New Group Name
russ
--r
Al Wood
Can you let me know your github user name please so I can add you to
XCommons Foundation there.
On 23 November 2010 14:47, russ <russ.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The name of the group is now XComons Foundation.
>
> --r
>
Kaspar Bumke
Would be good idea to change the links from everywhere. E.g. the initial forum thread.
Kaspar Bumke
I am going to transfer the voting threads.
Al Wood
We need to create another team that are not owners else it will be chaotic
Al Wood
Contributors - push/pull privs
and Administrators - push/pull & admin
There is a pull only group butthat doesn't make sense really or does
it just as a membership label perhaps
Al Wood
test idea is the best starting project personally. Want me to create
it?
Kaspar Bumke
Kaspar Bumke
Al Wood
Russ Ferriday
Russ Ferriday -- Systems Architect & Entrepreneur
Jonathan May
Please don't build too much infrastructure on Github just yet... as I
believe you may end up duplicating stuff that XMOS is doing.
I don't know much but I'm working on trying to get them to make a public
statement about their open-source intentions.
On 23/11/10 15:10, Kaspar Bumke wrote:
> It seems if you reply to the right address you can just continue the old
> threads.
>
>
> On 23 November 2010 15:07, Al Wood <a...@folknology.com
> <mailto:a...@folknology.com>> wrote:
>
> I created two teams
>
> Contributors - push/pull privs
> and Administrators - push/pull & admin
>
> There is a pull only group butthat doesn't make sense really or does
> it just as a membership label perhaps
>
> On 23 November 2010 15:03, Al Wood <a...@folknology.com
> <mailto:a...@folknology.com>> wrote:
> > kasbah added
> >
> > We need to create another team that are not owners else it will
> be chaotic
> >
> > On 23 November 2010 14:57, Kaspar Bumke <kaspar...@gmail.com
> <mailto:kaspar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> I am "kasbah" on github if you want to add me.
> >>
> >> I am going to transfer the voting threads.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23 November 2010 14:51, Kaspar Bumke <kaspar...@gmail.com
> <mailto:kaspar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Would be good idea to change the links from everywhere. E.g.
> the initial
> >>> forum thread.
> >>>
> >>> On 23 November 2010 14:47, russ <russ.f...@gmail.com
> <mailto:russ.f...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The name of the group is now XComons Foundation.
> >>>>
> >>>> --r
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.folknology.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.folknology.com
>
>
--
Jonathan May, Managing Director
Silicon Futures Limited
T: +44(0)7767 847278
F: +44(0)1173 270277
E: jona...@siliconfutures.com
Jonathan May
of the trademark (formally).
On 23/11/10 15:11, Kaspar Bumke wrote:
> It sounds good, except I don't even know where to start on that one.
>
>
> On 23 November 2010 15:09, Al Wood <a...@folknology.com
> <mailto:a...@folknology.com>> wrote:
>
> We should also create the first repo whilst we are at it, I think the
> test idea is the best starting project personally. Want me to create
> it?
>
> On 23 November 2010 15:07, Al Wood <a...@folknology.com
> <mailto:a...@folknology.com>> wrote:
> > I created two teams
> >
> > Contributors - push/pull privs
> > and Administrators - push/pull & admin
> >
> > There is a pull only group butthat doesn't make sense really or does
> > it just as a membership label perhaps
> >
> > On 23 November 2010 15:03, Al Wood <a...@folknology.com
> <mailto:a...@folknology.com>> wrote:
> >> kasbah added
> >>
> >> We need to create another team that are not owners else it will
> be chaotic
> >>
> >> On 23 November 2010 14:57, Kaspar Bumke <kaspar...@gmail.com
> <mailto:kaspar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> I am "kasbah" on github if you want to add me.
> >>>
> >>> I am going to transfer the voting threads.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 23 November 2010 14:51, Kaspar Bumke <kaspar...@gmail.com
> <mailto:kaspar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Would be good idea to change the links from everywhere. E.g.
> the initial
> >>>> forum thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 23 November 2010 14:47, russ <russ.f...@gmail.com
> <mailto:russ.f...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The name of the group is now XComons Foundation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --r
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.folknology.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.folknology.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.folknology.com
>
>
--
Russ Ferriday
--r.
Al Wood
Al Wood
I'm sure we could do merges if Xmos get there stuff out there,
hopefully they will also use git
Russ Ferriday
Please spy to your heart's content.
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Jonathan May wrote:
> Hey guys, glad to be here, just been spying so far.
>
> Please don't build too much infrastructure on Github just yet... as I believe you may end up duplicating stuff that XMOS is doing.
Ah. Cool. Looking forward to hearing more.
>
> I don't know much but I'm working on trying to get them to make a public statement about their open-source intentions.
That would make sense.
--r
>
Al Wood
Russ Ferriday
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:16 AM, Jonathan May wrote:
> Also, no issues on the "new name" but I'm 99% sure XMOS would allow use of the trademark (formally).
Well, yes. I was pretty sure that this would make sense for XMOS. It serves us both.
Let's stick with XCommons Foundation until we hear more from XMOS. Nothing will be final until we have created a legal entitity, and created a board.
I would like to hear a positive message from XMOS about what we are doing, so that loyal XMOS users feel comfortable being involved.
We have been careful from the start to make clear that we are very friendly to XMOS Ltd, and this will remain the case.
--r
Russ Ferriday
The XMOS Foundation shall represent the interests of the community of users and producers of XMOS technologies, and promote the development of hardware and software designs that help broaden the scope of the XMOS platform, and grow the market for XMOS related products.
In particular to:Provide clear, neutral, and sustainable ownership of contributed code.
Provide a decision-making structure for essential community activities.
Interface with XMOS, the company, to represent the needs of the Foundation membership.
Assist XMOS in the transition to greater transparency and openness for the benefit of Foundation members.
Al Wood
avoids any trademark tensions, granted or not
Al Wood
Russ Ferriday
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:35 AM, Al Wood wrote:
> I actually prefer the XCommons Foundation as a name and it clearly
> avoids any trademark tensions, granted or not
XCommons Foundation does give us some flexibility, but XMOS Foundation serves us and XMOS nicely too.
I think we should leave this question open, not say too much for a few days, and let XMOS come to us.
They will now have a bad case of whiplash after our name change of, erm... 45 mins ago.
--r.
Al Wood
choice rather than tying ourselves to a corporate trademark, it makes
perfect sense to me.
Here is OSI page for the NCSA license for reference -
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/UoI-NCSA.php
Jonathan May
meaningless and implies a link to Creative Commons, which is just in
vogue at present. As a name I think it's weaker than "XMOS Foundation"
but that might not be the right answer either.
Anyway... this really isn't a deal-breaker.
<re-enter spy-mode>
--
Al Wood
should read - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
when you get a mo, creative commons came a looooong way after..
Al Wood
which is good - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Jonathan May
does not have the word "Commons" in it at all?!)
I think it's actually an awful lot older than that too...
However, the fact that I was unaware of this "older" association either
means that I am totally ignorant/stupid (won't be offended if this is
the case) or that there are lots of others less well-versed in the
rapidly-changing terminology of "Open" development.
I think my objection is partly cos I don't like "fluffy" words like
"Commons" and partly more aesthetic than anything else. I don't like
Xcommons, x-commons, XCommons, XCOMMONS etc.. they are all horrible.
Anyway... doesn't really matter. Success defines a name with something
like this - it's rarely the other way around.
Al Wood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Just to get the full picture ;-)
Al Wood
Richard stallman at the Free Software Federation. The use of Commons
was a re purposing of the older English term for Commons (i.e. common
grazing land etc..)
Al Wood
trademarks or upset anyone I happy with it. For me the main purpose of
the foundations is to produce a 'commons' of code that Xmos, its
customer and community can benefit from, together we stand divided we
fall etc..
At this point whatever Xmos has brewing behind their corporate info
wall is unknown and uncertain to us, in order to change that Xmos has
to directly join the conversation. In the meantime we do need to
progress onwards with the core purpose of creating that commons
(Jonathan how about an alternate term) of software. The repository is
open at github for anyone that wishes to begin adding value, we just
need to provide the access privs to whoever is willing to commit. I
have suggested we start with Moxy to create a quality or test
framework for any code the foundation produces, I also have some ideas
of how we can tackle that - should I start that off in a thread and
the repo ? let me know your thoughts.
But we are here to make code and clearly this is a community choice so
if anyone has other ideas for kicking of the code speak up now. just
try to avoid something that may overlap with Xmos current examples
etc.. as we need to avoid that duplication.
As for license I think the NCSA would work perfectly for us so we
should try to converge on that in order to make it easy for Xmos to
also join us. The key thing now is action rather than just talk and
then folks can see something worth committing to.
regards
Al
On 23 November 2010 16:02, Al Wood <a...@folknology.com> wrote:
Jonathan May
progress! I
I totally agree that focusing on creating a body of code is a good
short-term goal.
Looking forward to hearing XMOS' plans, which it seems we'll get to hear
pretty soon.
With respect to code - there's a substantial body of code on XCore in
projects. Perhaps persuading a few of those authors to contribute to the
Foundation code would show us the process of migrating non-"commons",
fairly platform-specific, non-modular code to something that the
Foundation considers appropriate, without taking on things like the
beast that is a full TCP/IP stack?
This process is likely to teach us - and anyone else thinking of
undertaking this process (e.g. XMOS) - an awful lot.
Jonathan