[IAEP] upstream/downstream again (was Re: [Marketing] People who spread the news was Re: organizing an event)

[Tomeu Vizoso]

2009/6/27 Caroline Meeks <caroline at solutiongrove.com>:
>
>
> On 6/27/09, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 00:27, David Farning<dfarning at sugarlabs.org>
>> wrote:
>> > 2009/6/23 Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > My main concern has to do with the participation and support funnels.
>> > In general, teachers are not particularly experienced participating in
>> > open source projects. As such, they have a tendency to view themselves
>> > as sugar consumers rather than sugar co-producers.
>> >
>> > The economics of open source development is slightly different than
>> > traditional projects.  One difference is that while the cost of code
>> > may be zero, the maintenance cost of that code is greater than zero.
>> > Once a project accepts a code contribution, the project is responsible
>> > for maintaining that code forever.  Whenever anything changes, which
>> > touches that code, the code must be updated.
>> >
>> > A similar dynamic exists with additional users.  New users have a
>> > greater than zero cost to the project in term of support.  Ideally,
>> > new users will contribute back enough that on average that will be a
>> > net gain to the project.  In reality, user participation and
>> > contribution depends on a number of factors including; barriers to
>> > participation, time required to become a contributor....
>>
>> This is one of my main concerns with todays' SugarLabs. We depend on
>> the open source way of doing things to move our software forward, but
>> the only people who are actually involved in this process are a
>> handful of people. So we have most of the organization moving in one
>> direction without taking into account what is needed to keep producing
>> software.
>>
>> I would like to see more posts like David's that improve SL's
>> understanding of the open source dynamics, but even more I would like
>> to see interest from all the community in these topics.
>>
>> What we typically see in companies like Novell and organizations like
>> OLPC is that the open source software side of things is relegated to
>> the engineering department. Even if open source is a publicly stated
>> foundation of the organization's operations, most of it has no idea
>> nor real interest in understanding how open source works, making very
>> difficult engineer's job. From the legal department, to daily
>> management, to marketing and PR, human resources, if the disconnect is
>> big they will be hurting or failing to support the open source side of
>> things.
>>
>> Is SugarLabs going to do better?
>
> Good points Tomeu.  We will have to do it differently because we will be
> doing everything Open Source/Grassroot.

Wonder if that's actually our best option. I agree that Sugar will
have to be developed following the Open Source model if we want it to
reflect the needs of all their users and the work of all contributors.
If someone decided to get the Sugar code and do their releases in a
non-Open Source way (think of Apple using gcc and releasing their code
modifications but not doing so in a way that can be reused efficiently
in upstream gcc) that would hurt Sugar's goal of better education for
everyone.

But regarding the distribution, marketing, sales, etc, are we really
sure that the grassroots model is the only one we should use? RedHat
is quite successfully selling linux-based products through traditional
channels, and at the same time is able to work with the open source
community in Fedora.

My ideal future for Sugar is one where very different organizations
take the job of bringing it to children. A traditional company would
sell hardware and support for LTSP labs in schools in North America, a
non-profit would maintain a specific spin for home-schoolers, local
OLE organizations would deploy it in all countries of the world, a
hardware distributor would preinstall sugar on laptops and sell to
private schools, a toys company would sell sugar on sticks and provide
online services, etc.

> Some of the article/comments talk about what a struggle we will have going
> against Apple, Microsoft and the plublishers who will all put their
> marketing weight against us.

I think that the linux kernel has a very healthy community in some
part because they aren't affected much by whatever campaign MS
launches against linux-based products. Thousands of companies ship
linux-based products in very varied sectors, it's near to impossible
to target all them.

In a scenario where several organizations ship Sugar-based products,
Sugar could maintain a well sized community of developers around it
without having to worry about MS bringing down one or two corporate
contributors.

> We will have to use/invent effective grassroots/open source marketing.

I think people have been using what we can call grassroots marketing
for a long time, though I agree there seems to be lots of ground to
innovate.

As a bit of an aside, I hope we won't be leaning too much on
innovation here. I would like that for every aspect in which we want
to innovate, we have a contingency plan in case we fail to deliver all
we dreamed of.

Again, if we have several organizations distributing Sugar, we protect
ourselves against having all our eggs in the basket being carried by
the over-innovating organization.

Looking at the past, it has already happened. If OLPC had managed to
reach their initial goals, we would have tenths of millions of users
right now, and presumably that would mean quite a bit more of paid
engineering resources than we have now (zero). IMO it would be a smart
move to learn from that experience and keep moving at small, doable
steps.

> The challenge of getting the software to work is only our first goal.  Then
> we have to make the software work for learning.  That will definitely be an
> entirely new kind of open source collaboration between educators and
> teachers.

Yeah, have thought a bit about this and I'm thinking that the
upstream/downstream separation of concerns will also work well
regarding educators. I think everybody in Sugar Labs believes that
this is an education project, even those like me who argue that the
upstream Sugar project should have it's own organization separate from
all the downstream projects.

What I would envision is that some educators would be more interested
in working at the upstream level (so trying to cater to the needs of
all Sugar users) and others at the several downstream levels (thinking
primarily about a specific group of children). We are actually already
in this situation today, as we have educators like Paola Bruccoleri in
olpc-sur that are providing important feedback at that level and
others like Alan Kay or Tony Forster are doing so in the upstream
level.

> All parts of our organization have to think Open Source/Grassroots all the
> time. Also we all have  to be open to learning what we have to change about
> the technical open source process to translate it to the marketing and
> pedagogical open source movements we need to create.

Sugar isn't yet as successful as Moodle or other open source software
products. Are we sure we are so special that we _need_ to reinvent how
open source projects work? I would prefer if we first learned from the
most successful examples around, and only then we tried to outdo them.

Regards,

Tomeu

> Caroline
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tomeu
>>
>> > As we continue the current grow stage, we should focus on identifying
>> > and engaging users who are likely to become significant contributors
>> > in relatively short time periods.  As our core participation rate
>> > increases, we will be more able to support more users.
>> >
>> > But first, we need to target the high value participants to support
>> > the participants who will have a lower, or slower, contribution rates.
>> >
>> >
>> > david
>> >
>> >> thanks
>> >>
>> >> Sean
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2009/6/22 John Tierney <jtis4stx at hotmail.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ________________________________
>> >>> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:12:56 -0400
>> >>> From: caroline at solutiongrove.com
>> >>> To: dfarning at sugarlabs.org
>> >>> CC: Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: [Marketing] organizing an event
>> >>>
>> >>> Goals look good:
>> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors#Fedora_Ambassadors_Goals
>> >>>
>> >>> Can we call it Sugar Facilitators?
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>> Re: [Marketing] Being An Ambassador‏
>> >>> From: John Tierney (jtis4stx at hotmail.com)
>> >>> Sent: Mon 6/08/09 10:58 PM
>> >>> To: Mel Chua (mel at melchua.com)
>> >>> Cc: marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >>> "Sugar Facilitators" Program-Creating the Path to
>> >>> Learning has never been so Sweet!
>> >>>
>> >>> "Sugar Facilitation Station"-One stop shop for Sugar Branding
>> >>> templates-Business
>> >>> cards, stickers, balloons, banners, etc. with hook into cafepress
>> >>> and/or
>> >>> other t-shirt/
>> >>> printable Sugar swag.
>> >>>
>> >>>  JT
>> >>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 18:38:48 -040
>> >>>> From: mel at melchua.com
>> >>>> To: caroline at solutiongrove.com
>> >>>> CC: marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Marketing] Being An Ambassador
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Can anyone think of something we can call Sugar "Ambassadors" that
>> >>>> > is
>> >>>> > friendly, youthful and egalitarian and will put teachers into a
>> >>>> > mindset
>> >>>> > where they believe that by trying, experimenting and especially
>> >>>> > playing,
>> >>>> > they can learn to use Sugar and use it to help their kids learn.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM, David Farning
>> >>> <dfarning at sugarlabs.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Sean DALY<sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> I'm confused, is the idea that "Ambassadors" try to recruit
>> >>>> developers, and Sugar Labs contributors who talk to teachers be
>> >>>> called
>> >>>> something else?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I vastly prefer "Facilitators", but that's because I don't share the
>> >>>> view that it's a higher priority for us to reach out to FOSS
>> >>>> developers than to reach out to teachers, and I daresay teachers need
>> >>>> much more explaining of what Sugar is designed to do than developers
>> >>>> will.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think we agree that Sugar needs teacher buy-in for its success. We
>> >>>> need teachers challenging our concepts, offering their experience and
>> >>>> intuition, and identifying barriers (technical and otherwise) to
>> >>>> Sugar
>> >>>> adoption.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Of course we should be present at FOSS conventions. Of course we
>> >>>> should communicate to developers our passion and ideals about
>> >>>> bettering educational opportunity for millions of children.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But, we're already good at that. What we're not good at yet is
>> >>>> confronting our ideas with classroom realities. There is a vast
>> >>>> amount
>> >>>> of teacher savoir-faire out in the world about making learning happen
>> >>>> with Sugar, but we can't access any of it since there is no feedback
>> >>>> loop. I believe we should be better empowering teachers within Sugar
>> >>>> itself, but I have no data yet to support that position without
>> >>>> feedback.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Actually, what I'd like is for Sugar Facilitators not just to go to
>> >>>> conventions (although we certainly should). What I'd like is to start
>> >>>> a tradition of visiting schools. You know, like the sales forces of
>> >>>> publishers, service providers, systems integrators, computer
>> >>>> manufacturers, and proprietary software firms do. We have an
>> >>>> unbeatable sales pitch compared to the others: we have nothing to
>> >>>> sell
>> >>>> except ideas; we do this to improve education; we are looking for
>> >>>> information, and here is Sugar on a Stick for you to try out.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In my view, fact-finding trips to schools could just be the best way
>> >>>> to quickly find technically adept teachers willing to share with us.
>> >>>> And, if we are organized about our visit reporting, we could become
>> >>>> much better at seeing what is going on in schools in a consolidated
>> >>>> way; shifts from computer labs to 1:1 computing for example, or
>> >>>> attitudes about the Internet, or things that work really well or not
>> >>>> at all.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please take a step back and look at the _goals_ of the Fedora
>> >>> Ambassadors program as it applies to the overall goals of the Fedora
>> >>> project.  Then think of how a similar project might be adapted to to
>> >>> the overall goals of Sugar Labs.
>> >>>
>> >>> david
>> >>>
>> >>>> thanks
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sean
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Caroline
>> >>>> Meeks<caroline at solutiongrove.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> hmm, how about a link to the facilitation wiki that Gunner showed
>> >>>>> us.:
>> >>>>> http://facilitation.aspirationtech.org/index.php/Agenda:Index
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Also, is it to late to not use the word Ambassadors. Its a power,
>> >>>>> fear
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> hierarchical filled metaphor that I think will feed into teachers
>> >>>>> existing
>> >>>>> feelings of alienation in regards to technology.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I know we didn't come up with anything better.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So my suggestion is "Sugar Facilitators"  teachers and schools use
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> word
>> >>>>> facilitation frequently, I think it will be more comfortable for
>> >>>>> them..
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:03 PM, David Farning
>> >>>>> <dfarning at sugarlabs.org>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We now have a draft wiki page on how to organize an event at
>> >>>>>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Marketing_Team/Organizing_an_Event .
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I'll try to gather up the materials we have used in previous events
>> >>>>>> so
>> >>>>>> we can find them again next time.  Please fell free to add and
>> >>>>>> correct
>> >>>>>> as necessary.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> david
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> Marketing mailing list
>> >>>>>> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >>>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Caroline Meeks
>> >>>>> Solution Grove
>> >>>>> Caroline at SolutionGrove.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 617-500-3488 - Office
>> >>>>> 505-213-3268 - Fax
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> Marketing mailing list
>> >>>>> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Caroline Meeks
>> >>> Solution Grove
>> >>> Caroline at SolutionGrove.com
>> >>>
>> >>> 617-500-3488 - Office
>> >>> 505-213-3268 - Fax
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Marketing mailing list
>> >>> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Marketing mailing list
>> > Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Marketing mailing list
>> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>
>
>
> --
> Caroline Meeks
> Solution Grove
> Caroline at SolutionGrove.com
>
> 617-500-3488 - Office
> 505-213-3268 - Fax