2007-01-17 SqF board notes
Locked
 
|
Hi all-- The Squeak Foundation board meets online for one hour on the first and third Wednesday of each month. Thanks again to those of you who have submitted agenda item suggestions[1]. Please keep them coming! At the 2007-01-17 meeting, Bert, Craig, Marcus, Tim, and Yoshiki attended; Cees was absent. The meeting had seven agenda items. 1. Review previous action items. There was one action item from the previous meeting. 1.1. Craig will continue the incorporation process. The first big decision we need to make is our state of incorporation in the United States. Under US IRS requirements we need to have a legal physical presence in that state. Practically, this means we can either use a state in which one of us live, or pay a third party to maintain that presence for us (typically Delaware). I'm the only one on the current board who even lives in the US, and I live in California. Given the expense and possible complication of hiring a third party, the likelihood of future Squeak Foundation board members from California, and the fact that Viewpoints Research Institute is there as well, we decided to incorporate in California. Stay tuned. 2. Discuss pricing of Squeak badges and other fundraising details. Tim awaits an official fresh quote from the badge manufacturer. In the meantime, he will set up a group of people from the community to help with order fulfillment (storage, payment, and shipping). We decided that using a third party for that was financially prohibitive given the cost of goods. We currently anticipate a cost of USD 1.80 per badge, offered with USD 5 "general" donations (for a silver badge) and USD 50 "gold" donations (for a gold badge). Marcus will retire the old donations web presence, along with the rest of the old Squeak Foundation site, and create a new one. We don't anticipate that fundraising activity will reach full speed until we've incorporated and gained tax-exempt status. 3. Cees will report on the state of the Squeak wiki (apparently, at least as of 2007-01-11, it has been successfully moved from Georgia Tech to wiki.squeak.org). Cees wasn't present, but it does seem that the move was successful. 4. Consider Chris Cunnington's proposal for a public relations team. The board was unanimous: go for it, Chris! 5. Start the next election process. Yoshiki, as board liaison to the Elections team, will ask Daniel to get things going. 6. List the current action items. 6.1. Craig will continue the incorporation process. 6.2. Tim will report the official badges quote and create a badges fulfillment team. 6.3. Marcus will retire the old Squeak Foundation site, and create a new one (or at least an up-to-date way to donate to the Foundation). 7. List the next meeting's agenda items. 7.1. Review previous action items. 7.2. Craig will report on code contributor response to VPRI's relicensing message. (Notices have been sent to all known contributors[2]. If you've received a notice, please respond as per its instructions, if you haven't already. If we missed you, please let me know.) thanks again, -C [1] http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/64.html [2] http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors -- Craig Latta http://netjam.org/resume |
Re: 2007-01-17 SqF board notes
|
|
Hi board members,
I have sent an email related to Bert but apparently he did not mention it. So this is a point for your next discussion: - how can we consolidate the effort of the relicensing? Will we accept code in 3.10 by people that did not sign the MIT agreement? I hope not. How can the release team access this information? Do we have a list available? How a squeaker can sign such an agreement if he was not originally contacted? A suggestion for ViewPoint: I would be nice to be able to have scanned copies of the licenses somewhere on the foundation server too. Stef On 25 janv. 07, at 01:47, Craig Latta wrote: > > Hi all-- > > The Squeak Foundation board meets online for one hour on the > first > and third Wednesday of each month. Thanks again to those of you who > have > submitted agenda item suggestions[1]. Please keep them coming! > > At the 2007-01-17 meeting, Bert, Craig, Marcus, Tim, and Yoshiki > attended; Cees was absent. The meeting had seven agenda items. > > 1. Review previous action items. > > There was one action item from the previous meeting. > > 1.1. Craig will continue the incorporation process. > > The first big decision we need to make is our state of > incorporation in the United States. Under US IRS requirements we > need to have a legal physical presence in that state. > Practically, > this means we can either use a state in which one of us live, or > pay a third party to maintain that presence for us (typically > Delaware). I'm the only one on the current board who even > lives in > the US, and I live in California. Given the expense and possible > complication of hiring a third party, the likelihood of future > Squeak Foundation board members from California, and the fact > that > Viewpoints Research Institute is there as well, we decided to > incorporate in California. > > Stay tuned. > > 2. Discuss pricing of Squeak badges and other fundraising details. > > Tim awaits an official fresh quote from the badge > manufacturer. In > the meantime, he will set up a group of people from the community to > help with order fulfillment (storage, payment, and shipping). We > decided > that using a third party for that was financially prohibitive given > the > cost of goods. We currently anticipate a cost of USD 1.80 per badge, > offered with USD 5 "general" donations (for a silver badge) and USD 50 > "gold" donations (for a gold badge). > > Marcus will retire the old donations web presence, along with the > rest of the old Squeak Foundation site, and create a new one. > > We don't anticipate that fundraising activity will reach full > speed > until we've incorporated and gained tax-exempt status. > > 3. Cees will report on the state of the Squeak wiki (apparently, > at least as of 2007-01-11, it has been successfully moved from > Georgia Tech to wiki.squeak.org). > > Cees wasn't present, but it does seem that the move was > successful. > > 4. Consider Chris Cunnington's proposal for a public relations > team. > > The board was unanimous: go for it, Chris! > > 5. Start the next election process. > > Yoshiki, as board liaison to the Elections team, will ask > Daniel to > get things going. > > 6. List the current action items. > > 6.1. Craig will continue the incorporation process. > > 6.2. Tim will report the official badges quote and create a > badges > fulfillment team. > > 6.3. Marcus will retire the old Squeak Foundation site, and > create > a new one (or at least an up-to-date way to donate to the > Foundation). > > 7. List the next meeting's agenda items. > > 7.1. Review previous action items. > > 7.2. Craig will report on code contributor response to VPRI's > relicensing message. (Notices have been sent to all known > contributors[2]. If you've received a notice, please respond > as per its instructions, if you haven't already. If we > missed > you, please let me know.) > > > thanks again, > > -C > > [1] http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/64.html > [2] http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors > > -- > Craig Latta > http://netjam.org/resume > > > |
|
|
The 3.10 resease team is about to start releases. i know that I
haven't signed the forms, and I have no way of knowing who has. So, we need to get that info ASAP. -Ralph Johnson |
Re: 2007-01-17 SqF board notes
|
|
In reply to this post by stephane ducasse
Stef,
I forwarded your request to the board. This report is about the meeting on the 17th, you sent the mail on the 21st. Due to general shortage of time-machines around here I didn't send it in time for the last meeting. ;-) Next meeting will be first Wednesday of February, which is the 7th. I'll be on vacation at that time, but as I wrote, I forwarded it, and the other guys can deal with it accordingly. - Bert - On Jan 25, 2007, at 16:29 , stephane ducasse wrote: > Hi board members, > > I have sent an email related to Bert but apparently he did not > mention it. > > So this is a point for your next discussion: > - how can we consolidate the effort of the relicensing? > Will we accept code in 3.10 by people that did not sign the MIT > agreement? I hope not. > How can the release team access this information? Do we have a > list available? > How a squeaker can sign such an agreement if he was not originally > contacted? > A suggestion for ViewPoint: I would be nice to be able to have > scanned copies > of the licenses somewhere on the foundation server too. > > > Stef > > On 25 janv. 07, at 01:47, Craig Latta wrote: > >> >> Hi all-- >> >> The Squeak Foundation board meets online for one hour on the >> first >> and third Wednesday of each month. Thanks again to those of you >> who have >> submitted agenda item suggestions[1]. Please keep them coming! >> >> At the 2007-01-17 meeting, Bert, Craig, Marcus, Tim, and Yoshiki >> attended; Cees was absent. The meeting had seven agenda items. >> >> 1. Review previous action items. >> >> There was one action item from the previous meeting. >> >> 1.1. Craig will continue the incorporation process. >> >> The first big decision we need to make is our state of >> incorporation in the United States. Under US IRS requirements we >> need to have a legal physical presence in that state. >> Practically, >> this means we can either use a state in which one of us live, or >> pay a third party to maintain that presence for us (typically >> Delaware). I'm the only one on the current board who even >> lives in >> the US, and I live in California. Given the expense and possible >> complication of hiring a third party, the likelihood of future >> Squeak Foundation board members from California, and the fact >> that >> Viewpoints Research Institute is there as well, we decided to >> incorporate in California. >> >> Stay tuned. >> >> 2. Discuss pricing of Squeak badges and other fundraising details. >> >> Tim awaits an official fresh quote from the badge >> manufacturer. In >> the meantime, he will set up a group of people from the community to >> help with order fulfillment (storage, payment, and shipping). We >> decided >> that using a third party for that was financially prohibitive >> given the >> cost of goods. We currently anticipate a cost of USD 1.80 per badge, >> offered with USD 5 "general" donations (for a silver badge) and >> USD 50 >> "gold" donations (for a gold badge). >> >> Marcus will retire the old donations web presence, along with >> the >> rest of the old Squeak Foundation site, and create a new one. >> >> We don't anticipate that fundraising activity will reach full >> speed >> until we've incorporated and gained tax-exempt status. >> >> 3. Cees will report on the state of the Squeak wiki (apparently, >> at least as of 2007-01-11, it has been successfully moved from >> Georgia Tech to wiki.squeak.org). >> >> Cees wasn't present, but it does seem that the move was >> successful. >> >> 4. Consider Chris Cunnington's proposal for a public relations >> team. >> >> The board was unanimous: go for it, Chris! >> >> 5. Start the next election process. >> >> Yoshiki, as board liaison to the Elections team, will ask >> Daniel to >> get things going. >> >> 6. List the current action items. >> >> 6.1. Craig will continue the incorporation process. >> >> 6.2. Tim will report the official badges quote and create a >> badges >> fulfillment team. >> >> 6.3. Marcus will retire the old Squeak Foundation site, and >> create >> a new one (or at least an up-to-date way to donate to the >> Foundation). >> >> 7. List the next meeting's agenda items. >> >> 7.1. Review previous action items. >> >> 7.2. Craig will report on code contributor response to VPRI's >> relicensing message. (Notices have been sent to all known >> contributors[2]. If you've received a notice, please >> respond >> as per its instructions, if you haven't already. If we >> missed >> you, please let me know.) >> >> >> thanks again, >> >> -C >> >> [1] http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/64.html >> [2] http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors >> >> -- >> Craig Latta >> http://netjam.org/resume >> >> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ralph Johnson
While we await a response from the board I think I will throw in my 2
cents. The forms were signed because we were granting a license to our submissions to Viewpoints Research Institute under the and granting them the right to distribute them under the MIT License. There is no need to sign anything when specifying the license for a new submission. You simply state it. Perhaps we should add some verbiage related to this anywhere you can upload files to Mantis. Of course that would probably be easier if I were further along in the plans to move Mantis to the community server. I'll try to find some time for that very soon. Of course we have some submissions in the pipeline already where this was not done. I guess in that case you will simply have to request a statement from the submitter. I'm no expert on this of course, this is just my opinion. Ken On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 09:32 -0600, Ralph Johnson wrote: > The 3.10 resease team is about to start releases. i know that I > haven't signed the forms, and I have no way of knowing who has. So, > we need to get that info ASAP. > > -Ralph Johnson > > |
signature.asc (196 bytes)
re: future Squeak release licensing (was "2007-01-17 SqF board notes")
|
|
In reply to this post by stephane ducasse
Hi Stef-- > Will we accept code in 3.10 by people that did not sign the MIT > agreement? I hope not. This is currently left to Ralph's discretion, subject to the approval of the board. I personally favor allowing only contributions from those who have signed the agreement; I assume the release process will make that easy in the near future. > How can the release team access this information? Do we have a list > available? As I mentioned in the agenda for the 2007-02-07 meeting, I will make the first report on contributor response to the agreement (including a list of positive responders). Between now and then, I plan to get that information from Viewpoints. > How a squeaker can sign such an agreement if he was not originally > contacted? I assume the release team will make the agreement available to anyone who wants it, then people can sign and return it. > A suggestion for Viewpoints: I would be nice to be able to have > scanned copies of the licenses somewhere on the foundation server too. That's unlikely, because the signed agreements include contributors' physical mailing addresses and signatures. We could black those out, but then I don't see much difference between those scans and a simple list of names. thanks again, -C -- Craig Latta http://netjam.org/resume |
Re: future Squeak release licensing (was "2007-01-17 SqF board notes")
|
|
> Hi Stef--
> >> Will we accept code in 3.10 by people that did not sign the MIT >> agreement? I hope not. > > This is currently left to Ralph's discretion, subject to the > approval of the board. I personally favor allowing only contributions > from those who have signed the agreement; I assume the release process > will make that easy in the near future. Ralph? > >> How can the release team access this information? Do we have a list >> available? > > As I mentioned in the agenda for the 2007-02-07 meeting, I will > make the first report on contributor response to the agreement > (including a list of positive responders). Between now and then, I > plan > to get that information from Viewpoints. good > >> How a squeaker can sign such an agreement if he was not originally >> contacted? > > I assume the release team will make the agreement available to > anyone who wants it, then people can sign and return it. Ralph? >> A suggestion for Viewpoints: I would be nice to be able to have >> scanned copies of the licenses somewhere on the foundation server >> too. > > That's unlikely, because the signed agreements include > contributors' physical mailing addresses and signatures. We do not need to have them available for everybody. I just hope that VPR is making a backup. > We could black > those out, but then I don't see much difference between those scans > and > a simple list of names. It was just in case you get an earthquake in california and since we are in the digital age duplication is easy. You could encode them not put them on the web but having them backed up somewhere. I was used to live at nice where they predicted an earthquake that would erase the city from the map so I was used to send the code of my game (skweek elsewhere in france). Stef |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |