next »

[mavrothal]

The last front page post in OLPCnews brings up the question, why this e-mail was published front page without asking the author or "evaluating" the conditions. There are thousands of pro and con posts in various lists, the hasty publication of one of these is clearly the editors' choice.
Maybe is time in these difficult times, not only OLPC but also OLPCNews, to rethink which way to go. A  mission statement if you wish ("independently reporting on OlPC" is not going to cut it because it would appear that there is a clear opinion/aim)
It is clear that after the disappointing G1G1-2008 results there is a change of heart and a lot of frustration, that shows in the selection of front page posts. This is totally understandable. However, once more I repeat that "who's fault is?" never SOLVED a problem. "What is the problem" and "what (not who) must be changed to correct it", has a better chance.
Should we conclude that we have past the solutions stage and we just exercise in finger pointing. Have we adopted and  are comfortable with, the "cheated spouse" role with the only goal "the other to be left with nothing"?  Does the open-source community developing a reality-game-audience mentality?
I'll grant you (with no reserve) that OLPC f****d-up in more than one ways. Now  what?...

What is your answer in the "now what" question?

[Wayan Vota]

As the publisher of that post, I can tell you why I published it - because it captured the frustrations that seem to be reaching a crescendo. Frustrations felt by supporters, volunteers, and even OLPC staff.  This post seemed to capture those frustrations the best, so I published it as a way to get them out in the open and discussed.

To use your analogy, I'd rather have the spouses acknowledge there is anger, frustration, even misunderstandings, and to discuss why the feelings exist and how to change them, than to let all of that simmer and boil into hatred and divorce.

But on your larger point about the tone of OLPC News, you might note the last 10 posts on OLPC News:


 Jan 30 2009 What if OLPC and Sugar Labs were For-Profit?7
 Jan 30 2009 What Does "Open Source Hardware" Mean for the XO-2?4
 Jan 29 2009 OLPC Afghanistan's First Day of School in Jalalalbad0
 Jan 29 2009 I Don't Want a Dual-Boot Sugar/XP XO Laptop17
 Jan 28 2009 First XO-2 Mockup Spotted at WEF in Davos8
 Jan 28 2009 First Picture of an XO-2 Laptop Mock Up in the Wild!!0
 Jan 28 2009 Cambridge Friends School OLPC Pilot by One for All0
 Jan 27 2009 Evaluation & Recommendations for OLPC Organization8
 Jan 26 2009 New York Times Forgets to Credit OLPC for Netbooks16
 Jan 26 2009 In the Chinese New Year, XO's Become OXen0

I feel very proud to say that they are both fanboy and critic, noting what OLPC is doing right and wrong.  That's the editorial focus of OLPC News.

If you'd like to help us focus on positive stories, if you'd like to move us into the "What is the problem" and "what (not who) must be changed to correct it" tone, please submit a Guest Post to [email protected]  We are always looking for new and different viewpoints on One Laptop Per Child.

[mavrothal]

I really do not want to focus neither on "positive" nor on "negative" stories. Stories is not my thing. I do want to explore what might be the viable options out there aiming at expanding affordable, low-power, pedagogic computers, and I believe that finger pointing is dissolving but is not solving things.
I think that we must move past frustration and look ahead, utilizing  the acquired knowledge and experience. You are right however that there are not many more critical stories after Jan 7, just few, and a bit harsher. I guess I'm more sensitized to them specially because I believe that they do not help anything or anyone. But this is not the point in my mind.
The point is if in a really pivotal point  OLPCNews is going to try to help and if yes how? I think inviting an open sober unbiased discussion is something the OLPCNews could do. If a negative climate is generated, and a perception of  a "tipped balanced" is established different views will be silence or absent. You don't want that when you really looking for solutions.
The real issue I believe is indeed:  "and now what?" and this is the one that we should be focusing on. If I have a worthy story on that I'll let you know (or just post it here). Till then I would love to here the wisdom of others (past frustration) on possible courses of action. Hopefully you will encourage this.

[Wayan Vota]

I think the for-profit story is an example of "what could we do?" as well as a number of posts coming up - all together keeping a strong discussion of OLPC going.

Sadly, I am forming the personal opinion that we're already too long down a road to have much change with OLPC.  Real innovation is happening with those that have left OLPC (Pixel Qi, Sugar Labs) or inspired by it (netbooks, O3B).  Yet I am always looking for inspiration (and authors) that could change this opinion.

Oh and as to "unbiased", may I remind you that:

Yet, dear reader, you should know that the editors behind OLPC News are not objective reporters of the latest news. We are most definitely biased. We believe the following:

   1. Across the developing world, education systems need to change dramatically to prepare their children for the modern world
   2. Children (and adults) learn best when they are actively involved in the learning process
   3. Involved teachers, relevant content, and appropriate technology can facilitate both educational change and learning motivation

These changes are happening now, in the deployments and in local communities all around the world. We at OLPC News are doing our part to expand this change by making the OLPC project "open, organized, and transparent,"

[mavrothal]

Hopefully you see the discrepancy between the quotation and the statement "Real innovation is happening with those that have left OLPC (Pixel Qi, Sugar Labs) or inspired by it (netbooks, O3B)" The one is  about education/process and the other about hardware/OS.
I'm interested in the quotation and on what can NOW be done about it. Are you suggesting wait for the (cheaper and better?) Pixel Qi machines and better Sugar and till then just do nothing?
I wouldn't like that and I'm looking for input.
Please help and encourage the process.

[Wayan Vota]

I do note the discrepancy - the statement is my personal opinion, which is sometimes expressed in OLPC News.  The quotation is the stance of OLPC News editors (myself included), expressed daily in OLPC News.

While its not always evident, behind the OLPC News scenes I am trying t get more news out of Sugar Labs that focuses on educational change, and from every deployment on how they're activity making change now.

But I am only one person, so again I ask for your (and everyone's) help in forming the olpc community into a agent for positive change.  Guest Posts are one way.  Calling me out to be more positive here is another (that's meant as a thanks for expressing your thoughts in this thread - they are duly noted).

[GregYohn]

Who is replying to those statements from OLPC?

The news and forum should be a way to get OLPC to clean up its act. I see problems happening and don't see OLPC addressing them.

[mavrothal]

Who is replying to those statements from OLPC?

The news and forum should be a way to get OLPC to clean up its act. I see problems happening and don't see OLPC addressing them.

None!
If they did probably we wouldn't have them.
However, once more I say they f****d-up. Now what?
Any  Input? ideas? Can anything be done to advance the original goals with or without the official OLPC organisation?

[Eddie Owens]

I think OLPC should adopt the Paul Newman Strategy.

When the XO-1 was introduced, it had many features that were technologically exciting. It included many aspects of design which would improve its functionality in third-world conditions, such as low power consumption, protection of external ports by "ears", overall ruggedness, and the ability to form mesh networks.  Lots of first world consumer-types obviously liked the package too and bought in.

While I do not have any special knowledge of the sources of funding for OLPC, it would seem that the funds generated by G1G1-2007 were substantial and contribuited in a significant way to  the mission of facilitating computer-assisted education in underdeveloped  areas of the world.

It would seem clear, that whatever the sources of the OLPC funding are, they are rapidly drying up, and the orbit of the entire activity seems to be perilously close to the pull of a black hole, and I am not sure it will survive.

I think that OLPC should rapidly transform itself into a "for-profit non-profit" business model, like that of the Paul Newman Foundation.  That is, they compete in the marketplace, but all the after-tax profits go to facilitating computer/facilitated or computer/enhanced (whatever these terms mean) learning in countries where educational opportunities are poor to non-existent.

But obviously the "Paul Newman strategy" requires a really good product, because you are competing with for-profit companies in a technologically sophisticated marketplace, and this includes the need for good customer and technical support.  One could hardly claim that OLPC has been good at support!  And selling one's product for 6 out of 52 weeks is hardly a recipe for success!

If the market wants a dual-boot (or triple- or quadruple-boot) netbook, then make the darn thing and sell it for a profit!  If the customer wants a 2 GHz processor, make it available.  Offer the consumer Sugar, glucose, fructose, sucrose, Ubuntu, XP or whatever!  And then use the profits to support more XO-1 distributions and the support personnel necessary to make it happen.  The G1G1-2008 clearly demonstrated that there is no longer a market for for the XO-1 in the developed world.

Just think what OLPC could do with profits that have been generated by the Asus Eee PC, and Acer and HP equivalents?  These products have been remarkably successful.

I think that many people, when offered equally capable netbooks, one where the profits go to shareholders and in the other the profits go to charity, would look favorably on the latter.   BUT IT HAS TO BE A GOOD PRODUCT, "good" defined by what the market wants at that time, so some savvy business types who are attuned to the market need to be included.

The Paul Newman Foundation has distributed more than $250 million to charities.  Paul Newman has a good product  (just ask the recipients of his charitable donations!). 

[Wayan Vota]

Paul Newman has great product, just ask those, like myself, who love them.  I am a big fan of his salad dressings and buy them because they are the best on the market.... and they do good.  Note the emphasis.

[mavrothal]

Newman Inc is a great company with great products and great goals, but I do not think that OLPC should replicate it.
Let’s see what OLPC wants to do.

1) Promote 1:1 computers as a learning and social development tool for the developing (and maybe developed) world. In order to achieve that it proposes
2) Hardware that is affordable, durable, power consumption-lean, interconnected (mesh) and outdoors usable (when necessary). And
3) A UI/Application/content package appropriate for young kids.

So it should be 3 entities, related but not necessarily connected with organizational ties.
1) OLPC foundation. Should be a mostly PR/consulting non-profit organization where Negroponte and co will try to convince the world that this is the way to go in education, and come out of poverty, “and by the way these are your available options”. Eg OLPC should try to generate/increase the interest/market for the "products"
2) XO Inc. Thanks to OLPC the netbook era has arrived. The market already has machines of various capabilities costing from $100-$400+, improving with a fast pace every year. What XO Inc should do, is have the MIT wis-kids push the envelope even further in the category and drive the market in the desirable direction according to aim 2 above. This should be a for profit organization Newman-type. If they offer to build the hardware locally, even better. If another company does it better, no big deal! Is the product that we are aiming for. Not the company.
3) Sugar Org is the most crucial part that needs the major attention and effort. It needs to define a minimum set of hardware requirements and then build the UI that can run on any hardware with these specs and over many if not any OS. Linux, Darwin and (yes!) Windows. In this way it can have the support of a big pool of companies and organizations and minimal enemies (OK… M$ will be always there…).
However, this would be the easy part of Sugar Org! The real challenge is to develop the educational package. Some of it, as math and sciences is universal, so it should provide 5-10 different activities for each of the math, programming, physics, logic etc subjects. Few of these are already there and some exist in other platforms (see a variety of “educational games”). However, many need to be developed. This should be done in co-operation with teachers from all over the world.
For some other disciplines as language, history, ethics/religion etc, the major part of the curriculum in many educational systems, one size does NOT fit all. In this case the EASY application development environment should be provided so the content can be customized locally to fit the needs. This means that you provide a GUI application with boxes, action buttons, and menus where the local developer/teacher defines what material is placed and where (the more forms accepted the better), interconnects it in a suitable way (consecutive, reciprocal, indirect, opposite, random etc), defines the user responses (pick, move, navigate, introduce-remove element, type, etc), defines if they are going to be cooperative, student-to-student (competitive) or teacher-student (testing), and is done! In short something like a GUI Python (or any other interpreter language)! Provide also some sample applications and scenarios as guides to trigger imagination and showcase possibilities. Finally provide truly-universal or region-appropriate content to populate applications.

So after all these, Mr Negroponte comes on his white horse and says:
"Computer education bla…bla… bla…  will change your life for ever.
We offer and support a FREE package that can do all these marvelous things (but for real this time).
You can use any hardware or underlying  OS you wish! Hardware from company A has these advantages and these limitation, from company B this and this, from C… etc. We recommend the XO Inc hardware that is affordable, durable, requires minimal energy consumption, forms ad hoc networks, can be used outdoors and has minimal running cost. It also has these shortcomings but they are way fewer than the shortcomings of other systems (if true). AND you can build it locally or negotiate which company is going to build it for you.
We also believe that open source Fedora/Linux is a better suited, modern and free OS that maximizes the capabilities and minimizes the cost of our proposal. However, at the end is your choice. We are here to help you do what YOU want.
Decide and  go for it!"

Everybody is happy, for-profit and non-profit companies that see a partner/product enhancer and not a challenger, the recipients/users feel that you offer them a fishing boat and not just a fishing pole that can only fish tuna,  and the open-source community has its work cut-out for it... Importantly after all these you really increase the chances to achieve "one laptop per child" for the developing or the developed world.

As usually the devil is in the materialization details and the personalities that will undertake these endeavors but if the goal is common, the boundaries of each organization well defined and the approaches to be taken by each one defined internally but with consultation, it might have a hope

[Wayan Vota]

Wow, I like this, marvothal, especially the part where you say:

Computer education bla…bla… bla…  will change your life for ever.

That has me laughing at 5 in the morning. 

Seriously, I do like this post.  Its worthy to be a Guest Post on OLPC News.

[mavrothal]

Seriously, I do like this post.  Its worthy to be a Guest Post on OLPC News.

Sure. But see what you think in the morning. Feel free to copy edit if you go for it. My english could be better...

Wow, I like this, marvothal, especially the part where you say:

Computer education bla…bla… bla…  will change your life for ever.

That has me laughing at 5 in the morning. 

No matter the shortcoming, Negroponte IS the man. He provided the vision, did the selling and materialized a major project. I believe that this should certainly not be an one-man-show, but his role in the project can not be ignored or marginalized.

[Eddie Owens]

Mavrothal, I think I agree with just about everything that you said.

With the recent 50% staff cut (and pay reduction for the remaining employees) at OLPC, the financial solvency numbers are definitely headed in the wrong direction for organizational survival.

Pixel Qi keeps promising that they will release another break-thru technology in the next couple of months, and the same is promised to be available commercially by summer 2009.

Pixel Qi also publically states that it will provide OLPC with products at cost (http://www.pixelqi.com/faq).  This sounds to me like an opportunity for OLPC to stave off the Grim Reaper. 

I hope that OLPC grabs the ball and runs with it: offer a compelling new netbook in the competitive western markets, using the profits to underwrite Sugar, the educational software R&D and deployment activities.

[mavrothal]

Mavrothal, I think I agree with just about everything that you said.

Thank you
However  if you think of it is just common sense. Common sense is often lost in the heat of daily battles,  immediate problems and high animosity. It is also lost when people live in a very distinct micro-environment.
The issue (and my hope) though, is the relevant and knowledgeable people to see and  publicly asses how feasible such a direction might be and how exactly it could  materialize.
Let's hope that fine strokes will be added on this very broad canvas.