Discussion:
RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0[ Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43]
(too old to reply)
Yioryos Asprobounitis
2013-11-07 18:53:33 UTC
Permalink
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.
Daniel Narvaez
2013-11-07 19:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to marketing
because there wasn't major user visible changes?
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
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
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
Sean DALY
2013-11-07 21:37:09 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to marketing
because there wasn't major user visible changes?
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
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
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Gonzalo Odiard
2013-11-07 21:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Sean,
Usually, we are not doing big changes, but incremental changes.
We are closer to the reality of the linux kernel, where the change to 3.0
was not related to changes itself, but to the numbers where not comfortable,
and they are planning release version 4.0 by the same reason in one year.

What you think about using years as versions (2013.1 2013.2 or 13.1, 13.2)
as a way to try incentive to the deployments and the final users
to be updated?

Gonzalo
Post by Sean DALY
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
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to marketing
because there wasn't major user visible changes?
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
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
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
Sean DALY
2013-11-07 22:11:01 UTC
Permalink
thanks for that Gonzalo

the key version number criteria for marketing is not that it's a formal
system, it's to simplify a story for people who have little or more likely
no idea what Sugar is. The story we are developing is: we are meeting the
challenge of handheld devices while supporting our 3 million Learners. This
story will be well-served by a v2 or v3 number, but I'm afraid linking the
year will box us into a timeframe when what we need (marketing standpoint
again) is a version number on a flexible timetable according to
circumstances.

F/LOSS projects are not a marketing reference for me, with very few
exceptions they are not good at it at all. My references are the iPod,
Nespresso, Amazon, Coca-Cola, etc.

Sean
Post by Gonzalo Odiard
Sean,
Usually, we are not doing big changes, but incremental changes.
We are closer to the reality of the linux kernel, where the change to 3.0
was not related to changes itself, but to the numbers where not comfortable,
and they are planning release version 4.0 by the same reason in one year.
What you think about using years as versions (2013.1 2013.2 or 13.1, 13.2)
as a way to try incentive to the deployments and the final users
to be updated?
Gonzalo
Post by Sean DALY
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
Post by Sean DALY
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
Post by Sean DALY
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
Post by Sean DALY
behind a major number (e.g. 2.102) keeps continuity. PR will communicate
the
Post by Sean DALY
major number, probably with a name. And not an unmarketable obscure name,
either.
Sean
Sugar Labs Marketing Coordinator
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to
marketing
Post by Sean DALY
Post by Daniel Narvaez
because there wasn't major user visible changes?
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
For sugar developers their is certainly a continuation in development
and
Post by Sean DALY
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
the current numbering makes a lot of sense.
However, looking from outside 0.102 should be Sugar 3.x where 1.x is
the
Post by Sean DALY
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
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
Post by Sean DALY
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
up with current numbering.
Should make marketing happy with minimal disruption.
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
David Farning
2013-11-07 22:33:54 UTC
Permalink
In hind sight...

The gtk2 -> gtk3 would have benefited from a major version change. At
the time, I didn't realized it.
Daniel Narvaez
2013-11-07 21:53:22 UTC
Permalink
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?
Post by Sean DALY
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
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to
marketing because there wasn't major user visible changes?
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
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
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
Sean DALY
2013-11-07 22:31:35 UTC
Permalink
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.
Post by Daniel Narvaez
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?
Post by Sean DALY
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
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to
marketing because there wasn't major user visible changes?
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
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
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
Daniel Narvaez
2013-11-07 23:02:38 UTC
Permalink
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?
Post by Sean DALY
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.
Post by Daniel Narvaez
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?
Post by Sean DALY
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
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to
marketing because there wasn't major user visible changes?
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
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
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
--
Daniel Narvaez
Gonzalo Odiard
2013-11-08 12:29:19 UTC
Permalink
I also think w should change the major number when we have something
different to show (when we achieved the goal)

Gonzalo
Post by Daniel Narvaez
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?
Post by Sean DALY
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.
Post by Daniel Narvaez
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?
Post by Sean DALY
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
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to
marketing because there wasn't major user visible changes?
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
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
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
Sebastian Silva
2013-11-08 12:48:08 UTC
Permalink
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:
Loading Image...

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
Post by Gonzalo Odiard
I also think w should change the major number when we have something
different to show (when we achieved the goal)
Gonzalo
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?
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
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?
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
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
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
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
Sean DALY
2013-11-08 13:57:25 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by 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".
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
I also think w should change the major number when we have something
different to show (when we achieved the goal)
Gonzalo
Post by Daniel Narvaez
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?
Post by Sean DALY
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.
Post by Daniel Narvaez
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?
Post by Sean DALY
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
Post by Daniel Narvaez
Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to
marketing because there wasn't major user visible changes?
Post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
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
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
Loading...