I'd like to (if at all possible) pull this thread together with all the
other various requests for funding but not in context of 'approving' (or
disapproving)... only as an open forum for discussing what 'we' (the
Community) agree to as appropriate expenditures from our marketing
purse.
That is, in terms of adopting a marketing plan this seems a vital
consideration because there are many, many, many 'right' (correct, good and
proper) ways and things upon which one can spend money, thus unless this
resource is limitless allocation decisions must be made.
And I agree very much with Florian, that 'trust among
leadership/volunteers' is essential for any organization to exist, let alone
thrive.
Still, in context of developing an organization with a 'high trust
culture', there are certain fundamental 'controls' or 'guidlines' which
leadership
must adhere to and (if necessary, hopefully gently and politely) 'enforce'
in order to demonstrate 'trustworthyness' in terms of allocating resources
from the coummunity purse to any various or particular project.
Yet the fact is that until such standards (controls, guidelines) are agreed
upon by community consensus, it is impossible for leadership to demonstrate
trustworthyness in the administration of community goods.
Thus the critical importance of deliberately thinking these things through
and arriving as some sort of general agreement which outlines the
'appropriate uses' of the marketing budget and prioritizes expenditures of
resources in context of our overarching strategic marketing plan.
Point of reference -- In the mainstream commercial/industrial universe,
there are only 2 acceptable types of expenditures from a 'marketing
budget'. The project and it's related costs (be these travel, brochure
production,
website development, newsletter distribution, etc.) *must* seek to either
intice new customers or reward existing customers -- and optimally it must
do both of these at the same time.
And while there are many various elements of the mainstream
commercial/industrial universe that I personally believe should be
abandoned, I also believe there are certain practices which work rather
well, with the qualitative judgement here being pronounced with respect to
'How well does the policy (standard, guideline, control) serve to empower
the well-being of the whole?' With 'the whole' in this instance being
already clearly defined as 'the strategic marketing of OOo'....
Again, just my 3cents. However, I will share that my (strong) opinions are
the derivatives of 40+ years of hands-on participation with various 'good
works' groups (including government) as a volunteer -and- an equal number
of for-profit organizations in a paid-professional capacity. And still, that
and $1-US will get you a cup of regular coffee at McDonald's everywhere...
. ~Christine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Florian Effenberger" floeff@
openoffice.org>To:
dev@marketing.openoffice.org>Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request
for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]
Hi Alexandro,
first of all, thanks for agreeing to the funding of
the meeting. I hope> that we can go on with the process now and that
nobody is upset. In good> faith, I just booked the hotel and the train, so
prices don't explode. :-)>
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".
Well, in the past we never judged a funding request
by the title or role> of a person. Sure, we checked who requested the
funding, but we never> looked at titles to base our decision on. I agree
that often people with> titles/roles request funding, but that's mostly due
to the fact that> active people usually hold these "jobs" inside the
project, and therefore> also have to request funding quite
often.>
While I agree that some sort of "controlling" is
important, I also would> like to think about trust. Most is based on trust.
When we as budget> holders get asked for travel funding for a specific
event in a foreign> country, we normally don't know much about it --
neither the country, nor> the event, and also not about local prices. I have
to trust the people> when they tell me this event is important and they
have long and expensive> flights. Of course, I do some checking, but without
trust, it wouldn't> work.
I also see that we are in a slightly different
situation, all of us. While> I enjoy living in Germany, thus being able to
attend many events, having> quite cheap transportation and lodging costs
compared to other countries,> and lots of OOo stuff is going on there, I see
that
others who live far> away have it much harder, and their demands and
needs are quite different.>
On the other hand, some people enjoy a good income
or getting funded by> their employer, while for me paying a trip to
Hamburg means spending more> money than I have in one month. No cinema, no
going
out etc. for one> month. I think we should try to accept, respect and
understand everyone's> situation.
I also see that there are many different views on
various topics. It's no> secret that I'm in favor of having even *more*
personal meetings, because> to my experience, it helps a lot. I also accept
that others cannot make it> due to time reasons, or do not want to because of
carbon footprint and> saving the environment. Everything is a valid
reason.>
We all work on the same common goal, and some work
one way, others choose> another way. I think it can't harm to work on
things in parallel and> again, trusting people. When I think it's important
to have some face to> face meetings or attend several events, I wish for
some trust. The same is> true when others have different requirements. We
are a project full of so> many different people, so one opinion might not fit
everyone.>
I'm talking openly because we're an open source
project and we should> decide on our goals, ways and also money together.
As said, the budget is> not my budget, it is our budget.
Openly said, and I see that this might not be ok
for everyone, my wishes> for the future would be: (Not for me personal, but
for everyone in the> project)
- Being able to attend more events and present
ourselves> - Being able to have more face to face meetings
when needed> - But also investing in a conferencing
infrastructure to save money and> carbon footprint, as well as enable people
living
far away to join>
This is only my idea, and I'm sure not everyone is
happy with it. :-)> However: The marketing project, IIRC, will most
likely have the> responsibility of a much larger travelling budget
this year, assigned by> the council, so let's spend it wisely.
I still have the feeling that by being able to
attend more things in> person (again, not myself, but many people inside
the project), we can> gain a lot of attention. Look how often other
projects meet -- it doesn't> do them any bad, but the opposite. It might not
work for us, but I have> this feeling, and I guess it is worth a
try.>
Ok, so much for today. :-) I'd love to keep up this
discussion and also> talk about it at our planned phone
conference.>
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.
At the moment I think it would, yes. 12.000 € a
year is 1.000 € per month.> Looking at how many conferences we are likely to
have at the moment, this> would mean several hundred € per conference. Way
too much, IMHO.>
I asked various times who would be generally
interested in conferences,> without knowing details of technical implementation
yet. Roughly about 20> people replied. For spending 12.000 € a year,
that's too less...>
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.
As said, for me, it wouldn't help, as you would
have to buy me a complete> office where I could work without being
disturbed... others have no> internet connectivity, so it doesn't help for
them.
I even know of some> ISPs who block VoIP. Everyone has different
requirements, and we should> have an open ear for them.
I much rather spend money in Sophie, Eric, or John
than in Luftansa or>> ibis... but that's just me.
This comparison is wrong. We're not talking about
Sophie, Eric or John,> we're comparing snom, Grandstream, AT&T with
Lufthansa and IBIS. It's all> a point of view...
Again, please let's continue this discussion and
check what everyone's> needs are.
Florian
---------------------------------------------------------------------> To
unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org> For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.orgfor additional
commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
