2006-10-18 SqF board notes

> Hi all--
>
>      Thanks to those of you who have submitted agenda item suggestions!
> (See [1].)  Please keep them coming!
>
>      The 2006-10-04 Squeak Foundation board meeting had the following
> agenda:
>
> 1.   What's the current licensing status? How can the process be
>      accelerated?
> 2.   How and when are release team members chosen? (It's time.)
> 3.   What shall we do about the upcoming loss of the Georgia Tech swiki?
> 4.   How shall we ensure reliable access to the Squeak website and our
>      other servers?
> 5.   How shall we become independent from ESUG?
> 6.   How should the community support the release and harvesting
>      process? Stef suggests establishing test and build servers.
> 7.   Matt asks that we consider declaring a documentation policy, in
>      which each SqueakMap package has at least a minimal usage
>      description, a la the TalkBack package.
> 8.   How shall we create an archive of board meeting notes and team
>      progress reports?
> 9.   What shall we do with regard to merchandising?
>
>      All board members attended (Bert, Cees, Craig, Marcus, Tim and
> Yoshiki).
>
>      Dan Ravicher is not responding to repeated email messages from
> Cees. It appears there is either some sort of communication failure, or
> we should seek other legal counsel.
>
>      Yoshiki mentioned that Viewpoints plans to contact a lawyer,
> produce a template of the new Apache-style license agreement that OLPC
> will use, work with the board to complete the Squeak contributor list,
> and act as keepers of the license agreement. I will coordinate the
> contributor list with Viewpoints on behalf of the board. I will make a
> tentative official contributor list available to the community by the
> next meeting.
>
>      We decided that the release team shall consist of three people
> appointed by the board; whether or not there is a "team leader" is up to
> them. The team will do what we call "forgiving integration".
> "Integration" means simply composing systems from completed
> contributions, and explicitly avoiding development. The members of the
> team are certainly welcome to be a part of development efforts as well
> (as is every member of the community), but that is outside the scope of
> the release team's mission.
>
>      The team will be "forgiving" in that they will not reject
> conflicting contributions out of hand. Rather, they will first attempt
> to get the relevant parties to resolve the conflicts in a timely
> fashion. We did not discuss whether there should be a rigid timeline for
> each release, nor what the specific contents of any future release
> should be. We can do these things in future meetings if people think
> they shouldn't be left up to each release team. Likewise, the release
> team will operate under close oversight from the board, and the board
> will make further policy as necessary.
>
>      We have made a formal call for volunteers for the release team in a
> separate message to squeak-dev.
>
>      Since November 2005, Jochen Rick from Georgia Tech has been
> attempting to move the Squeak wiki content to the Squeak servers, using
> access provided by Cees (Jochen's available time, as that of everyone,
> is limited). If there isn't suitable progress on the move by the next
> meeting, we will decide on some other arrangement (e.g., using Michael
> Rueger's importation of the content to SmallWiki). Cees is our liaison
> to Jochen.
>
>      We ran out of time at this point, and deferred all remaining items.
>
>      The action items from this meeting were:
>
> 1.   Craig will prepare a tentative official contributor list and make
>      it available to the community and to Viewpoints.
>
> 2.   Craig will make a call for volunteers for the release team.
>
> 3.   Cees will make another gentle reminder to Jochen about the wiki
>      move.
>
>      Currently, the next agenda is tentatively:
>
> 1.   What shall we do about the upcoming loss of the Georgia Tech swiki?
> 2.   How shall we ensure reliable access to the Squeak website and our
>      other servers?
> 3.   How shall we become independent from ESUG?
> 4.   How should the community support the release and harvesting
>      process? Stef suggests establishing test and build servers.
> 5.   Matt asks that we consider declaring a documentation policy, in
>      which each SqueakMap package has at least a minimal usage
>      description, a la the TalkBack package.
> 6.   How shall we create an archive of board meeting notes and team
>      progress reports?
> 7.   What shall we do with regard to merchandising?
>
>
>      thanks!
>
> -C
>
> [1] http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/64.html
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> http://netjam.org/resume