[SoaS] DP summary of discussion time?

[Samuel Klein]

Hello Tim,

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Tim McNamara
<paperless at timmcnamara.co.nz> wrote:
> 2009/10/7 Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>
>
>> > Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing
>> > Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
>> > 2. yes - neutral about what distribution you base Sugar on so as not
>> > to create barriers to entry for anyone
>>
>> I see two  variants to this question that we might want to ask separately:
>>
>> 2+ : "Should SL be neutral about all distros containing Sugar,
>> regardless of how integral Sugar is to the distro and its intended
>> uses?"
>>
>> 2.1: "Should SL be available to provide outreach, publicity campaigns,
>> mentoring and other support for distributions [containing | centered
>> around] Sugar?"
>
> Hi Samuel,
> I recognise that I'm not on the panel, but may I just get clarification on
> what you mean by these two alternate questions?
> It seems like a clearer interpretation of the word 'neutral' is what you're
> seeking.

I am unclear on two points:
* "neutral" and "endorse one over another" - is it sufficiently
neutral if you are very very excited about every new release by a
trusted community members that comes along, and shout every such event
from the rooftops?

* "containing" - the implication is that it is obviously expected to
promote distros that do contain Sugar over those that don't.   but
what does containing mean?  does a distro that contains Sugar's
packages but boots into Gnome count?  One that boots into Gnome but
includes a "switch to Sugar desktop" icon on the default desk?  One
that boots into a bootloader with Sugar last on the list?  If
"containing" is a spectrum, does answering this question determine
whether SL should discriminate how much it cares based on where on the
spectrum a distro falls?


> Are you separating technical interoperability vs wider support? This might
> be phrased as passive support for Sugar being on other distros, vs active
> support from Sugar Labs. I interpreted the original question as technical
> interoperability.

That's a good point.  I hadn't considered it.  I interpreted the
original question as being about wider support, particularly advocacy.
 How was it intended?

SJ