On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 19:38 +1200, Michael Adams wrote: > > Even if this sort of thing was rare, the fact that it can happen shows > > that something is broken. So to me, there is not much point in > > fiddling around with the balance of code contributors vs project leads > > when the fundamental power lies with neither group and is unelected. > > This type of thing (dictatorial actions) sounds related to what caused > the split from Mambo to create Joomla! a while back. The situation is > not at all identical - but the similarities, and depth of feeling do > ring the same to me.
In the wider scheme of things, one of the advantages of Open Source projects is that they can be forked - at least that provides some incentives to do the right thing. The downside is of course the disruption that would cause and with a project the size of OOo, it would require someone with considerable resources. It would be far better to persuade Sun to set up a foundation with a proper democratic constitution. I'm not holding my breath - that has been talked about for years and never seems to get anywhere. It just requires the right leadership and perhaps eg Google, Novell, Canonical and IBM to partner to demonstrate a balance in input and control. > Still the Joomla! team have not had an easy time of it either since. > They were focusing on new software and were very reluctant to provide > updates for the old version until they were told the consequences. A foundation would likely solve that sort of problem. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
