Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[Rich Bowen]

That is a fascinating analysis, and a lot to think about.

Thanks.


On 09/22/2015 08:26 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:

An observation, from an ASF Member ...

TL;DR version: this is only history repeating itself, as long as we, the people 
doing the work, continue to learn and adapt the open source world will survive

Long version...

My dad (who I consider far wiser than me) taught me that things tend to go in 
approx. 7 year cycles. You can see it everywhere, music trends, fashion, 
marketing styles, business management styles etc. The duration varies for each 
industry, 7 years is the average. He explained that this is because of the 
lifecycle of decision makers who have to make their mark before moving on to 
their next career goal.

That is, since there is a limited number of ways of doing something all changes 
affected by decision makers are (in general terms) just a rehash of what went 
before with some incremental improvements. Furthermore, we tend to swing, 
pendulum like, from one solution space to another as a result of the limited 
options presented to us. We tend to build on what we know, it's rare we invent 
something completely new.

My wise dad taught me that watching for those cycles enables one to always play at the 
head of the *next* wave. While the glory is at the head of the current wave, longevity 
and success (as a leader) comes from being "ahead of the curve" - looking to 
what will be popular next.

The ASF is a leader lets apply this to the foundation.

Consider a pendulum where point a is one extreme, point b is the center point 
and point c is the other extreme. Now:

Let a = open source is a business model
Let c = open source is a development model

Let b = "community over code" and "a pragmatic license" (sound familiar? - 
that's deliberate)

If I look back over the 20 years of the Apache Group and the Foundation we see open source 
going through the swing from a -> b -> c -> b -> a many times. Whereas the ASF 
itself has stayed reasonably stable at point b.

I believe we are currently close to point a (open source = business model). This last 
happened in 2008 (ha, look at that, exactly 7 years, honestly, it's true by dad is a very 
wise man :-). Check it yourself, do a web search for "open source is not a business 
model" - my first 5 hits were all either 2008 or 2015.

Back to Jim's observation. I agree that "Apache is ... all about community and fun whilst 
still changing the world" (point b on the pendulum) I don't agree with what I believe is 
implied in Jim's full statement - " Apache is *one of the still remaining oasis of open source 
being* all about community and fun whilst still changing the world,"

I think we have *always* been one of the few places where open source is "all about 
community and fun whilst still changing the world". Our uniqueness is not that we 
are one of the few orgs at point b. No, our uniqueness is that we don't allow ourselves 
to be pulled too far towards point a or b as the pendulum swings. We are not fickle 
followers of fashion. We know where the optimal point on that pendulum is and we have 
settled here because we are leaders, not followers.

We are not unique in this. There are other places that play this leadership 
role, some at different points on the swing, some simply following the current 
trends (if you want my opinion on where I would place the various foundations 
you need to buy multiple beers, plus a few Whisky's to loosen the tongue ;-)

Over time the pendulum becomes less extreme as the new decision makers learn 
from history. For example, I don't think we will ever see a swing back to 
exclusively proprietary software being seen by industry as the only viable 
business model. Similarly I don't think we will ever see the day when the 
majority of open source advocates insist on using the term Free software.

For kicks, consider the difference between the 2015 "business model" swing and the 2008 "business 
model" swing is that 2008 was about "open core" and 2015 is about "open source as marketing".

Clearly nothing as blatent as open core will work, we learned that in the 2008 
swing. So we need something different, I claim it is marketing. Witness the 
rapid growth in marketing focused foundations.

For kicks, check the dates on a search for "open core and open source", yes, the peak is circa 
2010, i.e. on the down-swing from point a to point b ("open core is evil, we must change this") and 
2015 "let's not go there again". Here in the ASF we are already seeing the start of a backlash 
against open source as a marketing tool. In another year or so it won't be just Jim posting about how things 
have changed ;-)

Our role, as a foundation, is to sit patiently waiting for the pendulum to 
settle. It will settle round about where the Apache Way tells us to sit 
(community before code and a pragmatic license).

Ross

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 

Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[Alexei Fedotov]

... and thanks to the topic starter for the great topic.
23.09.2015 17:48 пользователь "Jim Jagielski"  написал:

> Yeah, that's pretty much the way I'm looking at it. To me though, just
> as gravity is what pulls the pendulum back down to its mid-point, for
> Open Source, it's the "true Open Source" community (or, if you prefer,
> the "real" one) which acts as gravity, and pulls the pendulum back
> to 'b'. But if that real community doesn't exist, then the pendulum
> never swings back.
>
> As long as we are talking mechanical analogies, one I like to use isn't
> the pendulum but rather the fly-ball governor on a Watt steam engine[1].
> In this case, when the internal temperature gets too high, the spin of
> the governor speeds up, which releases steam and the temp goes down; when
> the internal temperature goes down too low, the spin is slower, and it
> closes a valve which increases pressure and temp... In our case, the
> meritocratic open source governance model is the base operating mode (b)
> whereas a and c are the 2 extremes. Where I see a problem is when (b)
> is no longer considered the "right" or "optimal" mode, and instead
> the default "regulated" mode is set closer to 'a' or 'c'; My point is that
> this set-point can, and *is* controlled but all the players in the
> open source community, but we are in "danger" of 'b' no longer
> being the desired mode simply because those who favor 'b' are no
> longer active in wanting that... We need to ensure that 'b' being
> the correct/right/optimal set-point for "how open source should be"
> is always being "pushed", always being fostered, always being nurtured.
>
> BTW: Thx for all the comments, this is VERY VERY useful!
>
>
> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
> > On Sep 23, 2015, at 2:27 AM, Ross Gardler 
> wrote:
> >
> > I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my earlier
> essay - sorry I got on a roll with that one).
> >
> > Jim's pendulum is something like:
> >
> > Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent
> dictator)
> > Let b = meritocratic open source governance
> > Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork and
> forget - note not all GitHub projects are this style)
> >
> > The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c, I
> think we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many rock-star
> projects are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my
> argument that open source is currently more about the business model than
> the development model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one will
> swing back towards the center as those companies realize that there is a
> glass ceiling to their growth using that model (if you haven't read Henrik
> Ingo's paper [1] on this you should).
> >
> > Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if history
> repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the swing
> is much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that
> succeed will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic project
> in order to scale.
> >
> > As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the
> "sensible" place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the only
> place that can work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I
> think plenty of people still do this for the fun (and education). Speaking
> personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for fun
> again - so that's at least one person going in the opposite direction to
> the one Jim sees is the majority (lucky me!)
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > [1]
> http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-10x-and-revenues-5x
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
> > To: dev@community.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
> >
> > I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like wonder
> (but I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but not
> forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being
> continued, esp by the next gen.
> >
> > Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so,
> then it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the
> continuation of open source.
> >
> > Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit a
> bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed upstream...
> That is so solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating
> *with* and reaching consensus
> > *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal.
> The wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which is at
> risk.
> >
> > To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other
> 

Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[Jim Jagielski]

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I'm looking at it. To me though, just
as gravity is what pulls the pendulum back down to its mid-point, for
Open Source, it's the "true Open Source" community (or, if you prefer,
the "real" one) which acts as gravity, and pulls the pendulum back
to 'b'. But if that real community doesn't exist, then the pendulum
never swings back.

As long as we are talking mechanical analogies, one I like to use isn't
the pendulum but rather the fly-ball governor on a Watt steam engine[1].
In this case, when the internal temperature gets too high, the spin of
the governor speeds up, which releases steam and the temp goes down; when
the internal temperature goes down too low, the spin is slower, and it
closes a valve which increases pressure and temp... In our case, the
meritocratic open source governance model is the base operating mode (b)
whereas a and c are the 2 extremes. Where I see a problem is when (b)
is no longer considered the "right" or "optimal" mode, and instead
the default "regulated" mode is set closer to 'a' or 'c'; My point is that
this set-point can, and *is* controlled but all the players in the
open source community, but we are in "danger" of 'b' no longer
being the desired mode simply because those who favor 'b' are no
longer active in wanting that... We need to ensure that 'b' being
the correct/right/optimal set-point for "how open source should be"
is always being "pushed", always being fostered, always being nurtured.

BTW: Thx for all the comments, this is VERY VERY useful!


1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 2:27 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> 
> I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my earlier essay 
> - sorry I got on a roll with that one).
> 
> Jim's pendulum is something like:
> 
> Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent dictator)
> Let b = meritocratic open source governance
> Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork and 
> forget - note not all GitHub projects are this style)
> 
> The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c, I think 
> we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many rock-star projects 
> are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my argument that 
> open source is currently more about the business model than the development 
> model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one will swing back towards 
> the center as those companies realize that there is a glass ceiling to their 
> growth using that model (if you haven't read Henrik Ingo's paper [1] on this 
> you should).
> 
> Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if history 
> repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the swing is 
> much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that succeed 
> will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic project in order 
> to scale.
> 
> As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the 
> "sensible" place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the only 
> place that can work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I 
> think plenty of people still do this for the fun (and education). Speaking 
> personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for fun 
> again - so that's at least one person going in the opposite direction to the 
> one Jim sees is the majority (lucky me!)
> 
> Ross
> 
> [1] 
> http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-10x-and-revenues-5x
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
> 
> I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like wonder (but 
> I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but not 
> forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being 
> continued, esp by the next gen.
> 
> Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so, then 
> it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the continuation 
> of open source.
> 
> Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit a bunch 
> of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed upstream... That is 
> so solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating *with* and 
> reaching consensus
> *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal. The 
> wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which is at risk.
> 
> To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other 
> contributors) to finally work together, openly and honestly, transparently 
> and meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not 
> by letting someone share our toys by playing with them by 

Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[Alex Harui]

IMO, I believe history does repeat itself, and that there are pendulums
and cycles, but I think the dynamic here is more linear.  Now I certainly
haven’t been involved with open source and Apache for very long, but
having met Roy and heard him describe why Apache was founded and how it
was supposed to be like a potluck/party, I would say that JimJag is just
witnessing the “natural” progression of large organizations in the US.

I’ve seen other organizations have to become “more serious” as the
customer base grows and the stakes get higher.  You sort of have to, in
order to attempt to propagate the vision and messaging to more and more
people.  The famous party games of “telephone” where one person tells
something to another person and by the time the story has been relayed
several times the story has changed is a true human dynamic.  So more
process is put in place, things take longer because they have to be
written and reviewed, etc.

IIRC, there are people in the world who are serial entrepreneurs.  They
start a company, it grows to a certain point, then they decide (or their
board helps them decide) that it isn’t fun any more and they leave and
start another company.  I know folks who are serial code project starters.
 They take a good idea, develop the prototype, get folks excited, a team
is formed, version 1.0 ships, and then during the drudgery work of making
the product mature, they take off for another new idea.  They don’t find
it fun to fix all of the bugs folks expect to be fixed for version 2.0.

So yeah, being at Apache now probably isn’t nearly the fun it was many
years ago when trying to create a legal entity to protect open source was
new and different.  We now know it is possible and are now trying to fix
all the small bugs.

And meanwhile, while your organization matures, some other person starts
up a similar company with a different angle and folks find it new and
different and fun compared to your now-slower process machinery and people
flock to the new and different thing.  There may be aspects of that new
and different variant that will make it the winner for the next
generation, or it may be that they will inevitably have to implement the
same process machinery.  The legal system in the US tends to make that
happen.  So does the US insurance industry.  Lots of young single people
don’t buy health insurance in the US, then they get married and have kids
(i.e., their organization grows and matures and the stakes get higher) and
then they start buying insurance.

So, I don’t know that Apache can ever swing back to being young and fast,
there is just too many people and too much at stake.  But IMO, any project
within GitHub that becomes as important as some of the ASF projects will
have to go down this same road.

To me, the question about ASF’s attractiveness vs GitHub is all about
whether GitHub has something that will still shine through this additional
process that their high profile projects with US corporate customers will
have to take on at some point.  That’s probably worth a separate thread,
and I don’t spend any time on GH to know for myself, but I think I’ve seen
folks say that their UX is better integrated, which is something we could
work on here at the ASF.  I posted a thread a couple of days ago about
Apache FlexJS being used to build a more integrated UX for ASF projects.

So, sorry Jim, the ASF may never be as much fun as it was, but we should
definitely be discussing whether we need to be more popular to our target
customers and how to go about doing that and whether we can learn anything
from GH or other organizations.

A higher-up executive at Starbucks once told me that he was taught to “try
to imagine what the younger guy/gal competing for his job would do.”  Is
GH that younger guy/gal?  GH could just be a flea market.  Corporations
rarely shop at flea markets.  On occasion a vendor refines their product
at a flea market and starts a million dollar company and leaves the flea
market to try to attract corporate customers.  What can the ASF do to make
that vendor want to come to the ASF at that point?  What are the barriers?

-Alex

On 9/23/15, 8:12 AM, "Alexei Fedotov"  wrote:

>... and thanks to the topic starter for the great topic.
>23.09.2015 17:48 пользователь "Jim Jagielski"  написал:
>
>> Yeah, that's pretty much the way I'm looking at it. To me though, just
>> as gravity is what pulls the pendulum back down to its mid-point, for
>> Open Source, it's the "true Open Source" community (or, if you prefer,
>> the "real" one) which acts as gravity, and pulls the pendulum back
>> to 'b'. But if that real community doesn't exist, then the pendulum
>> never swings back.
>>
>> As long as we are talking mechanical analogies, one I like to use isn't
>> the pendulum but rather the fly-ball governor on a Watt steam engine[1].
>> In this case, when the internal temperature gets too high, the spin of
>> the governor speeds up, 

Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[Raul Kripalani]

To me, Github and the ASF are not comparable. GH is a service to facilitate
collaboration in the OSS world (with a private offering for managing
private code too); whereas the ASF is an organisation that promotes,
protects and mentors OSS projects.

One of our prime drivers is Community over Code, whereas I'd argue that
Github's priorities are the opposite: Code over Community. Just get your
code out there and see if it gains traction. Moreover, we have a principle
of meritocracy which is not even modelled at Github. Open Source
traditionally being a voluntary commitment, I would argue that a
meritocracy policy tends to drive people to get involved and absorbed into
the fun ;-)

About the organisations publishing on Github or on Apache... Companies
publishing to Github prioritise building a user base (not necessarily a
community), whilst *retaining their control on the project*. Conversely,
organisations contributing their projects to the ASF are actually
*donating* their codebase with the expectation of building a solid and
vibrant community around it – that's where the fun is IMHO.

In fact – for the sake of illustrating my thoughts – I *could* envision
part of the ASF's daily business/processes running on top of Github, why
not? Code management, issue management, knowledge management, mainly.
Obviously we'd lose a lot of our delicacy and uniqueness if we do that ;-)

The ASF has a prestige, whereas – like Alex said GH – can be thought of as
a marketplace: each project has its own reputation. In fact, the dev
communities I've dealt with tend to regard the ASF highly as a body;
whereas you can't ask them for an opinion about GH as a whole, you'd have
to ask for specific projects (unless you're asking about GH as a product).

The public recognises that being an ASF projects implies having passed many
filters, votes and approval of talented people. And they appreciate that.

*Raúl Kripalani*
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and
Messaging Engineer
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:

> IMO, I believe history does repeat itself, and that there are pendulums
> and cycles, but I think the dynamic here is more linear.  Now I certainly
> haven’t been involved with open source and Apache for very long, but
> having met Roy and heard him describe why Apache was founded and how it
> was supposed to be like a potluck/party, I would say that JimJag is just
> witnessing the “natural” progression of large organizations in the US.
>
> I’ve seen other organizations have to become “more serious” as the
> customer base grows and the stakes get higher.  You sort of have to, in
> order to attempt to propagate the vision and messaging to more and more
> people.  The famous party games of “telephone” where one person tells
> something to another person and by the time the story has been relayed
> several times the story has changed is a true human dynamic.  So more
> process is put in place, things take longer because they have to be
> written and reviewed, etc.
>
> IIRC, there are people in the world who are serial entrepreneurs.  They
> start a company, it grows to a certain point, then they decide (or their
> board helps them decide) that it isn’t fun any more and they leave and
> start another company.  I know folks who are serial code project starters.
>  They take a good idea, develop the prototype, get folks excited, a team
> is formed, version 1.0 ships, and then during the drudgery work of making
> the product mature, they take off for another new idea.  They don’t find
> it fun to fix all of the bugs folks expect to be fixed for version 2.0.
>
> So yeah, being at Apache now probably isn’t nearly the fun it was many
> years ago when trying to create a legal entity to protect open source was
> new and different.  We now know it is possible and are now trying to fix
> all the small bugs.
>
> And meanwhile, while your organization matures, some other person starts
> up a similar company with a different angle and folks find it new and
> different and fun compared to your now-slower process machinery and people
> flock to the new and different thing.  There may be aspects of that new
> and different variant that will make it the winner for the next
> generation, or it may be that they will inevitably have to implement the
> same process machinery.  The legal system in the US tends to make that
> happen.  So does the US insurance industry.  Lots of young single people
> don’t buy health insurance in the US, then they get married and have kids
> (i.e., their organization grows and matures and the stakes get higher) and
> then they start buying insurance.
>
> So, I don’t know that Apache can ever swing back to being young and fast,
> there is just too many people and too much at stake.  But IMO, any project
> within GitHub that becomes as 

Re: Downstream notifications?

[Francesco Chicchiriccò]

On 23/09/2015 03:55, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

Hi,
Is there an ATOM feed or similar available to get notified about new
releases in ASF as a whole?

I am now in an organization that on one hand trusts ASF releases, but still
require quite a lot of manual work to repackage for internal distribution.
All that could be automated at our end, and with some simple notification
mechanism, it could be fully automatic...


I use

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-announce/?format=atom

which is barely the ATOM translation of mailbox archive for 
annou...@apache.org


Naturally, this works as long as ALL projects announce their own 
releases there - as it should be according to


http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#release-announcements

HTH
Regards.


My guess is that downstream Linux distros could also be very happy with
such...


--
Francesco Chicchiriccò

Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/

Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/

RE: Passion and vigilance in open source

[Ross Gardler]

I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my earlier essay - 
sorry I got on a roll with that one).

Jim's pendulum is something like:

Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent dictator)
Let b = meritocratic open source governance
Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork and forget 
- note not all GitHub projects are this style)

The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c, I think 
we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many rock-star projects 
are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my argument that 
open source is currently more about the business model than the development 
model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one will swing back towards 
the center as those companies realize that there is a glass ceiling to their 
growth using that model (if you haven't read Henrik Ingo's paper [1] on this 
you should).

Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if history 
repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the swing is 
much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that succeed will 
typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic project in order to scale.

As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the "sensible" 
place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the only place that can 
work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I think plenty of 
people still do this for the fun (and education). Speaking personally a recent 
change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for fun again - so that's at 
least one person going in the opposite direction to the one Jim sees is the 
majority (lucky me!)

Ross

[1] 
http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-10x-and-revenues-5x


-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like wonder (but I 
don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but not forgetting 
the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being continued, esp by 
the next gen.

Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so, then 
it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the continuation 
of open source.

Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit a bunch 
of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed upstream... That is 
so solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating *with* and 
reaching consensus
*with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal. The 
wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which is at risk.

To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other 
contributors) to finally work together, openly and honestly, transparently and 
meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not by 
letting someone share our toys by playing with them by themselves in some 
corner of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build a great 
sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before we couldn't.

Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and wonder in our eyes? 
Or are people doing it just because "that's what I get paid to do"?

Good questions. Not simple answers :)

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> 
> Jim,
> 
> Is that really happening?  Is the fun leaving?  Or is it we are all 
> just getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
>> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube 
>> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
>> 
>> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun 
>> and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or 
>> being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis of 
>> open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing 
>> the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership 
>> about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part of 
>> this mini-series.
>> 
>> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header 
>> accordingly.
>> 
>> Thx!
>> 

Re: Downstream notifications?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
> ...Is there an ATOM feed or similar available to get notified about new
> releases in ASF as a whole?...

All releases are supposed to go under
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/ which is an svn
repository, so watching that should help.

-Bertrand

projects.apache.org/create.html link broken at DOAP WIki

[Lewis John Mcgibbney]

Hi Folks,
I recently noticed that the above link was broken at the DOAP page
https://github.com/edumbill/doap/wiki/Generators
Does anyone know if the generator is still around? If so is there a link I
can update the wiki with?
Thanks
Lewis

-- 
*Lewis*

Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[Jim Jagielski]

> 
> Spending a weekend with my kids, who are both introverts, helps
> remind me of the needs of those who are not 'public people'.  We
> have many successful examples, I'm thinking especially of Sam
> or even Rich who are actually much quieter and reserved and
> generally 'go off into their own space' to accomplish things, and
> thrive in the solitary spaces where they can assemble something
> they are happy with.  All of our many introverts then bring back
> Cool Things(TM) and interact with the community to get them
> accepted, but the "fun" for them is the detached-creative process,
> while the "fun" for the extroverts is the communal nature of the
> whole collaborative development effort.
> 

These are good points. I would suggest that we are all, at times,
both intro- and extroverts, and all of us occasionally will
go off on their own and bring back goodness. But we all "bring
back", which I think is key. We all work towards a common goal
and have created a way in which intro- and extroverts can contribute
equally and equally obtain merit.

Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[William A Rowe Jr]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

>
> Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches,
> submit a bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them
> committed upstream... That is so solitary. The wonder is
> working *with* and collaborating *with* and reaching consensus
> *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a
> common goal. The wonder is the community. And I think that
> that is something which is at risk.
>

There is some good psych theory that would be helpful in
understanding the dichotomy you describe, and I think it's
existed before the OSS revolution and continues through today.
You just did a great job of describing your approach, and mine
and many others at the foundation who are extroverts.  We enjoy
the interaction, and when a community is healthy, enjoy providing
positive feedback loops, encouragement and praise, and the
ultimate praise (to have ones code committed to the project).

Spending a weekend with my kids, who are both introverts, helps
remind me of the needs of those who are not 'public people'.  We
have many successful examples, I'm thinking especially of Sam
or even Rich who are actually much quieter and reserved and
generally 'go off into their own space' to accomplish things, and
thrive in the solitary spaces where they can assemble something
they are happy with.  All of our many introverts then bring back
Cool Things(TM) and interact with the community to get them
accepted, but the "fun" for them is the detached-creative process,
while the "fun" for the extroverts is the communal nature of the
whole collaborative development effort.

You might enjoy taking your own Meyers Briggs assessment and
compare notes with friends or collaborators on different projects
and social groups.  It goes a long way in bridging the understanding
gaps between these very different approaches to contributions,
collaboration and assembling a collective work :)  Plenty of free
tests to pick from on the web.


> To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders
> (and other contributors) to finally work together, openly
> and honestly, transparently and meritocractically (if you get
> my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not by letting someone
> share our toys by playing with them by themselves in some corner
> of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build
> a great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before
> we couldn't.
>
> Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and
> wonder in our eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's
> what I get paid to do"?
>

I expect both, just as I hope we have room for introverts and
extroverts to accomplish exactly what you describe, sharing the
toys to ultimately build the biggest collaborative sand castle that
we can be proud of together, but with very different motivations
and senses of reward :)

Could Apache Flink PMCs requests some ASF swags like stickers or frisbee for Flink Forward event?

[Henry Saputra]

Thanks Sally!

Hi Melissa,

Hope things are doing well for the ApacheCon. Sorry have to miss it this
year =(

Thanks a lot for the offer :)

Will stop by at the booth to pick up those ASF swags.

- Henry

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Melissa Warnkin > wrote:
> Thanks, Sally.  Hey, Henry!
>
> Yea, it's too late for me to ship anything out for Flink Forward as I
leave
> tomorrow for ApacheCon; however, as Sally mentioned, hit me up at the
booth
> near the end of the week and you can take all of the Apache gear that I
have
> left over!
>
> ~M
> 
> From: Sally Khudairi >
> To: Henry Saputra >
> Cc: Melissa Warnkin >; Melissa
Warnkin
> >; ComDev >
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 8:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Could Apache Flink PMCs requests some ASF swags like stickers
> or frisbee for Flink Forward event?
>
> Hello Henry --thanks so much for your note.
>
> Indeed, I *used* to manage the swag process, but this is now handled by
> Melissa and now comes from the ComDev budget.
>
> If you don't need Flink-specific items, you're more than welcome to take
> whatever you'd like during ApacheCon. No doubt Melissa will be happy to
not
> have to ship items back to the US ;-)
>
> Should you need Flink items, we can print "Powered By Apache Flink"
> stickers, for example, as long as the art is forwarded to Melissa in time
> for production.
>
> To that end, I've copied both Melissa and ComDev here to keep them in the
> loop. Thanks in advance, Melissa, for following up with Henry regarding
next
> steps!
>
> Warm regards,
> Sally
>
> = = = = = vox +1 617 921 8656 off2 +1 646 583 3362 skype sallykhudairi
>
> 
> From: Henry Saputra >
> To: Sally Khudairi >
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:10 PM
> Subject: Could Apache Flink PMCs requests some ASF swags like stickers or
> frisbee for Flink Forward event?
>
> HI Sally,
>
> Hope things are going well with you.
>
> I am wondering if you are the right person to ask about this =)
>
> There will be Flink Forward [1] conference this October in Berlin that
> celebrates everything about Apache Flink and some of the PMCs will be
> attending.
>
> We were wondering if there is a way to get some ASF branded swags to
> distribute them to Flink Forward attendees?
>
> There will be ApacheCon Core and Big Data in Budapest, so maybe some
> of us could pick the swags there if possible?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> - Henry
>
> [1] http://flink-forward.org
>
>
>
>

Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[Alexei Fedotov]

I like these thoughts about periodic cycles.

--
Best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dataved.ru/
+7 916 562 8095

[1] Start using Apache Openmeetings today, http://openmeetings.apache.org/
[2] Join Alexei Fedotov @linkedin, http://ru.linkedin.com/in/dataved/
[3] Join Alexei Fedotov @facebook, http://www.facebook.com/openmeetings

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Ross Gardler 
wrote:

> I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my earlier
> essay - sorry I got on a roll with that one).
>
> Jim's pendulum is something like:
>
> Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent
> dictator)
> Let b = meritocratic open source governance
> Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork and
> forget - note not all GitHub projects are this style)
>
> The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c, I
> think we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many rock-star
> projects are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my
> argument that open source is currently more about the business model than
> the development model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one will
> swing back towards the center as those companies realize that there is a
> glass ceiling to their growth using that model (if you haven't read Henrik
> Ingo's paper [1] on this you should).
>
> Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if history
> repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the swing
> is much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that
> succeed will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic project
> in order to scale.
>
> As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the
> "sensible" place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the only
> place that can work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I
> think plenty of people still do this for the fun (and education). Speaking
> personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for fun
> again - so that's at least one person going in the opposite direction to
> the one Jim sees is the majority (lucky me!)
>
> Ross
>
> [1]
> http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-10x-and-revenues-5x
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
>
> I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like wonder
> (but I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but not
> forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being
> continued, esp by the next gen.
>
> Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so,
> then it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the
> continuation of open source.
>
> Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit a
> bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed upstream...
> That is so solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating
> *with* and reaching consensus
> *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal. The
> wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which is at
> risk.
>
> To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other
> contributors) to finally work together, openly and honestly, transparently
> and meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not
> by letting someone share our toys by playing with them by themselves in
> some corner of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build a
> great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before we couldn't.
>
> Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and wonder in our
> eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's what I get paid to do"?
>
> Good questions. Not simple answers :)
>
> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > Is that really happening?  Is the fun leaving?  Or is it we are all
> > just getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> >
> >> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
> >> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
> >>
> >> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun
> >> and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or
> >> being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis of
> >> open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing
> >> the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership
> >> about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part 

Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[William A Rowe Jr]

On Sep 23, 2015 4:53 PM, "Jim Jagielski"  wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Spending a weekend with my kids, who are both introverts, helps
> > remind me of the needs of those who are not 'public people'.  We
> > have many successful examples, I'm thinking especially of Sam
> > or even Rich who are actually much quieter and reserved and
> > generally 'go off into their own space' to accomplish things, and
> > thrive in the solitary spaces where they can assemble something
> > they are happy with.  All of our many introverts then bring back
> > Cool Things(TM) and interact with the community to get them
> > accepted, but the "fun" for them is the detached-creative process,
> > while the "fun" for the extroverts is the communal nature of the
> > whole collaborative development effort.
> >
>
> These are good points. I would suggest that we are all, at times,
> both intro- and extroverts, and all of us occasionally will
> go off on their own and bring back goodness. But we all "bring
> back", which I think is key. We all work towards a common goal
> and have created a way in which intro- and extroverts can contribute
> equally and equally obtain merit.

++1... I was primarily pointing out that we want to remember to respect
different approaches, and that includes folks who do this 9-5 on weekdays
or shows up with something cool and then just disappears again for a while.

Shambhala comes to mind :)

Re: Passion and vigilance in open source

[Aris Siarot]

H

Sent from my iPhone


> On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:59 AM, William A Rowe Jr  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches,
>> submit a bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them
>> committed upstream... That is so solitary. The wonder is
>> working *with* and collaborating *with* and reaching consensus
>> *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a
>> common goal. The wonder is the community. And I think that
>> that is something which is at risk.
>> 
> 
> There is some good psych theory that would be helpful in
> understanding the dichotomy you describe, and I think it's
> existed before the OSS revolution and continues through today.
> You just did a great job of describing your approach, and mine
> and many others at the foundation who are extroverts.  We enjoy
> the interaction, and when a community is healthy, enjoy providing
> positive feedback loops, encouragement and praise, and the
> ultimate praise (to have ones code committed to the project).
> 
> Spending a weekend with my kids, who are both introverts, helps
> remind me of the needs of those who are not 'public people'.  We
> have many successful examples, I'm thinking especially of Sam
> or even Rich who are actually much quieter and reserved and
> generally 'go off into their own space' to accomplish things, and
> thrive in the solitary spaces where they can assemble something
> they are happy with.  All of our many introverts then bring back
> Cool Things(TM) and interact with the community to get them
> accepted, but the "fun" for them is the detached-creative process,
> while the "fun" for the extroverts is the communal nature of the
> whole collaborative development effort.
> 
> You might enjoy taking your own Meyers Briggs assessment and
> compare notes with friends or collaborators on different projects
> and social groups.  It goes a long way in bridging the understanding
> gaps between these very different approaches to contributions,
> collaboration and assembling a collective work :)  Plenty of free
> tests to pick from on the web.
> 
> 
>> To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders
>> (and other contributors) to finally work together, openly
>> and honestly, transparently and meritocractically (if you get
>> my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not by letting someone
>> share our toys by playing with them by themselves in some corner
>> of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build
>> a great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before
>> we couldn't.
>> 
>> Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and
>> wonder in our eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's
>> what I get paid to do"?
>> 
> 
> I expect both, just as I hope we have room for introverts and
> extroverts to accomplish exactly what you describe, sharing the
> toys to ultimately build the biggest collaborative sand castle that
> we can be proud of together, but with very different motivations
> and senses of reward :)

Re: projects.apache.org/create.html link broken at DOAP WIki

[sebb]

On 23 September 2015 at 23:26, Lewis John Mcgibbney
 wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I recently noticed that the above link was broken at the DOAP page
> https://github.com/edumbill/doap/wiki/Generators
> Does anyone know if the generator is still around?

Yes, it's at https://projects-old.apache.org/create.html

> If so is there a link I can update the wiki with?

However, I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep the link.

> Thanks
> Lewis
>
> --
> *Lewis*

Re: Could Apache Flink PMCs requests some ASF swags like stickers or frisbee for Flink Forward event?

[Melissa Warnkin]

Thanks, Sally.  Hey, Henry!
Yea, it's too late for me to ship anything out for Flink Forward as I leave 
tomorrow for ApacheCon; however, as Sally mentioned, hit me up at the booth 
near the end of the week and you can take all of the Apache gear that I have 
left over!
~M
 From: Sally Khudairi 
 To: Henry Saputra  
Cc: Melissa Warnkin ; Melissa Warnkin 
; ComDev  
 Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 8:58 PM
 Subject: Re: Could Apache Flink PMCs requests some ASF swags like stickers or 
frisbee for Flink Forward event?
   
Hello Henry --thanks so much for your note.
Indeed, I *used* to manage the swag process, but this is now handled by Melissa 
and now comes from the ComDev budget.
If you don't need Flink-specific items, you're more than welcome to take 
whatever you'd like during ApacheCon. No doubt Melissa will be happy to not 
have to ship items back to the US ;-)
Should you need Flink items, we can print "Powered By Apache Flink" stickers, 
for example, as long as the art is forwarded to Melissa in time for production.
To that end, I've copied both Melissa and ComDev here to keep them in the loop. 
Thanks in advance, Melissa, for following up with Henry regarding next steps!
Warm regards,Sally = = = = = vox +1 617 921 8656 off2 +1 646 583 3362 skype 
sallykhudairi
  From: Henry Saputra 
 To: Sally Khudairi  
 Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:10 PM
 Subject: Could Apache Flink PMCs requests some ASF swags like stickers or 
frisbee for Flink Forward event?
   
HI Sally,

Hope things are going well with you.

I am wondering if you are the right person to ask about this =)

There will be Flink Forward [1] conference this October in Berlin that
celebrates everything about Apache Flink and some of the PMCs will be
attending.

We were wondering if there is a way to get some ASF branded swags to
distribute them to Flink Forward attendees?

There will be ApacheCon Core and Big Data in Budapest, so maybe some
of us could pick the swags there if possible?


Thanks,


- Henry

[1] http://flink-forward.org


   

  

Re: Could Apache Flink PMCs requests some ASF swags like stickers or frisbee for Flink Forward event?

[Sally Khudairi]

Hello Henry --thanks so much for your note.
Indeed, I *used* to manage the swag process, but this is now handled by Melissa 
and now comes from the ComDev budget.
If you don't need Flink-specific items, you're more than welcome to take 
whatever you'd like during ApacheCon. No doubt Melissa will be happy to not 
have to ship items back to the US ;-)
Should you need Flink items, we can print "Powered By Apache Flink" stickers, 
for example, as long as the art is forwarded to Melissa in time for production.
To that end, I've copied both Melissa and ComDev here to keep them in the loop. 
Thanks in advance, Melissa, for following up with Henry regarding next steps!
Warm regards,Sally = = = = = vox +1 617 921 8656 off2 +1 646 583 3362 skype 
sallykhudairi
  From: Henry Saputra 
 To: Sally Khudairi  
 Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:10 PM
 Subject: Could Apache Flink PMCs requests some ASF swags like stickers or 
frisbee for Flink Forward event?
   
HI Sally,

Hope things are going well with you.

I am wondering if you are the right person to ask about this =)

There will be Flink Forward [1] conference this October in Berlin that
celebrates everything about Apache Flink and some of the PMCs will be
attending.

We were wondering if there is a way to get some ASF branded swags to
distribute them to Flink Forward attendees?

There will be ApacheCon Core and Big Data in Budapest, so maybe some
of us could pick the swags there if possible?


Thanks,


- Henry

[1] http://flink-forward.org