On Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 17:19:16 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
leadership skills, but said leadership tends to work best when
they
inspire people to follow them, rather than laying down the law
and
saying you must work on X, Y, Z, otherwise you're not helping
The Cause.
This really depends. Human beings are oriented towards "gift
exchange", so if you have good social glue between participants
and they do things for each other on a personal level they will
feel some kind of debt and want to return the "gift". Different
social groups have different dynamics and cohesion.
But when the project becomes big and it is difficult to perceive
changes that are significant I suppose many will feel that
contributions won't matter, because the context is too large. The
website was small enough and contributions are visible... so
people chimed in.
D/phobos is experiencing constant increasing breadth, but if
cutting down the scope is not possible to get backing for you can
break it down into smaller units. Units that can be complete and
polished in reasonable time.
People need closure/catharsis with a reasonable pace...
The successful projects also tend to be those where
contributions of any
kind are welcomed, no matter how trivial they may seem to be
Yes, but I don't think it would hurt to map out what is needed
and how to go about it. I has to be broken down to a measurable
level and then you need to provide designs that are approved.
Implementing a nicely architectured design that is not too big
can be fun. Designing and implementing something that will be
rejected is not fun... The hardest part to get approved is in the
design.
Most successful open source projects follow a ready made
design... E.g. reimplementing commercial role models or
implementing standards.
