Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 21:25 -0400, Walter Bender escribió: > This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier > requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three > requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject > [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered "lost". I'd > like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and > the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, > please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit > their requests so as to formalize them as well. I had all 3 requests in my inbox. I'm +1 for all 3 of them. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Who determines what version of Sugar is used in the field?
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 13:02, Mel Chua wrote: > (from the last SLOBs agenda-kickin', > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2010-July/011343.html) > > Question from Kevin Mark: Who should be the deciding organization for > who determines what version of sugar is used in the field? > > "I was confused about the hierarchy of who should be the deciding > organization for who determines what version of sugar is used in the > field. There are more than 500,000 users and many people outside of OLPC > and Sugar Labs that will have to support that choice (of using 0.88) as > well as the support that OLPC and Sugar Labs in Boston and elsewhere > will have to provide. I dont know how a new 3rd party like Activity > Central is involved in this and what role they should be taking as they > are untested and lacking the kind of resouces that OLPC and Sugar Labs > have at the moment." > > Mel's response: To me, this is very clear - SL decides what version(s) > of Sugar it will support, and deployments will decide what version(s) of > Sugar they will use. Deployments don't have to use the supported version > of Sugar, they just won't get support from SL if they do. :) And others > (deployments or third-party entities) may step up to offer support for > versions SL itself does not support. > > Your thoughts? I think it's worth making explicit that the resources spent by SLs on supporting a specific version are likely to come from deployments, even if this activity happens inside SLs. This implies that deployments will have a critical voice in what is considered supported or not. Regards, Tomeu > --Mel > ___ > 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
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
On 07/12/2010 07:58 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 21:25 -0400, Walter Bender escribió: > >> This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier >> requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three >> requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject >> [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered "lost". I'd >> like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and >> the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, >> please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit >> their requests so as to formalize them as well. > > I had all 3 requests in my inbox. > > I'm +1 for all 3 of them. Walter forwarded the 3 requests. +1 from me to all 3. If that's a +1 from Walter, Bernie, and myself, we need one more SLOBs +1 vote on each to pass it. --Mel ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
Hi, > Walter forwarded the 3 requests. +1 from me to all 3. > > If that's a +1 from Walter, Bernie, and myself, we need one more > SLOBs +1 vote on each to pass it. +1 vote on each from me too. Thanks for pushing on this, Mel! - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
Mel Chua wrote: On 07/12/2010 07:58 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 21:25 -0400, Walter Bender escribió: This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered "lost". I'd like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit their requests so as to formalize them as well. I had all 3 requests in my inbox. I'm +1 for all 3 of them. Walter forwarded the 3 requests. +1 from me to all 3. If that's a +1 from Walter, Bernie, and myself, we need one more SLOBs +1 vote on each to pass it. +1 on all 3 Thanks CL, AR, PY -- you're now Sugar Labs trademark-legal :) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBs weekly update, 2010-07-11
Yupi! Gonzalo SugarLabs Argentina :) On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Holt wrote: > Mel Chua wrote: > > On 07/12/2010 07:58 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > > > El Sun, 11-07-2010 a las 21:25 -0400, Walter Bender escribió: > > > > This is fine with me, but we never formally approved the earlier > requests due to a lack of policy at the time. I had forwarded three > requests (Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay) to the list with the subject > [TM REQUEST]. Not sure why these requests are considered "lost". I'd > like to formally approve Sugar Labs Chile, Sugar Labs Argentina, and > the use of the Sugar Labs trademark by Paraguay Educa. Slobs members, > please respond +1 or -1. I'll ask DC, Colombia, and Peru to resubmit > their requests so as to formalize them as well. > > > I had all 3 requests in my inbox. > > I'm +1 for all 3 of them. > > > Walter forwarded the 3 requests. +1 from me to all 3. > > If that's a +1 from Walter, Bernie, and myself, we need one more SLOBs > +1 vote on each to pass it. > > > +1 on all 3 > > Thanks CL, AR, PY -- you're now Sugar Labs trademark-legal :) > > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Gonzalo Odiard Responsable de Desarrollo Sistemas Australes ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] Sugar Labs 2010 Goals Review
I thought it would make sense to review our goals half-way through 2010 to check if we're really achieving them and possibly take corrective actions where we're not doing well. See: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2010-01-22#Goals_for_2010_2 Quoting from the above page, with my reflections inline: > * Release Sucrose 0.88 and 0.90 in order to provide a more useful and > stable learning platform for deployments and developers >* Release Sucrose 0.88 in March Done >* Release Sucrose 0.90 in November After a lot of uncertainty, it seems to be happening. >* Deliver a product that has been well tested for usability and > accessibility needs > The first part has been done, thanks to Paraguay Educa and SoaS pilots. Some work on accessibility has been done by Uruguay, but would require more involvement on our side to integrate it. Gonzalo would like to work on keyboard navigability of the Sugar UI. > >* Make successful launches with great marketing campaigns There has been a lot of friction between the marketing team and the SoaS team. Perhaps the ombudsman could talk to the people involved to help resolve the conflict? >* Promote corresponding SoaS releases with Fedora > This is done, and it was a great success in terms of Fedora <-> Sugar Labs collaboration. There's an open quality issue: without interim bugfix releases, we'll hardly ever reach the level of polish we need for classroom usage. >* Define Sugar 1.0 so that we can begin partnering with long-term > stable distros, such as RHEL I think pbrobinson is working on this. If the dot-releases of RHEL could become SoaS spins, the above-mentioned quality issue would be solved. > * Make Sugar the learning platform of choice for 2010 >* Support existing local user groups (e.g., local Sugar Labs) and > work to create new ones > We seem to have done well. > >* Have SL representation at major free software and education > events > We seem to have done well here too, but we could do better. I have no idea who within our community could take care of this. >* Establish relationship with third-party solution providers to > help them understand the benefits of Sugar Examples of such solution providers could be Activity Central, Solution Grove and Waveplace. Without these entities, Sugar has no value for teachers. >* Work with other learning programs that complement our efforts Does anyone have any idea of specific learning programs we could work with? > * Explore Sugar in the context of mobile devices and web-based > services I'm not aware of any work in this direction. I can understand the need to integrate with web-based services (aka online communities). If "mobile devices" in this context means devices smaller than netbooks, such as smart phones, I'm not sure what their use would be in an education context. > > * Make Sugar Labs the place for working on learning-related > technologies > Not sure we did much progress here. We say that our platform is agnostic with respect to education paradigms, but our community may not be particularly welcoming for those interested in traditional content and tools supporting traditional learning. I think we should embrace Karma and eXe as complementary to our current array of activities. I've already invited the leaders of both projects to work closely with us, but perhaps Sugar Labs should make an official proposal for collaboration. >* Provide forums for teachers and developers to collaborate > AFAIK, we did no progress in this direction. I think that the Realness Alliance could fulfill this role. > >* Provide a forum (similar to ASLO) for learners to share their > work No progress here either. We could easily extend ASLO to let children publish contents created with Turtle Art and other activities. Scratch and Etoys already provide their own online communities, we should probably not duplicate them. > >* Demonstrate leadership by providing great tools for the > appropriation and application of knowledge We have plenty of new activities, most of which are very creative and engaging. I particularly like Photo >* Always ask: how does this impact the learning > ...and also "think of the children" :-) >* Let downstreams such as deployers and vendors lead development by > providing human resources I think we did great progress with Paraguay and some progress with Uruguay. Peru, the second largest OLPC deployment, is mysteriously absent from our mailing lists. If someone has contacts, we should attempt to reach out. > * Eat our own dogfood >* Promote free software I think we're doing well here. > >* Be transparent and open to critique > In the past, we've been criticized for insufficient transparency. Does anyone still have a problem with this? >* Encourage new people to join our project We have a welcoming join page ( http://join.sugarlabs.org ). Most members of our
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2010 Goals Review
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: >> * Explore Sugar in the context of mobile devices and web-based >> services > > I'm not aware of any work in this direction. I can understand the need > to integrate with web-based services (aka online communities). > > If "mobile devices" in this context means devices smaller than netbooks, > such as smart phones, I'm not sure what their use would be in an > education context. Are iPad-class devices (such as the XO-3) or touchscreen devices (such as the XO-1.75) counted as "mobile devices"? There will shortly be a large number of iPad-style devices on the market. The hackable ones will probably be running some version of Android (which may or may not mean that a "real" linux distro can be installed). >> * Eat our own dogfood >> * Promote free software > > I think we're doing well here. Are developers using Sugar as their day-to-day development environment yet? >> * Be transparent and open to critique >> > In the past, we've been criticized for insufficient transparency. Does > anyone still have a problem with this? "Open to critique" isn't quite the same as "responsive to critique". >From an outside perspective, it seems that frequently SugarLabs is just not listening to people who offer contrary opinions. This is better than flaming them, but maybe not as good as it could be. For an end-of-year report, I'd like to see instances enumerated where SugarLabs actually internalized some outside critique and responded in a positive way -- some concrete change made to the UI, or Sugar, or to process. That would be more convincing that simply stating, "we are now open to critique". > We're definitely intimidating to non-technical people. At least, this is > what I sensed at the Realness Summit. OLE also seems to be doing a > better job at connecting with educators. I'm not completely sure what > corrective actions should be. We might need to do some work on the wiki, > maybe add web forums, which non-geeks tend to prefer... I suspect that the answer to this problem does not involve installing additional software. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2010 Goals Review
El Mon, 12-07-2010 a las 22:37 -0300, Bernie Innocenti escribió: > > >* Demonstrate leadership by providing great tools for the > > appropriation and application of knowledge > > We have plenty of new activities, most of which are very creative and > engaging. I particularly like Photo FotoToon: http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4253 To me, it perfectly embodies the concept of remixing and combining contents created with other activities. Bravo Gonzalo. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2010 Goals Review
> >* Deliver a product that has been well tested for usability and > > accessibility needs > > > The first part has been done, thanks to Paraguay Educa and SoaS pilots. > > Some work on accessibility has been done by Uruguay, but would require > more involvement on our side to integrate it. Gonzalo would like to work > on keyboard navigability of the Sugar UI. > > I started the evaluation, but didn't continue. Is a larger task than I can do with the time I have today. Particularly, because it should be working with new and the old toolbar. Gonzalo ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
