Difference between revisions of "Decision panels/SOAS"

From Sugar Labs
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(add report section and re-structure page)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Origin==
 +
 
A 12-person SOAS decision panel was appointed by a [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-09-25#Decision_Panel|September, 2009]] Oversight Board decision.
 
A 12-person SOAS decision panel was appointed by a [[Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-09-25#Decision_Panel|September, 2009]] Oversight Board decision.
  
−
== Mandate ==
+
 
 +
==Mandate==
 +
 
 
{{quote|
 
{{quote|
 
:"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:  
Line 10: Line 14:
 
}}
 
}}
  
−
== Members ==
+
 
−
* Sebastian Dziallas
+
==Members==
 +
 
 +
* Sebastian Dziallas
 
* Luke Faraone
 
* Luke Faraone
 
* Martin Dengler
 
* Martin Dengler
Line 25: Line 31:
  
  
−
== Process ==
+
== Procedures ==
 +
 
 +
The [[:Decision panels#Procedures|Decision Panel procedures]] were adopted.
 +
 
 +
Discussion took place on the [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archives/soas SoaS mailing list] with subject lines beginning with the text "[DP]".
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== Report ==
 +
 
 +
'''this is a draft'''
 +
 
 +
===Introduction===
 +
 
 +
This constitutes the report of the SoaS decision panel (DP), [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008746.html convened by SLOB].
 +
 
 +
The structure of this report is:
 +
 
 +
# Introduction (this section)
 +
# Executive Summary
 +
# Mandate
 +
# Members
 +
# Report on Questions 1-3
 +
# Conclusion
 +
# Appendicies
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Executive Summary===
 +
 
 +
The Decision Panel was [[#Mandate 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: Yes.
 +
 
 +
Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
 +
 
 +
Answer: No.  Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution.
 +
 
 +
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.
 +
 
 +
In addition, [[#Mandate 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.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Mandate===
 +
 
 +
{{quote|
 +
:"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===
 +
 
 +
 
 +
====Question 1====
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
 +
 
 +
Answer: Yes.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
====Question 2====
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
 +
 
 +
Answer: No.  Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
====Question 3====
 +
 
 +
 
 +
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.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Conclusion===
 +
 
  
−
Discussion will take place on the [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archives/soas SOAS mailing list] with subject lines beginning with the text "[DP]".
 
  
−
== Talk summaries ==
+
===Appendicies===
−
<b>Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?</b>
 
  
  
 +
====Votes / Recorded opinions====
  
−
<b>Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another? </b>
 
  
 +
=====Question 1=====
  
  
−
<b>Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution? </b>
+
=====Question 2=====
  
  
 +
=====Question 3=====
  
−
<b>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? </b>
 
  
  
 +
====Further ideas====
  
−
<b>Potential naming conventions: </b>
+
=====Potential naming conventions=====
 
* Sugar4CD/PC/F11 (Sugar, version 4, made for liveCD, runs on PCs, Fedora11 based) - example from Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho@hotmail.com>
 
* Sugar4CD/PC/F11 (Sugar, version 4, made for liveCD, runs on PCs, Fedora11 based) - example from Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho@hotmail.com>
 
There has been much talk of whether we should name with different foods and animals. Types of sugar (sucrose, glucose) has been suggested due to its link to sustainability of life.  
 
There has been much talk of whether we should name with different foods and animals. Types of sugar (sucrose, glucose) has been suggested due to its link to sustainability of life.  

Revision as of 23:04, 5 October 2009

Origin

A 12-person SOAS decision panel was appointed by a September, 2009 Oversight Board decision.


Mandate

Template:Quote


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

this is a draft

Introduction

This constitutes the report of the SoaS decision panel (DP), convened by SLOB.

The structure of this report is:

  1. Introduction (this section)
  2. Executive Summary
  3. Mandate
  4. Members
  5. Report on Questions 1-3
  6. Conclusion
  7. Appendicies


Executive Summary

The Decision Panel was #Mandate 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: Yes.

Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"

Answer: No. Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution.

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.

In addition, #Mandate 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.


Mandate

Template:Quote

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

Question 1

Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"

Answer: Yes.


Question 2

Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"

Answer: No. Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution.


Question 3

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.


Conclusion

Appendicies

Votes / Recorded opinions

Question 1
Question 2
Question 3

Further ideas

Potential naming conventions
  • Sugar4CD/PC/F11 (Sugar, version 4, made for liveCD, runs on PCs, Fedora11 based) - example from Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho@hotmail.com>

There has been much talk of whether we should name with different foods and animals. Types of sugar (sucrose, glucose) has been suggested due to its link to sustainability of life. There still seems to be much sense in keeping it simple with SoaS keeping one name with a version release number and corresponding release name.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Decision_panels/SOAS&oldid=38880"