Matthieu Riou wrote: [snip]
>> Put yourself in our shoes: labs is uncharted territory and we are >> responsible, to the board and to the rest of the foundation, to provide >> something that is *overall* valuable to the social ecosystem, not just >> more useful to you or me as individual committers. The two are not >> mutually exclusive, but not by-default aligned either. > > I understand your point and agree that starting the lab should be done very > carefully, much like it's being done now. I just wanted to voice my opinion > that releases will become necessary for the health of lab projects. I'm > just > pleading for the lab to monitor that specific restriction closely and > see if > it really holds with time. Point taken and observation noted. We will certainly monitor labs and see if/how they make any sort of release available thru third party places and how much impact that has on their ability to move forward. > My intention isn't to make the lab useful to me but I think that the > reality > of open source development and where its true creativity lies is in the > space of projects started by a single developer or a couple of friends. Right, this is the spirit with which labs has been established. Now, how much 'releasing' impacts the evolution of such project seed into something more mature has not, AFAIK, been evaluated in the past, so you might be right in indicating that it has a big impact, or, as I personally believe, I don't think it has a lot of impact at all, at least at the very first stages. > The > incubator doesn't really allow these projects to exist (don't get me wrong, > I think it does a very good job for what it's been designed for) and I > really hope the lab will. I'm just thinking of the projects themselves and > their development here, which is going to be hard without releases. The incubator isn't designed with high mortality risk in mind, other the opposite: it's designed to do CPR to projects in case they go under social stall. This is clearly not what labs (or project seeds) need. That said, we have to evaluate the impact of labs on the overall social ecosystem, which is why we are taking cautious and easily reversible steps. > We do not know how this is going to evolve, or how much >> positive/negative energy is going to end up creating. >> >> We have drafted strict guidelines because it's much easier (socially >> speaking) to relax strict rules, than to restrict relaxed rules. >> >> We'll move on from that, where possible, by taking small reversible >> steps and by adopting non-reversible steps with *great* care and *only* >> when there is enough experience learned on how the system will react to >> the change. >> >> As we are just starting and we have no knowledge on how the existing >> guidelines work, we'll just go on for a while before even considering >> re-evaluating them. > > Point well taken. I'll stick around :) I'm glad, we need all the help that we can find :-) -- Stefano. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
