Hi Reed,
in this message you're partly repeating the position you already
expressed in another message in the same thread, so I'll try to be
shorter in my reply to this one.

--- In IBDI@y..., reed mideke <rfm@c...> wrote:
> markus.soell@b... wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> If we didn't already have one... What I'm saying (and yes, I HAVE
> 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.

The main content of the current site is news/discussion, which is why
it uses PHPNuke. Now, for reasons I have explained the
Firebird "official" site should do without discussion and concentrate
on Firebird only news. So there's no more need for PHPNuke and in
this situation it's recommended to not use it, because an ordinary
HTML site loads much faster and doesn't have the design constraints
of PHPNuke. That's why a new site is recommended.

>
> 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.

Well, at least for financial management and hence the ability to work
with sponsors, a stronger organization is indispensable. I would like
to see Firebird receive money, in order to have more ressources for
its development efforts.

>
> > > I believe Pavel has done an excellent job so far, and if
> > > 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.
> >
> Just how is the firebird.sourceforge.net site for developers ?
> 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.

It's for developers because Pavel told me it is. It's not apropriate
for users for the reasons I have explained in that other message, I
won't comment on this again.

>
> As for the general phpnuke layout, I see nothing wrong with it.
>

I do. See above.

> > But on the other hand, if the site should be not for developers
but
> > 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.
> >
> My opinion is that the firebird.sourceforge.net layout
> and general principles are serve our needs just fine.
>
> > I wrote a message about that earlier and to be short, here's the
link:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IBDI/message/2554
> >
> Yes, I read that message and disagree with most of it.
> 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.
>

I think I replied to this in the other message, so I wont repeat. But
simply look at the websites of other OSS projects (with a product for
users in public) and you'll see that they all do what I recommend for
Firebird.

> > > It has been suggested that the firebird 'development' site
> > > 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.
> >
> So ? How is the Apache website more relevant to us than
> Microsoft's ?

Umm, because it's OSS projects?

> And what about the firebird.sourceforge.net site
> so terribly developer ?

In my opinion it's not that much developer, it's more like general
news/discussion. This is not apropriate for the Firebird official
website.

>
> > The beauty of the web is it allows you to make
> > > 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.
>
> No. The "Firebird group" is the people who are members of the
> firebird sourceforge project. "Firebird" is the thing we,
> the "Firebird group", develop. "firebird users" are anyone who
> uses "Firebird".

I think we mean the same: Community is those who contribute. It's not
the users. But I would like to see Firebird as a coherent community,
which e.g. also comprises those who write Firebird doc. (still to be
done), or who produce an OSS ODBC driver for the product. All these
things finally belong together and therefore I hope these people will
unite behind the name Firebird, to give a coherent look and make
Firebird strong.

> The "Pontiac Firebird" is a car, no relation to us. The firebird
> association, company, brand, trademark and product are figments of
> your imagination.
>

No, they are not. If you distribute your product under the name
Firebird, that's what is called a trademark. it's a technical legal
term, not something of imagination. Linux is another trademark (even
a registered one, held by Linus Thorvalds).

> >
> > 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
> >
>
> Having participated in the the development of interbase
> 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.

The HowTo is not about history, it's about the current situation.

> 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.

It's not necessary to be (very) familiar with them to understand the
economic context and see what would be good for an independent and
successful Firebird (which is what I would like).

> I don't find the conclusions of your howto relevant or useful.

sad, sad...

> (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),

Here you are wrong. InterBase is Borland only. It's their trademark
and they intend to protect it (and by the way, they are right to do
so, because two source codes means two products). Therefore it's a
vital interest of Firebird to use its name as a brand as well, in
order to get an own identity. Well, I think I told all this in the
HowTo...

> that find some other approach trying to make us conform
> to your ideas of who we are and what we should be.

There is no other approach. It's up to yourself to think hard and try
to understand. Maybe, hopefully, you will realize that you are not
Borland. But so, who are you? -> Firebird!

>
> > > Right now, there is very little
> > > 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.
> >
> I maintain that the only documentation that should be on the
> 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)

Why shouldn't the same documentation be available at multiple places?
For best appearance in public, the community should present itself
with a single name. That's the name of the product: Firebird. For
Firebird, providing useful documentation is part of the effort to
present Firebird as coherent to the rest of the world. You are right,
this is important for marketing reasons (the Firebird brand) mainly.
But that's very important, actually this brand will be the most
valuable asset of the community! If you don't understand what a brand
is and why it's valuable, that's unfortunate. I hope others will.

>
> You think it is somehow 'bad' that documentation is hosted
> by IBPhoenix.

No, I don't think that's bad. But it's bad if Firebird simply links
to that collection, instead of making an effort to present some
documentation in an organized way on the Firebird site. That's the
official site of Firebird and providing access to documentation is
part of a "complete" service. Again, important for the brand.

> 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.

The individuals in IBPhoenix (Ann et al.) are part of the community.
IBPhoenix itself is a commercial venture and formally not part of the
community.
>
> As for the 'firebird brand', there is no such thing.

As I already said somewhere: A brand is the name, under which a
product is distributed. If you say that there isn't such a thing,
this simply means you don't know what a brand is.

> 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'

Well, you're right, basically. What I mean is: If Firebird is useful,
that is beneficial to the image of Firebird in public. That means
it's good for the brand. So, a good website is ultimately good for
the brand. If you don't understand this, just work on the code and I
guess you'll greatly contribute to the success of the project that
way. Just stop commenting on things you don't know anything about.

> [...]
> > In my opinion (if you read the preceding messages you know it),
> > the 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.
> >
> Because to know the actual issues that users face, you must be
> 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.

Sure. But I am only talking about strategic issues, concerning
Firebird as an actor in a market oriented economy. To understand
these issues I don't need any insight in the code.

>
> [...]
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Not enough organization for what ?
>

Not enough for Firebird to receive much funding from sponsors, in any
case.

> And you feel that you need to come along and 'organize' us ?

I just want to give some recommendations.

> 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.

I don't want to lead, I just want to give some "consulting"... ;)

> 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.

Not as long as the power remains where it is right now. I am only
talking about changing the form, e.g. by giving the whole thing a
corporate form (Association). It doesn't change anything to everyday
life, the same persons who have the say now, would have with an
Association as well. That's why the idea isn't all that horrible...

>
> 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


Markus