Changes

192 bytes added , 23:42, 5 March 2011

m

no edit summary

Line 21: Line 21:

;Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"

−

;Answer: Consensus trending towards ''yes''. There has been some discussion about what is involved in 'being a GNU/Linux distributor' and what the risks and benefits would be; specifics have been suggested but not clearly enumerated, making consensus building harder. [[#Question_1|TBD - see below for opinions]]

+

;Answer: Consensus trending towards '''yes'''. There has been some discussion about what is involved in 'being a GNU/Linux distributor' and what the risks and benefits would be; specifics have been suggested but not clearly enumerated, making consensus building harder. [[#Question_1|TBD - see below for opinions]]

;Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"

−

;Answer: Consensus ~~seems to be~~ '''yes'''. There are requests for clarification of how SL can promote effective ways of distributing Sugar, and endorse all good distributions. [[#Question_2|TBD - see below for opinions]]

+

;Answer: Consensus is '''yes'''. There are requests for clarification of how SL can promote effective ways of distributing Sugar, and endorse all good distributions. [[#Question_2|TBD - see below for opinions]]

;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?"

Line 36: Line 36:

===Mandate===

−

{{~~quote~~|

+

{{Box|

:"Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, and related questions, including answers to the following:

:* "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"

Line 76: Line 76:

! Undecided

|-

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# 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/000029.html (reference)] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000032.html counterpoint]. There is real interest and are real plans to do this [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000100.html (reference)].

# 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)]

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# 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 [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000168.html (reference)]

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# 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].

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# Undecided. The two sides of the argument don't seem to be speaking directly to one anothers' issue [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000175.html (reference)] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000178.html counterpoint]

|}

Line 103: Line 103:

! Undecided

|-

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# Yes.

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# No. Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution. SL needs to influence the distribution so drastically that it is effectively controlling it [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000125.html (reference)] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000128.html counterpoint]

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# 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].

# Invalid framing. Sugar Labs should be able to endorse the best methods of distributing Sugar, and not feel their hands are tied with a need to endorse all distros, regardless of their quality, or of how prominent Sugar is in the distro.

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# Undecided: what do "neutral" and "endorse" mean? We need to be more clear about these definitions in order to answer [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000169.html (reference)]

|}

Line 128: Line 128:

! Undecided

|-

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# Yes. Sugar on a Stick is the central pillar of our marketing strategy [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000048.html (reference)]. It's not trademarked, but should be [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000045.html (reference)]. SL does not want to confuse its users and a light touch like this is all that's needed [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008403.html (reference)]

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# No.

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# 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].

# Too specific a question. Limiting SOAS to referring to a Fedora distribution is not necessary to avoid using names in a confusing way.

−

|

+

| valign="top"|

# Undecided. While it's reasonable for SL as a community to have a "don't be confusing" policy that applies equally to all of its projects, that has nothing to do with trademark per se. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000175.html (reference)]

|}

−

===Conclusion===

+

=== DP Conclusion===

''to come''

−

===Appendices===

Line 199: Line 198:

# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000149.html Abhishek Indoria]

| valign="top"|

−

~~# Samuel Klein - SL should support effective distros more than ineffective ones. ~~

| valign="top"|

+

Samuel Klein - SL should support effective distros; this can be done neutrally.

| valign="top"|

Bill Bogstad, Faisal Khan, Daniel Drake

|-

−

|colspan=5|

+

|colspan=5|

+

=====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?"

Line 226: Line 226:

# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000289.html Benjamin M. Schwartz] - use a more specific name

| valign="top"|

−

Samuel Klein - ~~Too~~ specific. ~~Avoid being confusing~~, ~~but SOAS could still refer to a line of~~ '~~sticks~~'.

+

Samuel Klein - The question is too specific. I agree with both Ben and Sean, who feel they fall on 'Yes' and 'No' sides of the fence.

| valign="top"|

| valign="top"|

FGrose

Bureaucrats, Check users, Administrators, Widget editors

8,288

edits

Changes

Decision panels/SOAS/Report (view source)

Revision as of 23:42, 5 March 2011

Navigation menu

Search