On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:52:32AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> the buck" evaluation. However, a couple of people have pointed out that
> we're still vague on what constitutes "bang". For example, what are our
I'm tempted to say "bang on". But I'll resist temptation.
I would like to suggest that we are converging on something like the
following principles, which can guide case-by-case answers:
* we want to build a strong user base
- that may not always entail adding every possible user
* a mix of "small/new market" and "traditional suit enterprise"
targets is desirable
- such an approach builds strength through diversity
* "industry" types of work, such as standards bodies and
techno-political organisation work, is of some degree of
importance.
- the cost of being involved (in time and travel as well as
money) should be a significant, but non-determinant,
factor here
Note that, among other properties, this outline entails that we
evaluate the third request to speak to emerging-community-meeting in
a given year _differently_ than the first such request. I think
that's a feature, not a bug, but I'm happy to hear alternative views.
Do these seem like a reasonable outline of principles on which we
could make case-by-case determinations?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner
