Re: [IAEP] [Localization] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder

2016-03-31 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 31 March 2016 at 20:27, Walter Bender  wrote:

> SFC


(BTW, the Software Freedom Conservancy is asking everyone to refer to it as
"Conservancy" and not "SFC" to prevent ambiguity)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [Localization] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder

2016-03-31 Thread Walter Bender 
Here are a few of my thoughts regarding both the i18n thread and the
proposal from Caryl regarding a treasurer  position.

(1) The Trip Advisor grant content has been vetted multiple times: by Chris
and I when we wrote it; by my colleagues at Trip Advisor who have been
playing a role in the work; by the SFC and SLOBs before I submitted it; by
Trip Advisor itself; by SLOBs after the grant was approved; and... every
time we've spend any of the funds, (a) I've gotten yet another preapproval
from SLOBs; and (b) had to reaffirm that approval with the SFC. Frankly, as
the principal investigator (PI) on the grant, I am being generous by
calling these interactions unwieldy. Regarding the Turtle Workshop funds I
don't think I should have to be jumping through hoops to spend it on Turtle
Workshops. Regarding the i18n funds, I trust Chris to continue to exercise
his good judgment in advancing the interests of our community. Let's stop
second-guessing him and let him get on with the work. We both have a track
record of reporting to the community what we have been doing. To conclude,
I think that the PI should get SLOB (and SFC) approval for grants submitted
through Sugar Labs, but as long as there is adequate reporting, which will
enable SLOB and SFC to determine that the funds are being allocated
appropriately, the PI should have autonomy.

(2) That said, the general funds have not been vetted and I think we need
SLOB input on spending these funds. We have on occasion granted
discretionary funds to some of our teams, e.g., the systems team has some
unilateral ability to spend on the order of a few hundred dollars here and
there, but I think it is reasonable that they present a proposal for larger
projects, e.g., refreshing servers, etc. Similarly we gave some limited
autonomy to the marketing team, although for the most part Sean paid for
incidentals out of his own pocket and came to SLOB for big ticket items. I
don't think this system is broken.

(3) We have tried multiple times to fill the treasurer role. Doesn't seem
to hold anyone's interest for long. Love to see someone take up the role
again. But in my opinion, the treasurer's role is reporting, not allocation
of funds.

To be continued tomorrow at the SLOB meeting.

regards.

-walter



On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Adam Holt  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Lionel Laské 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just to share some thought before the meeting regarding the l18n. Sure
>> that it could feed the debate tomorrow :-)
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that it's super important for Sugar to be available in
>> multiple languages.
>> Plus I know the huge works done by all translators (including some guys
>> from OLPC France) on this, mostly as volunteers (i.e. unpaid).
>>
>> As everyone know SugarLabs funds are limited so I think that before
>> launching a paid mission of translation.
>>
>
> Impact needs to be articulated for sure.  But I'm not sure the above story
> about very limited translation funds is correct.  In fact the records seem
> to show the opposite:
>
> The TripAdvisor grant specifically allocated "$60,000" for translation,
> and especially indigenous languages, as it was explained to me by Walter
> Bender in the summer of 2013, when the initial grant was awarded.  This
> should come as no surprise given the nature of the donor (TripAdvisor)
> wanting to honor endangered languages, relating to its global travel
> business.
>
> While it is possible to redirect funds away from their intended purpose
> (according to SFC, as discussed in February and March) things could also
> get very complicated very fast if Sugar Labs chooses to go on record
> defying the intent of a major donor.
>
>
> PS I do not know if the "final" installment ($40,000 of $120,000 total
> TripAdvisor grant) is forthcoming or not, as was expected to be received in
> October 2015, but hopefully Walter can clarify.  I am trying to clarify our
> current balance with SFC, but this takes time apparently.
>
> Finally, if worst case the final TripAdvisor installment is not
> forthcoming, then the translation budget would fall from "$60,000" to
> "$40,000" (minus 10% of course, paid to SFC for accounting and legal
> services).
>
>
> I think we need to ask a stupid question: What's the need to translate
>> Sugar into language X ?
>>
>> Shortly: if we translate Sugar into X, how many new Sugar users could we
>> expect ? Is there guys on the field that actively waiting for this
>> translation to deploy Sugar ?
>> Because SugarLabs resources are limited, I think we can't invest in a
>> language if we can't expect direct benefit.
>> So my - very pragmatic - point of view is to have a sort of algorithm:
>> for example if the number of potential users is lower than N then we could
>> stay in a volunteer mode to handle X translation. Else we could invest
>> money to pay a translation mission of X.
>> I've got a similar experience regarding our Malagasy deployment. At first
>> we heavily explored

Re: [IAEP] [Localization] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder

2016-03-31 Thread Adam Holt 
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Lionel Laské 
wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Just to share some thought before the meeting regarding the l18n. Sure
> that it could feed the debate tomorrow :-)
>
> I'm pretty sure that it's super important for Sugar to be available in
> multiple languages.
> Plus I know the huge works done by all translators (including some guys
> from OLPC France) on this, mostly as volunteers (i.e. unpaid).
>
> As everyone know SugarLabs funds are limited so I think that before
> launching a paid mission of translation.
>

Impact needs to be articulated for sure.  But I'm not sure the above story
about very limited translation funds is correct.  In fact the records seem
to show the opposite:

The TripAdvisor grant specifically allocated "$60,000" for translation, and
especially indigenous languages, as it was explained to me by Walter Bender
in the summer of 2013, when the initial grant was awarded.  This should
come as no surprise given the nature of the donor (TripAdvisor) wanting to
honor endangered languages, relating to its global travel business.

While it is possible to redirect funds away from their intended purpose
(according to SFC, as discussed in February and March) things could also
get very complicated very fast if Sugar Labs chooses to go on record
defying the intent of a major donor.


PS I do not know if the "final" installment ($40,000 of $120,000 total
TripAdvisor grant) is forthcoming or not, as was expected to be received in
October 2015, but hopefully Walter can clarify.  I am trying to clarify our
current balance with SFC, but this takes time apparently.

Finally, if worst case the final TripAdvisor installment is not
forthcoming, then the translation budget would fall from "$60,000" to
"$40,000" (minus 10% of course, paid to SFC for accounting and legal
services).


I think we need to ask a stupid question: What's the need to translate
> Sugar into language X ?
>
> Shortly: if we translate Sugar into X, how many new Sugar users could we
> expect ? Is there guys on the field that actively waiting for this
> translation to deploy Sugar ?
> Because SugarLabs resources are limited, I think we can't invest in a
> language if we can't expect direct benefit.
> So my - very pragmatic - point of view is to have a sort of algorithm: for
> example if the number of potential users is lower than N then we could stay
> in a volunteer mode to handle X translation. Else we could invest money to
> pay a translation mission of X.
> I've got a similar experience regarding our Malagasy deployment. At first
> we heavily explored ways to translate Sugar in Malagasy. We even started
> Malagasy localization in volunteer mode. I guess we reached about 30% of
> localization like this. But finally we understood that Sugar in Malagasy
> will not help us to deploy more and that we have no money to pay for it.
> Worse: most of people locally tell us that is better to use Sugar in French
> on the field because French is important for the curriculum… So we
> definitively stopped the Malagasy localization.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Best regards from France.
>
> Lionel.
>
> 2016-03-30 13:31 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender :
>
>> The next meeting of the Sugar Labs oversight board will be Friday, 1
>> April at 19:00 UTC. Please join us at irc.freenode.net #sugar-meeting
>> (you can access our IRC channel through the web interface provided at
>> http://chat.sugarlabs.org).
>>
>> Agenda:
>> 1. Google Summer of Code status
>> 2. Wiki Cleanup Party planning
>> 3. Request from Edgar Quispe to attend Traducción e interpretación en las
>> lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima
>> 4. I18n manager discussion
>> 5. Proposal from Samson Goddy re i18n in Nigeria
>> 6. YOUR TOPIC HERE
>>
>> Looking forward to seeing everyone on Friday.
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Localization mailing list
> localizat...@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/localization
>
> --
> 
> 
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
> http://unleashkids.org !
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOB] meeting reminder

2016-03-31 Thread Lionel Laské 
Hi all,

Just to share some thought before the meeting regarding the l18n. Sure that
it could feed the debate tomorrow :-)

I'm pretty sure that it's super important for Sugar to be available in
multiple languages.
Plus I know the huge works done by all translators (including some guys
from OLPC France) on this, mostly as volunteers (i.e. unpaid).

As everyone know SugarLabs funds are limited so I think that before
launching a paid mission of translation. I think we need to ask a stupid
question: What's the need to translate Sugar into language X ?

Shortly: if we translate Sugar into X, how many new Sugar users could we
expect ? Is there guys on the field that actively waiting for this
translation to deploy Sugar ?
Because SugarLabs resources are limited, I think we can't invest in a
language if we can't expect direct benefit.
So my - very pragmatic - point of view is to have a sort of algorithm: for
example if the number of potential users is lower than N then we could stay
in a volunteer mode to handle X translation. Else we could invest money to
pay a translation mission of X.
I've got a similar experience regarding our Malagasy deployment. At first
we heavily explored ways to translate Sugar in Malagasy. We even started
Malagasy localization in volunteer mode. I guess we reached about 30% of
localization like this. But finally we understood that Sugar in Malagasy
will not help us to deploy more and that we have no money to pay for it.
Worse: most of people locally tell us that is better to use Sugar in French
on the field because French is important for the curriculum… So we
definitively stopped the Malagasy localization.

Just my two cents.

Best regards from France.

Lionel.

2016-03-30 13:31 GMT+02:00 Walter Bender :

> The next meeting of the Sugar Labs oversight board will be Friday, 1 April
> at 19:00 UTC. Please join us at irc.freenode.net #sugar-meeting (you can
> access our IRC channel through the web interface provided at
> http://chat.sugarlabs.org).
>
> Agenda:
> 1. Google Summer of Code status
> 2. Wiki Cleanup Party planning
> 3. Request from Edgar Quispe to attend Traducción e interpretación en las
> lenguas originarias del Perú meeting in Lima
> 4. I18n manager discussion
> 5. Proposal from Samson Goddy re i18n in Nigeria
> 6. YOUR TOPIC HERE
>
> Looking forward to seeing everyone on Friday.
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] International Society for Technology in Education 2016 Conference and Expo?

2016-03-31 Thread Walter Bender 
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Sora Edwards-Thro 
wrote:

> I'll be there presenting research on a literacy project with XOs in Haiti.
>

Great. Would be great to share your results with the Sugar community as
well.

-walter

>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Is anyone involved in Sugar Labs going to
>> https://conference.iste.org/2016/ ?
>>
>> Has anyone gone from SL attended previous years?
>>
>> ISTE 2016 says it is "the premier education technology conference," and
>> will be held June 26-29 in Denver, Colorado, USA.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Dave
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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

Re: [IAEP] International Society for Technology in Education 2016 Conference and Expo?

2016-03-31 Thread Sora Edwards-Thro 
I'll be there presenting research on a literacy project with XOs in Haiti.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> Is anyone involved in Sugar Labs going to
> https://conference.iste.org/2016/ ?
>
> Has anyone gone from SL attended previous years?
>
> ISTE 2016 says it is "the premier education technology conference," and
> will be held June 26-29 in Denver, Colorado, USA.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> ___
> 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] International Society for Technology in Education 2016 Conference and Expo?

2016-03-31 Thread Walter Bender 
It tended to be a conference in support of the status quo and the big
commercial vendors. I tried in the 2007-2008 time frame to get them
interested in OLPC and Sugar to no avail. I've some pundit friends who try
to stir things up there every year, but I think it is mostly an echo
chamber of the bad ideas in education. That said, I've not looked in the
past few years.

-walter

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> Is anyone involved in Sugar Labs going to
> https://conference.iste.org/2016/ ?
>
> Has anyone gone from SL attended previous years?
>
> ISTE 2016 says it is "the premier education technology conference," and
> will be held June 26-29 in Denver, Colorado, USA.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

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