[IAEP] Sugarlabs and Sugar are different

[Sameer Verma]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Sameer, thanks for this! Please can I repost this on the youtube channel,
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfsR9AEb7HuPRAc14jfiI6g, with a CC-BY
> license ? :)
>
>
I don't think it's very useful on the Youtube channel, as that's outward
facing. I did this primarily for our community, and to explain all that in
emails is hard, hence the screencast. I'd say leave it as webm on the wiki
for now, with annotations, as necessary.


> Here's an auto transcription:
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016/Call_2
>
>
Thanks. I think your notes (below) are a lot more useful.


> On 24 June 2016 at 18:20, Sameer Verma <sverma at sfsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> 3) There are several confounding variables at play. For example, Sugar is
>> a FOSS project. Sugarlabs is an agency established to
>> foster/facilitate/support Sugar, the project. However, the two are not the
>> same. So, in our effort to establish a strategic plan, the unit of analysis
>> should be clear. For me, as a SLOB member, the unit of analysis is
>> Sugarlabs, the agency. Everything I look at, is through that lens,
>> including Sugar, OLPC, Sugarizer, etc.
>>
>> I've put together a screencast describing how all these things are
>> related. I hope this will bring some clarity.
>> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/images/1/18/Sugarlabs-strategy-overview.webm
>>
>
> In the period 0m-7m, you say that that there should be 2 units of
> analysis, for Sugar Labs and for Sugar, and therefore 2 separate sets
> of Vision/Mission/Goals/etc, but these should be aligned. Is this correct?
>
>
Yes, that's what we should aim to do, but more so on the Vision and Mission
level. The Goals etc. can be different, as long as these support their
respective Vision and Mission.


>
> Then 8m-18m, you describe a 7 phase model of a firm:
>
>

5 phase chain, which includes supply and demand sides.


1. Inbound logistics (capital goods, labour)
>
> 2. Operations (production, combination of capital goods and labour to
> produce commodities; Sugar Labs )
>
> 3. Outbound Logistics (distribution, shipping, go to market; eg each sugar
> release being minted, and then a distro packaging it, or OLPC taking a
> sugar release and combining it with some distro)
>
> 4. Marketing and Sales (managing perceptions, which for a software freedom
> project is often not sales as in exchange of commodities for money, but
> instead the success of propaganda at converting neutral people to advocates
> who agree with the ideology)
>
> 5. Service (Consulting, eg the process of working with schools to realise
> the value created in earlier stages which may be obvious to us but not to
> them.)
>
> You then group phases 1-3 as 'supply side' and 4-5 as 'demand side,' and
> note that traditionally OLPC has taken care of the demand side while Sugar
> Labs has taken care of the supply side; and note that such partitioning of
> supply/demand often creates conflict in free software projects which have
> more appreciation for the left side than for the right side; and note that
> the demand side needs attention as it increases the value of the software
> created.
>
>
Correct.


> This all seems sage to me :) Did I miss any essential point?
>
>
>
Note: In attempting to increase the value of Sugar by focusing on
Marketing, Sales and Service, we have to at least maintain status quo on
the left side. Unless we have production of a stable code base, the demand
side cannot leverage it.


> Then 18m-31m you describe a 5 phase model of strategy:
>
> 1. Vision (long term) 'dream statement' of where we dream to be in a few
> years - the world we hope to arrive into, the big picture we are moving
> towards.
>
> 2. Mission (long term) what are we, what do we do, why do we do it - this
> should hold good for the same amount of time as the Vision; what exists
> today, that powers us to move towards the Vision
>
> 3. Goals (mid term) expected outcomes that are not measurable, eg
> "Increase adoption of Sugar by non-English-native-speaking children". These
> typically arise from a SWOT analysis.
>
> 4. Objectives (mid term) specific targets that are measurable, eg
> "Increase 8 translation locales from 80% coverage to 100% coverage before
> 2017/1/1"
>
> 5. Tasks (short term) actual activities that are assigned to people to get
> done, eg "Chris Leonard to organize volunteers to meet the translation
> objective."
>
> You noted that typically the common focus of activity of free software
> projects is at the 4-5 level, with bon mots like "release early, release
> often," while 1-2-3 change slowly and typically get much less attention
> from free software project contributors, and the Sugar project isn't alone
> in this.
>
> Again, I concur. Something I found missing from your presentation was a
> guide to how long (ie, in word count) these statements should be. What do
> you think?
>
>
We'll come to that soon. No specific guidelines, but it should be brief
enough for a stranger to read and understand the vision we propose.


> You also noted that while there is no general recommendation for what
> duration to consider long, mid or short term - as this is relative to each
> given project - and the core idea is that the earlier phases change less
> often than the latter ones - you give some recommended durations for the
> lifespan of these statements for the Sugar Project.
>
> I therefore propose the following concrete dates for these durations, that
> are within your recommended durations:
>
> 1. Vision (now - 2020/1/1)
>
> 2. Mission (now - 2020/1/1)
>
>
We can shoot for five years, with an understanding that we revisit in
three.


> 3. Goals (now - 2018/1/1)
>
> 4. Objectives (now - 2018/1/1)
>
>
12 to 18 months is ok. Perhaps 18, with reassessment every 6 months.


> 5. Tasks (now - 2017/1/1)
>
>
Correct.


> You also note that this phase strategy is a framework for situating the
> SWOT analysis that Sean called for, that is, it is a method for defining
> Objectives. You point to the 2x2 matrix graphic on
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis and note that
> Strengths/Weaknesses are internal to the project - aspects that we control
> - while Opportunities/Threats are external, beyond our control; and these
> can be combined to generate 4 categories of objectives:
>
> 1. S + O = things to pursue
>
> 2. W + O = things to convert
>
> 3. S + T = things to reduce
>
> 4. W + T = things to defend
>
>
I'd replace + with &


> However, since this is phase 4 of 5, and we haven't finished defining the
> earlier stages, I propose to postpone a SWOT analysis until those stages
> are wrapped up.
>
>
SWOT can be done in parallel with Vision & Mission. The outcome of (Vision
& Mission) *combined* with the outcome of
(SWOT/Pursue/Convert/Reduce/Defend) should lead to the formation of Goals.


>
> Finally 31m-33m you conclude that the approach to drafting a vision
> statement with wide consensus is not productive when done via email or an
> IRC board meeting, and you want SLOB and the community to understand there
> is a specific process you have in mind for developing these productively,
> and to be patient as this process can take time to wrap up; and you offer
> to do some other screencasts to present further details of that specific
> process.
>
>
I'll send out information on this briefly. It will be a form (Google Forms)
to collect answers to questions designed to elicit responses to components
of Vision. Once we have that input, we can start putting common concepts
together and prioritize. I'd appreciate some help in putting that together.
We'll of course have access to the backend Google Spreadsheet, so rest
assured that all input will be available for us to look at. The form simply
allows for not influencing ideas (me too! or I disagree!) in the initial
stages.


> This is awesome! I'm looking forward to the next screencast so we can
> learn how to participate in defining the vision productively :)
>
>
Coming soon :-)

Sameer

-- 
> Cheers
> Dave
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160627/1355c450/attachment.html>