Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Samson Goddy 
On 18 Aug 2016 3:02 a.m., "Dave Crossland"  wrote:
>
>
> On 17 August 2016 at 21:32, Walter Bender  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to
join if they had no interest in the project? (I suppose we could get
invaded by trolls, in which case we can "build a wall." But I see no
evidence that that is a problem.)
>
>
> Nor me - a luxury problem ;)
>
>
> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar
Labs owned project?


 From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
connected to the Sugar community.
>>>
>>>
>>> Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?
>>>
>>> - Childsplay
>>> - Scratch
>>> - Squeak
>>> - Tux Math
>>> - Tux Paint
>>> - XSCE
>>
>>
>> Sure. And don't forget gcompris.
>
>
> Okay cool :) I think a single mail to each project's user list will be
sufficient, then.
>
>>
>> What do you think about hardware projects? Does Butia qualify? Rodi?
What about RPi?
>
>
> I think a single mail to each project's user list would also be fine.
>
>> Does the XO Infinity have a FOSS option or is it just Windows?
>
>
> They will create a Sugar SKU if we can order 500 units or more, and they
will donate to Sugar Labs the same amount or more that they pay to MS for
Windows
>
Seems fair. I have been trying to run Ubuntu for weeks now. The One
Education tech guy Matthew told me to wait.
> (One Education doesn't use the XO trademark owned by OLPC Inc)
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> ___
> 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] Priority languages to translate Sugar

2016-08-17 Thread Chris Leonard 
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Laura Vargas  wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the input!
>
> Here is how the list is looking as of today, revision 7:
>

I added ISO639 codes where I could, some clarification will be needed,
so I included questions.


>
> 01- Sugar Learning Platform to Shippibo (Peruvian Amazon Tribe with a
> Community in Lima by the Rimac River + 2009 SugarXO introductory
> intercultural intervention with international Teachers) Probable Local
> Partner: MinEdu Perú

ISO639 code shp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipibo_language

> 02- Sugar Learning Platform to Muisca (Colombia Language in danger of
> extintion + 2014 5TransfomationalGames developed with Community's Children +
> SugarXO extended introduction to Children+Parents+LocalLibrary) Probable
> Local Partners: Alcaldia de Chía - Local Library - MinCultura Colombia

We need to clarify the exact language code, possibly ISO639 code chb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibcha_language
Diut dialect (extinct)?

> 03-Sugar Learning Platform to Miskito (We have been contacted by soporte
> Técnico Nicaragua, there is interest in this project) Probable Local
> Partner: Fundación Zamora Teran

Mískitu is set up in Pootle and initial data for a glibc locale has
been provided (Thanks Laura for prompting Jairo of FNZT to provide
that)

http://translate.sugarlabs.org/miq/

>
> 04- Sugar Learning Platform to Ashaninka

Asháninka

(Amazon Tribe from Colombia's
> forest to Peruvians + MinCultura Peru has validated + MinCultura Colombia
> might be interested)
>

ISO639 code cni
http://www.sil.org/resources/search/language/cni

Someone needs to negotiate the "no derivative works" license issue on
all of this SIL bilingual Castellano - Asháninka content especially
the dictionary stuff.


> 05- Finish Sugar Learning Platform to Haitian Creole (the platform has been
> mostly translated by volunteers, but the quality of the translations are
> weak)

(Krèyol ayisyen) ISO639 code ht
http://translate.sugarlabs.org/ht/

>
> 06- Sugar Learning Platform to Wampi (Probable Local Partner: MinEdu Perú)

Do you mean gum – Guambiano?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconucan_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guambiano

>
> 07- Internationalization of the 5 TransformationalGames Made in Colombia on
> Artisan Workshop 2014 - Sugar Camp Chía. Posterior localization to
> Portugues, English, German and French (Probable global/regional partners
> Sugarizer+UN+BID+Antel)
> 08- Sugar Learning Platform to Cherokee (Research Pending)
> 07- Sugar Learing Platform to Navajo (Research Pending)
> 09- Sugar Learning Platform to Lakota (Research Pending)
> 10- Sugar Learning Platform to Mapuche (Research Pending)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche_language
http://translate.sugarlabs.org/arn/


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

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 17 August 2016 at 21:32, Walter Bender  wrote:

> I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.
>
>

We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to join
> if they had no interest in the project? (I suppose we could get invaded by
> trolls, in which case we can "build a wall." But I see no evidence that
> that is a problem.)
>

Nor me - a luxury problem ;)


> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
 owned project?

>>>
>>> From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
>>> qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
>>> connected to the Sugar community.
>>>
>>
>> Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?
>>
>> - Childsplay
>> - Scratch
>> - Squeak
>> - Tux Math
>> - Tux Paint
>> - XSCE
>>
>
> Sure. And don't forget gcompris.
>

Okay cool :) I think a single mail to each project's user list will be
sufficient, then.


> What do you think about hardware projects? Does Butia qualify? Rodi? What
> about RPi?
>

I think a single mail to each project's user list would also be fine.

Does the XO Infinity have a FOSS option or is it just Windows?
>

They will create a Sugar SKU if we can order 500 units or more, and they
will donate to Sugar Labs the same amount or more that they pay to MS for
Windows

(One Education doesn't use the XO trademark owned by OLPC Inc)

-- 
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] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Walter Bender 
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
>
> On 17 August 2016 at 21:11, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender 
> wrote:
>
>> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
>> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
>> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I 
> mentioned
> in my recent post. Was one appointed?
>

 I don't recall. Could be me :)

>>>
>>> I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion
>>> point (and possible immediate motion :)
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>> This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself
>>> that we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are
>>>
>>> - what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to
>>> be counted as a Sugar Labs member?
>>>
>>
>> I agree with the "big tent" premise. We have a diverse project with many
>> parts. Contributions of all types are welcome and qualifying IMHO. Since we
>> also try to blur the line between users and contributors, I am also of the
>> opinion that a user who would like to be a member should be welcome.
>>
>
> Since it is libre software, anyone can be a user; thus you are proposing
> that anyone who self-asserts to become a voting member by emailing
> memb...@sugarlabs.org should be added to the membership list (which I
> propose is itself a mailman mailing list.)
>

We'll have to trust that they are Sugar users. Why would they want to join
if they had no interest in the project? (I suppose we could get invaded by
trolls, in which case we can "build a wall." But I see no evidence that
that is a problem.)

>
> I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.
>
>
>> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
>>> owned project?
>>>
>>
>> From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
>> qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
>> connected to the Sugar community.
>>
>
> Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?
>
> - Childsplay
> - Scratch
> - Squeak
> - Tux Math
> - Tux Paint
> - XSCE
>
>
Sure. And don't forget gcompris. (Although I recall there are some versions
of Scratch that were not FOSS.)

What do you think about hardware projects? Does Butia qualify? Rodi? What
about RPi? Does the XO Infinity have a FOSS option or is it just Windows?

-walter

> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>



-- 
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] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 17 August 2016 at 21:11, Walter Bender  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>>

 On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender 
 wrote:

> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.


 https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
 representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
 in my recent post. Was one appointed?

>>>
>>> I don't recall. Could be me :)
>>>
>>
>> I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion
>> point (and possible immediate motion :)
>>
>
> +1
>
>>
>> This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself
>> that we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are
>>
>> - what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to be
>> counted as a Sugar Labs member?
>>
>
> I agree with the "big tent" premise. We have a diverse project with many
> parts. Contributions of all types are welcome and qualifying IMHO. Since we
> also try to blur the line between users and contributors, I am also of the
> opinion that a user who would like to be a member should be welcome.
>

Since it is libre software, anyone can be a user; thus you are proposing
that anyone who self-asserts to become a voting member by emailing
memb...@sugarlabs.org should be added to the membership list (which I
propose is itself a mailman mailing list.)

I'm fine with that, but is seems to be a change in policy.


> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
>> owned project?
>>
>
> From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
> qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
> connected to the Sugar community.
>

Concretely, would each of these projects qualify?

- Childsplay
- Scratch
- Squeak
- Tux Math
- Tux Paint
- XSCE

-- 
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] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Walter Bender 
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
 membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
 appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
>>> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
>>> in my recent post. Was one appointed?
>>>
>>
>> I don't recall. Could be me :)
>>
>
> I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion
> point (and possible immediate motion :)
>

+1

>
> This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself that
> we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are
>
> - what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to be
> counted as a Sugar Labs member?
>

I agree with the "big tent" premise. We have a diverse project with many
parts. Contributions of all types are welcome and qualifying IMHO. Since we
also try to blur the line between users and contributors, I am also of the
opinion that a user who would like to be a member should be welcome.

>
> - what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
> owned project?
>

>From 1 feet, I'd say if it is FOSS and focused on learning, it can
qualify. But there also has to be an intention to have the project somehow
connected to the Sugar community.

>
> - is the proposed strategy of contacting anyone who has contributed or
> even just registered with SL to ask if they would like to be a member (and
> providing criteria if they say yes) appropriate?
>

+1

Of course, other SLOB members may feel otherwise. They are welcome to chime
in.

-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] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 17 August 2016 at 20:54, Walter Bender  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
>>> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
>>> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
>> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
>> in my recent post. Was one appointed?
>>
>
> I don't recall. Could be me :)
>

I suggest adding this to the next SLOB meeting agenda as a discussion point
(and possible immediate motion :)

This is a side issue though; the primary concerns of Caryl and myself that
we would appreciate SLOB guidance on are

- what criteria should be used to define who is and is not eligible to be
counted as a Sugar Labs member?

- what criteria should be used to define what is and is not a Sugar Labs
owned project?

- is the proposed strategy of contacting anyone who has contributed or even
just registered with SL to ask if they would like to be a member (and
providing criteria if they say yes) appropriate?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Walter Bender 
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender  wrote:
>
>> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
>> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
>> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.
>
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
> representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
> in my recent post. Was one appointed?
>

I don't recall. Could be me :)

-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] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 17 August 2016 at 20:41, Walter Bender  wrote:

> I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
> membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
> appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.


https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members doesn't specify a
representative; nor could I find a reference to one in the logs I mentioned
in my recent post. Was one appointed?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Dave Crossland 
Hi

On 7 August 2016 at 13:48, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 7 August 2016 at 10:44, Sebastian Silva 
> wrote:
>
>> Instead of raising the barrier to entry, I would prefer to enforce our
>> currency policy ("are you still interested in being a member?" - every
>> year) so that hopefully only active members get to vote.
>>
>
> I don't think that's precisely what is bein debated :)
>
> Rather, the issue is that we have to define who it is we consider worth
> asking if they are interested to be a member. I am happy to cast as wide a
> net as possible, while Caryl would like to cast the net wider in some ways
> and narrower in others, and would like SLOBs to decide rather than the
> delegated committee.
>

Do you have any further comments on how wide a net to cast here?

On 5 August 2016 at 19:11, I wrote in this thread:

>
> I agree that we could clarify how we determine what level of contribution
> counts to make one eligible for membership.
>
> I propose the following are sufficient:
>
> - owning a computer or being part of an organization that owns computers
> that regularly use Sugar
>
> - creating a wiki account and making 1 edit to the wiki
>
> - posting to a SL mailing list
>
> - contributing a patch to a sugar software package
>
> - owning a laptop.org or sugarlabs.org email account, now or in the past
>
> What are possible verifiable criteria are possible? Should any of these
> not count?
>

I saw https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members says, bold emphasis
mine:

Any "significant and sustained" contributor to Sugar Labs is eligible for
membership. Although it is difficult to specify a precise definition, a
contributor generally must have* contributed to a non-trivial improvement* of
the Sugar project or Sugar Labs activity. Contributions may be *code,
documentation, translations, maintenance of project-wide resources, running
a Sugar deployment, or other non-trivial activities which benefit Sugar
Labs.* Membership eligibility is an individual determination: while
contributions made in the course of employment will be considered, they
will generally be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than
accruing to all employees of a "contributing" corporation. The Membership
and Elections Committee will oversee membership applications (Please apply
by sending email to members at sugarlabs.org).


I think all the items on my list above are trivial, and therefore if we
continue to use that membership bar, then none of those should count, but I
think most items can be 'significant and sustained' if they are qualified
by a specific volume metric, ie,

- managing an organization/deployment that regularly uses Sugar (note -
this excludes sugar users from being members)

- creating a wiki account and making 10+ edits to the wiki in the last 3-12
months

- posting to a SL mailing list 10+ times in the last 3-12 months

- contributing 10+ patches to any software package hosted in
github.com/sugarlabs or http://git.sugarlabs.org in the last 3-12 months

Should we include such criteria in the email to potential members, so they
can confirm they are on par within 2016? If so, what should the criteria be?

I am in favor of casting a wide net with a relatively low barrier, such
that anyone who wants to be a member can say make 10 list emails or wiki
edits 91 days or more before the election and qualify, but just saying "I
want to be a member" without any participation in the last year can not.

-- 
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] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Walter Bender 
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> On 7 August 2016 at 10:44, Sebastian Silva 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> In order to be appointed to Membership and Election committee a SLOBS
>> vote was necessary
>
>
> Ah yes, Seb invited me to join in the non-quorum meeting, and I see that
> this isn't sufficient.
>
> For Seb and Caryl (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go
> /Oversight_Board/Decisions#2015-04-06) I found the logs for the motion (
> http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2015-04
> -06T23:10:04#i_2838172). (For Samson, (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go
> /Oversight_Board/Decisions#2015-05-06) says that it was done by email; I
> couldn't find anything in the logs (http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/
> sugar-meeting/meetings/2015-05-04T23:07:10) or IAEP archives so I guess
> its another accidentally-secret ballot ;)
>
> Since the last meeting as non-quorum, I would like to suggest any SLOB to
> make a motion via email, using the same phrasing as before:
>
>
>
> A motion to appoint davelab6 to the election committee
>
>
I am of the opinion that SLOB does not have to approve individual
membership in committees. SLOB responsibility vis-a-vis committees is to
appoint a representative. So I don't think we need a motion.


>
>
>
> Also, it seems per http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/
> msg15526.html that if appointed then I will need my email alias added
> to /etc/aliases on sunjammer
>

Can someone from the infrastructure committee please take care of this?

-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

Re: [IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

2016-08-17 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 6 August 2016 at 10:09, Samson Goddy  wrote:

> Yeah nice one dave! i will think of more!
>

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