Ok, I am not a marketing guy. May be you are right and v2 is better than v1, but I am sure any of these is better than 0.102
I think we can't claim a Tablet version of Sugar, but we have a lot to show. I hope you agree on that. If our marketing guys don't see anything good in Sugar, we have a problem. Gonzalo On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we are talking about a version number that might make it into a press > release at some point, this is a marketing discussion so I have cc'd the > list. > > As I've explained previously, the major issue with a v1 seven years after > entering production is that it is incomprehensible. Non-techies (i.e. > teachers) discovering Sugar will naturally assume there are 0 years of > production behind it. Tech journalists will roll on the floor laughing at a > Slashdot post e.g. "Seven Years After OLPC's First Laptop, Sugar Reaches > V1". > > We dealt with this problem when Sugar was numbered Sugar on a Stick v6 was > renamed "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" and the press responded to an > easy-to-understand story - that SL had spun off from OLPC and had a first > non-OLPC version available. That the technical version number of the > underlying Sugar was different was made irrelevant. > > We need to do this again. The addition of browser support is a big deal. In > my view Sugar should be publicly numbered v2, perhaps with a name i.e. > "Sugar v2 Online" or "Sugar v2 Tablet" (or something - this needs marketing > work), with a clear story: Sugar opens up a new direction after seven years > of production. > > The existing technical version numbering system has the merit of being > understandable to developers and the deployments community and could be > associated internally with the public number, i.e. 2.102, 2.104 etc., which > would not box us into a numbering system we can't market. Or perhaps become > irrelevant as Daniel N has suggested if we go to continuous development > mode. > > I have more grey hair than I did when I first proposed we go to v1 six years > ago [1]... > > (!) > > So I think we are ready for v2. > > Sean. > > [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2008-November/000425.html > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> wrote: >> >> We already have this discussion for Sugar 0.100, >> why not do it again? :) >> >> With more than 7 years of development and more than 2 million of users, >> probably we should accept a 1.0 version is deserved. >> >> With 6 months more, probably the web api will be more established, >> and we are not doing incompatible changes to the python api. >> >> Anybody have a Really Good Motive(r) to not do it? >> >> Gonzalo >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > _______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
