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

[Tom Vogt <tom lemuria org>]

Chris Jantzen <chris@maybe.net> wrote:
> 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.

I would add a forth thing, called patch. take the original, change what you
don't like and feed it back into the project - the list in this example.

I do, however, see now that it didn't succeed because none of the advances
of the RSG were taken up and used.


> 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.

I'm not sure if secrecy is ever needed in this process. this is not a
program, and works slightly different. I don't see a point prior to which a
group contribution would not make sense.


>  > 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.

no, I will not subscribe to both. maybe I'm paranoid, but the sheer amount
and aggressiveness of the recent flames have kind of used up my will to
contribute despite obvious hatred. should bowie and dan have planned to
simply drive everyone who doesn't like their style off the list - well, I
guess they pretty much succeeded.


>  > 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.

but he's neither the owner nor the king. a project leader in open source
development works fundamentally different from one in, say, the commercial
development sector.


> He is The President. He is The Boss.

I can't agree on that. he's the center in the same way the early chiefs of
tribes were the center of the clan - but not by being appointed, but for
their abilities.


> 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.

I can not agree with that, and the reason for that is very simple. if half
the list would have argued against point X, with three or four active
supporters of the RSG arguing against, I would agree with you. however, the
case was more that dan was the one who argued in increasing volume about the
same points over and over again. this might have discredited the RSG in your
eyes, though, I can see how the wrong impression was created.


> 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.

there was an initial outline, there were constant releases and permanent
communication without any kind of leadership. I took the job to select what
and how things were integrated into the final document.

that's the RSG. in my eyes, of course, other people will have different
impressions on this one, as well as on the UISG:

no initial product anywhere in sight, no releases, neither early nor often
(on the contrary a statement from bowie that it shouldn't be released until
it's a finished draft), some communication, but usually in a question-answer
style and often without feedback what happened to the contribution.

this is how I see the UISG. again, it might be different to you, but if you
for a moment put aside your own view and adopt mine - can you see why I
started the RSG, still consider it the better approach and why I am very sad
that bowie first flames around, then goes the "I own this thing, get out"
way?

I considered writing "angry" up there. but on revision, it went out, because
I'm actually more sad than angry.


-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
		-- Henry Spencer