<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <<a href="mailto:bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu">bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">Daniel Drake wrote: > What you are saying makes sense -- it is indeed a nice idea to keep > SugarLabs as more of a loose structure, as a place for collaboration > on anything that might further the general mission. > > It is a sensible idea to keep SugarLabs away from doing too much work > on the OS building and deployment implementing side of things, because > as you point out, even when you exclude those broad topics there is > still a lack of resources on the bits that remain. > That said, in a way, the "gap" that we're discussing is in some ways > more important than any of the Sugar features currently being worked > on, because the large majority of sugar users are currently a long way > away from even having access to the features that were finished 6 > months ago. Difficult. > > I disagree about local labs being key to filling the gap. While a nice > idea, I think it is necessary for there to be a central and > location-independent deployment-focused upstream, otherwise there will > be a lack of coordination accompanied by lots of duplication of work. </div>I agree... and I think the only way this will happen is for someone to start a company. You would be an ideal person to do such a thing. Consider the Gnome Foundation. The organization is composed principally of software engineers, working on a technical problems. They do not attempt to manage deployments or provide end-user support. They do not produce operating systems, apart from a few Live CDs for testing and validation purposes. They employed no one for many years, and now employ only one person, purely for administrative duties. Gnome is widely deployed, and supported, but this is done by organizations like Debian, Canonical, Slackware, and Red Hat. These deployers have both the incentive and the ability to respond quickly to user demands, by customizing their Gnome installation. They also communicate with Gnome upstream, getting their modifications into mainline and pushing for development that addresses their users' needs. In fact, most of the Gnome developers are actually employed by deployers, like Novell, and the Gnome Foundation is merely the place where all the deployers' engineers come to work together. Sugar Labs is explicitly modeled on the Gnome Foundation. I agree that there is a gap between Sugar Labs and deployment, but this is best addressed by a similar two-layer model. OLPC is part of that second layer, and so is Solution Grove, but we certainly need more. As for "local labs"... the term seems to have been used for many things. Some non-profit deployment organizations might request recognition as a "local lab" if they think it helps their marketing, and Sugar labs would likely be happy to confer the title upon them. _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) <a href="mailto:IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org">IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep</a> </blockquote></div> This comparison of roles between Sugarlabs and GNOME Foundation is helpful. It allows me to think about how efforts have been successful (and have failed) when it comes to distros like Ubuntu and companies that support the process (Canonical in this case). The Ubuntu side of things doesn't get to see much of say, what conspires between Canonical and Dell. This is a much needed discussion. cheers, Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA <a href="http://verma.sfsu.edu/">http://verma.sfsu.edu/</a> <a href="http://opensource.sfsu.edu/">http://opensource.sfsu.edu/</a>