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

[Daniel Narvaez]

But Sean proposal seems to address that issue. The major number make sense
for marketing, the minor for developers.

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:

> I prefer marketing guys talk about marketing,
> but _IMHO_, the numbers what have sense for us internally are not
> the same number what have sense to all other the world.
> For us have sense numbers like 102 or 1.102, but probably not for others.
> Would be good try to found a numbers with a sense we can transmit.
> For us, is another tag in git....
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> Yup
>
>
> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
> Maybe "Sugar Web" instead of "Sugar Online"?
> We have web activities and Web Services in this release ....
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> This is just a gut reaction but I feel we should think more in the "Sugar
> online" direction than in the "Sugar on tablet" one, at least as a first
> step. I'd love Sugar on tablet as anyone else but I feel it's somewhat
> unrealistic because it involves skills, moneys and partnerships we don't
> currently have.
>
> I also think we should not completely discard Sugar on netbooks (maybe
> ultrabooks feels less anachronistic? :P). The hybrids that are hitting the
> market lately might not be mature, cheap or extremely popular, but it's an
> interesting direction to explore ... Keyboards are not completely dead
> yet IMO!
>
> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY 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
>
>
>

-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/attachments/20131107/289c36bd/attachment.html>