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

[Sameer Verma]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org> 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....
>

True. The internal scheme is relevant to developers, and the external
scheme is relevant to the customers, and these don't need to be the
same. More importantly, there needs to be clear understanding on the
translation from one to the other.

There are examples in other industries. VW sells Passat in the US, but
also called Dasher, Santana, Quantum, Magotan, Corsar and Carat
elsewhere. These are external schemes, as relevant to different
geographies. Internally, VW calls these B1, B2, etc. The current
Passat is B7, as addressed internally.

I only know about the B5, B6 etc. because even though I've owned a
Passat for over 10 years, I had to specify the internal denomination
for getting a replacement part over the Internet. They didn't care
what marketing called it. They needed to know if it was a B5 or B5.5

I also like the SoaS approach of using fruity names. These are easy to
remember. The drawback is that just the name does not  give the user a
sense of progression unless they keep up with the version names.

Ubuntu uses both a name (silly/funny) but a number that denotes a
progression based on the time of release. I'm sporting Saucy on my
laptop, (note I usually don't say "I'm sporting Salamander on my
laptop" - this is a personal preference), but 13.10 is helpful in
knowing it's is the latest release.

I think we are headed in the right direction, but need to address both
internal development structure and timeline and external artifact
structure and timeline.

cheers,
Sameer

Oh, and while I'm at it, one more +1 for us having a Youtube channel. Please!

> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Narvaez
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>