+1 to both of you; well put.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 1:20 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote: >>>I want to make sure that all of our work is grounded in specific >>>requests and user goals. That has to come first before we design code or >>>GUIs. Part of my work is to explain what is most important to users so I >> Your fundamental request, interpreted literally, is in my opinion >> _untenable_. Start from the mission statement: > [...] >> This mission statement clearly states that the goal is to provide >> opportunity -- not to satisfy specific concrete user requests. > > Hmm, I fall in the middle of these two extremes. =) > > I think it is vital that we close the feedback loop. But the tightest > feedback loop will be with local groups, helping local people. I'm > coming around to the idea that OLPC should NOT be (for example) > developing lesson plans for Tam Tam -- that's something local teachers > can do much better (although we should provide support and ensure that > plans made get communicated to others). This is undoubtedly something > asked for, but that doesn't mean that, for example, Michael Stone, C. > Scott Ananian, and Chris Ball are the correct people to be writing > lesson plans for kids far away. > > So, I lean with Michael on the "opportunity" perspective. We need to > be "thinking ahead" and ensuring that the extreme capabilities of our > platform are demonstrated, so that local groups can effectively > "finish the job" and do the tailoring for their local needs. I'd like > us to consider our job to be to provide an "OLPC construction kit" > with all the pieces you might need to do the tailoring to make your > custom suit. > > In that sense, core architectural features (collaboration > infrastructure, journal backend, power management) are the most > important things we can do: they are the foundation which local groups > can build on. We are not in the right place (physically!) to do the > "last mile" stuff. We *do* have a shot of being in the right place > (right near Red Hat HQ! well connected with upstream and kernel > developers!) to do the "distro" stuff. > > So, IMO, you're both right. Greg: we absolutely need to concentrate > on our feedback as Job #1. I'm still rather disappointed when we > consistently hear from our users that (say) they get confused because > the text they type ends up in the search box and switches them from > ring to list view, or that they can't tell whether they are connected > to a network or not, or (hitting close to my home) that olpc-update > takes too long, and we dismiss that feedback -- oh yes, but that's how > we *designed* it, so it must be right, you just don't understand our > grand plan. But on the other hand, I absolutely don't think we should > give up our core architecture work in order to concentrate on writing > Tam Tam lesson plans for schools in Afghanistan. (Or devote "six > months to bug fixing" putting other development on hold, as has been > proposed.) We need to be responsive to feedback *and* keep > concentrating on our strengths, moving the platform forward, and > encouraging local groups to do last-mile development. We also need to > aggressively document what we do and teach others, keeping in mind > that everything we write is just the first part of a project others > will finish. > --scott > > -- > ( http://cscott.net/ ) > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
