Hi Luis, Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:04:42 -0300 Luis Falcon <[email protected]>: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Cédric Krier <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 19/11/11 19:34 -0300, Luis Falcon wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Cédric Krier > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On 19/11/11 17:26 -0300, Luis Falcon wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Cédric Krier > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > On 28/09/11 19:31 +0200, Cédric Krier wrote: > >> >> >> Hi, > >> >> >> I was looking at Elveos [1] and I thought that it could be a > >> >> >> good place to get some Tryton features collaboratively > >> >> >> funded. What do you think? Should we promote it on the > >> >> >> website? > >> >> > Here is a proposal to promote elveos on the Tryton website: > >> >> > http://moretus.b2ck.com:8000/ > >> >> > What do you think? > >> >> Having it on your B2CK is your decision. > >> > This is not only for B2CK! Anyone is *free* to make an offer for > >> > any feature request or to ask for any one. And the system is > >> > controled by a third party, not B2CK. > >> Sure. That's just what I said. It's your decision. It reminds me > >> the OpenERP disastrous "funded projects". > > And we just proved that it is working. The shared founding model of other open ERP projects was IMHO not functioning, because the vendor company develop stuff and after this they put a fantasy price to fund it. A user can buy for a given fix amount participation to this funding, and get the developed module delivered on demand. But who knows how much money the vendor already earned for a specific shared funding? Who knows if the software is already un-jailed and the vendor is just selling this stuff some time longer to gain extra income? In this projects a over mighty vendor controls the funding process by his own, and the user is coerced to trust his vendor. IMHO this can not work.
Elveos is a different approach, IMHO we really should try. It is a company which gives a independent third party interface to an both side open ended donation process. On the offer side everyone can put his offer, even for one and the same feature. On the donation side everyone can put the money he or she wanted to pay. For me it is the best solution for now, because its transparent for all. > Thymbra donated to support the cause, but not because of the > "pay-it-or-beat-it" concept. What exactly is the "pay-it-or-beat-it" concept you talk about? > Tomorrow someone will say in order to get the upgrade or migration > script, you will have to pay.... Yes, possible. But always possible even without elveos donations. But do you really think someone will find followers on this way? And following Trytons usual policies, a module update to a next version without migration will simply not be published on Tryton. Thats it. > I've seen this before.... vendor > lock-in. I understand people with long experiences and investments in other open ERP communities and their angst for bad leadership of a all mighty vendor. I come from the same background: I participated and contributed to SQL-Ledger (vendor: DWS-Systems) for two years, Lx-Office(vendor:Linet) for four years, TinyERP(vendor:tiny.be) for two years and Tryton since the beginning. But where exactly do you see a vendor lock-in in Tryton project? > GNU Solidario migrated GNU Health from OpenERP to Tryton because it > was a democratic, community-based project. So, today, we'll be using > the Tryton infrastructure as a starting point. It is my wish to keep > it the way it is, but if things go in the wrong direction, GPL > provides the tools to ensure the community a truly free framework, so > no more migrations :-) Yes, and Tryton project makes it as easy as possible to be forked quick, in case of a bad direction of the leaders. This gives me peace and freedom. > >> >> I don't agree with the concept, so I would not put it on the > >> >> Tryton homepage. > >> > I think we all know now that you don't want to be paid for > >> > development, but it is not the case for every others. > >> > But just think about that: without B2CK being paid by different > >> > parties and customers for almost all the current Tryton's > >> > modules, the Tryton project would be just a dream. > >> > More over, I don't see the difference between this and the > >> > service page [1] on which you asked to be referenced. > >> Completely different story. Thymbra offers services around Tryton, > >> as B2CK offers services about GNU Health, as both companies agreed > >> and signed ( B2CK is at the GNU Health services site > >> http://health.gnu.org/services.html ) > >> Thymbra will never put an add asking for money to develop > >> something. So, in the same way that I will never put an add like > >> that in GNU Solidario site, I don't think that should be in the > >> Tryton homepage. I would appreciate not to make public private > >> documents between Thymbra and B2CK, less in a public mailing list. > >> It is not professional. Send me an private email if you want to > >> discuss about it. > > I never talked about any private document. > > I think you are completly mixing B2CK and Tryton. > > Please read the second sentence of [1]. As your company is listed, > > it is public that you asked to be there. But if you don't want > > that's fine, we will remove it. > I think that the only one who is mixing - badly - Tryton and B2CK is > you. Thymbra deserves to be named on Tryton official website by its > own merit, the same as the other providers are. No, for me you are mixing B2CK and Tryton. You are singing the boring song of Fabien who trys to tell everyone on every occasion: Tryton and B2CK is Cedric Krier only. And we all know its a boring lie, which shows only one thing: You and Fabien do not understand the basic ideas of free and open source culture. To be more precise: Someone who tell this lies is not respecting the community I participate in and contribute to. Someone who tell this is not respecting my own work and the hard work of my friends, colleague and other contributors out of cedric and B2CK. Telling this is offending to me. I hate this. > > I don't blame anybody. I just say that for now expecting such > > funding without explicit goals doesn't seem to work. > > Again, you are mixing B2CK and Tryton, the sale of t-shirt had > > nothing to do with the marketing of B2CK. It was only on tryton.org > > and for Tryton project. > >> I think that the Tryton foundation has to be independent from B2CK > >> and the other service providers, and so it should the Tryton > >> website. I do not know somebody which is independent, what means: no personal/busines interests. Mostly all around here will use Tryton business related. Its a business related framework, so we have a business-related community. So I just guess, with this restriction, the foundation will not have many members. But I ask my mother. > > I find that promoting individuals or organisation that provides > > services arround Tryton, will match the goals of the fundation > > which will be promote, protect and develop. > That's exactly what I say. But that is __not__ placing ads that say > "pay for this functionality" in the official Tryton homepage. Why not? There are millions of possible goals for a framework like Tryton. Why not let the community decide to fund some good idea? Why you need this restrictions? Why you must have people work for free in any case? > >> We can (and should) place the names of companies that will provide > >> service around Tryton. > > This is in complet contradiction with what you just say above. > > Please explain me what is the difference between promoting companies > > that provide service around Tryton and promiting companies that > > provide development service around Tryton? > You misread it. Promotion of companies that contribute to Tryton in > the official homepage is great. I would never make it an auction house > though... is not good for the society. ...society... yes, not to forget, always good to mention, when arguments get less. Sorry, I hated killer-phrasing and buzz-wording. * What is 'not good for the society' when Tryton project let the users decide over some new features which are not crucial to Tryton? * What is 'not good for the society' when possible supplier and possible customer act on an open plattform and share efforts? This is simply not the same as an supermarket and an auction house. Regards Udo -- [email protected] mailing list
