Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Walter Bender]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 26 February 2017 at 11:44, Sebastian Silva 
> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > On 25/02/17 20:33, Tymon Radzik wrote:
> >
> >> Sugar Labs is by its statement volunteer-driven project. We are
> volunteers.
> >> We work for the idea of the free and open software and not for own
> financial
> >> profit.
> >
> > It is worth to reflect upon this point. Certainly the design and
> engineering
> > teams of Redhat and OLPC that built Sugar in the first place weren't
> unpaid
> > volunteers.
>
> They were also not part of Sugar Labs.
>
> > I like to think that we're all volunteers, in that, we are not
> > motivated by money, and if we could do more, we would.
> >
> > (Lack of) Investment in software infrastructure for education is a large
> > void that ultimately implies a hidden cost of integration, field support,
> > even the impossibility of deployment. Who is doing this work required to
> > take Sugar* (a component) and make it into end user solutions?
>
> There are organizations like oneeducation and kidsoncomputers that do
> this work; and it seems to me that they don't focus on Sugar because
> it isn't what people want.
>
> An anecdote: Around the end of last summer, I spoke to someone
> involved in Sugar a while ago, based in the US, who helps refugees to
> the US with some computing stuff. He was listed in the wiki. The idea
> of booting a PC off a USB stick - let alone installing a dual boot
> setup - was so intimidating for these families, where any trouble
> running the existing Windows/Office tools that the parents in the
> families needed to keep their families off the streets - that he was
> unable to get a single child, highly motivated from tutored use of
> Sugar at school - to make use of it at home.
>
> Sugarizer presents such children with a more viable option to take
> more active direction over their own learning, being web based, and
> packaged for a kid who has a hand-me-down mobile device.
>

I am not sure I agree as I don't see how a kid with a hand-me down mobile
device makes the transition to a contributor. Happy to be proven wrong.


>
> However, it is unclear to me if my premise in the line above - that
> Sugar Labs should focus on subverting schools, by empowering kids to
> teach themselves, and avoiding the need for field support and
> deployment managed by adults - is closer to what Sugar Labs should be,
> or if the premie that Caryl outlined in her last email in this thread
> - that Sugar Labs should focus on supporting schools, by adjusting
> Sugar software to meet the pedagogical theories of common schools - is
> closer.
>
>
+1 to subverting school (and not just catering to what teachers and parents
and administrators want: there are plenty of other organizations more than
willing to do that). We need to stick to our Constructionist roots or we
have no purpose. That said, I repeat that I think there is leverage with
the maker movement and we have something of value to offer them. If we make
it easy to leverage Sugar on RPi, we have a good chance to get in the door.
This doesn't help the immigrant child -- maybe Sugarizer is the best we can
do for that use case). Meanwhile, I will continue to build tools that kids
can leverage (in or out of school) and hopefully learn to modify and shape
to their own purposes.


> As Samson and I have been saying, last year we all agreed to wait for
> Sameer to provide a vision, missions, etc.
>
> I suppose that if Sameer doesn't do this soon,
>
> > While it is probably human nature to distrust, I think Laura is
> proposing to
> > shift from just hiring strangers that walk away after 3 months with
> $5000,
>
> I'm confused. When was $5,000 paid out to someone who delivered nothing? :)
>
> > to sustaining long term active members with a small stipend for a year,
> in
> > the hope (and trust) that they will increase their effort and
> involvement,
> > as well as attract more active contributors. Whether this will result in
> a
> > better Sugar a year from now, and whether it is sustainable, remains to
> be
> > seen, as well as the specific dynamics of such a program.
>
> This strategy seems high risk, to me.
>
> > The following is an excerpt from "Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor
> Behind
> > Our Digital Infrastructure" (license: CC-BY, author: Nadia Eghbal)
> >
> > I recommend reading the whole book and we can think how it applies to a
> > project like Sugar Labs, that has no money making product, but rather is
> a
> > knowledge multiplying community, and how society can nurture it.
>
> I've read the book; after publishing it, Nadia then went to work for
> Github and in her role there has just published
> http://opensource.guide which has a section on funding directly.
>
> However, I think the funds that accrue to SL from its GSOC/GCI
> programs provide adequate funding for the project to continue
> indefinitely as a volunteer-run one. It 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Samson Goddy]

Laura, Sebastian i think i get your points. Concerning paid, I don't really
know much about how Open Source operated special when it comes to giving
funds like these. But what i know concerning volunteering in non-profit
organizations are first payment to members are not seen as salary or wages.
I happen to be a close volunteer in my church, one of our "goals and
missions" is to get more people in church. And by doing that, Social Media
was introduced, due to how marketing in Social Media was important a lot of
$$ was invested in it. Now, despite having lot of volunteers that can use
social media for free, they gave it to someone (paid) to oversee the
project. One reason, the person was really active that the church can't
afford to lose. I also believe the translation manager role in Sugar Labs
is related, the TM make sure every translation is correct and maintain. the
reason why SL funded that was because it is part of SL goal to get more
languages.
So it all fall down to what the community wants, if the goal and mission
take SMM role serious i believe it will be funded, despite having
volunteers.

P.S volunteers only volunteer when he or she free time to present service.

I have been working for free for the past years without funding, if the
community intend to give me money to continue my work like subscribing for
internet data monthly i will gladly accept because i am not working yet.
But that doesn't make me feel relaxed.

Samson Goddy

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> (vuelvo a poner en copia la lista Sugar-Sur)
>
> 2017-02-25 16:24 GMT-05:00 Lionel Laské :
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> +1 Caryl
>> I can't imagine a budget without a project proposal.
>>
>
> Hi Lionel,
>
> I have funded our small research and development team Somos Azucar here in
> South America thanks to several project's formulation and happy execution
> during the now 7 years of my voluntary contributions to the Sugarlabs main
> Project.
>
> Still, as time becomes more and more a limited resource, not necessarily
> preparing and submitting project's proposals is the best fit for all.
>
> I feel happy Sugarizer is not in need of economic resources, also to hear
> neither is Chris. I really hope your team's infrastructure continue to be
> supported for the long term! Our case is different as we, Sugar Labs,
> sponsor basic infrastructure to the local deployment serving more than
> 40,000 online users.
>
> What I'm proposing here is nothing more than a public recognition of all
> those contributors that have positive results. If I proposed you and
> Sugarizer for a Badge is because I admire your determination and the
> product your team has develop.
>
> Think about it as if they were the Oscars of Sugar Labs!!!
>
> I believe that by opening it's mind to new models, Sugar Labs has the
> opportunity to renew its rusty image and prepare for a new generation of
> coders and active contributors to build and distribute the best software
> libre possible for the kids!
>
>
> I will reformulate the model before presenting it to the Board formally.
>
>
> Regards and blessings from the Amazon forest,
>
>
> Laura V
>
>
>
>
>> Money could be a way to solve issues. The issue could not be to spend
>> money.
>> And yes, the most important thing is feedbacks from the field. It's why
>> it was super important to me to launch the first OLPC France Sugar
>> deployment in Madagascar 8 years ago and the first Sugarizer deployment
>> this year. More: today, every Sugarizer feature I'm thinking about is
>> because of feedbacks or issues we raised during our Sugar deployment.
>>
>> I'm proud to see reference to Sugarizer in your previous exchange. Thanks
>> all for that.
>> By the way, Sugarizer need developers more than money.
>> Give me two tokens for the incoming GSoC and it will be more than all
>> badges!
>>
>> Best regards from France.
>>
>>   Lionel
>>
>> 2017-02-25 20:47 GMT+01:00 Caryl Bigenho :
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, it's time to get real. The problem with all of this talk is that
>>> most (but not all) of you haven't a clue how teachers and schools operate!
>>> Unless SugarLabs' products are targeted to perceived needs of teachers,
>>> parents, school boards, school owners, after school tutoring services,
>>> etc., etc., etc. They will never achieve wide distribution and use. Here
>>> are some things that MUST be done (and so far haven't been done on a
>>> meaningful scale).
>>>
>>>
>>> * Stakeholders are polled to find out what the needs of their students
>>> are.
>>>
>>> * Products are tailored to specifically meet those needs.
>>>
>>> * Documentation is produced with easy to understand instructions for
>>> installing and using the product.
>>>
>>> * Sample lessons and lesson plans are prepared by teachers who have
>>> experience using the product.
>>>
>>> * Everything is translated into the languages of the target markets.
>>>
>>> * Follow-up is 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Laura Vargas]

(vuelvo a poner en copia la lista Sugar-Sur)

2017-02-25 16:24 GMT-05:00 Lionel Laské :

>
> Hi all,
>
> +1 Caryl
> I can't imagine a budget without a project proposal.
>

Hi Lionel,

I have funded our small research and development team Somos Azucar here in
South America thanks to several project's formulation and happy execution
during the now 7 years of my voluntary contributions to the Sugarlabs main
Project.

Still, as time becomes more and more a limited resource, not necessarily
preparing and submitting project's proposals is the best fit for all.

I feel happy Sugarizer is not in need of economic resources, also to hear
neither is Chris. I really hope your team's infrastructure continue to be
supported for the long term! Our case is different as we, Sugar Labs,
sponsor basic infrastructure to the local deployment serving more than
40,000 online users.

What I'm proposing here is nothing more than a public recognition of all
those contributors that have positive results. If I proposed you and
Sugarizer for a Badge is because I admire your determination and the
product your team has develop.

Think about it as if they were the Oscars of Sugar Labs!!!

I believe that by opening it's mind to new models, Sugar Labs has the
opportunity to renew its rusty image and prepare for a new generation of
coders and active contributors to build and distribute the best software
libre possible for the kids!


I will reformulate the model before presenting it to the Board formally.


Regards and blessings from the Amazon forest,


Laura V




> Money could be a way to solve issues. The issue could not be to spend
> money.
> And yes, the most important thing is feedbacks from the field. It's why it
> was super important to me to launch the first OLPC France Sugar deployment
> in Madagascar 8 years ago and the first Sugarizer deployment this year.
> More: today, every Sugarizer feature I'm thinking about is because of
> feedbacks or issues we raised during our Sugar deployment.
>
> I'm proud to see reference to Sugarizer in your previous exchange. Thanks
> all for that.
> By the way, Sugarizer need developers more than money.
> Give me two tokens for the incoming GSoC and it will be more than all
> badges!
>
> Best regards from France.
>
>   Lionel
>
> 2017-02-25 20:47 GMT+01:00 Caryl Bigenho :
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>> OK, it's time to get real. The problem with all of this talk is that most
>> (but not all) of you haven't a clue how teachers and schools operate!
>> Unless SugarLabs' products are targeted to perceived needs of teachers,
>> parents, school boards, school owners, after school tutoring services,
>> etc., etc., etc. They will never achieve wide distribution and use. Here
>> are some things that MUST be done (and so far haven't been done on a
>> meaningful scale).
>>
>>
>> * Stakeholders are polled to find out what the needs of their students
>> are.
>>
>> * Products are tailored to specifically meet those needs.
>>
>> * Documentation is produced with easy to understand instructions for
>> installing and using the product.
>>
>> * Sample lessons and lesson plans are prepared by teachers who have
>> experience using the product.
>>
>> * Everything is translated into the languages of the target markets.
>>
>> * Follow-up is done with new users to determine if any changes and
>> improvements are needed.
>>
>> * Needed changes are made and the users are provided an easy way to
>> update.
>>
>>
>> Free is good, but teachers and schools don't want to waste their time on
>> something that doesn't meet their needs even if it is free. This requires
>> that all of these things I list above be done, and maybe more that some of
>> you will think of. This applies to all of SugarLabs products, Sugar,
>> Sugarizer, TurtleBlocks, MusicBlocks, Servers, and anything new that may
>> be created to add to the mix.
>>
>>
>> All of this costs money, which SL will not have if we spend it on a bunch
>> of Badges given out mostly to SLOB members. Badges are not the way to go!
>> They guarantee nothing! Projects fulfilling the criteria listed above with
>> specific duties and specific remuneration are what we need.
>>
>>
>> So, write a good proposal for a project that meets a specific, proveble,
>> need. Submit it. Get it funded. Work on it. Budget to pay yourself a
>> reasonable amount to make it happen.  If you folks need and want SL funds,
>> that should be what you do to get them. Not just drawing a dole for being
>> you.
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the rant! But these are things that needed to be said and at my
>> age, I guess I have to be the one to do it!
>>
>>
>> Caryl (aka GrannieB)
>>
>>
>>
>> P.S. It really breaks my heart that we missed the opportunity to try for
>> the Global Learning XPrize.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* IAEP  on behalf of Dave
>> Crossland 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:46:41 

Re: [IAEP] 1 IAEP moderator request(s) waiting

[Samson Goddy]

Thanks, i will be careful next time.

On 26 Feb 2017 2:01 p.m., "Sebastian Silva" 
wrote:

> Samson, you can't send large messages to the list, because they are
> repeated 4000x when distributing to each mailbox.
>
> Instead, please upload your images to an online gallery (try
> https://goblinrefuge.com/mediagoblin/  or any other), and link to them.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> On 26/02/17 08:00, iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:
> > The IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org mailing list has 1 request(s) waiting for
> > your consideration at:
> >
> >   http://lists.sugarlabs.org/admindb/iaep
> >
> > Please attend to this at your earliest convenience.  This notice of
> > pending requests, if any, will be sent out daily.
> >
> >
> > Pending posts:
> > From: samsongo...@gmail.com on Sat Feb 18 02:53:05 2017
> > Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion for Social Media Manager
> > Cause: Message body is too big: 3860600 bytes with a limit of 256 KB
>
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] 1 IAEP moderator request(s) waiting

[Sebastian Silva]

Samson, you can't send large messages to the list, because they are
repeated 4000x when distributing to each mailbox.

Instead, please upload your images to an online gallery (try
https://goblinrefuge.com/mediagoblin/  or any other), and link to them.

Thanks and regards,

Sebastian


On 26/02/17 08:00, iaep-boun...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:
> The IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org mailing list has 1 request(s) waiting for
> your consideration at:
>
>   http://lists.sugarlabs.org/admindb/iaep
>   
> Please attend to this at your earliest convenience.  This notice of
> pending requests, if any, will be sent out daily.
>
>
> Pending posts:
> From: samsongo...@gmail.com on Sat Feb 18 02:53:05 2017
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion for Social Media Manager
> Cause: Message body is too big: 3860600 bytes with a limit of 256 KB

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

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Sebastian Silva]

On 26/02/17 05:50, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> I now regret having opened the door to paid efforts
> I think with this message the door is now closed!

Also from the same book, chapter /"The hidden costs of ignoring
infrastructure"/:

/One reason why open source contributors are strikingly more
homogenous than the technology sector at large is that they need
time and money to make significant contributions in the first place.
These constraints prevent otherwise qualified contributors from
entering the space./

/David MacIver, creator of Hypothesis, a Python library for testing
software applications, explains why he was able to spend so much
time on the project: /
/I could only do this because I had the time and money to do so.
I had the time to do so because I was being obsessive, had no
dependents, and didn’t have a job. I could only not have a job
because of the money. I only had the money because I spent the
latter half of last year with double the salary I was used to, half
the living expenses I was used to, and too borderline depressed to
spend it on anything interesting. These are not reasonable
requirements. [...] Can you produce quality software in less time
than that, working only in your free time? I doubt it.[113] /

/Cory Benfield, a core Python developer, writes: /
/Generally speaking, people who aren’t cisgender, heterosexual,
white, middle-class, English-speaking men are less able to tolerate
the increased financial risk of not having a steady job. This means
that those individuals really need a steady pay cheque to contribute
most effectively. And we *need* those contributors: diverse teams
make better things than homogeneous teams.[114] /

/Charlotte Spencer, a contributor to software framework Hoodie and
database PouchDB, echoes these sentiments: /
/All my contributions are purely volunteered. I don't make any
money, though I would absolutely like to. I have asked veteran open
sourcerers if they are paid and they say they are not, which
discouraged me from pursuing anything (if they aren't paid, why
would I be?). I use most of my free time to do it, which I'm trying
to do less of as it was taking up my life.[115]/

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

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 26 February 2017 at 11:44, Sebastian Silva  wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On 25/02/17 20:33, Tymon Radzik wrote:
>
>> Sugar Labs is by its statement volunteer-driven project. We are volunteers.
>> We work for the idea of the free and open software and not for own financial
>> profit.
>
> It is worth to reflect upon this point. Certainly the design and engineering
> teams of Redhat and OLPC that built Sugar in the first place weren't unpaid
> volunteers.

They were also not part of Sugar Labs.

> I like to think that we're all volunteers, in that, we are not
> motivated by money, and if we could do more, we would.
>
> (Lack of) Investment in software infrastructure for education is a large
> void that ultimately implies a hidden cost of integration, field support,
> even the impossibility of deployment. Who is doing this work required to
> take Sugar* (a component) and make it into end user solutions?

There are organizations like oneeducation and kidsoncomputers that do
this work; and it seems to me that they don't focus on Sugar because
it isn't what people want.

An anecdote: Around the end of last summer, I spoke to someone
involved in Sugar a while ago, based in the US, who helps refugees to
the US with some computing stuff. He was listed in the wiki. The idea
of booting a PC off a USB stick - let alone installing a dual boot
setup - was so intimidating for these families, where any trouble
running the existing Windows/Office tools that the parents in the
families needed to keep their families off the streets - that he was
unable to get a single child, highly motivated from tutored use of
Sugar at school - to make use of it at home.

Sugarizer presents such children with a more viable option to take
more active direction over their own learning, being web based, and
packaged for a kid who has a hand-me-down mobile device.

However, it is unclear to me if my premise in the line above - that
Sugar Labs should focus on subverting schools, by empowering kids to
teach themselves, and avoiding the need for field support and
deployment managed by adults - is closer to what Sugar Labs should be,
or if the premie that Caryl outlined in her last email in this thread
- that Sugar Labs should focus on supporting schools, by adjusting
Sugar software to meet the pedagogical theories of common schools - is
closer.

As Samson and I have been saying, last year we all agreed to wait for
Sameer to provide a vision, missions, etc.

I suppose that if Sameer doesn't do this soon,

> While it is probably human nature to distrust, I think Laura is proposing to
> shift from just hiring strangers that walk away after 3 months with $5000,

I'm confused. When was $5,000 paid out to someone who delivered nothing? :)

> to sustaining long term active members with a small stipend for a year, in
> the hope (and trust) that they will increase their effort and involvement,
> as well as attract more active contributors. Whether this will result in a
> better Sugar a year from now, and whether it is sustainable, remains to be
> seen, as well as the specific dynamics of such a program.

This strategy seems high risk, to me.

> The following is an excerpt from "Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind
> Our Digital Infrastructure" (license: CC-BY, author: Nadia Eghbal)
>
> I recommend reading the whole book and we can think how it applies to a
> project like Sugar Labs, that has no money making product, but rather is a
> knowledge multiplying community, and how society can nurture it.

I've read the book; after publishing it, Nadia then went to work for
Github and in her role there has just published
http://opensource.guide which has a section on funding directly.

However, I think the funds that accrue to SL from its GSOC/GCI
programs provide adequate funding for the project to continue
indefinitely as a volunteer-run one. It is not clear to me that any
additional funds should be sought until the org and the project have
been reconstituted for 2017 to 2027. That costs nothing :)

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

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs 2017 Budget

[Dave Crossland]

On 26 February 2017 at 04:15, Chris Leonard  wrote:
>
> To clarify, I had negotiated a contract with Sugar Labs / SFC for a
> monthly stipend to support the Translation Manager position.  I did
> NOT submit a single invoice for that work (which I have been doing)
> and allowed the contract to lapse.  I have not received a dime from
> Sugar Labs funds in in the 10 years I have been volunteering and I
> have come to regret that I opened the door to the current effort to
> drain those funds into members pockets.

Thanks for the clarification Chris! I was not aware of the status of
the contract and payments either way.

> I believe the funds (the majority of which come from the TripAdvisor
> grant obtained by Walter) should go to their intended purpose,
> supporting TurtleArt promotion and internationalization and
> localization efforts.  I understand that for legal reasons the funds
> are officially considered fungible and in a general pool, but I
> believe we should honor the original intent of the donor.

I agree with you.

> I now regret having opened the door to paid efforts

I think with this message the door is now closed!
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep