Re: [Sugar-devel] Suggestions for GSoC 2019
> I don't expect revamping a website to be a _goal_. Without a proper website with the latest content, how can we expect the activities to reach the audience? > Even if we add a project for improving the website, 2 years down the line > we might again face a similar email pointing out the drawbacks of the new > model and another revamping of the website. This doesn't mean that we will have the same website with the old foundation 10 years down the line. Web technologies and standards have changed significantly in the past 2-3 years and its recommended we too keep our components updated. The main reason would be similar to why we are updating our activities. Fixing/Updating activities has to do with more engagement with current users and improving the website, to try for more new users. I guess both are equally important. > Having less projects does not imply our failure in any sense, > lack of existing contributors might indicate that I agree, but it will be underutilization of potential of an organization which has participated in GSoC for last 10 successive years. We might consider having few more mentors this time if proper mentoring was the issue last time. Even if we are not having this project, we should think of utilizing GSoC to the fullest with tasks related to all the activities wherever significant work is pending. Further, even if we desire to have some new activities, we should think of including that too. > I added why a user should get sugar. > > It’s still a work in progress as I figured even the last design that’s > under development now Wouldn’t really solve the problem. We need MORE > call to action buttons, more exciting colors, a better navigation > processes. That's what. I would too suggest improving the color palette we are currently using. The current color palette is not that pleasing at first sight. Also call to action and download buttons on the main page itself would be a good idea to improve the conversion rate. Further better and clearer navigation is also missing. > Hoping to move most primary information from wiki to the site, instead > of breaking their section on the site to go to wiki(it lost them > totally) This is the most important point. I strongly agree with this. Our website should only have the important information instead of the wikis. It breaks the flow and makes the user end up getting confused. > This is as important as improving Sugar Labs tools. Without an > actionable site our tools won't reach our potential users. We need the > users (students parents, school administration) to be able to download > and use Sugar and every other Sugar Labs tools effectively without > stress then we can record an increase in downloads of these tools we > put in so much to build. This is why I thought of this idea. My primary intention is not to get anything revamped but to improve the way we present our activities to the user. Also for better maintenance, it is required that we keep our site up to date and consistent with the standards. Ultimately I would suggest that we should utilize GSoC to the fullest in any way we can, be it only with improving the activities. I will leave further discretion to the board members. Regards, Amaan On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:18 AM James Cameron wrote: > Thanks. But my vote is no. > > It's not three months of coding. > > It doesn't solve a problem we have with our software products; Sugar, > activities, Music Blocks, or Sugarizer. > > Our problem with the web site is with the content, in turn because we > have had few content producers, and too many people proposing style and > layout changes instead. > > Last month, or November, we had a team formed to do A/B testing, but > the A/B testing has not yet begun. I'm guessing they are too busy. > Perhaps it is time for more people to speak up in order to slow it > down even further. > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 07:44:28PM +0530, Amaan Iqbal wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I see we only have 6 projects so far in our Ideas list in comparison to > 11 > > which were selected in GSoC last year. Being a successful Open Source > > organization, I sincerely hope we have the potential of having many more > > projects in GSoC this year(most probably 15+ if we can come up with such > > promising ideas). > > > > Here I would suggest an idea for the renovation of our Website, [1]blog, > and > > creation of a customized/integration of existing CMS to our website from > where > > admins can create articles directly. Also some other web pages can also > be > > added to this list if I am missing something. The end product will be > expected > > to have : > > > > • Material Designed > > • no/minimal redundancies in code > > • faster load time > > • Use of latest website standards > > • Wider reach in terms of accessibility > > • Faster and easier updates from the admins to the website > > • Elimination of device specific issues > > • Removal of most of the issues on [2]www-sugarlabs
Re: [Sugar-devel] Abandoned or orphaned activities
Hi, This was my experience: * I came into SugarLabs community at the time that this migration was beginning to happen. * I started a GH account because that is where I was told the software was being maintained. * I have continued to "go with the flow" and work via GH although I have come to understand more of the history and context of this matter. These are my thoughts and opinions: * I remember an argument that one reason to move to GH is "that is where all the developers are", but since our migration I have seen so many kids (usually GCI) set up new accounts with GH in order to contribute to SL (and to participate in GCI). This makes me think that many people are willing to join our development regardless of whatever tools/services we use, and whatever tool/services we use, if they are not yet setup with them, they are willing to get setup in order to join development. * Another argument seems to boil down to "we will be more productive using GH because we need not worry about the hassle of maintaining our own code hosting service". Is there evidence that we are more productive now than before? Not having the opportunity to learn/use the other systems, I would only be guessing. * In theory, SL running its own version control, seems to me like it would be a) more fun for someone interested in this kind of work, b) a learning opportunity, and c) gives maximum freedom/flexibility to the ways in which we would like to do development. * I would rather be using software that is licensed under a FLOSS license than a proprietary license. gnu.org came up with some criteria to evaluate "code hosting services" such as GH: https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html (which, btw, gets an "F", the lowest grade) The whole reason I am in this in the first place is because I believe the free/libre model of software to be the best for society and education. Devin On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 07:15 +0200, Tony Anderson wrote: > Walter, > > I will try. I am moving on Feb 3 to Palawan. I'll try to get to it > then. My principal concern re GSOC is to define projects with > manageable scope - many of the past projects ended undelivered. > > Tony > > On 1/21/19 3:10 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:44 AM James Cameron > > wrote: > > > Fascinating, I never thought the move to GitHub was ever going to > > > achieve all that. It was to enable a shutdown of the > > > unmaintained > > > gitorious instance at git.sugarlabs.org. Which still hasn't > > > happened > > > because it is still useful, in turn because this community hasn't > > > the > > > time to do the necessary leg work to finish the move to GitHub. > > > > > > > > I would be curious what is still on Gitorious that hasn't been > > migrated. > > > > FWIW, my principle motivations for the move were (1) as James > > points out -- on less piece of infrastructure for us to maintain; > > and (2) GitHub for better or worse is much more familiar to and > > likely to be discovered by potential developers. I think GH has > > been a decent tool which requires minimal effort on our part. Not > > sure that the latter really amounts to too much. > > > > Re Tony's point about the ownership model, I don't see that > > anything we are doing suggests we don't want to continue to support > > individual contributions. I interpreted James's list not as a > > matter of ownership but rather a surfacing of what is actually > > happening re maintenance. In some sense, what is being articulated > > is the equivalent of the Fructose vs Honey nomenclature of the past > > where the core developers are saying: "These activities will be > > maintained. Cannot speak for everything else." > > > > That said, I think Tony makes a great point re thinking about the > > pedagogical implications of our choices, which have had little if > > any input from the learning side of the house. Would be great to > > get more input to help us in regard to what is most valuable to our > > users (whether they know it or not). @Tony Anderson would be great > > if you could rework you thoughts about Python into a GSoC idea. > > > > regards. > > > > -walter > > > > > In short, it has nothing to do with the tools, and everything to > > > do > > > with contributors. > > > > > > I'll continue to focus on the activities I've got on my list. > > > That > > > doesn't mean I won't help with the other activities, but I won't > > > necessarily spend as much time with the others. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:12:01AM +0200, Tony Anderson wrote: > > > > While it is marvelous to see some actual attention to the Sugar > > > activities, > > > > this approach is the direct opposite of the logic behind the > > > move of the > > > > activities to gitHub. This is a return to the G1G1 model in > > > which individuals > > > > develop, contribute and own activities. There can be no > > > abandoned or orphaned > > > > activities in a community support model. > >
[Sugar-devel] index.hml in browse is broken in Fedora-SoaS-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20190121.n.0.iso
Fedora-SoaS-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20190121.n.0.iso Index.html does not display properly in sugar-browse (1) https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:Index.html_-_0121.png Installed in Mate with 2nd DE as dnf groupinstall sugar-desktop logged into sugar In sugar-terminal; firefox starts and runs index.html correctly (2)https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/File:Ff_of_index.html_in_mate.png (actually in sugar-terminal) (3) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1668504 This is Bugzilla bug ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Suggestions for GSoC 2019
Amaan Iqbal wrote: > > I don't expect revamping a website to be a _goal_. > > Without a proper website with the latest content, how can we expect > the activities to reach the audience? You replied to me, but that wasn't me you quoted, it was Rahul. At the moment activities generally reach the audience through OLPC OS, Fedora SoaS, activities.sugarlabs.org and Sugarizer. Almost never the web site. > > Even if we add a project for improving the website, 2 years down > > the line we might again face a similar email pointing out the > > drawbacks of the new model and another revamping of the website. > > This doesn't mean that we will have the same website with the old > foundation 10 years down the line. Web technologies and standards > have changed significantly in the past 2-3 years and its > recommended we too keep our components updated. The main reason > would be similar to why we are updating our activities. Fixing/ > Updating activities has to do with more engagement with current > users and improving the website, to try for more new users. I guess > both are equally important. That wasn't me you quoted, it was Rahul. Web site components can be kept updated by using a maintained open source theme and not tweaking it as incessantly as we have been doing with airspace. While it is similar in general to how we update our activities, this is not relevant, because the web site is not an activity. > > Having less projects does not imply our failure in any sense, lack > > of existing contributors might indicate that > > I agree, but it will be underutilization of potential of an > organization which has participated in GSoC for last 10 successive > years. We might consider having few more mentors this time if proper > mentoring was the issue last time. Even if we are not having this > project, we should think of utilizing GSoC to the fullest with tasks > related to all the activities wherever significant work is > pending. Further, even if we desire to have some new activities, we > should think of including that too. That wasn't me you quoted, it was Rahul. I'm not worried about underutilisation of potential; there is plenty to do, and if anyone is attentive and dutiful toward it they will easily find what to do without having to do any updates to the web site. I'm also not worried about having less active projects for this GSoC, because we certainly have less active developers, and the last thing we want is mentors who aren't active developers, as it leads to under-mentoring; project never properly defined, mentor has little idea of what the student is doing, and ultimately the student produces code that isn't useful, or disappears. See Google Summer of Code Guides, What Makes a Good Mentor? https://google.github.io/gsocguides/mentor/what-makes-a-good-mentor Of course, our thanks to all those developers who have made small updates to our software in the past few weeks, I appreciate it. > > I added why a user should get sugar. > > > > It’s still a work in progress as I figured even the last design > > that’s under development now Wouldn’t really solve the problem. We > > need MORE call to action buttons, more exciting colors, a better > > navigation processes. > > That's what. I would too suggest improving the color palette we are > currently using. The current color palette is not that pleasing at > first sight. Also call to action and download buttons on the main > page itself would be a good idea to improve the conversion > rate. Further better and clearer navigation is also missing. That wasn't me you quoted, it was Peace. However, it would be wrong to set expectations of colourful software by adding lots of colour to the web site. Cart before horse error. First, we need Sugar and Sugarizer to switch to using colour. Then can we increase the colours on any web site that describes them. We also need to remain accessible for vision impaired. Also, whether colours are pleasing is subjective, and dependent on culture and environment. While you might not like the colours, they have been accepted for some time, so you might provide more convincing evidence than your own opinion of the colours. > > Hoping to move most primary information from wiki to the site, > > instead of breaking their section on the site to go to wiki(it > > lost them totally) > > This is the most important point. I strongly agree with this. Our > website should only have the important information instead of the > wikis. It breaks the flow and makes the user end up getting > confused. That wasn't me you quoted, it was Peace. However, this content could be placed in frames or transformed from GitHub or Wiki using a script. We continue to have people who maintain GitHub and the Wiki and won't maintain the web site. Content that has been copied to the web site has languished unmaintained. > > This is as important as improving Sugar Labs tools. Without an > > actionable site our tools won't reach our po
Re: [Sugar-devel] Abandoned or orphaned activities
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:29:56PM -0500, Devin Ulibarri wrote: > Hi, > > This was my experience: > > • I came into SugarLabs community at the time that this migration was > beginning to happen. > • I started a GH account because that is where I was told the software was > being maintained. > • I have continued to "go with the flow" and work via GH although I have > come > to understand more of the history and context of this matter. > > These are my thoughts and opinions: > > • I remember an argument that one reason to move to GH is "that is where all > the developers are", but since our migration I have seen so many kids > (usually GCI) set up new accounts with GH in order to contribute to SL > (and > to participate in GCI). This makes me think that many people are willing > to > join our development regardless of whatever tools/services we use, and > whatever tool/services we use, if they are not yet setup with them, they > are willing to get setup in order to join development. > • Another argument seems to boil down to "we will be more productive using > GH > because we need not worry about the hassle of maintaining our own code > hosting service". Is there evidence that we are more productive now than > before? Not having the opportunity to learn/use the other systems, I would > only be guessing. Not much evidence, it's about the same. Like any tooling, you get good at it with time. More productive now through the pull request and issue integration, but less productive through loss of situational awareness; changes are hidden in GitHub rather than being posted to sugar-devel@, and new developers fixate on their favourite repositories. > • In theory, SL running its own version control, seems to me like it would > be > a) more fun for someone interested in this kind of work, b) a learning > opportunity, and c) gives maximum freedom/flexibility to the ways in which > we would like to do development. git.sugarlabs.org hasn't needed any significant maintenance, and is probably insecure now because of vulnerabilities that haven't been patched. bugs.sugarlabs.org has needed updates, but they have generally worked well. > • I would rather be using software that is licensed under a FLOSS license > than a proprietary license. gnu.org came up with some criteria to evaluate > "code hosting services" such as GH: [1]https://www.gnu.org/software/ > repo-criteria.html (which, btw, gets an "F", the lowest grade) The whole > reason I am in this in the first place is because I believe the free/libre > model of software to be the best for society and education. Yes, I agree. Setting up an instance of GitLab could be done, but we would need someone willing to do that and maintain it. Or we could use GitLab directly as other projects have done. > > Devin > > On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 07:15 +0200, Tony Anderson wrote: > > Walter, > > I will try. I am moving on Feb 3 to Palawan. I'll try to get to it then. > My > principal concern re GSOC is to define projects with manageable scope - > many of the past projects ended undelivered. > > Tony > > On 1/21/19 3:10 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:44 AM James Cameron <[2]qu...@laptop.org> > wrote: > > Fascinating, I never thought the move to GitHub was ever going to > achieve all that. It was to enable a shutdown of the unmaintained > gitorious instance at [3]git.sugarlabs.org. Which still hasn't > happened > because it is still useful, in turn because this community hasn't > the > time to do the necessary leg work to finish the move to GitHub. > > I would be curious what is still on Gitorious that hasn't been > migrated. > > FWIW, my principle motivations for the move were (1) as James points > out -- on less piece of infrastructure for us to maintain; and (2) > GitHub for better or worse is much more familiar to and likely to be > discovered by potential developers. I think GH has been a decent tool > which requires minimal effort on our part. Not sure that the latter > really amounts to too much. > > Re Tony's point about the ownership model, I don't see that anything > we > are doing suggests we don't want to continue to support individual > contributions. I interpreted James's list not as a matter of ownership > but rather a surfacing of what is actually happening re maintenance. > In > some sense, what is being articulated is the equivalent of the > Fructose > vs Honey nomenclature of the past where the core developers are > saying: > "These activities will be maintained. Cannot speak for everything > else." > > That said, I think Tony makes a great point re thinking
Re: [Sugar-devel] Abandoned or orphaned activities
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:13 PM James Cameron wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:29:56PM -0500, Devin Ulibarri wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This was my experience: > > > > • I came into SugarLabs community at the time that this migration was > > beginning to happen. > > • I started a GH account because that is where I was told the software > was > > being maintained. > > • I have continued to "go with the flow" and work via GH although I > have come > > to understand more of the history and context of this matter. > > > > These are my thoughts and opinions: > > > > • I remember an argument that one reason to move to GH is "that is > where all > > the developers are", but since our migration I have seen so many kids > > (usually GCI) set up new accounts with GH in order to contribute to > SL (and > > to participate in GCI). This makes me think that many people are > willing to > > join our development regardless of whatever tools/services we use, > and > > whatever tool/services we use, if they are not yet setup with them, > they > > are willing to get setup in order to join development. > > • Another argument seems to boil down to "we will be more productive > using GH > > because we need not worry about the hassle of maintaining our own > code > > hosting service". Is there evidence that we are more productive now > than > > before? Not having the opportunity to learn/use the other systems, I > would > > only be guessing. > > Not much evidence, it's about the same. Like any tooling, you get > good at it with time. More productive now through the pull request > and issue integration, but less productive through loss of situational > awareness; changes are hidden in GitHub rather than being posted to > sugar-devel@, and new developers fixate on their favourite > repositories. > > > • In theory, SL running its own version control, seems to me like it > would be > > a) more fun for someone interested in this kind of work, b) a > learning > > opportunity, and c) gives maximum freedom/flexibility to the ways in > which > > we would like to do development. > > git.sugarlabs.org hasn't needed any significant maintenance, and is > probably insecure now because of vulnerabilities that haven't been > patched. > > bugs.sugarlabs.org has needed updates, but they have generally worked > well. > The spam issue made it almost unusable. > > > • I would rather be using software that is licensed under a FLOSS > license > > than a proprietary license. gnu.org came up with some criteria to > evaluate > > "code hosting services" such as GH: [1]https://www.gnu.org/software/ > > repo-criteria.html (which, btw, gets an "F", the lowest grade) The > whole > > reason I am in this in the first place is because I believe the > free/libre > > model of software to be the best for society and education. > > Yes, I agree. Setting up an instance of GitLab could be done, but we > would need someone willing to do that and maintain it. Or we could > use GitLab directly as other projects have done. > What does that accomplish at this point? (That being said, I use GitLab for other projects and it works just fine.) > > > > > Devin > > > > On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 07:15 +0200, Tony Anderson wrote: > > > > Walter, > > > > I will try. I am moving on Feb 3 to Palawan. I'll try to get to it > then. My > > principal concern re GSOC is to define projects with manageable > scope - > > many of the past projects ended undelivered. > > > > Tony > > > > On 1/21/19 3:10 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:44 AM James Cameron <[2] > qu...@laptop.org> > > wrote: > > > > Fascinating, I never thought the move to GitHub was ever > going to > > achieve all that. It was to enable a shutdown of the > unmaintained > > gitorious instance at [3]git.sugarlabs.org. Which still > hasn't > > happened > > because it is still useful, in turn because this community > hasn't > > the > > time to do the necessary leg work to finish the move to > GitHub. > > > > I would be curious what is still on Gitorious that hasn't been > > migrated. > > > > FWIW, my principle motivations for the move were (1) as James > points > > out -- on less piece of infrastructure for us to maintain; and > (2) > > GitHub for better or worse is much more familiar to and likely > to be > > discovered by potential developers. I think GH has been a decent > tool > > which requires minimal effort on our part. Not sure that the > latter > > really amounts to too much. > > > > Re Tony's point about the ownership model, I don't see that > anything we > > are doing suggests we don't want to continue to support > individual > > contributions. I interpreted James's list not as a mat
Re: [Sugar-devel] Abandoned or orphaned activities
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 09:54:08PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:13 PM James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:29:56PM -0500, Devin Ulibarri wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This was my experience: > > > > • I came into SugarLabs community at the time that this migration was > > beginning to happen. > > • I started a GH account because that is where I was told the software > was > > being maintained. > > • I have continued to "go with the flow" and work via GH although I > have come > > to understand more of the history and context of this matter. > > > > These are my thoughts and opinions: > > > > • I remember an argument that one reason to move to GH is "that is > where all > > the developers are", but since our migration I have seen so many > kids > > (usually GCI) set up new accounts with GH in order to contribute to > SL (and > > to participate in GCI). This makes me think that many people are > willing to > > join our development regardless of whatever tools/services we use, > and > > whatever tool/services we use, if they are not yet setup with them, > they > > are willing to get setup in order to join development. > > • Another argument seems to boil down to "we will be more productive > using GH > > because we need not worry about the hassle of maintaining our own > code > > hosting service". Is there evidence that we are more productive now > than > > before? Not having the opportunity to learn/use the other systems, I > would > > only be guessing. > > Not much evidence, it's about the same. Like any tooling, you get > good at it with time. More productive now through the pull request > and issue integration, but less productive through loss of situational > awareness; changes are hidden in GitHub rather than being posted to > sugar-devel@, and new developers fixate on their favourite > repositories. > > > • In theory, SL running its own version control, seems to me like it > would be > > a) more fun for someone interested in this kind of work, b) a > learning > > opportunity, and c) gives maximum freedom/flexibility to the ways in > which > > we would like to do development. > > [2]git.sugarlabs.org hasn't needed any significant maintenance, and is > probably insecure now because of vulnerabilities that haven't been > patched. > > [3]bugs.sugarlabs.org has needed updates, but they have generally worked > well. > > The spam issue made it almost unusable. > > > • I would rather be using software that is licensed under a FLOSS > license > > than a proprietary license. [4]gnu.org came up with some criteria to > evaluate > > "code hosting services" such as GH: [1][5]https://www.gnu.org/ > software/ > > repo-criteria.html (which, btw, gets an "F", the lowest grade) The > whole > > reason I am in this in the first place is because I believe the > free/ > libre > > model of software to be the best for society and education. > > Yes, I agree. Setting up an instance of GitLab could be done, but we > would need someone willing to do that and maintain it. Or we could > use GitLab directly as other projects have done. > > What does that accomplish at this point? (That being said, I use GitLab for > other projects and it works just fine.) All I can think of is closer compliance with intent of FSA 2(b), that any and all software and documentation distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software. But I've not heard from the Conservancy on this. I don't think there are any other things that would be accomplished, so it's not something I'm inclined to ask about. But I acknowledge Devin's concern; I too would rather be using software that is licensed FLOSS than what we currently do. > > > > > Devin > > > > On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 07:15 +0200, Tony Anderson wrote: > > > > Walter, > > > > I will try. I am moving on Feb 3 to Palawan. I'll try to get to it > then. My > > principal concern re GSOC is to define projects with manageable > scope > - > > many of the past projects ended undelivered. > > > > Tony > > > > On 1/21/19 3:10 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:44 AM James Cameron <[2][6] > qu...@laptop.org> > > wrote: > > > > Fascinating, I never thought the move to GitHub was ever > going to > > achieve all that. It was to enable a shutdown of the > unmaintained > > gitorious instance at [3][7]git.sugarlabs.org. Which still > hasn't > >
Re: [Sugar-devel] Abandoned or orphaned activities
My original point was that as a community we should view the activities on ASLO as a corpus to be treasured and protected. No activity can be either abandoned or orphaned. It is the responsibility of the community. When a change 'upstream' breaks an activity or set of activities, the problem should be resolved as soon as possible. Tony On 1/23/19 6:07 AM, James Cameron wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 09:54:08PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:13 PM James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:29:56PM -0500, Devin Ulibarri wrote: > Hi, > > This was my experience: > > • I came into SugarLabs community at the time that this migration was > beginning to happen. > • I started a GH account because that is where I was told the software was > being maintained. > • I have continued to "go with the flow" and work via GH although I have come > to understand more of the history and context of this matter. > > These are my thoughts and opinions: > > • I remember an argument that one reason to move to GH is "that is where all > the developers are", but since our migration I have seen so many kids > (usually GCI) set up new accounts with GH in order to contribute to SL (and > to participate in GCI). This makes me think that many people are willing to > join our development regardless of whatever tools/services we use, and > whatever tool/services we use, if they are not yet setup with them, they > are willing to get setup in order to join development. > • Another argument seems to boil down to "we will be more productive using GH > because we need not worry about the hassle of maintaining our own code > hosting service". Is there evidence that we are more productive now than > before? Not having the opportunity to learn/use the other systems, I would > only be guessing. Not much evidence, it's about the same. Like any tooling, you get good at it with time. More productive now through the pull request and issue integration, but less productive through loss of situational awareness; changes are hidden in GitHub rather than being posted to sugar-devel@, and new developers fixate on their favourite repositories. > • In theory, SL running its own version control, seems to me like it would be > a) more fun for someone interested in this kind of work, b) a learning > opportunity, and c) gives maximum freedom/flexibility to the ways in which > we would like to do development. [2]git.sugarlabs.org hasn't needed any significant maintenance, and is probably insecure now because of vulnerabilities that haven't been patched. [3]bugs.sugarlabs.org has needed updates, but they have generally worked well. The spam issue made it almost unusable. > • I would rather be using software that is licensed under a FLOSS license > than a proprietary license. [4]gnu.org came up with some criteria to evaluate > "code hosting services" such as GH: [1][5]https://www.gnu.org/ software/ > repo-criteria.html (which, btw, gets an "F", the lowest grade) The whole > reason I am in this in the first place is because I believe the free/ libre > model of software to be the best for society and education. Yes, I agree. Setting up an instance of GitLab could be done, but we would need someone willing to do that and maintain it. Or we could use GitLab directly as other projects have done. What does that accomplish at this point? (That being said, I use GitLab for other projects and it works just fine.) All I can think of is closer compliance with intent of FSA 2(b), that any and all software and documentation distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software. But I've not heard from the Conservancy on this. I don't think there are any other things that would be accomplished, so it's not something I'm inclined to ask about. But I acknowledge Devin's concern; I too would rather be using software that is licensed FLOSS than what we currently do. > > Devin > > On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 07:15 +0200, Tony Anderson wrote: > > Walter, > > I will try. I am moving on Feb 3 to Palawan. I'll try to get to it then. My > principal concern re GSOC is to define projects with manageable scope - > many of the past projects ended undelivered. > > Tony > > On 1/21/19 3:10 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:44 AM James Cameron <[2][6] qu...@laptop.org> > wrote: > > Fascinating, I
Re: [Sugar-devel] Abandoned or orphaned activities
Nice idea, but hasn't happened yet, and I don't expect it to ever happen without scaling up the number of testers and fixers. We just don't have enough people paying attention. How would you propose that attention be purchased? Sugar Labs has $95k we could spend. You've seen from the list what my time can accomplish each year, and that's not 100% of my time. On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 08:03:16AM +0200, Tony Anderson wrote: > My original point was that as a community we should view the activities on > ASLO as a corpus to be treasured and protected. No activity can be either > abandoned or orphaned. It is the responsibility of the community. When a > change 'upstream' breaks an activity or set of activities, the problem > should be resolved as soon as possible. > > Tony > > On 1/23/19 6:07 AM, James Cameron wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 09:54:08PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote: > >>On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:13 PM James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:29:56PM -0500, Devin Ulibarri wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > This was my experience: > >> > > >> > • I came into SugarLabs community at the time that this migration > >> was > >> > beginning to happen. > >> > • I started a GH account because that is where I was told the > >> software > >> was > >> > being maintained. > >> > • I have continued to "go with the flow" and work via GH although I > >> have come > >> > to understand more of the history and context of this matter. > >> > > >> > These are my thoughts and opinions: > >> > > >> > • I remember an argument that one reason to move to GH is "that is > >> where all > >> > the developers are", but since our migration I have seen so many > >> kids > >> > (usually GCI) set up new accounts with GH in order to contribute > >> to > >> SL (and > >> > to participate in GCI). This makes me think that many people are > >> willing to > >> > join our development regardless of whatever tools/services we > >> use, > >> and > >> > whatever tool/services we use, if they are not yet setup with > >> them, > >> they > >> > are willing to get setup in order to join development. > >> > • Another argument seems to boil down to "we will be more > >> productive > >> using GH > >> > because we need not worry about the hassle of maintaining our own > >> code > >> > hosting service". Is there evidence that we are more productive > >> now > >> than > >> > before? Not having the opportunity to learn/use the other > >> systems, I > >> would > >> > only be guessing. > >> > >> Not much evidence, it's about the same. Like any tooling, you get > >> good at it with time. More productive now through the pull request > >> and issue integration, but less productive through loss of situational > >> awareness; changes are hidden in GitHub rather than being posted to > >> sugar-devel@, and new developers fixate on their favourite > >> repositories. > >> > >> > • In theory, SL running its own version control, seems to me like > >> it > >> would be > >> > a) more fun for someone interested in this kind of work, b) a > >> learning > >> > opportunity, and c) gives maximum freedom/flexibility to the > >> ways in > >> which > >> > we would like to do development. > >> > >> [2]git.sugarlabs.org hasn't needed any significant maintenance, and is > >> probably insecure now because of vulnerabilities that haven't been > >> patched. > >> > >> [3]bugs.sugarlabs.org has needed updates, but they have generally > >> worked > >> well. > >> > >>The spam issue made it almost unusable. > >> > >> > • I would rather be using software that is licensed under a FLOSS > >> license > >> > than a proprietary license. [4]gnu.org came up with some > >> criteria to > >> evaluate > >> > "code hosting services" such as GH: [1][5]https://www.gnu.org/ > >> software/ > >> > repo-criteria.html (which, btw, gets an "F", the lowest grade) > >> The > >> whole > >> > reason I am in this in the first place is because I believe the > >> free/ > >> libre > >> > model of software to be the best for society and education. > >> > >> Yes, I agree. Setting up an instance of GitLab could be done, but we > >> would need someone willing to do that and maintain it. Or we could > >> use GitLab directly as other projects have done. > >> > >>What does that accomplish at this point? (That being said, I use GitLab for > >>other projects and it works just fine.) > >All I can think of is closer compliance with intent of FSA 2(b), that > >any and all software and documentation distributed by the Project will > >be distributed solely as Free Software. But I've not heard from the
