On Saturday 11 Feb 2006 00:49, Craig White wrote: > On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 00:00 +0000, Tony Dietrich wrote: > > I have been asked to start a feasibility study into the provision of a > > particular service. I am donating my time free of charge. > > > > A very short document outlining the background and the requirements of > > this service can be found at > > > > http://www.transcc.co.uk/RFCSecureConferenceService.html > > > > I would be grateful if members of this list could take a look at this > > document and offer their suggestions/comments. This mailing list is not > > the forum for this subject, so I'd encourage anyone that is able or > > wiling to comment on this RFC to post to the address in the > > above-mentioned document. > > > > > > I would like to stress that this project is not commercial and is never > > intended to make a profit. It may however turn out that we cannot keep > > the project open source, because of its very nature. It may also be the > > case that in order to convince the various intended end-users of the > > security of the project, that the final provider of the service might be > > a commercial organisation, and that end-users may be asked to pay a > > contribution towards the upkeep of the service. > > It is perhaps a sad comment on today's world that there are some people > > out there that believe that a commercial company is somehow inherently > > more trustworthy than a non-profit-making organisation! > > ---- > Windows thinking is to invent the wheel with each program. > > Linux thinking is to recycle what's available. > No arguments there > There are lots of various chat type programs available for Apache or > Tomcat servers that could require SSL encryption and for all purposes > capable of providing an encrypted, multi-user conference - some probably > with file exchange too...I'm not gonna bother researching it. > Encryption isn't the problem per se .. authentication via a method that can gain acceptance by end-users that are by their very nature highly sceptical of anything IT-related is the problem. > Lot's of open source projects obtain sponsorship by various businesses > and governmental agencies. > Hmmm .. yeeeessss ... we're trying! We have a lot of half-promises, but everyone is sitting on the fence until we can come up with a credible, CONVINCING proposal. Catch 22. > As to your notion that there may be benefit to being a 'for profit' > company as opposed to a 'not for profit' company in terms of pubic > trust...that's probably the nature of things like 'the devil you know > versus the devil you don't know' and many times, a small 'not for > profit' agency can get credibility by associating with well known > non-profit agencies but you have to remember that people tend to trust > the names they see in the papers, magazines, on television even though > in many cases, we really know little about them. 'For profit' companies > have the money to spend to promote their image. My arguments exactly .. I was trying to carefully put across the arguments I'm facing, not put my own point-of-view. > > Craig
