To me, this has always been the major weakness of open source software. I've seen this on many other projects. There is a "core" in charge but, ultimately, they focus only on things that they need for their work. When somebody suggests a feature, the response is usually of the form "that would be a great addition! If you could code that up, please submit it". I completely understand the feeling there, but it's hard to build up a major user base that way (the projects continue to stay in "toy" phase).
The truly successful open source projects DO have a roadmap and they DO code towards it. They are real projects that just happen to be open source. Glenn NOTICE: The opinions and thoughts in this email are my own and do not reflect those of any other person or organization. On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote: > You keep on about organizational things like a defined roadmap and > documentation. These are things generally produced by organized and > PAID bodies. > > Core is a team of developers who just as soon let the code do the > talking. Few of us have any talent for doing big writeups and these > few are doing other things that take up their time, mostly in academia. > > Core is consensus-based and there is no "boss" to set out a roadmap > everyone else has to follow. We all volunteer our time and > creativity for this project and to most of us, this is a > recreational activity, not work. > > Admittedly, the project could profit from some guidance, but that > same guidance would likely lead to a loss of active developers, as > people who volunteer their time want to do what they like to do, not > what some roadmap tells them to. This discussion has been had before. > > If it were at all possible, I would certainly take up that mantle, > but that would dis-mantle the team as it stands now. The current > team isn't interested in fulfilling expectations other than those of > their own and the users they are working with. > > For most of the team, that is users of social virtual worlds who > could care less about accurate stats, but do care about three green > lights on the lag meter. They actually don't even care if the stats > show 11 or 55, as long as the lag meter is green. > > I have had people (in other grids) tell me "This place is so > laggy!". I then would move my avatar around to test responsiveness > and find that there is no lag, so I would ask them "Why do you > consider this laggy? I can't see any lag?" and get "The lag meter > shows the sim is lagging" as a reply. These people, several people > in multiple grids, then announced to be going back to SL where there > is no lag. > > Go figure. > > We are there to make things work for the majority of our users. > Sorry to say, MOSES and scientists are not a majority. The thousands > of social grid users spread across all the virtual worlds are. > > - Melanie > > On 11/11/2015 00:44, dz wrote: > > I am astounded at how much of the dialogue about this issue you both > > choose to ignore. > > > > Please publish the location of the ROADMAP of REAL CORE problems.... I > > will be happy to attend the MOSES meetings and attempt to get those > > issues on their agenda. Don't blame people for working on the things > > that are important to them when that is the example set by core over a > long > > period. You expect people to help and then denegrate them for not > > attacking the problems you REFUSE to document and share in public. > > > > When did MOSES get access to commit the patch??? The patch was > > accepted after a significant amount of conversation... Everyone BUT > > you and Melanie voted it +1... you can't rewrite the history and > assert > > that the problem is because MOSES committed a patch... CORE committed > the > > patch at the request of this community. > > > > I have repeatedly asked for the identification of these mysterious users > > who are the source of this avalanche of complaints... I apologize for > > assuming they resided on Melanies grid... > > Now that I hear that her users aren't the source of the complaints > > I'm left to wonder if there is ANY justification for reverting the > > stats.. PLEASE share with the group what the source of these complaints > is > > so we can begin a dialogue. I participate in a LOT of OpenSim related > > forums just for that purpose... I haven't seen any of the noise > > that is supposedly deafening. > > > > Assuming "they" truly are upset, I haven't herd a peep about why it > is > > appropriate for some backroom decision to override the consensus built > in > > this forum over a period of months. > > I'm sorry, I've tried repeatedly to figure out WHY it is important to > > revert, and all I keep hearing is "Melanie didnt know it would > affect a > > lag meter".. This argument was extended to include " We have to > > accommodate users of viewers that are NO LONGER being maintained"... > > HOW in the world can that be a viable position for you to defend Neb, > > when your rant was directed at the importance of moving forward with > > viewer developers or we are dead...?? > > > > I really am trying to figure this out, but all I see as responses > is > > "You are wrong, I changed my mind, it is import to someone who > > still hasn't spoken on this list" The whole point of this list is to > > share the issues that are important.... Given the volume of traffic on > the > > subject, it obviously is. Please share some REAL information about > > the actual impact so we can re-evaluate the needs of the WHOLE > community. > > We don't know WHO is complaining,, We HAVE heard that you can > > turn the blinking lights into numeric representations ( even in the OLD > > meters), We HAVE heard that there is a JIRA for the viewer team to > > remove/update the functioning of the lag meter.. Everyone agrees > that > > the lag meter cant possibly be correct so I find it impossible to > > believe that it is INTEGRAL to the success of Opensim. All of use > who > > wanted accurate stats could be wrong, but I'd sure like to know > WHY, > > not just have someone pronounce we are and implement yet another > > obscure INI variable.. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Doug I participated in MOSES grid as well and my experience there was > >> terrible, far worse performance than i experienced in any other grid, I > >> took part in the FCVW build and planning and experienced a multitude of > >> problems on MOSES platform that just do not exist in the core > opensimulator > >> software. And this is what I mean by chasing ghosts, MOSES is fixing > bugs > >> in MOSES for MOSES that just do not exist in the core software. You can > >> feel however you want and if you feel embarrassed then go work on MOSES > >> software, no one is stopping you. I do agree though that this whole > thing > >> is quite a huge embarrassment for the project. It still does not change > >> the fact that to date no improvements have come from this change and all > >> its done is cause arguments, the reason their code was not accepted is > >> because it was not suitable for core, end of story. They wanted us to > >> accept patches unconditionally and sorry, that is not going to happen. > >> > >> -- > >> Michael Emory Cerquoni > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
