Christian Einfeldt wrote: > > It is dangerous to think that being open source automatically > > gives us more freedom to innovate than in a company. A volunteer > > project can be just as resistant to innovation as any company, > > and it can be worse. > > I am having trouble imagining a scenario like this.
I don't, and it's unfortunate that you have little imagination. There are already open source projects that are more resistant to innovation than a company. Some FOSS projects can be extremely restrictive. > That norm depends on the good will of the group toward the leads. > You are the best example of this idea. You were irritated at what > OOo was doing, and you started OOoAuthors. You don't see a problem in using my irritation as evidence that everything is alright? Your argument ammounts to saying that there's nothing wrong because you can always fork. That's like saying that companies are permissive and innovative because if you don't like the company you can quit and make a new one. No Christian, the ability to fork does not make a FOSS project resistant to change. In fact, forking is what happens when people reach the conclusion that there is no real hope for change. The most restrictive FOSS projects are also, generally speaking, the ones that have the most forks. It's not unlike societies in the physical world. Countries and nations under dictatorial regimes also tend to seen more resistance and more civil wars. It's just what naturally happens when a member concludes that conflict is the only hope for change. You don't want that. The permissive and flexible societies tend to be the ones with less inner conflict. That's because most potential revolutionaries decide that they ammount of change they can produce by working through the standard channels is sufficiently high that revolution is not worth the effort. This is actually several guerillas have been disarmed. The government agrees to make some concessions, and those are enough for most members and the guerilla loses popular support. > > And that there are other coersive > > factors at play (e.g. "if I don't like you I won't give you CVS > > access"). > > Some people shouldn't have CVS access. There is a huge number of leves between "give access to everyone" versus "I have absolute control of CVS access". > +1 If a volunteer is unhappy, they just might go and create a > separate project to challenge the main projects, 1) You make it sound easy. 2) You make it sound like that's an okay way for a project to be. It's like saying that a country is not really dictatorial because a band of dissidents can always take up arms and start a civil war. You don't want this. You don't want to say "if an volunteer is unhappy they can just go and create a project to challenge the main projects". That is not the way it should happen. And when it does, and it keepshappening, it is a sign of an overly restrictive society. Best, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
