New vision [was Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]

[Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>]

On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 17:12 -0500, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Hi Matt:
> Thanks for your input. I'm always open to rebuke.

Wasn't intended as rebuke, just (hopefully) helpful observation.  We all
can use those, I think.

> I take issue with one thing you said: "The primary business is always 
> developing the system". IMO, "developing the system" does not always 
> mean adding code to the project at the expense of some very basic 
> business related tasks. Committers on this project, are always being 
> taken to task for not tying up loose ends (my reference to how Java code 
> is formatted, for example). Why shouldn't the project be held 
> responsible for work effort around the infrastructure. This is like 
> saying that as a committer, you only need take responsibility's for 
> those things that you choose to care about.

Ah, but that's just it-- You can't "hold people responsible" in a
volunteer organization.  What ya gonna do, fire 'em?  In an ideal world,
a volunteer would do the whole job, not just their favorite parts.  We'd
get good code AND good documentation.  But in the Real World(TM), skills
differ.  Though I CAN do both, I am a much better writer than a coder,
and I have the good sense to know it.  And as a newbie, I am too low on
the learning curve to do much more than make (hopefully) helpful
suggestions as I fight my way through.  And as an old French saying
goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".  If you want
to catch flies, that is. :)

> I wish I could fix this. Heaven knows I've tried but I'm not a 
> committer. I've been through this with the project "foxes" several times 
> already.  And here's my point: IMO, It is the project's "main" job to 
> see that things are put in place to preserve the project. And maybe that 
> is where we all differ. I say if you are a committer, then you need to 
> take full responsibility for the project and not just those things you 
> find "interesting" or "exciting".

In "The Mythical Man-Month", I think, the author said that managing
programmers was like trying to herd cats.  Managing volunteer
programmers, then, is like trying to herd birds.  Not only are they
(like cats) not herd animals, but they are not even limited to our
herding plane, and since we don't pay them, they are in no way subject
to our will.  So if you want to "fix this", all I can say is, good luck
with that.  Being a committer won't help.  But we can still feed the
birds, and enjoy their products, and hopefully not be the statues on
which they perch. :)  (No analogy is perfect.)

> We have gone from "foxes" guarding the chicken coop to no one guarding 
> the chicken coop. I'm not rolling my eyes anymore. I'm just smiling 
> because now there is more opportunity for me to help people figure out 
> how to use OFBiz. Just hope they don't get too scared away before they 
> find me on the web.

Not sure who the "foxes" are, or how they relate to the chicken coop
(back to birds again).  I doubt anyone wants to hurt OFBiz, they just
have different views of what is the *MOST* important thing that *THEY*
can do right *NOW* to advance it.  That is both natural and healthy, and
the reason that, over time, free enterprise almost always works better
than planned economies.  

Your "best" or "easiest" solution will not be mine and vice versa, and
one size never fits all perfectly, but one may be a better approximation
than another in a particular case, or even for most cases.  Reasonable
minds can and do differ and even disagree.  

And so I propose Warnock's Razor (a corollary to Hanlon's): "Never
ascribe to ignorance or stupidity that which is adequately explained by
a different life experience and point of view".  Or to put it more
succinctly: "Counterview before Cock-up".  And in FOSS, that is even
more true-- everyone scratches their own itch first.

I agree with you that there is a problem here in the OFBiz community,
but I think it is cultural, not technical or administrative.  I think
there needs to be more grateful abundance (less scarcity) mentality,
more positive (less negative) energy, and more volunteerism (less
criticism). But (I hope) this feeling is more than just me saying "Can't
we all just get along."

More importantly, I think a change in the collective vision can put more
money in all our pockets.  This can be accomplished by focusing more
energy on reducing, where possible, the learning curve, so that more
people can get more real work done faster, thus freeing us all from the
limits of 80/20 rule.

Silverston posits, I think correctly, that 80% of all businesses
operations are generally the same, being more or less "standard" or
non-unique aspects of business in general.  That standard 80% is NOT
what generates the real profits.  Using the 80/20 rule, that standard
80% of the business generates only 20% of the profits, while the other
20% (the unique part) drives 80% of the profits.  As a business person,
I can't afford to ignore the standard 80% (like accounting or tax
returns) but those usually don't give me any competitive advantage.  But
OFBiz might possibly change all that.

If I could sit down with OFBiz and get it up and running on the easy and
standard 80% of my business with minimal effort and no cost, I would
have a lot more free time for the unique 20% of my business.  That free
time would in turn 1) increase my appreciation for what I have been
given, increasing my desire to "pay it forward", and 2) allow me time
(and money) to work on developing OFBiz for the other unique 20% that is
*more* critical to my business, and more impact to my bottom line.
Though my inclination would be to contribute that code, a scarcity
mentality or competitive considerations might well keep me from doing
it.  But at the same time, I might well also refine non-competitive
elements of the "standard" 80%, which I would be even more likely to
contribute back, improving it for everybody.  

As an OFBiz programmer or VAR, I would want that 80% to be as easy and
solid as possible, so that it brought the maximum number of possible
customers into the fold.  That makes customer acquisition easy (a very
expensive part of any business, and the keystone of so-called "viral"
marketing).  Once they are in, each customer will want to customize
their unique 20%, knowing that it will benefit from tight integration
with the best practices in the 80% that they already have.  That makes
for a good prospect for a solid revenue stream from each new happy
customer, though probably not right out of the chute.  

But by contrast, what happens if the 80% is hard? Then, as Ruth rightly
points out, they run away, but in that scenario NOBODY wins (not even
the educator or customizer, sorry Ruth).  The community is smaller, the
dollars are smaller, the customers are already in scarcity mode because
of the upfront costs, the programmers are continuously reimplementing
the same customizations (boring), and their customers are worried about
whether they will ever recoup the customization phase and whether it
will ever really pay off.  Unfortunately, this is more like what I think
is happening today, not only in OFBiz, but in ERP generally (look at
PeopleSoft or SAP, and their customer satisfaction rates).

If this project is Asterisk, it needs FreePBX.  If it is Debian, it
needs Ubuntu.  If it is Linux, it needs SLS/Slackware and the GNU
utilities (now I'm really showing my age).  It needs a standard
distribution that can be up and running usefully very quickly, and then
customized later.  

IMHO, we have the cart before the horse a bit, and I sense that David
and others are getting a little bit of burnout from trying to push that
horse uphill.  Get the horse out in front, and it might be a bit easier
(and more economically rewarding) for everyone.

> 
> Just my 2 cents.

Likewise.  Just some early impressions.  I hope these ideas will
generate some discussion, though.

> 
> Regards,
> Ruth
> 
> Matt Warnock wrote:
> > My understanding is that the whole site has just changed hosting.  A few
> > broken links are to be expected.  Doesn't mean no one is minding the
> > store-- there is a lot to be done and a few things may be discovered as
> > we go along.  
> >
> > The primary business is always developing the system-- the website that
> > demonstrates and documents the system is ancillary.  Kind of like
> > chewing Linus out because kernel.org has an outage or a broken link when
> > changing hosting companies.  1) It isn't his main job (maybe not even a
> > little bit). 2) Nothing is perfect, especially when a major change is
> > underway.  3) How is someone going to know unless they are told exactly
> > what the problem is? 
> >
> > Developers are mostly using svn to update, I'd bet.  So a broken
> > download link would only be apparent to others (mostly first-time users,
> > as you say).  Logs might mention it, but I don't know anyone that reads
> > them daily, do you?  Automated log analyzers might help here to report
> > broken links that developers don't often see.  So let's view this as an
> > opportunity to improve ancillary parts of the system, which are also
> > important in that newbies see them first.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 13:11 -0500, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> >   
> >> Hi Jacques:
> >> That would be really nice, but I'm not even at that stage yet.
> >>
> >> My problem is with the download web page. There has been a major 
> >> regression here and no one has said a word (until me, right now) about 
> >> it. That leads me to say: "Who is minding the store?". This is the 
> >> second or third thing anyone interested in OFBiz sees...after the splash 
> >> page.
> >>
> >> It's a mess of "stuff" that no one in their "right" (or "left") mind 
> >> would bother to spend too much time trying to decipher. Worst case: A 
> >> prospective user leaves the site (with a slight hint suggesting that 
> >> maybe the code is as disorganized as the web page) and downloads some 
> >> other project's code. Bye-bye prospect. Wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot 
> >> pole.
> >>
> >> Best case: A prospect user will end up downloading the trunk code, 
> >> because, on this web page, all roads lead to a trunk download. Then, 
> >> well how much fun is that going to be for a new user who doesn't have a 
> >> clue where to start? Bye-bye prospect. I tried, but code isn't stable 
> >> enough for my tastes.
> >>
> >> And some wonder why there isn't more OFBiz activity out there. Well, I 
> >> for one am pretty sure I know why.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ruth
> >>
> >> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>     
> >>> Some ASF projects are very sucessful yet with strong competition, for 
> >>> instance ServiceMix vs Mule, Geronimo, vs..., etc.
> >>> We may mimic some of the ways they are doing things. For instance, 
> >>> some time ago Chris Snow asked for a better SEO, I'm not quite sure 
> >>> but I think it'a about exporting the wiki and make Google (and other 
> >>> SEs) knows about it...
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>> From: "Tim Ruppert" <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> >>> Ruth, I'm sure there's some good that could come out of your message - 
> >>> so against my general nature of responding to this type of attitude, 
> >>> I'm going to try and help you phrase this in a way that will help us 
> >>> help infra to try to meet what you're looking for. Here's what I see 
> >>> when I go to the site(s):
> >>>
> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ - not downloading and 
> >>> testing anything - just looking at what I see:
> >>>
> >>> 1. The nightly trunk seems to be updated daily.
> >>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to, for some reason not be being updated on 
> >>> this page.
> >>> 3. There aren't many 4.0 releases being built.
> >>>
> >>> Then I go to here - 
> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/archive/snapshots/ - and I see a 
> >>> slightly different picture:
> >>>
> >>> 1. The trunk builds aren't really archives they're simply another copy 
> >>> after it was moved over.
> >>> -- The archives are there though from when HotWax was managing it.
> >>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to really be the ones that we'd want on that 
> >>> first page.
> >>>
> >>> Now, since I know that this release and the downloads are super 
> >>> important to you, I'm really more interested in hearing you:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Lay out the way you'd like to see these pages work.
> >>> 2. Even show some examples of other projects that you _do_ like
> >>>
> >>> I hope this helps Ruth - as Adrian and Jacopo mentioned, what you've 
> >>> sent here is just a whine, not a helpful way for anyone to improve.  
> >>> Put in the time and help us to make it more like you like and I'm sure 
> >>> you'll be more pleased with the result.  Btw, all of those other 
> >>> options are not the same type of community driven projects as the ASF, 
> >>> so it's hard to manage the same way.  When commercial interests are 
> >>> more intertwined with the project, there are definitely benefits (as 
> >>> well as drawbacks), so let's at least acknowledge those.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Ruppert
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> If there is a problem with the OFBiz site, it would be helpful to 
> >>>> know what it is. Remarks like this are not helpful.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Adrian
> >>>>
> >>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> >>>>         
> >>>>> This was meant as a sarcastic, "I can't believe this kind of thing 
> >>>>> keeps falling through the cracks", kind of remark. No wonder new 
> >>>>> users shy away. I mean, no wonder new users run as fast as their 
> >>>>> browsers will take them to OpenBravo, OpenERP, Magento...
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Ruth
> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword 
> >>>>> "myofbiz"
> >>>>> ruth.hoffman@myofbiz.com
> >>>>>           
> >>>
> >>>       
> >
> >
> >   


-- 
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.

Re: New vision [was Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]

[Ruth Hoffman <rh...@aesolves.com>]

Hi Matt:
Obviously, I don't have a life... ;-)

Matt Warnock wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 17:12 -0500, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>   
>> Hi Matt:
>> Thanks for your input. I'm always open to rebuke.
>>     
>
> Wasn't intended as rebuke, just (hopefully) helpful observation.  We all
> can use those, I think.
>
>   
>> I take issue with one thing you said: "The primary business is always 
>> developing the system". IMO, "developing the system" does not always 
>> mean adding code to the project at the expense of some very basic 
>> business related tasks. Committers on this project, are always being 
>> taken to task for not tying up loose ends (my reference to how Java code 
>> is formatted, for example). Why shouldn't the project be held 
>> responsible for work effort around the infrastructure. This is like 
>> saying that as a committer, you only need take responsibility's for 
>> those things that you choose to care about.
>>     
>
> Ah, but that's just it-- You can't "hold people responsible" in a
> volunteer organization.  What ya gonna do, fire 'em?  In an ideal world,
> a volunteer would do the whole job, not just their favorite parts.  We'd
> get good code AND good documentation.  But in the Real World(TM), skills
> differ.  Though I CAN do both, I am a much better writer than a coder,
> and I have the good sense to know it.  And as a newbie, I am too low on
> the learning curve to do much more than make (hopefully) helpful
> suggestions as I fight my way through.  And as an old French saying
> goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".  If you want
> to catch flies, that is. :)
>
>   
I beg to differ. People get fired from volunteer positions all the time. 
Many times they are "asked" to leave because their behavior does not 
coincide with that of the organization for which they have volunteered. 
My basic philosophy about volunteering goes back to something I once 
read about there being no such thing as "altruism". Everyone has a 
hidden agenda including the volunteers on this project. And if that 
agenda does not fit nicely with the health and well being of the 
project? Just an observation.
>> I wish I could fix this. Heaven knows I've tried but I'm not a 
>> committer. I've been through this with the project "foxes" several times 
>> already.  And here's my point: IMO, It is the project's "main" job to 
>> see that things are put in place to preserve the project. And maybe that 
>> is where we all differ. I say if you are a committer, then you need to 
>> take full responsibility for the project and not just those things you 
>> find "interesting" or "exciting".
>>     
>
> In "The Mythical Man-Month", I think, the author said that managing
> programmers was like trying to herd cats.  Managing volunteer
> programmers, then, is like trying to herd birds.  Not only are they
> (like cats) not herd animals, but they are not even limited to our
> herding plane, and since we don't pay them, they are in no way subject
> to our will.  So if you want to "fix this", all I can say is, good luck
> with that.  Being a committer won't help.  But we can still feed the
> birds, and enjoy their products, and hopefully not be the statues on
> which they perch. :)  (No analogy is perfect.)
>
>   
Actually, from experience I can tell you that herding some birds - 
chickens - can be done. It starts by socializing them at an early age 
and getting them use to human contact. Maybe some of these developers 
need some socialization?  And you know what, I bet that if you really 
look closely, there aren't too many volunteers on this project that 
don't have someone else footing the bill for their volunteer work. 
Nothing wrong with that, but let us be clear about who is paying for 
what here. The volunteer effort is not as "pure" as some would have us 
believe.
>> We have gone from "foxes" guarding the chicken coop to no one guarding 
>> the chicken coop. I'm not rolling my eyes anymore. I'm just smiling 
>> because now there is more opportunity for me to help people figure out 
>> how to use OFBiz. Just hope they don't get too scared away before they 
>> find me on the web.
>>     
>
> Not sure who the "foxes" are, or how they relate to the chicken coop
> (back to birds again).  I doubt anyone wants to hurt OFBiz, they just
> have different views of what is the *MOST* important thing that *THEY*
> can do right *NOW* to advance it.  That is both natural and healthy, and
> the reason that, over time, free enterprise almost always works better
> than planned economies.  
>
> Your "best" or "easiest" solution will not be mine and vice versa, and
> one size never fits all perfectly, but one may be a better approximation
> than another in a particular case, or even for most cases.  Reasonable
> minds can and do differ and even disagree.  
>
> And so I propose Warnock's Razor (a corollary to Hanlon's): "Never
> ascribe to ignorance or stupidity that which is adequately explained by
> a different life experience and point of view".  Or to put it more
> succinctly: "Counterview before Cock-up".  And in FOSS, that is even
> more true-- everyone scratches their own itch first.
>
>   
Ok, that sounds like a plan. I will continue to scratch my own itch 
first and the peck violently (to use the bird analogy) at what I think 
needs attention.
> I agree with you that there is a problem here in the OFBiz community,
> but I think it is cultural, not technical or administrative.  I think
> there needs to be more grateful abundance (less scarcity) mentality,
> more positive (less negative) energy, and more volunteerism (less
> criticism). But (I hope) this feeling is more than just me saying "Can't
> we all just get along."
>
>   
It is cultural. No doubt about it.
I don't think you will find anyone more positive about OFBiz than I am. 
That is why I take the time to repeatedly point out the same very basic 
things. BTW, I in no way confuse OFBiz with the project volunteers. 
OFBiz, in my mind still has no rival.
> More importantly, I think a change in the collective vision can put more
> money in all our pockets.  This can be accomplished by focusing more
> energy on reducing, where possible, the learning curve, so that more
> people can get more real work done faster, thus freeing us all from the
> limits of 80/20 rule.
>
> Silverston posits, I think correctly, that 80% of all businesses
> operations are generally the same, being more or less "standard" or
> non-unique aspects of business in general.  That standard 80% is NOT
> what generates the real profits.  Using the 80/20 rule, that standard
> 80% of the business generates only 20% of the profits, while the other
> 20% (the unique part) drives 80% of the profits.  As a business person,
> I can't afford to ignore the standard 80% (like accounting or tax
> returns) but those usually don't give me any competitive advantage.  But
> OFBiz might possibly change all that.
>
> If I could sit down with OFBiz and get it up and running on the easy and
> standard 80% of my business with minimal effort and no cost, I would
> have a lot more free time for the unique 20% of my business.  That free
> time would in turn 1) increase my appreciation for what I have been
> given, increasing my desire to "pay it forward", and 2) allow me time
> (and money) to work on developing OFBiz for the other unique 20% that is
> *more* critical to my business, and more impact to my bottom line.
> Though my inclination would be to contribute that code, a scarcity
> mentality or competitive considerations might well keep me from doing
> it.  But at the same time, I might well also refine non-competitive
> elements of the "standard" 80%, which I would be even more likely to
> contribute back, improving it for everybody.  
>
>   
IMO, the issue here is not giving back code. There is plenty of that. 
The issue is growing mind share. The more users, the more likely the 
code base and project will live to see another day. Every new user 
should be celebrated. Embraced. Listened to and actively sought out.
> As an OFBiz programmer or VAR, I would want that 80% to be as easy and
> solid as possible, so that it brought the maximum number of possible
> customers into the fold.  That makes customer acquisition easy (a very
> expensive part of any business, and the keystone of so-called "viral"
> marketing).  Once they are in, each customer will want to customize
> their unique 20%, knowing that it will benefit from tight integration
> with the best practices in the 80% that they already have.  That makes
> for a good prospect for a solid revenue stream from each new happy
> customer, though probably not right out of the chute.  
>
> But by contrast, what happens if the 80% is hard? Then, as Ruth rightly
> points out, they run away, but in that scenario NOBODY wins (not even
> the educator or customizer, sorry Ruth).  The community is smaller, the
> dollars are smaller, the customers are already in scarcity mode because
> of the upfront costs, the programmers are continuously reimplementing
> the same customizations (boring), and their customers are worried about
> whether they will ever recoup the customization phase and whether it
> will ever really pay off.  Unfortunately, this is more like what I think
> is happening today, not only in OFBiz, but in ERP generally (look at
> PeopleSoft or SAP, and their customer satisfaction rates).
>
>   
Exactly. The difference is, SAP, PeopleSoft and all the other big names 
have mind share. They acquired that mind share through extensive 
marketing and developing relationships with their customers, one at a time.
> If this project is Asterisk, it needs FreePBX.  If it is Debian, it
> needs Ubuntu.  If it is Linux, it needs SLS/Slackware and the GNU
> utilities (now I'm really showing my age).  It needs a standard
> distribution that can be up and running usefully very quickly, and then
> customized later.  
>
>   
Yes! And IMHO that is exactly what the OFBiz ecommerce demo was. And it 
could be again. It was (back in the 4.0 days) a huge selling point. I 
used it many times to demonstrate the power behind OFBiz. Why someone 
saw fit to "fix" it when it wasn't broken, who knows. I guess it is just 
the developer in all of us that can't leave well enough alone.
> IMHO, we have the cart before the horse a bit, and I sense that David
> and others are getting a little bit of burnout from trying to push that
> horse uphill.  Get the horse out in front, and it might be a bit easier
> (and more economically rewarding) for everyone.
>
>   
>> Just my 2 cents.
>>     
>
> Likewise.  Just some early impressions.  I hope these ideas will
> generate some discussion, though.
>
>   
>> Regards,
>> Ruth
>>
>> Matt Warnock wrote:
>>     
>>> My understanding is that the whole site has just changed hosting.  A few
>>> broken links are to be expected.  Doesn't mean no one is minding the
>>> store-- there is a lot to be done and a few things may be discovered as
>>> we go along.  
>>>
>>> The primary business is always developing the system-- the website that
>>> demonstrates and documents the system is ancillary.  Kind of like
>>> chewing Linus out because kernel.org has an outage or a broken link when
>>> changing hosting companies.  1) It isn't his main job (maybe not even a
>>> little bit). 2) Nothing is perfect, especially when a major change is
>>> underway.  3) How is someone going to know unless they are told exactly
>>> what the problem is? 
>>>
>>> Developers are mostly using svn to update, I'd bet.  So a broken
>>> download link would only be apparent to others (mostly first-time users,
>>> as you say).  Logs might mention it, but I don't know anyone that reads
>>> them daily, do you?  Automated log analyzers might help here to report
>>> broken links that developers don't often see.  So let's view this as an
>>> opportunity to improve ancillary parts of the system, which are also
>>> important in that newbies see them first.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 13:11 -0500, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Hi Jacques:
>>>> That would be really nice, but I'm not even at that stage yet.
>>>>
>>>> My problem is with the download web page. There has been a major 
>>>> regression here and no one has said a word (until me, right now) about 
>>>> it. That leads me to say: "Who is minding the store?". This is the 
>>>> second or third thing anyone interested in OFBiz sees...after the splash 
>>>> page.
>>>>
>>>> It's a mess of "stuff" that no one in their "right" (or "left") mind 
>>>> would bother to spend too much time trying to decipher. Worst case: A 
>>>> prospective user leaves the site (with a slight hint suggesting that 
>>>> maybe the code is as disorganized as the web page) and downloads some 
>>>> other project's code. Bye-bye prospect. Wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot 
>>>> pole.
>>>>
>>>> Best case: A prospect user will end up downloading the trunk code, 
>>>> because, on this web page, all roads lead to a trunk download. Then, 
>>>> well how much fun is that going to be for a new user who doesn't have a 
>>>> clue where to start? Bye-bye prospect. I tried, but code isn't stable 
>>>> enough for my tastes.
>>>>
>>>> And some wonder why there isn't more OFBiz activity out there. Well, I 
>>>> for one am pretty sure I know why.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ruth
>>>>
>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Some ASF projects are very sucessful yet with strong competition, for 
>>>>> instance ServiceMix vs Mule, Geronimo, vs..., etc.
>>>>> We may mimic some of the ways they are doing things. For instance, 
>>>>> some time ago Chris Snow asked for a better SEO, I'm not quite sure 
>>>>> but I think it'a about exporting the wiki and make Google (and other 
>>>>> SEs) knows about it...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Tim Ruppert" <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>> Ruth, I'm sure there's some good that could come out of your message - 
>>>>> so against my general nature of responding to this type of attitude, 
>>>>> I'm going to try and help you phrase this in a way that will help us 
>>>>> help infra to try to meet what you're looking for. Here's what I see 
>>>>> when I go to the site(s):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ - not downloading and 
>>>>> testing anything - just looking at what I see:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The nightly trunk seems to be updated daily.
>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to, for some reason not be being updated on 
>>>>> this page.
>>>>> 3. There aren't many 4.0 releases being built.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I go to here - 
>>>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/archive/snapshots/ - and I see a 
>>>>> slightly different picture:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The trunk builds aren't really archives they're simply another copy 
>>>>> after it was moved over.
>>>>> -- The archives are there though from when HotWax was managing it.
>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to really be the ones that we'd want on that 
>>>>> first page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, since I know that this release and the downloads are super 
>>>>> important to you, I'm really more interested in hearing you:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Lay out the way you'd like to see these pages work.
>>>>> 2. Even show some examples of other projects that you _do_ like
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this helps Ruth - as Adrian and Jacopo mentioned, what you've 
>>>>> sent here is just a whine, not a helpful way for anyone to improve.  
>>>>> Put in the time and help us to make it more like you like and I'm sure 
>>>>> you'll be more pleased with the result.  Btw, all of those other 
>>>>> options are not the same type of community driven projects as the ASF, 
>>>>> so it's hard to manage the same way.  When commercial interests are 
>>>>> more intertwined with the project, there are definitely benefits (as 
>>>>> well as drawbacks), so let's at least acknowledge those.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Ruppert
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> If there is a problem with the OFBiz site, it would be helpful to 
>>>>>> know what it is. Remarks like this are not helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> This was meant as a sarcastic, "I can't believe this kind of thing 
>>>>>>> keeps falling through the cracks", kind of remark. No wonder new 
>>>>>>> users shy away. I mean, no wonder new users run as fast as their 
>>>>>>> browsers will take them to OpenBravo, OpenERP, Magento...
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword 
>>>>>>> "myofbiz"
>>>>>>> ruth.hoffman@myofbiz.com
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>   
>>>       
>
>
>   

Re: New vision [was Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@free.fr>]

Really refreshing, thanks Matt!

Jacques

From: "Matt Warnock" <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 17:12 -0500, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>> Hi Matt:
>> Thanks for your input. I'm always open to rebuke.
> 
> Wasn't intended as rebuke, just (hopefully) helpful observation.  We all
> can use those, I think.
> 
>> I take issue with one thing you said: "The primary business is always 
>> developing the system". IMO, "developing the system" does not always 
>> mean adding code to the project at the expense of some very basic 
>> business related tasks. Committers on this project, are always being 
>> taken to task for not tying up loose ends (my reference to how Java code 
>> is formatted, for example). Why shouldn't the project be held 
>> responsible for work effort around the infrastructure. This is like 
>> saying that as a committer, you only need take responsibility's for 
>> those things that you choose to care about.
> 
> Ah, but that's just it-- You can't "hold people responsible" in a
> volunteer organization.  What ya gonna do, fire 'em?  In an ideal world,
> a volunteer would do the whole job, not just their favorite parts.  We'd
> get good code AND good documentation.  But in the Real World(TM), skills
> differ.  Though I CAN do both, I am a much better writer than a coder,
> and I have the good sense to know it.  And as a newbie, I am too low on
> the learning curve to do much more than make (hopefully) helpful
> suggestions as I fight my way through.  And as an old French saying
> goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".  If you want
> to catch flies, that is. :)
> 
>> I wish I could fix this. Heaven knows I've tried but I'm not a 
>> committer. I've been through this with the project "foxes" several times 
>> already.  And here's my point: IMO, It is the project's "main" job to 
>> see that things are put in place to preserve the project. And maybe that 
>> is where we all differ. I say if you are a committer, then you need to 
>> take full responsibility for the project and not just those things you 
>> find "interesting" or "exciting".
> 
> In "The Mythical Man-Month", I think, the author said that managing
> programmers was like trying to herd cats.  Managing volunteer
> programmers, then, is like trying to herd birds.  Not only are they
> (like cats) not herd animals, but they are not even limited to our
> herding plane, and since we don't pay them, they are in no way subject
> to our will.  So if you want to "fix this", all I can say is, good luck
> with that.  Being a committer won't help.  But we can still feed the
> birds, and enjoy their products, and hopefully not be the statues on
> which they perch. :)  (No analogy is perfect.)
> 
>> We have gone from "foxes" guarding the chicken coop to no one guarding 
>> the chicken coop. I'm not rolling my eyes anymore. I'm just smiling 
>> because now there is more opportunity for me to help people figure out 
>> how to use OFBiz. Just hope they don't get too scared away before they 
>> find me on the web.
> 
> Not sure who the "foxes" are, or how they relate to the chicken coop
> (back to birds again).  I doubt anyone wants to hurt OFBiz, they just
> have different views of what is the *MOST* important thing that *THEY*
> can do right *NOW* to advance it.  That is both natural and healthy, and
> the reason that, over time, free enterprise almost always works better
> than planned economies.  
> 
> Your "best" or "easiest" solution will not be mine and vice versa, and
> one size never fits all perfectly, but one may be a better approximation
> than another in a particular case, or even for most cases.  Reasonable
> minds can and do differ and even disagree.  
> 
> And so I propose Warnock's Razor (a corollary to Hanlon's): "Never
> ascribe to ignorance or stupidity that which is adequately explained by
> a different life experience and point of view".  Or to put it more
> succinctly: "Counterview before Cock-up".  And in FOSS, that is even
> more true-- everyone scratches their own itch first.
> 
> I agree with you that there is a problem here in the OFBiz community,
> but I think it is cultural, not technical or administrative.  I think
> there needs to be more grateful abundance (less scarcity) mentality,
> more positive (less negative) energy, and more volunteerism (less
> criticism). But (I hope) this feeling is more than just me saying "Can't
> we all just get along."
> 
> More importantly, I think a change in the collective vision can put more
> money in all our pockets.  This can be accomplished by focusing more
> energy on reducing, where possible, the learning curve, so that more
> people can get more real work done faster, thus freeing us all from the
> limits of 80/20 rule.
> 
> Silverston posits, I think correctly, that 80% of all businesses
> operations are generally the same, being more or less "standard" or
> non-unique aspects of business in general.  That standard 80% is NOT
> what generates the real profits.  Using the 80/20 rule, that standard
> 80% of the business generates only 20% of the profits, while the other
> 20% (the unique part) drives 80% of the profits.  As a business person,
> I can't afford to ignore the standard 80% (like accounting or tax
> returns) but those usually don't give me any competitive advantage.  But
> OFBiz might possibly change all that.
> 
> If I could sit down with OFBiz and get it up and running on the easy and
> standard 80% of my business with minimal effort and no cost, I would
> have a lot more free time for the unique 20% of my business.  That free
> time would in turn 1) increase my appreciation for what I have been
> given, increasing my desire to "pay it forward", and 2) allow me time
> (and money) to work on developing OFBiz for the other unique 20% that is
> *more* critical to my business, and more impact to my bottom line.
> Though my inclination would be to contribute that code, a scarcity
> mentality or competitive considerations might well keep me from doing
> it.  But at the same time, I might well also refine non-competitive
> elements of the "standard" 80%, which I would be even more likely to
> contribute back, improving it for everybody.  
> 
> As an OFBiz programmer or VAR, I would want that 80% to be as easy and
> solid as possible, so that it brought the maximum number of possible
> customers into the fold.  That makes customer acquisition easy (a very
> expensive part of any business, and the keystone of so-called "viral"
> marketing).  Once they are in, each customer will want to customize
> their unique 20%, knowing that it will benefit from tight integration
> with the best practices in the 80% that they already have.  That makes
> for a good prospect for a solid revenue stream from each new happy
> customer, though probably not right out of the chute.  
> 
> But by contrast, what happens if the 80% is hard? Then, as Ruth rightly
> points out, they run away, but in that scenario NOBODY wins (not even
> the educator or customizer, sorry Ruth).  The community is smaller, the
> dollars are smaller, the customers are already in scarcity mode because
> of the upfront costs, the programmers are continuously reimplementing
> the same customizations (boring), and their customers are worried about
> whether they will ever recoup the customization phase and whether it
> will ever really pay off.  Unfortunately, this is more like what I think
> is happening today, not only in OFBiz, but in ERP generally (look at
> PeopleSoft or SAP, and their customer satisfaction rates).
> 
> If this project is Asterisk, it needs FreePBX.  If it is Debian, it
> needs Ubuntu.  If it is Linux, it needs SLS/Slackware and the GNU
> utilities (now I'm really showing my age).  It needs a standard
> distribution that can be up and running usefully very quickly, and then
> customized later.  
> 
> IMHO, we have the cart before the horse a bit, and I sense that David
> and others are getting a little bit of burnout from trying to push that
> horse uphill.  Get the horse out in front, and it might be a bit easier
> (and more economically rewarding) for everyone.
> 
>> 
>> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Likewise.  Just some early impressions.  I hope these ideas will
> generate some discussion, though.
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Ruth
>> 
>> Matt Warnock wrote:
>> > My understanding is that the whole site has just changed hosting.  A few
>> > broken links are to be expected.  Doesn't mean no one is minding the
>> > store-- there is a lot to be done and a few things may be discovered as
>> > we go along.  
>> >
>> > The primary business is always developing the system-- the website that
>> > demonstrates and documents the system is ancillary.  Kind of like
>> > chewing Linus out because kernel.org has an outage or a broken link when
>> > changing hosting companies.  1) It isn't his main job (maybe not even a
>> > little bit). 2) Nothing is perfect, especially when a major change is
>> > underway.  3) How is someone going to know unless they are told exactly
>> > what the problem is? 
>> >
>> > Developers are mostly using svn to update, I'd bet.  So a broken
>> > download link would only be apparent to others (mostly first-time users,
>> > as you say).  Logs might mention it, but I don't know anyone that reads
>> > them daily, do you?  Automated log analyzers might help here to report
>> > broken links that developers don't often see.  So let's view this as an
>> > opportunity to improve ancillary parts of the system, which are also
>> > important in that newbies see them first.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 13:11 -0500, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>> >   
>> >> Hi Jacques:
>> >> That would be really nice, but I'm not even at that stage yet.
>> >>
>> >> My problem is with the download web page. There has been a major 
>> >> regression here and no one has said a word (until me, right now) about 
>> >> it. That leads me to say: "Who is minding the store?". This is the 
>> >> second or third thing anyone interested in OFBiz sees...after the splash 
>> >> page.
>> >>
>> >> It's a mess of "stuff" that no one in their "right" (or "left") mind 
>> >> would bother to spend too much time trying to decipher. Worst case: A 
>> >> prospective user leaves the site (with a slight hint suggesting that 
>> >> maybe the code is as disorganized as the web page) and downloads some 
>> >> other project's code. Bye-bye prospect. Wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot 
>> >> pole.
>> >>
>> >> Best case: A prospect user will end up downloading the trunk code, 
>> >> because, on this web page, all roads lead to a trunk download. Then, 
>> >> well how much fun is that going to be for a new user who doesn't have a 
>> >> clue where to start? Bye-bye prospect. I tried, but code isn't stable 
>> >> enough for my tastes.
>> >>
>> >> And some wonder why there isn't more OFBiz activity out there. Well, I 
>> >> for one am pretty sure I know why.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Ruth
>> >>
>> >> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>     
>> >>> Some ASF projects are very sucessful yet with strong competition, for 
>> >>> instance ServiceMix vs Mule, Geronimo, vs..., etc.
>> >>> We may mimic some of the ways they are doing things. For instance, 
>> >>> some time ago Chris Snow asked for a better SEO, I'm not quite sure 
>> >>> but I think it'a about exporting the wiki and make Google (and other 
>> >>> SEs) knows about it...
>> >>>
>> >>> Jacques
>> >>>
>> >>> From: "Tim Ruppert" <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> >>> Ruth, I'm sure there's some good that could come out of your message - 
>> >>> so against my general nature of responding to this type of attitude, 
>> >>> I'm going to try and help you phrase this in a way that will help us 
>> >>> help infra to try to meet what you're looking for. Here's what I see 
>> >>> when I go to the site(s):
>> >>>
>> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ - not downloading and 
>> >>> testing anything - just looking at what I see:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. The nightly trunk seems to be updated daily.
>> >>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to, for some reason not be being updated on 
>> >>> this page.
>> >>> 3. There aren't many 4.0 releases being built.
>> >>>
>> >>> Then I go to here - 
>> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/archive/snapshots/ - and I see a 
>> >>> slightly different picture:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. The trunk builds aren't really archives they're simply another copy 
>> >>> after it was moved over.
>> >>> -- The archives are there though from when HotWax was managing it.
>> >>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to really be the ones that we'd want on that 
>> >>> first page.
>> >>>
>> >>> Now, since I know that this release and the downloads are super 
>> >>> important to you, I'm really more interested in hearing you:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Lay out the way you'd like to see these pages work.
>> >>> 2. Even show some examples of other projects that you _do_ like
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope this helps Ruth - as Adrian and Jacopo mentioned, what you've 
>> >>> sent here is just a whine, not a helpful way for anyone to improve.  
>> >>> Put in the time and help us to make it more like you like and I'm sure 
>> >>> you'll be more pleased with the result.  Btw, all of those other 
>> >>> options are not the same type of community driven projects as the ASF, 
>> >>> so it's hard to manage the same way.  When commercial interests are 
>> >>> more intertwined with the project, there are definitely benefits (as 
>> >>> well as drawbacks), so let's at least acknowledge those.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Ruppert
>> >>>
>> >>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>       
>> >>>> If there is a problem with the OFBiz site, it would be helpful to 
>> >>>> know what it is. Remarks like this are not helpful.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Adrian
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>> >>>>         
>> >>>>> This was meant as a sarcastic, "I can't believe this kind of thing 
>> >>>>> keeps falling through the cracks", kind of remark. No wonder new 
>> >>>>> users shy away. I mean, no wonder new users run as fast as their 
>> >>>>> browsers will take them to OpenBravo, OpenERP, Magento...
>> >>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>> Ruth
>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword 
>> >>>>> "myofbiz"
>> >>>>> ruth.hoffman@myofbiz.com
>> >>>>>           
>> >>>
>> >>>       
>> >
>> >
>> >   
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
>