SLOBs discussion: what are the biggest issues in SL right now?

June 25, 2010 – 12:54 pm

The Sugar Labs Oversight Board (SLOBs) has had trouble getting together on IRC recently because of everyone’s crazy schedule, information pills so today some of us got together in-channel and got through the list of outstanding topics as best we could. It wasn’t an official SLOBs meeting – with only myself, Tomeu, and Chris Ball, we lacked quorum and couldn’t make any official decisions – but we moved things forward as best we could, because these issues are pressing.

Remember, nothing says that anyone (you don’t have to be a SLOB!) can’t move things forward, SLOBs-fu is only needed for the final formal vote! The full log is available, and I’ve added it to the list of past logs while noting that it wasn’t an official SLOBs gathering, for clarity. Here’s what we covered:

  1. F11+0.88+XO-1.* as a SL project – Bernie had sent in a request on behalf of Paraguay Educa and Activity Central to make Fedora 11 with Sugar 0.88 builds for the XO-1 and XO-1.5 a new official project. It wasn’t clear to us what resources they needed; we pointed out that they could get infrastructure/hosting without being an official “SL project” (and indeed without asking SLOBs!) and asked what else they needed – trademark permission, etc? Tomeu brought up that SL projects were the ones that SL teams (Marketing, Design, Development, etc.) were expected to support, so it’s not clear that this would be the appropriate designation for the F11+0.88 builds – there may be a more appropriate upstream for the project to be under (Paraguay Edcua, Activity Central, OLPC, Fedora, etc.) and then SL could partner with that project instead of being the umbrella org for it.
  2. Ooo4Kids logo display request – Ooo4Kids asked if they could display our logo on their “partners” page, but we’re blocked by not being able to find the original text of the request for this. If you know where to find this, or who at Ooo4Kids to contact about it, please let us know!
  3. Trademark usage applications – A number of local labs have asked for permission to use the SL trademark, but again, we’re blocked by not having the original request text. If you’re from the Colombia, Paraguay Educa, Argentina, Chile, Peru, or DC Local Labs, please help us find your request!

Since all three of these are continuing discussions, and we’ll be continuing those discussions on-list, I’ve linked to those discussion threads from the agenda for next week. (The other two things on the list for next week are “Review of RM search” and “Motion and possible vote on Sugar certification,” – I am not sure what the latter means, so clarification would be great, what’s the motion we’re looking at?)

Question for all Sugar folks: what do YOU think the most pressing problems in our community are? That’s what SLOBs should be addressing – so please tell us what our biggest (non-code) bugs are.

Know someone who'd appreciate this post?
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  1. 2 Responses to “SLOBs discussion: what are the biggest issues in SL right now?”

  2. Hi Mel,
    I was confused about the hierarchy of who should be the deciding organization for who determines what version of sugar is used in the field. There are more than 500,000 users and many people outside of OLPC and Sugar Labs that will have to support that choice (of using 0.88) as well as the support that OLPC and Sugar Labs in Boston and elsewhere will have to provide. I dont know how a new 3rd party like Activity Central is involved in this and what role they should be taking as they are untested and lacking the kind of resouces that OLPC and Sugar Labs have at the moment.

    By Kevix on Jun 25, 2010

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Jul 11, 2010: [M]etabrain [E]ntry [L]og » Blog Archive » SLOBs update, 2010-07-11

What do you think?