Private vs Public conversations.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Private vs Public conversations.

David Farning
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
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Manusheel Gupta
>.... and I apologize for that.

Unity in diversity is a necessity  for the success of global projects addressing communities and civil society. 

It is always great to see all the members of an eco-system working towards a common goal.

Regards,

Manu


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:26 PM, David Farning <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Gonzalo Odiard-3
In reply to this post by David Farning
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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

David Farning
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> <[hidden email]> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>



--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Gonzalo Odiard-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> <[hidden email]> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>



--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

David Farning
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 someone, individuals or a third party, were willing and able to
provide LTS support for a version of Sugar, how would you recommend
they go about doing it?

With the recent changes to the ecosystem, I am unclear about the
current structure, culture, and politics of Sugar Labs. My concern is
that in that past several years a number of organization who have
participated in Sugar development have left or reduced their
participation. When asking them why they left, the most common
response is that that they didn't feel they were able to establish or
sustain mutually beneficial relationships within the ecosystem.

Would you be interesting in looking at cultural, political, and
procedural traits which have enabled other free and opensource
projects to foster thriving ecosystems? Are these traits present in
Sugar Labs?

While, I understand it is frustrating for an upstream software
developer. A primary tenet of free and open sources software is that
then anyone can use and distribute the software as they see fit.... as
long as the source code is made available. The challenge for an
upstream is to create an environment where it is more beneficial for
individuals and organizations to work together than it is to work
independently.

To make things more concrete, three areas of concern are Control, Credit, Money:
-- Control -- Are there mechanism for publicly making and
communicating project direction in a productive manner? Is
disagreement accepted and encouraged?

-- Credit -- Are there mechanism for publicly acknowledging who
participates and adds value to the ecosystem? Is credit shared freely
and fairly?

-- Money -- Are there mechanisms in place for publicly acknowledge
that money pays a role in the ecosystem? Is Sugar Labs able to
maintain a neutral base around which people and organizations can
collaborate?

From my limited experience, I don't believe there is an single holy
grail type answer to any of these questions. Instead, the answers tend
to evolve as situations change and participants come and go.

> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, David Farning
> <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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
>> > <[hidden email]> 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
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Farning
>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>
>



--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

David Farning
I just wanted to bump this line of questions as, it is the critical
set of questions which will determine the future viability of Sugar.

If anyone as more informed, please correct me if I am sharing
incorrect information:
1. The Association has dropped future development of XO laptops and
Sugar as part of their long term strategy. I base this on the
reduction of hardware and software personal employed by the
Association.
2. The Association is reducing its roll within the engineering and
development side of the ecosystem. I base this on the shift toward
integrating existing technology, software, and content from other
vendors on the XO tablet.
3. The Association is shifting away from its initial roll as a
technical philanthropy to a revenue generating organization structured
as a association. I base this on the general shift in conversations
and decisions from public to private channels.

Given financial constraints, these are reasonable shifts. While
painful, the world is better of with a leaner (and meaner) OLPC
Association which lives to fight another day. The challenge moving
forward is how to develop and maintain the Sugar platform, the
universe of activities, and the supporting distributions given the
reduction in patronage from the OLPC Association.

I, and AC, would be happy to work more closely with Sugar Labs if
there are ways to establish publicly disclosed and mutually beneficial
relationships. In the meantime we are happy to provide deployments
support while seeding and supporting projects we feel are beneficial
to deployments such as School Server Community Edition and Sugar on
Ubuntu.

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 6:11 AM, David Farning
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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 someone, individuals or a third party, were willing and able to
> provide LTS support for a version of Sugar, how would you recommend
> they go about doing it?
>
> With the recent changes to the ecosystem, I am unclear about the
> current structure, culture, and politics of Sugar Labs. My concern is
> that in that past several years a number of organization who have
> participated in Sugar development have left or reduced their
> participation. When asking them why they left, the most common
> response is that that they didn't feel they were able to establish or
> sustain mutually beneficial relationships within the ecosystem.
>
> Would you be interesting in looking at cultural, political, and
> procedural traits which have enabled other free and opensource
> projects to foster thriving ecosystems? Are these traits present in
> Sugar Labs?
>
> While, I understand it is frustrating for an upstream software
> developer. A primary tenet of free and open sources software is that
> then anyone can use and distribute the software as they see fit.... as
> long as the source code is made available. The challenge for an
> upstream is to create an environment where it is more beneficial for
> individuals and organizations to work together than it is to work
> independently.
>
> To make things more concrete, three areas of concern are Control, Credit, Money:
> -- Control -- Are there mechanism for publicly making and
> communicating project direction in a productive manner? Is
> disagreement accepted and encouraged?
>
> -- Credit -- Are there mechanism for publicly acknowledging who
> participates and adds value to the ecosystem? Is credit shared freely
> and fairly?
>
> -- Money -- Are there mechanisms in place for publicly acknowledge
> that money pays a role in the ecosystem? Is Sugar Labs able to
> maintain a neutral base around which people and organizations can
> collaborate?
>
> From my limited experience, I don't believe there is an single holy
> grail type answer to any of these questions. Instead, the answers tend
> to evolve as situations change and participants come and go.
>
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, David Farning
>> <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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
>>> > <[hidden email]> 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
>>> >> [hidden email]
>>> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Farning
>>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Farning
> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com



--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Walter Bender-4
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, David Farning
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I just wanted to bump this line of questions as, it is the critical
> set of questions which will determine the future viability of Sugar.
>
> If anyone as more informed, please correct me if I am sharing
> incorrect information:
> 1. The Association has dropped future development of XO laptops and
> Sugar as part of their long term strategy. I base this on the
> reduction of hardware and software personal employed by the
> Association.
> 2. The Association is reducing its roll within the engineering and
> development side of the ecosystem. I base this on the shift toward
> integrating existing technology, software, and content from other
> vendors on the XO tablet.
> 3. The Association is shifting away from its initial roll as a
> technical philanthropy to a revenue generating organization structured
> as a association. I base this on the general shift in conversations
> and decisions from public to private channels.
>

I don't speak on behalf of the Association, but I think your positions
are overstated. As far as I know, the Association is still pursing
sales of XO laptops and is still supporting XO laptops in the field.
Granted the pace of development is slowed and there is -- to my
knowledge -- no team in place to develop an follow up to the XO 4.0. I
don't have a clue as to what you mean by a "technical philanthropy"
but it remains a non-profit associated dedicated to enhancing learning
opportunities through one-to-one computing. The fact that the
Association has private-sector partners is nothing new. It has had
such partners since its founding in 2006.

> Given financial constraints, these are reasonable shifts. While
> painful, the world is better of with a leaner (and meaner) OLPC
> Association which lives to fight another day. The challenge moving
> forward is how to develop and maintain the Sugar platform, the
> universe of activities, and the supporting distributions given the
> reduction in patronage from the OLPC Association.
>
> I, and AC, would be happy to work more closely with Sugar Labs if
> there are ways to establish publicly disclosed and mutually beneficial
> relationships. In the meantime we are happy to provide deployments
> support while seeding and supporting projects we feel are beneficial
> to deployments such as School Server Community Edition and Sugar on
> Ubuntu.

I don't understand what you are asking. Sugar Labs has always had a
policy of working in the open. That said, Sugar Labs volunteers (yes,
we are all volunteers), have on occasion done consulting for OLPC, AC,
deployments, and other third parties. Nothing new or unusual about
that either.

The future of Sugar is incumbant upon its remaining relevant to
learning and its maintaining a vibrant upstream community. If you (and
AC) want to contribute to the future of Sugar, please work with us
upstream, e.g. report bugs upstream, submit patches upstream, test
code originating upstream, mentor newbies, etc. Par for the course for
any FOSS project.

>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 6:11 AM, David Farning
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> 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 someone, individuals or a third party, were willing and able to
>> provide LTS support for a version of Sugar, how would you recommend
>> they go about doing it?
>>
>> With the recent changes to the ecosystem, I am unclear about the
>> current structure, culture, and politics of Sugar Labs. My concern is
>> that in that past several years a number of organization who have
>> participated in Sugar development have left or reduced their
>> participation. When asking them why they left, the most common
>> response is that that they didn't feel they were able to establish or
>> sustain mutually beneficial relationships within the ecosystem.
>>
>> Would you be interesting in looking at cultural, political, and
>> procedural traits which have enabled other free and opensource
>> projects to foster thriving ecosystems? Are these traits present in
>> Sugar Labs?
>>
>> While, I understand it is frustrating for an upstream software
>> developer. A primary tenet of free and open sources software is that
>> then anyone can use and distribute the software as they see fit.... as
>> long as the source code is made available. The challenge for an
>> upstream is to create an environment where it is more beneficial for
>> individuals and organizations to work together than it is to work
>> independently.
>>
>> To make things more concrete, three areas of concern are Control, Credit, Money:
>> -- Control -- Are there mechanism for publicly making and
>> communicating project direction in a productive manner? Is
>> disagreement accepted and encouraged?
>>
>> -- Credit -- Are there mechanism for publicly acknowledging who
>> participates and adds value to the ecosystem? Is credit shared freely
>> and fairly?
>>
>> -- Money -- Are there mechanisms in place for publicly acknowledge
>> that money pays a role in the ecosystem? Is Sugar Labs able to
>> maintain a neutral base around which people and organizations can
>> collaborate?
>>
>> From my limited experience, I don't believe there is an single holy
>> grail type answer to any of these questions. Instead, the answers tend
>> to evolve as situations change and participants come and go.
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, David Farning
>>> <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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
>>>> > <[hidden email]> 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
>>>> >> [hidden email]
>>>> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David Farning
>>>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Farning
>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>
>
>
> --
> David Farning
> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

-walter

--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

David Farning
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, David Farning
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I just wanted to bump this line of questions as, it is the critical
>> set of questions which will determine the future viability of Sugar.
>>
>> If anyone as more informed, please correct me if I am sharing
>> incorrect information:
>> 1. The Association has dropped future development of XO laptops and
>> Sugar as part of their long term strategy. I base this on the
>> reduction of hardware and software personal employed by the
>> Association.
>> 2. The Association is reducing its roll within the engineering and
>> development side of the ecosystem. I base this on the shift toward
>> integrating existing technology, software, and content from other
>> vendors on the XO tablet.
>> 3. The Association is shifting away from its initial roll as a
>> technical philanthropy to a revenue generating organization structured
>> as a association. I base this on the general shift in conversations
>> and decisions from public to private channels.
>>
>
> I don't speak on behalf of the Association, but I think your positions
> are overstated.

I hope to be proven wrong and the laptop side of the Association
regains momentum.

> As far as I know, the Association is still pursing
> sales of XO laptops and is still supporting XO laptops in the field.
> Granted the pace of development is slowed and there is -- to my
> knowledge -- no team in place to develop an follow up to the XO 4.0. I
> don't have a clue as to what you mean by a "technical philanthropy"
> but it remains a non-profit associated dedicated to enhancing learning
> opportunities through one-to-one computing. The fact that the
> Association has private-sector partners is nothing new. It has had
> such partners since its founding in 2006.
>
>> Given financial constraints, these are reasonable shifts. While
>> painful, the world is better of with a leaner (and meaner) OLPC
>> Association which lives to fight another day. The challenge moving
>> forward is how to develop and maintain the Sugar platform, the
>> universe of activities, and the supporting distributions given the
>> reduction in patronage from the OLPC Association.
>>
>> I, and AC, would be happy to work more closely with Sugar Labs if
>> there are ways to establish publicly disclosed and mutually beneficial
>> relationships. In the meantime we are happy to provide deployments
>> support while seeding and supporting projects we feel are beneficial
>> to deployments such as School Server Community Edition and Sugar on
>> Ubuntu.
>
> I don't understand what you are asking. Sugar Labs has always had a
> policy of working in the open.

The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental
disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs
thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to the
changing environment.

> That said, Sugar Labs volunteers (yes,
> we are all volunteers), have on occasion done consulting for OLPC, AC,
> deployments, and other third parties. Nothing new or unusual about
> that either.
>
> The future of Sugar is incumbant upon its remaining relevant to
> learning and its maintaining a vibrant upstream community. If you (and
> AC) want to contribute to the future of Sugar, please work with us
> upstream, e.g. report bugs upstream, submit patches upstream, test
> code originating upstream, mentor newbies, etc. Par for the course for
> any FOSS project.
>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 6:11 AM, David Farning
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> 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 someone, individuals or a third party, were willing and able to
>>> provide LTS support for a version of Sugar, how would you recommend
>>> they go about doing it?
>>>
>>> With the recent changes to the ecosystem, I am unclear about the
>>> current structure, culture, and politics of Sugar Labs. My concern is
>>> that in that past several years a number of organization who have
>>> participated in Sugar development have left or reduced their
>>> participation. When asking them why they left, the most common
>>> response is that that they didn't feel they were able to establish or
>>> sustain mutually beneficial relationships within the ecosystem.
>>>
>>> Would you be interesting in looking at cultural, political, and
>>> procedural traits which have enabled other free and opensource
>>> projects to foster thriving ecosystems? Are these traits present in
>>> Sugar Labs?
>>>
>>> While, I understand it is frustrating for an upstream software
>>> developer. A primary tenet of free and open sources software is that
>>> then anyone can use and distribute the software as they see fit.... as
>>> long as the source code is made available. The challenge for an
>>> upstream is to create an environment where it is more beneficial for
>>> individuals and organizations to work together than it is to work
>>> independently.
>>>
>>> To make things more concrete, three areas of concern are Control, Credit, Money:
>>> -- Control -- Are there mechanism for publicly making and
>>> communicating project direction in a productive manner? Is
>>> disagreement accepted and encouraged?
>>>
>>> -- Credit -- Are there mechanism for publicly acknowledging who
>>> participates and adds value to the ecosystem? Is credit shared freely
>>> and fairly?
>>>
>>> -- Money -- Are there mechanisms in place for publicly acknowledge
>>> that money pays a role in the ecosystem? Is Sugar Labs able to
>>> maintain a neutral base around which people and organizations can
>>> collaborate?
>>>
>>> From my limited experience, I don't believe there is an single holy
>>> grail type answer to any of these questions. Instead, the answers tend
>>> to evolve as situations change and participants come and go.
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, David Farning
>>>> <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> > <[hidden email]> 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
>>>>> >> [hidden email]
>>>>> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> David Farning
>>>>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Farning
>>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Farning
>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
> -walter
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org



--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Walter Bender-4
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, David Farning
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:

[snip]

>> I don't understand what you are asking. Sugar Labs has always had a
>> policy of working in the open.
>
> The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental
> disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs
> thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to the
> changing environment.
>

Not a clue as to what you are talking about. How about some
transparency as to what our disagreement is?

[snip]
>
> --
> David Farning
> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com



--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Daniel Narvaez
On 23 October 2013 19:51, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, David Farning
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:

[snip]

>> I don't understand what you are asking. Sugar Labs has always had a
>> policy of working in the open.
>
> The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental
> disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs
> thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to the
> changing environment.
>

Not a clue as to what you are talking about. How about some
transparency as to what our disagreement is?

[snip]

Yes, please. I don't really understand where you are seeing lack of openness and transparency.

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Martin Langhoff
In reply to this post by Walter Bender-4
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, David Farning
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I just wanted to bump this line of questions as, it is the critical
>
> I don't speak on behalf of the Association, but I think your positions
> are overstated. As far as I know, the Association is still pursing
> sales of XO laptops and is still supporting XO laptops in the field.
> Granted the pace of development is slowed and there is -- to my
> knowledge -- no team in place to develop an follow up to the XO 4.0. I
> don't have a clue as to what you mean by a "technical philanthropy"
> but it remains a non-profit associated dedicated to enhancing learning
> opportunities through one-to-one computing. The fact that the
> Association has private-sector partners is nothing new. It has had
> such partners since its founding in 2006.

+1 on Walter's words, David's position is overstated. OLPC has shrunk
its Sugar investment, that is true. But on the other points, nothing
has changed significantly, OLPC has always had to find sources of
funding.

>> Given financial constraints, these are reasonable shifts.

That's more like it ;-)

>> there are ways to establish publicly disclosed and mutually beneficial
>> relationships. In the meantime we are happy to provide deployments
>> support while seeding and supporting projects we feel are beneficial
>> to deployments such as School Server Community Edition and Sugar on
>> Ubuntu.

"Seeding and supporting projects" is how it's done.

cheers,



m
--
 [hidden email]
 -  ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

David Farning
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Martin Langhoff
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, David Farning
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I just wanted to bump this line of questions as, it is the critical
>>
>> I don't speak on behalf of the Association, but I think your positions
>> are overstated. As far as I know, the Association is still pursing
>> sales of XO laptops and is still supporting XO laptops in the field.
>> Granted the pace of development is slowed and there is -- to my
>> knowledge -- no team in place to develop an follow up to the XO 4.0. I
>> don't have a clue as to what you mean by a "technical philanthropy"
>> but it remains a non-profit associated dedicated to enhancing learning
>> opportunities through one-to-one computing. The fact that the
>> Association has private-sector partners is nothing new. It has had
>> such partners since its founding in 2006.
>
> +1 on Walter's words, David's position is overstated. OLPC has shrunk
> its Sugar investment, that is true. But on the other points, nothing
> has changed significantly, OLPC has always had to find sources of
> funding.

As I stated, I hope to be proven wrong.

>>> Given financial constraints, these are reasonable shifts.
>
> That's more like it ;-)
>
>>> there are ways to establish publicly disclosed and mutually beneficial
>>> relationships. In the meantime we are happy to provide deployments
>>> support while seeding and supporting projects we feel are beneficial
>>> to deployments such as School Server Community Edition and Sugar on
>>> Ubuntu.
>
> "Seeding and supporting projects" is how it's done.
>
> cheers,
>
>
>
> m
> --
>  [hidden email]
>  -  ask interesting questions
>  - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
>  ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff



--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Walter Bender-4
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Farning
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Martin Langhoff
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, David Farning
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I just wanted to bump this line of questions as, it is the critical
>>>
>>> I don't speak on behalf of the Association, but I think your positions
>>> are overstated. As far as I know, the Association is still pursing
>>> sales of XO laptops and is still supporting XO laptops in the field.
>>> Granted the pace of development is slowed and there is -- to my
>>> knowledge -- no team in place to develop an follow up to the XO 4.0. I
>>> don't have a clue as to what you mean by a "technical philanthropy"
>>> but it remains a non-profit associated dedicated to enhancing learning
>>> opportunities through one-to-one computing. The fact that the
>>> Association has private-sector partners is nothing new. It has had
>>> such partners since its founding in 2006.
>>
>> +1 on Walter's words, David's position is overstated. OLPC has shrunk
>> its Sugar investment, that is true. But on the other points, nothing
>> has changed significantly, OLPC has always had to find sources of
>> funding.
>
> As I stated, I hope to be proven wrong.

You also stated:

> The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental
> disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs
> thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to the
> changing environment.

Several of us have asked for an explanation.

regards.

-walter

>
>>>> Given financial constraints, these are reasonable shifts.
>>
>> That's more like it ;-)
>>
>>>> there are ways to establish publicly disclosed and mutually beneficial
>>>> relationships. In the meantime we are happy to provide deployments
>>>> support while seeding and supporting projects we feel are beneficial
>>>> to deployments such as School Server Community Edition and Sugar on
>>>> Ubuntu.
>>
>> "Seeding and supporting projects" is how it's done.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> m
>> --
>>  [hidden email]
>>  -  ask interesting questions
>>  - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
>>  ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
>
>
>
> --
> David Farning
> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com



--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

James Cameron-2
David wrote:
> The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental
> disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs
> thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to
> the changing environment.

I haven't been able to parse this in a way that gives me confidence
that I comprehend it.

Assessing the degree of openness and transparency is very difficult,
because it depends on the monitoring of communication, and there are
communications that are private.

The social network also contains nodes that are hidden.  Some of the
communication links are hidden.  Some links are by broadcast.

I think this will always be so.  It is how humans organise their
networks; ad-hoc and badly.  It is why governance systems are
implemented.

I speculate that the assessments of the "degree of openness and
transparency" occupy a broad band, and that David has an assessment
some distance from the median.

Walter wrote:
> Several of us have asked for an explanation.

I agree.  I'd like to know more about the assessment and the basis for
it.  At the moment I don't perceive any problems with the governance
of Sugar Labs.

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

David Farning
In reply to this post by Walter Bender-4
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Farning
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Martin Langhoff
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, David Farning
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> I just wanted to bump this line of questions as, it is the critical
>>>>
>>>> I don't speak on behalf of the Association, but I think your positions
>>>> are overstated. As far as I know, the Association is still pursing
>>>> sales of XO laptops and is still supporting XO laptops in the field.
>>>> Granted the pace of development is slowed and there is -- to my
>>>> knowledge -- no team in place to develop an follow up to the XO 4.0. I
>>>> don't have a clue as to what you mean by a "technical philanthropy"
>>>> but it remains a non-profit associated dedicated to enhancing learning
>>>> opportunities through one-to-one computing. The fact that the
>>>> Association has private-sector partners is nothing new. It has had
>>>> such partners since its founding in 2006.
>>>
>>> +1 on Walter's words, David's position is overstated. OLPC has shrunk
>>> its Sugar investment, that is true. But on the other points, nothing
>>> has changed significantly, OLPC has always had to find sources of
>>> funding.
>>
>> As I stated, I hope to be proven wrong.
>
> You also stated:
>
>> The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental
>> disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs
>> thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to the
>> changing environment.
>
> Several of us have asked for an explanation.

Yes, and sorry about the delay. This is a nuanced discussion which
requires focusing on goals which can strengthen the project while
avoiding recriminations about the past mistakes and individual
weakness.

The general observation is that open source projects are most
effective when they provide a venue for multiple individuals and
organizations with overlapping yet non-identical goals to come
together to collaborate on a common platform which they can use and
adapt for their own purpose.

The specific observation about Sugar Labs is that an emphasis on
identical goals tends to limit active participants. Outliers tend to
be nudged aside. The remaining group of active participants are small
but loyal. And yes, I see the irony of posting this observation on the
sugar-devel mailing list. Everyone who is troubled by this observation
has already left.

As two Data points:
In a private conversation with an Association employee they told me
that they conciser Activity Central a competitor because Activity
Central increased deployments expectations. Their strategy with regard
to Activity Central was to _not_ accept patches upstream with the goal
of causing Activity Central and Dextrose to collapse under its their
weight. As it was private conversation I am not sure how widely spread
the opinion was held.

Recently there was a call for help testing HTML5 and JS. Two
developers Code and Roger have been writing proof of concept
activities. They have been receiving extensive off-list help getting
started. But, interestingly, their on-list request for clarification
about how to test datastore was met with silence.

I have tried to communicate that there is competition between
organizations and deployments within the ecosystem... and that is
good. Competition drives innovation. The challenge, as I see it, is
for Sugar Labs to become the to common "collaborative" ground around
which these organizations compete.

Hope that helps.

> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>>
>>>>> Given financial constraints, these are reasonable shifts.
>>>
>>> That's more like it ;-)
>>>
>>>>> there are ways to establish publicly disclosed and mutually beneficial
>>>>> relationships. In the meantime we are happy to provide deployments
>>>>> support while seeding and supporting projects we feel are beneficial
>>>>> to deployments such as School Server Community Edition and Sugar on
>>>>> Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> "Seeding and supporting projects" is how it's done.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> m
>>> --
>>>  [hidden email]
>>>  -  ask interesting questions
>>>  - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
>>>  ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Farning
>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org



--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Walter Bender-4
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM, David Farning
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Farning
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Martin Langhoff
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Walter Bender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, David Farning
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> I just wanted to bump this line of questions as, it is the critical
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't speak on behalf of the Association, but I think your positions
>>>>> are overstated. As far as I know, the Association is still pursing
>>>>> sales of XO laptops and is still supporting XO laptops in the field.
>>>>> Granted the pace of development is slowed and there is -- to my
>>>>> knowledge -- no team in place to develop an follow up to the XO 4.0. I
>>>>> don't have a clue as to what you mean by a "technical philanthropy"
>>>>> but it remains a non-profit associated dedicated to enhancing learning
>>>>> opportunities through one-to-one computing. The fact that the
>>>>> Association has private-sector partners is nothing new. It has had
>>>>> such partners since its founding in 2006.
>>>>
>>>> +1 on Walter's words, David's position is overstated. OLPC has shrunk
>>>> its Sugar investment, that is true. But on the other points, nothing
>>>> has changed significantly, OLPC has always had to find sources of
>>>> funding.
>>>
>>> As I stated, I hope to be proven wrong.
>>
>> You also stated:
>>
>>> The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental
>>> disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs
>>> thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to the
>>> changing environment.
>>
>> Several of us have asked for an explanation.
>
> Yes, and sorry about the delay. This is a nuanced discussion which
> requires focusing on goals which can strengthen the project while
> avoiding recriminations about the past mistakes and individual
> weakness.
>
> The general observation is that open source projects are most
> effective when they provide a venue for multiple individuals and
> organizations with overlapping yet non-identical goals to come
> together to collaborate on a common platform which they can use and
> adapt for their own purpose.
>
> The specific observation about Sugar Labs is that an emphasis on
> identical goals tends to limit active participants. Outliers tend to
> be nudged aside. The remaining group of active participants are small
> but loyal. And yes, I see the irony of posting this observation on the
> sugar-devel mailing list. Everyone who is troubled by this observation
> has already left.
>
> As two Data points:
> In a private conversation with an Association employee they told me
> that they conciser Activity Central a competitor because Activity
> Central increased deployments expectations. Their strategy with regard
> to Activity Central was to _not_ accept patches upstream with the goal
> of causing Activity Central and Dextrose to collapse under its their
> weight. As it was private conversation I am not sure how widely spread
> the opinion was held.

It seems unwise to damn Sugar Labs based on hearsay from OLPCA. Sugar
Labs is *not* OLPCA and we don't traffic in hearsay, regardless.

>
> Recently there was a call for help testing HTML5 and JS. Two
> developers Code and Roger have been writing proof of concept
> activities. They have been receiving extensive off-list help getting
> started. But, interestingly, their on-list request for clarification
> about how to test datastore was met with silence.

Wow. Their email was send 4 days ago, right before the weekend and
*after* your assertion that Sugar Labs is somehow remiss in its
integrity. This too seems a real stretch.

That said, there is clearly something bothering you. It would be good
to clear the air.

thanks.

-walter

>
> I have tried to communicate that there is competition between
> organizations and deployments within the ecosystem... and that is
> good. Competition drives innovation. The challenge, as I see it, is
> for Sugar Labs to become the to common "collaborative" ground around
> which these organizations compete.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Given financial constraints, these are reasonable shifts.
>>>>
>>>> That's more like it ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>> there are ways to establish publicly disclosed and mutually beneficial
>>>>>> relationships. In the meantime we are happy to provide deployments
>>>>>> support while seeding and supporting projects we feel are beneficial
>>>>>> to deployments such as School Server Community Edition and Sugar on
>>>>>> Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>>> "Seeding and supporting projects" is how it's done.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> m
>>>> --
>>>>  [hidden email]
>>>>  -  ask interesting questions
>>>>  - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
>>>>  ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Farning
>>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
>
>
> --
> David Farning
> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel



--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Martin Langhoff
In reply to this post by David Farning
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM, David Farning
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> In a private conversation with an Association employee they told me
> that they conciser Activity Central a competitor because Activity
> Central increased deployments expectations. Their strategy with regard
> to Activity Central was to _not_ accept patches upstream with the goal
> of causing Activity Central and Dextrose to collapse under its their
> weight. As it was private conversation I am not sure how widely spread
> the opinion was held.

I object very strongly to those statements; I hope it was not under my
watch and I goes very much against the grain of everyone involved with
Sugar and OLPC in all the time I was there.

While I didn't always agree or like AC's work or strategies, I have
been, on and off the record, always in favor of having a strong
ecosystem. AC being the main player in that space, this translated in
a strong advocacy for AC.

As a professional in the foss world, this is not something I would
accept in my team, and I don't think anyone in the team had the kind
of personality to play such games.

There were times where it was easy for OLPC to integrate patches,
There were times when it was hard. I tried to signal that in advance
because I have been on both sides of the integration game (and I
continue to be -- now with Moodle) and I profoundly despise games such
as the one being suggested.

with a bad taste in my mouth,



m
--
 [hidden email]
 -  ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

Daniel Narvaez
In reply to this post by David Farning
On 29 October 2013 01:14, David Farning <[hidden email]> wrote:
As two Data points:
In a private conversation with an Association employee they told me
that they conciser Activity Central a competitor because Activity
Central increased deployments expectations. Their strategy with regard
to Activity Central was to _not_ accept patches upstream with the goal
of causing Activity Central and Dextrose to collapse under its their
weight. As it was private conversation I am not sure how widely spread
the opinion was held.

The patch queue is currently empty. In the last six months only one patchset was rejected. It was by Activity Central and it was rejected by me (not an OLPC employee) for purely technical reasons. The proof being that the same patchset landed after being cleaned up and resubmitted properly by another Activity Central developer.

More in general, no single developer is in charge of patch reviewing, OLPC couldn't keep code out of the tree for non-technical reason even if they wanted to. More specifically the ability to approve patches was offered to one Activity Central developer, which never used it.

Recently there was a call for help testing HTML5 and JS. Two
developers Code and Roger have been writing proof of concept
activities. They have been receiving extensive off-list help getting
started. But, interestingly, their on-list request for clarification
about how to test datastore was met with silence.

Mailing list posts going unanswered isn't really uncommon in free software projects. But most of the time it just means that no one knows the answer or everyone is too busy.

Only me and Manuel are usually answering about HTML5. I have not answered because... gmail put those messages in my spam folder, sigh! Most likely the same happened to Manuel or he has been busy. (I need to take some sleep now but I'll try to answer asap).

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.

David Farning
I would like to thank everyone who has provided valuable feedback by
participating on this thread.

The three things I am going to takeway from the the thread are:
1. Jame's point about my position about not representing the median.
Due to my history and role in the ecosystem, I have upset some
apple-carts :(
2. Martin's point about the right hand not always being aware of what
the left hand is doing. This unfortunately seems to happen too
frequently.
3. Finally, and most importantly, Daniel's point  about getting back
to the business of improving Sugar.

My proposal is that Activity Central make the next step of funding two
developers to work on HTML5 and JS. If we can find a mutually
beneficial relationship around this, we can see how we can expand the
relationship in the future.

Seem reasonable?

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 29 October 2013 01:14, David Farning <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> As two Data points:
>> In a private conversation with an Association employee they told me
>> that they conciser Activity Central a competitor because Activity
>> Central increased deployments expectations. Their strategy with regard
>> to Activity Central was to _not_ accept patches upstream with the goal
>> of causing Activity Central and Dextrose to collapse under its their
>> weight. As it was private conversation I am not sure how widely spread
>> the opinion was held.
>
>
> The patch queue is currently empty. In the last six months only one patchset
> was rejected. It was by Activity Central and it was rejected by me (not an
> OLPC employee) for purely technical reasons. The proof being that the same
> patchset landed after being cleaned up and resubmitted properly by another
> Activity Central developer.
>
> More in general, no single developer is in charge of patch reviewing, OLPC
> couldn't keep code out of the tree for non-technical reason even if they
> wanted to. More specifically the ability to approve patches was offered to
> one Activity Central developer, which never used it.
>
>> Recently there was a call for help testing HTML5 and JS. Two
>> developers Code and Roger have been writing proof of concept
>> activities. They have been receiving extensive off-list help getting
>> started. But, interestingly, their on-list request for clarification
>> about how to test datastore was met with silence.
>
>
> Mailing list posts going unanswered isn't really uncommon in free software
> projects. But most of the time it just means that no one knows the answer or
> everyone is too busy.
>
> Only me and Manuel are usually answering about HTML5. I have not answered
> because... gmail put those messages in my spam folder, sigh! Most likely the
> same happened to Manuel or he has been busy. (I need to take some sleep now
> but I'll try to answer asap).



--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
123