I'd like to (if at all possible) pull this thread together with all the
other various requests for funding but not in context of 'approving' (or
disapproving)... only as an open forum for discussing what 'we' (the
Community) agree to as appropriate expenditures from our marketing purse.
That is, in terms of adopting a marketing plan this seems a vital
consideration because there are many, many, many 'right' (correct, good and
proper) ways and things upon which one can spend money, thus unless this
resource is limitless allocation decisions must be made.
And I agree very much with Florian, that 'trust among leadership/volunteers'
is essential for any organization to exist, let alone thrive.
Still, in context of developing an organization with a 'high trust culture',
there are certain fundamental 'controls' or 'guidlines' which leadership
must adhere to and (if necessary, hopefully gently and politely) 'enforce'
in order to demonstrate 'trustworthyness' in terms of allocating resources
from the coummunity purse to any various or particular project.
Yet the fact is that until such standards (controls, guidelines) are agreed
upon by community consensus, it is impossible for leadership to demonstrate
trustworthyness in the administration of community goods.
Thus the critical importance of deliberately thinking these things through
and arriving as some sort of general agreement which outlines the
'appropriate uses' of the marketing budget and prioritizes expenditures of
resources in context of our overarching strategic marketing plan.
Point of reference -- In the mainstream commercial/industrial universe,
there are only 2 acceptable types of expenditures from a 'marketing budget'.
The project and it's related costs (be these travel, brochure production,
website development, newsletter distribution, etc.) *must* seek to either
intice new customers or reward existing customers -- and optimally it must
do both of these at the same time.
And while there are many various elements of the mainstream
commercial/industrial universe that I personally believe should be
abandoned, I also believe there are certain practices which work rather
well, with the qualitative judgement here being pronounced with respect to
'How well does the policy (standard, guideline, control) serve to empower
the well-being of the whole?' With 'the whole' in this instance being
already clearly defined as 'the strategic marketing of OOo'....
Again, just my 3cents. However, I will share that my (strong) opinions are
the derivatives of 40+ years of hands-on participation with various 'good
works' groups (including government) as a volunteer -and- an equal number of
for-profit organizations in a paid-professional capacity. And still, that
and $1-US will get you a cup of regular coffee at McDonald's everywhere...
<grin>. ~Christine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Florian Effenberger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [marketing] Virtual conferencing system Was: [Funding request
for a Visual Identity meeting in Hamburg]
Hi Alexandro,
first of all, thanks for agreeing to the funding of the meeting. I hope
that we can go on with the process now and that nobody is upset. In good
faith, I just booked the hotel and the train, so prices don't explode. :-)
I rather move the conversation to a new thread, about the discussion
on face to face vs virtual meetings. Is easy to say that face to face
is better, is harder to justify who should be involved into this face
to face and why. Does his tittle makes him eligible just because he is
the lead, or his nearbyness is the main factor that can make him
viable for him even if he/she is not the best person just because
"face to face is better".
Well, in the past we never judged a funding request by the title or role
of a person. Sure, we checked who requested the funding, but we never
looked at titles to base our decision on. I agree that often people with
titles/roles request funding, but that's mostly due to the fact that
active people usually hold these "jobs" inside the project, and therefore
also have to request funding quite often.
While I agree that some sort of "controlling" is important, I also would
like to think about trust. Most is based on trust. When we as budget
holders get asked for travel funding for a specific event in a foreign
country, we normally don't know much about it -- neither the country, nor
the event, and also not about local prices. I have to trust the people
when they tell me this event is important and they have long and expensive
flights. Of course, I do some checking, but without trust, it wouldn't
work.
I also see that we are in a slightly different situation, all of us. While
I enjoy living in Germany, thus being able to attend many events, having
quite cheap transportation and lodging costs compared to other countries,
and lots of OOo stuff is going on there, I see that others who live far
away have it much harder, and their demands and needs are quite different.
On the other hand, some people enjoy a good income or getting funded by
their employer, while for me paying a trip to Hamburg means spending more
money than I have in one month. No cinema, no going out etc. for one
month. I think we should try to accept, respect and understand everyone's
situation.
I also see that there are many different views on various topics. It's no
secret that I'm in favor of having even *more* personal meetings, because
to my experience, it helps a lot. I also accept that others cannot make it
due to time reasons, or do not want to because of carbon footprint and
saving the environment. Everything is a valid reason.
We all work on the same common goal, and some work one way, others choose
another way. I think it can't harm to work on things in parallel and
again, trusting people. When I think it's important to have some face to
face meetings or attend several events, I wish for some trust. The same is
true when others have different requirements. We are a project full of so
many different people, so one opinion might not fit everyone.
I'm talking openly because we're an open source project and we should
decide on our goals, ways and also money together. As said, the budget is
not my budget, it is our budget.
Openly said, and I see that this might not be ok for everyone, my wishes
for the future would be: (Not for me personal, but for everyone in the
project)
- Being able to attend more events and present ourselves
- Being able to have more face to face meetings when needed
- But also investing in a conferencing infrastructure to save money and
carbon footprint, as well as enable people living far away to join
This is only my idea, and I'm sure not everyone is happy with it. :-)
However: The marketing project, IIRC, will most likely have the
responsibility of a much larger travelling budget this year, assigned by
the council, so let's spend it wisely.
I still have the feeling that by being able to attend more things in
person (again, not myself, but many people inside the project), we can
gain a lot of attention. Look how often other projects meet -- it doesn't
do them any bad, but the opposite. It might not work for us, but I have
this feeling, and I guess it is worth a try.
Ok, so much for today. :-) I'd love to keep up this discussion and also
talk about it at our planned phone conference.
Then there is the question of price, how expensive is expensive, for
people be very concern with price on paying a company to provide
infrastructure, we are very loose to grant travel budgets. example,
nothing wrong on having 2 600 euros meeting a year but we would think
that is too expensive to pay 12000 euros to a company for virtual
services.
At the moment I think it would, yes. 12.000 € a year is 1.000 € per month.
Looking at how many conferences we are likely to have at the moment, this
would mean several hundred € per conference. Way too much, IMHO.
I asked various times who would be generally interested in conferences,
without knowing details of technical implementation yet. Roughly about 20
people replied. For spending 12.000 € a year, that's too less...
The other issue is that we see no problem wasting money on
transportation companies, but how about spending money on our own OOo
people. I would like to discuss paying for a ticket vs buying a SIP
phone, Webcam, USB professional microphone for a project lead or
Marcon.
As said, for me, it wouldn't help, as you would have to buy me a complete
office where I could work without being disturbed... others have no
internet connectivity, so it doesn't help for them. I even know of some
ISPs who block VoIP. Everyone has different requirements, and we should
have an open ear for them.
I much rather spend money in Sophie, Eric, or John than in Luftansa or
ibis... but that's just me.
This comparison is wrong. We're not talking about Sophie, Eric or John,
we're comparing snom, Grandstream, AT&T with Lufthansa and IBIS. It's all
a point of view...
Again, please let's continue this discussion and check what everyone's
needs are.
Florian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
