[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] Static services for Local Labs

[David Farning]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 18:29, David Farning <dfarning at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>>> Maybe the issue here is that local labs have a much broader scope than
>>> the global Sugar Labs?
>>
>> I agree completely.  Hopefully the local labs will focus in on a
>> particular area of the sugar ecosystem.  A testing lab, a deployment
>> support organization, educational content development.... As such they
>> will dive much deeper into a particular area then sl can.
>>
>>> I see local labs having something to say about everything that the
>>> global Sugar Labs does, but not the other way around.
>>
>> Yes, but this discussion is about what services SL will provide for
>> the local labs.
>>
>> Local labs can do whatever they want, upstream SL has to make hard
>> decisions about which 'things' we can 'afford' to support.
>>
>> At this point in terms of infrastructure we can offer local labs:
>> email account, mailing lists, a instance of our existing wiki setup.
>> Anything else become to much work for our already overwork
>> infrastructure team.
>>
>> This ends up being very similar to the deployment support issues we
>> are facing.  We are facing some hard issues about how we can _best_
>> use our limited resources to improve the entire Sugar ecosystem.
>
> Right, that was the point I was trying to make: the SL's
> infrastructure is likely to not serve all the needs of all the local
> labs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tomeu

Sorry for misunderstanding your point.  So many people and
organizations have been asking us for support since the changes at
OLPC that I am getting prickly about the issues:)

david

>> David
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tomeu
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 17:35, Rafael Enrique Ortiz Guerrero
>>> <dirakx at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Thank you for your thoughts on this,
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking in a cms not for communication fork but for presentation
>>>> fork.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway we are still too young, but for the future we might want to think in
>>>> having this static solutions in place. (i.e when we have people that can
>>>> work on maintaining the infrastructure needed etc).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rafael Ortiz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Sebastian Silva
>>>> <sebastian at fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see your point about CMS being overkill.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I also agree with you, the release cycle anchors everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> I for one consider it a bug, not a feature, that we have this division of
>>>>> channels of communication, as some of the aspects you relate should be
>>>>> feeding each other more.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is natural because of the different workflows, however I'd like to see
>>>>> some convergence.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm studying the possible use of a social networking platform (pretty much
>>>>> deciding on http://pinaxproject.com/ ).
>>>>>
>>>>> If I can tweak it to fit our workflows (I'm working with local village
>>>>> visiting teachers to fit theirs) - in particular, i'm interested in
>>>>> including some sort of disconnected use (that is, for instance, getting them
>>>>> a "news/mailing list/new activities feed" from the social network with a USB
>>>>> monthly, and provide them with a way to "respond" - can be email - can be
>>>>> manually performed once online.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is likely also the tool that will help manage the Bolivia deployment
>>>>> (but we will likelly have some more connectivity in Bolivia).
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to share more as things develop, looking for feedback /
>>>>> synergy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sebastian
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/2/11 David Farning <dfarning at sugarlabs.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tend to think that a cms is a bit of overkill for a young organization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of my personal long term goal is to determine how we can clone SL
>>>>>> in Local SLs by reproducing the best practices of SL on a more local
>>>>>> scale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Developer side:
>>>>>> 1. The key component is the release cycle, ever thing else is anchored
>>>>>> around the release cycle.
>>>>>> 2. Dynamic communication through mailing lists and irc.
>>>>>> 3. Static communication through wiki and bug tracker.
>>>>>> Any thing else is overkill
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Educator side:
>>>>>> 1. Release cycle - cool new features, bug fixes
>>>>>> 2. Moodle - teachers know moodle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> david
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Rafael Enrique Ortiz Guerrero
>>>>>> <dirakx at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > Hello all.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I was thinking that maybe Sugar Labs could host, cms like drupal or
>>>>>> > joomla
>>>>>> > for Local Labs use,
>>>>>> > Would be this an overhead for our young infrastructure ?
>>>>>> > Is it better to Local Labs to have this kind of solutions sorted out
>>>>>> > locally
>>>>>> > ?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Cheers!
>>>>>> > Rafael Ortiz
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>>>>> > IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>>>> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>>>>>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sebastian Silva
>>>>> Laboratorios FuenteLibre
>>>>> http://blog.sebastiansilva.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>>> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>>
>>
>