On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 08:01:52PM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote: > >Martin wrote: > > > > 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. > > In previous messages, I believe that myself, Sdz, Caryl, and Abhishek > have to a greater or lesser extent answered this > question as Yes.
I understand you and Caryl to be a clear Yes. I'm not sure about sdz - we'll have to wait until he's back. > [Sugar Labs' mission] is to support the Sugar community of users and > developers and establish regional, Sugar Labs around the world to > help learn how to [learn] by tailoring Sugar to local languages and > curricula. Just want to not that the actionable part of the mission is "...to help [omitted] learn how to learn...". That's non-technical language. There's nothing there remotely directly mentioning or implying becoming a GNU/Linux distributor. > [This mission] can not be accomplished at this time without a Sugar > Labs produced distribution (or perhaps more accurately a 'spin' of > some pre-existing distribution). Such a task is broad in scope and huge in execution, especially in relation to the number of users targeted. Why do you think such a huge task is such a critical part of "[helping people] learn how to learn"? Please note that Sugar Labs is *not* currently a GNU/Linux distributor, so your proposed "Yes" is a change in the status quo. > I would request those panel member who have not yet said anything on > this question or are inaccurately included above to do so. Defintely - I hoped to get people involved by my reply, as well. But are they actually subscribed yet? I think if they haven't subscribed yet and read the archive, apart from absense, we need to ping them directly and ask them to get involved. > There was some hope that this panel would arrive at its decisions by > consensus. Consensus doesn't mean immediate agreement. > Sam offered to act as facilitator for such a process as well. As I > feel strongly about this question, I think Sam's services are > probably now required. I'm not sure what SJ's going to do besides ask exploratory questions like above. > Bill Bogstad Martin
pgpxGwpusbJX7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
