Changes

Oversight Board/2010/Meeting Minutes-2010-03-05 (view source)

Revision as of 14:37, 5 March 2010

8 bytes added , 14:37, 5 March 2010

Line 16: Line 16:

:Discussion of [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.laptop.olpc.sugar/21243 Not fully bundled .xo] ASLO question<br>Request could be shorten to:

:* Making a statement that current ASLO workflow is pretty unreliable, since ASLO is deployment agnostic, trying to bundle binaries to .xo is a fragile practice. At the same time taking one particular decision would either affect basic Sugar workflows (fully bundled .xo) or leave situation fragile.

−

:* Thus it (could) require non-technical agreement to follow either ''"activities should not rely on non-SP dependencies and we should make it clear that we are not going to deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO"'' or ''"we will deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO and lets take the right tech decision (out of SLOBs) but (maybe) accept moratorium like [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.laptop.olpc.sugar/21244] to not make situation worse until we take right technical decision."''

+

:* Thus it (could) require non-technical agreement to follow either (A) ''"activities should not rely on non-SP dependencies and we should make it clear that we are not going to deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO"'' or (B) ''"we will deploy Java/Qt/etc activities from ASLO and lets take the right tech decision (out of SLOBs) but (maybe) accept moratorium like [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.laptop.olpc.sugar/21244] to not make situation worse until we take right technical decision."''

:* [http://idea.olpcorps.net/ideatorrent/ideatorrent/idea/20/ Poll] results

Walter

Bureaucrats, Administrators

10,579

edits