On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:28:11PM -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>> Let me rephrase again, to make things clear. I'd love to hear an
>> "official" answer on this. Soon.
>>
>> Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs
>> distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/L
Trademark registration has a cost.
I've laid out several thousand USD for marketing expenses this year
(yesterday's press release for example was $600) and I could cover
SoaS trademark registration if money was the problem. I feel this is
the way to go.
Announcing a policy works with friends, but
Hi,
> I am all for Sugar Labs protecting, "owning" and bestowing the
> SOaS monickers, and for full recognition to Sebastian's work (and
> other's within the Fedora one, and the other options).
> Who will pay?
I don't think anyone needs to pay anything. If we announced that the
SL po
I am all for Sugar Labs protecting, "owning" and bestowing the SOaS
monickers, and for full recognition to Sebastian's work (and other's
within the Fedora one, and the other options).
Who will pay?
hmm, problem
Yama
Sean DALY wrote:
> I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more. The public has no idea
I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more. The public has no idea what Sugar
is. Believe me, without marketing, that won't change. We're just at
the beginning, and for now paying marketing expenses out of pocket.
The Sugar on a Stick name and what it means wouldn't matter so much if:
a) GNU/Linux distr
I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more. The public has no idea what Sugar
is. Believe me, without marketing, that won't change. We're just at
the beginning, and for now paying marketing expenses out of pocket.
The Sugar on a Stick name and what it means wouldn't matter so much if:
a) GNU/Linux distr
I /really, really dislike/ this setting that replies only to the one
sender... :-)
Yamandu Ploskonka wrote:
> sugaronastick.com is Caroline Meeks, so I believe we are OK there
> as to the .org, it would be a certain Peter Robinson (?)
>
> Anyway, while marketing might be a Good Thing when our hea
2009/9/19 Chris Ball :
> "Should Sugar Labs be a Linux distributor, rather than just an
> upstream producing Sugar releases?"
>
> "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and
> refuse to endorse one over another?"
>
> "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Chris, I think your strategy for reaching consensus on this issue
> > is a good one, but somewhat at odds with our rules of governance.
>
> Thanks. You're right; I'd missed that.
>
> > "The Oversight Board will selecting members
Hi,
> Chris, I think your strategy for reaching consensus on this issue
> is a good one, but somewhat at odds with our rules of governance.
Thanks. You're right; I'd missed that.
> "The Oversight Board will selecting members for the Decision
> Panel... A Decision Panel will solicit
Chris,
I think your strategy for reaching consensus on this issue is a good
one, but somewhat at odds with our rules of governance. According to
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance#Decision_Panels I
think we should be the Oversight Board is responsible for convening a
Decision Panel
Hi all,
> Let me rephrase again, to make things clear. I'd love to hear an
> "official" answer on this. Soon.
>
> Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs
> distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?
Martin Dengler has persuaded me that having SLOBs vote
On 2009-09-16, Daniel Drake wrote:
>
> 2009/9/16 Sebastian Dziallas :
> > I wonder, though, if the current SoaS is going to be the primary LiveUSB
> > distribution of Sugar supported by upstream (known as SoaS).
> I think Sugar should treat all downstreams equally, so there would be
> no primary d
2009/9/16 Sebastian Dziallas :
> Args! I notice that what I asked could have been misunderstood. I didn't
> mean to imply SoaS being only way of distributing Sugar. That's out of
> question and was never my intention. I apologize for any confusion if this
> feeling has been created.
I don't think
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 17:11, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
> Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 16:24, Daniel Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> 2009/9/16 Sebastian Dziallas:
Let me rephrase again, to make things clear. I'd love to hear an
"official" answer on this. Soon.
Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 16:24, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> 2009/9/16 Sebastian Dziallas:
>>> Let me rephrase again, to make things clear. I'd love to hear an
>>> "official" answer on this. Soon.
>>>
>>> Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a
>>> S
I went to a talk at the Hauser Nonprofit Institute at Harvard yesterday.
Someone asked a question the director, who teachers nonprofit
administration, about why they choose the 5 areas they focused on. he said:
"Some people think the opposite of Strategic Management is bad management.
Actually it
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 16:24, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 2009/9/16 Sebastian Dziallas :
>> Let me rephrase again, to make things clear. I'd love to hear an
>> "official" answer on this. Soon.
>>
>> Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a
>> Sugar-centric GNU/Linux dist
As Sean and Martin point out the consequences of this decision extend
past SoaS. The effects seem to centre on four levels:
1. Procedural.
2. Mission, Vision, and Values.
3. Operations.
4. SoaS the project.
As we work through the levels, a pretty good decision _should_ emerge.
Procedural--
As a
Sebastian - I cannot speak as a SLOB (only a candidate ;-) but I sense
that this an important question for everyone to deal with.
As you know I believe Sugar on a Stick to be a pillar of our
marketing/PR effort, reaching out to teachers (probably geeky teachers
first) on a very wide scale.
Howeve
20 matches
Mail list logo
