+1. On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Tony Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, All > > I certainly appreciate the attention my email has received. However, I am > disappointed that the responses do not reflect my main concern. I beleive > Sugar and Sugar Labs will fade away if it continues to be perceived as the > software that comes on an XO. I believe Sugar Labs and Sugar should be > perceived as in a similar relationship as Red Hat is to Fedora and > Canonical is to Ubuntu. > > We need to have releases of Sugar: Long-term-support, latest stable, and > developer. These releases should be downloadable as a single image which > can be installed from a livecd usb stick generated by a dd command. The > starting point is probably SOAS - which is not now installable without a > technically difficult use of livecd tools in a Fedora 24 installation > (which is difficult since Fedora provides Fedora 25). > > As an evaluation of Sugar Lab's success is that the Mexican deployment > presented in the OLPC SF Summit chooses to use Sugar instead of UberMix. > (http://www.ubermix.org/). > > We should be able to speak about Sugar deployments as we now speak about > OLPC deployments. Sugar should be available for PCs and mobile devices with > xo being considered as one of the supported environments. > > If no action is taken except to discuss future academic papers about Sugar > Labs and SLOB elections, I think both will become totally irrelevant. > Current OLPC deployments will choose new hardware to replace XOs and > install on this hardware Windows, Raspbian, Chrome OS, UberMix or other > readily available and supported alternatives. Sugar will join APL and Cobol > in computer history. > > Tony > > > On 12/02/2016 07:16 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > > There is a IAEP thread "Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election" in early > August that has more details about all this. > > First, I want to note that while an 'election committee' has been > mentioned, Walter said in that earlier thread: > > I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual > membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to > appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion. > > > As Caryl and Seb have reiterated on this thread: while they both helped > run the election last year, they both said a few months ago that they are > unable to volunteer for this year. > > At that time I offered to volunteer, as did Samson; and I found a possible > web app to run the election and suggested Samuel Cantero could set it up, > and he graciously did set it up. > > However, by September, (a) the GSOC project to make a font editor activity > wound up, and (b) Sameer offered to lead the vision thing, and until that > is done I am not confident about taking any other actions, and (c) I > accepted an employment offer by Google and have had less free time since > then compared to when I was working as a consultant, so I haven't done more > of the things I said I would do. I wrote on August 5: > > > So, I volunteer to do the following before the next SLOB meeting: > > - I will ask Sam C to set up a new [email protected] mailing > list with himself, myself, samson, caryl and seb as list admins. > > - I will complete the review of all accounts on the wiki to mark the ones > that look like spammers > > - I will make a final 'all possible members' email list > > - I will draft the email that asks people to join the announce list and > explains why I am asking them to do this, and a motion to approve the > election email, and share it on the IAEP list for community review > > - I will ask SLOBs to post and second the motion > > Then in early September I can send the email, and prepare a report with > the new list of members and similarly to before another draft email > soliciting board applications for SLOB to review and approve in the October > meeting. > > Then in early October I can send that email, perhaps also with the > donation request, and then prepare a final email calling for votes that > SLOB can review and approve in the November meeting. > > Then in early November the call for votes can go out, votes can come in, > and in early December the results can be announced. > > > I still think this process is a good one, but regretfully I am not going > to be able to put much effort into this until January at the earliest. > > So, I suggest that Samson and anyone who wants to volunteer to run the > election take a look at that web app with Sam C and see if it really will > work for Sugar Labs in 2016. > > If not, http://civs.cs.cornell.edu was used last year and should be a > suitable mechanism for people to cast votes. > > Finally, I think the very next step is for whoever volunteers to run the > election to come up with a list of members emails to solicit votes from. > (Where the discussions last trailed off was in discussing who should be on > this 'final members list' - I think we agreed to cast a very wide net, and > I made some progress reviewing wiki accounts and, defining the members list > based on wiki + mailing list posters. I am happy to share that WIP and > explain what I would do next with it, but it may be better for the person > to start their own list.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
