Hi guys,
I can't help but feel that this discussion is caused by the way the 'project' is organized. I feel that some kind of structure has developed over the years that might have it's backlash right now.
Warning: long post, there is a summary in the last paragraph but please don't respond without reading the argumentation.
I'd like to start off with what lead me to the conclusions:
Ever since I started watching the project, back in the days where there were more Spice Girls than coders, there seemed to be two different communication channels. This one, as general development list, and the admin-list. (Yes, there are others, but apart from the app_server nothing was really very active...) This list was pretty quiet, but then again, so was the cvs commit list.
I noticed sometimes, whenever I tried to get into the project, that some of my ideas were short-circuited with a message sort of like 'has been discussed on the admin list'. At other times, threads from the admin list were continued here, as they were for general interest.
But recently I asked a developer what the status of the USB was. He quoted from an e-mail on the admin list. The information had hardly an administrative nature, and with the current discussion I realize that this might have been a symptom of the current problem.
Since a long time the project starts to gain momentum, which I think can be pinpointed to the new website, and the fact that the 'makeimage' (or something like that) existed to easily create a bootable haiku installation. However, ever since activity has been rising, it struck me that the amount of e-mail traffic - especially on this list - didn't quite rise linearly. It also strikes me that whenever something big is happening (like the USB thing), every core developer (which is a small group) seems to know things. I can't help but feel that the admin list has evoluted into a core-developer list.
Whether it's via this invisible list (literally: I don't think there's an accessible emailadress of it on the web page), or via other communication means, I just can't help to conclude that while Haiku may be open source, the development is closed. There's so much going on, and we hear so little. Michael, as a project lead, how come we hardly ever see messages from you besides the newsletters?
That has it's backlash on community initiative, which is happening right now with the icon contest. I have seen many people send in e-mails with enthousiasm, but rarely I've seen posts from the core developers. With the icon contest it's no different, finally there is an aspect of haiku that doesn't include coding and that can be discussed here freely, but at the same time it misses something like official blessing.
It's time whether to decide if Haiku is an Open Source Project or not. Mind you, I don't care what the outcome is, but in any case a clear decision has to be made - in fairness to all people that are sitting here hoping to contribute one day.
If Haiku is an open source project, than realize that it means that you need to have a level of transparency. This means that it should be visible what's on the minds of the people that can be considered 'core developers'. I sense that in some ways the admin list has become the hangout for the core developers. I would suggest, to separate the administrative things (tax status, hosting - things not in general interest or things that need not be discussed in general), from the development issues. Perhaps - to the concept of the KDE project - open up a core-developers list, of which the archives are publicly available. You probably should choose to let the core developers post freely, but everyone should have the possibility to send e-mails which will be looked at by a moderator. This also really opens up the possibilities for us outsiders that want to contribute, because it means that our ideas and our work is considered in public channels. Plus there will be a communication channel that is publicly blessed.
The other form of being Open Source is by replacing the transparency with a set of rigid procedures on how to contribute. Perhaps it's time to have the return of the recruiter. Perhaps it's time to have a contact that connects people to core developers that can help. Anyway, it should be clear for anyone that want to get involved, how they should be. The 'just start' method is terrible. I'm a person that wants a lot of feedback on the work I'm doing, because I'm insecure due to the fact that I'm a self-taught coder. I'm not bearing any grudge (well - actually, I am, but that's a different matter), but I had to abandon my USB attempts because I got stuck at a certain point, and despite all the community help, there was no one from the core team that could help me. Michael Lotz fixed the issue and - frankly - it seemed like a superficial one. We new guys need feedback and help from people that matter.
Or perhaps I'm all wrong, and this isn't an Open source project at all. This is just a group of people releasing source code. If that really is the case - which I find rather hard to accept due to the mission statement - please be frank and open about that. It will save a lot of us a lot of time and effort trying to pry into something that is completely closed.
In short: I'm trying to turn something that started out as a discussion on icons, which turned into a discussion on the nature of communications into a discussion on the nature of the project. Communication of the project is spread out over IRC, web forums and several mailing lists, and still I feel that any official form of communication, or communication on core development, is missing. This sort of closes the development process for people that aren't on the elite communication medium. And it causes a lot of frustration. The Icon contest discussion shows the value of community input, but it also shows the brick wall that's between the core developers and the community. I hope we can turn it into glass.
That about wraps up what I wanted to say. I'm back to getting ohci to work now...
Niels