On 15/08/2006, at 7:02 PM, Danny Angus wrote:
On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/>
Obvioulsy we aren't going to agree about this, which is fine, but I'd
still like to pick up on a couple of points that you raised;
we are talking about stopping people using what they are comfortable
with just
because we have a few people who don't like it. (who aren't even
directly involved
in the project). Thats exclusionary to me.
With this principle where would you draw the line? Should we then be
looking at extending the channels of communication which projects use
to include many more forms of communication? What about people who
prefer IM or VOIP or web forums or usenet, do you think we should be
considering ways in which to include any reasonable and popular means
of communication or are your points specifically aimed at IRC?
It isn't the individuals who make the decision, but the community as
a whole.
If they feel more comfortable using X to communicate then fine.
If a individual doesn't like the method the project is communicating
with then it
is up to him to convince the rest of the community/project to change.
<snipped more good stuff/>
because it isn't. just like a dial-up modem, while perfectly fit for
the purpose is no longer used.
actually email isn't being used that much locally either... SMS or
Skype/IM is what I use most when
I want to talk to people.
I think you may be extrapolating your personal circumstances too far.
No doubt email is becoming less popular, in no small part as a
consequence of spam and the fact that the people who should be
concentrating on evolving the technology to match our evolving
sophistication are focusing a significant part of their attention on
spam prevention.
probably.. i tend to exaggerate. but email is a *very* hard medium to
communicate
ideas. take this thread for example. If we were talking on the phone
or on IRC it would
been settled in 20minutes.. but now there are 20 messages over 4
days, and people like
me jumping into the middle of it, using HTML mail and all that.
(I'm going to get flamed here)
this clinging to email is probably a symptom of a bigger problem. Trust.
People don't trust other members to make a decision, and always want
to add their 2c's
because they are smart people and have their own insights and they
know what's best.
and want to feel that they are needed or something.
This consensus-based approach we have adopted is a drag. I don't
believe we should wait
48 hours so everyone has a chance to weigh in.. I'd much rather have
a quorum based approach
X members say +1 and it's a done deal.
maybe thats why I hate email so much, and prefer a much 'speedier'
approach.. it forces people
to give up a bit of control, and put it into the hands of their
fellow members.
On the other hand people do need to communicate across timezones, and
in a diverse group any instant communication will exclude people who
cannot participate in real time. Many more are prevented from access
to instant communication by circumstances, for example corporate
firewalls etc. In my circumstances email is very much still the major
form of electronic communication in day to day use.
get a better job? Does google have a office in your location .. I'm
sure it will in 3 months.
seriously.. I agree with you .. timezones suck.. but I really like
the approach stock market traders
do.
at the end of a shift they call the other timezone and talk and brief
the others on what is going on,
so the information moves forward. they also have delegated areas of
responsibility. so they all work
on the same project, but are focused on different areas inside of it.
<snip>
as long as governance can be maintained I don't see why we (the ASF)
should care.
Well this is logical but you could say the same about any of our
activities or policies,
why do we defend our licence when we could use
any one of many other fine open source licences?
because we (the collective community) feel that it is the best one.
and it is one our differentiating factors.
I believe people choose the project, and the license is
inconsequential. I would have joined HTTP if it were GPL
for example.. others feel much more strongly than I do.
Why do we choose to
allow people only to contribute as individuals when there is
apparently, plenty of corporations who would like explicitly to
provide paid contributors?
good question.
we should acknowledge the different circumstances our members are in.
maybe as we evolve corporations will be treated as equals...
different topic though.
Why have any particular structure or
goals?
Surely we care because we are commited to the continued sucess
of the ASF,
everyone agrees.
and we resist changing the things which demonstrably work
because they risk that.
Status Quo vs Change for change sake.. the eternal choice.
I believe that the use of email is one of the
essential charateristics of the Apache Way, it has a long history of
sucesses and a proven track record here and in other OS projects.
so have modems.
Changing the way we communicate will necessarily change the nature of
the ASF, the way we operate, and the way we are percieved, and
probably change the nature, the amount and the quality of our output.
agreed... without experimentation we won't know if IRC or VOIP is
better,
and produces a better quality/amount.
Without evidence (not opinion and speculation) that these changes will
be beneficial rather than harmful I think that the risks are too
great. We should wish to maintain the factors which have contributed
to the success of the ASF, in this case that factor is inclusivity.
Status Quo vs Change for change sake.
you need to experiment with different things, diversity is a key
factor for innovation (imho)
and innovation drives the ASF.
d.
--Ian
--
Ian Holsman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://VC-chat.com It's what the VC's talk about
