Hi All,
<http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/>.
>>It's fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style.
>>One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard
>>to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn't try it. I didn't either.
>>Your nascent developer community needs to have something runnable and
>>testable to play with.
Might it be one matter to code from the ground up and another to launch and
operate an organization? IMHO that mention is about the act of code writing
-- and that act is NOT the same as the organizational model.
I do think that it is hard to start from scratch in the coding efforts, if
Eric says it is so. But, to our advantage, we've got MetaCard to lean upon,
for starters. That benefit is HUGE. Thanks Scott.
Plus, we've got some open-source stuff out there too. Perhaps we should have
someone do some open-source asset resource investigation and reporting.
In our quest for progress one of the big reasons of forming an organization
is to have an official-like group. I think we (the original organization)
need to exist in ways beyond an email discussion group. We need more than a
uniform FTP site. IMHO, we need some type of ORIGINAL ORGANIZATION that
exists.
With this group in a viable mode of being, it can both ask for gifts and
accept those gifts. People won't "give" nor "contribute" to an email
discussion group. There has to be someone home to catch the gifts, so to
speak, me thinks.
A "jump-start" on development can come by making the rounds and being a bit
of a "lint-collector" trying to pick-up significant contributions. I think
we'd have some success with begging. But, we've got to beg in an "official
capacity" representing something.
If the early begging works, then, the creative energy from the masses that
we are able to assemble (optimistic projection) would be able to tweak and
moderize the contributions -- as well as (begin to) glue them together.
Sure, the original work needs to proceed, but many efforts can be happening
in the same periods.
DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is sort of what we're trying to pull off. Let's show Eric wrong, and
> pull it off.
Rather, let's pull it off, but let's try to throw out enough raw meat to the
wolves as soon as we can -- and then we won't be staying where we started.
We won't be starting from scratch as soon as we provide new arrivals with
something to scratch.
> Anyway, I think we can go without being a partnership.
Sorta used to agree. Now, I'm seeing some big upsides to progress if we have
an organization that has some real people at its helm.
> Developers can have CVS write access.
Oh yes. All applies well as you described.
Plus, there is one other avenue I've seen surface in the past --- academic
projects. Some classes at universities insist on the students doing a class
project. If we could gather our partners with enough of a presence -- we
might be able to better pitch our projects to willing student programmers so
as to be included in some academic homework assignments. Case in point: One
non-profit agency placement group was excited about a certain software title
because it ran on one platform and NOT another (in this instance it was
UNIX) because of the challenge. They were looking for OPEN-Source projects
that made sense and were NOT done. If we had "partners" digging around for
those types of opportunities -- that would be fantastic. And, those efforts
become long-term relationship building hassles talking with students,
professors, departments and such at various colleges, universities and other
types of community infrastructure/technology groups. Sure, its speculation.
But, there could be serious breakthroughs -- and I don't see that type of
"evangalizing" happening on a day-to-day and month-to-month basis without
being "knighted" as a "partner."
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
