Re: [IAEP] Sugarlabs and Sugar are different

On 28 June 2016 at 07:36, Sebastian Silva wrote: > Actually, please do. It's exactly what IAEP is for. > > Shivang, if you don't care about Sugar Labs strategy discussions, > please either unsubscribe or ignore these threads. Well no, to be fair to Shivang, I was

Re: [IAEP] Sugarlabs and Sugar are different

Happy to help with the form design Since production is voluntary I can only meet it where it is and attenot to grow it :) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugarlabs and Sugar are different

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

Re: [IAEP] Oversight Board Meeting

On 27 June 2016 at 09:28, Tony Anderson wrote: > Based on the level of discussion in the email lists, there is apparently no > longer any interest in having a Financial Manager or a Vision statement as > topics for Friday's meeting. Sameer has said he will run some kind of

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

On 27 June 2016 at 09:24, Tony Anderson wrote: > If it is useful. It surely is > Why do you care for specific emails for specific votes? Transparency > Do you have any specific motions where there is concern about > whether it passed? Each motion where I can not

Re: [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

On 7 June 2016 at 20:15, Laura Vargas wrote: > Looks like we are getting the hang of it! We as a Committe should schedule a > weekly meeting to live chat with important updates/news and pending > decisions. When is the next meeting? :)

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

Hi Tony On 21 June 2016 at 23:00, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list > from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion > that you say you are aware of. Would you be willing to do thi

Re: [IAEP] Translation Community Manager report

Hi Chris On 5 June 2016 at 19:23, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > On 5 June 2016 at 17:20, Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Most of the work I've done is not captured by this particular issue >> tracker and I see no re

Re: [IAEP] SLOBS Meeting

Hi Adam On 17 June 2016 at 11:47, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > On 17 June 2016 at 11:42, Tony Anderson <tony_ander...@usa.net> wrote: >> >> I understand the need is to have a financial report at each monthly >> meeting reporting on starting b

Re: [IAEP] Sugarlabs and Sugar are different

Hi Sameer, thanks for this! Please can I repost this on the youtube channel, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfsR9AEb7HuPRAc14jfiI6g, with a CC-BY license ? :) Here's an auto transcription: https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016/Call_2 On 24 June 2016 at 18:20, Sameer Verma

Re: [IAEP] Sugarlabs and Sugar are different

On 24 June 2016 at 22:28, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > On 24 June 2016 at 18:20, Sameer Verma wrote: >> >> It's been interesting to watch the conversations around vision, mission, >> marketing, etc. over the last few weeks. Several observations emerge. >> Here

Re: [IAEP] Sugarlabs and Sugar are different

On 26 June 2016 at 14:04, Chihurumnaya Ibiam wrote: > Hello Sameer, i couldn't watch the video because of the format (.webm), > except i am online, because of where i am i can't really watch the video > online, can i get a download link. > It was a download link :)

[Sugar-devel] Migration to Python 3

Hi http://lwn.net/Articles/690676/ "The goal is to reach 50% of [python] packages [working with Python 3] for Fedora 25, which is planned for release in November. There are various pieces that are still on Python 2, including some desktop toolkits. GTK+2 support will not be ported to Python 3,

Re: [Marketing] Press page visuals broken links 404s

On 25 June 2016 at 08:35, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > Log in to github, click the file in > https://github.com/sugarlabs/www-sugarlabs/tree/master/_posts and then > click then pencil icon to edit it directly > It was a simple path issue https://github.com/sugar

Re: [Marketing] Press page visuals broken links 404s

On 25 June 2016 at 04:00, Sean DALY wrote: > > https://www.sugarlabs.org/2014/01/22/Sugar-Labs(R)-Educational-Nonprofit-Celebrates-Two-Google-Code-In-Grand-Prize-Winners/ > > It seems some links to visuals associated with press releases didn't > survive the site change.

Re: [Sugar-devel] [GSOC] Font Editor Next Steps

at the activity can be tested I agree this is a good goal to keep in focus until its done :) > Questions: > No Questions today :) > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:12 AM Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> On Jun 22, 2016 10:50 PM, "Yash

Re: [Sugar-devel] fun with fonts

I love it :) Eli and I were wondering if logo had been used to develop fonts before and this is very cool!! :) On Jun 24, 2016 4:54 PM, "Walter Bender" wrote: > Taking inspiration from the GSoC Font Editor project, I wrote a Glyph > editor in Turtle Blocks. > > The

Re: [Marketing] [SLOBS] [IAEP] Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive.

Thanks Sean! I hope we can set up another Google Hangsout On Air call in a few weeks after we've put a strategy plan together :) ___ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing

Re: [Marketing] The End of Sugar (thought exercise)

On 24 June 2016 at 06:33, samson goddy wrote: > I think it's important to use some of the 10,000 $ to maintain and push > the marketing sector forward. Like the Social manager role i proposed. what > do you guys think? > There is no $10,000 today; the point was to

Re: [Marketing] [SLOBS] [IAEP] Fwd: Google for Nonprofits Affiliation Request Sent

On 24 June 2016 at 05:21, Sean DALY wrote: > Dropping IAEP from a marketing discussion > > It should be in operation - try calling the number! > Seems not to be - "Call failed to connect because the number was busy." > Walter felt we could discontinue it, but IMHO it could

Re: [Marketing] The End of Sugar (thought exercise)

On 23 June 2016 at 22:01, Samuel Greenfeld <sam...@greenfeld.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> On 23 June 2016 at 10:31, Samuel Greenfeld <sam...@greenfeld.org> wrote: >> > Perhaps we should ask marke

Re: [IAEP] Trinom.io / education

On 23 June 2016 at 19:56, Laura Vargas wrote: > > According to your logic if for example Microsoft hires Gonzalo, Microsoft > can claim the same? > > Sorry, but we don't agree on this one ;D What position in Trinomio does Gonzalo hold? If he held the same position in

Re: [Marketing] The End of Sugar (thought exercise)

On 23 June 2016 at 10:44, Walter Bender wrote: >> Perhaps we should ask marketing to do a SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses >> Opportunities Threats) analysis. However we might not have enough funds for >> more than an online survey of current/past users and indirect friends of

Re: [IAEP] [Marketing] The End of Sugar (thought exercise)

Hi Sam On Jun 22, 2016 9:45 PM, "Samuel Greenfeld" wrote: > > Historically there have been several organizations financially supporting > Sugar development. > > But at least some of those have left, others have reduced their > contributions, and it is unclear to me if any

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Fwd: Google for Nonprofits Affiliation Request Sent

Hi Sean On 23 June 2016 at 07:21, Sean DALY wrote: > OK Dave, you're the new Marketing Coordinator! The wiki page https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Marketing_Team had: 1 (617) 500-9610 [[Marketing Team/Phone]] is the new number that journalists can call for > quotes,

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive.

Hi Sean I am absolutely certain that I have not seen a reply from you regarding the email below. If I have missed your reply, please send me a link to it on a web archive, or simply resend it as a reply to this email :) On 6 June 2016 at 10:22, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >

Re: [IAEP] Trinom.io / education

On 23 June 2016 at 13:39, Laura Vargas wrote: > My point is that what this company say they do is what Sugar Labs does... I confused :) Lots of companies do this, though? I think this company can legitimately claim to have actively participated in the development of the

Re: [Sugar-devel] Does anyone intend to produce unsigned images for XOs?

line anywhere. Also, I doubt these will be > useful to anyone else, because we removed all the activities except Read, > Write, WriteBooks, Paint, Record, and Browse. > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi >> >>

Re: [IAEP] Trinom.io / education

Hi Laura Kindly I don't think that is how trademarks work. Afaik sugar itself isn't a trademark. If it was probably the sugar network and sugarizer would need to be licensed, but afaik they arent. This company doesn't represent itself as "Sugar Labs" which is a tm (and as other companies do,

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Fwd: Google for Nonprofits Affiliation Request Sent

I bow out and become just an interested observer. I > just don't have the time to explain marketing fundamentals and also develop > strategy and execution. > > thanks & good luck > > Sean > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>

Re: [IAEP] i don't recieve mail via IAEP

On Jun 23, 2016 7:19 AM, "samson goddy" wrote: > > I don't recieve messages on IAEP list. I tried subscribing, I guess it's not working too. Can some please check it out for me. Please reply to this email top conform receipt > > Samson Goddy > >

Re: [Marketing] [SLOBS] [IAEP] Fwd: Google for Nonprofits Affiliation Request Sent

I bow out and become just an interested observer. I > just don't have the time to explain marketing fundamentals and also develop > strategy and execution. > > thanks & good luck > > Sean > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>

Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Google for Nonprofits Affiliation Request Sent

On 22 June 2016 at 12:21, Adam Holt wrote: > Is there strong consensus which people (multiple people, not a single > person) should manage this and all associated passwords + responsibilities? > With this "process/procedure/ownership" fully documented in a very public > place, so

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Fwd: Google for Nonprofits Affiliation Request Sent

Hi Sean On 22 June 2016 at 15:37, Sean DALY wrote: > > We agree on using Google AdWords, but no work has been done on communication > strategy, and although I am thrilled there is interest in marketing, I am > also very concerned that more emphasis seems to be on the media

Re: [Sugar-devel] [GSOC] Font Editor Next Steps

Hi On Jun 22, 2016 10:50 PM, "Yash Agarwal" wrote: > > Today's Work Boom!!! > Import module is working for ttf files Sweet! Do you convert tt outlines to cff? > Export module is working with fontmake Great > Activation/Deactivation module is done Awesome. Is the

Re: [IAEP] Which cheap 2016 Laptop should be our reference?

On Jun 22, 2016 7:11 PM, "Samuel Greenfeld" wrote: > > I am going to take the unpopular stance here and say if all you are willing to support is a computer which requires no binary blobs, you are going to support no computer at all. If being fully free is a goal - which I

Re: [IAEP] Which cheap 2016 Laptop should be our reference?

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

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activating/Deactivating Fonts

Use ~/.fonts instead On Jun 22, 2016 5:06 PM, "Yash Agarwal" wrote: > Hello, > the following is regarding this issue > https://github.com/sugarlabs/edit-fonts-activity/issues/43 > > I can use the following to install a .ttf or .otf file in sugar but I > require root

Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Google for Nonprofits Affiliation Request Sent

On Jun 22, 2016 11:47 AM, "Dave Crossland" <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > On 8 June 2016 at 06:32, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm confused, I thought Adam was going to liaise with SFC on that? > > > > We can't take over their account. > &

Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Google for Nonprofits Affiliation Request Sent

On Jun 22, 2016 12:21 PM, "Adam Holt" <h...@laptop.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >> >> On 8 June 2016 at 06:32, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I'm confused, I thought Adam w

Re: [IAEP] Which cheap 2016 Laptop should be our reference?

On 22 June 2016 at 10:30, Sean DALY wrote: > Around the time RPi hit the million unit mark I floated the idea of a > Sugar-branded enclosure for it, distributed through the RPi partner network. I've added this idea to https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/2016_Goals and encourage

Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Google for Nonprofits Affiliation Request Sent

On 8 June 2016 at 06:32, Sean DALY wrote: > I'm confused, I thought Adam was going to liaise with SFC on that? > > We can't take over their account. Its not about taking over the account, its about getting additional admin access in order to set up Sugar Labs's adwords

Re: [IAEP] Which cheap 2016 Laptop should be our reference?

On 22 June 2016 at 10:33, Walter Bender wrote: > The problem at the time was that the Sugar experience on RPi was pretty > terrible. I suspect it is pretty decent on the newer models. Do we know? Very decent! :) Tony's remark was about the "Pi Zero" "$5" model. On the

[IAEP] Which cheap 2016 Laptop should be our reference?

On Jun 21, 2016 10:41 AM, "Walter Bender" wrote: > > soliciting a small donation of hardware from Google as a reference platform. Who do we know at google who could help with that? Despite google fonts being a client, I don't know anyone there who could help with this

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

On 21 June 2016 at 01:28, Tony Anderson wrote: > You still confuse me. Someone who is not on the Board cannot submit a motion > (email or otherwise) This is simply, factually, false. In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html Walter notes that

Re: [Sugar-devel] [GSOC] Font Editor Next Steps

On 21 June 2016 at 22:25, Yash Agarwal wrote: > Today's work: > load UFO, save UFO, import binary all are working fine except a few issues > with MIME types which are now Solved (MIME type? thread on sugar devel list) > but not added in yet Great work! > What I'll do

Re: [Sugar-devel] MIME type?

Probably, yes; there is a new font top level type in draft stage - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel/ - and you could try these 3 for import: ttf "application/x-font-ttf" or "application/x-font-truetype" otf "application/x-font-opentype" sfnt "application/font-sfnt" I

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

On 21 June 2016 at 01:05, Laura Vargas wrote: > I confess I'm not motivated to propose any new Motions to current Board as > none has even made it to a meeting, none has get seconded and besides Tony, > until today, I have 0 feedback from all other SLOBs. I sympathise.

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

On 21 June 2016 at 11:35, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > Walter is right. Ideas are good. Time coordination is difficult. The hour is > "precious." Motion B would help clear the logjam at meetings. That is why I > am proposing it I am happy you and Seb agree that clearing the

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

On 21 June 2016 at 10:47, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >> On 4 June 2016 at 11:38, Sebastian Silva <sebast...@fuentelibre.org> >> wrote: >>> El 03/06/16 a las 16:1

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

On 21 June 2016 at 11:56, Sean DALY wrote: > an agreed upon partnership placed under publication embargo. SL wouldn't > likely need to embargo, but a partner might wish to. This PR-smart approach > has been transformed by the Internet and social media these past few years, >

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

On 21 June 2016 at 11:41, Adam Holt wrote: > it's generally a legal/fiduciary responsibility of the Executive Director > (or similar) to consult privately with the Board in these kinds of > high-stakes situations -- keeping as many as possible apprised of > deliberations -- while

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

On 21 June 2016 at 10:49, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >> On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >>> >>> Motion: to consider email

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Digest 2016-06-21

Thanks for posting Walter! This is all good news :) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

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

On 21 June 2016 at 00:38, Sebastian Silva wrote: > Then it got rejected because she is subscribed with a different address. Ah yes, I identified this problem with Claudia's email before. Since you are an IAEP list admin, please can you just fix it? :)

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

On 21 June 2016 at 00:41, Laura Vargas wrote: > I'm sorry I don't do this myself but could you please add the 3 motions I > proposed for the 04/01/16 SLOBs meeting regarding the creation of the Sugar > Project's Translation Fund? > >

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

On 21 June 2016 at 00:32, Sebastian Silva wrote: > We did not get to see the email Dave is replying to. In the future please > remember to copy the list in your replies as we are very much interested in > your opinions. The mail from Claudia was sent to the lists:

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

Hi Claudia! On 20 June 2016 at 14:04, Claudia Urrea wrote: > > I think the wiki page summarizes the status of the motions, but we have to > find a way to link to the discussion or process. Should we number them? or > code them in a way that it helps the process? The

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

On 20 June 2016 at 14:11, Tony Anderson <tony_ander...@usa.net> wrote: > On 20 June 2016 at 11:17, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > On 20 June 2016 at 03:23, Tony Anderson <tony_ander...@usa.net> wrote: > > > > > > I disagree completely w

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

On 20 June 2016 at 12:00, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > Could someone find and post the current vision statement? After Wed when > they finally come to hook up my slow, but very expensive, Internet > connection, I'll be able to comment on the vision statement and possible >

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

Hi On 20 June 2016 at 02:43, Tony Anderson wrote: > I have reviewed this page. You have numbered the motions beginning with > 2016-1. There are missing numbers after 14. Walter added those; I've only maintained the new motions. Its a wiki, you can edit it, so if you'd

Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

Hi, On 20 June 2016 at 02:51, Tony Anderson wrote: > > Could you be specific on the necessary procedural actions that the Board > did not take? > Consideration of motions visible to Members. > Note that the Oversight Board/decisions page does not show the GSOC mentor >

Re: [Sugar-devel] [GSOC] Font Editor Next Steps

On 20 June 2016 at 23:00, Yash Agarwal wrote: > Today I plan to complete the Load/Import/Export/Save features to a 100% > Okay great! I suggest tackling them in this order: new UFO, load UFO, save UFO, export OTF, import OTF/TTF

Re: [Sugar-devel] [GSOC] Font Editor Next Steps

Hi Yash On 20 June 2016 at 22:25, Yash Agarwal wrote: > Yesterday's Work Report, > for details see the blog post: > https://sugarlabs.github.io/edit-fonts-activity/week-5-work > Short Version: > here are the gif's > >- main_activty >

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

On Jun 20, 2016 11:57 AM, "Sean DALY" <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >> >> "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member project of Software Freedom Conse

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

Hi On 20 June 2016 at 03:23, Tony Anderson wrote: > > I disagree completely with this statement as a vision for Sugar Labs. > You already said that, but I am concerned with your position on the original. Laura quoted this in her email above, and it is on the wiki at

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

On 19 June 2016 at 13:20, Tony Anderson wrote: > Unfortunately, this is not my vision of Sugar Labs or Sugar. I see Sugar > as an educational opportunity provided to users of the OLPC XO > and others. Naturally, it takes software engineers to develop and maintain > this

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

On 19 June 2016 at 13:50, Sean DALY wrote: > If the subject is Pending Motion 2016-33, I am opposed to it for the > previously stated reasons. That motion failed 9 days ago, since email voting is only open for 7 days. Sorry I hadn't updated the

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] A Better Idea...

Hi On 19 June 2016 at 13:31, Tony Anderson wrote: > I suspect we will continue to disagree. I believe the actions of the board > have been clear and made in public. > Please see my email to Claudia a moment ago. > I don't think your unhappiness with the Board relates

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

Hi Claudia! On 19 June 2016 at 13:38, Claudia Urrea wrote: > > I think we need someone to admin the motions. We have too many (pass, > pending votes and pending endorsement for vote, etc.), they become depend > on each other and we get stuck not being able to move forward.

Re: [IAEP] 172 XO-1s for $24 each (+ freight) $4,000 total

On 16 June 2016 at 09:00, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > Do we want these or not? :) > I guess not! ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [Sugar-devel] [GSOC] Font Editor Next Steps

Please put the gif and linsk to the questions on the blog :) ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

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

On 4 June 2016 at 00:07, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > On 3 June 2016 at 14:38, Adam Holt <h...@laptop.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >> >>> On 12 May 2016 at 07:59, Walter Bend

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

Hi I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of SLOB. On 3 June 2016 at 14:25, Laura Vargas wrote: > I hereby propose the motion to update current SL vision statement: > > "About Sugar Labs(R): Sugar Labs(R) is a volunteer-driven member

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

On 4 June 2016 at 00:07, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > On 3 June 2016 at 14:38, Adam Holt <h...@laptop.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: >> >>> On 12 May 2016 at 07:59, Walter Bend

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

Hi I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of SLOB. On 3 June 2016 at 02:46, 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, >

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

d fail, than to linger. > > El 03/06/16 a las 16:10, Dave Crossland escribió: > > 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 meet

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

Hi I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of SLOB. On 3 June 2016 at 23:42, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > > On 3 June 2016 at 17:10, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016

Re: [IAEP] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

Hi I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of SLOB. On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent > to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists. >

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] A Better Idea...

On 19 June 2016 at 06:08, Tony Anderson wrote: > > What is the issue? > Effectiveness. > The normal procedure is to make a motion, have it seconded, and then vote. > If it lacks a second, it means the SLOBs do not believe it it ready for > consideration. > When SLOB's

Re: [Sugar-devel] [GSOC] Font Editor Next Steps

Hi Yash I'm looking forwards to your Saturday 3-line email :) Cheers Dave ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] A Better Idea...

On 18 June 2016 at 16:54, Laura Vargas wrote: > Good start. I hope current SLOBs get to analyze the issue ;D > I am waiting. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org

Re: [IAEP] A Better Idea...

On 18 June 2016 at 16:54, Laura Vargas wrote: > Good start. I hope current SLOBs get to analyze the issue ;D > I am waiting. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Vision Discussion in 6 hours

On 18 June 2016 at 17:41, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > Your "ageism" is showing. > I'm talking about all adults 18+ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org

Re: [Sugar-devel] Release 0.109.0.1 unstable

Great work Sam! Thanks! ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [GSOC] Font Editor Next Steps

ure to do > it sincerely from now on > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:27 PM Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Good progress this week, but PLEASE do keep up with the daily 3 line >> email. I will note how many days you've worked and

Re: [IAEP] SLOBS Meeting

On 17 June 2016 at 11:42, Tony Anderson wrote: > I understand the need is to have a financial report at each monthly > meeting reporting on starting balance, amount received, amount paid, and > ending > balance. This is under the control of SFC. Adam is our liason to SFC.

Re: [IAEP] SLOBS Meeting

On 17 June 2016 at 11:32, Tony Anderson wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 11:12, Tony Anderson wrote: >> >> >I appreciate your enthusiasm. However, I wonder how this will work with >>> >Adam Holt as our liason with SFC and with SFC being our accountant.

Re: [IAEP] A Better Idea...

(Apologies for the empty sent earlier) On 16 June 2016 at 23:30, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > On 16 June 2016 at 15:24, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote: > >> >> >> 2016-06-15 8:38 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>: >

Re: [IAEP] A Better Idea...

On 11 June 2016 at 02:19, Laura Vargas wrote: > Thanks for reading/commenting and remember the address to visit the life > document is https://titanpad.com/SLFC > Here is the current contents of the pad: #LearningBYDoing #Projects4GOOD Last Modified by June 17 2016 by

Re: [IAEP] SLOBS Meeting

On 17 June 2016 at 11:12, Tony Anderson wrote: > I appreciate your enthusiasm. However, I wonder how this will work with > Adam Holt as our liason with SFC and with SFC being our accountant. > I'm confused ;D Do you want a volunteer, or do you want Adam to do it?

Re: [IAEP] news article: Why schools should provide one laptop per child

On 17 June 2016 at 11:11, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > I thought this was the best line: > > "These [failures] tended to be in school districts that treated computers > like magical devices that would solve educational problems merely through > their distri

Re: [IAEP] news article: Why schools should provide one laptop per child

Hi Sean Thanks for sharing! I thought this was the best line: "These [failures] tended to be in school districts that treated computers like magical devices that would solve educational problems merely through their distribution, without sufficient planning on how they could best be deployed to

Re: [IAEP] SLOBS Meeting

On 17 June 2016 at 06:37, Sean DALY wrote: > Concerning a Finance Manager, in my view the priority should be finding a > volunteer to step up. > I volunteer. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Vision Discussion in 6 hours

On 17 June 2016 at 01:17, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote: > > > 2016-06-17 12:07 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>: > >> >> On 16 June 2016 at 13:49, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote: >> >>> Great

Re: [IAEP] SLOBS Meeting

On 17 June 2016 at 06:37, Sean DALY wrote: > I am concerned that the recent flurry of motions (36 so far in 2016, > although some are subsets of others) is counterproductive - there are > widely varying viewpoints concerning what SL should be doing. Is SLOBs won't make

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Vision Discussion in 6 hours

On 16 June 2016 at 11:30, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > >> Where is the original text? > > > > The old site was zapped before I could archive anything, so I just use

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Vision Discussion in 6 hours

Hi On 16 June 2016 at 13:45, Sebastian Silva <sebast...@fuentelibre.org> wrote: > > > El 15/06/16 a las 22:02, Dave Crossland escribió: > > > Hi > > On 15 June 2016 at 12:51, Sebastian Silva <sebast...@fuentelibre.org> > wrote: > >> >> &g

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Vision Discussion in 6 hours

On 16 June 2016 at 13:49, Laura Vargas wrote: > Great news Dave! hopefully more and more OLPC members will join the > conversation on the IEP list. > Sadly, I must admit that I do not expect anyone at OLPC to join this list. > - OLPC offered XO-1.75 and XO-4 upgrade

Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] A Better Idea...

On 16 June 2016 at 15:24, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote: > > > 2016-06-15 8:38 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>: > >> On 11 June 2016 at 11:12, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Dave - I don't agree that

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >