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

[Sebastian Silva]

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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org>
>     http://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/20131108/47d43d97/attachment-0001.html>