[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [wiki bug] Roadmap Sugar Labs - Ambiguity detected on how to make Decisions

[Tony Anderson]

This seems to be Sugar Labs 'Groundhog Day'. This discussion repeats one 
of last year.

In January 2016, Lionel Laske raised the issue of defining the future 
direction of Sugar Labs. Despite a motion approved in January 2017, 
Caryl and Laura started with the premise that the SLOBS needed to start 
over with a 'new' mission statement was needed. On top of that Caryl has 
advocated a three-step process: mission, goals, and objectives. 
Presumably after the months of discussion this will involve, we can get 
to considering what is already on our table:

deriving maximum benefit from participation in GSOC, GCI, and outreachy 
(esp. recruiting the participants to continue after the event)
establishing Sugar as a viable mainstream alternative for education
in recognition that most of the contributors to Sugar Labs have a day 
job, recruit qualified and active developers
articulate a transition path from Sugar to Sugarizer (or better 
establish domains of applicability)
moving ASLO (and git.sugarlabs.org) to github/sugarlabs to facilitate 
community support for our library of activities
resolve technical difficulties to maintain a common library of Sugar web 
activities and Sugarizer activities
documenting a stable and usable methodology to build and publish Sugar 
based on git and github
develop automated means to test new Sugar releases as well as new 
releases of activities
release Sugar on a version of Fedora which supports webkit2
ensure active and qualified system administration of the Sugar Labs 
array of servers and services
re-organize the Sugar website to make clear to users which pages are 
current and accurate from the incredible array of wiki pages - many 
obsolete.
improve outreach to our users to benefit from nearly a decade of 
experience (perhaps a help line and a forum, techniques used by many 
distros).
expand localization to provide I18n support (locales) to support Sugar 
deployments and to provide our users with the ability to provide their 
own localization
establish and document a localization technology for web activities - 
both Sugar and Sugarizer.

The consent agenda make sense in that we need to get community 
discussion on these topics into the focus of SLOBs and not just for one 
hour a month.

Tony

On 05/10/2017 09:06 AM, James Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 02:14:51PM +0000, D. Joe wrote:
>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 04:04:05PM +1000, James Cameron wrote:
>>> No doubt about relevance, but conflicting opinion may reinforce
>>> errant behaviour rather than improve a situation.  The rebound
>>> effect.
>>>
>>> I have seen no other interest than what you have expressed.
>> Speaking as a relative newcomer to the community, I find this
>> interesting.
> Thanks!  It is good to see interest.  Please get involved.
>
> Let me rephrase my earlier brevity; I've seen no other interest from
> the board members other than Laura.  I'm expecting they are too busy
> or my mail is filed as spam.  ;-}
>
>> [...]
>> One model for group decision making that I do like, that seems to
>> work reasonably well without nearly so much overhead as traditional
>> debate-centered deliberations is the consent agenda mechanism.
>> [...]
> Yes, this is a good one.  Thanks for sharing it.
>
> It may highlight an underlying limitation; the time the board members
> have available to contribute toward deliberation.
>