Decision panels/SOAS
Origin
A 12-person Sugar-on-a-Stick (SoaS) decision panel was appointed by a September 25, 2009 Oversight Board decision.
Mandate
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: unresolved
Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
Answer: unresolved
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: unresolved
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.
Mandate
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
These questions have not been resolved yet; a minority of panel members have weighted in so far. 05:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Question 1
Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
Answer:
Question 2
Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
Answer:
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:
Conclusion
Appendicies
Votes / Recorded opinions
Question 1
| Yes | No | Defer | Invalid | Undecided/Abstain |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Question 2
| For | Against | Defer | Invalid | Undecided/Abstain |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Question 3
| For | Against | Defer | Invalid | Undecided/Abstain |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
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.
- Perhaps including the type of media in the name could be helpful, but with "sugar" themes. For example SD versions could be "Sugar Cookies," Live CD versions could be "Sugar Pies." That would make the above example "SugarPie4/PC/F11"(also from Caryl Bigenho)