Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 02:34:14 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X based Free installation Message-ID: <19980113023414.60851@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199801130006.RAA24458@usr08.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 12:06:46AM %2B0000 References: <86hg79z7an.fsf@bitbox.follo.net> <199801130006.RAA24458@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(Sorry for the harsh tone of some of the below, but I'm fairly
frustrated and have a toothache to boot. I still stand behind it.)
On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 12:06:46AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Sure. But there is a spiral here - more coders contributing -> more
> > users -> more coders contributing.
>
> This feedback loop is not unbounded. It's closest analogy is a damped,
> driven, harmonic oscillator. You can't drive it beyond the damping
> harmonic.
True. However, I think we have three very clear bounding factors
right now:
(1) 'Minor contributors' don't get their work handled on a timely
basis, and get disheartened and don't contribute again. I know
this has happened at least in some cases.
(2) We don't have all the sexy FreeBSD-based technology that is out
there integrated properly. An example of this is the fxtv port,
which lag behind the one at the authors web-site. This is tech
that I _know_ that 'sells in' FreeBSD - I've had people switch
from Linux to FreeBSD after seeing it demonstrated.
(3) Newcomers feel intimidated by the power structure (or at least I
did, somewhat.)
The influence of all these three factors can be lowered by giving
people that want to to contribute their own contact (or at least
giving the people that want an own contact an own contact). The cost
of this is very, very small, and the potential benefit is IMHO clearly
there.
> > There is only one organizational problem with FreeBSD that I see
> > clearly today: Responsibility too often boils down to a group of
> > people, instead of one person. I think each submission/contact to
> > FreeBSD should boil down to the responsibility of _one_ person.
>
> I'm not going to get into this right now; my opinions are known,
> and you can look them up in the archives. 8-).
As far as I've been able to tell (from reading your posts before, and
looking them up again now): You want FreeBSD to have sexy tech, to
expand the treshold for the number of participants, and to throw out
the core team (with no clear indication of what is to replace it, if
anything.)
All in all, handwaving, with no actual ways to solve any of the
problems, except that you claim to be able to supply some of the sexy
tech if people just didn't stand in your way.
All of the above has been extracted from a myriad of complex
metaphors, so please correct me if I've misunderstood something.
Now, I'm trying to come up with one pragmatic approach to how we can
increase the treshold for the number of participants without putting a
lot of non-existing resources at the problem. If the approach don't
work, the most likely outcome is that no people register to actually
write code - so the cost end up at 2 hours of my time. If it works,
we get more good changes for FreeBSD - great!
> > Does this mean that I'm the only person that belive this would be
> > useful?
>
> Probably. Ask yourself if a mentor program will increase the
> smallest harmonic wavelength of all harmonics that apply. Define
> the harmonics any way you want, or look in the archives for my
> definitions, and use them. Either way, I think a mentor program
> won't really help resolve the issues resulting in the limit function.
Then try to come up with your definitions of the problems in words of
less than two levels of indirection.
> Well, if you talk people into it here... you should establish a
> metric up front so you can measure positive or negative impact;
> otherwise everyone will be able to come to different conclusions
> about the programs success, and you will just have a lot of people
> arguing that whatever-there-mutually-contradictory-pet-point-is
> was "proven" by the experiment.
>
> You could even do a fuzzy boundry, and time-bind it:
>
> o If desired result X occurs by N time units after the
> program is established, the program shall be deemed
> successful and shall not be discontinued.
If after four months the committers that have volunteered to be
mentors/contacts feel that the program have contributed more to
FreeBSD/will contribute more to FreeBSD than it has cost them, the
program shall be deemed successfull and shall not be discontinued.
Very simple :-)
Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980113023414.60851>