Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <BY2PR03MB490CAFE6FCD516EE1D7AC4999440@BY2PR03MB490.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <FD7D7F96-31F3-4C46-A5BB-0814D787274B@jaguNET.com>
 <CAJwFCa3aT4dptc6sOJYkcuXxQ+t4Ox6Aq69vz+7YdyK7S8asJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <218ECCCC-7435-432D-9E54-26ED75CE2CE8@jaguNET.com>
 <BY2PR03MB490CAFE6FCD516EE1D7AC4999440@BY2PR03MB490.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:39:24 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAGc_3jExM+BZjhxZgnF13ARzPhwi4UrOToG5mSrpwDY6BTfJCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Passion and vigilance in open source
To: dev@community.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1130cbae2f919f052066e67d

--001a1130cbae2f919f052066e67d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I like these thoughts about periodic cycles.

--
Best regards / =D1=81 =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=B8=D0=BB=D1=83=D1=87=D1=88=D0=B8=D0=
=BC=D0=B8 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=B6=D0=B5=D0=BB=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=B8=D1=8F=D0=BC=D0=
=B8,
Alexei Fedotov / =D0=90=D0=BB=D0=B5=D0=BA=D1=81=D0=B5=D0=B9 =D0=A4=D0=B5=D0=
=B4=D0=BE=D1=82=D0=BE=D0=B2,
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 <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 =3D autocratic open source governance (vendor owned/benevolent
> dictator)
> Let b =3D meritocratic open source governance
> Let c =3D 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 Henri=
k
> 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 swin=
g
> is much shorter. I guess because any "fork and forget" projects that
> succeed will typically become either an autocratic or meritocratic projec=
t
> 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 on=
ly
> 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). Speakin=
g
> personally a recent change in my dayjob role means that I'm coding for fu=
n
> 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, transparentl=
y
> and meritocractically (if you get my meaning); it fostered sharing, but n=
ot
> 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 <ted.dunning@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 <jim@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!
> >>
>
>

--001a1130cbae2f919f052066e67d--