We are close to consensus consensus on the first two points. Help with wording a final report would be appreciated. I wish I could extrapolate Bill B's position from some of his earlier comments, but I cannot :) We don't have consensus on the specific wording of the 3rd question, but do on the underlying principle of 'not being confusing' -- there are two suggestions that a more specific name than "Sugar on a Stick" be used, as that name is a normal English phrase and could naturally refer to a whole class of distributions. Since there's already a mailing list and some history behind "Sugar on a Stick", are there any others on this list that would like to see a more specific name? Does anyone expect this list to refer to all distributions of Sugar on removable devices, or is there broad agreement that this is for a specific team, concept, and product? Finally, are there any other questions that have been raised that people feel we should address? SJ <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <<a href="mailto:bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu" target="_blank">bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div>Samuel Klein wrote: > Ben, Bill, DSD and Faisal -- can you please weigh in and share your > thoughts? </div>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. </blockquote></div>