https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2011-07-06 * Secretary: Jon Stanley * Meeting type: Phone == Attendence == === Present === * Jared Smith * Jon Stanley * Guillermo Gómez * Peter Robinson * Rex Dieter * Rudi Landmann * Tom Callaway (Invited guest) * Joerg Simon (late and gobby only) * Toshio Kuratomi (late) === Not Present === * Jaroslav Reznik === Regards === * David Nalley == Agenda == Updates Board business === Updates === * Welcome to new members of the Board ** Welcome to the first phone meetings ** Meetings every week (can discuss today) *** Alternating phone/IRC meeting ** Send agenda items to jsmith or board-private * Fedora 16 Schedule ** Feature freeze on 7/26 (about 3 weeks out) ** Feature submission deadline 7/12 **Custom spins submission deadline 7/12 ** key tasks at http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-16/f-16-key-tasks.html ** Schedule at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/16/Schedule * Update on FUDCon {EMEA/APAC/NA} status ** Working on coming up with a list of tickets that should be opened for any FUDCon to make it easier to keep track of ** EMEA in Milan on 9/30-10/2 *** Planning going well ** APAC - decision is imminently forthcoming, *** Opening bid for next year as soon as this year's decision is announced (schedule is to do Mar-May next year, in Red Hat fiscal Q1) ** FUDCon NA Jan 13-15 in Blacksburg, VA. *** planning meetings start today ** Possible FAD to evaluate FUDCon planning process (after a FUDCon)? === Board Business === * FPCA discussion (with Tom Callaway as an invited guest) ** When Fedora got started, CLA (specifically Apache CLA) was mandated by Red Hat. ** Interpretation worked for most people, however the text was very confusing ** Spot started working on a replacement, working with Red Hat Legal to draft ** Allow explicit licensing, but have a safety net license *** by agreeing to FPCA, you give permission to use under default license IF UNLICENSED otherwise. ** FPCA was not mandated by Red Hat Legal (and significant staffing changes since CLA was mandated) ** Having a default licensing agreement makes sense, don't want to go towards copyright assignment ** Other projects have similar agreements, for example Asterisk. ** the hope when the FPCA was crafted was having something legally valid, but still understandable ** For the most part, positive feedback from FPCA ** Reached out to people that found the CLA objectionable, universally they had no issues with the FPCA. ** Requiring explicit licensing is a bearucratic nightmare *** Would have to build mechanisms to block non-explicitly licensed content. ** Where do you put/how to check license files in say, JPEG files? ** We would have to build gates around every possible area of contribution ** Seems the objection to the FPCA is not that they don't want to sign the FPCA but that it's "hard" to sign the FPCA *** Would it be better to address those specific usability problems? ** i18n of FAS/FPCA ** To be clear, none of the solutions we are evaluating would allow unlicensed contributions to Fedora *** In the US, at least, there's only minimal rights associated with things that have no license, therefore, we would be on shakey legal grounds if we accepted contributions without license terms ** Third parties have approached us that were not comfortable contributing to Fedora with either the CLA or no agreement in place, however, they were comfortable with the FPCA. PROPOSAL: Do we drop FPCA as being mandatory in favor of explicit licensing of all contributions? * Board unanimously votes against the proposal. === Other notes === * Next meeting: Public IRC meeting on Wednesday, July 13th ** Need to figure out meeting time ** We'll ask FPC to re-visit their schedule, and if they don't feel like moving, we'll find another time _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
