Open marketing discussion on opensource.com
A discussion from a post on opensource.com raises some points and ideas on how to clarify and refine this section.
(Content on that page is written and available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported, same as this guide, so content can be pulled and reworked from the comments section.)
--Quaid 20:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Actions to take from the discussion:
- Add and clarify the importance of essential freedoms in open marketing. If you are not free to read, write, remix, and redistribute, it is not free, and therefore not open marketing. There has to be an appropriate license and no patents enforceable against the implementation (cf. MP3, DeCSS, et al.)
- Identify the difference between open marketing, crowdsourcing, and fauxpen marketing. E.g. mistakes here: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/18/3/212.full
In general there seems to be a bit of redundancy in this section. If I were the author, I'd print out each section on a separate sheet of paper and set them side by side in front of me so I could see them all at once. I would then rearrange them several times until I was happy with the sequence. Then I would try to combine a few and, maybe, come up with a few more. If I did produce a few more, I'd repeat the process a few times just to get closer to making it complete.
--NeoPhyte Rep 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"When we talk about community in the The Open Source Way, we mean the community of contributors who are a superset to all other communities. The ones who, by getting things done, make it possible for many, many more to get much, much more done."
It is mathematically upside down to refer to a small group as a superset of several larger groups. Perhaps you meant something like: "... we mean the community of contributors who are the enthusiastic subset to all the other communities." I think you were trying to describe the qualities of the members, not the hierarchy of the groups. I'm sure you can find a better adjective or phrase than "enthusiastic" or maybe a better structured sentence to describe those qualities.
--NeoPhyte Rep 00:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Tactics and Strategy
I normally sequence them from the most abstract, Strategy, to the more concrete, Tactics, to echo the probable temporal relationship. Here you have them reversed. This is my habit and just a suggestion here.
Maybe, also, they could be combined into one section.
--NeoPhyte Rep 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", http://catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/ ?
It's a different take on the structure of the Open Source community. It doesn't try to suggest a way to operate, but is more an analysis of the community's attributes. I don't know that it will change any of the ideas here, but I'll probably read it and Raymond's subsequent works again.
--NeoPhyte Rep 01:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"Properly implemented, it is nearly disaster proof." Well, at least you didn't say "fool proof." We gave up that phrase because the fools are too smart. Inkscape just about had a disaster recently.
The Open Source Way may not be the proper venue, but I would like to find someplace where "Properly implemented" is well described for each of the Version Control Systems out there.
--NeoPhyte Rep 01:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)