[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs Position on SoaS

[Martin Dengler]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:28:11PM -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>    > Let me rephrase again, to make things clear. I'd love to hear an
>    > "official" answer on this. Soon.
>    > 
>    > Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs
>    > distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?

I'd like to remind people that _this_ is the original question.
Please note the parts: "current SoaS", "primary", and "distributes a
... distribution".  I welcome pointers to significant modifications or
official answers.

> Martin Dengler has persuaded me that having SLOBs vote on this issue
> could help us move forward, even though there obviously isn't
> community consensus on it yet.
[...]
> I'd need to know what the specific questions (with yes/no
> answers) that people are interested in a vote on at the SLOBs
> meeting next week would be.  Some things I've read that might
> be those questions go something like:
> 
>    "Should Sugar Labs be a Linux distributor, rather than just an
>    upstream producing Sugar releases?"
> 
>    "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and
>    refuse to endorse one over another?"
> 
>    "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community
>    to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora
>    distribution?"

Thanks for writing these.  This is a fine list of questions[1].

> To avoid forcing a vote on questions that shouldn't be answered by
> SLOBs, I propose that the answers for each vote should be:
> 
> * Yes
> * No
> * We should talk about this question more before voting on it
> * We shouldn't vote on this question for some reason (e.g. ambiguity
>   in the question, or wanting to abstain)

This is a great list of alternatives, and I think it's very helpful
for the future to be able to get a non-Yes answer, to save future
debate/confusion.  This is why some questions that I've heard
dismissed as "too complex" should still be at least asked.

> To add a question to the list (I'm not going to add any of them
> myself), please add to the bullet points at:
>
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board/Minutes#Friday_18_Sept_2009_-_14:00_UTC

I note nobody's done this, so I added those three questions, suitably
phrased to reflect the fact that SLOBs is now voting on what to ask
the Decision Panel to report on.

> Thanks,
>
> - Chris, wearing SLOB hat.

Martin

1. I'd like to invite people to consider which of them would _not_ be
clearly answered by an answer to the original question.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20090924/c7f0cb25/attachment.pgp