This may come across as a bit of a rant, and I suppose it is in a way.
There has been a fair few discussions recently about the new openSUSE Ambassadors with a primary focus on the creation of collatoral for the role, which I personally think is a waste of time and effort. The time and effort would best be spent on what resources are needed, organisation, implementation etc.
As far as I was aware the Ambassador is effectively the same role as Ubuntu's LoCo Team Lead and Fedora's Ambassador; whose role is to organise the local openSUSE fathful, distribute openSUSE merchandise, be a contact point to assist with questions etc.
Why on earth is there such a focus on collatoral? People who give talks on openSUSE or atttend events representing openSUSE do not need to be Ambassadors nor should they be! If people are signing up for the role just so they can add "Ambassador" to their signature then they should not be accepted. Personally I think only accepted members should be allowed to be Ambassadors.
Reasoning behind this is 1) they have signed the guiding principles. 2) they have a proven contribution record. 3) they are known to the Board. 4) there needs to be some form of filtering the chaff from the wheat.
Now point 4 may sound harsh, but it is needed especially as there is a high volume of Trolls around again (not just with openSUSE). The Ambassador would be an ideal point of contact for the Board to verify if an applicant has indeed been spreading openSUSE in a good & faithful manner etc.
Now if people still want to create templates for presentations/twitter/business cards or whatever collatoral, then great, but for all that is holy drop the "Ambassador" part. Just make it a general item that anyone wishing to participate can use!
</rant>
Thanks for all the fish,
Andy
-- Sent from a Nokia E71 Andrew Wafaa, openSUSE Member: FunkyPenguin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andrew Wafaa wrote:
As far as I was aware the Ambassador is effectively the same role as Ubuntu's LoCo Team Lead and Fedora's Ambassador; whose role is to organise the local openSUSE fathful, distribute openSUSE merchandise, be a contact point to assist with questions etc.
Why on earth is there such a focus on collatoral? People who give talks on openSUSE or attend events representing openSUSE do not need to be Ambassadors nor should they be! If people are signing up for the role just so they can add "Ambassador" to their signature then they should not be accepted. Personally I think only accepted members should be allowed to be Ambassadors.
If we expect Ambassadors to be representative and/or responsible persons in any way, yes, I agree with you, Andrew. ;-)
As I mentioned in my previous post, Ambassadors ATM are just the persons who are saying "I'm an Ambassador, because I registered my name to the Ambassadors list by myself". In order to become an Ambassador, there's no need to be accepted or approved in any sense. I think this would be obviously a very extreme case, but everyone can be an Ambassador, once he or she registered his/her name to the Ambassadors list, even if he or she does (almost) nothing as an Ambassador. That's why I proposed screening for Ambassadors[1] and wanted to collect opinions, ideas and comments[2] about the concepts for Ambassador program.
[1] http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-marketing/2009-05/msg00133.html [2] http://en.opensuse.org/Ambassador/Brainstorming#What_are_the_tasks_and_commi...
Reasoning behind this is 1) they have signed the guiding principles. 2) they have a proven contribution record. 3) they are known to the Board. 4) there needs to be some form of filtering the chaff from the wheat.
Now point 4 may sound harsh, but it is needed especially as there is a high volume of Trolls around again (not just with openSUSE). The Ambassador would be an ideal point of contact for the Board to verify if an applicant has indeed been spreading openSUSE in a good & faithful manner etc.
As you may know, ATM, everyone can be an Ambassador, even if he or she has rather biased view, or is offensive to others. :-P
If the purpose of Ambassador program is just gathering contributers in each region/country/city, it might be enough as it is now. However, if we hope this program will help having representative and responsible persons in each region/country/city, I also think we need some criteria and screening for Ambassadors.
Best,
- -- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.geeko.jp/author/heliosreds _/_/
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Satoru Matsumotohelios_reds@gmx.net wrote:
As you may know, ATM, everyone can be an Ambassador, even if he or she has rather biased view, or is offensive to others. :-P
Sometimes it's possible to say objectively "this person is being offensive or harmful," other times it's very subjective. How do you propose screening for ambassadors without putting barriers in place to potential contributors?
We are still bootstrapping and I feel very strongly that putting too many barriers and obstacles in the way of the ambassadors is a sure way to kill enthusiasm.
If the purpose of Ambassador program is just gathering contributers in each region/country/city, it might be enough as it is now. However, if we hope this program will help having representative and responsible persons in each region/country/city, I also think we need some criteria and screening for Ambassadors.
What would the criteria be and who would be doing the screening?
Best,
Zonker
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Satoru Matsumotohelios_reds@gmx.net wrote:
As you may know, ATM, everyone can be an Ambassador, even if he or she has rather biased view, or is offensive to others. :-P
Sometimes it's possible to say objectively "this person is being offensive or harmful," other times it's very subjective. How do you propose screening for ambassadors without putting barriers in place to potential contributors?
We are still bootstrapping and I feel very strongly that putting too many barriers and obstacles in the way of the ambassadors is a sure way to kill enthusiasm.
If the purpose of Ambassador program is just gathering contributers in each region/country/city, it might be enough as it is now. However, if we hope this program will help having representative and responsible persons in each region/country/city, I also think we need some criteria and screening for Ambassadors.
What would the criteria be and who would be doing the screening?
Best,
Zonker
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Satoru Matsumotohelios_reds@gmx.net wrote:
As you may know, ATM, everyone can be an Ambassador, even if he or she has rather biased view, or is offensive to others. :-P
Sometimes it's possible to say objectively "this person is being offensive or harmful," other times it's very subjective. How do you propose screening for ambassadors without putting barriers in place to potential contributors?
We are still bootstrapping and I feel very strongly that putting too many barriers and obstacles in the way of the ambassadors is a sure way to kill enthusiasm.
If the purpose of Ambassador program is just gathering contributers in each region/country/city, it might be enough as it is now. However, if we hope this program will help having representative and responsible persons in each region/country/city, I also think we need some criteria and screening for Ambassadors.
What would the criteria be and who would be doing the screening?
I think it all depends on how we expect Ambassadors to be. As I wrote, "If the purpose of Ambassador program is just gathering contributers in each region/country/city, it might be enough as it is now."
If we think so, 'Ambassador' would be nothing more than a title for the region-associated contributers who do what they can do for promoting openSUSE. If someone says, "I'm an Ambassador in $REGION_OR_COUNTRY.", that means "I live in $REGION_OR_COUNTRY. I will promote openSUSE and be a good contact for users and newbie contributers in $REGION_OR_COUNTRY."
If we can share the concept of Ambassadors' role in the community like this, it's all right. As I wrote in my previous post[1], "I hope as many persons as possible will support this program and sign up, because signing up for this program will be a good entrance for the people who want to contribute in marketing area. Everyone can become an Ambassador, if he/she wants to. That's definitely good." [1] http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-marketing/2009-05/msg00119.html
However, are we all sharing the concept now ? As far as I can see, some are expecting Ambassadors to be much more representative and responsible, or at least respectable persons. That's because I thought we need some criteria and screening for Ambassadors.
What would the criteria be and who would be doing the screening?
I'd like to bring up my rough draft that I've already posted[2] once again here. Note, this is just a springboard for discussion:
- - Everyone who wants to help promoting or introducing openSUSE, or be a contact for newbies in his/her region, country or city can register him/herself as an 'embassy staff' first. There's no need to be approved for this.
- - After 1 year activity, each 'embassy staff' gets right to become an Ambassador. In order to become an Ambassador, the 'embassy staff' need to be approved somehow. - approved by senior Ambassador ? # There's no senior Ambassador # ATM, though... - by board members ? - with some endorsements by his/her local community or other embassy staffs ?
- - Therefore, 'embassy staffs' who want to become Ambassadors are strongly recommended to report their activities by joining marketing team IRC meetings, posting reports to -marketing list, writing blog entries, etc., so that others can easily see their daily activities.
Things to do for the person who wants to become an Ambassador are quite simple. 1) He/She will do what they can do for promoting openSUSE and helping users and newbie contributers. 2) He/She will report his/her activities somehow. 3) He/She will join the discussions and the meetings as often as possible.
Do you think these would be insurmountable barriers and obstacles for those who want to become an Ambassadors and kill their enthusiasm ?
Please don't forget, I don't mean to strongly recommend to make the criteria and do screening. That might be our alternatives.
Best,
- -- _/_/ Satoru Matsumoto - openSUSE Member - Japan _/_/ _/_/ Marketing/Weekly News/openFATE Screening Team _/_/ _/_/ mail: helios_reds_at_gmx.net / irc: HeliosReds _/_/ _/_/ http://blog.geeko.jp/author/heliosreds _/_/
On Friday 26 June 2009 17:13:08 Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Satoru Matsumotohelios_reds@gmx.net
wrote:
As you may know, ATM, everyone can be an Ambassador, even if he or she has rather biased view, or is offensive to others. :-P
Sometimes it's possible to say objectively "this person is being offensive or harmful," other times it's very subjective. How do you propose screening for ambassadors without putting barriers in place to potential contributors?
We are still bootstrapping and I feel very strongly that putting too many barriers and obstacles in the way of the ambassadors is a sure way to kill enthusiasm.
If the purpose of Ambassador program is just gathering contributers in each region/country/city, it might be enough as it is now. However, if we hope this program will help having representative and responsible persons in each region/country/city, I also think we need some criteria and screening for Ambassadors.
What would the criteria be and who would be doing the screening?
I think it all depends on how we expect Ambassadors to be. As I wrote, "If the purpose of Ambassador program is just gathering contributers in each region/country/city, it might be enough as it is now."
I agree, we should discuss this and define how we like to have the role defined. And I think you as (potential) ambassadors should make up these roles so that you feel confident being an ambassador.
If we think so, 'Ambassador' would be nothing more than a title for the region-associated contributers who do what they can do for promoting openSUSE. If someone says, "I'm an Ambassador in $REGION_OR_COUNTRY.", that means "I live in $REGION_OR_COUNTRY. I will promote openSUSE and be a good contact for users and newbie contributers in $REGION_OR_COUNTRY."
If we can share the concept of Ambassadors' role in the community like this, it's all right. As I wrote in my previous post[1], "I hope as many persons as possible will support this program and sign up, because signing up for this program will be a good entrance for the people who want to contribute in marketing area. Everyone can become an Ambassador, if he/she wants to. That's definitely good."
IMHO it's also that not everybody that does contribute in the marketing area needs to be an ambassador. The reverse is true - if you are an ambassador, I expect to see you engaged in marketing.
[1] http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-marketing/2009-05/msg00119.html
However, are we all sharing the concept now ? As far as I can see, some are expecting Ambassadors to be much more representative and responsible, or at least respectable persons. That's because I thought we need some criteria and screening for Ambassadors.
What would the criteria be and who would be doing the screening?
I'd like to bring up my rough draft that I've already posted[2] once again here. Note, this is just a springboard for discussion:
Everyone who wants to help promoting or introducing openSUSE, or be a contact for newbies in his/her region, country or city can register him/herself as an 'embassy staff' first. There's no need to be approved for this.
After 1 year activity, each 'embassy staff' gets right to become an Ambassador. In order to become an Ambassador, the 'embassy staff' need to be approved somehow.
- approved by senior Ambassador ? # There's no senior Ambassador # ATM, though...
e.g. by two other ambassadors?
- by board members ? - with some endorsements by his/her local community or other embassy staffs ?
We could also start with the existing ambassadors and change the policy later. That way you have the first group of ambassadors - and then you add further ambassadors later.
- Therefore, 'embassy staffs' who want to become Ambassadors are strongly recommended to report their activities by joining marketing team IRC meetings, posting reports to -marketing list, writing blog entries, etc., so that others can easily see their daily activities.
Ambassadors should also report ;)
Things to do for the person who wants to become an Ambassador are quite simple. 1) He/She will do what they can do for promoting openSUSE and helping users and newbie contributers. 2) He/She will report his/her activities somehow. 3) He/She will join the discussions and the meetings as often as possible.
Do you think these would be insurmountable barriers and obstacles for those who want to become an Ambassadors and kill their enthusiasm ?
Please don't forget, I don't mean to strongly recommend to make the criteria and do screening. That might be our alternatives.
I'm not volunteering right now to become an ambassador - but I'm interested in marketing ;). To me this does not sound like a too high barrier. On the other hand, keep in mind that these are subjective definitions. How to measure them?
Andreas
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Andrew Wafaa -
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier -
Satoru Matsumoto