[Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

[Gonzalo Odiard]

I agree with your analysis about slow deployment updates versus fast
community cycles.

In my view, there are two alternatives:

* We can slow down a little the Sugar cycle, may be doing one release by
year,
but I am not sure if will help. The changes will take more time to go to
the users?
If a deployment miss a update, will need wait a entire year?
* Someone can work in a LTS Sugar. That should be good if they can push
the fixes they work upstream while they are working in their own project.

If I was a deployment working with a 3th party, I would ask every fix will
be pushed upstream,
to be sure I will not have the same problem in 6 months or a year,
but I am sure the deployments do not know how the community and open source
projects
in general work.

Gonzalo



On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, David Farning <dfarning at activitycentral.com
> wrote:

> For phase one this openness in communication, I would like to open the
> discussion to strategies for working together. My interest is how to
> deal with the notion of overlapping yet non-identical goals.
>
> As a case study, let's look at deployment and developer preferences
> for stability and innovation.
>
> The roll out pipeline for a deployment can be long:
> 1. Core development.
> 2. Core validation..
> 3. Activity development.
> 4. Activity validation.
> 5. Update documentation.
> 6. Update training materials.
> 7. Pilot.
> 8. Roll-out.
>
> This can take months, even years.
>
> This directly conflicts with the rapid innovation cycle of development
> used by effective up streams. Good projects constantly improve and
> refine their speed of innovation.
>
> Is is desirable, or even possible, to create a project where these two
> overlapping yet non-identical needs can be balanced? As a concrete
> example we could look at the pros and cons of a stable long term
> support sugar release lead by quick, leading edge releases.
>
> For full disclosure, I tried to start this same conversation several
> years ago. I failed:
> 1. I did not have the credibility to be take seriously.
> 2. I did not have the political, social, and technical experience to
> understand the nuances of engaging with the various parties in the
> ecosystem.
> 3. I did not have the emotional control to assertively advocate ideas
> without aggressively advocating opinions.
>
> Has enough changed in the past several years to make it valuable to
> revisit this conversation publicly?
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org>
> wrote:
> > David,
> > Certainly is good know plans, and started a interesting discussion.
> > In eduJam and in Montevideo, I was talking with the new AC hackers,
> > and tried to convince them to work on sugar 0.100 instead of sugar 0.98.
> > Have a lot of sense try to work in the same code if possible,
> > and will be good for your plans of work on web activities.
> > May be we can look at the details, but I agree with you, we should try
> avoid
> > fragmentation.
> >
> > Gonzalo
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM, David Farning
> > <dfarning at activitycentral.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Over the past  couple of weeks there has been an interesting thread
> >> which started from AC's attempt to clarify our priorities for the next
> >> couple of months. One of the most interesting aspects has been the
> >> interplay between private/political vs. public/vision discussions.
> >>
> >> There seem to be several people and organizations with overlapping yet
> >> slightly different goals. Is there interest in seeing how these people
> >> and organizations can work together towards a common goal? Are we
> >> happy with the current degree of fragmentation?
> >>
> >> I fully admit my role in the current fragmentation. One of the reasons
> >> I started AC was KARMA. At the time I was frustrated because I felt
> >> that ideas such as karma were being judged on who controlled or
> >> received credit for them instead of their value to deployments. We
> >> hired several key sugar hackers and forked Sugar to work on the
> >> problem.
> >>
> >> While effective at creating a third voice in the ecosystem, (The
> >> association has shifted more effort towards supporting deployments and
> >> Sugar Labs via OLPC-AU is up streaming many of our deployment specific
> >> patches) my approach was heavy handed and indulgent... and I apologize
> >> for that.
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Farning
> >> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sugar-devel mailing list
> >> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Farning
> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131019/0eea54c8/attachment-0001.html>