Hi Davide,
Davide Dozza wrote:
Hi Juergen,
I wouldn't discuss about [2] and [3]. They are just examples and they
have been discussing on other places.
I would like to discuss about [1] and why we are almost the same people
any year, why the number of participants doesn't grow and why large
proportion of people comes from few companies.
i think that is obvious because these companies invest a lot of money in
the project in form of developer resources. The work has to be done and
it is good that some companies pay full time developers for their work.
Otherwise we wouldn't be there where we are today. Each individual
contributor can help a little bit and that is fantastic. Every little
contribution is important. See for example localization, it is an area
where our community works great because it is much easier to extract
this piece of work from the normal development process.
It is more difficult in other areas but it is not impossible and of
course i claim that things become better and better. And we do of course
can do a lot of more things to improve and simplify it.
And of course i would say it is the same as for other open source
projects as well, isn't it. I think Linux is driven in the same way.
Huge amount of work is done by full time developers of companies and
additionally to that tons of smaller contributions from individuals.
The problem is always the same. IMHO our project is likely definable as
big companies project with an end-user community collaboration.
i don't think so. But isn't it more that people who do most of the work
can control more. Or let us say you need some kind of reputation to get
accepted in a community. I wouldn't say that Sun control everything
automatically but Sun does a lot and of course with the right quality.
So it is natural that Sun or better developers paid from Sun drive
things forward.
From my point of view it is often quite simply as it is. If you want
something and it fits in the project rules simply start to do it. Don't
expect that others do the work for you.
When you the right things and the quality is good you get your
reputation over time and more and more people will listen to you.
It is not enough to discuss only and of course it is not enough to make
too much noise with only minor contributions.
Sun hasn't make too much noise about their contributions in the past and
that is maybe the reason why others are put in the wrong light.
What I would like to see is the project transformed in a really free
software community project with companies collaboration, maybe with a
sort of hybridization model.
i am not sure if i understand what you mean but i think we already have
that or better had it in the past. I am not sure how the collaboration
with Novell for example should work in the future.
Even IMHO this is the main reason because our community doesn't grow as
they should.
are you sure?
I think is time to change some rules. The model is showing his limits.
what exactly do you mean?
What are, at the moment, the proposals to solve such problem and open
our project to external contributions also in term of management?
A geological era ago (in 2001) someone proposed the creation of a
foundation.
http://www.openoffice.org/white_papers/OOo_project/openofficefoundation.html
This argument has been discussed privately every year.
Is it time maybe to rivive this discussion?
i think not, what would it really change? Ask yourself if you would
change anything for your own work on the project. And if yes what does
you really prevent form doing it today?
Juergen
Davide
Juergen Schmidt wrote:
Hi Davide,
i think [3] is a special thing and we all agree that it is a sad story.
We should exactly identify what the problems were and should start to
work on them. Does they still exists? Or have some things already changed.
[2] is more or less around the JCA where i don't see that a further
discussion make sense.
If you want to start a discussion around community and community work i
would suggest that you should clearly communicate your concerns. List
all your concerns in detail and ideally suggest ways how we can improve
it. I am sure that we are all open to discuss these points with you.
What i personally don't like to do is a general discussion on a level
where we talk more about politics than about real community work on a
great product.
Well a lot of things can be improved and i think we are working already
on it.
Bring up your concrete concerns and let us discuss
Juergen
Davide Dozza wrote:
Hi all,
some days ago I launched a stone into the water. I posted some
consideration [1] about the OOoCon and more in general about our
community.
It seems that things don't happen alone. After the Michael Meeks
announce [2] following the Kohei [3] post I think there is something to
discuss about our "community" and how they should evolve. In fact it
seems clear to me that the actual community rules, and more in general
about how the project is managed, are not anymore suitable to manage
what the Community asks.
I'm deliberating using two terms, "community" and Community, because I
think there is a common misinterpretation about what a community is.
Hoping this start a constructive discussion,
Ciao
Davide
[1]
http://robertogaloppini.net/2007/10/02/openofficeorg-conference-2007-some-thoughts/
[2] http://www.gnome.org/~michael/activity.html#2007-10-02
[3] http://kohei.us/2007/10/02/history-of-calc-solver/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
