Am 09.06.2013 um 16:13 schrieb Kenneth Lerman <kenneth.ler...@se-ltd.com>:
> Since most of us will not be in Wichita, or will only be there part of
> the time, I think it important that we try to characterize the
> stakeholders and their views prior to the meeting. For that reason, I'd
> like to suggest that people who consider themselves stakeholders answer
> the following questions (which I've based on Steve's thoughtful post --
> and used many of his words without a license to do so).
>
> 1 -- How long have you been involved in LinuxCNC?
a few years, 3, maybe 4
> 2 -- Do you consider yourself to be heavily involved or only modestly
> involved? What is the nature of your involvement? As a developer? As a
> user?
I'd call it involved
>
> 3 -- So you believe that LinuxCNC should be actively promoted or that it
> should be left alone to exist in peace?
Not sure how to answer this.
If you mean 'LinuxCNC should have a wider audience' vs 'It dont matter': it
does matter very much, but the means isnt necessarily promotion in the classic
sense, which I dont think has a lot of bearing on open source projects. For
instance, visibility matters in attracting new developers and contributors, not
necessarily all need to come from the same traditional fold. That _is_ a
problem - just look at the age distribution in the community (and that includes
me at the right end of the bell curve).
I think the best way to achieve that promotion is by cleaning our house, from
some fundamental issues down to some rather mundane.
That begins by spelling out clearly where this project is heading, what the
rules for accepting contributions are, and what happens if our own rules are
violated - that is a sanitary prerequisite for obtaining the buy-in of new
contributors and their energy and time.
It also suggests to dump the developer priesthood model and switch to a more
level method, which would encourage contributions.
On the mundane end of the spectrum I note a forum which has response times
beyond a minute is less than promotion.
> 4 -- Do you come to it as a free and excellent body of code available
> for your own use or do you see it as part of what provides their livelihood?
LinuxCNC has potential as condensation nucleus for a portable open source
motion toolkit. It is useful as it stands, but in a limited footprint. By
extending the footprint of the generally usable part of LinuxCNC not only this
part would gain more traction, the more traditional part of LinuxCNC also
stands to gain more than by following business as usual.
I also view this horizontal functional split as the only realistic approach to
fixing the licensing situation while retaining a running system.
> 5 -- Should it be protected by strong licensing from those who might
> attempt to use it without contributing back to the community? Or should
> it be sown upon the earth freely for anyone to use in any fashion they
> wish without the hassles of legal contracts?
First, I see limited danger from 'abuse', and hoping what I view as a legacy
license status will somehow encourage or enforce contributions is unrealistic.
I think certain views on 'strong licensing' are partially based on a
misconception of the actual project impact and appeal, and partially on wrong
analogies - just because the Linux kernel does fine with GPL that doesnt mean
it is a good example to follow.
My personal view on licensing is: I favor very liberal licenses like BSD/MIT.
If my code is widely used, well fine, then that's an opportunity for consulting
revenue. I dont think the Shenzen region will crank out millions of
LinuxCNC-driven 3D printers without a cent coming back any day now.
Generally, I think the days of GPL-style licenses are counted; RMS has brought
them up and is busy burying them. The figures reported on open source license
adoption suggest I am not alone with that view.
> 6 -- Should there be a formal organization that manages the future of
> LinuxCNC?
There needs to be an organized way of arriving at, and following through on
community decisions. This is not in place and a deficit since the project is so
large and complex that individual contributions based upon Brownian motion of
individual interests do not result in a coherent development trajectory. This
suggests better social organisation, but not necessarily a legal one.
And I will use the 'm' word: managerial skills. I do not think a board is
necessarily best assembled by programmers of past merits, and the lop-sided mix
of skills has already been an issue in the past. Broadening that mix will help.
The requirement for better social (and yes, formal) organisation is simply a
consequence of division-of-labor-needing-coordination, which we know since the
Pyramides were built. That is lacking and needs to be fixed. While I heard
comments such coordination would 'impair individual freedoms', for me that view
lacks merit and applicability beyond isolated coding in a cave.
I am unsure what value a legal entity would provide at this point; assuming it
would, the previous question - governance - must be answered first and proven
to work in a credible way. First steps first; unsure of the second is needed
though.
---
For Wichita, I would suggest the following agenda items:
- this theme: governance and project direction
On the more technical level:
- persistent storage, variable and tool information handling: this should be a
session with the goal of arriving at a common understanding of scope and
approach, and a sketch of the way foward; possibly a breakdown of phases and
methods
- John and myself: maybe there's interest in a overview & Q&A session on the
'rtos work' and what's coming with the unified binary
- Charles probably has a lot to say _and_ to show
- HAL messaging & getting rid if NML: I'm happy to give an outline how I think
that can be done, and what the parts list is about
--
I fully support Ken's remark on agenda and minutes, and I volunteer to take
minutes for a session.
- Michael
>
> If you come to Wichita, it would be helpful if you've thought about
> these questions. If you don't (and if you care) you should make your
> opinions heard.
>
> [For those who will be in Wichita, I have an additional question. What
> is the difference between a meeting and a bull session? My answer is below.]
>
> I'm cross posting this to emc-developers and emc-users.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Ken's answer to the question -- A meeting starts with an agenda and
> ends with minutes. Consider this a suggestion for the Wichita
> participants in the licensing/governance/... meetings. -- KL]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments:
> 1. A cloud service to automate IT design, transition and operations
> 2. Dashboards that offer high-level views of enterprise services
> 3. A single system of record for all IT processes
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/servicenow-d2d-j
> _______________________________________________
> Emc-users mailing list
> emc-us...@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments:
1. A cloud service to automate IT design, transition and operations
2. Dashboards that offer high-level views of enterprise services
3. A single system of record for all IT processes
http://p.sf.net/sfu/servicenow-d2d-j
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
