[openbeos] Re: The importance of good communications
- From: "Niels Reedijk" <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:10:02 +0000
Hi Stephan,
As for help with your work on the USB stack. Don't you understand the
simple fact that everyone had other stuff to do? I know it sucks if you
need help, but that is the truth and it doesn't even mean that no one wants
to help. For example, I read through all your code one day, but I simply
didn't have anything to contribute/help. Now Michael is helping with USB.
It has at least encouraged you to pick up work on the UBS stack again.
Thank you for reading through the code.
Wonderful! But how can you hold a grudge against anyone for not having
drawn their attention towards USB before? It is like holding a grudge
towards weather.
I'm not angry at a person. I just feel uncomfortable about what
happened. But I won't go into it basically because it's something that
doesn't matter. I was using USB to illustrate the point that there is
a lacking open communication platform.
And one thing I found most untrue in your email is that of the open
development process. How could it possibly be more open? Are you
*seriously* not on the commit list? If you were, you would have known about
Michaels USB progress at the same time as everyone else, right when it
happened. When Michael temporarily had no internet access, he even went
through the hassle and wrote a lengthy blog entry, just to keep everyone
informed. He even posted to this list about it!! IIRC, you were the one
doing your development in private, and not right in the repository.
I'll pick it up here again. Open Source Projects are not only about
the product - the code - only. Open Source is a way of software
development. It implies building up a community with several spheres
(core developers, developers, testers, helpful users, whining users).
This community is based on the free flow of information. But
unfortunately, information, comparable to many concepts in physics,
has the tendency to flow in a lot of directions instead of a central
point. If there's no central point where core developers (like you)
communicate, then it means that this project is based on a very
dispersed information distributions system (a mix of the many lists,
forums and private mails). This leads to a very difficult situation
for happy enthusiastic newcomers that want to help. Imagine if I want
to help with my general C/C++ skill set. Where do I go? To the
mailinglist? I'd have to ask what needs to be done. The fact that I
explicitly need to ask for information that's difficult to collect,
proves that the information structure is too difficult.
I'd even like to put it this way: why do we/you still insist on
keeping everything in teams? Haiku has big goals, but a small
development team. Heck, there are cd-burning applications with a
larger development teams. They use one mailing list, We've got like
10? Plus a whole range of forums (just to duplicate information).
Keeping everything in teams is just plain overhead. If I want to do
something, I'm bound to be referred to other places at least two times
(one time to another mailinglist, then probably to a person who
'knows', but eventually doesn't seem to know, and I probably end up at
axeld.). That's why a communications team is just plain silly. It will
probably consist of one or two persons, who will get their own list,
their own forum, while they just need to work with everybody else. Say
it with me, *overhead*.
Haiku is a closed project, just because bits and pieces of information
are everywhere. There are a few core developers that seem to know much
(but not everything), probably because they hang out in all the forums
and mailing lists. I made the false assumption that things were
communicated on the admin list. I was wrong, I'm sorry. But it still
means that the development process doesn't get the predicate community
project.
And you mentioned "official word". Is it only official when Michael Phipps
wrote it? Am I less official, even if I wrote the entire icon stuff? And by
the way, Michael did post an email on the subject, stating that what I said
was the official opinion (or something to that effect, because some other
people asked as well).
I do not doubt your knowledge and comments on this topic, but I claim
that in fact you have no authority. Michael might have, due to the
history of this project, but in reality information is too much
dispersed to create a single voice. Authority in Open Source means
that information comes from established communication channels. Those
channels are the platforms on which important things are centrally
discussed. I'm not talking about whether the icon should be light blue
or dark blue, that's a private mailing list or even a private mail,
but I'm talking about the discussion on the icon contest. I applaud
the discussion on the mailing list, because suddenly all kinds of
people who have been sitting here quietly had the opportunity and the
platform to _centrally_ communicate, since it seemed that the core
developers weighed in as much as the 'lurkers'. But why was this idea
started somewhere else? Why don't we have more of these discussions?
Why is there a complete secondary communication going on on the web
forums?
It's exactly this lack of central communication that keeps haiku from
gaining development momentum. Over the years I've seen people trying
to contribute things, but their efforts were lost and they
disappeared. It's not the fault of a person, it's the fault of the
fact that the division of the project into kits and teams seems to
create a false assumption that there are actually teams of more than a
few people.
I'm suggesting to fix this. Not only for the coding, but also to
create a place where for example QA and artwork can be communicated by
both inactive people that want to contribute and by the core
developers who won't feel out of place because they are communicating
outside their team.
I'm talking about opening up the development process.
Please, there certainly are things which can be improved. But please keep
the discussion honest. (I mean to honestly analyse the cause of some
things, and if one can even do something about them. And don't post untrue
accusations.)
I apologize once again for calling the admin list a 'core-devel' list.
It was a misinterpretation of the facts (you know the human mind).
Luckily for me, my argumentation stands without this particular
element, and I hope we can discuss it based on the ideas put forward
in this mail.
Thank you,
Niels
Other related posts:
