[Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0[ Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43]

[Sean DALY]

thanks for that Sebastian

We haven't had a marketing version number until now (excepting SoaS v1 in
2009 which we implied in our communications was "v1"), so from a marketing
perspective the only question is whether to go v2 or v3. I don't have a
strong opinion, but the key is that a marketing version number bump should
indeed happen only because of marketing needs and not technical version
number changes or on a timetable.

Marketing needs can include:

* Seizing an opportunity (winning an award, obtaining funding, a milestone
such as 3MM Learners, ...)
* Technical (Reaching a technological goal, adding compatibility with
new/popular hardware, opening up a new line of development)
* Partnerships (OLPC, SFC, FSF, Nexcopy, GNOME, Team Chipotle)
* Building up our brand values and project identity, highlighting
differentiators such as our language support
* Showing that we are alive and kicking, keeping buzz momentum going
* etc.

Concerning technological development, some is uninteresting to teachers
(Gtk3), while some is very interesting (try Sugar on a $5 USB stick). There
is no direct correlation between how hard the work is and its marketing
value.

There will be a name, but that needs work, we will keep your suggestions in
mind.

Sean





On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Silva
<sebastian at fuentelibre.org>wrote:

>  Hi,
> I think it's wrong to bump "marketing" version numbers on acount of
> technology shifts.
> I don't see how i'ts relevant for users that we switched to GTK3, or even
> that it is now
> possible to build "native" web activities (it was always possible with a
> wrapper).
>
> I see as a much more interesting development, the sudden appearance in
> Sugar of
> user-customizable bits, which have been developed by kids. The ability to
> customize
> Sugar has been desired by users from the very beginning, and the
> "freestyle" homeview
> was not sufficient. Kids would even use ASCII art on the nickname to
> personalize their
> "desktop", sorry "learning environment".
>
> This is a fun pic:
> http://blog.laptop.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/paraguay-homescreen1.jpg
>
> So, maybe Sugar 3.100 is really "Your Sugar", or "Freedom Sugar" or
> "Personal Sugar".
> Extra points to put the Freedom back in the priorities.
>
> Just a little humble opinion,
>
> Regards,
> Sebastian
>
> El 08/11/13 07:29, Gonzalo Odiard escribió:
>
> I also think w should change the major number when we have something
> different to show (when we achieved the goal)
>
>  Gonzalo
>
>
>  On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I now see where I was confused... Normally in developer
>> versioning you bump the major number when you achieved a certain goal (say
>> have an Online experience you can be proud of). Here we are bumping when
>> starting to work towards the goal instead. I don't see that as an issue,
>> just need to be clear about it.
>>
>>  So the proposal for next release is version 3.102. Thoughts? Is the
>> rationale clear? Anyone unhappy with it?
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote:
>>
>>>  Daniel - if we can work out where SL is going, we can build a PR
>>> story. If we aren't sure, it's better to communicate other aspects (TA
>>> Days, Google Code-In, the TripAdvisor grant).
>>>
>>>  I like v3 as a major version, step versions could be called 3.102,
>>> 3.103, 3.104 by developers, while marketing would call it 3 and a name. If
>>> we are lucky and the name ("Online", "Touch", "Hand", "Cloud", or whatever
>>> - this needs work) catches on, we can keep it through step versions.
>>>
>>>  It's important to understand that in the complete absence of a
>>> marketing/promotion budget (with the exception of the newswire 10-pack
>>> which was voted by the SLOBs), effective PR is our chief resource-effective
>>> way to build awareness. This means we tell news based on the possibility of
>>> press coverage, not automatically every time there is a version.
>>>
>>>  102 can become v3.102 and we can announce the html/javascript browser
>>> approach, ideally associated with a method for teachers to try Sugar - SoaS
>>> with extra teacher-friendly bits, or VMs. If that is too ambitious, the v3
>>> marketing push could wait until 3.104. Sugar brand awareness is on the
>>> nonexistent end of the scale for our ten million teachers, this means we
>>> can set the schedule. It's harder when there is buzz and momentum, a
>>> situation we had after SoaS v1 Strawberry.
>>>
>>>  Sean.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with you about major.minor, with major being the marketing
>>>> version and minor the developers one. Did I get that right? Does anyone
>>>> disagree?
>>>>
>>>>  What I'm not sure to understand is which major number you would like
>>>> to be used for the next release. To make it easier let's say we are
>>>> currently v2 as Yioryos suggested. My understanding is that
>>>>
>>>>  * If it's a release we can PR, developers will call it 3.102,
>>>> marketing 3  + some name.
>>>> * if we cannot PR it, developers will call it 2.103, marketing... just
>>>> won't call it :)
>>>>
>>>>  Is that correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  cc'ing marketing for... a marketing issue
>>>>>
>>>>>  Nope, the GTK3 change just passed under the radar. As stated
>>>>> previously I lobbied for a v1 six years ago which is why we are ready for a
>>>>> v2. Or even a v3.
>>>>>
>>>>>  For building a PR story I can work with v2 or v3, just not v1.
>>>>>
>>>>>  The issue with 2.2, 2.4 is that from a marketing perspective we get
>>>>> boxed into a major number step timeframe irrespective of marketing needs. A
>>>>> major number change should ideally happen when it's ready, or when we need
>>>>> to communicate a major shift. I still think associating the existing
>>>>> numbering behind a major number (e.g. 2.102) keeps continuity. PR will
>>>>> communicate the major number, probably with a name. And not an unmarketable
>>>>> obscure name, either.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Sean
>>>>> Sugar Labs Marketing Coordinator
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to
>>>>>> marketing because there wasn't major user visible changes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For sugar developers their is certainly a continuation in
>>>>>>> development and the current numbering makes a lot of sense.
>>>>>>> However, looking from outside 0.102 should be Sugar 3.x where  1.x
>>>>>>> is the original, 2.x is the Gtk3/introspection move and now the html5/jc
>>>>>>> (online/ultrabook/tablet) version.
>>>>>>> If you actually consider 0.100 as 3.0 then it can go 3.2, 3.4 etc to
>>>>>>> keep up with current numbering.
>>>>>>> Should make marketing happy with minimal disruption.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>>>>>>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  --
>>>>>> Daniel Narvaez
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing listMarketing at lists.sugarlabs.orghttp://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131108/a4b760c3/attachment-0001.html>