Sugar Labs - User contributions [en]

Talk:Development Team/Jhbuild/Ubuntu

2011-04-05T14:51:19Z

Danceswithcars: unsupported OS so errors, many releases since someone commented on this build process

== Natty ==

What is the status of this project?

Natty is not a supported version, so it doesn't have dependencies,
and doesn't get very far at all, so the status of the project may give
some clues as to whether it's worth trying to make this work
for me...

[[User:Danceswithcars|Danceswithcars]] 10:51, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== KLM ==

space holder for 3 other releases

[[User:Danceswithcars|Danceswithcars]] 10:51, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

==Jaunty==
Just ran sugar-jhbuild on Jaunty.
*** Checking out sugar-update-control *** [25/40]
git pull --rebase
Current branch master is up to date.
*** Building sugar-update-control *** [25/40]
python setup.py build
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 2, in <module>
from DistUtilsExtra.command import * # gettext support
ImportError: No module named DistUtilsExtra.command

Running
apt-get install python-distutils-extra
seemed to fix the problem. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 03:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

==Lucid==

I had to install an more recent version of libnice (Lucid had 0.0.10 but the telepathy packages require 0.0.11) --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 11:32, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Development Team/Jhbuild

2011-04-05T14:39:30Z

Danceswithcars: /* problem accessing as well, was discussion */

== got errors as well ==

Command given on main page didn't work for me either,
but I was able to get sugar-jhbuild from the http link (not git:) in the git repo page...

[[User:Danceswithcars|Danceswithcars]] 10:39, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== discussion ==

* I just tried ''./sugar-jhbuild update'' on a new fresh install. The first line of output seems normal ''Initialized empty Git repository in ...sugar-jhbuild/jhbuild/.git/'' then it says ''fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly'' and gives a traceback. Any suggestions? --[[User:Grantbow|Grantbow]] 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:* Seems to be working now, the server must have been unavailable for some reason. --[[User:Grantbow|Grantbow]] 09:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

== Old info ==

Removed from the page:

* In addition to the dependencies listed, you may want to install the ''gtk-doc-tools'' package (this allowed me to build hippocanvas on Ubuntu Hardy). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:* gtk-doc-tools is (now) listed as a dependency for Ubuntu 8.10. Hardy's not supported any more for jhbuild as its GNOME is too old. --[[User:Morgs|Morgs]] 09:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
* If you run into an error during ''sugar-jhbuild build'' that looks something like "aclocal: macro `AM_PATH_PYTHON' required but not defined" try installing or updating your packages for ''autoconf'' and ''automake'' and running ''sugar-jhbuild build'' again. (worked for me on Ubuntu Hardy) [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 17:10, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:* automake1.9 is listed as a dependency for Ubuntu 8.10. It depends on autoconf, so this should be handled by jhbuild's dependencies. --[[User:Morgs|Morgs]] 09:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

== "ERROR: Dependencies information is missing (unknown distribution/version)." ==

This is a new error and doesn't seem very helpful. I'd much prefer the list of packages not detected that we used to get. '''ETA''': was able to trick it into continuing by copying a file in config/sysdeps/ over and :

export SJH_DISTRIBUTION='darwin-unstable'

[[User:Adricnet|Adricnet]] 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

== Ubuntu 10.4 hints ==

There seems to be a conflict with GTK on Ubuntu 10.4. If you get an error message:

Error fatal de E/S 11 (Recurso no disponible temporalmente) en la pantalla «:30»

then check ~/.sugar/default/logs/shell.log to see if there is this error:

.../libsugar.so: undefined symbol: GTK_WIDGET_HAS_FOCUS

If so, try a clean rebuild of sugar-artwork. (I went to extremes to make sure everything built fresh.)

rm -rf ./source/sugar-artwork
./sugar-jhbuild buildone sugar-artwork

Note that there is a problem with hulahop, but this should not impact Sugar other than the Browse activity.

Thanks to Sascha for helping me with this minor roadblock. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 09:54, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Sugar on a Stick/Blueberry

2009-12-12T15:31:41Z

Danceswithcars: md5sum doesn't match sha1sum to file does

== md5sum doesn't match ==

SHA1SUM file from download directory does...

[[User:Danceswithcars|Danceswithcars]] 15:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Minutes-2009-10-16

2009-10-18T16:16:59Z

Danceswithcars: Some comments on first reading notes/ minutes of meeting

== DWC Comments on Minutes ==

From other non profit board experience, some things seemed a little odd,
and while I can't say they are wrong, as a newbie, and very unfamiliar
with SugarLab and OLPC organizational structures and history in general,
I will point them out for the Board and others to consider:

Reading the log transcript cold (without much other experience):

1) Agendas are usually set ahead of time.
Chair of a meeting (usually not the Exec Director,
if a paid by the Board position
(and I understand all contributors are volunteer),
but the board Chair, vice chair, etc and secretary
in consultation with the Board and membership itself)

Maybe I missed it.

Several things came up

2) "<walterbender> we are a somewhat Boston-centric group at the moment. "

This may be an issue going forward, IMO. Clearly SugarLabs starts as a
spinoff of OLPC, and OLPC is Boston/ Cambridge, Mass, USA centric,
but not clear to me which of the principles / governance/ etc
of OLPC are inherited into SL, and which are not.

Free and Open Source for example, (and I'm not saying this is something
I necessarily want), but if someone wants Sugar on Windows
for example, or Sugar on Mac, would the principle from OLPC
be inherited in SL? Windows is closed source, Linux is not.
Mac / Darwin is somewhere in between as a cousin of Linux in the BSD
side of the family tree. Tools and Application layers are more common
with GNU toolchain/utils, but diverge in Windowing (Aqua/ Carbon/ etc)
vs X Window and substrate GTK, adding Gnome on OLPC XO 1.5, etc.

And that is just some of the technical comparisons,
organization structures of paid staff and management in Apple
and Microsoft, plus hierarchies vary widely from an open source
community based approach.

3) As a corollary to 2 above:

SLOB Liason to Labs, assuming Washington DC is one of the labs,
(not sure which others there are)

Who would the representative(s) be?
How is that determined?
Local votes?
or from above, so to speak, SLOBs / Board decides who represents?

4) http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008634.html
email thread, which I was very vocal about not being included upon,
as a latecomer.

If membership is frozen for the next year, and election terms
are 2 years or so (and Christof points out the timeline),
then when does the community really get heard?

Several members state "community members" affilation,
and OLPC staff is on board, Red Hat is mentioned,
but what about people further out?
In other countries?
With other orientations/ perspectives?
Teachers?
Students?
Grandparents/ PTA, School Administrators, Politicians, Honorary, Etc?

The life cycle of software can be much quicker than hardware,
new releases and some new things coming out much quicker
than hardware, so most decisions could be made by most of the current
board members with little to no direct input from the million
or so current OLPC XO 1.0 users if SL development goes towards
Sugar On A Stick (tm) or some other development direction.

With OLPC controlling how the hardware is even available,
but Sugar running on other more commodity based hardware,
I'm wondering if this is a fault line, for lack of a better term,
with the continential plates moving different directions..

5) I'd like to reiterate, I like some of what SL is doing,
but have a firm belief, perhaps rooted in more "leaders are
but trusted servants, we do not govern" that it isn't much
behind closed doors (except Executive Session and things like
personnel decisions based on community feedback)

These are comments upon a first reading, and may change over time.
Luckily, this is a wiki ;-/

If this is the wrong place to discuss things, please let me know,
seems like the discussion page of the main article would be right,
but maybe on my personal page? Linked to here or vice versa?

Making governance, policy and procedures easy to understand
for people with a little non profit board experience
(admittedly while many of these things are being decided
for the first time as a 1-2 year old Non Profit)
will also make it easier for kids and the users
of the software/ Activities to be active participants
in the process as well as the code, admittedly democracy biased,
but also what I hope open source is all about...

[[User:Danceswithcars|Danceswithcars]] 16:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sugar Labs/Governance

2009-10-05T14:25:54Z

Danceswithcars: /* Membership */ fix typo + clarify

{{TOCright}}
==DRAFT?==

Maybe time to remove "DRAFT" from the page?

==Other examples==

Please list links to other OSS projects governance documents that may serve as examples of what to do (or what not to do)

===OSS Governance documents===
*http://foundation.gnome.org/about/
*

===Books discussing OSS projects===

Links to books (articles) that may make interesting background reading

*http://producingoss.com/
**Karl Fogel, who has worked on the development teams of CVS, GNU Emacs and Subversion, and is also the writer of “Open Source Development with CVS”—has introduced an extremely comprehensive project guide that will change the way people begin and think about open source projects.

*http://www.dreamingincode.com/
**Dreaming in Code: Two Dozen Programmers, Three Years, 4,732 Bugs, and One Quest for Transcendent Software. The story of Mitch Kapor's Chandler project.

== Document length ==
This is a pretty long and complex document for a first pass at governance of a small project. Most of the details (of becoming a member, having specific committees, or contributing as an organization) could more simply be left on their own pages, and the core gov documents reduced to a few dozen lines. [[User:Sj|+sj]] [[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] 03:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

:I've moved some of the details to subpages. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

== [[Decision panels]] ==

This seems to be the most controversial topic:

'''One the one hand:'''

As the instigator of this Decision Panel business, I should attempt to
clarify the idea. My goal is to make serving on the Oversight Board as
unappealing as possible. Ideally, it should be _difficult_ to find seven
people willing to serve on the Oversight Board. As such, the document
specifies that members of the Oversight Board _cannot_ decide
controversial issues. It also specifies that members of the Oversight
Board _must_ act as secretaries, taking minutes for every meeting of every
committee. Oversight Board members are also prohibited from voting in any
of the committee meetings, even though they must attend to take minutes
(that's been part of the draft from the beginning). I hope this will be a
very frustrating experience for members of the Oversight Board.

I am a firm believer that the worst people to give power are those who
want it. The Oversight Board, as described so far, has the responsibility
of keeping Sugar Labs running smoothly, but almost no power to decide the
interesting issues. This makes me very happy, as the Oversight Board is
therefore most likely to attract people who are interested only in keeping
Sugar Labs running, not pushing a particular personal agenda, even a
technical agenda. My hope is that people will be elected based on a
history of being calm, focused, personable, and reasonable, not on the
basis of any platform (they don't have the power to execute it) or
technical knowledge (they can't use it).

I would much rather keep the technical experts _out_ of governance until a
technical decision must be made that requires domain-specific expert
knowledge. Most technical decisions should be made on the mailing lists
anyway; only issues that must be decided in order for work to continue,
and on which the community is otherwise deadlocked, should be escalated to
a Decision Panel. I expect the Oversight Board to be concerned almost
exclusively with the mundane details of managing finances and
partnerships, making sure the communications channels are open, etc. I do
not want the Oversight Board to be a Court of Last Resort.

I still favor the presence of the Decision Panels section in the draft,
but that's not surprising. I see it as an easy lightweight system for
moving political issues away from the Oversight Board. I welcome other
perspectives.

--Ben

'''On the other hand:'''

Why would anyone volunteer for such service? We'd get what it
encourages: unmotivated people who don't really care, except for the
political power of appointing people, and the *inevitable* recognition
they get as part of the oversight board. They won't have the respect of
the community either; as written, board members can't serve on decision
panels, and therefore can't make any of the "important decisions",
presuming the board actually follows the bylaws and appoints a decision
panel. And it has a built in disincentive for creating committees and
delegating (something we want to encourage, not discourage): the
requirement that the board members act as secretaries, causing a yet
larger time sink by board members.

The board member can hide behind "the appointed committee" and absolve
themselves of blame.

So this separates authority from responsibility. Anything controversial
is by its nature something where each vote a board member makes can be
held accountable for, and either recalled immediately or voted out at
the next election, if appropriate. Hopefully these votes occur very
seldom; decisions should normally be being made below the board level,
and the board only have to resolve disputes where the call is close.
"The buck stops here" needs to be true for the board.

It's hard enough to get people to do the grunt work to serve on boards
in these projects. You want the right people who are fully invested in
that project's success. We have to have some confidence that the
electorate will elect sane people: I point to Gnome being sensible
enough to *not* elect RMS to its board (he ran several years), and the
fact that on the X.org board, we had trouble to get enough good
candidates to get some of the people off the board who were *not*
serving for the right reasons (in my opinion).

--Jim

'''Feedback and views:'''

Ben has identified some very good points about not giving power to those who are seeking it (.. and thus likely to abuse it). However, I agree with Jim that the Board cannot be relegated to do secretarial work. The process of selecting board members should be transparent, and as democratic as possible, but once in place it should be trusted to make substantial decisions - of course with the checks and balances (like the referendum on controversial issues.) I like the point Jim makes about accountability. I think the Board should have some dedicated full time support staff to help with the routine work. Admitted that in such voluntary-community projects paying for services is an issue but at the same time we should not be utilizing high powered resources for something that can be done by a less experienced person who is willing to do it as a job but not exciting enough to volunteer for.

--Tariq

== Membership ==

I think that GNOME's membership criteria that you've borrowed here is a
bit lower than I like. In Ubuntu, we use "significant and sustained"
which basically boils down to having been around for at least a couple
months and being able to get at least 2-3 endorsements from current
members that say, "yeah, she's done quite a bit of good work." This is
good because it makes membership more likely to be real stakeholders and
also creates an incentive to long-term significant contributions.

I also like the idea of automatic expiration each year. If folks can't
be bothered to at least reply to an email once a year (you'd be surprised
how often this happens in Ubuntu) they probably shouldn't be voting
either.

--Mako

I don't mind having tougher criteria for developers, but unlike Gnome,
I think we need some way to get participation from users, e.g.,
classroom teachers in deployments, etc. To me, that is significant and
sustained.

--[[User:Walter|Walter]] 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are lots of ways of contributing constructively and
each should be recognized. I'm suggesting that there should be a common
contribution threshold for membership -- whether it's software
developers, content producers, teachers, whatever else, or any
combination.

--Mako

To be a truly community based and perhaps a good 501c3 NonProfit,
it has to serve the public good, and including those community members
that are affected (i.e. users of the software, kids, teachers,
family members, community members, not just developers),
or underserved by the software/ product (those who don't get it,
i.e. people without machines that will boot from USB/ CDR,
and/or just learning what Sugar and SugarLabs/ OLPC is about),
as inclusion makes a better product and
better serves the public good.

[[User:Danceswithcars|Danceswithcars]] 14:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

== Other open details ==
* how the governance document is modified; what determines quorum for such actions
:through the referendum process
* how decisions are appealed
:through the ombundman's office, direct communication to the committee or panel, and through the referendum process
* how notice is given of decisions
:Email and posting of minutes in the wiki
* how do we adopt permanent governance regulations; as these currently are, they can at best be temporary until a membership exists and ratifies a more formal governance document...
:We need to have a ratification process--Referendum #1
* what to do about removing/recalling members/board members; it is the board that matters most here).
* how vacancies are filled
* limits on board membership by employer
* how money is disbursed.
* how committees dissolve/end when they're no longer needed.

== feedback from SFC ==

;Note: Is this requirement too stringent to maintain? Consider making the required meeting frequency lower and say instead: The Oversight Board shall meet at least quarterly/monthly to discuss various topics pertaining to the regular activities of the Sugar Labs Project and Sugar. The Oversight Board expects to meet twice per month.
::Seems to make sense. Quarterly is probably a good steady-state to aim for.

;Note: Should the oversight board be able review/ratify the decision? The way this section is written now, the people elected by the members are not able to actively participate in the decision-making process. Why not allow the board to participate or at least ratify the final decision?
::A ratification process seems reasonable, especially in light of having a mechanism (below) to override the decision.

;Note: should the advisory board be allowed to listen in (perhaps but not participate in) the board meetings or otherwise be allowed to elect a representative for participation (voting or nonvoting) in the Oversight Board meetings? Should they have their own schedule/procedure for meetings?
::Seems to make sense. And their input would be of value.

;Note: as with the advisory committee, should we provide some formal way for the SIGs to provide input? For example, SIGs could have representation on the advisory committee or listen in on board meetings.
::Ditto.

;Note: is there an officially list already? Who gets to add contributors and are they ever removed? Is the Membership and Election Committee another committee of the Oversight Board without any voting members from the OB?
::We need to bootstrap this. It seems a natural place to start is with contributors to Sugar, activity developers, and people active in the wiki and lists.

;Note: can the membership override the Oversight Board under certain circumstance? For example, a 75% vote of all of the members?
::Seems to go hand-in-hand with the idea of the OB ratification process.

Talk:Sugar Labs/Governance

2009-10-05T14:24:45Z

Danceswithcars: /* Membership */ my $ 0.02 USD on inclusion of the users and those underserved in membership criteria, and serving on committees

{{TOCright}}
==DRAFT?==

Maybe time to remove "DRAFT" from the page?

==Other examples==

Please list links to other OSS projects governance documents that may serve as examples of what to do (or what not to do)

===OSS Governance documents===
*http://foundation.gnome.org/about/
*

===Books discussing OSS projects===

Links to books (articles) that may make interesting background reading

*http://producingoss.com/
**Karl Fogel, who has worked on the development teams of CVS, GNU Emacs and Subversion, and is also the writer of “Open Source Development with CVS”—has introduced an extremely comprehensive project guide that will change the way people begin and think about open source projects.

*http://www.dreamingincode.com/
**Dreaming in Code: Two Dozen Programmers, Three Years, 4,732 Bugs, and One Quest for Transcendent Software. The story of Mitch Kapor's Chandler project.

== Document length ==
This is a pretty long and complex document for a first pass at governance of a small project. Most of the details (of becoming a member, having specific committees, or contributing as an organization) could more simply be left on their own pages, and the core gov documents reduced to a few dozen lines. [[User:Sj|+sj]] [[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] 03:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

:I've moved some of the details to subpages. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

== [[Decision panels]] ==

This seems to be the most controversial topic:

'''One the one hand:'''

As the instigator of this Decision Panel business, I should attempt to
clarify the idea. My goal is to make serving on the Oversight Board as
unappealing as possible. Ideally, it should be _difficult_ to find seven
people willing to serve on the Oversight Board. As such, the document
specifies that members of the Oversight Board _cannot_ decide
controversial issues. It also specifies that members of the Oversight
Board _must_ act as secretaries, taking minutes for every meeting of every
committee. Oversight Board members are also prohibited from voting in any
of the committee meetings, even though they must attend to take minutes
(that's been part of the draft from the beginning). I hope this will be a
very frustrating experience for members of the Oversight Board.

I am a firm believer that the worst people to give power are those who
want it. The Oversight Board, as described so far, has the responsibility
of keeping Sugar Labs running smoothly, but almost no power to decide the
interesting issues. This makes me very happy, as the Oversight Board is
therefore most likely to attract people who are interested only in keeping
Sugar Labs running, not pushing a particular personal agenda, even a
technical agenda. My hope is that people will be elected based on a
history of being calm, focused, personable, and reasonable, not on the
basis of any platform (they don't have the power to execute it) or
technical knowledge (they can't use it).

I would much rather keep the technical experts _out_ of governance until a
technical decision must be made that requires domain-specific expert
knowledge. Most technical decisions should be made on the mailing lists
anyway; only issues that must be decided in order for work to continue,
and on which the community is otherwise deadlocked, should be escalated to
a Decision Panel. I expect the Oversight Board to be concerned almost
exclusively with the mundane details of managing finances and
partnerships, making sure the communications channels are open, etc. I do
not want the Oversight Board to be a Court of Last Resort.

I still favor the presence of the Decision Panels section in the draft,
but that's not surprising. I see it as an easy lightweight system for
moving political issues away from the Oversight Board. I welcome other
perspectives.

--Ben

'''On the other hand:'''

Why would anyone volunteer for such service? We'd get what it
encourages: unmotivated people who don't really care, except for the
political power of appointing people, and the *inevitable* recognition
they get as part of the oversight board. They won't have the respect of
the community either; as written, board members can't serve on decision
panels, and therefore can't make any of the "important decisions",
presuming the board actually follows the bylaws and appoints a decision
panel. And it has a built in disincentive for creating committees and
delegating (something we want to encourage, not discourage): the
requirement that the board members act as secretaries, causing a yet
larger time sink by board members.

The board member can hide behind "the appointed committee" and absolve
themselves of blame.

So this separates authority from responsibility. Anything controversial
is by its nature something where each vote a board member makes can be
held accountable for, and either recalled immediately or voted out at
the next election, if appropriate. Hopefully these votes occur very
seldom; decisions should normally be being made below the board level,
and the board only have to resolve disputes where the call is close.
"The buck stops here" needs to be true for the board.

It's hard enough to get people to do the grunt work to serve on boards
in these projects. You want the right people who are fully invested in
that project's success. We have to have some confidence that the
electorate will elect sane people: I point to Gnome being sensible
enough to *not* elect RMS to its board (he ran several years), and the
fact that on the X.org board, we had trouble to get enough good
candidates to get some of the people off the board who were *not*
serving for the right reasons (in my opinion).

--Jim

'''Feedback and views:'''

Ben has identified some very good points about not giving power to those who are seeking it (.. and thus likely to abuse it). However, I agree with Jim that the Board cannot be relegated to do secretarial work. The process of selecting board members should be transparent, and as democratic as possible, but once in place it should be trusted to make substantial decisions - of course with the checks and balances (like the referendum on controversial issues.) I like the point Jim makes about accountability. I think the Board should have some dedicated full time support staff to help with the routine work. Admitted that in such voluntary-community projects paying for services is an issue but at the same time we should not be utilizing high powered resources for something that can be done by a less experienced person who is willing to do it as a job but not exciting enough to volunteer for.

--Tariq

== Membership ==

I think that GNOME's membership criteria that you've borrowed here is a
bit lower than I like. In Ubuntu, we use "significant and sustained"
which basically boils down to having been around for at least a couple
months and being able to get at least 2-3 endorsements from current
members that say, "yeah, she's done quite a bit of good work." This is
good because it makes membership more likely to be real stakeholders and
also creates an incentive to long-term significant contributions.

I also like the idea of automatic expiration each year. If folks can't
be bothered to at least reply to an email once a year (you'd be surprised
how often this happens in Ubuntu) they probably shouldn't be voting
either.

--Mako

I don't mind having tougher criteria for developers, but unlike Gnome,
I think we need some way to get participation from users, e.g.,
classroom teachers in deployments, etc. To me, that is significant and
sustained.

--[[User:Walter|Walter]] 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are lots of ways of contributing constructively and
each should be recognized. I'm suggesting that there should be a common
contribution threshold for membership -- whether it's software
developers, content producers, teachers, whatever else, or any
combination.

--Mako

To be a truly community based and perhaps a good 501c3 NonProfit,
it has to serve the public good, and including those community members
that are affected (i.e. users of the software, kids, teachers,
family members, community members, not just developers),
or underserved by the software/ product (those who dno't get it,
i.e. people without machines that will boot from USB/ CDR),
as inclusion makes a better product and
better serves the public good.

[[User:Danceswithcars|Danceswithcars]] 14:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

== Other open details ==
* how the governance document is modified; what determines quorum for such actions
:through the referendum process
* how decisions are appealed
:through the ombundman's office, direct communication to the committee or panel, and through the referendum process
* how notice is given of decisions
:Email and posting of minutes in the wiki
* how do we adopt permanent governance regulations; as these currently are, they can at best be temporary until a membership exists and ratifies a more formal governance document...
:We need to have a ratification process--Referendum #1
* what to do about removing/recalling members/board members; it is the board that matters most here).
* how vacancies are filled
* limits on board membership by employer
* how money is disbursed.
* how committees dissolve/end when they're no longer needed.

== feedback from SFC ==

;Note: Is this requirement too stringent to maintain? Consider making the required meeting frequency lower and say instead: The Oversight Board shall meet at least quarterly/monthly to discuss various topics pertaining to the regular activities of the Sugar Labs Project and Sugar. The Oversight Board expects to meet twice per month.
::Seems to make sense. Quarterly is probably a good steady-state to aim for.

;Note: Should the oversight board be able review/ratify the decision? The way this section is written now, the people elected by the members are not able to actively participate in the decision-making process. Why not allow the board to participate or at least ratify the final decision?
::A ratification process seems reasonable, especially in light of having a mechanism (below) to override the decision.

;Note: should the advisory board be allowed to listen in (perhaps but not participate in) the board meetings or otherwise be allowed to elect a representative for participation (voting or nonvoting) in the Oversight Board meetings? Should they have their own schedule/procedure for meetings?
::Seems to make sense. And their input would be of value.

;Note: as with the advisory committee, should we provide some formal way for the SIGs to provide input? For example, SIGs could have representation on the advisory committee or listen in on board meetings.
::Ditto.

;Note: is there an officially list already? Who gets to add contributors and are they ever removed? Is the Membership and Election Committee another committee of the Oversight Board without any voting members from the OB?
::We need to bootstrap this. It seems a natural place to start is with contributors to Sugar, activity developers, and people active in the wiki and lists.

;Note: can the membership override the Oversight Board under certain circumstance? For example, a 75% vote of all of the members?
::Seems to go hand-in-hand with the idea of the OB ratification process.

User:Danceswithcars

2009-10-05T14:08:10Z

Danceswithcars: Re Creating a user id?

Could have sworn I had created a Danceswithcars wiki.sugarlabs.org account before...

Was it deleted, in the other namespaces, or am I getting senile (not a vote here...)

Anyway, see [http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:DancesWithCars DancesWithCars] for more bio background and OLPC related info. And yes, I know OLPC is not SugarLabs, but it spawned and the user base is there, even if development is going in a different direction...

[[User:Danceswithcars|Danceswithcars]] 14:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)