[IAEP] [SLOBS] Q2 motion proposal

[Bernie Innocenti]

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 14:59 -0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> arrgh, this was supposed to go to IAEP

Or, better, on soas@ (cc'd). Sorry for not doing the initial
post there in the first place.

For the record, I also like Sean's abridged rewrite although I'd
slightly prefer to explicitly state that we're providing hosting and
infrastructure for any sugarized distribution such as Trisquel Sugar
and OpenSuSE Education.

Anyway, if Sean's proposal is what we'll end up voting on, he has my
YEA.


> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 14:47, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We could even be more concise, e.g.:
> >
> > "Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and
> > distribute Sugar. SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias
> > resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting
> > Sugar more effectively."
> >
> > I like this because marketing strategy needs to be flexible, taking
> > into account market conditions. Effective marketing brings change with
> > surprise and opportunism - leaping into a breach. For example, netbook
> > POST screens since recently now typically offer one-key access
> > (bypassing BIOS config) to choose boot media; we could choose to
> > highlight that, since it drastically lowers the barrier for nongeek
> > teachers and parents. However, the day GNU/Linux distros have strong
> > market share, such a strategy will no longer be necessary.
> >
> > Sugar is still a weak brand but we are building it up. Brand-building
> > only happens when there is a crystal-clear message accepted by many
> > people in contact. And in the case of IT, that barriers are lowered or
> > eliminated. "Try Sugar: click here to download ISO, load USB stick
> > with this tool, reboot" is far more effective promotion of Sugar to
> > people who have never used GNU/Linux than "Try Sugar: backup your
> > existing system, reformat/repartition, choose and install a GNU/Linux
> > distro, use your distro's package manager to download, configure and
> > install Sugar"
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Bernie Innocenti
> <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
> >> I think the motion we passed suggests the impression that SL must be
> >> biased towards SoaS at the organizational level. I'd like to clarify
> >> that by rephrasing as follows:
> >>
> >>  Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing
> >>  Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
> >>
> >>  MOTION: Sugar Labs endorses Sugar multiple distributions based
> >>  on availability of resources (i.e. volunteers) and technical
> >>  merits. Hosting and resources will be offered on neutral ground.
> >>  SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias resources towards
> >>  specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more
> >>  effectively.
> >>
> >> Would SLOBs agree on this variation?
> >>
> >> --
> >>   // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
> >>  \X/  Sugar Labs       - http://sugarlabs.org/

-- 
   // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
 \X/  Sugar Labs       - http://sugarlabs.org/