On Tue, April 25, 2006 3:19 pm, Paul Speed said: > Sure, if just always seems to me that the "I want to be a committer" > guys that haven't contributed any code are 100% ego. They just want > their name on the list. To them, forking the code is not at all > appealing since they only want the recognition.
Totally agree. > And there's the other > side of the coin, if you have some specific direction you need to take > the code and are willing to put the work in then a fork is totally > appropriate and if no one else uses it, well that was only a secondary > concern anyway. Also agree. I think forking when you have a specific need is not a problem. > I have several open source projects of my own and some small amount of > "fame" due to that, but at the end of the day I still wrote those > projects for my own needs... which makes them useful by definition. The > fact that others use them is icing on the cake. (Though it is a warm > fuzzy feeling when I go to respond to someone's post on the NWN forums > only to see that several others have already recommended my tools...) Same here. All the open-source projects I started were to serve some need that I had. JWP has evolved into something that is trying to anticipate the needs of others and service them, but many, maybe even most, of the things on our to-do list are things we want to use ourselves. That particular part of the Apache Way has never escaped me :) > I think people who think about having their name on the committers list > first and "what can I do to help" second will always be frustrated and > disappointed at an apache project. Just my gut feeling and experience. Agreed. > I think there are different levels of "stake". There is the "stake in > the code" that your project depends on it... in an emergency, you can > fork it. There is the "stake in the code" that you are notionally and > legally responsible for what is produced (ie: a committer). The first > is a completely single-direction dependency. If you think about things > from the code's perspective, it only has a stake in the committers... > and that's only while things are still broken. ;) Hehe... kind of scary to anthropomorphize code... SkyNet anyone?!? >> Simply putting code out there and sharing your work is great, but going >> back to a point I made some weeks ago, I beleive there is a >> responsibility >> that comes along with it when you do that. Whether they should or not, >> people become dependent on the project... not in a cocaine kind of way >> of >> course, but they are "counting on you" basically. That to me implies >> taking into consideration their needs and wants. Not above your own of >> course, but to some degree. > > Yeah, but see... that's almost a moralistic view. The code only cares > that _someone_ is using it. So as long as it has committers that "eat > their own dogfood" it is happy. The committers should feel motivated to > listen to the community because the community ideas could help them do > their own jobs better. But it isn't an obligation at all. The license > is liberal, you can fork whenever you want. It *is* a moralistic view, I agree. I've just always felt that approaching things moralisticly yields better results than not, be it with code or in life. I already know most don't agree with me, I had the argument with Ted a few weeks back :) That's OK though, it's just a different mindset, no big deal. >> Thanks for commenting, you are always welcome as far as I'm concerned :) > > Sure, I always have an opinion on something. ;) Hehe, and I don't?!? You really *haven't* been around here long, have you?!? LOL > -Paul Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
