243
edits
Changes
add draft banner; add views on Question 1
{{draft}}
{{TOCright2|limit=2}}
{{TOCright2|limit=2}}
The Decision Panel was [[#Mandate|mandated]] to answer three questions. The Decision Panel's answers are below:
The Decision Panel was [[#Mandate|mandated]] to answer three questions. The Decision Panel's answers are below:
'''''This section has various position drafts as consensus has not been reached'''''
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?"
{| 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 [phttp://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
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:
{|
!Yes
!No
|-
|
#
|
# No. Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution.
|}
Answer: TBD
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: Yes.
{|
!Yes
!No
|-
|
# Yes.
|
#
|}
Answer: TBD
In addition, [[#Mandate|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).
In addition, [[#Mandate|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).