Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Fwd: Autonomous system for Sugar development....
Jim Gettys wrote: These discussions should be best be on email, or at worst scheduled, published in advance IRC meetings (*with minutes*). This project is world wide, with participation in (almost) every timezone and continent; we must enable all interested to participate. As projects grow, IRC is less and less appropriate for such discussion, and any IRC use needs to become scheduled pre-published events (and even then, you leave out people on some parts of the world). Mail has the features of leaving a record, and allowing time-shifting. My ancestors would say verba volant, scripta manent. -- \___/ Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ _| X | Sugar Labs Team - http://www.sugarlabs.org/ \|_O_| It's an education project, not a laptop project! ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Fwd: Autonomous system for Sugar development....
Ivan, The community itself needs to decide on a set of people who are the group of sysadmin people for Sugar's possible move to be something all are comfortable about. These discussions should be best be on email, or at worst scheduled, published in advance IRC meetings (*with minutes*). This project is world wide, with participation in (almost) every timezone and continent; we must enable all interested to participate. As projects grow, IRC is less and less appropriate for such discussion, and any IRC use needs to become scheduled pre-published events (and even then, you leave out people on some parts of the world). Mail has the features of leaving a record, and allowing time-shifting. And for more to contribute in the sysadmin area, the system administration needs to have redundancy, and actually get documented and communicated. Single points of failure is not an option to us at this date. I raised many points in my mail; the hardware and hosting is probably the least difficult of them. Best Regards, - Jim On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 14:16 +0200, Ivan Krstić wrote: On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Edward Cherlin wrote: Should we offer to host Sugar at Sugar Labs? Can we, in terms of hardware and people resources? Discussions are in progress about it. I can immediately host all _existing_ services. What's needed past that is a testing/buildbot machine, which we currently don't have but is probably easy to get someone to contribute. -- Ivan Krstić [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://radian.org ___ Its.an.education.project mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lo-res.org/mailman/listinfo/its.an.education.project -- Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Laptop Per Child ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Fwd: Autonomous system for Sugar development....
On Jun 6, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: The community itself needs to decide on a set of people who are the group of sysadmin people for Sugar's possible move to be something all are comfortable about. Please don't top post, and please do quote relevant sections of original e-mails when replying. I don't know what the above statement is referencing, since I never made any claims about who should choose, or act as, the SugarLabs sysadmins. And for more to contribute in the sysadmin area, the system administration needs to have redundancy, and actually get documented and communicated. Single points of failure is not an option to us at this date. A single point of failure was never an 'option'; at OLPC, it was a reality due to organizational failings. No reasonable open source community will make those kinds of mistakes. I've offered hardware, bandwidth and root to a small group of trusted SugarLabs people. I'll leave scheduling meetings and discussing it with OLPC to people who have the patience. -- Ivan Krstić [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://radian.org ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Fwd: Autonomous system for Sugar development....
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 21:16 +0200, Ivan Krstić wrote: On Jun 6, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: The community itself needs to decide on a set of people who are the group of sysadmin people for Sugar's possible move to be something all are comfortable about. Please don't top post, and please do quote relevant sections of original e-mails when replying. I don't know what the above statement is referencing, since I never made any claims about who should choose, or act as, the SugarLabs sysadmins. And for more to contribute in the sysadmin area, the system administration needs to have redundancy, and actually get documented and communicated. Single points of failure is not an option to us at this date. A single point of failure was never an 'option'; at OLPC, it was a reality due to organizational failings. No reasonable open source community will make those kinds of mistakes. I've offered hardware, bandwidth and root to a small group of trusted SugarLabs people. I'll leave scheduling meetings and discussing it with OLPC to people who have the patience. A good resource would be the gnome-infrastructure guys at http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure . Aren't they at least partially hosted at Canonical? I will set up a SysadminTeam space on w.l.o later today. As for the tone, let's keep it positive. Jim and OLPC are trying to spinoff (disentangle) Sugar and Sugar Labs from OLPC. But, there is a catch--Sugar is a primary component in OLPC's primary product. If Sugar Labs collapses, OLPC is in a painful position. From a practical perspective OLPC is going to have to help keep Sugar Labs going until we can get our feet under us. Imagine loaning your credit card to your kid for the first time. You will probably give it to him, but sure as hell want a plan and some limits! As a result, Sugar Labs needs to view OLPC as a customer, right now our only customer. Jim was offering to help Sugar Labs meet it's current hosting needs. In exchange he wanted a plan. As Greg pointed out in an earlier thread, we need to work on our 'Dog and Pony Show'. We need to be able to present a plan. Until the approved governance methods are in place, could we set up advisory board to help us keep on track? Thanks Dfarning ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Fwd: Autonomous system for Sugar development....
I've been working on a rough draft of a governance model that I'll post to the wiki for comments as soon as it is beyond the stream-of-conscience stage (leaning heavily on the Gnome model). Stay tuned!! -walter On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:01 PM, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 21:16 +0200, Ivan Krstić wrote: On Jun 6, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: The community itself needs to decide on a set of people who are the group of sysadmin people for Sugar's possible move to be something all are comfortable about. Please don't top post, and please do quote relevant sections of original e-mails when replying. I don't know what the above statement is referencing, since I never made any claims about who should choose, or act as, the SugarLabs sysadmins. And for more to contribute in the sysadmin area, the system administration needs to have redundancy, and actually get documented and communicated. Single points of failure is not an option to us at this date. A single point of failure was never an 'option'; at OLPC, it was a reality due to organizational failings. No reasonable open source community will make those kinds of mistakes. I've offered hardware, bandwidth and root to a small group of trusted SugarLabs people. I'll leave scheduling meetings and discussing it with OLPC to people who have the patience. A good resource would be the gnome-infrastructure guys at http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure . Aren't they at least partially hosted at Canonical? I will set up a SysadminTeam space on w.l.o later today. As for the tone, let's keep it positive. Jim and OLPC are trying to spinoff (disentangle) Sugar and Sugar Labs from OLPC. But, there is a catch--Sugar is a primary component in OLPC's primary product. If Sugar Labs collapses, OLPC is in a painful position. From a practical perspective OLPC is going to have to help keep Sugar Labs going until we can get our feet under us. Imagine loaning your credit card to your kid for the first time. You will probably give it to him, but sure as hell want a plan and some limits! As a result, Sugar Labs needs to view OLPC as a customer, right now our only customer. Jim was offering to help Sugar Labs meet it's current hosting needs. In exchange he wanted a plan. As Greg pointed out in an earlier thread, we need to work on our 'Dog and Pony Show'. We need to be able to present a plan. Until the approved governance methods are in place, could we set up advisory board to help us keep on track? Thanks Dfarning ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
