Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0

2013-11-07 Thread Walter Bender 
The other possibility is to multiply by 100, dropping the decimal
point, .e.g., we just released Sugar 100 and are working on Sugar 102.

-walter

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with any
> message attached... It would address the fact that we never released a 1.0
> without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0 really
> means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest...
>
>
> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY 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  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-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
> ___
> Marketing mailing list
> market...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0

2013-11-07 Thread Sameer Verma 
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender  wrote:
> The other possibility is to multiply by 100, dropping the decimal
> point, .e.g., we just released Sugar 100 and are working on Sugar 102.
>
> -walter

I did this a couple of times on Twitter, but I like it!

I had a chat with my wife this morning about version numbers. She is
very non-technical (she's an office manager), and she completely
didn't get the decimal thing. She said, give it a name or give it a
number. If you want to address perceptions of the population at large
(outside of our bubble), then go with what people can understand.

Here are some interesting perspectives:
http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names
http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/
http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/

and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

cheers,
Sameer

>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
>> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with any
>> message attached... It would address the fact that we never released a 1.0
>> without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0 really
>> means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest...
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY 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  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-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
 http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Narvaez
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Marketing mailing list
>> market...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0

2013-11-07 Thread Sameer Verma 
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:
> I prefer marketing guys talk about marketing,
> but _IMHO_, the numbers what have sense for us internally are not
> the same number what have sense to all other the world.
> For us have sense numbers like 102 or 1.102, but probably not for others.
> Would be good try to found a numbers with a sense we can transmit.
> For us, is another tag in git
>

True. The internal scheme is relevant to developers, and the external
scheme is relevant to the customers, and these don't need to be the
same. More importantly, there needs to be clear understanding on the
translation from one to the other.

There are examples in other industries. VW sells Passat in the US, but
also called Dasher, Santana, Quantum, Magotan, Corsar and Carat
elsewhere. These are external schemes, as relevant to different
geographies. Internally, VW calls these B1, B2, etc. The current
Passat is B7, as addressed internally.

I only know about the B5, B6 etc. because even though I've owned a
Passat for over 10 years, I had to specify the internal denomination
for getting a replacement part over the Internet. They didn't care
what marketing called it. They needed to know if it was a B5 or B5.5

I also like the SoaS approach of using fruity names. These are easy to
remember. The drawback is that just the name does not  give the user a
sense of progression unless they keep up with the version names.

Ubuntu uses both a name (silly/funny) but a number that denotes a
progression based on the time of release. I'm sporting Saucy on my
laptop, (note I usually don't say "I'm sporting Salamander on my
laptop" - this is a personal preference), but 13.10 is helpful in
knowing it's is the latest release.

I think we are headed in the right direction, but need to address both
internal development structure and timeline and external artifact
structure and timeline.

cheers,
Sameer

Oh, and while I'm at it, one more +1 for us having a Youtube channel. Please!

> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
>>
>> Yup
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe "Sugar Web" instead of "Sugar Online"?
>>> We have web activities and Web Services in this release 
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
>>> wrote:

 This is just a gut reaction but I feel we should think more in the
 "Sugar online" direction than in the "Sugar on tablet" one, at least as a
 first step. I'd love Sugar on tablet as anyone else but I feel it's 
 somewhat
 unrealistic because it involves skills, moneys and partnerships we don't
 currently have.

 I also think we should not completely discard Sugar on netbooks (maybe
 ultrabooks feels less anachronistic? :P). The hybrids that are hitting the
 market lately might not be mature, cheap or extremely popular, but it's an
 interesting direction to explore ... Keyboards are not completely dead yet
 IMO!

 On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY 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

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0

2013-11-07 Thread Gonzalo Odiard 
As said before, a name only, is not good to indicate progression
(at least the name is "The Third" and so :)

Gonzalo


On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:

> I agree marketing version should be an integer or a name. Actually I like
> the idea of a name, it would make the separation between developer and
> marketing version more clear. But that's up to marketing really :)
>
>
> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sameer Verma wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender 
>> wrote:
>> > The other possibility is to multiply by 100, dropping the decimal
>> > point, .e.g., we just released Sugar 100 and are working on Sugar 102.
>> >
>> > -walter
>>
>> I did this a couple of times on Twitter, but I like it!
>>
>> I had a chat with my wife this morning about version numbers. She is
>> very non-technical (she's an office manager), and she completely
>> didn't get the decimal thing. She said, give it a name or give it a
>> number. If you want to address perceptions of the population at large
>> (outside of our bubble), then go with what people can understand.
>>
>> Here are some interesting perspectives:
>>
>> http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names
>> http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/
>> http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/
>>
>> and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
>>
>> cheers,
>> Sameer
>>
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
>> wrote:
>> >> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with
>> any
>> >> message attached... It would address the fact that we never released a
>> 1.0
>> >> without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0 really
>> >> means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY 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 
>> 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-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>>  http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Daniel Narvaez
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Marketing mailing list
>> >> market...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >>

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0

2013-11-07 Thread Sean DALY 
Walter - my issue with a formal system is, it boxes us into numbers on a
timeframe - what we need from a marketing standpoint is to choose a number
that explains the story we will build. Both v2 and v3 are candidates to be
worked on for that story, where we can refer to v1 as Sugar in production
on millions of laptops.

My suggestion is to conserve the existing numbers behind the marketing
number, which could lead to i.e.

2.102
2.104
3.106 (major version number change based on marketing context)
3.108
3.110

Sean


Sean



On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Walter Bender wrote:

> The other possibility is to multiply by 100, dropping the decimal
> point, .e.g., we just released Sugar 100 and are working on Sugar 102.
>
> -walter
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> wrote:
> > What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with any
> > message attached... It would address the fact that we never released a
> 1.0
> > without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0 really
> > means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest...
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY 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 
> 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-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Narvaez
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Marketing mailing list
> > market...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0

2013-11-07 Thread Sean DALY 
Apple went numbers+names for OS X, but chose numbers only for iOS - likely
because the look and feel changes so little across versions.

Sean



On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:

> Do we need to indicate progression? It doesn't seem to be an issue for OS
> X for example (though Apple went with numbers for iOS, I sort of wonder the
> reason of the difference). Anyway I don't really have a strong opinion
> about number vs name for marketing version, I will be happy with whatever
> marketing team think it's best :)
>
> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
>> As said before, a name only, is not good to indicate progression
>> (at least the name is "The Third" and so :)
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>>
>>>  I agree marketing version should be an integer or a name. Actually I
>>> like the idea of a name, it would make the separation between developer and
>>> marketing version more clear. But that's up to marketing really :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sameer Verma wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender 
>>> wrote:
>>> > The other possibility is to multiply by 100, dropping the decimal
>>> > point, .e.g., we just released Sugar 100 and are working on Sugar 102.
>>> >
>>> > -walter
>>>
>>> I did this a couple of times on Twitter, but I like it!
>>>
>>> I had a chat with my wife this morning about version numbers. She is
>>> very non-technical (she's an office manager), and she completely
>>> didn't get the decimal thing. She said, give it a name or give it a
>>> number. If you want to address perceptions of the population at large
>>> (outside of our bubble), then go with what people can understand.
>>>
>>> Here are some interesting perspectives:
>>>
>>> http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names
>>> http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/
>>> http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/
>>>
>>> and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Sameer
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with
>>> any
>>> >> message attached... It would address the fact that we never released
>>> a 1.0
>>> >> without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0
>>> really
>>> >> means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest...
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY 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
>>>
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
> ___
> Marketing mailing list
> market...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0[ Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43]

2013-11-07 Thread Gonzalo Odiard 
Sean,
Usually, we are not doing big changes, but incremental changes.
We are closer to the reality of the linux kernel, where the change to 3.0
was not related to changes itself, but to the numbers where not comfortable,
and they are planning release version 4.0 by the same reason in one year.

What you think about using years as versions (2013.1 2013.2 or 13.1, 13.2)
as a way to try incentive to the deployments and the final users
to be updated?

Gonzalo

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM, 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  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-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Narvaez
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>
>
> ___
> Marketing mailing list
> market...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0[ Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43]

2013-11-07 Thread Sean DALY 
thanks for that Gonzalo

the key version number criteria for marketing is not that it's a formal
system, it's to simplify a story for people who have little or more likely
no idea what Sugar is. The story we are developing is: we are meeting the
challenge of handheld devices while supporting our 3 million Learners. This
story will be well-served by a v2 or v3 number, but I'm afraid linking the
year will box us into a timeframe when what we need (marketing standpoint
again) is a version number on a flexible timetable according to
circumstances.

F/LOSS projects are not a marketing reference for me, with very few
exceptions they are not good at it at all. My references are the iPod,
Nespresso, Amazon, Coca-Cola, etc.

Sean



On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:

> Sean,
> Usually, we are not doing big changes, but incremental changes.
> We are closer to the reality of the linux kernel, where the change to 3.0
> was not related to changes itself, but to the numbers where not
> comfortable,
> and they are planning release version 4.0 by the same reason in one year.
>
> What you think about using years as versions (2013.1 2013.2 or 13.1, 13.2)
> as a way to try incentive to the deployments and the final users
> to be updated?
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM, 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 
> 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-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Narvaez
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Sugar-devel mailing list
> >> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Marketing mailing list
> > market...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
> >
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0[ Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43]

2013-11-07 Thread David Farning 
In hind sight...

The gtk2 -> gtk3 would have benefited from a major version change. At
the time, I didn't realized it. From a deployment perspective the
shift represented a major change. In addition to the base software,
all of the necessary activities needed to be migrated, QAed, and
verified if the deployment wanted a consistent user experience across
all activities.

>From a deployment perspective, it might be valuable to denote the next
major API change/upgrade (web activities) with a major version bump to
clearly indicate to users and deployers that web actives are complete
in version X.

FWIW, this is a departure, learned the hard way, from my preference
for time base number as used by Ubuntu.

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Sean DALY  wrote:
> thanks for that Gonzalo
>
> the key version number criteria for marketing is not that it's a formal
> system, it's to simplify a story for people who have little or more likely
> no idea what Sugar is. The story we are developing is: we are meeting the
> challenge of handheld devices while supporting our 3 million Learners. This
> story will be well-served by a v2 or v3 number, but I'm afraid linking the
> year will box us into a timeframe when what we need (marketing standpoint
> again) is a version number on a flexible timetable according to
> circumstances.
>
> F/LOSS projects are not a marketing reference for me, with very few
> exceptions they are not good at it at all. My references are the iPod,
> Nespresso, Amazon, Coca-Cola, etc.
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:
>>
>> Sean,
>> Usually, we are not doing big changes, but incremental changes.
>> We are closer to the reality of the linux kernel, where the change to 3.0
>> was not related to changes itself, but to the numbers where not
>> comfortable,
>> and they are planning release version 4.0 by the same reason in one year.
>>
>> What you think about using years as versions (2013.1 2013.2 or 13.1, 13.2)
>> as a way to try incentive to the deployments and the final users
>> to be updated?
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM, 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 
>> > 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-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Daniel Narvaez
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> >> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Marketing mailing list
>> > market...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>> >
>
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>



-- 
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0[ Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43]

2013-11-08 Thread Gonzalo Odiard 
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  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 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 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-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>

>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Narvaez
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
> ___

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0[ Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43]

2013-11-08 Thread Sebastian Silva 

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 > 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
 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.

Re: [Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0[ Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43]

2013-11-08 Thread Sean DALY 
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
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 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 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,
 m