/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2009/05/26/#ubuntu-meeting.txt

=== carolija is now known as Kubuntu-SR
=== Kubuntu-SR is now known as carolija
=== MaWaLe1 is now known as MaWaLe
amachuelky: persia: lifeless: Hi alla10:54
elkyhi10:55
persiaamachu, Hey10:55
amachu*all10:55
persialifeless told me that he wouldn't be able to make it today.10:55
amachupersia: are you also at UDS?10:55
persiaI am.10:55
amachuso we are three. unless zakame, belutz or themuso are going to turn out10:56
amachuelky: Hi10:56
elkypersia, the others not within sight?10:57
persiaI'll peer about for the one I know to be around10:57
amachupersia: ok10:58
amachupyc: darkvertex: Hi10:58
darkvertexhi10:59
SamhainXIIIHello. Good afternoon.10:59
pychi, this is my second round :)10:59
boyetHello good afternoon bosses10:59
amachupyc: darkvertex: Thanks for joining. We are awaiting one more member of the board for Quorum. We have to wait. Hope you understand10:59
pycok11:00
darkvertexok with me11:01
* drubin waits for meeting to start11:01
* persia has a lead, and will report again soon.11:02
persiaWe should reach quorum as soon as a laptop is set up.11:06
amachupersia: who is that?11:08
TheMusoHey folks.11:09
darkvertexhi11:09
TheMusoAssuming we have no network connectivity issues here at UDS, we should be right to go.11:09
amachuTheMuso: Hi11:11
amachuSo we start..11:11
amachuelky: are you there?11:11
elkyyup11:11
amachuelky: great11:11
amachupersia: We start now11:12
elkyyour pinging me made me realise i havent eaten yet, so i'm ordering food :-P but carry on.11:12
amachupyc: Welcome back!11:12
pychi, thanks :)11:12
drubinwho is on Council for this loco meeting?11:12
amachupyc: Go ahead introducing yourself11:12
pycHi, i'm Loell Erecre,  most of my tehcnical contribution lies in ubuntuforums.org11:12
drubins/loco/Membership council/11:12
pycMy forum work started since late 2005, in areas of yahoo instant messaging, webcams, screencasting.11:13
pycof which i tend to help promptly in troubleshootings.11:13
pycalmost two years after, because I was already known to have consistenly been helping people back then, the philippine LoCo team gave me the privelege to be the LoCo's  primary moderator in 2007.11:13
pycnot only did I do LoCo modship functions since then, I've also maintained prompt replies for users technical problems posted in the Philippine Loco forum,11:13
pycI tried to be as detailed as i can if job doesn't get in the way. ;)11:13
persiadrubin, https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-membership-board-asia-oceania/+members11:13
pycparallel to this, I also do extensive testing for gyachi yahoo messaging client.11:13
pyc've also been packaging it  upstream since 2006 for ubuntu users, and a year ago in my PPA, constantly updating it for every incremental release from the project.11:13
pycI have just notified debian for an ITP for the said software.11:14
pycin addition since Ubuntu Net Cafe has been slowly on the rise, i provided deb packages for "cafe con leche" cafe timer and management, for ubuntu users to use and helping them in setting up their internet shop by advising them on the forums.11:14
TheMusopyc: Well done.11:14
TheMusore debian.11:14
pycand  among one of my little contributions is a web app for searching PPAs (http://ppa-search.appspot.com/)11:14
pycIt started late last year, probably of little significance, but it made ppa users aware of what others were searching, thereby making a package advertising of some sort. :)11:14
pycI believe that's it...11:14
pycthanks TheMuso :)(11:14
persiapyc, What's the state of gyachi in the Ubuntu repositories?11:15
pyci belive i have supporters here, just ready  to sound off :)11:15
pycpersia: none yet11:15
* drubin is here for pyc11:16
boyeti'm here an internet cafe owner that uses ubuntu OS exclusively11:16
* SamhainXIII is here for pyc as well11:16
pycpersia reason for that, is questionable which was just resolved lately11:16
dodimarme here also for pyc...11:16
Knightlustyay for pyc!11:16
drubinhis contributions of the forums have been great! He has be long standing memember as well as a active loco moderator11:16
persiapyc, Could you tell us about some of the seminars you have conducted?11:18
pyci believe, i did not, its my future plan11:18
boyetloell has been a great help for my icafe shop here in the Philippines like he said ccl is my timer11:18
persiapyc, My apologies.  I misread.11:18
persiapyc, Could you tell us about some of the seminars you plan to conduct?11:19
pycfoss awareness mostly, and introduction to ubuntu would be most common11:19
TheMusoCould anyone else on the membership board enlighten me as to whether this is the same candidate who talked about a web PPA search a few weeks back?11:20
TheMusoFrom memory it isn't, but I can't exactly remember.11:20
TheMusoi.e I am not 100% sure.11:20
elkydont think so...11:21
KnightlustTheMuso: yeah, he's the one, PPA search11:21
amachuTheMuso: yes11:21
pycsame person, like i said this is second application :)11:21
TheMusoamachu, Knightlust, thanks.11:21
amachuhttp://ppa-search.appspot.com/11:22
TheMuso can't remember what nick you used originally.11:22
TheMusoamachu: Yes, I got the link on his wiki page.11:22
pycit's always pyc heheh11:22
elkythat was a very busy meeting iirc11:23
TheMusopyc: Is there any reason why you wrote a separate client, rather than helping improve a client like pidgin?11:23
TheMusoOr did you not write it?11:23
pycthemuso, i'm not the developer, but specific yahoo protocols is difficult11:23
pycnot for pidgin imho, like yahoo msg15 prtocol and such11:24
TheMusopyc: Right, just double checked, thanks for the confirmation.11:24
lifelesshi guys; turns out I'm in bangkok airport :P11:24
lifelessbut not for long, so I won't be voting11:25
amachulifeless: glad to see you11:26
elkylifeless, i didnt know they relocated UDS to bangkok!11:26
* elky ducks11:26
amachuI would give +1 for pyc this time..11:26
elkyamachu, agreed, +1 from me too11:27
* drubin cheers11:27
persia+1 from me.11:27
TheMuso+1 here, Jerome's feedback is likely the clincher for me, as well as the many other endorcements.11:27
amachucool.. Welcome pyc and keep up the good work11:27
pycthanks!!! :D11:28
Knightlustyay for pyc!!! congratulations!11:28
boyetcongrats boss loell11:28
pycthanks Knightlust11:28
SamhainXIIIpyc is in?11:28
* dodimar cheers for pyc11:28
SamhainXIIIyey!11:28
amachulifeless: would you like to think of voting now, we are going to call up the next participant11:28
pycoh thanks to all who attended for my application :)11:28
boyetpyc, dont forget to help me my network manager ha11:28
amachudarkvertex: Please go ahead11:29
darkvertexhi, my name is Hertatijanto Hartono. I only joined Launchpad since late 200811:30
lifelessamachu: I don't have the focus/time right now. For the former see planet,f or the latter I'm boarding an airplane very shortly11:30
amachulifeless: ok11:31
darkvertexI haven't done much direct public projects using ubuntu, but in the office / workplace I applied my linux knowledge through ubuntu 8.0411:31
darkvertexI am a system admin at the company hq11:32
darkvertexI have done some translations in Launchpad11:33
darkvertexI guess that's it11:33
darkvertex:)11:33
amachudarkvertex: Glad that you started contributing. I would give +0 this time, the wiki need have more information...11:33
TheMusoI agree with amachu, +0 also. I don't feel there is sustained contribution to the Ubuntu community.11:34
amachudarkvertex: continue with the good work.. you should make it in future..11:34
persiadarkvertex, https://translations.launchpad.net/~darkvertex looks like it might not be a complete list.  Is there other documentation of either your translations or your efforts leading the translation team?11:34
darkvertexpersia: no, this Launchpad Indonesian Translators team has just been started11:35
darkvertexamachu: thanks for the encouragement11:36
darkvertexTheMuso: thanks11:36
persiaI'm going to vote -1 for now: I think that more time, and more docs would certainly raise my vote.11:36
amachuand elky?11:36
elky0 from me.11:36
darkvertexpersia: I believe the translation team could be managed and improved upon11:37
persiadarkvertex, I'm certain of it, and I even think you're in a great position to lead that.  I just don't think you've done it yet.11:37
darkvertexpersia: the documentation of the team is almost non existent at the moment11:38
amachudarkvertex: best wishes for the future11:38
amachuis there anything else that anyone would like to bring upon?11:38
persiadarkvertex, There's some docs on the wiki about setting up and coordinating teams.  Please ask for help if you get stuck.11:38
TheMusoNot from ne11:39
persiaI'd like to see either more mailing list discussion of nominees for empty positions, or an invitation for candidates to attend one of our meetings.11:40
darkvertexpersia: will do11:40
darkvertexthanks for your time guys :)11:40
persiadarkvertex, Great.  Good luck, and we look forward to seeing your reapplication in a few months.11:40
boyetthanks bosses for your vote for loell11:41
amachugood. comparitively a short meeting.11:42
elkya nice change after the past few weeks.11:42
amachuthankyou every one for participating..11:42
TheMusoHas an announcement been made publically about new candidates being needed?11:42
amachuTheMuso: new candidates for the Board?11:43
TheMusoamachu: Yes.11:43
amachuyes11:43
persiaThere was one when we were first authorised to grow, but that was long enough ago we might benefit from another call.11:43
TheMusoI think we probably would.11:43
amachuthere is one nomiation from persia, and i would like have your opinion on that, for taking a decision11:44
persiaIf nobody objects, I think we ought invite the nominee to the next meeting.11:45
persiaWe can take a decision then.11:45
amachupersia: sounds good11:45
amachui will add it to the agenda too11:45
persiaAnd who volunteers to arrange another call for nominees?  We still have open slots, even if the current nominee is approved.11:46
TheMusoSounds fine by me.11:46
amachupersia: another call with?11:47
persiacall for nominees.11:47
persiaWe need more nominations, because we're short on board members.11:47
amachupersia: yes. people whom I had initially are now out of our time zone. i will look into logs etc., and try to make a nomination11:48
persiaamachu, Great!11:49
amachuTheMuso: lifeless: elky: Kindly look out for nominations.. and suggest if you have any on the list11:49
TheMusoI'll do my best, however most of my attention is towards the dev community...11:49
amachuTheMuso: Thanks11:50
* TheMuso thinks we're done here.11:51
amachupersia: shall we wind up this meeting11:51
persiaSOunds good to me.11:51
amachuour next meeting is scheduled on 09 June 09, 10.00 UTC11:52
elkywill do (sorry, distracted by late dinner)11:52
amachuthank you everyone for partipating11:52
TheMusoGreat, should have no probem making that one.11:52
persiaSee you all then.11:52
TheMusoNow, to the rest ofr UDS.11:52
boyetgudday and ahv a nice day11:52
elmo  12:01
elmogood morning12:02
sabdflhello all12:02
Technovikinghello everyone12:02
dholbachhello12:02
dholbach!startmeeting12:03
ubottuSorry, I don't know anything about startmeeting12:03
sabdflhttps://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda12:03
dholbach#startmeeting12:03
MootBotMeeting started at 06:03. The chair is dholbach.12:03
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]12:03
elmoI don't think mdke will be able to join us12:03
dholbachhello everybody12:03
elmomako should be around though12:03
dholbach[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda12:03
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda12:03
dholbachwe only have one agenda item today, the other two are for June 2nd12:03
dholbach[TOPIC] Ubuntu One12:04
MootBotNew Topic:  Ubuntu One12:04
sabdflmdke has registered concerns about ubuntu one in http://launchpad.net/bugs/37534512:04
dholbachsladen: are you around?12:04
ubottuUbuntu bug 375345 in ubunet ""Ubuntu One" name creates confusion" [Undecided,Incomplete]12:04
dholbach[LINK] http://launchpad.net/bugs/37534512:04
MootBotLINK received:  http://launchpad.net/bugs/37534512:04
sabdflhe can't make this meeting but we should discuss his comment(s) there12:04
dholbachI guess https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubunet/+bug/375345/comments/62 is what we're talking about?12:06
ubottuUbuntu bug 375345 in ubunet ""Ubuntu One" name creates confusion" [Undecided,Incomplete]12:06
sabdflcan i have a quick poll to see who wants to participate in this conversation?12:07
Vantraxo/12:08
sabdflwe have a lot of people lurking in the channel, and all the CC folks who are here are in one room12:08
wgrantme12:08
sabdflso, we could just TALK amongst ourselves if nobody else wanted to participate :-)12:08
* sbc listens in12:08
wgrantI see.12:08
sabdflok, yay, we have folks here12:08
sabdflhey mako, let's get started12:08
makogreetings12:08
sabdflfirst, can we deal with the trademark issue as defined in the bug?12:09
sabdfli think there are more general issues12:09
* mako nods12:09
sabdflbut lets deal with them one by one12:09
wgrantIt hasn't been clear exactly which issue is in the scope of which governance body.12:09
sabdflon the trademark front the easy answer is "it's not a trademark violation if you own the trademark"12:09
Hobbseebelated o/12:09
sabdflso, pass on a technicality12:09
sabdflbut i think it's important to address the folks who are concerned about the spirit of the law, as much as the letter of it12:10
* elky hugs Hobbsee12:10
wgrantsabdfl: That's not an answer to mdke's comment 62, which is probably the one in question.12:10
Hobbseeelky: *hugs back*12:10
sabdflthere are good people who have said "the spirit of the ubuntu trademark is that it denotes goods that are in line with certain value"12:10
sabdflit's more the brand than the trademark12:10
sabdflbut i think we should discuss it here12:10
sabdflis that a good starting point?12:10
Vantraxsabdfl imo its not so much that it was done, but that the CC/community wasnt notified that it was coming, or at least given a chance to give input12:10
wgrantVantrax: Different people feel differently about that.12:11
sabdflfor us to say "not a legal violation, but worth discussing from a brand-and-values perspective"?12:11
wgrantIt's not either of those in particular.12:11
wgrantsabdfl: That sounds good.12:11
wgrantBut brand and trademark are very much intertwined.12:11
sabdflok, so there's the heads-up issue, and the values issue12:11
sabdfli'd like to defer the heads-up issue, because it's more general12:11
sabdfllet's start with the question of the "ubuntu brand" and whether u1 is consistent with it12:12
sabdflopen floor... wgrant?12:12
wgrantAh, well...12:12
sabdflright. Vantrax?12:13
sabdflquoting mdke:12:14
sabdfl More worryingly, Ubuntu One will almost certainly affect the perception of Ubuntu as a project. The project will be seen, at least in some degree, as less open. That also happened when Ubuntu decided to use Launchpad as its development management software. But Launchpad is all too clearly a separate project to Ubuntu, and carried a promise that it would be open source in the future, a promise that is now being carried out. I think that the ef12:14
wgrantRight.12:14
wgrantThe trademark policy is meant to prevent that from happening.12:14
sabdfl... the effect of Ubuntu One could be more serious, because it is not clearly demarcated as being a separate project to Ubuntu. This is the first significant time that I'm aware of that a non-free project that Canonical has produced has carried such strong associations with the Ubuntu project itself.12:15
wgrantAnd the problem here is that Canonical doesn't have to follow the policy.12:15
sabdflwgrant: are you talk about a different issue? the fact that canonical has a privileged position in the Ubuntu ecosystem?12:15
dholbachwgrant: which policy are you referring to right now?12:15
sabdflfor example, if the CC "owned the trademark", would that address your concerns?12:15
wgrantsabdfl: Hmm, true, we were talking about the branding, weren't we?12:15
wgrantsabdfl: But yes, I was talking about that. We should come back to that later, I guess.12:16
sabdfla brand is not a legal entity, it's "what people think about you"12:16
wgrantdholbach: http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy12:16
erichammond_o/ - Don't want to get into arguments, but am willing to make a short statement when it's ok to fit it in.12:16
sabdflmdke's point, i think, is that this use of the Ubuntu brand will mean that people think differently about Ubuntu12:16
sabdflgo ahead eric, if you have it pre-prepped12:16
Hobbseesabdfl: indeed.12:16
erichammond_Even if the name fits the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, I suggest Canonical may wish to consider the feelings of the community.12:17
VantraxUbuntu specifically is the distribution or related to the community support for the distribution. To me canonical represents the commercial aspect, and add on services. I kinda think the two should not be mixed, but I dont feel strongly about it12:17
erichammond_I have to admit that when I first learned that Ubuntu One was commercial I felt uncomfortable.12:17
erichammond_I worked through my feelings and listened to all of the different positions folks came out with subsequently, but must admit I would be very impressed with Canonical if you were to change the name to not included "Ubuntu".12:17
Hobbseesabdfl: if this keeps going ahead, anyhing and everything "ubuntu" is no longer free and open sourced.12:17
sabdflerichammond_: wrapped?12:17
erichammond_that's all, thanks :)12:18
Hobbseesorry, any given thing.  and I think i've spoken out of turn, sorry12:18
sabdflHobbsee: on this one, i think we want to keep multithreading to a minimum :-)12:18
sabdflit will make it easier for folks reading the logs12:18
sabdflwgrant: on Canonical's privileged position12:18
Hobbseesabdfl: yeah, sorry.  I was trying to agree to your synopsis of mdke's point, but was slow.12:18
wgrantCertainly. It's a complex issue, and discussion is already convoluted enough.12:18
sabdflit's more or less a fact of life, as I see it, and one that is unlikely to be a surprise to most Ubuntu users or members of the community12:19
wgrantsabdfl: Right, it's always going to be there.12:20
sabdflCanonical does try to set a high standard for the way it collaborates with the community on Ubuntu, but it's privileged position is a function of the fact that Canonical and Ubuntu were founded together, symbiotically, by design12:20
sabdfli hope we are a leader in how you do that well12:20
sabdflbut i don't think it would be constructive to try to imagine a world where that symbiosis is broken12:20
wgrantOh no, I don't think so either.12:20
wgrantIt's beneficial to both.12:21
wgrantBut in this case, I think it's not clear exactly what role Canonical holds.12:21
sabdflif that's a surprise to folks in the community, i imagine they would migrate to other projects that don't have this issue (by design), like gentoo or debian12:21
sladendholbach: sorry, /me waves hand12:21
sabdfli think the we want to make sure there is room in the commercial ubuntu ecosystem for more companies than canonical, too12:21
sabdflbut that's not to suggest that canonical's position should not, or would not, be privileged12:22
* mako finishes reading all the recent stuff on the bug12:22
Tm_Tsladen: hi son12:22
Hobbsee(is there any debate on this?  This sounds like what everyone accepts to be true)12:22
sabdflhow we define the line of "acceptable use of that privileged position", i don't know, other than to take matters on a case by case basis12:22
wgrantThat's probably why it has rarely come up before - but here we have a specific case.12:23
wgrantI don't think it can be generally defined.12:23
sabdflyes, that's true12:23
makothere's a few different ways to approach this issue12:23
elmomako: will you share them with us? :-)12:24
sladenI'm trying to be fairly agnostic on this issue, and migrated it to the CC agenda to try and defuse the Won't Fix/New/Won't Fix/New fighting that was going on12:24
sabdflmako: he's laughing, btw ;-)12:24
makosorry, i'm trying to digest things a little bit12:24
makoso the first way is about values, and presumabley the free software position in particular12:25
makothe implication there would be that if the ubuntu one service were free, that would be fine12:25
makomatt lee's comment on the bug (and a number of others) echo that position12:26
makoanother position is that this about the line between canonical and ubuntu12:26
makocorey and mdke seem to take that position12:26
sabdflmako: free of charge, or franklin street free?12:26
makosabdfl: franklin street free in mattl's case12:27
makolike, "the ubuntu name should be reserved for things that are totally free"12:27
wgrantsabdfl: There are people in both camps, I believe. But more FSS-free.12:27
sabdflok, let's talk about the values piece12:27
sladenit could be franklin street, with the default setting, and website pointed at canonical12:27
makoright12:27
wgrantsladen: Somwhat like Launchpad will be in a couple of months. That sounds sane.12:28
makoso i want to explore the second issue first12:28
sabdflit touches on the brand - "what does Ubuntu mean in people's minds", and the issue Hobbsee raised, which is the "free or not" one12:28
makobecause i think it's interesting12:28
sabdflmako: would you agree that ubuntu also stands for "it just works", and that we've been pragmatic on freedom to achieve that?12:28
makoso if we argue that the issue is just about ubuntu and canonical, we might say that the problem with calling this program ubuntu one is that the software itself uses in the ubuntu brand (and the good will created by the community) to reinforce canonical's position12:29
makoin a way that would be hard for other members to compete with12:29
sabdflin the past we've done binary drivers when we felt it was warranted, and while we took heat from some quarters for that, it was a decision driven by the brand of Ubuntu delivering the best possible experience with - broadly defined - free client apps?12:29
makoso someone might say that if there were some existing protocal that ubuntu one was using12:29
wgrantsabdfl: But those drivers were, and still are, forced on us by hardware manufacturers.12:30
makoand existing implications, etc12:30
makothen it would be ok12:30
makoso jabber might be a good example12:30
wgrantsabdfl: Here we have proprietary software created just next to the community.12:30
wgrantsabdfl: It's very different.12:30
sladenI'm hopeful that since ubuntu one shares a name/intended functionality so intimately with Ubuntu, it could live at  www.ubuntu.com/one/   Then comes the question of what critia it would have to meet to be featured there.  (eg. the Ubuntu.com/employment page does not exclusively feature Canonical jobs, but those that are relevant, interesting, and add value)12:30
sabdflwgrant: we are not forced to use them, we chose to12:30
wgrantsabdfl: There was very strong reason to.12:31
makoif canonical made an im service that used jabber. they shouldn't call the SERVICE UbuntuTalk, but they could call the client UbuntuTalk and have it default to using the CanonicalTalk servers12:31
sabdflsladen: it's a good point re ubuntu.com/employment12:31
sabdflmako: i'm willing to bet that the ubuntu archives have long held packages which talk proprietary protocols12:32
wgrantsabdfl: And I can see the good reasons to integrate a service like Ubuntu One into the desktop.12:32
sabdflpidgin?12:32
sabdflsamba?12:32
makosabdfl: i am trying to separate those issues12:32
sladensabdfl: but none of those have the name 'Ubuntu' in them12:32
Flannelsabdfl: There isn't a conflict of interest in the usage of binary drivers, no one who made the decision to use them benefits from their usage (except from having hardware that works, etc)12:32
FlannelAlthough, that may be off topic for this thread.12:33
sabdflFlannel: not directly, but they benefit from the adoption of Ubuntu12:33
makosabdfl: forget about whether ubuntu contains proprietary protocals. this is about proprietary protocals CALLED ubuntu which reinforce12:33
sabdflmako: at least for the moment, I *think* all the protocols are in fact implemented by code which is free12:33
Flannelsabdfl: Yes, and the same benefit would come to Canonical if the service were named Canonical One12:34
makosabdfl: it's about using the goodwill associated with the brand that the community feels some degree of attachment to and responsibility for to reinforce one companies market position12:34
sabdflbut, i take the point that if they aren't then it becomes an issue, and it might12:34
sabdflso, coming back to the brand itself12:34
makoi am no position to tell canonical how to run its business, although i'll be happy to make suggestions :)12:34
sabdflmako: and you'll always find willing ears there ;-)12:34
sabdfli don't think it's right to say that "ubuntu == FLOSS" on the client side12:35
makothis issue is about ubuntu. and it's important that we be able ot have that converstion separately12:35
sabdflwe have binary drivers and firmware blobs, and don't devote a lot of cycles to agonising over that12:35
makothe reason that corey and mdke and many others on the bug seem to upset is that they feel that this blurs the line between the two12:35
sabdflwe also have mechanisms for skype and similar (acroread, flash etc)12:36
sabdflit's also not new for the trademark itself to denote something commercial12:36
makothere's a funny relationship between proprietariness and this way of framing the issue12:36
sabdflfor example, the authors of the official ubuntu book asked for that, for commercial reasons12:36
Vantraxagain sabdfl I think the issue is none of these bear the Ubuntu name, and most people think of it in different terms12:36
sabdfland it was licensed that way to them by canonical12:36
sladensabdfl: Ubuntu == "just works" "coolness" "I won't get screwed up" "hipness" "brown desktop"12:36
wgrantsabdfl: But the Ubuntu book is about Ubuntu.12:37
wgrantUbuntu One doesn't seem to be...12:37
sabdflsimilarly, Official Ubuntu Partners get the use of the name on commercial terms12:37
elmowgrant: that's disingenuous12:37
Tm_Tindeed it's matter of having Ubuntu in the name there, not if Ubuntu contains something or not12:37
sabdfltraining partners, hardware partners, isv's12:37
elmowgrant: Ubuntu One is absolutely about helping the users of Ubuntu12:37
elkythere has already been confusion in terms of community support avenues and even media. -marketing has had at least one journo that i'm aware of wander in there asking about One. the support side is only going to continue whilever the name is the same.12:37
elmowgrant: just as much as the book is12:37
makosabdfl: sure, and part of the requirement was that the book being freely licensed12:37
makosabdfl: which it is12:37
sabdflin that case, yes, but not in all cases12:37
makoi would object to having a book being called "The Official Ubuntu Book" if it were not freely licensed (not to mention that i wouldn't work on it)12:38
makopeople are prefectly able to go about making ubuntu books12:38
dholbach(Regarding the protocol bit of the discussion: as I understand it the ubuntuone-storage-protocol package is AGPL3.)12:38
Hobbseeis there a requirement that everything containing "ubuntu" needs to be freely licenced, though?  Should there be?  Is this what the issue actually falls back to?12:38
dholbachHobbsee: what about multiverse and restricted?12:39
sabdflHobbsee: i don't believe there is such a requirement, and i think it would be harmful to try to retrofit one now12:39
Hobbseedholbach: i was meaning what gets distributed on cds, in media, etc.12:39
Hobbseesabdfl: right12:39
Hobbseesabdfl: then my third question is "does the community perceive that that is the requirement?"12:39
sabdflwe have always walked a careful, pragmatic line12:39
dholbachHobbsee: but still it's "Ubuntu Multiverse" and "restricted" ends up on the CDs12:39
makoHobbsee: so, i think that's a good idea but that doesn't address the issue here12:40
makoi can go back to the jabber example12:40
makoif canonical runs a jabber service, there's an open question of whether they should EVER call it UbuntuTalk12:40
Hobbseeright12:40
makoeven if they run unmodified ejabberd or something12:40
sabdflwhy, mako? i'm not sure i understand12:41
makoi'm pretty comfortable that as long as the client is free, it should/can named ubuntu12:41
elmomako: the u1 client is free?12:42
elmoit's GPLed12:42
makoyes, i know12:42
makobut there's a service necessary to use it12:42
wgrant(and the service also carries the Ubuntu brand)12:42
elmomako: well; that's an interestingly broad definition of 'free'12:42
makoit's hard to unpack the two12:42
makoelmo: i'm not talking about whether its free12:43
sladenIIRC, previously, we've worked quite hard to ensure packages that could potentially benefit others (and which, we'd like to encourage the use of by others) don't use the word "ubuntu' in the software name, or branding ("eg. Ubuntu Menu Editor")  'ubuntuone-storage-protocol' fails that (to my mind) by it conflates a protocol description (reusable) with an implementation12:43
Hobbseemako: so what you're actually saying is that you're comfortable as long as the client, and at least the core things that are necessary for it, are free, right?12:43
makoi'm saying that calling the particularly instance of server software running on a canonical machine "ubuntu" is one way to understand the issue12:43
Hobbseeer, necessary for it to be used, are free12:43
* mako nods to sladen12:44
makopart of the reason this is complicated is that it's not clear WHAT we are talking about12:45
elmosladen: I'm pretty sure those kind of name changes (e.g jockey too) was to make the software more palatable to !Ubuntu distros like Fedora12:45
makothere is (a) the client software (b) the server software (c) the protocal (d) the particular instance of the server software being run as a service by canonical12:45
sladenelmo: why should that not apply to ubunet?  What's paletable to Fedora is probably paletable to community.*@ubuntuland12:45
elmosladen: *blink* wut12:46
wgrantmako: Given that there are no alternative server implementations, are those things separate?12:46
elmosladen: Fedora didn't want to use something called 'Ubuntu'.  I'm not sure I see your analogy12:46
Hobbseeelmo: it's the opposite, you're agreeing with each other12:47
Hobbseesladen: the question is, is ubuntuone-storage-protocol actually usable by anyone else, who isn't ubuntu?12:47
makowgrant: right, so there's an argument that since the whole point of this software is make all these things transparent to the user, they should be presented as one12:47
makoin which, if we decided that those things imply differences courses of action with the name, we've got a lowest common demonitor problem i think12:48
silbsmako: can I back up a sec to your jabber example? do you think that would be wrong because Canonical would be running a service called Ubuntu? Or because of non-free aspects of it?12:48
wgrantmako: Given that I don't really see Ubiquity asking 'Which service do you want Ubuntu One to use?', I think they should be one thing for now.12:48
makosilbs: i'm trying to unpack the example by giving a free software everywhere example12:48
makosilbs: so free jabber client, free jabber protocal, server install of free software12:49
silbsmako: so your issue (in that example) is that it is canonical providing the service that is called ubuntu?12:49
makosilbs: so it's a question about where the line between canonical and ubuntu is drawn12:50
sabdfli don't see the difference between cases where Canonical licenses someone else to use the Ubuntu name commercially, and where it does so itself12:50
wgrantsabdfl: Canonical isn't likely to deny its own requests.12:50
sabdflfor example, there's a new magazine called "Ubuntu User"12:50
makosilbs: if canonical runs a jabber service called talk.ubuntu.com, for pay or for a fee, it really sounds like an activity of canonical12:50
sabdflthey get that name under a commercial license from Canonical12:50
sabdflCanonical doesn't publish the magazine12:51
sabdflbut, if it DID, that wouldn't be any different, would it?12:51
makothere's no reasonable way tha the community can become involved in its development. if people disagre with some aspect of how its run, access the code doesn't actually help12:51
elmomako: how is this different to e.g. the forums?12:51
sabdflwhich run on vBulletin?12:51
silbsmako: as another example, canonical runs an Ubuntu certificaiton service for OEMs (which we get paid for) that restuls in little stickers on machines that say "Ubuntu Certified". It's a canonical service, it's commercial.12:51
elmoand which Canonical host12:51
silbsmako: good or bad on that?12:51
elmo(but do not control, to be clear)12:51
Vantraxat this stage I dont really think there is a way of everyone to be happy, and I think the issue is getting more confusing. I think sabdfl is right in that they canonical can license itself, but for such a public service the CC should at least be aware that it is coming12:52
makoelmo: sure, or the website, or the mailing lists12:52
sabdflon the brand issue, i think we need to recognise that different people will be drawn to the project for different reasons12:53
makoelmo: what if the forums were pay to play?12:53
sabdfland will tend to assume that THEIR reasons are the defining characteristics of the brand12:53
elmojust as a data point, Canonical get on the order of ~100 trademark requests a month12:53
sabdflelmo: more, i think12:53
sabdflthe CC simply cannot handle that12:54
elmomako: so, you know u1 is not exclusively pay to play, right?12:54
sabdfland in any event, there's no question of ceding the trademark to the CC12:54
makoelmo: yes, i understand12:54
wgrantelmo: Wow, I didn't think it would be anywhere near that many!12:55
sabdflso, on the brand front, the reality is that Ubuntu itself is squarely in the "pragmatic, effective blend of commercial and community approach"12:55
sladenelmo: the current T&C state: "You shall indemnify Canonical in full for any ... cost ... as a result of your use ... of the services."  (which is the reason why I have not signed up)12:55
sabdflthat's caused friction in the past, and will in the future, but it's also the source of many of the things that people love about ubuntu12:55
makoelmo: one importatn difference with the forums and this, is that the cc ultimately oversees the forums and its administration12:55
sabdflthere are other projects that take different positions12:55
sabdfldebian is not even the most fundamental of the positions, considering their kernel GR's12:56
Tm_Tsabdfl: agreed on that, commercial side cannot be put aside12:56
sabdflso, where do we stand12:56
VantraxEven more the commercial side is critical to the success of ubuntu12:56
makosilbs: i think i can bring this back to u1 now more explicitly12:57
sabdflwe still have to address the heads-up question from vantrax (i.e. what can the CC reasonably expect to hear about and consider before it gets announced?)12:57
sabdflgo ahead mako12:57
makoif there was a program called the "u1 synchronization client" and it opened up and said, "we can communicate with a variety of services including: (a) canonical's hosted storage engine (b) other one here (c) etc" that seems like it would be more clearly on the other side of the line12:58
* wgrant would be very happy with that.12:58
Tm_Tmitsutaka: jumpy there12:58
makobecause it would be making it clear that the canonical service was canonical12:58
Vantraxgood call mako12:58
makoand i *think* that would speak to the criticism raised by both corey and mdke (although i'm hesitant to speak for them)12:59
sladensuccinctly put12:59
Hobbseeagreed.  I can't see why it wouldn't.12:59
elkyit would certainly be less confusing13:00
sabdflmako: i don't think it would13:01
sabdflit is more addressed at the question of Canonical's privileged position13:01
SteveAwhen I went to the US a while ago, I tried to place a long distance call from a phone.  I found it confusing because an operator asked me what long distance service I wanted to use, rather than just letting me place the call.13:02
wgrantsabdfl: That seems to address the privileged position, at least somewhat.13:02
wgrantU1 is no longer a thing in which only Canonical can play.13:02
Flannelsabdfl: No, because "Ubuntu One" would be the client, that connects to Canonicals servers.13:02
sabdflthis is tricky because profit is evil, nobody would suggest we make people choose who should pay for their updates ;-)13:02
makosure13:02
makothat's fine. but that's  business decision by canonical13:02
sabdflmy point is that ubuntu already points to Canonical servers in many places, and we don't insist on adding options there13:03
sladenSteveA: Currently, we have IRC clients that default to irc.ubuntu.com (Freenode).  However, you can change it.  The IRC client is not restricted to _only_ working with irc.ubuntu.com and neither is it called "IRCUbuntu"13:03
wgrantThe Ubuntu archives, while hosted by Canonical, are open to community involvement.13:03
makoas as someone on the ubuntu community council, i'm very hesitant to empower companies doing that sort of business call that work ubuntu13:04
ccmactually this reminds on ekiga which is a main desktop app suggesting you to use diamondcard as commercial provider while still being able to talk to other services though the support for ekiga is the most advanced in ekiga13:04
sabdflit has been very useful, in the past, to be able to exercise discretion on that empowerment13:04
wgrantmako: But does the CC have any power here?13:05
makoi want canonical to be able to make business decisions without having to worry about what ubuntu thinks13:05
sabdflthe book example is useful, we were able to negotiate the free licensing, for example13:05
sabdflthere are third-party services we would like to integrate, and using the Ubuntu trademark as leverage would probably get the clients open sourced13:05
sabdfland who knows, perhaps even the servers13:05
sabdflmy point is that we have long used discretion in how the commercial terms around the ubuntu brand get used13:06
makoif the book where not something that could be reworked, reimagined, and redeployed by the community, i would have had an issue calling it "official ubuntu"13:06
sabdfland the net effect has been to enhance the Ubuntu ecosystem13:06
sladensay somebody wants to make "Ubuntu t-shirts", is it okay to simply ask that they allow others to be able to also sell Ubuntu t-shirts?13:06
sabdfland this is no different13:06
makothis is where the issue of privledged position and proprietary sort of intersect in a weird way13:06
sabdflmako: in part, because you know that a remix of the book would not itself be official, but would be a good source of updates for the next edition?13:06
sabdflVantrax asked about the relationship between the CC and Canonical, and whether the CC should have had the name Ubuntu One raised to them in advance13:07
sabdflgiven the volume of trademark requests, i don't think we want the CC on the loop on all of them13:08
sabdflthough i think it may be possible to have a window through which the CC could watch that process13:08
wgrantThis one was obviously going to cause conflict.13:08
sabdfli don't know the trademark workflow and whether that's possible13:08
makoi agree, our goal here should be to help build the guidelines or intuition for that13:08
sabdfla lot of it is confidential - people send us their business plans13:08
sabdfland it would not be appropriate to publish it13:09
makohaving received trademarks@ubuntu.com before, i have no real interest in doing it again :)13:09
Hobbseewell, this is simple13:09
elmomako: but this time you wouldn't even get paid!13:09
silbsmako: lol13:09
sabdflshucks, mako, thought we'd get you there ;-)13:09
sladensabdfl: of those 100 requests/month, how many result in exclusive deals that might lock out future (competing, and/or genetically improved) equivalent uses?13:09
Hobbseeif the canonical trademarks judges it to be OK, then it gets passed to the CC to see if they think it's OK, if it contains 'ubuntu'13:09
sabdflsladen: some do, most don't13:09
FlannelWhy not let the Ubuntu Foundation handle it?13:09
sabdflsome people say "i will only invest in this if I can have exclusive rights", and sometimes it's reasonable13:09
Flannelisn't that what it's for?13:10
sabdflFlannel: nup :-)13:10
elkyFlannel, no.13:10
Hobbseemost things will get stopped at the canonical trademark level13:10
elkyFlannel, it's a name and a promise.13:10
wgrantIt's not what it's for, but IMO it's what it should be for.13:10
makosabdfl: in general, i think we should be careful about exclusive licenses (which i am sure you all are)13:10
sabdfli wish there was a simple statement that COULD be made about the relationship between commerce and the brand13:10
sabdflmako: +113:10
Flannelto quote sabdfl: "It's important for us to distinguish the philanthropic and non-commercial work that is at the heart of the Ubuntu project, from the commercial support and certification programs that are the focus of Canonical Ltd."13:11
sabdflFlannel: the trademark licenses are often explicitly commercial13:11
Flannelsabdfl: For the other companies13:11
makowe need to remember that there are different types of use of the mark13:11
makomost are basically descriptive or pointing TO ubuntu13:12
makosomething like a t-shirt that is about ubuntu13:12
makothe t shirt is not claiming to actually BE ubuntu13:12
sabdflon Vantrax's question, i think we could have anticipated the concern raised by U1, and raised it with the CC in advance13:12
makoubuntu one is on the other side of that line, with important implications13:12
sabdfli don't think that would have meant there was then no concern, but it would have been a good idea, with hindsight13:13
sabdfl"The Ubuntu Shop"13:13
Vantraxthe CC should have been able to limit the damage definately13:13
elkyit certainly would have been less of a shock to the system, so to speak.13:13
Vantraxand conserns about the way things ran could have been resolved. I think some of the reaction has been a basic 'knee jerk'13:13
sabdfli think folks hugely underestimate the extent and diversity of the trademark / commercial ecosystem now13:14
sabdflthe issue here is that U1 is "tightly integrated"13:14
makoso i like it! and i actually want to see the mark as widely used as possible13:14
Vantraxsabdfl im sure they do, but some people will always think of it as a small core.13:14
sabdflit's by no means the first proprietary service that's tightly integrated13:14
makoit's really in our interest to get the ubuntu name out there13:14
sabdflconsider Google search in Firefox13:14
sladenanother interesting question is;  if Ubuntu One gets in the news (eg. stolen data), would that have a negative and detrimental impact on the brand.  Is that same risk assessment undertaken for all trademark reqeuests13:14
makosabdfl: but it's the first one called ubuntu13:14
mako(AFAIK)13:15
sabdflsladen: Imagine a headline "Canonical One data stolen, many Ubuntu users mad"13:15
sabdflapart from the fact that the Canonical One name is *taken* ;-)13:15
Vantraxlol13:15
Hobbseerename the plane "Canonical two" then :P13:15
elkyHobbsee, that'd ruin it though.13:16
sabdflmy point is that whatever we call it, it will be intimately associated with Ubuntu13:16
sladenUbuntuTwoYou (U2U)13:16
sabdfland so, it had better work, and work well :-)13:16
makosabdfl: but nobody confuses google search for ubuntu13:16
Flannelnor google for firefox13:16
makosabdfl: even though they understand that it's tightly integrated13:17
VantraxI think in the end we have to trust that Canonical will try and do the right thing and attempt to overlook when something is not what we would have expected. That being said I think the relationship imples a level of two way communication on what is going on, and what major products are being launched with the ubuntu trademark13:17
makothe general argument is of the form of "if things are going to be called ubuntu and shipped in the os, they should actually be ubuntu"13:17
makothat doesn't solve the problem at all :)13:17
sabdflmako: i don't think Ubuntu One is not Ubuntu13:17
Hobbseemako: then one just redefines ubuntu.13:17
sabdflit's high quality, it's well integrated, the client software is all free13:18
makoi don't think it's a redefinition13:18
sabdflit's moving the goalposts *substantially* to broaden the definitions we have applied, now that Canonical is engaged13:18
makoimho, sabdfl and others made a very smart decision by not calling canonical "ubuntu ltd."13:18
VantraxIf I can give a slightly different example, the learning project recived permission from canonical to use the ubuntu trademark and proceed with the project, but we are still turning up to the next community council meeting to more or less pitch the idea again13:18
Flannelsabdfl: Will Canonical be providing copious amounts of details about how its run, etc, so that the LoCos can answer the questions we're going to get about it?13:19
makoand i think it's worth preserving that distinction. even if we have to flirt with it13:19
VantraxBased on this as a technicality it would not be *required*, but it is the right thing to do.13:19
sabdflFlannel: yes, you'll find good answers in #ubuntuone13:19
Flannelsabdfl: Is there a fact sheet?  I don't really want to visit an IRC channel in front of someone while at a Conference13:20
Technovikingalso a Ubuntu One forum13:20
sabdflFlannel: ask for one, it's a good idea13:20
Technovikinghttp://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36713:20
MootBotLINK received:  http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36713:20
makoso i think i have one more observation13:21
FlannelI imagine my next conference will be about Ubuntu One instead of Ubuntu, I'd like to be prepared.13:21
elkyfrom a support perspective, the least amount of bouncing around, the better. currently it's alot of bouncing.13:21
Flannelsabdfl: bug report? or what?13:21
makoi know have one more. i might have more after that :)13:21
makoi'm worried by the bug report13:21
dholbachVantrax: I think the CC "recognised" teams and community initiatives before,  but that had nothing to do with trademarks or allowing them to work on something13:21
sabdflFlannel: on the channel, would be best13:21
makoi'm seeing a real canonical non-canonical split on this. at least on the cc and in general on the bug13:21
Technovikingmako: I'm fine with Ubuntu One name13:22
sabdfli agree, we don't want this to turn into a divisive issue along those lines13:23
makoTechnoviking: sure, it's not perfect. it's just a general sense that i think holds13:23
VantraxI actually like it too13:23
sabdflin my case, i see two very different futures for ubuntu, depending on how well Ubuntu One is received, and works, technically and commercially13:23
makoi'm sure we can find canonical people that don't. i'm trying trying to pigeon hole people :)13:23
makosorry, NOT13:24
makoNOT trying. whoops :)13:24
elkyvery trying.13:24
sabdfli don't know the extent to which non-Canonical would be aware of the delta between those futures :-)13:24
sabdflto a certain extent, the financial drivers of Ubuntu are opaque to non-Canonical folks13:24
sabdflthey would find it hard to know what would STOP if Canonical stopped13:24
Technovikingmako: since Ubuntu One will not be a require to use Ubuntu, if feel in is a community mebers choice to use it or not.13:25
sabdfland Ubuntu One is a significant portion of the consumer plan around Ubuntu, that justifies the investment, in the expectation that it will underwrite the ongoing cost of the operation13:25
sabdflfolks within Canonical are more likely to be aware of that13:25
makosure. but i think that canonical is well served by having ubuntu be an identity distinct, in most important senses, from canonical13:25
sabdflwe had a lot of debate about the name, on those grounds13:26
Technovikings/mebers/members13:26
sabdflin the end, we settled on the idea that we want an integrated experience, from start to finish13:26
VantraxI really like the idea of the service and what can be done with it, but I would have expected it to see canonical branding as a commercial service. But I understand the choice, and am happy to support it13:26
sabdflwe don't want Ubuntu One to feel like something that was bolted on by someone else13:26
sladensabdfl: but is that ubuntuone working as in just a filesync system, or is that ubuntuone as a brand encompassing many, many (separate, but integrated) sub-product covering EC2 compatible virtual machines, out-of-the-box VoIP signups, eg.   In the same way that Java is "all or nothing" for Sun (even as far as the ticker symbol), and yet Java is just a brand, that covers many things that share nothing with Java (virtual machine) other than from the 13:26
sabdflwe *want* it to feel like it Just Works, and delivers great benefits, and does so using free software13:27
sabdflsladen: in due course, i hope there will be a broad Ubuntu One ecosystem, just as we have a broad Ubuntu ecosystem13:27
wgrantsabdfl: Not a Free server, though.13:27
wgrantsabdfl: A Free client is only part of the way.13:27
sabdflsome of those players will have free servers (identi.ca is a good example) and some won't13:27
sabdflwgrant: that's a different set of goalposts, and not one we aim for right now13:28
sabdflwgrant: consider Firefox + Google13:28
makoin the process though, you're eliding a distinction that i think is very important to a community whose continued existnace is at least part based on the idea that they don't want to feel like they are volunteering for a for-profit entity13:28
sabdflwe can play towards that agenda, but we are not tied to that agenda13:28
makosabdfl: identi.ca is a great example13:28
makosabdfl: because the identi.ca software has a different name13:29
makoidenti.ca is the company/instance. laconi.ca is the software13:29
MyrttiControl Yourself Inc is the company ;-)13:29
makoMyrtti: i was eliding things myself a little bit :)13:30
Myrttifairy nuff :-)13:30
sabdflif someone (or Canonical) builds an identi.ca infrastructure into Ubuntu One, that would be an example of the place some folks would like us to go13:30
makothe reason i think this is important is because that i think a sense of community ownership is basically essential to elicit contributions13:31
wgrantCan this 'someone' actually call this thing Ubuntu One?13:31
sabdflto be clear, if anyone has a really good plan as to how we could drive Ubuntu One to being in line with the Franklin Street statement, sustainably, Canonical would listen13:31
sabdflat the moment, we don't see that being the case13:31
wgrantYou've implied a couple of times that Ubuntu One isn't actually just Ubuntu One.13:31
sabdflbut, over time, that may change13:32
elkywgrant, are you asking 'can' or 'should'?13:32
Vantraxwgrant its a platform for services, remote file storage seems to be just the intro13:32
sabdflfor now, i think the best we can do is minute this discussion13:32
wgrantelky: The former.13:32
sladenmy hunch is that Canonical can do a better job of running an instance of ubunet-sync and ubunet-cluster under the Franchised UbuntuOne brand than other people.  Time may come when the it would be more profitable to outsource the running of the instance under the franchised brand to somebody else and just take the profit percentage.  It would be good if that possibility was allowed for by not having the instance name == implementation name == Servi13:32
wgrantsabdfl: What changed with Launchpad?13:33
sabdflsladen: in my judgment, the margins driven purely by economies of scale are insufficient to justify the risk of the investment13:33
sabdflso, where do we stand?13:33
* Vantrax is happy to support Ubuntu One13:34
sabdfli hoped to nail the legal issues (i think we did that)13:34
makosabdfl: sure, there are no legal issues13:34
sladenUbuntu (to me) should be the CD, UbuntuOne should be the best available online service portfolio that be shipped as default settings.  If some of those don't make the cut for a particular release, they could be switched on, or switched off in the same way that other (offline) componets in main are13:34
sabdfli also hoped to get past the "free or else" meme, which I think is inconsistent with what we've done successfully in the past13:34
* Hobbsee is now just confused as to what Ubuntu stands for now, tbh13:35
sabdflvantrax raised the question of the CC's general level of awareness, and i think (s)he has a point13:35
sabdfli also hoped to get some sort of general guidance on "where the line is" w.r.t. online services13:35
sabdflbut i don't think we have that, here13:35
wgrantI don't think the line can be defined.13:36
sladenThat would open up the criteria for what should be included as part of that portfolio (it should be good quality, it should be well integrated, it should "just work", probably it should be franklin free, (_not_ beer free).  It should add to the quality and experience of using Ubuntu13:36
makoi can think about it. i might be able to come up with something that describes a line i would be happy with13:36
sabdflsladen: Last.fm?13:36
elkysabdfl, i think the lingering issue is that of the dilution of brand, which is probably as much simply human territoriality for something that many people care a heck of a lot about.13:36
elkyand it's probably not going to go away any sooner than the k/x/ed/ubuntu dilution itself will.13:37
makothis not about what services should be accessible from within ubuntu13:37
makothis *is* about what services should be accessible from within ubuntu and *called* ubuntu13:37
Hobbseeand thus what ubuntu actually stands for, i presume13:37
sabdflelky: my answer to that is that we have to be clear to our community that we are comfortable with services which are not Franklin Street compliant13:38
sabdflwe won't take out Google13:38
sabdflwe won't take out MSN from Pidgin13:38
sladensabdfl: Last.fm could be included (hint, take 20% for signing the user up and charging their credit card).  The other conflict of interest would be when CanonicalMusicStationPlus launches and there is an issue about whether to ship Last.fm as default, or ship CMSP as default).  If that is taken by the Ubuntu Foundation, the best (tm) one would be picked, regardless of who made it13:38
makosure, i've not heard anyone suggesting that13:38
sladens/other/only/13:38
sabdflthey are all part of the experience of the Ubuntu system, by users13:39
sabdflwe can and should figure out how we can support the Franklin Street statement13:39
sabdfljust like we can and should (and do) work towards getting better open source drivers13:39
sabdflbeing open to Flash doesn't mean we don't support Gnash (we fund the latter)13:39
dholbachsladen: it's best to leave the Ubuntu Foundation out of the discussion, it's basically a trust and not an entity13:40
sabdflsome members of the community may be surprised by this, and choose to leave13:40
sabdflbut those who are comfortable with this will help to build this experience13:40
elkysabdfl, my point is that Ubuntu One redefines Ubuntu, and as alot of people identify with what Ubuntu *used* to encompass, it's going to take some time for adjustment. Some people may never adjust.13:40
makodholbach: right, the CC is only relevant body here13:40
sladendholbach: r. s/Ubnntu Foundation/CC/13:40
wgrantsabdfl: We can't help build this experience. It's a proprietary service.13:41
sabdflwgrant: have you looked at the code?13:41
sabdfli wasn't referring to Ubuntu One13:41
elmoelky: why does Ubuntu One 'redefine' Ubuntu any more than e.g. 'Ubuntu Training' or 'Ubuntu Certification' or 'Ubuntu Partners' or 'Ubuntu Support' or etc. etc. etc?13:41
makothe reaction to this issue shows that a number of (almost exlusively non-canonical people) feel that this use of ubuntu is referring to something that they don't identify with and that they identify (accurately, i think) with canonical instead13:41
sabdflI was referring to the whole experience of Ubuntu, which blurs these lines13:41
wgrantsabdfl: Which code?13:41
wgrantAh.13:41
sladenelmo: it's exclusive13:41
sabdfllook, if someone wants to work inside an ecosystem that is solely defined by a single principle, there are places to do that13:41
sabdflTututo?13:42
sabdflmako, help!13:42
sabdflbut they exist13:42
elkyelky, because "Ubuntu" is no longer "a family of linux distributions" it's now "a family of linux distributions and a cloud service tacked on the side"13:42
elkyer, elmo^^13:42
sabdflwhat makes Ubuntu *interesting* is the fact that it aims to dislodge Apple and Microsoft13:42
makoso firms in this space need to make a decision to offer a less integrated user experience because it's seen as being in the best interest of community empowerment13:42
sabdflyou can't credibly be part of that in those other, more narrowly defined pieces13:43
sabdfland here, you CAN help build that alternative experience13:43
sabdflwgrant: make sense?13:43
makoit happens all the time. it's annoying to have to explain that canonical is this company that funds most ubuntu development13:43
makowhen this would be clear if we just said "ubuntu ltd."13:43
sabdflso, here we stand13:44
wgrantsabdfl: The alternative experience can never compete.13:44
wgrantUbuntu One gets the name and Ubuntu integration.13:44
sabdflUbuntu (+One) aims to be the alternative to Windows / Apple13:44
sabdflthose who WANT to be part of that, and help shape it, certainly can do so13:45
sabdflwe have an enormous community that does just that13:45
sabdflpeople will choose to participate in the place that most aligns with their goals in life13:45
wgrantI was under the impression that Ubuntu was intended to do that.13:46
sabdflif someone defines their goals as "GPL" they will not participate in X, right?13:46
sabdflright now, as far as I'm aware, there is no community that is defined as "FLOSS + Franklin St" w.r.t. software + services13:46
sladenaka AGPL13:47
sabdfland i don't see a way for such a community to offer a credible chance of becoming an alternative to Windows / Apple13:47
sabdfli may be wrong13:47
makosure, all that's fine13:47
Flannelsabdfl: So, instead youre going to try and define Ubuntu(+One) as FLOSS + Closed Source Cloud?  Or am I not following?13:47
sabdflbut at the end of the day, to address wgrant's point, people who want to help build that alternative can do so here13:47
wgrantsabdfl: How does non-freeness increase the feasibility of become an alternative to Windows or Apple? Simply the presumed increased income?13:47
sabdflFlannel: no, i'm defining it as FLOSS + Cloud [we will see how this goes]13:48
makobut the issue here does not need to be whether we wish ubuntu one the best of luck13:48
wgrantsabdfl: But this cloud is closed.13:48
sabdflsome of the cloud stuff will be open, some closed, it's hard to see hwo ti pans out, let's get going13:48
HobbseeFlannel: the new aim is not to define ubuntu in terms of FLOSS at all - or at least, not to say that it's all free, because it isn't now.  And because one part isn't free, it's fine for other parts not to be free too.  I think.13:48
makothe issue is whether canonical's own services (which happen to be proprietary, which may or may not be relevant) should be called ubuntu13:49
wgrantsabdfl: I'm not aware that these other cloudy things have been referred to before now.13:49
dholbachwgrant: "simply"?13:49
FlannelHobbsee: The other parts aren't free because they can't be.  This parts could be, but we're choosing to close them.13:49
makowe don't have to care whether ubuntu refers to things that are free to be concerned that it be limited to things that are controlled by the community and its governance structures13:49
VantraxI have to head to bed, close to midnight for me, go easy on sabdfl. Hes trying to do the right thing.13:49
HobbseeFlannel: which, afaik, is immaterial.13:49
wgrantdholbach: s/Simply/Only/13:49
makofrom what i can tell, ubuntu one is controlled by canonical and not by the ubuntu community and its governance community. so we should name it in a way that makes this clear13:50
makoreferring to ubuntu versus being ubuntu13:50
sladenVantrax: r.  And sabdfl will succeed in doing the right thing;  but not necessaryily a thing that everyone is immediately comfortable with13:50
makoif it were called "Sync for Ubuntu" it would be much less problematic, IMHO13:50
wgrantmako: That seems to be the core of the issue, although there are other bits hanging off it.13:50
sabdflmako: the experience of ubuntu includes those online services, there is no real benefit to be had from naming it otherwise13:50
wgrantmako: That is what the trademark policy recommends, yes.13:50
sabdfland in any event, there is a very long list of things which have a commercial angle, which are named ubuntu, this is not a new event13:51
wgrantsabdfl: No real obvious benefit for Canonical, no.13:51
makosabdfl: you are balancing volunteers desire to be involved in the project13:51
makowhich is my primary concern today13:51
sabdflmako: we have long done that. we know that many will choose to participate elsewhere.13:51
sladenmako: Sync for ubuntu is one part of Ubuntu One, (which is intentionally blurred, in much the same as '.NET')13:51
Hobbseemako++13:51
makosabdfl: and this is seen, by many of your most active and engaged volunteers over the long term, as crossing a line13:52
sabdflmy personal view is that this is not nearly the big change it is being described as13:52
sabdflthat, if there is a line there, it was crossed a long time ago13:52
sladenyou open up the long list of available Ubuntu One subscription services, and you tick some of the ones listed (eg. Sync, 10G) and you don't tick some of the others13:52
wgrantsabdfl: Which other proprietary service carrying the Ubuntu brand is there, that is also integrated into the desktop?13:52
elmomako: and is seen by many others of our most active and engaged volunteers over the long term as not crossing the line13:52
erichammond_sabdfl: It's almost 6a here and I'm trying to parse your above statements which sound like "either you're with us or agin' us".  Are you saying that for one to support Ubuntu, one must support "Ubuntu One" a commercial service provided by Canonical?13:53
elkysabdfl, there was never only one line.13:53
HobbseeThat may be true, but this has been the first time it's been public, and in our faces.13:53
HobbseeA lot of people don't know about the training materials, for eg13:53
makoelmo: i didn't say everyone, and i know it's not13:53
sabdflwgrant: hardware certification?13:53
sabdfli don't think we've made much progress13:54
elmowgrant: why is there this artifical distinction with 'integrated into the desktop'?13:54
wgrantsabdfl: That does seem to need to be centralised, but it's not in your face in Ubiquity and integrated with the desktop.13:54
sabdflthere are those with reservations, and among them are people i take very seriously13:54
elmowgrant: the part that's integrated into the desktop _IS_ free13:54
wgrantelmo: No, the part that is *doing* the integration is free.13:54
elmo(sorry, "may be integrated"; nothing is right now, not by default anyway)13:54
elmowgrant: the part (potentially) on the CD, and on the desktop and that the user is running is free13:55
sabdfli think the brand issue is being inflated because the folks who are concerned are most interested in that aspect of ubuntu; the broad base of contributors, participants and users see ubuntu as meaning "just works" as much as "free as I define free"13:55
sabdflmako said he would consider this further and write more13:56
wgrantelmo: But it's the glue between Ubuntu and this proprietary thing named Ubuntu.13:56
sabdfli'd invite others to do the same, and to write to the CC13:56
wgrantelmo: It is integrating the proprietary Ubuntu into the Free Ubuntu.13:56
makoi think that a viable free software community succeeds as a volunteer project insofar as it can create an institutional independent space13:56
sabdflwgrant: there are proprietary things IN ubuntu, and long have been, and to pretend otherwise is not helpful13:57
sladenI think there's another meeting on 2 June, would it be worth tieing it up now, letting mako (et al) try to quatify what's been said and bringing it back then?13:57
wgrantsabdfl: I am not pretending otherwise.13:57
makoif ubuntu is just a canonical product, i'm not interested in working on it and volunteering my time13:57
wgrantsabdfl: Those proprietary things are not from Canonical.13:57
wgrantsabdfl: They are included because it would be detrimental to the user experience, and their owners will not open them.13:57
sabdflmako: i'm surprised to hear you characterise it that way, on the basis of this issue13:57
makoand my experience in the broader free software community seems to imply this is at least somewhat (if not entirely) generalizable experience13:57
makosabdfl: sorry, i'm not trying to charactertize it. the "if" actually meant "if"13:58
makosabdfl: not "if (and it is)"13:58
sabdflmako: in no way could the whole of Ubuntu be "just a Canonical product"13:58
sabdflUbuntu is the product of tens of thousands of people, only a small fraction of them work for Canonical13:59
HobbseeThe more stuff of nonfree nature that you call Ubuntu, the more it appears that way, though.13:59
sladen"if Ubuntu were to become (in the future) just a"13:59
makosladen: yeah that ^^^^13:59
sabdflbut yes, Canonical has a privileged position, and if that makes people uncomfortable they will find other projects to participate in13:59
sabdflmy feeling is that this new piece is not a major shift in that regard14:00
wgrantMany feel that it is.14:00
sabdflso yes, let's invite people to write to the CC14:00
elkyit is for some people though, regardless of if you want it to be.14:00
makoso i'm not talking about shifts in policy14:00
cody-somervilleUbuntu One isn't a commercial service. Ubuntu One as far as I understand is an open source platform for building cloud powered services on the desktop.14:00
makoi'm talking about perceptions of "ownership"14:00
wgrantyou are not going to see it as a shift, as it has most probably been in the roadmap for years.14:00
sabdflthe plan for the moment is that Karmic will include Ubuntu One services14:01
sabdflfolks who are interested in how that is achieved, tastefully, should participate in the UDS sessions this week14:01
makoso i'm not making my mind up based on any actual delta in policy, i'm making it up based on people's reactions14:01
sladenmako: and it's not just Ubuntu geeks,  IIRC, the Guardian, or Telegraph had a piece entitled   "Ubuntu One, Freedom Nil"14:02
sabdflcody-somerville: that's a good point14:02
wgrantcody-somerville: Are we aware of that yet?14:02
sabdflreactions are important, but they can also involve people with pitchforks and regrets in the morning, and i don't want to be associated with those, usually14:02
makoi don't actually care what ubuntu one is. i care what it's relationship to the ubuntu community and to canonical is14:03
sabdflwgrant: that's the code I asked if you had looked at14:03
makoand i want it to have a name that reflects that accurately14:03
wgrantsabdfl: Which code?14:03
sabdflthe point is that many of those reactions are knee-jerk. there is good, open code that is generally useful14:03
sabdflwgrant: OFFS. ubuntuone-*14:03
wgrantsabdfl: I have.14:03
sabdflcool14:03
makothe answer seems to be, "yes, it really is more a canonical product but we're naming it in a different way becaues it leads to a more integrated user experience"14:03
makosabdfl: the reactions by the people on the bug who are influencing my own thinking are not knee-jerk14:04
Hobbseemako: yeah, that's what I'm getting out of it.14:04
sladenmako: I didn't see it as the integation, I saw it as Ubuntu have a more valuable (more likely to result in revenue) brand than "Canonical" or "Launchpad"14:04
sabdfllet's wrap up. we have another meeting in a week. I would ask folks to write to the CC, and participate in the UDS sessions.14:05
sladenmako: which is a sensible, commericial (and therefore good for Ubuntu development long-term) decision14:05
* mako nods14:06
cody-somervilleI think its named the way it is because of the (open source innovation)/platform/base its built on top of. Sort of like how Debian is titled Debian Linux/GNU, no?14:06
wgrantcody-somerville: Or is the Ubuntu desktop going to, within a few releases, be called Ubuntu because of the platform/base it's built on top of (Ubuntu One)?14:07
sabdfli'm going to respond to the new questions on the linked bug14:07
sabdfli would encourage folks to ask questions on #ubuntuone14:07
sabdfland for wgrant to look at the code14:07
sabdfl;-)14:07
makoi'll think about this some more and write something in the next week14:07
ibuclawFor clarification, am I right in hearing that Ubuntu-One is currently just an integrated service that syncs/backups documents/files to a server (similar to the way DropBox works), but will extend for further services in the future?14:07
wgrantsabdfl: I have, but not all of it! Is there anything in particular I'm meant to notice?14:08
makoi'll make a log of this meeting and post it to the bug14:08
makoor a link to it14:08
elkyibuclaw, pretty much.14:08
sabdflwgrant: just that the technology is broadly and generally useful, all as open source, with no reference to a commercial service14:08
makoi have a meeting i need to leave for in 5 minutes also :)14:08
wgrantsabdfl: I'm not arguing against any of that.14:09
wgrantI think it's a good idea.14:09
sabdflok14:09
sabdflwell, at least we agree there's no trademark issue14:10
sabdflwe disagree on the brand issue14:10
wgrantHm.14:10
makothis was a useful discussion for me14:10
wgrantI think there is a trademark issue. But not a legal one. But maybe that's what you refer to as branding.14:10
makoeven if we didn't come to a conclusion. i'm thinking a lot more clearly about this i think14:11
Hobbseethis was certainly an illuminating discussion.14:11
makosabdfl: is there other business we want to handle today?14:11
Flannelsabdfl: I'm not sure I have a concern over the branding now that I actually know what the service is going to be.14:11
Hobbseeand will give people a lot more to think about, in how they wish to proceed.14:11
elkymako, i'm not sure it's a topic that can have a conclusion.14:11
sabdflmako: no, this was it for today14:11
elky(or ever should)14:11
wgrantIt was indeed quite illuminating, as I don't think we previously knew that Ubuntu One was a generic brand.14:11
makoelky: it *will* have a conclusion14:11
dholbachthanks a lot everybody14:12
wgrantI knew it was a sync service that had aspirations to be a general data store.14:12
dholbach#endmeeting14:12
MootBotMeeting finished at 08:12.14:12
sabdflmy hope is that we see a lot of cool franklin st stuff emerge, that uses Ubuntu One technology, which itself is all open14:12
cody-somervilleI'm very psyched about the possibilities myself :)14:12
wgrantsabdfl: Ah, you mean Ubuntu One rather than Ubuntu One.14:13
wgrantI see.14:13
wgrantThat makes a bit more sense.14:13
sabdflwgrant: *exactly* ;-)14:13
wgrantBut does the OSCON talk mean Ubuntu One, or Ubuntu One?14:13
wgrantI took it to mean Ubuntu One.14:13
wgrantBut it might mean the other one, if you mean that.14:13
makolater everyone14:13
sabdflcheers14:13
wgrantThanks everyone, I think it was a pretty productive discussion.14:14
ibuclawsabdfl, from the brief insight I've seen today, it certainly seems that it has great potential.14:14
sabdflthanks ibuclaw, i think so too14:14
=== asac_ is now known as asac
=== fenris_ is now known as e-jat
=== fenris_ is now known as e-jat
=== ShadowChild is now known as Guest86101
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
=== Guest86101 is now known as lukjad007
=== lukjad007 is now known as Guest95390
=== ShadowChild is now known as lukjad007

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!