Hi Reed,
you typed a lot of text and I will try to give you a reply. You seem
to be someone involved in coding and that's what such a project needs
at first, I agree. But open source projects also have an economic
side. You have understood correctly that all my comments concern
economics. You disregard them because, coming from someone outside,
they can only be wrong. I hope you have at least noticed that I am
not an enemy. I don't want to control anything, because control must
be with those who are involved in the project, you are very right.
Only it's an error to think, that one would need to be deeply
involved in order to understand the economic context.

Anyway, let me answer your points:

--- In IBDI@y..., reed mideke <rfm@c...> wrote:
> markus.soell@b... 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.

Of course.

> 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.

Yes, I didn't really mean the release should be withheld if the site
isn't ready. But I wanted to say that in my opinion the site _is_
important in that a coherent and professional presentation of
Firebird can help to improve acceptance of the product in the market.

Why should Firebird not want some publicity if it can get it for free
(by simply having the website in place)? You seem to say you don't
care how many will use Firebird. That's of course a possible
position. It's much like a Jazz musician: He makes the music for
himself and doesn't care if there are many who listen to it.
Personally I think a little different: The more users adopt Firebird,
the more happy I will be and also the more sponsoring money will flow
into Firebird development, if you don't mind that ;) That's why
marketing matters. And I'm not talking about commercial, active
marketing here, there's no budget for such things anyway. All I'd
like to see is a professional presentation, like most other OSS
projects have it.

>
> > 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.

The community is those, who contribute to the product. Currently
there are about 45 members on SourceForge. I think that's only a
small part of the potential user base. I think the success depends
also for a good part on how well the product will be received
by "ordinary" users, who don't intend to contribute directly. That's
what I refer to as public.

> Look... linux, perl,
> apache, and most other open source projects appeared without any
> marketing until long after they were already wide spread.

Sure. And, as mentioned above, I am not talking about active
marketing. I only talk about professional presentation (show the
world you're serious about the venture) and proper use of terminology
(use "Firebird" to refer to the product from the Firebird project and
not for products from Borland). Maybe I'm a bit formal in expaining
these things, but it all boils down to something simple like that.

If Firebird was also used for Borland things, it would never get an
own identity and hence there'd never be something for you to look at
and be proud of ;)

> Even now, does the linux kernel have a web site, never mind one
> that meets your peculiar criteria ?

No, it doesn't. For obvious reasons: The linux kernel is not a
product that can be used. There's no public interest in a kernel. On
the other hand Firebird is a product and there are users who will
want to learn more about it. That explains why it needs this website
(like all other OSS projects with a product made for users).

>
> > 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.

Of course it will. But that takes some time. In the first time, the
only thing potential users can see to get an idea, is the
presentation, the appearance.

> 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.

Again, building reputation takes time. Since you agree a well
structured website will help, I don't quite understand why you seem
to fight against the creation of such website.

> If our web site is a million times better, but our product
> is still crap, we will still have a reputation for producing
> crap.

That's for sure. Hope you do a good job in coding :)

>
> [...]
> > 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.

You don't really say why those criteria shouldn't be right. It's just
a matter of being clear in communications. Content of the Firebird
official site shall be about Firebird and topics directly related to
Firebird (e.g. someone making a driver available for Firebird). The
site should not try to cover also other topics of interest for the
same group of visitors. That's the function of a news/discussion site
and the two should be kept apart.

One could write many pages about why it's good to have it that way.
But simply look at what other OSS projects do: They do exactly what I
recommend.

When I say the current site isn't apropriate, that sounds much like a
critic to Pavel, but actually it's more that I recommend to organize
differently by creating a Firebird official site and leave general
news/discussion to other sites, e.g. IBPhoenix and IBDI. That's
justified by the fact, that the Firebird project will release a
product and should therefore present itself as the community who
makes this product and as nothing else.

> [...]
> > 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.
>
>
> [...]
> > 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.

I suspect you make here a statement about something you don't really
know. How "most OSS projects" are internally organized? The ones I
know have all a corporate organization for financial things. The
corporate structure isn't necessary where a project under control of
one single person. This isn't the case of Firebird and without such
an organization it's much more difficoult to find sponsors. So do you
want to say you're not interested in participating in a project
supported by sponsors??

>
> > 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.

This isn't a question of believe: You will distribute the product
as "Firebird" and public will know it as the product of the "Firebird
Community". Therefore what is written on the Firebird official
website, will be understood as the opinion of this community. That's
all I meant by "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.

True, that's all that is needed. But sometimes it happens that people
work together in the belief to have common goals, and suddenly it
appears that some have different ideas (goals) than others. That's
real life...

> You seem caught up in the idea that there is (or should be)
> some firebird entity that has some goals of it's own.

The entity exists: It's the core of active members. Technically
speaking they form a company. And yes, they should have a common
goal: making Firebird a success!

> 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.

I think I've learnt enough about the project to understand the
economic context and give my opinion about these topics.

> > 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.

I agree, since Mark said that such a group already exists. I guess
that will indeed be sufficient 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.

I would indeed like to see Firebird having enough organization so
that an "opinion" of the community can somehow be expressed, so it
can present what it wants and defend its own interests. But I agree,
current structures appear sufficient for the moment. On the other
hand I think that some sponsors would be welcome and management of
these funds would require a little more organization in the future.

>
> --
> Reed Mideke

Markus