Re: COMMENTARY: The War, or Has Anyone Actually Read ESR?

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

> 
> To me, it is fairly obvious that we have none such, and yet we are
> hearing clamerings that Bowie's not playing Open Source. This is one
> of the bigger misconceptions I see. Bowie was trying to run a Bazaar
> model as best he could before everything seems to have degenerated
> into Open Chaos. Yes, he appeared to be secretive and it seemed like
> he was hiding things. This is NOT a Bad Thing. As we can now see, he
> was working very hard on a document. Due to popular request, all
> progress has been slowed as it now appears he ratifies each point by
> committee. (That's a touch of sarcasm, by the way.)

Thank god, someone FINALLY sees what we're doing here, with the UISG..

> 
> A quote from Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man Month, Chapter 4:
> 
> "I will contend that conceptual integrity is *the* most important
> consideration in system design. It is better to have a system omit
> certain anomalous features and improvements, but to reflect one set of 
> design ideas, than to have one that contains many good but independent 
> and uncoordinated ideas." [emphasis in original]
> 
> He goes on to discuss that any successful program or documentation
> should be the product of one or two minds, with the input of many. esr
> discusses this, and as I have pointed out already Linus provides a
> good example. In the end, they are each In Charge. If you have a pet
> patch that you want in fetchmail or Linux and it doesn't fit into the
> whole design and scheme according to Linus or esr, then it doesn't go
> in. What do you do if this ticks you off? I'll get to that.

A m e n.

 
> Next issue. I heard somebody justify the RSG in the following manner
> (paraphrasing): "That's what Open Source is! Look at Apache! They just
> took the source and started modifying it!" Further clarification is
> needed here. In the coder community there is an evil thing, which I
> have seen referred to as the Code Fork. If you fork an existing and
> active project for what are viewed as unnecessary and complicating
> reasons, you will be shunned and hated around the `net. Apache did no
> such thing. They took existing code and modified it, yes. But they
> then respectfully submitted the patches to the original
> maintainers. When it became apparent that the original maintainers
> were no longer interested in the project as a whole and it was clear
> that the license allowed them, they formed a new project. esr
> addresses this as well in his paper (url referred above) in describing 
> the role and responsibilities of a maintainer.
> 
> Has this happened here with the RSG? I am not sure. I highly doubt
> it. I think what we really have here is confusion resulting from two
> projects in one mailing list. Imagine for a moment all the Linux and
> FreeBSD people were required to discuss development of their
> respective programs in the same mailing list. Or, if OpenGL and
> Direct3D developers were required to ask and discuss OpenGL and
> Direct3D questions in the same mailing list. Pure chaos would
> ensue. Pure chaos is ensuing here. See any similarities?

Complete, and total similarities. The real job is trying to make others
aware of it. 

> >From a certain perspective it may be valid to have two or three SG
> projects. May the best man win, and all that! We've certainly seen
> that before in the Open Source community. What we do not need are two
> or three SG projects in the same discussion channel. Especially with
> radically different development metaphors.

We have no problem with other concurrent style guide projects. Our problem
is when these other style guide projects begin hosing the focus we're
trying to retain here on the mailing list. You cant have 8 people all
talking on the same telephone line about 4 different topics. Sure, you can
talk, but you wont get a thing done.

> 
> I'll bring up an earlier point again, to reinforce it, and then close
> with a dose of realism. Where the issues at stake are philosophical or
> of the mind, democracy has never worked--even the United States is not
> a democracy, but a republic. Another way of saying this is, think
> about the words "design by committee". Isn't that one of the most evil
> phrases in modern society? Look carefully over the literature and the
> examples. Every successful Open Source project has ultimately been the
> work of one mind or one entity. If Netscape dropped the source on us,
> and said: "Okay, go to it! Make it better! We wash our hands of it
> all.", Mozilla would be dead and bloated and we'll all be running
> Internet Explorer on NT7 in a few years. Instead, they maintain
> control and a directing influence over it.
> 
> Okay, the promised wrapping up. A quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt:
> 
> "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it 
> frankly and try another. But above all, try something."
> 
> Two things to be said here. First, this is all about building
> something greater than us all. It's not about who's dad has a bigger
> car, or who can yell the loudest. Let's all be rational in our
> discussion.

Agreed. 
 
> Second, let's just get to work and produce something. Let Bowie hunker
> down and pump something out. I strongly believe that Tom and his group
> should create their own mailing list to develop what is, in reality, a
> seperate project. I've offered Tom his own mailing list (heck, even
> webspace and semi-vanity hostname if he wants) on my server network so
> that he can continue his project with what he feels is the best
> development model, without disturbing the UISG's development. I'm not
> saying no communication should go between. If you want, subscribe to
> both mailing lists. Gleen ideas from both, but keep comments relevant
> to the building up of the repsective projects focused in their own
> arena.

Dude, you are our Savior. :) I could NOT have said the above post any
better myself. I have absolutely no problem with other style guides taking
from our work, in developing their own--Infact, i've encouraged it. But to
have two or more style guides competing for the attention of the mailing
list will only result in Chaos.

Bowie


> 
> My two cents.

Your two cents are worth a mint, right now.

> 
> -- 
> chris jantzen kb7rnl =-> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> systems administrator |    __O   |          student
> maybe.net             |  _`\<,_  |     oregon state
> possibly the best     | (*)/ (*) | computer science
> ---------------------------------------------------
>   http://www.maybe.net/ - mailto:chris@maybe.net