On Saturday 12 March 2005 16:36, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Ian Lynch wrote: > > I agree that you have a lot more freedom to innovate than in a > > corporate situation but you are not free to do absolutely > > anything you want. Hence there are some frustrations for some > > people from time to time. > > I'd like to add something. It's not an ammendment, it's an > addition: > > It is dangerous to think that being open source automatically > gives us more freedom to innovate than in a company. A volunteer > project can be just as resistant to innovation as any company, > and it can be worse.
I am having trouble imagining a scenario like this. > This actually goes right along the lines of > what Ian said in this email. That social norm, and social > contracts do exert weight. That norm depends on the good will of the group toward the leads. You are the best example of this idea. You were irritated at what OOo was doing, and you started OOoAuthors. From there, you developed your own moral authority that has influenced the main project. So I'm not following your point here. > And that there are other coersive > factors at play (e.g. "if I don't like you I won't give you CVS > access"). Some people shouldn't have CVS access. For example, there is no way that I should have CVS. I really tend to goof things up at the Digital Tipping Point site, and Adam Doxtater is all the time saving my butt over there. I can learn, and I have learned, but sometimes I still make huge mistakes that require Adam to intervene and reverse damage that I have inadvertantly done. Plus, sometimes people are just not a good match for one another. So part of the group can go off and do their own work, and exert influence on the group from outside. You have actually become more influential INSIDE OOo as a result of your work on the OUTSIDE, IMHO. > I just wanted to point out that if these are used in a > sufficiently bad way, they can stiffle innovation beyond the > worst companies. I suppose, in theory, this could be true, but I have not seen any examples of such blocks on innovation in any FLOSS projects that I have been active in. Projects that stifle innovation most certainly will die. > And back to what Peter said, about having the > option to go away. This also means that it takes a lot less > coersion to stiffle a FOSS project, than a company. If you depend > on me for food and subsistence, you will be willing to put up > with more crap from me than if we're working as volunteers. +1 If a volunteer is unhappy, they just might go and create a separate project to challenge the main projects, and then use that influence to come back and try to gain a voice in the main projects, just as one of my personal heroes (Daniel Carrera) has done. Heh.
