| Subject | Re: [IBDI] Re: web site stuff |
|---|---|
| Author | reed mideke |
| Post date | 2001-05-03T20:15:36Z |
markus.soell@... wrote:
been reading the discussion) is that Pavel's site has the capability
to serve both users and developers. Yes, we need more user oriented
content (and perhaps some changes to the layout and titles to make
it obvious) but that will not be solved by creating a new site.
As for organization, firebird has all it currently needs. The only
people I've seen who feel the pressing need for more organization
are people otherwise uninvolved with the project who come along
and say that we need change a bunch of stuff to better conform
with their idea of an organization. They seem to miss the fact
that firebird is not much of an organization, and it's current
members don't have much desire to see it become one.
It has:
News relevant to users and developers
Links to tools, downloads, mailing lists, (all relevant to both
developers and users) and, in the box that says developers, links
to the source and such. Now there are areas that need to be filled
out, but that is a different issue.
As for the general phpnuke layout, I see nothing wrong with it.
and general principles are serve our needs just fine.
If I find the time, I may still respond to it. Basically
you make a lot of statements about what you think
an 'official' website should be like. Aside from the
idea that it should be simple and to the point, I do not
agree with these requirements.
Microsoft's ? And what about the firebird.sourceforge.net site
so terribly developer ?
sourceforge project. "Firebird" is the thing we, the "Firebird group",
develop. "firebird users" are anyone who uses "Firebird".
The "Pontiac Firebird" is a car, no relation to us. The firebird
association, company, brand, trademark and product are figments of
your imagination.
the events that led to it's open sourceing, and the formation of
the firebird project, I'm quite familiar with the circumstances
that brought us to our present position, and the various entities
that are involved. Your 'howto' (which, BTW does not tell how to
do anything) clearly shows that while you've corrected some
of the glaring errors from the first version, you are
not very familiar with the people and organizations involved.
I don't find the conclusions of your howto relevant or useful.
(I won't go into details here, because we're talking about
whether firebird needs another web site. In brief, your howto
describes things in black and white where in fact there are
only shades of gray.)
I suggest, that if you are truly interested in the
firebird/interbase community (and these currently overlap to
the point that distinguishing them is mostly irrelevant),
that find some other approach trying to make us conform
to your ideas of who we are and what we should be.
firebird site is documentation doesn't exist elsewhere.
The only purpose of the firebird website should be to provide
information to the community in the most useful and accessible
manner. If this information is already available from IBDI,
IBPhoenix, Borland, or whoever, then all that is needed
is a link (with an informative description, of course)
You think it is somehow 'bad' that documentation is hosted
by IBPhoenix. But IBPhoenix is also a part of the community.
They may eventually hope to profit from the work of the firebird
project, but this is very unlikely in the near term. If you
actually knew the history and the individuals involved, all
this would be obvious.
As for the 'firebird brand', there is no such thing.
The continued existence of firebird should hinge on it's
usefulness. If firebird has a web site, it's only purpose
is to help firebird be useful. It is not about 'presenting' a
'brand'
[...]
a user. To know the development issues that affect users, you
must know something about how the program works. To know where the
development process is at, you must keep up with development.
To understand what is relevant (and thus what belongs where
on the site), you must have a significant grasp of all these things.
I have seen a vast amount of documentation (web and print) done by
people who weren't well versed in what they were documenting and
almost all of it was crap. Of course anyone can fix broken links
and formatting bugs... but before we need that, we need the
content.
[...]
And you feel that you need to come along and 'organize' us ?
That is a lofty goal (the phrase 'herding cats' comes to mind),
but to lead in an open source project you need a significant
capital of familiarity and reputation in the community. As far
as I'm concerned, the only way anyone can get these is by being
an active contributor for a significant amount of time.
When the community knows you, knows the quality of your work,
and respects your common sense and opinions, THEN you can try
to organize. Right now, because the firebird group is new,
there is not really many people who have that sort of
reputation (after more than a year, Mark, Pavel, and a few
others are starting to earn it.)
This is why firebird is a loose, anarchistic group, and
IMHO, trying to form some sort of oganization that is based
on something other than familiarity with, and respect for,
the individuals involved is pure folly.
I have worked under appointed, professional organizers, who
knew little of the thing they were organizing, but I my life
is much better (though less wealthy) now that I don't
associate with them.
[...]
--
Reed Mideke
(official firebird anarchist, speaking in official capacity)
email: rfm(at)cruzers.com -If that fails: rfm(at)portalofevil.com
>If we didn't already have one... What I'm saying (and yes, I HAVE
> Hi Reed,
>
> > Of all the things the firebird project desperately needs, I'd put
> > a new web site near (or below) the bottom of the list.
>
> Hmm, interesting. I put it near the top, along with the organization
> question, just browse a little back to find the discussion about it.
>
been reading the discussion) is that Pavel's site has the capability
to serve both users and developers. Yes, we need more user oriented
content (and perhaps some changes to the layout and titles to make
it obvious) but that will not be solved by creating a new site.
As for organization, firebird has all it currently needs. The only
people I've seen who feel the pressing need for more organization
are people otherwise uninvolved with the project who come along
and say that we need change a bunch of stuff to better conform
with their idea of an organization. They seem to miss the fact
that firebird is not much of an organization, and it's current
members don't have much desire to see it become one.
> > I believe Pavel has done an excellent job so far, and ifJust how is the firebird.sourceforge.net site for developers ?
> > there are problems with the firebird.sourceforge.net site, the the
> > proper course would be to bring them to his attention (in a
> > reasonable and constructive manner, of course).
>
> One question that has been subject to discussion is, what type of
> site we're all talking about. Pavel has done a site for developers
> and indeed that's what a site like the current one could be used for
> and so I dont want to contest the quality of Pavels job.
>
It has:
News relevant to users and developers
Links to tools, downloads, mailing lists, (all relevant to both
developers and users) and, in the box that says developers, links
to the source and such. Now there are areas that need to be filled
out, but that is a different issue.
As for the general phpnuke layout, I see nothing wrong with it.
> But on the other hand, if the site should be not for developers butMy opinion is that the firebird.sourceforge.net layout
> for the rest of the world, then I think this site is not good for
> that purpose. And in my opinion that's the type of site Firebird
> needs.
>
and general principles are serve our needs just fine.
> I wrote a message about that earlier and to be short, here's the link:Yes, I read that message and disagree with most of it.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IBDI/message/2554
>
If I find the time, I may still respond to it. Basically
you make a lot of statements about what you think
an 'official' website should be like. Aside from the
idea that it should be simple and to the point, I do not
agree with these requirements.
> > It has been suggested that the firebird 'development' siteSo ? How is the Apache website more relevant to us than
> > and 'user' site should be different, but I do not agree with this
> > at all.
>
> Ok, to avoid a long statement I'd say, simply look at what other OSS
> projects do, e.g. Apache.org. If you find on that site more about the
> development than a 2 lines "how to get involved" statement, let me
> know.
>
Microsoft's ? And what about the firebird.sourceforge.net site
so terribly developer ?
> The beauty of the web is it allows you to makeNo. The "Firebird group" is the people who are members of the firebird
> > hierarchies. The choice between 'user' an 'developer should
> > only be a single click. Beyond that, firebird is essentially
> > a developer organization.
>
> Firebird is more than a Developer organization, because the product
> will have that name and therefore the entire community behind this
> name will be identified by Firebird.
sourceforge project. "Firebird" is the thing we, the "Firebird group",
develop. "firebird users" are anyone who uses "Firebird".
The "Pontiac Firebird" is a car, no relation to us. The firebird
association, company, brand, trademark and product are figments of
your imagination.
>Having participated in the the development of interbase
> To know my more detailed opinion on this question, you might want to
> read the Firebird HowTo I wrote:
>
> http://www.soell.ch/firebird/howto.htm
>
the events that led to it's open sourceing, and the formation of
the firebird project, I'm quite familiar with the circumstances
that brought us to our present position, and the various entities
that are involved. Your 'howto' (which, BTW does not tell how to
do anything) clearly shows that while you've corrected some
of the glaring errors from the first version, you are
not very familiar with the people and organizations involved.
I don't find the conclusions of your howto relevant or useful.
(I won't go into details here, because we're talking about
whether firebird needs another web site. In brief, your howto
describes things in black and white where in fact there are
only shades of gray.)
I suggest, that if you are truly interested in the
firebird/interbase community (and these currently overlap to
the point that distinguishing them is mostly irrelevant),
that find some other approach trying to make us conform
to your ideas of who we are and what we should be.
> > Right now, there is very littleI maintain that the only documentation that should be on the
> > user content that belongs to firebird. Duplicating content
> > that is already available at IBID, IBPhoenix etc. only creates
> > more maintenance hassles. That's why we have hyperlinks.
>
> No. At least minimum documentation on the Firebird website is
> necessary in the interest of a coherent presentation of the
> community. It's important for the Firebird brand.
>
firebird site is documentation doesn't exist elsewhere.
The only purpose of the firebird website should be to provide
information to the community in the most useful and accessible
manner. If this information is already available from IBDI,
IBPhoenix, Borland, or whoever, then all that is needed
is a link (with an informative description, of course)
You think it is somehow 'bad' that documentation is hosted
by IBPhoenix. But IBPhoenix is also a part of the community.
They may eventually hope to profit from the work of the firebird
project, but this is very unlikely in the near term. If you
actually knew the history and the individuals involved, all
this would be obvious.
As for the 'firebird brand', there is no such thing.
The continued existence of firebird should hinge on it's
usefulness. If firebird has a web site, it's only purpose
is to help firebird be useful. It is not about 'presenting' a
'brand'
[...]
> In my opinion (if you read the preceding messages you know it), theBecause to know the actual issues that users face, you must be
> webmaster task for this site should be split up, because I think the
> sensible parts of the site should be directly maintained by Firebird
> project leaders. On the other hand, for some other site maintenance
> tasks, I don't see why "deep involvement" is necessary.
>
a user. To know the development issues that affect users, you
must know something about how the program works. To know where the
development process is at, you must keep up with development.
To understand what is relevant (and thus what belongs where
on the site), you must have a significant grasp of all these things.
I have seen a vast amount of documentation (web and print) done by
people who weren't well versed in what they were documenting and
almost all of it was crap. Of course anyone can fix broken links
and formatting bugs... but before we need that, we need the
content.
[...]
>Not enough organization for what ?
> That's of course a real job. But project organization is another and
> for the moment I have the impression there isn't enough organization
> inside Firebird.
>
And you feel that you need to come along and 'organize' us ?
That is a lofty goal (the phrase 'herding cats' comes to mind),
but to lead in an open source project you need a significant
capital of familiarity and reputation in the community. As far
as I'm concerned, the only way anyone can get these is by being
an active contributor for a significant amount of time.
When the community knows you, knows the quality of your work,
and respects your common sense and opinions, THEN you can try
to organize. Right now, because the firebird group is new,
there is not really many people who have that sort of
reputation (after more than a year, Mark, Pavel, and a few
others are starting to earn it.)
This is why firebird is a loose, anarchistic group, and
IMHO, trying to form some sort of oganization that is based
on something other than familiarity with, and respect for,
the individuals involved is pure folly.
I have worked under appointed, professional organizers, who
knew little of the thing they were organizing, but I my life
is much better (though less wealthy) now that I don't
associate with them.
[...]
--
Reed Mideke
(official firebird anarchist, speaking in official capacity)
email: rfm(at)cruzers.com -If that fails: rfm(at)portalofevil.com