markus.soell@... wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Yeah, I started this reply before the last one... sorry.

[...]

> 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.

I do see any reason why this is true. I do not see how
allowing discussion or having 'non firebird' news related to
the community is bad for the site.
[...]

>
> >
>
> 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.
>
> >

[...]

> > >
> > So ? How is the Apache website more relevant to us than
> > Microsoft's ?
>
> Umm, because it's OSS projects?
>

So what. Firebird is not apache. The circumstances of firebird
are very different. The people are different.

> > 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.

You said earlier that it was a developer site which
was different from the public site...

> This is not apropriate for the Firebird official
> website.

Obviously we differ in that opinion.

>

[...]

> >
> > 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.

When I refer to the community I mean everyone who uses it.
Those who contribute I would refer to as developers, even if
they develop web sites, testing or documentation.

> But I would like to see Firebird as a coherent community,

Too bad. It's not.

> which e.g. also comprises those who write Firebird doc. (still to be
> done), or who produce an OSS ODBC driver for the product.

I don't think any part of firebird is interested in creating
an ODBC driver. Of someone wants to create a firebird
compatible ODBC driver, that is great. Firebird and Interbase
users around the world will shower them with praises. But it's
NOT a part of the firebird project. Firebird is a small part
of a larger comunity, specifically concerned with open
development of the server codebase.

> 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.
>

Is firebird about being 'strong' and having a coherent look ?
That's not what I'm working for.

[...]

> 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.

In the strictest legal sense you are right of course.
I am well aware of this. What I'm talking about is what the
firebird group is about. It is not (IMHO) about promoting
a brand in the traditional sense.

[...]

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

IMHO, it misrepresents the current situation.
To understand the current situation you have to understand
the history.

> > 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).
>

This not true. You have to understand who the players are, and
what they are doing. You also have to understand what the
'firebird community' counts as success before you can help
us achieve it. You may find that some of us are NOT defining
success in an economic context at all. (And those who are might
want to look into lotto instead... the odds are probably
better)

[...]

> >
> > 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.

Ummm...
The firebird user community currently has almost 100% overlap
with the interbase user community. The two products are compatible
and interchangeable. These are facts. Thus, anyone who is involved
with one will have some involvement with the other. This may
change, but not real soon.

[...]

> > 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.

LOL

>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!
>

I know very, very well that firebird is not Borland (indeed,
I'm one of maybe 10 people on this list most responsible for
that fact). I also know very well that the firebird/interbase
user and developer communities are overlapping and intertwined.
To separate them at this point is an artificial and incorrect
distinction.
Distinguishing the products IS important, of course.

> >

[...]

> Why shouldn't the same documentation be available at multiple places?

Because you end up with a bunch of different web sites with
similar information (but possibly different versions) and a maintenance
hassle. This doesn't mean that nothing should be duplicated, it just a
general principle.

> For best appearance in public, the community should present itself
> with a single name.

The community is NOT unified. It does NOT have a single name or
a single goal.

> 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.
>

The brand is only as worthwhile as the thing it represents.

[...]

> > 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.

I disagree with this. There is no reason that a commercial entity
cannot be part of the community. The many of the goals of IBPhoenix,
as an organization, are complementary to those of firebird developers.

> >
> > 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.
>

I know quite well what brand is. Firebird is incidentally
creating a 'brand' in the legal sense. This does not mean
that the motivation of those involved in the project is
about promoting this 'brand'.

> > 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.

But that is my point. Firebird is not specifically about being
good for the brand. What I have been trying to say (none to
clearly, I admit) is that promoting/enhancing the brand is
not what the firebird project is about. The firebird project
is about the thing itself, and the brand is incidental.

[...]

> way. Just stop commenting on things you don't know anything about.

LOL

[...]

> 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.
>

Is firebird an actor in a market oriented economy ?
I see it more as a band of gypsies in an industrial wasteland...

[...]

> > >
> > Not enough organization for what ?
> >
>
> Not enough for Firebird to receive much funding from sponsors, in any
> case.

True enough. Whether that is a problem is a different question.
Funding would clearly make development easier, but when the
financial and decision making processes are tied together,
it completly changes the nature of the group.
[...]

>
> 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,

Not true at all. Once people have authority that is based on
POWER (the distribution of money, for example), rather than RESPECT
you have a completely different situation.

> 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...
>

[...]

--
Reed Mideke
email: rfm(at)cruzers.com -If that fails: rfm(at)portalofevil.com