Ted Husted wrote:
From an open source perspective, terms like "succeed" and "fail" have
very different meanings. How many lurkers use a product isn't
important. What's important is how many people are willing to put ego
aside and collaborate on a product.
Yes, that's the idealism of the open source perspective. I don't
dispute that at all. But let's step back and be pragmatic for just a
minute. JSF is a way for a lot of people to make money. Many vendors
have a stake in its "commercial" success or failure. This has been true
from the beginning. Some would say the whole point of JSF from the
start was to make money for one company, and eventually a lot of other
companies. Incidentally, I'm a happy capitalist, I therefore have no
problem whatsoever with that! I just like that fact not being denied,
and I for one do see it as fact. Contrast this with how something like
Struts began, which came straight from the idealism you speak of, a
desire to help a community, a desire by one developer to create
something that not only helped themselves but helped others. I think
that is a wonderful motivation. And that may have been that same
developers' motivation with JSF as well, but I to this day do not
believe it was the motivation of the larger entities involved.
So, while there may be certain meanings in those two words "succeed" and
fail", from a community perspective, there is also a meaning from a
larger perspective, and it isn't the same.
Frankly though, that's all noise in my mind... putting that all aside
though, *I* was talking about success or failure in terms of developer
mindshare, and nothing more. This is where I don't think any conclusion
has been reached yet. Personally, I hope things continue as they are
right now: JSF is one choice among many. That to me seems the best
state of being. Options are good. JSF is an option. Therefore, in at
least one sense, JSF is good :) It should be able to develop and grow
its community, and if it winds up being what everyone decides they want
to use, great! It shouldn't become that because some corporate entities
have a stake in it becoming that.
Right now, we have volunteers who are ready, willing, and able to
contribute to the Shale codebase. We also have volunteers contributing
to Action and Action2.
Exactly as it should be. I'd hate it if it were any other way, honestly.
The reason these products all live at Struts is because the *people*
who are building the products feel like we are all part of the same
team. We share the same values, and we are trying to solve the same
problems, even if we are solving them with different flavors of the
same underlying technologies. It's not up to anyone else. It's up to
the 15 members of the Apache Struts PMC, all of which have different
employers, and all of which have an equal say.
Again, no problem. As you have pointed out many times, those that do
the work set the direction. Again, as it should be. However, whatever
the original intent, Struts has become a powerful brand. You can recite
whatever philosophical ideals you want, but that doesn't change the
reality of what Struts has become. As such, those making the decisions,
have a certain responsibility IMO to "do right" by the brand.
Of course, what "doing right" means is absolutely debatable :) I for
one do not have any major problem with how things are at the moment. I
did a few months back, but frankly it seems like the concerns I had have
been addressed reasonably well for the most part. It looks like Paul
might not agree :) As long as no one silences anyone else just because
their opinion doesn't jive with your won ("your" being anyone, not you
specifically Ted) then things are still as they should be.
For us, it's not about branding or marketshare or any of that. It's
about volunteer share. It's about which products that we, as
engineeers, want to use to build our own applications.
This is where I do happen to disagree with you Ted. As I said earlier,
Struts has become something more to a great many people. Many
businesses rely on Struts. Many peoples' livelihoods depend on Struts.
I hope you would agree with those statements. Because of that, you
take on a greater responsibility than simply contributing. Of course
you should be guided to a large degree by what you want to use to build
your own applications. That's understandable and appropriate. But it
you don't see yourself having a larger responsibility because of what
Struts is to many people, I don't think you completely appreciate the
position you have (again, I'm not speaking directly to you Ted, this is
the metaphorical "you").
This goes for any open-source project. Linus is still guided by what he
wants to see in Linux, but I dare say he realizes he has a larger
responsibility because of what Linux has become. His actions bear that
out I think. The same should be true for any extremely popular
open-source project IMO.
When people discuss our products, it's easy to miss the true point of
an Apache project. It's not about creating technology, it's about
*people* creating technologies. It's about real engineers working
together to solve our own problems. If our solutions solve other
people's problems too, that's great, but, for us, marketshare is not
the point of the exercise.
But it has *become* at least *part* of the exercise. Struts has. When
an open-source project gets to a certain level of acceptance, there
*has* to be a point where responsibility to others kicks in.
You know, we're always talking about building community... it seems to
me that part of being involved in a community is responsibility to
others. You can't be part of a community and yet exist in a vacuum. If
you take on a role as a leader in an open-source project, you have to
understand that other people are in fact counting on you. Yes, it is
there choice to do so, and they accept a certain degree of risk in doing
so, but don't you have at least *some* obligation to them as a leader in
that project? We can debate the degrees here, but can we really debate
that underlying thesis?
-Ted.
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
