Re: poll : Advertising vs Linux Audio

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Mon, April 23, 2012 2:15 pm, Robin Gareus wrote:
> Patrick,
> another long reply. please bear with me..
> On 04/22/2012 03:45 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>> I think you seriously underestimate the amount of money that could be
>> earned by accepting advertising across the LAO channel. Let alone across
>> the entire Linux Audio community.
>>> If you have a viable business plan, we're all ear.
>> Well apparently this is a change of heart ;-)
> not really. I like the idea to support developers or musicians. It's
> just that advertising and SEO on is not the right way to
> do this. I was thinking of "business plans" in general not ads in
> particular.
> There were a couple of initiatives on the table a while back. e.g. merge
> with and become part of the linux-foundation - similar to what
> linux-printing/open-printing did. The linux-foundation has experience
> with handling funding, supporting developers and properly taking care of
> bureaucracy.
> There's actually quite lot of linux-audio projects, devs and users that
> accept donations or even make a living by selling services or products.
> Yet, personally I don't have any clue how can directly
> support those. IMHO the knowledge-exchange on LAD and LAU lists as well
> as LA conferences, teaching newbies, etc is what does
> best. It's not a business plan per se, though.
> A linux-audio-record-label, sponsored music-contests, video-promos etc..
> would be much more suitable for the latter.  Yet someone needs to take
> up that task -- I do prefer the avantgarde-like concerts featured at LAC
> and that's where my time and efforts go. If someone has incentive to do
> sth focused on musicians or other LA interest groups, the consortium is
> usually very open to proposals and does support viable initiatives.
> Keep in mind that a viable plan for the community must enable the
> community to grow and not restrict them (and that includes granting
> contributors the freedom to be not bothered with ads on the community
> site itself - although compromises can be made as long as they're
> according to LAO policy).

Which in this case doesn't actually exist hence the reason I initiated the
discussion on the consortium mailing list in the first place.

>>>> So a policy that sets clear guidelines is completely out of the
>>>> question?
>>> Dunno, that's a question for the management board, not me.
>> And I have already put it to the board several times.
> And you got answers - most recently by the director of the linuxaudio
> Management Board himself just before you approached LAU on 04/21/2012
> 11:29 PM CEST Ico wrote:
> "... based on the majority of the consortium members the current
> site will remain ad-free." [1]

And I queried why it is his decision to make that call. There was not
official vote. Just a finger in the air based on a few negative answers
from a total of four people.

>> These items have already been discussed and I provided options which
>> would
>> allow us to progress.
> No, you did not. You simply suggested move to a different [paid by ads]
> host, which is not a smart idea given the infrastructure we have (see
> below).

My suggestion was to move a couple of the subdomains specifically

To a different server so that they would be able to host paid ads and
there would be no conflict with the requirements that place on
content hosted on their own servers.

Given that Daniel maintains the dns for the domain and that is hosted on
an entirly different server again there is no conflict with the

However it seems that some people feel that now owns and controls
the domain and therefore anything to do with it is subject
to the policy. Which I assume also includes this mailing list.
Which is strange as originally this mailing list was not setup to be at
the control of policy and neither was the domain or
for the matter the Consortium.

IMO there is some confusion about what ICO's role as a member of VT is,
the restrictions that place on and the role of the
consortium in regards to maintaining it's remit.

> Also your way of approaching the consortium is - at best - questionable.
> I think you owe Ico an apology for your offensive phrases and
> questioning his authority in [2].
> Also migrating content away from - a domain intended
> for linux-audio USERS (that you just happen to be curating) - to a .COM
> domain without asking the community at large and completely deleting the
> content from the server after the site has been migrated
> speaks volumes.

Considering this is not the first time that I have been subject to
barriers being placed in my way in regards to the direction of lau guide
and the quicktoots whcih are both sites I founded prior to
even existing and which I clearly stated before moving them to the still
freshly brewed portal when there were only a couple of other things going
on there I decided in my infinite wisdom that it was better to move them
somewhere that was less restricting and not subject to the policy of an
institution that should not be able to put barriers in my way.

Ico had already stated quite clearly that he though t it was appropriate
for me to redirect to the new server so I did.

> I can completely understand that the consortium does want not continue
> this discussion nor put this issue on the agenda (again).
> [1]
> [2]

So irrational prejudice is considered to be an acceptable method of
forming a consensus. Is this an Academic approach to business in general?
>From my experience working in the academic system over the years that does
actually  make sense.

>>> From what I've learned: official policies are best avoided and replaced
>>> with common-sense.
>> A policy is simply a way for everyone to know what the expectations are.
>> If we leave it up to each one of us to guess then we will never be able
>> to
>> agree on anything.
> :)
> Let me interpret it like this: If a sponsor support our cause:
> "promote and enable the use of Linux kernel based systems for
> professional audio use" - we can link to and /advertise/ for them.
> A good example is your previous endeavor:
> Commercial companies sponsor a prize for Linux-Musicians; the companies
> in question also directly promote audio and/or GNU/Linux. We add a link
> to and logo of those companies and the prize-money goes directly to the
> musician(s). Great.
> If an unrelated 3rd party wants to pay for SEO, ads or
> whatever - even if we could use the money to do great things for LAO -
> it's more or less a no go. -- At least for the time being.
> For that to happen, would need to become a much larger
> organization in order to balance commercial interest, retain its
> independence and handle bureaucratic issues. It'd also require revising
> the policy which can be only done by a majority decision of the
> Management Board.

And you are opposed to that?

> On 04/22/2012 03:27 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>> Considering that most server companies are offering 500Gb to 1TB of
>> monthly bandwidth for less than $20/month it's hardly breaking the
>> bank for you to give them some space.
> On average over the last year served 1.5 TBytes/month
> (~35-40k unique visitors per month). The last weeks (with LAC videos)
> we're currently around 4-5 TB and this month is not over, yet.
> yet, bandwidth is the cheap part.

No one suggested that the entire domain be moved to a new host in order to
accept third party advertising. Ever. Definitely not me. It seems there
has been some confusion or perhaps it is due to the "fog of intense

> That being said, some of your initiatives (e.g and
> are very interesting and were promising. I
> suggest to focus on [reviving] those rather than pushing ads in general.

Well I would love to be in a financial position where that would be

Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
Linux-audio-user mailing list

[ALSA Users]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Kernel]     [Online Dating]     [Photo Sharing]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Video 4 Linux]

Add to Google Powered by Linux