Miro is right!

[Zorro]

we dont need no STINKIN foundation

Sheesh. This is just Redneck rhethoric.

I would have loved to see a foundation, for the reasons that have already been explained extremely well in these forums. Just not a foundation that's made up the Miro way.

Mambo is on the verge of getting some real weight in the corporate arena, but it's not quite there yet. To further things, a foundation would have been an excellent idea.

I can understand that the community is in an uproar, but does that have to keep people from thinking?

Kind regards,
Zorro

[Triplicate]

Problem is the fact that 1) Dev's have signed copyright agreements and 2) if you look at all of the code its all tagged Wit Miro copyright. As I've stated the Foundation was supposed to be there to put everything (trademarks, domains and copyrights) into one name and one secure location, at the moment Miro (still) hold all of them under their control. By Miro appearing to directly control the Foundation, they are still keeping a tight grasp on the Mambo project and doing their best to make money from it.

Indeed they are "doing their best to make money from it" and precisely the hidden agenda behind the Miro foundation. This is like companies that run sweat shops in Europe like Nike who pay employees 16 cents a day and then sell the shoes for near $300 a pair. WTF! How lame is that but it does go on and people keep buying Nike and other sweat shop products.

Miro is simply trying to be the Nike's of the Open Source Community sweat shop the perceive it to be. They want all the control (copyright) and all the profits (MONEY)

I can see through all this smoke and mirrors. I'm wise to Moro's politics of making promises and not delivering. Hell... lots of people today vote for people like that. They just don't get it because the really believe what their being told. As soon as you wake up to reality you wake up to the deception of Miro politics and business practices.

Business = Money = incorporate = foundation = control = hostile take over .... and on and on

No Thanks! The Dev's seen this right away. Now members of the Board on Miros foundation have come to see it. They were being snowballed in plain open sight and were initially convinced it was the right thing to do. Now upon in-depth consideration they too realize that Miro is not the best thing to happen to Mambo.

The hell with Miro and their foundation. Mambo became a success in spite of Miro, not because of Miro. Now Miro look's like a bunch of fools and will never live their self created insanity down.

As for "all of the code its all tagged Wit Miro copyright" I rest my case. This only prooves even more what the intention of the foundation was.... copyright, control, copyright, contol, copyright .... on and OPEN SOURCE PROJECT!!!!! LOL

[tjay]

we dont need no STINKIN foundation

Sheesh. This is just Redneck rhethoric.

thinking?

Kind regards,
Zorro

Zorro do not take my humor as some invitation for personal attacks. You need to start thinking and keep the discussion civil

I say again, if you want a foundation there is one. No one says you can not join it and support it.
Best wishes on that course

[xperis]

Lets play a little POV shift here for a moment:

From what I read: Under the foundation Mambo is still open source.  No requirements to join are needed to use or develop for it.  If they are telling the truth, they are only looking for fees from those doing non-GPL add-ons so that some of those revenues help support Mambo.

I also know that when Mambo was under legal attack, Miro backed Mambo.  I also know that they allowed Mambo to drop the "Open Source" from its name for a clearer brand rather than riding Mambo's success to sell their CMS product.

Having worked in side corporate software companies first in support and testing and now is product management, I am worried that this is about misunderstanding and hurt feelings.

Most opensource projects never reach Mambo's success.  Few will go further without a real business organization out to promote and manage what is now a very powerful software solution.  Most opensource projects are like artists with their own gallery.  Great art, some management, limited exposure because the work needed to promote the art stops the creativity needed to create more art.

The artists that make it big, turn over the business to business people.

From what I read.  The foundation was a request of the core team to the business team at Miro.  When it happened without further input from the development team it must have seemed like they were discounting the development team.

The problem is that the job of business managers is to do the business stuff and keep it our of the hair of the development team.  This is foreign to most opensource because most are still artists with their own gallery.

It is very possible that the core team made such a good case that Miro started doing all the legal work setting up the initial structure and making things happen at that level, still thinking like a company where the devs are freed from business details to develop. 

Maybe they felt totally betrayed by the sudden split.  After all they were asked to do all this work, and they did it and before anyone has even had a meeting, there are open letters and new sites and massive "informational" posts to forums that might look like attacks etc.

Now I read that when Miro calls, Andrew says "talk to my attorney."  Attorney's are like nukes.. we all have them because we fear the other ones and they get used.. there is often little left. 

Just for a moment assume.. all they did was do all the dirty work to make the foundation happen, not getting that opensource developers are used to being involved in all things, unlike corporate devs.

I helped start a company based totally on my designs.  When I found out my partners Incorporated with them as CEO and President.. I felt pretty slighted.. why wasn't I involved?  I practice I ended up having total leadership of the project.  Then when we lost funding and some contractors sued, it turned out my not being on the corporate documents saved me from getting sued.  They had on purpose taken on all the legal exposure.  But I didn't get that for real until months later.

I am concerned that the break is from a simular missunderstanding.

Why didn't the Dev team join the foundation and vote in the leadership they wanted with all the protections that Miro spent thousands in legal fees creating over the last few months.

[benwk]

I support the core developers. I support them to honor their contributions in their respective areas of expertise and  as leaders of this vibrant OS community.

I started this thread with the aim of initiating an intelligent debate on how to move the project forward for the benefit of the community (which, I might add includes the core developers). To my surprise, many of the responses thus far have included alarmist and quasi-anarchist views from people who seem to think that a democratically elected body would be against open source ideals. Some of these responses include half-baked analogies, while others have been blanket responses that ignore the issues that I have raised. In fact, it seems to me that many entries on this thread are responses to the controversial title and not the content of my posts or those of other posters with moderated views.

If you respond to this post, please answer these questions directly: Is Apache an OS project that has sold out to corporate ends? Does it conform to open source ideals? Is it, in your opinion, a project that runs well? Has Apache contributed to general awareness of OSS?

In my opinion, Apache is as near to an ideal-type OS project as any. Without it, we wouldn't have the LAMP architecture preferred by this yet-to-be-named CMS project and countless others. (Without Apache, what would be left for us? LIMP? That's about as desirable as it sounds.) Apache has a foundation. The reasons for its creation are listed on their site and are reproduced below:

The Foundation was formed primarily to

  1. provide a foundation for open, collaborative software development projects by supplying hardware, communication, and business infrastructure;
  2. create an independent legal entity to which companies and individuals can donate resources and be assured that those resources will be used for the public benefit;
  3. provide a means for individual volunteers to be sheltered from legal suits directed at the Foundation's projects; and,
  4. protect the 'Apache' brand, as applied to its software products, from being abused by other organizations.

Are these not desirable?

@ My mirthful (or derisive?) northern neighbor:
The GPL has yet to be successfully challenged in court, but open source isn't a shield against legal liability. Read about the vicarious liability, for instance. Also, remember Furthermore: BC was full of it, but the case could have been valid. In any case, I don't recall everyone being completely aloof to the situation when all of the nasty posts were popping up.

Ben

[Triplicate]

OK... lets look at a foundation and the need for it at this time. 

We seem to have lots of corp folk stepping up saying how this (a foundation) is the magic bullet with all the benefits as stated and even sighting examples of those who chose to live under a foundation.

Here's the problem that needs clarified and needs answered...

First off there is no proof that any foundation is the reason for success. It's not the reason, it's the choice. Who can say without a doubt that the success is solely due to the fact that a foundation was created and/or in place?

While your contemplating the above question, don't forget that this dev team and all the other contributors brought Mambo to the TOP NO. 1 position WITHOUT A FOUNDATION. If a foundation is so important then how on earth did mambo achieve such great heights without one?

Maybe you better re-read the above question again because I'm really looking for and answer with proof for this one.

Do you think it's possible that this same team can continue as they have done in the past and continue to succeed? I for one surely believe they can. I have faith in their *proven* history. They have a proven record that has clearly been demonstrated. Now this is real proof that you/they/we don't need a foundation to be successful, don't you think? You bet it is. To me this is very clear indeed.

A foundation is just a bunch of written promises and most likely just a placebo. There is not proof or reason to believe that a foundation is the magic bullet to reach new heights. In fact, I'd say to just wait and see if NOT having a foundation will hinder progress then deal with real issues instead of the perceived future and/or speculated issues already given here.

A foundation brings money into the equation and with this it breeds the perception of being untrustworthy. Who's getting paid, how much and how often? Who's getting paid more than _______ fill in the blank. Where did that money for ____ go? I thought there was more money for _______? Why is so and so getting money and I'm not? What gives ______ the right to do that with our money? Believe me you don't want all this suspicion hanging over this voluntary group of hard working individuals, passionate about their work and unselfish dedication to serve others.

Open Source and being free to contribute for the benefit of all and is the magic glue that makes voluntary work ... well work. People work for free only because others will benefit and at the same time feel confident that no one person or group of people will benefit financially from their unselfish efforts to the community.

In the case of Apache... who is to say they have success BECAUSE of the foundation? Who is to say they may well have done just as fine, or even better, without a foundation? Since only one path was chosen we'll never really know for sure where the other path would have led. Just the same, a project that is successful without a foundation could very well have been held back from achieving even higher levels if it was being directed with some form of a foundation.

Who is to say one way or another that if Mambo would have been under a foundation a year of so ago, and recently only achieved second place, would have blamed or praised the foundation for their great leadership? I'm sure also that the foundation group would have said the project reached the wonderful position of second place because of all their (the foundations) efforts while patting themselves on the back for getting second place! You can only answer this if you have ESP so don't even try. 

Now who among you is going to say a foundation is a benefit when its just been proved that you can and will get to the top of your class without it? To me it's clear.

Also... as I'm sure you're all aware, I'm for the dev team and all the folks including the community and feel strong about things like this so.... IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!!!

I'm aware that the dev team has lobbied to some extent for a foundation but I want only to hear what their wish list is regarding this. I have no doubt that their needs can and will be met, on a as needed basis and can be achieve even if it ends up ?requiring? a foundation of some sort written by them and proposed openly here for discussions and contributions from the community. We're all here to help right? If this were to happen do you think they will get help? Doh!

The only argument you guys have FOR a foundation is promises of this and that, just in case, something (unknown at this time) may or may not happen. Politicians make promises as do business institutions only to renege on those same promises. It's the nature of business since they can only focus on profit and money issues. I'm sure also that you can think of many examples. (lawyers, insurance companies, politicians etc. come to mind). They can not be trusted and live under the perception of distrust. Distrust is poison to open source work. It's a cancer that will eat away at an otherwise successful project having a delicate balance of being trust worthy as it stands now.

[Elpie]

The only things we all know for sure are from what has been published.  Here, its the core teams letter to the community - there can be no further information until they get the legal aspects sorted out.  With Miro and the Foundation though, there is a wealth of material.  Anything else is pure speculation.

I am no lawyer, but part of my work includes law and I found the Foundations documentation incredible.  They seem to have set up with a bricks and mortar type mentality (if there's a dispute with an ordinary member, that member has to attend a meeting? In Melbourne, Australia!  If they determine that behaviour has not been what they wanted, they can fine the member $500 - no mention of  what currency.  Want to dispute that? Have to travel to Australia) 

A foundation, on the face of it, was a good idea.  However, Miro clearly does not understand how to grow a project in the open source world and has set up the Foundation in such a way that anyone, apart from them, is so severely disadvantaged that the only people likely to be attracted to it are those with profitable commercial enterprises who can write off the costs through taxation.  The Act under which they set up is primarily designed to give structure to non-profit and community organisations.  However, their interpretation of that has blocked out community participation.

Miro has never been secretive about its intentions.  Two years ago they announced that their intention all along was to have the code out as open source until such time as they could bring it back into a commercial offering.  I don't blame them for this - they are a corporation, after all!  However, they are blowing smoke in people's eyes with the statement that the Foundation is non-profit.  When they have been asked if anyone from Miro will profit from this they have just responded with the comment that the Foundation is non-profit.  That does not answer the question.  A non-profit organisation still pays directors, managers, and the like - sometimes BIG, big money. 
Note:

A non-profit organisation can still make a profit, but this profit must be used to carry out its purposes and must not be distributed to owners, members or other private people.

And:

Non-profit clause

      ‘The assets and income of the organisation shall be applied solely in furtherance of its above-mentioned objects and no portion shall be distributed directly or indirectly to the members of the organisation except as bona fide compensation for services rendered or expenses incurred on behalf of the organisation.’

From: http://www.ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content ... /33732.htm

Under these rules, Peter Lamont for example (and I am not claiming that this is the case, but using it purely as an example) COULD earn a $250,000+ a year salary without it compromising the non-profit status of the Foundation.  The Board COULD attend roadshows and events all around the world to promote Mambo and legitimately claim it is a Foundation expense. 

It is the lack of transparency in their announcements, the lack of any clear application of voting rights, and the imposition of the Board as sole arbiters of what is acceptable, who will be permitted to join, and how much each Board member will be paid, that causes me real concern.  This, followed by their behaviour in their forums sent alarm bells ringing so strongly for me that I felt I had no choice but to sever ties with anything to do with that company. 

I am just grateful that in severing any association with Miro, I did not have to consider abandoning the CMS. 
But, these are my reasons for concern over the Miro/Mambo Foundation.  I am not suggesting they are similar to the concerns the core team had. 

[pasamio]

From what I read: Under the foundation Mambo is still open source.  No requirements to join are needed to use or develop for it.  If they are telling the truth, they are only looking for fees from those doing non-GPL add-ons so that some of those revenues help support Mambo.

But the question is, what do the dev team know that hasn't been written and Miro hasn't stated? I know the MSC had a bunch of decisions that haven't happened. What happened to the training? Too much work? Foundation? Miro have decided to create it themselves and the Dev Teams first knowledge of it happening, and their presence on it was Miro's announcement. To me that sounds a bit dirty, you put someones name to something without their knowledge? Miro didn't have a structure to examine to validate, to review, but they said that they were creating it with no details. Anyone who joins a group without any knowledge of what its about needs to be a bit less hasty, idea sounds good but the structure appears to be the tough bit. So why didn't Miro notify the two devs on the Foundation of what was happening before they did it? Surely a few days before an email could have been sent, unless the Foundation was something Miro knew would cause troubles. Obviously everyone else, but the Dev's seemed to know what was going on...

I also know that when Mambo was under legal attack, Miro backed Mambo.  I also know that they allowed Mambo to drop the "Open Source" from its name for a clearer brand rather than riding Mambo's success to sell their CMS product.

Interestingly enough, isn't protecting Mambo trademark protection? Secondly it was stated that his arguements are baseless and he couldn't prove it, so where are the issues? If you can't prove it and only say "they did it!", then you aren't going to get far, reminds me of group called SCO who don't seem to be getting far either...

The artists that make it big, turn over the business to business people.

Or the business unilaterally takes it back...

From what I read.  The foundation was a request of the core team to the business team at Miro.  When it happened without further input from the development team it must have seemed like they were discounting the development team.

" – If the previous team leaves, will they still be developing a version of Mambo?"
It seems to me that they've already planned that the dev team might leave, perhaps Miro realize its a bad idea?

Just for a moment assume.. all they did was do all the dirty work to make the foundation happen, not getting that opensource developers are used to being involved in all things, unlike corporate devs.

Who said that none of the core devs haven't had experience setting up companys? How do you expect them to get money normally? Social security? No, they have to get money some how and you'll find that some of them have some form of corporate background.

I am concerned that the break is from a simular missunderstanding.

Why didn't the Dev team join the foundation and vote in the leadership they wanted with all the protections that Miro spent thousands in legal fees creating over the last few months.

Perhaps the Dev team knows more and realizes that all of these wonderful things that were supposed to happen months ago with the MSC is happening, but Miro are doing it all on their own and applying a somewhat large amount of money for somethings...

On a final note, you will all notice that Robert left the Foundation. Miro have stated that this was the same reason he left last time (and the time before that?). Sounds a bit suspicious when I know that some of the Dev's don't even know why he left the first time, and now suddenly Miro does?

[benwk]

The community is the reason that this project has attained the level of success that it enjoys today. The community is the "magic glue". The development team is comprised of community members who have risen to leadership positions within the community because of merit, vision, and the willingness and ability to dedicate the  time necessary make this project what it is. They deserve our trust because of what they're doing and the path that has led them to where they are.

Do not draw the faulty conclusion that I lack trust in dev team. I trust them implicitly.

A foundation is not a reason for success, rather a tool for bringing more success, more easily. While the community (i.e. the dev team down to the most seldom seen forum lurker) provides long-term stability for the project through the steady supply of brains and talent, it is a body such as a foundation that can help the steady the ship in rough waters.

The concept of money might be the instrument of greed and corruption, but it is a fact of life. To continue to grow and promote this project, a little bit of money could be very useful. Think of the resources required to run Open Source Matters. Who's paying for this? The dev team? Is it fair that the leaders of this project and community should have to pay out-of-pocket to run this site in addition to donating time that they could otherwise spend with their families, friends, or relaxing by themselves? A body such as a foundation can effectively manage monetary resources for the good of the entire community. That means fairly and without putting financial strain on developers.

Take this hypothetical example: Andrew Eddie and the rest of the dev team leave the project for one reason or another over the span of a year (in the distant future!). Ms. Y, a well respected member of the community is asked to lead the project because of her excellent contributions over the years. As project leader, Ms. Y is responsible for managing the funds raised for defraying costs for hosting community sites, promoting the project, etc. Because of community donations and effective fund raising from external sources, the project has $7000 in its coffers. Ms. Y is sailing off the coast of Bermuda and mysteriously disappears. What happens to the money? Who can ensure it will be used for the purpose it was meant?

If you haven’t read or understood my posts,

I’m not in favor of creating a foundation like that of Miro or even Apache. I think that this community can come up with something better. Something that doesn’t represent commercial or political interests -- a democratic tool that will help this project grow and maintain its stability, while managing its risks.

@ Triplicate
You’re mixing the issues. Trust has nothing to do with being well organized.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!!!

is a mantra that breeds complacency. If you apply it liberally to everything you do, you’ll limit yourself in many ways.

[benwk]

TJay: Please tell me how you link "let's not discount the potential benefits of a democratically controlled, community-driven organization" with "I don't trust the core team"?

it is amazing to me that this "we dont trust the core team" sentiment could even exist given the events of the past few days.
We are going to have to trust someone folks.
Who Ya gonna trust
Miro
core team

Be careful with this reasoning. You're drawing the wrong conclusions.

The core team is doing a fantastic job and I appreciate them all the more for taking this leap for the project, which will inevitably result in extra work for them.

I support letting the core team get settled. I know they'll address the important issues when the time comes.

This delay shouldn't prevent the rest of the community from intelligently discussing the future of a project that effects all of us. I would hope that you, as a moderator, would encourage a lively thread instead of dismissing the topic out of hand as a bad idea.

[Triplicate]

Nobody said anything about not trusting the core team and or the devs. If your getting that here you have misunderstood previous posts.

Should a foundation come into this picture then so does money and the movement of money in the form of income and expenses. It is in this financial environment where the trust of the foundations actions comes into question by just about everyone involved the this project. It could be members of the dev team, the support team and/or the community who grow suspicious of the foundation's management of their funds.

These kinds of suspicions can pull the community apart not unlike what has already happened with the Miro Foundation. It's the case of Miro the lack of trust of their foundation was immediate.

With Miro it was outright distrust from the opening by 100% of the core team. That is to say the team did not trust the foundation and it's the foundation that is not trust worthy.

Any other foundation will have a similar result. The only unknown is exactly to what extent it be or to what extent it will become in the future. Under the best of circumstances questions will always be in the mind of others as to the use or misuse of the money. If things go wrong here or are perceived to be suspicious for any reason we're right back to square on again.

This is all the down side to a foundation that will never go away totally IMHO. Is it worth the risk just for the perceived benefits?

As previously stated...  I'd say to just wait and see if NOT having a foundation will hinder progress. If so, then deal with the real issues at that time. The solution may or may not be a foundation. Right now there is a great deal of speculation about the future and I always prefer to deal with reality.

[tjay]

I support letting the core team get settled. I know they'll address the important issues when the time comes.

This delay shouldn't prevent the rest of the community from intelligently discussing the future of a project that effects all of us. I would hope that you, as a moderator, would encourage a lively thread instead of dismissing the topic out of hand as a bad idea.

Then we agree, and that was the jest of my post. We are in the time frame that is going to require some trust and we have that trust in the core.
As far as the topic, it is an interesting discussion and not one I want to discard. I am enjoying the read.

[alwarren]

I suggest everyone read the rules of association, the membership agreement, and the rights by membership.

The one document conspicuously missing from the "foundation" website is the articles of incorporation. That, of course, explains it all - who the board members are, what the voting rights/points are, etc. I wish someone would grab a copy of that from whatever Australian goverment source there is and let the rest of us know the hidden secrets. I imagine once that document makes it to the massses we will all understand this thing some call hostile takeover.

[absalom]

I suggest everyone read the rules of association, the membership agreement, and the rights by membership.

The one document conspicuously missing from the "foundation" website is the articles of incorporation. That, of course, explains it all - who the board members are, what the voting rights/points are, etc. I wish someone would grab a copy of that from whatever Australian goverment source there is and let the rest of us know the hidden secrets. I imagine once that document makes it to the massses we will all understand this thing some call hostile takeover.

I've requested it as part of my 10USD membership, and according to the Rules of Association, it is within my right to see it.

[unity]

From what I can tell - the 'rules of association' are the articles of incorporation - they certainly include everything in the model articles for Victoria that I've managed to track down online.

[alwarren]

From what I can tell - the 'rules of association' are the articles of incorporation - they certainly include everything in the model articles for Victoria that I've managed to track down online.

Maybe I used the wrong term. What I'm looking for is the initial document that states names of original/charter board members, etc. There is something you can get online @ $13. An abstract or something I think. I was under the impression the 'rules of association' where what we might call in the U.S. constitution and bylaws which are the rules the first members of the board follow. What is the document that actually creates the entity, names the initial board members, and all that jazz? Showing my ignorance here but just a curious kind of guy.

[Lightning]

we don’t need no STINKIN foundation

I have to disagree with this. I don’t think we need Miro's "FOUNDATION" by no means. However, due to the caliber of this project, it will need something like it.

A foundation, on the face of it, was a good idea.  However, Miro clearly does not understand how to grow a project in the open source world...

Exactly! It may not be an immediate thing, but this project will need something in place later down the road to ensure its longevity. 
A prime example of an Open Source Foundation can be found here.
http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/

[benwk]

@ TJay
Thanks for the comments.

@ Triplicate
Answer this: How does a foundation bring money into the equation?

A foundation (or as I have said before, something similar) is a tool for helping manage resources that are there already or need to be there in order for the project to get past a plateau. Basta.

[CE5_Agent]

I think the Foundation is a unwise gambit for Miro, for three reasons:

1. It creates a fork in the direction of Mambo, where Miro Ltd. goes one way and the community goes another. Miro will no longer have the continued development support of the community as a whole and loose allot of professional developers, that would contribute to Mambo and the Enterprise Edition as a unified group.

2. It creates an economic, or for profit structure that only benifits Miro, and not the developers or support community. Whereby creating a level of discontent.

3. Miro must have a vision something similar to mySQL or ezPublish two successfull open source projects, to reintegrate Mambo Open Source with its Commercial version. There must exist some incompatability issuses, were the open source code does not integrate well with the commercial edition. That would explain why Miro is keeping its agenda 'cloaked' behind the Foundation effort.
But this move has actually backfired and put Miro Ltd. in a more tenious situation, to now reassure the community that it is working for its benifit, and not creating a seperation of power.

[Elpie]

What I'm looking for is the initial document that states names of original/charter board members, etc. There is something you can get online @ $13. An abstract or something I think. I was under the impression the 'rules of association' where what we might call in the U.S. constitution and bylaws which are the rules the first members of the board follow. What is the document that actually creates the entity, names the initial board members, and all that jazz? Showing my ignorance here but just a curious kind of guy.

It gets registered in the same way a company does.  Information on it can be found by searching at ASIC (Australian Securities & Investments Commission) - I think thats at asic.gov.au.  But, for actual details you have to follow one of the external links they provide to a pay-for-info service.  If anyone is doing that it might be interesting to see who is in control of Mambo Communities Pty Ltd which was recently incorporated and now, I understand, manages the Mambo forge and forum sites.

[xperis]

I suggest everyone read the rules of association, the membership agreement, and the rights by membership.

The one document conspicuously missing from the "foundation" website is the articles of incorporation. That, of course, explains it all - who the board members are, what the voting rights/points are, etc. I wish someone would grab a copy of that from whatever Australian government source there is and let the rest of us know the hidden secrets. I imagine once that document makes it to the masses we will all understand this thing some call hostile takeover.

As someone who has been involved in the starting of a small business.  The names on the filing documents mean nothing.  They are often who is available.  Sadly the core seems to have walked out rather than seeing how it would work and seeing what real creative freedom they would have had.  As I read the comments about "rules", "freedom", "money" I realize there are many people that would rather rebel than succeed.  The Foundation has all the history now, and except for the regular members of the community, they world will see Mambo as what they do.

I see pretty much what I would have expected a company to do in creating a foundation on paper, from habit.  I see people who read the documents and assumed the worst and walked away before we saw if it was going to work or not. 

So where are the official rule of applying to joining the Core Dev team that is running this show?  How does the community vote? How are disputes handled?
Is this currently being run like an open organization or following where shouldn't ask questions...  IF the core is serious about proving their fears as righteous, they need to start making some changes. 

No Rules is not freedom..

[Greg77630]

There will be a foundation for this forked version too. It is important that the organization of the foundation allow for the openess of the community to continue but at the same time provide basic rules that ensure the projects survival.

I trust that the reason the dev team is silent is that they want to ensure that the foundation gets started properly. If they publish their plans then those plans could be hi-jacked by their competition (aka the other foundation).

I love the dev team for their courage to stand up against the man!

[CE5_Agent]

Reply to XPERIS

"So where are the official rule of applying to joining the Core Dev team that is running this show? "

That's my point Miro doesn't want core developers making corporate decisions, they have their own plans, and plan to keep them secret. The Foundation is just a front to recruit developers because when I last visited Miro Ltd. they were looking for developers to join their corporate team. But I guess that initave didn't work. They are looking in two directions how do we reap rewards from developers and not have them as employees, and two how do we use the hard work of thousands of users to make a profit for our company at no cost to us. This is my deduction not something I heard from Miro or its representives.

[alwarren]

As someone who has been involved in the starting of a small business...

This has nothing to do with running a business. It is about running an open source project.

I see pretty much what I would have expected a company to do in creating a foundation on paper, from habit.

Which is exaclty how Miro screwed up. They called their law firm who probably assigned it to some underpaid paralegal. Said paralegal whips up boilerplate in an afternoon. Quick easy and cheap. As opposed to actually researching the needs of an open source project to come up with something that fits. Parapharasing another poster, what they did was "insanely stupid."

I see people who read the documents and assumed the worst and walked away before we saw if it was going to work or not. 

Yea, I've seen people do that too. They're called Legislators and they have the common sense to walk away from something poorly conceived and incompatible with a situation.

[CE5_Agent]

Starting and running a business myself Miro does have the chance to ammend their articles of incorporation in regards to their new foundation and learn from this. There is always the possibility that the Foundation and the Community could come to a senseble solution that would make it a win-win situation, like giving difinitive rewards to core developers for their efforts or free advertising if they plan to grow to the size of yahoo.

Lets look at this as a line drawn in the sand, and not a monolithic fortress. Miro always could change their mind considering the outpour of response in objection to Miro's current agenda.

[keliix06]

And one day I could grow wings and fly... but that's not going to happen. They have taken the necessary legal steps to ensure that they are the only people who will ever have any control over the foundation by having sole discretion over voting authority of all members.

[jgobiz]

And one day I could grow wings and fly... but that's not going to happen.

... and what is the junction to the post from CE5_Agent? A decision of 19 People, with (for now) 1793 following "bear with us". And all, i guess more than 1.000.000, Users can´t fly because they´ll never have wings? Maybe these Users are much better "flyers" as we here are all together. So my suggestion would not get a change. The users will set both parties "under fire". If standstill goes on, they will choose "the third system". And these user-decisions are not under control from everyone. And for these user-decisions it "doesn´t matter" what we discuss in our forums. That´s life.

[keliix06]

CE5's post was full of "what if" and "it could happen" scenarios. So was mine

[jgobiz]

CE5's post was full of "what if" and "it could happen" scenarios. So was mine

o.k. let´s fly

[keliix06]

I could use some of that fun right about now.