On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 20:58, Martin Langhoff<martin.langh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:22 PM, David Farning<dfarn...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: >> Eclipse and Apache both have criteria for becoming a official > > Note that Apache's reason to run this "Apache Projects" is to _extend > the legal protection shield to other projects_. If doesn't care one > zot about what the resulting software _does_. And they only looked > into that once they had their main mission (the webserver) pretty much > cooked. > > I've advised several projects that wanted to "do like apache", and > once they understood what apache does, they did not want to "do like > apache" no more :-) > > > And also... and completely from the outside... I'll apologise in > advance for saying something I know might be controversial. I worry > that SL seems to have -- for a external party like me -- more > bureaucracy than it has people "doing". IMHExperience, the projects I > enjoy working on, and that I see being productive have a much lower > "procedure/label/committe " : contributor ratio. > > Boards, subprojects and such are good things to remember to do when a > project gets big and tensions surface (aside from some specific things > you want "right" from the start -- license, etc). > > This comment is not meant as a trolling attempt (though I fear it'll > end up in tears). The core of what I am trying to say is: doing these > things too early has some risks -- just off the top of my head > > - The FOSS version of being top-heavy, the distraction > > - Newcomers reading all these big names (board, procedures, the board > blessing the SIG) and getting the wrong idea about the project -- this > can discourage the go-getters that like get-it-done environments. > > - Fostering armchair quarterbackers (like yours truly right now :-/ ) > and endless bickering (hmm! debian-legal) -- these are attracted to > "big name" and "big infra" projects. > > I really like GregDek's line: >> I would avoid elections for as long as possible. Vote with your work. > > Time for me to shut up. From now on I assume you know about these > risks, and won't mention the topic in polite company no more. After > all, I am not working my ass off on SL, you are. > > Thanks for your patience :-)
I think your concerns are reasonable, but as long as we keep being an organization where people who want to do things are enabled to get them done, I don't think we are in such a bad position. If it comes the day when talkers remove power from doers, we'll need to worry about what you warn, but fortunately I don't see that coming any time soon. I see these discussions about what you call bureaucracy as actually fostering the doers, by giving their area of interest a concrete visibility and telling them to chose their tools, procedures and identity so they can better do their thing. Regards, Tomeu > > > m > -- > martin.langh...@gmail.com > mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect > - ask interesting questions > - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first > - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep