[IAEP] Tentative talk schedule: Nov 19

[Marco Pesenti Gritti]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti
> <mpgritti at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:35 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at laptop.org> wrote:
>> Personally I think the way you keep to couple them is *extremely*
>> confusing. Red Hat people certainly participates to GNOME conferences,
>> but don't go there to talk about their build system!
>
> I wish they would, actually.  Good tools should be shared and reused.

OLPC build tools are not relevant to distribution of Sugar on any
other platform than OLPC.

> Bernie wants to talk about SugarLabs infrastructure, and Michael wants
> to encourage broader use of the tools which he has created.  I think
> those talks are entirely appropriate for a joint conference

Sure. But Sugarcamp is *not* a joint conference. XOcamp was, and it
has been delayed to January.

Why are you pretending to talk for OLPC? I'll just quote what Ed said
in yesterday meeting about this exact subject:

<edmcnierney_> What about it?  I have no idea what the agenda is - I
haven't looked.  That's not a complaint - I'm not participating, so I
don't need to pay attention to the agenda.
<marcopg> I'm not directly involved with the agenda but...
<joef> OLPC is watching... participating... or just looks the other way?
<edmcnierney_> We planned an XOCamp conference for next week, then
postponed it to January.  That's what we've been talking about.
<marcopg> I would like Sugarcamp to be about Sugar Labs priorities and work
 and to be clearly separated from XOCamp
<edmcnierney_> joef: We are all up to our eyeballs and beyond making
sure that G1G1 issues are handled.  To be quite honest, it's now
obvious to me that there's no way we could have pulled off the XOCamp
for next week simply due to G1G1 pressures.
<joef> edmcnierney_: it's nice to close the eyes ;-)
<Gregorio> FYI I definitely want to meet everyone who comes to Boston
and was thinking of stopping by Wed or Thursday, but not planning to
there every day
<edmcnierney_> joef: What on earth are you trying to talk about?  Is
there some reason Sugar Labs can't have a meeting without some kind of
position paper from OLPC on it?
<marcopg> I think it's great if some OLPC employees can make it, on a
personal basis
 but I don't see any need for OLPC to be involved directly in the organization
<edmcnierney_> marcopg: +1 on Sugarcamp status.
<dsaxena> are we doing any planning presentations next week? (sorry if
already discussed, got dragged into house remodel meeting)
<joef> edmcnierney_: i'm not trying anything...
<Gregorio> I check the sugarcamp page pretty regularly and I
 I'm not sure of the agenda but I hear tidbits around the office from
time to time
 also saw an e-mail on some list recently
<edmcnierney_> dsaxena: Who's "we"?  There's a good bit of work going
on to plan a productive Sugar Labs week, but I'd suggest asking the
organizers, not here.  I'm honestly just unable to pay much attention
as we have G1G1 and two major country visitors next week, and a Fedora
10 release on the 25th, etc.

> -- and if
> you don't, I think you should be talking to Bernie and Michael about
> it, not me.  I didn't do any filtering of the proposals sent to devel@
> other than prioritizing proposals from people who would be attending
> in person.
>
>> I'm mostly fine with Wednesday proposal. I would like the discussion
>> about the rest of the day to be more open than you and Bernie sitting
>> down somewhere, like your mail seemed to imply. As Greg proposed, I'd
>> prefer if we just gave the speakers a way to fill in the slots on the
>> wiki.
>
> I think you need to talk to Bernie about this.  I'm not planning the
> rest of the week; I was just brought in as a consultant to coordinate
> the 'proposals' section.

In fact, I'm also talking to Bernie.

>> I certainly want to keep working together and my mail was an attempt
>> to improve the way we do.
>
> Setting us artificial "us-vs-them" antagonism between OLPC and
> SugarLabs is *not* the way to improve our working together.  In my
> opinion.  Both SugarLabs and OLPC are "we".

You are confusing clear responsibilities separation with antagonism.
They are completely different matters.

Marco