[IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOBs] F11+0.88+XO1.* as a SL project

Sean DALY sdaly.be at gmail.com
Thu Jul 1 11:15:37 EDT 2010

The OLPCNews commenter in question is anti-Sugar and believes all of
our resources should be supporting OLPC and its deployments (and none

I haven't seen any evidence that there is a perception problem that we
are biased towards certain vendors. If anything, the perception is
that we are "the software on the $100 laptop". We may have issues the
day we are referenced on the CMPC, Dell or HP edu netbooks, but that
hasn't happened yet.

For my part I think listing projects is a fine idea, it shows our tent
is big and welcoming. We just need to very clear that we don't provide
"tech support" for these projects.

Sugar on a Stick has been an important part of our outreach since it
lowers the unfamiliarity and installation barriers. However, we have
often referred to other projects in our communications, among them
Paraguay Educa, Plan Ceibal, and the Palestine Education Initiative.
Some of these projects have marketing/PR people who are always pleased
to work with us.

While we're at it, we could list Sugar deployments, too, since they
often have Sugar information and documentation of interest, e.g.
, an XO manual with many pages presenting Sugar.


On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> El Fri, 25-06-2010 a las 13:23 -0400, Mel Chua escribió:
>> 2. cjb and tomeu and mchua are wondering whether that infrastructure
>> access (which you *don't* need SL project status for!) was what the
>> project was asking for, or if there was anything more to the request to
>> become an "official project" - what resources, specifically, would they
>> want from SL that they think becoming a "SL project" will grant them?
>> Bernie, can you respond?
> In addition to the hosting and bandwidth, I would like to ask for
> permission to add a link to F11-0.88 to the wiki sidebar, below SoaS.
> Cjb said that it was not an issue for OLPC, but Tomeu was still
> concerned that other downstream projects could be negatively affected by
> our endorsement of an XO distribution. What makes us look really biased
> is having just SoaS in our Projects side-bar.
> In fact, I exchanged a few emails with a F11-0.88 tester who refused to
> file activity bugs on bugs.sugarlabs.org because "I'm not interested in
> how Sugar runs on desktop machines (nor on Ubuntu, etc.)" :-(
> This comment of an OLPCNews reader is even more eloquent:
>  http://www.olpcnews.com/software/operating_system/the_best_xo_laptop_operating_s.html#comment-296246
> We seem to have a problem of perception of SL being biased towards
> specific vendors. To fix that, we could either choose to stop working
> with anyone, or we could offer the same service level to any downstream
> project asking for Sugar Labs hosting. Currently, our infrastructure is
> also hosting these partners:
>  * OLE - http://www.ole.org
>  * OLE Nepal - http://olenepal.org/
>  * Paraguay Educa (some services)
>  * Karma - http://karma.sugarlabs.org
>  * Somos Azucar - http://somosazucar.org
>  * GCompris (only the git repository)
>  * ZeroInstall (only a package repository)
> I would personally *love* to give more visibility to all of these
> through links in our wiki. Only Karma and GCompris would really qualify
> as hosted Projects. The others are partnering organizations. OLE Nepal
> should really be a Local Lab.
> As far as I'm concerned, we could even extend the same invitation to
> other Sugar related projects that are being hosted at disparate, obscure
> locations: eXe, Trisquel Sugar, Ubuntu Sugar Remix...
> Mel asked an interesting question: what exactly is a Project? Some time
> ago, David Farning studied the issue and posted a criteria for endorsing
> sub-projects modeled after the Eclipse and Apache models, two very large
> and very successful umbrella projects.
> In two years of Infrastructure Team coordination, I don't remember ever
> refusing any hosting, syndication or account request. Why? Because I
> believe that "Stop Energy" fundamentally hurts organizations like ours.
> We've been quite successful at hosting activities because there's almost
> zero stop energy in the way of contributors. The same could happen in
> other areas as well.
> Unlike a business, we don't need to focus their resources just on
> revenue-making activities. Our fuel actually comes from contributors,
> there's rarely anything to gain by telling them to go away.
> --
>   // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
>  \X/  Sugar Labs       - http://sugarlabs.org/
> _______________________________________________
> SLOBs mailing list
> SLOBs at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs

More information about the IAEP mailing list