Hi Axel, On 5/14/07, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I believe it influences the amount of people that could approach > the > project as contributors. How so?
From my experience, the idea that it is a small group of people which know each other can be a demoralizing factor to newcomers, as they feel they'll never really get inside the group.
Alright, if all you ask for is more clarity, then I'm with you :-) Personally (and from prior experience in Haiku), I'd say everyone can suggest everyone to become part of the admin group. The group itself then votes if the new member is accepted (ie. is invited) or not.
Yes, clarity. :-)
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.
Linux works a bit differently, there aren't a lot of non-paid kernel developers (at least of large contributions), and those which are non-paid are usually close to the core group anyway. There are several people in Linux that limit what gets in, usually each subsystem maintainer, although Linus has the veto power. It is a small issue as most companies involved ship their own tree instead of vanilla.
Oh, I missed that, sorry. The trust in the project's admin group should be determined by the actions of that group, and what they achieved in the past, right? Most people that are in the admin group today had a big part in shaping Haiku to what it is today - why shouldn't you trust them?
I think it's more to the fact that people tend to trust people they know. The good thing about elections is that they tend to reflect an updated view on trust (or awareness). Trusting someone because they achieved something in the past makes sense while there is a connection between those people and newcomers. I have a great deal of respect for all of the people that contributed to Haiku and brought it to where it is today, however, there must always be space for new people to eventually shape Haiku, so the project may continue evolving.
All we do is protect the name, not the code; ie. you must not call a Haiku distribution Haiku - what part is so hard to understand here? The only thing you could criticize (from an open source POV) is that we are not as free with our trademarks than we are with the code. But not very surprising, most open source projects are.
Ben Allen pointed to me offlist that the trademarked material is not considered software within the MIT license definition. So this is clear to me now. Hugo