Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-14 Thread Florian Effenberger

Hi Sophie,

Sophie wrote on 2010-01-11 14.17:


Sorry for jumping late, I've health problems and I'm not really
available. But this is important.


I hope you get well soon! Take care!


 From what I see, most of the active community members have no lead role
in the project. Most of the people doing l10n, QA or documentation have
no other title than community contributor but each of them is as
important as any other.


Sorry if you got the wrong impression by my sentence. I did not mean 
that their work is not so important as the work of people with "titles". 
What I meant is that it might be no coincidence that always the same 
people, and also lots of people with roles/"titles" amongst them, 
request money. It might give the impression that only a few people get 
funded, but basically, it's often a only a handful of people doing trips 
or other things that require funding. That's what I wanted to express -- 
that we don't give more money to people with roles than to others. ;-)



The issue I get with those face2face meetings organized in Hamburg is
that they are often organized off list. Rosana came last week with the
request of funding a team, great and nothing to say about it, but what
if some of us would have been willing to participate, even on our own
budget ?


I agree that this time the planning and the communication was not good 
-- but no one is to blame here. This time it was necessary. Please wait 
for our summary so you see why.


Again, I agree that it was basically not the right way and it should not 
be "normal" -- but when you see our summary, you know why. In the 
meantime, please trust me. :-)



For me, it's very difficult to feel that I belong to a community process
when I'm not able to take part at the heart of it. How do you feel
involved in that case ? It's not only a marketing issue here, but
branding is not only marketing also, it concerns the art project, the
NLC, UX also. This is something frustrating for those who are willing to
invest time and/or resources/money in a project or a decision process
and they are not invited nor informed to participate to an important
part of it.


I absolutely agree that we need to take care not to form "inner circles" 
excluding others, and that we need to take care of using the lists as 
often as possible. This is one of my personal goals I set myself, and I 
hope we can work on it and improve it throughout the project.



Virtual conferencing system should be evaluated also as a tool for the
OOo project and not only on a marketing point of view. It should be
evaluated at a infrastructure level to enhance the community
participation and reinforcement. So the budget should be supported as a
community wide one and not only on the marketing one. The marketing
action here is marketing the community ;)


I think the marketing can be a good start, but for sure, the goal would 
be to have this infrastructure for all the community. As you can see, 
I'm currently playing with some tools to see where we can get. :-)


Florian

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org



Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-11 Thread Alexandro Colorado



On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Sophie  wrote:

Hi all,
Sorry for jumping late, I've health problems and I'm not really available.
But this is important.
Florian Effenberger wrote:


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.


From what I see, most of the active community members have no lead role in
the project. Most of the people doing l10n, QA or documentation have no
other title than community contributor but each of them is as important as
any other.
The issue I get with those face2face meetings organized in Hamburg is that
they are often organized off list. Rosana came last week with the request of
funding a team, great and nothing to say about it, but what if some of us
would have been willing to participate, even on our own budget ?
This has already been the same with the QA meetings, UX and may be others I
forgot about.
For me, it's very difficult to feel that I belong to a community process
when I'm not able to take part at the heart of it. How do you feel involved
in that case ? It's not only a marketing issue here, but branding is not
only marketing also, it concerns the art project, the NLC, UX also. This is
something frustrating for those who are willing to invest time and/or
resources/money in a project or a decision process and they are not invited
nor informed to participate to an important part of it.

Virtual conferencing system should be evaluated also as a tool for the OOo
project and not only on a marketing point of view. It should be evaluated at
a infrastructure level to enhance the community participation and
reinforcement. So the budget should be supported as a  community wide one
and not only on the marketing one. The marketing action here is marketing
the community ;)


That's why I feel about investing much more money shouldnt come from the Marketing budget but from the infrastructure budget, and that's why I feel more investment should take place like buying VoIP phones, or quality microphones to the people the matter the most to the project. While at the same time invest into an infrastructure that is sufficient to pay for the minutes and services or the management of a VoIP (asterisk) infrastructure for such phones. 

I am not a big IP Telephony guy but I do know that there are free alternatives like TinyChat, Stickam, Ustream and others, however usually I found people with not the correct microphone, bad connectivity or have to rush into setting up their systems. 


I participate with organizations like my stock brokers that use a lot of 
Webinars through WebEX and GoToMeeting, I hate them because is a Windows/OS 
specific, but I do know that there are alternatives like Elluminate that 
handles Linux as well (but sucks at it on my distro). So I don't have a silver 
bullet here, but I know that this is possible to do cheap or on the free side.


Kind regards
Sophie


-
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


Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-11 Thread Sophie

Hi all,
Sorry for jumping late, I've health problems and I'm not really 
available. But this is important.

Florian Effenberger wrote:

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.


From what I see, most of the active community members have no lead role 
in the project. Most of the people doing l10n, QA or documentation have 
no other title than community contributor but each of them is as 
important as any other.
The issue I get with those face2face meetings organized in Hamburg is 
that they are often organized off list. Rosana came last week with the 
request of funding a team, great and nothing to say about it, but what 
if some of us would have been willing to participate, even on our own 
budget ?
This has already been the same with the QA meetings, UX and may be 
others I forgot about.
For me, it's very difficult to feel that I belong to a community process 
when I'm not able to take part at the heart of it. How do you feel 
involved in that case ? It's not only a marketing issue here, but 
branding is not only marketing also, it concerns the art project, the 
NLC, UX also. This is something frustrating for those who are willing to 
invest time and/or resources/money in a project or a decision process 
and they are not invited nor informed to participate to an important 
part of it.


Virtual conferencing system should be evaluated also as a tool for the 
OOo project and not only on a marketing point of view. It should be 
evaluated at a infrastructure level to enhance the community 
participation and reinforcement. So the budget should be supported as a 
 community wide one and not only on the marketing one. The marketing 
action here is marketing the community ;)


Kind regards
Sophie


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org



Re: Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-11 Thread Gianvittorio
rol) 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>  fac

Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-11 Thread Juergen Schmidt

On 1/10/10 10:07 PM, Gianvittorio wrote:

Christine and all,
I am a managing director for a software company. In my daily job we have a 
planning process that starts in september and ends in december. January we 
start the year and we have budget set aside for all the activities planned for 
the year (plus 10% I set aside for tactical activities).
I think we should start with a plan, that way the decision of whether to 
participate or not and who, would have already been taken at the moment of 
approving the budget.
Gian
i agree that we need a plan for at least one year to have an overview of 
our activities. And of course a clear goal. A list of events where we 
want to be present etc. But the decision if we can attend or who will 
attend is often depending on the event and the decision made there. 
Speakers for example are selected often short in front of an event. You 
see it would be difficult to nail this down before. And i think this is 
not necessary. We should more plan with fix budgets and should modify 
the numbers over time when we have more and more experience with the 
events and know how much money is needed. And often people get paid by 
their companies and don't need a sponsoring. This is also difficult to 
plan and depends on various things.


A minimum requirement for me for an event is to have a booth or stand 
with a demo and info material and staffed with a minimum of 2-3 people, 
so that at least one person is there at any time. Or to give a talk 
about OpenOffice.org.


Juergen





  On Sun 10/01/10 18:35 , "Christine Louise Beems" christ...@gozarks.com sent:

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

Re: Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-10 Thread Alexandro Colorado

This is a great idea, in the past I submitted a list of events that louis 
requested, but that list was not contributed further on the list. Maybe we 
could re-use this list and start taking shots at it.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Gianvittorio  wrote:

Christine and all,
I am a managing director for a software company. In my daily job we have a 
planning process that starts in september and ends in december. January we 
start the year and we have budget set aside for all the activities planned for 
the year (plus 10% I set aside for tactical activities).
I think we should start with a plan, that way the decision of whether to 
participate or not and who, would have already been taken at the moment of 
approving the budget.
Gian


 On Sun 10/01/10 18:35 , "Christine Louise Beems" christ...@gozarks.com sent:

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 > o

Re: Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-10 Thread Gianvittorio
Christine and all,
I am a managing director for a software company. In my daily job we have a 
planning process that starts in september and ends in december. January we 
start the year and we have budget set aside for all the activities planned for 
the year (plus 10% I set aside for tactical activities).
I think we should start with a plan, that way the decision of whether to 
participate or not and who, would have already been taken at the moment of 
approving the budget.
Gian


 On Sun 10/01/10 18:35 , "Christine Louise Beems" christ...@gozarks.com sent:
> 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>> "f

Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-10 Thread Christine Louise Beems
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" 

To: 
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 situ

Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-09 Thread Florian Effenberger

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

Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-08 Thread Florian Effenberger

Hi,

will reply to the mail later on -- but just got an e-mail by the folks 
from talkyoo that conference rooms will cost from now on. We should be 
able to make the marketing phone conference nontheless, because they 
wrote as early adopter I will be able to use the service for free for 
some more weeks. After then, certain features and conferences with more 
than *six* people, will cost money.


Should we go on with their service, it will cost us:

	- 14,95 € per month for a maximum of 10 participants with a maximum of 
6 conferences per month


	- 24,95 € per month for a maximum of 25 participants with a maximum of 
9 conferences per month


	- 49,95 € per month for a maximum of 50 participants with a maximum of 
18 conferences per month


Quite expensive, I think...

I will ask the Mozilla folks on how they do their phone conferences, 
but: Has anyone a short-term alternative available that's cheaper? 
Setting up our own SIP service (should we decide to do so) will take 
some time.


Shall I ask talkyoo whether they want to sponsor us with free conference 
services? Or shall we look for other services before deciding for one 
specific vendor?


Any input welcome. :-)

Thanks
Florian

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org



Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-08 Thread Alexandro Colorado



On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Christine Louise Beems  
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 . ~Christine

- Original Message - From: "Alexandro Colorado" 
To: "dev" 
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

---

Re: Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-08 Thread Gianvittorio
Well done Christine.
Gian

On Fri 08/01/10 19:05 , "Christine Louise Beems" christ...@gozarks.com sent:
> I think you raise excellent points, Alexandro and I understand
> Florian'sperspective, 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
> communityresources) in terms of 'how expensive is expensive' I humbly suggest 
> that
> inany collaborative endeavor in order for an informed decison to be made
> aboutthe 'wise' allocation of funding or other resource, there must first be
> a'marketing plan' so it can be determined whether the  (proposed)
> projectactually serves the marketing objectives that we (the community) seek
> toachieve.
> 
> That is, until we have ratified a marketing plan which clearly
> articulatesour (current) objectives, it is impossible to make a 
> rational/logical
> decision regarding the appropriateness of any (proposed) project
> fundingbudget. 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
> (andrelatively easily) evaluated in proportion to the actual/potential
> 'returnon investment' being made by the community in the interest of 
> (effectively
> &eficiently) 'getting the word out' about OOo.
> 
> Anyway, just my 3cents . ~Christine
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Alexandro Colorado" j...@openof
> fice.org>To: "dev" 
> dev@marketing.openoffice.org>Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 8:40 AM
> Subject: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for
> aVisual 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>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.orgfor additional
commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
> 
> 
> 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marke

Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-08 Thread Christine Louise Beems

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.

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.

Anyway, just my 3cents . ~Christine

- Original Message - 
From: "Alexandro Colorado" 

To: "dev" 
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






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org



[marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]

2010-01-08 Thread Alexandro Colorado
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