[Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
quozl at laptop.org
Fri Nov 1 16:59:36 EDT 2013
p.s. it is good that you are being transparent with your decisions,
because that gives you a chance to have them publically reviewed. ;-)
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 12:04:11PM -0500, David Farning wrote:
> Thanks for the update. Currently, AC does not have the credibility to
> participate in the design process.
To not participate in the design process is entirely your decision,
but, if you'll accept my advice, your reasoning for the decision is
Credibility is not what you think it is.
For technical design and feature specification in the Sugar Labs
community, organisational credibility is not required. It is the
technical input that is valuable. Sugar Labs has received valuable
input from a range of credibilities, including bright young children,
teachers of children, and crusty old engineers like me.
And if you do think organisational credibility is required, that begs
the question of why ... is it that you expect your technical input to
be swayed by your credibility? Surely not.
Don't hold the community to ransom for your technical input, just give
it, give it early, and give it often.
> Let's give it 2-3 months for AC's R&D team learning how to work
> effectively with the HTML5+JS team at SL.
Use this phase of the process as an opportunity for you and your
people to practice communicating with other developers in the
community; and measure the effort in the design process, not the
> In the first couple of weeks, I expect that this will mostly involve
> creating web activities to build familiarity the the technologies
> and API's. The return value to Sugar Labs will be testing and
> feedback about the current web activities framework.
I'm worried that it is quite late in the life of the web activities
framework for this feedback, but better late than never.
More information about the Devel