<div class="gmail_quote">2009/10/7 Samuel Klein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="http://meta.sj" target="_blank">meta.sj</a>@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Tabitha Roder <<a href="mailto:tabitha@hrdnz.com" target="_blank">tabitha@hrdnz.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> My answers:<br>
> Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than<br>
> just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"<br>
> 1. no - don't want to force people to use one distribution as this<br>
> could create a barrier to entry<br>
><br>
> Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing<br>
> Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"<br>
> 2. yes - neutral about what distribution you base Sugar on so as not<br>
> to create barriers to entry for anyone<br>
<br>
</div>I see two variants to this question that we might want to ask separately:<br>
<br>
2+ : "Should SL be neutral about all distros containing Sugar,<br>
regardless of how integral Sugar is to the distro and its intended<br>
uses?"<br>
<br>
2.1: "Should SL be available to provide outreach, publicity campaigns,<br>
mentoring and other support for distributions [containing | centered<br>
around] Sugar?"<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi Samuel,</div><div><br></div><div>I recognise that I'm not on the panel, but may I just get clarification on what you mean by these two alternate questions?</div>
<div><br></div><div>It seems like a clearer interpretation of the word 'neutral' is what you're seeking.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks, this is an interesting thread to follow. -timClicks</div></div><br>