tbh I have been sitting on my hands for a while but a few other posts have touched on some of the real difficulties so I hope I will not been seen as the only negative/questioning voice. I start from the point that I think the aims are wonderful. But...
To begin with, most of the aims of sharing and co-operation can be met by an enhanced version of what we have now - although subjects like providing the best contracts would probably be best served by an organisation of freelance consultants without any bias to a particular product/platform. To me, the key problem is maintaining the value of the brand (for want of a better phrase) which is of course the same as the standard of the members/associates. The idea of a one-off test doesn't work for me: it would have to be remote so how do you know who completed the test? Some companies do nothing but run certification courses world-wide - it is not an insignificant task. If you want to "add value to the brand", you want to set the bar quite high so that clients know you've got to be good to get in. The best idea(s) I have seen so far is achipa's combination of "incubation and candidate status" where standards of people are measured continually over time by measuring contribution/product and there is a multi-level membership - perhaps associate, contributor, consultant, partner/board member(?) (lowest to highest). I suppose this is how people become core developers of open-source projects. Even so, how do I prove my latest project is ground-breaking and professional if my client swears me to secrecy to preserve intellectual property? Do you link the foundation strongly to web2py? For: it is common ground, it differentiates from other groups. Against: the success is linked to the success of web2py (if web2py's fortunes fade then an otherwise successful venture could be tarnished?), it could appear too narrow (include lots of other products and you lose the differentiation). It's a great idea - I want in - but I think there are obstacles to be overcome. On Nov 17, 9:02 pm, achipa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some terminology note (this is what I mean when I say foundations are > a gray area for many here): in OSS foundation lingo, incubator status > is for projects or software that wants to join, but has not yet > fulfilled or agreed on all the criteria required by the foundation > (either technically or management-wise). It has nothing to do with > size or how old or new it is (you don't get much bigger than Mapserver > in the OSS web mapping arena - and it's still in incubation at OSGeo). > A sort of like membership candidate for the EU. It doesn't mean you're > worth smaller or have less history than other members, but rather that > you made that commitment recently and are working on synching your > internals to the standards of the umbrella organization. > > Massimo's clarification describes something larger, though. Certifying > for Apache or other high caliber software is serious business. I still > say it would be good to have something like the apache or osgeo > foundation for web2py *exclusively* so it could deal with anything > that is strictly web2py related, AND still have an umbrella consulting > oriented organization on top of that (if you mention IBM - besides > it's consultancy work, it is a prominent member of the Linux, Apache > and many other OSS foundations, and that's a double benefit - for IBM > it's good to be close to the community, and for the community it's > good to have companies of such magnitude backing them up). Same goes > for Novell, HP, Intel and many others. > > On Nov 17, 9:13 pm, mdipierro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Companies are members if employees of the company pass the > > certification and if they ask to be listed. > > > I am thinking of certifying web2py but also debian/ubuntu, postgresql, > > apache, cherokee, and other programs considered to be high quality and > > relevant by the members. I also want to certify quality and workflow. > > > I am not thinking of an incubator for new software. We do not need it. > > I am thinking of an umbrella that can make members act as a part of a > > larger entity not just as individuals consultants/companies, even if > > they will be compensated as individual consultants/companies. > > > I am trying to alleviate the burned to convince clients to hire you by > > giving the tools to sell what you do better. > > > Ideally I want to build something that works as close as possible as a > > real international consulting company but without a base salary, > > leaving members greater independence and all the revenues of their > > work. > > > Massimo > > > On Nov 17, 12:52 pm, achipa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Please take a look at OSGeo. If you have companies like Autodesk > > > joining in, you can't say it's not being taken seriously. Also, OSGeo > > > has a far broader reach as it has half a dozen very different projects > > > under it's umbrella and at least as much in incubation. With regard to > > > differentiating developers, mixed emotions there. For a freelancer, I > > > understand, but how do you assess (and maintain your assessment) of > > > companies (especially if web2py is just an element in their > > > operations). How do you protect web2py from copyright pollution, or > > > prevent having misbehaving members ? While there is only (in global > > > terms) a handful of people highly skilled in web2py (a very nice > > > community, one of the greatest - if not The greatest - asset web2py > > > has). However, how will this look like if one day we will have > > > thousands or maybe tens of thousands of people and companies working > > > in the web2py milieu ? Not nearly an easy topic. I somehow perceive > > > the association would be to a foundation what a confederacy would be > > > to the United Nations, but that's probably a bad comparison because of > > > the political conotations one might see there. I don't want to be the > > > devils advocate, I just want to see and understand the difference in > > > motivation and perception of the two terms/approaches. Most > > > explanations I got so far indicated more that people are not overly > > > informed how modern open source foundations look like and what their > > > goals are. I would really hate to see something like the OpenDWG > > > alliance (http://www.opendwg.org/) coming to life, which, while > > > originally a noble cause and good idea, gradually turned more and more > > > into something I'm not too fond of and just stick around because I > > > have to. Ending rant :) > > > > On Nov 17, 4:37 pm, "Yarko Tymciurak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Two points: > > > > - I think Massimo's point of wanting an association is to encourage > > > > more > > > > people to take web2py seriously, and associate and differentiate skilled > > > > developers; > > > > - It's not just about web2py; > > > > > I believe that is accurate. > > > > Regards, > > > > Yarko > > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Vidul Petrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Massimo, > > > > > > Splendid idea! I am in. > > > > > > This project will encourage more and more newcomers (I have no doubt). > > > > > > Vidul > > > > > > On Nov 14, 11:01 pm, mdipierro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Actually I was thinking about something similar but also different. > > > > > > > I want to create an association of users, not a foundation. The > > > > > > purpose of the association would be: > > > > > > > 1) promote the use of free software in general (not just web2py) > > > > > > 2) select the best open software that works with web2py (cherokee, > > > > > > linux, postgresql, etc.) > > > > > > 3) certify members as experts in web2py and in those other software > > > > > > technologies selected by the members > > > > > > 4) provide a portal where members (and member companies) can host > > > > > > their profile and be contacted > > > > > > 5) help members work together to compete with large consulting > > > > > > companies for jobs. > > > > > > 6) help members with legal issues when dealing with clients > > > > > > 7) maintain a database of projects completed by the members and > > > > > > accessible to members only > > > > > > > I want us to compete with this: > > > > > > > http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bus/html/bcs_index.html > > > > > > > not with Plone or other small Python projects. > > > > > > > Think about it. There are more than 600 people on this list, growing > > > > > > exponentially. We already distributed all over the world. We are all > > > > > > very skilled people. We are unified by the love for the same > > > > > > technologies. We do have a better product than the competition. We > > > > > > only need more organization. Why do we need an employer? In > > > > > > manufacturing there is a need for capital in order to buy the "means > > > > > > of production". Thus investors provide capital and get shares of the > > > > > > revenue in return. We do not need "means of production", we have > > > > > > laptops, we do not need an office, we do not need investments, and > > > > > > we > > > > > > do not need to share our profit. We just need to be recognized as > > > > > > leaders in our field and attract clients. I think we can do that. > > > > > > > Who is in? > > > > > > > There are legal issues to be resolved. The web site will be up soon > > > > > > for people to sign up, take a quiz, and become members. > > > > > > > Massimo- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
