On Monday 03 July 2006 06:02, Matthew Revell wrote: > Howdy Rich, > > On 30/06/06, Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Like I stated in a previous message is that for Canonical contact I > > believe we should have a POC for them. > > I can see the benefit to this: > > * the guys at Canonical are busy, so one contact point could save them > from having to filter too much > * if we agree a stance or whatever on the ML or in meetings, the POC > would present those and Canonical would know what we'd agreed > * inevitably some marketing stuff may be commercially sensitive - > Canonical may appreciate someone they know will respect embargoes etc. > > On the other hand: > > * you say we should have a POC for Canonical - do you mean only for > Canonical? If so, why only Canonical? > * it could give the impression of a hierarchy that doesn't exist > * may discourage people's creativity/entrepreneurial spirit, if they > feel they have to go through an ordained channel > * POC may become unavailable, so we'd need to a back-up plan. > > This is just off the top of my 'ead but it'd be good to hear other > people's views on why, if at all, we should have one POC for > Canonical-related activity. > > > I can also see that it could make it appear that there is a heirarchy > > within the team that doesn't really exist. > > That could be the biggest problem, so we'd need to put in place other > measures to ensure we remain as open and "flat" as possible - e.g. > make sure new people are always replied to, have wiki pages that > reflect our open nature, etc. It could also be that, after discussion, > we decide the benefits of a POC outweigh the perceived hierarchy > problem. > > -- > Matthew Revell > www.understated.co.uk Matthew,
Good points Matthew, as it seems the chose POC is currently away. Matthew I do feel everyone on this list, and everyone on this team has proving that they have the ability to communicate well. With that in mind I think any and all of us should probably communicate with Canonical. However, there will be those who do not communicate as well. I am looking at the situation with an open mind, and I think whatever the best possible solution is, we should go with it. Another thing is that, yes, we do not have any type of hierarchy, which is very popular among the Ubuntu communities, however, I think that w/o some sort of Chain-of-Command or hierarchy, some people may not possess the drive to dive into a job w/o some sort of guidance. OK, that was my 2 cents, however bad it was I apologize in advance. Thanks everyone!!! -- Rich Johnson (nixternal) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/nixternal https://launchpad.net/people/nixternal "The best thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid."
pgpEahwHeVZQw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-marketing mailing list ubuntu-marketing@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
