[openbeos] Re: Open Letter: Project Administration - Was: Re: FalterCon 2007 Permissions - Official Response
- From: "Euan Kirkhope" <euan.kirkhope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:58:25 +0100
On 05/08/07, Niels Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Oliver and administration team members,
>
> This is an open letter, because I hope it will stimulate you to really
> discuss the contents of this message.
>
> Apart from whether or not I think there should be a Faltercon Demo CD
> or not, or whether or not I doubt the decision made by the
> administration team, the justifications for the structure of the
> administration team once again made me cringe. This time I can't
> withold myself from commenting. (However much I respect you as
> developers and inspirators).
>
> Note that this is not a call for a new 'openness' discussion, but
> rather to let us all accept the dire reality and stop useless false
> justifications on the existence of the administration team. In other
> words, let's just put our heads in the sand and get things done. (Read
> on, don't comment on this teaser).
>
> 2007/8/5, Oliver Tappe <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > Drawing that line is pretty easy, actually. Just like many other open source
> > projects, Haiku has established a decisive body (the admin team) which is
> > responsible for steering the project. If you are part of that team, you have
> > your direct say in the decision making. If not, you are invited to state
> > your
> > view on this list and you may manage to influence one or the other admin.
> > However, once a decision has been made, it should be accepted.
>
> Stop right there. "Haiku has established a decisive body". Who was
> Haiku when the decisive body was established? Two options, the
> community that wanted to rebuild BeOS, or the developers that were
> actually doing it. To be honest, I think in the early phases those two
> were the same thing. How has Haiku changed? Does it include the
> enthousiasts? Does it include the people contributing on the web? Or
> is the definition of Haiku still the people that are in the admin
> team? I wouldn't know the answer, since there never were a clear list
> of tasks and obligations published for members of the admin team.
>
> > > Is their input worth any less than code put forth by Axel, yourself etc. ?
> >
> > How do you compare contributions? By weight or by size? ;-)
> >
> > The simple fact is: every member of the admin team has one vote, everyone
> > else has none. That's how it works, just like in a representative democracy:
> > you can try to convice people that are entitled to partake in decisions, but
> > you shouldn't bully them.
>
> Please don't compare it with a representative democracy, you're
> creating a false sentiment. If it were like a representative
> democracy, I would at least have to feel represented (which I don't -
> not an issue for me right now btw). Oh, and it should be a democracy.
> But that's impossible to judge, because we don't know who 'Haiku' is.
>
> > > Any vote by the admin team is supposed to reflect what the community
> > > want.
> >
> > Surely not, as there is no such thing as the *community*, there are just
> > people interested in haiku. We'd have to organize votes throughout the
> > community, which just doesn't scale.
>
> But ... I thought it was like a representative democracy? ;-)
>
> > > Most people don't care about Haiku. Its going to take YEARS to get to
> > > the stage where you can talk to your average techie and mention Haiku
> > > before he knows what it is. In the meantime, we need all the
> > > developers, artists, and geek-users who don't mind a crash we can get.
> > >
> > > I think the questions that that needs asking RIGHT NOW isn't if things
> > > like this should be allowed or not allowed. It should be why is the
> > > community so polarized on their opinions. Get that sorted and you
> > > won't need an admin team.
> >
> > Yeah, have you noticed that your last sentence is asking *others* (not
> > yourself) to get that community sorted? Do you happen to have a good recipe
> > for that, so we can start executing?
>
> Well, I don't know about Andrew, but _I_ can give you a recipe.
>
> In my view, the administration team is the body that evenly
> distributes the resources that are available for a purpose. Three
> things that need to be defined:
>
> First there is the word 'resource'. In the case of Haiku it means
> things like donation money, trademarks, image and influence (by means
> of official recognition), etc. Even people, though limited because of
> the fact that it is an open source volunteer effort. What is a
> resource that the administration team controls and what is not?
>
> Then there is the 'purpose'. What is the purpose? Flesh it out. It
> currently is to rewrite an open source BeOS R5 clone. That's somewhat
> clear. But what's the definition of clone? How do the interface kit
> layout changes fit in? Is that part of the purpose? Should we allow
> resources (read: svn commit acces) for that? How do other non-clone
> contributions fit in? What's the magic recipe? Also, think about the
> other side of purpose. Is it the purpose of the project to create a
> completely stable operating system, or is the purpose at the moment to
> lure in as much developers. _Purpose_ is not fixed, it will change
> over time. But it should be clear at all times.
>
> Then there is 'evenly distributes'. What are the criteria for evenly?
> What resources belong to the community? What kind of things should be
> decided on? Where does the bulk of the 'evenly' go to? To proven
> contributors? How are the resources distributed? By an administration
> team vote? Does the administration team have members with different
> roles that can decide on their own?
>
> Now if you define these three things, you will have a model that will
> shape two things. First of all it will shape the administration team,
> its members and it's decision making process to fit with the purpose
> of the project. And you know what? I don't think the current structure
> is that fitting. But because of the obscurity that is created without
> this clear mission statement, and the lack of a clear description of
> the role of the administration team, there's no way to judge it or to
> suggest changes.
>
> Secondly it will give interested people a chance to decide whether or
> not they align with the ideas the 'project' has. For people that
> don't, they might end up deciding not to put in their resources in the
> mix. Some might decide that they largely agree and are willing to
> fight for the rest of their individual ideas. But what it will do is
> that anyone currently on this list will be able to decide whether or
> not they belong to the community.
>
> Now what should you do with this idea? Since the administration team
> currently holds control of all resources, it's logical that this
> should be discussed on _your_ mailing list. I know that there must be
> a legion of people that want to comment on this. That's why I said we
> should put our heads in the sand: we don't control the resources (or
> at least, not a significant enough part of it), so any discussion is
> pointless.
>
> So what can an ordinary mailing list reader do? Whether or not you are
> a lurker, a casual contributor or a frequent contributor, evaluate if
> you are currently happy with the direction the project is going. But
> as soon as you feel you are wasting your time, fly away. There's so
> much more to experience.
>
> Currently, I feel alienated. I hardly can put in the effort on the API
> documentation. I have a sort of Haiku-tiredness. I think defining the
> purpose of Haiku is important to me, to check whether or not I align
> with the community. Because in my world, a community is a group of
> people that support a common purpose, and I'm just not sure that I'm
> on the same line as those that control the resources.
>
> So, as a final request to us non-administrators, just stop discussing
> the issue of trademarks, cd's and openness. It's not our call to make.
> It's theirs.
>
> Niels.
>
>
+1 Thanks Niels you've put across a lot of points that exactly match
my opinions.
Euan
Other related posts:
