[sugar-sur] [IAEP] [SLOBS] Future of Sugar Labs

[Chihurumnaya Ibiam]

+1.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Tony Anderson <tony_anderson en usa.net> wrote:

> Hi, All
>
> I certainly appreciate the attention my email has received. However, I am
> disappointed that the responses do not reflect my main concern. I beleive
> Sugar and Sugar Labs will fade away if it continues to be perceived as the
> software that comes on an XO. I believe Sugar Labs and Sugar should be
> perceived as in a similar relationship as Red Hat is to Fedora and
> Canonical is to Ubuntu.
>
> We need to have releases of Sugar: Long-term-support, latest stable, and
> developer. These releases should be downloadable as a single image which
> can be installed from a livecd usb stick generated by a dd command. The
> starting point is probably SOAS - which is not now installable without a
> technically difficult use of livecd tools in a Fedora 24 installation
> (which is difficult since Fedora provides Fedora 25).
>
> As an evaluation of Sugar Lab's success is that the Mexican deployment
> presented in the OLPC SF Summit chooses to use Sugar instead of UberMix.
> (http://www.ubermix.org/).
>
> We should be able to speak about Sugar deployments as we now speak about
> OLPC deployments. Sugar should be available for PCs and mobile devices with
> xo being considered as one of the supported environments.
>
> If no action is taken except to discuss future academic papers about Sugar
> Labs and SLOB elections, I think both will become totally irrelevant.
> Current OLPC deployments will choose new hardware to replace XOs and
> install on this hardware Windows, Raspbian, Chrome OS, UberMix or other
> readily available and supported alternatives. Sugar will join APL and Cobol
> in computer history.
>
> Tony
>
>
> On 12/02/2016 07:16 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>
> There is a IAEP thread "Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election" in early
> August that has more details about all this.
>
> First, I want to note that while an 'election committee' has been
> mentioned, Walter said in that earlier thread:
>
> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>
>
> As Caryl and Seb have reiterated on this thread: while they both helped
> run the election last year, they both said a few months ago that they are
> unable to volunteer for this year.
>
> At that time I offered to volunteer, as did Samson; and I found a possible
> web app to run the election and suggested Samuel Cantero could set it up,
> and he graciously did set it up.
>
> However, by September, (a) the GSOC project to make a font editor activity
> wound up, and (b)  Sameer offered to lead the vision thing, and until that
> is done I am not confident about taking any other actions, and (c) I
> accepted an employment offer by Google and have had less free time since
> then compared to when I was working as a consultant, so I haven't done more
> of the things I said I would do. I wrote on August 5:
>
>
> So, I volunteer to do the following before the next SLOB meeting:
>
> - I will ask Sam C to set up a new sugar-announce en lists.sugarlabs.org mailing
> list with himself, myself, samson, caryl and seb as list admins.
>
> - I will complete the review of all accounts on the wiki to mark the ones
> that look like spammers
>
> - I will make a final 'all possible members' email list
>
> - I will draft the email that asks people to join the announce list and
> explains why I am asking them to do this, and a motion to approve the
> election email, and share it on the IAEP list for community review
>
> - I will ask SLOBs to post and second the motion
>
> Then in early September I can send the email, and prepare a report with
> the new list of members and similarly to before another draft email
> soliciting board applications for SLOB to review and approve in the October
> meeting.
>
> Then in early October I can send that email, perhaps also with the
> donation request, and then prepare a final email calling for votes that
> SLOB can review and approve in the November meeting.
>
> Then in early November the call for votes can go out, votes can come in,
> and in early December the results can be announced.
>
>
> I still think this process is a good one, but regretfully I am not going
> to be able to put much effort into this until January at the earliest.
>
> So, I suggest that Samson and anyone who wants to volunteer to run the
> election take a look at that web app with Sam C and see if it really will
> work for Sugar Labs in 2016.
>
> If not, http://civs.cs.cornell.edu was used last year and should be a
> suitable mechanism for people to cast votes.
>
> Finally, I think the very next step is for whoever volunteers to run the
> election to come up with a list of members emails to solicit votes from.
> (Where the discussions last trailed off was in discussing who should be on
> this 'final members list' - I think we agreed to cast a very wide net, and
> I made some progress reviewing wiki accounts and, defining the members list
> based on wiki + mailing list posters. I am happy to share that WIP and
> explain what I would do next with it, but it may be better for the person
> to start their own list.)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP en lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-sur/attachments/20161202/18c176d9/attachment-0001.html>