[IAEP] Sugar Labs - Good starting position.

[Edward Cherlin]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM, David Farning <dfarning at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> I would like to apologize for my absence over the last weeks.  I have
> been trying to determine if Sugar is a viable project and if Sugar Labs
> is a viable organization.

I find it always worthwhile to question whether I and any organization
I work with are (still) on the right track. The correct answer is
always Yes and No. There is something worth accomplishing here that is
more important than other things I could be doing (only relative to
what I can do, not what somebody else might accomplish), but we have
to keep looking for ways to do it better.

> For the weeks prior to my break, I have been working on community
> outreach.  Community outreach has meant contacting grassroots
> organizations with an interest in technology and education.  After
> establishing contact, I start a discussion about about how establishing
> a relationship between Sugar Labs and their organization can be
> beneficial to both of us.

I have been doing much the same. Many individuals and organizations
have no interest in working with us, but a number of people have
gotten excited. I have introduced most of them to Walter or suggested
which mailing lists to join, depending on what they and I think they
can contribute. I have a few recent finds still to bring in.

> On the plus side:
>
> 1.  We have a working piece of software.  We are lucky enough that OLPC
> funded us long enough to create a functional system.  The vast majority
> of projects fail in the pre-alpha stage.
>
> 2.  We have a core group of experienced developers.  Over the past
> several years OLPC has attracted a number of professional developers and
> helpful community members to participate in the project.
>
> 3.  There is a large public demand of our product.  OLPC has proven that
> on a large scale through their deployments.  At a more local, there are
> thousands or individuals who are interested in improving their local
> school system.
>
> 4.  Sugar Labs has a functional infrastructure on which we can build.

OK, +4.

> On the negative side:
>
> 1.  Lack of commitment.  The main reason organizations have stated for
> not becoming involved in Sugar Labs is our lack of commitment.  There is
> a significant fear that OLPC will withdraw their support.

I would say, lack of visible evidence of commitment. OLPC has from
before its announced beginnings had a terrible time explaining itself
to anybody.

On the other hand, the people I find most worth talking to have not
heard about our troubles. They have been too busy accomplishing
something else.

> 2.  Lack of vision.  The second reason organizations hesitate to become
> involved with Sugar Labs is our lack of vision.  There is a perception
> that Sugar development has stalled.

Again, lack of visible vision. I don't bother much about what Nicholas
or Walter have said publicly. I just tell people my own vision, and a
fair number get what I am talking about.

Sugar Labs has been quietly redefining itself, and not telling its
story to the world. We can do that effectively, once we agree on what
that story is. It includes, but is not limited to

* Free Software
* Genuine education
* Low-cost hardware designed to meet the stringent requirements of the poor

So much has been said many times over, but with some people on both
the inside and the outside muddying the waters from time to time. I
propose that we should add in the rest of the program for ending
poverty through ICT and education, which Nicholas has declared out of
scope for OLPC. That means

* Building a research community to create a full set of educational
software and content, and revised curricula based on how children
actually learn.
* Adding in research on whatever the poor need to take full advantage
of this educational opportunity. This includes at least electricity
and Internet for villages, and probably some interventions in
agriculture, health, nutrition, economic opportunity, and no doubt
other areas.
* Building a deployment organization that can handle teacher training,
providing the necessary infrastructure support, and getting all of the
stakeholders into the conversation.

This in turn requires

* Funding
* Organization
* Open Governance
* Organized PR--at least having a page with links to press releases,
and officially announcing important developments.

> Moving forward:
>
> 1.  Diversify our base of stakeholders.  Currently, we have only two
> public stakeholders OLPC and Redhat.  This number should be greater.

Agreed.

> 2.  Balance support and development resources.  The single biggest issue
> that we face is how to balance our resources between supporting existing
> deployments and pushing development forward.

The most immediate issue, certainly. I would argue that we need to get
hold of more resources. The main reason we don't have them, AFAICT, is
that we don't ask. There appear to be lots of people who would like to
contribute, but have not found an effective channel for doing so.

> My conclusions:
>
> 1. OLPC, Sugar, and Sugar Labs are worth pushing forward.  While not the
> greatest thing since sliced bread,

Sliced bread is overrated. ;-> Personally, I think that Sugar is the
greatest thing since Hindu-Arabic numerals, not neglecting the
Gutenberg press along the way.

> OLPC and Sugar represent
> technologies which can enhance learning for current and future
> generations.

Learning, economic development, global collaborations, human rights...

> It's a Learning Projects.
>
> dfarning

-- 
Silent Thunder [默雷/शब्दगर्ज] is my name,
And Children are my nation.
The whole world is my dwelling place,
And Truth my destination.