Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

[Samuel Greenfeld]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Sam, I am eager to learn what you personally think the date should be :)
>

My personal answer (at least in past private discussions) has been to end
support sometime in 2020.

The logic behind that being:

   - OLPC no longer makes any batteries compatible with the XO-1 (or any
   unit prior to the XO-4).  By 2020 the existing battery stock for older XOs
   should be pretty much dead.

   It may be possible to convince Paul Fox or someone to write "compatible"
   embedded controller firmware which charges multiple types of batteries
   sub-optimally given the limited EC flash space available.  But that would
   require the more general availability of replacement batteries.

   - Support for i586 CPUs is starting to leave mainline Linux
   distributions.  Note Debian's recent announcement about processors
   supported in Jessie but not Stretch.

   https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2016/05/msg1.html
   {The AMD Geode LX in XO-1's is a MediaGX derivative}

   The somewhat odd processor in XO-1s has had a history of throwing
   illegal instruction errors whenever someone compiled a library incorrectly,
   or a just-in-time compiler took advantage of an instruction the CPU lacked.

   Other Linux distributions such as RHEL/CentOS have gone 64-bit only.

   - Experiments have been made, but no big push has been made to update
   XOs beyond Fedora 18, which hit end-of-life in early 2014.  This requires
   kernel work to fix upstreamed drivers (XO-1 & 1.5) & more kernel work to
   upstream & port non-upstreamed drivers (XO-1.75 & 4).

   The alternative is to port an older systemd forward; potentially an
   equally annoying headache.

   - By 2020 one would hope Sugar is targeting the latest & most
   appropriate platform of the day, and not restricting itself to capabilities
   invented 15 years ago.



Fair enough. I've schedule a chat with Leah at OLPC in a couple of weeks,
> and I'll keep you all posted on what I can find out.
>

If there is a reason to go to OLPC's Miami office again I don't have an
issue with that.  I was there in October, and as far as I know I'm still on
good terms with them.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 14:38, Adam Holt  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> On 12 May 2016 at 07:59, Walter Bender  wrote:
>> > Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing
>> Sugar
>> > Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del
>> Perú
>> > meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
>>
>> Did this motion pass?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> I can't find a record of it in my email.
>
>
How do Members know when motions pass or fail?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 3 June 2016 at 21:10, Samuel Greenfeld  wrote:

> (Intentionally top-posted)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>>>- A definite end-of-life date needs to put on XO-1 support.
>>>
>>> Sure! What do you think that date should be, Sam?
>>
>
Sam, I am eager to learn what you personally think the date should be :)


> I offer that Sugar Labs should follow OLPC Inc's lead on this, and
>> continue to support the XO-1 for as long as they are. Does anyone know for
>> how long OLPC will be supporting the XO-1?
>>
>
> Historically I would have answered this by stating that OLPC likely will
> [not] provide a public end-of-life schedule
>

Fair enough. I've schedule a chat with Leah at OLPC in a couple of weeks,
and I'll keep you all posted on what I can find out.

I've added your goal ideas to the end of
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/2016_Goals and invite you to add more ideas
about what you think SL should do :)

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 17:18, Walter Bender  wrote:

> I'll send the pending motions by email this weekend and see whether or not
> my colleagues respond
>

Please CC the IEAP list.

After the meeting today I went over my email for all emails I received
since the monthly May meeting that were also sent to
sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org and captured all the motions on the Decisions
page:

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions

(The four Finance Manager motions need accurate titles)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 17:18, Walter Bender  wrote:

> Nice analogy.
>

I remembered this evening where I heard this; its one of the "Agile"
software development maxims :)

http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FrequencyReducesDifficulty.html

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dalio

http://evan.bottch.com/2010/05/26/continuous-integration-if-something-hurts-do-it-more-often/

https://vinayakjoglekar.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/if-its-painful-do-it-more-often/

https://mlafeldt.github.io/blog/if-it-hurts-do-it-more-often/
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 17:10, Walter Bender  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3 June 2016 at 17:04, Walter Bender  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>>
 Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the
 current practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote.

>>>
>>> As frustrating as I found today's meeting, I think it unwise to stifle
>>> discussion of motions before a vote. There must be some way to get board
>>> members to engage between meetings.
>>>
>>
>> We have a wonderful way to discuss between meetings, and even vote on
>> motions: Email.
>>
>
> But by-and-large the SLOB members have not been participating in those
> discussions :P
>

I hope that making the monthly/weekly meeting focused procedurally on
decision-making instead of discussions will smoke them out.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Sugar/OLPC Relations

[Samuel Greenfeld]

(Intentionally top-posted)

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
>>- A definite end-of-life date needs to put on XO-1 support.
>>
>> Sure! What do you think that date should be, Sam?
>
> What do other people think?
>
> I offer that Sugar Labs should follow OLPC Inc's lead on this, and
> continue to support the XO-1 for as long as they are.
>
> Does anyone know for how long OLPC will be supporting the XO-1?
>

Historically I would have answered this by stating that OLPC likely will
provide a public end-of-life schedule whenever they remove everyone from
their about page {including Negroponte} that is no longer involved in the
project.

Likewise you would get their lesson plans for Sugar when you tore them from
OLPC's cold, dead hands.

There has never been a good relationship between OLPC's corporate side and
it's academia-based side.  If there was at one point, no one has told me
stories from those days.

The corporate site of OLPC is extremely secretive compared to open-source
projects.


But within the past few months, OLPC has added people and categories to
http://one.laptop.org/about/people , which makes me curious as to what they
are up to.  They also may have subtly rebranded the XO-4 Touch as the "XO
Laptop Touch" a year or so ago.

Excluding James Cameron (since he's contracted by OLPC), has anyone been
keeping regular contact with OLPC to see what their wishes & concerns are?

Perhaps Sugar should have a Community Manager who regularly meets with
OLPC, deployments, and partners to see what they are up to, and what their
concerns are.

For all we know, OLPC may be working on their next software project, just
like One Education is.  Said project may or may not include Sugar.

Sugar really needs OLPC or another large organization to champion its
usage, and be a willing reference when other organizations ask about using
it.  Otherwise we may have a hard time growing Sugar beyond its current
boundaries.

---
SJG
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Similar to the way that branching was 'expensive' and slow in old version
> control systems, and newer ones made it fast and cheap; and similar to the
> way that running code was 'expensive' and slow with compiled languages, and
> newer dynamic/scripting languages made it fast and cheap; I think that
> since voting is 'expensive' and slow for SLOBs, and so I would like to see
> a lot more voting happening, so we get some forward momentum.
>

Nice analogy.

I'll send the pending motions by email this weekend and see whether or not
my colleagues respond (but I do think a second to the motion is necessary
before opening a vote).

-walter


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 3 June 2016 at 17:04, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>> Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the
>>> current practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote.
>>>
>>
>> As frustrating as I found today's meeting, I think it unwise to stifle
>> discussion of motions before a vote. There must be some way to get board
>> members to engage between meetings.
>>
>
> We have a wonderful way to discuss between meetings, and even vote on
> motions: Email.
>

But by-and-large the SLOB members have not been participating in those
discussions :P



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Dave Crossland]

Similar to the way that branching was 'expensive' and slow in old version
control systems, and newer ones made it fast and cheap; and similar to the
way that running code was 'expensive' and slow with compiled languages, and
newer dynamic/scripting languages made it fast and cheap; I think that
since voting is 'expensive' and slow for SLOBs, and so I would like to see
a lot more voting happening, so we get some forward momentum.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 16:24, Walter Bender  wrote:

> Unless someone seconds the motion, I cannot call for a vote :P


I have made a second motion to make explicit my proposal to discard
seconding.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 17:04, Walter Bender  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current
>> practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote.
>>
>
> As frustrating as I found today's meeting, I think it unwise to stifle
> discussion of motions before a vote. There must be some way to get board
> members to engage between meetings.
>

We have a wonderful way to discuss between meetings, and even vote on
motions: Email.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] minutes from 3 June 2016 oversight board meeting

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 3 June 2016 at 16:19, Walter Bender  wrote:

>
> I am certain to yet again be accused of making an ad hominem attack, but I
> have to say that I was extremely disappointed in the lack of preparedness
> for this meeting. Several community members had been working on motions,
> requesting comments and feedback over the course of several months. And yet
> it was only during the meeting itself that feedback from committee members
> was forthcoming. It is fine to raise objections to the motions -- as I had
> made clear in the email discussions leading up to the meeting, I am not
> necessarily in favor of the motions presented -- but the objects raised
> were things that could have and should have been raised and resolved long
> before the meeting itself. As a consequence, we got mired in some
> technicalities instead of talking about the big picture. I cannot speak for
> those who worked on the motions, but I found this frustrating.
>

I feel very frustrated that not a single motion was voted on today.

While there were voiced objections by some board members to each motion, at
the very last minute, which I do not like, I am also frustrated that the
other board members present were not willing to second either motion. I
think it is important that each motion is voted on, to cast explicit "no"
votes, because that gives important feedback to the person posting the
motion about if they should continue to refine the motion and post another
one, or give up.

I am at a loss as to how to solicit feedback in a timely matter so we can
> make some progress on our backlog of proposals.


I have already posted 2 motions today to specify the format of future SLOB
meetings that I think will lead to rapid progress in passing or failing
motions explicitly.

Since email voting has a 7 day limit, I would also like to request SLOBs
meet once per week at the same time as the monthly meeting unless there are
no motions pending.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current
> practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote.
>

As frustrating as I found today's meeting, I think it unwise to stifle
discussion of motions before a vote. There must be some way to get board
members to engage between meetings.

-walter

>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member

[Dave Crossland]

Motion: to vote on each motion proposed by a member, dropping the current
practice of requiring a seconding before moving to a vote.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB
> meetings: the chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will
> make any announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will
> announce the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB
> member will announce their vote; the chair will announce the outcome of the
> motion; the chair will announce the next motion, until all motions are
> voted on; the chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of
> any topic until the meeting ends at the time scheduled.
>

Unless someone seconds the motion, I cannot call for a vote :P

>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] [SLOB] minutes from 3 June 2016 oversight board meeting

[Walter Bender]

The minutes from today's Sugar Labs Oversight Board meeting are available
at [1]. The meeting log is available at [2].

I am certain to yet again be accused of making an ad hominem attack, but I
have to say that I was extremely disappointed in the lack of preparedness
for this meeting. Several community members had been working on motions,
requesting comments and feedback over the course of several months. And yet
it was only during the meeting itself that feedback from committee members
was forthcoming. It is fine to raise objections to the motions -- as I had
made clear in the email discussions leading up to the meeting, I am not
necessarily in favor of the motions presented -- but the objects raised
were things that could have and should have been raised and resolved long
before the meeting itself. As a consequence, we got mired in some
technicalities instead of talking about the big picture. I cannot speak for
those who worked on the motions, but I found this frustrating. I am at a
loss as to how to solicit feedback in a timely matter so we can make some
progress on our backlog of proposals.  I am not proposing a "charade", that
we approve motions that are inadequate or somehow flawed, but I do think
that we should respect the hard work put in by the community and be more
responsive and timely in our responses. It is clear that one hour per month
is not sufficient time to discuss, fine-tune, and vote on even one motion,
never mind the 5-6 we currently have in the queue. The discussion and
word-smiting has to happen between meetings.  I seek guidance from my
fellow board members (and the community as a whole) as to how to move
forward.

regards.

-walter

[1] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2016-06-03
[2] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2016-06-03T19:01:08

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Dave Crossland]

Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB
meetings: the chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will
make any announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will
announce the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB
member will announce their vote; the chair will announce the outcome of the
motion; the chair will announce the next motion, until all motions are
voted on; the chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of
any topic until the meeting ends at the time scheduled.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 14:55, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> On 3 June 2016 at 00:46, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>> I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision statement:
>>
>
> Was this a motion to be voted on?


Oh I see, you posted this thread for discussion and then posted your motion
in thread "Motion to update current SL vision statement" :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Dave Crossland]

Thank you for posting this motion, Laura! :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 00:46, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision statement:
>

Was this a motion to be voted on?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SL member list/joining criterion

[Dave Crossland]

On 22 May 2016 at 00:34, Sebastian Silva  wrote:

> El 15/05/16 a las 10:04, Sebastian Silva escribió:
>
> > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Adam Holt 
>   wrote:
> >
> > In any case, with about 4 months having have passed since January's
> election, can the Sugar Labs' legal board of directors please now get
> access to the verified-current-membership list of eligible voters that was
> used in this election, that Samson Goddy indicates is at
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1bgJ6Z8gHpxIwpNSD8qf8B5n1ZQRA1r0AAdCDcMVeZEs/edit
> ?
>
> Samson is wrong, the list at [4] was used, with some people added manually
> by Caryl, but not listed there. Caryl could you please either update that
> list or share a list of people who got a ballot in last election?
>
> Hi,
> I regret to inform you that it has just come to my attention [1] that
> Caryl did not use the list of people who responded affirmatively to the
> membership survey in last election. Instead, and contrary to what was
> discussed, she sent ballots to every historic member of Sugar Labs.
>
> I take the blame for this error, for not doublechecking Caryl's CIVS
> election.
>

I suggest the only action to take here is to ensure that this year the
ballots are only sent to active members.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOB] another motion (Quispe trip to Translation Summit)

[Adam Holt]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> On 12 May 2016 at 07:59, Walter Bender  wrote:
> > Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses incurred representing
> Sugar
> > Labs at the Traducción e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del
> Perú
> > meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.
>
> Did this motion pass?


Yes.


> I can't find a record of it in my email.
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
> --
> 
> 
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
> http://unleashkids.org !
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Planned Sunjammer Reboot

[Dave Crossland]

Thanks Sam!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Planned Sunjammer Reboot

[Samuel Cantero]

Everything is up and running. Please let me know if you find something
broken.

Best regards,

Samuel C.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Samuel Cantero  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Sunjammer had an unattended kernel upgrade yesterday. We know now that
> kernel updates are not banned from the unattended upgrades config.
>
> I am at the FSF now and I'll reboot sunjammer in a little while in order
> to check if it comes back. It is better to find this out now than after an
> unexpected power event.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Samuel C.
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Planned Sunjammer Reboot

[Samuel Cantero]

Hi all,

Sunjammer had an unattended kernel upgrade yesterday. We know now that
kernel updates are not banned from the unattended upgrades config.

I am at the FSF now and I'll reboot sunjammer in a little while in order to
check if it comes back. It is better to find this out now than after an
unexpected power event.

Best regards,

Samuel C.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Motion to update current SL vision statement

[Laura Vargas]

I hereby propose the motion to update current SL vision statement:

"About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project of
Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part of
the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers around
the world who are passionate about providing educational opportunities to
children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar Labs(R) is supported by
donations and is seeking funding to accelerate development."

To the new proposed text:

"Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design,
develop and deploy high-quality Free/Libre Software that facilitates
self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young children
of all continents."

What is the problem we are trying to solve?

- Current Vision Statement is not wrong – but certainly is not inspiring or
unique.
- Current Vision fails to define what we do as an output: we provide
infrastructure so that a community of people can produce and deliver
software to children.
- Current Vision fails to identify our unique "selling"
points: self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young
children of all continents.

Blessings and thank you very much for your attention.
-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Laura Vargas]

Dave,

Mission vrs Vision has nothing to do with the length of the statement.

Instead, the difference is about which question does it answer;

Mission shall answer “What do we do? What makes us different?” while
Vision answers
the question, “Where do we aim to be?”

Still, like many author state, they are both often confused and therefore
strategic planning these days usually limits to one unique statement that
covers and answers all questions.

Sean,

 It is the first time I read the current SL vision. I'm glad we have one.
Thanks for pointing it out.

Thank you both for the feedback. I'll send a separate email with the motion
to update current vision statement.

2016-06-04 2:05 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

> On 3 June 2016 at 10:40, Sean DALY  wrote:
> > I can rework a message (perhaps any message) until I am happy with it
>
> Please edit https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016 until
> you are happy with it :D
>
> > What I can't do is invent the direction SL should take.
>
> But we all can! :)
>
> Everyone in the world is empowered to offer their view of the
> direction that SL should take, by editing the wiki, and to take action
> in whatever direction they like, by contributing to the codebase or
> other things on Github.
>
> For example, if some people don't want to work on enabling Activities
> to run on Windows, they just don't, and other people who do want to
> work on this will do.
>
> But marketing can help call attention to the possible things that
> people may be inspired to work on. So perhaps I could say, "the best
> way to invent the future direction is to predict it" ;)
>
> > Things would certainly be easier if SL was marketing-oriented,
> > but FLOSS projects don't "do" that, it's not in their nature.
>
> Please could you explain more about what it means to be
> "marketing-oriented"? :)
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 10:40, Sean DALY  wrote:
> I can rework a message (perhaps any message) until I am happy with it

Please edit https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016 until
you are happy with it :D

> What I can't do is invent the direction SL should take.

But we all can! :)

Everyone in the world is empowered to offer their view of the
direction that SL should take, by editing the wiki, and to take action
in whatever direction they like, by contributing to the codebase or
other things on Github.

For example, if some people don't want to work on enabling Activities
to run on Windows, they just don't, and other people who do want to
work on this will do.

But marketing can help call attention to the possible things that
people may be inspired to work on. So perhaps I could say, "the best
way to invent the future direction is to predict it" ;)

> Things would certainly be easier if SL was marketing-oriented,
> but FLOSS projects don't "do" that, it's not in their nature.

Please could you explain more about what it means to be "marketing-oriented"? :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 10:40, Sean DALY  wrote:
> Perhaps I should try to put together a decision tree?

That sounds great! I'm curious to see it :D
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Sean DALY]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> If you don't draft something, you will not be happy with what is used :)



Um, no... I can rework a message (perhaps any message) until I am happy
with it. What I can't do is invent the direction SL should take. Things
would certainly be easier if SL was marketing-oriented, but FLOSS projects
don't "do" that, it's not in their nature.

Perhaps I should try to put together a decision tree?

Sean
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 10:31, Sean DALY  wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>> Please draft a vision statement you would be happy with.
>
> [No]

If you don't draft something, you will not be happy with what is used :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Sean DALY]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Please draft a vision statement you would be happy with.



I have (no shortage of) ideas, and experience in crafting text. But our
vision is more than a marketer's spin (and heaven knows I've been guilty of
spinning in the past despite my best intentions). Rather, the community
needs to get behind a common vision. This is not as easy as it sounds. For
example, many of my fine ideas involve assigning drudge IT work to other
volunteers. That doesn't work. I happen to agree with you that we should
look at Windows as a platform due to its desktop/laptop ubiquity. However
others don't feel the same way. I think web-based is a clear forward path.
However that shouldn't mean the historical platform should be stopped.
Recently I cited C. Scott Ananian's suggestion concerning the essence of
the Sugar experience. Agreement on what that is would help resolve what our
technical platforms need to offer - Sugarizer as a true platform, or demo
of the computer-based platform?

I think it would be really great if we could try to offer XO-4s somehow - a
very large order would have fabulous side effects such as silencing
longtime naysayers and encouraging component manufacturers to stay current.
It's a very big idea, but I for one could get behind it.

At the same time, Sugarizer is great for introducing Sugar's uniqueness to
prescriptors (parents/teachers) and children, and in my view offers a path
to handheld tactile devices which have swept away desktops and laptops in
schools.

Sean.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 08:42, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> On 3 June 2016 at 07:30, Karen Sandler  wrote:
>>> Can Conservancy accept written approval from SLOBs that any expense
>>> under $200 is authorized?
>>
>>
>> I'll check with Tony Sebro, but I think we could do any expense under $200
>> confirmed by some_name to be forwarding the mission of Sugar Labs and
>> software freedom. Otherwise, nothing will prevent random people from
>> submitting reimbursements directly to us.
>
> Perfect! Thank you Karen!

Tony confirmed this is fine, with a caveat that they will review all
expenses to be within the charitable scope of Conservancy.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Sean

Please draft a vision statement you would be happy with.

Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Sean DALY]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> I believe Sugar is intended to enable a computer to provide enhanced
> educational opportunities; especially to those who have limited access to
> the Internet. One goal of Sugar is to bring to reality the educational
> concepts of Seymour Papert and Alan Kay.
>


yes - "Bringing learning to children everywhere with technology" or
suchlike.

Our mission statement is not my main concern... it's our vision statement,
the short "how & what" explanation which will invite supporters.

Sean
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Sean DALY]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> To be a welcoming global community where anyone can learn how to
> develop high-quality libre software that facilitates learning through
> self-discovery and collaboration among young children of all
> continents, and to make that software easily available to learners and
> teachers.
>


So our mission is to nicely help people to become friendly developers, then
make it available as an afterthought?

We need to take a moral high ground - we are involved in education,
bridging the digital divide.

FYI here is our existing mission statement:

About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project of
Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit corporation. Originally part of
the One Laptop Per Child project, Sugar Labs coordinates volunteers around
the world who are passionate about providing educational opportunities to
children through the Sugar Learning Platform. Sugar Labs(R) is supported by
donations and is seeking funding to accelerate development.


Sean
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Tony Anderson]

I believe Sugar is intended to enable a computer to provide enhanced 
educational opportunities; especially to those who have limited access to
the Internet. One goal of Sugar is to bring to reality the educational 
concepts of Seymour Papert and Alan Kay.


Tony

On 06/03/2016 11:28 AM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:57:29 -0600
From: Dave Crossland
To: Laura Vargas
Cc: iaep, SLOBs
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi

I understood that the one-liner statement is a 'mission statement,'
and the 'vision statement' is the longer text that expresses the
details implied by the mission, the high level goals, and more
specific values.

The article you mention,
https://www.executestrategy.net/blog/write-good-vision-statement  , has
a good 'funnel' diagram showing this, with blocks for "values."

Here's a nice list of non profit mission statements:
https://topnonprofits.com/examples/nonprofit-mission-statements/

So I propose to adopt the following statement as the mission
statement, starting from your text and taking Sean's comments into
account:

To be a welcoming global community where anyone can learn how to
develop high-quality libre software that facilitates learning through
self-discovery and collaboration among young children of all
continents, and to make that software easily available to learners and
teachers.

Cheers
Dave


___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Smart way to get $$ for posting videos on youtube

[Adam Holt]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Adam, please could you confirm with Conservancy that we can set up
> adsense and youtube advertising accounts to raise revenue?
>

I don't see why not, if there is a genuine consensus to move forward here?
But most important who will manage these and how?

If we have an organized/near-definitive proposal (preferably approved by
Oversight Board, or similar) for how Sugar Labs wants to move forward, then
I will approach SFConservancy on any final required mechanics here.

Karen Sandler (SFC Exec Director) and her team are currently researching
how SL can get a donation button for SL (presumably using PayPal) much like
http://sfconservancy.org/donate/ and helping get Samson Goddy's Yoruba
translation contract organized, among a quite number of other SL financial
+ legal requests at this time, so we really please need to be understanding
to avoid sending them trial balloons, doing our own due diligence first,
Thanks all!

--
Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ http://unleashkids.org !
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> On 3 June 2016 at 07:54, Walter Bender  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> >> On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Or is the intention to *add* another person separate from any concrete
> >>> goals within the organization some unilateral spending privileges?  If
> the
> >>> latter, what problem are we solving?
> >>
> >> The recent domain renewal is a great case study about why we want to add
> >> another person separate from any concrete goals; that person acts as a
> >> 'catch all' or 'back stop' to solve the problem that there is a small
> >> expense that needs to be covered quickly but without a formally
> structured
> >> role in place it isn't clear who can approve the spending.
> >
> > This example is broken. Bernie in fact is the one whom should have been
> > approached as head of the infrastructure team and he could have approved
> the
> > spending unilaterally.
>
> And yet, despite Seb being a contributor for many years, and me being
> somewhat familiar with the idea that Bernie can spend unilaterally,
> that didn't happen.
>

Would be good to understand why. Not clear that it has anything to do with
formal vs informal or structure or lack of structure. Perhaps lack of
documentation? Also, it is not clear that this is a persistent or systemic
problem. But again, I am convinced by your passion that we should try
something new.

>
> For myself, I didn't approach Bernie because I understood his
> unilateral spending authority to be limited to thing he needs to do to
> keep the servers running, and since Seb has the domain registered
> himself, it seemed a little bit far from Bernie's remit.
>
> I also note that Seb posted to the community lists about this, and
> no-one, including yourself, replied to say "Bernie can do this" CC'ing
> him.
>
> Without formally structured roles, we rely on informal structures,
> which are inherently subjective and ambiguous. The example appears
> broken to you now because in your subjective perspective Bernie is
> authorized to renew the domain, but the observed reality is that his
> authority was not exercised and this is a failure of the informal
> structure. A formal structure might succeed :)
>
> > But I cry "uncle"
>
> lol :)
>
> >> If you still find yourself puzzled by the motivations for more
> structure,
> >> I recommend a close reading of
> http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm -
> >> I found it very enlightening as to the problems inherent in
> >> flat/distributed/self-empowered organizations :)
> >
> > I am puzzled and will read the article before the meeting.
>
> :D
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

I understood that the one-liner statement is a 'mission statement,'
and the 'vision statement' is the longer text that expresses the
details implied by the mission, the high level goals, and more
specific values.

The article you mention,
https://www.executestrategy.net/blog/write-good-vision-statement , has
a good 'funnel' diagram showing this, with blocks for "values."

Here's a nice list of non profit mission statements:
https://topnonprofits.com/examples/nonprofit-mission-statements/

So I propose to adopt the following statement as the mission
statement, starting from your text and taking Sean's comments into
account:

To be a welcoming global community where anyone can learn how to
develop high-quality libre software that facilitates learning through
self-discovery and collaboration among young children of all
continents, and to make that software easily available to learners and
teachers.

Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 07:30, Karen Sandler  wrote:
>> Can Conservancy accept written approval from SLOBs that any expense
>> under $200 is authorized?
>
>
> I'll check with Tony Sebro, but I think we could do any expense under $200
> confirmed by some_name to be forwarding the mission of Sugar Labs and
> software freedom. Otherwise, nothing will prevent random people from
> submitting reimbursements directly to us.

Perfect! Thank you Karen!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2016 at 07:54, Walter Bender  wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>> On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender  wrote:
>>>
>>> Or is the intention to *add* another person separate from any concrete
>>> goals within the organization some unilateral spending privileges?  If the
>>> latter, what problem are we solving?
>>
>> The recent domain renewal is a great case study about why we want to add
>> another person separate from any concrete goals; that person acts as a
>> 'catch all' or 'back stop' to solve the problem that there is a small
>> expense that needs to be covered quickly but without a formally structured
>> role in place it isn't clear who can approve the spending.
>
> This example is broken. Bernie in fact is the one whom should have been
> approached as head of the infrastructure team and he could have approved the
> spending unilaterally.

And yet, despite Seb being a contributor for many years, and me being
somewhat familiar with the idea that Bernie can spend unilaterally,
that didn't happen.

For myself, I didn't approach Bernie because I understood his
unilateral spending authority to be limited to thing he needs to do to
keep the servers running, and since Seb has the domain registered
himself, it seemed a little bit far from Bernie's remit.

I also note that Seb posted to the community lists about this, and
no-one, including yourself, replied to say "Bernie can do this" CC'ing
him.

Without formally structured roles, we rely on informal structures,
which are inherently subjective and ambiguous. The example appears
broken to you now because in your subjective perspective Bernie is
authorized to renew the domain, but the observed reality is that his
authority was not exercised and this is a failure of the informal
structure. A formal structure might succeed :)

> But I cry "uncle"

lol :)

>> If you still find yourself puzzled by the motivations for more structure,
>> I recommend a close reading of http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm -
>> I found it very enlightening as to the problems inherent in
>> flat/distributed/self-empowered organizations :)
>
> I am puzzled and will read the article before the meeting.

:D
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Sean DALY]

Hi Laura

My issue with this statement is that it is reductionist: "SL is a community
for learning about software". Which is certainly true, but fundamentally we
offer software, not a learning service.

Our vision should be a mission (to develop high-quality software for
children worldwide) and an overarching goal (making our software easily
available to learners and teachers) and an indicator of how we plan to do
this (web-based, multi-platform, XO-4, ...).

Project recruitment, the grocery list of goals, fundraising, pointing to
past successes, how we will adapt to a very different IT context from 2007,
all flow from an easy-to-understand vision statement which most accurately
tells the story concisely.

Sean




On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision statement:
>
> Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design,
> develop and deploy high-quality Free Software that facilitates
> self-discovery learning experiences and collaboration among young children
> of all continents.  Join us!
>
> I regret the late submission of this proposal, but not until today I
> understood the vision is not about the software but the community. It is a
> summary of what has been written in the wiki, so that it has the ideal
> length of a vision statement while describing our reason to exist and at
> the same time serving as an inspirational quote to be part of this
> adventure. For reference on how to write a vision statement please visit:
> https://www.executestrategy.net/blog/write-good-vision-statement/
>
> --
> Laura V.
> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
> IRC kaametza
>
> Happy Learning!
>
>
> ___
> 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] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>> The motion as drafted in the PDF above does not require Bernie to speak
>>> with Person X to ask permission to buy things under $Y; it does mean that
>>> Person X _could_ disapprove the spending, but I don't think we should worry
>>> about that. If push came to shove, Bernie could get SLOB to approve it
>>> directly.
>>>
>>
>> This last statement makes no sense to me.  Bernie "does not" need to ask
>> permission but his purchase may be "disapproved"?
>>
>
> Right. Bernie can go ahead and make the purchase on the assumption that it
> is reasonable and will be approved.
>
> If on the off-chance that he and the FM disagreed about the purchase, he
> would have recourse in SLOBs directly. If SLOBS disapproved the spending,
> he's out of pocket.
>
>
>> Or is the intention to *add* another person separate from any concrete
>> goals within the organization some unilateral spending privileges?  If the
>> latter, what problem are we solving?
>>
>
> The recent domain renewal is a great case study about why we want to add
> another person separate from any concrete goals; that person acts as a
> 'catch all' or 'back stop' to solve the problem that there is a small
> expense that needs to be covered quickly but without a formally structured
> role in place it isn't clear who can approve the spending.
>

This example is broken. Bernie in fact is the one whom should have been
approached as head of the infrastructure team and he could have approved
the spending unilaterally. But I cry "uncle". You and Caryl seem so
convinced that we need an FM in the middle to approve things, I am willing
to give it a try. Your passion carries the day. Let's see what the rest of
the oversight board thinks.

>
> If you still find yourself puzzled by the motivations for more structure,
> I recommend a close reading of http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
> - I found it very enlightening as to the problems inherent in
> flat/distributed/self-empowered organizations :)
>

I am puzzled and will read the article before the meeting.

-walter



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Sean DALY]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> If on the off-chance that he and the FM disagreed about the purchase, he
> would have recourse in SLOBs directly. If SLOBS disapproved the spending,
> he's out of pocket.



I'd be very surprised at such a scenario. Bernie has always acted quickly
to keep things running, generally a thankless job. I don't think Bernie
should wind up having to pay out of pocket anything.
Sean
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Motion to adopt the 2016 vision for Sugar Labs

[Laura Vargas]

I propose to adopt the following statement as the vision statement:

Sugar Labs is a global community where you can learn how to design, develop
and deploy high-quality Free Software that facilitates self-discovery
learning experiences and collaboration among young children of all
continents.  Join us!

I regret the late submission of this proposal, but not until today I
understood the vision is not about the software but the community. It is a
summary of what has been written in the wiki, so that it has the ideal
length of a vision statement while describing our reason to exist and at
the same time serving as an inspirational quote to be part of this
adventure. For reference on how to write a vision statement please visit:
https://www.executestrategy.net/blog/write-good-vision-statement/

-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep