What's Canonical thinking about Bazaar?

[Ben Finney]

Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy at canonical.com> writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> writes:
> >> There is a desire to position Bazaar more as "a Canonical open
> >> source product" rather than "an open source project supported by
> >> Canonical" - thus the request for the web site name change. […]
> > 
> > I reiterate that this will further entrench a very negative
> > impression Bazaar has with many people: that Bazaar is a VCS tied to
> > a particular corporation, and communities would be better advices to
> > choose a VCS with a more independent focus, like Git or Mercurial.
[…]
>
> I really, *really* struggle with this FUD.

I hate it too (though, as I say, I am wary that it not become less FUD
and more truth). I'm ppinting out that the above action — deliberately
entangling the Canonical corporation and the Bazaar project more in the
public perception — is entrenching this FUD rather than combating it.

> Canonical is sponsoring Bazaar because […]

I'm very glad Canonical is sponsoring Bazaar. The above action doesn't
follow from that, though.

> If you need to debate Bazaar's "independence" (whatever that means)
> with others, stick to our track record. […]

Entangling the Canonical and Bazaar brands, to the extent that it is
successful, will mean that the impression is already made in people's
minds; surely that's the whole *point* of a branding effort.

By the time *I*, or others like me, get to debate with such people, the
impression is already made. It would be foolish to think that mere facts
presented later can do much against the emotional impact of a deliberate
branding effort's first impression.

> Taking some time to focus on our most important customer is good:

Agreed; again, the above action doesn't follow from that.

> * Git got better by being a good tool for kernel developers.

Both Git and Linux are user-run organisations, which means this isn't a
negative impression as described above. There isn't an overwhelming
controlling interest by one party, and (importantly) no perception of
this either.

> * Mercurial got better by being a good tool for developers working on
>   Sun projects.

Case in point. Mercurial is *not* branded as “Sun's Mercurial”. That
Mercurial helps one customer a lot doesn't at all imply that the
customer's name and brand should be entangled with Mercurial. Bazaar can
help an important customer, help the wider community, *and* remain
independent in public perception.

My point is that Mercurial has avoided the effect I describe above in
large part *because* they have not tied their name to any one
corporation. This makes it very easy for large projects (e.g. Python) to
choose them, *because* Mercurial is perceived as quite independent from
single controlling interests.


Surely we've long been in agreement that Bazaar has an image problem,
and that people are choosing other VCSen in droves largely because of
the poor perception Bazaar has? The perception that Bazaar is unduly
tied to a single corporation is *part of that image problem*. I want it
to lose that problem, not have it further entrenched.

I'm saying that, if we want that perception to improve and make it much
easier for decision-makers to choose Bazaar, we must convince Canonical
to *not* further play to the FUD that Bazaar is first and foremost a
Canonical product. Such decision-makers already have available to them
VCSen that are technically capable and perceived as free from
controlling interests; let's not have Bazaar miss out on that point.

-- 
 \     “Don't be afraid of missing opportunities. Behind every failure |
  `\         is an opportunity somebody wishes they had missed.” —Jane |
_o__)                                          Wagner, via Lily Tomlin |
Ben Finney