I did read with great interest both D. Farning's the stepping down and
Moving forward as well as the public freeze that followed the first one.
I'm not really in the field of ITC but I do know a bit about projects,
particularly collaborative ones. Every development project to have a hope of
success it needs
Clearly defined aims
Clearly defined road map
Clearly defined tools/methods of implementation
Clearly defined, tangible, milestones
and annual _external_ evaluation.
Internally the project needs many tangible, evaluated stages/tasks so people
that work on these have specific goals and, more important, tangible
appreciation for their delivered goods.
I would think that SugarLabs has to work really hard in all of the above. (I
will not go into specifics because criticizing is not the point now).
It is true the 99% of the development projects diverge one way or another from
the original definitions. This may even include the Aims, though this is
usually the last to change. But that's OK! As long as the process reflects
accurately the realities on the ground, adapting to realities is a good thing.
This where DF's stakeholders and evaluation come into play. Otherwise
everything looks like an exercise on map, where purity of code,
innovative ideas, peer appreciation, adherence to principles,
harmonization with upstream/downstream etc, make take precedence over the
goals of the project that is to actually help _real life_ kids and teachers
using Sugar to achieve a better education. Without their progress and needs in
clear view and the evaluation from them on our deliverables, everything becomes
irrelevant. We operate in a vacuum, and pretty soon diverge and disintegrate.
To that extend I would think that any individual taking a leading role without
the above thoroughly discussed and defined, will just burn-out and be wasted.
The actual definition of the aforementioned issues is what will define the best
person for the job. The additional benefit of an open discussion, is that the
better person may still be in the sidelines because (s)he can not see any room
to move, and surface through it.
I do not really know if mailing lists are the best place to have these
discussions. Again my experience from collaborative projects is that every
successful one was preceded by an open meeting where participants openly
discussed and defined (in writing) to a large extent goals, methods,
milestones, tasks, evaluation and feedback. Then distal media where then used
to further define the first draft into a project.
Maybe is time for a Reinventing-Sugar face to face meeting.
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:30:39 -0500
From: David Farning dfarn...@gmail.com
To: iaep i...@lists.sugarlabs.org,
sugar-devel
sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: [Sugar-devel] Moving forward.
Message-ID:
aanlktik=uecbzv6ahcm1alzvt1nbh7zojejymw+xw...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Yesterday I sent a rather blunt email on my concerns about
the
project. It seems the observations resonated with
many people while
striking several nerves. The volume of private mail
or CCed mail (to
a subset of the Sugar Labs participants) responses was
unexpectedly
high.
The five main themes of the responses are:
1. Could you possibility be any more abstract?
2. Several of the points are valid. Here are my
responses/suggestions. This should be on a public thread,
but someone
else will have to start it.
3. The core problem is trust.
4. This conversation is like an iceberg, the 'community'
only sees
10% and not the other 90%.
5. Dave you are just a jerk, now shut up.
For better of worse, all five points are valid. I am
a bumbling jerk
who is struggling to rebuild community trust without airing
anyone's
dirty laundry, including my own.
To put all of my cards on the table:
1. The ideas driving OLPC and Sugar are sound.
2. Sugar Labs will continue to fragment until the issue of
trust is resolved.
3. Because of this, I left Sugar Labs to start a business
which
provides service and support for Sugar.
4. I need Sugar to succeed. I need OLPC to succeed.
5. I have been trying to operate 'under the radar' because
some in
Sugar Labs and OLPC have contacted individuals I am working
with and
'suggested' that they not work with me.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I get
pissed off about
the lack of trust and community building in Sugar Labs, so
I go off
and form a fork which operates largely in secret.
Two years ago, I suggested that the over sight board
appoint Walter
Bender as Executive Director of Sugar Labs so he would be
able to
speak on behalf of Sugar Labs. He had three skills
which Sugar Labs
needed. 1) He was able to clearly and effectively
communicate the
goals of Sugar and the mission of Sugar Labs. 2) He was
able to create
an identity for Sugar Labs outside of OLPC. 3) He was a
tireless
