On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Christine Louise Beems <christ...@gozarks.com> wrote:
I think you raise excellent points, Alexandro and I understand Florian's perspective, too. And while it seems to me that both of you (and all of us) are seeking to serve the same objective (ie: wise stewardship of community resources) in terms of 'how expensive is expensive' I humbly suggest that in any collaborative endeavor in order for an informed decison to be made about the 'wise' allocation of funding or other resource, there must first be a 'marketing plan' so it can be determined whether the (proposed) project actually serves the marketing objectives that we (the community) seek to achieve.
Well I think is a chicken an egg problem, the way we feel about the issues I raise will be the aspect that shape the marketing objectives and more. Meetings can serve to the marketing project as well of other projects in OOo, like NLC or Development. A proposal could achieve many marketing goals and still be very expensive and a cheaper option could be available that also serve the objectives. The point of this discussion is to evaluate the overal feeling of the marketing project about these issues.
That is, until we have ratified a marketing plan which clearly articulates our (current) objectives, it is impossible to make a rational/logical decision regarding the appropriateness of any (proposed) project funding budget. Only after clear marketing objectives are ratified can specific project costs (face-to-face conferences, exhibit booths, travel subsidies, promotional materials stipends, virtual networking, etc.) be honestly (and relatively easily) evaluated in proportion to the actual/potential 'return on investment' being made by the community in the interest of (effectively & eficiently) 'getting the word out' about OOo.
I fully agree with you on this point, and the marketing project should be able to guide the processes to evaluate efficiency and stablish practice to gain the maximum value for our participation.
Anyway, just my 3cents <smile>. ~Christine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandro Colorado" <j...@openoffice.org> To: "dev" <dev@marketing.openoffice.org> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 8:40 AM Subject: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]I rather move the conversation to a new thread, about the discussion on face to face vs virtual meetings. Is easy to say that face to face is better, is harder to justify who should be involved into this face to face and why. Does his tittle makes him eligible just because he is the lead, or his nearbyness is the main factor that can make him viable for him even if he/she is not the best person just because "face to face is better". I agree that face to face is better, but only if everyone that want to participate is available to assist. Yes we do have an OOoCon, but it also have those same issues. I WOULDNT say that the marketing meeting failed to provide a consensus even thought it was face to face. But I would say that time was also an issue and with many activities in such few days, face to face proved to not have much effect on reaching a final decision on a new marketing plan for 2010. The way I see, the only way to provide a good overview is to have most parties involved and carry on the conversation. Like Lars said, there is IRC, Skype and also VoIP. However there is also other services that many people use like TinyChat, Stickam, UStream etc. Hanging with Web 2.0 people, they have proved to be quicker to adopt new technology while I still struggle to have a skype conference with many people in Sun/OOo because they are not used to the technology. Then there is the question of price, how expensive is expensive, for people be very concern with price on paying a company to provide infrastructure, we are very loose to grant travel budgets. example, nothing wrong on having 2 600 euros meeting a year but we would think that is too expensive to pay 12000 euros to a company for virtual services. So I want to define how expensive is expensive. Then there is the issue on openess, we are a free software project and we should support free and open source options. SIP is by far more open than the skype protocol, but skype make it so easy to use that is also prefered than the free alternative. I dont think this is a good way of looking at things. We should discuss this further. The other issue is that we see no problem wasting money on transportation companies, but how about spending money on our own OOo people. I would like to discuss paying for a ticket vs buying a SIP phone, Webcam, USB professional microphone for a project lead or Marcon. I much rather spend money in Sophie, Eric, or John than in Luftansa or ibis... but that's just me. -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español IM: j...@jabber.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
-- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español IM: j...@jabber.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
