I read the following today:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
"A healthy [project] is, confusingly, one at odds with itself. There is a healthy part which is attempting to normalize and to create predictability, and there needs to be another part that is tasked with building something new that is going to disrupt and eventually destroy that normality." (<a href="http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2012/03/13/hacking_is_important.html">http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2012/03/13/hacking_is_important.html</a>)</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>So, in this vein, I'd like to encourage Sugar-folk to read the short paper Chris Ball, Michael Stone, and I just submitted (to IDC 2012) on Nell, our design for XO-3 software for the reading project:</div>
<div><br></div><div> <a href="http://cscott.net/Publications/OLPC/idc2012.pdf">http://cscott.net/Publications/OLPC/idc2012.pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div>You're expected not to like it: this is supposed to be the Barbarian viewpoint. ;-) Regardless, I've love to hear feedback on what exactly you didn't like, so that I can improve the arguments for the final published version (assuming the paper gets accepted). Thanks!<br>
</div><div> --scott</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br> ( <a href="http://cscott.net">http://cscott.net</a> )</div>