Scaling, and control vs. flexibility (Was: A Call For Open Governance Of X Development)

On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 09:02:51PM -0500, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-15] José Fonseca wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that Americans who want to immigrate to France
> > _really_ have difficulty in establishing there. 
>   
> You've read something into the analogy that I did not intend.

I was extending the analogy. The point being that, even if changing the
governance of XFree86.org isn't the most apropriate course of action,
the fact remains that the XFree86 development model isn't open enough to
new developers. 

I already've said this here before, and although I admit that there has
been substancial advances since the (such as the development being more
transparent with the closing of the private development lists, the
recently creation of the bugzilla database), the current development
model still doesn't _scale_. 

IMO it's the very fact of the XFree86 development not scaling which has
been frustating so many people who now point the finger to the current
leadership for ignoring them. I don't think that XFree86 core ever
ignored any outside contribution, but the simple fact that they couldn't
give an timely response caused the same effect. 

If someone's simple patch take ages to be accepted, what's the point for
that someone to work one something more complicated? It won't.

I think the current [email protected] things is totally arcane and
sterile. There are many other efficient ways to have the same overall
level of control over a tree without actually having to check every
single little change made.  So _many_ people have been complaining about
this for so _long_ that (spite the dark details of the latest events
were an unpleasent surprise) something like this clash was doomed to
happen. 

Nobody takes merit away from David Dawes or the other XFree86
maintainers for the excellent work they've done - without them
XFree86 wouldn't stand where it does today. But their user base is
_huge_ now and XFree86 is, after all, an open source project. If
they can't or don't want to listen to their users (developers included)
they are inciting a fork.  Either you have strict control or
flexibility. Both is _not_ an option.

Either they allow people to get in (and loose full control over Xfree86
direction), or tell them go elsewhere (and face competion with a fork).
I personally prefer the first to avoid duplication of efforts, but any
choice is fine here.  The XFree86 team should make very clear now what's
their stance.

José Fonseca