Involvement of the board in the Marketing Plan

Board Discuss
#1

Hi All, thanks to yesterday's marketing call, marketing team members had an opportunity to discuss the 5 year Marketing plan currently being drafted by Italo.

It seems like only one member of the current Board of Directors was present in that meeting (though there may have been some who stayed silent; please correct me).

A 5 year marketing plan, on the 10th anniversary of a project, will be a great step forward, and a critical piece of strategy for the future of the organisation. No doubt the Board has been deeply involved in putting the drafts together. I appreciate this has taken considerable energy.

Nevertheless, the absence of more Board representatives in the Marketing meeting, which may be the only meeting of the marketing team about the plan before it's adopted, raises some interesting questions for we marketers:

- If the Board's involvement was already completed privately, to what extent is the marketing team intended to participate in its drafting?
- If the Board's involvement is ongoing, then how do they intend to interact with the marketing team? With one representative in a single meeting?
- If TDF Marketing staff are intended to be the messengers between Board and marketing team, what is the intended process or workflow of that?

If input into the plan from the marketing team is desirable to the Board, then we as marketing team members need a clearer understanding of how that should be provided.

I do not take it for granted that this information was shared with the team prior to adoption (though to gain support from the team it seems like a sensible move).

But coordinating such a plan as this between Board, staff, and voluntary team takes more than passing on a largely inflexible document to a team of experts towards the end of the process. Product Managers call it "throwing it over the wall" when opportunities for meaningful input ended before handover.

The strain on this coordination is plainly visible in the plan itself, on the "preface" slides explaining eg the LibreOffice Online situation. It's a problem when a staff member is forced to hint that some topics are out of bounds in this way because they are stuck between "a rock and hard place" and must resort to such things to discourage input on controversial issues which can have no effect.

This is a question of leadership for the board, not for TDF staff in my view, as it is fundamentally a question of how much control over the marketing plan should be given to the marketing team, and what parts it is desirable for them to contribute to, and how that should be communicated to them. This is a matter of the social contract between the Foundation and volunteers -- not just marketing.

There are many options here, to suit the Board's needs, and doing things differently need not make finding consensus on already hard topics, more difficult. The current draft plan is broad in scope, covering community management, branding, and touching on ecosystem design. Tough topics could be split into other sections, or strategy documents if necessary, freeing the marketing team with more room to influence the narrower, purely marketing topics which remain. With some brainstorming or reference to other Open Source projects, additional means of cooperating with the team could no doubt be found.

Sam.

#2

Hi Sam,

It seems like only one member of the current Board of Directors was
present in that meeting (though there may have been some who stayed
silent; please correct me).

  Interestingly the slides were also posted here a week ago, and
discussed in a public board meeting last week too (IIRC). Then again -
the link disappearing is annoying; but IIRC we have no E-mail
attachments on-list.

  Clearly, we're soliciting feedback and eager to get input from the
whole community.

If input into the plan from the marketing team is desirable to the
Board, then we as marketing team members need a clearer understanding
of how that should be provided.

  So - here is a good place to suggest things of course.

I do not take it for granted that this information was shared with
the team prior to adoption (though to gain support from the team it
seems like a sensible move).

  =) this has been quite widely shared; but we can always do more to
communicate better; clearly.

The strain on this coordination is plainly visible in the plan
itself, on the "preface" slides explaining eg the LibreOffice Online
situation. It's a problem when a staff member is forced to hint that
some topics are out of bounds in this way because they are stuck
between "a rock and hard place" and must resort to such things to
discourage input on controversial issues which can have no effect.

  Hmm? I don't know that anyone is forced to hint anything. And your
input is welcome of course on all related topics.

  The problem space here is a large & really complex one where Marketing
plays a vital role - many people coming fresh to the problem-space badly
need a primer to help understand the interlocking opportunities &
pitfalls, so it seems sensible to have a detailed proposal to kick
around; of course improving it, or presenting another proposal is
perfectly possible.

The current draft plan is broad in scope,
covering community management, branding, and touching on ecosystem
design. Tough topics could be split into other sections, or strategy
documents if necessary, freeing the marketing team with more room to
influence the narrower, purely marketing topics which remain.

  We can come up with a better process of course; but I'm more interested
in your (and other) concrete suggestions / or new proposals to make
things better - so things can be improved.

  You had some good ideas around KPIs AFAIR, which I imagine will turn up
in the next iteration; but I'm personally eager for more.

  ATB,

    Michael.

#3

Hi Sam, Michael,

Thanks again for your interesting questions about KPIs during the
meeting. Always glad to be able to learn something new wrt. business
marketing (e.g. USP, etc.) :wink:

the link disappearing is annoying; but IIRC we have no E-mail
attachments on-list.

The reason behind the "link disappearance" was because an
erratum/updated version was published later on invalidating the
first/previous link in the thread you mentioned :slight_smile: cf. the updated
version [1] with the proper Nextcloud link.

  =) this has been quite widely shared; but we can always do more to
communicate better; clearly.

+1, especially NLP communities who are not specifically following the
English based threads.

Have a nice week-end ahead,

[1]
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04551.html

#4

Hi Sam,

I was there in the meeting too, just like many of the marketing meetings in the past.  I have  regularly attended the marketing meeting, no matter the heated ones like yesterday, or small ones with only three people including me.

Before this marketing meeting, there has been some discussion / debate / even argue around some related topics in the Board.  Of course we would like to make some concrete plan but unfortunately some volunteer board members who would like to push these things forward were criticized as poor options for doing so, so eventually we decide to ask for Italo's expert to write the draft of this marketing plan and publicly discuss it with the members.

But, from another aspect, I totally agree with your concern about coordinating between the Board, staff and community.  As what I've mentioned in my statement running for the board, in my concept the Board is not the leader of the community.  Of course the Board needs to make decision and take the responsibility, but it should act more like a platform, allowing many members even staffs showing their thoughts even experts.  That is one important reason why we make the board meeting more public and decide to make the topics we discussed in the public section as default unless it meets some requirements to be private.  The only thing I insist when trying to make as many people as possible to show their opinions is that everyone should respect other people, and their different thoughts and comments.

Of course such concepts may differ even conflict with the basic concepts of other board member, I don't really know if any.  But anyway in this term, as a member of the board, I'm happy to see that more community members showed their comments and thoughts.  The Board's responsibility is to make it a workable and concrete plan so maybe not all the thoughts from the community will be taken; but at least I hope that the community members can see the changes of the board we're doing hard -- the board is trying to be more open, friendly, and get closer to our community friends.

Regards,
Franklin

#5

Hi, I was at the meeting too.

Given the importance of adopting a medium-term plan such as the one under discussion, in my role as a Board Member I recognize that it is extremely important to hear different voices. In fact, I would have liked yesterday's meeting to have been attended by more than 11 people. In this regard, I believe that greater emphasis could have been placed on the dissemination of such activity.

However, in relation to the latter, language should not be a barrier for anyone. We are not all native English speakers in fact and it is important to stress that TDF has usual channels of communication to keep up with the news or participate.

#6

Thanks everyone for your replies. Replying message by message,
starting with Franklin.

I have regularly attended the marketing meeting, no matter the
heated ones like yesterday, or small ones with only three people
including me.

That's great to hear. It seems like the reason boad members were
not vocal in the meeting was then that their discussions had been
exhausted internally or the board lists, so there was nothing left
for debate in marketing-specific channels.

Before this marketing meeting, there has been some discussion /
debate / even argue around some related topics in the Board. Of
course we would like to make some concrete plan but unfortunately
some volunteer board members who would like to push these things
forward were criticized as poor options for doing so, so eventually
we decide to ask for Italo's expert to write the draft of this
marketing plan and publicly discuss it with the members.

That's useful context for understanding the process to date,
thank you. Delegating to staff, given that context, was not a way of
escaping those contentious issues however -- it just deferred them.
The scope of the plan is so broad, touching so many core strategy
questions, that no staff could act independently in deciding content.

Drafting a 5 year marketing plan following indecisiveness
from the board is a job for a diplomat, not a marketer.
Guessing and compromising the needs of board members is a recipe
for /strategy by exclusion/ -- "exclude anything contentious".
"Exclude anything that will cause delay".

As it stands the Marketing Plan seems more like a political project
serving primarily internal needs of alignment of board members, with
TDF staff serving the role of peacemaker. I can understand that such
a project is extremely important in its own right. Hence I propose
separating that part from the purely marketing related components.
Becuase the thing is: marketing is also important, and a 5
year marketing plan will outlive this board, and hopefully these
divisions.

Fundamentally marketing is about value: creating and delivering
value for LibreOffice users. This is core to TDF's mission. And
its bloody hard. So trying to plan 5 years in a way which stands
a hope of delivering more than the miniumum amount of value to the
world from the incredible technical and community resources which
TDF posesses will be hard enough even if we are all aligned (board,
teams, volunteers), focused, and invested. In my view, right now,
we are none of these things.

If the process and document cannot be redirected in the short term,
as may be the case for various reasons, then at least
let's not continue pretending that the Plan, as it stands, is
primarily about marketing, or for LibreOffice marketers. Let's call
it what it is: an internal alignment document for the board,
commissioned by the board, because they could not agree on it by
themselves.

When the board wants the focus to really be on marketing, then
they can say what is in scope and what is outside of it - if
what remains is very narrow, then so be it. At least the marketing
decisions can be pursued with a clear and undistracted focus.
As a member of the marketing team, for me this would be a more
motiviating and frankly fairer proposition.

[...] That is one important reason why we make the board meeting
more public [...] The only thing I insist when trying to make as many
people as possible to show their opinions is that everyone should
respect other people, and their different thoughts and comments.

[...] I'm happy to see that more community members showed their
comments and thoughts.

Me too, though there was very little input from the marketing team
on the marketing list, and achieving more requires more than just
transparency, though that's an important foundation.

The Board's responsibility is to make it a workable and concrete plan
so maybe not all the thoughts from the community will be taken; but
at least I hope that the community members can see the changes of the
board we're doing hard -- the board is trying to be more open,
friendly, and get closer to our community friends.

Those are admirable and necessary goals, and I respect your pursuit of
them. There is no conflict between achieving those goals, and also improving
the process and output of the marketing plan under discussion, and future
plans like it. And so I shall continue pushing for that, and not view
the pursuit of other reforms in as an excuse for desisting.

Governance is hard; I hope this is helping.

Sam.

#7

Hi Daniel,

Given the importance of adopting a medium-term plan such as the one
under discussion, in my role as a Board Member I recognize that it is
extremely important to hear different voices.

Me too. Hearing voices serves no purpose in its own right however --
it's the reaction (or inaction) that follows which matters. The extent
to which a reaction is possible is determined by other factors like
process, which I drew attention to at the start of this thread.

In fact, I would have
liked yesterday's meeting to have been attended by more than 11
people.

Community participation levels are closely related to "agency" --
communicating to volunteers what is being sought from them, and
what they can influence and how. If you pursue more attendees in the
calls then that's worth considering.

However, in relation to the latter, language should not be a barrier
for anyone. We are not all native English speakers in fact and it is
important to stress that TDF has usual channels of communication to
keep up with the news or participate.

Agreed.

Sam.

#8

Interestingly the slides were also posted here a week ago, and
discussed in a public board meeting last week too (IIRC). [...]

That's great; I must have missed it, though I am subscribed. First
five rounds of drafting with the board, the final check with the
marketing team, is that how it went? :wink:

Clearly, we're soliciting feedback and eager to get input from the
whole community.

See my comments to Daniel on opportunities for hearing vs acting

I do not take it for granted that this information was shared with
the team prior to adoption (though to gain support from the team
it seems like a sensible move).

[...] =) this has been quite widely shared; but we can always do more
to communicate better; clearly.

Sorry I was unclear -- I meant that it's fine if strategic / policy
drafts aren't always shared, in my view. I see little point in sharing
something so contentious that the community can't change it, and I
recognise the difficulty in handling such topics even internally.
Sometimes private drafting is necessary, as I think most NGO board
members in other sectors would agree.

The strain on this coordination is plainly visible in the plan
itself, on the "preface" slides explaining eg the LibreOffice
Online situation. It's a problem when a staff member is forced to
hint that some topics are out of bounds in this way because they
are stuck between "a rock and hard place" and must resort to such
things to discourage input on controversial issues which can have
no effect.

Hmm? I don't know that anyone is forced to hint anything. And your
input is welcome of course on all related topics.

Slide 41 contains several hints in my view. No concrete risks, such
as a fork, are stated. CIB and Collabora are not named anywhere in
the document.

The problem space here is a large & really complex one where
Marketing plays a vital role - many people coming fresh to the
problem-space badly need a primer to help understand the
interlocking opportunities & pitfalls, so it seems sensible to have a
detailed proposal to kick around; of course improving it, or
presenting another proposal is perfectly possible.

Instead of trying to do everything in one document, why not break
it into strategy statements on the separate issues addressed, then
pass those to the marketers as policy directions from the board,
so that they can be pursued in purely marketing terms? That's
the beginning of an idea at least; I'm sure we could improve on it
together.

The current draft plan is broad in scope, covering community
management, branding, and touching on ecosystem design. Tough
topics could be split into other sections, or strategy documents
if necessary, freeing the marketing team with more room to
influence the narrower, purely marketing topics which remain.

We can come up with a better process of course; but I'm more
interested in your (and other) concrete suggestions / or new
proposals to make things better - so things can be improved.

Concrete suggestions but again, it seems obvious to me that
there are ares of the strategy draft which are not open to influence
from volunteers, which in itself is no problem, but makes a
request for input, in parts, meaningless.

I shared some ideas on the marketing list in response to the first
draft. I would have shared several more if they had a hope of
having a positive effect. But they don't, so they would merely
constitute more hot air.

You had some good ideas around KPIs AFAIR, which I imagine will turn
up in the next iteration; but I'm personally eager for more.

Thank you for your encouragement!

Sam.

#9

Hi Sam,

first off, thx a lot - for engaging in detail, and with constructive
criticism!

Just a few comments, to perhaps adjust perception -

Sam Tuke wrote:

Drafting a 5 year marketing plan following indecisiveness
from the board is a job for a diplomat, not a marketer.
Guessing and compromising the needs of board members is a recipe
for /strategy by exclusion/ -- "exclude anything contentious".
"Exclude anything that will cause delay".

A more positive look at this is - the board is supposed to be a
microcosm, to a large extend a fishbowl with many if not all community
interests represented.

The drafts we kicked around in the board where contentious; the result
now in front of us is a pre-distilled compromise, that hopefully makes
iteration into a final plan easier & faster. As you concede in your
answer to Michael, it's sometimes helpful to have most of the arguing
behind closed doors, especially in volunteer-run NGOs.

As such, your depiction of the current plan to be a hollowed-out
compromise is not accurate.

As it stands the Marketing Plan seems more like a political project
serving primarily internal needs of alignment of board members, with
TDF staff serving the role of peacemaker.

That _is_ the board's role, to align conflicting interests, to the
mutual benefit of all involved.

TDF staff was not serving as a peacemaker, but as expert marketeers,
turning rough ideas into something actionable & concrete.

I can understand that such a project is extremely important in its
own right. Hence I propose separating that part from the purely
marketing related components.

That is a fair ask, and IMO a good suggestion - as you correctly
state, asking for input without granting agency is a waste of
everyone's time.

If the process and document cannot be redirected in the short term,
as may be the case for various reasons, then at least let's not
continue pretending that the Plan, as it stands, is primarily about
marketing, or for LibreOffice marketers.

Let's for the moment assume it _is_ possible to redirect. What would
you change, just big-picture-wise?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.