[openbeos] Re: Openness

  • From: "Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki)" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 18:35:21 -0700

Hi Axel,

Axel Dörfler wrote:
Would you at least be open to the possibility that it may be *one* of the reasons? :)

Maybe, but I sincerely doubt that it scared off even a single contributor.

Are you open to the possibility that you may be missing something and that as a result your assessment may be incorrect?

Just take Linux into the comparison - the sheer number of contributors makes it more or less impossible that you have a say. In fact, there is only one person that rules it all - and yet it seems to work quite well for whatever reason.
Is this a valid comparison? I think Linux (the kernel) has very different needs from Haiku (the full fledged OS) relative to what the project would need in terms of contributors. No?

They are both just open source projects, sure it's a valid comparison. Linux is actually a much larger project than Haiku at this point, being a "full fledged OS" or not.

Just because they are both open source projects, it does not mean that they have the same needs. Haiku, which is a complete OS, needs contributors in many more areas of expertise than Linux, which is only a kernel.

Just to illustrate, I trust that you will make sound decisions about the Haiku kernel; but my confidence level would drop dramatically if you had to make a decision about, say, marketing or advocacy (please, don't take this as a personal offense).

How else am I supposed to understand it with the word "dramatically" in it?

You should not take it as an offense for the same reason that I would be offended if you told me that I know nothing about software development.

This is not directed at putting down your intelligence or intellectual faculties. It's just a general observation in the context of the discussion about trust, and why achievements in one area (coding) cannot automatically translate into trust on other areas (marketing).

Please, do read on and make an effort to understand the idea that I am trying to convey.

You don't need to be a marketing expert to make an informed decision about marketing related questions - or else no political institution could ever work - but it surely helps to have expert input to be well informed.

If that were true, marketeers would be out of the job. :)

This is not about being informed or intelligence. An engineer can be very smart and have a very high IQ. But a person who does not have the training, experience or even the mindset is not the best suited for the job, and may even miss the most obvious. When it comes to things like marketing or advocacy, the admins fall into this category.

Engineers making decisions about marketing is as bad an idea as marketeers making decisions about engineering. It works both ways. :)

Also, what's good for marketing might not be the best decision in terms of what the project actually wants to achieve.

You don't make decisions that are good for marketing. Marketing is just another tool, not the end in itself. You use it to help you achieve your goals, whatever those goals may be (ie., gaining market share, winning an election or growing the dev community of an open source project).



Other related posts: