Marketing Committee Meeting 20191202
Date: 2019-12-02
Time: 12:00 UTC
Venue: irc #idempiere-mc
Called by: Marketing Committee
<barg4barg> Hi )))
<CarlosRuiz> Hi
<barg4barg> 15:01
<druiz> Hi
<AdamSawtell> Hi
<barg4barg> Hi )))
<barg4barg> Hi Chuck )))
<marc-marc> hi
<ChuckBoecking> Hi Guys!
<barg4barg> Diego is present also )))
<druiz> Hi guys, I'm glad to see everyone here again :)
<barg4barg> lets proceed?
<druiz> I would like to propose the following agenda for today's meeting
<druiz> Agenda
<druiz> 1) Define the calculation method to choose the the slogan.
<druiz> 2) Continue with the discussion from last week's meeting. What can be improved in the project to ease the task of contributing
<druiz> 3) Trademark guidelines.
<CarlosRuiz> good
<ChuckBoecking> +1
<AdamSawtell> +1
<barg4barg> +1
<druiz> Ok - let's start then - regarding #1 Have you all checked the mail I sent on Saturday?
<marc-marc> +1
<barg4barg> +1
<CarlosRuiz> yes - I checked the email
<ChuckBoecking> +1
<CarlosRuiz> From what I read I think the winner is:
<CarlosRuiz> "iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise"
<druiz> I say there what I think, surveyhero's calculation method is heavily affected by how the poll is responded, I would not stick to their calculation. But I don't know what you guys think
<ChuckBoecking> love it!
<CarlosRuiz> according to surveyhero algorithm the winner is "iDempiere. Your Perfect ERP" - but from what it says there - just 14 persons ranked that slogan
<CarlosRuiz> and some of those persons were people that ranked all the slogans
<CarlosRuiz> and surveyhero shows in the same page that "iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise" was ranked 21 times
<druiz> "iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise" That one is the top one using two different calculation methods, times ranked and weighting the top 3 from all respondents
<CarlosRuiz> I also like it -> "iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise"
<CarlosRuiz> not much the "perfect" :-)
<AdamSawtell> iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise - Love it
<druiz> "iDempiere. The next generation ERP" is really close in the weighting calculation but has the 5th place in times ranked
<barg4barg> "iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise" is the best imho
<druiz> +1 from me too
<ChuckBoecking> It seems like "take control of your business" is effectively #2
<druiz> It seems like "take control of your business" is effectively #2 -> I like that one a lot. I think it addresses different targets
<barg4barg> "iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise" - just to be clear it has lower surveyhero score because not all 21 put it on place 1
<ChuckBoecking> +1
<ChuckBoecking> sorry
<ChuckBoecking> +1
<barg4barg> so what is the decision proposed?
<barg4barg> does Commitee has a power of overriding?
<druiz> For me the winner is the one proposed by Marco (@marc-marc). "iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise"
<barg4barg> +1
<druiz> We defined that the Committee chooses the winner from the top 5
<barg4barg> good
<CarlosRuiz> +1 -> iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise
<barg4barg> +1 -> iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise
<druiz> +1 -> iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise
<AdamSawtell> +1 -> iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise
<ChuckBoecking> +1
<CarlosRuiz> good - we're not overriding - it was the most ranked, and the most voted in first place
<CarlosRuiz> nice slogan marc-marc - thanks :-)
<marc-marc> :-)
<marc-marc> abstained ;-)
<AdamSawtell> excellent outcome, well done all
<druiz> Nice! After the meeting I will ask Vanessa if she can create a post in the social media with the winner slogan.
<druiz> Should we start with #2? -> Continue with the discussion from last week's meeting. What can be improved in the project to ease the task of contributing
<barg4barg> +1
<AdamSawtell> +1
<marc-marc> +1
<ChuckBoecking> +1
<barg4barg> is it about making it technically easier to make a contribution?
<barg4barg> or in broader sense?
<CarlosRuiz> in a broader sense I think
<druiz> I would say any kind of contribution -> Technical, Bug reporting, donations, documentations ...
<CarlosRuiz> there are many areas to contribute
<CarlosRuiz> each area must have its own specific things to improve
<druiz> I don't see the community actively contributing documentation, for example, and there are no technical skills required there
<barg4barg> I have read some recommendations online from different OS projects
<CarlosRuiz> bug triaging for example is something not very difficult - can be helped by non-developers
<druiz> I was mentioning last time that in my opinion the project needs guidelines in every area
<AdamSawtell> agreed, but also a coordinator to support contributors in each area.
<barg4barg> could you elaborate: guidelines - meaning recommendations how to do some kind of contribution?
<barg4barg> to do it in right way?
<druiz> For example, Chuck has mentioned many times the need of best practice for community plugins.
<druiz> What is expected from a community plugin to be published in the iDempiere's website.
<druiz> For instance, wordpress, has clearly defined guidelines -> It must be GPL compliant, it must be well documented, it must be easy to install for any user
<druiz> If any plugin does not follow those guidelines, the developer can publish his/her plugin in their own website but not in the official Wordpress' plugin site
<druiz> And then it comes the point that Adam mentions, probably that will create the need to have a "plugin committee" in charge of checking if the plugins fulfill the guidelines
<druiz> or at least a coordinator
<barg4barg> so, we need best practices regarding any area of possible contributing. this best practices are supposed to be in a form of instructions or requirements
<druiz> Exactly, sometimes both -> how to and what is expected
<marc-marc> I guess we should define the present/current situation I do not figure it, and then we should define where to put content. "Best practices" are a sort of content, or not?
<barg4barg> understood
<ChuckBoecking> May we start with the wikipedia approach?
<marc-marc> I guess now we can easily reach code, not content
<barg4barg> which is that?
<ChuckBoecking> Define the guidelines and let the commuinty tag entries as needed?
<ChuckBoecking> then we only need a moderator
<ChuckBoecking> to resolve conflicts
<marc-marc> +1
<marc-marc> then when content grows we'll define areas
<barg4barg> Define the guidelines and let the commuinty tag entries as needed? -->so community will vote for a plugin to be good or bad?
<druiz> I guess we should define the present/current situation I do not figure it, and then we should define where to put content. "Best practices" are a sort of content, or not? -> Agree as a possible blocker, the information is spread and sometimes not easy to find (or in the worse case, it does not exist yet)
<barg4barg> i like this approach it has a lesser burder administratively
<barg4barg> burden
<druiz> so community will vote for a plugin to be good or bad? -> We tried that before with a wiki plugin that allowed users to score a plugin, what I noticed with that was that users automatically gave every plugin 100, just for being published
<druiz> But you couldn't know which ones were useful or complete
<druiz> and in that list, there are some plugins that you cannot use - or at least not easily
<ChuckBoecking> I am not concerned with most popular yet
<ChuckBoecking> I am more concerned with conformity
<barg4barg> I am more concerned with conformity --> what do you mean?
<ChuckBoecking> If we have guidelines, example (1) post current version, (2) do no harm, (3) etc..., then users con tag the plugin if they violate
<ChuckBoecking> (4) no spyware
<ChuckBoecking> there is no limit to the harm a plugin can do
<ChuckBoecking> and see
<druiz> Ah ok - so we let users report on each plugin -> do not comply with guideline #7 -> "This plugin has a memory leak and after a while the server must be restarted"
<druiz> is that the idea?
<ChuckBoecking> yes
<barg4barg> I find this scheme reasonable
<druiz> +1
<barg4barg> +1
<CarlosRuiz> I'm not too optimist about that
<barg4barg> why
<ChuckBoecking> I do not think it is the long term solution - it is just an easy start. and it promotes guidelines
<CarlosRuiz> I mean - peer review from other community members - hasn't worked in past
<CarlosRuiz> I would prefer if we have somebody or somebodies that take care of some kind of "certification" - is that a possible approach with our current resources?
<barg4barg> my guess you start with baby steps than you scale
<CarlosRuiz> anyways - for peer review - or some certifiable review - we first need the guidelines - I think that would be most important first step
<druiz> I think what Chuck says is correct, it works as a first step. We need the guideline, once we have those, it's easier to start letting the community step in and if it does not work then make a "plugin committee" or a "certification body"
<druiz> Agree +1
<barg4barg> afterward we can introduce guys with more voting power
<AdamSawtell> +1
<CarlosRuiz> I would suggest - let's agree on defining first the guidelines
<barg4barg> who do peeer rev
<CarlosRuiz> and we postpone the decision about how to do the validation
<CarlosRuiz> if the guidelines are extensive - then it's going to be something that takes time - volunteering for long-time tasks is not easy
<druiz> BTW - the guidelines I mentioned here are the ones I can identify are missing, from my code contributor role. There are many other stoppers that you guys might have a clearer view on.
<CarlosRuiz> and - I would suggest also - agree on a first version of the guidelines- but they need to evolve
<barg4barg> +1
<CarlosRuiz> I think we already have two wiki pages with some guidelines about - contributing to core - and about plugins
<CarlosRuiz> could be that we collect/organize those two pages and then we approve a first version here - sounds good?
<druiz> I think the plugins one, is about how to develop them
<druiz> not guidelines
<druiz> how to create a plugin with an EventManager.
<CarlosRuiz> https://wiki.idempiere.org/en/Plugin_Guidelines
<CarlosRuiz> https://wiki.idempiere.org/en/Contributing_to_Trunk
<barg4barg> I think we already have two wiki pages with some guidelines about - contributing to core - and about plugins --> are these guidelines can be easily found in the web? Are they vividly present on idempiere.org?
<druiz> That was a rough draft of what people said in the workshop, but then ok, it exists :P
<barg4barg> my idea is - whatever you want it must scream from your website
<druiz> What about documentation or bug reporting, anyone have an idea on what can be a stopper there?
<barg4barg> What about documentation or bug reporting, anyone have an idea on what can be a stopper there? --> guidelines +incentives
<ChuckBoecking> I have a hard stop in 3 min
<druiz> Donations, I think what I mentioned in the conference, if the budget is more open, people will be encouraged to donate, until know it has been a black box.
<barg4barg> if the budget is more open, people will be encouraged to donate, until know it has been a black box. ----> +1
<AdamSawtell> Could we have a finance committee?
<CarlosRuiz> I'll try to publish a spreadsheet summarizing incomes and expenses of the funds
<barg4barg> What about documentation or bug reporting, anyone have an idea on what can be a stopper there? --> guidelines +incentives. People need to see their input ie recognized
<barg4barg> is
<CarlosRuiz> AdamSawtell, in principle we have one -> Thomas, Heng Sin and me
<druiz> Could we have a finance committee? -> There's one already
<druiz> https://wiki.idempiere.org/en/Sponsorship
<druiz> How would you motivate people to create documentation?
<druiz> Recognition and attribution are already there, Jan Thieleman did a great job with plugins and the project has recognized that thoughtfully
<barg4barg> Recognition and attribution are already there, Jan Thieleman did a great job with plugins and the project has recognized that thoughtfully ---> I can't agree in full. I can not see him in idempiere.org near to main things of this website
<druiz> In my opinion documentation is one big missing part of the project. It would be useful for everyone and it would attract different stakeholders to the project, implementors and end-users equally
<AdamSawtell> +1
<CarlosRuiz> Diego showed me this page
<CarlosRuiz> https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/
<CarlosRuiz> I think we need a page like that
<druiz> I can't agree in full. I can not see him in idempiere.org near to main things of this website -> Ah ok, I agree with that, in reality nobody is mentioned in the website (not even the project leaders). Maybe we can create a contributors page to attribute everyone's job, PostgreSQL does it like that
<barg4barg> In my opinion documentation is one big missing part of the project. It would be useful for everyone and it would attract different stakeholders to the project, implementors and end-users equally --- agree 100% but again IMHO guidelines +incentives (even virtual ones!)
<barg4barg> I think we need a page like that-->> 1000%
<druiz> The thing with that page is that they separate contributors in groups, major, minor, one-time. Etc ... And then again, we would need someone to measure the value of a contribution
<barg4barg> And then again, we would need someone to measure the value of a contribution --> yes.
<druiz> In my opinion, that should be a decision of the two leaders. But I don't know if they want to add more tasks to their list
<barg4barg> In my opinion, that should be a decision of the two leaders. But I don't know if they want to add more tasks to their list ---> better not distract them
<CarlosRuiz> well - somebody can help collecting the list and make it easier for us :-) just agree or disagree
<barg4barg> +1
<druiz> +1
<CarlosRuiz> I think what the Drupal guy proposes about points - is really hard to have an objective metric that can translate things to points
<CarlosRuiz> it requires some sort of subjective peer review
<CarlosRuiz> I mean - any metric you would create to assign points is easily abused
<CarlosRuiz> when I started talking about number of commits in adempiere - as one important metric
<CarlosRuiz> then one guy started fixing typos in comments - almost one commit per line :-D
<barg4barg> I think what the Drupal guy proposes about points - is really hard to have an objective metric that can translate things to points ---> you can have a predefined rule like "every 1 page of clearly written manual = 1 point
<marc-marc> maybe we should think about what could be the metric for a business application... it's not easy
<CarlosRuiz> but I think it would be good to have at least some kind of list about what we want to "value"
<CarlosRuiz> for example -> *USEFUL* answers in support forums
<barg4barg> but I think it would be good to have at least some kind of list about what we want to "value" --> good strting point
<CarlosRuiz> helping newbies on IRC
<marc-marc> value, or outcomes sometimes
<CarlosRuiz> good wiki pages (we would need some guidelines about what is a good wiki page - and even with the guidelines we can clear the wiki from bad pages)
<CarlosRuiz> help with triaging bugs and JIRA tickets <- we could assign points to that :-)
<CarlosRuiz> then we need somebody/somebodies collecting the points
<druiz> The point system can be easily abused. "every 1 page of clearly written manual = 1 point -> Then I create instead of one page to document the sales order window. I create one page that explains how to create it in draft, then a second one that prepares it, then a third one that completes it. And I got 3 points instead of 1. But it didn't add any value
<CarlosRuiz> I remember Thomas had an idea some conferences ago - about creating a page like "Hero of the month"
<CarlosRuiz> I like the "Hero of the month" idea - but it takes a lot of time to keep track and valuate all the different kind of contributions
<barg4barg> I remember Thomas had an idea some conferences ago - about creating a page like "Hero of the month" --> very good. it is incentive
<CarlosRuiz> maybe that can be a shared work - somebody takes care of forums - another one of JIRA - another one of wiki - etc
<CarlosRuiz> OK - are we ready to do some summary of the meeting and get some closure points?
<druiz> If you guys have 2 minutes. I would like to address #3 really quick
<barg4barg> +1
<AdamSawtell> =1
<druiz> The project does not have trademark guidelines, and as I showed in the conference the project image is being abused everywhere
<druiz> As a first step I would "copy" the one provided by the Linux Foundation for OSS projects in the website, jut to have it there at least, and then we need to define how the project can proceed when a case of image misuse is found.
<druiz> If everyone agrees I can do that. Just creating the page to have a base
<CarlosRuiz> it sounds good as a starting point
<barg4barg> As a first step I would "copy" the one provided by the Linux Foundation for OSS projects in the website -- > you want to regisrter a trademark officially?
<AdamSawtell> good starting point agreed
<CarlosRuiz> I think that would be another first step
<barg4barg> you can have a page on idempiere .org - "These guys misuse" )))
<barg4barg> and invite them to do modest contributions )))
<CarlosRuiz> AFAIR the linux trademark have some "fair use" accepted - and also they have some clear explanation about what they consider abuse
<CarlosRuiz> so, let's do the same - let's check first some initial guidelines - and then we see if we want to enforce them / how - if we want to register the trademark in some countries - if is not already hijacked :-)
<druiz> Yeah - Ubuntu has the same and PostgreSQL. It's not about noone using the iDempiere name, it's just to stop the possibility of a company destroying the project brand and image
<druiz> Ok - as a Summary of the day I ahve the following:
<druiz> Summary
<druiz> 1) The winning slogan -> iDempiere. Community Powered Enterprise
<druiz> 2) Guidelines + Incentives are needed to motivate contributions:
<druiz> - Content should be easily accesible, it is hard to find (code is reachable easily but no other content).
<druiz> - Plugin guidelines and core code guidelines centralized and visible in the website.
<druiz> - Contrbitutors section in the official website
<druiz> 3) Create a trademark guidelines page (fair use section) with a possible section to show identified misuse cases.
<druiz> Did I miss something?
<barg4barg> good summary, Diego
<marc-marc> ok
<AdamSawtell> thanks Diego
<CarlosRuiz> to avoid forgetting the idea of "points" and "hero of the month"
<CarlosRuiz> can we try to collect some list about what we want to "assign points" (I'm not saying that the points are the best way - but just to be in sync)
<CarlosRuiz> must we call community for such a list? or somebody does it and present it?
<barg4barg> must we call community for such a list? ---> if the purpose is well explained to community they can come up with suggestions
<AdamSawtell> night all, catch u next meeting.
<druiz> Yeah - it can help to identify what the community finds valuable
<barg4barg> Thank uoy
<druiz> Ok guys - thank you all for assisting to the meeting, next week's meeting on Wednesday again?
<barg4barg> must we call community for such a list? == it is transpatrency
<barg4barg> wednsday+
<CarlosRuiz> not this wednesday - the next
<marc-marc> ok for me
<druiz> I though it was implicit with "next week's meeting" :P
<barg4barg> yes next
<druiz> Then see you guys next Wednesday, maybe we need to mail Chuck and Adam about next meeting because they left earlier
<barg4barg> Good buy then!!!
<druiz> Thank you all
<barg4barg> bye )))
<CarlosRuiz> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20191211T120000&p1=24&p2=tz_cot&p3=1440&p4=37&p5=166&p6=5
<CarlosRuiz> thanks!!!
<marc-marc> thanks, ciao
