[openbeos] Re: Openness

  • From: "Hugo Santos" <hugosantos@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:33:00 +0100

Hey Axel,

 First of all let me state that the points i made were general and
not about me in specific. My motivations are a bit different, and i
just tried to bring into the table some general concerns i personally
have and others which i believe other people in my place might have.

 My main point, and from your reply i would say you disagree with it,
is that new people won't contribute as significantly to something they
can't have a say about. This is basic human behavior and dynamics. An
OSS project participant works in his/hers free time, and as such one
looks to spend it in the most fruitful way for oneself. Not being able
to stear the wheel, ends up being a bit like a company, with the
difference that you may work on what you want, as long as the people
in the admin team agree. I don't think this approach leads to having
new people aboard, and the project history speaks for itself -- most
of the work has been done by a small set of people which are there
since the beginning.

 You didn't reply to my points regarding trust, which are largely
related with what i just talked about, so it's hard to put it whether
you are concerned about it or not. I think those points are very

 Also, let me say i agree your opinion on the fact that advise of
people which don't currently code as well as non-developers is also
important. My only problem is that in Haiku these people don't change.
Like i mentioned in my previous email i've had similiar issues with
other groups in the past, one recent example was my University's LUG,
which just like Haiku was run from nearly the start by a set of known
people (to each other) with a common goal (myself included). As the
years went by, some people stopped having the time or motivation to
participate, and the group started to disappear as there was no
renovation because it remained closed. It was closed in the sense that
the feel outsiders have on how it was run -- they felt that it that
only people already in the group were able to welcome new people to
the group. This sounds vaguely similar to what happens with Haiku,
where only people from the admin team have a say on who is on the
admin team, and those people are the same who started the project 6
years ago. This kind of behavior makes sense for a company, not for
something as dynamic as an OSS project, where the project environment
must help with one's motivation to participate, not deteriorate it.

code submissions alone, especially not just recent contributions. Every
line of code that makes Haiku is important, no matter if it has been
written a month or 3 years ago; we're still working on the first

 I've mentioned something similar to Stefano earlier today, everyone
is important.

A small group works much more effectively if they know each other well
- but of course, this will only work to a certain point.

 People handling is always a difficult task. The effectiveness of a
group is not dictated by how well the people know each other, but how
easily an agreement can be established. A group should be run on the
basis of respect, on respecting each person in the group and value
their opinion. Reaching an agreement means, most of the time, not
forcing our own opinion fully in order to reach a compromise.

That's why it is important that Haiku Inc. is acting as part of Haiku.
The distribution guidelines were discussed and agreed upon in the whole
admin group.

 You missed the point. The admin team decided and now you will
enforce a set of restrictions on _everyone_ developer's contribution.
Stating that the code can not be used in a certain way effectively
changes the license concerning derivative work and/or redistribution.
I'm sure some people who have contributed in the past haven't had
their position taken into account in that admin team decision.


Other related posts: