Google summer of Code?
jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Fri Mar 13 09:06:02 EDT 2009
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Mel Chua <mel at melchua.com> wrote:
> 2009/3/8 Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>:
>> > No definite agreement has been made, but in preliminary chats, it seems
>> > that both organizations agree that anything for XS or specific to XO
>> > should go in OLPC, and everything else (general Sugar improvements,
>> > frameworks, or activities) should go in Sugarlabs.
>> We discussed this at XO camp, and people from Sugar Labs were
>> considering not supporting activity development and focusing on core
>> sugar development.
> This is correct.
>> Has this changed? In general, do you expect that
>> priorities for toolchain and activity development will be the same?
> In general, sugar-core and toolchain development is a higher priority than
> generative Activity development (Activities that lower the barrier to
> Activity development). It's highly unlikely that non-generative Activity
> development will be supported.
Honestly, this is news to me. (and I am the co-administrator of the
Sugarlabs program). If I had to articulate my view of our priorities, it
would be something like the following:
7-10 points: Key sugar core improvements. Long-standing, important gaps like
versioning or unit-tests at the high end of this.
6-9 points: Activity frameworks to open new forms of activity development
Develop activity, mono or java)
4-8 points: Core activities: For instance, Nepal has expressed the need for
an improved Read.
3-6 points: Quality non-core educational activities: a physics sim or other
0-8 points: Proposal quality.
In other words, an excellent proposal from a highly-qualified student could
very well make the cut, even if it were a non-core activity.
Jameson (whose daughter likes colors)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel