OLPC/SL relationship

[Samuel Klein]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:

> Samuel Klein wrote:
>>> I was speaking of larger communication issues.
>>
>> Great.  Can we resolve them by providing more and more regular (and
>> more public!) information?  Communication issues are rarely fixed by
>> throwing pies.
>
> Announcing what OLPC is planning to do from time to time would be a
> first step in the right direction.  Discussing these plans with the
> community on devel@ would be even more appreciated.

Agreed.

> Since when we started the G1G1 last year, OLPC became less and less
> inclined in discussing potentially embarrassing topics with the
> community in public lists. With many customers and deployments all
> over the world, there are understandable concerns about legal
> liability and potential impact on the public image.

Goodness, sometimes I think everything we do is potentially
embarrassing.  Are there concerns about our public trac system
imposing liability and impacting our public image?  not really.
But people have dropped their comm bandwidth when they get stressed or
busy, that's for sure.

many times it's more a desire for pepole within OLPC who only have 80%
of an answer not to get the other 20% wrong that keeps anyone from
discussing certain things publicly.

> Well, I guess it's the necessary price one pays in order to grow a
> healthy and useful community around the project.  You thought me that,
> remember? :-)

(-:


>>> Two week ago you said that a statement would be forthcoming about the
>>> relationship between Sugar Labs and OLPC.
>>
>> What do you expect in such a statement?  What is the relationship in your words?
>>
>> I don't know what Ed had in mind, but I'd like to see more and more
>> casual discussions of this on all sides.
>
> I keep meeting people who see the Sugar Labs effort as some kind of
> competitor to OLPC, or even a *fork*.  And these are probably a small
> fraction who have been outspoken enough to say it.
>
> Our respective goals are distinct, but not necessarily incompatible.
> There's a lot of overlap that would make our long term relationship
> worthwhile in spite of the past.
>
> Walter Bender and Chuck Kane agreed to work together since before
> Sugar Labs was established. And many SL people also happen to be OLPC
> people, and vice-versa... so there is _already_ some kind of
> collaboration going on at some levels.
>
> What's needed at this point, IMHO, is a clear, open statement from
> OLPC that we're *really* committed to work together.  Not merge, nor
> marry... but work together on the thing we both need: Sugar.
>
> Or maybe just say: NEVER, GET LOST!!! ;-)

Now I have Dawn Upshaw singing in my subconscious.   Thanks a lot.

What does commitment mean here? for some people, including me, I have
a hard time imagining the opposite, so I guess it's easy for some
people to take this for granted and for others to be overly sensitive
and assume it would not happen.


>> We should all be talking together, no relays necessary.   Some of
>> these planning updates are on my plate, and I will get back with more
>> news tonight.  What are Sugar Labs' plans for Fudcon?  Providing more
>> public information on all sides will help everone, more than the
>> tastiest food fight.
>
> We apparently discussed it for a while, but I still didn't get around
> to catch up with my email.  All I know for sure is that this time I'll
> just sit back and enjoy the conference as a guest. ;-)

I'm sure you will enjoy that!  I didn't see it discussed publicly;
pleaswe make sure that those conversations are on public lists when
you are part of them.  I'll do the same.

OLPC is committed to having sessions specifically about the XO at
XOCamp the three days after FUDCon so that we can focus on shared
goals and components during it (and so that we can have wrap-up /
overview sessions for people working on XO planning that builds on
whatever comes out of FUDCon collaborations).    I hope we can work
out how to combine community infrastructure tracks of the two (and
share resources to bring in community members from around the world
who really need to build stronger ties with one another so that they
can go back to assuming good faith on lists such as this one!).

SJ