[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [POLL] collab.sugarlabs.org

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 18:05, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Aleksey Lim <alsroot at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Background:
>>
>>  Step in issue, sugar is not unique here, thats the problem for other
>>  FOSS projects as well. But sugar has it's own specific nature - sugar
>>  stimulates(at least should) doing not just using, our audience could
>>  have additional layers - teachers for examples. Projects like sugar
>>  also unique because it's not only about producing final product but
>>  about improving basic things - education here. So, many people could
>>  want to participate to projects like sugar even if they are tacking
>>  part in other FOSS projects. Thus the critical thing for sugar is
>>  supporting casual participating. Participating not only by experienced
>>  developers but designers, casual doers etc.
>>
>>  Someone could argue that it's about gaining critical mass of
>>  contributors and we didn't achieve this point yet. But what about
>>  achieving critical mass of targeted audience and even users of
>>  sugar(thanks to OLPC).
>>
>>  For example what can do teacher somewhere in Uruguay if local needs
>>  requires some improvement in sugar, he can post en email to one of
>>  sugar related lists, ask someone on IRC but is it so friendly?(it's
>>  the same level of answers like "ask google"). What can do individual
>>  who needs some activity and going to pay for this activity
>>  development(during 0.86 cycle I got such request and had to bounce it
>>  since didn't have enough time).
>>
>>
>> So, the question is should we have special place to treat such issues
>> in convenient and casual developer/requester friendly manner.
>>
>> This collab.sugarlabs.org shouldn't be the only place to track all sugar
>> users needs and of course any big deployment could have its own
>> internal/external infrastructure. But having one place where every sugar
>> users can look by default could useful.
>>
>> One of benefits of such site is a chance to coordinate sugar development
>> contributions from outsiders/casual-contributors etc. BTW looks like
>> even for core team we don't have strong coordination, there is no
>> regular meetings etc. With collab.sl.o we at least can see what
>> particular contributor is doing right now.
>>
>> Another benefit is that collab.sl.o could be right place to sustain
>> developers by paying for implementing particular feature or having
>> donation button like AMO does.
>>
>> --
>>
>> This email was subjected by [POLL] to not loss this thread and since
>> this question could be very arguable in details, lets split it to
>> several stages, one for poll of necessity for this feature at all and
>> next(if first stage will be accepted) for discussing details.
>>
>> Please attach +/- to your reply.
>>
>> --
>>
>> +1
>>
>> --
>> Aleksey
>> _______________________________________________
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>
> +1 as I am very sympathetic to you intentions. However, I worry that
> yet-another website might not be the solution. We have several places
> where we are already try to gather user needs and feedback (e.g., the
> Sur list, IAEP list,
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Submit_Bugs/Problems,
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Request_New_Features,
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Resources/Professional_services,
> etc.). How will this site be different/effective/unifying?

I personally like what Greg Smith did back at OLPC:

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_requests

Regards,

Tomeu

> -walter
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



-- 
«Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar.
What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David
Farning