Re: [IAEP] Do nice guys finish first?
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 14:44, Alan Kay wrote: This is a nice distinction! > > Cheers, > Alan > ...thus david's evil plot to gain credit and attention was fulfilled. Bwah-hah-ha! ;-) -- Ubuntu Linux DC LoCo Washington, DC http://dc.ubuntu-us.org/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Q2 motion proposal
On Dec 11, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Sean DALY wrote: > SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias > resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting > Sugar more effectively. "Focus" is a better word than "bias" here. -- Ivan Krstić | http://radian.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Do nice guys finish first?
This is a nice distinction! Cheers, Alan From: "dfarn...@sugarlabs.org" To: iaep Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 11:41:16 AM Subject: [IAEP] Do nice guys finish first? Over the last couple of months I have been struggling with some of the shifts in Sugar Labs. My greatest concern has been the increasing emphasis on transactions over reciprocity. Transactions represent the notion that individuals take action with the expectation that they will be rewarded for their action. Reciprocity is the idea that if one gives freely, other will be inclined to do likewise. Both involve acting in one own self interest. The problem with transactions is that they tend to cause competition. In Sugar Labs that competition is for credit, attention and resources. Transactions involve bookkeeping -- either implicitly or explicitly. Transactions crowd out reciprocity. Reciprocity involves working on the Sugar Labs mission and giving that work freely to Sugar Labs with the expectation that other will build on your work to further the mission. Maybe it is a growth phase. 1 year ago Sugar Labs had little worth competing for. 1 year ago participants remembered the fresh wounds of the OLPC spinoff. 1 year ago conversations were about how can we work together to make Sugar awesome. I hope that Sugar Labs can get back to working together to make Sugar awesome. david ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] Do nice guys finish first?
Over the last couple of months I have been struggling with some of the shifts in Sugar Labs. My greatest concern has been the increasing emphasis on transactions over reciprocity. Transactions represent the notion that individuals take action with the expectation that they will be rewarded for their action. Reciprocity is the idea that if one gives freely, other will be inclined to do likewise. Both involve acting in one own self interest. The problem with transactions is that they tend to cause competition. In Sugar Labs that competition is for credit, attention and resources. Transactions involve bookkeeping -- either implicitly or explicitly. Transactions crowd out reciprocity. Reciprocity involves working on the Sugar Labs mission and giving that work freely to Sugar Labs with the expectation that other will build on your work to further the mission. Maybe it is a growth phase. 1 year ago Sugar Labs had little worth competing for. 1 year ago participants remembered the fresh wounds of the OLPC spinoff. 1 year ago conversations were about how can we work together to make Sugar awesome. I hope that Sugar Labs can get back to working together to make Sugar awesome. david signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Q2 motion proposal
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 18:29 +0100, Sean DALY wrote: > well, how about this: > > "Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and > distribute Sugar, and if possible will assist with hosting and > infrastructure. SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias > resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting > Sugar more effectively." YAY! -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] [SLOBS] meeting minutes
The minutes of today's oversight board meeting are posted in the wiki: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Meeting_Minutes-2009-12-11 We passed a motion regarding the licensing policy regarding software and content hosted on ASLO and we voted on motions concerning two of the three questions that had been before the Sugar-on-a-Stick decision panel. We'll tackle the third question next week. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Q2 motion proposal
well, how about this: "Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and distribute Sugar, and if possible will assist with hosting and infrastructure. SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more effectively." Sean On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 14:59 -0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> arrgh, this was supposed to go to IAEP > > Or, better, on soas@ (cc'd). Sorry for not doing the initial > post there in the first place. > > For the record, I also like Sean's abridged rewrite although I'd > slightly prefer to explicitly state that we're providing hosting and > infrastructure for any sugarized distribution such as Trisquel Sugar > and OpenSuSE Education. > > Anyway, if Sean's proposal is what we'll end up voting on, he has my > YEA. > > >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 14:47, Sean DALY wrote: >> > We could even be more concise, e.g.: >> > >> > "Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and >> > distribute Sugar. SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias >> > resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting >> > Sugar more effectively." >> > >> > I like this because marketing strategy needs to be flexible, taking >> > into account market conditions. Effective marketing brings change with >> > surprise and opportunism - leaping into a breach. For example, netbook >> > POST screens since recently now typically offer one-key access >> > (bypassing BIOS config) to choose boot media; we could choose to >> > highlight that, since it drastically lowers the barrier for nongeek >> > teachers and parents. However, the day GNU/Linux distros have strong >> > market share, such a strategy will no longer be necessary. >> > >> > Sugar is still a weak brand but we are building it up. Brand-building >> > only happens when there is a crystal-clear message accepted by many >> > people in contact. And in the case of IT, that barriers are lowered or >> > eliminated. "Try Sugar: click here to download ISO, load USB stick >> > with this tool, reboot" is far more effective promotion of Sugar to >> > people who have never used GNU/Linux than "Try Sugar: backup your >> > existing system, reformat/repartition, choose and install a GNU/Linux >> > distro, use your distro's package manager to download, configure and >> > install Sugar" >> > >> > Sean >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Bernie Innocenti >> wrote: >> >> I think the motion we passed suggests the impression that SL must be >> >> biased towards SoaS at the organizational level. I'd like to clarify >> >> that by rephrasing as follows: >> >> >> >> Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing >> >> Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?" >> >> >> >> MOTION: Sugar Labs endorses Sugar multiple distributions based >> >> on availability of resources (i.e. volunteers) and technical >> >> merits. Hosting and resources will be offered on neutral ground. >> >> SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias resources towards >> >> specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more >> >> effectively. >> >> >> >> Would SLOBs agree on this variation? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ >> >> \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ > > -- > // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ > \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ > > ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Q2 motion proposal
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 14:59 -0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > arrgh, this was supposed to go to IAEP Or, better, on soas@ (cc'd). Sorry for not doing the initial post there in the first place. For the record, I also like Sean's abridged rewrite although I'd slightly prefer to explicitly state that we're providing hosting and infrastructure for any sugarized distribution such as Trisquel Sugar and OpenSuSE Education. Anyway, if Sean's proposal is what we'll end up voting on, he has my YEA. > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 14:47, Sean DALY wrote: > > We could even be more concise, e.g.: > > > > "Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and > > distribute Sugar. SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias > > resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting > > Sugar more effectively." > > > > I like this because marketing strategy needs to be flexible, taking > > into account market conditions. Effective marketing brings change with > > surprise and opportunism - leaping into a breach. For example, netbook > > POST screens since recently now typically offer one-key access > > (bypassing BIOS config) to choose boot media; we could choose to > > highlight that, since it drastically lowers the barrier for nongeek > > teachers and parents. However, the day GNU/Linux distros have strong > > market share, such a strategy will no longer be necessary. > > > > Sugar is still a weak brand but we are building it up. Brand-building > > only happens when there is a crystal-clear message accepted by many > > people in contact. And in the case of IT, that barriers are lowered or > > eliminated. "Try Sugar: click here to download ISO, load USB stick > > with this tool, reboot" is far more effective promotion of Sugar to > > people who have never used GNU/Linux than "Try Sugar: backup your > > existing system, reformat/repartition, choose and install a GNU/Linux > > distro, use your distro's package manager to download, configure and > > install Sugar" > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Bernie Innocenti > wrote: > >> I think the motion we passed suggests the impression that SL must be > >> biased towards SoaS at the organizational level. I'd like to clarify > >> that by rephrasing as follows: > >> > >> Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing > >> Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?" > >> > >> MOTION: Sugar Labs endorses Sugar multiple distributions based > >> on availability of resources (i.e. volunteers) and technical > >> merits. Hosting and resources will be offered on neutral ground. > >> SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias resources towards > >> specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more > >> effectively. > >> > >> Would SLOBs agree on this variation? > >> > >> -- > >> // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ > >> \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Q2 motion proposal
arrgh, this was supposed to go to IAEP On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 14:47, Sean DALY wrote: > We could even be more concise, e.g.: > > "Sugar Labs encourages all GNU/Linux distributions to package and > distribute Sugar. SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias > resources towards specific distributions in the interest of promoting > Sugar more effectively." > > I like this because marketing strategy needs to be flexible, taking > into account market conditions. Effective marketing brings change with > surprise and opportunism - leaping into a breach. For example, netbook > POST screens since recently now typically offer one-key access > (bypassing BIOS config) to choose boot media; we could choose to > highlight that, since it drastically lowers the barrier for nongeek > teachers and parents. However, the day GNU/Linux distros have strong > market share, such a strategy will no longer be necessary. > > Sugar is still a weak brand but we are building it up. Brand-building > only happens when there is a crystal-clear message accepted by many > people in contact. And in the case of IT, that barriers are lowered or > eliminated. "Try Sugar: click here to download ISO, load USB stick > with this tool, reboot" is far more effective promotion of Sugar to > people who have never used GNU/Linux than "Try Sugar: backup your > existing system, reformat/repartition, choose and install a GNU/Linux > distro, use your distro's package manager to download, configure and > install Sugar" > > Sean > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: >> I think the motion we passed suggests the impression that SL must be >> biased towards SoaS at the organizational level. I'd like to clarify >> that by rephrasing as follows: >> >> Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing >> Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?" >> >> MOTION: Sugar Labs endorses Sugar multiple distributions based >> on availability of resources (i.e. volunteers) and technical >> merits. Hosting and resources will be offered on neutral ground. >> SL Marketing may strategically decide to bias resources towards >> specific distributions in the interest of promoting Sugar more >> effectively. >> >> Would SLOBs agree on this variation? >> >> -- >> // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ >> \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ >> >> ___ >> SLOBs mailing list >> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs >> > ___ > SLOBs mailing list > sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs > -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] meeting reminder
> I mentioned it in the digest, but forgot to send a further > notification about this morning's oversight board meeting. 15UTC > (10EST) in #sugar-meeting on irc.freenode.net. > > Agenda items > > * Vote on policy for adding non-FOSS activities to ASLO and policy > for adding non-Activity content bundles to ASLO, e.g. illustrated > e-books > Nitpicky code lawyering may in fact be necessary, but can we also get very clear summaries of our motivations understandable by all? http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses%27s (EG. if we are being ask to vote on the above "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" etc to celebrate the holiday season's goodwill towards all that's fine, but concision/clarity would help :-) > * Resolve outstanding Sugar on a Stick decision > * Further discussion of policy for using Sugar trademark ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] [SLOBS] meeting reminder
I mentioned it in the digest, but forgot to send a further notification about this morning's oversight board meeting. 15UTC (10EST) in #sugar-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Agenda items * Vote on policy for adding non-FOSS activities to ASLO and policy for adding non-Activity content bundles to ASLO, e.g. illustrated e-books * Resolve outstanding Sugar on a Stick decision * Further discussion of policy for using Sugar trademark regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
