There are 
already open source projects that are more resistant to innovation than a 
company. Some FOSS projects can be extremely restrictive.

It's true in all volunteer organizations. From Open Source Projects to bake sales to churches to international charities. Any one of those can be restrictive or open to change. The lack of monetary incentive doesn't really change people's tendancy to resist change.

+1   If a volunteer is unhappy, they just might go and create a 
separate project to challenge the main projects,


1) You make it sound easy.
2) You make it sound like that's an okay way for a project to be.


It's like saying that a country is not really dictatorial because a band of 
dissidents can always take up arms and start a civil war.

You don't want this. You don't want to say "if an volunteer is unhappy they can 
just go and create a project to challenge the main projects". That is not the 
way it should happen. And when it does, and it keepshappening, it is a sign of 
an overly restrictive society.

Actually, I kinda think it *is* the way it should be. In fact, the reason republics tend to work so well is because of the built-in revolution function. I mean, in the US, there is a change of power every 4 - 8 years. There is a planned, organized, hopefully peaceful revolution every 4 years in which the people rise up, go to the polls, and create a new government... Actually, it happens more often than that - that's just for one office. The point is, the constant state of change, revolution, replacing of the ones in power - that's what makes republics stable. It's somewhat ironic that constant change brings about stability. But when some dictator is left in power for 30 or 40 years, the country is - as Daniel points out - much more prone to civil wars and conflicts.

Change is inevitable, and the best way to promote stability is to account for constant change. Have a changing of the guards, or a peaceful revolution every so often. Shake things up on a regular basis.

It might not be the best marketing idea, but "forking" OpenOffice.org every year - were once a year we plan a revolution - new name, new logo, new mission statement, new leadership, etc. Or at least we vote on whether or not to keep those things, change them completely, or amend them. So maybe next year, OpenOffice.org 2.5 becomes LibreOffice 1.0 and the next year FreeOffice 4.0 and the next year DanielRulzSupremeOffice 1.2.3. Just a way to keep any "scared cows" from forming. We could vote on stuff like do we *really need* a vector graphics program - or a word processor. Do we *have to* have seagulls as the mascot? *Must* we keep the LGPL? Do we want to keep working on an office suite? Can we add a PIM? Do we want to keep doing this at all? Everything that would be legally changable would be open to debate. Maybe once a year is too often, maybe every 2 years. But the point is, by opening everything up for debate, - not just you're free to debate whatever, whenever, but an actual planned vote, with real life consequences - opening everything to debate, we find out what is really important to the community - *AND* - we will probably end up with much the same project we have now, but with a much clearer and better understanding of *WHY* things are the way the are, and a more unified and concrete vision of where we are going with this.

People come and go from this, and all other projects, open source, volunteer, or otherwise. Having a annual, or repeating, vision vote meeting, (cyber or rl) is a way to introduce the new recruits to the vision, and remind and refresh the faithful to the cause.

I think forking in the normal sense is good too, for many of the same reasons, new exxcitement, fresh vision, new blood, lack of constraints... But it's not good because it dillutes reasources and causes confusion and is bad marketing, etc. But the excitement it causes in those who fork, and the innovation it brings is good. But the constant controlled peaceful revolutions of democracies and republics - those are better, because you learn from the old, and don't let the new get too out of hand, and start killing the old loyalists....

Just some late night ranting...

-Chad Smith

Re: [social] Do-ocracy - was TOTAL AND UTTER FRUSTRATION WITH OOO]

Reply via email to