The short version is that Cignex won this bid originally. Apparently CoA
issued this RFP to many, many firms and only 3 responded. The other two were
Austin-based. Most people seem to think the reason so few companies
responded was that Plone was a requirement and few companies have that
One of the companies that chose not to bid gave their reasoning here:
Cignex gave the lowest bid, so they were about to be awarded the contract
pending a final vote.
Somebody in Austin made a huge deal about this on Twitter and then lots of
Austin people freaked out that a $700k+ contract to redo CoA's website was
going to a non-Austin-based company. The vote to award the contract was
"postponed", and now they redid the entire RFP.
I think this process has been going on for well over a year, and it sounds
like a pretty broken process.
More at http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/03/23/daily22.html
Some of the venom is clearly (and completely unfairly) pointed at Plone,
likely by those who lost out on this and know nothing about Plone itself.
Plone is a convenient scape goat here. Obviously Plone is as open an
architecture as they come.
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Matt Hamilton <ma...@netsight.co.uk> wrote:
> I know very little about this, but know that there was some big contract
> for City of Austin's website. Looks liek something has changed, but the PR
> looks a bit odd:
> They are saying things like:
> “City is scrapping prior website proposal. Will move to open architecture,
> customer-focused structure. No more Plone. New bid released soon"
> Which seems to imply that Plone is not an open architecture.
> Anyone know more about this? Wasn't it something to do with Cignex?
> Matt Hamilton ma...@netsight.co.uk
> Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd. Understand. Develop. Deliver
> http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901
> Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting
> Evangelism mailing list
Scott Paley | ABSTRACT EDGE
Evangelism mailing list