[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Invites Users to Take Part in Open, Collaborativ...

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You quote the prodigal son.. the story tells us that the father was
overjoyed that his son returned alive to him, a son feared dead. It also
tells us that the other brothers were jealous.. What is your message ? Are
you jealous because of the attention lavished on this other project ?

You assert that technically there is not that much to it. When people
consider collaborating, they may listen to your observations. It is however
their time and their choice to spend as they see fit. Where you say that it
is not possible, there are others who have a different opinion. They put
their money where their mouth is and as the result is to be open source,
there is no loser. When you state that people should flock to another
banner, this banner has not been visible enough, active enough to get the
attention you say it deserves. Maybe this will get them the attention that
they deserve, again there is no loser.

You are of the opinion that this is not what we need. Maybe you are right,
but if people want to prove you wrong, that is their prerogative. You do
voice your concerns and that is great. I hope for the Kaltura people that
they considered their business model well. I do not know what it is and as
it is not my business, it is certainly not my concern. When as a result new
functionality is developed, functionality that has merit I can only be
grateful.. I hope you can be happy if it works out well :)
Thanks,
     GerardM



On Jan 19, 2008 1:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 18, 2008 6:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > What nobody has reflected on is that there are THREE parties to this
> > collaboration. It is on Wikieducator where this experiment is happening.
> > This indicates that the technology is targeted for the use in an
> educational
> > context.
>
> Nobody has reflect on Wikieducator's involvement because it's not our
> interest. Good for them.
>
> The foundation has asked the community to work on Kaltura's stuff, and
> that is of interest to us.
>
> [snip]
> > It has been
> > observed that they are shifting in the "right" direction.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son
>
> There are pre-existing free software tools that would desperately like
> our support and attention, some by our own community members.
>
> And what good is the 'right direction' when we know that actually
> achieving the right goal is not possible along the path being taken
> (because of the use of flash)?
>
> [snip]
> > Yay indicates that
> > the goal is to make the software free and open according to our
> criteria.
> > Yay acknowledges that more work is needed to accomplish this. Some good
> > faith may be in order ?
>
> Good faith tells us, in the absence of information, to assume good
> intentions.  I have no doubt the intentions are good, but the actions
> are not what we need.  Surely if things are to improve we must all
> speak our concerns.
>
> [snip]
> > Gregory indicates that other technology may be more opportune. He may be
> > right. In the mean time this is a nice shot in the arm to get things
> moving
> > from being stagnant.
>
> Simply providing official support an attention towards worthwhile
> pre-existing efforts from users in our community would be a far better
> "shot in the arm".   It's easy for satellite developers to feel
> unappricated, and hard for them to bring attention to their work over
> the noise of the day.
>
> > The WMF has too much technical work to finish before
> > they can be involved.. I am sure that other people will collaborate with
> > Katlura or will collaborate on a competing product or will do something
> else
> > entirely. Isn't Open Source great ?
>
> Have you downloaded and looked at the Kaltura source?
> I have. Based on what is there now I do not expect any of our
> community members to be able to contribute much of anything technical.
>  It's not like an extension to embed an externally hosted flash object
> is anything complex: It seems to be a popular
> my-first-mediawiki-extension, there are already three or four that do
> it for YouTube.
>
> > When a VC funds the development of Open Source, I would say see the
> software
> > developed, make sure that it fits our need, collaborate and just be
> happy
> > with all this effort that is not for us to do. When you values it like
> this,
> > it is a clear benefit to us all.
>
> A VC?  What is the payback for them then?
> I ask this not because I think VC's or evil, or because I think money
> is evil... but simply because I can't imagine any acceptable outcome
> which wouldn't financially screw anyone bankrolling this.    If
> someone wanted to flush away serious money into open video technology,
> I could suggest several other alternatives which would result in more
> public benefit, and goodwill.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>