The Joomla! Forum ™

(Mod Note: This thread was split off from thread located here: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,116888.0.html)


I’m sure this article will spark massive hate mail, irate comments and probably a number of threats. But being from Brooklyn that is not something completely foreign to me! LOL

It has come up on a few message boards on what exactly is the nature of OS, What are the rights of the community and what is the responsibility of the developers who code under the Open Source Architecture.


The definition of what is Open Source is quite clearly defined as any program written and released in a manner that allows other users access to the source code be it in a pre compiled format (as many Linux/Unix programs are) or an unencrypted High Level language script (such as PHP, CGI and TCL). In each case an end user can take a release and customize its operation (even adding in new features) for their own personal use..

Any program that conforms to the above definition is considered Open Source no matter if you paid to get that program or not. Open source does not mean FREE SOFTWARE as some would like to define it as being a requirement. There is nothing in the Open source definition that requires the software to be free nor is there any licensing requirement that must be met to be able to say your code is Open Source.  It is about Access to the source code and has nothing to do with Ownership of that source code Licensing covers how that code can be redistributed and used, Not if the project is given an open source label or not.

Many people tend to confuse Open source with the GPL license somehow melding the two to be one entity. This is hardly the case. There are many instances of Open Source commercial programs that will allow you to customize the program all you want provided you do not release those changes to the public as your own project. GPL however means the public is free to use the source code anyway they see fit even allowing them to make and release their own version of the product to the general public (called a fork) provided some credit to the source code that it is based on is mentioned and that the resulting project is not then turned into a closed source project. Under some licenses you may even be allowed to resell your new creation but we will not go into those here.

“The Community”

Big word very badly defined and even more problematical as you will get a different answer from each member of the community as to what value and rights they believe the community has!

The original definition of Open Source community was a reference to all the developers who would work together to make the project. It was a community of developers who would decide as a group (or individually) what each had to offer to a project and to divvy up the workload between them. In many cases an open source project would be started by a single developer who would release a simple program that did a specific task. Another developer would pick up the project and add something to this code allowing it to do more who was then followed by a third developer who would add his own feature set. In many cases the latest developer would have discussions with the former developers of a feature to get some insight and idea on how best to add his little piece. A Community was born!

In some cases a member of the community would improve existing code or add something to it at the same time another developer was working on it. They would show what they did to the other developer and in many cases it would be incorporated into the project as an official part of the project. As more developers started to add to the project a core group would be formed. This Core group would work together and set the directiojn the project would take and assign tasks to each developer based on their strengths. In other cases a developer’s version would not be adopted by the core and now two versions of the same program would exist with different ways of doing things (a fork). Linux is a great example of this process in action and it’s evident when you realize just how many different flavors of Linux are available now. As a project grows in popularity the community will grow beyond just a group of programmers. But these non programmers are limited in their ability to help the project mature and therefore are limited in how much they can contribute to the project.

How can the community help?

Community at Large – General Users

I would estimate that 98% of the community is made up of this group. By running the program you are providing a statement that this project is worth using. That is about as good of an endorsement for a project as anyone can make! The more people that use the project the greater the endorsement and the greater the display of the projects capabilities can be shown. Different people will use the project in a variety of ways so by using it you show how flexible and well a specific project functions. After all you are the target audience of the project. No one wants to code a project no one wants to run so by running the program you are telling the Developers (and the rest of the public) the developers did a good job! The Community at large also helps the developers to identify shortcomings in the system. There may be something they would like to do on their sites that the core code currently can not do or does in an unsatisfactory way. By adding to the wish list of features you are helping the developers to identify what you the target audience wants to see! Developers find these wish lists extremely valuable when they are looking for new features to add to the code. This is the major contribution of the community at large! Because often this group does not have the coding skills to implement these wishes on their own it usually falls on someone else (3PD or Core) to implement them meaning the wish is the only contribution that is made.



Public Relations and Advocacy

Just about anyone with a website, forum access and the ability to communicate can help in the department of Public Relations and Advocacy. Post an article about your favorite project and you are helping to let people know about some great work being done by the developers of that project. These things are the only perks and acknowledgements these developers usually get for volunteering their time to make a great product the rest of us get to use.

Just about any General User can elevate their contribution to the project by doing public relations and advocacy. You will in essence be making a testimonial about what the code can do in it’s currently released incarnation and in some cases what is being planned when that information is available. But because this process does not actually add any features or enhancement to the functionality of the project this group does not have any major contribution to the code and its features other than to identify the code as a project that works and works well along with what features are contained.

Documentation Team

Most OS projects are constantly in flux. Because there are no limits to how many people can be developing a project there are no limits to how fast the operation and instruction manual for a project may change. This may be the one big drawback to the Open Source system of programming because the people who write the program hardly ever stop to deal with what the last version can do and focus more on what the next version will do.

As will be mentioned in the beta testers description the code itself may be even more powerful than the developer knows! Since developers are spending all their time on the next version they rarely have the time to put into running the last version enough to tell you everything it can do. They will tell you in general terms what capability was added but they will for the most part leave it up to the end user to decide how best to use it!

The Documentation team fills in this gap by using the program extensively and documenting the process of getting from point A to B when using the program. How this information is relayed to the end users vary, from posting Manuals, FAQs and even by answering questions on a project forum if the project has one. A General User can help elevate their participation in this area by passing their experiences onto others who are just starting out with the program and maybe adding their experience and knowledge to the documentation team.

Beta Testers and Quality Assurance

In its infancy most communities consist of not much more than a few developers and maybe a few of their friends who are not capable of contributing to the code but help the developers in other areas such as testing and bug reports. Testing and identifying bugs is usually the longest procedure in the operation of producing a stable and usable program and while many of the problems are caught by the developers themselves, because they know how the program is supposed to be used they rarely can test what will happen under various conditions and uses of the code. In this way the community helps to offload some of the work needed to test the new code base under a variety of conditions to test if a program will work even if the ideal conditions it requires are not given. In some cases they will find that the system implemented can do even more than planned by the developer. By identifying that it could save the developer from having to write more code to get that feature he didn’t know he already had in the code! The Beta Testing team usually works very closely with the developers to identify potential problems and identify bugs. For this reason there is usually an official beta test team for each project that focuses on what can be released to the general public so that the public can be assured that no MAJOR bugs that could be potentially harmful are released to the general populace. Once approved by this official group the general users can help by finding minor bugs and help by reporting them to the developers so that little bugs that the Beta test team might have missed can be squashed. For this reason a project is usually released in four major stages.

  1. Alpha – is usually a nightly build that is incomplete or not completely functional that the Devs and the Beta team can use to test the latest features that were added to the core. This type of release is not intended to be used by the general public and changes almost daily. New features may be added, others may be removed because they are not working well or need more work. Its main purpose is to allow the devs a single version each dev can download that all the other developers work from and can incorporate their work into a centralized location.
  2. Beta – Beta is usually a Pre-Release version of the code that should have full functionality intended for the stable release but has not been tested enough to squash every bug that the code might contain. A beta release will lock the features of that release meaning no NEW features will be added or removed. But the ones that exist will be improved and corrected to work better. This version is usually available to the general public but with the caveat that it be used only for testing purposes. The more people testing a product means more problems can be found. 3PDs can also get some idea about what might break on their own projects and if any changes are needed under the new system.
  3. Release Candidate – after the beta release and subsequent bug reports, a Release Candidate (RC) that has all the fixes for the bugs that were found will be released to the public. This is in essence still a beta version of the program with the hopes that most of the bugs will have been fixed. There may be many RC releases before the next release state is made.
  4. Stable – stable releases are what the general users will eventually install to upgrade the project. It for the most part is bug free but if any should be found a bug fix will be released to fix the problem. But once a project has been released as stable it is safe enough to use for everyday use.

Every user can contribute to the project by identifying and reporting any bugs they come across in the system.

3rd Party Developers

3PDs are developers who do not add code to the core but instead provide functionality that is outside the scope of the CORE goals of the project. Usually these 3PDs will add some functionality that would require a project unto itself since its scope is too vast to be maintained in conjunction with core project. As an example Joomla is a content management system. Including a forum in the core is not a stated goal of the project despite the fact that most web masters would like to run a forum on their site! A Forum is a very complicated project in itself and is better developed under its own banner with its own developer team and support site. It would be hard to incorporate a forum into a project the size of Joomla and still meet everyone’s needs. For this reason Joomla instead has installed a system that will allow people to pick, choose and add their own projects to the system without the need for massive changes to the core to support new projects. In this way the user can choose what forum system they want allowing greater flexibility in what they can use. Many times a 3PD will come up with a feature that the core team believes would fall under the scope of the stated goals of the core project and they will incorporate a 3PD’s project into the core system. Using Joomla as the example again some 3PD (name of Hackwar) has worked on a project to make a more granular ACL (Access Control Layer or user access) system. This ACL system may eventually be incorporated into the core system to fix one of the few inadequate features present in the Joomla system. 3PDs are the most valuable members of the community because they too are contributing code that gives new functionality that the general users can use on their own sites. In fact much of the CORE Developers are cultivated from these 3rd party developers since not only do they have the insight into how the project actually works but also have a good idea about how to make the core project easier for other 3PDs to integrate their code into the system.

Core Developers

Anyone can be a core developer. You can start a project and name yourself as the Core Developer. All that is required is that you have the ability to code a project. Anyone can take a GPL released Open Source project and add his code ideas or functionality to it and then re-release it (called a fork) under a name of their choosing. This is the purpose of the GPL (General Public) license, and has nothing to do whatsoever with Open Source. If you have an open source project that does not fall under the GPL license you can still change and add to the code but will be restricted from releasing it to the general public based on the terms of the license the project was acquired under. Each project belongs to the developer who has started it and it is their right to determine who can continue on developing it under the current project name. You can not simply name yourself as a core developer of an existing project unless the current core developers have invited you and determined you are someone they would like to work with. But the choice is theirs. As a core developer on a project you have the greatest rights of any community member and the most say on the direction of the project and how it is released and administered.

{Cont}

What rights does the Community have?

What does being part of the community entitle you to? Well that is where the idea of what open source means will clearly depart. Some people are under the impression that an open source community is a type of commune where everyone that identifies themselves with that commune has a say in what the commune does. It is not against the principles of Open Source to run a project this way but there is nothing in the principles of open source that says it HAS to or should be run that way! Many books have been written to try and foster this communist approach but none of them ever touch on the fact that it takes little or no effort, contribution or skill to declare yourself part of the community! And even fewer extend this right to simple users of the program. Joining a community is easy. Making a project and its core functions is very hard!

So what exactly are the rights of the community?

  1. You have a right to run the project codes as they are released first and foremost
  2. You have the right to suggest (but not demand) features to be added in the future
  3. You have a right to know that a project is still being developed currently
  4. You have a right to volunteer to help in any of the community group functions not related to coding such as documentation, Advocacy and Beta Test in an un-official capacity.
  5. You have the right to develop for the project and contribute your own 3PD project that works in conjunction with the core project.
  6. You have a right to tweak and change any released code to fit your personal needs.
  7. you have a right to know the names of those who are developing the project
  8. You have a right to leave the community at any time

What rights are added when released under the GPL?

  1. You can take a code release from one project and add to it and release it provided you either rename the project or get an official recognition from the original developer to release it as an official update to the original project it was based on.

What rights does the community not have?

  1. The community does not have the right to tell the developers what to do. Suggestions are welcome, Orders are not. If this doesn’t work for you see Right number 8 in the OSC bill of rights!
  2. The community is not entitled to any information regarding a project unless that information has been released by the developers. The people do not have the right to know! This is not the government of a country that is owned by the people it is a personal project shared with the community at large! All information and code is the property of the developer until that developer releases it to the public. When a developer will make a release and what that release might contain is the developer’s intellectual property until he says otherwise. A developer is not even required to make a release which leads us to #3
  3. The community does not even have the right to a future release! If a developer decides to close their project it is well within their rights to do so. There is no legal ethical or moral obligation for a developer to provide new features or updates to the project if they do not want to. The community has the right to ask if the project is still under development (right #3) but when that development might be released or what that release might contain is at the discretion of the developer not the community!
  4. The community does not have the right to a support system. While the best projects do offer some it is done as a courtesy and the developer is not legally obligated to offer any. Read the GPL license carefully it is plainly stated! Only in the case of a commercial open source project is a developer obligated to stand by and support his project. What that support means is usually defined in the license agreement the project was released under. Local commerce law usually applies to these commercial projects.
  5. The community does not have the right to demean, insult or to chastise the developers. If you are unhappy see rule number 8 in the bill of rights and rule number 1 of the GPL!

What are the rights of a Core Developer?

  1. Has the right to leave a project whenever it suits them
  2. Has a say in determining the direction of a project, what features will be worked on and when they will be released to the general public. In cases of Core Groups will have an equal say as every other core member unless some other core member is the actual founder or elected manager of the project. This is the only part of open source that is an actual democracy! And the founder or manager is treated as a president. A founder however can never be unelected since by rights it is still their project until they say otherwise but they can pass the baton to anyone they choose.
  3. Has the right to close a project at anytime
  4. Has the right to choose who can work as a core member under the project banner.
  5. Has the right to choose what license the project code is released under and the right to change the license used for future releases at anytime. This means a developer can release 4 versions under the GPL license and can if they choose to release the 5th version as a commercial product.

What is the responsibility of the core Developer?

As we can see from the rights above the developer really doesn’t have any responsibilities except those that they choose to assign to themselves. They answer to no one but themselves and other members of the core team and when applicable only to the project manager in charge. But they do volunteer to do something and there are a few things that a core team is responsible for seeing happen when they are working on an open project and identify themselves as an ACTIVE core member.

  1. Code updates and add features. The most basic responsibility of someone with a core developer title. This may be as comprehensive as reorganizing the framework of a project to as little as fixing the login routine.
  2. To provide a code base that is modular, flexible, standardized and intuitive enough so that future enhancements are easy to implement, 3PD projects can interface with in a standard way, and to make the system as easy as can be for the end user to run.
  3. To keep other members of the core team informed of what they are doing.
  4. Maintain what the state of stability is and versioning of each release. Is this an Alpha, Beta, RC or stable release? Only the Core Dev can determine and set these labels for the project.
  5. Maintain the status of a project as open or closed and inform the public of this status.
  6. If the project has been closed the Core Devs and or Manager can determine who will be allowed to re-open the project under the closed project’s banner. Without that permission you may fork the project providing the license it was released under allows you to and if it does you can release the project under a different name and banner.

Why is support not listed under Core Dev responsibilities?

Well open source means you have just as much access to the code you are running as the developers do once it has been released. At that point the developer has done all they are required to do both under the Open source principles and the GPL. Support is at the discretion of the developer. They are not required to support the project and if they do so it is purely a voluntary exercise. Most Core Developers are very willing to help when they can but many others do this thing as a hobby and don’t have the time to dedicate to everyone else’s needs. They did spend a lot of their own time creating the project. Since you have access to see how they did something you should be able to support yourself.

The GPL and Open Source

Many people confuse these two as if they are the same device. They are not! Open Source is a method of releasing code GPL is a license that defines how that release can be used. In order to release a program under the GPL the program must be open source or the source code must be readily available upon request. GPL requires Open Source but it does not work the other way around! Not all Open Source is released under the GPL license! The GPL allows you to take any portion of a GPL program and use it in your own program provided your program is also released under the GPL.

Public Ownership

Somewhere somehow the GPL has been distorted into meaning the public owns the code and therefore the public has a say in how it should be developed and used. In a way they DO have a say in how the project is developed but it never extends further than their own ability to make it happen. You see the GPL gives you the right to develop a project anyway you see fit but the caveat is you need to do the work yourself. GPL does not give any ordinary user the right to make demands or tell the developers how to manage and develop the project. What it does say is you can take that code and develop it anyway you see fit. There are nearly 1000 different flavors of Linux you can use because different members of the community wanted to develop Linux how they saw fit and simply took the code that was available and forked it. This is the only power bestowed on the public by the GPL. The general public doesn’t really OWN the code released under GPL. They have the right to call the code their own once they have made their own changes and forked into their own project!

Assumed Power

There are many users who have dedicated a lot of time to a particular project that did not actually add to the project code. These contributions are cherished and appreciated by everyone in the community but sometimes these users start to believe they should have more of a say in how things operate. But the truth is while their voluntary contribution has value it does not add as much value to the project as what a 3PD or Core developer does. Remember that these developers are largely working voluntarily as well. Without their contribution no other contribution will matter or make the project better. You can beta test or promote a product from now until the cows come home but no updates or bug fixes will ever result if there are no developers because the project is closed due to lack of developer interest. Team Spirit can be a wonderful thing but we need to know our role on the team and not overstep our bounds of participation. Sometimes people seem to think a little more of their contribution than the developer and other users do. Feel their contribution has earned them some respect and that respect should give them clout to get what they want. Remember no one asked you to volunteer you did it all on your own and if the only reason you volunteered was to get some leverage you wasted your time. Developers are focused on their code not what everyone else is doing. While your contributions may have earned you some respect with the developers that respect will soon be gone if you start making demands on them. You have a right to stop volunteering at any time if you’re not happy. Just remember the developers have that right too.

It’s no different than helping someone to cross the street, Noble act, well appreciated but it doesn’t give you the right to tell that person where they should go next. If that is why you helped it wasn’t a generous act and does not deserve to be recognized as a meaningful contribution! By the same token if that person co0mplained about the manner in which you helped them cross the street you wouldn’t be very willing to help them the next time would you? You wouldn’t want the developers telling you how to use their code and they don’t want users telling them how to make it! Make demands on them and they might not be willing to develop at all let alone the way you want them to.

Contentions Arise

As with any large group of people differences of opinion will rear their ugly head. In a perfect world a simple discussion will solve the issue and everyone will be happy. But Spielberg doesn’t do real life! Roddenberry’s dream has not yet materialized. SOMEONE will always be unhappy! Open Source and the GPL are both concepts that are aimed at free and open exchange of ideas. But they are limited to the code not the management or development of a project. You are free to take ideas and code from a project, but you are not free to have your ideas implemented by the project at your behest. The project is the implementation of the Core Developer’s ideas. If he likes your idea he may very well incorporate them. If he does not well you have the right to incorporate them yourself and start your own project. Because you have this right it is in very poor taste to complain to a developer of a project about how they are going about their business. If you really feel you can do it better then do so and leave them to do it the way they want to!

If you don’t like how your neighbor mows his lawn do you complain to him? What would he say if you did? “Well if you don’t like how I mow my own lawn mow it for me anyway you like it!” would probably be the typical response! Each project is a developer’s own personal lawn. They have a right to do what they want, how they want when they want, with their project.  Feel free to fork and show them how it is done! THAT is the beauty of Open Source and the GPL!
Religionist Farce

Most arguments in an open source project are about some concept that everyone is a developer no matter what his contribution and that there needs to be some transparency and openness of every action of an open source GPL project. I don’t know where these ideas come from but they are so far away from anything stated in the GPL or OSI.

The only thing that needs to be transparent is access to the code. Neither OSI nor GPL says that every move made by a developer must be scrutinized and commented on. Neither do they make any mention about economics other than you can’t charge a fee for the software released under GPL or forked from a GPL source! Open Source and GPL is not a concept to make all software free and not meant to stop people from selling software! Just because a project is a GPL release it does not mean that it can have nothing to do with any commercial product! You can release a GPL program for Windows which is hardly a free product. This view that commercial properties are against the principles of OS and GPL and that they should never be mentioned on a site that is themed on an OS/GPL product is just plain ludicrous! This is not a religion folks it is simply a way of sharing information in the form of code and ensuring that no one else can take your work and sell it. It says nothing about someone else making their own code to work with a GPL program and charging a fee!

Some people just don’t like to pay for software and have tried to distort OS and GPL to try and hide and remove any and all commercial software in the hopes that by shunning it these commercial developers will switch to only making free software!

A great controversy was waged on the Joomla boards over their extensions site including pay programs in the listing of ALL extensions that worked with Joomla! Another argument came from allowing ads to be shown on the forums because that was commercialism and GPL and OS is meant to be some sort of soup kitchen where commercial interests must never be allowed to show! “That will teach them to charge eh?” It’s a ridiculous notion!

Sure we would all like a world where money wasn’t needed and everyone had a say and could agree, but neither Open Source nor the GPL is the vehicle for that to happen! It was never meant to do that!

The point of Open Source is to share ideas! The purpose of GPL is so that if your shared idea isn’t being implemented you can implement it yourself!

There is nothing more to it! We should not try to make it out as more than it is!


End

Some of that is off topic but it does give a pretty good talk to what I believe are the different roles and different levels of rights in a community.
Those who give the greatest contribution have the most say. those who actually OWN the copyright to the code at the top of the list!

Bottom line is no matter how big the community, how much they contribute to a project and it's community...the OWNER of the code is still the owner of the code...We may have great lattitude in regards to using it...But control is always the domain of the copyright holder.

Yes, absolutely off topic, but an interesting reading, may be the mods should split this to be discussed, as some of your statements are, at least, contradictory with your previous statements.

_________________
...nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses...
http://www.todosjuntos.org
http://inmo-e.com

[quote=""Asphyx"said a lot"] [/quote]

Its a shame a few things are not required reading, like "How to post good questions" however I'll ignore that because this isn't a question, is it? 

Every OS project has its own life.... but its amazing how many people don't actually understand what OS is. I have been involved with a few... but I don't want to go into that because brians's quote rather reflects my views...

If you do charity expecting a reward then shame on you... well, not quite its better than sitting on your ass but... it really is missing the point.  As Asphyx points out most OS projects start off because a group of people see a need, a whole to be filled and so they start coding. 
They might equally see a hole as a business opportuniuty and chose to make a commerical non OS program... but were talking OS...and so I'll rant on about that. 

This is exactly it.. the beginning and the end... The beauty of OS and the GPL and many other OS licenses is if you don't like the direction the bus is going get off and start your own bus.  Thanks to OpenSource you can do this for FREE.... thanks to OS you can learn how to do this for FREE.... and you can use the code....

That's not just a bargain, its the deal of the century... what community says if you don't like us please take our seeds and our ploughs and start your own community.  Because of OS you essentially get this FREE....

Joomla runs on php and mysql.. both OpenSource projects... Millions of people use these everyday for programming, billions use them without even knowing... but Joomla, MySql and php all have different models ... but at the same time are all OpenSource...

As Asphyx points out the projects are OpenSource for a single reason.... that reason is the developers chose to make them OS. 
..............erm, that's it.... they just gave you their blood, sweat and tears for free. 

Now the community .... lets start off you just got given something potentially useful with thousands of man hours of work for FREE... not only that you are free to extend, change or do with it as you will.  Compare that to a DVD which you don't even own the film and are not free to watch it with whom you choose or where you choose or even in which player you choose.  When that DVD gets scratched you can't even use it any more... yet having paid for this we accept it...

The GPL exists to stop that happening... because by using the software you become a part of the community... you commit your time and effort to it and hopefully though noone is holding a gun to your head... you actually contribute back....

But what do you have a right to in return?  Absolutely nothing... exactly the same as the developers got for giving you their blood, sweat and tears in the 1st place... If you give without asking and you have a skill ou need and volunteer then you might be part of a the inner community but there is no automatic right... we are not buying our way past pearly gates....

The point is you can't demand to be part of the team... if the team has everyone it needs then .. well thats the way it is.  If you think you have something to give they don't have but don't realise then its the same... you have the right to politely request anything but they have an equal right not to be interested .... because that is exactly how the project started...

Why am I ranting this way....?
Well the more you understand about the nature of opensource the more wonderful it is....
I happen to have a pet peeve that most of the graphics in joomla are created with non OS apps... I have made my own templates based on OS tools.... I would like to see the same done by someone with half an artistic talent (which is already 10x what I possess) but do I have any right to say these should be included....
ABSOLUTELY NOT....

I am free to start a fork.... but guess what, I don't have the skills or time those guys have.  and moreover and most importantly for me I think a fork is counter productive.. I would need to give up all my time to the end of damaging the community...
THIS is being a member of a community... so I'd dearly love to see that but the community is more important....

_________________
Play: http://www.slordphotos.co.uk/
Work: http://www.manconsulting.co.uk/

IBN - there are parts that do not directly address the question which is why I originally posted it as a link...the article was not written to address just the specific of this thread's topic!
But on the whole the article is my definition of what is a GOOD OS community!
By defining roles and people respecting thier heirarchy in the community it makes for a GOOD Community!

It also tells people how they can change and elevate their hierarchy in the community!
If you want to have more say you have to do more work for the community! Your work will be recognized and your status will give you greater say in how things work!

A Good community works as a TEAM and each memeber of the team has it's role!
The Catcher in a baseball game doesn't run out into centerfield to help the centerfielder catch the ball! He leaves that part of the TEAMWORK to the team member who is charged or given the task of protecting that area!

By the same token a user should not run out to CODINGFEILD and start telling Devs how to do with what they are charged to do!

It is this habit that makes for a BAD community! People trying to muscle onto other people's turf but unwilling to do the work needed to EARN the right to play in that space!

the explanations of GPL and OSI were simply to dispell the notion that the community owns the project!
Which is the misnomer that also leads them to believe they should have control of that project!


As was stated...if you like the project and want to identify yourself with that community then for the community to be GOOD you must conform to some of the conventions and rules that community demands. And if that doesn't work for someone then obviously they are not really interested in being part of THIS community they are only interested in being part of SOME OTHER community that they are trying to change the current one into being!

thanks for sharing your thoughts asphyx. not sure I agree with it all but I do think you make some excellent points.

_________________
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

Brian I don't presume nor suggest that this is the ONLY way to have a community but I do think this is the fairest way to run with for all parties concerned.

There are of course exceptions to every rule! My article was more towards the type of voluntary open source communities. there are other types (such as commercial) where the community is given the power to help a commercial interest make a product. But the code developers in that case are not volunteers they are PAID EMPLOYEES and do not own the code they are charged with making!

It is about ownership...A developer can give ownership to whomever they desire!
If a commercial entity pays a coder then that company actually OWNS the code and therefore can say who has a say in how it is run and coded... In the case of J! it is the coders who own it. They made it and it is theirs! They control it! Who they give that control to is up to them!

I feel this is the healtiest way to ensure the project stays open and maintained...
If this general ownership is not allowed to them it would lead to many more projects closing down because at some point the folks who are willing to develop it will say you know I don't need all these orders I'll go code something that only has to please me!

I think I have an idea of what parts you disagree with but I won't put words in your mouth...
If you want to discuss what disagreements you have I'll be happy to address them.

Bottom line of what I tried to define is that a community needs more than just rules to thrive...It also has to have rights! And those rights unless a formal democracy is chosen as the method of management have to give the primary contributor more power than the minor ones.
And since there would be no community without a code to commune around, the Devs have many more rights than anyone else.

Agreed.



Which is why in the last year or so, the original codebase has now gone through about 14 forks, both here and elsewhere.

This is both a bad thing and a good thing. It's good because the problems get solved outside the Core (at least from a coding perspective) that should be fixed inside the Core, but it's bad because people have to leave and devote resources elsewhere in order for that to happen (usually because they've been censored / driven out of the community), instead of fostering innovation inside the community.



That depends. It would be a mistaken idea that merely because the Core devs control the current code, they are the ones responsible for fixing it / developing it. Considering how many people are listed inside the tracker for bug submission/ feature requests, it would seem that  the community has a voice, but it does not have the adequate rights to go with that voice. The rights within this forum clearly and presently engender oligarchy of the Core and Mods in this respect..

_________________
Design with integrity : Web accessible solutions
http://www.absalom.biz
http://twitter.com/absalomedia

I hope you don´t! No one should ever be threatened for writting and sharing his/her thoughts.



No. That´s just your definition of Open Source. I would prefer the OSI definition:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Free Redistribution, Source Code, Derived Works, Integrity of The Author's Source Code, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, Distribution of License, License Must Not Be Specific to a Product, License Must Not Restrict Other Software, License Must Be Technology-Neutral.

I am not saying that you are not qualified to make your own definition, just that I prefer to use the OSI definition.



It should say "Any program that conforms to the above definition is considered Open Source BY ME no matter if you paid to get that program or not". But you are right: it´s a question of FREEDOM, not a question of PRICE.

_________________
...nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses...
http://www.todosjuntos.org
http://inmo-e.com

Well who makes the final Fix? The person who made the bug report? the person who made the feature request?
If the core is the one who makes the fix or feature then HOW they do it is thier business under their control!
If I find a security hole tomorrow and report it should I immediatly have a say in how everything else is done? I think not...But if I find it and supply the fix then the devs are giving control to me for the little portion of code I made! It's no different than making a fork that the devs say hey thats good lets give it an official status and incorporate it! But the PROJECT and it's banner is still the property of the developer who owned it before the fork!

EDIT: Forgot the second situation. If someone requests a feature, unless they provide all the code to implement it they are not really DEVELOPING the feature. The individual who codes it does! If this is the Devs then their solution is up to them. If a solution is provided it operates under the same principle as the bug fix. the Devs gabe some control to that user to implement his requested feature. That is how you can have a voice via coding. It's easy to have a voice. It is not as easy to join the chior unless your have the words to the song you want to sing. I can say to a doctor you need to cure cancer but if he actually goes and does it cqan I really take the credit for the discovery? By the same token if I say cure cancer by trying chicken soup and he doesn't see how that can work, badgering him into trying it is not going to get the job done!


It depends on what you define as LEAVING...if they are not part of the core devs then they aren't leaving cause you can't leave a location you have never been to!
there are examples where what you are saying hold true though...Sometimes someone who is part of that core decides to leave. Maybe it was because their solution was not deemed worthwhile by the rest of the group. the Core group acts in the role of a board of directors. As I said it is the only place where a democracy is present and sadly sometimes people and their ideas get voted down...
Andrew Grove once said the best way to manage a group is to intensely debate a subject and once the debate had ended and a decision was made that it was everyone's obligation to make the final decision work and end all debate! right or Wrong see it through! It has made Intel the success it has become!
Some people just can't work in that way and decide to leave....It is one of the rights I defined for devs.
It does not really delay progress as none of their past work is lost. What they do lose is the potential for future compatability with the original project but then again if there was such a fundamental difference on approach to cause that split then it probably makes sense that at some point that idea was not going to jive with some other future system anyway! At least by forking the public will have it's say in who had the best approach according to them and those who fail to meet their needs loses the battle in the end! Users win because they get to make the choice and don't lose what they had. The one they choose wins because they are chosen and prove their point, And the project that lost and died would have died anyway even if they had made the same decision with 100% consensus because they weren't providing the product people wanted!

And on the other hand competition tends to make both products better! the public has it's say without having to lift a finger to code. the devs have their project their way and can't complain that they got pushed into doing something they didn't want to do!






Read those rules....just about every section there relates to License not the code!



there are many types of licenses you can use that you can use...GPL being most common and totally free!
But in regards to the source it only says this which is right in line what I said...



you can pretty much charge for the software and provided once you have been paid the usage of that program is limited by the license it was released under and that license is limited by those rules stated above that involve the license!

So it may not be word for word but it is totally correct as I seperated what the PRODUCT is from how it can be used....


LOL well I didn't get any but the year isn't over yet! The reason I put that in is because I know there are many passionate people who will disagree and some of them are religious fanatics on their view!

This is an excellent statement of how things SHOULD work.  Unfortunately there are always going to be people in any given community that think they should debate their points ad nauseam, in the snowball's chance that they can wear the community members down and get their own way.

I think one aspect of a "good" community is the ability to deal with people like this in an effective manner, so that their negativity and general actions of malcontent do not infect the community at large.  Once someone is intent on ill will it is unlikely that they can be reasoned with to discontinue.

_________________
Co-author of the Official Joomla! Book http://officialjoomlabook.com
Marpo Multimedia http://marpomultimedia.com

Well the problem is that this is possible to achieve in a business enviornment but very difficult in a community because you can't just fire someone in the community!
there are no consequences to them for continuing to debate because the failure that results from it does not hit them in the pocket book...

Its why governments are so inept at solving problems...you can't fire a voter or congressman. so debate rages on and ruins productivity and if the end result turns out bad enough THEN they get sent home after the damage has already been done!

In relation to a project community
What people don't realize is that endless debate on what gets done hits them in the feature set!
Because those creating it second guess, those who want it can't agree what they actually want and nothing gets done!

Unless they are going to make it the way they want it themselves they should let the ones who are making it decide how they do it...
I'll bet 99% of people that are unhappy about a decision made on a specific way to go will say hey thats even better than what I wanted once they see it done and finished!

I know the J! devs have done that to me more times than I can count!
LOL

But to me the fact that there is so much confusion over this is the reason that we have issues in our community.  I appreciate your thoughts on community and think you make a lot of good points.  Where perhaps we run into problems in the JoomlaSphere is that nowhere is any of this communicated.

It is all about expectations.  People expect that by becoming involved in one capacity or another that they have influence on the project.  What I believe has to happen is that the developers or core or whoever has claim on the Joomla! name (and that may be the board of directors of OSM, need to set out a charter (that perhaps may be similar to what you have written above in some respects) and state clearly what people can expect and what people cannot expect.

With this stated clearly, my guess is that it would reduce the amount of challenges that are faced in terms of people's sense of entitlement.

Ian

The problem is that sometimes the Core have previously claimed ownership / control / rights over ideas, concepts & code that was developed elsewhere. Which means you are looking at the same problem of control and rights for everyone who isn't part of the political power structures here. This is the same problem we faced when we hit Foundation at Mambo. It's how to give people an effective voice, and effective rights, by distributing that power out from the Core and Mods and giving it to everyone else. An open sourced, open standards community should be able to distribute that power.. yet that is not the case here. Why isn't it ? What needs to happen to make it so ?



The removal of the XML prolog to kill off quirks mode has been considered a feature request. It's been advocated at least a hundred times in the last 3 years I've known of it. It's still not done. That an obvious enough case for you ? 3 years and no action..



So what happens when the Core devs code bad ? Is there any way to fire a lead developer and/or appeal removal from Core, Working Groups or community ?



See above. The debarcle over the override hack would be an excellent example of how the Core has said they have found the cure (which it may not be) when the discovery was 3 years ago by someone else. How do we then get community members who are not part of the Core or WG to have the appropriate rights for their work, both in terms of recognition and in terms of credibiliity ?



It may be democratic in terms of internal processes, but from a community perspective, it's the furthest thing from Andrew Eddie's meritocracy statements. It's an enshrined oligarchy where you mustn't disagree with the Core and Mods. The way Working Groups are handled, managed and deployed speaks volumes for this, as well as the whole 'women in Joomla' issue that's been running around these boards.



The problem is that the debate regarding the community and how it should be respected and given the appropriate rights in line with Core and Mods hasn't even begun. Brad said elsewhere that he doesn't want to discuss these issues on these forums. So where else should we discuss how this community and this forum is meant to work ?



The significant problem with this line of thought is that J! is an enshrined oligarchy, which means "negativity" and "malcontent" can be defined in similar ways to "extraordinary rendition". If J! wasn't an oligarchy, we wouldn't be having the problems we are facing. Now the two possible solutions I see are:

• Fundamentally restructure the Core and Mods and all involved away from oligarchy back towards meritocracy
• Provide a feedback loop to the wider community regarding their rights and what the Core/Mods will do to not infringe on their rights

To put it simply, share the power around to those outside the official institution and don't step on them if they disagree with you.

_________________
Design with integrity : Web accessible solutions
http://www.absalom.biz
http://twitter.com/absalomedia

*sigh*

So, then who determines the merit of ones contributions vs another? Because Tonie spends 14 hr today on the forums/forge/JED, and Jinx 13hrs on the code, does it make either of their contributions less meritorious than the other?

.. and again, you wonder why I don't want to discuss this issue. It's a circular argument with each of us having their own viewpoints.

Facts, Joomla is sucessful!
Fact, there is an established structure that has been setup to accept contributions to the community/code/etc
Fact, no one is forcing anyone to be here, if you don't want to be, I'll wish you the best.

What OSM is NOT: OSM is not for giving democratic process to the community etc, it is for:

http://www.opensourcematters.org/

The constant 'bashing'/moaning and harassing really does nothing more than make yourself look worse and those who are are trying to communicate with, not want to engage.

Power, is that what everyone is after? I thought we were here for the CMS called Joomla, not to make a name for oneself and gain power? Open Source Community is obviously taken to mean different things to different people... why should it be able to distribute the *power*, open source refers to the CODE, and you have all the power you want with the code, it's free, use it, abuse it, change it, distribute it. What morre power do you need?

... yet another thread taken off topic with personal agendas...

[me=brad]goes off to try to enjoy a *real* life, offline.[/me]

_________________
Brad Baker - Follow me on Google+
http://www.rochen.com - Joomla! Hosting, the correct way.
http://www.joomlatutorials.com <-- Joomla Help
..somewhere in this hospital the anguished oink of a pig man cries out for help..

Well Ian I contend that they do!
But it is only in the weight of that contribution relative to what area they are contributing that it has an affect...

If someone helps a lot of users and asks for an item, that member gets much more influence as opposed to someone who doesn't help users and asks for an item...

IE: one user (A) helps a lot of users in support. Another (B) doesn't help as much but helps as well. Both have an idea of where they would like the project to go. Neither has an idea of how to code it!
since user A is more active than User B it is very likely that when a decision time comes around and the devs choose what to do next that the idea user A had will get a slightly better chance of being adopted than what user B wants to happen. Since NEITHER can provide the solution the devs still have to decide if they want to tackle it, know how to tackle it and then implement it.

So the one who contributes more gains more respect in the community (and with the devs) and some consideration of that is cashed in during the decision phase...That doesn't mean though that the more you contribute the more you will have a say it's just that your opinion will hold more weight than the opinion of a lesser contrib. In the case of a TIE such as Both are deemed good ideas and worth implementing the user who has the better reputation and contribution will likely win out in situations where only one can be done!
But that is based on all things being equal!
If user B has a much better idea that is determined to be a good idea by the devs your contribution won't really matter!

So contribution is advantageous relative to equal ideas and concepts being implemented. But it is still the Devs job to make that happen and therefore they must decide what should be done next.....

Now if a 3rd user said I don't want it done that way I want it done this way and provides the code to implement it that 3rd user is giving a much bigger contribution to that feature than just a suggestion. And if the devs find that solution sound and in line with the goals of the project that bigger contribution will likely win because it is already completed! They may tweak it and see if other's ideas can be implemented in it as well but because the majority of the work has been done it gets adopted much faster than a simple suggestion!
But again the devs are there to make the final decision and once it is made we should get behind it and make it work!


Well that is already laid out though isn't it?
entitlement is code what you want...No one not even the core can stop you from implementing any feature you want you have complete control of the code as it is open source and GPL...
all you are limited and prohibited from doing is calling it Joomla!
And if you can get that far then you have done the hardest part! all that is left is getting the devs to say OK this is now an official update to Joomla and release it under it's banner!

People need to seperate the USER community from the coding community!
the coding community is always going to have more say than the user community and rightly so because the project doesn't do anything unless a CODER makes it happen!
So to entitle yourself to get what you want you have to do more than just say I WANT! you have to move up to I HAVE! I have code that does this...do you accept it?

I don't care how much you contribute in a non coding endeavor, If a 3PD says I want it this way and you want it another way the 3PD is going to win out! If for no other reason than it won't happen until they code it! Devs will defer to coders and if no conflict to major contributors and if one idea is much better than another contributions on asides don't really matter! Because the project will benefit more from a GREAT IDEA than a small improvement suggested by a huge contributor!

these things all must be weighed and the Dev team is the scale on these matters! Having code tips the scale much better than simple suggestions! the more you bring the more weight you carry! Having code is like lead where simple suggestions are like paper!


But even as paper they serve to inspire the devs on what to tackle next. They may decide to find a totally different way of doing it that would allow your suggestion. Is this not some form of influence as well?




the devs control merely what is called Joomla! The code they write is theirs, the code they didn't was theirs to use in their own project via fork! Just as they decided to take an old project whose did things they didn't like, and took control by forking it into a project called Joomla everyone else has the right to fork Joomla and call it something of their choosing where they have complete control on how it works and is managed!
you can have whatever you want...you have a right to make joomla whatever you want it to be...
What rights you don't have is the ability to force someone else to make what you want for you!
But you are free to make it yourself! The only thing you will be denied is being able to call it Joomla!


A hundred times by who? the Devs? Or the community? As I said if it's so easy then do it!
Obviously if no one else can manage to do this and require the J! devs to do it for them then the subject is obviously more complicated than just doing it!
If it was you wouldn't have waited 3 years you would have done it already!


We do what we did when Mambo went bad...Take the code make a fork and develo the project as we see fit and best....this option is open to us even if the project hasn't died yet!


FORK IT!
then you own the project and can do with it as you wish!
But with that comes responsabilities...you also have to do the work! If your not willing to do the work then why should the current devs be willing to do it for you?

My what a myriad of responses this question has garnered.

I have either had too much wine or am just insane to enter into this as I will likely get sucked into another never ending debate because that seems to be the way of things when you have lots of people with lots of opinions.  That being said, I figured I would jump in and give my two cents on the issue.  As always I speak for myself... disclaimer being that I do not in this post speak for anyone else on the "core" team nor anyone else that I generally represent either by choice or by appointment.

The question posed is an interesting one.  One that in all honesty is not something that I believe can be answered easily and globally.  The problem with answering it comes from the heart of the question.  What is good?  Is it good for me?  Is it good for the whole?  Is it good for the vocal few?  Is it generally good as in the platonic good?  Is it good as in what any cultural segment sees good among its particular belief system?  These are some fundamental questions that have to be answered before one can embark upon the question posed.  I realize that I wax a little philosophical on this, but bear with me.  I studied philosophy and political theory for a while and I have a pointed interest in these things.

Now, my beliefs may be different then yours, and thats great because without diversity and differences of opinion then we will never innovate and move forward.  That being said, there are many other things that are required to move forward.  One of the things that I have notice in my short tenure as a core developer is that there is always a lot of talk, and generally not a lot of action.  There seems to be some idea that we as the core team are closed to ideas.  This is simply not true.  We quite often discuss ideas posed on the forums and are generally quite open to new ideas and thoughts on things.  We have to maintain a delicate balance in what we implement so that we do not unnecessarily alienate anyone working on legacy a legacy code base.  I realize that there is a portion of the "community" that would argue, lets move beyond the "legacy" systems and just do things right.

In a perfect world, I would totally agree with you... and to be honest, if I were a selfish person (or if I had won a few arguments) we would already be down that path.  But in losing a few of those arguments and also speaking with a lot of people at several of these expos and events I have come to realize that what I used to define as the "community" is not necessarily accurate and my preconceived notions and expectations for this "community" are not valid.  There tends to be an attitude among those of us who are quite familiar with the code base and the software in general that we can adapt to easily enough to the changes necessary so why not do X, Y and Z?  I can handle it, and it will only take me a small amount of time to adapt so lets just make it happen and in a matter of days ... or perhaps even hours... I'll be up to speed and everything will be fine.  Well the problem with that approach and attitude is that a lot of us seem to have a very specific view of what the "community" is... and we as humans tend to put things in boxes and label them.  Once this preconceived notion is in place we tend to just complacently stand by it without reevaluation.

I would argue, and again this is just my opinion, that the Joomla! community is actually anyone who actively uses the software.  There are obviously different levels of community involvement.  There are obviously different variations of involvement.  But in general I would say that everyone that uses this software counts.  The question then becomes... how much does each individual count?  and how do we assess this?  I don't claim to have answers to these questions.  Interestingly... most of the philosophers I have studied don't generally deal in absolutes... perhaps there are reasons for this... perhaps not.  The point to discuss is.. who matters?

I can tell you as a core team member ... whatever that means ... I receive lots of email, IM messages, PMs on the forum and last but definitely not least meet lots of people in person at different events.  All of these people have a different story.  Some are members of the forum, some are not.  Some of these people have specific wishes... some do not.  Does someone who is an active member of the forum count more than someone that is not?  Why?  There are an awful lot of people on this forum who post all the time but aren't really actively helping anyone.  They are just posting personal opinions trying to sway the opinions of others.  Is this productive?  Does that make them any more valuable to the general "community" than the guy who doesn't post on the forums?  Does that mean that the person who is pushing a certain agenda speaks for a large group of people?  Maybe... maybe not. 

My guess is... that people tend to associate this forum with the Joomla! community.  Perhaps that is correct, perhaps it is not... I am not one to judge that.  But I can tell you that I am personally in communication with a large portion of people who are NOT on these forums who are actively using Joomla! and perhaps even developing on it or ... dare I say it .... promoting it.  This is not meant as a slight on these forums.. they are a wonderful resource and really the only official meeting place for members of the "community".  I just tend to believe in a more global definition of the community.

If you were to look at the number of registered users on this forum... and then you were to look at the number of people who have more than 20 posts... then take the subset of those people who the majority of their posts were aimed at helping people... I think we might be astonished at the numbers.  I guarantee you that the number would be a far sight less than the 70,000 mark that we have marked as a benchmark for how big our community is.  I would then say that if you are going to measure the number of people registered on our forums as a benchmark for the size of the community ... and you take into account the fact that a large portion of people are only here to get help... then I at least tend to think that you have to count anyone who uses Joomla! as part of the community.  I come to this because if you were going to say that the community is people that are "active" on the forums ... and you were to take away those that are just promoting an agenda... then in general ... and i stress in GENERAL ... you are really only talking about the working group members.  Otherwise, you are folly to not include anyone who uses this software we all love.  If that is the fact, then you need to assess the number of active Joomla! installs out there.  There are no reliable numbers out there for us to really evaluate... but anyone with any sense of reality would say that we have well over 1 million installs of Joomla! out there.  That being the case... those people on the forums who seem to think they speak for a large portion of the community when they speak out might should reevaluate their perspective.

I mean no slight on anyone, but I tend to see an awful lot of talk, and not an awful lot of action.  There are lots of good ideas, and not a lot of follow through.  A cursory sweep of these forums reveals that we are wrought with ideas and in some cases even demands... but no action other than an expectation that those of us who are already busy beyond possible hope of escape do their bidding.  There seems to be this idea that we are somehow not looking for good help.  That we are somehow opposed to other ideas.  This is not the case at all.... what we are opposed to... is someone coming in and saying... it should be like this... and do it NOW!  To be honest guys and gals, that is inconsiderate at best ... and downright insulting in reality.  If you want something put into the core, then propose something giving a design description, and then give us a proof of concept.  We have a long list of wishes... things we'd love to do... things we've been asked to do... things we've had demanded of us.  The reality is that we cannot meet everyone's expectations and to be honest, I decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to even try.  I have a priority list driven by many different things but a squeaky wheel on the forums is not one of them because to me the concept of community goes way beyond these wonderful forums.

Now... to the issue at hand... long winded I know.  I attended the Google Summer of Code Summit this year at the googleplex at the invitation of Google... Thanks Google!!  This was an amazing event that if nothing else let some of the more active and involved members of some of the worlds top open source projects mingle, get to know each other and talk about successes and failures.  One of the things we talked a lot about was how the different project structures are set up.  Something that was previously unknown to me was how different we all are.  It is absolutely stunning how different all of these different open source project structures are.  Equally amazing is how well we seem to be doing given the differences in structure and model.  I talked with several leads of several projects who wanted to know the "secret" of our success and what we are doing so different.  I honestly didn't have an answer to that.  I think ultimately different projects require different structures.. from a development perspective as well as a community perspective.  As with anything communications you have to first determine who your audience is before you can determine what communication methods and types will be most effective.

I would say that we do a pretty good job of maintaining a good balance here.  The proof is as they say "in the pudding".  We are a very successful project and I hope to help make sure we continue on that path.  To the person who asked the question "what makes a 'good' open source community?" I would say the answers are as varied as the answers to the question "what is good?"  Everyone has their own ideas on this and to seek a universal truth is in my humble opinion as futile as trying to define good. 

To address some of the accusations posed I would say that Joomla! ... and in my opinion any open source project is NOT a democracy.  It is a meritocracy.  A democracy would imply for instance that absalom has just as much say as the person I met in San Francisco who loves our template override system.  If you contribute something real.. then your voice is more valuable.  If I had not written a lot of code for Joomla! I wouldn't have been invited to the core development team.  If I had not continued to be productive as a community member and in the role of core developer my voice would not mean as much to a lot of people.  I don't claim to be an end all to any discussion, but I do think that because of my contributions.. that are REAL and can be seen, my opinion and ideas mean more to a lot of people.  That doesn't mean everyone feels this way of course, but I do think its a relatively good idea of how people think on the matter.

People talk of rights... and of oligarchy.  You all have the right to be unhappy... you all in fact have the right to do whatever you want with the code base so long as you aren't trying to sell it commercially.  People tend to think that for some reason we have to meet their demands because they are vocal and they are "right".  What makes you more right than someone else?  Because someone blogged about something?  Because there are a number of people that agree with you?  In an academic world a number of things are "right".  Does that mean that they are all feasible or possible?  No.  That means that in a perfect world things would be a certain way.  We don't live in a perfect world.  Oligarchy isn't fair because those of us who are making decisions have earned our place by actually contributing in a real quantifiable way.  Johan for example has put in more hours actually making things better and easier for people than anyone I know in this "community" by any definition I have heard to date.  Does that mean he gets to make unilateral decisions?  Not necessarily... but it gives him a hell of a lot more credibility to do so than someone who hasn't even provided a proof of concept on a demand that has been made for months...  For what it is worth, Johan consults a lot of developers on nearly every decision that is made in the core.  It is an incredibly respectable thing.  I am proud to be one of the people that he consults on design decisions and problems.  I am equally honored to work with everyone else in the development working group and everyone in all the other working groups for that matter.  If you were to probe people in the working groups... my guess is that you would find that most people claim that I make myself available to them when I am needed... no matter how small the issue.  I spend an enormous amount of time solving problems and helping people... and that in a manner of speaking pushes me up the meritocracy to the point where I am able to make decisions. 

All of the decisions we make are thought through painstakingly... they are made after considering as much of the "community" as possible.  They are made not considering a squeaky wheel... not someone providing complaints and negative rhetoric... but they are made considering the people out there that use our software... the people that depend upon our software.  Developers, users, mothers, fathers, siblings, cousins... everyday people.  To box us in as some sort of all controlling oligarchy is insulting an unfair... and in my opinion shows a misunderstanding of where we come from in our decision process.  It is a very boxed in opinion that tries to paint a picture that is untrue.  We are not here to restrict ideas and people.  Our entire code base is centered around enabling people.  In as short a description as I can give on Joomla! ... it enables people.

I have written way too much and hope that I haven't bored anyone.  I am now done with this topic... I am sure that some will attack what I have said, but know that I mean every word of it.  I do what I do to enable people... not to lay down restrictions.  The decisions made are made with the best intentions possible and we try to help as many people as possible.  If some aren't happy, we invite you to solve the problems your own way, or move on to another project... or the other route.. join us... and contribute something other than rhetoric... rhetoric doesn't solve problems... it just prolongs them.

Louis

_________________
Development Working Group Coordinator
http://webimagery.net - Consulting
http://jxtended.com - Solutions for Joomla! 1.5
A hacker does for love what others would not do for money.

Lawrence -



This is a thread about "open source communities." One might expect some Eric Raymond quotes - or a debate about whether we should call it "FOSS" or "OS." Perhaps a little about how end users participate or how to engage the community more directly in testing. Instead, the issues you raise are Joomla!-specific "things." You are just taking cheap shots in here. 

We also have threads that started a year ago and are now launching points for someone with a gripe to lay another log on the fire and spread more anger and discontent. These are our "free bitching goes here" threads. You've been posting in those, too.

Then, along comes a very nice woman named Lisa who says she used Joomla! for nine months -- and it is her first post. She shares that she was too intimidated to join earlier and was hoping we might provide a women's forum for her and some of the 28,000 women in the business community for which she serves as a board of directors member. She is working on scheduling Joomla! training for Q1 or Q2 2007 and wants to point women to Joomla! forums.

Her request for a forum area deserved honest consideration and thoughtful debate but it turned into yet another freaking battle.

I wouldn't blame the core if they decided the forums are only for technical questions and answers. Nothing "philosophical" like this thread -- no wish lists - no questions as to "why you did it this way." I think nearly every thread that is not about technical questions or problems is starting to turn into a stupid argument.

Something has to change. For starters, rants about what all is wrong with Joomla! and how do we fire lead developers and man do things suck - Lawrence - that has to stop. It does no good and it gets in the way of real discussion.

If stupid, senseless arguments end, perhaps we can learn how to discuss legitimate, new ideas as a community. Until then, people are shell-shocked and feel under constant attack. And, it looks like they are under constant attack when you happen upon a thread like that.

If you really care about the "women's issue" thread, Lawrence, you will stop with the pointless arguments. Please don't include that issue in your battle cry. We don't belong to your platform. I do appreciate what we have been provided. And, I understand "no." The core team is *not* required to hear my request for a special forum or to provide one.

But, I *long* for the day when an honest request and good idea can be heard and discussed without it perceived as yet another attack - and the core can say "please debate", "Thanks, we've heard enough", reach a decision, make an announcement, and the community moves on.  Sometimes you win, and sometimes you don't.

All together, as a whole, Lawrence. No more attacks.

_________________
http://Twitter.com/AmyStephen
http://www.alltogetherasawhole.org/

Fact: The Core (or at least the Mods) came up with the mistaken idea that I hate J!. That idea was shown to be wrong. It's therefore up to them to change their false ideas into some margin of truth, otherwise we're going to have a lot more people banned and censored merely because the mod team misunderstand.
Fact: The structures suck because they're oligarchical, not meritocracy based.



Why not ? This is the same dilemma that presented us, pre-Foundation, and it's still here..

Why can't people have a democratic voice within the project? What does one have to do to get a democratic voice within the project ?



I'm afraid, Brad, that this statement above is up there with your "Lawrence hates the J! crew and developers etc.." statement. You're not even close to my point, and seem to be basing it on the same assumption that was proven wrong last time.



Representive rights.. You know, treating people fairly.. which is the stuff in an NGO / NFP that J! touts itself as usually ends up enshrined in some form of foundation / association. Considering the WG, forum and moderation routes have no right to appeal, does the same apply within the Core ?

This isn't a personal agenda. That's why I'm okay with what Louis has said about me, and why I'm okay debunking whatever assumptions come wandering out from the mod team.

This is the same ideas we were discussing back in Mambo days (like early 2004) when I talked about some form of association. Here we are, 2 years later, with the same problems facing us. Surely we can do better than this.

I apologise for bringing the "women's" thing into this, but from my passing reading, it remained related.

Edits: grammar, spelling.

_________________
Design with integrity : Web accessible solutions
http://www.absalom.biz
http://twitter.com/absalomedia

Lawrence - I appreciate what you bring to Joomla!. It's been a long year. We are each going to have to let go of some things. Each of us. I know I'd like people to give me another chance and I don't want to ask for anything I won't give. You have much to share with our community and no one denies that. Let's get moving in a positive way. Thanks. Amy

_________________
http://Twitter.com/AmyStephen
http://www.alltogetherasawhole.org/

NGO/NFP has nothing to do with representative rights. It has to do with NOT FOR PROFIT.

Because we never set it up for that reason.. the reason is stated on the OSM frontpage.


You see problem, others see success.


Nope, I still conclude you hate Joomla .. due to your tone and constant 'bashing' of people who work so hard.

I love that tone, thanks Again, as I posted:
So, then who determines the merit of ones contributions vs another? Because Tonie spends 14 hr today on the forums/forge/JED, and Jinx 13hrs on the code, does it make either of their contributions less meritorious than the other?


Well stop posting the same stuff over and over again.


I have no idea what you are talking about.. your superior intelligence is obviously far above anything I can comprehend.

.. and that's it from me in this thread..

_________________
Brad Baker - Follow me on Google+
http://www.rochen.com - Joomla! Hosting, the correct way.
http://www.joomlatutorials.com <-- Joomla Help
..somewhere in this hospital the anguished oink of a pig man cries out for help..

Any decent NGO/NFP that's worth its salt does cover these things. Especially when it's an open, collaborative effort in the end product. Should not the same principles apply ?

I'm trying to see why the Foundation ideas (which were initially specced by the Core, no less) are now a no-go area in terms of representative voice and rights.



J! is successful. Not perfect, not complete, but on the way. Merely because there are issues to be addressed does not mean that because J! is successful those issues do not need to be addressed. It is a strawman to consider success in this respect.



My tone and content of my posts doesn't include saying other people hate J!, Brad. It looks for the best solutions to problems, wherever those problems exist.



Quoting facts is just quoting facts, Brad. What do you with that information is up to you. The benefits of meritocracy and democracy outweigh any oligarchy, unless, of course, you would like to show otherwise.



Currently, as far as I can tell, that is the realm of Core + Mods determining it. Which is not always right.. as people make mistakes, after all.



Both remain meritorious. The question is how do you get the wider community to buy in when it's still an oligarchical structure and not a wider democracy / meritocracy ?

Sharing the code only goes so far.

_________________
Design with integrity : Web accessible solutions
http://www.absalom.biz
http://twitter.com/absalomedia

Against my better judgment (why will I never listen to better judgment? ENFP, no J, it's like missing a limb, guys.)

#1 - Of course it does not mean you hate Joomla!. No one this passionate hates what they are complaining about - they care. Caring, though, does not entitle you to bad behavior and rudeness and these attacks do not further your cause. Brad - I understand you are frustrated, but *please* do not project someone's feelings because of their behavior. You do not know what is in someone's heart.

#2 - "Sharing the code", Lawrence, is all the GPL entitles to us. The rest is generously provided by the core because they believe it is good for the project that they love and work hours and hours and hours on day after day after day.

Lawrence - please stop now. Find an interesting problem to solve, know you are free to do so, and do it! You are so bright and you have a vision - use it for good! Make things happen!

IMO - this whole section about Lawrence's points and our responses is off-topic. I know that Mike spent a great deal of time writing his piece about open source communities. I read it earlier this year and I learned a great deal from his insights. I hate to suggest this, but, maybe we could split, again, so that the legitimate topic has an opportunity for fair discussion. Lawrence - I do not mean that to shame you, either. But, the original poster deserves the right to have a discussion on the topic he suggested without having that topic hijacked like this.

Thanks to both of you for listening and for what you contribute.

_________________
http://Twitter.com/AmyStephen
http://www.alltogetherasawhole.org/

Maybe this is the problem in the first place?
Some people think that they get one chance and if they don't get what they want with it they won't get another chance to get it? So they harp and harp on the first chance despite the fact that chance already ended and now instead of being a supporter of a concept they become a pain in the ass!

I AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE OF THIS!!! JUST SETTING UP A CONCEPT THAT STARTS HERE!!!

An open source project and community is like a book that NEVER CLOSES!
Each version release is no different than a single page in that book! The book started with Mambo, went onto Joomla after a really exciting and dramatic chapter about corporate intrigue...
Each version that gets released is a new page in this book.

Just because some of your ideas didn't make page 1.5 does not mean you were ignored or lost any chance of seeing your idea make the book! So it may not get in there until page 2.0! you idea still counted!

There is no such a thing as a CHANCE!
No one I know of has a stack of chances sitting next to them that they can dole out...
What there is are OPPORTUNITIES!

each time a new version comes out, new opportunities present themselves.
The opportunities are available during the planning stages of each new release. Once that planning stage has been completed that one opportunity has ended, no more space on the page! What is planned gets released and we turn the page!

A new page is then available and an new planning stage and opportunity arrives. That would be the time to re-present ideas that didn't get implemented in the previous opportunity. Not while the previous page has been sent off to the printer!

Now who decides what gets on the page? well the ones who have to do the typesetting! Are they (Devs) dictators? That sounds a bit too harsh, a dictator wouldn't give you the opportunity to express your ideas in the first place!!!

No the Devs are nothing more than a FILTER! They take all the ideas presented (and as Louis said not just from the forums) and filter them based on what they are WILLING to code for this page in the book! When someone comes to them and says hey I would like to see and code this feature in many cases that poerson is welcomed to work on a problem.

If your idea does get filtered for this page it isn't always a case of your idea being rejected outright or forever!
Many people want ACL...It has not made the page yet (FILTERED) but the idea of a true ACL has not HAD IT'S CHANCE AND BLEW IT! It just has not been put into the book yet and that is for many reasons that have nothing to do with oligarchy, influence or chance!

It has to do with complexity, compatability, time, method, comprehensivity, interoperability, portability, scalability and many many more things than just who filtered the request....ACL has even been identified as a GOOD IDEA! The reason for it not being done RIGHT AWAY is because it does require a lot of planning and thought to do it in a way that will ensure it is not built in a way that will in the future seem just as limited as todays version of it does!

As they say HASTE makes WASTE or MASSIVE screwups!

Same can be said of what happens on the boards and in relation to communication!
If we are to make SNAP decisions on announcements and or what will happen in the future, new boards and sections you run the risk of MISINFORMING and letting down the community as they will come to expect a particular idea that maybe didn't work out as planned in the coding phase and could not be completed! IE: a date on the roadmap, a method of implementing a feature that failed...Or lock yourself into a forum structure that is counter productive to the goals that inspired the change in the first place!

there are also many mitigating factors as to why these things happen. interruptions in the coder's personal life, concept that appeared to work at the start but exposed other problems with the project that need to be addressed first (this is a classic example of why 1.5 is what it is).

I personally can't see how anyone can blame a mod/developer or accuse them of oligarchy simply because they didn't decide to DO WORK on YOUR IDEA....

They are not our slaves! What have WE done for the project that gives us control over them? Posted on a message board? Helped a user? wrote a faq? Does that really trump MADE A PROGRAM?!??!??!?!!?

the teams here are very patient with us and let us rant and rave pretty much until we start getting personal and or attack their methods and motives!
We need to be patient with them...
Sure you might have a great idea but if you can't make it work then there is no reason to believe it DOES work! Maybe that is why it got filtered...you can't make it work and neither can they! Maybe they have a better way than yours!
I for one am patient enough to let them try and show me their ideas! It was their ideas and past work that brought me here in the first place! What brought you here? Was it not their work? Or was it that you thought you can bully your ideas into fruition with nothing more than a forum post?

Bottom line is the only one who can dole out chances are the users! the only ones who can close a book on the project is the users! you can decide it doesn't do what you need and go try another book! But unless your going to actually do the writing it is not our place to CRITICIZE how the writing is done and where it appears in the book!

If that is what you want then you should just write your own book!

Thats how I feel and it is a hell of a lot more oligarchy than what Louis and the rest of the devs are doing!
I think the main problem is patience...lack of it by the usership!
And the poor attitude of I want currency but don't want to work...
We would all like to get paid a million dollars an hour for telling someone what to do!
but if you really want to get paid you have to get up and do something!

That is the way it is in life...both in open source and life in general!

I think thats all I'm going to say on the subject I think Louis' post explains their position quite well and this post explains my position on what the problem with the usership is...

It's all about patience and trust!
I TRUST the devs...they have NEVER EVER let me down!
I just don't understand why someone else doesn't trust them and if they don't why are they still here and ordering them around?
If they are not doing what you want already what makes you think bitching, moaning and making accusations is going to change that?
If you don't trust them then find some devs you DO trust! Make a fork, switch to another CMS...

Bitching sure doesn't get you any MORE attention...if fact it gets you less because after a certain point people just shut you off! Then even if you had a GREAT idea no one will hear you because you had been muted for the previous noise!

Mike - you are indeed a pain in the ass but it is *impossible* to not adore you, too. I appreciate what you have written and, as you remember, have shared my responses with you earlier this year.

Please stay positive and be careful not to attack.

I am done in this thread! (to the thunderous applause of the community.)

Amy

_________________
http://Twitter.com/AmyStephen
http://www.alltogetherasawhole.org/

Asphyx, you should patent that

_________________
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - Joomla 1.6 training videos!
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.

Too bad I can´t patent this as it has your copyright, Andrew:


http://forum.joomla.org/index.php?topic ... _next=prev

It´s one of my favourites statements! It should be in the frontpage. This way I would have an argument to stop those saying things like "Show me the code" and "Code it yourself!" or things like that, you know.

BTW, the sorting of the two "controllers" (the demands of the users [first] and the abilities of its developers [second]), is intentionally made to state a priority or is just casual?

_________________
...nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses...
http://www.todosjuntos.org
http://inmo-e.com

Agreed in all cases, and in part what I'm basing my statements throughout this discussion on.

Edit: grammar, spelling

_________________
Design with integrity : Web accessible solutions
http://www.absalom.biz
http://twitter.com/absalomedia

Ooooooops! As an attorney I don´t want to get involved in any cause that doesn´t fit my own interest: Joomla!.

I feel sad when someone throws a user as an argument "code it" or "you have nothing to say and a lot to do" and even more sad when I see the mods not stating as a principle the reasons to be here: the Open Letter to the Community. If every time a user says something like that a mod puts an edit with the Open Letter to the Community link we would have a little less conversation and a little more action (I can´t patent this too, damn Elvis).

_________________
...nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses...
http://www.todosjuntos.org
http://inmo-e.com

> Too bad I can´t patent this as it has your copyright, Andrew:

Sorry, I know my Aussie is hard to understand sometimes.  Transalation is "I was really impressed by the analogy and I found it very apt given my experience in contributing and managing Open Source projects".

> BTW, the sorting of the two "controllers"
> (the demands of the users [first] and the abilities of its developers [second]),
> is intentionally made to state a priority or is just casual?

The two are inseparably inter-related.  You can't have one without the other, nor can you say one is more important than the other - the important thing is both are there.  Mambo previously, and Joomla! now have been successful because they both, during our respective watches, addressed both at the same time, maybe in different ratios but still considering both aspects.  Does that help?

_________________
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - Joomla 1.6 training videos!
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.