[linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org

[Tim Orford]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 02:16:24PM +0000, Director James wrote:
> > there is an argument that once the project has launched, it is
> > too late.
> 
> Or before it has launched, too early? No one is twisting your arm to 
> support the project. [...]

the problem for me is that it purports to represent linux pro audio
in general, and as someone who sees his career and personal fulfillment
reliant on this, i feel it is not something that i can completely ignore.


> 
> > without wider community discussion, the accusation - rightly or
> > wrongly - is that it is exactly that: a cabal.
> 
> I think you should look for harder targets. Why is it so bad to spend 
> a few days putting the website together before it's publically 
> announced? Does no-one on this list get their code in a usable shape 
> before they announce their projects?

A technical project is not the same as a campaigning organisation.
Its not fair to compare the two. Having said that, if an organisation
such as KDE releases something which is detrimental to proaudio,
they are rightly criticised for not consulting.


> > So how do i join?
> 
> Just ask. At the moment linuxaudio.org is conceived as a 
> meta-organisation, representing existing projects and companies, 
> rather than individuals directly. Is there a particular project 
> you're involved in?  
> 
> > You need a european sound engineer perhaps. 
> 
> Without a doubt. 

sound engineers are not organised as either projects or companies.
So can i join? Pls consider this a formal request.


> > although i didnt say so, i was referring to the proaudio
> > industry, which i view as being quite different.
> 
> So there are good corporates and bad corporates? If so, can we make 
> the bad ones into good ones by working with them on an equitable 
> basis?

yes, no.
You cannot work with a corporation on an "equitable basis". You
lick their asses till they hand over the money.


> > There has always been disagreement over 
> > how much their involvement is a good thing.
> 
> Consider this - we have dyne:bolic as a member, which is an avowedly 
> anti-corporate project. So far, Microsoft has not asked to join.

I'm not sure what we are sposed to make of that statement. But i'll
wait to see what kind of corporate involvement you want to encourage.


> 
> > The main danger for 
> > me is that commercial pressures inevitably produce systems similar
> > to other existing systems aimed at the lowest common denominator.
> 
> I don't see that happening in pro audio. Worry about Lindows if you 
> like.

pro audio is way behind mainstream linux concerns. But if linux ever
becomes a more viable platform for general music production
 then that will obviously change. I dont see it
happening, but i dont want eg Steinberg here. 


> 
> > > If you check the management
> > > boards of organisations like OSDL or CE Linux Forum, you'll
> > > notice that libre software projects don't get any representation
> > > there at all.
> >
> > I'm not sure its a fair comparison.
> 
> They are industry consortia addressing a particular niche market. OK, 
> we may not have their funding, but the principle is the same. 

Both the scale and the principle are different. OSDL and CELF are
'selling' their 'product' to large-scale enterprises and hence need
a corporately acceptable face. With the exception of some media
companies, audio users are either individuals or companies of less
than 10. This lack of user coordination is a definite factor in
users getting a bad deal from commercial suppliers. Eg the film
industries forcing of Avid/Digidesign to allow cross-product file 
transfer (this may be a bad example but i hope you see the point).


> 
> > But i'm sorry that you
> > dont appreciate the danger that you are alienating people here
> > by doing things behind closed doors.
> 
> I do appreciate the danger, I just wish some people would actually 
> wait to see what linuxaudio.org actually is before supporting or 
> criticising it. 
> 
> > I cant imagine why you chose 
> > not to discuss it openly
> 
> I did not choose that, I just didn't discuss it in your preferred 
> forum - which is not the same thing. Actually, I just wanted to make 

dont mean to split hairs, but that is not my definition of
open. You are presenting it as a done deal. You already have
a web page and a large number of members who have apparently agreed to
some fairly strong legal commitments.


> sure that I was doing the right thing before making a public 
> announcement, so I asked the LAD members I knew first.
> 
> > Dont forget that community 
> > is what makes linux what it is.
> 
> I won't.
> 
> > the aims are stated as:
> > 	The aim of the Linuxaudio.org consortium is to
> > 	promote and enable the use of Linux kernel based systems for
> > 	professional audio use.
> >
> > Thats ok for a press release, but what does it mean in practice?
> 
> We'll find out.
> 
> > Its way too vague.
> 
> I find it clearly describes what I'm trying to do - which part is 
> vague?

there is no detail. However there is a better description on the
About page: 

"The consortium aims to co-ordinate joint projects between
members, collaborate on the promotion of Linux based systems for audio
tasks, and provide a single point of contact for both prospective Linux
users and industry partners".

Taking that as 3 distinct parts:
1-project coordination. a consortium should mainly concern itself 
  with represention to the outside world. Cooperation 
  should be handled using normal open development methods, imo.
2-promotion. Agreed that this could be useful in the future. Currently
  i believe promotion should be aimed at developers not users. I
  dont see how corporate involvement will help here. Documentation
  and developer oriented articles would be more useful, imo.
3-point of contact. I agree this is a good thing for "industry
  partners". Not for users though.

> 
> > What exactly are you promoting? 
> 
> Whatever the members are doing, I suppose.

:-)

> 
> > Its also a very wide range of companies you have there
> 
> Hardly. Which ones aren't involved in Linux audio? We've got audio 
> hardware, Linux distributions and audio applications represented.

Linux Audio or Linux Pro-Audio? From your About page:
"audio work, with an emphasis on professional tools for the music,
recording and broadcast industries". Should companies that have
no interest in pro audio or music production be involved? How is
that helpful?


> 
> > No offence to these companies, but do i really want Mandrake and
> > 4Front speaking for me?
> 
> This is your key misconception, and I think Marek's as well.  Firstly, 
> consortium members can only speak for themselves. The consortium as a 
> whole can only speak for its members. If you don't join, it won't be 
> speaking for you.

Thats the problem. For such an organisation to have respect from
outside, it needs to be seen as representative. And to a large degree
your consortium already is, having most of the major players as members.
Therefore it speaks for me whether i want it to or not.

Daniel, i dont mean to give you a hard time. I appreciate the effort
that is going into this, and it could end up being a very good thing,
but unless you think it through some more and seriously acknowledge that
your actions are underiming the egalitarian nature of the community and
have the potential to split it, then this discussion isnt going to go
anywhere...

In the meantime perhaps you should consider not sending out
press releases?


regards
-- 
Tim Orford