Re: Discussing issues

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Sam Rowe wrote:

[...]

> However, it seems like there are a lot of very large, very complex
> open source projects that have a very active and very open development
> environment that XFree86 doesn't seem to have. This point has been
> belabored on this list several times, and as best I can tell the
> standard response is "There is no problem, we're just as open as
> everyone else." If that's the case, why was this list created, and
> why do so many people have such a skewed perspective?

   Those are problems with the process or problems with the
perception of the process.  I have no problems with working on 
solving those.  Those, however, are not what Keith is talking about.
Keith is merely using those perceptions as arguments to support
his point of view.  Note that he's not trying to solve those
problems in XFree86, he's using them as arguments for why people
should dump the current governance.


> I admire the spirit of forming this mailing list and allowing folks
> to air their feelings, but, after reading this list for the past
> few weeks, I think that the main agenda here is to endlessly reword
> "There aren't any problems." / "Keith sucks."
> 
> I have no idea if Keith sucks or not, nor do I know his actions or
> his motives, so I'll leave that one be.
> 
> I do know that you've had a flood of people here who, whether they
> understand the issues or not, are very very frustrated with XFree86's
> processes and possibly its governance. I say possibly because I think
> for most people it's difficult to separate between the two.

    There are alot of people here who aren't really effected by
the processes or governance yet they are "contributing" to these
discussions anyhow.   People advocating of change mostly because
it has little real consequence to them.


> 
> # I think this is unprecedented in the open source world, and from
> # my point of view (as a significant contributor) I find it 
> # immoral.  I can hardly understand why Keith and Jim, developers
> # themselves, would be advocating such a thing unless they were
> # certain that they would be at the head of this new governance.
> 
> According to messages you've sent to this list anyone who submits
> patches determines the direction of XFree86. No one, save your boss,
> is going to tell you what you have to work on, so what does it matter
> if the community governs the project? You can still submit the same
> patches. You will still choose what you want to work on.

   I object to project development direction being pushed by
people who aren't doing the development.  I think many people are
interested in changing governance just so that they can push
development direction even though they themselves would not
be the ones doing the work.  Surely, you can see some evidences
of that here?


> 
> I'm not blind to your point, which, if I understand it correctly,
> is one of principle. I can assume that you've worked hard on XFree86,
> as have the other members of the Core Team and the BOD, and you feel a
> certain ownership of the project. I can certainly empathize with that
> feeling, but I'm not sure who it serves to honor that feeling. Do you
> feel that it serves the XFree86 application stack? Or does it serve 
> the XFree86 team? I'm honestly asking and I've done my best to remove
> bias from the wording.

   There are many people who think XFree86 has an "obligation to
the community", to serve it's interests, where the community is largely
described as the people who benefit from the work that XFree86 has
done.  Do you think that people who have done the work they've
done for XFree86 did so because they felt an obligation to the
people who use XFree86?  Do you feel that XFree86 users have a right
to demand that obligation of the developers?

   I think alot of people are confused.  If this were another
"market" users would vote with dollars and companies selling
products would compete for those dollars.  Users don't vote
with dollars in this community.  Companies like XFree86 don't
have an incentive to give the users things that they demand.
Users seem to have their metaphors mixed and seem to be trying
to find other ways to vote, but at the bottom of it all, there
isn't anything they can vote with.


> 
> The only things I know about the XFree86 governance are the things that
> I've read on this list, and none of them were very illuminating. Is
> it simply the principle that is so important about who governs this
> project, or are there concrete things that you feel would suffer in
> the hands of community governance?
> 
> I know you've stated that you feel the level of quality would suffer,
> but that's all perspective, right? If all the Core Team ever did was
> review patches and make them better, along with helping to educate
> contributing developers, I can't see how the quality would suffer for
> too long.
> 
> 
> #   I've stated this to other people before, but perhaps not here, 
> # so I'll say it now.  I will not work for an X-server project
> # who's agenda is set by people who are merely vested interests.
> 
> I'm honestly not trying to be a smart-ass when I ask, aren't you
> doing that now?

   No.  XFree86 is run by people who work on X-servers because they
love the technology.  They do it as a hobby and contribute what they
can when they can.  I believe that if you have something you are
interested in, you should be allowed to contribute it as long as
it doesn't hurt things that other people are interested in.  Things
that impede that are problems with the process that need to get
fixed.  


> 
> 
> #    I do not speak for the XFree86 core when I say this, but in
> # my opinion I think if Keith wants this form of "governance"
> # he's going to have to start his own project. 
> # 
> #    Many people on this list have viewed resistence to Keith as
> # one of resistence to fixing broken things in XFree86's processes.
> # This is not the case.  The XFree86 project wants to fix problems
> # with the processes, but the overshadowing problem is one of 
> # Keith's absurd assertions about how the XFree86 project should
> # be run and this is preventing things from coming to a conclusion
> # because the perception is that even if we fix the processes,
> # Keith is still going to be making threats as long as he's not
> # in charge.
> 
> For me, it's difficult to believe that XFree86 wants to solve
> its procedural problems when I read aggressive/defensive language,
> like that of your message, being continually sent to this list from
> the Core Team.  I realize that feelings were hurt, so that probably
> accounts for some of it, but really, after however long that this list
> has been around, what's changed in terms of the XFree86 procedures?

   While there are things that people have a right to demand - they
have a right to demand to be able to contribute - there are other
things that people are demanding that they do not have the right to
demand of volunteers.  In my opinion, agression stems from the appearence
that those people, who have nothing to vote with and having no positive
incentive to give developers, have resorted to threatening the very
existence of the project hoping that it will get them what they want.

   It makes it difficult to get down to solving problems with
the process by which people contribute when under threats like this.


			Mark.