[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: crossley
Date: Sat Mar 18 07:14:25 2006
New Revision: 386854
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=386854&view=rev
Log:
Expanded our definition of the Apache Way. Please amend if you think that
you can do better.
Thanks David. I can't do better but I would like to make some *general*
observations.
For the benefit of all readers, let me stress the word *general* again,
these observations have nothing to do any specific incidents or any
specific individuals here in Forrest (other than one specific reference,
which is clearly noted), they are just general observations that I have
drawn from many years of experience in Open Source Software and Open
Development in various forms.
For some context with respect to other forms of Open Development I refer
to readers should know that I also have a background in academic
research, which is often an Open Process, involving researchers from
multiple backgrounds, nationalities, industries, universities and
companies. The academic open processes, unlike open source software
development, has many *hundreds* of years of process development.
During that time some fairly rigorous conventions for the recognition of
individuals in a open research project have been developed.
Whilst these open development processes are not directly transferable to
Open Source Software, I think there are some transferable lessons.
Now to my observation. Davids definition of the "Apache Way" is very
good, IMHO. Let me highlight one specific part...
+ to ensure that each contributor is recognised and
+ feels a productive part of the community; to encourage diversity;
I think this is the "sticking point" in any open development. The
problem is that it is natural for individuals to feel that recognition
involves seeing their name in lights.
In an Open Source Project, or more importantly, a project developed
using an open process, such as Forrest, most contributions of actual
code are supported by, or at least *should* be supported by, design
discussion, oversight, testing, documentation, bug fixes and much more.
No code contribution is an independent unit of work (or should not be).
It is therefore impossible to credit individual contributors, it is
simply unmanageable, even if it is possible to identify each part of a
contribution.
These observations have been made many times on this list. Most recently
they have been been referred to as FUD, and as individual opinion. Let
me be absolutely clear, in my (not so humble) opinion, this is *not*
FUD. It is an observation informed by many years of experience within
Open Source and Open Development communities. Further, it is an
observation repeated by many such experienced individuals both here in
Forrest and across the ASF as a whole.
Could I/we be wrong? Yes, of course I/we can. Nevertheless, I restate my
conviction that the current meritocracy process is recognition enough in
a healthy community. This meritocracy process is amazingly similar to
the academic research meritocracy in which people are awarded titles in
recognition of their contributions to their field.
Perhaps, more importantly...
Whilst Forrest is a great tool, it is unlikely to go down as an
important advancement in the development of computer software.
Is there really anything in here that is such a leap forward that we
need to claim individual ownership?
If there is, then we can trust to history to figure out who gets the
credit. That is the point of an Open Development process, everything is
documented and openly available.
Since I find myself repeating myself, I ought to shut up until someone
comes up with an argument that is convincing to me.
Ross
