[IAEP] Sugar Labs - Goals for 2018 and beyond
dave at lab6.com
Wed Jan 24 13:56:06 EST 2018
I agree with the general idea - this is going to only become more painful
the longer it is left undone, and if not done, will mean the end of the
python codebase. That might be acceptable, given the maturation of
Perhaps its worth having the Sugar core and toolkit part (vs the Sugarizer
part) of GSOC focus on this over the summer, and then use the contractor to
review, validate and complete the work.
And then have in mind that the following GCI and GSOC be focused on the
python3'ization of the key activities.
On 24 January 2018 at 11:28, Alex Perez <aperez at alexperez.com> wrote:
> Apologies for top-posting.
> For 2018, I would really like to see Sugar Labs get behind and commit to
> getting the core of Sugar working fully with Python 3. I personally believe
> this is critical to its long(er) term success, as Python 2 continues be
> deprecated. Python 2 will not be supported at all past 2020 (see
> I asked Walter about the feasibility of this, to which he reiplied "we had
> a GSoC intern do a pretty thorough investigation a few years ago. Doesn't
> look like a lot of work for Sugar itself (or the toolkit). But updating all
> of the activities will be a chore."
> Personally I would propose that this be done under contract to someone
> with a very complete understanding of the differences and best coding
> practices between Python 2 and 3 (eg, a "professional"), due to the
> importance of getting this right the first time. Will that cost some money?
> Absolutely, but I suspect that it would be money well spent.
> I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
>> Here is a proposal to solicit various goals towards mission of
>> Sugarlabs. I am sending this out as per my comments on the recent
>> #sugar-meeting on IRC.
>> In the past, I have noticed that whenever we propose to discuss
>> various goals that this community may pursue, we tend to fail quite
>> rapidly at not arriving at a consensus. It is not that we have
>> incorrect ideas about how we think the project should proceed. We tend
>> to disagree prematurely. To remedy the situation, I am proposing that
>> we gather opinions from the community about goals and do so in a
>> manner where it remains temporarily shielded from public view. Then,
>> at a given time (say two weeks) we make all of these items public.
>> This may reveal if we have convergent ideas or if we are still very
>> divergent. Either is okay.
>> Next, we would try to merge similar items into tangible goals with a
>> specific time frame. Depending on who the champions are for a specific
>> goal and its objectives, these people may then band together into an
>> ad-hoc group and pursue said goals.
>> The time line for this project is relatively short. I propose that we
>> collect ideas for two weeks. At the end of two weeks, we would then
>> make the items public, and solicit more ideas for a third week. At the
>> end of the third week, we would then try to collate similar responses
>> into clusters of tangible goals. From there on, each set of goals may
>> be pursued independently, depending on its sponsors, champions,
>> supporters and participants.
>> If this sounds like something that will help us move forward, I am
>> ready to set this in motion. I have already discussed this with
>> Hillary Naylor, who is an active participant in our OLPC-SF group.
>> When it's time to collate responses, I may solicit some more help from
>> some of you.
>> Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
>> Professor, Information Systems
>> San Francisco State University
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IAEP