Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Laura Vargas]

Hi Caryl,


I confess I love sharing my planning expertise with Sugar Labs :D

Open Badges is a proposal made in the call for strategies for the official
Sugar Labs Marketing Plan. I suggest you transform a lot of your
interesting comments into specific proposals so that the community and the
board can address them in detail.


In the old Japan, stipends were granted to those Samurais that had served
well to their masters. Of course those who didn't served well would loose
their privileges.

Our generations need to open our minds and test alternative models for
resources distributionl . Future generations depend on our capacity to do
so.

Blessings and regards,


Laura Victoria
A resilient happy resident of the Amazon Forest
http://pe.sugarlabs.org/ir/Proyectos
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi...


This thread is so tangled it is hard to tell who says what. But, it is very 
evident that there are 2 basic viewpoints. Here they are with my comments on 
each:


1) Reward a few of the many past contributors to SugarLabs handsomely with a 
stipend (like a retirement check?) and no defined further responsibilities, 
leaving out many, many other contributors who have given as much or more and 
may also be in need of financial support. This would eat up most of the year's 
budget.


2) Plan, plan, plan! As the saying goes, "If you fail to plan, you plan to 
fail!" We need to this first before planning any large expenses. A vision 
statement, goals in line with our vision, and measurable objectives to achieve 
those goals, so that when we look for further funding we can say, "This is what 
we did and these were the results." (Badges will definitely not do this and may 
actually scare away future funders).


When we have these objectives in hand, we can fund specific projects with 
specific measurable results including follow-ups over time to see if the 
results will be lasting. For each project we should be able to answer questions 
like: How does this project help us meet our goals? What lasting effects do we 
expect? How can we build on what we have learned from the successes and 
failures in this project?


We need to get back on track on this.  Without the vision, goals, and 
objectives in mind, it is impossible to tell if we are on the "right track."


"Badges" will do nothing to further the greater good for SugarLabs!


Caryl





From: IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Laura Vargas 
<la...@somosazucar.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 5:58:12 AM
To: Tony Anderson
Cc: sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; SLOBs
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget



2017-03-02 3:32 GMT-05:00 Tony Anderson 
<tony_ander...@usa.net<mailto:tony_ander...@usa.net>>:
On 03/02/2017 02:51 PM, Laura Vargas wrote:
As for the 2017 Budget, Sugar Labs needs doable specific proposals for funding 
and investing as a healthy financial planning should consider a minimum of 5 
years ahead.

The real need is not for financial planning, but for planning. A real five-year 
plan would be the result of serious thinking by members of the community about 
what Sugar Labs needs to do so that Sugar can survive. The essential piece of 
that is that Sugar must be available as widely as possible. Thankfully, Lionel 
Laske has taken on creating a Sugar for mobile devices (and the cloud).


How soon and how much detail we get to the Open Badges implementation will 
certainly translate all our gratitude into specific resources for active 
contributors to continue doing what they like. No offense but no point and no 
need to justify to be stingy, specially when you want to attract and retain 
talented active contributors to a diverse development and educational ecosystem.

I believe the Open Badges model deserves at least a pilot to test results and 
evaluate from there.

Regards


--
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

“No paradox, no progress.”
~ Niels Bohr

Happy Learning!

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Laura Vargas]

2017-03-02 3:32 GMT-05:00 Tony Anderson :

> On 03/02/2017 02:51 PM, Laura Vargas wrote:
>
>> As for the 2017 Budget, Sugar Labs needs doable specific proposals for
>> funding and investing as a healthy financial planning should consider a
>> minimum of 5 years ahead.
>>
>
> The real need is not for financial planning, but for planning. A real
> five-year plan would be the result of serious thinking by members of the
> community about what Sugar Labs needs to do so that Sugar can survive. The
> essential piece of that is that Sugar must be available as widely as
> possible. Thankfully, Lionel Laske has taken on creating a Sugar for mobile
> devices (and the cloud).
>
>
How soon and how much detail we get to the Open Badges implementation will
certainly translate all our gratitude into specific resources for active
contributors to continue doing what they like. No offense but no point and
no need to justify to be stingy, specially when you want to attract and
retain talented active contributors to a diverse development and
educational ecosystem.

I believe the Open Badges model deserves at least a pilot to test results
and evaluate from there.

Regards


-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“No paradox, no progress.”
~ Niels Bohr

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Tony Anderson]

On 03/02/2017 02:51 PM, Laura Vargas wrote:
As for the 2017 Budget, Sugar Labs needs doable specific proposals for 
funding and investing as a healthy financial planning should consider 
a minimum of 5 years ahead.


The real need is not for financial planning, but for planning. A real 
five-year plan would be the result of serious thinking by members of the 
community about what Sugar Labs needs to do so that Sugar can survive. 
The essential piece of that is that Sugar must be available as widely as 
possible. Thankfully, Lionel Laske has taken on creating a Sugar for 
mobile devices (and the cloud).


So what is needed is some serious technical and policy discussions on 
how this can be accomplished. The five-year plan should address release 
schedules, short and long-term support policies (Do we support Sugar on 
Windows 10 for five years?). Currently Sugar is implemented with 
separate login on Ubuntu. Is this what we want or would it be better for 
Sugar to be an gnome application like GIMP. We are maintaining source on 
github, but Debian is maintaining its own source repository. What is the 
connection. Is it possible to co-ordinate releases? if there is a Debian 
version of Sugar should it be based on our repository or theirs? If we 
have a Debian Sugar, do we also need a release for Ubuntu, for RPi? Is 
Sugarizer the successor to Sugar or do we maintain Sugar for Linux 
capable devices and Sugarizer for mobile devices? What is the role of 
the schoolserver in Sugar deployments. Do we believe that Sugar 
deployments will soon have broadband internet access 24/7 for free and 
so schoolservers will no longer be necessary? Do we believe that Sugar 
Labs mission is to support deployments on the wrong side of the gap 
which will not have affordable internet for the forseeable future and 
that school servers are an essential component of a Sugar deployment?


Yes, you can't tell volunteers what to work on. They make that decision. 
However, if volunteers understand the technical need and have the 
knowledge and experience to help, they generally will. So undertaking 
these sorts of technical discussions can help us get the volunteers we 
need.


Tony
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Laura Vargas]

2017-03-01 22:38 GMT-05:00 Tony Anderson :

> Sorry Laura
>
>
The money is better kept in the bank until Sugar Labs has an objective and
> understands what kind of resources it needs.
>
>
Thanks for writing Tony!

First and for the sake of democracy, let's make it clear to all learners
here that there is a regular process for Budgetary decisions at Sugar Labs:
it is the Sugar Labs Oversight Board as a whole, who are responsible for
approving Budgetary decisions by a majority of votes over specific
proposals expressed on specific motions.

So far, the Open Badges initiative is still maturing in a wiki page thanks
to everybody's feedback.



> It is good that Sugar Labs is considering a budget for this year (a gross
> dereliction last year). However, an organization makes a budget to fund its
> planned projects for the year.
>


As humans, we should hurry to gain consciousness that money is a dynamic
resource that transfers trust and passion whenever invested in human
resources.

The ideal scenario would be to have a Budget planned ahead for every year.

I have never heard of one that starts out with 'we have this money, how can
> we spend it.'
>
>
So far because of our lack of financial planning, funds have remained
unused and unfortunately this financial paralysis has translated into
loosing more and more funds! According to Adam, Sugar Labs missed receiving
US$40,000 because of our collective inaction with the Trip Advisor grant
:(


Our goal for localization should be to enable our users to perform
> localization on their own laptops, i.e. view it as an opportunity for
> constructive learning.
>

+1

If you have any specific proposal for the 2017 SL Budget to consider please
do share.



> Naturally, the professionals can do it faster and more efficiently. That
> is always the problem when you are trying to develop the capabilities of
> learners, but that investment is the business we are in. Localization is
> interesting because the most important skill is knowledge of two languages
> such as English and Yoruba. This is precisely the skill that is readily
> available in a Sugar deployment in a Yoruba-speaking region (and not in a
> professional enclave in Boston).
> In Peru, it is incomprehensible that we don't have current localization in
> every local language since every Peruvian child has a laptop with Sugar.
>
>

I agree English learning must be part of the learners outcome when
contributing to localization. One thing important to clarify is that not
"every Peruvian child has a laptop with Sugar".

As for planning localization efforts, one thing important to understand
from local context is that languages Quechua and Aymara are shared with
other Andean countries. All other languages are Amazonian languages shared
with the other countries on the Amazon Basin, where there are more than 350
indigenous ethnic groups, who speak more than 300 languages.



> The major need for Sugar Labs is to create a process for releasing
> Sugarversions to be installed on current platforms: PCs, Raspberry Pi, and
> Windows 10. The resources capable of accomplishing that have professional
> skills and a day job. They need to be motivated to spend their own time.
> They need to be 'sung' heroes but will probably be 'unsung'.
>
>
Wishful thinking won't take us in any direction. We need to be assertive
and decide on how to better support our infrastructure and the work of
active contributors as they do deliver!

First, an active contributor contributes to meet a perceived need.
> Currently, we greet potential contributors with 'create a development
> environment and fix a random bug'. We ask our potential contributors to be
> familiar with git (although it isn't actually used). We don't ask these
> candidates to become familiar with Sugar or read 'Making your own Sugar
> activity'.
>
> We need to ask contributors to the build and distribute project what they
> know about uefi and grub2, livecd tools, making debian images for Raspberry
> Pi, and so on.
>


After many successfully delivered and deployed open source products, I have
learned you can not ask developers to do X or Y. They would do what they
like and they will use what they feel comfortable with. I guess that is why
we need to be creative and design innovative engaging strategies.



> This skill set is available at XSCE and I have never heard a discussion
> there about how those talented volunteers are to be compensated.
>
Several are at ScaleX at this moment, a location where it might be possible
> to recruit some of the technical skills Sugar Labs needs. Adam Holt is
> there, so at least one SLOB could be working in the interest of Sugar Labs.
>
We have approved an 'outreachy' intern but I have no idea what project the
> intern will be asked to undertake (generating an SOAS image from our github
> repository would be high on my list).
>


I think the Outreachy experience will be a nice learning case. I understand
sponsorship is meant 

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Samson Goddy]

+1 Tony you deserved an Oscar. Am i the only thinking we just got a mission
and vision plan based on Tony explanation?

Samson

On 2 Mar 2017 3:44 am, "Tony Anderson"  wrote:

I hope I have made myself clear. The future of Sugar Labs, if it has any,
is to provide Sugar on all widely distributed platforms so that it becomes
a viable option for potential adopters. Sugar Labs needs to understand that
a parent or educator who is looking for an educational platform is not
going to build a development environment and demonstrate their knowledge of
PRs by fixing random bugs or install a Fedora desktop to generate an SOAS
stick.

Sugar Labs needs to release 0.110 for easy installation on PCs, Raspberry
Pi, and Windows 10. It then needs to document  'Get Sugar' on the Sugar
Labs website for non-technical computer users. It needs to re-focus on the
goal to provide a constructionist learning environment for primary school
children. None of this requires an academic analysis suitable for an MBA
dissertation.

Naturally, Sugar Labs needs to continue to work with James Cameron to
provide viable software for the XO. We must thank Lionel Laske every day
for understanding this issue and developing Sugarizer to provide some of
Sugar's capabilities to the huge installed base of mobile devices which do
not support Python.

I think we need to remember the mission of OLPC/Sugar - to provide a better
learning opportunity to children on the wrong side of the digital gap. Our
hope should be that wide availability of Sugar on PCs and Raspberry Pis
will make it a viable alternative for installation in the deployments
served by Computers for Kids, Rachel, and others where there is no internet
availability, no prior computer experience for either teachers or students,
and no funds to purchase anything. These deployments depend on donated
equipment from organizations and individuals on the right side of the gap.

This, of course, is the fundamental problem of SOAS. It serves an
environment where a child has access to a computer at home and sometimes
one at school. SOAS makes it possible for the student to carry the learning
environment between the two worlds. However, on the wrong side of the gap,
there is no concept of a computer at school and a second at home. In many
cases the reality is that there is no electricity at home. In this
environment Sugar needs to be installed on the local storage of the
computer.

These millions of Android devices have a basic problem - they depend on
connection to a network. In additon, the UI is designed for consumption and
is not conducive to constructive learning. How many of its myriads of
education apps are available open-source, free and for offline use?
Sugarizer and GCompris show that it is possible to work around this design
and its hyper-commercialized face.

In the meantime, miraculously there may be a school with Sugar on XOs and,
hopefully, a schoolserver to stand in for the internet. Even more
hopefully, the school allows the children to take a computer home with
content to work on which was downloaded from the schoolserver (so far, a
dream generally unfulfilled).

OLPC is fading not just as an organization but as a concept. Even some of
our most robust OLPC deployments are moving to the computer lab model. The
Raspberry Pi in, for example, the Computer for Kids deployments, is in a
lab (the computer with keyboard, monitor and without a battery is not
portable). The only hope for constructive education is to find a way that
these labs can be made available to students after-hours or on weekends for
unprogrammed use. This critical issue seems invisible to the Sugar Labs
community.

One requirement that our current developers seem to have forgotten is that
in an environment without the internet, students need to download content
to the laptop so they can work with it away from the school server or other
network resource. How does a student read Alice in Wonderland online in a
classroom or computer lab? This implies a school server which serves the
content from the internet selectively to computers with very limited
storage capacity. Hand-waving at the internet like the Get Books activity
or web services is relevant in Boston or other location with 24/7 broadband
internet but not on the other side of the gap. Modifying Browse to replace
the Read and Jukebox activities without support for downloading the media
and playing it from the Journal is similarly misdirected.

Given that neither students or teachers in this environment have been
brought up in a 'computer culture', without help - nothing happens. It is
not economically feasible to provide counselors to work directly with the
teachers to stage, for example, a Turtle Art day (i.e. as a way to
introduce teachers and students to new capabilities available on the
computer). My current focus is on providing 'turtleart day-like'
documentation showing students how to perform tasks step-by-step to explore
new 

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Tony Anderson]

Sorry Laura

The money is better kept in the bank until Sugar Labs has an objective 
and understands what kind of resources it needs.


It is good that Sugar Labs is considering a budget for this year (a 
gross dereliction last year). However, an organization makes a budget to 
fund its planned projects for the year. I have never heard of one that 
starts out with 'we have this money, how can we spend it.'


Our goal for localization should be to enable our users to perform 
localization on their own laptops, i.e. view it as an opportunity for 
constructive learning.
Naturally, the professionals can do it faster and more efficiently. That 
is always the problem when you are trying to develop the capabilities of 
learners, but that investment is the business we are in. Localization is 
interesting because the most important skill is knowledge of two 
languages such as English and Yoruba. This is precisely the skill that 
is readily available in a Sugar deployment in a Yoruba-speaking region 
(and not in a professional enclave in Boston).
In Peru, it is incomprehensible that we don't have current localization 
in every local language since every Peruvian child has a laptop with Sugar.


The major need for Sugar Labs is to create a process for releasing 
Sugarversions to be installed on current platforms: PCs, Raspberry Pi, 
and Windows 10. The resources capable of accomplishing that have 
professional skills and a day job. They need to be motivated to spend 
their own time. They need to be 'sung' heroes but will probably be 'unsung'.


First, an active contributor contributes to meet a perceived need. 
Currently, we greet potential contributors with 'create a development 
environment and fix a random bug'. We ask our potential contributors to 
be familiar with git (although it isn't actually used). We don't ask 
these candidates to become familiar with Sugar or read 'Making your own 
Sugar activity'.


We need to ask contributors to the build and distribute project what 
they know about uefi and grub2, livecd tools, making debian images for 
Raspberry Pi, and so on. This skill set is available at XSCE and I have 
never heard a discussion there about how those talented volunteers are 
to be compensated. Several are at ScaleX at this moment, a location 
where it might be possible to recruit some of the technical skills Sugar 
Labs needs. Adam Holt is there, so at least one SLOB could be working in 
the interest of Sugar Labs.


We have approved an 'outreachy' intern but I have no idea what project 
the intern will be asked to undertake (generating an SOAS image from our 
github repository would be high on my list). This seems to be our focus, 
recruiting resources without any idea of why these resources are needed.


Tony

On 03/02/2017 09:16 AM, Laura Vargas wrote:



2017-02-25 20:33 GMT-05:00 Tymon Radzik >:


Our funds deserve to be spent in more orgnization-beneficial way.


Hello Tymon,

Sorry it took me a while to reply.

This Budget discussion is an open door for proposals, please do share 
yours as this policy making is also an educational process and 
therefore an ideal arena for learning!



Open Badges are proposed as an award for historic achievements, there 
is no conflict of interest when you have numeric results that support 
your performance.


I think this discussion leads to the question of what would make a 
Sugar Labs member an *active contributo*r? and of course, would 
rewarding active contributors stimulate regular members to become 
active contributors?


Those are valid questions that should and can be easily tested with 
for example the implementation Open Badges.


I would say at least one of the following must happen for a given 
period of time for a regular member to be considered an active 
contributor:


1- The member contributed periodically to at least one of the Sugar 
Labs Teams.


2- The member has had active leaderships of at least one of the Sugar 
Labs Projects.


3- The member directly contributed with code and/or with Sugar 
Projects translations.



All this data is available from logs, wiki, mailing list, etc. I hope 
for the future of the community and it's users, the recognition of 
active contributors becomes soon an open strategy for Sugar Labs 
evolution.


:D

Regards,

--
Laura V.
*I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“No paradox, no progress.”
~ Niels Bohr

Happy Learning!

Best,
Tymon






___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Tony Anderson]

I hope I have made myself clear. The future of Sugar Labs, if it has 
any, is to provide Sugar on all widely distributed platforms so that it 
becomes a viable option for potential adopters. Sugar Labs needs to 
understand that a parent or educator who is looking for an educational 
platform is not going to build a development environment and demonstrate 
their knowledge of PRs by fixing random bugs or install a Fedora desktop 
to generate an SOAS stick.


Sugar Labs needs to release 0.110 for easy installation on PCs, 
Raspberry Pi, and Windows 10. It then needs to document  'Get Sugar' on 
the Sugar Labs website for non-technical computer users. It needs to 
re-focus on the goal to provide a constructionist learning environment 
for primary school children. None of this requires an academic analysis 
suitable for an MBA dissertation.


Naturally, Sugar Labs needs to continue to work with James Cameron to 
provide viable software for the XO. We must thank Lionel Laske every day 
for understanding this issue and developing Sugarizer to provide some of 
Sugar's capabilities to the huge installed base of mobile devices which 
do not support Python.


I think we need to remember the mission of OLPC/Sugar - to provide a 
better learning opportunity to children on the wrong side of the digital 
gap. Our hope should be that wide availability of Sugar on PCs and 
Raspberry Pis will make it a viable alternative for installation in the 
deployments served by Computers for Kids, Rachel, and others where there 
is no internet availability, no prior computer experience for either 
teachers or students, and no funds to purchase anything. These 
deployments depend on donated equipment from organizations and 
individuals on the right side of the gap.


This, of course, is the fundamental problem of SOAS. It serves an 
environment where a child has access to a computer at home and sometimes 
one at school. SOAS makes it possible for the student to carry the 
learning environment between the two worlds. However, on the wrong side 
of the gap, there is no concept of a computer at school and a second at 
home. In many cases the reality is that there is no electricity at home. 
In this environment Sugar needs to be installed on the local storage of 
the computer.


These millions of Android devices have a basic problem - they depend on 
connection to a network. In additon, the UI is designed for consumption 
and is not conducive to constructive learning. How many of its myriads 
of education apps are available open-source, free and for offline use? 
Sugarizer and GCompris show that it is possible to work around this 
design and its hyper-commercialized face.


In the meantime, miraculously there may be a school with Sugar on XOs 
and, hopefully, a schoolserver to stand in for the internet. Even more 
hopefully, the school allows the children to take a computer home with 
content to work on which was downloaded from the schoolserver (so far, a 
dream generally unfulfilled).


OLPC is fading not just as an organization but as a concept. Even some 
of our most robust OLPC deployments are moving to the computer lab 
model. The Raspberry Pi in, for example, the Computer for Kids 
deployments, is in a lab (the computer with keyboard, monitor and 
without a battery is not portable). The only hope for constructive 
education is to find a way that these labs can be made available to 
students after-hours or on weekends for unprogrammed use. This critical 
issue seems invisible to the Sugar Labs community.


One requirement that our current developers seem to have forgotten is 
that in an environment without the internet, students need to download 
content to the laptop so they can work with it away from the school 
server or other network resource. How does a student read Alice in 
Wonderland online in a classroom or computer lab? This implies a school 
server which serves the content from the internet selectively to 
computers with very limited storage capacity. Hand-waving at the 
internet like the Get Books activity or web services is relevant in 
Boston or other location with 24/7 broadband internet but not on the 
other side of the gap. Modifying Browse to replace the Read and Jukebox 
activities without support for downloading the media and playing it from 
the Journal is similarly misdirected.


Given that neither students or teachers in this environment have been 
brought up in a 'computer culture', without help - nothing happens. It 
is not economically feasible to provide counselors to work directly with 
the teachers to stage, for example, a Turtle Art day (i.e. as a way to 
introduce teachers and students to new capabilities available on the 
computer). My current focus is on providing 'turtleart day-like' 
documentation showing students how to perform tasks step-by-step to 
explore new capabilities. In Rwanda, this led to teacher training on how 
to access and use the documentation - with the documentation available 

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Laura Vargas]

2017-02-25 20:33 GMT-05:00 Tymon Radzik :
>
> Our funds deserve to be spent in more orgnization-beneficial way.
>
>
Hello Tymon,

Sorry it took me a while to reply.

This Budget discussion is an open door for proposals, please do share yours
as this policy making is also an educational process and therefore an ideal
arena for learning!


Open Badges are proposed as an award for historic achievements, there is no
conflict of interest when you have numeric results that support your
performance.

I think this discussion leads to the question of what would make a Sugar
Labs member an *active contributo*r? and of course, would rewarding active
contributors stimulate regular members to become active contributors?

Those are valid questions that should and can be easily tested with for
example the implementation Open Badges.

I would say at least one of the following must happen for a given period of
time for a regular member to be considered an active contributor:

1- The member contributed periodically to at least one of the Sugar Labs
Teams.

2- The member has had active leaderships of at least one of the Sugar Labs
Projects.

3- The member directly contributed with code and/or with Sugar Projects
translations.


All this data is available from logs, wiki, mailing list, etc. I hope for
the future of the community and it's users, the recognition of active
contributors becomes soon an open strategy for Sugar Labs evolution.

:D

Regards,

-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“No paradox, no progress.”
~ Niels Bohr

Happy Learning!


> Best,
> Tymon
>
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

Thanks for clarifying :)

The question remains then: Is Sugar Labs to direct attention entirely to a
few hundreds of very-to-somewhat old XO laptops maintained by experts like
Tony and those in Caacupe, or to the millions of children who have
computers/tablets capable of accessing/installing Sugarizer, or to some mix
of the two; and if the latter, what mix is appropriate in 2017 and 2018?

On 1 March 2017 at 05:26, Tony Anderson  wrote:

> All models are obviously xo-1, xo-1.5, xo-1.75 and xo-4. Sugarizer is not
> relevant since the XOs deploy Sugar. The Sugarizer activities are mostly
> also available as Sugar web activities. We are using the Python Turtle
> blocks.
>
> Tony
>
>
> On 02/28/2017 02:29 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 11:34 PM, "Tony Anderson"  wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, Sugar 0.110 (OLPC OS 13.2.8) has been installed on
> hundreds of XO laptops, all models in Rwanda. The codebase is reaching
> these classrooms.
>
>
> That is great to know!!! :)
>
> What xo models are those?
>
> Does anyone know of any other classrooms using the latest release?
>
> I am not sure what you mean by the js codebase, but if you mean the sugar
> web activities. Yes they are available for optional installment (along with
> the other activities in ASLO)
>
>
> Sugarizer
>
>
>


-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Tony Anderson]

All models are obviously xo-1, xo-1.5, xo-1.75 and xo-4. Sugarizer is 
not relevant since the XOs deploy Sugar. The Sugarizer activities are 
mostly also available as Sugar web activities. We are using the Python 
Turtle blocks.


Tony

On 02/28/2017 02:29 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:



On Feb 27, 2017 11:34 PM, "Tony Anderson" > wrote:


For what it's worth, Sugar 0.110 (OLPC OS 13.2.8) has been
installed on hundreds of XO laptops, all models in Rwanda. The
codebase is reaching these classrooms.


That is great to know!!! :)

What xo models are those?

Does anyone know of any other classrooms using the latest release?

I am not sure what you mean by the js codebase, but if you mean
the sugar web activities. Yes they are available for optional
installment (along with the other activities in ASLO)


Sugarizer


___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

On Feb 27, 2017 11:34 PM, "Tony Anderson"  wrote:

For what it's worth, Sugar 0.110 (OLPC OS 13.2.8) has been installed on
hundreds of XO laptops, all models in Rwanda. The codebase is reaching
these classrooms.


That is great to know!!! :)

What xo models are those?

Does anyone know of any other classrooms using the latest release?

I am not sure what you mean by the js codebase, but if you mean the sugar
web activities. Yes they are available for optional installment (along with
the other activities in ASLO)


Sugarizer
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Tony Anderson]

For what it's worth, Sugar 0.110 (OLPC OS 13.2.8) has been installed on 
hundreds of XO laptops, all models in Rwanda. The codebase is reaching 
these
classrooms. I am not sure what you mean by the js codebase, but if you 
mean the sugar web activities. Yes they are available for optional 
installment (along with the other activities in ASLO)


Tony

On 02/25/2017 12:39 PM, Sam Parkinson wrote:

On Sat, 2017-02-25 at 08:36 +0530, Dave Crossland wrote:

Actually I am not convinced of this; I do not believe that the latest
releases of the Python codebase reach classrooms, and the js codebase
only reaches one.

One of the projects listed is social help. It's a fine idea, but a
cursory look at the site shows it has extremely low activity. I think
it would be better to shut it down.

Sugar tries to literally replace every part of the computer that a user
sees.  And believe it or not; that is a hard goal for a small free
software community.  3 people in their spare time can't replace the
years of work poured into every other desktop environment & their
software.

You're 100% spot on.  The future of SL is things like TurtleJS.



___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 26 February 2017 at 09:32, Samson Goddy  wrote:
>
> At the last meeting, walter gave (Ignacio, Laura and me) tasks on how we can
> attract funding to the Community, i came up with the idea of creating
> awareness to the general public through SMM role. Which received negative
> comments, due to the fact that it was attached with $$

Kindly, your idea for attracting funding involves spending existing
funds, with no clear path to future income.

> What are these money for?

The monies in the general fund can be used for any purpose the SLOBs
approve; for them to approve a motion to spend money, they must be
convinced that the motion is likely to succeed, that success can be
measured, and that success will be aligned with the ethos
(vision/mission/etc) of both Sugar Labs, and the Software Freedom
Conservancy of which it is a part.

Reviewing https://sfconservancy.org/projects/apply/ may be helpful to
understand the benefits and constraints that Conservancy brings to
Sugar Labs.

> How do we get funds outside Google programs?

I don't think it is worth spending effort on this.

> What will happen to Sugar Labs if Google terminates GSOC or GCI one day?

I would expect  Sugar Labs would no longer see its general fund
increase year over year, through sponsored development by young
people.

More importantly, that would mean development would slow down
significantly, since most development seems to be performed by
GSOC/GCI sponsorees, and it would then only be done by the current few
active volunteer developers (such as Lionel, Chris, Walter, Sam,
Tymon, etc.)

But other than that, not much would change. Sugar Labs will continue
to be a part of the Conservancy, so until the development community
loses all its developers and the whole thing is archived and unless
no-one revives it, then it would become a historical project in the
history of computing - as so many great projects that are now archived
and abandoned (or even, lost to sands of time)

> These are questions that i will love to have answers on.
>
> Concerning possible loosing support for python version. I think of we have
> good strategy of how sugar can impact learning in schools, i don't think any
> version of sugar matters. Last year after my project, i started doing
> research on SEED/OLPC schools. I got a call from a teacher in Southern Part
> of Nigeria. He was telling me about xo machines in his schools. He told me
> that for the past years, after SEED terminated the project. They stop using
> the sugar because no body could support them. He also mention that his
> school is willing to Re:sugar with over 1,000 xo machines working. I told
> him i was going to contact the community for support. Which i did but didn't
> get any response aside from Tony and Walter.

Right. In a way it is a pity, since the machines were designed to
physically last and indeed they have! :)

Continuing to support the XO-1 is definitely an option for the next 10 years.

Discontinuing support for the python version completely is also an option.

How to decide? =)

I wonder what the price of abandoning the machines and buying cheap
Android tablets is, compared to the price of maintaining them with the
latest OLPC/Sugar release.

> Concerning what Caryl was saying about paying teachers to test sugar in
> schools. I think that is a great plan. But is shouldn't just focus on the
> Sugarizer only yet. Of course i know JS is the feature but before that if we
> can support python let us do it. "Let us use what we have to get want we
> want". Example, i am planning a mega workshop in Nigeria, concerning
> targeting school with E-learning capabilities. There are lot of schools in
> Nigeria using tablet in class to play games. Why won't SL sit down and think
> how we can get this schools to use Sugarizer  in their tablet, deploy
> schools servers for collaborations. Install python version in computer labs
> as my school did back in the olpc days.

The nature of libre software is that no one is prevented from doing
any of that.

However, the question is, what does the SL org want to focus on, to
drive attention to, to nurture?  Focus requires saying no to things :)

> I have the ability to do this, because what they care about is success
> stories, how does this benefit our students. GCI can be a pinpoint, my story
> about how i became what i am now was because of Sugar.

:)

> P.S i have been invited to a Scratch conference in Bordeaux, France. Which
> is scheduled to happen in July i can't remember the date. Also a mini
> scratch events in Nairobi, Kenya for prep talk which i am going to talk
> about Sugar. All because i posted my passion about computer science in
> Medium. So this is what we should be doing as a community not doing
> otherwise.

Great!

Focusing SL as a home for young developers seems like a good option :)

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Walter Bender]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 26 February 2017 at 11:44, Sebastian Silva 
> 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 

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Sebastian Silva]

On 26/02/17 05:50, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> I now regret having opened the door to paid efforts
> I think with this message the door is now closed!

Also from the same book, chapter /"The hidden costs of ignoring
infrastructure"/:

/One reason why open source contributors are strikingly more
homogenous than the technology sector at large is that they need
time and money to make significant contributions in the first place.
These constraints prevent otherwise qualified contributors from
entering the space./

/David MacIver, creator of Hypothesis, a Python library for testing
software applications, explains why he was able to spend so much
time on the project: /
/I could only do this because I had the time and money to do so.
I had the time to do so because I was being obsessive, had no
dependents, and didn’t have a job. I could only not have a job
because of the money. I only had the money because I spent the
latter half of last year with double the salary I was used to, half
the living expenses I was used to, and too borderline depressed to
spend it on anything interesting. These are not reasonable
requirements. [...] Can you produce quality software in less time
than that, working only in your free time? I doubt it.[113] /

/Cory Benfield, a core Python developer, writes: /
/Generally speaking, people who aren’t cisgender, heterosexual,
white, middle-class, English-speaking men are less able to tolerate
the increased financial risk of not having a steady job. This means
that those individuals really need a steady pay cheque to contribute
most effectively. And we *need* those contributors: diverse teams
make better things than homogeneous teams.[114] /

/Charlotte Spencer, a contributor to software framework Hoodie and
database PouchDB, echoes these sentiments: /
/All my contributions are purely volunteered. I don't make any
money, though I would absolutely like to. I have asked veteran open
sourcerers if they are paid and they say they are not, which
discouraged me from pursuing anything (if they aren't paid, why
would I be?). I use most of my free time to do it, which I'm trying
to do less of as it was taking up my life.[115]/

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 26 February 2017 at 11:44, Sebastian Silva  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.

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.

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

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

On 26 February 2017 at 04:15, Chris Leonard  wrote:
>
> To clarify, I had negotiated a contract with Sugar Labs / SFC for a
> monthly stipend to support the Translation Manager position.  I did
> NOT submit a single invoice for that work (which I have been doing)
> and allowed the contract to lapse.  I have not received a dime from
> Sugar Labs funds in in the 10 years I have been volunteering and I
> have come to regret that I opened the door to the current effort to
> drain those funds into members pockets.

Thanks for the clarification Chris! I was not aware of the status of
the contract and payments either way.

> I believe the funds (the majority of which come from the TripAdvisor
> grant obtained by Walter) should go to their intended purpose,
> supporting TurtleArt promotion and internationalization and
> localization efforts.  I understand that for legal reasons the funds
> are officially considered fungible and in a general pool, but I
> believe we should honor the original intent of the donor.

I agree with you.

> I now regret having opened the door to paid efforts

I think with this message the door is now closed!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Sebastian Silva]

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. 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?

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, 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.

The following is an excerpt from "Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor
Behind Our Digital Infrastructure" (license: CC-BY, author: Nadia
Eghbal)
<%22Roads%20and%20Bridges:%20The%20Unseen%20Labor%20Behind%20Our%20Digital%20Infrastructure%22%20%28license:%20CC-BY,%20author:%20Nadia%20Eghbal%29>

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.

/*Open source’s complicated relationship with money*
(...)
The Linux Foundation was created in 2007 to help protect and
maintain Linux and its associated projects. Torvalds does not run
the Linux Foundation himself, preferring instead to receive a steady
salary as a “Linux Fellow” and work on his projects as an engineer. /

/While open source software is admirably rooted in a culture of
volunteerism and collaboration relatively untouched by extrinsic
motives, the reality is that our economy and society, from
multimillion dollar companies to government websites, depends on
open source. //
/

/Overall, this is probably a positive development for society. It
means that software is no longer strictly relegated to private,
proprietary development, as it ha d been for decades. The fact that
the United States government, or a social network website with
billions of users, incorporates community-built software, paints an
optimistic future for democracy. //
/

/In addition, many projects function well on a community basis if
they are on the extremes of size : that is, either small projects
that do not require significant maintenance (as in the example of
Arash Payan and Appirater), or very large projects that have found
significant corporate support (as in the example of Linux). //
/

/However, many projects are trapped somewhere in the middle: large
enough to require significant maintenance, but not quite so large
that corporations are clamoring to offer support. These are the
stories that go unnoticed and untold. From both sides, these
maintainers are told they are the problem: S mall project
maintainers think mid-sized maintainers should just learn to cope,
and large project maintainers think if the project were “good
enough,” institutional support would have already come to them. //
/

/There are also political concerns around financial support that
make it harder to find a reliable source of funding. A single
company may not want to sponsor development work that also benefits
their competitor, who paid nothing. A private benefactor may want
special privileges that threaten the neutrality of a project. (For
example, for security-related projects, privileged disclosure of
vulnerabilities — paying for special knowledge about security
vulnerabilities instead of exposing those vulnerabilities to the
public — is a controversial request.) And governments may have
political reasons to sponsor the development of a particular
project, or ask for special favors such as “backdoors” (a secret way
of bypassing security authentication), even if that project is used
internationally./

>
> I can't agree with the idea of monthly stipends (salaries) being paid
> to some members.
>
> Not only breaking something I considered to be a fundamental
> principle, it is also dividing the community. Our funds deserve to be
> spent in more orgnization-beneficial way. 
>
> Additionally, I don't want to accuse anyone personally, but current
> situation in our discussion could meet the 

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Samson Goddy]

As Dave and Caryl mentioned earlier, i think the best thing is to redefine
our missions, visions and goals. As Sameer said in the last video, "Sugar
and Sugar Labs are both different". He also gave an example using how
Drupal came up with theirs. So i think what should be our top priority to
keep these in check, so that we can be move forward.

At the last meeting, walter gave (Ignacio, Laura and me) tasks on how we
can attract funding to the Community, i came up with the idea of creating
awareness to the general public through SMM role. Which received negative
comments, due to the fact that it was attached with $$ which is normal for
a community like Sugar Labs to kick against. The reason why i tend to let
that motion slide down is that currently we are vision less. Previous years
it was alot easier because of OLPC activities.

So my question for the community  are.

What are these money for?

How do we get funds outside Google programs?

What will happen to Sugar Labs if Google terminates GSOC or GCI one day?

These are questions that i will love to have answers on.

Concerning possible loosing support for python version. I think of we have
good strategy of how sugar can impact learning in schools, i don't think
any version of sugar matters. Last year after my project, i started doing
research on SEED/OLPC schools. I got a call from a teacher in Southern Part
of Nigeria. He was telling me about xo machines in his schools. He told me
that for the past years, after SEED terminated the project. They stop using
the sugar because no body could support them. He also mention that his
school is willing to Re:sugar with over 1,000 xo machines working. I told
him i was going to contact the community for support. Which i did but
didn't get any response aside from Tony and Walter.

Concerning what Caryl was saying about paying teachers to test sugar in
schools. I think that is a great plan. But is shouldn't just focus on the
Sugarizer only yet. Of course i know JS is the feature but before that if
we can support python let us do it. "Let us use what we have to get want we
want". Example, i am planning a mega workshop in Nigeria, concerning
targeting school with E-learning capabilities. There are lot of schools in
Nigeria using tablet in class to play games. Why won't SL sit down and
think how we can get this schools to use Sugarizer  in their tablet, deploy
schools servers for collaborations. Install python version in computer labs
as my school did back in the olpc days.

I have the ability to do this, because what they care about is success
stories, how does this benefit our students. GCI can be a pinpoint, my
story about how i became what i am now was because of Sugar.

P.S i have been invited to a Scratch conference in Bordeaux, France. Which
is scheduled to happen in July i can't remember the date. Also a mini
scratch events in Nairobi, Kenya for prep talk which i am going to talk
about Sugar. All because i posted my passion about computer science in
Medium. So this is what we should be doing as a community not doing
otherwise.

Samson





On 26 Feb 2017 2:33 a.m., "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.
>
> I can't agree with the idea of monthly stipends (salaries) being paid to
> some members.
>
> Not only breaking something I considered to be a fundamental principle, it
> is also dividing the community. Our funds deserve to be spent in more
> orgnization-beneficial way.
>
> Additionally, I don't want to accuse anyone personally, but current
> situation in our discussion could meet the definition of *conflict of
> interest* for some members involved...
>
> Best,
> Tymon
>
>
> sob., 25 lut 2017 o 23:46 użytkownik Chris Leonard <
> cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com> napisał:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Laura Vargas 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 2017-02-24 13:51 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho :
>> >>
>> >> Hello Again
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hola Caryl,
>> >>
>> >> The "Badge" proposal is a totally inappropriate use of SL funds and
>> could
>> >> result in litigation and the possible end of SugarLabs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Please do elaborate on this. We have already allocated stipends for
>> active
>> > members in the past. As I recall Chris Leonard had an 8 month stipend
>> of US$
>> > 1,000.
>> >
>> > What would be difference?
>> >
>>
>> To clarify, I had negotiated a contract with Sugar Labs / SFC for a
>> monthly stipend to support the Translation Manager position.  I did
>> NOT submit a single invoice for that work (which I have been doing)
>> and allowed the contract to lapse.  I have not received a dime from
>> Sugar Labs funds in in the 10 years I have been volunteering and I
>> have come to regret that I opened the door to the current effort to
>> drain those funds into members pockets.
>>
>> I believe 

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Tymon Radzik]

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.

I can't agree with the idea of monthly stipends (salaries) being paid to
some members.

Not only breaking something I considered to be a fundamental principle, it
is also dividing the community. Our funds deserve to be spent in more
orgnization-beneficial way.

Additionally, I don't want to accuse anyone personally, but current
situation in our discussion could meet the definition of *conflict of
interest* for some members involved...

Best,
Tymon


sob., 25 lut 2017 o 23:46 użytkownik Chris Leonard 
napisał:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Laura Vargas 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2017-02-24 13:51 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho :
> >>
> >> Hello Again
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hola Caryl,
> >>
> >> The "Badge" proposal is a totally inappropriate use of SL funds and
> could
> >> result in litigation and the possible end of SugarLabs.
> >>
> >>
> > Please do elaborate on this. We have already allocated stipends for
> active
> > members in the past. As I recall Chris Leonard had an 8 month stipend of
> US$
> > 1,000.
> >
> > What would be difference?
> >
>
> To clarify, I had negotiated a contract with Sugar Labs / SFC for a
> monthly stipend to support the Translation Manager position.  I did
> NOT submit a single invoice for that work (which I have been doing)
> and allowed the contract to lapse.  I have not received a dime from
> Sugar Labs funds in in the 10 years I have been volunteering and I
> have come to regret that I opened the door to the current effort to
> drain those funds into members pockets.
>
> I believe the funds (the majority of which come from the TripAdvisor
> grant obtained by Walter) should go to their intended purpose,
> supporting TurtleArt promotion and internationalization and
> localization efforts.  I understand that for legal reasons the funds
> are officially considered fungible and in a general pool, but I
> believe we should honor the original intent of the donor.
>
> cjl
>
> I now regret having opened the door to paid efforts
> ___
> 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] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Chris Leonard]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>
> 2017-02-24 13:51 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho :
>>
>> Hello Again
>>
>>
>
> Hola Caryl,
>>
>> The "Badge" proposal is a totally inappropriate use of SL funds and could
>> result in litigation and the possible end of SugarLabs.
>>
>>
> Please do elaborate on this. We have already allocated stipends for active
> members in the past. As I recall Chris Leonard had an 8 month stipend of US$
> 1,000.
>
> What would be difference?
>

To clarify, I had negotiated a contract with Sugar Labs / SFC for a
monthly stipend to support the Translation Manager position.  I did
NOT submit a single invoice for that work (which I have been doing)
and allowed the contract to lapse.  I have not received a dime from
Sugar Labs funds in in the 10 years I have been volunteering and I
have come to regret that I opened the door to the current effort to
drain those funds into members pockets.

I believe the funds (the majority of which come from the TripAdvisor
grant obtained by Walter) should go to their intended purpose,
supporting TurtleArt promotion and internationalization and
localization efforts.  I understand that for legal reasons the funds
are officially considered fungible and in a general pool, but I
believe we should honor the original intent of the donor.

cjl

I now regret having opened the door to paid efforts
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Sam Parkinson]

On Sat, 2017-02-25 at 08:36 +0530, Dave Crossland wrote:
> Actually I am not convinced of this; I do not believe that the latest
> releases of the Python codebase reach classrooms, and the js codebase
> only reaches one. 
> 
> One of the projects listed is social help. It's a fine idea, but a
> cursory look at the site shows it has extremely low activity. I think
> it would be better to shut it down. 

Sugar tries to literally replace every part of the computer that a user
sees.  And believe it or not; that is a hard goal for a small free
software community.  3 people in their spare time can't replace the
years of work poured into every other desktop environment & their
software.

You're 100% spot on.  The future of SL is things like TurtleJS.

-- 
Thanks,
Sam

https://www.sam.today/

Latest blog post: Local Politicians Meet InfoSec - a Wordpress Disaster - 
https://learntemail.sam.today/blog/local-politicians-meet-infosec-a-wordpress-disaster/
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

gt;>> active members in the past. As I recall Chris Leonard had an 8 month
>>> stipend of US$ 1,000.
>>>
>>> What would be difference?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I suggest a call for project proposals be done before raiding the
>>>> "cookie jar" and leaving SL destitute and powerless with nothing left in
>>>> the coffers (in a short 2 years). Samson has submitted a few proposals in
>>>> the past and I submitted one for Sugarizer Primero last summer. These are
>>>> the sort of things that the cash reserves should be used for. Paying a
>>>> select few a large monthly stipend because "they need it" is a totally
>>>> improper use of SL funds and could end up in court.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Instead, why don't some of these people propose projects that fall
>>>> within the stated purpose of SugarLabs? The SLOB can vote on them according
>>>> to their merits and approve or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Caryl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I did not put any funding for myself in my project proposal. The
>>>> money needed would go to educators in Uruguay, programmers in France and
>>>> wherever else Lionel finds them, documentation writers and translators from
>>>> many countries and educators in many countries to test the product in any
>>>> country, and a PR person to get the word out by sending reps to places
>>>> where they can show the merits of Sugarizer (Primero) to educators and
>>>> other stakeholders around the world. I would oversee the whole thing for
>>>> free (except possibly some occasional travel expenses and entrance or
>>>> visa fees).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P.P.S. I know Samson could have a good proposal ... or perhaps he could
>>>> oversee the translation teams for mine. Walter probably has some in mind as
>>>> well. Let's get the vision, goals and objectives in hand before progressing
>>>> any further.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *From:* IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Laura
>>>> Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org>
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 3:50 AM
>>>> *To:* Dave Crossland
>>>> *Cc:* Adam Holt; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; Samson Goddy;
>>>> SLOBs
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-02-24 5:33 GMT-05:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24 February 2017 at 12:44, Samson Goddy <samsongo...@sugarlabs.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the
>>>>> listed
>>>>> > badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is the $42k coming from?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Dave!
>>>>
>>>> As Samuel has confirm, he is not in need of funds to continue
>>>> contributing to the project so I am formulating the model with only six
>>>> Badges with stipend for a total of US$ 36k.
>>>>
>>>> There are more than US$80k in the General funds account that could
>>>> support this initiative.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Laura V.
>>>> *I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>>>
>>>> “No paradox, no progress.”
>>>> ~ Niels Bohr
>>>>
>>>> Happy Learning!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Laura V.
>>> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>>
>>> “No paradox, no progress.”
>>> ~ Niels Bohr
>>>
>>> Happy Learning!
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Samson Goddy]

can show the merits of Sugarizer (Primero) to educators and
>>> other stakeholders around the world. I would oversee the whole thing for
>>> free (except possibly some occasional travel expenses and entrance or
>>> visa fees).
>>>
>>>
>>> P.P.S. I know Samson could have a good proposal ... or perhaps he could
>>> oversee the translation teams for mine. Walter probably has some in mind as
>>> well. Let's get the vision, goals and objectives in hand before progressing
>>> any further.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Laura
>>> Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 3:50 AM
>>> *To:* Dave Crossland
>>> *Cc:* Adam Holt; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; Samson Goddy;
>>> SLOBs
>>> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-02-24 5:33 GMT-05:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 24 February 2017 at 12:44, Samson Goddy <samsongo...@sugarlabs.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the
>>>> listed
>>>> > badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.
>>>>
>>>> Where is the $42k coming from?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Dave!
>>>
>>> As Samuel has confirm, he is not in need of funds to continue
>>> contributing to the project so I am formulating the model with only six
>>> Badges with stipend for a total of US$ 36k.
>>>
>>> There are more than US$80k in the General funds account that could
>>> support this initiative.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Laura V.
>>> *I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>>
>>> “No paradox, no progress.”
>>> ~ Niels Bohr
>>>
>>> Happy Learning!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura V.
>> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>
>> “No paradox, no progress.”
>> ~ Niels Bohr
>>
>> Happy Learning!
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Martin Abente Lahaye]

Hello everyone,

Where can people find more information about the " open badges" proposal?

Regards,


On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Laura Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote:

>
>
> 2017-02-24 13:51 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho <cbige...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> Hello Again
>>
>>
>>
> Hola Caryl,
>
>> The "Badge" proposal is a totally inappropriate use of SL funds and could
>> result in litigation and the possible end of SugarLabs.
>>
>>
>> Please do elaborate on this. We have already allocated stipends for
> active members in the past. As I recall Chris Leonard had an 8 month
> stipend of US$ 1,000.
>
> What would be difference?
>
>
>> I suggest a call for project proposals be done before raiding the "cookie
>> jar" and leaving SL destitute and powerless with nothing left in the
>> coffers (in a short 2 years). Samson has submitted a few proposals in the
>> past and I submitted one for Sugarizer Primero last summer. These are the
>> sort of things that the cash reserves should be used for. Paying a select
>> few a large monthly stipend because "they need it" is a totally improper
>> use of SL funds and could end up in court.
>>
>>
>> Instead, why don't some of these people propose projects that fall within
>> the stated purpose of SugarLabs? The SLOB can vote on them according to
>> their merits and approve or not.
>>
>>
>> Caryl
>>
>>
>> P.S. I did not put any funding for myself in my project proposal. The
>> money needed would go to educators in Uruguay, programmers in France and
>> wherever else Lionel finds them, documentation writers and translators from
>> many countries and educators in many countries to test the product in any
>> country, and a PR person to get the word out by sending reps to places
>> where they can show the merits of Sugarizer (Primero) to educators and
>> other stakeholders around the world. I would oversee the whole thing for
>> free (except possibly some occasional travel expenses and entrance or
>> visa fees).
>>
>>
>> P.P.S. I know Samson could have a good proposal ... or perhaps he could
>> oversee the translation teams for mine. Walter probably has some in mind as
>> well. Let's get the vision, goals and objectives in hand before progressing
>> any further.
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Laura
>> Vargas <la...@somosazucar.org>
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 3:50 AM
>> *To:* Dave Crossland
>> *Cc:* Adam Holt; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; Samson Goddy; SLOBs
>> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-02-24 5:33 GMT-05:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:
>>
>>> On 24 February 2017 at 12:44, Samson Goddy <samsongo...@sugarlabs.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the
>>> listed
>>> > badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.
>>>
>>> Where is the $42k coming from?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Dave!
>>
>> As Samuel has confirm, he is not in need of funds to continue
>> contributing to the project so I am formulating the model with only six
>> Badges with stipend for a total of US$ 36k.
>>
>> There are more than US$80k in the General funds account that could
>> support this initiative.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Laura V.
>> *I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>>
>> “No paradox, no progress.”
>> ~ Niels Bohr
>>
>> Happy Learning!
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “No paradox, no progress.”
> ~ Niels Bohr
>
> Happy Learning!
>
>
> ___
> 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] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Laura Vargas]

2017-02-24 13:51 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho <cbige...@hotmail.com>:

> Hello Again
>
>
>
Hola Caryl,

> The "Badge" proposal is a totally inappropriate use of SL funds and could
> result in litigation and the possible end of SugarLabs.
>
>
> Please do elaborate on this. We have already allocated stipends for active
members in the past. As I recall Chris Leonard had an 8 month stipend of
US$ 1,000.

What would be difference?


> I suggest a call for project proposals be done before raiding the "cookie
> jar" and leaving SL destitute and powerless with nothing left in the
> coffers (in a short 2 years). Samson has submitted a few proposals in the
> past and I submitted one for Sugarizer Primero last summer. These are the
> sort of things that the cash reserves should be used for. Paying a select
> few a large monthly stipend because "they need it" is a totally improper
> use of SL funds and could end up in court.
>
>
> Instead, why don't some of these people propose projects that fall within
> the stated purpose of SugarLabs? The SLOB can vote on them according to
> their merits and approve or not.
>
>
> Caryl
>
>
> P.S. I did not put any funding for myself in my project proposal. The
> money needed would go to educators in Uruguay, programmers in France and
> wherever else Lionel finds them, documentation writers and translators from
> many countries and educators in many countries to test the product in any
> country, and a PR person to get the word out by sending reps to places
> where they can show the merits of Sugarizer (Primero) to educators and
> other stakeholders around the world. I would oversee the whole thing for
> free (except possibly some occasional travel expenses and entrance or
> visa fees).
>
>
> P.P.S. I know Samson could have a good proposal ... or perhaps he could
> oversee the translation teams for mine. Walter probably has some in mind as
> well. Let's get the vision, goals and objectives in hand before progressing
> any further.
>
>
> --
> *From:* IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Laura Vargas
> <la...@somosazucar.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 3:50 AM
> *To:* Dave Crossland
> *Cc:* Adam Holt; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; Samson Goddy; SLOBs
> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget
>
>
>
> 2017-02-24 5:33 GMT-05:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:
>
>> On 24 February 2017 at 12:44, Samson Goddy <samsongo...@sugarlabs.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the
>> listed
>> > badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.
>>
>> Where is the $42k coming from?
>>
>
> Hi Dave!
>
> As Samuel has confirm, he is not in need of funds to continue contributing
> to the project so I am formulating the model with only six Badges with
> stipend for a total of US$ 36k.
>
> There are more than US$80k in the General funds account that could support
> this initiative.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Laura V.
> *I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “No paradox, no progress.”
> ~ Niels Bohr
>
> Happy Learning!
>
>


-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“No paradox, no progress.”
~ Niels Bohr

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Samson Goddy]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Caryl Bigenho <cbige...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Again
>
>
> The "Badge" proposal is a totally inappropriate use of SL funds and could
> result in litigation and the possible end of SugarLabs.
>
>
> I suggest a call for project proposals be done before raiding the "cookie
> jar" and leaving SL destitute and powerless with nothing left in the
> coffers (in a short 2 years). Samson has submitted a few proposals in the
> past and I submitted one for Sugarizer Primero last summer. These are the
> sort of things that the cash reserves should be used for. Paying a select
> few a large monthly stipend because "they need it" is a totally improper
> use of SL funds and could end up in court.
>
>
> Instead, why don't some of these people propose projects that fall within
> the stated purpose of SugarLabs? The SLOB can vote on them according to
> their merits and approve or not.
>
+1, i totally agree on this.

>
> Caryl
>
>
> P.S. I did not put any funding for myself in my project proposal. The
> money needed would go to educators in Uruguay, programmers in France and
> wherever else Lionel finds them, documentation writers and translators from
> many countries and educators in many countries to test the product in any
> country, and a PR person to get the word out by sending reps to places
> where they can show the merits of Sugarizer (Primero) to educators and
> other stakeholders around the world. I would oversee the whole thing for
> free (except possibly some occasional travel expenses and entrance or
> visa fees).
>
>
> P.P.S. I know Samson could have a good proposal ... or perhaps he could
> oversee the translation teams for mine. Walter probably has some in mind as
> well. Let's get the vision, goals and objectives in hand before progressing
> any further.
>
+1 here again. Re the SMM motion, i believe it has to wait still we figure
out what will be the vision, goals and objectives before marketing.

Samson

>
>
> --
> *From:* IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Laura Vargas
> <la...@somosazucar.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 3:50 AM
> *To:* Dave Crossland
> *Cc:* Adam Holt; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; Samson Goddy; SLOBs
> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget
>
>
>
> 2017-02-24 5:33 GMT-05:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com>:
>
>> On 24 February 2017 at 12:44, Samson Goddy <samsongo...@sugarlabs.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the
>> listed
>> > badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.
>>
>> Where is the $42k coming from?
>>
>
> Hi Dave!
>
> As Samuel has confirm, he is not in need of funds to continue contributing
> to the project so I am formulating the model with only six Badges with
> stipend for a total of US$ 36k.
>
> There are more than US$80k in the General funds account that could support
> this initiative.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Laura V.
> *I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “No paradox, no progress.”
> ~ Niels Bohr
>
> Happy Learning!
>
>
> ___
> 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] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hello Again


The "Badge" proposal is a totally inappropriate use of SL funds and could 
result in litigation and the possible end of SugarLabs.


I suggest a call for project proposals be done before raiding the "cookie jar" 
and leaving SL destitute and powerless with nothing left in the coffers (in a 
short 2 years). Samson has submitted a few proposals in the past and I 
submitted one for Sugarizer Primero last summer. These are the sort of things 
that the cash reserves should be used for. Paying a select few a large monthly 
stipend because "they need it" is a totally improper use of SL funds and could 
end up in court.


Instead, why don't some of these people propose projects that fall within the 
stated purpose of SugarLabs? The SLOB can vote on them according to their 
merits and approve or not.


Caryl


P.S. I did not put any funding for myself in my project proposal. The money 
needed would go to educators in Uruguay, programmers in France and wherever 
else Lionel finds them, documentation writers and translators from many 
countries and educators in many countries to test the product in any country, 
and a PR person to get the word out by sending reps to places where they can 
show the merits of Sugarizer (Primero) to educators and other stakeholders 
around the world. I would oversee the whole thing for free (except possibly 
some occasional travel expenses and entrance or visa fees).


P.P.S. I know Samson could have a good proposal ... or perhaps he could oversee 
the translation teams for mine. Walter probably has some in mind as well. Let's 
get the vision, goals and objectives in hand before progressing any further.



From: IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Laura Vargas 
<la...@somosazucar.org>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 3:50 AM
To: Dave Crossland
Cc: Adam Holt; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; Samson Goddy; SLOBs
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget



2017-02-24 5:33 GMT-05:00 Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com<mailto:d...@lab6.com>>:
On 24 February 2017 at 12:44, Samson Goddy 
<samsongo...@sugarlabs.org<mailto:samsongo...@sugarlabs.org>> wrote:
> Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the listed
> badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.

Where is the $42k coming from?

Hi Dave!

As Samuel has confirm, he is not in need of funds to continue contributing to 
the project so I am formulating the model with only six Badges with stipend for 
a total of US$ 36k.

There are more than US$80k in the General funds account that could support this 
initiative.

Regards,
--
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

“No paradox, no progress.”
~ Niels Bohr

Happy Learning!

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Laura Vargas]

2017-02-24 5:33 GMT-05:00 Dave Crossland :

> On 24 February 2017 at 12:44, Samson Goddy 
> wrote:
> > Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the
> listed
> > badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.
>
> Where is the $42k coming from?
>

Hi Dave!

As Samuel has confirm, he is not in need of funds to continue contributing
to the project so I am formulating the model with only six Badges with
stipend for a total of US$ 36k.

There are more than US$80k in the General funds account that could support
this initiative.

Regards,
-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“No paradox, no progress.”
~ Niels Bohr

Happy Learning!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

On 24 February 2017 at 12:44, Samson Goddy  wrote:
> Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the listed
> badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.

Where is the $42k coming from?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Samuel Cantero]

On Feb 24, 2017 4:14 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:



On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Where can I read more about the sugar open badges? :)
>
Some time ago Aleksey suggested to the list, that we should sponsor with
US$500/month to active Sugar Labs contributors in need on a monthly basis.

Today we have many active contributors that are vital to the Sugar Labs
ecosystem and many of them have expressed they are somehow in need of
financial resources, perhaps it is time we retribute them with trust and
monthly donations.

At the same time and as part of the Marketing and Funding plan, there is
interest among active contributors to start an implementation of Open
Badges for Sugar Labs.

I personally believe, Open Badges may be one way to open channels for
resources to flow to active contributors.

According to our financial status, I calculated at least 7 badges with
stipends can be created and granted on a yearly basis starting 2017.

Under this model and for the first year (03/2017 - 03/2018), each badge
could have a US$500/month stipend attached, for a total of US$3,500 per
month, totaling US$ 42,000 per year in stipends [1] to Active contributors.

The beneficiary or "badge holder" can choose to accept our* monthly
donation* or if not in need can also choose to pass it on to any active
contributor in need or to give it back to the General Funds account. I
volunteer myself to co-manage payments and logistics with Adam and SFC and
Ignacio has volunteer to lead the development of the Badges.

Here are the names for the badges with stipends and their holders I'm
proposing for the first year of the model:

# 1 Infrastructure Hero - Samuel Cantero


Thanks for taking me into account, but as I've told Laura, I would like to
continue helping SL without any stipends.

Best regards,

Sam.

# 2 Infrastructure Hero - Sebastian Silva
# 3 Release Manager - Ignacio Rodriguez
# 4 Translations Manager - Chris Leonard
# 5 Marketing Team Leader - Samson Goddy
# 6 Sugar Network Project Leader - Laura Vargas
# 7 Social Help Project Leader - Sam Parkinson

Here are the names for the badges without stipends and their holders I'm
proposing for the first year of the model:

# 8 Sugarizer Project Leader - Lionel Laske
# 9 Sugar Labs Honor Badge - Walter Bender
# 10 Secretary - Dave Crossland
# 11 Treasure Keeper - Adam Holt

Please share your toughs on the subject.

If you consider there are more Badges and/or Badge holders that should be
considered for the first year, please feel free to nominate someone else or
yourself and give a name to the Badge.

Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the listed
badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.

Hopefully by the end of next week we can give it a try to put it all into a
single motion :D

Best regards and blessings for all,
Laura Victoria

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

>
> On Feb 23, 2017 9:57 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
>
> Hello all! Hola a todos!
>
> 2016 Fiscal year is soon coming to its end (March 1st 2016 until February
> 28th 2017).
>
> Subject to final reports from Adam, we must consider and project our
> expenses of the 2017 fiscal year. I would like to help in a first draft.
>
>
> From the systems, marketing and funding threads, it has become clear Sugar
> Labs Project basically requires:
>
>
> *[1] To sponsor any motivated, active individuals in need to continue
> doing the best they can to support our mission.*
>
> - For this end I'm leading the initiative of Open Badges (12 Badges in
> total, 6 with a US$ 500 monthly stipend) totaling US$36,000.
> - Also for this end, Walter is leading the Outreachy internship initiative
> with a budget of US$ 5,500.
>
> *[2] To make sure our servers are safe and our systems are distributed.*
>
> - For this end systems have required to budget and acquire a UPS for our
> servers at MIT. On January Samuel quoted 3 options budget range of US$200 -
> US$1.000.
> - Please can anyone confirm if we require to maintain and budget for
> additional infrastructure?
>
> *[3] To maintain domains and trademarks*.
>
> - As far as I understand only sugarlabs.org and sugarlabs.net will need
> to be renewed this year at a estimated cost of less than US$100.
> - Last year we spent $700 on trademark registration, I'm not sure if this
> is a yearly fee, please can anyone confirm? I will assume it is.
>
>
>
> *This give us a preliminary Total of Estimated Expenses for 2017 of
> US$43,300  *
>
>
> This is what I'm aware of, as the community still needs to define its
> Marketing objectives and strategies and therefore it may be too soon to
> estimate a Budget on that.
>
> Please share any other initiatives or commitments that will require funds
> for the 2017 fiscal year so we can get to work on a first draft!
>
>
> Regards and blessings,
>
> 
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I 

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Samson Goddy]

Re marketing goals.

Last time dave suggest we wait for Sameer's second video, but my questions
are

 1. Should we wait for the video without doing nothing?

 2. Can we continue existing plan while waiting for the video?

Because i see it as a way of doing nothing, i believe that we should let
the general public to know more about  things happening here.




Insights

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pyOhTX8a12uNrlYeiwPDTtkwsCRCwSFGvUJoGKlXEig/edit?usp=sharing

[2]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r1-W0xC6kepR6uSIw8PYpdugjoyVAT8mIZWVXVTfZkk/edit?usp=sharing

[3] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Marketing_Team


On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Samson Goddy <samsongo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Caryl Bigenho <cbige...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All...
>>
>>
>> Before we invest any $$$ on personnel, that will eat up all the funds
>> SugarLabs has in just a couple of years, we need to have a product or
>> products that are ready for worldwide distribution and use. Otherwise
>> SugarLabs will end up an empty shell... a "has been"...
>>
>>
>> To do this, we need proposals for projects to develop hardware and
>> software products such as the one I suggested, last summer, for a
>> Sugarizer1° (Sugarizer Primero).
>>
>>
>> Each of these products would have a targeted audience (in my proposal's
>> case... Grades K-2), be carefully designed for that audience (in my
>> project's case I proposed curation by a group of teachers with extensive
>> experience using Sugar in their classrooms in Uruguay under the direction
>> by someone like Rosamel Ramirez). My project would also need the
>> preparation of the Sugarizer1° version by Lionel and some of his
>> programmers, documentation for the product's use prepared by users and
>> tested by non-users, and translation of the documentation into a large
>> number of languages.
>>
>>
>> A project like this would need funds... stipends would be needed for
>> Lionel and his crew, Rosamel and all the teachers involved, documentation
>> writers, testers, and translators. Then a marketing team would be needed to
>> show the product at various educator's conferences, at schools of education
>> in universities, and the like.
>>
>>
>> Many other projects could be done in a similar fashion. All would need
>> funds. Walter probably has some ideas for things he would like to do. Adam
>> and Samson may also. In fact, many SugarLabs members may have ideas that
>> should be looked at. These things cannot happen if the funds are frittered
>> away on monthly stipends for a select few with no specific goals for
>> producing any targeted products or projects.
>>
>>
>> But, before any of this can happen...  we need to refocus on defining the
>> mission and vision of SugarLabs. Perhaps Sameer can get us back on track
>> with that, as it seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.
>>
>>
>> OK... so now that I've opened this can of worms... it's time to go
>> fishing... for goals... objectives... vision... ideas... inspiration... all
>> things money can't buy, but dedication and devotion can. Let's do it!
>>
> I think Laura did mention "If you consider there are more Badges and/or
> Badge holders that should be considered for the first year, please feel
> free to nominate someone else or yourself and give a name to the Badge.
>
> Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the listed
> badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.
>
> Hopefully by the end of next week we can give it a try to put it all into
> a single motion :D"
>
>
>> Caryl (aka GrannieB)
>> --
>> *From:* IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Dave
>> Crossland <d...@lab6.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2017 6:28:16 PM
>> *To:* Laura Vargas
>> *Cc:* Adam Holt; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; SLOBs
>> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Where can I read more about the sugar open badges? :)
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2017 9:57 PM, "Laura Vargas" <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all! Hola a todos!
>>
>> 2016 Fiscal year is soon coming to its end (March 1st 2016 until February
>> 28th 2017).
>>
>> Subject to final reports from Adam, we must consider and project our
>> expenses of the 2017 fiscal year. I would like to help in a first draft.
>>
>>
>> From the systems, marketing and funding threads, it has become clear
>> Sugar Labs P

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Samson Goddy]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Caryl Bigenho <cbige...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All...
>
>
> Before we invest any $$$ on personnel, that will eat up all the funds
> SugarLabs has in just a couple of years, we need to have a product or
> products that are ready for worldwide distribution and use. Otherwise
> SugarLabs will end up an empty shell... a "has been"...
>
>
> To do this, we need proposals for projects to develop hardware and
> software products such as the one I suggested, last summer, for a
> Sugarizer1° (Sugarizer Primero).
>
>
> Each of these products would have a targeted audience (in my proposal's
> case... Grades K-2), be carefully designed for that audience (in my
> project's case I proposed curation by a group of teachers with extensive
> experience using Sugar in their classrooms in Uruguay under the direction
> by someone like Rosamel Ramirez). My project would also need the
> preparation of the Sugarizer1° version by Lionel and some of his
> programmers, documentation for the product's use prepared by users and
> tested by non-users, and translation of the documentation into a large
> number of languages.
>
>
> A project like this would need funds... stipends would be needed for
> Lionel and his crew, Rosamel and all the teachers involved, documentation
> writers, testers, and translators. Then a marketing team would be needed to
> show the product at various educator's conferences, at schools of education
> in universities, and the like.
>
>
> Many other projects could be done in a similar fashion. All would need
> funds. Walter probably has some ideas for things he would like to do. Adam
> and Samson may also. In fact, many SugarLabs members may have ideas that
> should be looked at. These things cannot happen if the funds are frittered
> away on monthly stipends for a select few with no specific goals for
> producing any targeted products or projects.
>
>
> But, before any of this can happen...  we need to refocus on defining the
> mission and vision of SugarLabs. Perhaps Sameer can get us back on track
> with that, as it seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.
>
>
> OK... so now that I've opened this can of worms... it's time to go
> fishing... for goals... objectives... vision... ideas... inspiration... all
> things money can't buy, but dedication and devotion can. Let's do it!
>
I think Laura did mention "If you consider there are more Badges and/or
Badge holders that should be considered for the first year, please feel
free to nominate someone else or yourself and give a name to the Badge.

Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the listed
badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.

Hopefully by the end of next week we can give it a try to put it all into a
single motion :D"


> Caryl (aka GrannieB)
> --
> *From:* IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Dave
> Crossland <d...@lab6.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2017 6:28:16 PM
> *To:* Laura Vargas
> *Cc:* Adam Holt; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; SLOBs
> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget
>
> Hi
>
> Where can I read more about the sugar open badges? :)
>
> On Feb 23, 2017 9:57 PM, "Laura Vargas" <la...@somosazucar.org> wrote:
>
> Hello all! Hola a todos!
>
> 2016 Fiscal year is soon coming to its end (March 1st 2016 until February
> 28th 2017).
>
> Subject to final reports from Adam, we must consider and project our
> expenses of the 2017 fiscal year. I would like to help in a first draft.
>
>
> From the systems, marketing and funding threads, it has become clear Sugar
> Labs Project basically requires:
>
>
> *[1] To sponsor any motivated, active individuals in need to continue
> doing the best they can to support our mission.*
>
> - For this end I'm leading the initiative of Open Badges (12 Badges in
> total, 6 with a US$ 500 monthly stipend) totaling US$36,000.
> - Also for this end, Walter is leading the Outreachy internship initiative
> with a budget of US$ 5,500.
>
> * [2] To make sure our servers are safe and our systems are distributed.*
>
> - For this end systems have required to budget and acquire a UPS for our
> servers at MIT. On January Samuel quoted 3 options budget range of US$200 -
> US$1.000.
> - Please can anyone confirm if we require to maintain and budget for
> additional infrastructure?
>
> *[3] To maintain domains and trademarks*.
>
> - As far as I understand only sugarlabs.org and sugarlabs.net will need
> to be renewed this year at a estimated cost of less than US$100.
> - Last year we spent $700 on trademark registration, I'm not sure if this
> 

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Samson Goddy]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Where can I read more about the sugar open badges? :)
>
Some time ago Aleksey suggested to the list, that we should sponsor with
US$500/month to active Sugar Labs contributors in need on a monthly basis.

Today we have many active contributors that are vital to the Sugar Labs
ecosystem and many of them have expressed they are somehow in need of
financial resources, perhaps it is time we retribute them with trust and
monthly donations.

At the same time and as part of the Marketing and Funding plan, there is
interest among active contributors to start an implementation of Open
Badges for Sugar Labs.

I personally believe, Open Badges may be one way to open channels for
resources to flow to active contributors.

According to our financial status, I calculated at least 7 badges with
stipends can be created and granted on a yearly basis starting 2017.

Under this model and for the first year (03/2017 - 03/2018), each badge
could have a US$500/month stipend attached, for a total of US$3,500 per
month, totaling US$ 42,000 per year in stipends [1] to Active contributors.

The beneficiary or "badge holder" can choose to accept our* monthly
donation* or if not in need can also choose to pass it on to any active
contributor in need or to give it back to the General Funds account. I
volunteer myself to co-manage payments and logistics with Adam and SFC and
Ignacio has volunteer to lead the development of the Badges.

Here are the names for the badges with stipends and their holders I'm
proposing for the first year of the model:

# 1 Infrastructure Hero - Samuel Cantero
# 2 Infrastructure Hero - Sebastian Silva
# 3 Release Manager - Ignacio Rodriguez
# 4 Translations Manager - Chris Leonard
# 5 Marketing Team Leader - Samson Goddy
# 6 Sugar Network Project Leader - Laura Vargas
# 7 Social Help Project Leader - Sam Parkinson

Here are the names for the badges without stipends and their holders I'm
proposing for the first year of the model:

# 8 Sugarizer Project Leader - Lionel Laske
# 9 Sugar Labs Honor Badge - Walter Bender
# 10 Secretary - Dave Crossland
# 11 Treasure Keeper - Adam Holt

Please share your toughs on the subject.

If you consider there are more Badges and/or Badge holders that should be
considered for the first year, please feel free to nominate someone else or
yourself and give a name to the Badge.

Also, if you have a strong opposition to the model or to any of the listed
badges or badge holders, please share the reasons openly.

Hopefully by the end of next week we can give it a try to put it all into a
single motion :D

Best regards and blessings for all,
Laura Victoria

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

>
> On Feb 23, 2017 9:57 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:
>
> Hello all! Hola a todos!
>
> 2016 Fiscal year is soon coming to its end (March 1st 2016 until February
> 28th 2017).
>
> Subject to final reports from Adam, we must consider and project our
> expenses of the 2017 fiscal year. I would like to help in a first draft.
>
>
> From the systems, marketing and funding threads, it has become clear Sugar
> Labs Project basically requires:
>
>
> *[1] To sponsor any motivated, active individuals in need to continue
> doing the best they can to support our mission.*
>
> - For this end I'm leading the initiative of Open Badges (12 Badges in
> total, 6 with a US$ 500 monthly stipend) totaling US$36,000.
> - Also for this end, Walter is leading the Outreachy internship initiative
> with a budget of US$ 5,500.
>
> *[2] To make sure our servers are safe and our systems are distributed.*
>
> - For this end systems have required to budget and acquire a UPS for our
> servers at MIT. On January Samuel quoted 3 options budget range of US$200 -
> US$1.000.
> - Please can anyone confirm if we require to maintain and budget for
> additional infrastructure?
>
> *[3] To maintain domains and trademarks*.
>
> - As far as I understand only sugarlabs.org and sugarlabs.net will need
> to be renewed this year at a estimated cost of less than US$100.
> - Last year we spent $700 on trademark registration, I'm not sure if this
> is a yearly fee, please can anyone confirm? I will assume it is.
>
>
>
> *This give us a preliminary Total of Estimated Expenses for 2017 of
> US$43,300  *
>
>
> This is what I'm aware of, as the community still needs to define its
> Marketing objectives and strategies and therefore it may be too soon to
> estimate a Budget on that.
>
> Please share any other initiatives or commitments that will require funds
> for the 2017 fiscal year so we can get to work on a first draft!
>
>
> Regards and blessings,
>
> 
>
> --
> Laura V.
> * I SomosAZUCAR.Org*
>
> “No paradox, no progress.”
> ~ Niels Bohr
>
> Happy Learning!
>
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> 

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Caryl Bigenho]

Hi All...


Before we invest any $$$ on personnel, that will eat up all the funds SugarLabs 
has in just a couple of years, we need to have a product or products that are 
ready for worldwide distribution and use. Otherwise SugarLabs will end up an 
empty shell... a "has been"...


To do this, we need proposals for projects to develop hardware and software 
products such as the one I suggested, last summer, for a Sugarizer1° (Sugarizer 
Primero).


Each of these products would have a targeted audience (in my proposal's case... 
Grades K-2), be carefully designed for that audience (in my project's case I 
proposed curation by a group of teachers with extensive experience using Sugar 
in their classrooms in Uruguay under the direction by someone like Rosamel 
Ramirez). My project would also need the preparation of the Sugarizer1° version 
by Lionel and some of his programmers, documentation for the product's use 
prepared by users and tested by non-users, and translation of the documentation 
into a large number of languages.


A project like this would need funds... stipends would be needed for Lionel and 
his crew, Rosamel and all the teachers involved, documentation writers, 
testers, and translators. Then a marketing team would be needed to show the 
product at various educator's conferences, at schools of education in 
universities, and the like.


Many other projects could be done in a similar fashion. All would need funds. 
Walter probably has some ideas for things he would like to do. Adam and Samson 
may also. In fact, many SugarLabs members may have ideas that should be looked 
at. These things cannot happen if the funds are frittered away on monthly 
stipends for a select few with no specific goals for producing any targeted 
products or projects.


But, before any of this can happen...  we need to refocus on defining the 
mission and vision of SugarLabs. Perhaps Sameer can get us back on track with 
that, as it seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.


OK... so now that I've opened this can of worms... it's time to go fishing... 
for goals... objectives... vision... ideas... inspiration... all things money 
can't buy, but dedication and devotion can. Let's do it!


Caryl (aka GrannieB)


From: IAEP <iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org> on behalf of Dave Crossland 
<d...@lab6.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 6:28:16 PM
To: Laura Vargas
Cc: Adam Holt; sugar-...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep; SLOBs
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

Hi

Where can I read more about the sugar open badges? :)

On Feb 23, 2017 9:57 PM, "Laura Vargas" 
<la...@somosazucar.org<mailto:la...@somosazucar.org>> wrote:
Hello all! Hola a todos!

2016 Fiscal year is soon coming to its end (March 1st 2016 until February 28th 
2017).

Subject to final reports from Adam, we must consider and project our expenses 
of the 2017 fiscal year. I would like to help in a first draft.


From the systems, marketing and funding threads, it has become clear Sugar Labs 
Project basically requires:


[1] To sponsor any motivated, active individuals in need to continue doing the 
best they can to support our mission.

- For this end I'm leading the initiative of Open Badges (12 Badges in total, 6 
with a US$ 500 monthly stipend) totaling US$36,000.
- Also for this end, Walter is leading the Outreachy internship initiative with 
a budget of US$ 5,500.

[2] To make sure our servers are safe and our systems are distributed.

- For this end systems have required to budget and acquire a UPS for our 
servers at MIT. On January Samuel quoted 3 options budget range of US$200 - 
US$1.000.
- Please can anyone confirm if we require to maintain and budget for additional 
infrastructure?

[3] To maintain domains and trademarks.

- As far as I understand only sugarlabs.org<http://sugarlabs.org> and 
sugarlabs.net<http://sugarlabs.net> will need to be renewed this year at a 
estimated cost of less than US$100.
- Last year we spent $700 on trademark registration, I'm not sure if this is a 
yearly fee, please can anyone confirm? I will assume it is.


This give us a preliminary Total of Estimated Expenses for 2017 of US$43,300


This is what I'm aware of, as the community still needs to define its Marketing 
objectives and strategies and therefore it may be too soon to estimate a Budget 
on that.

Please share any other initiatives or commitments that will require funds for 
the 2017 fiscal year so we can get to work on a first draft!


Regards and blessings,

<http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Finance>

--
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

“No paradox, no progress.”
~ Niels Bohr

Happy Learning!


___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org<mailto:IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org>
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

__

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

Where can I read more about the sugar open badges? :)

On Feb 23, 2017 9:57 PM, "Laura Vargas"  wrote:

Hello all! Hola a todos!

2016 Fiscal year is soon coming to its end (March 1st 2016 until February
28th 2017).

Subject to final reports from Adam, we must consider and project our
expenses of the 2017 fiscal year. I would like to help in a first draft.


>From the systems, marketing and funding threads, it has become clear Sugar
Labs Project basically requires:


*[1] To sponsor any motivated, active individuals in need to continue doing
the best they can to support our mission.*

- For this end I'm leading the initiative of Open Badges (12 Badges in
total, 6 with a US$ 500 monthly stipend) totaling US$36,000.
- Also for this end, Walter is leading the Outreachy internship initiative
with a budget of US$ 5,500.

*[2] To make sure our servers are safe and our systems are distributed.*

- For this end systems have required to budget and acquire a UPS for our
servers at MIT. On January Samuel quoted 3 options budget range of US$200 -
US$1.000.
- Please can anyone confirm if we require to maintain and budget for
additional infrastructure?

*[3] To maintain domains and trademarks*.

- As far as I understand only sugarlabs.org and sugarlabs.net will need to
be renewed this year at a estimated cost of less than US$100.
- Last year we spent $700 on trademark registration, I'm not sure if this
is a yearly fee, please can anyone confirm? I will assume it is.



*This give us a preliminary Total of Estimated Expenses for 2017 of
US$43,300  *


This is what I'm aware of, as the community still needs to define its
Marketing objectives and strategies and therefore it may be too soon to
estimate a Budget on that.

Please share any other initiatives or commitments that will require funds
for the 2017 fiscal year so we can get to work on a first draft!


Regards and blessings,



-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“No paradox, no progress.”
~ Niels Bohr

Happy Learning!


___
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