Changes

108 bytes removed ,  00:29, 8 October 2009
unresolved.
Line 66: Line 66:  
Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
 
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: ''unresolved''
 +
<!-- 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. -->
       
Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
 
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.
+
Answer: ''unresolved''
 
+
<!-- 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?"
 
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.
+
Answer: ''unresolved''
 +
<!-- Yes. -->
      Line 112: Line 115:     
===Report on Questions 1-3===
 
===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====
Line 119: Line 122:  
Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
 
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:
 
      
====Question 2====
 
====Question 2====
Line 127: Line 129:  
Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
 
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.
+
Answer:   
 
      
====Question 3====
 
====Question 3====
Line 135: Line 136:  
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?"
 
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.
+
Answer:
 
       
130

edits