Yes Gonzalo, from a marketing standpoint 0.102 is as unworkable as 0.82 was and all the numbers in between. However I'm afraid v1.0 will be a mistake.
I'm mystified, why would you think I don't see anything good in Sugar? Sean On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> wrote: > 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
