imho, the following article on The Statesmen is more inflammatory than
the one you cited because it implies that the winning bidder (Cignex)
was not proposing an open source CMS (Plone).
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:46 PM, diego7 <di...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Plone developers need to speak up here:
> I think there's lot of disinformation about this bid. From the looks of it,
> the second-place bidder managed to whine enough to the local rag there,
> blaming Plone and anything else except their own incompetence. It would be
> sucky if in the future, other RFP writers pointed to Plone and said, "Not
> open source."
> Gotta let these newspaper people know that they're being taken, you know?
> Not like papers will do simple research themselves.... you know, like visit
> plone.org and see "open source CMS" written at the top? Defending against
> these baseless attacks is of paramount importance to all Plone developers'
> livelihood. There's no quotes from Cignex anywhere to be found. You'd think
> they'd do *something* to defend themselves and/or Plone.
> spaley wrote:
>> 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
>> 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>
>>> 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
>>> looks a bit odd:
>>> They are saying things like:
>>> “City is scrapping prior website proposal. Will move to open
>>> 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
>> Office: 212.352.9311
>> Direct: 212.352.1470
>> Fax: 212.352.9498
>> Website: http://www.abstractedge.com
>> Blog: http://www.brandinteractivism.com
>> Evangelism mailing list
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Evangelism mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> Evangelism mailing list
Nate Aune - na...@jazkarta.com
Evangelism mailing list