Talk:Vision proposal 2016

2012-12-29 http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2013-January/041578.html is great, perhaps there are other annual reviews

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Design_Team/Vision image is broken, but could be relevant Davelab6 (talk)

I see many posts to the mailing list by newcomers going unanswered. I see the lack of an official Sugar Labs annual general meeting (although Finances shows some funding of meetings.) I see the lack of a vision that is kept current. Therefore I propose a "Welcoming Commitee" and a "Events Committee": The role of the SL President includes reviewing and resetting the vision of the organization every 12 months, organizing the Events Commitee to run an annual Sugar Labs Summit where the vision is presented and discussed, and running the welcoming commitee to welcoming each new member of the community as they arrive and speaking with them until they contribute or drop out; and speaking with them at least once every 3 months to encourage and involve them. Davelab6 (talk)

http://people.sugarlabs.org/walter/docs/bender-kyoto-talk-2013.pdf could be relevant Davelab6 (talk)

What_is_Sugar? could be relevant Davelab6 (talk)

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Roadmap has many relevant points Davelab6 (talk)

2011 Local Labs statements

Davelab6 (talk)

Original 2008 Press Release Davelab6 (talk)

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:CScott#XO-3_goals has any technical milestones outlined. Davelab6 (talk)

Some useful stategy posts to read:

Davelab6 (talk)

"I think facebook app/game versions of sugar activities is smart marketing, but I would suggest making them a little limited, to get people hooked on them, and then telling people to upgrade to the main http://server.sugarizer.org app to play the next level. You are probably more familiar than I am with the facebook free basics fiasco. Facebook seeks to establish itself as a grand gateway to what the internet can do, and the software freedom movement yearns to make Facebook obsolete. (eg, see https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/feb/10/highlights-eben-moglens-freedom-cloud-talk/) One of the ideas of Sugar is to raise awareness about the software freedom movement, and as such, providing the full experience within the facebook police-state playpark is an own-goal. We should reach people where they are in the playpark and lead them out of it. " Davelab6 (talk)

"A major effort is underway to port Sugar activities from Python to Javascript in anticipation of offering them in an Android environment. There are certainly many new activities in either Python or Javascript (or both) which could be done. In the area of Sugar activities, there is another effort to port Python Sugar activities from GTK to GTK+3. One specific area of interest is collaboration. Our current technique is being deprecated and so some work is needed to re-implement activities using a collab-wrap which provides a simpler api for activities which support collaboration. As volunteers, in the end, you should tackle what interests you. Personally, I would like to see more effort on new development; however, it is hard to deny the need for porting." http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2016-April/052036.html Davelab6 (talk)

From sugar-devel bug thread today: I actually like the idea of a "Sugar Lab On A Stick" which is to say, if everything was in [a] distribute version control system repo[s], then the repo[s] could be distributed to mostly-offline communities (using outernet.is or similar) who could be productive for say 6 weeks or 6 months, and then their commits could find their way back to the central Sugar Labs mothership repos - eg, via sneaker-net from village to town and then uploaded. For that I think Github won't work, because the PR and issue discussions are not kept in the repo. The best self-contained DVCS solution I've seen to this is, as I said, www.fossil-scm.org, although there are some git-based systems. I don't think of this as a 2016 or 17 goal, but I am noting it here as a long term goal. Davelab6 (talk)

GNU General Public License only?

Quoting;

governed by software licenses compatible with the GNU General Public License

Aren't some activities public domain or licensed more permissively, e.g. BSD? --Quozl (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Sure, that's why its "licenses COMPATIBLE with the GNU GPL" :) --Davelab6 (talk)

Oh, I see, you mean compatible in that direction not that direction. :-) Would a reference to an open source definition be more appropriate? --Quozl (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

No, my understanding is that Sugar is GPL and requires Activities to be GPL compatible. Am I incorrect? :) Davelab6 (talk)

Yes, because individual activities may be under different licenses, which could be GPL incompatible. Also, activities.sugarlabs.org supports other license types. Seems vague overall. It doesn't seem to be clear if a learner can use a GPL incompatible license for an activity they write and share with their friends. My opinion is that a learner should be free to use an incompatible license. COPYING file in sugar-toolkit-gtk3 does say GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), which permits linking from a body of work that is incompatibly licensed. --Quozl (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2016 (EDT)

I'll raise the topic on IAEP :) Davelab6 (talk)

2014 state of the project video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK4iB6kjiPY worth watching