On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM, David Farning <dfarn...@activitycentral.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Farning >> <dfarn...@activitycentral.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Martin Langhoff >>> <martin.langh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, David Farning >>>>> <dfarn...@activitycentral.com> wrote: >>>>>> I just wanted to bump this line of questions as, it is the critical >>>>> >>>>> I don't speak on behalf of the Association, but I think your positions >>>>> are overstated. As far as I know, the Association is still pursing >>>>> sales of XO laptops and is still supporting XO laptops in the field. >>>>> Granted the pace of development is slowed and there is -- to my >>>>> knowledge -- no team in place to develop an follow up to the XO 4.0. I >>>>> don't have a clue as to what you mean by a "technical philanthropy" >>>>> but it remains a non-profit associated dedicated to enhancing learning >>>>> opportunities through one-to-one computing. The fact that the >>>>> Association has private-sector partners is nothing new. It has had >>>>> such partners since its founding in 2006. >>>> >>>> +1 on Walter's words, David's position is overstated. OLPC has shrunk >>>> its Sugar investment, that is true. But on the other points, nothing >>>> has changed significantly, OLPC has always had to find sources of >>>> funding. >>> >>> As I stated, I hope to be proven wrong. >> >> You also stated: >> >>> The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental >>> disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs >>> thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to the >>> changing environment. >> >> Several of us have asked for an explanation. > > Yes, and sorry about the delay. This is a nuanced discussion which > requires focusing on goals which can strengthen the project while > avoiding recriminations about the past mistakes and individual > weakness. > > The general observation is that open source projects are most > effective when they provide a venue for multiple individuals and > organizations with overlapping yet non-identical goals to come > together to collaborate on a common platform which they can use and > adapt for their own purpose. > > The specific observation about Sugar Labs is that an emphasis on > identical goals tends to limit active participants. Outliers tend to > be nudged aside. The remaining group of active participants are small > but loyal. And yes, I see the irony of posting this observation on the > sugar-devel mailing list. Everyone who is troubled by this observation > has already left. > > As two Data points: > In a private conversation with an Association employee they told me > that they conciser Activity Central a competitor because Activity > Central increased deployments expectations. Their strategy with regard > to Activity Central was to _not_ accept patches upstream with the goal > of causing Activity Central and Dextrose to collapse under its their > weight. As it was private conversation I am not sure how widely spread > the opinion was held.
It seems unwise to damn Sugar Labs based on hearsay from OLPCA. Sugar Labs is *not* OLPCA and we don't traffic in hearsay, regardless. > > Recently there was a call for help testing HTML5 and JS. Two > developers Code and Roger have been writing proof of concept > activities. They have been receiving extensive off-list help getting > started. But, interestingly, their on-list request for clarification > about how to test datastore was met with silence. Wow. Their email was send 4 days ago, right before the weekend and *after* your assertion that Sugar Labs is somehow remiss in its integrity. This too seems a real stretch. That said, there is clearly something bothering you. It would be good to clear the air. thanks. -walter > > I have tried to communicate that there is competition between > organizations and deployments within the ecosystem... and that is > good. Competition drives innovation. The challenge, as I see it, is > for Sugar Labs to become the to common "collaborative" ground around > which these organizations compete. > > Hope that helps. > >> regards. >> >> -walter >> >>> >>>>>> Given financial constraints, these are reasonable shifts. >>>> >>>> That's more like it ;-) >>>> >>>>>> there are ways to establish publicly disclosed and mutually beneficial >>>>>> relationships. In the meantime we are happy to provide deployments >>>>>> support while seeding and supporting projects we feel are beneficial >>>>>> to deployments such as School Server Community Edition and Sugar on >>>>>> Ubuntu. >>>> >>>> "Seeding and supporting projects" is how it's done. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> m >>>> -- >>>> martin.langh...@gmail.com >>>> - ask interesting questions >>>> - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first >>>> ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David Farning >>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com >> >> >> >> -- >> Walter Bender >> Sugar Labs >> http://www.sugarlabs.org > > > > -- > David Farning > Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel