+1 :o)

Jacques

From: "Ean Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David E Jones wrote:
This is a great tool. The problem with the tool and the approach in general to this sort of release management is that it assumes top-down management of a project.

In the Release Plan document it starts out by explaining the nature of OFBiz and the community that drives it. Most ASF projects, and many other open source projects, are community driven but are also more limited in scope and have either an existing specification to work toward, or have a sufficiently limited scope that the definition of targets for a release is not overly burdensome.

With OFBiz it's not just the size of the scope, but the fact that the scope depends on what different contributors to OFBiz need over time, for themselves or their clients/customers. If we had a budget for driving OFBiz top-down that could result in the same volume of progress it would have to be around $5-10M per year (my own estimate of course, no Gartner or the like has deigned to look into this).

In short there is a reason why OFBiz is the only real community driven open source enterprise automation project out there. The closest alternative is probably Adempiere, but that is more of a community driven effort to replace a bad vendor that has mostly stepped out of the picture.

So, until someone comes along with a sufficient budget to drive things in a more "traditional" way, we have to stick with what works according to what people are willing and able to contribute.
I think if we really believe in the community oriented model that we shouldn't view ourselves as "just waiting for a budget to go back to a top-down model". We know that the top-down model always leads to lock in and all the other negatives of a single monolithic vendor. The Linux kernel has already shown that you can get distributed scale with multiple large vendor players giving the power assist. I think that's the future we want to be living in.

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com

Reply via email to