Moving Forward - time for some housekeeping

General Discussion - Everything else for V1 goes here

Moderators: seaton, strogg

Moving Forward - time for some housekeeping

Postby seaton » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:55 am

Ok the Runaway train has been released and it is awesome (and exciting) to see the enthusiasm in the group, but we need to reign things in abit until we nail some of the housekeeping down

The things I see we need to get sorted fairly early on in the piece to be successful:

License - prob the most important thing we need to get sorted! Some good points have been raised both on the forum and the wiki about this. However I feel we need to make a decision quickly so as not to get bogged down in the nitty gritty. Can people put forward their suggestions along with the pros and cons of their choice, when we get a few I'll get a poll up.

Structure - Suggestions? do we need a structure? (My thoughts are yes!) Do we need to elect some core decision makers? or just go by polls when decisions need to be made? Again I don't want to get bogged down here.

Project Name - Important of course so we can get domains and website up and running, great to see some ideas flowing here.

It's great to see the ideas flowing on function etc, but without the above then we won't progress far, and once we get the housekeeping sorted everything ese will (should?) flow. Once we get these sorted then we can get a task list together with some timelines (hopefully achievable)

again....i don't want to sound like a broken records, but it is too easy to get bogged down in the nitty gritty and we will not move forward. Lets make this thing a winner and all be part of it.

Site Admin
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:48 am
Location: Bunbury, Western Australia

Moving Forward - time for some housekeeping

Postby Thonord » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:22 am

Yes Boss. :P
Ppl who agree need normally not reply, those who disagree or have questions do.
Or - just ignore me.
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Norway

Postby seaton » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:13 am

lol :D
Site Admin
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:48 am
Location: Bunbury, Western Australia

Postby h_oudini » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:18 am

As for license, I would say that perhaps someone could write up why we should choose GPL and another person could write up why we should choose BSD (or some other licensing), and then, if there is a way to have a vote, we vote on it as a team.

For the name, I say either you (seaton) come up with the name (since you started this), or we have vote for one.

I certainly think that a team structure needs to be established very soon. Some decisions don't need a complete group consensus, and there needs to be leadership for the project to truly work. This way responsibilities can be assigned, teams can be formed, etc. We probably need a program director (seaton would be the logical choice), a chief architect (hardware), chief architect (software), someone in charge of graphics, website design, project manager (more of the day to day project management tasks), etc. Some sort of schedule needs to be drafted and the sooner the better.

Anyhow, just my thoughts.
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:47 am

Postby strogg » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:11 am

This isn't a democracy. I think all those with opinions should stand up and state them. Then seaton should consider the options and the opinions presented and choose the license best suited for the project.
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:31 pm

Postby anton.tagunov » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:50 am

strogg wrote:this isn't a democracy

Meritocracy is perhaps an ideal government model for open source projects. It means that those with most contribution attributed to them have the most weight in making decisions. Of course there's an obvious bootstrap issue.

Despotism works fine for some projects but the lifespan of such a project is limited to the period when the leader is interested in it.

If you're interested in the difference you can read this blog post comparing a despotic project (tapestry) to a meritocratic one (wicket) ... ences.html

Technically if strobist design is choosing the meritocratic way I would expect a management committee to be established. The mechanism to form initial set of members can be any. Seaton can appoint them perhaps. Then the committee can have votes internally. The committee can appoint new committee members. It shall grant SVN repository access and do all other kinds of management. The roles inside the committee can be quite informal I guess.

Speaking of license choice. If the copyright remains with project contributors the right license needs to be chosen from the start. If the copyright license is granted to a central legal entity, it is free to change the license later at its own discretion.
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:52 pm

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest