Re: Why are we here?

Tom, it is much easier to hook few mind-alike horses together and make them
move rather than tying many together to get them move  in the same
direction.  So in light of the shortcomings of the current implementation
that even you agree with (such as for the storage format that you now think
the git approach is more correct) my goal of keeping Arch 1 alive is an
rather easy task.

Yes, there is much more potential in wiring up more horses, but in a way
that is up to you... for example, for the documentation part, whether the
efforts should be spent on the 2.0 version or the 1.x version.

And if there are new volunteers, what do they do?  Work on 2.0?

If you want to see a push for 2.0, you may need to be more active in
advancing the 2.0 implementation further to make it easier for other people
to contribute.  You did that for 1.x so it become easy for other people to
contribute, to take it and run (and fork... etc.)

Also the horses will always run in different directions, and you cannot
expect them to run all in one direction.  The best thing is that you can
extract maximum energy from the horses on the direction you want to go; but
you always need to expect degrees of chaos.

So the question really needs to be partly answered by you, and you need to
make it share much in common with the purposes of the people with all
different kinds of goals as you listed.

On 2/3/06, Thomas Lord <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, the horses can be tied scatter-shot to the carriage
> so that they pull in multiple contradictory directions at once.  In this
> case we make only random progress, at best, and more likely just rip
> the carriage to pieces.   This is more or less the state we arrived at
> recently.
>
> Andy is doing very well, imo.  He's hooked some of those horses up to
> one of the fragments of the cart and is making progress for the GNU
> project and for a few who like to use the GNU releases.  My perception,
> though, is that the potential is far greater than what we are
> experiencing.   A good example is how the recent discussions about
> fixing up the documentation pretty much died as soon as the suggestion
> to organize volunteers in that direction came up.
>
> Maybe part of the problem is that we don't have a clear purpose -- a
> unifying belief in what we are doing.   We don't have a clear statement
> that we can use to recruit new volunteers --- a statement that might
> have the logical form "Join this project if you want to help us do
> _______".   We have only the empty circular way of filling in that
> blank "help the Arch project".
>
> If we were a corporation rather than a public project this question
> would still be important but it would be far easier to answer.  We
> would have a charter, a legal structure, a governance structure, a
> budget, and objective metrics by which to measure key elements of
> success.
>
> But we are in new territory and part of a new mode of social
> organization.   We are at the bleeding edge (and wounded) of
> free software development and open source public projects.
>
> There is no law here, in this new territory.   Just us folks.
> Shall we civilize?   I ask again:
>
>         Why are we here?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -t
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
>