Samuel Klein wrote: > Ben, Bill, DSD and Faisal -- can you please weigh in and share your > thoughts?
Happy to. "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?" Yes. Sugar Labs should do whatever is needed to make Sugar easily available to our audience. When this goal is best achieved by distributing complete operating systems including Sugar, we should have no qualms about doing so. However, Sugar Labs should also continue to emphasize the availability of Sugar through the mechanisms of existing distro package managers, in order to reach users who already run GNU. "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?" Yes. Sugar Labs does not now have a mechanism for making blanket endorsements, and it should not instate one. Conversely, Sugar Labs should help users to choose their best option for deploying Sugar, depending on their individual needs, and this will typically mean recommending a particular distribution best suited for each user. "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. We should give this distribution a unique, identifiable name that cannot be confused with a generic description of an entire class of distributions.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
