[IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

On 17 August 2016 at 21:32, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.
>
>

We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to join
> if they had no interest in the project? (I suppose we could get invaded by
> trolls, in which case we can "build a wall." But I see no evidence that
> that is a problem.)
>

Nor me - a luxury problem ;)


> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
>>>> owned project?
>>>>
>>>
>>> From 10000 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
>>> qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
>>> connected to the Sugar community.
>>>
>>
>> Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?
>>
>> - Childsplay
>> - Scratch
>> - Squeak
>> - Tux Math
>> - Tux Paint
>> - XSCE
>>
>
> Sure. And don't forget gcompris.
>

Okay cool :) I think a single mail to each project's user list will be
sufficient, then.


> What do you think about hardware projects? Does Butia qualify? Rodi? What
> about RPi?
>

I think a single mail to each project's user list would also be fine.

Does the XO Infinity have a FOSS option or is it just Windows?
>

They will create a Sugar SKU if we can order 500 units or more, and they
will donate to Sugar Labs the same amount or more that they pay to MS for
Windows

(One Education doesn't use the XO trademark owned by OLPC Inc)

-- 
Cheers
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160817/347c556e/attachment.html>