| *** lbt has quit IRC | 03:43 | |
| *** lbt has joined #maemo-meeting | 03:44 | |
| *** Estel_ has quit IRC | 06:31 | |
| *** Estel_ has joined #maemo-meeting | 06:40 | |
| *** antman8969 has joined #maemo-meeting | 07:25 | |
| *** antman8969 has quit IRC | 07:35 | |
| *** Estel_ has quit IRC | 15:58 | |
| *** Estel_ has joined #maemo-meeting | 16:08 | |
| *** lbt has quit IRC | 16:20 | |
| *** lbt has joined #maemo-meeting | 17:55 | |
| *** lbt has quit IRC | 18:01 | |
| *** lbt has joined #maemo-meeting | 18:02 | |
| *** lbt has joined #maemo-meeting | 18:02 | |
| *** lbt has quit IRC | 18:04 | |
| *** lbt has joined #maemo-meeting | 18:12 | |
| *** lbt has joined #maemo-meeting | 18:12 | |
| *** Estel_ has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| *** Estel_ has joined #maemo-meeting | 18:32 | |
| *** ivgalvez has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:50 | |
| *** nieldk has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:56 | |
| *** nieldk has quit IRC | 20:58 | |
| *** nieldk has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:59 | |
| *** nieldk has quit IRC | 20:59 | |
| *** nieldk has joined #maemo-meeting | 21:00 | |
| nieldk | yo! | 21:01 |
|---|---|---|
| *** SD69 has joined #maemo-meeting | 21:01 | |
| ivgalvez | hey | 21:03 |
| SD69 | hello | 21:04 |
| nieldk | we need someone to update the topic - one showibg now is from april :) | 21:04 |
| SD69 | I just sent email with draft bylaws about an hour ago | 21:04 |
| ivgalvez | yep, I'm cewing it | 21:05 |
| ivgalvez | chewing | 21:05 |
| nieldk | yes here also | 21:05 |
| nieldk | looks good to me, with few modifications this would be what is in bylaws in EU also. (at least for Denmark) | 21:07 |
| ivgalvez | Estel_: ping | 21:07 |
| ivgalvez | Looks mostly good to me | 21:08 |
| ivgalvez | we could discuss it further by email and then present it via mailing list for other members revision | 21:08 |
| ivgalvez | we should start | 21:10 |
| nieldk | usually agreement would be on constituting meeting | 21:10 |
| nieldk | but in this case I think submitting it for review first is appropriate | 21:11 |
| nieldk | yes, so, we have SD69, ivgalvez and nieldk | 21:12 |
| ivgalvez | OK ,let's start. This meeting agenda is: | 21:13 |
| ivgalvez | 1 - new chair | 21:13 |
| ivgalvez | 2 - establishing legal entity US/EU | 21:13 |
| ivgalvez | 3 - community fundings | 21:13 |
| ivgalvez | 4 - X-Fade leaving Maemo related activities | 21:13 |
| ivgalvez | 5 - anything else | 21:14 |
| ivgalvez | let's solve point 1 | 21:14 |
| ivgalvez | I propose Woody as new Chairmain. He's already doing part of the job with meeting minutes and he didn't participate in CA | 21:15 |
| SD69 | fine with me | 21:16 |
| nieldk | basically, he has been actibg like chair in my opinion, sp iam for | 21:16 |
| *** Estel_ has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| *** Estel_ has joined #maemo-meeting | 21:16 | |
| Estel_ | hi9 there | 21:16 |
| Estel_ | sorry for being late a little | 21:17 |
| nieldk | hi there Estel :) | 21:17 |
| ivgalvez | hi | 21:17 |
| ivgalvez | So then, we agree, Woody is new Chairmain | 21:17 |
| Estel_ | well, I though that ivgalvez better suits Your idea oft chairman - i.e. diplomat ;) | 21:17 |
| Estel_ | but if You preffer woody, why not | 21:17 |
| Estel_ | he was my 2nd porefference | 21:18 |
| ivgalvez | I was also submitter to CA | 21:18 |
| ivgalvez | so I prefer to step back | 21:18 |
| Estel_ | well, who will prepare minutes from today's meeting? Woody is on vacations | 21:18 |
| Estel_ | ivgalvez, not related, but of course, its Your choice :) | 21:18 |
| ivgalvez | thanks Estel_ | 21:18 |
| ivgalvez | I can do the minutes | 21:19 |
| Estel_ | all right | 21:19 |
| ivgalvez | let's move to point 2 | 21:19 |
| Estel_ | so You're chairing todays meeting to, ok?:) | 21:20 |
| Estel_ | sure. Sd69, are You sure, that hildon - despite being open source - isn't trademarked too? | 21:20 |
| SD69 | Hildon is not trademarked, at least in the US | 21:21 |
| ivgalvez | SD69, apart from document, any comments? | 21:21 |
| nieldk | since hildon is a known last name, my guess is no, unless by a certain Parish | 21:21 |
| SD69 | On legal entity, the first issue is Maemo trademark | 21:23 |
| SD69 | as it would be quite confusing to have Maemo Foundation and not be able to refer to Maemo freely | 21:23 |
| Estel_ | I'm all for using Hildon from very beginning | 21:23 |
| ivgalvez | I think Hildon is fine, and maybe it would be better to go that way instead of trying to fight for Maemo's mname | 21:23 |
| SD69 | it might take Nokia awhile to decide and I think we should not wait | 21:24 |
| ivgalvez | agreed | 21:24 |
| nieldk | agree | 21:24 |
| SD69 | We can be Hildon Foundation from the beginning and still use maemo later if it becomes available | 21:24 |
| SD69 | don't want a poacher to register the domain name though | 21:24 |
| ivgalvez | So let's keep Hildon Foundation, then | 21:24 |
| SD69 | www.hildonfoundation.org? | 21:25 |
| Estel_ | sure | 21:25 |
| ivgalvez | what about registering? | 21:25 |
| nieldk | works for me | 21:25 |
| Estel_ | also, shouldn't "mission statement" be more hildojn-oriented, than maemo-oriented? | 21:25 |
| Estel_ | after all, iof, for example, running hildon over mer would become available - hyphoteticaly - we don't need much tied in mission to Maemo. | 21:25 |
| Estel_ | i.e. is there any sense in stating in our mission statement, that maemo was created by Nokia etc? | 21:26 |
| ivgalvez | I don't think we need to mention Mer as the way to go, as it's more a technical decission | 21:26 |
| Estel_ | neither mer or Maemo, IMO | 21:27 |
| ivgalvez | keeping maintenance of Maemo and Hildon based software | 21:27 |
| Estel_ | open source parts of maemo focus around hildon | 21:27 |
| ivgalvez | is the mission | 21:27 |
| Estel_ | yea, right | 21:27 |
| Estel_ | repos, etc | 21:27 |
| ivgalvez | there is a lot more than Hildon | 21:27 |
| ivgalvez | I'm confortable with points 1,2, 3, 6 and 8. I think we might need to discuss a bit more about rest of the points | 21:27 |
| nieldk | harmattan | 21:28 |
| Estel_ | on second thouigh, I totally agree. sorry, i'm reading through Rob's draft on the go. | 21:28 |
| ivgalvez | yes, we should also include maintenance of HArmattan, not only Maemo | 21:28 |
| Estel_ | wait, about point 2 still | 21:28 |
| Estel_ | any need to mentiuon CSSU there? | 21:28 |
| Estel_ | after all, going this way, kernel-power should be mentioned too ;) | 21:28 |
| Estel_ | I though that mission statement must be more "general" | 21:28 |
| ivgalvez | We could avoid CSSU | 21:29 |
| nieldk | agree | 21:29 |
| Estel_ | point 3 looks clean | 21:29 |
| ivgalvez | it's better to keep generality around software as it's always changing, but mention devices we want to provide further maintenance | 21:29 |
| Estel_ | devices may change too, with time ;) | 21:30 |
| Estel_ | maemo powered devices should be enough | 21:30 |
| Estel_ | as for point 4, board of directors? I think we should keep Council name, for historical purposes, and to avoid confusion. Everyone is going to call them Counncil, anyway (further ones) | 21:30 |
| ivgalvez | OK, but we need to mention both Maemo and Harmattan | 21:31 |
| nieldk | maemo/meego | 21:31 |
| ivgalvez | I'm also more confortable with Concil instead of Board of Directors | 21:32 |
| Estel_ | some would say that harmattan is maemo 6 | 21:32 |
| SD69 | Board is preferred because the responsibility will be quite different than current council | 21:32 |
| Estel_ | so we can stay with "maemo powered devices" to avoid going into details in mission statement | 21:32 |
| Estel_ | SD69, why not Steering Group, then? | 21:33 |
| Estel_ | board of directos sounds quite inapproriate, IMO | 21:33 |
| nieldk | agree with SD69 -and how legal entities are usually formed | 21:33 |
| Estel_ | but of course, it's detail. | 21:33 |
| SD69 | because Board is responsible for audits, government filings, etc. | 21:33 |
| Estel_ | well, in Open source communities, it's rather about steering Groups than directors, AFAIK | 21:33 |
| ivgalvez | that sounds reasonable | 21:33 |
| Estel_ | whatever, it's just a name | 21:33 |
| ivgalvez | how is KDE's name as an example? | 21:33 |
| ivgalvez | http://ev.kde.org/corporate/board.php/ | 21:34 |
| Estel_ | no idea :) | 21:34 |
| ivgalvez | board of directors | 21:34 |
| Estel_ | well, Debian seems to think othertwise, and we're more related to debian than kde, but, as said, whatever | 21:34 |
| Estel_ | it's minor detail | 21:34 |
| Estel_ | I'm ok with any name | 21:34 |
| Estel_ | point 4 and 5 - why meetings minimum once for 3 months, and 4 weeks period for organising meetings? Is it about real life ones, or what? | 21:35 |
| SD69 | most open source communities, like most non-profits, have a board | 21:35 |
| nieldk | board of directors is more appropriate, and used, for legal entities, soi vote for the original | 21:35 |
| Estel_ | ok, I'm ok with it, as said :) | 21:35 |
| Estel_ | nieldk, hold on your horses, we're discutting, not voting :) | 21:36 |
| Estel_ | discussing* | 21:36 |
| Estel_ | so, any thoughts about IV and V points, and meeting things? | 21:36 |
| SD69 | I have no strong opinion on meeting period- just picked three months without much thought | 21:36 |
| nieldk | quartely meetings seems quite common | 21:37 |
| Estel_ | nieldk, it's not abbout what is common, but what we need to make Community governed in sensible way | 21:37 |
| Estel_ | 3 months in vibrant communities is a decade. | 21:38 |
| Estel_ | for example, it's half of period for current Councils | 21:38 |
| Estel_ | board of dir4ectors will have even more work and responsibilities than current Councilors | 21:38 |
| Estel_ | do You imagine, that we meet twice during our cadence? (!) | 21:38 |
| ivgalvez | but in person meetings will be difficult to attend to | 21:38 |
| Estel_ | I think no need to have most meetings in real life | 21:38 |
| Estel_ | unnecessary costs | 21:38 |
| ivgalvez | I understand you are talking about personal meetings, aren't you SD69? | 21:39 |
| SD69 | the bylaws say "at least as often" so it doesn't preclude a shorter time period | 21:39 |
| Estel_ | SD69, yea, but if You're not talking about real life ones, I think that once per month should be absolute minimum | 21:39 |
| Estel_ | but ivgalvez question is valid - are they real one, or all meetings? | 21:39 |
| nieldk | usually, there will be smaller working groups, that would meet more often on specific issues | 21:40 |
| SD69 | we not deciding how often to have meetings, but what is the maximum time period | 21:40 |
| Estel_ | nieldk, good point, but creating such vibrant groups require time | 21:40 |
| ivgalvez | OK, maximum period for board, meetings, which can be shorter and independant of any working groups meetings | 21:41 |
| nieldk | like Sd says, this is the max time, board can meet daily if needed | 21:41 |
| nieldk | ivgalvez, yes | 21:41 |
| ivgalvez | OK, if no more comments about document, we can discuss it further by email, also to get Woody's feedback | 21:43 |
| ivgalvez | and then share it via mailing list | 21:43 |
| ivgalvez | next point: community funding | 21:44 |
| nieldk | on EU, there is a very short mentioning of legal entities, but it is solely related to trading entities, not Unions, like this. So regulations are the same. Forming a union (not tax reponsible trading firm) | 21:45 |
| SD69 | I think we need trustworthy member to hold donations | 21:47 |
| SD69 | and to collect pledges | 21:47 |
| Estel_ | Sd69, but the question about those meetings being real-life ones, or not, remained unanswered | 21:48 |
| ivgalvez | I propose kojacker, he's already done it for Coding Competitions | 21:48 |
| Estel_ | well, we would need to ask him first, if he likes doing it :) Also, it seems, that someone else was receiving donations for CC. | 21:48 |
| ivgalvez | Sorry, it was zehjotkah, not kojacker | 21:49 |
| SD69 | the by-laws don't require any specific type of meeting | 21:49 |
| Estel_ | Sd69, all right | 21:49 |
| ivgalvez | shall we start funding activities even before contituting legal entity? | 21:49 |
| Estel_ | ivgalvez, yea, but zehjotkah mentioned real life activites, that restrain him for attending CC fully. | 21:50 |
| nieldk | for holding fundings, tge foundation should create an account, and the board would be responsible | 21:50 |
| Estel_ | well, lets leave treasurer for first board of directors? | 21:50 |
| ivgalvez | we can approach him in any case asking for help, the more people we got involved the better | 21:50 |
| Estel_ | ivgalvez, if I understand correctly what SD69 mean, creating legal entity in US should be extra quick | 21:50 |
| nieldk | Estel_, agree | 21:51 |
| ivgalvez | OK | 21:51 |
| SD69 | a significant part of the bylaws is that the first board is elected by community - that will take time, but I am not sure what else will be acceptable | 21:51 |
| Estel_ | SD69, any time period required for it, if we agree on bylaws? | 21:51 |
| Estel_ | well, as we're already creating those rules, I think that making current Councilors first board of directors, and holding election in sheduled time (six months since last election, as in times of Council) would be OK | 21:52 |
| SD69 | about 3 weeks to be able to open bank account | 21:52 |
| Estel_ | but, honestly, it don't think it matters so much | 21:52 |
| Estel_ | more important is to have fundings and hosting for migrating services before cut-off | 21:52 |
| Estel_ | SD69, sounds neat | 21:52 |
| Estel_ | ah, I almost forgot that one. Why elections once for year? | 21:53 |
| Estel_ | current period of 6 months is too short? | 21:53 |
| nieldk | a year is a legal entity reporting period, for reporting finances etc I believe | 21:53 |
| ivgalvez | OK, do we agree then to start a funding activity, no matter what time it takes to create the first Board and the legal entity? | 21:54 |
| Estel_ | well, by estabilishing foundation, we're, in practice, doing job of boards of directors - I don't think that voting in period of 6 months after our Council nominations would be something bad | 21:54 |
| SD69 | I think 6 months is too short for more responsibilities of Board, plus vote mechanism is unknown | 21:54 |
| Estel_ | SD69, but we can create legal entity before cutting funds from Nokia | 21:54 |
| nieldk | SD69, agree | 21:54 |
| Estel_ | so for first election of board members, we could use existing voting infrastructure | 21:54 |
| Estel_ | we would be the board that transfer responsibilities to legal entity | 21:55 |
| Estel_ | thenm, Community elect new (or not, depending on who will be candidate and who iwll get elected) board | 21:55 |
| Estel_ | it sounds quite wrong to do voting as a part of creating legal entity | 21:55 |
| Estel_ | before new Council would jump into loop, we would lose precious time | 21:55 |
| ivgalvez | that sounds reasonable, then we will have a year to prepare an alternative voting method | 21:55 |
| Estel_ | I'm not sure if Community would be OK with cancelling voting after 6 months from our election. | 21:56 |
| Estel_ | I think, that first election should be kept in due time, then, any next one after every year | 21:56 |
| Estel_ | otherwise, some trolls may see it as extending our cadence | 21:56 |
| nieldk | Estel_, agree | 21:57 |
| Estel_ | so, ion my opinion, we should transfer into board of directors, but keep voting in October or December | 21:57 |
| Estel_ | to this time, we should have most things transferred | 21:57 |
| nieldk | agree, again | 21:57 |
| Estel_ | and our cadence would remain 6 months (until someone get re-elected) | 21:57 |
| Estel_ | iv, rob? | 21:58 |
| ivgalvez | I'm OK with that | 21:58 |
| Estel_ | so, point 3, funding? | 21:58 |
| Estel_ | I think that estabilishing legal entity first is a must, with bank account mentioned by Rob | 21:58 |
| Estel_ | then, we can start fundrising immediately | 21:59 |
| ivgalvez | yep, as said, I would approach zehjotkah to help with this | 21:59 |
| Estel_ | Rob, as a lawyer, probably know for sure :) | 21:59 |
| ivgalvez | he's trustworthy member | 21:59 |
| ivgalvez | to act as first treasurer | 21:59 |
| Estel_ | we can, why not, he is trusted Community Member. But, afaik, it was simple paypal account. No rocket science involved | 22:00 |
| ivgalvez | for the time being | 22:00 |
| Estel_ | they were also *not* a legal entity | 22:00 |
| ivgalvez | yes, but we need people to donate without any fears | 22:00 |
| Estel_ | problem - paypal require same owner of bank account and paypal account to transfer money | 22:00 |
| ivgalvez | so to start with, sounds a good option | 22:00 |
| Estel_ | so, if Rob creates bank account for foundation, he would need to create paypal account for donations gathering too | 22:00 |
| Estel_ | = practially, rob would be trasurer anyway :P | 22:01 |
| ivgalvez | pretty much correct | 22:01 |
| Estel_ | no idea how any board could nominate other treasurer | 22:01 |
| Estel_ | Rob would need to pass access to account, or what? | 22:01 |
| SD69 | typically, one of the board members would be treasurer | 22:01 |
| * Estel_ nods | 22:02 | |
| SD69 | but it can be delegated | 22:02 |
| Estel_ | SD69, any way how to create paypal account for foundation? to have matching account owner and paypal account owner? | 22:04 |
| Estel_ | btw, it's really shame, that we don't have better donation method, than lame paypal | 22:04 |
| Estel_ | (of course direct bank transfer works too) | 22:04 |
| Estel_ | (but is expensive for small-to-moderate donations) | 22:04 |
| ivgalvez | we should start fundings right now, I think the creatin of legal entity will still requiere a pair of weeks | 22:05 |
| ivgalvez | we continue discussion for document on legal entity by email, to iton it and then present it to rest of community for feedback | 22:05 |
| Estel_ | but is it legal to gather funds before estabilishing entity? | 22:05 |
| ivgalvez | that will requiere two weeks munimum | 22:05 |
| Estel_ | i.e. how tot ransfer gathered money to entity, legally? | 22:05 |
| Estel_ | I have no clue about US law here. | 22:05 |
| Estel_ | as for rest, I agree | 22:06 |
| ivgalvez | Estel_, that's why I'm talking to use some trsted member like zejothka | 22:06 |
| ivgalvez | to start gathering some funds | 22:06 |
| ivgalvez | and then transfer them to legal entity once settled | 22:06 |
| ivgalvez | any objection to that? | 22:08 |
| nieldk | not sure about this method if person recieving fundings live in US, but in most of EU he would have to pay taxes from donations, as a personal income | 22:08 |
| ivgalvez | it's working for coding competition, so.. | 22:08 |
| Estel_ | ivgalvez, because coding competition doesn't transfer them later to entity | 22:09 |
| nieldk | would work, just stating the law, in most of EU it would be a felony not to report the donations to IRS | 22:09 |
| Estel_ | tax office may bite his back | 22:09 |
| Estel_ | especially, that we cannot estimate total ammount of donations | 22:10 |
| nieldk | Estel_, my words ;) | 22:10 |
| Estel_ | with all due respect, CC donations are, probably, a fraction of hildonfoundation donations | 22:10 |
| ivgalvez | hopefully... | 22:11 |
| Estel_ | i.e. CC donations are done 1005 unoficially | 22:11 |
| Estel_ | 100% | 22:11 |
| Estel_ | we cannot copy and paste their approach | 22:11 |
| Estel_ | rob, any comments on this? | 22:11 |
| Estel_ | re legal things? | 22:11 |
| ivgalvez | OK, then let's keep funding discussion whlie ironing document for legal entity | 22:11 |
| ivgalvez | we will comment it again next week | 22:12 |
| Estel_ | sure, unless US law allow to gather funds at the same time, when registering legal entity goes on. | 22:12 |
| Estel_ | if yes, there is no problem to start gathering funds earlier | 22:12 |
| SD69 | an entity cannot have a bank account before it even exists | 22:12 |
| ivgalvez | SD69, can you investigate that? | 22:12 |
| ivgalvez | OK | 22:12 |
| Estel_ | Sd69, we can gather to paypal | 22:12 |
| Estel_ | the question is if its legal | 22:13 |
| Estel_ | before we have banlk account (and exist) | 22:13 |
| Estel_ | (as entity) | 22:13 |
| Estel_ | maybe up to some sum? | 22:13 |
| SD69 | you can collect donations through paypal or to individual account and then transfer to entity when it exists | 22:13 |
| Estel_ | in Poland, up to equivalent of ~1000 dollars can be donated to someone without taxes | 22:13 |
| nieldk | same in DK (probably in all EU) | 22:14 |
| Estel_ | SD69, if You're absolutely sure about that, it's ok. As long as individual person won't need to pay any taxes | 22:14 |
| ivgalvez | OK, then we'll start legal entity before any funding | 22:16 |
| ivgalvez | can we close this point and move to next one? | 22:17 |
| nieldk | yes | 22:17 |
| SD69 | sorry, I have to leave soon | 22:17 |
| ivgalvez | X-Fade availability. I'm really worried about maintanaibility of current infrastructure in the meantime for transition | 22:17 |
| ivgalvez | I suggest to approach him and ask him for administrative privileges of anything he's able to grant to us (garage, repos, IRC...) | 22:18 |
| ivgalvez | and then for working groups to start maintainig these resources | 22:18 |
| ivgalvez | and then form... | 22:19 |
| SD69 | agreed, but we first have to determine what will be migrated and what administration rights there are associated with that | 22:19 |
| ivgalvez | even if Garage is not migrated | 22:20 |
| ivgalvez | we need to maintain it in the meantime | 22:20 |
| Estel_ | sure, but BTW, You know that he is still contracted by Nemein, and Nemein have contract with Nokia to maintain Maemo to the end of year? | 22:21 |
| ivgalvez | for example, if someone request maintenance of a package | 22:21 |
| nieldk | yes, also we would be better prepared for a Tsunami (worst case scenario) | 22:21 |
| Estel_ | i.e. it's rather about personal contract of X-fade with Nokia about extra work | 22:21 |
| Estel_ | hm, when I proposed taking "tools" some time ago, it was meet with accusations of being power-hungry... :) | 22:21 |
| ivgalvez | Estel_, you're right | 22:22 |
| nieldk | Estel_, right | 22:22 |
| ivgalvez | but now we are in a tsumnami | 22:22 |
| ivgalvez | rereading X-Fade and qgil emails, it's really worring | 22:22 |
| ivgalvez | worrying | 22:22 |
| nieldk | ivgalvez, Estel_ true, its a living world, and situation changed | 22:22 |
| Estel_ | ivgalvez, agree | 22:23 |
| Estel_ | nieldk, so i'm a visionare now? :) ok, enough of joking | 22:23 |
| nieldk | Estel_, ;) | 22:23 |
| Estel_ | ivgalvez, it's basically our more-than-6-months-warning | 22:23 |
| Estel_ | we will surely got our 6 months before warning too | 22:23 |
| Estel_ | but Qgil is quite clear - it's only a matter of time, and stopping funding Maemo is decision made | 22:23 |
| Estel_ | it's rather about "when" not "if" | 22:24 |
| Estel_ | even on TMO, voices like "why we need to go our own path" vanished | 22:24 |
| ivgalvez | ok, then do we agree to?: approach X-Fade and check what administrative rights can be moved to community, then start creating working groups | 22:24 |
| Estel_ | 3 weeks ago, Saturn wrote, that anyone who think Nokia won't be releasing new Maemo device in a year, is fool | 22:24 |
| nieldk | agree | 22:24 |
| ivgalvez | that would help in migration too | 22:24 |
| Estel_ | now, such voices are non-existent | 22:24 |
| Estel_ | ivgalvez, sure | 22:24 |
| SD69 | I don't think so - why move to community and then move again to Foundation? | 22:24 |
| Estel_ | whwhen I was chair, such things were done by me., now, woody is chair, and he is on vacations, so I assume You will pick up this one, iv? | 22:25 |
| Estel_ | Sd69, I can't parse what You mean. | 22:25 |
| ivgalvez | nope, I mean if X-Fade gives us administrative rights for repositories (as an example) | 22:25 |
| ivgalvez | we are not administrating it personally | 22:25 |
| ivgalvez | we recruit peple from community to do that | 22:26 |
| ivgalvez | these volunteers will be the ones that will work on future migration as well | 22:26 |
| ivgalvez | he might not be able to grant some permissions (yet), but we should start collecting what's available and recruiting people to do the job | 22:27 |
| nieldk | do you object SD69 ? | 22:28 |
| SD69 | and what if Nokia refuses to migrate it? | 22:28 |
| SD69 | the part you get admin rights too | 22:29 |
| ivgalvez | Regiie is owner of TMO and he's OK with migration | 22:29 |
| ivgalvez | he has already comment about that | 22:29 |
| ivgalvez | Extras can be downloaded and rebuilt elsewhere | 22:29 |
| ivgalvez | merlin1991, pali and others have backups | 22:30 |
| ivgalvez | the problem is the copyrighted material | 22:30 |
| Estel_ | Nokia repo, in worst case, can be accesible after signing eula, for everyone | 22:30 |
| ivgalvez | that would be next point to deal with | 22:30 |
| Estel_ | i.e., essentialy, clicking "I agree" | 22:30 |
| Estel_ | for EULA | 22:30 |
| Estel_ | Nokai repos with closed things isn';t big deal. | 22:30 |
| Estel_ | as said, we have EULA now | 22:30 |
| ivgalvez | we might need to share that by P2P or whatever | 22:31 |
| Estel_ | we can copy and paste it, and require to accept it before providing access to repos | 22:31 |
| Estel_ | p2p is not an option, we need working repositories to maintain community | 22:31 |
| Estel_ | but as said, as per my knowledge, it's not a problem | 22:31 |
| Estel_ | probably, we will be able to provide it, Nokia isn't that evil ;) | 22:31 |
| Estel_ | if it is, after all, we can do it via using current eula | 22:31 |
| Estel_ | (end user license agreement) | 22:32 |
| ivgalvez | not for Nokia binaries (qgil was clear about that) but for 3rd parties... as said, that's going to be the difficult point to be addressed during next months | 22:32 |
| Estel_ | ivgalvez, any parts, even 3th party. | 22:32 |
| Estel_ | users of devices are able to access it via accepting eula | 22:32 |
| ivgalvez | we need to confirm that | 22:32 |
| Estel_ | in worst case scenario, wer can just require accepting it again, before access t things | 22:32 |
| Estel_ | AFAIk, it's already confirmed | 22:33 |
| Estel_ | Woody, as our great secretary, have this somewhere in documents | 22:33 |
| ivgalvez | in this point we need to be very carefully | 22:33 |
| Estel_ | sure thing. | 22:33 |
| Estel_ | IIRC, no force in the universe :) can deny us redistributing it, as long as we require accepting | 22:34 |
| Estel_ | EEULA | 22:34 |
| Estel_ | EULA* | 22:34 |
| Estel_ | and it's worst case scenario, there are better ones possible | 22:34 |
| ivgalvez | OK, then anything else to comment? elsewhere let's summarize open tasks | 22:34 |
| nieldk | CA shipments? | 22:35 |
| nieldk | apparently thise are a complete mess ATM | 22:37 |
| ivgalvez | nothing to do ATM, qgil has commented it's ongoing | 22:38 |
| SD69 | I got an email of my CA today | 22:38 |
| nieldk | OK, lets leave it for the time being, and see what happens during next week | 22:39 |
| SD69 | Sorry got to go - bye everyone | 22:39 |
| nieldk | bfn | 22:39 |
| ivgalvez | bye | 22:40 |
| ivgalvez | OK, open tasks: | 22:40 |
| ivgalvez | all: comment by email on document to form legal entity | 22:40 |
| ivgalvez | SD69: refine documment with councellors feedback | 22:40 |
| ivgalvez | ivgalvez: contact X-Fade to ask about possibility to obtain any administrative rights on Maemo.org services until migration | 22:41 |
| ivgalvez | ivgalvez: prepare minutes from meeting | 22:41 |
| Estel_ | so, we've concluded today's meeting? | 22:42 |
| ivgalvez | meeting concluded | 22:42 |
| Estel_ | it seems so :) See ya, everyone! | 22:42 |
| ivgalvez | thanks everyone | 22:42 |
| ivgalvez | cheers | 22:42 |
| nieldk | see you all, and thanks | 22:42 |
| *** nieldk has quit IRC | 22:43 | |
| *** ivgalvez has quit IRC | 22:43 | |
| *** SD69 has quit IRC | 22:43 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.1 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!