Marketing Minutes 2006-07-18
From MemberWiki
Contents |
OpenAjax Alliance Marketing Committee meeting minutes 2006-07-18
Attendees
- Cary Liu <cliu@mercedsystems.com>
- Chris Erickson <chris.erickson@icesoft.com>
- David Frankel <david.frankel@sap.com>
- Gary Horen <ghoren@bea.com>
- John Janetos <jjanetos@laszlosystems.com>
- Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Joseph Becker <bjoseph@us.ibm.com>
- Nolwen Mahe <nolwen.mahe@sap.com>
- Sharat Chander <sharat.chander@sun.com>
- Mark Gally <mgally@mercedsystems.com>
- Ian Wenig <ian@zoho.com>
- Coach Wei <coach@nexaweb.com>
- Dylan Schiemann <dylan@dojotoolkit.org>
- Torsten Preissler <tpreissler@innoopract.com>
- Andre Charland <acharland@ebusiness-apps.com>
Absent
- Alexei White <awhite@ebusiness-apps.com>
- Dan Roberts <dan.roberts@sun.com>
- David Boloker <boloker@us.ibm.com>
- Dion Almaer <dion@ajaxian.com>
- Dominic Porter <dominic.porter@edgeipk.com>
- Erwan Paccard <epaccard@ilog.fr>
- Garbrand van der Molen <garbrand@javeline.nl>
- Jason Wadsworth <wadsbone@thefrontside.net>
- Javier Gallego <Javier.Gallego@softwareag.com>
- Jochen Krause <jkrause@innoopract.de>
- John Lilly <lilly@mozilla.com>
- Jonathan Daly <jdaly@nexaweb.com>
- Joonas Lehtinen <joonas.lehtinen@itmill.com>
- Jose Carrasco <Jose.Carrasco@in2.es>
- Luis Derechin <luisd@jackbe.com>
- Marc Englund <marc.englund@itmill.com>
- Matt Durham <matt.durham@softwareag.com>
- Paul Kim <pkim@mozilla.com>
- Raju Vegesna <raju@zoho.com>
- Rob Vonderhaar <robv@jackbe.com>
- Sami Ekblad <sami.ekblad@itmill.com>
- Thomas Stoesser <Thomas.Stoesser@softwareag.com>
- Todd Hay <thay@adobe.com>
- William Shulman <will@mercedsystems.com>
Agenda
- Dylan report on progress on new logo and graphics design of web site (Dylan)
- Whitepaper - first draft ready for review and discussion
- Discussion about going public with the web site
Topic: Latest logos
Dylan: David and Jon not totally happy. Need to go back and try something that is more fun.
Joe: What do you want?
Dylan: David sent some examples of logos. Funny thing is that one of the logos he liked was done by the same designer.
Jon: I had said somewhat less corporate.
Ian: I like this loog. Important to clarify and it does that. Maybe play with the colors.
Joe: From a PR perspective, I want to have something to show soon.
Dylan: We should have some new ideas for tomorrow.
Chris: I would like one more quick turn. A little more creative and fun.
(someone): Are we trying to have something as fun as the Linux penguin?
Jon: No, just a smaller jump towards fun, but still professional.
Dylan: Lots of Web 2.0 logos use gold.
Jon: Yeah, I made a comment about gold, but you made good arguments, pay no further attention to that comment.
Dylan: Gold was inspired by some of the coloring from Apple on virtualization.
Topic: Whitepaper
(someone): The programming model section is much improved
DavidF: Quite well written. But who is the audience? Might be too technical in parts.
Jon: I did a lot of the work and took my lead from Chris's introduction, that said the target audience was the IT executive trying to understand Ajax and how to deploy. I added note on understanding OpenAjax Alliance also as that seemed obvious. So, direct audience is IT executive, but indirectly we want press and analysts to understand why we are here.
Ian: Well-written and tight whitepaper. Maybe we need to write a second whitepaper that is more marketing oriented. What I didn't see is more succinct value proposition or use cases. Maybe use cases shown with snapsnots from public domain of web 2.0 scenarios. For example, spreadsheets. Need other examples than just google maps.
Jon: So, do we need two whitepapers, marketing and technical, or just one combo whitepaper?
Ian: We have enough talent amongst us to do what we want. Whitepaper-Lite could have a more business and user perspective. Show examples. Provide value proposition.
Chris: The marketing whitepaper would be second priority. Key thing with customers today is middle-level technical understanding - what should my strategy be? I would push in opposite direction. Instead, expaand the technical sections. The existing whitepaper makes a fairly strong initial statement.
Jon: I am inclined to fix what we have, post, and perfect it later.
Chris: We are at point in market where this doc would be useful.
Jon: Joe, what do you think from a PR perspective?
Joe: High-level content is more suitable to the press, but analysts will be interested in the whole paper. If it will take a long time to fix, not bad to post sections we are comfortable with right away.
Ian: Just to clarify my earlier statements, not trying to prevent publishing this paper. We should focus on what we feel we need to add to this document and also start work on a second document. I am willing to work on second document.
Jon: I heard that. A volunteer to do work.
Joe: Good idea for whitepaper lite. Could send it to reporters for adaptation quickly into a story.
Jon: Ian, just write the marketing lite whitepaper, put it on the wiki.
Nolwen: We can post something and say it is evolving. Web 2.0 has evolving as a core characteristic. I like use case idea from Ian.
(someone): Are you suggesting a second whitepaper? If so, I think that's a good idea.
Jon: What to call them? Market Whitepaper and Architecture Whitepaper?
Ian: I think that's what the current whitepaper does. Marketing whitepaper needs to say what Ajax can do for me. Articulate at 100,000 foot level.
Nolwen: Should the whitepaper point out potential problems?
Jon: While working on the whitepaper, I concluded that it should be all positive. My suggestion is that the two whitepapers only talk about positives with Ajax and OpenAjax and do not highlight problems. But have other parts of web site that talk about gotchas and how to get around them.
Nolwen: OK.
Ian: Current paper is what is ajax, how to evaluate and how to implement. Other paper is what is impact of Ajax.
Jon: I am positive with that.
Nolwen: Whitepaper: both aobut Ajax and OpenAjax all OK?
Jon: I think so. We have to be relevant to the discussion.
Nolwen: OK.
Andre: Are we going to publish to a wider audience first for feedback?
Jon: I was thinking of notifying the 49 member organizations for feedback.
Andre: That's good.
Ian: Let's set a date for publishing. Send reminders. Here is your window of opportunity.
Jon: How about they have two weeks?
Chris: Good goal. Publish thereafter.
JohnJ: Good idea. If we are targeting another paper, do we want to wait? Dilute our message?
Ian: I don't think so. All Web 2.0 sites are changing on a daily basis. I don't know how rabid the press is. Business case paper comes out when it comes out. Set deadline for marketing people, But don't delay existing whitepaper.
JohnJ: Don't want press to go away with a big yawn. PR perspective: will they yawn?
Joe: We are at a critical point with reporters and analysts. Whitepaper, mission statement, launch of web site, all highly consumable. Even if 100 word summary or mission statement, good for now. Post this whitepaper would be good. Good again to post marketing whitepaper later.
Ian: I could come up with use cases and intro in two weeks.
Jon: Ready for our next meeting.
Jon: Proposal: everyone review the whitepaper for the next meeting. Send email to all members so they have chance to review, deadline in two weeks. Then publish after next meeting.
Coach: Good idea. Very well-written paper. Important to get out as soon as we can. Very positive paper. We have tangible results to talk about. Committees. OpenAjax Hub.
(Everyone agrees with proposal)
Coach: How to make changes to the whitepaper?
Jon: Just use your best judgment and common sense. For typos or bad grammar, just fix the content on the wiki. If a drawing is missing, just add the drawing. But changes that might be controversial or where you lack confidence about doing the right thing, then various options. Put comments inline in the document, put discussion notes on wiki, send email, etc.
Coach: Value proposition contains things that might be better broken out. Example is 3.7 on programming models.
Jon: Defense is that having multiple programming model options is a benefit. But yes this section is much more than a two sentence summary of what the topic means. If anyone has a concrete reorganziation suggestion, maybe email to the list.
Coach: Need to talk about members section.
Jon: Either just hardcode members that exist today or write a small Ajax application that updates the web page dynamically each time it is viewed.
Andre: Too much effort and might seem like gratuitous use of Ajax. Just update the document periodically when new members join.
Coach: I agree.
Ian: Include link to latest page showing complete member list.
Jon: Which format should we use? HTML or PDF? PDF isn't web.
Ian: Gartner offers both HTML for web viewing and PDF for printing.
(consensus): Publish as both HTML and PDF for printing.
DavidF: I will do an edit pass today.
Jon: I will do an edit pass tomorrow, then send email to membership.
