[IAEP] [POLL] collab.sugarlabs.org

Aleksey Lim alsroot at member.fsf.org
Thu Jan 14 13:11:17 EST 2010

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:52:28PM -0500, Ed McNierney wrote:
> Tomeu -
> I think everyone should understand that things have changed quite a bit since January of 2009, and interpreting year-old emails may be a little misleading.
> I think Chris is both right and wrong here.  You need to first remember that when that email was written, there was no XO-1.5 and no funding or plan to make it.  That was a huge change that happened in April.  If you decide that my statement was meant to apply to the XO-1.0, then I'd argue it's still correct.  If you apply it to the XO-1.5, a project that didn't exist when it was written, then it's wrong.
> In either case, there's a lot more to that email than just one sentence, and I'd prefer it if people read the whole message.  As pertains to the XO-1.0, it is still substantially correct.
> As it pertains to the XO-1.5, I think it's still true in the sense it was intended.  Look at the 9.1 project plan mentioned - it was a substantial set of Sugar and system features being solicited from deployments by a Product Manager (a job that still no longer exists) looking for feature enhancement requests to combine with our own ideas to design new major releases.  The "major" aspects of our 10.1 release are the (a) movement towards a more standard Sugar-on-Fedora platform as anticipated in the referenced email, and (b) the very substantial port to an almost completely new hardware platform.  The latter really is a "major" job but it was not at all something I was talking about last February.  So given that 10.1 is a discussion about a hardware device that didn't exist when the email was written, I think it's an out-of-context question.  The statement was clearly never intended to refer to a machine and project that didn't exist at the time the statement was made.
> However, rather than continuing to parse ancient emails, it's probably a far more helpful endeavor to answer a current question, and I don't know what that question is in this context.  What is the question that the reference to that email attempted to answer?  Thanks.
> 	- Ed

Yeah, it was my fault - I just was curious about meaning of some
ancient strings on laptop.wiki. And it's really useless since it heads
to OLPC's internal process which is different to pure community driven
project like sugar.

But anyway original purpose is still relevant(at least for me)

And some kind of summary for me is that having portal for tracking needs
like ASLO is portal for activities is not so obvious as I thought
before e.g. it could be useful only if most of sugar doers/users will use
it. And since I'm not web developer I decided to start from developing
activity at first to probe some ideas.

> On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Chris Ball wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> >> What I don't know is if the contents of that message are still
> >> valid, e.g. "OLPC will not undertake, on its own, another major
> >> release of the software package we currently ship with each XO.".
> > 
> > No, not still valid.  We just finished doing exactly that for 10.1.  :)
> > 
> > - Chris.
> > -- 
> > Chris Ball   <cjb at laptop.org>
> > One Laptop Per Child


More information about the IAEP mailing list