On 3 February 2014 10:14, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3 February 2014 08:42, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ashley, >>>> >>>> Wrt marketing plans: yes, but half way between my head, and my private >>>> notes. Unfortunately, my private notes also contain things from >>>> private conversations with people. Major mistake on my part. Apologies >>>> to the community. >>>> >>>> I've just sent an email giving a few people notice that I plan to >>>> start moving things over to the wiki. Hopefully over the next week or >>>> so I can get all of our existing marketing ideas in a communal space >>>> so we can start to discuss it. >>>> >>>> As for the marketing@ list: great. So what we'll do now is wait >>>> another day or two. If nobody objects, we can make the list. (This is >>>> how we make most of our decisions on the project. >>>> >>> >>> I am not sure it's a good idea to have a marketing list. Marketing >>> should be linked to dev and vice-versa . It's important that marketing >>> follows dev discussion and that dev follows and interact with the >>> marketing. Having 2 mailing-lists will create a disconnection. Which is >>> good path to the failure in tech. Also due to the low volumes of mails on >>> @dev this shouldn't be a problem. >>> >>> - benoit >>> >> >> hm ... I understand exactly what you mean and I agree, if we would speak >> of a company with different big departments here. But in our project I >> think it is totally ok that we have two different lists and the people who >> are strongly interested in both parts should subscribe both lists. The >> advantage imho is to not flood the dev@ list with unrelated stuff ... >> > > > Why do you think it would be different because we are an opensource > project? If marketing people don't want to follow all devs discussion then > there is some perspective problem imo. The same for devs that ignore the > users perspectives. Marketing should be elaborated with all the devs, not > in a side corner. At least this what we learn in management schools. And > this is really true for a **neutral** opensource project which has no > business perspective (and shouldn't have). > > - benoit > I did not mean to see it differently because we are an OpenSource project but because of the size of the project. I don't think that we will have the situation, that the marketing activities are going into a different direction because of having two lists. I still believe that everything is very transparent. Having more lists does not lead to in-transparencies but will lead in more focused discussions. The connection between marketing and development targets is created by the interest people have - and they should be interested in both and should therefor subscribe both lists ... if they don't they are not interested in marketing activities (what is ok for me). But I agree that if no dev will subscribe the marketing list, we will have the marketing activities in a side corner ... -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! http://www.couchdb-buch.de http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588 https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
