Difference between revisions of "Decision panels/SOAS"
(→Conclusion: adding clarification from the meeting minutes) |
m |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Mandate== | ==Mandate== | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Box| |
:"Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, and related questions, including answers to the following: | :"Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, and related questions, including answers to the following: | ||
:* <nowiki>[Question 1]</nowiki> "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?" | :* <nowiki>[Question 1]</nowiki> "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?" | ||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
In the [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11#SoaS_DP|absence]] of a final report the Oversight board decided [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11#SoaS_DP|Question 1,]] [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-18#Revisit_Motion_4_from_last_week|Question 2,]] and [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-18#Resolve_outstanding_Sugar_on_a_Stick_decision_.28Q3.29|Question 3]]: | In the [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11#SoaS_DP|absence]] of a final report the Oversight board decided [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11#SoaS_DP|Question 1,]] [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-18#Revisit_Motion_4_from_last_week|Question 2,]] and [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-18#Resolve_outstanding_Sugar_on_a_Stick_decision_.28Q3.29|Question 3]]: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Box| |
:* <nowiki>[Question 1]</nowiki> "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?" | :* <nowiki>[Question 1]</nowiki> "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?" | ||
:** Answer: [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11#SoaS_DP|No]]. 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. | :** Answer: [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11#SoaS_DP|No]]. 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. |
Latest revision as of 22:41, 5 March 2011
Overview
A 12-person Sugar-on-a-Stick (SoaS) decision panel was appointed by a September 25, 2009 Oversight Board decision.
The Oversight Board requested a final report, but none was received by 2009-12-04. The Oversight Board then assumed responsibility for deciding the mandated questions (ibid.). A summary is below.
Mandate
- "Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, and related questions, including answers to the following:
- [Question 1] "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
- [Question 2] "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
- [Question 3] "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?"
Members
- Sebastian Dziallas
- Luke Faraone
- Martin Dengler
- Bill Bogstad
- Faisal Khan
- Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Samuel Klein
- Sean Daly
- Tabitha Roder
- Caryl Bigenho
- Daniel Drake
- Abhishek Indoria
Procedures
The Decision Panel procedures were adopted.
Discussion took place on the SoaS mailing list with subject lines beginning with the text "[DP]".
Report
Introduction
This constitutes the report of the SoaS decision panel (DP), convened by SLOB.
The structure of this report is:
- Introduction (this section)
- Executive Summary
- Mandate
- Members
- Report on Questions 1-3
- Conclusion
- Appendices
Executive Summary
The Decision Panel was mandated to answer three questions. The Decision Panel's answers are below:
- Question 1
- "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
- Answer
- Consensus trending towards yes. There has been some discussion about what is involved in 'being a GNU/Linux distributor' and what the risks and benefits would be; specifics have been suggested but not clearly enumerated, making consensus building harder. TBD - see below for opinions
- Question 2
- "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
- Answer
- Consensus is yes. There are requests for clarification of how SL can promote effective ways of distributing Sugar, and endorse all good distributions. TBD - see below for opinions
- Question 3
- "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
- Answer
- A plurality of people with definite opinions say yes, SL should ask its community to avoid using 'Sugar on a Stick' in a confusing way. There is consensus that whatever name is used for common distributions should not be used in a confusing way, but disagreement over whether SOAS should refer to a specific distribution or a broad class of them. TBD - see below for opinions
In addition, the mandate allows the Decision Panel to raise and answer any other question the DP 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?" (Question 0).
The Decision Panel has not raised any additional questions, outside of requesting clarification of terms in questions 2 and 3.
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?"
Members
- Sebastian Dziallas
- Luke Faraone
- Martin Dengler
- Bill Bogstad
- Faisal Khan
- Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Samuel Klein
- Sean Daly
- Tabitha Roder
- Caryl Bigenho
- Daniel Drake
- Abhishek Indoria
Report on Questions 1-3
Q1: OS distributor v. upstream
Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
Proposed answers:
Yes | No | Invalid | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Q2: distro endorsement v. neutrality
Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
Proposed answers:
Yes | No | Invalid | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Q3: SoaS name
Question 3: "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
Proposed answers:
Yes | No | Invalid | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
DP Conclusion
to come
Appendices
Recorded opinions
Question 1"Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?" | ||||
Yes | No | Invalid | Defer | |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Samuel Klein |
Faisal Khan, Daniel Drake | |
Question 2"Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?" | ||||
Yes | No | Invalid | Defer | Undecided |
|
Samuel Klein - SL should support effective distros; this can be done neutrally. |
Bill Bogstad, Faisal Khan, Daniel Drake | ||
Question 3"Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?" | ||||
Yes | No | Invalid | Defer | Undecided |
|
|
Samuel Klein - The question is too specific. I agree with both Ben and Sean, who feel they fall on 'Yes' and 'No' sides of the fence. |
Bill Bogstad, Faisal Khan, Daniel Drake |
Conclusion
In the absence of a final report the Oversight board decided Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3:
- [Question 1] "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
- Answer: No. 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.
- [Question 2] "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
- Answer: No. SL may promote one distribution in its marketing campaign, but encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and distribute Sugar, and if possible will assist with hosting and infrastructure.
- [Question 3] "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
- Answer: Yes. "Sugar on a Stick" should be reserved by Sugar Labs for use by the SoaS-Fedora distribution so that Sugar can be marketed effectively, until such time when a trademark policy, agreement, and process is put in place: SoaS will be the first project to go through that process.
- 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?"
- Answer: Sugar Labs' intent to promote Sugar as widely as possible means that SL will work with GNU/Linux distros to produce and offer downloadable versions. This work can include helping to promote distros, and hosting them.
- [Question 1] "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
Further ideas
- discussion of potential naming conventions.
- discussion of how to support products such as SOAS, and what that means
- exploration of what it means to "produce a distribution", which some active contributors felt was a huge effort and others felt was already being done, with most effort happening upstream. Better agreement within the community about what is being done may help avoid distracting meta-debates about direction.