markus.soell@... wrote:

>
> Helen,
>
> --- In IBDI@y..., Helen Borrie <helebor@d...> wrote:
> > No matter how many websites there are or whether they are red,
> > yellow or sky-blue-scarlet, we can't release a product until the
> > QA is done.
>
> I would put this the other way round:
>
> Firebird shall not release its product (even if the QA is done) as
> long as there isn't an acceptably looking Firebird website.
>

No. First of all, the firebird developers decide when to
release. Secondly, the web site is irrelevant. The release exists
for the benefit of it's users. Not to 'promote a brand' or
to get publicity, or to look good, or anything else. It should
(and, unless I'm sorely mistaken, will) be released when it is
ready. No sooner, not later, without regard to any other factors.

> The success of a product depends on how it is perceived in public.

Not significantly. The success of an open source project depends
primarily on it's usefulness to it's community. Look... linux, perl,
apache, and most other open source projects appeared without any
marketing until long after they were already wide spread. Even now,
does the linux kernel have a web site, never mind one that
meets your peculiar criteria ?

> For the moment Firebird is new and doesn't have a reputation to
> produce quality products. That's why a professional presentation of
> the community will contribute a lot to the success. And the first
> impression is the most important!
>

No. A professional piece of software is the only thing that
will seriously help our reputation. A useful, accessible web site
will help, but it is not required. If our product is a million
times better than the alternative, then it will be well received.
If our web site is a million times better, but our product
is still crap, we will still have a reputation for producing
crap.

[...]

> job in coding, QA, support etc. and not try to impress peoples with
> a "stunning" website. Such a website would be contra-productive.
>

I agree.

> On the other hand Firebird needs a website with content organized to
> give a good presentation of itself to the rest of the world. For this
> purpose a site like Pavels isn't apropriate. Here is why:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IBDI/message/2554
>

I totally disagree. Pavels site (assuming more of the contents
were there) would be just find. Your criteria for an 'official'
website are, IMHO pointlessly restrictive.

[...]

> irritating. In the best interest of Firebird is a website which
> dispenses with all the gimmicks and concentrates on well structured
> and informative content.
>

I agree.

> Jeff has put up this design comparison page and I have set the domain
> FirebirdSQL.com to point to it, just to fascilitate the access.
>

[...
snipped discussion of colors, logos etc. As long
as it is legible, navigable and not hideously ugly, I don't care
...]

[...]

> There are other tasks which actually could well be
> handled by such an "administrative" unit. One is, that the official
> site should give some contact information, at least an email address.
> So there's the question who shall receive this email.

This should not be one person. This should be a firebird mailing list.
(this is the traditional approach for open source projects. If
you want to contact the developers, mail the developer mailing list)
You seem to want to have a firebird 'organization' that is something
that is like a company but doesn't make money. This is not how
most open source projects are developed, and I have no desire to
participate in such an entity.

> For this as
> well, I would prefer a little team of "trusted members", rather than
> one single person. This team would not "own" Firebird, but only have
> some (rather limited) administrative tasks. It would be an interim
> solution, to be replaced by something more formal (a Firebird
> Association) in the future.

Such a group already exists (centered around the 'administrators'
of the firebird sourceforge project), and I don't believe that
replacing it with a more formal association is the proper thing
to do in the near future.

> Being the redactors of FirebirdSQL.org,
> this team would be the official voice of Firebird.

I don't believe that 'firebird' has or needs an official voice.
The firebird group is made up of a number of different individuals
with different interests. We are in happy cooperation pursuing
our common goals. Currently, no more is required.
You seem caught up in the idea that there is (or should be)
some firebird entity that has some goals of it's own.
There isn't, and as far as I'm concerned, doesn't need to be.

[...]

>
> So, I suggest a team of at least 3 members. Basically the smaller the
> team, the easier it can work. But I don't know the persons inside
> Firebird enough to give any recommendation about this.

You've hit the nail on the head here. Perhaps you should sit
back and watch until you have some idea of what is actually
going on.

> If there are
> (by chance) 3 peoples who clearly stand behind Firebird and merit
> this position (again, with competences limited to administrative
> tasks),

I don't believe that any more official administration
is required or proper at this point in time.

> maybe you could somehow arrange to create this team? An

Who does 'you' refer to here, and how are they going to 'create'
a team.

[...]

> What do you think?

You seem to want to form firebird into something that it
is not, and should not be.

--
Reed Mideke
(official firebird anarchist, speaking in official capacity)
email: rfm(at)cruzers.com -If that fails: rfm(at)portalofevil.com