[Open-graphics] A nutty idea about organizational names and structure

[Timothy Miller]

On 1/10/07, Lourens Veen <lourens at rainbowdesert.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 03:00, Timothy Miller wrote:
> > While we're on the subject of organizational names, we may want to
> > take this opportunity to have a look at our organizational structure.
> >
> > It is rather unusual for there to be three different names, perhaps
> > suggesting three different groups, all being applied to what is
> > really one project.
>
> I'm not sure. There's the GNU project which creates software, the Free
> Software Foundation that serves the interest of all free software, GNU
> or not, and there is Red Hat, who sell support for free software, GNU
> or not, and are independent of the FSF.
>
> The only place where I see a discrepancy between what the naming
> suggests and what the idea behind it is, is that by the sound of it,
> Traversal Technology is to the OGP what Red Hat is to GNU, rather than
> what the Mozilla Corporation is to the Mozilla Project. So if we're
> having nutty ideas, perhaps TT could be renamed to Open Graphics
> Corporation?

Don't think I haven't thought of that, but "Traversal Technology" is
so orthogonal to anything else, it doesn't grate on anyone's
sensibilities.  Besides, to old-school business, Traversal needs to
put on an old-school business face.  I chose the name intentionally to
make it look like we're traditional business, knowing full-well that
it would be a point of confusion for the Free side of things.  That's
one reason why I haven't asked for a position in the OHF.  I think
Andy was offered a board position, and I believe he asked for a
non-voting position for the same reasons.

> > But is there really now any need for there to be a nebulous third
> > entity that we currently call the Open Graphics Project?  It has no
> > legal status and doesn't need it, so it's served, for some time, as
> > an umbrella.  But the three names probably are cause for confusion,
> > and we may want to simplify things.
>
> Well, what else are you going to call the cloud of unaffiliated hardware
> developers that work on the designs for graphics cards we're creating,
> but are not employees of TT? They don't have much to do with Traversal
> Technology, and they may not have anything to do with the OHF either.

It was just a thought.  Plus, I really like the suggestion to name it
"Graphics Liberation Project."

> However, I would really prefer the OHF to become mostly an "above the
> fray" type organisation that worries about certification, promotion,
> education, and so on. In the early stages, while the community is
> small, the OHF may take a more hands-on approach and get involved with
> the design and creation of hardware more directly (e.g. using donations
> to provide a guaranteed minimum number of sales to TT, hiring people to
> design hardware, and so on).

Yes.  I like the way you explain it.

> - The goal of the OGP is to create a Freely Usable* graphics card
> design.
> - The goal of TT is to sell Freely Usable graphics cards based on the
> OGP design.
> - The goal of the OHF is to promote the creation of Free Hardware
> Designs, Free Design Hardware, and Freely Usable Hardware, all of which
> are Free Software Compatible.
>
> I can see clear alignment and overlap between OGP and TT, but not
> necessarily between OHF and the others. And I think that it would
> actually be good to have a bit of distance between the OHF and the
> rest.

I withdraw my suggestion.  :)

-- 
Timothy Miller
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti