The Open Source Solution Providers' Mission Statement

Before getting sidetracked in late January with what I will only term as "unfinished business," I really had a "breakthrough" in what I was finally rationalizing in my self-searching. Now before this seems like a Jerry McGuire moment or something (yeah, even I had to think twice when I said "breakthrough" the first time in my mind), I don't hate my place in life. In fact, I'm starting to finally realize what I've been saying for years, openly, and commonly being misunderstood. And it literally is a Mission Statement.

An Open Source Solution Provider ...

• Has a reputation is built on what they do, not what they say they do
• Shall never make any claim to the contrary, even if it takes years to build that reputation with each and every client or other professional they serve
  
• Shall never claim they are or market themselves as anything, except what they actually build as peer professionals
  

They should not and do not claim credentials, that they are focused on only solving technical problems, that they are people of a various cliches (e.g., "we have the most experienced professionals" or "our professionals have a high signal to noise ratio"), etc... They are who they are by doing, not saying.

That has always been my essence, especially with my clients and other peer-professionals, and why those who know me for years trust my advise, judgement and even company.

• Is not interested in rules or policy
• Ethics and law should always drive every consideration
  
• The only other rule is the Golden Rule
• Everything else breaks eventually down into posture, argument and rhetoric, and they refuse to use that against any other peer professional or any of their clients

How they act anywhere and towards anyone or any entity is how they will act towards their clients. So a professional who has the same standing and approach in how they act towards the aforementioned is how they can be ultimately considered to act towards their clients.

I have found it extremely difficult to deal with other "professionals" who claim to be of "good standing" when they cross many basic, ethical standards and, in some cases, law. They are often the ones who shape rules and policies against their own clients, as well as other professionals in joint endeavors.

• Open Source was never the best solution merely because "brand X" was the problem or allegedly "worse"
• Open Source should always be the best solution based entirely on its own merits under the same scrutiny as other solutions, and not merely the "lesser of two evils"
• Only compare and consider solutions that truly differ on a technical level, not marketing one (e.g., common software redistributions of merely the same software repackaged)
  
• Leave most of the "marketing" aspects of "repackaged" commercial software for a reason, and they are not interested in dragging them into the Open Source world
  

Linux projects don't fail, Linux professionals fail their projects, they fail their clients, they fail themselves. This is not limited merely to Linux, but any solution however it is boasted as better, faster or whatever else marketing term is the pitch of the day. Open Source in no different than in any other product, and while there is less marketing and vendor-centric influences in the Open Source space, they still exist. In fact, Open Source professionals must be vigilant to avoid generating the marketing and FUD themselves, especially when it comes to differing over software that is -- in essence -- virtually the same.

I have found FUD to be, quite often, completely unintentional and built on what may be considered "common knowledge" to non-professionals. This is why I strongly believe Open Source professionals should not even acknowledge such, including myself from this point forward.

• Do not take stands on anything, except that they serve their client's interests first and foremost
• Never compromise that basic promise with any client or any entity, even when not compensated
  
• Do not promote or boycott anything
• Further recognize that many promotions or boycotts are often misguided, leading to harm being done to various entities, including people losing jobs over nothing but hearsay or rhetoric
• Always consider what any "hate" does, let alone how any "hate" of any entity, product or project ends up representing themselves

Open Source professionals may scrutinize technically and distinctly (let alone equally), but they should be above the common rhetoric or "anti-" approach, especially in general. Using select corporate, project or other names in an attempt to excuse what is, in fact, really a base form of "hate" is not acceptable, no matter what harm may have been allegedly done by the entity under "hate." No Open Source solution was ever sold -- long-term -- on its "demonization" of any other entity, but only on the technical merits of its ability to "do the job."

I cannot stress this enough. Open Source professionals are not advocates, except when it comes to the interests of their clients. But not ironically, in the end, such Open Source professionals tend to be the light of any advocacy, because of what they do, not what they say or ... "preach." That is how I have lived my career, and from now on, it is what I will certainly put forth and point out as I go forward.

Where do I go from here? I look back five (5) years ...

In early 2002 I registered osspa.com for the Open Source Solution Providers' Alliance (OSSPA), a site I had hoped to build as a peer collection point for like-minded, consulting Open Source professionals like myself. Almost five (5) years later, it's time I put that idea forth. Even if it ends up being little more than my original thought as a job resource site and possible NNTP/HTTP knowledge base (that would eventually feed a series of books), it would still serve the purpose I wanted to build almost five years ago, which would be a productive venture.