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

[Garrett Mickelson]

Agreed! 100%!

Garrett Mickelson

On 05 Feb 2001 15:05:55 -0500, Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> 
> 
> > Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > I think it would be ignored outside the OO community.  It would carry
> > > more weight if we could say "Here is a real address book implementation.
> > > And by the way, not only does OO support it, but so does Evolution; and
> > > Balsa and a couple other e-mail packages have endorsed the standard and
> > > will support it in their next release."
> > 
> > OK.  Granted that, how do we get there?  OOo is/has a community, ditto Evo,
> > ditto several others.  And don't forget the iCard/vCard stuff.  But where 
> > do they
> > all talk with each other to arrive at the desired consensus?
>  
> 
> 
> That is the $64K question.  Here is my fairy-tale, dream-sequence
> answer:
> 
> 
> == 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> evolution maillist  -  address@hidden
> http://lists.helixcode.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution



-- 

Garrett Mickelson, Linux Systems Engineer
Telephone: 415.358.2600   http://www.penguincomputing.com

Penguin Computing - The World's Most Reliable Linux Systems