libravatar-fans team mailing list archive

[Lars Kruse <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

we just finished our bi-weekly IRC meeting a few minutes ago.

We discussed the following topics:
* progress of the last weeks
* project name and logo vs. trademark/licensing
* continue with regular IRC meetings?
* Who is "we"?

The summary of our discussion is in the wiki:
 https://wiki.libravatar.org/shutdown-coordination/?updated#index2h2
The full log of the IRC meeting is attached.

The next IRC meeting will happen on the 14th of October in #libravatar at
freenode.

Cheers,
Lars

21:00 <sumpfralle4> Let us start the meeting!
21:00 <sumpfralle4> Who is around?
21:00  * ij_ 
21:00 <ij_> but can't contribute much more than that the replacement server is still running ;)
21:01 --> tleguern (50e92555@gateway/web/freenode/ip.80.233.37.85) hat den Channel #libravatar betreten
21:01 <tleguern> Hello
21:01 <tleguern> Sorry for last time, I completely forgot too as I was in the middle of moving to another country.
21:02 <sumpfralle4> This is quite a good excuse :)
21:02 <ofalk> i'm here.
21:02 <sumpfralle4> OK - so let us start.
21:02 <ofalk> just rebooting a few machines in another window :-)
21:02 <sumpfralle4> What happened since the last meeting?
21:03 <ofalk> code. nothing. discussions with fedora design team in regards to the logo and if they can help.
21:04 <ofalk> i keep it short: they are willing to help, but they are afraid of touching the libravatar logo because of eventual copyright stuff.
21:04 <sumpfralle4> fmarier could clarify this, or?
21:04 <ofalk> even if fmarier says it's under the same license as the code, the design team says, that the license doesn't "support" design stuff.
21:05 <ofalk> therefore I suggested that we can think of renaming it to ivatar (as my current code is named anyway). it would give a fresher name and the fedora design team would have no issue, since this isn't copyrighted (yet).
21:06 <ofalk> fmarier said we should discuss this... so i'm brining it up here and now, but afterwards we can discuss on the m/l also.
21:06 <ofalk> for all that are not participating now.
21:06 <tleguern> The “Do we want to catch up with Gravatar ?“ point has also been implemented by ofalk.
21:07 <sumpfralle4> good!
21:07 <sumpfralle4> ivatar: this would be the name of the software or the service?
21:08 <ofalk> both. however, I'd say we keep libravatar domain and the full functionality under that name as well.
21:08 <ofalk> just not use the name in order to avoid any kind of copyright issues.
21:08 <ofalk> esp. when it comes to the logo.
21:09 <ofalk> i'm not an expert on this licensing stuff - i have to trust the fedora design ppl here (esp. mrs. duffy).
21:09 <tleguern> We discussed about changing the logo at some point, wouldn't it be simpler ?
21:09 <sumpfralle4> Is this discussion with the fedora people publicly available? So that maybe fmarier fix around their concerns?
21:10 <sumpfralle4> tleguern: sounds also good
21:10 <ofalk> https://pagure.io/design/issue/613
21:10 <ofalk> most of the discussion is available in that ticket.
21:11 <ofalk> changing the logo alone wouldn't help as far as i understood.
21:12 <sumpfralle4> OK - I think, we should not decide this here, but rather move this discussion/decision to the mailing list.
21:12 <sumpfralle4> Or what do you think?
21:13 <ofalk> yep. i'd also vote for moving this to the m/l. i just wanted to bring it up here and maybe here some opinions ... if anybody has something to say about it.
21:13 <tleguern> It is better to discuss this with Francois.
21:14 <ofalk> i already discussed this with him and he wanted to add the community to this discussion.
21:15 <ofalk> anyway. i think we can say that we decided to move this to the m/l.
21:15 <sumpfralle4> Good
21:15 <tleguern> Good for me too.
21:16 <sumpfralle4> Another small progress: fmarier contacted me regarding the backup and the mail domain. I will answer/prepare this today. Thus both topics should be completed in the next days.
21:17 <ofalk> perfect. sumpfralle++
21:17 <sumpfralle4> Another open topic: how to proceed with the IRC meeting?
21:17 <sumpfralle4> (in general - not this one)
21:18 <ofalk> what's the major opinion on this? do we want to keep it by-weekly (biw++) or do we want to cancel it?
21:19 <tleguern> Biweekly is fine for me, it allows to regularly have an idea of where everything is going.
21:19 <ij_> I think decisions can be made quicker in this IRC meetings in contract to the ML
21:20 <sumpfralle4> nipos expressed his wish to stick to the IRC meetings
21:20 <sumpfralle4> I have the same feeling. We will surely reduce it to a monthly weeking somewhen - but for now it sounds reasonable to me.
21:21 <sumpfralle4> Maybe there would be different opinions, if we did not ask it on the IRC channel, but on the mailing list instead :)
21:21 <ofalk> bi-weekly is fine for me as well.
21:22 <sumpfralle4> ok - so we keep it
21:22 --> clime (~clime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) hat den Channel #libravatar betreten
21:22 <sumpfralle4> Do you have other topics? Otherwise there is only the "who are we/the group" topic.
21:22 <clime> hey
21:23 <ofalk> hey clime++
21:23 <sumpfralle4> welcome!
21:23 <clime> sry for being late
21:23 <clime> thx
21:23 <ofalk> no clime!
21:23 <tleguern> Hello
21:23 <clime> tleguern: hi
21:23 <ofalk> sumpfralle, i think it would be good if clime could give a status on the deployment - if he wants
21:24 <sumpfralle4> yes, please
21:24 <clime> i didn't have much time for that lately :(. I would like to continue though
21:24 <sumpfralle4> summary for clime: we discussed about the licensing/trademark issues of "libravatar" (and a potential change to "ivatar"). We move this discussion to the mailing list. Then we discussed, whether we want to keep the biweekly IRC meeting. We decided to stick to them.
21:25 <ofalk> ack, clime. any show-stoppers or just time-related "issue"?
21:25 <clime> time-related
21:25 <clime> should be better now.
21:25 <sumpfralle4> good for you and for us :)
21:26 <ofalk> just wanted to say the same.
21:26 <clime> so is the plan still the same? Run the new code in Fedora OpenStack? (not OpenShift in the end)
21:26 <ofalk> @clime, that's more or less your decision!
21:27 <clime> alright, cool, I lost context a little bit...
21:27 <ofalk> you said it's better on OpenStack, instead of OpenShift.
21:27 <clime> ye, sure
21:27 <ofalk> at least at the moment. esp. when it comes to giving root-access. and since i had an openshift training this week, i now understand your concerns better :-)
21:28 <clime> alright
21:28 <clime> so I will review the current staging setup, update the code to the latest version.
21:29 <ofalk> don't forget to reserve one evening this week, clime (tue or wed).
21:29 <clime> wed is alright
21:29 <ofalk> @clime, auto-update would be great - from master at the current git.
21:30 <ofalk> @clime - added to my calendar :-)
21:30 <clime> so will we get the libravatar domain then?
21:30 <clime> are other guys ok with the service move?
21:31 <sumpfralle4> "we" is who?
21:31 <sumpfralle4> (do you mean domain registrar control?)
21:31 <clime> i don't know we mean we?
21:32 <sumpfralle4> probably :)
21:32 <clime> can libravatar be pointed to the OpenStack instance and the new code at some point? That was the question.
21:32 <ofalk> i think this is still an open point.
21:32 <sumpfralle4> more precise: what change did you have in mind? Or did you just mean "we will continue to use the domain"?
21:32 <sumpfralle4> I think, we had this mind (changing the DNS entry at some time).
21:33 <clime> ok
21:33 <clime> so i can do staging libravatar in OpenStack and production one as well.
21:33 <sumpfralle4> sounds good
21:34 <clime> Then when the production one is ready, it will be a matter of pointing the libravatar.org to it
21:34 <ofalk> pretty sure we'll stick with this domain (as well). no matter what/if the service/software gets a new name or not.
21:34  * sumpfralle4 nods
21:34 <tleguern> And what about the ownership on libravatar domain ?
21:34 <clime> okay
21:35 <sumpfralle4> "ownership" feels like a good start for the next topic: "who are we?" - correct?
21:35 <tleguern> Exactly
21:35 <ofalk> tleguern, I'd be willing to take it/pay for it, but fmarier has to decide where/if he wants to move it.
21:35 <ofalk> sumpfralle, yes!
21:35 <sumpfralle4> OK - share your thoughts!
21:36 <sumpfralle4> ("you" -> everyone)
21:37 <ofalk> ok. since everybody is so "loud"...
21:37 <tleguern> A .org domain doesn't cost much but I am sure we can find something to not let you pay everything
21:38 <tleguern> Do you know which registrar did fmarier choose M
21:38 <tleguern> s/M/?/
21:38 <ofalk> we are the libravatar/ivatar community. we're open minded and we're making decisions together.
21:39 <clime> cool. I will be happy share some part of the cost.
21:39 <ofalk> Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.gandi.net
21:39 <ofalk> but moving .org domains isn't hard...
21:39 <sumpfralle4> We are the group of people involved with developing the software and maintaining the service currently known as "libravatar".
21:39 <sumpfralle4> This entity does not have a legal status. We are just a group of people. We use a mailinglist and an IRC channel for discussions and decisions.
21:40 <ofalk> thanks for the offers to share costs!
21:40 <ofalk> sumpfralle4: very good summarized!
21:41 <tleguern> Gandi has a new interface and account management process and I /think/ they have a way to provide a shared account management with what they call Organizations.
21:41 <tleguern> Might be a lead to share the cost.
21:41 <ofalk> do we _want_ a legal entity?
21:41 <clime> cool
21:42 <ofalk> tleguern: thanks for the insights!
21:42 <tleguern> -> https://news.gandi.net/en/2017/06/gandiv5-organizations-and-teams/
21:42 <ofalk> cool
21:42 <sumpfralle4> ofalk: I would appreciate, if we get around without a legal entity. At least the domain control needs an "owner" - everything else seems to be fine without, I guess.
21:43 <tleguern> A legal entity brings new questions: under wich legislation and how easy is it to bring people from different countries.
21:43 <sumpfralle4> Regarding the domain: if you (ofalk) are willing to register / be responsible for the domain, then we do not need any kind of legal entity.
21:44 <ofalk> sumpfralle4: i'd also try to avoid a legal entity! in regards to the domain, yes, sure i'll take the responsibility for it.
21:44 <sumpfralle4> (this domain ownership needs a decision by the group / mailing list, I guess)
21:44 <tleguern> Probably easier without one yes.
21:45 <sumpfralle4> Thus I would summarize: we try to get away without a legal enitity. Correct?
21:46 <clime> +1
21:46 <ofalk> yep. already had this... +1
21:46 <sumpfralle4> +1
21:46 <tleguern> +1
21:47 <sumpfralle4> OK. Regarding the "self description" of the group: is my proposal (21:39:58) sufficient?
21:47 <ofalk> i think so and vote for +1
21:47 <clime> sounds good +1
21:47 <tleguern> +1
21:47 <sumpfralle4> Good
21:48 <sumpfralle4> So I think, this topic is finished?
21:48 <tleguern> Seems so.
21:48 <sumpfralle4> (if yes: do you have other topics - or are we finished with the meeting?)
21:48 <ofalk> ack. from my side, yes, it is.
21:48 <clime> i guess, ye
21:49 <tleguern> Same, we discussed all the topics.
21:49 <ofalk> perfect. nobody having any other topics, i guess?
21:50 <sumpfralle4> OK. I will send the summary to the mailing list.
21:50 <tleguern> Thanks
21:50 <sumpfralle4> ofalk: could you open the topic of the name for a discussion on the mailing list?
21:50 <clime> when is the next meeting?
21:50 <sumpfralle4> (Otherwise I would, but I think, you have all the details ...)
21:51 <ofalk> sumpfralle4: thanks for going to do the summary.
21:51 <sumpfralle4> in two weeks: 14th of October
21:51 <ofalk> sumpfralle4, yes I'll open the discussion regarding the name
21:51 <sumpfralle4> great!
21:51 <clime> ok, I think I might post status on the setup earlier to mailing list.
21:51 <ofalk> sure clime!!!
21:51 <clime> should up pretty soon
21:52 <tleguern> Great :)
21:52 <clime> *should be
21:52 <sumpfralle4> yeah!
21:52 <clime> great
21:52 <ofalk> great!