On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Mel Chua <m...@melchua.com> wrote: > > 2009/3/8 Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>: >> > No definite agreement has been made, but in preliminary chats, it seems >> > that both organizations agree that anything for XS or specific to XO >> hardware >> > should go in OLPC, and everything else (general Sugar improvements, >> > frameworks, or activities) should go in Sugarlabs. >> >> We discussed this at XO camp, and people from Sugar Labs were >> considering not supporting activity development and focusing on core >> sugar development. > > > This is correct. > > >> Has this changed? In general, do you expect that >> priorities for toolchain and activity development will be the same? > > > In general, sugar-core and toolchain development is a higher priority than > generative Activity development (Activities that lower the barrier to > Activity development). It's highly unlikely that non-generative Activity > development will be supported. >
Honestly, this is news to me. (and I am the co-administrator of the Sugarlabs program). If I had to articulate my view of our priorities, it would be something like the following: 7-10 points: Key sugar core improvements. Long-standing, important gaps like versioning or unit-tests at the high end of this. 6-9 points: Activity frameworks to open new forms of activity development (in descending priority: javascript/AJAX, swf, improved PyGTK tools such as Develop activity, mono or java) 4-8 points: Core activities: For instance, Nepal has expressed the need for an improved Read. 3-6 points: Quality non-core educational activities: a physics sim or other creative idea. 0-8 points: Proposal quality. In other words, an excellent proposal from a highly-qualified student could very well make the cut, even if it were a non-core activity. Jameson (whose daughter likes colors)
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
