[steering] proposed letter to theforum

[Martin Burns]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, .jeff wrote:

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > From: Marlene Bruce
> >
> > * coming more into alignment with our open-source
> >   philosophy,
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> we have an open-source philosophy?

Yep. It's in the footer:
"Evolt.org is a world community for web developers, promoting the mutual
free exchange of ideas, skills and experiences."

That's an open-source philosophy. It's echoed in every post to thelist,
every article on the site which shares how people do stuff.

And in this case, one of the key things is to make it possible to build
something evolt-like without spending a fortune on Oracle licenses.

> sure, some of us prefer to use oss, but that doesn't mean we have an
> open-source philosophy.

You mean the other way round - because we have an open-source philosophy
doesn't mean we always use OSS. You can have an open-source philosophy
which shares code samples in non-OSS technologies.

Up until now, we've used OS software and non-OS software at various times.
However, using OSS for jobs it *can* do would be more in line with our
open source philosophy.

But if you read further down into the proposals, you'll notice that we're
explicitly not saying "We propose moving to OSS". Actually, it offers both
options, Win/MSSQL and OSS. Also you'll note that the language is around
keeping the existing CMS layer, which is most definitely *not* OSS.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > * providing better content and services to our members
> >   and visitors,
> > * better facilitating community ownership, participation
> >   and communication,
> > * revamping our back and front ends,
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> what does a good job of satisfying the above is something i think we've done
> well so far which is using the right tool for the job, regardless of whether
> it's oss or not.

True, and if OSS couldn't do the job, then it would be a non-issue (even
Linux uses non-OSS software in its development, much to RMS' annoyance).

<personal opinion> However, I think the point is rather that if there's a
genuine free choice, where either could do the job to requirements, then I
think our preference should be OSS. </personal opinion>

To be honest, I really don't think it matters whether it's in there or not
in what goes to theforum - theforum will ultimately make the decision.

Cheers
Martin

--
"Names, once they are in common use, quickly
 become mere sounds, their etymology being
 buried, like so many of the earth's marvels,
 beneath the dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie