Decision panels/SOAS: Difference between revisions

Line 70:

~~{| border="1"~~

Answer: [[#Question_1|TBD - see below for opinions]]

~~!Yes~~

~~!No~~

~~!Invalid~~

|-

|

~~# Yes. Without it Sugar Labs has nothing to encourage the use of or promote that is of direct use to anyone other then programmers or the people who assemble Linux distributions. [http~~:~~//lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000032.html counterpoint]~~

# Yes. We greatly appreciate the work of those who have contributed to SoaS Strawberry and Blueberry. We regard these products as valuable, critical distribution mechanism for Sugar, and we will do what we can to ensure their continued development. [~~http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008681.html (reference)]~~

|

~~# No, not now. SL is not now a full-service GNU/Linux distributor and being one is not in SL's~~ [~~[Sugar Labs~~#~~Mission~~|~~mission statment]]; "[[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]" is *not* a GNU/Linux distribution. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009~~-September/000056.html counterpoint] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000057.html counter-counterpoint]. However many contributors volunteer to help with individual tasks thereof; and an official plan is part of a number of SugarLabs' members published plans. Sugar Labs is better off spending its scarce resources on the [[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]. Distribution work is is really hard and labour-intensive and being done by major distro vendors already (Debian, Fedora [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000168.html (reference)]

|

# Invalid question. An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].

|}

~~Answer: TBD~~

Line 154:

Line 140:

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

Answer: No, not now. SL is not now a full-service GNU/Linux distributor but 1) many contributors volunteer to help with individual tasks thereof; and 2) an official plan is part of a number of SugarLabs' members plans.

Answer:

{| border="1"

!Yes

!No

!Invalid

|-

|

# Yes. Without it Sugar Labs has nothing to encourage the use of or promote that is of direct use to anyone other then programmers or the people who assemble Linux distributions. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000032.html counterpoint]

# Yes. We greatly appreciate the work of those who have contributed to SoaS Strawberry and Blueberry. We regard these products as valuable, critical distribution mechanism for Sugar, and we will do what we can to ensure their continued development. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008681.html (reference)]

|

# No, not now. SL is not now a full-service GNU/Linux distributor and being one is not in SL's [[Sugar Labs#Mission|mission statment]]; "[[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]" is *not* a GNU/Linux distribution. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000056.html counterpoint] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000057.html counter-counterpoint]. However many contributors volunteer to help with individual tasks thereof; and an official plan is part of a number of SugarLabs' members published plans. Sugar Labs is better off spending its scarce resources on the [[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]. Distribution work is is really hard and labour-intensive and being done by major distro vendors already (Debian, Fedora [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000168.html (reference)]

|

# Invalid question. An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].

|}

====Question 2====

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
-{| border="1"
+Answer: [[#Question_1|TBD - see below for opinions]]
-!Yes
-!No
-!Invalid
-|-
-|
-# Yes.   Without it Sugar Labs has nothing to encourage the use of or promote that is of direct use to anyone other then programmers or the people who assemble Linux distributions. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000032.html counterpoint]
-# Yes. We greatly appreciate the work of those who have contributed to SoaS Strawberry and Blueberry.  We regard these products as valuable, critical distribution mechanism for Sugar, and we will do what we can to ensure their continued development. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008681.html (reference)]
-|
-# No, not now. SL is not now a full-service GNU/Linux distributor and being one is not in SL's [[Sugar Labs#Mission|mission statment]]; "[[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]" is *not* a GNU/Linux distribution. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000056.html counterpoint] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000057.html counter-counterpoint].  However many contributors volunteer to help with individual tasks thereof; and an official plan is part of a number of SugarLabs' members published plans.  Sugar Labs is better off spending its scarce resources on the [[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]].   Distribution work is is really hard and labour-intensive and being done by major distro vendors already (Debian, Fedora [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000168.html (reference)]
-|
-# Invalid question.  An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].
-|}
-Answer: TBD
@@ Line 154: / Line 140: @@
 Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
-Answer: No, not now. SL is not now a full-service GNU/Linux distributor but 1) many contributors volunteer to help with individual tasks thereof; and 2) an official plan is part of a number of SugarLabs' members plans.
+Answer:
+{| border="1"
+!Yes
+!No
+!Invalid
+|-
+|
+# Yes.   Without it Sugar Labs has nothing to encourage the use of or promote that is of direct use to anyone other then programmers or the people who assemble Linux distributions. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000032.html counterpoint]
+# Yes. We greatly appreciate the work of those who have contributed to SoaS Strawberry and Blueberry.  We regard these products as valuable, critical distribution mechanism for Sugar, and we will do what we can to ensure their continued development. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008681.html (reference)]
+|
+# No, not now. SL is not now a full-service GNU/Linux distributor and being one is not in SL's [[Sugar Labs#Mission|mission statment]]; "[[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]" is *not* a GNU/Linux distribution. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000056.html counterpoint] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000057.html counter-counterpoint].  However many contributors volunteer to help with individual tasks thereof; and an official plan is part of a number of SugarLabs' members published plans.  Sugar Labs is better off spending its scarce resources on the [[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]].   Distribution work is is really hard and labour-intensive and being done by major distro vendors already (Debian, Fedora [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000168.html (reference)]
+|
+# Invalid question.  An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].
+|}
 ====Question 2====