On Dec 17, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Tyler Mitchell wrote:
On December 17, 2005 09:56, Paul Spencer wrote:
I am starting to believe that from a user's point of view (that's me,
I'm not a developer of MapServer) it will actually make very little
difference to me in the long term since all I want to do is download
the software and build tools on top of it. As long as the
contributors are happy that they can continue to develop and maintain
MapServer, I'm ambivalent about where the project lives.
Good points Paul S. and Bill.
I am in a similar boat - I am mainly a user (definitely not a
developer).
From one perspective all I care about is having access to the code. I
trust
the MTSC to be able to make logical commitments to the long term
direction of
the code in the project. That is, to do what is in the best interests
of the
project and its community. The spectre of a fork or (even worse)
general
disinterest in a project is the open source peer pressure that keeps
thing
open and honest.
From another angle, I care less about the code in the project and more
about
my user experience. I have very high hopes that more project-level
organisation (and joining the foundation) will help bring my user
experience
to a whole new level. Even if the code were to stay stagnant, there
are a
lot of (non-technical) things that I would like to see happen so that
the
user base grows and supports one another.
There's more than one way to think about it.
I too am a user, but I am definitely not ambivalent about where the
project lives. But first, I think several issues are being mixed here.
For my own edification, let me separate them --
1. Is a foundation needed, and why? Yes, it is needed, and for many
reasons -- to guide the development of MapServer, to forge alliances
with other projects, to provide legal protection, if needed, to serve
as a recipient of funds, to project a unified marketing message, etc.
2. Is a technical steering committee needed, and is the current TSC
appropriate? Yes, and yes. Everyone on the TSC deserves to be on the
TSC.
3. Do I trust the TSC to make decisions that are good for the code?
Yes, completely.
4. Do I trust the TSC to make decisions that are good for the
foundation? Mostly, but the recent experience demonstrated a caveat.
MapServer, the product, has a reason to exist because there is a
user-community. Consulting the user community is always a good idea,
even though the process is going to be messy. Democracy is always
messy, but so what.
5. Do I distrust or trust Autodesk? Neither. I actually welcome
Autodesk in the fold. My only problem lies with naming of the product.
That may sound trivial, but given the names involved, actually it is
not trivial. MapServer is a known quantity to me. I've spent several
years learning, deploying, and evangelizing it. Autodesk's product is
an unknown quantity to me, and I can't even use it as it is. I have no
reason to feel warm and fuzzy toward it, but I also don't feel anything
negative toward it. I just don't want it to be taking on a name that
makes it seem as if it is a superior, more complete, more robust
product than the product that I already know is more superior,
complete, and robust than many existing alternatives.
6. Is this an emotional response? Perhaps, but that doesn't make it an
irrational response. Open source is about a philosophy as much as it is
about getting things done. I don't subscribe to the "them vs. us" camp,
but I do subscribe to certain principles that transcend the, "As long
as I can use it, I don't care where it comes from" viewpoint.
For the reasons above, I personally definitely want to be involved in
decisions that concern the foundation, whether it is by being an
active on-board member of it, or by just being an occasional email on a
mailing list.
--
Puneet Kishor
