10,579
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 122:
Line 122: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Oversight Board/Decisions (view source)
Revision as of 23:08, 17 November 2015
, 23:08, 17 November 2015no edit summary
;AGREED: SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar and consequently works with GNU/Linux distros to produce and offer downloadable versions. This work can include helping to promote distros, and hosting them.
;AGREED: SL wishes to spread the use of Sugar and consequently works with GNU/Linux distros to produce and offer downloadable versions. This work can include helping to promote distros, and hosting them.
;AGREED: SL should not be completely neutral about promoting distros, but it should only choose to more strongly promote a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity, and should publish the criteria it uses for making that decision. Furthermore, SL should be neutral about providing infrastructure resources (hosting, etc) to distros."
;AGREED: SL should not be completely neutral about promoting distros, but it should only choose to more strongly promote a distro based on technical merit and maintainer activity, and should publish the criteria it uses for making that decision. Furthermore, SL should be neutral about providing infrastructure resources (hosting, etc) to distros."
2009-12-04
;AGREED: when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to SLOBs.
2009-11-20
;AGREED: Close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible.
;AGREED: Give a two-week deadline to the Soas DP
2009-09-25
;AGREED: We appointed a decision panel (by a vote of 3 for, 0 against, 1 abstain, 3 absent) with the following mandate:
:"Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, and related questions, including answers to the following:
:"Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
:"Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
:"Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
:Any other question the Decision Panel deems required to provide an answer to the original question:"Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?"
2008-09-05
;Agreed: The Oversight Board acknowledged and celebrated the great job Simon has been doing on managing the 0.82 release.
2009-07-18
;AGREED: There was consensus that we have made sufficient outreach to the community that the initial list is a fair representation of Sugar Labs; we look forward to having the Membership Committee take it from http://selectricity.org/
;AGREED: There was consensus that Walter would put together a strawman election process based upon the Selectricity tool. We are targeting an August election.
;AGREED: There was consensus that we begin with just Oversight and Members committees.
;AGREED: We agreed for the need to solicit more feedback in the wiki for the design direction being proposed by Luca.
;AGREED: We agreed that further discussions with the SFLA about the merits of trademark protection is needed.
;AGREED: We agreed on the desirability of Sugar Labs participation at conferences around the world, but hope to meet the need by utilizing locals to whatever extent possible. We also discussed the desirability to have a meeting of Sugar Labs developers a couple of times per year. We discussed the possibility of an on-line meeting that leverages resources above and beyond IRC.
;AGREED: on the necessity of Sugar Labs participation in the learning community, but don't yet have a good handle on the best and most efficient means of accomplishing this.