[Sugar-devel] State of Sugar?
christoph.derndorfer at gmail.com
Fri Oct 30 06:47:32 EDT 2020
a quick thought experiment from another old-timer and long-term lurker here:
James, I think one might also turn your assessment on its head:
"The *low number of contributors* to Sugar Labs, Sugar, Sugarizer,
and Music Blocks is *due to the focus that we have, and it's unclear*. The
relatively *small amount of continued contributions* alone will *not have
any real effect on that*.
Sugar Labs contributors *will arrive and thrive* if there is a *clear Sugar
Just my 2 euro cents,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 8:53 AM James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> I disagree that the focus has shifted or that it should be shifted
> back to what it was. The state of Sugar Labs, Sugar, Sugarizer, and
> Music Blocks is due to the contributors we have, and they are too few.
> No amount of refocusing will have any real effect on that.
> Sugar Labs will thrive if there are contributors.
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:40:58PM +0100, Bastien wrote:
> > Thanks James.
> > So Sugar is maintained by a handful of people but it is not actively
> > developed anymore. Sugar Labs puts some efforts in maintaining it but
> > does not really know who is still using it. Sugar Labs also hosts the
> > Sugarizer project, which is well alive and reaching children at least
> > in France.
> > I hope this does sound approximatively correct.
> > Sugar Labs was all about provoking a change in the way we experience
> > education (learning and teaching) through the development of Sugar, as
> > a flagship for such a change. This flagship was designed around a few
> > core principles and powerful ideas that are still alive and relevant
> > today: namely focus, reflection and collaboration.
> > I think we all agree these core principles will survive the software.
> > What if Sugar Labs focus was not to promote Sugar (which is dying) but
> > to help build a network of contributors around these core principles?
> > What if we insist on the "Labs" more than on the "Sugar"?
> > The Free Software Foundation is saying over and over that children
> > should use free software. But building free educational software is
> > something very few people are interested in doing seriously, and the
> > ones willing to do it by following the aforementioned core principles
> > may not want to rely on Sugar or Sugarizer.
> > How to help these people?
> > You know my love for this project and my commitment to helping OLPC
> > back in the times, Sugar Labs community and Sugarizer today. But I
> > don't feel the pulse of the Sugar community anymore, and I think that
> > may be because the focus is back on the software, rather than on the
> > core principles and the people themselves.
> > Stated otherwise: if Alan K., Seymour P., Cynthia S. and Walter were
> > back again in the same room to discuss the future of education, what
> > would they propose? Could Sugar Labs host these new ideas?
> > --
> > Bastien
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> James Cameron
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
volunteer, OLPC (Austria) / co-founder, TechnikBasteln® [
e-mail: christoph at derndorfer.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sugar-devel