On 10/13/06, luc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le vendredi 13 octobre 2006 à 11:15 -0600, Lance Hanlen a écrit :
> My own opinion is that we should do the latter, that is establish
> ourselves around a single focused application of open hardware, much
> like FOSS did around the OS.
>
> But keep our views completely disjoint from our engineering, that is
> the actual technology we will finally produce. That will require a
> marketing campaign, and is a totally seperate issue from our public
> face and organizational culture. That's just my opinion, it's not very
> well thought out yet.
I've understood that the intent wasn't to launch a marketing campaign
but to publicise a concern, thus, attracting the attention.
Though I've get the feeling in this thread that focusing on OGP could be
perceived as a disguised marketing campaign, or something serving a
vested interest.
As Tim replies, one can make noise as well as for open hardware than for
OGP, the both are related and the growing of one is the growing of the
other(s). But in this case OHF should be representative.
This makes perfect sense to me. Anything like this can be rapidly
undermined if it is confused with a marketing campaign.
The original suggestion does not address anything related to our
development of a rival product as counterexample. It is only that we
should make our views visible. We have a very legitimate grievance and
we are trying to reach everyone who has it too.
So yes, OHF should be the body for our philosophical and
(econo)political standard. OGP should be considered as another action
that we are taking:
1. Speaking out (OHF)
2. Leading by example (OGP)
3. Maintaining a meeting place for like-minded people to act and
participate in whichever way they prefer (both).
Or something like that?
>
> On 10/13/06, luc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Le vendredi 13 octobre 2006 à 09:09 -0600, Lance Hanlen a écrit :
> >
> > After reading all the thread, I wonder if there's not a confusion
> > between getting more exposure for open hardware and more exposure for
> > OGP?
> > Should we make noise for open hardware and presenting OGP as an example
> > among some other? Or should we make noise for OGP because it's about
> > open hardware?
> >
> >
>
>
--
_Lance
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
