[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan
- Subject: Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan
- From: Telesto <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:15:20 +0200
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
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 again?).
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 7.2?
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 or Firefox.
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:
Slide 28That is a visual representation of the relationships between volunteers
What is the surplus of the sum of "volonteers" and "ecosystem" to form the "community"? Users? Takers?
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..."We have to find a solution where there is consensus by all parties, and
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?
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/
|[board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan||Italo Vignoli <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan||Uwe Altmann <email@example.com>|
|Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan||Italo Vignoli <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan
- Next by Date: Re: [board-discuss] FLOSS software money ecosystem, in general [was Personal: and software freedom.]
- Previous by thread: Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan
- Next by thread: Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan