Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan
What is the targeted objective? To get a marketing communication plan passed? I prefer to put that
on hold. Consensus about what to do, yes. A plan preparing a change. A Schedule. List of things
what needs to be done. Research. Investigating options products/solutions. Markets/ Products. Say,
should there be Personal Edition with some extra's (StarOffice) or doesn't that work (StarOffice
Setting a *5 year*!! communication plan is surely not go. If really, really want to push that thing
through, do it for 1 or 2 years an re-evaluate.
However I a Marketing Communication Plan still really problematic as this should be an part of
large Marketing Plan which is part of a clear business plan (or business plans)
Those other elements (Business Plan, Marketing plan) are pre-requirements for a Communication Plan.
And even more problematic because we are talking about Communication Plan of TDF, and not vendors
Yes, compromises are needed. And there are a lot of compromises to be made. However a Communication
plan is build on the other building blocks (Business plan/Marketing plan).
First a compromise must be found about the business plan, next the marketing plan and at that point
the Communication plan. Not the other way around. The foundation is missing. Hanging in air with
loses ends everywhere. Not enough substance. Enough munition to shoot (criticize) sharp. There is
no clear vision/proposition target. Nor an evaluation if the target makes sense. One/two big fish
or plenty of small fishes? Losing a big fish is far more painful compared to few small fishes.
The whole input here, by different people shows this (jonathon / Lionel Élie Mamane / me). Their
are lose ends everywhere
There should be consensus how to move forwards. Doing a Market analyses (what is the market/market needs; type of
customers) / Developing a Marketing Strategy/ crushing the numbers what returns would be/ overthinking the
position of TDF. Assessing why there is no interest in paid services. L1/2 support relevant for
Goverments/University/s NGO or those doing this kind of stuff in house? Overthinking if there should be multiple
Enterprise Desktop editions by different powered by different company's. The whole forking thing is typically for
open source. The one year Ubuntu the number one, next Mint, next OpenSuse, or Arch or should I use Debian.
Everybody repeating lots of stuff, wasting resources & capital to make point on some "minor"
differences. Ubuntu didn't want to include codecs? Mint did. Mint became bigger. Ubuntu changed minds [not that I
follow the Linux community regular basis, but I assume it's gone this way]. And Collabora/CIB are already
convicted to each other anyhow, I think. Both can't maintain LibreOffice alone as the knowledge about the code is
distributed across. So combine resources. Start some kind of joint venture, where the Enterprise (or other
editions are sold). And make agreements about how profits are shared and the new projects etc. It's not much
different compared to the current case. Not sure how to fit in RedHat (or if it needs to). Again; I think things
should be reshuffled a lot;
So I personally would prefer to leave the marketing communication plan. Use it as a starting point
for a revamp of the whole Enterprise around LibreOffice. On that point consensus is needed. So
start a business plan project. Make a schedule. Dividing tasks. To a market scan (and write it
out). Develop product options/ assess the feasibility product options. Developing strategy's etc.
Making people responsible. Ideally the eco-partners should take the lead; it's about their
business. TDF should be in the loop. And people possibly want to help (because this is shared
effort) to the continuity of LibreOffice.
Introducing a business strategy at the LibreOffice 7.0 release would have be a nice thing. However,
we pasted that station already. The preparation should have been started 1,5-2 year ago (to make it
for 7.0). You maybe lucky to get it done before 7.2 release. Or bend the rules, and jump to 8.0 at
If the company's are gonna promote of the shelf editions, a webshop must be build. You have to take
rules of VAT in account (different country's different rules) or some kind of payment provider
servicing that. So lots of research etc. The Enterprise edition will not suddenly sell million of
copy's. Large organizations are hard to convert taking years. And I hope that the company's
involved have enough cash to survive 1/2 years without major cuts in Development. And have some
budget (quite) available to short this whole thing out; this is surely a upfront investment, with
intended to repay itself.
Are those plan of StarOffice/Oracle still around? Market has changed, of course, but might be some
thing useful in it. Or something from Ubuntu of whatever you can get a hold off. Sparring partners
operating commercially in same type of eco-system could be helpful. As their are commercial and
other interest to be taking into account. Of course LibreOffice is not the same thing as say Ubuntu
I'm not wanting to stall or create differences within board. I want everybody to talk, being very,
very precise what the want (and why its right move). And an argument if things are feasible based
on facts. Research. Not some notations; idea's. You can publish the market analyses (maybe you
overlooked something). You can publish some concept Marketing plan (to get feedback). Not sure how
many people are able/wanting to asses that (being in the scope of their interest). However idea is
should be public. How open you want to be about development costs/revenue in public is up to the
company's. However at the end the Directions of eco-system partners and Board of directions at TDF
need to decide. With lots of info publicly available you can defend the discussions made. People
will disagree; see things differently. At minimum the large stackholders support it. I read quite
some useful things. Also quite some 'cruft' lacking substance. Or wrong arguments (which should be
countered within based on the research done). Not boldly ignore, reject. as non-sense. Disproof.
Try to explain (some people can't be convinced; sure), but never stop trying. However you might
have to rephrase or choose a different perspective to make the point clear. People have different
ways of thinking. Miscommunication easily arises.. as we have seen about change in license fuzzy
with a Personal Edition. Which wasn't the intention
It's really needed that every body speaks out himself. Not holding back to much to 'get a
compromise' or consensus; I prefer an open discussion. Everything on the table. The group of people
who makes the decisions isn't to large. They should now everybody's position; how and why. The
community has role; but lots comes down on the persons in charge (the government decides in the
interest of the people; even if a small groups sees that differently.) I think the interests a the
top are pretty aligned and clear. Communicating that the community, yes that might be bit of a
thingy. Note: this not an invitation to object against everything, but convincing people on basis
of arguments, facts, insights.
Oh, for the record, compromises can not always be made. Sometimes you have to choose between evils;
not ending up in the middle. With some watered down solution which won't work for nobody, except
being a compromise. A compromise isn't always a target by its own.
tough decisions maybe be somethings better. Of course consensus is preferred. So convincing people;
making people see things your way. Ideally the discussion is made in consensus (and published that
way). Or opting for dissenting opinion system; where they objection are made clear (similar to
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfG). So everybody can see what's happening. Of course
objections isn't blaming people. It's about arguments. It helps people understand a decision, whats
talked about, why people disagreed. Open communication is of course also a lot work :-). However
you might get people with you and sympathy. [there surely are nice books about change management
books]. Yes, quite some stuff management guru's write is oversold crap. However so basic notions
does give a framework and help you navigate.
Op 17-7-2020 om 10:21 schreef Italo Vignoli:
On 7/16/20 11:36 PM, Uwe Altmann wrote:
What is the surplus of the sum of "volonteers" and "ecosystem" to form the "community"? Users?
That is a visual representation of the relationships between volunteers
and ecosystem inside the community, and has no relation with the size of
the constituents. So outside community and ecosystem there is nothing,
but an oval which contains both smaller ovals to show that they are part
of the same community has some extra space as a consequence of the oval
shape (if I has used circles, the extra space would have been bigger).
And my "ceterum censeo..."
This is why I and some others propose "" set as TDB - so we get "LibreOffice" and "LibreOffice Enterprise,[brought
to you by XYZ]" as a result. This avoids all of the possible negative connotations each of the proposed "additions" to the
build distributed by TDF brings. And allows the intended discrimination as well:
Basically we say there is a "LibreOffice" (vanilla) and "LibreOffice with benefits"
(Enterprise,...) - and that's exactly what we want to tell the people, isn't it?
We have to find a solution where there is consensus by all parties, and
it looks that consensus is partially missing on the one you suggest.
I may or may not agree with the proposed solutions (there will be a day
when I will write a lengthy blog post where I will tell in a transparent
way what I think about this story and the people involved, but this is
not the right time), so the objective is to reach consensus with an
reach consensus with an acceptable compromise.
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy