On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote:
> Hi > > On 26 February 2017 at 11:44, Sebastian Silva <sebast...@fuentelibre.org> > wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > On 25/02/17 20:33, Tymon Radzik wrote: > > > >> Sugar Labs is by its statement volunteer-driven project. We are > volunteers. > >> We work for the idea of the free and open software and not for own > financial > >> profit. > > > > It is worth to reflect upon this point. Certainly the design and > engineering > > teams of Redhat and OLPC that built Sugar in the first place weren't > unpaid > > volunteers. > > They were also not part of Sugar Labs. > > > I like to think that we're all volunteers, in that, we are not > > motivated by money, and if we could do more, we would. > > > > (Lack of) Investment in software infrastructure for education is a large > > void that ultimately implies a hidden cost of integration, field support, > > even the impossibility of deployment. Who is doing this work required to > > take Sugar* (a component) and make it into end user solutions? > > There are organizations like oneeducation and kidsoncomputers that do > this work; and it seems to me that they don't focus on Sugar because > it isn't what people want. > > An anecdote: Around the end of last summer, I spoke to someone > involved in Sugar a while ago, based in the US, who helps refugees to > the US with some computing stuff. He was listed in the wiki. The idea > of booting a PC off a USB stick - let alone installing a dual boot > setup - was so intimidating for these families, where any trouble > running the existing Windows/Office tools that the parents in the > families needed to keep their families off the streets - that he was > unable to get a single child, highly motivated from tutored use of > Sugar at school - to make use of it at home. > > Sugarizer presents such children with a more viable option to take > more active direction over their own learning, being web based, and > packaged for a kid who has a hand-me-down mobile device. > I am not sure I agree as I don't see how a kid with a hand-me down mobile device makes the transition to a contributor. Happy to be proven wrong. > > However, it is unclear to me if my premise in the line above - that > Sugar Labs should focus on subverting schools, by empowering kids to > teach themselves, and avoiding the need for field support and > deployment managed by adults - is closer to what Sugar Labs should be, > or if the premie that Caryl outlined in her last email in this thread > - that Sugar Labs should focus on supporting schools, by adjusting > Sugar software to meet the pedagogical theories of common schools - is > closer. > > +1 to subverting school (and not just catering to what teachers and parents and administrators want: there are plenty of other organizations more than willing to do that). We need to stick to our Constructionist roots or we have no purpose. That said, I repeat that I think there is leverage with the maker movement and we have something of value to offer them. If we make it easy to leverage Sugar on RPi, we have a good chance to get in the door. This doesn't help the immigrant child -- maybe Sugarizer is the best we can do for that use case). Meanwhile, I will continue to build tools that kids can leverage (in or out of school) and hopefully learn to modify and shape to their own purposes. > As Samson and I have been saying, last year we all agreed to wait for > Sameer to provide a vision, missions, etc. > > I suppose that if Sameer doesn't do this soon, > > > While it is probably human nature to distrust, I think Laura is > proposing to > > shift from just hiring strangers that walk away after 3 months with > $5000, > > I'm confused. When was $5,000 paid out to someone who delivered nothing? :) > > > to sustaining long term active members with a small stipend for a year, > in > > the hope (and trust) that they will increase their effort and > involvement, > > as well as attract more active contributors. Whether this will result in > a > > better Sugar a year from now, and whether it is sustainable, remains to > be > > seen, as well as the specific dynamics of such a program. > > This strategy seems high risk, to me. > > > The following is an excerpt from "Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor > Behind > > Our Digital Infrastructure" (license: CC-BY, author: Nadia Eghbal) > > > > I recommend reading the whole book and we can think how it applies to a > > project like Sugar Labs, that has no money making product, but rather is > a > > knowledge multiplying community, and how society can nurture it. > > I've read the book; after publishing it, Nadia then went to work for > Github and in her role there has just published > http://opensource.guide which has a section on funding directly. > > However, I think the funds that accrue to SL from its GSOC/GCI > programs provide adequate funding for the project to continue > indefinitely as a volunteer-run one. It is not clear to me that any > additional funds should be sought until the org and the project have > been reconstituted for 2017 to 2027. That costs nothing :) > > -- > Cheers > Dave > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep