Thanks Sam. I never read that. Have good points. Gonzalo
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Sam P. <sam.parkins...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > -- Gonzalo Odiard SugarLabs - Software for children learning
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel