web site refactoring [was: Marketing Digest, Vol 16, Issue 10]

[Lorenzo Becchi - nabble]

Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Daniele,
> No need to be sorry. It is excellent to see people taking initiative.
+1

@Daniele: if you can please use a better subject than "Marketing
Digest", we would appreciate.

>
> Re who is in responsible for what:
>
> The beauty of OSGeo is that anyone can join any committee, so it is
> incredibly easy for us to restructure ourselves.
>
> The marketing committee have collectively noted that Websites are
> important for marketing, and that $$ should be allocated to the
> website from the marketing budget. Only $20K (plus I think webcom had
> $10K already?) and that will not go far.
>
> I think that Webcom should continue to be responsible for the website,
> and also responsible for spending the $20K budget. Any marketing
> people who want to have a say can join the webcom email list. (I
> suspect most of us are on the list already).
>

I think this is a great initiative but remembers me some projects for
the development I've seen here and there travelling around.
I guess that if you want to give $20K to webcom you should better ask
them if they are interested in and what is their feeling about
priorities (participative approach [1]).
Chris has sent a good list of objections and I have some more that I've
posted [2] before.

regards
lorenzo

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_(decision_making)
[2] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/webcom/2008-December/001937.html

> daniele.ocu ocu wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am veryveryvery sorry If I seemed too hasty in the words I chose in
>> the prior email. Of course that if any actual action in the website
>> is taken, it will be of common desire both of the Marketing
>> committee, of the Webcom and of other who are interested.
>>
>> This is just the beginning, where *_gathering information_* is a
>> crucial part.
>>
>> Getting _*your ideas*_ on what is good about the website and what
>> might be object to change is an extremely important part of planning
>> what can be done.
>>
>> This is JUST AN EFFORT to get the OSGeo Community to *_start
>> discussing and thinking_* of ways to gather more users, contributers,
>> volunteers and *sponsors* to this vibrant community.
>>
>> This is STILL Just a discussion, a place to set ideas.
>>
>> Daniele.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Christopher Schmidt
>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:43:32PM +0900, daniele.ocu ocu wrote:
>>     > Dear Marketing committee,
>>     >
>>     > We have started working on the website redesign.
>>
>>     Daniele,
>>
>>     I'm concerned that this is being done without interaction with
>>     WebCom --
>>     or if this interaction is happening, I'm not aware of it.
>>
>>     Currently, I've expressed some concerns about the current state
>> of the
>>     OSGeo website, but I do not feel that there is sufficient
>> agreement in
>>     what the website should *be* that we can discuss Content Design,
>>     Layout
>>     Design, etc.
>>
>>     I have some strong ideas about what the OSGeo website should be --
>>     or at
>>     least, questions about what it should be that would need answering
>>     before any redesign was attempted.
>>
>>     Additionally, I think that any website redesign effort can only be
>>     undertaken if a sufficiently motivated set of developers in the
>>     website
>>     technology are involved. I'm not convinced that that is currently
>> the
>>     case; I don't know how much experience you have with the current
>>     website
>>     technology, but I didn't have the impression that you were
>> comfortable
>>     implementing possible changes in this regard.
>>
>>     At the moment, I would like to say that although Marketing can
>>     feel free
>>     to create an advisory suggestion to WebCom about suggestions for the
>>     website, I  do ont feel that WebCom has suficient resources to
>>     implement
>>     any possible suggestions, and I would consider the feedback from
>>     Marketing -- except insofar as it relates directly towards marketing
>>     tasks like management of branding -- to be advisory only.
>>
>>     Please take this into account in any decisions/investment placed
>>     in this
>>     direction.
>>
>>     SOmetime in the near future, I will do my best to outline my
>> hopes for
>>     the OSGeo website to the members of the community; I expect the end
>>     result will be a discussion (either on mailing lists or in a more
>>     interactive forum) about what the OSGeo website should be. When I do
>>     this, I will involve Marketing in that discussion as much as
>> possible.
>>
>>     I appreciate the effort you want to go through, but I just feel
>> at the
>>     moment that it might be a wasted effort due to lack of general
>>     agreement
>>     on the tasks needed for the website; if this is the result of some
>>     larger discussion I'm missing, I apologize, and I look forward to
>>     resolving my confusion. I don't want to stop the Marketing committee
>>     from participating in website advisory positions, but I also don't
>>     want
>>     to see anyone put forth effort  which may be wasted.
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>     --
>>     Christopher Schmidt
>>     MetaCarta
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Researcher @ Osaka City University
>> Graduate School for Creative Cities
>> http://gisws.media.osaka-cu.ac.jp/gistrends
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Marketing mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>>  
>
>

_______________________________________________
Webcom mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/webcom

[Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)]

Cameron wrote:
>> I think that Webcom should continue to be responsible for the  
>> website, and also responsible for spending the $20K budget. Any  
>> marketing people who want to have a say can join the webcom email  
>> list. (I suspect most of us are on the list already).

Lorenzo Becchi wrote:
> I think this is a great initiative but remembers me some projects  
> for the development I've seen here and there travelling around.
> I guess that if you want to give $20K to webcom you should better  
> ask them if they are interested in and what is their feeling about  
> priorities (participative approach [1]).
> Chris has sent a good list of objections and I have some more that  
> I've posted [2] before.


To me, it doesn't matter "who" is spending the money as long as all  
those involved agree on where to go.  I agree, let's move all  
discussions on this thread over to the Web committee mailing list.

Putting on my webcom hat, I was really motivated by Chris' email that  
he sent to the board last month:
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2008-December/002799.html

There weren't many responses to it, but at our next marketing  
committee meeting there was a marked increase in interest to review  
the website with marketing and targeting in mind.

I'm also encouraged by Jody's ongoing interest in helping target our  
message:
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/marketing/2009-January/002099.html

I agree that a more targeted approach is needed and that the end  
result would be a simplified website that guides users, developers  
and business folks to the right kinds of tools and solutions that  
they need.  I have more brainstorming I will put into a wiki page,  
but follows much of the same thought as Jody and Chris.

Many on the marketing committee are also interested in helping things  
improve, so I believe it is a good time to discuss general ideas and  
issues (and objections or concerns).  No one is going to force a  
change if the rest of webcom (besides me) feels this is not an area  
of interest, but I hope we can recognise that Marketing and Webcom  
share the same goals: advance the mission of OSGeo!

Tyler
_______________________________________________
Webcom mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/webcom