[Sur] [SLOBS] [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi All…
Ed is home now and his brand-new Echo-cardiogram-friendly pacemaker is happily ticking away at 70 bpm. So, now I can finally give some feed back on the motions….
Initially I left the values of $X and $Y undefined as I thought folks would want to discuss these and fill them in. So far that hasn't happened.  The Financial Manager job holds a lot of responsibility and could take considerable time to do well. I hope folks will agree with me and set the value of a monthly stipend accordingly.
For small expenses, it seems $100 would be a reasonable amount to cover most contingencies. Some may feel that is too low. That is why I was hoping it would get discussed.
Perhaps this could be set annually when a proposed budget for the year comes up for approval. It would be great if we could look forward to possible contingencies and events in the coming year like conferences that, so far, most of us have done on our own dime. Money for "marketing" could be set aside annually and conferences could be a part of it. 
Since the original motion has been broken up into parts, there is no reason it has to be voted on all at once. Perhaps we could start with the part that establishes a Financial Manager with a fair stipend?
I have been thinking a bit while sitting with Ed in the hospital, and I am beginning to believe that 2 more things need to be done as well to make SugarLabs a viable concern that will last.  
One thing is to define the goals of SugarLabs. Looking at the initial goals… they are fine, but perhaps we need to look also at the changes in technology that are still rapidly happening. Considering more than just Sugar on XOs has to be the way forward. Things like IIAB (and Adam's IIAP) and Sugarizer are just the beginning. Who knows what will be coming around the next corner? 
Something that focuses on bringing quality open-source educational learning opportunities to the children of the world, regardless of language, location, economic status, or other factors should be the goal. This means that promoting excellent platforms, other than Sugar (such as the great stuff OLE-Nepal has) should be a part of the efforts. 
Secondly, hardware should not be an issue. Sugarizer's focus on bringing Sugar to any device with a screen is an excellent beginning.  It needs a lot of fine tuning. For example, I find that Sugarizer on an iPhone is quite different than Sugarizer on an Android phone, which is also different from Sugarizer on an old iPod or on a Kindle Fire tablet or an Apple iPad. Documentation telling the user how to optimize it for their own particular device could be a SugarLabs project that everyone could contribute to. I would be happy to outline the steps for doing this so we could get such a project started.
Which brings up a third thing that I would love to see added to these two goals… making Sugar and other open source software easily accessable to children, parents, and teachers via easy to follow directions and suggestions for using it to maximize fun, learning, and discovery. Documentation is a key element that SugarLabs has not done well so far.
OK. This has been a much too long answer to Dave's simple question:" is your intention for the motion to be drafted with $X and $Y undefined?"  Sorry! It is sooo much easier to type on my Mac than it is on my iPhone that I guess I sort of got carried away! So, short answer: No, they should be defined and I think the Sugar Labs members should discuss and reach a consensus on the amounts.
Caryl



From: dave en lab6.com
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 17:12:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [SLOBS] [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOB] meeting reminder and some open issues to discuss
To: lionel en olpc-france.org; cbigenho en hotmail.com
CC: slobs en lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep en lists.sugarlabs.org; sugar-devel en lists.sugarlabs.org; olpc-sur en lists.laptop.org


Hi
On 7 May 2016 at 16:09, Lionel Laské <lionel.laske en gmail.com> wrote:2016-05-07 22:06 GMT+02:00 Dave Crossland <dave en lab6.com>:
Do you think having the motion as it is with $Y = 0 is ok? 
Yep.
 Okay good :)
Caryl, is your intention for the motion to be drafted with $X and $Y undefined, so that they can be defined by later motions?
-- 
Cheers
Dave
 		 	   		  
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-sur/attachments/20160507/5fd474fe/attachment.html>