[SoaS] SoaS decision panel: Do we ignore/protest two week deadline?/Starting deliberations?

[Samuel Klein]

On timing: 2 weeks is a recommendation, but a deadline is not a bad
thing.  Rather than debate it, why don't we plan to draft a statement
this week.  If we don't all concur that we've done the topic justice
by then, we can send an interim update to the oversight board pointing
to the draft and noting that we need more time.


Bill writes:
> 2.  Further, you don't feel that we need to solicit additional input
> from people outside this board beyond what has already been
> extensively expressed.

I think the interpretation that the DP is meant to assess the current
views of the active SugarLabs community (not the broader community of
current or potential Sugar users!) captures the original intent --
though Ben can speak directly to what he had in mind when suggesting
such panels.


> 1. "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an
> upstream producing Sugar releases?"
>
> 2.  "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and
> refuse to endorse one over another?"
>
> 3. "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to
> avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
>
> I think questions #1 and #2 are in some sense opposite sides of the
> same question.  #3 depends on #2 in the sense
> that restricting name usage is not neutral.

These three questions seem independent to me.

#1 is a question of whether SL should channel development effort into
producing distributions.

#2 is a question of whether SL should be neutral in its promotional
materials.  It could for instance maintain a reference distribution
(to help other developers), but actively promote those that are
popular; or have a neutrality policy that guarantees all distros that
compile equal space on a downloads & distros page.   Conversely, if SL
does not produce its own distro, it could still choose one or more
distros that it endorses, channeling promotional effort towards them.

#3 is about encouraging the community to avoid confusion in naming,
which can be done neutrally.  Right now, SoaS is one of the few very
active projects with a name that could be confused with others; SL
could decide not to have a policy on [sub]project naming; to have a
neutral policy that applies equally to anyone's project, young or old;
or to have a policy specific to SoaS.  The latter might not be
neutral.


> 1. "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an
> upstream producing Sugar releases?"
>
> My answer is Yes.   Without it Sugar Labs has nothing to encourage the
> use of or promote that is of direct use to anyone other then
> programmers or the people who assemble Linux distributions.

Can someone articulate the opposite position here, preferably on a
wiki page where we can iterate?  Both Ben and Martin have stated their
own opinions, but I'd like to see them lined up side by side.


> Perhaps a straw poll is in order on this question (with comments
> either for or against).

First let's get the various opinions and positions onto a single page,
then we can think about straw polls.


Martin writes:
> There are a ton of emails to the soas list[1,2], but nobody but those
> three has actually said anything remotely addressed at one of the
> three/four questions.
>
> The rest of you, please put yourself on record as "Yes", "No",
> "Undecided", or advance the discussion in some other way.

Also, please elaborate a bit on your understanding of each question
along with your current opinion.

SJ