I just found this interesting powerpoint from a few years ago. Slide 25 is basically a summary of this discussion: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtYXJrZXRsYWJzdWdhcnxneDo0Y2U3ODFjZDczMmU1Mjlh
Thanks, Sam On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:16 AM Gonzalo Odiard <godi...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > Thanks Sameer, very good points, > a few comments/questions below > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Sameer Verma <sve...@sfsu.edu> wrote: > >> Interesting thread. I'll reply to Lionel's post, but my reply is more >> of my own set of ideas and understanding. >> >> Putting on my business school researcher hat: >> >> 1) The eventual goal of this project should be to influence the >> adoption of Sugar across the world. A person's attitude, combined with >> subjective norms, forms his behavioral intention >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_reasoned_action). To >> influence adoption, we have to address the attitudes of the potential >> adopter, and the subjective norms. Should Sugar be a part of that >> ecosystem (such as a school's curriculum) or apart from it? >> >> > Do we have a option? I don't say the school is the only channel to reach > kids, > but is the more massive channel without doubt. > > > >> 2) Role of marketing: Most of what I've seen thus far is focused on >> the internal producer view of OLPC/Sugarlabs. This is natural, given >> that that's the world view we are most familiar with. The role of >> marketing is to take this internal view, and adapt its value to make >> it attractive to the consumer. If this adaptation fails, we end up >> with over-engineered products that the market rejects. This adaptation >> is largely dependent on addressing the perceptions of the consumer. >> This is one of the reasons why shiny products sell - we associate >> shiny with expensive, be it chrome polished plastic or iPads. At this >> point if you are saying to yourself "we don't care for marketing or >> consumer" you are sorely mistaken. >> >> > We need more marketing without doubt. > > >> 3) Vision and Mission are important for the project: Vision is an >> inspirational, directional, future state description. Mission is >> largely how we get there. Both should be referenced on the basis of a >> time frame. So, vision and mission for now + 5 years is a good target. >> These might appear cheesy, but FOSS projects are usually non-strategic >> by design, because we are all busy writing small bits and pieces, >> hoping someone will stitch it all together eventually. We "scratch our >> own itch" in a piecemeal fashion, by writing scripts for battery >> stats, frame icons, Journal data and such. FOSS projects strive for >> operational excellence. Then, we hope that all this gets weaved into a >> fabric that can be used by someone (kids). The same applies to Apache, >> Ubuntu, Drupal, Linux, etc. In all those cases, there is a foundation >> or association or company that puts resources (time and money) and >> provides strategic direction, because the project isn't designed to do >> so by itself. Apache Software Foundation, Canonical, Drupal >> Association, Linux Foundation play that important role (I am on the >> Board of Directors of the Drupal Association, and some of this >> thinking is from my observations there). Vision, Mission, Goals, >> Objectives etc. should come from somewhere for Sugar/olpc. For a while >> it came from OLPC, but right now, I don't see any of it in an >> organizational manner. >> >> 4) In the free and open source world, the consumer is also sometimes >> the producer. So, instead of treating the consumer as someone with >> limited feedback (as may be the case with Windows or MacOSX) the >> consumer can switch roles and become a producer (like Ignacio or >> SamP). http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/37450155.pdf This can lead to a >> myopic view of the target population being only people like Ignacio or >> SamP. Should all kids open the hood to peek into Sugar and become >> developers like Ignacio and SamP? Can we get into schools where they >> have locked down Windows machines with no admin rights? >> >> 5) Sugar is not a product. Sugar is a project, that keeps evolving as >> time goes by. A product is when we take a snapshot and polish it with >> QC, QA and package it for delivery. OLPC's build for the XO platform >> is a product. Sugarizer is a product. Suagr is NOT a product. This is >> just like Fedora is NOT a product. It's a project. RHEL is a product. >> Or for that matter, take the Ubuntu phone. The phone delivered by BQ >> is a product that took Ubuntu 14.09 and made it RTM (release to >> manufacturer) and ran it through QC and QA and produced the phone with >> the polished stack on it. Customers buy products, while developers >> work with projects. It is imperative that we understand the difference >> and treat the two as different. >> >> I'm pretty sure Rangan Srikhanta has a strategy for >> OLPCAU/OneEducation. So does Rodrigo Arboleda for OLPC Inc. I think we >> (Sugarlabs+lowercase olpc) need a strategy going forward to address >> Vision, Mission, etc. We also need to operationally pick approaches >> (such as Sugar Web) to build for multiple platforms. Android, >> RaspberryPi, Ubuntu are prime targets. Low-hanging fruit. How do we >> build for Android, but also reuse it for RaspberryPi and Ubuntu? On >> Android, stuff should be in the Google Play Store. On Ubuntu, it >> should be a simple install via apt-get or in their Software Center >> (the current builds are horribly broken). On Rpi/Rpi2, build a >> completely workable version for the 5 million units out there. Heck, >> people should be able to buy a SD/microSD card on Amazon to run a full >> Sugar desktop on the Rpi! Way back, I had a chat with Mike Lee, and I >> even proposed a name for this - sweetie pi. Remember, marketing is >> key, and branding a huge part of it. Speaking of branding, >> Sugar/Sugarlabs has none. It is still a vestige of OLPC, which >> continues to enjoy a high brand status around the world (good, bad, >> it's all publicity). >> >> This may be a lot to digest, but unless we address of these issues, >> this project will go nowhere fast. >> >> > Our final users need a product, not a project. While I love have kids as > Ignacio and Sam joining the project, if we want reach million of kids, > we need assume 99,99% of them will not join the project, > and will be happy users. In the end we say Sugar is to learn, > no to earn to use a computer.If olpc is not available > to distribute that product we need find a way to do that. > Maybe we need a SugarLabs Foundation. > I agree 100% about the need of a strategy and update our vision and > mission, > and I have tried in different ways to move that for many months, > but couldn't find a way to do that. > > Gonzalo > > _______________________________________________ > 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