Re: OGo, CRM and other field specific software (LONG)

Sugar CPM should not be the yardstick to measure Ogo.  Again, Sugar is a 
suck-in for a commercial product, just like Compierre.  Nor do I think 
that development should be "democritized" into some large amorphous 
committee voting on features.  I do think OGo could take the Linux 
kernel approach, with additions peopple want submitted in a debugged 
format to the core developers.  I also think that a Paypal donate site 
on sourceforge and the home website with a general plea for general 
non-discretionary donations would be in order.  Also, if the price of 
the docs were lowered a little this would serve to increase its sales 
and generate funds for improved development. 

Michael Brown wrote:

> --- Helge Hess <[email protected]> wrote: 
>  
>
>>As mentioned before this is more or less out of
>>question due to lack of 
>>resources - in near term and probably out of
>>question in the mid term 
>>as well. Just look at the enh-request list you
>>attached, this is 
>>probably work of several months!
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed.  I was not trying to imply that we have to
>duplicate those packages (like ACT!); merely that we
>should aspire to do better than SugarCRM.  With OGo's
>current features, and the evolving GroupDAV &
>connector technologies, we can give a similar
>experience to end users, much like they can get with
>other packages like ACT or Goldmine.  As for features,
>we could get the community to vote on features they
>want for each release, and maybe there could be
>"bounties" created if demand for certain features
>exceeds current resources.
> 
>  
>
>>So, no, I think we should be very specific on the
>>product we *can* 
>>compete with while considering the functionality we
>>_already provide_. 
>>As you say, SugarCRM is the most popular OSS
>>product. If an "OGo CRM" 
>>addition can offer the same functionality at almost
>>no cost, it is IMHO 
>>really worth the effort to approach this.
>>Even if we might not gain the whole "market share"
>>of SugarCRM, a whole 
>>lot might see the additional benefit in having a
>>full groupware 
>>attached. This has the ability to provide us a
>>bigger community and it 
>>might make the functionality which is already
>>provided in OGo more 
>>transparent for potential users.
>>    
>>
>
>My point was that I think that the basic CRM
>functionality is already in OGo; we may just need to
>better document what it currently has, and what we're
>going to add down the road.  OGo has a lot of what it
>takes right now to do some CRM.  1.2 will likely
>address more of people's concerns with respect to CRM,
>as will 1.4, etc...  If Extended attributes or
>Obj_links can do some of what people want, then we can
>document that under a CRM How-To.
> 
>  
>
>>BTW: Bigger community == higher probability to get
>>paid by someone for 
>>the implementation of your wishlist -or- to find
>>someone who does it 
>>;-) Who says that everything wish needs to be in
>>place from the 
>>beginning?
>>    
>>
>
>I didn't think that the discussion was trying to imply
>that CRM had to be in from the beginning.  Let's just
>leverage and market what OGo has now, and come up with
>a roadmap of what it will have in the future.  If
>folks see where OGo is planning on going, maybe we'll
>get more resources/devs/moula to make it happen.
>
>Hope that Helps!
>
>/Mike
>
>______________________________________________________________________ 
>Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
>  
>
-- 
OpenGroupware.org Discussion [email protected]
http://mail.opengroupware.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss