Re: Formalizing the marketing team

["Quim Gil" <qgil gnome org>]

On 7/30/07, Claus Schwarm <c schwarm gmx net> wrote:
> The web revamp project, for example, has a rather well defined list of
> members. It has clear responsibilities. And it has a rather clear
> decision process. It's under specific management for over a year and
> while there was some progress, it's still not done, yet.

Having a formalized team doesn't guarantee any success but it helps
finding out the causes of failure and the people responsible. In your
example, it is plain easy to see who failed delivering when and who is
now responsible of what. We can't tell the same about most of the
excellent ideas and projects discussed in the past.

> This is NOT meant to be offensive, it's just an example. I can add some
> other examples from recent years.

Please add them. We will probably see again that even if there was a
failure the causes are clearer when there is a formalized team and
objectives.

> Many of them were blocked, but that does not meant we had no suggestions,
> right?

Having a formalized team and clear objectives would help seeing now
why these suggestions were "blocked" and who decided that (if they
were blocked at all, probably nobody would stop you from doing
anything you really want to push forward).


> What we really do disagree on is the creation, the artwork, the
> message, the design.

Yes, we could get official agreements on this if we had a limited
amount of reliable people deciding something, instead of discussing
all this in the abstract trying to find consensus in an undefined list
of subscribers to marketing-list.

This mailing list has proven to be an excellent place to discuss...
but not a great place to make decisions. Attaching the formalized
committee to it we can solve this key issue.

> Since design by committee has not be proven successful in the past

When did this happen?

-- 
Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org