The Werewolf bites…

Over a period of incremental updates, I finally got bitten by the Werewolf. There was this slight glitch of Error: Missing Dependency: libx264.so.56 is needed by package ffmpeg-libs caused more due to the x264.i386 from F7 remaining on the system. A quick rpm -e and a further yum install fixed the niggling bit and here we are

In case you run into a problem similar to fc-cache -fs  as root giving /usr/share/fonts/lohit-bengali: failed to write cache (the language is an example only) make sure to run fc-cache -f -v for a fix.

Sick and feeling it

Not feeling well at all. This started sometime past 1300 today. There’s nothing I can put a finger on as being wrong, but the body system seems to be freaked out. Time for a medical is near I guess. Managed to have a little bit of that age-old feel good tonic which Runa had made and a hazelnut cookie and will drop off to sleep. Hope sleep does make me feel better tomorrow. In the event you were waiting_on_me for some task, be notified it may get delayed 🙁

Exactly what are you waiting for ?

In case you were still wondering, it is time you signed up to be part of the OpenOffice.org Project Day at foss.in this year. The reason won’t be hard to find.

OpenOffice.org as an application forms an important means to ensure that there are “users” of localized operating system environments. As more and more citizen centric applications move towards the web (and that’s another rock solid reason for you to attend the Mozilla Project Day too), the data archival and transaction would be required to be undertaken using Open Standards (read that as ODF). This is where OpenOffice.org comes into the picture. However, this is a pretty simplistic elucidation of the scenario which would perhaps appeal to the developers who would like to contribute to OpenOffice.org through creating extensions and experience enhancers (hint: the Project Day has all that). What the Project Day should allow the OpenOffice.org team is to understand how the “standards battle” transcends mere developer interest and meshes into user interest as well as get them talking about the Education Project. The general idea behind the Project Day is to ensure that there is an increase in the quantum of developer contribution which is not only limited to translation of the UI, but extending into QA among other things. This of course does not exclude the sharing of war stories related to migration, widgets and plug-ins created around the application. What the team expects is a healthy dose of interaction and free flow of ideas which can be made part of the various sub projects that make up OpenOffice.org

Be there at foss.in this year Thanks to Aamod Nerurkar

Idle times

On what is going to be one of the longest weekends (it has been a long time since I’ve had a 4 day weekend), I woke up really late and managed to make the tea go cold (that is kind of unique). Spent the larger bit of the morning lazing around, writing some draft content for a few wiki pages, replied to pending mail, uploaded a few photographs and watched TV (no make it – kept flipping between MTV and Channel [V]). There is some more work to do for today. Rest of the holidays has been earmarked for study and introspection.

On a completely side note, got my hands on “The Poetry of Pablo Neruda” edited and with an introduction by Ilan Stavans. Once I finish my favorite pieces shall nibbling away at it.

In case you are choosing Werewolf (you should, it rocks for reasons that are plentiful), be sure you read up the Common Issues.

(Respect+love)(contributors+users)=how one can progress with Indic bits

I have written on and off about Indic bits including how DTP is important when talking about a potential user base. The story so far is that while the basic blocks that make up the Indic experience on Linux ie. desktop UI l10n, input methods, fonts are somewhat in place, there is a large body of work that also needs to be attacked to ensure the “experience completeness” when it comes to Indic on the desktop. Unless the needs and requirements of the potential users are looked into, understood and translated into tasks nothing much can happen in terms of uptake. Or, we can howl till the heavens come down as to how l10n is important for ICT4D but without commits to SCMs nothing much is going to happen.

The saddest bit for me is that year after year I observe colossal waste of money, manpower and talent re-inventing the wheel or, doing re-search in the truest ironic sense of the term. Such ego massages include work done on pieces of the puzzle which if done in the FOSS way (in the open with a community around it) would have led to faster results and greater adoption. Of course, the most glamorous bits of the puzzle include Speech-to-Text and Text-to-Speech. Show me a re-search center (by any name) which is not doing the exact same thing as its peer and I’ll show you a R&D lead who has no intention of being part of high-powered-vacuum-tasked committees. Let’s take a few example areas where the “FOSS way” and not the “LOSS way” (read “loss” as laughably obtuse secretly shameful) would have provided real support:

Fonts: As on date, most distributions use a limited set of fonts, or, fonts arising from the same family (I hazard a guess that most of the time it is Lohit based anyway). Yet, there has been extensive work on Indic fonts which are adamantly refused to be let out under appropriate OSI compliant licenses. Who benefits from that stance ? Surely not the end-user who gets denied the chance to have a portfolio of fonts.

Spellcheckers: An indispensible part of the user experience, the current work done around aspell and hunspell is more a result of an obstinate push against roadblocks than a respect for the user. As Gora (who should blog and is determined not to) pointed out recently, there are two aspects to the spellchecking issue – [i] building a comprehensively proof read dictionary which also includes insights into language usage and common spelling errors and [ii] creating stand-alone spellchecking applications, plugins for applications like Scribus etc. But take a pragmatic stock of the current situation – what’s happening ? There’s claimed to be a bucketful of research being conducted in the various glitzy research bodies and nary a single instance where the results can be tracked-integrated-tested-tuned.

DTP: Not much remains to say about this other than what I hear about Scribus folks being aware and responsive but await contributions on the domain of Indic enablement.

OCR: Tesseract could form the way out given that some of the well known Indic OCR projects which have been GoI funded have been behind closed doors with the odd moment of data point being produced in public like some rabbit out of a hat (most magician hats are black though – something to do with closed source bits I guess).

TTS and STT: The Sarai FLOSS Fellowship for this year seems to have the promise of something coming out on the STT front. TTS kind of works with festival, Dhvani and espeak.

How does one put metrics to marketing efforts for FOSS projects ?

I was doing some random reading on Marketing Efforts for FOSS Projects. This was from a completely tangential investigation into the “difference” real or perceived between traditional marketing (ie Marketing for non FOSS and even non Software instances) and FOSS Marketing (umm…I guess that term doesn’t exist). For better or for worse I decided to look across a sample set of what the Marketing teams for some projects project on to the public space.

I borrow the definition from the Dictionary of Marketing Terms and talk from the perspective of marketing being “the process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals.” In effect, traditionally, the marketing department is expected to provide guidance and inputs to organizational units engaged in Product Development or Product Servicing. This would be based on the fact that the department is the one with the deepest insights into the existing and potential customer base and is better placed to communicate with them towards generating loyalty and/or retention.

So on this afternoon I browsed through a few of the FOSS Marketing Projects and here’s a selection of “mission statements”

The Fedora Marketing Project develops marketing strategy to promote the usage and support of Fedora worldwide. Through the development of processes and content, this project aims to support the efforts of other Fedora projects to spread Fedora and to provide a central repository of ideas and information that can be used to deliver Fedora to new audiences.

SpreadKDE is a team dedicated to promote KDE to the world. Our ambition is to increase KDE’s visibility throughout the Internet population by delivering quality content to the main technological events worldwide and by increasing the exposure of KDE inside technological magazines. By doing so, we want to increase the population of the KDE community and the contribution to the KDE project. We also want to make the industry realize how linux and KDE can be a great solution for them.

There is no “official” GNOME Marketing mission right now. It is being discussed though. A general statement might be something like “improving the experience of the GNOME community by facilitating communication and interaction”.

We’re here to promote Ubuntu’s uptake in various ways, all in essence being ways of telling people who want to hear what we have to offer, listening to what they need and trying to identify just that in Ubuntu. Remember: we market Ubuntu, we do not make it more marketable as a priority.

The Marketing Project has two aims: to promote the use of the OpenOffice.org productivity suite; and to grow the OpenOffice.org community.

A common thread across all the above statements is that the (sub-)Projects are more focused on [i] promotion of usage and [ii] increasing of visibility ie awareness. What makes this different from “traditional” marketing efforts is the lack of metrics that can perhaps answer the question “what would be the impact if the (sub-)Projects are scrapped ?”

Traditional Marketing Models where there are products or services that are attached with a value, the core question that gets people to ponder is “all things being equal, what would be the expected quantum of sales” – this in general translates into what is a Baseline Number. Baseline Sales figures are usually the result of various specific models applied upon a large set of historical data. Plainly put, baseline numbers would be the set of consumers if there were no promotion of the product. Taking this further, the impact of a promotion or marketing activities would be to result in Incremental Sales. This in turn allows one to calculate the percentage of “Lift” as Lift (in %) = Incremental Sales / Baseline Sales. Plainly, a large positive value of the Lift percentage does indicate a healthy outcome of marketing involvement. These are very simplistic analysis, but what it also allows to calculate is the Cost of Incremental Sales = Expenses incurred for Marketing / Incremental Sales. A higher positive value of Incremental Sales (which would be indicated by a positive Lift %) would also perhaps lead to a lower value for Cost of Incremental Sales. This again allows one to calculate the Profitability of a Promotion = Profits achieved with Promotion – Estimated Profits without Promotion.

A traditional avenue for marketing activities is advertising. Traditional advertising uses a number of metrics among which few of the popular ones are: Impressions (which don’t actually measure the quality of viewers), Gross Rating Points, Cost Per Thousand Impressions (CPM), Net Reach (which is used to estimate the unique touch-points for the campaign in a population), Cost per Customer Acquired, Rate of Abandonment (or, the purchases which were initiated but never completed) Advertising campaigns generally aim to ensure that within the specified time window of the campaign an individual is exposed to a pre-determined number of exposures to the brand.

The components of a Marketing (sub-)Project for a FOSS Project are Websites, Artwork, Project Tours, Articles, Promotions and Events, Advocacy, Branding, Public Relations, Market Research and Market Segmentation. The methods used to cover the components include Mailing lists, IRC channels, Newsletters, Support Groups, Forums, Wikis etc. However, the singular point of concern would be related to quantifying the long term impact of “marketing” ie. how does one actually measure how successful the marketing effort is/was. Once that can be estimated, the learnings would automatically translate into better priority for tasks and perhaps a quicker focus on what the consumer market segmentation and target would bring home. A simple objection to this entire exercise could be the fact that coming up with a Baseline Number for a FOSS project is absurd if not insanely difficult. For example, if (as a control hypothesis) there was no Marketing Team for GNOME (say), how would one come up with a Baseline Number ? The expected number of consumers for GNOME components might be limited to the small core set of developers or, it might not have since FOSS projects by their very nature spread over word of mouth and peer trust systems. Add to that the random question whether consumption patterns for FOSS projects are “skewed/lumpy” by nature and whether tailoring the access to project bits through infrastructure tweaks creates significant impact on consumption and hence the Baseline Number. Do market segments with varying expectations impact the success of a marketing effort for a FOSS project ?

The current trend of assessing marketing effort involves the implied base unit of communication. How a simple, credible, concrete, reliable story about the FOSS project is conveyed to the existing and potential consumers. This includes communication of feature sets, roadmaps, FAQs among other things. However, as the underlying technologies that make up various distributions and various projects converge, there would be a flattening of expectations from the marketing team. The real challenge then would be to come up with some metrics that allow measurement of effort and provide a realistic assessment of what is being done right vis-a-vis what is required to be reworked.