Re: [Openinteract-dev] What is OpenInteract2 ?

[Chris W. <ch...@cw...>]

On Jul 18, 2005, at 4:36 PM, Antti V=E4h=E4kotam=E4ki wrote:
> I think Teemu was trying to say that setting goals and guidelines =20
> is a very important part of making OI2 developer-friendly. I agree =20
> that is it mainly important for the end users who write their =20
> applications on OI2, but the fact is that we will probably never =20
> get people on board who are just OI2 developers - their motivation =20
> will always (at least in the beginning) be their own application =20
> which runs on OI2. It's just the way open source projects usually =20
> work.

I agree with that -- most of us don't participate in the actual =20
development of core Perl, we just use it.

> ...
> The questions from the people who are interested in OI2 are more =20
> probably going to be: "How easy does using OI2 makes it for me to =20
> do A?" and "Has someone already done A on OI2 and could I benefit =20
> from it?" and thus these are also the questions we should be =20
> thinking when we develop OI2.
>
> A huge part of addressing the first question id to provide a clear, =20=

> detailed mission statement and a bug repository + documentation =20
> stating which features are missing or buggy and need more work.
> ...
> I think that if OI2 has no clear mission, everybody will =20
> concentrate more on building their own missions and OI2 will always =20=

> remain just half made everything.

It's true, OI has never had a real mission statement. I suppose I'm =20
the natural person to write such a thing, but that it hasn't been =20
done yet is a good indication that it probably never will be if left =20
in my hands. Is someone interested in coordinating this?

> ...
> Open source project is just like any other project: to succeed it =20
> needs good management. Lonesome coders hacking away as they see fit =20=

> is not going to end up being everything we all need.
>
> We need to discuss the directions where we are going so that we can =20=

> benefit on each others work. I can write a million hello worlds =20
> within an hour by using OI2 and some code generation, but it is not
> going to change the world.

Also true.

> ...
> To suddenly change the mission statement the way one wants it =20
> instead of  discussing it with all the others first? ;)

Probably more to replace me as a bottleneck and change the statement =20
(and site) once interested folks have agreed to it.

> ...
> On top of our specific focus, we have limited resources and tight =20
> schedules, like everybody in this business has. We just simply =20
> don't have the time to plan and test our approaches as long as we =20
> find a way that might be integratable with OI2. Usually the good =20
> ideas grow in time and they need a lot of experimenting in =20
> different directions to evolve to a general state. We can't just =20
> decide that we will make everything as general as possible to be =20
> incorporated into OI2 core even if we wanted to. We do what we can =20
> given the resources, but usually the output is far from general and =20=

> reusable Brick. When it evolves, maybe? But the sad fact is that we =20=

> can't dump the customers who pay our bread to go on a crusade to =20
> build a better world - we are already making as many stabs as we =20
> can towards that goal.

True for many people I think. It's a delicate balance making your =20
core products open source: if you don't work enough on the core =20
you'll lose the benefits of them being open source, but if you spend =20
too much time on it you won't be writing applications for people who =20
pay you money.

As always, thanks for your ideas.

Chris