On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 04:27:40PM -0400, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Tabitha Roder <[email protected]> wrote: > > My answers: > > Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than > > just an upstream producing Sugar releases?" > > 1. no - don't want to force people to use one distribution as this > > could create a barrier to entry > > > > Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing > > Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?" > > 2. yes - neutral about what distribution you base Sugar on so as not > > to create barriers to entry for anyone > > I see two variants to this question that we might want to ask > separately: > > 2+ : "Should SL be neutral about all distros containing Sugar, > regardless of how integral Sugar is to the distro and its intended > uses?" > > 2.1: "Should SL be available to provide outreach, publicity campaigns, > mentoring and other support for distributions [containing | centered > around] Sugar?"
I don't think your two variants answer the original question (even taken together). So I think we still need to answer the original. > 2+ : "Should SL be neutral about all distros containing Sugar, > regardless of how integral Sugar is to the distro and its intended > uses?" As the "integral-ish" metric is so subjective I don't think this question can be answered usefully concisely, and I don't think any exhaustive answer would be used. > 2.1: "Should SL be available to provide outreach, publicity campaigns, > mentoring and other support for distributions [containing | centered > around] Sugar?" I think this question is dangerously inclusive. It almost welcomes abuse of a scarce resource (outreach, publicity, mentoring, development time). Even asking the question is going above any reasonable expectation, I think. Martin
pgpzEqR7qGxOE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
