Re: Debian companies group
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:31:05PM -0400, davidson@ling.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> tldnr: what sorts of transactions are supposed to take place on the
> closed debian-companies list? how will their secret-from-users nature
> empower users? how will their secret-from-project-members empower the
> debian project?
At the risk of repating myself over and over again. The secret status has only
one reason. There are companies out there with very restictive rules about
public communication. I am hoping we could get some of those to join by keeping
the list closed. I mentioned several times that my wish would be that a group
is formed that then decides whether or not it wants to discuss in the open.
> but in fact if it was, how is it in the interest of users, for the
> debian project to collude in the concealment of companies'
> relationships from users?
I beg your pardon, but I find it difficult to digest what you're saying.
> and am i to understand that companies *would* nonetheless discuss such
> things on a mailing list open to an entire class of competitors?
Depending on what it is yes. Of course no company would discuss its own
strategy with competitors, but there are things that might benefit all but only
be reachable by joining forces. Just as an example, assume there was a hardware
vendor willing to put Debian on its boxes but requiring local expertise for
helping their customers before doing so. Now one company may have the
relationship in place, but at the same time may not be able to deliver what's
needed. Why shouldn't they ask for help from competitors, because after all
it'll help their own business as well.
> could you elaborate on this, to help me understand?
>
> (2) Michael Meskes posted in the bugthread:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650082#85
> >Just imagine a company learning about a big potential migration
> >towards Debian in an enterprise environment and wanting to discuss
> >with others how they can help to get the deal. Do you think anyone
> >would do this in public?
>
> would it be wise to hold such a discussion on a mailing list open,
> again, to an entire class of competitors?
Again depends, most companies cannot do all that's needed in such a large scale
project. So wh not asking for help?
> (3) Michael Meskes posted, in the bugthread:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=650082#85
> >I don't think we're talking about creating a company-backed
> >distribution or some sort of that. We're trying to tackle the
> >problem that Debian is not well enough accepted by enterprise users
> >to be deployed in their data centers. The list is not about the
> >companies changing stuff in Debian, it's more about somehow forming
> >a business community around Debian.
>
> if a company's resistance to deploying debian is misguided, why not
> crowd-source the arguments, on an open list?
This is already possible, but my gut feeling is that it didn't bring us where
we should be. We as in Debian.
> you know, the way a *community* does?
This is why I deliberately used the term "company community".
> in another branch of the present thread, concrete mention was made of
> extended (paid) security support, as a possible topic of discussion.
> sounds like a good topic, but hardly one whose fruitful discussion
> requires a closed mailing list.
I beg to disagree. It may very well need it.
> the list, under the proposed restrictions, is closed not to
> competitors, but to *users* and many (or most?) project members. i am
> puzzled how this is supposed to nonetheless benefit users, or the
> debian project.
And I'm puzzled why this initiative gets shot at so much before it even has a
chance to get of the ground.
Hardly the only thing that's non-public with Debian.
> >Who?
> >A companies community should only contain companies.
>
> what kind of community contains only companies? such a thing does not
> warrant the term 'community'. i worked for too long in a marketing
> department to swallow this metaphor.
I don't understand that at all. Companies work together on a daily base, why
shouldn't they here? Or is it just the wording?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com
VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL
Reply to: