Re: [OSCOM] Does OSCOM really matter?

Michael Wechner wrote:
> Chalu Kim wrote:
>
>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>> Which groups are really harder to reach, why?
>>>>   
>>>
>>> Reaching the other groups, like consultants, journalists, and
>>> users/customers is a matter of mindshare. If they hear the word OSCOM
>>> with enough frequency, it'll get noticed. One of the things we can do
>>> is list and link to it.  
>>>
>> I think you are hitting jugular.
>>
>> OSCOM is a bit of introverted organization with meritocracy run by 
>> people with self interests. People are almost tenured here.
>> I don't think that is healthy. You need to bring "different 
>> thinkers". I did not mean me by the way.
>
>
> I think YOU would be good. Because at least you are active on this 
> mailing list and seem to care somehow ;-)
> I don't see much activeness of the current board and this why I think 
> they should step back and make
> space for new people.

I don't know if I am but there are other people. The mix of board would 
be important. Bring in people with ulterior motives; users!  They want 
to use your systems.

Writers, journalists, podcast personality?  Or humanist?
>
>>
>>
>> What we lack is not developers but "master builders" who can content 
>> and needs into working and productive environment. They are not the 
>> same beasts.
>
>
> Can you explain a bit more?
>

Sure, I am not sure if I will do the proper job explaining.

When we do consulting, we wear two hats; developer and builder. The most 
frustrating thing sometimes is to be a builder. 
It is easy to build CMS and let them cope with it. Plaster end-users 
with a long list of features.

To be a builder, it takes practices and experiences. It is like 
Gutenburg built printing press based on a system of pt and em. There are 
master book binders and printers. If we were to see from this point of 
view, we have many Gutenburg inventors showing off their wares. It seems 
to me we are in a stage where we can start looking at these other much 
needed areas.

So, to transform OSCOM's agenda, it might be good to move from 
developer's point of view to end-users and users scenarios in different 
fields; medical, publishing, archival, workflow,  art archival, 
photography etc.

OSCOM could start publishing benefits and solutions for something 
mundane like how to share large number of files.

Sharepoint is a good example.  This is from user's needs. We may need to 
take "Back to the Basics" kind of attitude.

Around the turn of this century, every garage was a home for automobile 
inventor. We have many exotic CMSes but nothing to compare with 
Sharepoint?  Doesn't that bring you to a question?

Are we missing the point in Open-Source CMS?

I think OSCOM has done great job rallying developers but they seem all 
eager to do the work. But Open-source CMSes have impressions of 
misguided ideas; difficult to use and difficult to manage and so on. 
Sure, clients are paying just enough to get things done. I am doing 
documentation on my spare time. I remember all the yelling you did and 
so on. We just don't have "fair practices and guidelines".

We should publish "Ethical Guidelines for Open-Source [Content 
management - optional] developers and End-users".... like that "Ethical 
Guidelines for Graphics Design"  We could tell end-users what to expect 
and to pay. We could tell CMS developers wearing builder hat what 
troubles they get themselves into and what they should charge.... That 
will broaden and level the playing fields.

What do you think?

Lone voice in the wild?

All the best

> Michi
>