Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Vision Discussion in 6 hours

2016-06-18 Thread Caryl Bigenho 
Dave,

Your "ageism" is showing.

Caryl (age 79 years young)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 7:38 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 17 June 2016 at 01:17, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 2016-06-17 12:07 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :
>>> 
 On 16 June 2016 at 13:49, Laura Vargas  wrote:
 Great news Dave! hopefully more and more OLPC members will join the 
 conversation on the IEP list.
>>> 
>>> Sadly, I must admit that I do not expect anyone at OLPC to join this list.
>> 
>> Could you please explain why? 
> 
> Most adults do not 'get' internet culture: They do not participate on the net 
> any more than they have to, beyond connecting with friends and family they 
> know face to face. There is no participation in any online communities; they 
> do not understand why discussing with strangers on the internet could be 
> valuable - it is just a waste of time, from their perspective, and they weigh 
> the downsides - not only having their ideas and ideologies criticised, but 
> often personally attacked - much heavier than we (we who do participate) do. 
> 
> In working with teams at both small and large companies over the years, 
> despite working on tech products directly related to the internet, I have met 
> _many_ people who have no interest in internet culture. There is nothing 
> about them online. They have their families, their sports/social clubs, their 
> TV magazines and other "old media";  they perform labour that they learned to 
> do in their early 20s at college, and learn new aspects of their work through 
> training courses that their employer provides. 
> 
> And this is only my impression, but it is my impression that the company 
> culture at OLPC Inc today is one of mainstream normality: good, friendly, 
> kind people who work in their office diligently at regular hours, and are not 
> obsessed with their work, and do not take their work home with them, and have 
> zero patience for anything other that professional, courteous interactions, 
> that involved respected lines of authority. 
> 
> I have this impression not from speaking with Leah, but by browsing their web 
> properties - homepage, wiki, mailing lists, etc - which are all very old, and 
> not updated this year (except the blog) - and their total absence not only 
> from recent discussions but the archives too. 
>  
> - OLPC offered XO-1.75 and XO-4 upgrade kits in the past, to upgrade 
> XO-1s, but they didn't sell that well; she agreed with Tony's assessment 
> that users will run the XO-1 until it fails, and OLPC has no EOL date in 
> mind
> 
> - OLPC is still offering XO-4s (touch and non-touch) with a minimum order 
> of 100 units through the end of this year for sure, and has a few units 
> in stock in Miami if anyone wants to buy just one or two; and Leah said 
> they could look into updating the laptop.org website to make the offer 
> public
 
 I belive SL business is the software We should not pay for any hardware 
 (besides the servers) that must be provided from PC manufacturers for 
 development ans testing. We already have experience with Intell locally.
>>> 
>>> You do not think SL should offer hardware to developers to raise funds?
>> 
>> Can you also please explain what is what you are proposing? 
> 
> I think SL should offer hardware to developers to raise funds, and to make 
> these developers more effective at meeting the needs of Sugar users, the 
> majority of which are XO-1 users.
>  
> - OLPC is now also offering a newer model, a classmate-spec machine, and 
> will send me details about this; its rugged and branded but not got the 
> pixel qi screen. 
> - OLPC only ships Sugar, and is very happy with it, and wants to support 
> the developer community although isn't sure how to so;
 
 And we are very happy supporting the OLPCs too. We would like to continue 
 doing so in a sustainable way for active members. We should let them know, 
 we are developing a thematic fund structure for OLPC and other "investors" 
 to be able to directorate the resources into specific projects.
>>> 
>>> I agree that they ought to be one of the many companies we approach for 
>>> funding in the future :) 
>>  
>> I read from your email they are ready to "support the developer community" 
>> so let's not keep everybody waiting! 
>> 
>> :D
> 
> What are the concrete next steps to take along that path?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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___
IAEP -- It's

Re: [IAEP] A Better Idea...

2016-06-18 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 18 June 2016 at 16:54, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> Good start. I hope current SLOBs get to analyze the issue ;D
>

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

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Vision Discussion in 6 hours

2016-06-18 Thread Dave Crossland 
On 18 June 2016 at 17:41, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:

> Your "ageism" is showing.
>

I'm talking about all adults 18+
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive.

2016-06-18 Thread Laura Vargas 
2016-06-09 6:21 GMT+08:00 Walter Bender :

> Laura,
>
> Do you know when in November this meeting is? It was not apparent to me
> looking at the website.
>
>
Walter,

Are you planning to attend?



> -walter
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> On 8 June 2016 at 10:37, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>> >
>> > First, please let me clarify that the event I'm proposing would take
>> please
>> > in Bolivia
>>
>> YES! Bolivia!! Sorry about that 'think-o' :) I meant to write Bolivia!! XD
>>
>> > in anticipation to the III Cumbre de Comunicación de las Lenguas
>> > Indígenas de América.
>> >
>> > That said, according to what I wrote on the pad, I am asking any
>> interested
>> > party -to assist- to the Pre-CumbreSugarSummitt to fill their personal
>> > application(s) with the Cumbre"s procdure and then/if accepted and if in
>> > need of Travel Funds to assist to the Pre-CumbreSugarSummitt to ask
>> directly
>> > to the Trip Advisor Grant Director Walter Bender who might or not
>> approve
>> > such request on a one by one basis and according with his Budget
>> capacity
>> > for promoting such events.
>>
>> I thought SLOB approval is required for all spending, and Walter
>> doesn't (or no longer has) unilateral spending authority for the
>> TI-earmarked funds?
>>
>> > I'm still waiting on the committee from the Cumbre to confirm our
>> > -somosazucar - Sugar Labs Perú participation sharing the translation
>> > experiences of the Manual, the Quechua, the Aymara and the Awajún
>> > translations, made here in Perú.  We hope to hear from them soon.
>>
>> Great!! :D
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>



-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

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

Re: [IAEP] 172 XO-1s for $24 each (+ freight) $4,000 total

2016-06-18 Thread Laura Vargas 
2016-06-13 19:05 GMT+08:00 Walter Bender :

> I have to say I with Samuel Greenfeld on this one. There are lots of
> potential issues with these machines (depending upon how they have been
> stored and maintained.) They could well have dead batteries (both the main
> battery and the battery for the RTC). They most certainly will need an
> investment in time by someone getting them unlocked and reflashed as well.
> That said, if we go that route, I have two bulk battery charging racks we
> could add to the mix.
>
> Google just donated 8000 chromebooks to the X-Prize. Maybe we could try to
> go that route?
>
>
Reading at http://learning.xprize.org/about/guidelines I found that
registration to participate in the competition is now closed. Is this the
same you are suggesting?

-walter
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Samuel Greenfeld 
> wrote:
>
>> FOB (Freight on Board) means that the responsibility for customs fees,
>> shipping charges, etc. belongs to the buyer.  XOs directly purchased from
>> OLPC historically had similar terms.
>>
>> The shipping calculator on that listing can give you a rough idea of what
>> it would cost to get to you in the US (around $500-$1000 uninsured).
>>
>> Personally I think it is a waste of funds and time given that someone
>> will have to go through all 172 XOs to verify their functionality,
>> determine which 10-year-old batteries still can hold a charge, make
>> repairs, etc.  It would primarily be of interest to projects which already
>> get donated XO-1s and could salvage parts of necessary, but not necessarily
>> at the $4k price point.
>>
>> Reselling the laptops as usable also would incur a bit of liability that
>> the recycler (selling as-is) is not willing to take.  About the only good
>> thing is that this recycler does not appear to be shipping from
>> Massachusetts, where one recycler was selling pre-release parts even after
>> being told they were not usable by anyone else.
>>
>>
>> While we seem to have discovered Sugar Labs has money this year, Sugar
>> Labs is not a bank for everyone's little pet project.  *Before* we spend
>> any significant portion of funds beyond the significant amount already
>> allocated for stipends & translation, I would like to see proof that Sugar
>> Labs can fund raise most of the money already spent back.
>>
>> The only valid way I could see doing this would be to ask the recycler if
>> they would be willing to just donate the laptops to the SFC (or another
>> 501(c)3 registered XO-using nonprofit) and take the profit as a tax
>> writeoff.  But *before* this gets done, it really needs to be discussed by
>> Sugar Labs' board {NOT people begging the recycler to do so via individual
>> actions - if anything that would encourage them to raise their expected
>> price}.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Sean DALY  wrote:
>>
>>> they mean loading dock i.e. where you send the truck
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Sam Parkinson <
>>> sam.parkins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Dave, I don't frequent EBay listings, but it says:

 >  Customer is responsible for arrangement of freight trucking pickup
 and insurance from our dock

 Is that referring to the charging docks or the palette of laptops?

 Obviously this is a small detail that doesn't effect the discussion,
 but it would probably change the figures a bit.

 Thanks,
 Sam

 On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

 Hi
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Qty-172-OLPC-One-Laptop-Per-Child-XO-1-w-7-5-TFT-256MB-RAM-1024KB-ROM-/262478690514
 I propose that Sugar Labs buy these, image them with the 0.110 release, and
 sale them to raise funds; individual units regularly clear $100 each, so
 this will raise around $13,000
 --
 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

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] A Better Idea...

2016-06-18 Thread Laura Vargas 
2016-06-17 23:29 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

> (Apologies for the empty sent earlier)
>
> On 16 June 2016 at 23:30, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 June 2016 at 15:24, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-06-15 8:38 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :
>>>
 On 11 June 2016 at 11:12, Sean DALY  wrote:
 > Dave - I don't agree that whomever submits a grant application
 becomes the
 > treasurer for those funds.

 Fair enough :) I am merely observing what I see as current practice
 with the Trip Advisor grant :)

 > What should happen is a sales cycle: if there is
 > interest, the SLOBs should be in the loop so they can assist with
 > face-to-face meetings, followup documents, and Adam/SFC liaison
 issues.

>>>
>>> This is probably the key point to ensure funds actually get to the
>>> active members. It will require 100% transparency of grants documents
>>>
>>
> What does "100% transparency of grants documents" mean concretely?
>
> I can suggest we ensure all grant final document drafts and final copies
> are on the wiki/website, and Project Instigators keep the community
> informed of relevant updates.
>
What else should be done?
>

I guess publishing all grants main document/contract would be enough.


>
>  and SCF management issues.
>
>
> What does "100% transparency of Conservancy management issues" mean
> concretely?
>
> Conservancy is mostly staffed by lawyers, who wish to mostly communicate
> under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
> which requires not having their emails be public or disclosed to anyone but
> the specifically addressed and intended recipients, so they do not
> participate much on these public lists.
>
> I think Adam is doing a good job of conveying the important information as
> the single point of contact between SL and Conservancy.
>
> What else do you want him to do differently?
>
> (Conservancy asks everyone to refer to them as Conservancy, not "SFC",
> because they can be confused with SFLC that way.)
>
>
>> > Document signings involving Walter require prior SFC review. In my view,
 > disbursal of funds from a successful grant should be managed by
 SFC/SLOBs
 > (perhaps primarily in the role of a Finance Manager or Treasurer), as
 per
 > Gould or TripAdvisor.

 Please could you clarify why Walter (or any other SLOB) would
 specifically need to be signing documents; I understand that that
 Conservancy signs the documents, because legally Conservancy is the
 party to them and neither SLOBs nor Members are agents of Conservancy
 and lack signing authority.
>>>
>>>
 Conversely, I don't see why SLOBS or Conservancy would be involved in
 the management of a project; they only and merely approve the funding,
 and until a Financial Manager is in place, this is done by regular
 motion.


>>> What is proposed in the new "by funds structure" is to keep a Project
>>> Leader per Project as the Treasurer of that Project's  fund. For general
>>> purpose expenses SL already have the SLOBs who act as Treasurers of the
>>> General Funds fund.
>>>
>>> Project Leaders-Treasurers should be encouraged to present time-cycle
>>> required Budgets to the SL Funding/Grants Committee.
>>>
>>> Each Project Leader may approve or not an specific grant or grant
>>> percentage to get into his/her Project Fund for N periods of time. By
>>> approving the incoming of funds into the project, the Project Leader shall
>>> agree to make his/her best effort to deliver the grant's desired results on
>>> each time cycle as well as of course to share the results openly.
>>>
>>
> Sounds good to me! :)
>
>
>> That said and according to current SLOBs requirements, SLOBs approval
>>> will get a long tale as according to current motions system it requires
>>> that (A) each disbursement motion gets to be seconded by one SLOB + (B) the
>>> motion gets 4 affirmative votes.
>>>
>>
> I agree that this is a problem; and that is why I proposed motions that
> would structure SLOB meetings in a way that increases their effectiveness.
>
>
Good start. I hope current SLOBs get to analyze the issue ;D


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



-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org
IRC kaametza

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 Vision Discussion in 6 hours

2016-06-18 Thread Laura Vargas 
2016-06-17 21:37 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :

>
>
> On 17 June 2016 at 01:17, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2016-06-17 12:07 GMT+08:00 Dave Crossland :
>>
>>>
>>> On 16 June 2016 at 13:49, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>>>
 Great news Dave! hopefully more and more OLPC members will join the
 conversation on the IEP list.

>>>
>>> Sadly, I must admit that I do not expect anyone at OLPC to join this
>>> list.
>>>
>>
>> Could you please explain why?
>>
>
> Most adults do not 'get' internet culture: They do not participate on the
> net any more than they have to, beyond connecting with friends and family
> they know face to face. There is no participation in any online
> communities; they do not understand why discussing with strangers on the
> internet could be valuable - it is just a waste of time, from their
> perspective, and they weigh the downsides - not only having their ideas and
> ideologies criticised, but often personally attacked - much heavier than we
> (we who do participate) do.
>
> In working with teams at both small and large companies over the years,
> despite working on tech products directly related to the internet, I have
> met _many_ people who have no interest in internet culture. There is
> nothing about them online. They have their families, their sports/social
> clubs, their TV magazines and other "old media";  they perform labour that
> they learned to do in their early 20s at college, and learn new aspects of
> their work through training courses that their employer provides.
>
> And this is only my impression, but it is my impression that the company
> culture at OLPC Inc today is one of mainstream normality: good, friendly,
> kind people who work in their office diligently at regular hours, and are
> not obsessed with their work, and do not take their work home with them,
> and have zero patience for anything other that professional, courteous
> interactions, that involved respected lines of authority.
>
> I have this impression not from speaking with Leah, but by browsing their
> web properties - homepage, wiki, mailing lists, etc - which are all very
> old, and not updated this year (except the blog) - and their total absence
> not only from recent discussions but the archives too.
>
>
>> - OLPC offered XO-1.75 and XO-4 upgrade kits in the past, to upgrade
> XO-1s, but they didn't sell that well; she agreed with Tony's assessment
> that users will run the XO-1 until it fails, and OLPC has no EOL date in
> mind
>
> - OLPC is still offering XO-4s (touch and non-touch) with a minimum
> order of 100 units through the end of this year for sure, and has a few
> units in stock in Miami if anyone wants to buy just one or two; and Leah
> said they could look into updating the laptop.org website to make the
> offer public
>
 I belive SL business is the software We should not pay for any hardware
 (besides the servers) that must be provided from PC manufacturers for
 development ans testing. We already have experience with Intell locally.

>>>
>>> You do not think SL should offer hardware to developers to raise funds?
>>>
>>
>> Can you also please explain what is what you are proposing?
>>
>
> I think SL should offer hardware to developers to raise funds, and to make
> these developers more effective at meeting the needs of Sugar users, the
> majority of which are XO-1 users.
>

You think SL should sell hardware to non-community developers?

>
>
>> - OLPC is now also offering a newer model, a classmate-spec machine, and
> will send me details about this; its rugged and branded but not got the
> pixel qi screen.
> - OLPC only ships Sugar, and is very happy with it, and wants to
> support the developer community although isn't sure how to so;
>

 And we are very happy supporting the OLPCs too. We would like to
 continue doing so in a sustainable way for active members. We should let
 them know, we are developing a thematic fund structure for OLPC and other
 "investors" to be able to directorate the resources into specific projects.

>>>
>>> I agree that they ought to be one of the many companies we approach for
>>> funding in the future :)
>>>
>>
>> I read from your email they are ready to "support the developer
>> community" so *let's not keep everybody waiting*!
>>
>> :D
>>
>
> What are the concrete next steps to take along that path?
>
>
If OLPC wants to support the developer community, we could ask them to fund
one or two "Sugar Fellowships" (a merit-based financial aid) one for the
infrastructure team and one for the development team.



>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>



-- 
Laura V.
I SomosAZUCAR.Org

Identi.ca/Skype acaire
IRC kaametza

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

Re: [IAEP] Translation Community Manager report

2016-06-18 Thread Sebastian Silva 
El 05/06/16 a las 18:23, Dave Crossland escribió:

> On 5 June 2016 at 17:20, Chris Leonard  > wrote:
>
> Most of the work I've done is not captured by this particular issue
> tracker and I see no reason to do double-entry book-keeping in
> multiple task trackers, so I would not look this this particular
> github issue link as a meaningful source of activity tracking.
>
>
> Which issue tracker are you using? :) 
Hi Chris,
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you tracking your work publicly?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep