Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
[...]
I don't think it is accurate to think that ego doesn't play a part in just
about everything that just about everyone does. We all want to see our
work benefit others. For most of us I believe its because we genuinely
like the feeling we get when someone writes us and says "hey, your code
really helped me, thank you!". I know speaking for myself, it makes my
day when I get those eMails! Part of it is simply the ego stroke of
someone essentially saying your work is worth something, but I don't
believe that is the big factor for most people. I know it isn't for me,
and I don't think it is for the Struts team. I think the thank you note
means as much to them as it does me.
If you agree with that, then the idea of forking the code and doing it
with the belief that you aren't going to reach a wide audience because the
Apache version continues to be what people go to, is not appealing. In
that regard, if we substitute ego for money in the analogy, I think it
still works (although just saying ego is dangerous because as I tried to
illustrate above, I think there is good ego and bad ego).
Sure, if just always seems to me that the "I want to be a committer"
guys that haven't contributed any code are 100% ego. They just want
their name on the list. To them, forking the code is not at all
appealing since they only want the recognition. And there's the other
side of the coin, if you have some specific direction you need to take
the code and are willing to put the work in then a fork is totally
appropriate and if no one else uses it, well that was only a secondary
concern anyway.
I have several open source projects of my own and some small amount of
"fame" due to that, but at the end of the day I still wrote those
projects for my own needs... which makes them useful by definition. The
fact that others use them is icing on the cake. (Though it is a warm
fuzzy feeling when I go to respond to someone's post on the NWN forums
only to see that several others have already recommended my tools...)
I think people who think about having their name on the committers list
first and "what can I do to help" second will always be frustrated and
disappointed at an apache project. Just my gut feeling and experience.
So, the only reason to be a committer is to contribute to the
codebase... and all other committers have to live with each other. The
only reason to be able to cast a binding vote is if you have a stake in
the code... ie: are a committer.
This is where I'm not sure I agree... why can you only have a stake in the
I think there are different levels of "stake". There is the "stake in
the code" that your project depends on it... in an emergency, you can
fork it. There is the "stake in the code" that you are notionally and
legally responsible for what is produced (ie: a committer). The first
is a completely single-direction dependency. If you think about things
from the code's perspective, it only has a stake in the committers...
and that's only while things are still broken. ;)
code, or in the community even, if you are a committer? And certainly the
"community" is often touted as the most important part of any ASF
project... it's just that "community" in that context means the committers
only, which is where I disagree with the Apache Way I guess.
Yeah, I guess I haven't seen it codefied like that. I always think of
"committers" as the committers and "community" as everything else that
grew up around that.
Simply putting code out there and sharing your work is great, but going
back to a point I made some weeks ago, I beleive there is a responsibility
that comes along with it when you do that. Whether they should or not,
people become dependent on the project... not in a cocaine kind of way of
course, but they are "counting on you" basically. That to me implies
taking into consideration their needs and wants. Not above your own of
course, but to some degree.
Yeah, but see... that's almost a moralistic view. The code only cares
that _someone_ is using it. So as long as it has committers that "eat
their own dogfood" it is happy. The committers should feel motivated to
listen to the community because the community ideas could help them do
their own jobs better. But it isn't an obligation at all. The license
is liberal, you can fork whenever you want.
For a while, as a rule, the company I work for routinely forked open
source projects into our own repository to insulate ourselves from
external changes and to more methodically control what went into it.
And in several cases, we did a true fork. Now we're back to baseline
and happy to be there... but we wouldn't have been successful without
our local copies.
[...]
Thanks for commenting, you are always welcome as far as I'm concerned :)
Sure, I always have an opinion on something. ;)
-Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
