Community and Artifact Define One Another (Was: SqF purpose: supporting the Squeak community?)

Andrew C. Greenberg werdna at mucow.com
Tue May 29 03:39:13 UTC 2001


On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 01:09 AM, Paul Fernhout wrote:

*snip* in paraphrase summary:
	1. a suggestion that no strong argument can be made that the 
program defines an open source community for that program;
	2. a suggestion that a statement of purpose is more important than 
the program for an open source community;
	3. a written statement of purpose is essential for an open source 
community.

I dissent.  I don't believe Paul could be more wrong, in part for the 
reasons previously stated.  I think he misses the point.  Squeak *IS* 
the fulcrum of this community, it defines us in the most meaningful 
sense: our members are those interested in squeak, and those 
disinterested in squeak are unlikely to be members.  Another community 
might be interested in other, related issues.  But that isn't this 
community, so far as I understand it.

On the other hand, the community defines what is squeak,  it does so in 
the most meaningful sense: the community programs the program.

The community defines the program and the program defines the 
community.  There isn't any unanimity on what is the purpose of the 
community -- indeed, the community comprises many constituencies, many 
of which are at odds.  But we are united around the same thing: the 
program.  We add to, take away from, and define it, just as it defines 
us.

As can be seen by empirical evidence -- these statements of purpose 
discussions, these forking or not to form discussions and generally 
EVERY POLITICAL DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER IN AN OPEN SOURCE PROJECT has been 
divisive.  It has slowed us don.  It has hurt us.  It continues to hurt 
us.

[I'm pretty sure I could whomp all comers on the "program defines the 
community" side of the debate -- as an exercise to the advocate, it is 
merely a variant of the "forks are bad to open source projects" debate.  
It is a view widely shared by the open source community and its leaders, 
and there is massive evidence that forks have killed good projects and 
neutralized great projects to uselessness.  But as I noted, taking an 
advocacy position --just making the argument--, isn't worth the 
exercise.  It is divisive, and it is also not the truth as I understand 
it.  We have already argued it ad nauseum here, and I will not do it 
again.]

The problem with taking the view that one of the positions is more 
important misses the truth of this thing.  In the most successful open 
source projects, the synergies of the program drawing a community, 
replacing those we lose via attrition, with the vital community 
advancing the program, leading to more members of the community, and so 
forth, works in its favor.  In the notable failures, forks and splits 
and politics preclude anyone from having energy or interest in doing 
much more than arguing.  The schisms in the community discourage people 
from committing to working, fearing they will be shot down or their 
changes ignored by their particular antis -- and concerned that the 
community's inevitable split will leave their work without a 
constituency.   We leave our code in a fit of genetic altruism, and in 
hopes that others will grant to us.  If that won't happen, most will 
just go find another project.

In short, forks ARE bad, but failure to evolve is likewise bad.  Splits 
and schisms in the community ARE bad, but the failure to embrace new 
blood and new ideas is likewise bad.

If the Squeak Foundation is just going to be a debating society for 
pissing contests on these trivial questions -- be sure to count me out.  
Who knows, maybe I'm just not a member of the community after all -- I'm 
just this old geek who merely contributes to and enjoys Squeak.  I 
didn't realize that I needed other credentials as well.

Paul argues that a statement of purposes are important, by analogy to 
the declaration of independence and the constitution.  I find the 
analogy amusing, but fail to see where he connects the dots.  There is 
amble practical evidence that an organic instrument is not a necessary 
precondition: most great OSS projects don't have one.

Paul argues that the Chaordic principles require a charter.  This seems 
to me more an indictment of the applicability of these principles to an 
OSS project than a compelling reason to have one.

I am not against drawing up a simple charter with precatory statements 
as to what we are here to do.  A foundation could sever our community 
well in a number of various ways -- none of them being a forum for 
political wrangling.

I am simply saying that any principle beyond the most fundamental:

	THE COMMUNITY DEFINES THE PROGRAM AND THE PROGRAM DEFINES THE COMMUNITY
	(We program the program AND the program is our program)

misses the point and disserves the community.  Such other policy 
disserves us because it is wholly unrealistic for open source 
projects.   While there may be better ways to start political movements, 
those ways are probably hopeless for starting great open source projects.

Don't get me wrong. I have drafted many organic instruments.  I know and 
can slam-dunk most parliamentarians on the fundamentals of Robert's 
Rules and lawyering issues through these arguments.  That's great fun 
for me.  I can see why these things can be useful and are, indeed, 
critical AND NECESSARY for any deliberative body.

And this brings me to my final point.

	An open source community such as ours is NOT a deliberative body.

		We "vote" with our fingers, or our feet.

True, this view makes an open source project more of a meritocracy than 
a democracy.  I'm not sure this is a bad thing.





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list