On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:23:30AM +1000, Angela wrote:
I'm not buying into the arguments Brad and his
friends are putting
forward for Wikimedia to turn away from it's reliance on open source
software. Especially when that decision is being taken by some unknown
group of people with no community or Board consultation about possible
alternatives.
The critical element of open source for wikimedia is the avoidance of
vendor lock-in.
Software used by wikimedia SHOULD be open source, but though
it MAY in some instances be proprietary, it MUST avoid vendor lock-in.
[1]
That way, even if we can't publish or share _some_ parts of our
infrastructure right this very minute, we at least retain the ability
and option to do so in future. [2]
read you soon,
Kim Bruning
[1] The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119.
[2] Avoidance of vendor lock-in is important and advantageous for many
business reasons as well. To keep things concise, I'm sticking to just
wikimedias own key cultural objective.
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (
www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key
FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72