[Sugar-devel] review process follow-up.

[David Farning]

I would like to invite input on the new process that Tomeu and Bernie
have been developing.  I am specifically interested in see how Sugar
Labs, OLPC, and third parties such as Activity Central can work
together most effectively.

Admittedly we are causing a disruption, hopefully one which will cause
a net improvement.
1.  Value and review of patches.  The task we are doing are directly
driven by deployments.  As such we need to deal with version issues.
Most of the deployments are using and will continue to use .82/4 for
the near future.  Paraguay is leading a push to stabilize on .88 by
August of 2010.

One of the mantras of Activity Central is upstream. We don't have our
own mailing lists or bug trackers.  This begs the question of dealing
with versions.  I am encouraging, but not requiring, that patches fix
the issue for the version of sugar the customer uses plus the current
develop version if applicable.

2. Maintainer-ship.  To avoid possible conflicts of interest, ie
ramming ideas down the communitie's throat, I have avoided directly
engaging key developers, comitters, and maintainer.  For this to work
we must gain credibility as useful participants.  If and only if is
acceptable to the current development team, I would like to make an
effort to increase the number of activities maintained by Activity
Central.

david