sbc> sabdfl: By yearly meetings. Votes woubl be by all memebers of the assosiation.
[13:11] <sabdfl> who would be members?
[13:11] <sbc> right to vote would be granted to.
[13:11] <sbc> sabdfl: Anyone who joins.
[13:11] <elmo> sbc: do you have any idea how much work is involved?  in my experience of other non-profits (e.g. SPI) there's a substantially non-trivially overhead in terms of setup and maintenance
[13:11] <soren> That's not the case in Denmark.
[13:11] <ompaul> perhaps controlling shareholding should be vested in canonical
[13:12] <soren> It's quite low overhead.
[13:12] <sbc> elmo: I don't personally, but it is a verry common aproach here in Denmark.
[13:12] <sbc> No shares involved.
[13:12] <juliux> ompaul: canonical doesn't have that on the existing no profit ubuntu associations
[13:12] <ompaul> juliux, ack
[13:13] <soren> To maintain an association in Denmark, you just need to tell the local government where it's registered, who the chairman is and what the bylaws are. That's it.
[13:14] <sabdfl> what about accounting, reporting, tax, etc?
[13:14] <soren> You can get public funding for various things. If you want that, you need to submit a summerical financial report once a year.
[13:14] <soren> it's entirely optional, though.
[13:15] <soren> No taxes involved (unless you start selling stuff, of course).
[13:15] <sabdfl> what are the advantages of an association like this?
[13:16] <sbc> sabdfl: People can donate and be sure that the money goes to Ubuntu related pourpouses.
[13:16] <sbc> Right now people have to trust each other.
[13:17] <sbc> It is more easy to rent a place for a install party as a assosiation than as an individual.
[13:17] <sabdfl> is there an obligation to publish records of what was donated and where it was spent?
[13:17] <juliux> an normaly a associaten can have an insurance for illegal activites for a forum or a booth at an expo
[13:17] <soren> sabdfl: I'm not sure.
[13:18] <soren> sabdfl: If it's something people expect to deduct, I can imagine we'd need to report it to some extent.
[13:18] <sbc> sabdfl: I'm not sure of the law, but you would have to present a detailed review of income and expences to the mebers each year.
[13:18] <sbc> members of the association that is.
[13:19] <dholbach> Who makes decisions about how to spend the money?
[13:19] <sbc> there would be a board (elected each year).
[13:19] <mako> so listen, we (the CC) need to understand or explain what the risks are here more clearly
[13:20] <mako> it's not clear to me that we care if an organization files it's papers or jumps through beurocratic hoops correctly as long as the liability for doing that doens't fall on us
[13:20] <mako> or reflect poorly on ubuntu in general
[13:20] <sabdfl> there's also a reputational risk
[13:20] <sabdfl> a bit like the loco virtual-machine servers which got hacked
[13:21] <sbc> I see that point, but how is that any different from the risk the current LoCo teams pose to you / Ubuntu ?
[13:21] <sabdfl> where we took the view initially that "it's ok, it's unofficial" but the story was reported as "ubuntu gets hacked"
[13:21] <mako> right, unless we identify why we would not want to do it about, trying to argue for it is confusing me a little bit
[13:21] <sabdfl> sbc: a couple of country loco teams have wanted to do this
[13:22] <mako> sbc: a non-profit organization called ubuntu is a legal entity representing the proejct
[13:22] <sabdfl> i don't recall if any have actually incorporated
[13:22] <mako> and is going to reflect on it
[13:22] <sabdfl> it couldn't be called "ubuntu", because that would be a TM problem
[13:22] <sabdfl> but it might be called "association for the advancement of ubuntu"
[13:22] <sabdfl> anyhow, aside from naming
[13:22] <mako> sure, but that still applies endorsement, and it should
[13:22] <sabdfl> the main issue we have had is lifecycle
[13:22] <sabdfl> initially, usually you have strong passionate leaders
[13:22] <sbc> mako: So would your problem be solved if the association was called "Danish LoCo Ubuntu Team" or "Association for the advancement of Ubuntu in Denmark"?
[13:23] <sabdfl> in time however, they sometimes move on  to other projects
[13:23] <sabdfl> and the folks who take over may have different aims or goals
[13:23] <mako> sbc: i'm trying to identify what the problems to be solved are
[13:23] <sbc> mako: ok.
[13:23] <sabdfl> and in a worst-case situation, you may find that there's a vocal split in the members about what should happen
[13:24] <sabdfl> i take the point that it's easier to arrange a venue etc if you have an organisation
[13:24] <sabdfl> but it does create potential issues later on that we have to think through - and often the CC or Canonical ends up having to worry about them then
[13:24] <mako> sabdfl: i don't have a problem with having multiple lightweight, overlapping, ubuntu non-profits
[13:24] <mako> in the same way we treat loco teams
[13:25] <sabdfl> mako: i don't either, if they run smoothly
[13:25] <mako> now, it seems clear to me that any such organization will need to get a trademark license (even if they are called association for the advancement...)
[13:26] <mako> and we can write an agreement that lays out a set of groundrules
[13:26] <mako> or even just makes it revokable, and we can write a list of expectations and rules
[13:26] <dholbach> there's little processes figured out and documentation for how to do it - no defined reporting from those associations to others, no processes for "what do we do if there's controversy in the association"
[13:26] <mako> it sounds like one expectation that sabdfl is voicing (that i agree with) is an established and accountable system for leadership changes
[13:27] <soren> mako: I imagine those ground rules would be very much like the CoC?
[13:27] <juliux> mako there is allready a basic aggrement
[13:28] <mako> juliux: right, i remember going through this a couple years ago
[13:28] <juliux> mako: it is from 2005
[13:29] <mako> so there are two documents we need
[13:29] <mako> one is the legal agreement
[13:29] <mako> the second is a list of expectations and groundrules
[13:29] <mako> the former will be with canonical (who controls the trademark)
[13:29] <juliux> http://verein.ubuntu-de.org/file/agreement/pdf/ there is the agreement ubuntu-de gets
[13:30] <mako> the second might be produced/enforced by the CC
[13:30] <mako> that's an idea
[13:30] <dholbach> to me it sounds like it'd make sense to discuss this with the Loco Council and try to formalise what already works well, which problems there are, how to escalate and discuss those documents and processes again here - what do you think?
[13:30] <juliux> dholbach: i think that would be good, perhaps we can do that this week;)
[13:30] <Technoviking> dholbach: good idea
[13:32] <mako> juliux: great, that seems like something i'd be happy replicating
[13:33] <mako> i have one more concern that's worth mentioning
[13:33] <mako> so i've seen in some other communities that legal entities have become seen as sort of a "higher level" of local community team
[13:33] <sbc> So it sounds like the CC is positive to the idea - given that we signe the papers to be produced later?
[13:33] <mako> i don't have a problem with groups taking on legal entities when it solves pressing problem for the group
[13:34] <mako> but doing so creates a huge amount of headaches for both the loco and for folks in ubuntu and canonical
[13:34] <sabdfl> ok, i'll want to check with folks at canonical on the TM front
[13:34] <sbc> mako: In the discusstion we have had already in the team that has been one of our conserns. It must still be possible to come in 'from the street' and get involved and be heard even if you are not a 'member'.
[13:35] <mako> sabdfl: canonical has done it before (without horrible effects) so i think it's possible
[13:35] <sabdfl> ok
[13:35] <mako> but if we suspect we'll do this a few times again, we should understand some rules
[13:35] <mako> we had a long long conversation last time :)
[13:35] <juliux> sabdfl: normaly we write a mail to trademark and everything is fine;)
[13:36] <sabdfl> ok
[13:36] <mako> i would suggest that teams like denmark trying to incorporate write a proposal
[13:36] <sabdfl> my key issues are around accounting, governance and reputational risk to the project
[13:36] <mako> where they lay out why they need to incorporate, what structure they will adopt, and how they will stay accountable
[13:36]  * mako nods to sabdfl 
[13:36] <dholbach> mako: that's a good point - it'd be good to have some outline about the legal liabilities in the specific countries
[13:37] <soren> sabdfl: If members are required to sign the CoC, would that suffice, or are we talking about an actual legal agreement of some sort?
[13:37] <mako> i'm not happy having people send a two paragrpah email saying they need to incorporate and someone at canonical just faxing over the paperwork
[13:37] <juliux> sbc: if you need some help drop me a line
[13:37] <mako> soren: an actual trademark agreement, take a look at the url that juliux posted
[13:37] <mako> there are real limiations in that agreement that are meant to address the types of concerns that sabdfl voiced
[13:38] <mako> and i suspect that any similar agreements would offer similar constraints
[13:38] <juliux> soren: an agreement that gives you the right to have the name ubuntu in your assocation name, that is everything that stands in this agreeement
[13:38] <soren> mako: I saw it. I just assumed that what sabdfl was talking about was something in addition to this.
[13:38] <soren> That document looks fine to me, by the way.
[13:39] <mako> so i'd like to see a proposal/justification from you guys
[13:39] <sbc> juliux: Will do - should I catch you here or by e-mail?
[13:40] <juliux> sbc: i am travelling until 1. june so better send me a mail, but we can also have some irc chat about it
[13:40] <sabdfl> ok, i've pinged folks in canonical to check that they are still comfortable with the framing in that agreement
[13:41] <sabdfl> but in principle, we have a basis for this
[13:41] <sbc> juliux: ok, thanks
[13:41] <mako> the CC needs to work out it's procedure and guidelines
[13:41] <sabdfl> so, +1 assuming there are no new objections on the canonical front
[13:41] <sabdfl> and +1 to the suggestion of a guideline / proposal / approval
[13:41] <mako> i'd like to see a more threshed out justification and proposal from you guys
[13:41] <soren> sbc: I'm cool with this approach. You?
[13:41] <nealmc1> #ubuntu-devel-summit
[13:42] <Technoviking> +1 for me if canonical has no problems
[13:42]  * nealmc1 sighs
[13:42] <sbc> soren: Yes.
[13:42] <dholbach> +1 from me too - it'll be great to have more clarity there
[13:42] <soren> Cool.
[13:42] <sbc> But I'm not clear. Should we wait for the guidlines from the CC or should we produce a proposal for mako ?
[13:42] <mako> sbc: no need to wait, i don't think
[13:42] <sbc> ok
[13:43] <mako> sbc: if you do a great job, we can use it as the templates for others going down the path
[13:43] <dholbach> I'm sure that members of the Loco Council will be happy to review / help out
[13:43]  * mako nods to dholbach 
[13:43] <mako> yes, we should definitely do that
[13:44] <dholbach> Rock and Roll - are there any open questions about the item right now or any other business?
[13:46] <sabdfl> groovy!
[13:46] <Technoviking> looks like none
[13:46] <sabdfl> thanks all for accommodating the one hour deferral
[13:46] <Technoviking> see everyone in two weeks
[13:46] <sabdfl> and one more cheer for more interesting and productive CC meetings :-)
[13:46] <sabdfl> cheers
[13:46] <dholbach> have a great day everybody and see you online soon again :-)
[13:47] <sabdfl> or offline, sooner :-)
[13:47] <mako> sabdfl: seriously :)
[13:47] <dholbach> right-o
[13:47] <mako> wish i was there :)
[13:56] <juliux> @schedule
[14:51] <emonkey> rörörö rörö rö
[14:54] <lousygarua> did i miss it, again?
[14:55] <Pici> lousygarua: Which?
[14:55] <lousygarua> Pici, the CC meeting
[14:55] <Pici> lousygarua: Yes.
[14:55] <lousygarua> ah well.
[14:55] <lousygarua> cu next time
[14:56] <Seeker`> lousygarua: by about 2 hours
[14:56] <lousygarua> i didn't watch my schedule this morning
[17:57] <Pretto> what happened to the meeting for new member approval????
[18:08] <popey> Pretto: the cc doesn't do new member approvals any more
[18:08] <popey> Pretto: the regional boards do
[18:09] <Pretto> popey, yes.. i know that.. but how can i be well informed about when and how?
[18:10] <popey> Pretto: which region are you in?
[18:10] <Pretto> popey, America
[18:10] <popey> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership/RegionalBoards/Americas
[18:11] <nixternal> Pretto: we are going to have a meeting next week....
[18:11] <nixternal> https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Membership/RegionalBoards/Americas
[18:11] <nixternal> :p
[18:11] <nixternal> popey beat me to it
[18:11] <popey> :)
[18:11] <popey> wakey wakey nixternal
[18:11] <Pretto> popey, nixternal thank you
[18:11] <nixternal> aren't you supposed to be partying in prague or something? :)
[18:12] <popey> nixternal: :) waiting for roomie to get back from the pool, then off out
[18:12] <nixternal> ahh, groovy, don't have to much fun, drink something for me (and get a picture of it) :)
[18:12] <popey> heh
[19:44] <lukehasnoname> Meeting!
[19:44] <lukehasnoname> T - 75m
[19:48] <Rafik> @now
[19:52] <lukehasnoname> What?
[19:52] <lukehasnoname> It says it's almost 20:00 (8pm) in London
[19:53] <lukehasnoname> london's GMT, right?
[19:53] <Pici> What meeting?
[19:53] <lukehasnoname> Server team
[19:54] <Pici> Thats tomorrow.
[19:55] <Pici> http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event/2008/05/21/day/all/all
[19:55] <Pici> lukehasnoname: ^
[19:58] <lukehasnoname> Son of a beach
[20:00] <lukehasnoname> damnit, I was waiting all day for it too
[20:00] <lukehasnoname> oh well
[20:05] <Nafallo> no. London is BST :-)
[22:54] <Syntux> @schedule
[23:14]  * Rafik is away: Très afk... j'crois que j'suis en train de réviser