On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 23:26, Ed McNierney <e...@laptop.org> wrote: > Yes, but in 2007 "they" were "us", no?
No, the point I'm trying to make is that the two organizations are very different in a dimension that is specially important for the issue at hand. OLPC is an organization that has a reputation of being hard to work with for several causes that were certainly out of my own hands. I really hope that SugarLabs will be known as easy to work with and everybody there is making a big personal effort to achieve it. Hope it clarifies, Tomeu > Thanks, this is helpful information (I didn't know the status of OLPC's > previous GSoC work). I don't see why there is any reason to presume that > OLPC would NOT be interested in 2009 GSoC, but I don't know of any active > ideas/proposals kicking around here. I would strongly encourage Sugar Labs > ideas, however - to Ben's point, there should be no confusion. The only > things I could imagine (and it's just imagining) coming from OLPC would be > ancillary ideas (school server add-ons?) that would be quite distinct from > XO/Sugar software. Go for it! > > - Ed > > > On Jan 8, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Wade Brainerd wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: >>> >>> We should take into account that organizations are assigned slots >>> based on their well behaviour in past editions. >> >> To be clear, OLPC was put on GSoC 'probation' last year due to their >> poor performance reporting on students' work in 2007. They only >> received 4 slots despite hundreds of applications. >> >> Wade >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
