[openbeos] Re: The importance of good communications
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:25:56 +0200 CEST
"Niels Reedijk" <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
It's very easy to disagree here: there are lots of different approaches
to open source. I guess I know what you mean, though :-)
[...]
> 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
As you say, Haiku is a small community. Yet, if we had *one* central
channel of communication, we couldn't really communicate anymore over
all that noise. For example, this list has a relatively high noise
ratio, depending on what kind of information you're looking for.
> 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.
You don't even have to ask. We have an up-to-date bug tracker, severly
outdated task lists, there is lots of stuff there, enough for the next
few years if you all wanted to tackle it alone.
Or you just run Haiku, notice "oh, ShowImage doesn't behave like it
should", and then start a vivid discussion on this list, eventually
ending in one or more patches.
The thing is: if you're interested to help, you can't wait for us to
come to you. That would be silly.
[...]
> 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
I very much disagree here. With dedicated channels for different teams,
you reach exactly the developers you want to reach with a certain
topic. It's only grouping information, it's not hiding them from you
(but you certainly don't have to be subscribed to them all, if you're
not working in that area or not interested in a particular area).
It's a feature, not a bug.
> 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.
It's a community of givers, not takers.
It's always hard to learn something new, but I really don't have the
impression that we're making it harder than any other project out
there. In contrast, we try to provide a lot more information than many
others do.
[...]
> 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
This looks like a big misunderstanding. There is no such authority in a
real open source project, what you're looking for is the PR department
from Microsoft (and even they eventually miss the official word).
Official is what we decide on, and what we do. There is no official
spokesperson, nor can there really be one; we don't have a controlled
communication output, and there will never be one to that degree of a
company's (or obviously, your) need.
The most official one you can get is Michael Phipps, but even he
doesn't know everything either :-)
OTOH if you read some things from Stephan like those, you can assume
that this is common sense under the core members, and take his or mine
or Jérôme's, or you-name-it's word as an official one, if it helps you.
[...]
> 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.
No, I have to disagree again: it's the fault of a person. If you want
to contribute, you contribute. If you're too shy, you probably won't,
but then you're also probably not the right one for an open source
project. It's about taking initiative, making your own decisions. You
cannot get a member of the team by sitting and watching (even though
there is nothing wrong with that either). But you can't blame the team
if you don't contribute.
If you have a great idea, that you want to implement, post it on this
list, but get no response, then you're allowed to blame the team if
that shied you away. It doesn't have to shy you away, though.
> 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.
So you're proposing just another channel, right?
Why not just take this very list, then? QA cannot be done without
contact the developers.
> I'm talking about opening up the development process.
The development process is open, maybe it's just too open for you.
Bye,
Axel.
Other related posts:
