The Rules of Open-Source Programming

[Sam Ruby]

Why does the Phoenix [1] page *still* say that it is the reference implementation? Is everybody waiting for Peter Donald to do it?

If you have time for an amusing diversion, take a look at the Rules for Open-Source Programming [2]. Be sure to read the Meta-Rules first as you will inevitably find that the rules when taken as a whole are self-contradictory and some are outright false. But as with most humor, each nugget is based on a kernel of truth.

Mostly, I would like to draw your attention to Sunir's corollaries [2]. In particular, the statement that "as long as the project *looks* like one person's work, it *is* one person's work."

Until the recent global change eradicating personal @author tags, approximately 75% of the source files in the framework had Peter's name on them. This exceeded the number of files which contained an author's tag with any other name. Combined. (Out of 62 files, 46 contained Peter's name, 45 contained any other name, 17 contained only Peter's name, and only 16 did not contain Peter's name).

I suspect that if you narrow the focus to recent history, the results would be even more dramatic. It is clear that Peter has the drive, ability, interest, and dedication to out-code the rest of the project combined. He also challenges each contributor to maintain the highest standards of quality and attention to customer requirements.

In many contexts, these would be good things. And, in moderation, these are good things here. But things are out of balance in Avalon. Lately, this project *looks* like one person's work, and Sunir's observations apply. In particular, I notice that several members of the community seem to derive a tad too much pleasure in the rare events where Peter is proven wrong.

The alternative is to require consensus. Strive always to do as Noel so eloquently described [4] with the words "we did it as a community, we support it as a community, and if necessary we'll fix it as a community.". Achieving this will require changes in behavior from pretty much everybody here. It will also be hard work. And require much patience. And endurance.

Meanwhile, there is some low hanging fruit. For starters, it is detrimental to the community for the words "The reference implementation" to appear prominently on the Phoenix page [1]. Peter has already indicated that this wording was a historical accident. So what's everybody waiting for?

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/phoenix/index.html
[2] http://www.advogato.org/article/395.html
[3] http://www.advogato.org/article/395.html#5
[4] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103802938922576&w=2


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>