On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ... > > > > this is the " if they don't they are not interested in marketing activities" which is problematic. By marketing in a community project, I often mean every actions taken to grow the community. I can't imagine a dev not interested by it. Having a marketing list is also quite uncommon in an opensource projects. But to be more concrete I often take the zeromq project as a template to build a successful community, When you see the mailing-lists attached to the project [1] you only have 2. If you take a recent success in communication, the docker project, this is the same [2].
Imo this is part of its success. While it's totally fine to multiply the annonces channels, I do think that a community and its members should act together when it's about core community discussions. Part of these core discussions are: - dev discussions : features/roadmap/status - community discussions - users discussions about some features Also lot of peopple are already subscribed to more than XXX list, to follow N projetcs daily (customer purpose, survey...). When a project starts to have more than 2 lists it starts to be really annoying to track and quite expensive. - benoit [1] http://zeromq.org/docs:mailing-lists [2] http://www.docker.io/community/
