[IAEP] [Grassroots-l] Planning for Sugar Camp Paris

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 13:01, Christoph Derndorfer
<e0425826 at student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>  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.
>
> Saturday, 16th:
>
> 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
> 15 people...
>
> 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
> below,
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Marketing_Team/Events/MiniCamp_Paris_2009/Schedule#Requested_topics
> 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).

Yeah, that's as well my intention.

Regards,

Tomeu

> As always, let me know what you think.
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
> David Farning schrieb:
>> My guess base on attendees currently listed.  We will have sessions in
>> a number of different, often over lapping, tracks:
>>
>> Developer
>> Marketing
>> Education
>> 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.
>> --
>>
>>
>> david
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> -walter
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> together.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> feature.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> david
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>>> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Walter Bender
>>> Sugar Labs
>>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Christoph Derndorfer
> co-editor, olpcnews
> url: www.olpcnews.com
> e-mail: christoph at olpcnews.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>