[IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11

[Walter Bender]

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
> El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 06:54 -0400, Mel Chua escribió:
>
>> Our meetbot does some truly awful meeting minutes formatting, but here's
>> the summary of
>> http://me.etin.gs/sugar-meeting/sugar-meeting.minutes.20100711_0446.html:
>
>
> It was a wonderful SLOBs un-meeting, we should have more of these!
>
>
>> * Local Labs TM applications can't be found, so we'll drop this topic
>> until a Local Lab is indeed blocked by lack of TM permission, at which
>> point they should ping SLOBs (via emailing the slobs and iaep lists with
>> their request - doesn't have to be formal, just needs to be publicly
>> documented somewhere) so we can +1 them. DONE!
>
> To minimize the overhead of funding future Local Labs, we may want to
> implicitly grant TM usage consistently with the approval of the lab
> itself.
>
>

This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier
requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three
requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject
[TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered "lost". I'd
like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and
the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members,
please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit
their requests so as to formalize them as well.

>> * Question from Kevin Mark: "Who should be the deciding organization for
>> who determines what version of sugar is used in the field?" (Hitting the
>> list shortly as a separate discussion thread, but no action really
>> needed - just a good point to bring up.)
>
> My viewpoint is that Sugar Labs as a whole shouldn't officially endorse,
> recommend or support anything at all. The decision to take such
> commitment is up to the individuals (or teams, or companies) who are
> willing to put the weight of their professional expertise behind the
> projects they're interested in.
>
> In other words, we as a community-driven organization shall not
> interfere as long as the laws of self-organization are doing their job
> right :-)
>
> This reflects Mel's projects proposal and Tomeu's view that Sugar Labs
> is a place to work together, not one of the players itself.
>

OLPC and other downstreams should be deciding this for themselves. We
can offer opinions of course, but the most important thing is to help
downstream organize support and to continue to evolve the platform to
meet the needs of learners.

>> What else do people consider the most pressing topics to the future of
>> SL? How are we doing? Are we reaching our goals? (What are they?) These
>> should be the agenda items we discuss.
>
> Didn't we set goals for 2010 a while ago? It would be nice to review
> them now. In my mind, this year we're seing a huge leap forward in the
> Sugar Labs community. Relationships with OLPC have enormously improved
> and deployments are starting to get engaged in development. The
> relationship with Fedora is as strong as ever and Debian/Ubuntu are
> coming along.
>
> My #1 priority for this year was to close the gap between what our
> development team releases and what OLPC deployments are rolling out,
> which seems to be happening now.
>

FYI

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22#Goals_for_2010_2

-walter

> --
>   // 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
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org