On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 02:04 +0000, Graham Lauder wrote: > In conclusion many positives in terms of the greater conference. Many > more educators are aware of OOo. We have a positive high profile as a > project, especially in terms of the NLC. However we did ourselves no > favours with the MiniConf organisation. We need to substantially lift > our game in that area.
The question is how to do it? If its entirely relying on volunteer goodwill the quality will be entirely dependent on individuals. That is a known recipe for uneven standards in whatever field we care to mention. Its why we need some form of income stream. Without it I can't see how this situation will get much better. We had similar problems at DLS last year and look at the acrymony generated. The difference between Mozilla and OOo there was because Mozilla sells merchandise they have money to fund the things that make their presence at a conference work. Decent presentation materials and the money to ship them places, professionally printed leaflets and handouts and the merchandise itself. Its really not fair on the volunteers to make the effort to get to these places often at their own expense and then to be made to feel that their work is counterproductive. The marketing project needs a budget - if necessary set up its own foundation and put some energy into fund raising. Yes I know about all the problems with an OOo foundation but until all that is sorted out there is nothing to stop the MP setting up a not for profit bank account and doing some fund raising. We should have done it 3 years ago and then we would have been 3 years further down the road but if we wait another 3 years..well its a no brainer as to the outcome. BTW, Graham thanks for the report. I only wish I could have got down under again - maybe next year :-) -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd