Summary and agenda items will come soon.
[22:32:55] You have joined channel #Meeting
[22:32:57] #Meeting : created Sat Dec 7 21:39:57 2002
[22:33:00] <Arc> any form of computer/network related activism, especially street protests, but probobally more common just interviewing geeks about what they're doing and how they feel it benefits society and breaks down software monopolies, etc
[22:33:11] <Arc> hey hey we got people showing up
[22:33:46] Spada : has the meeting started ?
[22:34:11] <xbrianskix> in the most informal sense of the word meeting, yes.
[22:35:17] <xbrianskix> perhaps considering the newcomers we should start this over in a more formal setting
[22:35:36] <Spada> it's ok for me
[22:36:02] <Spada> are there points to be discussed, somewhere ?
[22:36:13] <Arc> anyone volunteers for facilitators?
[22:36:16] <Arc> spada, not yet
[22:36:33] <Arc> so far ive proposed volunteer outreach and coordination for techs
[22:36:38] <xbrianskix> i could, although i've never been to one of these meetings before, or facilitated on irc
[22:36:38] <Arc> since there's so few of us
[22:36:59] <Arc> bri, its the same as in person, really. only diff is to end talking we toss <end> at the end of a line
[22:37:06] <Arc> and to raise hands we do /me raises
[22:37:10] <Arc> etc
[22:37:24] <xbrianskix> ehh just nudge me if i screw something up, y'all
[22:37:40] <xbrianskix> so intros we sort of did already, but we should probably do it again no?
[22:38:06] <xbrianskix> i'm brian, the "other tech from ithaca"
[22:38:09] <xbrianskix> end
[22:38:14] <xbrianskix> <end> whatever
[22:39:12] <xbrianskix> umm, am idoing something wrong now?
[22:39:17] <xbrianskix> don't be shy people, introduce!
[22:39:49] <Zenton> i am vicente from Spain.
[22:40:01] <Spada> I thought the facilitator was going to tell who had to talk
[22:40:25] <Spada> but maybe we can just give us an "order"
[22:40:27] <Spada> ...
[22:40:27] <zapATIsta> marco, techie for milwaukee. catholic worker, xtian anarchist. singer/songwriter, etc.
[22:40:58] <Arc> Arc from Ithaca
[22:41:20] <Arc> oh, bri, sorry. you're support to call on people in groups of two-three to intro, in alphabetical order..
[22:41:36] <Arc> but we dont need that in such a small group, really
[22:41:36] <Arc> end
[22:42:06] <Spada> Dario from Nice (France), techie for France, Nice and Lille
[22:42:19] <Spada> I'm a young indyan !
[22:43:00] <Spada> let's say, when we do rounds, the order is always : Arc - luis - Spada - xbrianskix - zapATIsta - Zenton, all right ?
[22:43:28] <zapATIsta> fine
[22:43:53] <xbrianskix> that leaves luis
[22:44:29] <luis> im sorry, i was away. intro?
[22:44:36] <Spada> yes
[22:44:41] <xbrianskix> please
[22:45:06] <luis> im luis, from brasil. i help a little bit on listwork but im not really a tech. just stopped by to watch
[22:45:12] <luis> end
[22:45:36] <xbrianskix> okay then. agenda items? anyone?
[22:45:54] <xbrianskix> arc suggested tech outreach
[22:46:14] <xbrianskix> shall i do a go around here again?
[22:48:09] <Spada> I'm not really sure if it can be an agenda item but I came up with an idea in my group about an "event page" common for all indyes at (ex.: events.indymedia.org)
[22:48:36] <Spada> ~end
[22:49:16] <xbrianskix> anyone else?
[22:49:30] Arc raises
[22:49:36] <xbrianskix> oh, did the arc?
[22:49:41] <xbrianskix> i mean, arc!
[22:50:02] <Arc> Discussion about clairifying item 9 of the principals of unity evil grin
[22:50:03] <Arc> end
[22:52:07] xbrianskix raises
[22:52:15] <xbrianskix> xbrianskix you may speak
[22:52:36] <xbrianskix> i'd like to discuss the topic of a global ssl certificate
[22:52:36] <xbrianskix> end
[22:53:18] <xbrianskix> anyone else?
[22:53:25] forrest (firstname.lastname@example.org
) has joined channel #Meeting
[22:53:47] Arc notes that the current agenda should fill the remaining 75 mins
[22:53:53] <xbrianskix> welcome forrest, we are taking agenda items at the moment
[22:54:23] <forrest> i'm not currently involved, in a large degree because of facist spam protections on the indymedia mail servers, i'd like to add that if i could.
[22:54:46] <forrest> spamassassin would be a better solution than outright blacklists. i'd be happy to help work on it as well, i use it on my server.
[22:56:47] <xbrianskix> okay we've got events.indy, tech outreach, global ssl cert, item 9 from principles of unity clarification, and spam alternatives as agenda items.
[22:57:08] <xbrianskix> let's press on, feel free to suggest others as time goes on
[22:57:18] <forrest> i only mention it because i can not send mail to any indymedia ddress because of it.
[22:57:40] <forrest> my entire city's ip block is blocked for reasons out of my control.
[22:57:42] <xbrianskix> ups, sorry forrest, wasn't sure if you were done or not.
[22:58:11] <forrest> sorry, didn't mean to hold up, just explaining a bit further.
[22:58:42] <xbrianskix> ok, how shall we order these fine agenda topics?
[22:59:02] <Spada> in the order they were exposed ?
[22:59:15] <xbrianskix> sounds wonderful. any objections?
[23:00:01] <xbrianskix> ok, events.indymedia.org. spada, the floor is yours.
[23:00:22] <Spada> (tech outreach came first, but never mind !)
[23:00:29] <luis> forrest, can you explain to me whats going on on pvt. i dont know if i will stay until the end of the meeting and would like to know
[23:00:39] <Spada> so the idea was the following
[23:00:43] <Arc> let's spend 10 minutes on outreach
[23:00:52] <Spada> ok
[23:01:09] <xbrianskix> heh. ok outreach then
[23:01:10] <Arc> 15 on global cert, 15 on item 9
[23:01:41] <xbrianskix> that leaves spam and events
[23:01:58] <Spada> ok for me
[23:02:02] <xbrianskix> let's do 7.5 each since that's all the time we've got
[23:02:09] <xbrianskix> ?
[23:02:12] <Spada> ok
[23:02:39] <xbrianskix> luis, forrest, cool with the agenda ordering?
[23:02:42] <xbrianskix> if not message me
[23:02:53] <xbrianskix> arc go ahead and introduce the topic of outreach
[23:02:58] <xbrianskix> end
[23:03:47] <Arc> ok
[23:03:58] <Arc> i already talked about the video project
[23:04:18] <Arc> and yes, local IMCs need techs, but theres alot of global work that needs to be done
[23:04:31] <Arc> managing servers, getting more servers up, getting a replacement for loudeye, etc
[23:05:06] <Arc> so I think we need a person or group to handle new techs.. dealing with the security issues and everything, but also getting people matched with jobs etc
[23:05:23] <Arc> prehaps a more formal trust system, other than "i like you, I'm going to give you access to this server that I have access to"
[23:05:23] <Arc> end
[23:06:56] <Arc> discussion?
[23:07:28] <Arc> bri
[23:07:29] xbrianskix raises
[23:07:33] Spada raises
[23:07:40] xbrianskix yields to spada
[23:07:42] <xbrianskix> go for it. end
[23:08:16] <Spada> I think the key for a better techie organisation in to centralise all the information
[23:08:36] <Spada> at the moment it is cluttered in many places (docs.indy, tech.indy and maybe more)
[23:09:12] <Spada> as a new techie, I would like someone to tell me what needs to be done but maybe it would be even easier if I could easily find such information myself
[23:09:20] <Spada> ~end
[23:09:39] Arc raises
[23:09:44] <xbrianskix> thanks spada. arc?
[23:10:29] <Arc> i guess first im proposing that on volunteer.indy we have tech WGs and IMCs post things they need help with, and have those things be publically available
[23:10:52] <Arc> so everyone can see what needs to be done at one place, they can find info about that stuff at other places (the tasks could have links to more info)
[23:11:06] <Arc> sorry, WG = working group, ie, listwork, commwork, etc
[23:11:29] <Arc> that doesnt really need to be voted on, per sey, its part of volunteer/commwork
[23:11:42] <Arc> i think the trust system is a bigger proposal
[23:12:01] <Arc> new techs are often not given the access they need to do stuff, even if they want to
[23:12:08] <Arc> and give up, as ive seen and experienced myself
[23:12:16] <Arc> end
[23:12:30] xbrianskix point of process, we've got 2 minutes left and this sounds like a big discussion
[23:13:10] Unknown command: SPADA
[23:13:15] Spada : we could keep all we said as a good starting point for a later discussion (on lists ?)
[23:13:51] <Arc> we can table this for next meeting and spend the next two weeks discussing it on the list
[23:13:59] <Spada> ok for me
[23:14:02] <Arc> move to table?
[23:14:16] <xbrianskix> alrightee-roo
[23:15:24] <xbrianskix> so the next item is events
[23:15:30] <xbrianskix> spada, go ahead
[23:15:33] <Spada> ok
[23:15:41] <Spada> the idea was the following
[23:15:52] <Spada> a website sitting at events.indymedia.org
[23:16:14] <Spada> that indyies could use to organise local/global events
[23:16:57] <Spada> for Example, in Nice we are organizing a "birth party" for our group and such a webpage would be used...
[23:17:32] <Spada> to write down contacts of people involved with it, dates, ideas, proposals,...
[23:18:36] <Spada> of course it can already be done with a regular website or with twiki but having such tool would make it easier and all this info would be centralised for other indyies to read it
[23:18:42] <Spada> ~end
[23:19:42] <xbrianskix> discussion?
[23:19:57] <Spada> who do I have to ask to set up this thing ?
[23:20:01] Arc raises
[23:20:11] <xbrianskix> err, i dunno. arc
[23:20:28] <Arc> so basically what you're talking about is a combined calendar, basically
[23:20:37] <Arc> of all the local calendars
[23:20:39] <Arc> ?
[23:20:50] <Arc> and are you volunteering to write such a thing?
[23:20:51] <Arc> end
[23:21:06] <Spada> yes but also a place to store contact info of people involved with the organisation of the even
[23:21:29] <Spada> I've started already to write it because we wanted to use it in our collective
[23:21:47] <Spada> but then I thought, why not making it publicly availabe ?
[23:21:48] forrest raises
[23:21:51] <Spada> ~end
[23:21:57] Arc raises
[23:22:00] <xbrianskix> point of process, we're about out of time
[23:22:02] <xbrianskix> forrest then arc
[23:22:22] <forrest> could the protest.net code possibly be used or modified for this purpose?
[23:22:26] <forrest> end
[23:22:38] <xbrianskix> thanks forrest. arc?
[23:22:59] <Arc> I wouldnt feel comfortable with a new, seperate calendar. most local IMCs already have their local calendars that they're trying to promote
[23:23:29] <Arc> i think a good way to implement it is as a syndicated gathering site for all the different IMCs events into one calendar, tho
[23:23:50] Spada raises (if there is any time left)
[23:23:57] <Arc> if such a thing is even needed.. i personally think that if someone wants to know whats going on in NYC they could go to nyc.indy and look at their calendar
[23:24:22] <Arc> but if it was needed, I think it shouldnt be a seperate calendar but a combined calendar of all local IMCs
[23:24:24] <Arc> end
[23:24:31] <xbrianskix> ok spada, briefly if you can
[23:24:46] <Spada> the syndicated gathering of calendars is not a bad idea but it's a bit different
[23:25:21] <Spada> what I thought of was a tool to help collectives organise their local events
[23:25:26] <Spada> would this be of any use ?
[23:25:28] <Spada> ~end
[23:26:02] Arc raises
[23:26:23] <xbrianskix> do we want to move on? we're over time...
[23:26:33] <xbrianskix> arc, go ahead while people ponder that
[23:26:49] <Arc> I think that's best implented by the local IMCs, not as a new source.. better to keep stuff local and decentralised the best we can. end
[23:27:11] <zapATIsta> agree
[23:27:18] <xbrianskix> ok i'm not hearing agreement. let's move on
[23:27:41] <xbrianskix> global ssl certificate
[23:27:59] <Arc> you want me or someone else to take on as facilitator for this item, bri? or do you want me to present it
[23:28:25] <xbrianskix> arc: i was just about to ask you the same thing. go ahead and present it, if you would
[23:28:30] <Arc> ok
[23:28:48] <Arc> right now every indy server has its own SSL cert, even if it doesnt implement HTTPS we still use it for SSH
[23:28:54] <Arc> and for judi/krop, for ircs
[23:29:12] <Arc> this system is cool, if people aren't worried about man in middle and inpersonation attacks
[23:29:40] <Arc> but for greater security of the network, and independence of our trust infostructure, it would seem like a good idea to have a global signing SSL cert
[23:29:58] xbrianskix raises
[23:30:02] <Arc> I don't think anyone would disagree with that, the only real question is who holds the certificate.
[23:30:06] <Arc> end
[23:30:42] <Arc> um, brian?
[23:31:10] <xbrianskix> ok, just wanted to piont out that this isn't quite as good as say verisign and thawte, whree the certificates are built in to the browser. we have to trust that the user gets the key without any attack the first time they download our global cert
[23:31:11] <xbrianskix> end
[23:33:56] <xbrianskix> of course we might be able to address that the same way gpg does, ie by offline verification. this presumes we have people travelling/calling each other enough to make sure all IMCistas get the right cert, and that they communicate that key to their end users. this all feels a bit theoretical tho, seems like we don't lose anything to go for it
[23:34:01] <xbrianskix> end (for real this time)
[23:34:16] forrest raises
[23:34:20] <xbrianskix> forrest?
[23:34:54] <forrest> you could distrbute the key encrypted or signed using pgp
[23:35:07] <forrest> end
[23:35:23] xbrianskix raises
[23:35:25] <xbrianskix> xbrianskix
[23:35:57] <xbrianskix> yeah, that solves part of the problem, but we still can't get the key to the end user, unless they are tech saavy enough to go gpg/pgp
[23:35:59] <xbrianskix> end
[23:36:23] forrest raises
[23:36:29] <xbrianskix> 7.5 minutes left
[23:36:30] <xbrianskix> forrest?
[23:36:43] <forrest> if they are not tech savy enough to do pgp then will they be doing a check on the ssl key they recive anyhow?
[23:36:43] Arc raises
[23:36:46] <forrest> end
[23:36:58] <xbrianskix> arc?
[23:37:06] xbrianskix raises
[23:37:23] <Arc> yea its not really an issue of everyone needing to verify it
[23:37:32] matze (matze@localhost) has joined channel #Meeting
[23:37:56] <Arc> just some of us techs being able to verify the key, so that if an attack is made we know about it
[23:38:10] <Arc> but in general, its just a security and independence issue
[23:38:22] <Arc> end
[23:38:30] matze has left channel #Meeting
[23:39:01] <xbrianskix> theoretically, we'd need everyone to check the key, but yeah, having some people check should be enough.
[23:39:01] <xbrianskix> end
[23:39:16] Arc raises
[23:39:18] <xbrianskix> arc?
[23:39:30] <Arc> so we're back to the question i raised, who holds the key - how is it managed?
[23:39:45] <Arc> I'd propose GnuTLS
might be a solution, since the keys can be signed by GnuPG
[23:39:50] <Arc> but i havent done alot of research with it
[23:40:03] <Arc> but in any case, the signing key has to exist somewhere, someone has to have control over it
[23:40:11] xbrianskix raises
[23:40:13] <Arc> thats the problem with centralised authority systems like ssl
[23:40:14] <Arc> end
[23:40:39] xbrianskix thinks again and lowers
[23:40:49] <xbrianskix> only a few minutes left
[23:40:54] <Arc> im not going to take on that authority
[23:41:07] xbrianskix raises
[23:41:18] <xbrianskix> there are theoretical solutions at least for sharing secrets amongst a group of people
[23:42:09] <xbrianskix> ie in schneider's red book on security, they talk about a system for 5 people who work at a nuclear missile launching facility, and making sure 3/5 or some arbitrary number (which you can weight to give some people more importance than others)
[23:42:22] <xbrianskix> approve any action. but i know of no such real software in the wild
[23:42:23] <xbrianskix> end
[23:42:38] forrest raises
[23:42:41] <xbrianskix> forrest
[23:43:42] <forrest> again, i'd imagine pgp could do somthing like that. you can encrypt things so that you need x number of approved others to use their keys to decrypt it before it actully gets decrypted for example.
[23:43:51] <forrest> not having done this yet, it's just an idea.
[23:43:52] <forrest> end
[23:43:57] xbrianskix raises
[23:44:12] <xbrianskix> a good point
[23:44:20] <xbrianskix> but the problem is, let's say you have 5 people who all sign this key
[23:44:27] <xbrianskix> encrypt it rather
[23:44:41] <xbrianskix> one of them dies
[23:44:52] Arc raises
[23:45:02] <xbrianskix> then when you get to their step, you're screwed, its an all or nothing situation with pgp the way i understand it (i could be wrong)
[23:45:02] <xbrianskix> arc
[23:45:12] forrest raises
[23:45:14] <Arc> more than that, the last person to decrypt then has the whole key
[23:45:19] <Arc> whereas nobody else does
[23:45:32] <Arc> we want to restrict signatures, not the key itself
[23:45:40] <Arc> tho restricting the secret key does the same job
[23:46:00] xbrianskix raises
[23:46:01] <Arc> prehaps a different system is many people possess the key
[23:46:07] <Arc> each with a different passphrase
[23:46:09] <Arc> end
[23:46:13] <xbrianskix> forrest?
[23:46:47] <forrest> pgp can actually do it so you need x/y people, i know one of the engineers who worked for pgp. i can talk to him about setting somthing up like this if it would be useful.
[23:47:00] <forrest> end
[23:48:08] Arc raises
[23:48:12] <xbrianskix> that sounds like a great idea, forrest. i'd also like to point out that the key will have ot be somewhere in electronic format (at least in volatile ram) at some point in time. we all already implicitly trust the administrators of www to not put up features about joining the KKK, so i don't think it's that big of a deal, but that's just my opinion. forrest can you look in to that?
[23:48:12] <xbrianskix> end
[23:48:14] <xbrianskix> arc?
[23:48:21] <Arc> OpenPGP
, specifically GnuPG
[23:48:28] <Arc> PGP is commercial and source inavailable
[23:48:29] <Arc> end
[23:48:44] xbrianskix raises
[23:49:07] <xbrianskix> minor point, imo. which gives us the perfect segue in to item #9 of the principes of unity
[23:49:39] <xbrianskix> we're way over time all of a sudden
[23:49:47] forrest raises
[23:49:49] <xbrianskix> shall we table this and move on?
[23:49:51] <xbrianskix> forrest
[23:50:23] <forrest> pgp and gnupg both stick fairly well to openpgp standards now. so they should be interoperable. and yes i'll look into it.
[23:50:23] <forrest> end
[23:50:31] <xbrianskix> excellent
[23:50:37] <xbrianskix> thanks forrest
[23:50:44] <xbrianskix> now, item #9 of the p.o.u.
[23:50:47] <xbrianskix> arc, your item
[23:52:36] <xbrianskix> arc?
[23:53:31] <Arc> sorry
[23:53:36] <xbrianskix> motion to skip this item and come back when arc is around?
[23:53:36] <xbrianskix> xxx
[23:53:40] <xbrianskix> go ahead then arc
[23:54:06] <Arc> apparently that item was created as a result of several tech meeting discussions, before I was involved with indymedia, as a result of a suggestion that we use qmail
[23:54:18] <Arc> qmail is a source available but not free software MTA
[23:54:45] <Arc> it was rejected after a long discussion and a decidion that we would use free software whenever possible
[23:55:17] <Arc> the principals of unity wording was not decided then, but rather compiled by someone else (i havent been able to confirm), but reads as follows:
[23:55:17] xbrianskix raises
[23:55:52] <Arc> 9. All IMC's shall be committed to the use of free source code, whenever possible, in order to develop the digital infrastructure, and to increase the independence of the network by not relying on proprietary software.
[23:56:39] <Arc> this wording is ambiguous, when compaired to that decidion.. I feel we should change "free source code" to Free Software, and refer to a URL at the FSF defining free software
[23:57:00] <Arc> if we decide to do that here, it'll go to the IMC-Tech list, and then to IMC-Process
[23:57:21] xbrianskix grins
[23:57:22] <Arc> this isnt a change, but a clairification.
[23:57:22] <Arc> end
[23:57:27] xbrianskix frowns
[23:57:41] Spada agrees
[23:57:50] <xbrianskix> 1 - i don't know the context, but the way i read it, the wording is intentionally vague
[23:58:06] <xbrianskix> to allow people to choose non-free software when it suits their interests
[23:58:21] <xbrianskix> 2 - the issue with qmail is really an anal one
[23:58:26] Arc raises
[23:58:28] <xbrianskix> i mean, yes technically its unfree
[23:58:58] <xbrianskix> but all djb requires is for people to contribute work back to him
[23:59:08] <xbrianskix> im not sure of the particulars, it might even be a request.
[23:59:36] <xbrianskix> there were heated flames on the openbsd mailing lists about this, which resulted in all his software being removed from the ports tree although being a) more secure and b) technically superior
[23:59:36] <xbrianskix> end
[00:00:06] <xbrianskix> arc
[00:00:37] <Arc> I dont feel it was left intentionally vauge, it was likely written by a non-geek without knowing the specific terms
[00:00:48] xbrianskix raises
[00:00:49] <Arc> the person probobally tried to condense a larger submission into a smaller one
[00:01:33] <luis> have to go
[00:01:36] <luis> bye all
[00:01:45] <xbrianskix> bye luis
[00:01:50] luis is now known as luis-away
[00:01:56] <Arc> nor do I feel it should be vauge. time and time again we've taken stands on things, as a group, because of politics. free software being a very foundation-level principal of IMC-Tech, heck even our main global server is named "Stallman"
[00:02:13] <Arc> and I dont feel this item reflects the intentions of IMC-Tech
[00:02:32] <Arc> I think the clairification is needed, to reflect IMC-Tech better.
[00:02:33] <Arc> end
[00:02:43] Spada still agrees
[00:03:06] <xbrianskix> spada, would you like to comment before i go?
[00:03:14] <Spada> ok
[00:03:49] <Spada> I agree with Arc that this point is not clear enough and I don't see a good reason for leaving it as it is <end>
[00:04:09] <xbrianskix> ok then
[00:04:13] <xbrianskix> my suggestion is this
[00:04:20] <xbrianskix> or question first.
[00:05:01] <xbrianskix> has anyone tried to follow the trail of emails? ie i see jay posted a draft of the p.o.u., can we contact him and ask where #9 came from, and follow the trail like that, until we get to a group of people who say "here's what we meant?"
[00:05:28] <xbrianskix> and a note: if the wording is ambiguous, i don't feel its appropriate to say "oh, these people probably meant this"
[00:05:46] <xbrianskix> concensus moves largely in one direction, it's much harder to undo something than to do it (which isn't all that easy either
[00:05:46] <xbrianskix> end
[00:06:11] <xbrianskix> zapa, zenton, forrest, any input?
[00:06:36] Arc raises
[00:06:38] <zapATIsta> hmm
[00:06:39] <xbrianskix> go ahead arc
[00:07:01] <zapATIsta> just that consensus is slow but important. [end]
[00:07:20] <Arc> I think it's irrevelent who wrote the wording, it came from IMC-Tech origionally
[00:07:41] xbrianskix raises and is being a really bad facilitator
[00:07:57] <Arc> so I think that since many of us (this has been discussed alot recently) feel that it's too ambiguous to mean anything, we should propose it being changed
[00:08:10] <Arc> let all of IMC-Tech discuss it, and then IMC-Process
[00:09:03] <Arc> so this is my proposal. we propose a change in the wording, it goes to IMC-Tech list for two weeks, gets discussed again next meeting, and if nobody blocks it goes to IMC-Process for two weeks for discussion and decidion if nobody blocks
[00:09:10] luis-away has left channel #Meeting
[00:09:29] <Arc> a one month process, total, should give anyone a chance to be heard and then, if the item was written the way it is for a reason, that person can speak up
[00:09:41] <Arc> but trying to track down where it came from so long ago is virtually impossible, really.
[00:09:46] <Arc> end
[00:10:51] <xbrianskix> oh forgot my hand was dangling in the air, sorry
[00:11:10] <xbrianskix> uhm, err. note; we're 5 minutes over, hope its ok to continue
[00:11:19] Arc nods
[00:11:25] <xbrianskix> arc, how would you propose changing the wording?
[00:11:26] <xbrianskix> end
[00:13:37] <Arc> 9. All IMC's shall be committed to the use of Free Software (as defined by
[00:13:37] <Arc> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
), whenever possible, in order to
[00:13:37] <Arc> develop the digital infrastructure, and to increase the independence of
[00:13:37] <Arc> the network by not relying on proprietary software or media formats.
[00:14:21] <Arc> I tagged the "or media formats" because this also falls under the terms of "free software", but isn't often seen as such by non-geeks
[00:14:24] <Arc> end
[00:14:59] xbrianskix raises
[00:15:46] <xbrianskix> i feel that there are certain circumstances where it's much easier for people to get up and running with non-free software and formats, and i don't think we should stop that, only encourage people to use Free software when possible. but i don't think it's possible in the case of people who aren't as technologically literate as, well, techs.
[00:15:48] <xbrianskix> end
[00:16:14] <xbrianskix> i don't have a problem with your wording, but i wish it made that clear. end for real this time
[00:16:24] <Arc> /me raises
[00:16:29] <xbrianskix> arc
[00:16:39] <Arc> global techs are available for that.
[00:16:56] <Arc> many IMCs dont have techs that can setup servers and such, but we share resources and that includes tech resources
[00:17:30] <Arc> and also the "whenever possible" covers cases where it just cant be done, such as the current state of video encoding
[00:18:08] <Arc> but all of us agree, I believe, that using non-free software in mission critical parts of the network is a problem. its not being used by global, because we all know this, but some local IMCs do
[00:18:24] <Arc> I just think the clairification is important. this will likely spark considerable discussion and debate on the lists
[00:18:32] <Arc> but I think that discussion is very nessesary.
[00:18:33] xbrianskix isn't sure if he's allowed to block or not on his first meeting
[00:18:36] <Arc> end
[00:18:42] xbrianskix raises
[00:19:01] <xbrianskix> arc, why don't you go ahead and submit that proposal to the tech list and see what happens
[00:19:11] <xbrianskix> ?
[00:19:12] <xbrianskix> end
[00:19:21] <Arc> proposals to the list are suppost to be from a meeting
[00:19:31] <Arc> so we have to formalise the proposal
[00:19:40] <Arc> to repeat, it is as follows:
[00:20:06] <xbrianskix> just put stars around whenever possible and i'll be happy to endorse it.
[00:20:13] <xbrianskix> sorry to interject again. end
[00:20:58] <Arc> The following changes in item #9 have been proposed at the global tech meeting on Dec 7th, 2002. This is being sent to the list for discussion until the next meeting, where it can be approved by IMC-Tech and sent to IMC-Process for discussion and possible block for two week
- 07 Dec 2002