[IAEP] [Grassroots-l] Planning for Sugar Camp Paris
e0425826 at student.tuwien.ac.at
Mon May 4 07:01:07 EDT 2009
From where I'm standing it looks as though we should have 3 full days
to get things done, with Friday - May 15 - being the arrival day for
many people and therefore more aimed at socializing and whatnot.
To me this day should really be about the OLPC France event, listening
to what they have to say, doing short intros of what everyone is working
on and generally supporting them with whatever means required.
Sunday, 17th and Monday, 18th:
Focused on all-things-sweet!
While I really did enjoy the FUDCon way of doing things I personally
think this approach is overkill considering we'll probably only be 10 to
In the spirit of cross-pollination I also think that splitting people
into too many sub-groups is a potential pitfalls. Especially since most
of us are involved with Sugar and OLPC in more than one way, often
covering several bases and topics.
Therefore I'd rather prefer to start the first day with a broader
session where people explain what topics (from the list David mentioned
and other thoughts) they want to discuss and then taking it from there.
If that means many small groups, hands-on coding or whatever: fine. If
we decide that sticking together in one room and jointly discussing the
various things on our mind: Just as fine.
Also on a more personal note I really hope for Sugar Camp Paris to
enable us to have a broad discussion about where Sugar should be heading
over the next 6 to 12 months and in particular talking about Sugar 0.86
and what features people would like to see included in it. The desire to
discuss this comes from a slight confusion about what to expect for the
remaining months in 2009 because apart from SoaS and improved
platform-independence we somewhat seem to lack a set of well-defined
objectives and thoughts about how to reach them (aka a real roadmap).
As always, let me know what you think.
David Farning schrieb:
> My guess base on attendees currently listed. We will have sessions in
> a number of different, often over lapping, tracks:
> Community Building
> Business models/funding
> Developers will break down into separate sessions such as:
> Options for supporting existing deployment.
> Goals for .86
> API stability
> Marketing will include
> General marketing strategy
> Engaging developers
> And so forth...
> If we have two or three sessions at a time there will be 3 to 5 people
> per session.
> Since this is a single Day, I suggest we make it a marathon.
> Meet at 8am to plan sessions and have coffee.
> Start the sessions at 9am with each running an hour.
> Break for lunch.
> Go until 5 or 6 pm
> Break for dinner.
> Spend the evening informally talking over what we worked on and
> overall project goals and exchanging war stories.
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Given that we have a one-day event (assuming the OLPC France agenda is
>> addressing a different constituency, how would be best build in the
>> notion of period caucusing to revisit the agenda that occurs in the
>> multi-day FUDCON meetings?
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, David Farning <dfarning at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Caroline Meeks <solutiongrove at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>> I was extremely disappointed in our last two SugarCamps. Rather then
>>>>> coming together as a community with shared goals, I got the feeling
>>>>> that we were just a bunch of people gathered in a room; each trying to
>>>>> push their own agenda. The turning point for me was when a scheduled
>>>>> speaker said, 'God Damn It. This is my hour and now YOU have to
>>>>> listen to ME.'
>>>> I think we are in violent agreement here. Please go back and reread your
>>>> response to my suggestion that we use protocols and I'll walk you through my
>>> Actually, I believe we are in complete agreement. We just differ in
>>> implementation and enforcement:)
>>>> First, I think its extraordinarily important that we appreciate what an
>>>> effective organization we are. Especially in our distance communications.
>>>> David really covers that well in his response to my protocols post. We are
>>>> doing a lot of things right and getting good results. Releases, publicity
>>>> and much positive interest and increasing attention.
>>> The rest is of the post is going to be a long meandering digression
>>> into community building, group dynamics and setting mutual goals. If
>>> you are not to such things, the following is no more than psycho
>>> babble which has no more effect on your daily life than what Michelle
>>> Obama wore yesterday.
>>> 1. The protocols (like bylaw and trademark policies) themselves don't
>>> really matter. Every minute spent working on them is a sunk cost...
>>> because it take time and emotion away from improving the Sugar
>>> Platform. What matters is that we set them and move on to other
>>> 2. The effectiveness of the Sugar Labs did not just happen. Many
>>> people have worked to create and establish the community norms
>>> necessary to encourage effective communication and collaboration.
>>>> I share David's disappointment with the quality of our in person meetings.
>>>> We are not unique in this. I am in a class that studies School Reform this
>>>> semester and the teacher spends huge amounts of time observing in schools.
>>>> He says that 90% of teacher "shared planning time" and "team" meetings are
>>>> like watching paint dry. Its hard to get people who are used to working
>>>> alone to effectively collaborate in face-to-face groups. It doesn't just
>>>> happen on its own. However, when it does happen the results and the
>>>> coefficient on the effects on learning are quite large.
>>> I care that in two weeks the participants who make the effort to to
>>> attend SugarCamp Paris have the opportunity to spend useful time
>>>> So schools are working on this problem with what they call "Protocols". I'm
>>>> not a huge fan of the name. But I am a huge fan of accepting the culture
>>>> and language of our users and finding what in their existing culture can
>>>> help us help them use Sugar better. We trying to go into schools and tell
>>>> them to use Sugar change to constructivism, don't do things the way you
>>>> have been doing them. That is not a huge recipe for long term success. I'd
>>>> like to try whenever possible for us to also be learning from schools.
>>>> In this case both Sugar Labs and Schools have a shared problem. We know our
>>>> face-to-face group planning time is vital, but its expensive and we are
>>>> dissatisfied with the results.
>>> 1. _Everyone_ involved in Sugar Labs knows more about their area of
>>> specialty then I do.
>>> 2. _Everyone_ involved in Sugar Labs is more passionate about their
>>> area of specialty than I am.
>>> 3. _Everyone_ involved in Sugar Labs is willing to spend more time
>>> solving problem in their area of interest than I am.
>>> If we accept the notion that the participants are the valuable assets
>>> in Sugar Labs, managements job is try to provide the participants with
>>> the resource they need to work effectively and then get out of the
>>> way. When participants arrive at SugarCamp they will already bring
>>> ideas of what they want learn about, talk about, and accomplish.
>>> The FudCon approach gives _control_ of the conference back to the
>>> participants. The participants set the agenda, the participants
>>> decide what sessions to attend, the participants decide what sessions
>>> are useful and which are not.
>>> There is no man (or mother-ship) setting the agenda and planing the
>>> priorities. If three smart passionate people go off and work on a
>>> problem, that is much more valuable than 30 bored and angry people
>>> fighting for 'airtime.' Three dedicated and motivated people are all
>>> that it takes to form a self-sustaining team around a project or
>>> I am going to ask you to make a leap up faith and trust me on this
>>> one. If it doesn't work we can try something else next time.
>>> SugarCamps, like releases, don't need to be perfect, they just need to
>>> keep getting better.
>>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
e-mail: christoph at olpcnews.com
More information about the IAEP