[SoaS] [DP] updating the draft decision panel report

[Benjamin M. Schwartz]

Samuel Klein wrote:
> Ben, Bill, DSD and Faisal -- can you please weigh in and share your
> thoughts?

Happy to.

"Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an
upstream producing Sugar releases?"

Yes.  Sugar Labs should do whatever is needed to make Sugar easily
available to our audience.  When this goal is best achieved by
distributing complete operating systems including Sugar, we should have no
qualms about doing so.  However, Sugar Labs should also continue to
emphasize the availability of Sugar through the mechanisms of existing
distro package managers, in order to reach users who already run GNU.

"Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to
endorse one over another?"

Yes.  Sugar Labs does not now have a mechanism for making blanket
endorsements, and it should not instate one.  Conversely, Sugar Labs
should help users to choose their best option for deploying Sugar,
depending on their individual needs, and this will typically mean
recommending a particular distribution best suited for each user.

"Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid
using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"

No.  We should give this distribution a unique, identifiable name that
cannot be confused with a generic description of an entire class of
distributions.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/attachments/20091022/6c1ebbd6/attachment.pgp