Subject: Re: Choardic Commons
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: 25 Jun 2002 12:34:03 +0900

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Capdevielle <scott@syndicom.com> writes:

    Scott> So the question I ask is this: is it possible for this
    Scott> community (JXTA) to organize itself to respond to
    Scott> commercial needs/demands without sacrificing the current
    Scott> level of collaboration?

No.  Commerce == pay for what you need.  If it's free, just take it.
If you need to pay for it, it's because you want people to change what
they're doing.

So if people come 'round with money, you can bet that eventually
they're going to want you to do things _today_ you don't want to do
right now.  If you don't satisfy them, the money will go away.

And that inevitably interferes with "collaboration", narrowly defined
in terms of software development.  "Scott, I need to work this API out
with you, my module can't integrate until we got it set!"  "Sorry,
man, not this week, I'm on a deadline on that Snake Oil Inc contract.
Gotta get these docs out to snatch the $10,000 bonus."

Now, if you define "collaboration" as "working together to satisfy
customers' needs as they perceive them" ... but no, that way lies
madness ... or worse, _Microsoft_.[1]


Footnotes: 
[1]  Nothing says we aren't allowed to change customer perceptions, or
that they need to be true (before or after the change). :-/

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py