Hello Tim, On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/10/7 Samuel Klein <[email protected]> > >> > 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?" > > Hi Samuel, > I recognise that I'm not on the panel, but may I just get clarification on > what you mean by these two alternate questions? > It seems like a clearer interpretation of the word 'neutral' is what you're > seeking.
I am unclear on two points: * "neutral" and "endorse one over another" - is it sufficiently neutral if you are very very excited about every new release by a trusted community members that comes along, and shout every such event from the rooftops? * "containing" - the implication is that it is obviously expected to promote distros that do contain Sugar over those that don't. but what does containing mean? does a distro that contains Sugar's packages but boots into Gnome count? One that boots into Gnome but includes a "switch to Sugar desktop" icon on the default desk? One that boots into a bootloader with Sugar last on the list? If "containing" is a spectrum, does answering this question determine whether SL should discriminate how much it cares based on where on the spectrum a distro falls? > Are you separating technical interoperability vs wider support? This might > be phrased as passive support for Sugar being on other distros, vs active > support from Sugar Labs. I interpreted the original question as technical > interoperability. That's a good point. I hadn't considered it. I interpreted the original question as being about wider support, particularly advocacy. How was it intended? SJ _______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
