Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 19:00, Frederick Grose wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> >> 2009/7/2 Sean DALY : >> > I don't know Tomeu, what do you think? >> >> I sincerely don't know but I hope that someone will explain what they >> need from the development team to succeed. > > The idea is that *all* of Sugar Labs needs to think deeply about how we > develop the next stage of Sugar and Sugar Labs. What is most important to > refine and advance, and what important pieces need to be added. > > This seems to be a followup to the call for *Champions* to advocate for the > features needed to better serve our communities. Champions that can > integrate with the Design, Development, Activity, Education, Deployment, > Marketing, and other Teams. > > For example, see this discussion thread on the 'netbook' as terminology, > http://www.mail-archive.com/sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg05906.html, > and the suggestion to push ad-hoc wireless networking into a native feature > of Sugar. This would give Sugar a large, advantageous multiplier effect for > creating more pervasive networking to take advantage of our core feature, > collaboration. > > Powerful ideas please step forward... That's a good example, someone (several people?) have expressed in the past that creating ad-hoc networks would be of great value, and at some point I found some time and implemented it. Development being driven by the development team doesn't mean that only gets done what fancies us, we are always asking for feedback and can be convinced to spend our time on other people's ideas. Regards, Tomeu > --Fred > > > > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > 2009/7/2 Sean DALY : > > I don't know Tomeu, what do you think? > > I sincerely don't know but I hope that someone will explain what they > need from the development team to succeed. The idea is that *all* of Sugar Labs needs to think deeply about how we develop the next stage of Sugar and Sugar Labs. What is most important to refine and advance, and what important pieces need to be added. This seems to be a followup to the call for *Champions* to advocate for the features needed to better serve our communities. Champions that can integrate with the Design, Development, Activity, Education, Deployment, Marketing, and other Teams. For example, see this discussion thread on the 'netbook' as terminology, http://www.mail-archive.com/sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg05906.html, and the suggestion to push ad-hoc wireless networking into a native feature of Sugar. This would give Sugar a large, advantageous multiplier effect for creating more pervasive networking to take advantage of our core feature, collaboration. Powerful ideas please step forward... --Fred ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 17:06, Sean DALY wrote: > Tomeo, the essence of what I am saying is: the development team should > chart a course and stay on it (time-based releases seem to be working > well), and the downstream distros (particularly XO-1.5 and SoaS) then > the marketing team should take it from there. Which mustn't preclude > feedback from the field making its way back to the development team > too. It's when the teams aren't on the same page that we encounter > difficulties. Wouldn't consulting with the SLOBs be a reasonable form > of insurance? Well, David's proposal seemed to be that the SLOBs would set the dates, not just consulting. Also, IMO, the SLOBs should get consulted only when there's a conflict. That is, when the normal and broad communication means have failed to create the needed consensus. I would like to make three points clear: - an open source project is only as successful as its downstreams are, as those are the people that get their work in the hands of people, - most of the contributors involved in a subproject/team are also involved in other teams, - while in a company managers bear the responsibility that the managed people make an useful use of their time, in non-profits each volunteer is responsible for that task. When a group of people start telling how others should spend their free time, they put themselves in a very dangerous position. So this is not about defending territory, but about defending a way of working together that I think has been proven. As a smaller point, several contributors in the development team started by packaging Sugar for their favorite distros. So I wouldn't help distros only based on their capability of directly delivering Sugar to children, there's more value to it. As I said, your plans for the marketing team sound great to me, how can the development team better help you reach those goals? Regards, Tomeu ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
Tomeo, the essence of what I am saying is: the development team should chart a course and stay on it (time-based releases seem to be working well), and the downstream distros (particularly XO-1.5 and SoaS) then the marketing team should take it from there. Which mustn't preclude feedback from the field making its way back to the development team too. It's when the teams aren't on the same page that we encounter difficulties. Wouldn't consulting with the SLOBs be a reasonable form of insurance? What David mentioned was the importance of our big-picture roadmap being clear. For most people, that will be the launches. For our partners, that will be the launches + the distros + Sugar. I'm not so sure yet if the development releases, distro releases, and marketing launches should be in the same table on the wiki (three tables on the same page may make more sense), but that may well be the most effective way to reach agreement on who is doing what in what timeframe. We need to be prepared for unexpected events however. An OEM deal for example would be a fabulous opportunity and would radically change the marketing launch schedule, and add another distro to coordinate (I would expect an OEM to bring at least some resources to help adapt however). Its impact on the development team should be less, but for that point I'm trying to make: at the critical moment of launch, everyone can and should help... I feel it shouldn't be only for one team or another, but everyone... kind of like when several of us man a booth at a conference, each one of us willing to explain how Sugar can make a difference in education. Launches allow great leaps forward in raising awareness, which fuels a positive cycle of teacher interest, contributor interest, funding interest, spreading Sugar use in the classroom (and libraries and homes). Launches are not only software releases; they are about finding and configuring and presenting newsworthy stuff, things teachers might discuss at lunch break. We will surely be preparing content-based launches centered on Activities, leveraging ebooks and online content, reporting on deployments, partnerships, etc. I'd like to be careful not to impose burdens on the development team. Marketers at proprietary companies are (in)famous for that, usually because of intense competition. I take "don't overpromise" very seriously (difficult as it is). I think we can go further by being smarter, and part of that is not interfering with the free software way. I do think though that it's worthwhile for us to share timetables. thanks Sean On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > 2009/7/2 Sean DALY : >> I don't know Tomeu, what do you think? > > I sincerely don't know but I hope that someone will explain what they > need from the development team to succeed. > > Your plan for the marketing team sounds excellent to me, but David's > proposal goes way beyond that team. And you have chosen to explain the > marketing roadmap inside this thread. > > So, would someone care to explain which are the organizational changes > that are being requested? I have made more concrete questions before > in this thread. > > Regards, > > Tomeu > >> Sean >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 16:37, Sean DALY wrote: OK Tomeu To be clear, I'm making a distinction between marketing (in the spreading the word to regular people sense, not in the FOSS community building sense) and deploying. I fully agree we need to nurture a large and wide downstream FOSS community. >>> >>> I'm a bit confused, how does this affect the guy who works on Sugar >>> and releases source tarballs every 6 months? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tomeu >>> So there's no narrowing of who deploys it, but a prioritization of how we can get the word out to the most teachers and parents. I hope to see Sugar included in distros, but I hope even more they make an effort to get it out to classrooms. To me, such an effort would merit our marketing support. I actually think distros could be much more out in front in the education sector, and Sugar could help distros leap ahead in K-6, an opportunity they should seize. Look at the Dell education netbook: Ubuntu went to the trouble of being the standard OS on it (Windows on option), but they missed the boat on making Sugar a central part of their K-6 offer. I'd like to work on that with them. Dell claims 500 school districts have already ordered the netbooks; rather than write them off, I'd like those buyers to know that they could run Sugar off an SD-Card for each Learner, a nominal expense to obtain the best learning environment for smaller children. Distros are not good at "vertical marketing", something Apple for example excels in and which Microsoft has copied these past few years (look at their medical industry push). There are hist
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
2009/7/2 Sean DALY : > I don't know Tomeu, what do you think? I sincerely don't know but I hope that someone will explain what they need from the development team to succeed. Your plan for the marketing team sounds excellent to me, but David's proposal goes way beyond that team. And you have chosen to explain the marketing roadmap inside this thread. So, would someone care to explain which are the organizational changes that are being requested? I have made more concrete questions before in this thread. Regards, Tomeu > Sean > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 16:37, Sean DALY wrote: >>> OK Tomeu >>> >>> To be clear, I'm making a distinction between marketing (in the >>> spreading the word to regular people sense, not in the FOSS community >>> building sense) and deploying. I fully agree we need to nurture a >>> large and wide downstream FOSS community. >> >> I'm a bit confused, how does this affect the guy who works on Sugar >> and releases source tarballs every 6 months? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tomeu >> >>> So there's no narrowing of who deploys it, but a prioritization of how >>> we can get the word out to the most teachers and parents. >>> >>> I hope to see Sugar included in distros, but I hope even more they >>> make an effort to get it out to classrooms. To me, such an effort >>> would merit our marketing support. I actually think distros could be >>> much more out in front in the education sector, and Sugar could help >>> distros leap ahead in K-6, an opportunity they should seize. Look at >>> the Dell education netbook: Ubuntu went to the trouble of being the >>> standard OS on it (Windows on option), but they missed the boat on >>> making Sugar a central part of their K-6 offer. I'd like to work on >>> that with them. Dell claims 500 school districts have already ordered >>> the netbooks; rather than write them off, I'd like those buyers to >>> know that they could run Sugar off an SD-Card for each Learner, a >>> nominal expense to obtain the best learning environment for smaller >>> children. >>> >>> Distros are not good at "vertical marketing", something Apple for >>> example excels in and which Microsoft has copied these past few years >>> (look at their medical industry push). There are historical and >>> traditional reasons for that, but the situation is that distros are >>> ill-prepared to make a difference in education without helpers. We can >>> be a helper, in fact we are uniquely qualified to help in K-6. Perhaps >>> a different way to look at it is to enumerate the places where there >>> have been major GNU/Linux projects in K-6 education and concentrate on >>> those? >>> >>> Any model where we can help OEMs sell netbooks is a model that can >>> broaden distros' tiny marketshare. That's no betrayal of our education >>> mission, because we don't exclude running Sugar on an old PC with a $5 >>> USB stick, or on a Mac, or even on Windows with virtualization - Sugar >>> can arrive in front of a Learner by many technical means. >>> >>> If breaking out of marginal marketshare is interesting to distros, we >>> can help them do that together. It requires marketing work on their >>> part though, the technical work is a necessary prerequisite but is >>> insufficient. >>> >>> Sean >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 15:39, Sean DALY wrote: > Now is a good time to work on this, as the SoaS launch is behind us. > > My understanding is that Sugar Learning Platform releases such as > v0.84, v0.86, v0.88 are of interest to our downstream partners and > projects... distros naturally, but in particular the OLPC XO-1.5 and > the Sugar on a Stick Fedora-based distribution + tools. > > The XO-1.5 is of interest to everyone involved in OLPC projects but > particularly Learners, who certainly have things to tell us about the > Sugar they have if they could. > > Sugar on a Stick is of interest to everyone in K-6 education: > teachers, school management and buyers, parents of kids in school. > > At this time, the distros do not have the reach or potential impact of > these two projects. I feel therefore our marketing priority should be > on these two projects, and especially Sugar on a Stick, here's why. > > The enormous OLPC installed base is the source of our credibility and > adding potentially hundreds of thousands more Learners through SoaS > makes us news, in particular SoaS running on other large installed > bases such as Intel Classmates and old PCs. > > From a marketing perspective, dialogue and coordination with our > partners and projects is community liaison and is best served through > direct contact, information sharing and negotiation. Should any > distros become motivated to market Sugar to educators (as opposed to > just adding it to their distro), we could of course be very h
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
I don't know Tomeu, what do you think? Sean On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 16:37, Sean DALY wrote: >> OK Tomeu >> >> To be clear, I'm making a distinction between marketing (in the >> spreading the word to regular people sense, not in the FOSS community >> building sense) and deploying. I fully agree we need to nurture a >> large and wide downstream FOSS community. > > I'm a bit confused, how does this affect the guy who works on Sugar > and releases source tarballs every 6 months? > > Thanks, > > Tomeu > >> So there's no narrowing of who deploys it, but a prioritization of how >> we can get the word out to the most teachers and parents. >> >> I hope to see Sugar included in distros, but I hope even more they >> make an effort to get it out to classrooms. To me, such an effort >> would merit our marketing support. I actually think distros could be >> much more out in front in the education sector, and Sugar could help >> distros leap ahead in K-6, an opportunity they should seize. Look at >> the Dell education netbook: Ubuntu went to the trouble of being the >> standard OS on it (Windows on option), but they missed the boat on >> making Sugar a central part of their K-6 offer. I'd like to work on >> that with them. Dell claims 500 school districts have already ordered >> the netbooks; rather than write them off, I'd like those buyers to >> know that they could run Sugar off an SD-Card for each Learner, a >> nominal expense to obtain the best learning environment for smaller >> children. >> >> Distros are not good at "vertical marketing", something Apple for >> example excels in and which Microsoft has copied these past few years >> (look at their medical industry push). There are historical and >> traditional reasons for that, but the situation is that distros are >> ill-prepared to make a difference in education without helpers. We can >> be a helper, in fact we are uniquely qualified to help in K-6. Perhaps >> a different way to look at it is to enumerate the places where there >> have been major GNU/Linux projects in K-6 education and concentrate on >> those? >> >> Any model where we can help OEMs sell netbooks is a model that can >> broaden distros' tiny marketshare. That's no betrayal of our education >> mission, because we don't exclude running Sugar on an old PC with a $5 >> USB stick, or on a Mac, or even on Windows with virtualization - Sugar >> can arrive in front of a Learner by many technical means. >> >> If breaking out of marginal marketshare is interesting to distros, we >> can help them do that together. It requires marketing work on their >> part though, the technical work is a necessary prerequisite but is >> insufficient. >> >> Sean >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 15:39, Sean DALY wrote: Now is a good time to work on this, as the SoaS launch is behind us. My understanding is that Sugar Learning Platform releases such as v0.84, v0.86, v0.88 are of interest to our downstream partners and projects... distros naturally, but in particular the OLPC XO-1.5 and the Sugar on a Stick Fedora-based distribution + tools. The XO-1.5 is of interest to everyone involved in OLPC projects but particularly Learners, who certainly have things to tell us about the Sugar they have if they could. Sugar on a Stick is of interest to everyone in K-6 education: teachers, school management and buyers, parents of kids in school. At this time, the distros do not have the reach or potential impact of these two projects. I feel therefore our marketing priority should be on these two projects, and especially Sugar on a Stick, here's why. The enormous OLPC installed base is the source of our credibility and adding potentially hundreds of thousands more Learners through SoaS makes us news, in particular SoaS running on other large installed bases such as Intel Classmates and old PCs. From a marketing perspective, dialogue and coordination with our partners and projects is community liaison and is best served through direct contact, information sharing and negotiation. Should any distros become motivated to market Sugar to educators (as opposed to just adding it to their distro), we could of course be very helpful. But our two biggest ongoing projects, the XO-1.5 refresh and SoaS, require separate and I believe higher priority marketing strategies. 1. The XO-1.5 refresh. OLPC has probably not given a lot of thought to XO-1.5 marketing, although I feel they certainly should, for several good reasons: * silencing naysayers who talk about the "failure" of the OLPC project * making clear what the XO-2 strategy and timetable is (in the absence of this info there will be confusion and speculation) * sharing OLPC Stories, showi
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 16:37, Sean DALY wrote: > OK Tomeu > > To be clear, I'm making a distinction between marketing (in the > spreading the word to regular people sense, not in the FOSS community > building sense) and deploying. I fully agree we need to nurture a > large and wide downstream FOSS community. I'm a bit confused, how does this affect the guy who works on Sugar and releases source tarballs every 6 months? Thanks, Tomeu > So there's no narrowing of who deploys it, but a prioritization of how > we can get the word out to the most teachers and parents. > > I hope to see Sugar included in distros, but I hope even more they > make an effort to get it out to classrooms. To me, such an effort > would merit our marketing support. I actually think distros could be > much more out in front in the education sector, and Sugar could help > distros leap ahead in K-6, an opportunity they should seize. Look at > the Dell education netbook: Ubuntu went to the trouble of being the > standard OS on it (Windows on option), but they missed the boat on > making Sugar a central part of their K-6 offer. I'd like to work on > that with them. Dell claims 500 school districts have already ordered > the netbooks; rather than write them off, I'd like those buyers to > know that they could run Sugar off an SD-Card for each Learner, a > nominal expense to obtain the best learning environment for smaller > children. > > Distros are not good at "vertical marketing", something Apple for > example excels in and which Microsoft has copied these past few years > (look at their medical industry push). There are historical and > traditional reasons for that, but the situation is that distros are > ill-prepared to make a difference in education without helpers. We can > be a helper, in fact we are uniquely qualified to help in K-6. Perhaps > a different way to look at it is to enumerate the places where there > have been major GNU/Linux projects in K-6 education and concentrate on > those? > > Any model where we can help OEMs sell netbooks is a model that can > broaden distros' tiny marketshare. That's no betrayal of our education > mission, because we don't exclude running Sugar on an old PC with a $5 > USB stick, or on a Mac, or even on Windows with virtualization - Sugar > can arrive in front of a Learner by many technical means. > > If breaking out of marginal marketshare is interesting to distros, we > can help them do that together. It requires marketing work on their > part though, the technical work is a necessary prerequisite but is > insufficient. > > Sean > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 15:39, Sean DALY wrote: >>> Now is a good time to work on this, as the SoaS launch is behind us. >>> >>> My understanding is that Sugar Learning Platform releases such as >>> v0.84, v0.86, v0.88 are of interest to our downstream partners and >>> projects... distros naturally, but in particular the OLPC XO-1.5 and >>> the Sugar on a Stick Fedora-based distribution + tools. >>> >>> The XO-1.5 is of interest to everyone involved in OLPC projects but >>> particularly Learners, who certainly have things to tell us about the >>> Sugar they have if they could. >>> >>> Sugar on a Stick is of interest to everyone in K-6 education: >>> teachers, school management and buyers, parents of kids in school. >>> >>> At this time, the distros do not have the reach or potential impact of >>> these two projects. I feel therefore our marketing priority should be >>> on these two projects, and especially Sugar on a Stick, here's why. >>> >>> The enormous OLPC installed base is the source of our credibility and >>> adding potentially hundreds of thousands more Learners through SoaS >>> makes us news, in particular SoaS running on other large installed >>> bases such as Intel Classmates and old PCs. >>> >>> From a marketing perspective, dialogue and coordination with our >>> partners and projects is community liaison and is best served through >>> direct contact, information sharing and negotiation. Should any >>> distros become motivated to market Sugar to educators (as opposed to >>> just adding it to their distro), we could of course be very helpful. >>> >>> But our two biggest ongoing projects, the XO-1.5 refresh and SoaS, >>> require separate and I believe higher priority marketing strategies. >>> >>> 1. The XO-1.5 refresh. >>> >>> OLPC has probably not given a lot of thought to XO-1.5 marketing, >>> although I feel they certainly should, for several good reasons: >>> * silencing naysayers who talk about the "failure" of the OLPC project >>> * making clear what the XO-2 strategy and timetable is (in the absence >>> of this info there will be confusion and speculation) >>> * sharing OLPC Stories, showing the worldwide impact of OLPC, and not >>> only in midsize and small developing countries >>> * explaining unambiguously what the dual default Gnome-Sugar desktop >>> is, how it works, and what the adv
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
OK Tomeu To be clear, I'm making a distinction between marketing (in the spreading the word to regular people sense, not in the FOSS community building sense) and deploying. I fully agree we need to nurture a large and wide downstream FOSS community. So there's no narrowing of who deploys it, but a prioritization of how we can get the word out to the most teachers and parents. I hope to see Sugar included in distros, but I hope even more they make an effort to get it out to classrooms. To me, such an effort would merit our marketing support. I actually think distros could be much more out in front in the education sector, and Sugar could help distros leap ahead in K-6, an opportunity they should seize. Look at the Dell education netbook: Ubuntu went to the trouble of being the standard OS on it (Windows on option), but they missed the boat on making Sugar a central part of their K-6 offer. I'd like to work on that with them. Dell claims 500 school districts have already ordered the netbooks; rather than write them off, I'd like those buyers to know that they could run Sugar off an SD-Card for each Learner, a nominal expense to obtain the best learning environment for smaller children. Distros are not good at "vertical marketing", something Apple for example excels in and which Microsoft has copied these past few years (look at their medical industry push). There are historical and traditional reasons for that, but the situation is that distros are ill-prepared to make a difference in education without helpers. We can be a helper, in fact we are uniquely qualified to help in K-6. Perhaps a different way to look at it is to enumerate the places where there have been major GNU/Linux projects in K-6 education and concentrate on those? Any model where we can help OEMs sell netbooks is a model that can broaden distros' tiny marketshare. That's no betrayal of our education mission, because we don't exclude running Sugar on an old PC with a $5 USB stick, or on a Mac, or even on Windows with virtualization - Sugar can arrive in front of a Learner by many technical means. If breaking out of marginal marketshare is interesting to distros, we can help them do that together. It requires marketing work on their part though, the technical work is a necessary prerequisite but is insufficient. Sean On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 15:39, Sean DALY wrote: >> Now is a good time to work on this, as the SoaS launch is behind us. >> >> My understanding is that Sugar Learning Platform releases such as >> v0.84, v0.86, v0.88 are of interest to our downstream partners and >> projects... distros naturally, but in particular the OLPC XO-1.5 and >> the Sugar on a Stick Fedora-based distribution + tools. >> >> The XO-1.5 is of interest to everyone involved in OLPC projects but >> particularly Learners, who certainly have things to tell us about the >> Sugar they have if they could. >> >> Sugar on a Stick is of interest to everyone in K-6 education: >> teachers, school management and buyers, parents of kids in school. >> >> At this time, the distros do not have the reach or potential impact of >> these two projects. I feel therefore our marketing priority should be >> on these two projects, and especially Sugar on a Stick, here's why. >> >> The enormous OLPC installed base is the source of our credibility and >> adding potentially hundreds of thousands more Learners through SoaS >> makes us news, in particular SoaS running on other large installed >> bases such as Intel Classmates and old PCs. >> >> From a marketing perspective, dialogue and coordination with our >> partners and projects is community liaison and is best served through >> direct contact, information sharing and negotiation. Should any >> distros become motivated to market Sugar to educators (as opposed to >> just adding it to their distro), we could of course be very helpful. >> >> But our two biggest ongoing projects, the XO-1.5 refresh and SoaS, >> require separate and I believe higher priority marketing strategies. >> >> 1. The XO-1.5 refresh. >> >> OLPC has probably not given a lot of thought to XO-1.5 marketing, >> although I feel they certainly should, for several good reasons: >> * silencing naysayers who talk about the "failure" of the OLPC project >> * making clear what the XO-2 strategy and timetable is (in the absence >> of this info there will be confusion and speculation) >> * sharing OLPC Stories, showing the worldwide impact of OLPC, and not >> only in midsize and small developing countries >> * explaining unambiguously what the dual default Gnome-Sugar desktop >> is, how it works, and what the advantages are >> * communicating that a newer improved version of Sugar will be on it >> * publishing some deployment numbers so serious journalists will know >> what's what >> * giving some indication as to what the Windows on XO status is. >> >> They will probably not want to say that the Windows pilots have
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 15:39, Sean DALY wrote: > Now is a good time to work on this, as the SoaS launch is behind us. > > My understanding is that Sugar Learning Platform releases such as > v0.84, v0.86, v0.88 are of interest to our downstream partners and > projects... distros naturally, but in particular the OLPC XO-1.5 and > the Sugar on a Stick Fedora-based distribution + tools. > > The XO-1.5 is of interest to everyone involved in OLPC projects but > particularly Learners, who certainly have things to tell us about the > Sugar they have if they could. > > Sugar on a Stick is of interest to everyone in K-6 education: > teachers, school management and buyers, parents of kids in school. > > At this time, the distros do not have the reach or potential impact of > these two projects. I feel therefore our marketing priority should be > on these two projects, and especially Sugar on a Stick, here's why. > > The enormous OLPC installed base is the source of our credibility and > adding potentially hundreds of thousands more Learners through SoaS > makes us news, in particular SoaS running on other large installed > bases such as Intel Classmates and old PCs. > > From a marketing perspective, dialogue and coordination with our > partners and projects is community liaison and is best served through > direct contact, information sharing and negotiation. Should any > distros become motivated to market Sugar to educators (as opposed to > just adding it to their distro), we could of course be very helpful. > > But our two biggest ongoing projects, the XO-1.5 refresh and SoaS, > require separate and I believe higher priority marketing strategies. > > 1. The XO-1.5 refresh. > > OLPC has probably not given a lot of thought to XO-1.5 marketing, > although I feel they certainly should, for several good reasons: > * silencing naysayers who talk about the "failure" of the OLPC project > * making clear what the XO-2 strategy and timetable is (in the absence > of this info there will be confusion and speculation) > * sharing OLPC Stories, showing the worldwide impact of OLPC, and not > only in midsize and small developing countries > * explaining unambiguously what the dual default Gnome-Sugar desktop > is, how it works, and what the advantages are > * communicating that a newer improved version of Sugar will be on it > * publishing some deployment numbers so serious journalists will know > what's what > * giving some indication as to what the Windows on XO status is. > > They will probably not want to say that the Windows pilots have not > resulted in contracts. However, it's entirely possible that the > updated hardware will allow XP or even Windows 7 to run, which could > still lead to contracts, so I feel it's not something for Sugar Labs > to crow about beyond stating the obvious, that buyers prefer Sugar. > Journalists, analysts and pundits will want to know what's up with > Microsoft though and OLPC will need to address that to avoid > confusion. > > For us, the refresh is an opportunity to say that OLPC has made a vote > of confidence by choosing the latest version of Sugar (or "a later" > version, if the refresh arrives after Sept.18th), for the benefit of > hundreds of thousands of Learners to come. The dual desktop is no big > deal since we are positioning ourselves as best-in-class K-6 and it's > natural that older Learners will want to explore free software and > tools beyond Sugar. (By the way, many Intel Classmate projects boot by > default into a locked-down kids' desktop such as EasyBits Magic > Desktop, allowing access to Windows only through a password exiting > tthe desktop.) > > It's my wish to work with OLPC on the refresh message, it's their > golden opportunity to reverse the negative associations amongst > journalists and in the blogosphere and pave the way for the XO-2. The > availability of SoaS means interested observers can have the core > experience of the XO-1.5 on any other machine. > > > 2. Sugar on a Stick. > > I would venture that the importance of this "distro" far outweighs all > the others, because no one else is marketing Sugar to educators like > we are and SoaS is our project - in its current incarnation it depends > on Sugar upstream and Fedora upstream, a solid partner since Fedora is > an active project with known release dates. Could there be an > alternate SoaS non-Fedora distribution? I feel the answer is yes and > we could certify the name for another, but only if the quality and > ease of use (including stick loader) could match or surpass the > Fedora-based one. The underlying distro should not be visible anyway, > inasmuch as it is in a support role and the distros can't bring any > brand value to teachers and educators at this time. > > Sugar on a Stick is a game changer, disrupting the status quo in > bypassing the stranglehold of preinstalled systems (98% of which are > not distros). Its very low cost and very high quality make it a > compelling choice for classrooms. Th
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
Now is a good time to work on this, as the SoaS launch is behind us. My understanding is that Sugar Learning Platform releases such as v0.84, v0.86, v0.88 are of interest to our downstream partners and projects... distros naturally, but in particular the OLPC XO-1.5 and the Sugar on a Stick Fedora-based distribution + tools. The XO-1.5 is of interest to everyone involved in OLPC projects but particularly Learners, who certainly have things to tell us about the Sugar they have if they could. Sugar on a Stick is of interest to everyone in K-6 education: teachers, school management and buyers, parents of kids in school. At this time, the distros do not have the reach or potential impact of these two projects. I feel therefore our marketing priority should be on these two projects, and especially Sugar on a Stick, here's why. The enormous OLPC installed base is the source of our credibility and adding potentially hundreds of thousands more Learners through SoaS makes us news, in particular SoaS running on other large installed bases such as Intel Classmates and old PCs. >From a marketing perspective, dialogue and coordination with our partners and projects is community liaison and is best served through direct contact, information sharing and negotiation. Should any distros become motivated to market Sugar to educators (as opposed to just adding it to their distro), we could of course be very helpful. But our two biggest ongoing projects, the XO-1.5 refresh and SoaS, require separate and I believe higher priority marketing strategies. 1. The XO-1.5 refresh. OLPC has probably not given a lot of thought to XO-1.5 marketing, although I feel they certainly should, for several good reasons: * silencing naysayers who talk about the "failure" of the OLPC project * making clear what the XO-2 strategy and timetable is (in the absence of this info there will be confusion and speculation) * sharing OLPC Stories, showing the worldwide impact of OLPC, and not only in midsize and small developing countries * explaining unambiguously what the dual default Gnome-Sugar desktop is, how it works, and what the advantages are * communicating that a newer improved version of Sugar will be on it * publishing some deployment numbers so serious journalists will know what's what * giving some indication as to what the Windows on XO status is. They will probably not want to say that the Windows pilots have not resulted in contracts. However, it's entirely possible that the updated hardware will allow XP or even Windows 7 to run, which could still lead to contracts, so I feel it's not something for Sugar Labs to crow about beyond stating the obvious, that buyers prefer Sugar. Journalists, analysts and pundits will want to know what's up with Microsoft though and OLPC will need to address that to avoid confusion. For us, the refresh is an opportunity to say that OLPC has made a vote of confidence by choosing the latest version of Sugar (or "a later" version, if the refresh arrives after Sept.18th), for the benefit of hundreds of thousands of Learners to come. The dual desktop is no big deal since we are positioning ourselves as best-in-class K-6 and it's natural that older Learners will want to explore free software and tools beyond Sugar. (By the way, many Intel Classmate projects boot by default into a locked-down kids' desktop such as EasyBits Magic Desktop, allowing access to Windows only through a password exiting tthe desktop.) It's my wish to work with OLPC on the refresh message, it's their golden opportunity to reverse the negative associations amongst journalists and in the blogosphere and pave the way for the XO-2. The availability of SoaS means interested observers can have the core experience of the XO-1.5 on any other machine. 2. Sugar on a Stick. I would venture that the importance of this "distro" far outweighs all the others, because no one else is marketing Sugar to educators like we are and SoaS is our project - in its current incarnation it depends on Sugar upstream and Fedora upstream, a solid partner since Fedora is an active project with known release dates. Could there be an alternate SoaS non-Fedora distribution? I feel the answer is yes and we could certify the name for another, but only if the quality and ease of use (including stick loader) could match or surpass the Fedora-based one. The underlying distro should not be visible anyway, inasmuch as it is in a support role and the distros can't bring any brand value to teachers and educators at this time. Sugar on a Stick is a game changer, disrupting the status quo in bypassing the stranglehold of preinstalled systems (98% of which are not distros). Its very low cost and very high quality make it a compelling choice for classrooms. The possibility of relieving kids of lugging computers around, yet keeping their environment with them, is an incredible advantage. The next few months are our opportunity to prepare SoaS for classroom deployments and
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
On 07/02/2009 12:27 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 18:18, David Farning wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 00:40, David Farning wrote: This thread is an attempt to help clean up a couple of issues that have been cropping up over the past couple of months. There have been a couple of instances of suboptimal communication between different parts of the project. Several times recently, external organizations have been looking for a big picture view of what is happening at Sugar Labs. The .84 release was pretty easy to coordinate. The development team picked a release date about six months after .82. The developers followed the time line pretty well. Simon did a fantastic just with just a stick and a handful of carrots as release manager getting getting the release shipped on time. The only two external organizations we worked with closely were Fedora and OLPC. With the midterm release of Strawberry, we have seen the importance of improving communication with more internal groups and external organizations. Internally, we have seen the importance of synchronizing development, marketing, and the project as a whole's time lines and goals. Externally, we have seen a significant increase in external organization participation. Several university have express interested in working with SL. Several distributions are becoming more involved. Several new pilots and deployments are participating in Sugar development rather than just consuming Sugar. A first step will be to start working on project and team level road maps which assign dates and champions to significant events. Sugar Labs and each team already have roadmap pages listed. Over the next couple of weeks, I would like to work with the development, SoaS, marketing, infrastructure teams to create roadmaps and goals. (This is not to exclude any other teams participation.) Then using iteration and project level goals we can start linking the roadmaps together. >>> Sounds great! >>> >>> Tomeu >>> >> There is now a very rough draft/outline at >> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Roadmap . > > First of all, you mention several times a "release" but don't specify > what gets released. Also, is the Sugar Learning Platform the upstream > project? What about SoaS? Also, what is "Unified SoaS"? > > "Release dates up to and including .86 have been determined by the > development team. Starting with .88, the release schedule will be > determined by the Sugar Labs oversight board." Is this picking a date for the release or deciding what goes into a release? For the date - we have picked it to align to our downstream projects - the linux distributions. So far this worked quite well. So the current dates are not picked arbitrary. Features: Depending on the Fedora policy I hacked up this one for features: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Policy To reduce overhead, like an engineering steering commitee I took out the Fesco part. I think for the near future we are fine with such a 'simple' policy. > I didn't knew that the oversight board was supposed to take such > day-to-day decisions. In any case, I hope that the date that the SLOBs > decide for the Sugar Learning Platform is the same as the development > team decides, because otherwise we are going to have a big conflict > here. +1 Regards, Simon ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 18:18, David Farning wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 00:40, David Farning wrote: >>> This thread is an attempt to help clean up a couple of issues that >>> have been cropping up over the past couple of months. >>> >>> There have been a couple of instances of suboptimal communication >>> between different parts of the project. >>> >>> Several times recently, external organizations have been looking for a >>> big picture view of what is happening at Sugar Labs. >>> >>> The .84 release was pretty easy to coordinate. The development team >>> picked a release date about six months after .82. The developers >>> followed the time line pretty well. Simon did a fantastic just with >>> just a stick and a handful of carrots as release manager getting >>> getting the release shipped on time. The only two external >>> organizations we worked with closely were Fedora and OLPC. >>> >>> With the midterm release of Strawberry, we have seen the importance of >>> improving communication with more internal groups and external >>> organizations. >>> >>> Internally, we have seen the importance of synchronizing development, >>> marketing, and the project as a whole's time lines and goals. >>> >>> Externally, we have seen a significant increase in external >>> organization participation. Several university have express >>> interested in working with SL. Several distributions are becoming >>> more involved. Several new pilots and deployments are participating in >>> Sugar development rather than just consuming Sugar. >>> >>> A first step will be to start working on project and team level road >>> maps which assign dates and champions to significant events. >>> >>> Sugar Labs and each team already have roadmap pages listed. Over the >>> next couple of weeks, I would like to work with the development, SoaS, >>> marketing, infrastructure teams to create roadmaps and goals. (This >>> is not to exclude any other teams participation.) >>> >>> Then using iteration and project level goals we can start linking the >>> roadmaps together. >> >> Sounds great! >> >> Tomeu >> > There is now a very rough draft/outline at > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Roadmap . First of all, you mention several times a "release" but don't specify what gets released. Also, is the Sugar Learning Platform the upstream project? What about SoaS? Also, what is "Unified SoaS"? "Release dates up to and including .86 have been determined by the development team. Starting with .88, the release schedule will be determined by the Sugar Labs oversight board." I didn't knew that the oversight board was supposed to take such day-to-day decisions. In any case, I hope that the date that the SLOBs decide for the Sugar Learning Platform is the same as the development team decides, because otherwise we are going to have a big conflict here. I'm not sure this is what you are suggesting, but just in case I will warn that no one should try to take control on the upstream development community because that's something that won't work. People who want to ship products based on open source have this conflict where they are responsible to control their product and thus feel compelled to control the open source community around it. That doesn't work, the downstream community need to understand the nature of open source communities and either follow the flow or switch to closed source development. Yesterday just read an article about it: http://www.gnomejournal.org/article/72/working-with-upstream-an-interview-with-laszlo-peter But I'm sure you can read other similar cases in many open source-related publications. To summarize: if you want to release successful products based on open source code developed by the community, your most important tool is the understanding of the downstream-upstream relationship. If you don't understand it and try to control the open source community, either you will destroy this community, or you will be ignored. It has been quite a bit of work for me to learn this, but once you get the hang of it is very liberating because you feel yourself as one more piece of a community of thousands of people around the world. You need to be patient and respect the schedules of other projects. You need to be tolerant and learn to respect the processes of the other projects. You need to be considerate with the needs of your downstreams because you are also downstream of other projects. The faster we understand this, the less frustration we'll have. Regards, Tomeu > I'll continue hacking away at it and linking to team roadmaps. > > As always, I try to focus on what is fair, sane, implementable as > starting points. > > There is a good change I am wrong and/or missing important bits. > > There is a _very_ good chance this is suboptimal. > > david > > -- > David Farning > Sugar Labs > www.sugarlabs.org > ___ IAEP -- It's An
Re: [IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 00:40, David Farning wrote: >> This thread is an attempt to help clean up a couple of issues that >> have been cropping up over the past couple of months. >> >> There have been a couple of instances of suboptimal communication >> between different parts of the project. >> >> Several times recently, external organizations have been looking for a >> big picture view of what is happening at Sugar Labs. >> >> The .84 release was pretty easy to coordinate. The development team >> picked a release date about six months after .82. The developers >> followed the time line pretty well. Simon did a fantastic just with >> just a stick and a handful of carrots as release manager getting >> getting the release shipped on time. The only two external >> organizations we worked with closely were Fedora and OLPC. >> >> With the midterm release of Strawberry, we have seen the importance of >> improving communication with more internal groups and external >> organizations. >> >> Internally, we have seen the importance of synchronizing development, >> marketing, and the project as a whole's time lines and goals. >> >> Externally, we have seen a significant increase in external >> organization participation. Several university have express >> interested in working with SL. Several distributions are becoming >> more involved. Several new pilots and deployments are participating in >> Sugar development rather than just consuming Sugar. >> >> A first step will be to start working on project and team level road >> maps which assign dates and champions to significant events. >> >> Sugar Labs and each team already have roadmap pages listed. Over the >> next couple of weeks, I would like to work with the development, SoaS, >> marketing, infrastructure teams to create roadmaps and goals. (This >> is not to exclude any other teams participation.) >> >> Then using iteration and project level goals we can start linking the >> roadmaps together. > > Sounds great! > > Tomeu > There is now a very rough draft/outline at http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Roadmap . I'll continue hacking away at it and linking to team roadmaps. As always, I try to focus on what is fair, sane, implementable as starting points. There is a good change I am wrong and/or missing important bits. There is a _very_ good chance this is suboptimal. david -- David Farning Sugar Labs 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] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 00:40, David Farning wrote: > This thread is an attempt to help clean up a couple of issues that > have been cropping up over the past couple of months. > > There have been a couple of instances of suboptimal communication > between different parts of the project. > > Several times recently, external organizations have been looking for a > big picture view of what is happening at Sugar Labs. > > The .84 release was pretty easy to coordinate. The development team > picked a release date about six months after .82. The developers > followed the time line pretty well. Simon did a fantastic just with > just a stick and a handful of carrots as release manager getting > getting the release shipped on time. The only two external > organizations we worked with closely were Fedora and OLPC. > > With the midterm release of Strawberry, we have seen the importance of > improving communication with more internal groups and external > organizations. > > Internally, we have seen the importance of synchronizing development, > marketing, and the project as a whole's time lines and goals. > > Externally, we have seen a significant increase in external > organization participation. Several university have express > interested in working with SL. Several distributions are becoming > more involved. Several new pilots and deployments are participating in > Sugar development rather than just consuming Sugar. > > A first step will be to start working on project and team level road > maps which assign dates and champions to significant events. > > Sugar Labs and each team already have roadmap pages listed. Over the > next couple of weeks, I would like to work with the development, SoaS, > marketing, infrastructure teams to create roadmaps and goals. (This > is not to exclude any other teams participation.) > > Then using iteration and project level goals we can start linking the > roadmaps together. Sounds great! Tomeu ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] Communicating project goals and Roadmap
This thread is an attempt to help clean up a couple of issues that have been cropping up over the past couple of months. There have been a couple of instances of suboptimal communication between different parts of the project. Several times recently, external organizations have been looking for a big picture view of what is happening at Sugar Labs. The .84 release was pretty easy to coordinate. The development team picked a release date about six months after .82. The developers followed the time line pretty well. Simon did a fantastic just with just a stick and a handful of carrots as release manager getting getting the release shipped on time. The only two external organizations we worked with closely were Fedora and OLPC. With the midterm release of Strawberry, we have seen the importance of improving communication with more internal groups and external organizations. Internally, we have seen the importance of synchronizing development, marketing, and the project as a whole's time lines and goals. Externally, we have seen a significant increase in external organization participation. Several university have express interested in working with SL. Several distributions are becoming more involved. Several new pilots and deployments are participating in Sugar development rather than just consuming Sugar. A first step will be to start working on project and team level road maps which assign dates and champions to significant events. Sugar Labs and each team already have roadmap pages listed. Over the next couple of weeks, I would like to work with the development, SoaS, marketing, infrastructure teams to create roadmaps and goals. (This is not to exclude any other teams participation.) Then using iteration and project level goals we can start linking the roadmaps together. david -- David Farning Sugar Labs www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
