[sugar] Fwd: Roadmap update

[Jameson "Chema" Quinn]

There was just a discussion on IRC about this, and I wanted to put some of
the clarifications from there up here on the mailing list:


[07:59] <dsd_> my 2 immediate concerns were: are contracts ending, and is
olpc ditching sugar
[07:59] <dsd_> sounds like no for both, which is reassuring
[07:59] <tomeu> well, I would say yes (in short) and no (for now)
[07:59] <tomeu> but I'm guessing just as you are
[07:59] <dsd_> kk
[08:00] <tomeu> anyway, I'm personally quite positive about it
[08:00] <homunq> how so?
[08:00] <homunq> (reassure us)
[08:01] <tomeu> I personally find that sugar has a very clear need to
satisfy and is well positioned to do so
[08:01] <tomeu> lots of people have shown interest in sugar

[08:06] <homunq> Whether or not OLPC clarifies, I think it would be healthy
for sugarlabs to do so
[08:07] <homunq> not try to speak for OLPC, of course, but just to say: we
have this many people paid to work on sugar through these mechanisms, and
these prospects of getting more.
[08:08] <tomeu> homunq: that may not be too upbeat ;)
[08:08] <dsd_> Ridderman: lets not jump to conclusions until we have actual
details.. right now nobody knows really what this means
[08:09] <homunq> tomeu: I understand that. But, personally, I'd rather know
than keep guessing, and I suspect others agree.
[08:09] <tomeu> well, we don't know lots of things, but we know what has
been said
[08:10] <tomeu> one of the few things I know is that I will self fund my
work on sugar until my savings end, probably one year
[08:10] <tomeu> I really think sugar has a bright future and I'm willing to
invest on it
[08:11] <tomeu> homunq: a pity you couldn't attend sugarcamp, you would have
noticed how much people cared about sugar
[08:11] <tomeu> see, I'm not just doing this because I can, I know other
people are going to invest on sugar
[08:12] <tomeu> and I see a great potential there


[08:12] <icarito> i think a clear statement from OLPC is in order
[08:12] <tomeu> olpc is going to keep shipping sugar AFAIK, and that's very
good, we need to aknowledge that and make sure it's a success, within our
capabilities
[08:13] <icarito> headlines here stated OLPC will come with windows
[08:13] <icarito> when its only a 50 machine test
[08:13] <tomeu> icarito: that means ms has a good marketing department ;)

[08:18] * cjb wakes up, and is annoyed
[08:18] <cjb> marcopg: in what conceivable way is it true that OLPC is not
funding Sugar development anymore?
[08:20] <cjb> It didn't say "effective today, tomeu/simon/sayamindu/morgan
are fired"

[08:25] <cjb> Ed said he wants to concentrate on deployability for the next
release
[08:25] <cjb> that does not mean some sugar bugs won't be fixed (it means it
isn't the main focus)
[08:25] <cjb> that does not mean sugar work won't be funded in the future
[08:25] <cjb> and it does not mean, finally, that OLPC is no longer funding
work on sugar development
[08:26] <Ridderman> to me, this just underscores the need for self
sufficiency in the Sugar community.... OLPC has very limited resources and
is choosing to focus on other things than core Sugar development for now

[08:46] <marcopg> dsd_: I'm not sure how you can compare "sugar running on
more platforms" with a list that doesn't include journal, collaboration,
performance or any of the big goals we had set for 0.84 (based on OLPC
product manager input)
[08:47] <marcopg> let's keep it concrete:
[08:47] <marcopg> I don't feel like I can work on journal, collaboration,
performance in OLPC time for 9.1
[08:48] <marcopg> *if* OLPC management tells me that's not the case
[08:48] <marcopg> then I'll happily change my statement about funding
[08:49] <cjb> marcopg: Sorry for getting angry.  I feel that what you said
is really unfair, but it'll get worked out.
[08:51] <cjb> it is unfair to announce that "OLPC is not funding Sugar
development anymore" as a proxy for "OLPC said we have to concentrate on
deployability, which means I'm not sure what to work on anymore, therefore
OLPC is not funding Sugar development."

[08:58] <tomeu> cjb: it cannot be told that we haven't given time or notice
for olpc to be clear about their intentions
[08:58] <cjb> A rewording I think I would agree with is -- "For the next
release cycle, OLPC isn't going to have time/resources to work on
fundamental isssues like a Journal or Collaboration rewrite."
[08:58] <marcopg> cjb: the community needs to know and asap, because we need
to move on. If OLPC wants to announce it in a positive way, it should
explicitly spin-off Sugar and announce it publically, as we requested for
months

[08:59] <tomeu> cjb: ok, I like that rewording better as well, but I don't
care so much about how it is said

[09:00] <cjb> and when SL announces that OLPC just pulled out of working on
Sugar publically, when OLPC thinks it's doing nothing of the sort, that
makes my job very hard.

[09:01] <dsd_> marco's mail made me seriously wonder if OLPC is going to
stop shipping sugar
[09:01] <dsd_> which is not a message that anyone here wants to put across
[09:01] <marcopg> you can put it in nice words, sure
[09:01] <marcopg> but that doesn't help the community to understand that
there is a big problem
[09:01] <dsd_> and i interpreted it that way after being at OLPC for months
and learning just how closely everyone works together
[09:01] <marcopg> and that we all need to do something about it
[09:02] <dsd_> so to the contrary i think the wording is very important
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/sugar/attachments/20081126/191b6853/attachment-0001.htm