I'd love to see a "Convention over Configuration" approach. What I mean is that OpenSim come configured for best practices.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) < [email protected]> wrote: > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the > code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans > for > the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's > make > some! > > I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives: > > 1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its > available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits. > > 2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability". > > 3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation. > > 4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical > network > topologies. > > 5) Bug identification & reduction. > > 6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as > naturalized bot interactions. > > 7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain > and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have more > natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now. > > What are yours? Anyone? > > v/r -doug > > Dr. Douglas Maxwell > Science and Technology Manager > Virtual World Strategic Applications > U.S. Army Research Lab > Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC) > (c) (407) 242-0209 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin > Clark-Casey > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:40 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) > > I won't comment much over future direction. However, Overte was never a > governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other > things in the future (which never got realized). Power over development > direction has always been with the developers. > > CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those > projects that are very worried about getting sued. The vast majority have > no > such structures. It is very debatable whether anything other than the > open-source license is needed. > > > And there are many different project structures out there. Linux, for > example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of > authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase. > That > is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got > overwhelmed > by it). > > The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing organization. > Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what > happens > to the codebase. > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > Projects evolve. > > I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into > this > valuable project. The potential for technical and economic > success is > profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator. That > said, I fear > we are at a crossroads at this time with this project. > > It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open > Simulator code > have planned for the project. Is there a roadmap or some sort of > goals/objectives you are working against? What development > targets would you > like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now? > > The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up > and > supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers > for the Open > Simulator project. We've done our own internal gap analysis and > determined > where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, > monitoring, and > scalability improvements. In short, we are returning our code to > you to > adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing > terms. > > I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity > is a mistake > if you plan to encourage participation from business and > government. The CLA > was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship > acknowledging the > legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use. > > If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be > needed. > However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging > money for > service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical > behavior, by > educators, and more. Like it or not, you have created a product > that needs > management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method > that is > currently your standard operating procedures. > > Project management must evolve. > > As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as > valued > commodities, the need for different styles of management is > required. A > project with two active developers is different than a project > with 20 or > 200. > If the management does not evolve, then the project will be > limited and > growth > is not possible. I encourage you to think about a new structure > that can > handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time. > The kinds of > investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires > you to step > up and begin project planning. > > This is a community effort. > > If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or > even > receive maintenance, then the community must voice. This code > does not > belong > in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity. This code > belongs in the > hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract > funds to pay > a > staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area > code > managers. This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic > institution > of some kind. > > I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of > development for the > MOSES related Open Simulator issues. We came in this spring at a > time when > development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after > the 0.8.x > releases. What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion > of our work? > What is next for Open Simulator? > > I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse. > > v/r -doug > > Dr. Douglas Maxwell > Science and Technology Manager > Virtual World Strategic Applications > U.S. Army Research Lab > Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC) > (c) (407) 242-0209 > > > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
