thanks for that Sebastian We haven't had a marketing version number until now (excepting SoaS v1 in 2009 which we implied in our communications was "v1"), so from a marketing perspective the only question is whether to go v2 or v3. I don't have a strong opinion, but the key is that a marketing version number bump should indeed happen only because of marketing needs and not technical version number changes or on a timetable.
Marketing needs can include: * Seizing an opportunity (winning an award, obtaining funding, a milestone such as 3MM Learners, ...) * Technical (Reaching a technological goal, adding compatibility with new/popular hardware, opening up a new line of development) * Partnerships (OLPC, SFC, FSF, Nexcopy, GNOME, Team Chipotle) * Building up our brand values and project identity, highlighting differentiators such as our language support * Showing that we are alive and kicking, keeping buzz momentum going * etc. Concerning technological development, some is uninteresting to teachers (Gtk3), while some is very interesting (try Sugar on a $5 USB stick). There is no direct correlation between how hard the work is and its marketing value. There will be a name, but that needs work, we will keep your suggestions in mind. Sean On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Silva <sebast...@fuentelibre.org>wrote: > Hi, > I think it's wrong to bump "marketing" version numbers on acount of > technology shifts. > I don't see how i'ts relevant for users that we switched to GTK3, or even > that it is now > possible to build "native" web activities (it was always possible with a > wrapper). > > I see as a much more interesting development, the sudden appearance in > Sugar of > user-customizable bits, which have been developed by kids. The ability to > customize > Sugar has been desired by users from the very beginning, and the > "freestyle" homeview > was not sufficient. Kids would even use ASCII art on the nickname to > personalize their > "desktop", sorry "learning environment". > > This is a fun pic: > http://blog.laptop.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/paraguay-homescreen1.jpg > > So, maybe Sugar 3.100 is really "Your Sugar", or "Freedom Sugar" or > "Personal Sugar". > Extra points to put the Freedom back in the priorities. > > Just a little humble opinion, > > Regards, > Sebastian > > El 08/11/13 07:29, Gonzalo Odiard escribió: > > I also think w should change the major number when we have something > different to show (when we achieved the goal) > > Gonzalo > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Thanks, I now see where I was confused... Normally in developer >> versioning you bump the major number when you achieved a certain goal (say >> have an Online experience you can be proud of). Here we are bumping when >> starting to work towards the goal instead. I don't see that as an issue, >> just need to be clear about it. >> >> So the proposal for next release is version 3.102. Thoughts? Is the >> rationale clear? Anyone unhappy with it? >> >> >> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote: >> >>> Daniel - if we can work out where SL is going, we can build a PR >>> story. If we aren't sure, it's better to communicate other aspects (TA >>> Days, Google Code-In, the TripAdvisor grant). >>> >>> I like v3 as a major version, step versions could be called 3.102, >>> 3.103, 3.104 by developers, while marketing would call it 3 and a name. If >>> we are lucky and the name ("Online", "Touch", "Hand", "Cloud", or whatever >>> - this needs work) catches on, we can keep it through step versions. >>> >>> It's important to understand that in the complete absence of a >>> marketing/promotion budget (with the exception of the newswire 10-pack >>> which was voted by the SLOBs), effective PR is our chief resource-effective >>> way to build awareness. This means we tell news based on the possibility of >>> press coverage, not automatically every time there is a version. >>> >>> 102 can become v3.102 and we can announce the html/javascript browser >>> approach, ideally associated with a method for teachers to try Sugar - SoaS >>> with extra teacher-friendly bits, or VMs. If that is too ambitious, the v3 >>> marketing push could wait until 3.104. Sugar brand awareness is on the >>> nonexistent end of the scale for our ten million teachers, this means we >>> can set the schedule. It's harder when there is buzz and momentum, a >>> situation we had after SoaS v1 Strawberry. >>> >>> Sean. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with you about major.minor, with major being the marketing >>>> version and minor the developers one. Did I get that right? Does anyone >>>> disagree? >>>> >>>> What I'm not sure to understand is which major number you would like >>>> to be used for the next release. To make it easier let's say we are >>>> currently v2 as Yioryos suggested. My understanding is that >>>> >>>> * If it's a release we can PR, developers will call it 3.102, >>>> marketing 3 + some name. >>>> * if we cannot PR it, developers will call it 2.103, marketing... just >>>> won't call it :) >>>> >>>> Is that correct? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote: >>>> >>>>> cc'ing marketing for... a marketing issue >>>>> >>>>> Nope, the GTK3 change just passed under the radar. As stated >>>>> previously I lobbied for a v1 six years ago which is why we are ready for >>>>> a >>>>> v2. Or even a v3. >>>>> >>>>> For building a PR story I can work with v2 or v3, just not v1. >>>>> >>>>> The issue with 2.2, 2.4 is that from a marketing perspective we get >>>>> boxed into a major number step timeframe irrespective of marketing needs. >>>>> A >>>>> major number change should ideally happen when it's ready, or when we need >>>>> to communicate a major shift. I still think associating the existing >>>>> numbering behind a major number (e.g. 2.102) keeps continuity. PR will >>>>> communicate the major number, probably with a name. And not an >>>>> unmarketable >>>>> obscure name, either. >>>>> >>>>> Sean >>>>> Sugar Labs Marketing Coordinator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to >>>>>> marketing because there wasn't major user visible changes? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For sugar developers their is certainly a continuation in >>>>>>> development and the current numbering makes a lot of sense. >>>>>>> However, looking from outside 0.102 should be Sugar 3.x where 1.x >>>>>>> is the original, 2.x is the Gtk3/introspection move and now the html5/jc >>>>>>> (online/ultrabook/tablet) version. >>>>>>> If you actually consider 0.100 as 3.0 then it can go 3.2, 3.4 etc to >>>>>>> keep up with current numbering. >>>>>>> Should make marketing happy with minimal disruption. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>>>>>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>>>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Daniel Narvaez >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>>>>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Narvaez >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Daniel Narvaez >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Marketing mailing list >> Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Marketing mailing > listMarketing@lists.sugarlabs.orghttp://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marketing mailing list > Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing > >
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
