Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:22:10PM +1800, David Farning wrote: >I have noticed that whenever anyone on the project throws up a call for >help you never raise your hand. On the other hand you are full of >suggestions for what other people should do. We have talked about the >before. If suggestions for others feels inappropriate to you, then please killfile me too. If you haven't already. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklKHAUACgkQn7DbMsAkQLi1lQCdFxr1EIahJhJH2Ry32AG0YLrE 1UEAoJ2KGVCu64EiaW9V9pWvs/EHbcNI =cEh0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Sebastian Silva wrote: > 2008/12/17 David Farning : >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Caroline Meeks >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Farning >>> wrote: >> On the code side, Sugar Labs started with a big chunk of useful code >> from OLPC. But, yes I agree we are doing poorly on the content side >> of things. It will take a significant investment of some sort to jump >> start the content side of the project. >> > > This is a "project" I think many of us share. It is in the best > interest of everyone around Sugar. We have started discussing the > creation of a team to develop some training materials that we can all > use. Pilar from Colombia, who has already done a workshop, will also > be participating. This will be my main task during January, by the end > of which I hope we have a first release. Once we have some specific > goals and a Roadmap, and have talked with stakeholders involved, we'll > make an announcement. Please feel free to join us if anybody else is > interested in contributing. We'll probably work heavily in spanish (I > hope). Have you looked at http://www.squeakland.org/content/articles/attach/Libro_Completo.pdf Ideas Poderosas en el Aula El Uso de Squeak para la Mejora del Aprendizaje de las Matematicas y de las Ciencias B.J. Allen-Conn & Kim Rose Epilogo por Alan Kay It is a free download. -- Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name And Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/User:Mokurai ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
I appreciate that we're having this conversation openly. Seeing that we're all in "organizational development" mode and in the process of defining our respective groups/missions and negotiating our roles, I agree with Caroline that at this point it would be wise to talk, but unwise to set things in stone. I want to share some of my thoughts on this. I hope its not a distraction. An organization is often portrayed as people having common values and objectives organizing together to achieve their goals. Sometimes, however, after people get together and define the "mission", lots of energy gets wasted on defining the ideal organization/structure to fulfill this "mission", considering everybody's version of it that is in the group and making everybody happy. Sometimes these "cells" become so self-referential that they loose track of their connections outside. The organization, and thus its "code" must adapt itself to its environment, concretely, its social role, in its relations to others, the protocols we use to negotiate working together. For any given situation, the organization should adapt itself, even structurally, without losing its sight on its mission. Whatever "protocol" SL decides to use to connect outside, it must take into consideration "outside". In my mind this includes: - A large noncommercial sub laptop vendor (largest user base) * barely accessible for grassroots implementors - A (fast) growing market for education tech services providers - Other projects deployers will likely also need to integrate (GNU+Linux, Moodle...) - A growing market of netbooks So considering this "environment" and our "principles" (whatever those are!) and our "mission", SLOBS should decide (approve/reject) projects. These criteria should be explicit, as well as the reasons to reject an project (with recommendations). Projects should be expected to include a sustainability statement. I am convinced this "project-oriented" organization can be made agile enough. 2008/12/17 David Farning : > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Caroline Meeks > wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Farning >> wrote: > On the code side, Sugar Labs started with a big chunk of useful code > from OLPC. But, yes I agree we are doing poorly on the content side > of things. It will take a significant investment of some sort to jump > start the content side of the project. > This is a "project" I think many of us share. It is in the best interest of everyone around Sugar. We have started discussing the creation of a team to develop some training materials that we can all use. Pilar from Colombia, who has already done a workshop, will also be participating. This will be my main task during January, by the end of which I hope we have a first release. Once we have some specific goals and a Roadmap, and have talked with stakeholders involved, we'll make an announcement. Please feel free to join us if anybody else is interested in contributing. We'll probably work heavily in spanish (I hope). >>> >>> >>> I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be >>> a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners >>> and donations. (...) > Branding comes in a number of different varieties. From > intrusive(think professional sports) to unintrusive (think linux). > Sugar Labs should be able to find a point somewhere between the two. > Geographically limiting competition by a band is common is some type > of business. It is pretty hard to get permission from McDonalds to > open a new new franchise next to an existing one. Exclusivity of > territory is one of the promises one gets when purchasing a > McDonalds. On the other hand, coke is willing and eager for anyone to > resell their brand anywhere. The problem with the Redhat / IBM model, even though they are technically part of the free software community, in that they develop free software, is that they cater to a very specific tiny premium slice of the market. From where I am sitting, at the other end of the spectrum, RedHat and IBM are not brands, but phantoms of a different universe. In a small town or rural area (50% of the planet), those names are obscure, for a good reason. In great contrast with IBM's and RH's models, we want to empower *every* child to learn to learn. In this rural environment, we have two models of tech penetration. One is cell phones, the other is the local internet "cyber" / pirate DVD shop. The cell phone market is usually controlled by abusive telephone carriers and the internet shop is used for emailing relatives, writing documents and gaming. While in theory, an organization could develop a model for servicing this other 50% of the world... it would probably not be very good business for a centralized company. Now since you mention McDondalds, back in Chile, there is a street in Providencia Street (I used to work in), that had 3 McDonalds in it. If there's demand, they'll do it. On the o
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > *Big Bold Disclaimer - these opinions are strictly Martin's. No > statement here is formal, I'm just waiting for a timing-bug to rear > its ugly head.* > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Edward Cherlin wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM, David Farning >> wrote: >>> I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be >>> a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners >>> and donations. >> I am convinced that the Red Hat and IBM models are more relevant. > > Ed, have you been a customer of RH or IBM recently? RedHat's current > model is pay-high-support-license-per-machine-to-play. It works great > for their target market, and it's a very valid (and profitable!) > model, but I see no overlap with SL's space. Maybe their old model > could be interesting to look at, but marginally so. > > And yet, RH built a reasonably strong community. IBM's model is high > prices for custom development and support, highly restricted, and zero > community. The big contracts (with Ministries of Education and aid agencies) is the only element I am suggesting we copy. In contrast, however, _we_ can offer low cost per seat and continuous improvement through the community of teachers and students. > cheers, > > > > m > -- > martin.langh...@gmail.com > mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect > - ask interesting questions > - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first > - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff > -- Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name And Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/User:Mokurai ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Edward Cherlin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM, David Farning > wrote: >> One of the challenges that businesses face is keeping their expenses >> below their revenues. Your grandpa would have said, "Don't spend more >> than you make." > > +1 > >> I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be >> a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners >> and donations. > > I am convinced that the Red Hat and IBM models are more relevant. We > can accept contracts from governments, NGOs, or international aid > agencies for customized versions of Sugar, including hiring or > contracting with professional localizers and translators, and > developing materials for whatever curriculum needs they feel most > strongly. Earth Treasury will be making similar proposals to > Ministries of Education for digital textbooks. Please feel free to create a partner organization which is capable of doing those functions. Grandiose dreams don't do Sugar Labs much good. We need actionable items that we can work on tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. > You can wait for the volunteers to do your subjects in your languages, > or join the paid queue. Funny, waiting for volunteers hasn't really work well for me. I have spent the the last six months doing the boring jobs on the project while actively searching for smart passionate people to take on the challenging and interesting projects. I have noticed that whenever anyone on the project throws up a call for help you never raise your hand. On the other hand you are full of suggestions for what other people should do. We have talked about the before. As a result, I am adding your name to my spam filter until your work to suggestion ratio increases. Sincerly david > Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name > And Children are my nation. > The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination. > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/User:Mokurai > ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 19:08, Wade Brainerd wrote: > I have said it before, but I believe that any successful software business > needs a revenue stream that's tied to sales. > > For example, Firefox makes money from downloads via the Google toolbar. > MySQL makes money from support contracts. > > Open source projects like Debian survive entirely based on the contributions > of volunteers. However, most of these volunteers are attracted to projects > like Debian for the do-it-yourself aspect of computing. They make Debian > better because it makes their own computing experience better. Sugar is not > like Debian. It is not designed to be good for programmers or experienced > computer hackers. I think we go for the GNOME model, where the foundation needs money for just events and administrative stuff. Then sponsors are companies that are shipping some product including GNOME and they plus volunteers put the engineering resources. Sounds correct? Regards, Tomeu > Grants and foundation support are good to a point, but they often require > that you tailor your own efforts to match the values of the foundation or > grantor. This dilutes the vision. Sponsors are also good to a point, but > they *always* require that you tailor your work to match their needs. This > also dilutes the vision. > > The way to ensure a long term, healthy, successful project is to stick to > the vision, make your product the best you can, market the hell out of it, > and find some way to earn money from that. > > Best, > Wade > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Caroline Meeks > wrote: >> >> I think its good to discuss, but I think we should be careful about making >> decisions before their time. This project has tremendous potential. There >> are large entities looking at us. The US funding landscape is expected to >> change for the better in the next few months with the new administration and >> the stimulus package. Another lesson from business is be agile and able to >> respond to changing market conditions. Personally, I think thinking but not >> coming to a conclusion right now is the right decision. >> -- >> Caroline Meeks >> Solution Grove >> carol...@solutiongrove.com >> >> 617-500-3488 - Office >> 505-213-3268 - Fax >> >> ___ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
I have said it before, but I believe that any successful software business needs a revenue stream that's tied to sales. For example, Firefox makes money from downloads via the Google toolbar. MySQL makes money from support contracts. Open source projects like Debian survive entirely based on the contributions of volunteers. However, most of these volunteers are attracted to projects like Debian for the do-it-yourself aspect of computing. They make Debian better because it makes their own computing experience better. Sugar is not like Debian. It is not designed to be good for programmers or experienced computer hackers. Grants and foundation support are good to a point, but they often require that you tailor your own efforts to match the values of the foundation or grantor. This dilutes the vision. Sponsors are also good to a point, but they *always* require that you tailor your work to match their needs. This also dilutes the vision. The way to ensure a long term, healthy, successful project is to stick to the vision, make your product the best you can, market the hell out of it, and find some way to earn money from that. Best, Wade On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Caroline Meeks wrote: > I think its good to discuss, but I think we should be careful about making > decisions before their time. This project has tremendous potential. There > are large entities looking at us. The US funding landscape is expected to > change for the better in the next few months with the new administration and > the stimulus package. Another lesson from business is be agile and able to > respond to changing market conditions. Personally, I think thinking but not > coming to a conclusion right now is the right decision. > > -- > Caroline Meeks > Solution Grove > carol...@solutiongrove.com > > 617-500-3488 - Office > 505-213-3268 - Fax > > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
I think its good to discuss, but I think we should be careful about making decisions before their time. This project has tremendous potential. There are large entities looking at us. The US funding landscape is expected to change for the better in the next few months with the new administration and the stimulus package. Another lesson from business is be agile and able to respond to changing market conditions. Personally, I think thinking but not coming to a conclusion right now is the right decision. -- Caroline Meeks Solution Grove carol...@solutiongrove.com 617-500-3488 - Office 505-213-3268 - Fax ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
*Big Bold Disclaimer - these opinions are strictly Martin's. No statement here is formal, I'm just waiting for a timing-bug to rear its ugly head.* On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Edward Cherlin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM, David Farning > wrote: >> I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be >> a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners >> and donations. I agree with David. The Moodle model is very strong, and if handled with the right spirit most of the concerns over "overcommercialisation" can be assuaged. (Those concerns, by the way, are present in *any* model.) Of course, I mean it as an inspiration around the "use the TM to protect your name, convey prestige and establish some cashflow" - it could be done as a non-profit or as a small company with a mission statement -- with all/most of the $ raked in directed to Sugar development (in its many aspects, sw, translations, docs...!). Maybe you can have both -- a for-profit and a non-profit (maybe software conservancy can fill that spot). One lesson learned -- lawyers will tell you that you must protect the TM with C&D letters. They are right -- you'll lose the TM otherwise, the trademarks of Linux, Apache, PHP, etc are similarly protected. However, it's a good idea to draft a relatively friendly C&D (the lawyer won't like it though), and to also provide strong public guidelines on what is acceptable use. This is so community members, some of which can be professionals doing consulting around Sugar, know how they can advertise their work while respecting the TM. A few years ago an extremely positive and helpful member of the moodle community got a C&D, didn't like it (it was strongly worded as written by a lawyer, and posted by someone who didn't know who this guy was...), and the resulting misunderstanding and protracted flamewar is still going on. At least 3 years, and he's still annoyed enough to post a few times per week to his blog about it. The lesson was learned but we all lost a valuable colleague, and time, lots of time. > I am convinced that the Red Hat and IBM models are more relevant. Ed, have you been a customer of RH or IBM recently? RedHat's current model is pay-high-support-license-per-machine-to-play. It works great for their target market, and it's a very valid (and profitable!) model, but I see no overlap with SL's space. Maybe their old model could be interesting to look at, but marginally so. And yet, RH built a reasonably strong community. IBM's model is high prices for custom development and support, highly restricted, and zero community. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Caroline Meeks > wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Farning wrote: >>> I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be >>> a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners >>> and donations. >> >> David, here is where I am not sure I agree. I see a number of other >> business model possibilities. >> >> My problem is I see freedom, innovation and mission diluted in the >> projects that are focus on licensing their brand and forcing payment >> for partner status. > > I find this to be diluting as well. It also makes the message of > calls to action like this email (about finding in-kind partnerships) > feel like a call to business, which it really doesn't need to be. The > latter doesn't inspire; the spirit of forging new partnerships based > around shared goals does. > >> In my model of the perfect future Sugar is part of many different ways of >> solving a wide range of school, student and educational problems. I want to >> see Sugar freely remixed and integrated to create local solutions. I'm >> concerned that liscencing, even of just the brand will add a lot of overhead >> for the organization and make it hard for organizations to be creative about >> how they remix. > > Yes. > >> Here are some other views. I think they are not alternatives but opportunies >> for mix and match. >> >> A church type model - [plate passed around, specific fundraisers for >> specific causes.] > > +1 Education is holy. > >> Selling services - having people give workshops, help deployments etc > > +2 > >> Selling products - Selling books or Sticks at a profit. > > +1 if you mean 'selling the official versions of materials that are > also free for download / POD' -- in which case most large programs > that can afford to will use this version, but there's no extra barrier > to entry for people who want to try it at home. > >> No expenses - Everyone is expected to find a way to make themselves >> sustainable. > > +1 with the caveat that this can mean groups of community members > work to ensure one another's expenses are covered. > >> Grants - Apply for grants for organizational overhead. > > These sorts of grants are much more often given for specific projects > than for overhead. Minimize overhead and apply for grants for > specific work -- but when you get a grant, cover any overhead that is > needed. > >>> Let's go get those in-kind donations. >> >> +1 > > Let's get donations in general... don't get caught up on the "in-kind" part. > > I'd like to see a version of this page whose core is a two-line > mission statement that inspires individuals to donate time, expertise, > and money; and that they can make a difference to the cause. > http://sugarlabs.org/go/What_is_Sugar%3F SJ, I hope that I addressed your general concerns in my replies to Caroline. About the marketing message, please poke GregDek hard and often. >> What do we need to do as an organization to help with getting in kind >> donations. Right now it feels like its all in Walters hands and that isn't >> scalable. > > I'd like to donate to Sugarlabs online. I would suggest the same to a > couple of friends [who work in human interface design and love Sugar]. > Can someone fix this page so that it links to a real paypal/g!check > account? Is anyone working on streamlining that process, making it > fun and transparent, providing pages asking about donations in 5 > languages? Those are things everybody can help out with, even if they > just have half an hour... > > http://sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Donate The gcheckout and papal mechanisms are finally in place. Again the marketing team has picked up the rest. Please feel free to jump in and help anywhere you see a need. david > SJ > ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Caroline Meeks wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Farning > wrote: >> >> One of the challenges that businesses face is keeping their expenses >> below their revenues. Your grandpa would have said, "Don't spend more >> than you make." > > I agree, over a period of time absolutely. But sometimes in business you > have to make an upfront investment then get the return later. Consider > buying inventory, or in the case I'm working with, creating the materials an > curriculum for classes that can then be sold. If we are making an > investment we should have a simple model that shows us why we think its a > good investment and how the money will be made to pay back the investment. I hope that the second to the last paragraph about raising money for specif well defined items covers the investment investment issue. I include conferences as investments in the community. Yes, seed money for content will also be a likely investment. One of the core components of starting a successful community based project is a large enough base of initial material, that people are interested enough to look at and contribute back to the project. On the code side, Sugar Labs started with a big chunk of useful code from OLPC. But, yes I agree we are doing poorly on the content side of things. It will take a significant investment of some sort to jump start the content side of the project. > A big +1 to all the stuff I deleted about how business works. i just don't > want to clog the thread. >> >> >> I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be >> a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners >> and donations. > > David, here is where I am not sure I agree. I see a number of other > business model possibilities. > > My problem is I see freedom, innovation and mission diluted in the projects > that are focus on licensing their brand and forcing payment for partner > status. Dilution of freedom is exactly the issue! Sugar Labs needs to raise enough money to cover expenses. The question is how can we do that in fair manner without diluting the important freedoms associated with Sugar. The key freedom in my view is _available_ everywhere. A reasonable trade off is 'time vs. money' branding allow Sugar Labs to leverage that trade off. Got time but no money, grab the source and build Sugar yourself. After all, it is free(think fedora). Got money but no time, go to your local sugar certified partner and by laptop with sugar preinstalled and a two year support contract(think red hat). Looking for something in between Yes, there is a dilution of freedom with the boxed and branded product. It is that dilution that pays for a good chunk of the upstream development of the software that goes into Redhat! The obvious example is Moodle, where they limit the number of > official partners in a geographical area. This makes it harder for companies > to offer innovative services where Moodle is only part of a solution > practice. It creates FUD about who can say what and how about Moodle > services and hosting. Branding comes in a number of different varieties. From intrusive(think professional sports) to unintrusive (think linux). Sugar Labs should be able to find a point somewhere between the two. Geographically limiting competition by a band is common is some type of business. It is pretty hard to get permission from McDonalds to open a new new franchise next to an existing one. Exclusivity of territory is one of the promises one gets when purchasing a McDonalds. On the other hand, coke is willing and eager for anyone to resell their brand anywhere. > In my model of the perfect future Sugar is part of many different ways of > solving a wide range of school, student and educational problems. I want to > see Sugar freely remixed and integrated to create local solutions. I'm > concerned that liscencing, even of just the brand will add a lot of overhead > for the organization and make it hard for organizations to be creative about > how they remix. Licensing can vary in complexity. Pay me $100 bucks and I'll give you, or anyone else, a certificate of graduation from Dave's school of Open Source Theory. Work to get in, pay $10,000s, take tests every couple of week over a four year period and you can get a business degree from an credited college. There is certainly more over head in the college route. On the other hand, it is worth a bit more. Again Sugar Labs needs to find a balance. > Here are some other views. I think they are not alternatives but opportunies > for mix and match. > > A church type model - I'm actually not religous so maybe people who are > members of churches can help with this. But my understanding is that all are > always welcome. A plate is passed and there is an expectation that you will > give to support the building and the upkeep. There are often expectations > around income to donat
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
Hello, On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Caroline Meeks wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Farning wrote: >> I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be >> a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners >> and donations. > > David, here is where I am not sure I agree. I see a number of other > business model possibilities. > > My problem is I see freedom, innovation and mission diluted in the > projects that are focus on licensing their brand and forcing payment > for partner status. I find this to be diluting as well. It also makes the message of calls to action like this email (about finding in-kind partnerships) feel like a call to business, which it really doesn't need to be. The latter doesn't inspire; the spirit of forging new partnerships based around shared goals does. > In my model of the perfect future Sugar is part of many different ways of > solving a wide range of school, student and educational problems. I want to > see Sugar freely remixed and integrated to create local solutions. I'm > concerned that liscencing, even of just the brand will add a lot of overhead > for the organization and make it hard for organizations to be creative about > how they remix. Yes. > Here are some other views. I think they are not alternatives but opportunies > for mix and match. > > A church type model - [plate passed around, specific fundraisers for specific > causes.] +1 Education is holy. > Selling services - having people give workshops, help deployments etc +2 > Selling products - Selling books or Sticks at a profit. +1 if you mean 'selling the official versions of materials that are also free for download / POD' -- in which case most large programs that can afford to will use this version, but there's no extra barrier to entry for people who want to try it at home. > No expenses - Everyone is expected to find a way to make themselves > sustainable. +1 with the caveat that this can mean groups of community members work to ensure one another's expenses are covered. > Grants - Apply for grants for organizational overhead. These sorts of grants are much more often given for specific projects than for overhead. Minimize overhead and apply for grants for specific work -- but when you get a grant, cover any overhead that is needed. >> Let's go get those in-kind donations. > > +1 Let's get donations in general... don't get caught up on the "in-kind" part. I'd like to see a version of this page whose core is a two-line mission statement that inspires individuals to donate time, expertise, and money; and that they can make a difference to the cause. http://sugarlabs.org/go/What_is_Sugar%3F > What do we need to do as an organization to help with getting in kind > donations. Right now it feels like its all in Walters hands and that isn't > scalable. I'd like to donate to Sugarlabs online. I would suggest the same to a couple of friends [who work in human interface design and love Sugar]. Can someone fix this page so that it links to a real paypal/g!check account? Is anyone working on streamlining that process, making it fun and transparent, providing pages asking about donations in 5 languages? Those are things everybody can help out with, even if they just have half an hour... http://sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Donate SJ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM, David Farning wrote: > One of the challenges that businesses face is keeping their expenses > below their revenues. Your grandpa would have said, "Don't spend more > than you make." +1 > I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be > a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners > and donations. I am convinced that the Red Hat and IBM models are more relevant. We can accept contracts from governments, NGOs, or international aid agencies for customized versions of Sugar, including hiring or contracting with professional localizers and translators, and developing materials for whatever curriculum needs they feel most strongly. Earth Treasury will be making similar proposals to Ministries of Education for digital textbooks. You can wait for the volunteers to do your subjects in your languages, or join the paid queue. -- Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name And Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/User:Mokurai ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Farning wrote: > One of the challenges that businesses face is keeping their expenses > below their revenues. Your grandpa would have said, "Don't spend more > than you make." I agree, over a period of time absolutely. But sometimes in business you have to make an upfront investment then get the return later. Consider buying inventory, or in the case I'm working with, creating the materials an curriculum for classes that can then be sold. If we are making an investment we should have a simple model that shows us why we think its a good investment and how the money will be made to pay back the investment. A big +1 to all the stuff I deleted about how business works. i just don't want to clog the thread. > > > I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be > a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners > and donations. David, here is where I am not sure I agree. I see a number of other business model possibilities. My problem is I see freedom, innovation and mission diluted in the projects that are focus on licensing their brand and forcing payment for partner status. The obvious example is Moodle, where they limit the number of official partners in a geographical area. This makes it harder for companies to offer innovative services where Moodle is only part of a solution practice. It creates FUD about who can say what and how about Moodle services and hosting. In my model of the perfect future Sugar is part of many different ways of solving a wide range of school, student and educational problems. I want to see Sugar freely remixed and integrated to create local solutions. I'm concerned that liscencing, even of just the brand will add a lot of overhead for the organization and make it hard for organizations to be creative about how they remix. Here are some other views. I think they are not alternatives but opportunies for mix and match. - A church type model - I'm actually not religous so maybe people who are members of churches can help with this. But my understanding is that all are always welcome. A plate is passed and there is an expectation that you will give to support the building and the upkeep. There are often expectations around income to donation. In our case if you are getting money for Sugar remember to send some of that back to Sugar Labs Central for support. Churches also have specific fundraisers for specific causes. - Selling services - having people give workshops, help deployments etc in exchange for fees. - Selling products - Selling books or Sticks at a profit. - Be an umbrella but charge for overhead - Projects that are funded under the umbrella give the main organization overhead payments. - No expenses - Everyone is expected to find a way to make themselves sustainable. - Grants - Apply for grants for organizational overhead. - In Kind donations > > > Let's go get those in-kind donations. +1 What do we need to do as an organization to help with getting in kind donations. Right now it feels like its all in Walters hands and that isn't scalable. > > > david > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Caroline Meeks Solution Grove carol...@solutiongrove.com 617-500-3488 - Office 505-213-3268 - Fax ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] Sugar Labs or Sugar Daddy
One of the challenges that businesses face is keeping their expenses below their revenues. Your grandpa would have said, "Don't spend more than you make." In many respects an open source project is a business. Formally, Sugar Labs is a Not For Profit organized under the umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy. As such, we are legally able to do most things that other business can do. We can charge for our product, charge for service contracts to support deployments, and hire employees. The primary differences between Not For Profits and For Profit business is that we must have a clearly stated mission to help humanity and we can not distribute excess profits to shareholders. In short, Sugar Labs must have a clearly defined mission to help humanity, Sugar Labs must follow that mission, and Sugar Labs must use any money we have towards that mission. (Note, this is not the full legal definition. But it is close enough for a general conversation.) In exchange for agreeing to follow those rules(and filing a bunch of paper work) we become a tax exempt organization. At the risk of sounding coarse, Sugar Labs primary goal in any decision is remaining in business. It does not matter how grand our mission, how inspirational our vision, how worthy or goals, or how big our hearts. If we go defunct, we can't accomplish anything. 'Don't spend more then you make.' Remember that from the first paragraph. It does not day don't spend money, nor does it say don't make money. I am convinced that the correct business model for Sugar Labs, will be a combination of licensing the Sugar and Sugar Labs brands to partners and donations. What, this means is that our revenues are pretty low right now. Our brand is currently not strong enough to generate revenue from partners or donors. This is not necessary a bad thing. It just means that we will need to build our brand. Since we have no revenue, we must keep our expenses at zero too:( So, how do we survive until we earn enough revenues to cover expenses. Raising money for specif things and looking for in-kind donations. While raising money for specif things does not scale well, it does allow us to raise money for individual needs. The transaction cost of setting up the capital campaign ensures that we have explored other options first. The other option is in-kind donations. At this point in our life cycle we should avoid transactions and strive for relationships. In a transaction there is an implied exchange of goods of services for the donation. Since our product is so young, these exchanges tend to be in the form of promises of future goods or services. Too many promises and we spend all of our time working on fulfilling promises rather than our mission. Let's go get those in-kind donations. david ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
