Re: GNOME Local user groups

["Felipe Barros S." <felipe linuxlab cl>]

Hello GNOMEros:

	We[1] are an official GNOME Group[2], with almost five GNOME Foundation
members, we promote, teach and evangelize in our country and I have some
questions to do:


1. We can use all the marketing stuff[3] like a official logos, posters,
and other stuffs in our meetings or RFDG[4]?

2. Now in November we have a meeting called "Día de GNOME"[5] as part of
the "VII Encuentro Nacional de Linux" and we want to invite to some
GNOME Hacker to talk with us. The GNOME Foundation could help us in some
way?

3. To resolve in part the expenses of the meetings that we make. We can
sell some stuffs like a stickers, mugs, pencils or whatever, using GNOME
logos and fonts?


Best Regards.


[1] http://www.gnome.cl
[2]
http://live.gnome.org/UserGroups#head-cfbae7fb03fe1bf65268593c3c2c520c1ef47510
[3] http://live.gnome.org/MarketingTeam/MarketingMaterial
[4] http://wiki.gnome.cl/RFDG
[5] http://wiki.gnome.cl/



Quim Gil wrote:
> El dc 26 de 07 del 2006 a les 09:59 +0200, en/na Dave Neary va escriure:
> 
>> GNOME user groups
> 
> Right
> 
> 
>>> - Active mailing list for coordination
>> Required
> 
> Ok, this is enough for the kind of 'certification' I'm looking for.
> Should be hosted in the GNOME server? My vote is +1.
> 
> There is a mismatch between the user groups related lists found at
> mail.gnome.org and the user groups listed at
> http://live.gnome.org/UserGroups . Someone wants to make a diff?  ;) See
> http://live.gnome.org/UserGroups#head-295f0ad46a5c8a8f00f18959765c99e019df2aff
> 
> 
>>> - GNOME Foundation members in the group
>> Desirable (I'd like to make this required - it would be nice for all
>> user groups to maintain a full membership list)
> 
> I think this is a requirement if you want to have your group listed at
> www.gnome.org. You wouldn't need Foundation members to start a group,
> and you could be operating with mailing list and live.gnome.org pages.
> The fact of starting and consolidating a GNOME user group should be
> enough to qualify to become a Foundation member. You see my point, this
> way we list in wgo consolidated groups with Foundation members in it.
> 
> 
>>> - Agreed contact with the GNOME Foundation
>> English speaker - for the gugmasters mailing list we discussed during
>> the marketing BOF.
> 
> Great idea.
> 
> 
>>> - Local press contact
>> Required, probably. And this should be a person. No more mailing lists
>> as press contacts!
> 
> What if we say that since the GNOME Foundation is the official speaker
> of GNOME, then we would request to have Foundation members if they want
> to be listed at http://www.gnome.org/press/ 
> 
> We can discuss if the person in charge of contacting the press needs to
> be a Foundation member her/himself. I think this is required, being open
> to exceptions (basically people with an ongoing application to become
> Foundation member). I mean, we need to keep a minimal control over who
> can speak officially as GNOME - also at a local level.
> 
> Coordination of these press contacts would be another priority.
> 
> 
>>> - Democratic and non-profit structure (legal existence desirable)
>> Definitely not required.
> 
> Sorry, instead of 'democratic' I meant 'open'. Having a public mailing
> list to which anyone can subscribe is open enough. It is clear that
> legal existence is not required, and not even desirable (this is
> something the own groups needs to evaluate).
> 
> 
>>> Perhaps a first question would be whether we need to have something like
>>> an official list of GNOME groups and a checklist to know if your group
>>> is official or not.
>> I don't think so. We should simply have a list of all the groups we know
>> about, but you don't need a stamp of approval to support GNOME in your
>> town/region.
> 
> What about the now more refined proposal of letting anyone having a
> mailing list and go to the wiki pages, but have some requirements for
> those being listed in wgo as local groups and press contacts. 
> 
> We don't want to control people willing to crete a GNOME user group, but
> we don't want to disappoint local users and local press either. We need
> some kind of quality control since local people perceive local GNOME
> groups "as GNOME" as the GNOME Foundation itself, or probably more.
> 
> 
>> I disagree quite strongly. We can take out the bad guys one at a time,
>> using the community mark idea. But we need to allow people to
>> self-organise without passing through the GNOME Foundation.
> 
> Agreed. Now my proposal is only about advertising in wgo groups as GNOME
> User Groups and individuals as press contacts. The Foundation as such
> has nothing to do with this, but with the wgo maintainers. 
> 
> Note that wgo maintenance is responsibility of marketing-list, so it
> makes sense that we want to promote consolidated groups and recognized
> speakers only. In the same way that we want to promote in wgo only the
> cool software (letting anyone to create a GNOME application) and only
> the cool success stories (letting anyone to have their own GNOME
> story). 
> 
>> I insist, though, that the foundation is not the place where groups get
>> created or made official. We will be a service provider for user groups
>> - a place for information exchange and co-ordination - not a centralised
>> command & control structure.
> 
> Fully agreed now, thank you for your clever points.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

-- 
Felipe

begin:vcard
fn:Felipe Barros S.
n:Barros S.;Felipe
adr:;;;Santiago;;;Chile
email;internet:felipe linuxlab cl
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.linuxlab.cl/
version:2.1
end:vcard