Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Sameer Verma wrote:
I think its important to change that perception because people who are
not on the lists don't see the traffic but do remember the media trash
that flew around back when the Windows thing happened.
Well, I'm not sure the media
I would like to apologize for my absence over the last weeks. I have
been trying to determine if Sugar is a viable project and if Sugar Labs
is a viable organization.
For the weeks prior to my break, I have been working on community
outreach. Community outreach has meant contacting grassroots
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, David Farning wrote:
I would like to apologize for my absence over the last weeks. I have
been trying to determine if Sugar is a viable project and if Sugar Labs
is a viable organization.
For the weeks prior to my break, I have been working on community
outreach.
It would be helpful to understand the correlation between the
organizations you've been talking to and their positive/negative
assessments of Sugar. Indeed, relative to any other learning project I
am aware of, Sugar has a large and vibrant (and outspoken) community
of developers, which we all
Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
2. Lack of vision. The second reason organizations hesitate to become
involved with Sugar Labs is our lack of vision. There is a perception
that Sugar development has stalled.
I agree that it's vital to get people who love Sugar together to
articulate a
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
2. Lack of vision. The second reason organizations hesitate to become
involved with Sugar Labs is our lack of vision. There is a perception
that Sugar development has stalled.
This surprises me a lot. I can't think of an open source project
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to apologize for my absence over the last weeks. I have
been trying to determine if Sugar is a viable project and if Sugar Labs
is a viable organization.
I find it always worthwhile to question whether I and
