Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Sean DALY
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > To be a welcoming global community where anyone can learn how to > develop high-quality libre software that facilitates learning through > self-discovery and collaboration among young children of all > continents, and to make

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Smart way to get $$ for posting videos on youtube

2016-06-03 Thread Adam Holt
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Adam, please could you confirm with Conservancy that we can set up > adsense and youtube advertising accounts to raise revenue? > I don't see why not, if there is a genuine consensus to move forward here? But most important

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Sean DALY
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Please draft a vision statement you would be happy with. I have (no shortage of) ideas, and experience in crafting text. But our vision is more than a marketer's spin (and heaven knows I've been guilty of spinning in the

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Sean DALY
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > If you don't draft something, you will not be happy with what is used :) Um, no... I can rework a message (perhaps any message) until I am happy with it. What I can't do is invent the direction SL should take. Things would

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Tony Anderson
I believe Sugar is intended to enable a computer to provide enhanced educational opportunities; especially to those who have limited access to the Internet. One goal of Sugar is to bring to reality the educational concepts of Seymour Papert and Alan Kay. Tony On 06/03/2016 11:28 AM,

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 10:31, Sean DALY wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> >> Please draft a vision statement you would be happy with. > > [No] If you don't draft something, you will not be happy with what is used :)

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 10:40, Sean DALY wrote: > Perhaps I should try to put together a decision tree? That sounds great! I'm curious to see it :D ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

2016-06-03 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 3 June 2016 at 07:54, Walter Bender wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender wrote: >

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
Hi I understood that the one-liner statement is a 'mission statement,' and the 'vision statement' is the longer text that expresses the details implied by the mission, the high level goals, and more specific values. The article you mention,

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
Hi Sean Please draft a vision statement you would be happy with. Cheers Dave ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Sean DALY
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Tony Anderson wrote: > I believe Sugar is intended to enable a computer to provide enhanced > educational opportunities; especially to those who have limited access to > the Internet. One goal of Sugar is to bring to reality the educational

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 08:42, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 3 June 2016 at 07:30, Karen Sandler wrote: >>> Can Conservancy accept written approval from SLOBs that any expense >>> under $200 is authorized? >> >> >> I'll check with Tony Sebro, but I think we could do any

[IAEP] Motion to update current SL vision statement

2016-06-03 Thread Laura Vargas
I hereby propose the motion to update current SL vision statement: "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers around the

[IAEP] Planned Sunjammer Reboot

2016-06-03 Thread Samuel Cantero
Hi all, Sunjammer had an unattended kernel upgrade yesterday. We know now that kernel updates are not banned from the unattended upgrades config. I am at the FSF now and I'll reboot sunjammer in a little while in order to check if it comes back. It is better to find this out now than after an

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Laura Vargas
Dave, Mission vrs Vision has nothing to do with the length of the statement. Instead, the difference is about which question does it answer; Mission shall answer “What do we do? What makes us different?” while Vision answers the question, “Where do we aim to be?” Still, like many author state,

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 10:40, Sean DALY wrote: > I can rework a message (perhaps any message) until I am happy with it Please edit https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016 until you are happy with it :D > What I can't do is invent the direction SL should take. But we

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SL member list/joining criterion

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 22 May 2016 at 00:34, Sebastian Silva wrote: > El 15/05/16 a las 10:04, Sebastian Silva escribió: > > > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Adam Holt > wrote: > > > > In any case, with about 4 months having

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 14:55, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 3 June 2016 at 00:46, Laura Vargas wrote: > >> I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision statement: >> > > Was this a motion to be voted on? Oh I see, you posted this thread for discussion

Re: [IAEP] Planned Sunjammer Reboot

2016-06-03 Thread Samuel Cantero
Everything is up and running. Please let me know if you find something broken. Best regards, Samuel C. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Samuel Cantero wrote: > Hi all, > > Sunjammer had an unattended kernel upgrade yesterday. We know now that > kernel updates are not

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 12:24, Walter Bender wrote: > > If the primary role of the FM is to foster more communication, then +1. But > it has > not been presented in that light. I think the reporting requirements are a way of fostering more communication :)

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 00:46, Laura Vargas wrote: > I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision statement: > Was this a motion to be voted on? ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 12 May 2016 at 07:59, Walter Bender wrote: > Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing Sugar > Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú > meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88. Did this motion pass? I can't

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

2016-06-03 Thread Adam Holt
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 12 May 2016 at 07:59, Walter Bender wrote: > > Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing > Sugar > > Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias

Re: [IAEP] Planned Sunjammer Reboot

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
Thanks Sam! ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to update current SL vision statement

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
Thank you for posting this motion, Laura! :) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB meetings: the chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will make any announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will announce the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB member

[IAEP] [SLOB] minutes from 3 June 2016 oversight board meeting

2016-06-03 Thread Walter Bender
The minutes from today's Sugar Labs Oversight Board meeting are available at [1]. The meeting log is available at [2]. I am certain to yet again be accused of making an ad hominem attack, but I have to say that I was extremely disappointed in the lack of preparedness for this meeting. Several

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

2016-06-03 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB > meetings: the chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will > make any announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will >

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

2016-06-03 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > On 3 June 2016 at 17:04, Walter Bender wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> >>> Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the >>>

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
Similar to the way that branching was 'expensive' and slow in old version control systems, and newer ones made it fast and cheap; and similar to the way that running code was 'expensive' and slow with compiled languages, and newer dynamic/scripting languages made it fast and cheap; I think that

[IAEP] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] minutes from 3 June 2016 oversight board meeting

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
Hi On 3 June 2016 at 16:19, Walter Bender wrote: > > I am certain to yet again be accused of making an ad hominem attack, but I > have to say that I was extremely disappointed in the lack of preparedness > for this meeting. Several community members had been working on

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

2016-06-03 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current > practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote. > As frustrating as I found today's meeting, I think it unwise to stifle discussion of

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

2016-06-03 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Similar to the way that branching was 'expensive' and slow in old version > control systems, and newer ones made it fast and cheap; and similar to the > way that running code was 'expensive' and slow with compiled languages,

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 17:04, Walter Bender wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current >> practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote. >> > > As

[IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Laura Vargas
I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision statement: Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design, develop and deploy high-quality Free Software that facilitates self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young children of all continents.

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 17:18, Walter Bender wrote: > I'll send the pending motions by email this weekend and see whether or not > my colleagues respond > Please CC the IEAP list. After the meeting today I went over my email for all emails I received since the monthly May

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 14:38, Adam Holt wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> On 12 May 2016 at 07:59, Walter Bender wrote: >> > Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing >> Sugar >> >

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

2016-06-03 Thread Samuel Greenfeld
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > Sam, I am eager to learn what you personally think the date should be :) > My personal answer (at least in past private discussions) has been to end support sometime in 2020. The logic behind that being: - OLPC no

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
Hi On 3 June 2016 at 21:10, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: > (Intentionally top-posted) > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> >>>- A definite end-of-life date needs to put on XO-1 support. >>> >>> Sure! What do you think that date

[IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

2016-06-03 Thread Samuel Greenfeld
(Intentionally top-posted) On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >>- A definite end-of-life date needs to put on XO-1 support. >> >> Sure! What do you think that date should be, Sam? > > What do other people think? > > I offer that Sugar Labs should follow

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 17:10, Walter Bender wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> >> On 3 June 2016 at 17:04, Walter Bender wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 17:18, Walter Bender wrote: > Nice analogy. > I remembered this evening where I heard this; its one of the "Agile" software development maxims :) http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FrequencyReducesDifficulty.html http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dalio

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 16:24, Walter Bender wrote: > Unless someone seconds the motion, I cannot call for a vote :P I have made a second motion to make explicit my proposal to discard seconding. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

2016-06-03 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> >> On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender wrote: >> >>> The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

2016-06-03 Thread Sean DALY
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > If on the off-chance that he and the FM disagreed about the purchase, he > would have recourse in SLOBs directly. If SLOBS disapproved the spending, > he's out of pocket. I'd be very surprised at such a scenario. Bernie

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

2016-06-03 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender wrote: > >> The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak >>> with Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

2016-06-03 Thread Sean DALY
Hi Laura My issue with this statement is that it is reductionist: "SL is a community for learning about software". Which is certainly true, but fundamentally we offer software, not a learning service. Our vision should be a mission (to develop high-quality software for children worldwide) and an

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 07:30, Karen Sandler wrote: >> Can Conservancy accept written approval from SLOBs that any expense >> under $200 is authorized? > > > I'll check with Tony Sebro, but I think we could do any expense under $200 > confirmed by some_name to be forwarding the mission

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

2016-06-03 Thread Dave Crossland
On 3 June 2016 at 07:54, Walter Bender wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender wrote: >>> >>> Or is the intention to *add* another person separate from any concrete