Hi Reed,
I'm not going to comment this between the lines again, it's
pointless. I think we both have made our respective position clear
and they could not be more opposed to one another.

To give a summary of your position: You agree the current Firebird
community isn't united, there are many different websites with
different names, and you like it that way. You don't think the name
Firebird is of any importance for the community and you are
indifferent to the question whether this brand will be widely known
or not. You don't want Firebird to work with money from sponsors,
because money might become more important than peer contacts. You
don't see why it would be of any use to have an "official" Firebird
because, according to you, Firebird shall have no center and no
cohesion, no objective for Firebird to achieve a good position
(market share) in the database market,... Short, you don't care about
anything and want others to do the same.

Ok, I agree, my position is pretty much the opposite: I would prefer
a community which unites behind one name (Firebird) to give itself an
identity, so it can be perceived in the market. I want a community
which aims for a high market share for its product and who gives
itself a professional look and presents itself in a coherent manner
to acheive this. I would welcome sponsoring to have financial support
for Firebird development and would therefore adopt a core
organization which makes this possible.

Just note that I don't want anything more for Firebird than what all
the other OSS projects have as well: an identity!

Markus.

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