On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:51:41 -0500, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:31 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:12:27 -0500, Graham Lauder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Welcome back to everybody after what looked like a very successful
> conference.
>
> I'd like to return focus to the Marketing campaign proposals
>
> Was anything discussed at the conference, with regard to the
campaign,
> that
> those of us who couldn't attend should know about.
>
> Is there a conference page somewhere where there are minutes of the
> meetings
>
> Cheers
> GL
>
At least at the MarCon level there were success stories and failure ones
from the Vendors such as Dell. There were other topics about 'how to
market to web 2.0' in which is a whole lifestyle from the design to the
funny logos to the viral nature of the imeplementations.
Things like the OOo facebook group, more Youtube Videos and more
presence
on things like stumble upon, digg, youtube, slideshare, mugshot and so
on.
Maybe OOo needs to sweep through second life and establish itself as the
virtual world standard ;-)
Also the need of more non profit entities in countries so that
openoffice.org scale to large deployments. basically we are finding that
OOo vendors hav e a hard time justifiying the product and the brand.
Not sure why not for profits will do that any better than profit making
companies. Basically a not for profit still needs a revenue source to
cover operating costs. It needs business models that are not based on
selling software licenses. I did some training yesterday not
specifically related to OOo but OOo went down very well with the
teachers involved when I showed them how to get it and why it would be
useful to them. I get paid for doing that training so its sustainable.
Hi Ian, you miss the point here, the problem is not being a for profit or
not for profit. What the governments need is a legal entity of
OpenOffice.org. The companies that offer the services will use
OpenOffice.org and generate a profit, but the actual OpenOffice.org 'name
holder' should be legally stablish in the country.
I can't see any economic reason for a system builder installing MS Works
on a computer instead of OOo unless M$ is actually paying them to do
it.
Legally a lot of things apartently doesn't make sense until you get
contracts in the mix. For example the OOXML was a clear example when OOo
members legally couldn't represent OOo because legally OOo doesn't exist
like Microsoft does.
Ian
--
Alexandro Colorado
CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES
http://es.openoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
