[Sugar-devel] Have we achieved consensus among activite Sugar developers?

[Gonzalo Odiard]

> The big idea is that open sources projects thrive when they create
> conditions and cultures where people with overlapping yet
> non-identical goals can come together collaborate around a common
> goal.
>
> Sugar Labs has found itself in a position where there is a high degree
> of conformity. This tends to create an echo chamber where similar
> opinions are respected and encouraged. That can be effective at
> building passion and energy, but it tends to crowd out dissenting
> opinions and marginalize the people who hold those opinions. These
> people can be the most productive members of the community in their
> particular areas of interest.

Of all the people who participated in this discussion,
you are the only who is repeating this. Is possible this is only
your personal point of view?

>
> 1. Phase one requires that we work together on a relatively straight
> forward project. HTML5+JS is the current focus of Sugar Labs. While it
> is not AC's primary focus, we consider it a key strategic project.
>

Ok.

> 2. Phase two will be a bit more complicated as we ask various
> developer to publicly agree on various core priorities for the next
> release. This related directly to manq's post about being focused on
> individual priorities. Without an understanding of everyone's
> priorities and the value they bring to the project, it can be easy to
> feel ignored, or even attacked, when one's own priorities are ignored.
>

I do not agree in this point. We never requested developers to agree
in priorities. In fact, everyone proposed the area where want work
(the Features process) and the community provide feedback,
decide if is something the project needs/want,  do a peer review work,
and the work with the quality needed is accepted.

Is strange you request this, because:
* you think we have a high degree of conformity (if that is wrong, get consensus
surely will be more difficult) .
* you said AC will not work in sugar upstream at all, then, what
we need agree? I don't understand.


> 3. Phase three -- Dig into the balance between stable and leading
> edge. Historically, this has been a touchy subject because of the high
> degree of interest in innovation by key Sugar Labs members. However,
> large deployments consider stability and LTS very important.
>
> My assumption is that if Sugar Labs and Activity Central can set an
> example for working together, other marginalized parties with rejoin
> the project.
>

I think is clear SugarLabs do not have the resources to maintain a LTS release,
and AC is free to do it without any question. The only think to request is:
be good members of a community, if you take, give in the same way,
if you found a bug and fix it, check if is upstream, fill a ticket,
and if you can provide a patch.

Diclaimer: All these are only my opinions, and I am really tired.

Gonzalo