Hi, Mark,
Yes, I've seen your e-mails around. You should use a sig, though, they're
easy to create.
> I think I am talking about something different. In a company, the core
> team would be the CTO. I think some entity, one or more people, needs to
> define the product. Typically this is marketing and product management.
But, as Peter reminds me all the time, we're not a company. ;-)
> The why is that there is no real entity doing so.
>
> > 2) what this person would be doing that's not already covered by existing
> > groups;
>
> All the groups, with the exception of advocacy, are "here's what we are
> building" and "here's a bug" groups. There is planning on hackers, but it
> is almost purely technical. Marketing features do no often get a
> reasonable hearing.
That's not an argument for not using existing apparatus. What you've
persuaded me is that you should:
a) join the Advocacy group;
b) galvanize people around developing a coherent marketing plan;
c) Lead a crew of volunteers and follow through on that process until the plan
is ready for comments by Core and Hackers,
d) stick around for the arguments and revisions
That's what we *need*. We don't need a volunteer with a title who might or
might not do any of the above.
I'm particulary struck by the fact that you chose to inaugurate this
discussion on Hackers, instead of Advocacy where it would have been more
appropriate and where more of the *existing* marketing volunteers would have
participated. At this point, I'd have to forward the whole thing to transfer
it ...
> I think that a talented manager could make the case for certain features.
So? So could any community member with a good grasp of database engineering
and an ability to write persuasive e-mails.
> > 4) who this person would be.
> We recrute like a company does.
Um, and pay them with what? Cowrie shells?
--
-Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco