On 26/06/2020 18:50, Michael Meeks wrote:
Interestingly the slides were also posted here a week ago, and discussed in a public board meeting last week too (IIRC). [...]
That's great; I must have missed it, though I am subscribed. First five rounds of drafting with the board, the final check with the marketing team, is that how it went? ;)
Clearly, we're soliciting feedback and eager to get input from the whole community.
See my comments to Daniel on opportunities for hearing vs acting
I do not take it for granted that this information was shared with the team prior to adoption (though to gain support from the team it seems like a sensible move).[...] =) this has been quite widely shared; but we can always do more to communicate better; clearly.
Sorry I was unclear -- I meant that it's fine if strategic / policy drafts aren't always shared, in my view. I see little point in sharing something so contentious that the community can't change it, and I recognise the difficulty in handling such topics even internally. Sometimes private drafting is necessary, as I think most NGO board members in other sectors would agree.
The strain on this coordination is plainly visible in the plan itself, on the "preface" slides explaining eg the LibreOffice Online situation. It's a problem when a staff member is forced to hint that some topics are out of bounds in this way because they are stuck between "a rock and hard place" and must resort to such things to discourage input on controversial issues which can have no effect.Hmm? I don't know that anyone is forced to hint anything. And your input is welcome of course on all related topics.
Slide 41 contains several hints in my view. No concrete risks, such as a fork, are stated. CIB and Collabora are not named anywhere in the document.
The problem space here is a large & really complex one where Marketing plays a vital role - many people coming fresh to the problem-space badly need a primer to help understand the interlocking opportunities & pitfalls, so it seems sensible to have a detailed proposal to kick around; of course improving it, or presenting another proposal is perfectly possible.
Instead of trying to do everything in one document, why not break it into strategy statements on the separate issues addressed, then pass those to the marketers as policy directions from the board, so that they can be pursued in purely marketing terms? That's the beginning of an idea at least; I'm sure we could improve on it together.
The current draft plan is broad in scope, covering community management, branding, and touching on ecosystem design. Tough topics could be split into other sections, or strategy documents if necessary, freeing the marketing team with more room to influence the narrower, purely marketing topics which remain.We can come up with a better process of course; but I'm more interested in your (and other) concrete suggestions / or new proposals to make things better - so things can be improved.
Concrete suggestions but again, it seems obvious to me that there are ares of the strategy draft which are not open to influence from volunteers, which in itself is no problem, but makes a request for input, in parts, meaningless. I shared some ideas on the marketing list in response to the first draft. I would have shared several more if they had a hope of having a positive effect. But they don't, so they would merely constitute more hot air.
You had some good ideas around KPIs AFAIR, which I imagine will turn up in the next iteration; but I'm personally eager for more.
Thank you for your encouragement! Sam.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature