Edward Cherlin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Sameer Verma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Albert Cahalan wrote: >> > It's clear that we aren't all here for the same thing. >> > Some wish to help all kids, or poor kids, or non-Western >> > kids. Some wish to advance freedom of speech, freedom from >> > EULA slavery, or freedom to learn heretical ideas. >> > >> > Some of us are, assuming good intentions, extremely innocent >> > regarding Microsoft. The historical record shows that those >> > who partner with Microsoft will be betrayed in the worst way. >> > Read "The Scorpion and the Frog" to understand Microsoft. >> > > He who sups with the Devil must e'en have a long spoon. > > >> > To a very limited extent, I agree with the idea that we should >> > not be pedantic about free software. >> > > The community seems to be agreed that Microsoft can spend as much > money as it likes trying to get Sugar running on Windows, but OLPC > shouldn't divert resources from Linux to Windows unless perhaps > Microsoft chooses to pay whoever is willing, and fund the project more > broadly. As if! > > >> For what its worth, here's something that might help in analyzing the >> situation some more. Its an analytical approach called "mission and core >> competencies (MCC) matrix". >> > > Thanks. I don't think that we have such a complex problem.
My main reason for providing a pointer to the Mission and Core Competencies matrix was not for addressing complexity, but to perhaps help in clarifying the issue at hand. Some decisions are strategic, while others are tactical. If you look at the mission of OLPC at http://laptop.org/vision/mission/ you'll notice that it talks about education, "learning learning" the XO, constructionism, but nowhere does it mention Free and Open Source Software. In its early days (based on what I read in the media), the project went to Microsoft, Apple, Dell, etc. for assistance, only to be either turned down or ridiculed, or some promise of help without commitment. FOSS came in much later. So, my take on this timeline is that FOSS came into the picture later (perhaps Walter was instrumental in this) and http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_on_free/open_source_software was added around early 2006. So, going back to the MCC structure (a better picture is at http://www.cipher-sys.com/HofHelp/Mcc/subsequent_adaptations_improvements.htm), the mission of OLPC is to further the education agenda, learning learning, etc. via the XO, and the OS to do all this does not look like a strategic decision, but a tactical one. They did not have the core competency to write an entire software stack for this purpose, so they outsourced it, just like they outsourced the 802.11s stuff. The major difference is that the software stack got outsourced not to a private firm, but to the FOSS community, which contributed to the project as a public commons effort. The GPL provides an exit strategy for the "community" to take it and run if the ship sinks...minus the XO, of course. Once you add the trojan horse angle, things start to look different. We now have many stakeholders and many different missions intersect. Ed Cherlin/Earth Treasury has its own mission for example, (as he stated below), and Earth Treasury has to align with OLPC for competencies that it does not have (such as the XO). We all have our reasons. I'd like to see the journal in my everyday computing platform some day. Its a terrific feature. I'd also like for villages in India to have computers for education. The project has had its problems. Update.1 is way behind schedule. The layout of the zooming interfaces have changed significantly, and that to me (personally) is troubling. But, these are managerial issues, that can be addressed by good communication. Oh, and communication goes both ways, doesn't it? I still think that the implementation of the ideas put forth by OLPC into Sugar running on top of a Linux platform is by far the best option. Apart from the public commons aspect, it provides tremendous technological value. However, for FOSS to become a strong undercurrent in this project, the decision to use FOSS will have to be strategic, and not a tactical one. > The > questions appear to be > > * Should we sell in developed countries? Nicholas--Doesn't contribute > to mission; me--Of course, to build a political base for foreign > educational aid, to address our own poor, and to finance our other > work. > > * Should we ally with Microsoft? Nicholas--It's such a brilliant > strategy, and so obvious when I point it out; me--no way. > > * Should Nicholas discuss these matters with the community? > Nicholas--What for?; me--Yes, unless you want to see the rest of us > walk out and fork Sugar. > > To me, these questions don't appear mission-like. They sound more tactical. > Anyway, nothing happens unless Nicholas decides to talk the the whole > community. Then we can discuss the other two points. It isn't a > question of who has which competencies, except for Nicholas to realize > that he can't outsmart Microsoft, and that he has tried to > over-optimize one variable out of an entire equation. And we should > hire more programmers, a doc team, and a few others that Nicholas and > the community generally agree on, and discuss what to do after that. > Then maybe Walter and Ivan and a few other valuable contributors would > be willing to discuss coming back. > cheers, Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
