[Marketing] [Sugar-devel] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0

[Gonzalo Odiard]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes Gonzalo, from a marketing standpoint 0.102 is as unworkable as 0.82 was
> and all the numbers in between. However I'm afraid v1.0 will be a mistake.
>
> I'm mystified, why would you think I don't see anything good in Sugar?

Sorry, didn't wanted imply that.

I agree with you about the need of a clear story.
We have a lot to show [1].

In other thread you pointed about not having how to test sugar 0.100,
I was working on that http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.100/Testing#Testing_images

Gonzalo

[1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.100/Notes

> Sean
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I am not a marketing guy.
>>
>> May be you are right and v2 is better than v1,
>> but I am sure any of these is better than 0.102
>>
>> I think we can't claim a Tablet version of Sugar, but we have a lot to
>> show.
>> I hope you agree on that. If our marketing guys don't see anything
>> good in Sugar,
>> we have a problem.
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If we are talking about a version number that might make it into a press
>> > release at some point, this is a marketing discussion so I have cc'd the
>> > list.
>> >
>> > As I've explained previously, the major issue with a v1 seven years
>> > after
>> > entering production is that it is incomprehensible. Non-techies (i.e.
>> > teachers) discovering Sugar will naturally assume there are 0 years of
>> > production behind it. Tech journalists will roll on the floor laughing
>> > at a
>> > Slashdot post e.g. "Seven Years After OLPC's First Laptop, Sugar Reaches
>> > V1".
>> >
>> > We dealt with this problem when Sugar was numbered Sugar on a Stick v6
>> > was
>> > renamed "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" and the press responded to an
>> > easy-to-understand story - that SL had spun off from OLPC and had a
>> > first
>> > non-OLPC version available. That the technical version number of the
>> > underlying Sugar was different was made irrelevant.
>> >
>> > We need to do this again. The addition of browser support is a big deal.
>> > In
>> > my view Sugar should be publicly numbered v2, perhaps with a name i.e.
>> > "Sugar v2 Online" or "Sugar v2 Tablet" (or something - this needs
>> > marketing
>> > work), with a clear story: Sugar opens up a new direction after seven
>> > years
>> > of production.
>> >
>> > The existing technical version numbering system has the merit of being
>> > understandable to developers and the deployments community and could be
>> > associated internally with the public number, i.e. 2.102, 2.104 etc.,
>> > which
>> > would not box us into a numbering system we can't market. Or perhaps
>> > become
>> > irrelevant as Daniel N has suggested if we go to continuous development
>> > mode.
>> >
>> > I have more grey hair than I did when I first proposed we go to v1 six
>> > years
>> > ago [1]...
>> >
>> > (!)
>> >
>> > So I think we are ready for v2.
>> >
>> > Sean.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2008-November/000425.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We already have this discussion for Sugar 0.100,
>> >> why not do it again? :)
>> >>
>> >> With more than 7 years of development and more than 2 million of users,
>> >> probably we should accept a 1.0 version is deserved.
>> >>
>> >> With 6 months more, probably the web api will be more established,
>> >> and we are not doing incompatible changes to the python api.
>> >>
>> >> Anybody have a Really Good Motive(r) to not do it?
>> >>
>> >> Gonzalo
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> >> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >
>> >
>
>