[LGM] Pledgie results [was: LGM-organiser meet in Madrid]

Louis Desjardins louis.desjardins at gmail.com
Wed Apr 17 12:54:59 PDT 2013

2013/4/17 Femke Snelting <snelting at collectifs.net>

> Hey Alexandre,
>  in my eyes the "proof" lies in how "well" the pledgie did: it has
>>> been spread in more channels but no significant results.
>> It couldn't do any better, but it has nothing to do with organizers'
>> interest.
> Also:
> - Getting people to donate from Spain was tough due to crisis but also
> because local platforms such as GOTEO have more traction over here
> - Parallel Pledgies see http://lgm2013.titanpad.com/**future<http://lgm2013.titanpad.com/future>(line 28)
>  Here's some food for thoughts.
>> 1) Flagship projects that are big parts of LGM lost momentum. They
>> don't move forward as fast as the public expects them to (except
>> Blender and, recently, Krita). Teams have 3-4 times as little
>> participants as they should, dev cycles for Inkscape and GIMP have
>> doubled. And given their stance towards paid development people simply
>> stopped feeling like giving money to teams is going to fix things (and
>> rightfully so).
>> 2) The very same flagship projects don't participate in LGM as much as
>> they could or used to.
> Pledgie was indeed less widely circulated by team members/on "flagship"
> sites than I remember from 2010.
> For reference, here's a list of lgm pledgie banner powered sites in 2010
> http://lgm2013.titanpad.com/**pledgie<http://lgm2013.titanpad.com/pledgie>(I promise to add these sprawling pages to documentation site once
> available).
> On the up-side more new projects, artists and designers showed serious
> interest in LGM. Most of them paid their own travel but this is not visible
> from donations.
>  Case in point: Inkscape hasn't had team meetings at LGM since what
>> year? I'd say, 2010. Latest GIMP or Inkscape workshop was when? I'd
>> say 2011.
>> GIMP team also had nothing new to demonstrate this year. The Q/A
>> session would work a lot better if it was a kind of workshop where
>> people could come with laptops and ask questions about using tools or
>> accomplishing various tasks they have problems with. 7 team members
>> who were on stage (+ Jimmac, the 8th) would do a lot more good in a
>> workshop. Instead all that attendees got were answers to a couple of
>> popular questions, and two questions from audience, one of which
>> didn't make any sense whatsoever.
>> 3) The way LGM is marketed doesn't explain how exactly users would
>> benefit from helping teams to meet. Best examples of getting stuff
>> done for mutual benefit of teams and users, like LensFun or
>> OpenRaster, are _years_ old. Stuff like the recent brushpack file
>> format thing would aid that, but LGM has no track record of spreading
>> the word about tangible results of the event. In fact, at some point
>> in the past LGM page in Wikipedia was on the verge of deletion due to
>> lack of verified information about its usefulness (there's some
>> special Wikipedia lingo for that, I just can't recall it).
> To me we could be more clear about this as an opportunity for users and
> developers to meet.

Which is actually the primary goal of LGM! ;-)

>  4) The way information about the event is spread is far, far from
>> perfection. I extensively covered that in the "media planning" thread
>> back in December, however I didn't do as much work as I could myself.
>> Guilty as charged. I think Medialab did a nice job locally, but LGM
>> was barely promoted even in major open source media.
> Yes. Communication/marketing team (Hong-Phuc, Maria, Mario) will make sure
> this is not repeated next year. For example, no "global" press-releases was
> sent because it needed another type of writing than me or local team could
> provide.
>  In fact, the "it has been spread in more channels but no significant
>> results" phrase alone explains the failure of Pledgie. It's never
>> about quantity. It's about quality and the context.
>> So there are things that are out of our control, but could be worked
>> around, and then there are things we certainly could do if we
>> organized our work differently.
>> OK, the bitching part is over :)
>> What can we actually do? For this Pledgie -- not much already. For the
>> future?
>> 1) Keep people updated about outcomes of the event. Think about what
>> you could do, how your own team benefited from participating in the
>> event, find a way to share it with a bigger audience. Look-up blog
>> posts about LGM from attendees and post a press-release with just
>> excerpts from blog posts.
>> Personally, I've one interview in the pipeline, one news item posted
>> (today) and some more stuff in plans. I'm also quite sure that Nathan
>> has something in the works.
> Am working here on reports, stats for 2013 and 2010 (give me a few more
> days) and preparing material for a sponsoring doc to be written up with
> Nate. Louis is preparing a feedback form to ask for "testimonials". Some
> blog coverage still coming up.

Olà Femke! Thanks for telling me that! :-) I thought that we (you) would
maybe add the paragraph from Jonnor (and now add the questions by AP) to
the form that already exist to get the feedback from the teams! I can do it
but I will need a bit of time. Let me know!

>  The idea is that the conference is never over until you stop talking
>> about it. It's unrealistic to expect people to donate if you try
>> maintaining their interest at paying time only.
>> 2) Plan the media campaign in advance. Talk to online magazines that
>> focus on open source and free software and find out if they are
>> interested in a cover story.
>> 3) Talk to online communities about the way they could promote LGM and
>> ask them about workshops they would be interested in.
>> 4) Ask attendees of LGM2013 for feedback: what was great, what sucked,
>> what should've happened and was completely missed by organizers. If I
>> get it right, you have emails of everyone who attended the conference
>> (or, at least, intended to). You can post a poll one the website, mail
>> them a link to it and ask for two minutes of their attention.
>> I guarantee you that even if 30 people answer the questions, you will
>> get a much better understanding how LGM went and what was really
>> missing. It's a bit late, because things like that are best done on
>> the last day of the event or at least within the next 1-2 days of it,
>> but it still could work if done fast.
>> If we end up with Montreal in 2014, we should expect lower attendance
>> overall and lower percentage of users. It would be worth thinking
>> about a few things:
>> 1) Whether we should try to get more users and what we should do to
>> make that happen.
>> 2) If we absolutely cannot get more users, then how exactly we should
>> market LGM to help the community understand that the event will have
>> tangible outcomes for the benefit of all.
>> That was a long read. Thanks for doing it.
> Thank you Alexandre!
> F
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libre-graphics-meeting/attachments/20130417/92324586/attachment.html>

More information about the Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list