[IAEP] On OLPC and Sugar collaboration (Was: Schedule for SugarCamp?)
bernie at codewiz.org
Fri Nov 14 03:23:18 EST 2008
Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> I know you'll find this split controversial, but this is what a lot of
> people asked for. I also think defining independent -- but
> interoperable -- roadmaps will result in higher quality results.
> We can ensure that periodic (or continuous) integration is part of the
One important clarification on my stand for those who read from
remote (Scott knows these things already):
* I strongly feel that OLPC and Sugar Labs should remain
independent entities, but collaborate closely;
* I often visit the OLPC headquarters to talk with people
and work on Sugar Labs related stuff. As a result, I hope,
some of our reciprocal misunderstandings have been cleared;
* We expressly welcome any OLPC employee or contractor as a
member of the Sugar community -- we already have 2 OLPC
chairs in the board;
* When I and the other Sugar developers say "Sugar", we
intend the Sucrose modules as defined here:
Not the whole OS distro with Sugar installed on it.
Surprisingly, naming has been a major source of confusion!
* From a governance PoV: regardless of who handed the individual
paychecks, the Sugar team has functioned for over 2 years as
an self-sufficient unit. They are all senior engineers, with
Marco being their lead and the interface OLPC can use for
* From a branding PoV: in order for Sugar to attract a wider
user and developer base, it needs to stop looking like a
subproduct of OLPC.
* From an engineering PoV: like any medium/large scale project,
Sugar needs more regular, more predictable, time-based releases.
This does not necessarily make it harder to meet the
requirements of its primary downstream distributor.
Scott and I disagree on the last 2 points. Although I trust we both
want Sugar to live long and prosper.
A few months ago, there was a lot of flaming about Sugar 0.82.0
being released too early, or being too buggy, or lacking some features
desired by OLPC.
Part of this criticism is certainly funded: 0.82 was the first release
cycle entirely coordinated Sugar Labs. But many would agree that 0.82
was a *huge* leap forward done in just 6 months by a very resource
constraint team of 3 full-time developers.
If we plan well at the meeting and then follow the plan closely, next
release will roll out much smoother. And if, as a result of new
partnerships, we could put a few more people working on Sugar, things
would progress a lot faster.
// Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
\X/ Sugar Labs - http://www.sugarlabs.org/
More information about the IAEP