Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
Typo - I should have written: > Grandstanding about the mistakes made is cheap, with the advantage that most > people aren't > familiar with the issues at hand. Albert also wrote > Minus the dollar figures of course, getting contracts out in > public would be very good for you. Groklaw would be a great > place to get things reviewed. You should interpret resistance > to this as an indication that somebody may be trying to put > something bad in a contract. Have you ever tried something like that? Can you point out projects that have done that successfully in similar spaces to ours (leading edge tech hw)? A contract negotiation is a very tricky thing to carry out, and putting it on a public forum is one of those things that doesn't quite work well. It's a social thing - just tell a prospective employer (or employee) you are webcasting the interview and contract negotiations. cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You ended up with Lots of accusations :-( Have you successfully negotiated with hw vendors over innovative gear at very low cost in the past? We do make mistakes, and in some cases there are tradeoffs. It's part of doing R&D and bring that to market. Grandstanding about the mistakes made cheap, with the advantage that most people aren't familiar with the issues at hand. Yes, we could have alternatives for every bit of the device - if we had infinite time. Everything else is a tradeoff. > How can I show you that something is a bad idea? Showing us a better one. And explaining things carefully, in measured terms definitely helps. If you do have an important point to make, and someone doesn't seem to understand it, a bit pf patience and extra explanation might help. If it's not worth a 2nd attempt at explaining it, it's probably not that important. IOWs, there's so much trolling 'round here that just being considerate earns lots of attention points. m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
>> Note that we *cannot* share much of the information about the >> possible alternatives we are examining for Gen-2 hardware >> until decisions are final; it is the basis of serious negotiations >> among competing parties, under non-disclosure agreements. > > Lest rumors of more OLPC secrets get started, let me clarify that > much of this information is related to processor and chipset choices, > battery and power specs, display technology, etc, etc. These > critically depend on vendors, prices, contracts, and protracted > negotiation. We'll let you know those details as soon as the > contracts are signed. All of this worries me. Numerous mistakes were made last time. You ended up with no alternative vendor for the touchpad. Even when it became obvious that ALPS could not deliver a usable input device, you had to push on and ship anyway. You ended up with no alternative vendor for the wireless. Even when it became obvious that Marvell was giving you buggy firmware and would never release the source code, you had to push on and ship anyway. Nobody could help fix the bugs. You ended up with closed-source EC firmware. Your one NDAed EC developer has had quite a time dealing with the buggy junk that was supplied. Nobody else could help. The D-CON chip had bugs etched in silicon. You failed to let volunteers review the design, and the result isn't excellent. Minus the dollar figures of course, getting contracts out in public would be very good for you. Groklaw would be a great place to get things reviewed. You should interpret resistance to this as an indication that somebody may be trying to put something bad in a contract. > The best way to show > that a touch screen keyboard is workable, for example, is to try to > build one. Ditto for alternative input mechanisms, gestures and > multitouch, etc, etc. If you think we should do X, Y, or Z, show us > why it's a good idea. How can I show you that something is a bad idea? I could build a demo, but then you might naturally (rightly or not) say that the fault is in my implementation. FWIW, 1920x1080 (HDTV resolution) at 254 DPI is exactly 192x108 mm. This would be an excellent choice. It avoids round-off error in the measurements, it is perfect for video, and fast 2x scaling is well-suited to low-res web pages. ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
Martin has a good point: we're still in the phase of basic things like processor selection. And one of the really major questions is what touch technology to use; Mary Lou tells me there are many different technologies out there at the moment; we'll have to make another big decision there at some point. - Jim On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 09:49 +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Alex Belits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then the announcement should be: > > Don't take it so seriously. It's a "vision" set of mockups, and the > different technical aspects of how to get there will be fleshed out in > time and discussed in [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > And when I say "fleshed out" I mean - you'll see us exploring the > alternatives, and figuring out what the best path is. So keep your > ears open, and be ready to jump into the fray when it gets interesting > (if you are keen to help with XO-2, that is). > > For the time being, XO-2 is far, far away. I tend to not care about > things I can't put into action right now :-) > -- Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One Laptop Per Child ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On 5/23/08, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that we *cannot* share much of the information about the possible > alternatives we are examining for Gen-2 hardware until decisions are > final; it is the basis of serious negotiations among competing parties, > under non-disclosure agreements. Lest rumors of more OLPC secrets get started, let me clarify that much of this information is related to processor and chipset choices, battery and power specs, display technology, etc, etc. These critically depend on vendors, prices, contracts, and protracted negotiation. We'll let you know those details as soon as the contracts are signed. But most of the discussion so far here on devel@ has been about software issues and big-picture design, and there's no reason that needs to be under wraps. As always in software discussions, working code is the best argument. I hope that as a community we'll move beyond hot air to demos and code at some point. The best way to show that a touch screen keyboard is workable, for example, is to try to build one. Ditto for alternative input mechanisms, gestures and multitouch, etc, etc. If you think we should do X, Y, or Z, show us why it's a good idea. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
Note that we *cannot* share much of the information about the possible alternatives we are examining for Gen-2 hardware until decisions are final; it is the basis of serious negotiations among competing parties, under non-disclosure agreements. The best we can do is share the conceptual ideas, both because many of you may have good ideas to contribute, and that people having some idea of direction is essential; this is essential both for developers and our primary purchasers, governments and NGO's. - Jim -- Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One Laptop Per Child ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Alex Belits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then the announcement should be: Don't take it so seriously. It's a "vision" set of mockups, and the different technical aspects of how to get there will be fleshed out in time and discussed in [EMAIL PROTECTED] And when I say "fleshed out" I mean - you'll see us exploring the alternatives, and figuring out what the best path is. So keep your ears open, and be ready to jump into the fray when it gets interesting (if you are keen to help with XO-2, that is). For the time being, XO-2 is far, far away. I tend to not care about things I can't put into action right now :-) cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
C. Scott Ananian wrote: > Below the line was never posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Community news continues > to be published to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, which is open > (as far as I know). I guess the only thing that's changed is that it > is no longer cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Should it be? Oh, I had missed this. I'll subscribe to community-news, then. > It's worth noting explicitly that sugarlabs can step in and fill some > of these needs as well. Arranging mini-conferences and local user > groups, poking developers for regular blog posts, etc, etc. Mel Chua > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is interning on "grassroots building" this summer, > and you should certainly touch base & work with her if you can. She's > already roughly wiki-fied my original email at > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Community_liason . We'll further discuss what Sugarlabs could do to help next week at Linux Tag. I'm planning to be there with the rest of the Sugar team. Mel, I think you'll make a great community liaison! Let me know if you need anything. -- \___/ _| X | Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ \|_O_| "It's an education project, not a laptop project!" ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:45 AM, Christoph Derndorfer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're basically looking for someone who doesn't mind being despised
> by both OLPC staff ("God, s/he keeps bugging me, how annoying!") and the
> community ("s/he knows more than s/he's telling us").
Nah. We all want to pull things to the open. But naturally some
discussions do contain confidential information. And to makesure it's
ok to publish there's a bit of work to do, and it sometimes falls
through the cracks. Someone who keeps track of those things would be
great.
It's a well known function, and most large open source teams that have
physical headquaters have such a role. Think mozilla, ubuntu, etc.
cheers,
m
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
___
Sugar mailing list
Sugar@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On 5/22/08, Christoph Derndorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C. Scott Ananian schrieb:
> > On 5/22/08, Yamandu Ploskonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > To begin with, could we pinpoint _what_ we are looking in such a
> person?
> > >
> > > 1.- obsessive openness, not subject to OLPC NDA
> >
> > I actually want the opposite. You are welcome to have a non-OLPC
> > community liason, but *I* want someone *employed by OLPC* who knows
> > *all* the secrets and works to make them public to the greatest degree
> > possible. Someone who attends all the meetings and continually
> > challenges us, "why isn't this public" and "why haven't I seen this on
> > devel@"?
> >
> So you're basically looking for someone who doesn't mind being despised by
> both OLPC staff ("God, s/he keeps bugging me, how annoying!") and the
> community ("s/he knows more than s/he's telling us").
Well, I like to think that I'm not *despised* by the community, but
I've certainly made myself unpopular at staff meetings. It's not too
bad. You get used to it.
But yes, really believing in what you are doing is a big help.
--scott
--
( http://cscott.net/ )
___
Sugar mailing list
Sugar@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
C. Scott Ananian schrieb:
> On 5/22/08, Yamandu Ploskonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> To begin with, could we pinpoint _what_ we are looking in such a person?
>>
>> 1.- obsessive openness, not subject to OLPC NDA
>>
>
> I actually want the opposite. You are welcome to have a non-OLPC
> community liason, but *I* want someone *employed by OLPC* who knows
> *all* the secrets and works to make them public to the greatest degree
> possible. Someone who attends all the meetings and continually
> challenges us, "why isn't this public" and "why haven't I seen this on
> devel@"?
>
So you're basically looking for someone who doesn't mind being despised
by both OLPC staff ("God, s/he keeps bugging me, how annoying!") and the
community ("s/he knows more than s/he's telling us").
Should be easy to find such a person!
;-)
> Having someone who only knows the stuff they've seen on devel@ or
> olpcnews isn't going to help us get more stuff onto devel@ and
> olpcnews.
> --scott
>
>
--
Christoph Derndorfer
Co-Editor
OLPCnews, http://www.olpcnews.com
___
Sugar mailing list
Sugar@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On Thu, 22 May 2008, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > On 5/22/08, Bernie Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> e) A more broadly-focused "community news", agressively seeking out >>> and incorporating local as well as "offical OLPC" content >> >> Restoring the old weekly news posted to devel@ would be a good >> start. Perhaps even publishing the longer version that went by >> the name of "below the line" or something like that. > > Below the line was never posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Community news continues > to be published to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, which is open > (as far as I know). I guess the only thing that's changed is that it > is no longer cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Should it be? I admit that I haven't looked for a while, but back when I received my G1G1 laptop the mailing list documentation seemed to indicate that devel@ was the primary place for development and development related news. from watching the mailing list I've seen comments referring to several other lists, but it's not clear what lists people should be subscribed to for what prupose (and what lists are supposed tob e publicly available and what ones aren't) but a weekly summary of development sounds like a good thing to post to the development list. it's only one messge a week to delete for people who are confident that they saw everything, and it's a good summary for people who may have been busy that week. and frankly, the weekly summaries have contained development information that never touched the development list, making them doubly useful (although it may be that the list should have been copied in the first place) David Lang ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
Indeed, one of the goals of Sugar Labs is to help build community collaboration, so working together on organizing is a positive step forward. I plan to start sending a weekly Sugar Digest out--but it will not be comprehensive of all the OLPC comings and goings and it will include Sugar in other venues, e.g., "apt-get sugar" on Hardy. Feel free to forward Sugar-related news my way (Fridays if possible). -walter On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 4:16 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/22/08, Bernie Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > e) A more broadly-focused "community news", agressively seeking out >> > and incorporating local as well as "offical OLPC" content >> >> Restoring the old weekly news posted to devel@ would be a good >> start. Perhaps even publishing the longer version that went by >> the name of "below the line" or something like that. > > Below the line was never posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Community news continues > to be published to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, which is open > (as far as I know). I guess the only thing that's changed is that it > is no longer cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Should it be? > > ( http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/community-news/2008-May/thread.html ) > >> > f) >> > [...] >> > h) >> >> Very good ideas too. > > It's worth noting explicitly that sugarlabs can step in and fill some > of these needs as well. Arranging mini-conferences and local user > groups, poking developers for regular blog posts, etc, etc. Mel Chua > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is interning on "grassroots building" this summer, > and you should certainly touch base & work with her if you can. She's > already roughly wiki-fied my original email at > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Community_liason . > --scott > > -- > ( http://cscott.net/ ) > ___ > Devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
On 5/22/08, Bernie Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > e) A more broadly-focused "community news", agressively seeking out > > and incorporating local as well as "offical OLPC" content > > Restoring the old weekly news posted to devel@ would be a good > start. Perhaps even publishing the longer version that went by > the name of "below the line" or something like that. Below the line was never posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Community news continues to be published to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, which is open (as far as I know). I guess the only thing that's changed is that it is no longer cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Should it be? ( http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/community-news/2008-May/thread.html ) > > f) > > [...] > > h) > > Very good ideas too. It's worth noting explicitly that sugarlabs can step in and fill some of these needs as well. Arranging mini-conferences and local user groups, poking developers for regular blog posts, etc, etc. Mel Chua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is interning on "grassroots building" this summer, and you should certainly touch base & work with her if you can. She's already roughly wiki-fied my original email at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Community_liason . --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
C. Scott Ananian wrote: > I would like to nominate SJ and Adam for the role of interim > community liason, as they've done a fantastic job to date > building and nourishing their respective content and support > communities. SJ and Adam did a great job in the past to leverage and organize the community around OLPC, so I think they'd be perfect fits for this job. However, it seems most of the communication work needs to be directed *within* OLPC rather than towards its discontent community. Folks were alienated for a number of reasons, most very easy to grasp even without holding a degree in community building. One might consider reviewing some of the abundant criticism published in the open by people including Greg, RMS, Wayan, Ivan and Mako. And maybe pick some of their advice. A very important first step in the right direction would be suppressing all those secret mailing lists and bring most of the communication back on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, there might be a small amount of confidentiality even within an open source charity. The same kind of things mommy and daddy would keep secret for the good of the family. Transparency is an *essential* precondition for regaining the trust of donors, volunteers and all plenty of other idealistic people who believe in reinventing education. Is there a better argument for secrecy besides "our new business partners demand us to keep all our agreements secret?" Restoring transparency would be just the first step, but an important step. > Concrete things I'd like to see a liason take charge of: > > a) monthly tech "mini-conferences" to present current work and wild ideas > > b) the same for deployments, to exchange success stories, challenges, > and curricula > a) > [...] > d) Good ideas. > e) A more broadly-focused "community news", agressively seeking out > and incorporating local as well as "offical OLPC" content Restoring the old weekly news posted to devel@ would be a good start. Perhaps even publishing the longer version that went by the name of "below the line" or something like that. > f) > [...] > h) Very good ideas too. I'd like to stress, Scott, that your efforts towards improving communication are, as always, *very* welcome. -- \___/ _| X | Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ \|_O_| "It's an education project, not a laptop project!" ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
