Sugar Labs

Decision panels/SOAS/Report

< Decision panels‎ | SOAS
Revision as of 17:49, 29 October 2009 by Sj (talk | contribs) (.)
This is a draft, and not a final report.

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. 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

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

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
  1. 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. (reference) counterpoint. There is real interest and are real plans to do this (reference).
  2. 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. (reference)
  1. No, not now. SL is not now a full-service GNU/Linux distributor and being one is not in SL's mission statment; "Sugar learning platform" is *not* a GNU/Linux distribution. counterpoint 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 Sugar learning platform. Distribution work is is really hard and labour-intensive and being done by major distro vendors already (Debian, Fedora (reference)
  1. 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 ref.
  1. Undecided. The two sides of the argument don't seem to be speaking directly to one anothers' issue (reference) counterpoint


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
  1. Yes.
  1. No. Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution. SL needs to influence the distribution so drastically that it is effectively controlling it (reference) counterpoint
  1. 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 ref.
  2. Invalid framing. Sugar Labs should be able to endorse the best methods of distributing Sugar, and not feel their hands are tied with a need to endorse all distros, regardless of their quality, or of how prominent Sugar is in the distro.
  1. Undecided: what do "neutral" and "endorse" mean? We need to be more clear about these definitions in order to answer (reference)

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
  1. Yes. Sugar on a Stick is the central pillar of our marketing strategy (reference). It's not trademarked, but should be (reference). SL does not want to confuse its users and a light touch like this is all that's needed (reference)
  1. No.
  1. 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 ref.
  2. Too specific a question. Limiting SOAS to referring to a Fedora distribution is not necessary to avoid using names in a confusing way.
  1. Undecided. While it's reasonable for SL as a community to have a "don't be confusing" policy that applies equally to all of its projects, that has nothing to do with trademark per se. (reference)

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
  1. Sean Daly
  2. Bill Bogstead
  3. Abhishek Indoria
  4. Luke Faraone
  5. Sebastian Dziallas
  6. Benjamin M. Schwartz
  1. Martin Dengler
  2. Tabitha Roder
  3. Caryl Bigenho

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
  1. Martin Dengler
  2. Tabitha Roder
  3. Caryl Bigenho
  4. Luke Faraone
  5. Sebastian Dziallas
  6. Benjamin M. Schwartz - SL should make specific, not blanket endorsements
  7. Sean Daly - SL should make only context-specific endorsements
  1. Abhishek Indoria

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
  1. Sean Daly SL should reserve the right to determine which distro to associate with SOAS, today Fedora, but possibly another later.
  2. Abhishek Indoria
  3. Tabitha Roder
  4. Luke Faraone
  5. Sebastian Dziallas
  1. Martin Dengler
  2. Caryl Bigenho
  3. Benjamin M. Schwartz - use a more specific name

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Decision_panels/SOAS/Report&oldid=39664"