Meeting:Board meeting 2010-03-18
- Present: Josh Boyer, Tom "spot" Callaway, Paul Frields, John Poelstra, Colin Walters, Christopher Aillon, Mike McGrath, Dennis Gilmore
- Regrets: Matt Domsch, Chris Tyler
Assigned meeting secretary: Tom 'spot' Callaway
- All changes should now be made as requested
- QUESTION: Is there anyone on the Board who cannot support the conclusion that the Desktop Live image should continue as our default offering? If so, what would have to change for you to do so?
- pfrields: part of my SWG responsibilities was to write these two pages for clarifying how default offering is decided and why we have it
- caillon: should reiterate current choice on conclusion page, remove references to "CD" since we're now targetting USB stick
- poelstra: current text does not use "default spin" language, is that okay? Focus on usage of "default offering" to keep message focused.
- All in attendance support publishing of these pages.
- NEXT ACTIONS:
- looking for a constructive way to explain the users we want our default distribution to be for
- Does the diagram help with understanding the concept of a minimum (i.e. inclusive) user base?
- grew out of SWG meetings to close out the topic of Target Audience
- poelstra and pfrields created complementary diagrams to help explain logic
- concerned that use the term "target audience" has been poisoned or overloaded and has too many diffeerent connotations
- Remember decision from October about the user base that the Default offering is intended for
- "if you fall below this line, we still love you, but the default offering may not be for you."
- people above the line are those who it is intended for, and where the focus is
- page intended to cap the issue for the moment, is this page headed in the right direction? does the picture help, and if not, how could it be improved?
- each board member represents a unique point of view--important that we capture all views and that diagram makes sense to us -- if it doesn't the community may not understand it either.
- jwboyer: This looks like we're codifying our userbase, as opposed to stating it as a target
- poelstra: is "target" okay to use?
- dgilmore: target is fine to use, but userbase isn't... userbase is too concrete, target audience is fluid
- walters: perhaps add the term "minimum" ?
- dgilmore: to me, diagram doesn't make much sense, don't see four characteristics
- caillon: diagram similar to concentric circle diagram, maybe that would be easier to understand
- feedback (of original drawing) was that the lines were too hard, categories too separated
- if diagram doesn't work, it is counterproductive to what we are trying to accomplish and I'm not not married to it. Let's create someone that really conveys these ideas and our position well.
- is there a better way to illustrate that "outside this area, someone may not fall in love with or be the right person for this offering" than what we produced here?
- diagram intended to show idea that maybe there aren't hardlevels, gradient intended to show "smooth interface", no real "line" to cross and you're officially a participant
- people drift, up and down, like on a raft. we might want to represent the circular aspect of our community
- we have all sorts of people in our community. we want to represent that
- this diagram is very similar to the conceptual model for communities of practice, seemed like a good fit, but did not want it to hinder making the intended points clear
- want to capture the four aspects:
- voluntary consumer
- likely to collaborate
- computer friendly
- general productivity user
- concentric circle diagram was never digital only on a whiteboard
- General idea: similar to pyramid, various levels of user class
- spot: would be much clearer with a picture, perhaps we can revisit it when caillon has a chance to draw this?
- poelstra: what do you think is missing in triangle diagram that circles capture better
- no real difference in shape types, what is differing is split boundary definitions, we do want to target general productivity, windows/macosx user
- one of the things we need to strive to do is to get developer buy-in to us.
- pfrields: seems like missing area defined by caillon falls into general productivity user. even if not a focus, we catch it anyways. with a net.
- caillon: need to target developers explicitly, people will switch for ease of use for developers, also target general productivity user
- mmcgrath: why would i program on a distro that my userbase isn't using
- poelstra: Is it getting away from what we decided in October 2009 to add developer aspect beyond four groups?
- pfrields: Targeting developers is consistent with our "minimum" model; it's something additional we need to call out
- cwalters: dont like using the word "inexperienced", think of NASA guy who is highly capable, but may not be likely to collaborate, probably a very smart user
- pfrields: Using "inexperienced" calls out specific aspect as if experience is more important than other factors... we don't want to exclude someone for reasons of experience, just be judicious about how we make decisions
- dgilmore: some people will never contribute and that's fine
- cwalters: if people do at least run it, they will have a network effect, word-of-mouth, indirect.
- NEXT STEPS:
- poelstra: drive to consensus
- pfrields: we need to see caillon's circles.
- caillon: will get something made today
- dgilmore: has an idea of how to draw it up, will draw it up and send it to the list
- poelstra to take input from caillon and dgilmore and propose a new drawing
- PROPOSED: Wed 2010-03-25 UTC 1600
- Next secretarial duty: Paul Frields
- Anticipated regrets on 2010-03-25 for John Poelstra