You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2015/09/22 21:58:36 UTC
Passion and vigilance in open source
Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
My latest is about the risks around open source today where the
fun and passion that used to exist around open source is drying
up or being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining
oasis of open source being all about community and fun whilst still
changing the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the
membership about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the
2nd part of this mini-series.
If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
accordingly.
Thx!
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
> On 22 Sep 15, at 16:35, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all just
> getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
I think that the fun is not leaving—rather the opposite, in fact--and that age, or more accurately, being in a rut and for a very long while, can get boring. Even for the JimJags of the wold, who seldom are boring to others.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
>> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
>>
>> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the
>> fun and passion that used to exist around open source is drying
>> up or being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining
>> oasis of open source being all about community and fun whilst still
>> changing the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the
>> membership about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the
>> 2nd part of this mini-series.
>>
>> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Thx!
>>
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org>.
I beg to differ. From my point of view, OSS is bustling and it's funner
than ever. Partly responsible are tools like Github, as they've made
projects easily publishable and discoverable; they've demystified OSS and
made it even simpler for anyone to pitch in and contribute.
Moreover, huge services like Facebook, Twitter, Netflix and the likes keep
publishing innovative and exciting stuff often – which only contributes to
the fun. Take into account that most of the current IT trends (big data,
cloud, analytics, machine learning, IoT, etc.) have strong roots in OSS.
That said, it is true that we're seeing more business models built around
open source, dragging in more corporate horsepower into this world. I
definitely see a "corporatisation" of Open Source. I don't know if that's
what you meant with less fun and passion.
*Raúl Kripalani*
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and
Messaging Engineer
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all just
> getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
> > around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
> >
> > My latest is about the risks around open source today where the
> > fun and passion that used to exist around open source is drying
> > up or being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining
> > oasis of open source being all about community and fun whilst still
> > changing the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the
> > membership about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the
> > 2nd part of this mini-series.
> >
> > If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
> > accordingly.
> >
> > Thx!
> >
>
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Aris Siarot <ar...@gmail.com>.
H
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:59 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches,
>> submit a bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them
>> committed upstream... That is so.... solitary. The wonder is
>> working *with* and collaborating *with* and reaching consensus
>> *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a
>> common goal. The wonder is the community. And I think that
>> that is something which is at risk.
>>
>
> There is some good psych theory that would be helpful in
> understanding the dichotomy you describe, and I think it's
> existed before the OSS revolution and continues through today.
> You just did a great job of describing your approach, and mine
> and many others at the foundation who are extroverts. We enjoy
> the interaction, and when a community is healthy, enjoy providing
> positive feedback loops, encouragement and praise, and the
> ultimate praise (to have ones code committed to the project).
>
> Spending a weekend with my kids, who are both introverts, helps
> remind me of the needs of those who are not 'public people'. We
> have many successful examples, I'm thinking especially of Sam
> or even Rich who are actually much quieter and reserved and
> generally 'go off into their own space' to accomplish things, and
> thrive in the solitary spaces where they can assemble something
> they are happy with. All of our many introverts then bring back
> Cool Things(TM) and interact with the community to get them
> accepted, but the "fun" for them is the detached-creative process,
> while the "fun" for the extroverts is the communal nature of the
> whole collaborative development effort.
>
> You might enjoy taking your own Meyers Briggs assessment and
> compare notes with friends or collaborators on different projects
> and social groups. It goes a long way in bridging the understanding
> gaps between these very different approaches to contributions,
> collaboration and assembling a collective work :) Plenty of free
> tests to pick from on the web.
>
>
>> To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders
>> (and other contributors) to finally work together, openly
>> and honestly, transparently and meritocractically (if you get
>> my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not by letting someone
>> share our toys by playing with them by themselves in some corner
>> of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build
>> a great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before
>> we couldn't.
>>
>> Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and
>> wonder in our eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's
>> what I get paid to do"?
>>
>
> I expect both, just as I hope we have room for introverts and
> extroverts to accomplish exactly what you describe, sharing the
> toys to ultimately build the biggest collaborative sand castle that
> we can be proud of together, but with very different motivations
> and senses of reward :)
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I hope I captured things correctly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutfacePMIs
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
>
> ++1... I was primarily pointing out that we want to remember to respect
> different approaches, and that includes folks who do this 9-5 on weekdays
> or shows up with something cool and then just disappears again for a while.
>
> Shambhala comes to mind :)
Of course! As someone who was there when Shambhala happened, I am
unlikely to forget :)
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Top posting:
And that is why merit does not expire. Something very cool is likely to be returned unless you've burned, bridges!
As imperfect as anyone.
Regards,
Dave
PS. When discussing forebears ask me about parents and stock databases.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 7:25 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 23, 2015 4:53 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Spending a weekend with my kids, who are both introverts, helps
>>> remind me of the needs of those who are not 'public people'. We
>>> have many successful examples, I'm thinking especially of Sam
>>> or even Rich who are actually much quieter and reserved and
>>> generally 'go off into their own space' to accomplish things, and
>>> thrive in the solitary spaces where they can assemble something
>>> they are happy with. All of our many introverts then bring back
>>> Cool Things(TM) and interact with the community to get them
>>> accepted, but the "fun" for them is the detached-creative process,
>>> while the "fun" for the extroverts is the communal nature of the
>>> whole collaborative development effort.
>>
>> These are good points. I would suggest that we are all, at times,
>> both intro- and extroverts, and all of us occasionally will
>> go off on their own and bring back goodness. But we all "bring
>> back", which I think is key. We all work towards a common goal
>> and have created a way in which intro- and extroverts can contribute
>> equally and equally obtain merit.
>
> ++1... I was primarily pointing out that we want to remember to respect
> different approaches, and that includes folks who do this 9-5 on weekdays
> or shows up with something cool and then just disappears again for a while.
>
> Shambhala comes to mind :)
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Sep 23, 2015 4:53 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Spending a weekend with my kids, who are both introverts, helps
> > remind me of the needs of those who are not 'public people'. We
> > have many successful examples, I'm thinking especially of Sam
> > or even Rich who are actually much quieter and reserved and
> > generally 'go off into their own space' to accomplish things, and
> > thrive in the solitary spaces where they can assemble something
> > they are happy with. All of our many introverts then bring back
> > Cool Things(TM) and interact with the community to get them
> > accepted, but the "fun" for them is the detached-creative process,
> > while the "fun" for the extroverts is the communal nature of the
> > whole collaborative development effort.
> >
>
> These are good points. I would suggest that we are all, at times,
> both intro- and extroverts, and all of us occasionally will
> go off on their own and bring back goodness. But we all "bring
> back", which I think is key. We all work towards a common goal
> and have created a way in which intro- and extroverts can contribute
> equally and equally obtain merit.
++1... I was primarily pointing out that we want to remember to respect
different approaches, and that includes folks who do this 9-5 on weekdays
or shows up with something cool and then just disappears again for a while.
Shambhala comes to mind :)
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
>
> Spending a weekend with my kids, who are both introverts, helps
> remind me of the needs of those who are not 'public people'. We
> have many successful examples, I'm thinking especially of Sam
> or even Rich who are actually much quieter and reserved and
> generally 'go off into their own space' to accomplish things, and
> thrive in the solitary spaces where they can assemble something
> they are happy with. All of our many introverts then bring back
> Cool Things(TM) and interact with the community to get them
> accepted, but the "fun" for them is the detached-creative process,
> while the "fun" for the extroverts is the communal nature of the
> whole collaborative development effort.
>
These are good points. I would suggest that we are all, at times,
both intro- and extroverts, and all of us occasionally will
go off on their own and bring back goodness. But we all "bring
back", which I think is key. We all work towards a common goal
and have created a way in which intro- and extroverts can contribute
equally and equally obtain merit.
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches,
> submit a bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them
> committed upstream... That is so.... solitary. The wonder is
> working *with* and collaborating *with* and reaching consensus
> *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a
> common goal. The wonder is the community. And I think that
> that is something which is at risk.
>
There is some good psych theory that would be helpful in
understanding the dichotomy you describe, and I think it's
existed before the OSS revolution and continues through today.
You just did a great job of describing your approach, and mine
and many others at the foundation who are extroverts. We enjoy
the interaction, and when a community is healthy, enjoy providing
positive feedback loops, encouragement and praise, and the
ultimate praise (to have ones code committed to the project).
Spending a weekend with my kids, who are both introverts, helps
remind me of the needs of those who are not 'public people'. We
have many successful examples, I'm thinking especially of Sam
or even Rich who are actually much quieter and reserved and
generally 'go off into their own space' to accomplish things, and
thrive in the solitary spaces where they can assemble something
they are happy with. All of our many introverts then bring back
Cool Things(TM) and interact with the community to get them
accepted, but the "fun" for them is the detached-creative process,
while the "fun" for the extroverts is the communal nature of the
whole collaborative development effort.
You might enjoy taking your own Meyers Briggs assessment and
compare notes with friends or collaborators on different projects
and social groups. It goes a long way in bridging the understanding
gaps between these very different approaches to contributions,
collaboration and assembling a collective work :) Plenty of free
tests to pick from on the web.
> To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders
> (and other contributors) to finally work together, openly
> and honestly, transparently and meritocractically (if you get
> my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not by letting someone
> share our toys by playing with them by themselves in some corner
> of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build
> a great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before
> we couldn't.
>
> Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and
> wonder in our eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's
> what I get paid to do"?
>
I expect both, just as I hope we have room for introverts and
extroverts to accomplish exactly what you describe, sharing the
toys to ultimately build the biggest collaborative sand castle that
we can be proud of together, but with very different motivations
and senses of reward :)
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
I like these thoughts about periodic cycles.
--
Best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dataved.ru/
+7 916 562 8095
[1] Start using Apache Openmeetings today, http://openmeetings.apache.org/
[2] Join Alexei Fedotov @linkedin, http://ru.linkedin.com/in/dataved/
[3] Join Alexei Fedotov @facebook, http://www.facebook.com/openmeetings
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my earlier
> essay - sorry I got on a roll with that one).
>
> Jim's pendulum is something like:
>
> Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent
> dictator)
> Let b = meritocratic open source governance
> Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork and
> forget - note not all GitHub projects are this style)
>
> The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c, I
> think we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many rock-star
> projects are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my
> argument that open source is currently more about the business model than
> the development model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one will
> swing back towards the center as those companies realize that there is a
> glass ceiling to their growth using that model (if you haven't read Henrik
> Ingo's paper [1] on this you should).
>
> Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if history
> repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the swing
> is much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that
> succeed will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic project
> in order to scale.
>
> As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the
> "sensible" place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the only
> place that can work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I
> think plenty of people still do this for the fun (and education). Speaking
> personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for fun
> again - so that's at least one person going in the opposite direction to
> the one Jim sees is the majority (lucky me!)
>
> Ross
>
> [1]
> http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-10x-and-revenues-5x
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
>
> I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like wonder
> (but I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but not
> forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being
> continued, esp by the next gen.
>
> Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so,
> then it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the
> continuation of open source.
>
> Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit a
> bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed upstream...
> That is so.... solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating
> *with* and reaching consensus
> *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal. The
> wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which is at
> risk.
>
> To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other
> contributors) to finally work together, openly and honestly, transparently
> and meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not
> by letting someone share our toys by playing with them by themselves in
> some corner of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build a
> great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before we couldn't.
>
> Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and wonder in our
> eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's what I get paid to do"?
>
> Good questions. Not simple answers :)
>
> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all
> > just getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
> >> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
> >>
> >> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun
> >> and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or
> >> being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis of
> >> open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing
> >> the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership
> >> about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part of
> >> this mini-series.
> >>
> >> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
> >> accordingly.
> >>
> >> Thx!
> >>
>
>
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org>.
To me, Github and the ASF are not comparable. GH is a service to facilitate
collaboration in the OSS world (with a private offering for managing
private code too); whereas the ASF is an organisation that promotes,
protects and mentors OSS projects.
One of our prime drivers is Community over Code, whereas I'd argue that
Github's priorities are the opposite: Code over Community. Just get your
code out there and see if it gains traction. Moreover, we have a principle
of meritocracy which is not even modelled at Github. Open Source
traditionally being a voluntary commitment, I would argue that a
meritocracy policy tends to drive people to get involved and absorbed into
the fun ;-)
About the organisations publishing on Github or on Apache... Companies
publishing to Github prioritise building a user base (not necessarily a
community), whilst *retaining their control on the project*. Conversely,
organisations contributing their projects to the ASF are actually
*donating* their codebase with the expectation of building a solid and
vibrant community around it – that's where the fun is IMHO.
In fact – for the sake of illustrating my thoughts – I *could* envision
part of the ASF's daily business/processes running on top of Github, why
not? Code management, issue management, knowledge management, mainly.
Obviously we'd lose a lot of our delicacy and uniqueness if we do that ;-)
The ASF has a prestige, whereas – like Alex said GH – can be thought of as
a marketplace: each project has its own reputation. In fact, the dev
communities I've dealt with tend to regard the ASF highly as a body;
whereas you can't ask them for an opinion about GH as a whole, you'd have
to ask for specific projects (unless you're asking about GH as a product).
The public recognises that being an ASF projects implies having passed many
filters, votes and approval of talented people. And they appreciate that.
*Raúl Kripalani*
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and
Messaging Engineer
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> IMO, I believe history does repeat itself, and that there are pendulums
> and cycles, but I think the dynamic here is more linear. Now I certainly
> haven’t been involved with open source and Apache for very long, but
> having met Roy and heard him describe why Apache was founded and how it
> was supposed to be like a potluck/party, I would say that JimJag is just
> witnessing the “natural” progression of large organizations in the US.
>
> I’ve seen other organizations have to become “more serious” as the
> customer base grows and the stakes get higher. You sort of have to, in
> order to attempt to propagate the vision and messaging to more and more
> people. The famous party games of “telephone” where one person tells
> something to another person and by the time the story has been relayed
> several times the story has changed is a true human dynamic. So more
> process is put in place, things take longer because they have to be
> written and reviewed, etc.
>
> IIRC, there are people in the world who are serial entrepreneurs. They
> start a company, it grows to a certain point, then they decide (or their
> board helps them decide) that it isn’t fun any more and they leave and
> start another company. I know folks who are serial code project starters.
> They take a good idea, develop the prototype, get folks excited, a team
> is formed, version 1.0 ships, and then during the drudgery work of making
> the product mature, they take off for another new idea. They don’t find
> it fun to fix all of the bugs folks expect to be fixed for version 2.0.
>
> So yeah, being at Apache now probably isn’t nearly the fun it was many
> years ago when trying to create a legal entity to protect open source was
> new and different. We now know it is possible and are now trying to fix
> all the small bugs.
>
> And meanwhile, while your organization matures, some other person starts
> up a similar company with a different angle and folks find it new and
> different and fun compared to your now-slower process machinery and people
> flock to the new and different thing. There may be aspects of that new
> and different variant that will make it the winner for the next
> generation, or it may be that they will inevitably have to implement the
> same process machinery. The legal system in the US tends to make that
> happen. So does the US insurance industry. Lots of young single people
> don’t buy health insurance in the US, then they get married and have kids
> (i.e., their organization grows and matures and the stakes get higher) and
> then they start buying insurance.
>
> So, I don’t know that Apache can ever swing back to being young and fast,
> there is just too many people and too much at stake. But IMO, any project
> within GitHub that becomes as important as some of the ASF projects will
> have to go down this same road.
>
> To me, the question about ASF’s attractiveness vs GitHub is all about
> whether GitHub has something that will still shine through this additional
> process that their high profile projects with US corporate customers will
> have to take on at some point. That’s probably worth a separate thread,
> and I don’t spend any time on GH to know for myself, but I think I’ve seen
> folks say that their UX is better integrated, which is something we could
> work on here at the ASF. I posted a thread a couple of days ago about
> Apache FlexJS being used to build a more integrated UX for ASF projects.
>
> So, sorry Jim, the ASF may never be as much fun as it was, but we should
> definitely be discussing whether we need to be more popular to our target
> customers and how to go about doing that and whether we can learn anything
> from GH or other organizations.
>
> A higher-up executive at Starbucks once told me that he was taught to “try
> to imagine what the younger guy/gal competing for his job would do.” Is
> GH that younger guy/gal? GH could just be a flea market. Corporations
> rarely shop at flea markets. On occasion a vendor refines their product
> at a flea market and starts a million dollar company and leaves the flea
> market to try to attract corporate customers. What can the ASF do to make
> that vendor want to come to the ASF at that point? What are the barriers?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 9/23/15, 8:12 AM, "Alexei Fedotov" <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >... and thanks to the topic starter for the great topic.
> >23.09.2015 17:48 пользователь "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> написал:
> >
> >> Yeah, that's pretty much the way I'm looking at it. To me though, just
> >> as gravity is what pulls the pendulum back down to its mid-point, for
> >> Open Source, it's the "true Open Source" community (or, if you prefer,
> >> the "real" one) which acts as gravity, and pulls the pendulum back
> >> to 'b'. But if that real community doesn't exist, then the pendulum
> >> never swings back.
> >>
> >> As long as we are talking mechanical analogies, one I like to use isn't
> >> the pendulum but rather the fly-ball governor on a Watt steam engine[1].
> >> In this case, when the internal temperature gets too high, the spin of
> >> the governor speeds up, which releases steam and the temp goes down;
> >>when
> >> the internal temperature goes down too low, the spin is slower, and it
> >> closes a valve which increases pressure and temp... In our case, the
> >> meritocratic open source governance model is the base operating mode (b)
> >> whereas a and c are the 2 extremes. Where I see a problem is when (b)
> >> is no longer considered the "right" or "optimal" mode, and instead
> >> the default "regulated" mode is set closer to 'a' or 'c'; My point is
> >>that
> >> this set-point can, and *is* controlled but all the players in the
> >> open source community, but we are in "danger" of 'b' no longer
> >> being the desired mode simply because those who favor 'b' are no
> >> longer active in wanting that... We need to ensure that 'b' being
> >> the correct/right/optimal set-point for "how open source should be"
> >> is always being "pushed", always being fostered, always being nurtured.
> >>
> >> BTW: Thx for all the comments, this is VERY VERY useful!
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
> >> > On Sep 23, 2015, at 2:27 AM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my
> >>earlier
> >> essay - sorry I got on a roll with that one).
> >> >
> >> > Jim's pendulum is something like:
> >> >
> >> > Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent
> >> dictator)
> >> > Let b = meritocratic open source governance
> >> > Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork
> >>and
> >> forget - note not all GitHub projects are this style)
> >> >
> >> > The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c,
> >>I
> >> think we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many
> >>rock-star
> >> projects are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my
> >> argument that open source is currently more about the business model
> >>than
> >> the development model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one
> >>will
> >> swing back towards the center as those companies realize that there is a
> >> glass ceiling to their growth using that model (if you haven't read
> >>Henrik
> >> Ingo's paper [1] on this you should).
> >> >
> >> > Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if
> >>history
> >> repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the
> >>swing
> >> is much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that
> >> succeed will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic
> >>project
> >> in order to scale.
> >> >
> >> > As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the
> >> "sensible" place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the
> >>only
> >> place that can work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I
> >> think plenty of people still do this for the fun (and education).
> >>Speaking
> >> personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for
> >>fun
> >> again - so that's at least one person going in the opposite direction to
> >> the one Jim sees is the majority (lucky me!)
> >> >
> >> > Ross
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >>
> >>
> http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-
> >>10x-and-revenues-5x
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
> >> > To: dev@community.apache.org
> >> > Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
> >> >
> >> > I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like
> >>wonder
> >> (but I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but
> >>not
> >> forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being
> >> continued, esp by the next gen.
> >> >
> >> > Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so,
> >> then it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the
> >> continuation of open source.
> >> >
> >> > Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit
> >>a
> >> bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed
> >>upstream...
> >> That is so.... solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating
> >> *with* and reaching consensus
> >> > *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal.
> >> The wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which
> >>is at
> >> risk.
> >> >
> >> > To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other
> >> contributors) to finally work together, openly and honestly,
> >>transparently
> >> and meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but
> >>not
> >> by letting someone share our toys by playing with them by themselves in
> >> some corner of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to
> >>build a
> >> great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before we couldn't.
> >> >
> >> > Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and wonder in
> >>our
> >> eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's what I get paid to
> >>do"?
> >> >
> >> > Good questions. Not simple answers :)
> >> >
> >> >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim,
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all
> >> >> just getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
> >> >>> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun
> >> >>> and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or
> >> >>> being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis
> >>of
> >> >>> open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing
> >> >>> the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership
> >> >>> about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part of
> >> >>> this mini-series.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
> >> >>> accordingly.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thx!
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
IMO, I believe history does repeat itself, and that there are pendulums
and cycles, but I think the dynamic here is more linear. Now I certainly
haven’t been involved with open source and Apache for very long, but
having met Roy and heard him describe why Apache was founded and how it
was supposed to be like a potluck/party, I would say that JimJag is just
witnessing the “natural” progression of large organizations in the US.
I’ve seen other organizations have to become “more serious” as the
customer base grows and the stakes get higher. You sort of have to, in
order to attempt to propagate the vision and messaging to more and more
people. The famous party games of “telephone” where one person tells
something to another person and by the time the story has been relayed
several times the story has changed is a true human dynamic. So more
process is put in place, things take longer because they have to be
written and reviewed, etc.
IIRC, there are people in the world who are serial entrepreneurs. They
start a company, it grows to a certain point, then they decide (or their
board helps them decide) that it isn’t fun any more and they leave and
start another company. I know folks who are serial code project starters.
They take a good idea, develop the prototype, get folks excited, a team
is formed, version 1.0 ships, and then during the drudgery work of making
the product mature, they take off for another new idea. They don’t find
it fun to fix all of the bugs folks expect to be fixed for version 2.0.
So yeah, being at Apache now probably isn’t nearly the fun it was many
years ago when trying to create a legal entity to protect open source was
new and different. We now know it is possible and are now trying to fix
all the small bugs.
And meanwhile, while your organization matures, some other person starts
up a similar company with a different angle and folks find it new and
different and fun compared to your now-slower process machinery and people
flock to the new and different thing. There may be aspects of that new
and different variant that will make it the winner for the next
generation, or it may be that they will inevitably have to implement the
same process machinery. The legal system in the US tends to make that
happen. So does the US insurance industry. Lots of young single people
don’t buy health insurance in the US, then they get married and have kids
(i.e., their organization grows and matures and the stakes get higher) and
then they start buying insurance.
So, I don’t know that Apache can ever swing back to being young and fast,
there is just too many people and too much at stake. But IMO, any project
within GitHub that becomes as important as some of the ASF projects will
have to go down this same road.
To me, the question about ASF’s attractiveness vs GitHub is all about
whether GitHub has something that will still shine through this additional
process that their high profile projects with US corporate customers will
have to take on at some point. That’s probably worth a separate thread,
and I don’t spend any time on GH to know for myself, but I think I’ve seen
folks say that their UX is better integrated, which is something we could
work on here at the ASF. I posted a thread a couple of days ago about
Apache FlexJS being used to build a more integrated UX for ASF projects.
So, sorry Jim, the ASF may never be as much fun as it was, but we should
definitely be discussing whether we need to be more popular to our target
customers and how to go about doing that and whether we can learn anything
from GH or other organizations.
A higher-up executive at Starbucks once told me that he was taught to “try
to imagine what the younger guy/gal competing for his job would do.” Is
GH that younger guy/gal? GH could just be a flea market. Corporations
rarely shop at flea markets. On occasion a vendor refines their product
at a flea market and starts a million dollar company and leaves the flea
market to try to attract corporate customers. What can the ASF do to make
that vendor want to come to the ASF at that point? What are the barriers?
-Alex
On 9/23/15, 8:12 AM, "Alexei Fedotov" <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... and thanks to the topic starter for the great topic.
>23.09.2015 17:48 пользователь "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> написал:
>
>> Yeah, that's pretty much the way I'm looking at it. To me though, just
>> as gravity is what pulls the pendulum back down to its mid-point, for
>> Open Source, it's the "true Open Source" community (or, if you prefer,
>> the "real" one) which acts as gravity, and pulls the pendulum back
>> to 'b'. But if that real community doesn't exist, then the pendulum
>> never swings back.
>>
>> As long as we are talking mechanical analogies, one I like to use isn't
>> the pendulum but rather the fly-ball governor on a Watt steam engine[1].
>> In this case, when the internal temperature gets too high, the spin of
>> the governor speeds up, which releases steam and the temp goes down;
>>when
>> the internal temperature goes down too low, the spin is slower, and it
>> closes a valve which increases pressure and temp... In our case, the
>> meritocratic open source governance model is the base operating mode (b)
>> whereas a and c are the 2 extremes. Where I see a problem is when (b)
>> is no longer considered the "right" or "optimal" mode, and instead
>> the default "regulated" mode is set closer to 'a' or 'c'; My point is
>>that
>> this set-point can, and *is* controlled but all the players in the
>> open source community, but we are in "danger" of 'b' no longer
>> being the desired mode simply because those who favor 'b' are no
>> longer active in wanting that... We need to ensure that 'b' being
>> the correct/right/optimal set-point for "how open source should be"
>> is always being "pushed", always being fostered, always being nurtured.
>>
>> BTW: Thx for all the comments, this is VERY VERY useful!
>>
>>
>> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
>> > On Sep 23, 2015, at 2:27 AM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my
>>earlier
>> essay - sorry I got on a roll with that one).
>> >
>> > Jim's pendulum is something like:
>> >
>> > Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent
>> dictator)
>> > Let b = meritocratic open source governance
>> > Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork
>>and
>> forget - note not all GitHub projects are this style)
>> >
>> > The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c,
>>I
>> think we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many
>>rock-star
>> projects are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my
>> argument that open source is currently more about the business model
>>than
>> the development model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one
>>will
>> swing back towards the center as those companies realize that there is a
>> glass ceiling to their growth using that model (if you haven't read
>>Henrik
>> Ingo's paper [1] on this you should).
>> >
>> > Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if
>>history
>> repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the
>>swing
>> is much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that
>> succeed will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic
>>project
>> in order to scale.
>> >
>> > As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the
>> "sensible" place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the
>>only
>> place that can work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I
>> think plenty of people still do this for the fun (and education).
>>Speaking
>> personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for
>>fun
>> again - so that's at least one person going in the opposite direction to
>> the one Jim sees is the majority (lucky me!)
>> >
>> > Ross
>> >
>> > [1]
>>
>>http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-
>>10x-and-revenues-5x
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
>> > To: dev@community.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
>> >
>> > I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like
>>wonder
>> (but I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but
>>not
>> forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being
>> continued, esp by the next gen.
>> >
>> > Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so,
>> then it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the
>> continuation of open source.
>> >
>> > Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit
>>a
>> bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed
>>upstream...
>> That is so.... solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating
>> *with* and reaching consensus
>> > *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal.
>> The wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which
>>is at
>> risk.
>> >
>> > To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other
>> contributors) to finally work together, openly and honestly,
>>transparently
>> and meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but
>>not
>> by letting someone share our toys by playing with them by themselves in
>> some corner of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to
>>build a
>> great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before we couldn't.
>> >
>> > Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and wonder in
>>our
>> eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's what I get paid to
>>do"?
>> >
>> > Good questions. Not simple answers :)
>> >
>> >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jim,
>> >>
>> >> Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all
>> >> just getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
>> >>> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
>> >>>
>> >>> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun
>> >>> and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or
>> >>> being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis
>>of
>> >>> open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing
>> >>> the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership
>> >>> about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part of
>> >>> this mini-series.
>> >>>
>> >>> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
>> >>> accordingly.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thx!
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
... and thanks to the topic starter for the great topic.
23.09.2015 17:48 пользователь "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> написал:
> Yeah, that's pretty much the way I'm looking at it. To me though, just
> as gravity is what pulls the pendulum back down to its mid-point, for
> Open Source, it's the "true Open Source" community (or, if you prefer,
> the "real" one) which acts as gravity, and pulls the pendulum back
> to 'b'. But if that real community doesn't exist, then the pendulum
> never swings back.
>
> As long as we are talking mechanical analogies, one I like to use isn't
> the pendulum but rather the fly-ball governor on a Watt steam engine[1].
> In this case, when the internal temperature gets too high, the spin of
> the governor speeds up, which releases steam and the temp goes down; when
> the internal temperature goes down too low, the spin is slower, and it
> closes a valve which increases pressure and temp... In our case, the
> meritocratic open source governance model is the base operating mode (b)
> whereas a and c are the 2 extremes. Where I see a problem is when (b)
> is no longer considered the "right" or "optimal" mode, and instead
> the default "regulated" mode is set closer to 'a' or 'c'; My point is that
> this set-point can, and *is* controlled but all the players in the
> open source community, but we are in "danger" of 'b' no longer
> being the desired mode simply because those who favor 'b' are no
> longer active in wanting that... We need to ensure that 'b' being
> the correct/right/optimal set-point for "how open source should be"
> is always being "pushed", always being fostered, always being nurtured.
>
> BTW: Thx for all the comments, this is VERY VERY useful!
>
>
> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
> > On Sep 23, 2015, at 2:27 AM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my earlier
> essay - sorry I got on a roll with that one).
> >
> > Jim's pendulum is something like:
> >
> > Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent
> dictator)
> > Let b = meritocratic open source governance
> > Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork and
> forget - note not all GitHub projects are this style)
> >
> > The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c, I
> think we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many rock-star
> projects are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my
> argument that open source is currently more about the business model than
> the development model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one will
> swing back towards the center as those companies realize that there is a
> glass ceiling to their growth using that model (if you haven't read Henrik
> Ingo's paper [1] on this you should).
> >
> > Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if history
> repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the swing
> is much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that
> succeed will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic project
> in order to scale.
> >
> > As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the
> "sensible" place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the only
> place that can work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I
> think plenty of people still do this for the fun (and education). Speaking
> personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for fun
> again - so that's at least one person going in the opposite direction to
> the one Jim sees is the majority (lucky me!)
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > [1]
> http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-10x-and-revenues-5x
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
> > To: dev@community.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
> >
> > I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like wonder
> (but I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but not
> forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being
> continued, esp by the next gen.
> >
> > Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so,
> then it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the
> continuation of open source.
> >
> > Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit a
> bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed upstream...
> That is so.... solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating
> *with* and reaching consensus
> > *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal.
> The wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which is at
> risk.
> >
> > To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other
> contributors) to finally work together, openly and honestly, transparently
> and meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not
> by letting someone share our toys by playing with them by themselves in
> some corner of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build a
> great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before we couldn't.
> >
> > Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and wonder in our
> eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's what I get paid to do"?
> >
> > Good questions. Not simple answers :)
> >
> >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim,
> >>
> >> Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all
> >> just getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
> >>> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
> >>>
> >>> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun
> >>> and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or
> >>> being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis of
> >>> open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing
> >>> the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership
> >>> about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part of
> >>> this mini-series.
> >>>
> >>> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
> >>> accordingly.
> >>>
> >>> Thx!
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way I'm looking at it. To me though, just
as gravity is what pulls the pendulum back down to its mid-point, for
Open Source, it's the "true Open Source" community (or, if you prefer,
the "real" one) which acts as gravity, and pulls the pendulum back
to 'b'. But if that real community doesn't exist, then the pendulum
never swings back.
As long as we are talking mechanical analogies, one I like to use isn't
the pendulum but rather the fly-ball governor on a Watt steam engine[1].
In this case, when the internal temperature gets too high, the spin of
the governor speeds up, which releases steam and the temp goes down; when
the internal temperature goes down too low, the spin is slower, and it
closes a valve which increases pressure and temp... In our case, the
meritocratic open source governance model is the base operating mode (b)
whereas a and c are the 2 extremes. Where I see a problem is when (b)
is no longer considered the "right" or "optimal" mode, and instead
the default "regulated" mode is set closer to 'a' or 'c'; My point is that
this set-point can, and *is* controlled but all the players in the
open source community, but we are in "danger" of 'b' no longer
being the desired mode simply because those who favor 'b' are no
longer active in wanting that... We need to ensure that 'b' being
the correct/right/optimal set-point for "how open source should be"
is always being "pushed", always being fostered, always being nurtured.
BTW: Thx for all the comments, this is VERY VERY useful!
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 2:27 AM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my earlier essay - sorry I got on a roll with that one).
>
> Jim's pendulum is something like:
>
> Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent dictator)
> Let b = meritocratic open source governance
> Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork and forget - note not all GitHub projects are this style)
>
> The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c, I think we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many rock-star projects are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my argument that open source is currently more about the business model than the development model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one will swing back towards the center as those companies realize that there is a glass ceiling to their growth using that model (if you haven't read Henrik Ingo's paper [1] on this you should).
>
> Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if history repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the swing is much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that succeed will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic project in order to scale.
>
> As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the "sensible" place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the only place that can work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I think plenty of people still do this for the fun (and education). Speaking personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for fun again - so that's at least one person going in the opposite direction to the one Jim sees is the majority (lucky me!)
>
> Ross
>
> [1] http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-10x-and-revenues-5x
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
>
> I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like wonder (but I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but not forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being continued, esp by the next gen.
>
> Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so, then it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the continuation of open source.
>
> Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit a bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed upstream... That is so.... solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating *with* and reaching consensus
> *with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal. The wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which is at risk.
>
> To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other contributors) to finally work together, openly and honestly, transparently and meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not by letting someone share our toys by playing with them by themselves in some corner of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build a great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before we couldn't.
>
> Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and wonder in our eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's what I get paid to do"?
>
> Good questions. Not simple answers :)
>
>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all
>> just getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
>>> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
>>>
>>> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun
>>> and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or
>>> being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis of
>>> open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing
>>> the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership
>>> about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part of
>>> this mini-series.
>>>
>>> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
>>> accordingly.
>>>
>>> Thx!
>>>
>
RE: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
I reckon Jim is describing a different kind of pendulum (see my earlier essay - sorry I got on a roll with that one).
Jim's pendulum is something like:
Let a = autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent dictator)
Let b = meritocratic open source governance
Let c = fully distributed open source governance (GitHub style fork and forget - note not all GitHub projects are this style)
The interesting thing is that I don't think we are really at point c, I think we are really at point a. The numbers point to c but many rock-star projects are at point a. I'd argue that this goes hand in hand with my argument that open source is currently more about the business model than the development model. As with the other pendulum I believe this one will swing back towards the center as those companies realize that there is a glass ceiling to their growth using that model (if you haven't read Henrik Ingo's paper [1] on this you should).
Another interesting point about this spectrum is that while (if history repeats) there will be a swing past b and towards c this side of the swing is much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that succeed will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic project in order to scale.
As with my other pendulum thought experiment I believe we sit at the "sensible" place on that spectrum (point b). That isn't today it's the only place that can work, but that it is where it works for the Apache Way. I think plenty of people still do this for the fun (and education). Speaking personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for fun again - so that's at least one person going in the opposite direction to the one Jim sees is the majority (lucky me!)
Ross
[1] http://openlife.cc/blogs/2010/november/how-grow-your-open-source-project-10x-and-revenues-5x
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:01 PM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like wonder (but I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting older, but not forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the child-like wonder being continued, esp by the next gen.
Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there; even if so, then it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one which is risky for the continuation of open source.
Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches, submit a bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them committed upstream... That is so.... solitary. The wonder is working *with* and collaborating *with* and reaching consensus
*with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a common goal. The wonder is the community. And I think that that is something which is at risk.
To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders (and other contributors) to finally work together, openly and honestly, transparently and meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not by letting someone share our toys by playing with them by themselves in some corner of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build a great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before we couldn't.
Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and wonder in our eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's what I get paid to do"?
Good questions. Not simple answers :)
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all
> just getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
>> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
>>
>> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun
>> and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or
>> being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis of
>> open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing
>> the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership
>> about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part of
>> this mini-series.
>>
>> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Thx!
>>
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I would be OK with us getting older and forgetting the child-like
wonder (but I don't think that's the case; well, we *are* getting
older, but not forgetting the wonder), IF we were seeing the
child-like wonder being continued, esp by the next gen.
Some see Github as "proof" that the wonder is still there;
even if so, then it's a different kind of 'wonder' and one
which is risky for the continuation of open source.
Wonder is not being able to fork a project, make some patches,
submit a bunch of pull requests and then get a handful of them
committed upstream... That is so.... solitary. The wonder is
working *with* and collaborating *with* and reaching consensus
*with* a group of similarly-minded individuals towards a
common goal. The wonder is the community. And I think that
that is something which is at risk.
To me, Open Source provided an avenue that allowed coders
(and other contributors) to finally work together, openly
and honestly, transparently and meritocractically (if you get
my meaning); it fostered sharing, but not by letting someone
share our toys by playing with them by themselves in some corner
of the sandbox. It was about us all sharing the toys to build
a great sand castle all together in that sandbox, when before
we couldn't.
Are people doing it for fun? Are people seeing the joy and
wonder in our eyes? Or are people doing it just because "that's
what I get paid to do"?
Good questions. Not simple answers :)
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all just
> getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
>> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
>>
>> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the
>> fun and passion that used to exist around open source is drying
>> up or being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining
>> oasis of open source being all about community and fun whilst still
>> changing the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the
>> membership about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the
>> 2nd part of this mini-series.
>>
>> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Thx!
>>
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Jim,
Is that really happening? Is the fun leaving? Or is it we are all just
getting old and are forgetting the child-like wonder?
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube
> around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
>
> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the
> fun and passion that used to exist around open source is drying
> up or being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining
> oasis of open source being all about community and fun whilst still
> changing the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the
> membership about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the
> 2nd part of this mini-series.
>
> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header
> accordingly.
>
> Thx!
>
Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
That is a fascinating analysis, and a lot to think about.
Thanks.
On 09/22/2015 08:26 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> An observation, from an ASF Member ...
>
> TL;DR version: this is only history repeating itself, as long as we, the people doing the work, continue to learn and adapt the open source world will survive
>
> Long version...
>
> My dad (who I consider far wiser than me) taught me that things tend to go in approx. 7 year cycles. You can see it everywhere, music trends, fashion, marketing styles, business management styles etc. The duration varies for each industry, 7 years is the average. He explained that this is because of the lifecycle of decision makers who have to make their mark before moving on to their next career goal.
>
> That is, since there is a limited number of ways of doing something all changes affected by decision makers are (in general terms) just a rehash of what went before with some incremental improvements. Furthermore, we tend to swing, pendulum like, from one solution space to another as a result of the limited options presented to us. We tend to build on what we know, it's rare we invent something completely new.
>
> My wise dad taught me that watching for those cycles enables one to always play at the head of the *next* wave. While the glory is at the head of the current wave, longevity and success (as a leader) comes from being "ahead of the curve" - looking to what will be popular next.
>
> The ASF is a leader lets apply this to the foundation.
>
> Consider a pendulum where point a is one extreme, point b is the center point and point c is the other extreme. Now:
>
> Let a = open source is a business model
> Let c = open source is a development model
>
> Let b = "community over code" and "a pragmatic license" (sound familiar? - that's deliberate)
>
> If I look back over the 20 years of the Apache Group and the Foundation we see open source going through the swing from a -> b -> c -> b -> a many times. Whereas the ASF itself has stayed reasonably stable at point b.
>
> I believe we are currently close to point a (open source = business model). This last happened in 2008 (ha, look at that, exactly 7 years, honestly, it's true by dad is a very wise man :-). Check it yourself, do a web search for "open source is not a business model" - my first 5 hits were all either 2008 or 2015.
>
> Back to Jim's observation. I agree that "Apache is ... all about community and fun whilst still changing the world" (point b on the pendulum) I don't agree with what I believe is implied in Jim's full statement - " Apache is *one of the still remaining oasis of open source being* all about community and fun whilst still changing the world,"
>
> I think we have *always* been one of the few places where open source is "all about community and fun whilst still changing the world". Our uniqueness is not that we are one of the few orgs at point b. No, our uniqueness is that we don't allow ourselves to be pulled too far towards point a or b as the pendulum swings. We are not fickle followers of fashion. We know where the optimal point on that pendulum is and we have settled here because we are leaders, not followers.
>
> We are not unique in this. There are other places that play this leadership role, some at different points on the swing, some simply following the current trends (if you want my opinion on where I would place the various foundations you need to buy multiple beers, plus a few Whisky's to loosen the tongue ;-)
>
> Over time the pendulum becomes less extreme as the new decision makers learn from history. For example, I don't think we will ever see a swing back to exclusively proprietary software being seen by industry as the only viable business model. Similarly I don't think we will ever see the day when the majority of open source advocates insist on using the term Free software.
>
> For kicks, consider the difference between the 2015 "business model" swing and the 2008 "business model" swing is that 2008 was about "open core" and 2015 is about "open source as marketing".
>
> Clearly nothing as blatent as open core will work, we learned that in the 2008 swing. So we need something different, I claim it is marketing. Witness the rapid growth in marketing focused foundations.
>
> For kicks, check the dates on a search for "open core and open source", yes, the peak is circa 2010, i.e. on the down-swing from point a to point b ("open core is evil, we must change this") and 2015 "let's not go there again". Here in the ASF we are already seeing the start of a backlash against open source as a marketing tool. In another year or so it won't be just Jim posting about how things have changed ;-)
>
> Our role, as a foundation, is to sit patiently waiting for the pendulum to settle. It will settle round about where the Apache Way tells us to sit (community before code and a pragmatic license).
>
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:59 PM
> To: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
> Subject: Passion and vigilance in open source
>
> Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
>
> My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis of open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part of this mini-series.
>
> If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header accordingly.
>
> Thx!
>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
RE: Passion and vigilance in open source
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
An observation, from an ASF Member ...
TL;DR version: this is only history repeating itself, as long as we, the people doing the work, continue to learn and adapt the open source world will survive
Long version...
My dad (who I consider far wiser than me) taught me that things tend to go in approx. 7 year cycles. You can see it everywhere, music trends, fashion, marketing styles, business management styles etc. The duration varies for each industry, 7 years is the average. He explained that this is because of the lifecycle of decision makers who have to make their mark before moving on to their next career goal.
That is, since there is a limited number of ways of doing something all changes affected by decision makers are (in general terms) just a rehash of what went before with some incremental improvements. Furthermore, we tend to swing, pendulum like, from one solution space to another as a result of the limited options presented to us. We tend to build on what we know, it's rare we invent something completely new.
My wise dad taught me that watching for those cycles enables one to always play at the head of the *next* wave. While the glory is at the head of the current wave, longevity and success (as a leader) comes from being "ahead of the curve" - looking to what will be popular next.
The ASF is a leader lets apply this to the foundation.
Consider a pendulum where point a is one extreme, point b is the center point and point c is the other extreme. Now:
Let a = open source is a business model
Let c = open source is a development model
Let b = "community over code" and "a pragmatic license" (sound familiar? - that's deliberate)
If I look back over the 20 years of the Apache Group and the Foundation we see open source going through the swing from a -> b -> c -> b -> a many times. Whereas the ASF itself has stayed reasonably stable at point b.
I believe we are currently close to point a (open source = business model). This last happened in 2008 (ha, look at that, exactly 7 years, honestly, it's true by dad is a very wise man :-). Check it yourself, do a web search for "open source is not a business model" - my first 5 hits were all either 2008 or 2015.
Back to Jim's observation. I agree that "Apache is ... all about community and fun whilst still changing the world" (point b on the pendulum) I don't agree with what I believe is implied in Jim's full statement - " Apache is *one of the still remaining oasis of open source being* all about community and fun whilst still changing the world,"
I think we have *always* been one of the few places where open source is "all about community and fun whilst still changing the world". Our uniqueness is not that we are one of the few orgs at point b. No, our uniqueness is that we don't allow ourselves to be pulled too far towards point a or b as the pendulum swings. We are not fickle followers of fashion. We know where the optimal point on that pendulum is and we have settled here because we are leaders, not followers.
We are not unique in this. There are other places that play this leadership role, some at different points on the swing, some simply following the current trends (if you want my opinion on where I would place the various foundations you need to buy multiple beers, plus a few Whisky's to loosen the tongue ;-)
Over time the pendulum becomes less extreme as the new decision makers learn from history. For example, I don't think we will ever see a swing back to exclusively proprietary software being seen by industry as the only viable business model. Similarly I don't think we will ever see the day when the majority of open source advocates insist on using the term Free software.
For kicks, consider the difference between the 2015 "business model" swing and the 2008 "business model" swing is that 2008 was about "open core" and 2015 is about "open source as marketing".
Clearly nothing as blatent as open core will work, we learned that in the 2008 swing. So we need something different, I claim it is marketing. Witness the rapid growth in marketing focused foundations.
For kicks, check the dates on a search for "open core and open source", yes, the peak is circa 2010, i.e. on the down-swing from point a to point b ("open core is evil, we must change this") and 2015 "let's not go there again". Here in the ASF we are already seeing the start of a backlash against open source as a marketing tool. In another year or so it won't be just Jim posting about how things have changed ;-)
Our role, as a foundation, is to sit patiently waiting for the pendulum to settle. It will settle round about where the Apache Way tells us to sit (community before code and a pragmatic license).
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:59 PM
To: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Passion and vigilance in open source
Some of you may know that I've started a Vlog series on Youtube around some topics I find interesting, mostly around open source.
My latest is about the risks around open source today where the fun and passion that used to exist around open source is drying up or being discounted. Since Apache is one of the still remaining oasis of open source being all about community and fun whilst still changing the world, I'd like to ask for some thoughts from the membership about their concerns, etc... that I can fold into the 2nd part of this mini-series.
If so, please contact me directly. I have set the Reply-To header accordingly.
Thx!