On 25 Aug 2009, at 16:03, Michael Stone wrote: >> El Mon, 24-08-2009 a las 20:58 +0200, Martin Langhoff escribi=F3: >>> And also... and completely from the outside... I'll apologise in >>> advance for saying something I know might be controversial. I worry >>> that SL seems to have -- for a external party like me -- more >>> bureaucracy than it has people "doing". IMHExperience, the >>> projects I >>> enjoy working on, and that I see being productive have a much lower >>> "procedure/label/committe " : contributor ratio. >> >> I don't necessarily disagree with you, but just 2 days ago I was >> offered >> an advice on the other side of the spectrum by Michael: he notes >> that a >> lot of important things are falling through the cracks because nobody >> organizes the available resources. His suggestion is to introduce >> real >> project management into the game, which is basically what David's >> Projects idea seems to bring. > > For the record, I consider my puny efforts to offer more support for > Martin's > and Greg's remarks than for David's. > > (The analysis is simply that our current situation is unsurprising > given the > facts that, first, SL seems to consist more of leaders than of > followers and > second, that there seems to be a real dearth of people who care more > about > getting other people unstuck than about making progress on their own > pet > projects.) > > (Though, obviously, I'm more guilty than most here.) > >> A meta-comment on your post: you don't need to apologize and be shy >> for >> offering your criticism, no matter how many people will disagree with >> you. > > Actually, he does need to apologize and to be shy because doing so > makes it > easier for folks to hear what he's trying to say. > > (In our current environment, it works rather similarly to good-cop/ > bad-cop.) > >> I recently got useful criticism from Bemasc, Christoph and Daniel on >> #sugar regarding our relationship with Deployments. Their feeling is >> that we didn't do enough to get them involved, mine is that our >> efforts >> to reach out have been largely unsuccessful for reasons I do not >> fully >> understand. > > Here's another reason for you to consider: > > I have come to believe that many people involved in deployments have > *learned* > that they're not going to get anything useful out of interacting > with SL > because: > > 1. SL has largely ignored the feedback supplied by these deployments > in > 2007-2008 and exhaustively documented by Greg Smith and S Page at > > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Roadmap
Wow, blast from the past :-) Actually I'd strongly disagree here. Having re-read through most of what is listed here, much progress has been made on a large number (dare I say majority) of these items! The problem is that you need to to be using 0.84 to benefit from most, with the approaching 0.86 solving a bunch more. The difficulty, unfortunately, seems to be much more about getting XO-1 QA'ed release rollouts available for deployments. At least 0.84 does seem to be in the OLPC pipeline, due to XO-1.5 needs, with volunteers*** pushing on the side of existing XO-1 hardware. ***F11_for_XO-1 build 5, from Steven Parish, was the last available dev release, and is running pretty well on an XO-1 and an XO-B4 here. Regards, --Gary > and also because > > 2. most members of SL express comparatively little interest in > developing > seriously for the XO-1 and for the specific network, cognitive, and > logistics > resources of of these deployments. > > Regards, > > Michael > _______________________________________________ > 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