>Adrian: Well, if you're the only person who's going to work on
>interpreter we can shut up shop now (and same for Uli with XBF). This is
>meant to be a collaborative effort. While at this early stage the "I do
>this bit, you do that bit" is really the only alternative, when more
>people join we need to take advantage of the peer review system which is
>opensource's greatest advantage. What needs to happen is a change from
>"Uli's XBF" to "The OpenCard Group's XBF". Sure we will always try to
>give credit (and due credit will always be in the source code), it *has*
>to be a group effort.
Adrian,
practice has shown that it's usually only one person really working
on some part of an open source project. E.g. in wxWindows there are
about three programmers which work on the main source base, each with
their own specialized platform. But of course there's lots of people
who submit bug fixes when they discover a bug, and there are other
people working on other aspects like wxStuido, richedit etc.
>Adrian: As for leaders, I am keeping an open mind. We have all worked on
>the basis that we will become a big group, but this may not be so. I
>think we just need to take it as it comes, if we get to the stage where
>we need leaders to make everyday decisions, then have leaders if not,
>leave things be.
I think we need some way to decide who has final say over things.
E.g. if the licence allows splitting, the majority would stay while a
minority might split off to do their own thing. Of course, there
could still be collaboration. I think in most cases we *will* arrive
at a decision that makes everyone happy. Often you can ease a
decision by just adding a compiler flag that lets you turn off
certain features.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
