[SoaS] [DP]Question One

[Bill Bogstad]

[I changed the subject of this note in order to start a new thread
separate from the announcement.]

Note: To the gallery, the DB actually started exchanging messages a
couple of days ago before it was clear where/how
we would communicate.  So some of the below will be out of context.]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Martin Dengler
<martin at martindengler.com> wrote:
> As an attempt at speeding this up, I propose the following outline of
> the DP report to SLOB:

In a previous message, I suggested that questions #2-4 of those posed
to us are linked to #1 so I'm going to only respond to that part of
your  draft statement.

>Martin wrote:
>
> The DP has considered questions posed and proposes the following
> directions for ratification by SLOB:
>
>> *  Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just
>>    an upstream producing Sugar releases?
>
> No.  Sugar Labs is focused on Sugar and its Activities as its primary
> marketed software products.  GNU/Linux distributors exist separate
> from Sugar Labs.  Sugar Labs helps them with feedback and Sugar
> packaging support, but does not distribute an installable GNU/Linux
> image.

In previous messages, I believe that myself, Sdz, Caryl, and Abhishek
have to a greater or lesser extent answered this
question as Yes.  In particular, I feel that this mission statement
about Sugar Labs from

http://www.sugarlabs.org/index.php?template=page&page=about_overview

What is Sugar Labs?

Sugar Labs, a volunteer-driven, non-profit organization, is a member
project of the Software Freedom Conservancy. The mission of Sugar Labs
is to support the Sugar community of users and developers and
establish regional, Sugar around the world to help learn how to by
tailoring Sugar to local languages and curricula.

can not be accomplished at this time without a Sugar Labs produced
distribution (or perhaps more accurately a 'spin' of some pre-existing
distribution).

It may be that I've misunderstood other panel members messages on this
question and I believe most members haven't
made any statement to the panel on the question.   I would request
those panel member who have not yet said anything on this question or
are inaccurately included above to do so.

There was some hope that this panel would arrive at its decisions by
consensus.  Sam offered to act as facilitator for such a process as
well.  As I feel strongly about this question, I think Sam's services
are probably now required.

Bill Bogstad