<div dir="auto">Alex,<div dir="auto">Can you post it here? <a href="https://goo.gl/forms/PV3SV8opzBnb1eqw2">https://goo.gl/forms/PV3SV8opzBnb1eqw2</a></div><div dir="auto"> </div><div dir="auto">Sameer</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 24, 2018 12:37 PM, "Sameer Verma" <<a href="mailto:sverma@sfsu.edu">sverma@sfsu.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="quoted-text">On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Alex Perez <<a href="mailto:aperez@alexperez.com">aperez@alexperez.com</a>> wrote: > Sameer, > > 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 > <a href="https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/</a>) > > 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. </div>Hi Alex, Thanks for the reply. I was waiting to hear from someone on this. Instead of replying to your question (for good reasons), I'll comment on some meta stuff. 1) We want your thoughts, but hold off for a bit. I've got the form set up for most part. School is back in session this week, so I'm a bit busy. We'd like your thoughts via that form. In fact, we'd like your thoughts there, and prevent discussions about it for a bit until we are ready. 2) The proposal is for Sugarlabs, the organization and not Sugar, the software project. FOSS projects have their own mechanisms of managing growth, directions etc. but my current proposal isn't about Sugar the software project. It is about Sugarlabs, the organization (Note that SFC is the umbrella under which we operate and utilize SFC for legal and fiscal affairs, but SFC isn't the org. I know that we use conflicting terms, but for the purpose of this exercise, I'm going to ask people to focus on Sugarlabs as the unit of analysis). This is an important distinction. That said, I'm sure we'll get several suggestions about Sugar as opposed to Sugarlabs, but we'll take it and separate out the best we can. Give me a few days to get things operationalized. thanks, <div class="elided-text">Sameer -- Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Professor, Information Systems San Francisco State University <a href="http://verma.sfsu.edu/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://verma.sfsu.edu/</a> > >> Greetings! >> >> 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. >> >> cheers, >> Sameer >> -- >> Sameer Verma, Ph.D. >> Professor, Information Systems >> San Francisco State University >> <a href="http://verma.sfsu.edu/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://verma.sfsu.edu/</a> </div></blockquote></div> </div>