Howdy Rich, On 30/06/06, Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like I stated in a previous message is that for Canonical contact I believe we should have a POC for them.
I can see the benefit to this: * the guys at Canonical are busy, so one contact point could save them from having to filter too much * if we agree a stance or whatever on the ML or in meetings, the POC would present those and Canonical would know what we'd agreed * inevitably some marketing stuff may be commercially sensitive - Canonical may appreciate someone they know will respect embargoes etc. On the other hand: * you say we should have a POC for Canonical - do you mean only for Canonical? If so, why only Canonical? * it could give the impression of a hierarchy that doesn't exist * may discourage people's creativity/entrepreneurial spirit, if they feel they have to go through an ordained channel * POC may become unavailable, so we'd need to a back-up plan. This is just off the top of my 'ead but it'd be good to hear other people's views on why, if at all, we should have one POC for Canonical-related activity.
I can also see that it could make it appear that there is a heirarchy within the team that doesn't really exist.
That could be the biggest problem, so we'd need to put in place other measures to ensure we remain as open and "flat" as possible - e.g. make sure new people are always replied to, have wiki pages that reflect our open nature, etc. It could also be that, after discussion, we decide the benefits of a POC outweigh the perceived hierarchy problem. -- Matthew Revell www.understated.co.uk -- ubuntu-marketing mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
