<br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><div style="color: rgb(255, 153, 0);" class="gmail_quote"><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Mel Chua <<a href="mailto:mel@melchua.com">mel@melchua.com</a>> wrote:</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
2009/3/8 Jameson Quinn <<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div>> No definite agreement has been made, but in preliminary chats, it seems<br>
> that both organizations agree that anything for XS or specific to XO hardware<br>
> should go in OLPC, and everything else (general Sugar improvements,<br>
> frameworks, or activities) should go in Sugarlabs.<br>
<br>
</div>We discussed this at XO camp, and people from Sugar Labs were<br>
considering not supporting activity development and focusing on core<br>
sugar development. </blockquote></div><div><br>This is correct.<br> <br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Has this changed? In general, do you expect that<br>
priorities for toolchain and activity development will be the same?</blockquote></div><div><br>In general, sugar-core and toolchain development is a higher priority than generative Activity development (Activities that lower the barrier to Activity development). It's highly unlikely that non-generative Activity development will be supported.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Honestly, this is news to me. (and I am the co-administrator of the Sugarlabs program). If I had to articulate my view of our priorities, it would be something like the following:</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">
<br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">7-10 points: Key sugar core improvements. Long-standing, important gaps like versioning or unit-tests at the high end of this.</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">6-9 points: Activity frameworks to open new forms of activity development (in descending priority: javascript/AJAX, swf, improved PyGTK tools such as Develop activity, mono or java)</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">4-8 points: Core activities: For instance, Nepal has expressed the need for an improved Read.</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">3-6 points: Quality non-core educational activities: a physics sim or other creative idea.</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">0-8 points: Proposal quality.</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><br style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">In other words, an excellent proposal from a highly-qualified student</span><font style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"> could very well make the cut, even if it were a non-core activity.</font><br>
<br>Jameson (whose daughter likes colors)<br></div></div><br>