[Committee-d] Tonight's meeting

[Brett Smith]

Attached is the log for tonight's meeting.  Particularly noteworthy:

* Brett will go over the comments and find ones that seem to correspond to
  what the kernel developers advocated in their recent statements.  Zak
  will then take those and try to get the kernel developers interested in
  the process, using them as a base.  He'll also create comments for any
  issues apparently not addressed.

* The timeline for the draft 3 release is a little unclear at this point.
  Richard Fontana thinks there should be more time for comments, and that a
  November 1 release may not be possible.  If people have strong opinions
  about this, we might want to discuss the issue here and then let RMS and
  Eben know what we think.  You can also contact them directly if you
  want.

Thanks,

-- 
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
--> You are now talking on #committeed
--- Topic for #committeed is GPLv3 Committee D channel | Meetings on Tuesdays at 2200UTC | Gobby server (when meetings are on) archimedes.ucr.edu:6522
--- Topic for #committeed set by dondelelcaro at Tue Aug  8 18:01:33
--> ZakGreant (n=zag at mail.ezsystemsnorthamerica.com) has joined #committeed
<bcs> Hi Zak.
<ZakGreant> Aloha Brett!
* ZakGreant is still in a Mozilla Foundation board member interview ... should be finished soon.
<bcs> No worries, I don't think anybody else has quite gotten in yet either.
<ZakGreant> Seems like it.
<ZakGreant> BBIAM
<ZakGreant> Back
* ZakGreant watches the digital tumbleweeds blow through the channel
<bcs> Yeah....
--> Rickerby (n=drickerb at 38.112.155.93) has joined #committeed
<bcs> Hi David.
<Rickerby> sorry I'm late
<bcs> Well, there's only three of us so far, so....
<ZakGreant> ... you are practically early. ;)
<Rickerby> ahhh
<Rickerby> everyone else is out protesting DRM?
<ZakGreant> *snort*
<bcs> Hey, what was that for?  I spent a couple hours on it, we got out a lot of flyers and stickers.
<ZakGreant> Sorry - no offense meant. It was a funny quip. :)
<Rickerby> I was actually kind of serious. I'm here as a slave to my corporate masters, but that doesn't mean everyone is. ;-)
<ZakGreant> Ah.. the fantastic subtleties of IRC. All the nuance that ANSI-coloured text can offer.
<bcs> :)
<bcs> So do either of you have anything you'd like to bring up or discuss?
<ZakGreant> So... here is what is rumbling around my head right now.
<ZakGreant> The Linux kernel hackers have finally raised some issues
<ZakGreant> I will try to filter through them and correlate them to existing comments; or
<ZakGreant> I will create new comments, in the slight chance that they are needed
--> fontana (n=fontana at thurgood-marshall.sflc.info) has joined #committeed
<ZakGreant> Then I am thinking that I try to get the kernel hackers to pay attention to said comments.
<ZakGreant> Simultaneously, if no one has picked up the issue (I think that most of them are being discussed), then we turn the relevant comments into an issue.
<bcs> What do you mean by "pay attention" exactly?
<ZakGreant> By we, I mean me and any brave volunteers not already burdened with issues.
<ZakGreant> By "pay attention", I mean that I want them to be aware of the discussion around the issue and hopefully, convince them to participate in the discussion.
<ZakGreant> I would prefer to do this in a more public way to help ensure that more people can be in the loop.
<dondelelcaro> it'd also be nice if they'd actually address specificially the language that they have problems with and suggest reasonable corrections for them
<ZakGreant> dondelelcaro: That would be nice...
<dondelelcaro> (of course, in the end, it's doubtfull that they'll ever be able to move beyond going v2 or later for some portions of the code)
<bcs> ZakGreant: If you want to do that, I'd encourage you to go for it, but only if you're actually willing to advocate for the issues they raise.
<ZakGreant> dondelelcaro: Agreed. However, it is still important to take the step of trying to get them more engaged - not just for the sake of Linux, but for the entire GPL v3 process.
<dondelelcaro> ZakGreant: true
<ZakGreant> I'll have a clearer idea of how much work that will be once I correlate the issues they raise to existing discussions. I bet that most of their concerns are being covered already - they just haven't looked.
<ZakGreant> Any other comments or cautions?
<dondelelcaro> not that I can see
<bcs> Not from me.
<ZakGreant> Ok. I will undertake this task this week.
<bcs> Okay.  Do you have anything else, Zak?
<ZakGreant> Nope.
<bcs> Okay.  So what's on other people's minds?
<bcs> ... really, nothing?  :)
<bcs> So, OOC, does this mean that people are cool with draft 2, except for the issues already discussed?
<ZakGreant> Heh. I would suspect it indicates draft fatigue.
<fontana> I thought Draft 2 was perfect when it came out :)
<ZakGreant> Heh. I stand corrected.
<bcs> That's what I told Dave Turner, too.  :)  Yeah, I won't deny that this is getting to be a long process for everyone.
<bcs> Has this committee done any review of the comments for draft 2?
<dondelelcaro> yeah... I just keep putting off going through it completely like I did for draft one...
<dondelelcaro> I've been a bit too busy lately
<ZakGreant> I am in the same state - life has been rather hectic.
<bcs> Actually, fontana, do you know if any committee's done that?  It seemed to be the thing to do for draft 1 and now not so much.
<bcs> It's like people are stuck on their pet issues.
<fontana> bcs: no one has really been doing it for Draft 2.
<bcs> Hmm.
<ZakGreant> When is our deadline again?
<bcs> In a couple of weeks-ish.
<bcs> Last I heard.  Any news on that front, fontana?
<bcs> ZakGreant: How would you feel if I went through the comments, and pointed out to you the ones that seemed to reflect the kernel developers' positions?
<ZakGreant> I will also try to review all comments on the draft - it fits in well with the other work I have. I can take a day off of work to get it done, if need be.
<fontana> bcs:  unclear... I suspect it will not be out by November 1st
<fontana> but there might be a push to get it out by that date
<ZakGreant> bcs: That would be lovely!
<bcs> ZakGreant: Okay, I will do that.  I'll probably send the results to the list, just for whoever else is interested.
<bcs> Hopefully by the end of the week.
<ZakGreant> Cool. I will focus on getting kernel hacker attention. :)
<bcs> fontana: I'm going to take that to mean we should still figure our deadline is in a couple of weeks from now, until we hear otherwise.  :)
<fontana> bcs: I'm not sure what to advise on that. I myself think we need some more time.
<fontana> and I am not sure it really will be possible to get the 3rd draft out by then
<bcs> Does anybody else have any opinions on a timeline for the next draft?
<fontana> If anyone feels strongly that more time and deliberation is needed over the current draft, I'd suggest letting RMS know. :)
<ZakGreant> bcs: I value completeness of review over timeliness.
<Rickerby> Seems to me that you create the coalition before you issue a draft. At least if you want it adopted... But that's just the way I do things. :)
<ZakGreant> I have to catch up with someone before they leave the office BBI5M
<bcs> Well, I think if nobody has anything else, we're done for now.
<Rickerby> BCS - send me one or two of those stickers and pins!
<bcs> Heh.  We don't have pins here, but I'll see what I can do about the stickers.
<ZakGreant> back
<ZakGreant> Thanks all! Thanks Brett!
<bcs> No problems, thank you.