I agree with your analysis about slow deployment updates versus fast community cycles.
In my view, there are two alternatives: * We can slow down a little the Sugar cycle, may be doing one release by year, but I am not sure if will help. The changes will take more time to go to the users? If a deployment miss a update, will need wait a entire year? * Someone can work in a LTS Sugar. That should be good if they can push the fixes they work upstream while they are working in their own project. If I was a deployment working with a 3th party, I would ask every fix will be pushed upstream, to be sure I will not have the same problem in 6 months or a year, but I am sure the deployments do not know how the community and open source projects in general work. Gonzalo On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, David Farning <dfarn...@activitycentral.com > wrote: > For phase one this openness in communication, I would like to open the > discussion to strategies for working together. My interest is how to > deal with the notion of overlapping yet non-identical goals. > > As a case study, let's look at deployment and developer preferences > for stability and innovation. > > The roll out pipeline for a deployment can be long: > 1. Core development. > 2. Core validation.. > 3. Activity development. > 4. Activity validation. > 5. Update documentation. > 6. Update training materials. > 7. Pilot. > 8. Roll-out. > > This can take months, even years. > > This directly conflicts with the rapid innovation cycle of development > used by effective up streams. Good projects constantly improve and > refine their speed of innovation. > > Is is desirable, or even possible, to create a project where these two > overlapping yet non-identical needs can be balanced? As a concrete > example we could look at the pros and cons of a stable long term > support sugar release lead by quick, leading edge releases. > > For full disclosure, I tried to start this same conversation several > years ago. I failed: > 1. I did not have the credibility to be take seriously. > 2. I did not have the political, social, and technical experience to > understand the nuances of engaging with the various parties in the > ecosystem. > 3. I did not have the emotional control to assertively advocate ideas > without aggressively advocating opinions. > > Has enough changed in the past several years to make it valuable to > revisit this conversation publicly? > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> > wrote: > > David, > > Certainly is good know plans, and started a interesting discussion. > > In eduJam and in Montevideo, I was talking with the new AC hackers, > > and tried to convince them to work on sugar 0.100 instead of sugar 0.98. > > Have a lot of sense try to work in the same code if possible, > > and will be good for your plans of work on web activities. > > May be we can look at the details, but I agree with you, we should try > avoid > > fragmentation. > > > > Gonzalo > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM, David Farning > > <dfarn...@activitycentral.com> wrote: > >> > >> Over the past couple of weeks there has been an interesting thread > >> which started from AC's attempt to clarify our priorities for the next > >> couple of months. One of the most interesting aspects has been the > >> interplay between private/political vs. public/vision discussions. > >> > >> There seem to be several people and organizations with overlapping yet > >> slightly different goals. Is there interest in seeing how these people > >> and organizations can work together towards a common goal? Are we > >> happy with the current degree of fragmentation? > >> > >> I fully admit my role in the current fragmentation. One of the reasons > >> I started AC was KARMA. At the time I was frustrated because I felt > >> that ideas such as karma were being judged on who controlled or > >> received credit for them instead of their value to deployments. We > >> hired several key sugar hackers and forked Sugar to work on the > >> problem. > >> > >> While effective at creating a third voice in the ecosystem, (The > >> association has shifted more effort towards supporting deployments and > >> Sugar Labs via OLPC-AU is up streaming many of our deployment specific > >> patches) my approach was heavy handed and indulgent... and I apologize > >> for that. > >> > >> -- > >> David Farning > >> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sugar-devel mailing list > >> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > > > > > > > -- > David Farning > Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com >
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel