As an attempt at speeding this up, I propose the following outline of the DP report to SLOB:
Martin --- The DP has considered questions posed and proposes the following directions for ratification by SLOB: > * Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just > an upstream producing Sugar releases? No. Sugar Labs is focused on Sugar and its Activities as its primary marketed software products. GNU/Linux distributors exist separate from Sugar Labs. Sugar Labs helps them with feedback and Sugar packaging support, but does not distribute an installable GNU/Linux image. > * Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and > refuse to endorse one over another? Yes. Sugar Labs will neither explicitly nor implicitly endorse any distribution (including 'Sugar on a Stick' (see below)). The default answer to "how can one try Sugar" will be 'try one of [a list]', not 'try Sugar on a Stick'. > * Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community > to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora > distribution?" No. 'Sugar on a Stick' is not a trademark of Sugar Labs. The name has been used in the past but will no longer be used by Sugar Labs. > * Any other question the Decision Panel deems required to provide an > answer to the original question: "Is the current SoaS going to be > the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux > distribution?" No, since Sugar Labs will not distribute a GNU/Linux distribution.
pgpY6Eamm2wsG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
