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

[Chris Jantzen <chris maybe net>]

[You loved the original in all its weight and glory! Now read the sequel!]

Tom Vogt writes:
 > but so much for the background. the reason why I think your argument is,
 > though quite valid, not appropriate here is that at the time the whole RSG
 > issue started, there simply was not code that could be forked. it's more
 > like GNU NT 5 - people creating something because they're fed up with
 > waiting for it to show up.

That's why I actually said in my original post that I did not believe
this was a fork. At any rate, I think there are only three cases:

1) Fork: Someone takes existing work and modifies to their own end
   without consent or reintegration.
2) Input: What is written is seen as input and adopted or rejected.
3) Separate project: Self explanatory.

We've agreed that number 1 is not the case. Your comments (re:
/dev/null) suggest that number 2 is not perceived to be the case. That
leaves one option.

Re: Secretive; please reread my original post with regards to the
creation stages of a successful bazaar project--perhaps we needed to
wait a little longer. Perhaps, in truth, the mailing list shouldn't
have been opened to discussion or the project preannounced so early.

Re: Reintegration; please reread my original post with regards to
clear direction and focus of authorship--I'll address this again, from 
a different angle further on in this post.

 > intention and seperating these things will - IMHO - only lead to a much
 > reduced performance for both documents, plus more and more unbridgeable
 > differences as I doubt many people will subscribe to both lists.

You will subscribe to both, and I'm sure Bowie will, too. That should
be all that matters.

 > in other words: I don't want to split off because that would violate the
 > whole intention I (and maybe others) have had with the RSG. I would rather
 > drop it as a collection of ideas and hope that when the UISG is there, you
 > copy from it instead of reinventing the wheel and going through the whole
 > discussion again.

There's still a point that is being missed here....

 > [...] - low feedback and some
 > frustration about the way one has the impression(!) that one's contributions
 > go straight to /dev/null - is still there.
 > 
 > I suggest that instead of barraging the list with out-of-context questions
 > the list stops for a moment and decides on those points of the RSG that are

...the point being one I've been trying to make for some time, which
is: the List can't decide anything. In a Bazaar model, there is a
Maintainer. Ultimately it is he who decides. He is the Executive. He
is The President. He is The Boss. The List provides input and feedback
and real-world problems and solutions. The maintainer copes with these
as he sees fit. If you don't like how the maintainer is handling
things, complain to his bosses, or go do it your own way. I certainly
currently have my reservations about Bowie's and co. people skills,
but until Miguel or similar says there is a new maintainer or it
becomes blatantly obvious that another SG is making all the right
decisions and all the real progress (I'm talking like 75-90% complete
vs. 25%, for example), I will respect Bowie's office completely.

Yes, it is entirely likely that I am misreading the original
intentions of those in the RSG camp. However, judging from the
strength of flames over the past week or so, I can only conclude that
these are not arguments supporting input that may or may not be
integrated, but rather defense of another project's decisions.

The key points in an Open Source development model (as I see them
after rereading esr for a third time) are: Build a workable initial
product; Release early and often; Communicate with users and treat
them as equals; Be judicious in selection of input; Wash, rinse,
repeat.

If my interpretation of how things should indeed be running is not as
Miguel and co. intended, then we should stop using the terms Bazaar
and Open Source (or is that Open Document?) and start using terms like
Committee.

[Okay, time to send this, I've reread it six or seven times and
haven't made any changes over the last two passes.]

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