On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6 Jan 2015, at 18:09, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private > list > >> has no place in Apache projects. Private lists have very limited > >> appropriate uses and that policy has served Apache very well. > > > > +1 > > > > jan i > > > > Say you are right. But in the “real world,” defined by personal experience > and hearsay, the result of such policies (and such tones in their > articulation) is to have discussions entirely off-list. Open source is > meant to be a vehicle by which free collaboration is enabled now and later. > As we’ve surely discussed in the past, in different contexts (at least I > have; I can only assume that if you are reading this you have, too), > there’s usually a tension between what the world expects and what we would > like to do in open source. And sometimes the balance is against us. > > In such situations, I become an advocate of closed source. If you aren't going to walk the walk and do things in an open, community-oriented way, then it really is better to call a spade a spade and make the code be closed source. You can move faster, productively employ genius prima donas and hatch all the secret plans you desire. I would much rather call a spade a spade and get back to work rather than allow a project to veer in to the open source / closed community category. In my experience, being stuck in the closed community state is probably a great indicator of "excessive fascination with the Apache brand". Oddly enough, I have also seen the opposite case of code that is unabashedly closed source being very open to input and community action. Paradoxical.
