From: papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) Subject: Re: A New Linux Foundation Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 16:39:37 GMT
In article <93080.130723K11111I@ALIJKU11.BITNET> <K11111I@ALIJKU11.BITNET> writes:
>Linux *is* allready an organisation.
>
>Definition of an organisation by Kieser/Kubicek:
>An organisation is, where
> 1) persons interact in a group
> 2) run for a goal shared by every member
> 3) use a formal structure
Huh? We interact, we share a goal, and I'm trying to erect a PSEUDO formal
structure. What's wrong with that?
>
>3 points out the big lack of Linux. Linux allready has a structure, it is
>selforganized (see Morgan, The Images of Organisations), and this structure fits
>perfect for developing software, but it doesnt fit to deliver software to users.
>There should be esta
> blished an organisational Interface for users to get Linux and Support in an
>satisfactory way.
Isn't this what I'm suggesting?
>*****No Foundation needed*******
>
>Imagine Paul is a Linuxer and I am an *user*.
[example omitted]
I really don't undersrtand how having a foundation precludes the relationship
you have suggested.
Are people out there really that resistant to any kind of formal organization?
Perhaps they should disband the Free Software Foundation.
>It is up to everybody to assemble a Collection to meet the needs of a group of
>users and to get money for that. If that happens, these people can pay also the
>guys working on the kernel, the printer-driver, the TCP/IP, SLIP,..
>The most important is to *deliver a useable product to users* to get money into
>the cashbox.
You are absolutely nuts if you think that any major company is going to
"buy into" Linux without any "User Interface" group like the FSF or UI.
The Linux Foundation could be that "Interface." It could lobby magazines,
encourage technology, introduce Linux to corporations, as well as smaller jobs
like maintaining bug databases, development databases, hardware compatibility
databases, FAQ databases. It could help to organize Linux user groups and
perhaps give money occasionally to Linux developers.
>I want
>
>No central cash box (=lots of problems)
The Linux Foundation need have nothing to do with money. We'll form it *THEN*
decide what it is.
>No central administration (lots of costs)
It would be a volunteer organization, of course. The only "administration"
would be in deciding how THAT group is going to support Linux. It would
NOT enforce ANYTHING on the rest of the Linux community, any more then
the Amiga Users Groups enforce their wills on Commodore!
>I think nobody will pay money to a annonymous Foundation.
They don't have to!
>What are your opinions?
I think your ideas about organization are good. But can't you also see the
need, at least, for an organization to keep track of all these "independent
contractors?"