2006-10-18 SqF board notes

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

2006-10-18 SqF board notes

ccrraaiigg

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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-10-18 SqF board notes

Milan Zimmermann-2
Craig and the board,

Thanks for taking leadership on these items and sharing with us, (and taking
the short supply time to do both)

Milan

On 2006 October 18 18:46, Craig Latta wrote:

> 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