Juergen, I am new to the OO world. What you say sounds reasonable and I all for structuring (a bit, not too much). Gian
On Mon 11/01/10 09:39 , Juergen Schmidt [email protected] sent: > On 1/10/10 10:07 PM, Gianvittorio wrote: > > Christine and all, > > I am a managing director for a software company. In > my daily job we have a planning process that starts in september and ends > in december. January we start the year and we have budget set aside for all > the activities planned for the year (plus 10% I set aside for tactical > activities).> I think we should start with a plan, that way the > decision of whether to participate or not and who, would have already been > taken at the moment of approving the budget.> Gian > i agree that we need a plan for at least one year to have an overview of > our activities. And of course a clear goal. A list of events where we > want to be present etc. But the decision if we can attend or who will > attend is often depending on the event and the decision made there. > Speakers for example are selected often short in front of an event. You > see it would be difficult to nail this down before. And i think this is > not necessary. We should more plan with fix budgets and should modify > the numbers over time when we have more and more experience with the > events and know how much money is needed. And often people get paid by > their companies and don't need a sponsoring. This is also difficult to > plan and depends on various things. > > A minimum requirement for me for an event is to have a booth or stand > with a demo and info material and staffed with a minimum of 2-3 people, > so that at least one person is there at any time. Or to give a talk > about OpenOffice.org. > > Juergen > > > > > > > > On Sun 10/01/10 18:35 , "Christine Louise Beems" > christi > [email protected] sent:>> 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...>> . ~Christine > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Florian Effenberger" floeff@ > >> openoffice.org>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] additional > commands, e-mail: [email protected]>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------> To > unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]> For additional > commands, e-mail: [email protected]> > > > -- > Sun Microsystems GmbH Juergen Schmidt > Nagelsweg 55 Technical Lead Programmability > 20097 Hamburg, Germany > > Registered Office: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 > Kirchheim-Heimstetten > Commercial register of the Local Court of Munich: HRB 161028 > Managing Directors: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland > BoemerChairman of the Supervisory Board: Martin Haering > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
