Re: [discuss] Re: [Evolution] Re: [discuss] OO - GROUPWARE - Call for concluison - was: OpenOffice: Say it isn't so.

[Dan Kuykendall]

Jeff, have you read my commenys on this?
Did you guys get them?
I can send another copy to your specific mailing lists if need be.

Dan

Jeffry Smith wrote:
> 
> Sounds like the way to go to me - let's make things work together!
> 
> jeff
> 
> Lloyd Llewellyn said:
> >
> 
> > == Recognizing The Potential:
> >
> > Evo and OO both recognize that comprehensive groupware functions GREATLY
> > enhance the appeal of their respective products:  Evo sees shared
> > calendars, shared contacts, a user-administered back-end permissions
> > system, etc. all contribute to making Evo more valuable.
> >
> > OO sees that the ability to save OO documents to folder hierarchies on a
> > groupware server, to do workflow routing of OO documents through a chain
> > of people in an organization, the ability to publish documents
> > effortlessly to a corporate intranet or to their website, to store
> > versions of documents in a central repository for historical purposes -
> > all these things make OO a much more valuable product.  Groupware can
> > handle these tasks.
> >
> > Neither the Evo or OO groups fall into the trap of wanting to control
> > their own little groupware implementation.  They're smart, and they
> > realize that whole point of groupware is integrated services for teams.
> > Groupware depends on communication and transparent sharing of documents.
> > Evo's got communication, and OO has documents.  An open groupware
> > standard is a possible eventuality, and they'd rather have a hand in it
> > than compete against it.  Both groups see that their success hinges on
> > the success of Linux as a whole, and that the Linux world gains a great
> > gift if an open groupware standard is realized.
> >
> >
> > ==  Facing The Reality
> >
> > Evo and OO realize that building something that competes (at least on
> > some level) with Exchange and Notes is a significant undertaking.  Their
> > products are shaping up, but there is still a LOT of work to do.  Time
> > is of the essence.  Both groups conclude that their time is better spent
> > working on their core products; but gosh-darn-it, it sure would be nice
> > to have those back-end features.
> >
> >
> > == The Light Comes On
> >
> > Evo and OO know what what open source is all about.  They
> > advocate/cheerlead/champion an open groupware initiative, put out a call
> > for developers, post notices on their websites, and sound the general
> > call to arms:  "We want to free countless corporate employees and system
> > administrators from the tyrannies of expensive, proprietary groupware
> > systems and the whims of their vendors!"  To get critical mass, they
> > might ask some other prominent open source groups - or - gasp - a
> > standards body - to get on board.
> >
> >
> > == The Call Goes Out
> >
> > Evo and OO are pretty well-known among the open source community;
> > developers hear about this "open groupware standards" thing and become
> > interested.  The founders of the 20 or so groupware projects that have
> > languished still-born on sourceforge are reinvigorated by this call to
> > action, thinking "Hey, I won't be ALONE this time, I'll have Ximian and
> > OO on my side, and all these other developers are interested too!"  They
> > call their project sidekicks in on it.  Eventually a persuasive
> > charismatic (or two) emerges, like a Jobs or de Icaza.  He spreads the
> > gospel at conventions:  "We're taking it to the next level, people!"
> >
> >
> > == The Word Is Heard  (or: "Gentlemen: I give you - OOGS!")
> >
> > Other e-mail client developers hear about this "OOGS" thing ("OOGS is
> > Open Groupware Standards" :-)):  "They say OOGS lets a user switch
> > mail/organizer clients without having to re-enter any contacts or
> > appointments?  And the user can switch right back to the first client if
> > they don't like the new one without missing a beat?  Man, I better
> > support this OOGS thing (I know my competition will)!  Luckily it's an
> > easy-to-use and freely available standard.  This shouldn't be that bad,
> > and I no longer have to worry about managing addressbooks or calendars
> > myself!"
> >
> > Custom software developers writing workflow applications, who in the
> > past have relied on Exchange or Notes to underpin their projects (taking
> > sizable chunks out of their consulting fees) realize that OOGS just
> > might do the same thing for them for free, if it works.  They devote a
> > few hours a week to this OOGS thing; their groupware experience has a
> > positive shaping effect on the OOGS project.
> >
> >
> > Overseeing and guiding this process are The Evo and OO teams, as the
> > premier users of OOGS services.  They mentor, and guide, and make known
> > the kinds of APIs and protocols they would like to see in an OOGS
> > implementation.  The standard evolves, driven primarily by these two
> > backers, along with many smaller contributions from other potential
> > users of OOGS standards.
> >
> > As Evo and OO's interest in open groupware standards rises, they start
> > talking to each other more about interoperability.  Neither wants their
> > fate tied to the fate of the other, but they find areas where they can
> > cooperate and benefit without risking their own positions.
> >
> >
> > == Stirrings in the Volcano Island Fortress
> >
> > The proprietary vendors pretend to ignore OOGS.  They don't even mention
> > the word.  They forbid their employees to discuss it.  But in the upper
> > echelons, they're reading everything about OOGS that they can get their
> > hands on. Extra-double-plus-good lieutentants are permitted to install
> > the OOGS betas, and submit secret reports to the bigshots.  Finally,
> > when eWeek or C-Net run an article on it, they break down and issue a
> > statement:
> >
> > "Open Groupware Standards!  Why, I've never *heard* anything so
> > preposterous!  It's a fad that will run its course just like... well,
> > never mind that.  No one would risk their corporate data on a free, open
> > source product!  Everyone loves closed proprietary systems, a single
> > server OS, a single desktop OS!"
> >
> > "And ignore the man behind the curtain!", he adds.
> >
> >
> > == OOGS 1.0
> >
> > Finally, OOGS 1.0 is released.  Of course, by this time many have been
> > experimenting with the Evo / OO / OOGS combo deep in the bowels of their
> > IT departments.  Some have even been using it for day-to-day work.  A
> > few brave CIO's conclude: "Say, that Linux web server has been running
> > just fine; let's give OOGS a try.  Maybe the graphic design people will
> > stop complaining that they can't access our proprietary groupware
> > clients with their Macs.  All those propeller-heads in IT will be
> > tickled silly now that they can use their Linux desktops to access our
> > groupware services.  (My, how they do go on about that Linux).  And,
> > what the hell, it's free.  We can always pull the Exchange servers out
> > of the mothballs if it doesn't work out.  And me?  I can take those
> > bucks and put them right back on the bottom line where I want them."
> >
> > Soon,  the world is a brighter place.  Thousands of people are using
> > OOGS, many of them not knowing it or caring, but nonetheless enjoying
> > the very real benefits of a choice of
> > mail/organizer/calendar/document-sharing clients.
> >
> >
> > And they all live happily ever after.
> >
> >
> > I"ll leave it to you to decide where the plausibility ends and pure
> > fantasy begins :-).  But stranger things have happened - and are
> > happening right now in our midst, I would say.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> > For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Glue mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glue