Sorry, This thread fell off the public mailing list. My fingers are a little too big for the keyboard on my new lenovo s10. I keep hitting enter instead of shift:(
david ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Farning <dfarn...@sugarlabs.org> Date: Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SoaS] Important Schedule Changes - Please Read! To: Caroline Meeks <carol...@solutiongrove.com> Cc: Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com>, Sebastian Dziallas <s...@sugarlabs.org>, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com>, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org>, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@codewiz.org>, Simon Schampijer <si...@schampijer.de>, Greg Dekoenigsberg <g...@redhat.com> We are running into 2 classical  community supported project conundrums. 1.  If you call a release stable, more people will use it - encouraging more testers.  Yet, by calling it stable it raises expectations. 2.  Who determines when something is ready? The answer to 2 is easier.  _All_ platform level decisions are driven by developers. Those developers must agree on a release cycle which is supported by a release manager. It might seem counter intuitive, but in the long run the quality of the release cycle is more important than the quality of a given release.  If we focus on the cycle we get a steadily improving product and community. I would suggest that you have an irc meeting which includes at least: Simon - experienced release manager. Sebastian - lead SoaS developer. Caroline - SoaS project lead. Greg - Old grey bearded man. Sorry Sean, you and I are not invited:)  The release cycle is a technical decision made by technical contributors.  You, Walter, and I need to step back and trust the developers to make the correct technical decisions.  Otherwise we get a tail wagging the dog situation. These individuals need to set a release schedule and appoint a release manager a with the authority to enforce the scheudal. The challenge SoaS faces is that it is a down stream project based on sugar -> fedora -> soas . Quite honestly, I really don't see all that much difference in the log run on which release date is chosen. The import bit is that we set _a_ date and stick to it so all contributors and downstreams can depend and synchronize around that date. david On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Caroline Meeks <carol...@solutiongrove.com> wrote: > Hi, > > A couple of questions. > > Sebastian and Sean, please each define what the terms "Beta" "Release > Candidate" and "Version 1" mean to you. I wonder if we have different > definitions. Perhaps if we understood what those were we could find the > right compromise. > > Sebastian, I absolutely agree we want kids trying SoaS this summer. Please > explain your reasoning that releasing V1 in the Summer will result in more > summer testing then Beta-2 and maybe we can again find a way to meet > everyone's concerns. > > Thanks, > Caroline > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm sorry we're not as connected as we should be (I'm the first to >> admit I have a learning curve concerning dependencies/upstream etc.) >> but in fact... my impression *was* that SoaS v1 would be v0.86 over >> F12! >> >> Put simply, for SoaS to be classroom-ready, teachers need a >> minimum-fuss solution... we just can't count on them spending time >> troubleshooting. >> >> If you remember the discussions about the numbering system... the idea >> behind SoaS "beta" and "v1" was to simplify numbering (and generate >> buzz) by disassociating the Sugar version 0.xx / Fedora version 1x. >> Teachers won't care if it's Sugar v0.84/F11 or v0.86/F12, but they >> will care if it works or not on what they have, and can help them in >> the classroom by offering a choice of Activities. >> >> Many teachers have Macs... some Intel, many PPC I'm afraid... if the >> lack of a machine is a blocker, I'll buy and ship you a Mac Mini (I've >> bought half a dozen XOs and as many netbooks for testing at this >> point, and I am trying to negotiate loaners too). >> >> Concerning exotic hardware (and some netbooks have very exotic >> hardware), I don't see the difficulty in contacting OEMs, telling them >> we have the best K-8 learning platform available, and could they >> please help us make their machine run Sugar correctly. I am sure every >> OEM is watching Dell's strategic education netbook launch very >> closely. >> >> The probability of success of SoaS in the classroom will be raised if >> we can at least point teachers in the direction of a school server. I >> just bought a ShuttlePC and Martin Langhoff will be installing an XS >> server on it, I want to find out how adaptible it could be to SoaS >> machines. I plan to have it ready for LinuxTag. >> >> It's difficult as we grow to keep abreast of what everyone is doing... >> I don't remember a request for RC feature requests (I didn't think we >> were that far along), but I'm sure it happened at some point from what >> you said. We could announce backup/school server support for a v2 and >> that wouldn't shock anyone, but if SoaS isn't very reliable we'll have >> another mountain to climb for a v2. >> >> I have found the best solution is to subscribe to all of the lists, >> and read messages even if I don't understand everything (and I don't). >> We have a marketing challenge to overcome: lots of very negative press >> about OLPC... for example a wire service journalist recently referred >> to the XO as "mythical", implying it was never even manufactured! The >> best way to turn the tide of criticism is to build up to a solid >> release. Any misstep will be pounced upon :-( >> >> I am concerned that we seem to have few testers. We even set up >> feedb...@sugarlabs.org to lower the barrier for bug reporting, but no >> one has used it yet. There may be thousands of G1G1 donors who would >> gladly help us test SoaS with their XO-1 (I'd be the first to try), >> but to do that we need a simplified test protocol. Which can be done, >> but not immediately. >> >> We can achieve a reliable method for loading sticks by the fall, or in >> the worst case we could work with partners such as on-disk.com, but >> it's a blocker problem that needs to be solved. I bought three of my >> test netbooks with Windows (first time since 1998) just to be able to >> run and test the liveusb creator. >> >> I would suggest the LinuxTag release stay "beta-2" or "Release >> Candidate" as planned, which will give us precious months to make a >> big launch in the fall... on an improved platform. >> >> Perhaps Caroline as SoaS project manager you could organize meetings >> to help us all get on the same page? >> >> thanks >> >> Sean >> >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Sebastian Dziallas <sebast...@when.com> >> wrote: >> > Another side-note: It could also be possible to push the next SoaS >> > release >> > with with F12 and Sugar 0.86 with a big splash and have this still as >> > v1! >> > Just thinking... >> > >> > --Sebastian >> > >> > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> > Betreff: Re: [IAEP] [SoaS] Important Schedule Changes - Please Read! >> > Datum: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:10:09 +0200 >> > Von: Sebastian Dziallas <sebast...@when.com> >> > Antwort an: Sebastian Dziallas <s...@sugarlabs.org> >> > An: Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> >> > CC: Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com>,  Caroline Meeks >> > <carol...@solutiongrove.com>, David Farning <dfarn...@sugarlabs.org>, >> > Tomeu >> > Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org>, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@codewiz.org>, >> >  Simon >> > Schampijer <si...@schampijer.de>, Greg Dekoenigsberg <g...@redhat.com> >> > >> > [cc += Greg & Simon] >> > >> > Hi everybody, >> > >> > let me explain this a little bit more (I'll be around on IRC later this >> > evening). There are some points I clearly need to make. >> > >> > Sean DALY wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Sebastian >> >> >> >> hmmm... we've been announcing SoaS v1 for "Q3" for some time now >> >> (http://www.sugarlabs.org/press)... the idea being that v1 will boot >> >> just about anything. Reliability is extremely important... if a single >> >> journalist can't boot their PC with it, we're in trouble, it will have >> >> a reputation for being "buggy" which, once gained, is very, very >> >> difficult to shake. No one cares about bugs if we are in beta, but >> >> they sure will if we present v1 as classroom-ready. >> > >> > I'm well aware of the Q3 date. Who has decided that? When was it >> > decided? Shouldn't the dev team have some kind of influence on the >> > release schedule? Let me throw my favorite Stones song in here: >> > >> > "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you can >> > get what you need" - And that's what we should do, imho! >> > >> >> In a month's time: >> >> >> >> * will SoaS be able to boot 30 netbook models in a matrix with >> >> functioning wireless, webcams, etc.? >> > >> > It will work on the same stuff that Fedora works on. And Fedora isn't >> > known to be especially buggy, from what I know. It's 'cutting-edge', >> > yes. >> > >> > Concerning the support of non-ordinary hardware: I hope people are well >> > aware of what it means to support more than Fedora does. It means that >> > we'll not only have to deal with Sugar issues (and upstream Fedora >> > ones), but also with issues, which occur due to the additional (and >> > probably patent encumbered) drivers and software. Who's going to support >> > that? >> > >> >> * on Intel Macs? >> > >> > Let me put it this way: We're releasing a version 1. We can define what >> > are the supported use-cases and what not. We can say "please use and >> > install VirtualBox on your Mac if you want to try it". >> > >> > I don't have a Mac here. I can't test it directly. Get me a Mac, and I >> > can try. Now seriously: When building images, I can only *guess* how >> > they behave on other platforms. That means that I'm still trying to >> > provide the best experience for all platforms. But I can't do >> > everything. If somebody wants to have it really working on a Mac, he or >> > she must work on it. I see all these tickets, but I can't really do >> > anything against it. And that's a little bit frustrating. >> > >> >> * on XO-1s? >> > >> > Isn't this the goal of the fedora-xo / rawhide-xo effort (to which I've >> > been continuously contributing the kickstart files)? I've asked several >> > times about the relationship of SoaS and OLPC's next software release. >> > >> > My assumption was: We're going to have a SoaS live image, which includes >> > all drivers and the Sugar desktop. It could be still be installed on the >> > XO, but wouldn't be that optimized. >> > >> > On the other hand, people could grab the latest OLPC 1.5 release, which >> > included the same Sugar version, but with more modifications for the XO >> > and less bloat (e.g. unneeded drivers). >> > >> > Please, please tell me if I'm wrong! >> > >> >> * will it work flawlessly with a school server? >> > >> > Has anybody tried to get that working? I saw some posts here and there, >> > but I'm really not sure. When I asked for the feature request for the >> > RC, nobody stepped up mentioning this. And to add such a feature from a >> > RC to a Final version is - imo - a little bit too much. Wouldn't it make >> > sense to push this to SoaS for Sugar 0.86? >> > >> >> * will adding/updating Activities be straightforward and easy? >> > >> > If somebody fixes the sugar-update-control (I've had this listed as an >> > urgent ticket for quite some time!), yes. If not, still through a.sl.o! >> > >> >> * will we have a reliable stick loading tool? We certainly don't now, >> >> I have to cycle power on my Windows machines after loading each stick >> >> and there is no solution for OSX. >> > >> > True. Work in progess, I'd say. liveusb-creator and livecd-iso-to-disk >> > are our best guess; I heard that Luke was also working on something. >> > >> >> I'm afraid I don't see any advantages in moving up the v1 release >> >> date... but great risks if we rush to release a buggy SoaS. We will >> >> only create problems for ourselves. >> > >> > I've heard this argument for the beta release. And the beta release went >> > rather fine. There were no bigger issues for the supported use cases, >> > from what I've heard. And let me point out again: >> > >> > * the advantage of having a stable Fedora and a stable Sugar version >> > together >> > >> > * the advantage of gaining a lot of testers over summer break >> > >> > * the advantage of not loosing another month or two, in which things are >> > probably not going improve significantly >> > >> >> I've been working on big-splash marketing plans in the fall for some >> >> time now, but in a month I won't be able to do much more than a press >> >> release in time for LinuxTag (the current plan). >> >> >> >> My point of view is that a push to make SoaS bulletproof will be well >> >> worth the effort - we will have teacher buy-in and word-of-mouth, >> >> education blogs etc. will build our credibility (and supply >> >> much-needed feedback). >> >> >> >> I have grave reservations about how bulletproof SoaS can be in a >> >> month. Shouldn't a decision like this be made by weighing all the >> >> variables? >> > >> > The same reservations which came up right before the beta release? I'm >> > pushing this discussion (or better: decision?) NOW, as I was really >> > unhappy with how it all turned out for the beta release. We continued to >> > compose images updating our beta image because people wanted to have >> > this or that last minute change. And this is not going to happen again, >> > which is, why I'm continuing to remind people of the deadlines on the >> > wiki. >> > >> > If we want to include all the features in our very first release (like >> > online backup, school server connection, booting on all machines, and so >> > on) we'll never get a final release! Unless you employ some developers, >> > I suppose. Because I can't fight everywhere. >> > >> >> thanks >> >> >> >> Sean >> > >> > Cheers, >> > --Sebastian >> > >> > (who needs to run for gym in half an hour, but should be back in three >> > hours) >> > >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Sebastian Dziallas<sebast...@when.com> >> >>  wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi everybody, >> >>> >> >>> please read this carefully, as it concerns major schedule changes >> >>> regarding our upcoming Sugar on a Stick release in the end of June. >> >>> >> >>> The original plan was have a Release Candidate based on F11 Final and >> >>> Sugar 0.84 at that time and a Final Version later in Q3. After serious >> >>> consideration, it looks way more sensible to do the following: >> >>> >> >>> =>  Omit the RC release and replace it with our Final Release! >> >>> >> >>> This means that Sugar on a Stick is going be released in June, on >> >>> 2009-06-24. Now, why? Well, there were quite some reasons: >> >>> >> >>> * Fedora 11 will be released on June 2 and Sugar 0.84 has already had >> >>> it's release some time ago. By moving our final release later into the >> >>> year, we'd be either forced to use some outdated or unstable >> >>> components, >> >>> as the next major Sugar version will be 0.86, which is targeted for >> >>> Fedora 12. We're preventing this by having our release now just a >> >>> month >> >>> after F11's. >> >>> >> >>> * It helps us a lot to get feedback from students over the summer >> >>> break, >> >>> so that we're increasing the likelihood of gaining more users. >> >>> >> >>> * Sugar on a Stick is rather stable right now - I'll outline this in a >> >>> separate e-mail! >> >>> >> >>> The updated roadmap is located here: >> >>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_on_a_Stick/Roadmap >> >>> >> >>> Package Maintainers will receive reminders to update their RPM >> >>> packages >> >>> soonish! Again, please make sure to follow the deadlines. The last >> >>> date >> >>> for changes is 2009-06-10. Afterwards, dev team's approval is >> >>> required. >> >>> >> >>> Please contact me with any concerns you may have - also off-list, if >> >>> needed! >> >>> >> >>> Best Regards, >> >>> --Sebastian Dziallas >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> >>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >> >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >> > >> > > > > > -- > Caroline Meeks > Solution Grove > carol...@solutiongrove.com > > 617-500-3488 - Office > 505-213-3268 - Fax > _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
