[Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
gonzalo at laptop.org
Tue Oct 29 15:38:15 EDT 2013
About phase two: What is wrong with our actual Feature process?
About topics you are not talking, I would like AC spend some time trying to
push features upstream. That was almost not done in the last year,
and I am working on that right now, but would be good some help from your
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, David Farning <dfarning at activitycentral.com
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:01 PM, David Farning
> > <dfarning at activitycentral.com> wrote:
> >> 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?
> > Proposals aside (of course more eyes and hands would be appreciated)
> > there is still the underlying issue of mistrust that you have raised.
> > I think it is important that we clear the air and I think it is not
> > unreasonable to ask you to be specific about your perceptions that
> > somehow Sugar Labs is not acting in a transparent manner.
> Agreed, let's do it step wise:
> Phase one -- Code and Roger will will start on the HTML5 + JS work
> with Daniel and Manq.
> Daniel has struck me as 'fair but firm.' On Activity Central's side,
> we are probably not going to incorporate that work in customer facing
> products for 6-9 months. Thus, it can be a trial of AC supporting
> upstream on innovative work without subjecting upstream the to
> changing desires of customers.
> Phase two -- Let's look at lessons learned from other projects. We can
> focus on the road map and product specification. From my experience,
> these two piece can provide an anchor for the rest of the project:
> 1. The act of sitting down and hashing out the roadmap and project
> specification causes everyone to sit back and assess their individual
> priorities and goals.... and how they fit into the project as a whole.
> 2. The act of deciding which items are above the line and which are
> below the line, which are targeted for this release and which are
> pushed to a future release, help find the balance between what is
> possible some day and what is probable in X months of work with
> existing resources.
> 3. Sitting back and preparing for a release forces us to asses what is
> good enough for release what is not. It is a good feedback loop.
> 4. Finally, after a successful release everyone can sit back bask is
> the satisfaction that maybe we didn't save the world... but we make
> enough progress that it is worth getting up again tomorrow and doing
> it all again.
> Phase three -- Let's look at some mechanism for balancing the need to
> push the project forward through innovation and support existing
> deployments by providing stability.
> > -walter
> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>
> >>> On 29 October 2013 01:14, David Farning <dfarning at activitycentral.com>
> >>> 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
> >>> 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
> >>> patchset landed after being cleaned up and resubmitted properly by
> >>> Activity Central developer.
> >>> More in general, no single developer is in charge of patch reviewing,
> >>> couldn't keep code out of the tree for non-technical reason even if
> >>> 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
> >>> 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
> >>> 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
> >> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> >> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
> > --
> > Walter Bender
> > Sugar Labs
> > http://www.sugarlabs.org
> David Farning
> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel