From devin at ulibarri.website Wed Dec 9 15:48:33 2020 From: devin at ulibarri.website (devin at ulibarri.website) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 15:48:33 -0500 Subject: [IAEP] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time Message-ID: Hi All, The date and time of the next SLOBs Meeting [1] is 12-23-20 at 19:30 UTC. For the next meeting, the agenda is up at https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2020-12-23 We will be discussing a possible "Sugar Labs Code-in", so it would be great to have your input. I recommend that, if you are interested in attending the meeting, you: 1. Mark your calendar. I do my best to send reminders, but today my email got trapped in spam and I did not have the time to troubleshoot. 2. Please let us know soon if you plan to attend so that we may send you a link in advance. Please send your request to slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org As for today's meeting minutes, they are up at: https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2020-12-09 Best, Devin Links: ------ [1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Next_meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From srevinsaju at sugarlabs.org Wed Dec 9 23:13:49 2020 From: srevinsaju at sugarlabs.org (Srevin Saju) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:13:49 +0300 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: G'day! I have a topic, which perhaps needs discussion, We have been using IRC for many years. Recently, some of our communication moved to Slack, and some to Jitsi. What is Sugar Labs's idea of a best, unified communication platform which it should recommend to new developers. Right now, all the guides point directly to IRC, most new developers, who are interested to contributing to Sugar drop a message to an IRC channel, and almost never get a reply. This is possibly because the communication has diversified, or because of a community split on the basis of communication medium. Recently, many new developers told us of the difficulties of using IRC clients, the need for Bouncers, etc. We (some of us) suggested them to use a Matrix client to connect to #sugar, and indeed they are quite satisfied with new mode of communication.. The Matrix protocol. The Matrix protocol is interesting. Sugar had a matrix channel for many years. Recently we set up a bridge between the matrix channel (#sugar:matrix.org) and the IRC irc.freenode.net channel, i.e (#sugar), which helped a few developers to keep connected to the IRC channel without a bouncer and also make use of newer clients for mobile, for example Element Android (available? on F-droid, Google Play), and Element iOS. Element / Matrix has a intuitive web client which supports reactions and better formatting as compared to IRC, and is the best place for a developer to start contributing. The most interesting and useful feature is the IRC bridge, which helps to make use of the best of Matrix and maintain the connection between the IRC channel and the Matrix channel. The bridge is a tool which helps to convert the IRC protocol to the matrix protocol and vice versa. Topic of discussion, we a Sugar Gitter channel, Sugarizer Matrix channel, etc. Matrix has the support to integrate everything to a single channel. What is your opinion? Interesting points of discussion and helpful material: * Pull request to add Matrix as a communication medium (https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/pull/203) * Matrix Sugar Labs wiki page (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Matrix) * Official matrix-irc guide (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-irc/wiki/Guide:-How-to-use-Matrix-to-participate-in-IRC-rooms) As of now, many popular open source communities use Matrix as the main mode of communication, and all the sister nodes bridged to the matrix network For example: * Fedora * KDE * Mozilla Thunderbird It would be cool, if we discuss this among a wider range of community, putting a lot of people's idea rather than two of us discussion [cited]. So, I hope this topic, would be a good candidate for the next SLOBS meeting. Regards On 12/9/20 11:48 PM, devin at ulibarri.website wrote: > Hi All, > > The date and time of the next SLOBs Meeting > is > 12-23-20 at 19:30 UTC. > > For the next meeting, the agenda is up at > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2020-12-23 > > We will be discussing a possible "Sugar Labs Code-in", so it would be > great to have your input. > I recommend that, if you are interested in attending the meeting, you: > 1. Mark your calendar. I do my best to send reminders, but today my > email got trapped in spam and I did not have the time to troubleshoot. > 2. Please let us know soon if you plan to attend so that we may send > you a link in advance. Please send your request to > slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org > As for today's meeting minutes, they are up at: > > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2020-12-09 > > > Best, > Devin > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Srevin Saju Sugar Labs https://www.sugarlabs.org From quozl at laptop.org Thu Dec 10 00:09:31 2020 From: quozl at laptop.org (James Cameron) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:09:31 +1100 Subject: [IAEP] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20201210050931.GF28296@laptop.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 07:13:49AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote: > G'day! > > I have a topic, which perhaps needs discussion, It is about time this came up again. > We have been using IRC for many years. Recently, some of our > communication moved to Slack, and some to Jitsi. What is Sugar > Labs's idea of a best, unified communication platform which it > should recommend to new developers. Right now, all the guides point > directly to IRC, Yes, even my "How to get started as a Sugar Labs developer" points to IRC. > most new developers, who are interested to contributing to Sugar > drop a message to an IRC channel, and almost never get a reply. This > is possibly because the communication has diversified, or because of > a community split on the basis of communication medium. It is easier to explain the lack of reply as being caused by a lack of contributing members, and a focus by the remaining members on their specific projects in a way that does not require collaborating in real-time. The GitHub commit pattern over time confirms this. > Recently, many new developers told us of the difficulties of using > IRC clients, the need for Bouncers, etc. (a) my preference is not to call them developers until they have contributed, (b) these barriers to using IRC do not seem difficult; above all, why are we doing FreeNode's job for them? > We (some of us) suggested them to use a Matrix client to connect to > #sugar, and indeed they are quite satisfied with new mode of > communication.. The Matrix protocol. Most recent discussion on #sugar was just you talking to cyksager, and we couldn't see anything from them until they did something to fix it. > The Matrix protocol is interesting. Sugar had a matrix channel for > many years. Recently we set up a bridge between the matrix channel > (#sugar:matrix.org) and the IRC irc.freenode.net channel, i.e > (#sugar), which helped a few developers to keep connected to the IRC > channel without a bouncer and also make use of newer clients for > mobile, for example Element Android (available? on F-droid, Google > Play), and Element iOS. Element / Matrix has a intuitive web client > which supports reactions and better formatting as compared to IRC, > and is the best place for a developer to start contributing. The > most interesting and useful feature is the IRC bridge, which helps > to make use of the best of Matrix and maintain the connection > between the IRC channel and the Matrix channel. The bridge is a tool > which helps to convert the IRC protocol to the matrix protocol and > vice versa. > > Topic of discussion, we a Sugar Gitter channel, Sugarizer Matrix > channel, etc. Matrix has the support to integrate everything to a > single channel. What is your opinion? My opinion is that you've got the cart before the horse. First thing that is needed is for potential contributors to become developers, and to collaborate on something. Where you have potential contributors using IRC to ask questions that are answered by documentation or source code; that's just a help line or chat bot. It is often a waste of time to invest in that. Better is to fix the problem they are reporting. > Interesting points of discussion and helpful material: > > * Pull request to add Matrix as a communication medium > (https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/pull/203) > * Matrix Sugar Labs wiki page (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Matrix) > * Official matrix-irc guide (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-irc/wiki/Guide:-How-to-use-Matrix-to-participate-in-IRC-rooms) > > As of now, many popular open source communities use Matrix as the > main mode of communication, and all the sister nodes bridged to the > matrix network For example: > > * Fedora > * KDE > * Mozilla Thunderbird > > It would be cool, if we discuss this among a wider range of > community, putting a lot of people's idea rather than two of us > discussion [cited]. So, I hope this topic, would be a good candidate > for the next SLOBS meeting. An alternate way of looking at this is to avoid talking about choice of communication tools, instead work toward; - gathering people together, - agreeing on the unmet needs, or technical debt, to be resolved, - dividing up the work to be done, - starting the work, and; - tracking progress. > Regards > -- James Cameron http://quozl.netrek.org/ From walter.bender at gmail.com Thu Dec 10 14:10:48 2020 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:10:48 -0500 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We can add this to the agenda for the Dec. 23 meeting. On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:13 PM Srevin Saju wrote: > > G'day! > > I have a topic, which perhaps needs discussion, > > We have been using IRC for many years. Recently, some of our > communication moved to Slack, and some to Jitsi. What is Sugar Labs's > idea of a best, unified communication platform which it should recommend > to new developers. Right now, all the guides point directly to IRC, most > new developers, who are interested to contributing to Sugar drop a > message to an IRC channel, and almost never get a reply. This is > possibly because the communication has diversified, or because of a > community split on the basis of communication medium. > > Recently, many new developers told us of the difficulties of using IRC > clients, the need for Bouncers, etc. We (some of us) suggested them to > use a Matrix client to connect to #sugar, and indeed they are quite > satisfied with new mode of communication.. The Matrix protocol. > > The Matrix protocol is interesting. Sugar had a matrix channel for many > years. Recently we set up a bridge between the matrix channel > (#sugar:matrix.org) and the IRC irc.freenode.net channel, i.e (#sugar), > which helped a few developers to keep connected to the IRC channel > without a bouncer and also make use of newer clients for mobile, for > example Element Android (available on F-droid, Google Play), and > Element iOS. Element / Matrix has a intuitive web client which supports > reactions and better formatting as compared to IRC, and is the best > place for a developer to start contributing. The most interesting and > useful feature is the IRC bridge, which helps to make use of the best of > Matrix and maintain the connection between the IRC channel and the > Matrix channel. The bridge is a tool which helps to convert the IRC > protocol to the matrix protocol and vice versa. > > Topic of discussion, we a Sugar Gitter channel, Sugarizer Matrix > channel, etc. Matrix has the support to integrate everything to a single > channel. What is your opinion? > > Interesting points of discussion and helpful material: > > * Pull request to add Matrix as a communication medium > (https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/pull/203) > * Matrix Sugar Labs wiki page (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Matrix) > * Official matrix-irc guide > (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-irc/wiki/Guide:-How-to-use-Matrix-to-participate-in-IRC-rooms) > > As of now, many popular open source communities use Matrix as the main > mode of communication, and all the sister nodes bridged to the matrix > network > For example: > > * Fedora > * KDE > * Mozilla Thunderbird > > It would be cool, if we discuss this among a wider range of community, > putting a lot of people's idea rather than two of us discussion [cited]. > So, I hope this topic, would be a good candidate for the next SLOBS meeting. > > Regards > > On 12/9/20 11:48 PM, devin at ulibarri.website wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > The date and time of the next SLOBs Meeting > > is > > 12-23-20 at 19:30 UTC. > > > > For the next meeting, the agenda is up at > > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2020-12-23 > > > > We will be discussing a possible "Sugar Labs Code-in", so it would be > > great to have your input. > > I recommend that, if you are interested in attending the meeting, you: > > 1. Mark your calendar. I do my best to send reminders, but today my > > email got trapped in spam and I did not have the time to troubleshoot. > > 2. Please let us know soon if you plan to attend so that we may send > > you a link in advance. Please send your request to > > slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org > > As for today's meeting minutes, they are up at: > > > > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2020-12-09 > > > > > > Best, > > Devin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > -- > Srevin Saju > Sugar Labs > https://www.sugarlabs.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org From aperez at alexperez.com Thu Dec 10 16:18:28 2020 From: aperez at alexperez.com (Alex Perez) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:18:28 -0800 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time In-Reply-To: <20201210050931.GF28296@laptop.org> References: <20201210050931.GF28296@laptop.org> Message-ID: James Cameron wrote on 12/9/20 9:09 PM: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 07:13:49AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote: >> G'day! >> >> I have a topic, which perhaps needs discussion, > It is about time this came up again. Pretty much :) > >> We have been using IRC for many years. Recently, some of our >> communication moved to Slack, and some to Jitsi. What is Sugar >> Labs's idea of a best, unified communication platform which it >> should recommend to new developers. Right now, all the guides point >> directly to IRC, > Yes, even my "How to get started as a Sugar Labs developer" points to > IRC. > >> most new developers, who are interested to contributing to Sugar >> drop a message to an IRC channel, and almost never get a reply. This >> is possibly because the communication has diversified, or because of >> a community split on the basis of communication medium. > It is easier to explain the lack of reply as being caused by a lack of > contributing members, and a focus by the remaining members on their > specific projects in a way that does not require collaborating in > real-time. The GitHub commit pattern over time confirms this. > >> Recently, many new developers told us of the difficulties of using >> IRC clients, the need for Bouncers, etc. > (a) my preference is not to call them developers until they have > contributed, Agreed. Until you've contributed something, you're just an interested party. Simply aspiring to be a developer does not make you one. > > (b) these barriers to using IRC do not seem difficult; above all, why > are we doing FreeNode's job for them? In what way do you feel we're doing FreeNode's job for them? I don't get it. > >> We (some of us) suggested them to use a Matrix client to connect to >> #sugar, and indeed they are quite satisfied with new mode of >> communication.. The Matrix protocol. > Most recent discussion on #sugar was just you talking to cyksager, and > we couldn't see anything from them until they did something to fix it. > >> The Matrix protocol is interesting. Sugar had a matrix channel for >> many years. Recently we set up a bridge between the matrix channel >> (#sugar:matrix.org) and the IRC irc.freenode.net channel, i.e >> (#sugar), which helped a few developers to keep connected to the IRC >> channel without a bouncer and also make use of newer clients for >> mobile, for example Element Android (available? on F-droid, Google >> Play), and Element iOS. Element / Matrix has a intuitive web client >> which supports reactions and better formatting as compared to IRC, >> and is the best place for a developer to start contributing. The >> most interesting and useful feature is the IRC bridge, which helps >> to make use of the best of Matrix and maintain the connection >> between the IRC channel and the Matrix channel. The bridge is a tool >> which helps to convert the IRC protocol to the matrix protocol and >> vice versa. >> >> Topic of discussion, we a Sugar Gitter channel, Sugarizer Matrix >> channel, etc. Matrix has the support to integrate everything to a >> single channel. What is your opinion? While it may be a factually accurate statement that "we have had this channel for years", that doesn't mean it's been trafficked/visited much at all. For instance, I had no knowledge of its existence before several months ago, when the IRC bridge was set up. The IRC channel has existed since the inception of the Sugar Labs project. You may see IRC as an antiquated protocol, and I have no problem with Sugar Matrix channel, bridged to the IRC channel. But to show up and suggest that we eliminate the primary real-time collaboration tool that the project has used since its inception shows, frankly, somewhat of a lack of understanding of how open source projects work. You need to learn to build consensus. If you show up and, shortly thereafter, say "I don't like the way we communicate", let's change it completely, you're inevitably going to experience resistance. To expect anything else is nuts. We have mailing lists for non-realtime communications. If you're e-mail averse, you will not last long in any open source community. > My opinion is that you've got the cart before the horse. First thing > that is needed is for potential contributors to become developers, and > to collaborate on something. Agreed. And honestly, if you can't follow basic directions on how to use and connect to an IRC channel, I find it very, very unlikely that newcomers will have the patience necessary to become meaningful contributors. > > Where you have potential contributors using IRC to ask questions that > are answered by documentation or source code; that's just a help line > or chat bot. It is often a waste of time to invest in that. Better > is to fix the problem they are reporting. Agreed. It's not as though we have paid customer support/engagement people to do anything with such complaints, anyways. > >> Interesting points of discussion and helpful material: >> >> * Pull request to add Matrix as a communication medium >> (https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/pull/203) >> * Matrix Sugar Labs wiki page (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Matrix) >> * Official matrix-irc guide (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-irc/wiki/Guide:-How-to-use-Matrix-to-participate-in-IRC-rooms) >> >> As of now, many popular open source communities use Matrix as the >> main mode of communication, and all the sister nodes bridged to the >> matrix network For example: >> >> * Fedora >> * KDE >> * Mozilla Thunderbird >> >> It would be cool, if we discuss this among a wider range of >> community, putting a lot of people's idea rather than two of us >> discussion [cited]. So, I hope this topic, would be a good candidate >> for the next SLOBS meeting. > An alternate way of looking at this is to avoid talking about > choice of communication tools, instead work toward; > > - gathering people together, > > - agreeing on the unmet needs, or technical debt, to be resolved, > > - dividing up the work to be done, > > - starting the work, and; > > - tracking progress. Agreed. > >> Regards >> From quozl at laptop.org Thu Dec 10 17:14:52 2020 From: quozl at laptop.org (James Cameron) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:14:52 +1100 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time In-Reply-To: References: <20201210050931.GF28296@laptop.org> Message-ID: <20201210221452.GE27663@laptop.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 01:18:28PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote: > James Cameron wrote on 12/9/20 9:09 PM: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 07:13:49AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote: > >> G'day! > >> > >> I have a topic, which perhaps needs discussion, > > It is about time this came up again. > > Pretty much :) Heh. > > (b) these barriers to using IRC do not seem difficult; above all, why > > are we doing FreeNode's job for them? > > In what way do you feel we're doing FreeNode's job for them? I don't > get it. Oh, sorry. When we explain to potential contributors how to register to use IRC. FreeNode has this responsibility. Were we to assume that responsibility we would have to track any changes to the instructions. In similar fashion, https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Matrix assumes some responsibility for how to use Matrix. On the positive side, I love how our potential contributors have yielded someone like Srevin who doesn't need to be told how to do things with tools like git, github, IRC, and Matrix. I welcome potential contributors, but I just don't think we need to hold their hands and lead them around. I give them a list of things to do, and when they don't do them I know what to do next; nothing. -- James Cameron http://quozl.netrek.org/ From srevinsaju at sugarlabs.org Fri Dec 11 02:02:15 2020 From: srevinsaju at sugarlabs.org (Srevin Saju) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:02:15 +0300 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time In-Reply-To: References: <20201210050931.GF28296@laptop.org> Message-ID: On 12/11/20 12:18 AM, Alex Perez wrote: > > James Cameron wrote on 12/9/20 9:09 PM: >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 07:13:49AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote: >>> G'day! >>> >>> I have a topic, which perhaps needs discussion, >> It is about time this came up again. > Pretty much :) :D >>> We have been using IRC for many years. Recently, some of our >>> communication moved to Slack, and some to Jitsi. What is Sugar >>> Labs's idea of a best, unified communication platform which it >>> should recommend to new developers. Right now, all the guides point >>> directly to IRC, >> Yes, even my "How to get started as a Sugar Labs developer" points to >> IRC. >> Yes, the problem is, we recommend IRC, but we do not use it. There are people who follow guides like this, set up everything on IRC with some great difficulty, put some message out there in the channel, and receive no reply. Yes, we are in different timezones, but perhaps we should explicitly tell them to "stay around for 48 hours, we cannot reply immediately" or something like that. >>> most new developers, who are interested to contributing to Sugar >>> drop a message to an IRC channel, and almost never get a reply. This >>> is possibly because the communication has diversified, or because of >>> a community split on the basis of communication medium. >> It is easier to explain the lack of reply as being caused by a lack of >> contributing members, and a focus by the remaining members on their >> specific projects in a way that does not require collaborating in >> real-time. The GitHub commit pattern over time confirms this. Hmm >>> Recently, many new developers told us of the difficulties of using >>> IRC clients, the need for Bouncers, etc. >> (a) my preference is not to call them developers until they have >> contributed, I assume they are supposed to be called contributors right? I mean "just developers", not "Sugar developers" > Agreed. Until you've contributed something, you're just an interested > party. Simply aspiring to be a developer does not make you one. >> (b) these barriers to using IRC do not seem difficult; above all, why >> are we doing FreeNode's job for them? > In what way do you feel we're doing FreeNode's job for them? I don't get it. If you are saying about matrix, just like freenode, they require registration. They require registration unlike freenode. Freenode has registration optional, but almost all matrix servers require registration by an email address. So, all matrix users are registered. Regarding the bouncer, its just because of the decentralized nature of matrix. It is not a bouncer actually, it is just how it works, like modern chat clients. The server remains connected to all freenode channels in the world (not just #sugar), and we can opt in to join any freenode channel we wish to. >>> We (some of us) suggested them to use a Matrix client to connect to >>> #sugar, and indeed they are quite satisfied with new mode of >>> communication.. The Matrix protocol. >> Most recent discussion on #sugar was just you talking to cyksager, and >> we couldn't see anything from them until they did something to fix it. Yes, thats when Bernie suggested cyksagar to use matrix instead of Sugar. Thats when I wrote to this channel. The matrix channel was not very published. Many people did not know about it, but still there are many people who have found the matrix channel on their own without us telling them to: for example, jamescarter, icarito, _llaske, and previously purhan >>> The Matrix protocol is interesting. Sugar had a matrix channel for >>> many years. Recently we set up a bridge between the matrix channel >>> (#sugar:matrix.org) and the IRC irc.freenode.net channel, i.e >>> (#sugar), which helped a few developers to keep connected to the IRC >>> channel without a bouncer and also make use of newer clients for >>> mobile, for example Element Android (available? on F-droid, Google >>> Play), and Element iOS. Element / Matrix has a intuitive web client >>> which supports reactions and better formatting as compared to IRC, >>> and is the best place for a developer to start contributing. The >>> most interesting and useful feature is the IRC bridge, which helps >>> to make use of the best of Matrix and maintain the connection >>> between the IRC channel and the Matrix channel. The bridge is a tool >>> which helps to convert the IRC protocol to the matrix protocol and >>> vice versa. >>> >>> Topic of discussion, we a Sugar Gitter channel, Sugarizer Matrix >>> channel, etc. Matrix has the support to integrate everything to a >>> single channel. What is your opinion? > While it may be a factually accurate statement that "we have had this > channel for years", that doesn't mean it's been trafficked/visited much > at all. For instance, I had no knowledge of its existence before several > months ago, when the IRC bridge was set up. The IRC channel has existed > since the inception of the Sugar Labs project. You may see IRC as an > antiquated protocol, and I have no problem with Sugar Matrix channel, > bridged to the IRC channel. But to show up and suggest that we eliminate > the primary real-time collaboration tool that the project has used since > its inception shows, frankly, somewhat of a lack of understanding of how > open source projects work. You need to learn to build consensus. If you > show up and, shortly thereafter, say "I don't like the way we > communicate", let's change it completely, you're inevitably going to > experience resistance. To expect anything else is nuts. We have mailing > lists for non-realtime communications. If you're e-mail averse, you will > not last long in any open source community. I do not suggest that we replace IRC with Matrix. you might have got me wrong. Matrix is the best to go along with IRC. Rather than we just have IRC, we can also have matrix along with IRC and suggest them to users. I would not myself give away IRC. I would still use IRC Regarding this history of the matrix channel,... Matrix channel was found by samtoday (Sam), and icarito (Sebastian), and it existed with few members. Bernie introduced me to matrix during July, and we somehow found that we had a channel called #sugar:matrix.org on matrix, and we did not know. Next steps were, we asked icarito to kindly provide me and bernie, admin privileges and we dusted out the channel, and connected the matrix channel to IRC using a matrix bridge maintained by matrix.org I had written to the mailing list, but I am sure it went unnoticed due to the lack of context in my explanation http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2020-July/058555.html >> My opinion is that you've got the cart before the horse. First thing >> that is needed is for potential contributors to become developers, and >> to collaborate on something. > Agreed. And honestly, if you can't follow basic directions on how to use > and connect to an IRC channel, I find it very, very unlikely that > newcomers will have the patience necessary to become meaningful > contributors. Yes, I agree too. Matrix is also not meant to make it easy for new contributors. It is only a future convenience. Being in touch with the community without a bouncer, being able to answer people's questions even when you are away from keyboard, for example over an Android/iOS device, or anywhere from a web browser. Matrix includes the "basic directions" but to connect to a matrix channel. Not all people have bouncers though. A person might ask a question in the afternoon, but to get the? reply after he got disconnected. The main problem is _not_ about a new communication platform. The question is.. if we dont use IRC, or reply to a person's message, or if we know that their questions will likely go unanswered, then shouldn't we remove IRC from our preferred mode of communication. On "Getting started as a Sugar Labs contributor" and sugar-docs/../contact.md, we both mention IRC as our primary mode of contact. Maybe, we should replace it with the mailing list, (as I have seen that the mailing list has more conversation than IRC in the past 3-4 months) so that users can reach out there instead of an IRC channel where they almost never get a reply right? I am sure almost all questions on the mailing list get answered by someone. Async. >> Where you have potential contributors using IRC to ask questions that >> are answered by documentation or source code; that's just a help line >> or chat bot. It is often a waste of time to invest in that. Better >> is to fix the problem they are reporting. > Agreed. It's not as though we have paid customer support/engagement > people to do anything with such complaints, anyways. Agreed. >>> Interesting points of discussion and helpful material: >>> >>> * Pull request to add Matrix as a communication medium >>> (https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/pull/203) >>> * Matrix Sugar Labs wiki page (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Matrix) >>> * Official matrix-irc guide (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-irc/wiki/Guide:-How-to-use-Matrix-to-participate-in-IRC-rooms) >>> >>> As of now, many popular open source communities use Matrix as the >>> main mode of communication, and all the sister nodes bridged to the >>> matrix network For example: >>> >>> * Fedora >>> * KDE >>> * Mozilla Thunderbird >>> >>> It would be cool, if we discuss this among a wider range of >>> community, putting a lot of people's idea rather than two of us >>> discussion [cited]. So, I hope this topic, would be a good candidate >>> for the next SLOBS meeting. >> An alternate way of looking at this is to avoid talking about >> choice of communication tools, instead work toward; >> >> - gathering people together, >> >> - agreeing on the unmet needs, or technical debt, to be resolved, >> >> - dividing up the work to be done, >> >> - starting the work, and; >> >> - tracking progress. > Agreed. Agreed. Things which I do not agree to: * Splitting of the community on the basis of a mode of communication * Documentation suggesting IRC, which almost never gets a reply, otherwise, we have to explicitly ask them to stay around for 48 hours on the channel and not leave hopeless * Lack of transparency in what happens in sister projects of Sugar Labs * Communication is becoming lesser and lesser transparent than what it was when it was on IRC, or on mailing lists. I am a fan of IRC. I like its simplicity. It is lightweight. I also like matrix. I use both. During December 2019- January 2020, the IRC channel was quite active.. you know :) Google Code-In. Looking forward for Sugar Labs Code-In. :) >>> Regards >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Srevin Saju https://srevinsaju.me From quozl at laptop.org Fri Dec 11 05:04:37 2020 From: quozl at laptop.org (James Cameron) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 21:04:37 +1100 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time In-Reply-To: References: <20201210050931.GF28296@laptop.org> Message-ID: <20201211100437.GF28725@laptop.org> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 10:02:15AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote: > > On 12/11/20 12:18 AM, Alex Perez wrote: > > > > James Cameron wrote on 12/9/20 9:09 PM: > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 07:13:49AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote: > > > > G'day! > > > > > > > > I have a topic, which perhaps needs discussion, > > > It is about time this came up again. > > Pretty much :) > > :D > > > > > We have been using IRC for many years. Recently, some of our > > > > communication moved to Slack, and some to Jitsi. What is Sugar > > > > Labs's idea of a best, unified communication platform which it > > > > should recommend to new developers. Right now, all the guides point > > > > directly to IRC, > > > Yes, even my "How to get started as a Sugar Labs developer" points to > > > IRC. > > > > Yes, the problem is, we recommend IRC, but we do not use it. There are > people who follow guides like this, set up everything on IRC with some great > difficulty, put some message out there in the channel, and receive no reply. > Yes, we are in different timezones, but perhaps we should explicitly tell > them to "stay around for 48 hours, we cannot reply immediately" or something > like that. It would be helpful to set expectations, but if the text grows too much then people don't finish reading it before taking action. > > > > most new developers, who are interested to contributing to Sugar > > > > drop a message to an IRC channel, and almost never get a reply. This > > > > is possibly because the communication has diversified, or because of > > > > a community split on the basis of communication medium. > > > It is easier to explain the lack of reply as being caused by a lack of > > > contributing members, and a focus by the remaining members on their > > > specific projects in a way that does not require collaborating in > > > real-time. The GitHub commit pattern over time confirms this. > Hmm > > > > Recently, many new developers told us of the difficulties of using > > > > IRC clients, the need for Bouncers, etc. > > > (a) my preference is not to call them developers until they have > > > contributed, > I assume they are supposed to be called contributors right? I mean "just > developers", not "Sugar developers" Perhaps not until they have contributed in a substantial way. > > Agreed. Until you've contributed something, you're just an interested > > party. Simply aspiring to be a developer does not make you one. > > > (b) these barriers to using IRC do not seem difficult; above all, why > > > are we doing FreeNode's job for them? > > In what way do you feel we're doing FreeNode's job for them? I don't get it. > > If you are saying about matrix, just like freenode, they require > registration. They require registration unlike freenode. Freenode has > registration optional, but almost all matrix servers require registration by > an email address. So, all matrix users are registered. > > Regarding the bouncer, its just because of the decentralized nature of > matrix. It is not a bouncer actually, it is just how it works, like modern > chat clients. The server remains connected to all freenode channels in the > world (not just #sugar), and we can opt in to join any freenode channel we > wish to. > > > > > We (some of us) suggested them to use a Matrix client to connect to > > > > #sugar, and indeed they are quite satisfied with new mode of > > > > communication.. The Matrix protocol. > > > Most recent discussion on #sugar was just you talking to cyksager, and > > > we couldn't see anything from them until they did something to fix it. > > Yes, thats when Bernie suggested cyksagar to use matrix instead of Sugar. > Thats when I wrote to this channel. The matrix channel was not very > published. Many people did not know about it, but still there are many > people who have found the matrix channel on their own without us telling > them to: for example, jamescarter, icarito, _llaske, and previously purhan > > > > > The Matrix protocol is interesting. Sugar had a matrix channel for > > > > many years. Recently we set up a bridge between the matrix channel > > > > (#sugar:matrix.org) and the IRC irc.freenode.net channel, i.e > > > > (#sugar), which helped a few developers to keep connected to the IRC > > > > channel without a bouncer and also make use of newer clients for > > > > mobile, for example Element Android (available? on F-droid, Google > > > > Play), and Element iOS. Element / Matrix has a intuitive web client > > > > which supports reactions and better formatting as compared to IRC, > > > > and is the best place for a developer to start contributing. The > > > > most interesting and useful feature is the IRC bridge, which helps > > > > to make use of the best of Matrix and maintain the connection > > > > between the IRC channel and the Matrix channel. The bridge is a tool > > > > which helps to convert the IRC protocol to the matrix protocol and > > > > vice versa. > > > > > > > > Topic of discussion, we a Sugar Gitter channel, Sugarizer Matrix > > > > channel, etc. Matrix has the support to integrate everything to a > > > > single channel. What is your opinion? > > While it may be a factually accurate statement that "we have had this > > channel for years", that doesn't mean it's been trafficked/visited much > > at all. For instance, I had no knowledge of its existence before several > > months ago, when the IRC bridge was set up. The IRC channel has existed > > since the inception of the Sugar Labs project. You may see IRC as an > > antiquated protocol, and I have no problem with Sugar Matrix channel, > > bridged to the IRC channel. But to show up and suggest that we eliminate > > the primary real-time collaboration tool that the project has used since > > its inception shows, frankly, somewhat of a lack of understanding of how > > open source projects work. You need to learn to build consensus. If you > > show up and, shortly thereafter, say "I don't like the way we > > communicate", let's change it completely, you're inevitably going to > > experience resistance. To expect anything else is nuts. We have mailing > > lists for non-realtime communications. If you're e-mail averse, you will > > not last long in any open source community. > > I do not suggest that we replace IRC with Matrix. you might have got me > wrong. Matrix is the best to go along with IRC. Rather than we just have > IRC, we can also have matrix along with IRC and suggest them to users. I > would not myself give away IRC. I would still use IRC > > Regarding this history of the matrix channel,... Matrix channel was found by > samtoday (Sam), and icarito (Sebastian), and it existed with few members. > Bernie introduced me to matrix during July, and we somehow found that we had > a channel called #sugar:matrix.org on matrix, and we did not know. Next > steps were, we asked icarito to kindly provide me and bernie, admin > privileges and we dusted out the channel, and connected the matrix channel > to IRC using a matrix bridge maintained by matrix.org > > I had written to the mailing list, but I am sure it went unnoticed due to > the lack of context in my explanation > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2020-July/058555.html > > > > My opinion is that you've got the cart before the horse. First thing > > > that is needed is for potential contributors to become developers, and > > > to collaborate on something. > > Agreed. And honestly, if you can't follow basic directions on how to use > > and connect to an IRC channel, I find it very, very unlikely that > > newcomers will have the patience necessary to become meaningful > > contributors. > > Yes, I agree too. Matrix is also not meant to make it easy for new > contributors. It is only a future convenience. Being in touch with the > community without a bouncer, being able to answer people's questions even > when you are away from keyboard, for example over an Android/iOS device, or > anywhere from a web browser. Matrix includes the "basic directions" but to > connect to a matrix channel. Not all people have bouncers though. A person > might ask a question in the afternoon, but to get the? reply after he got > disconnected. > > The main problem is _not_ about a new communication platform. The question > is.. if we dont use IRC, or reply to a person's message, or if we know that > their questions will likely go unanswered, then shouldn't we remove IRC from > our preferred mode of communication. On "Getting started as a Sugar Labs > contributor" and sugar-docs/../contact.md, we both mention IRC as our > primary mode of contact. Maybe, we should replace it with the mailing list, > (as I have seen that the mailing list has more conversation than IRC in the > past 3-4 months) so that users can reach out there instead of an IRC channel > where they almost never get a reply right? I am sure almost all questions on > the mailing list get answered by someone. Async. I agree that the mailing list should be mentioned as a priority. > > > Where you have potential contributors using IRC to ask questions that > > > are answered by documentation or source code; that's just a help line > > > or chat bot. It is often a waste of time to invest in that. Better > > > is to fix the problem they are reporting. > > Agreed. It's not as though we have paid customer support/engagement > > people to do anything with such complaints, anyways. > Agreed. > > > > Interesting points of discussion and helpful material: > > > > > > > > * Pull request to add Matrix as a communication medium > > > > (https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/pull/203) > > > > * Matrix Sugar Labs wiki page (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Matrix) > > > > * Official matrix-irc guide (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-irc/wiki/Guide:-How-to-use-Matrix-to-participate-in-IRC-rooms) > > > > > > > > As of now, many popular open source communities use Matrix as the > > > > main mode of communication, and all the sister nodes bridged to the > > > > matrix network For example: > > > > > > > > * Fedora > > > > * KDE > > > > * Mozilla Thunderbird > > > > > > > > It would be cool, if we discuss this among a wider range of > > > > community, putting a lot of people's idea rather than two of us > > > > discussion [cited]. So, I hope this topic, would be a good candidate > > > > for the next SLOBS meeting. > > > An alternate way of looking at this is to avoid talking about > > > choice of communication tools, instead work toward; > > > > > > - gathering people together, > > > > > > - agreeing on the unmet needs, or technical debt, to be resolved, > > > > > > - dividing up the work to be done, > > > > > > - starting the work, and; > > > > > > - tracking progress. > > Agreed. > > Agreed. > > Things which I do not agree to: > > * Splitting of the community on the basis of a mode of communication I think it is not a split of community, but rather a lack of members. > * Documentation suggesting IRC, which almost never gets a reply, otherwise, > we have to explicitly ask them to stay around for 48 hours on the channel > and not leave hopeless > * Lack of transparency in what happens in sister projects of Sugar Labs > * Communication is becoming lesser and lesser transparent than what it was > when it was on IRC, or on mailing lists. I also think this is a lack of members. > I am a fan of IRC. I like its simplicity. It is lightweight. I also like > matrix. I use both. During December 2019- January 2020, the IRC channel was > quite active.. you know :) Google Code-In. > > Looking forward for Sugar Labs Code-In. :) > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > -- > Srevin Saju > https://srevinsaju.me > > -- James Cameron http://quozl.netrek.org/ From martinwguy at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 09:34:18 2020 From: martinwguy at gmail.com (Martin Guy) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:34:18 +0100 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time In-Reply-To: <20201211100437.GF28725@laptop.org> References: <20201210050931.GF28296@laptop.org> <20201211100437.GF28725@laptop.org> Message-ID: On 11/12/2020, James Cameron wrote: > I agree that the mailing list should be mentioned as a priority. Just my two pennies' worth: I've never got on with IRC for technical/strategic discussions, as I find it occupies me totally and I can't do anything else, while I can go to email when I choose and give it all my useful (I hope!) attention, while with IRC I find I'm sitting there doing nothing most of the time, which I find frustrating. I guess that's because I only have one brain cell and am not able to flicker my attention between the IRC window and something else, though I've known many developers who find that mode a positive and enriching way to work. Use of IRC as a primary channel shuts me out, and unfortunately some "decisions" have been taken in past projects that, by the time I found out about them, were "decided", even though some of them had unfortunate consequences. By the time I arrived, it was "No, it's already been decided", without my input and "behind the scenes" from my viewpoint. For something like a programmed meeting (e.g. SLOB meetings) of course, the immediacy is ideal, and I'm sure timezone differences can be accommodated for by choosing the right time of day. So I'd say each has its place, but they are not in competition M PS I didn't know about Matrix and all the other good things the Federated Networks Association is doing. Thanks for the pointer! From srevinsaju at sugarlabs.org Fri Dec 11 10:09:55 2020 From: srevinsaju at sugarlabs.org (Srevin Saju) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 18:09:55 +0300 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time In-Reply-To: References: <20201210050931.GF28296@laptop.org> <20201211100437.GF28725@laptop.org> Message-ID: <0c99f044-1bde-cde4-5b40-895cf412cbbc@sugarlabs.org> On 12/11/20 5:34 PM, Martin Guy wrote: > On 11/12/2020, James Cameron wrote: >> I agree that the mailing list should be mentioned as a priority. > Just my two pennies' worth: I've never got on with IRC for > technical/strategic discussions, as I find it occupies me totally and > I can't do anything else, while I can go to email when I choose and > give it all my useful (I hope!) attention, while with IRC I find I'm > sitting there doing nothing most of the time, which I find > frustrating. I guess that's because I only have one brain cell and am > not able to flicker my attention between the IRC window and something > else, though I've known many developers who find that mode a positive > and enriching way to work. > > Use of IRC as a primary channel shuts me out, and unfortunately some > "decisions" have been taken in past projects that, by the time I found > out about them, were "decided", even though some of them had > unfortunate consequences. By the time I arrived, it was "No, it's > already been decided", without my input and "behind the scenes" from > my viewpoint. I agree. Unfortunately, right now, as our documentation says, IRC is our primary mode of communication (which, in real life, is not). We need to make sure that the "Mailing List" is documented as our primary mode of discussion and contact. This was the aim of the entire discussion, and not to migrate / move / replace any mode of communication. New users who aim to be contributors should be directed to this preferred mode of communication. I will update the PR on https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs accordingly, by the next SLOBS we would possibly come to a conclusion. > For something like a programmed meeting (e.g. SLOB meetings) of > course, the immediacy is ideal, and I'm sure timezone differences can > be accommodated for by choosing the right time of day. > > So I'd say each has its place, but they are not in competition > > M > > PS I didn't know about Matrix and all the other good things the > Federated Networks Association is doing. Thanks for the pointer! -- Srevin Saju https://srevinsaju.me From walter.bender at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 14:09:16 2020 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:09:16 -0500 Subject: [IAEP] Sugar Labs oversight board meeting -- 23 Dec Message-ID: The next SLOB meeting is 12-23-20 at 19:30 UTC. The agenda is at: https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2020-12-23 The meeting will be held on jitsi. Please contact me if you need the link. regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org From walter.bender at gmail.com Wed Dec 23 15:41:02 2020 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:41:02 -0500 Subject: [IAEP] SLOB meeting notes 2020-12-23 Message-ID: == Meeting Minutes == Date: 2020-12-23 === Role Call === Present: Walter Bender Jui Pradhan Peace Ojemeh Claudia Urrea Ibiam Chihurumnaya Community: Samson Goody Absent: Lionel Lask? === Report from project representative (Conservancy liaison) === We need a new representative to replace Devin. Claudia will assume this duty. Treasurer... Walter (temporary) Alex? Secretary Walter === Report from Ombudsman === Nothing from Pattie === Finance Report === Walter to prepare a report for the next meeting. Report from Ibiam about his contract to manage activities. === Google Code-in Replacement Discussion === Samson will take the lead and will organize a separate series of meetings with the goal 4-6 orgs in Q4 2021. === Sugar Labs Mission/Goals Discussion === What is our mission? MISSION Sugar Labs? is a volunteer-driven member project of Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part of the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers around the world who are passionate about providing educational opportunities to children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar Labs? is supported by donations and is seeking funding to accelerate development. callaurrea Sugar Labs produces, distributes, and supports the use of the Sugar learning platform, a free software system that is freely available to anyone who wants to use or extend it. Claudia: Mission in the context of remote learning??? Small things we can delivar... as oppose to being too ambitious to get anything done. Claudia: periodic events... maybe every month an event??? Things that are more scaffolded... respond to need. Claudia: We mentor kids and get them to do something concrete. Claudia: driven by something that is relevant... something we can commit to. Walter: learning software and a learning community What are our goals? A place for people to learn about FOSS and great tools. Sugar support for the existing OLPC deployments. Sugarizer support for schools that use mobile technology. Music Blocks for schools in Japan, kids in Peru, music teachers. Do we want to concern ourselves with deployment? If so, we need to be professional about it. Do we want to use an OKR model? Support on RPi, Sugar on a Stick on Ubuntu, Fedora, Trisquel Jui: What is our Social Media story? Samson reviewed the history. He will share the strategy doc. Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube... === Communication Channels === How do we want to communicate? IRC, Matrix, JITSI, Slack, all of the above? Samson and Claudia recommend: https://discord.com/ 650 kids used discord with Claudia's project. Samson uses it with GNOME. To be discussed next time. === Time and Place of Next Meeting === 2021 January 06 (Wednesday) at 19:30 UTC https://meet.jit.si/sugarlabs Next time: bring to the table ideas for monthly project. === Closing === regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org From martinwguy at gmail.com Fri Dec 25 16:54:00 2020 From: martinwguy at gmail.com (Martin Guy) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 22:54:00 +0100 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] SLOB meeting notes 2020-12-23 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/2020, Walter Bender wrote: > MISSION > Sugar Labs? is a volunteer-driven member project of > Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Nice words, but what I see from down here is that the leading developers are the paid ones (who not only do the work they're paid to do but also shoulder other duties such as board membership. mentoring and being a generous knowledge base) If that also seems to others to be the reality that we have, that suggests an alternative view, to consciously use SL's funds to fund development, with openness about what it pays to whom to do what, and the developer's duty to itemize in public the hours spent on each assigned task, and the progress made as a result, since that seems to be a more effective path than simply wailing "We need more volunteers!" To this end, drawing a line under the past financial accounting, taking stock and relaunching it with greater transparency might be one way to help SL achieve its technical goals, as well as encouraging more and more generous donations when current or potential donors can see how cost-effective their funds are. Just my 2 cents... Season's greetings M From quozl at laptop.org Fri Dec 25 18:32:19 2020 From: quozl at laptop.org (James Cameron) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 10:32:19 +1100 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] SLOB meeting notes 2020-12-23 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20201225233219.GB21965@laptop.org> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:54:00PM +0100, Martin Guy wrote: > On 23/12/2020, Walter Bender wrote: > > MISSION > > Sugar Labs? is a volunteer-driven member project of > > Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. > > Nice words, but what I see from down here is that the leading > developers are the paid ones (who not only do the work they're paid to > do but also shoulder other duties such as board membership. mentoring > and being a generous knowledge base) What you say is not what I understand. I'll say what I understand; Sugar Labs paid some mentors a stipend this year for Google Summer of Code. The remaining mentors did not ask for the stipend. I did not ask. The money came from Google. Sugar Labs has offered to pay Ibiam to work on some of the Python activities. Other than that, Sugar Labs hasn't been paying developers. OLPC, Inc pays me to work on OLPC OS, which contains Sugar and a few other things. > If that also seems to others to be the reality that we have, that > suggests an alternative view, to consciously use SL's funds to fund > development, with openness about what it pays to whom to do what, and > the developer's duty to itemize in public the hours spent on each > assigned task, and the progress made as a result, since that seems to > be a more effective path than simply wailing "We need more > volunteers!" > > To this end, drawing a line under the past financial accounting, > taking stock and relaunching it with greater transparency might be one > way to help SL achieve its technical goals, as well as encouraging > more and more generous donations when current or potential donors can > see how cost-effective their funds are. Yes, further transparency would be welcome. I'm no longer a member of the oversight board. Board members in particular are responsible for ensuring transparency, but all members should also demonstrate and seek it. However, it is possible to gather some of the hours spent on tasks by using GitHub to monitor specific developers. When monitoring in this way, be sure to watch the musicblocks repository, and the sugarizer repository in the llaske user account. If you don't watch these two repositories, you'll miss much of the activity at Sugar Labs. > > Just my 2 cents... > > Season's greetings > > M > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- James Cameron https://quozl.linux.org.au/ From walter.bender at gmail.com Fri Dec 25 19:08:02 2020 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 19:08:02 -0500 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] SLOB meeting notes 2020-12-23 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps it was not clear in the minutes but I plan to sort through the books over the holidays and report back at the next board meeting. On Fri, Dec 25, 2020, 4:54 PM Martin Guy wrote: > On 23/12/2020, Walter Bender wrote: > > MISSION > > Sugar Labs? is a volunteer-driven member project of > > Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. > > Nice words, but what I see from down here is that the leading > developers are the paid ones (who not only do the work they're paid to > do but also shoulder other duties such as board membership. mentoring > and being a generous knowledge base) > > If that also seems to others to be the reality that we have, that > suggests an alternative view, to consciously use SL's funds to fund > development, with openness about what it pays to whom to do what, and > the developer's duty to itemize in public the hours spent on each > assigned task, and the progress made as a result, since that seems to > be a more effective path than simply wailing "We need more > volunteers!" > > To this end, drawing a line under the past financial accounting, > taking stock and relaunching it with greater transparency might be one > way to help SL achieve its technical goals, as well as encouraging > more and more generous donations when current or potential donors can > see how cost-effective their funds are. > > Just my 2 cents... > > Season's greetings > > M > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martinwguy at gmail.com Sun Dec 27 11:12:49 2020 From: martinwguy at gmail.com (Martin Guy) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 17:12:49 +0100 Subject: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] SLOB meeting notes 2020-12-23 In-Reply-To: <20201225233219.GB21965@laptop.org> References: <20201225233219.GB21965@laptop.org> Message-ID: On 26/12/2020, James Cameron wrote: > it is possible to gather some of the hours spent on tasks by > using GitHub to monitor specific developers. Relatively. It only stats github activity, while the time taken to arrive at github activity can be anything, plus email time for stuff pertaining to the work in hand. > If you don't watch these two > repositories, you'll miss much of the activity at Sugar Labs. Yes, of course that's only the view from here, that most stuff goes on elsewhere and a lot of it is invisible, like all good work M