Re: [Fwd: Re: New supporter]

[Claus Schwarm <c schwarm gmx net>]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:44:25 -0400
Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com> wrote:

[snip]

> 
> Now, I think what John is pushing for in terms of research (and what
> at least one other party is quietly working on) is a great thing for
> us to do, as it gives developers tools they can use to make good
> decisions about the future of the product. If anyone on the marketing
> team wants to work towards goal setting, that's the way to do it-
> build a very strong case and take it to developers, and assist them in
> understanding the nuances that make you feel the way you do. That kind
> of persuasive research and communication, among peers[2], is the only
> way we can influence the technological direction of GNOME.
> 
> FWIW-
> Luis
> 
> [1] this slide and some of the others from this talk are relevant:
> http://tieguy.org/talks/GUADEC-2002-html/img11.html
> 
> [2] or better yet, not among peers, as the hackers can write GNOME
> without us, but we have nothing to market without them!
> 

Luis,

I am sorry but I would like to add two remarks:

1. There is nothing wrong with assisting developers understanding some
suggestions but it partially involves teaching marketing. Would you be
patient enought for my newbie questions about some details in C
programming? Always?

2. You say: Without GNOME hackers, there wouldn't be GNOME code to
market. Please consider that developers can use their own code for
themselves, at least. If they spend time on it, there's at least a
result for them - even if it's just small. Marketeers (or better yet:
promotors) cannot use the results of their spend time on GNOME promotion
for themselves!

So, althought our own efforts have no direct result for us, did I
understand you correcty: You dare to say we're not really peers? Don't
you think, this is a little bit demotivating?

Cheers, 
Claus