Hi, >Charles-H.Schulz wrote: >> Sorry to sound a bit authoritative, but given the purpose and the >> name of your web site, did you get any clearance from the Marketing >> project leads? From the community manager? > >One has to find a balance between (1) keeping the community involved, >and organized and (2) being flexible and efficient.
I think Charles' post provides for that. One rather important element of marketing OOo is to make sure that those who are doing it are "on message," and working within the logic of OpenOffice.org. The MP defines that message and defines the boundaries of that logic. > >On the one hand, if you ask permission for everything, and you always >seek complete approval from everyone, nothing will ever get done. We >must make an effort to avoid bureocracy. On the other hand, it's good >to avoid duplication of effort, it's good to keep people informed, and >allow the community at large to get involved. If you ask permission nothing will get done? Not so sure about that. Charles' point was not to create more bureaucracy but rather in the end to reduce more duplication and wasted effort. No one is in favor of bureaucracy, least of all Jacqueline and John (or me). I rather think that if one wishes to work within the boundaries of the MP (or any) project one must ensure that one's efforts are in agreement with the project's goals. Asking the MP leads is not such a bureaucratic step, I think. What we all do not want is losing the message (or confusing it) or duplication of effort. (That duplication and failure to check can cost us. You recall how Sam went ahead and arbitrarily signed us up for Linux World Boston? You applauded the move, saying there should be more such action. But, as it happened, Sam ought to have first seen what our plans were. For, Sun already had a booth there, and OOo was a key element of it. Sam, however, had difficulty getting people to help him staff the booth. The result was that when journalists went to Sam's booth, they thought that was the official booth (he had, and may still have, I believe, the OOo banner). And because very few were there, Brian Profitt could come to the conclusion OOo was short of staff. Lesson: it is better to check with the relevant group before charging ahead.) > >So we need to ask ourselves if SpreadOOo has found an appropriate >balance. I think it has because: > >(1) The idea has been floating around for a long time, this isn't >sudden. (2) But the official marketing project hasn't taken it up. >Hence, this isn't competting with a current initiative. (3) It looks >like the Frando et al are keeping the community informed, and >involved, and inviting contribution. > >So I think they're fine. I also commend them for taking the >initiative. Thanks for the review :-) > >I don't think that approval per se should be a requirement. Instead, I >think that the "requirements" should be (1) inform the appropriate >project with plenty of time to respond and (2) don't duplicate an >existing initiative. In this case, I think they SpreadOOo folk have >done both. Thanks for the summary. But the ultimate arbiters are of course the MP leads. > >Just my $0.02 > >Cheers, Daniel. > Best, Louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
