John McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 16:36 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 09:39 -0400, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
[snip]
fine: we know where
you stand.
You clearly don't but don't let that get in the way of objectivity ;-)
Ian and Louis - I'm not picking on either of you - this just happens to
be the latest email I've seen in this chain.
Cristian has already requested we draw a line under the MS-O / ODF
discussion as it's getting increasingly off-topic. As another co-Lead
I'd like to add my weight to that request.
Please folks - enough.
Thanks - John
What we have here is an example of the old FOSS dichotomy.
Do we convince our clients run with OOo
a) Because it is a great piece of software or
b) Because it's not Microsoft
Louis falls into the first camp for obvious reasons.(Probably where I
fall, because I've been using "OOo" since SO 5.1)
Cor and Ian fall into the second camp because they are dealing with
clients where MS is the encumbent
Ian's comment about Linux being his primary focus and his marketing of
OOo is because it runs on Linux reflects the dichotomy.
I, for instance, run Linux but only because it runs OOo. If OOo only
ran on Windows or Solaris then that's what I'd be using.
So we have two valid points in terms of marketing response to MS and
ODF adoption that are divided on philosphical grounds. That makes
neither of them any less valid.
However it cannot be OOo Marketing's position to try influence the
direction that our opposition should take, that is not it's role nor
should it be and we're certainly not going convince MS to add an ODF
filter because it's good for OOo. The Marketing Project's role is to
relate to our clients. We are selling OOo.... We need to think what is
good for the client:
a) Is it good for the client if MS supports ODF? Yes of course
b) Is it good for the client if MS doesn't support ODF? Yes of course
Both are valid, both can be good for the client and the reasons have
already been covered.
So the question is one of priorities.
I think it would go without saying that MS releasing with an ODF filter
would be an event of sufficient import that an update of the SMP would
be in order. Being prepared for that would not be a bad thing.
In either case the ODF compliance issue is a second or third tier
marketing tool, but then only if MSO goes with an ODF filter.
Certainly not as a first tier, but then I have a pathological objection
to mentioning a competitor in any upper level campaign, so that may be
just me.
So for mine, it's something to be used at "point of sale" rather than
hanging it on a broad spectrum campaign. When you have the customer at
a point when you have a moment to explain the significance and why it
should be important to them.
--
"GET LEGAL - GET OPENOFFICE.ORG"
http://why.openoffice.org
ISO 26300 compliant
Graham Lauder,
OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
INGOTs Assessor Trainer
(International Grades in Office Technologies)
www.theingots.org.nz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
