[Sugar-devel] Collaboration Goals (was [sugar] XO identity shared via Browse)
gregsmitholpc at gmail.com
Thu Dec 4 19:36:18 EST 2008
Hi Robert et al,
We really appreciate your staying engaged with the project and we still
need your help along with that of Guillaume!
Thanks a lot for sticking with us, despite the often acerbic nature of
the lists :-(
There are many moving parts and lots of difficult problems here. I don't
know how to solve them all. I thought we were making some constructive
progress on another thread recently.
We have one more shot to make this area a lot better for 9.1.0. Let's
have at it one more time and give it our best effort for the kids benefit.
They think its magical and inspiring when it works:
I wrote the requirements here:
Please let me know if any of that is not clear. Then let's get a
specification together which explains all the work we can/should do to
meet those requirements and track it there. Any updates, comments or
edits to the requirements are welcome.
Since many different groups need to work together, I encourage everyone
to document their plans in the same place.
We're close. I think we improved the scale in 8.2. If the XOs could
reliably see each other in the Neighborhood we would have the main
feature set in place.
Hang in there! Its time for one more round of bug scrubbing and hard
work to reap the benefits of long years reading the dreary e-mail lists :-)
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Robert McQueen
> <robert.mcqueen at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
>> I really don't think these kind of comments are productive for anyone.
>> However, I'm not interested in participating (therefore I have not done
>> so) in participating in discussions about collaboration on Sugar which
>> a) ignore everything we've done so far, and b) contain fallacies such as:
>> * Given a working IPv6 network, we...
>> * Given a global DNS hirachy of school servers, we...
>> * ...
> Whoa, there. Please don't drag me into this, and force me to rebut.
> We have a perfectly working link-local IPv6 network on every
> deployment we've ever fielded. And you (further on in your email)
> state "so provided the school server actually has a unique DNS name,
> we're all set." which sounds suspiciously like your second "fallacy".
> We've had a fruitful discussion of
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Network_principles in the past, and you made
> several good suggestions which I integrated. I don't think the
> "Network principles" proposal is "anti" the current networking stack
> at all; it just clarifies what networking situations we will attempt
> to provide and support, and does a little bit to decouple presence
> from the rest of the collaboration stack.
> I hope your email was written in the heat of passion only, and doesn't
> reflect a fundamental misunderstanding. I was accused of having some
> personal malicious intent towards Collabora multiple times during
> Sugarcamp, and it's rather dreary to have to keep insisting that it's
> just not so. If we need to clarify further, let's do so in order that
> we can continue working together productively -- but perhaps not on
> this particular thread, which is perhaps currently too hot for
> reasonable discourse.
More information about the Sugar-devel