243
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 66:
Line 66: − + − <!-- 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. --> − + − <!-- No. Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution.+ − --> − + − <!-- Yes. --> Line 115:
Line 112: − These questions have not been resolved yet; a minority of panel members have weighted in so far. 05:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)+ Line 122:
Line 119: − + + Line 129:
Line 127: − + + Line 136:
Line 135: − + +
Undo revision 38949 by Sj (Talk)
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: ''unresolved''
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.
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: ''unresolved''
Answer: 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: ''unresolved''
Answer: Yes.
===Report on Questions 1-3===
===Report on Questions 1-3===
====Question 1====
====Question 1====
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:
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.
====Question 2====
====Question 2====
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:
Answer: No. Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution.
====Question 3====
====Question 3====
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:
Answer: Yes.