[IAEP] [SLOBS] RFC: F11-0.88 as a Sugar Labs Project

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at gmail.com
Fri Jun 18 16:18:18 EDT 2010

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM, David Farning <dfarning at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Mel Chua <mel at melchua.com> wrote:
>> On 06/17/2010 10:28 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>>> At the next meeting, I would like to propose the Fedora 11 with Sugar
>>> 0.88 builds for the XO-1 and XO-1.5 as a new official project.
>>> It is sponsored jointly by Paraguay Educa and Activity Central,
>>> coordinated by me and hosted by the Sugar Labs infrastructure:
>>>    http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88
>>>    http://people.sugarlabs.org/bernie/olpc/f11-xo1-0.88/
>>> If the board approves, I will add a link to the sidebar, near Sugar on a
>>> Stick, and create a top-level homepage with content directed at users.
>>> I need help picking a pronounceable name, F11-0.88 is revolting.
>> Posted to
>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Minutes#Agenda_items as a
>> motion, since all the links are public anyhow and the discussion will be
>> as well.
> I would encourage that  F11-S0.88 _not_ become an official Sugar Labs
> at this time.  My biggest concern is maintenance responsible.  If the
> project becomes an official project, Sugar Labs has an implied
> maintenance responsibility.   If F11-S0.88 sucks, it will cast a long
> shadow on the upstream project Sugar Labs not the downstream project
> where that shadow belongs.
> On the other hand, if Sugar Labs would like to assume maintenance
> responsibility they are welcome to roll the project into SL.

I agree with your points above. With Fedora 11 having days left of
upstream support we're going back down the road of Fedora 7 OLPC style
forks which it was my understanding due to the lack of people paid to
support it Sugar Labs as a whole wanted to get away from that.


More information about the IAEP mailing list