Code or Community?
What makes a healthy open source community? Many things, I realize, but
I'm looking for that very first principle. Claire
asks,
There's probably no absolute answer here. I go back and forth all the time, actually. Lately, though, I'm thinking that you can't separate "code" from "community" and juxtapose the two for the purposes of a conversation like this. Also, I think you need to define "community" since there are multiple levels of people doing a variety of things. I tend to lean toward the code at the core as providing the base from which a community of developers can grow. But then I run right into those core developers who wrote the code in the first place and who are evolving the code and engaging in open conversations about the code. Which brings me right back to the code. But if you remove the code what happens to the community? And if you remove the core developers who wrote the code what happens to the community? And around I go. Maybe it's not about the code or the community but the code and the community. Maybe you simply can't separate the two. I've been saying it's all about the code, and I believe that. I just can't explain it, that's all. Who knows. It's a nice day out right now, so I'm taking the kid to the park. That I do understand.
"Is it about the code? Or is it about
the
community? My belief is that open source is about the
community."
There's probably no absolute answer here. I go back and forth all the time, actually. Lately, though, I'm thinking that you can't separate "code" from "community" and juxtapose the two for the purposes of a conversation like this. Also, I think you need to define "community" since there are multiple levels of people doing a variety of things. I tend to lean toward the code at the core as providing the base from which a community of developers can grow. But then I run right into those core developers who wrote the code in the first place and who are evolving the code and engaging in open conversations about the code. Which brings me right back to the code. But if you remove the code what happens to the community? And if you remove the core developers who wrote the code what happens to the community? And around I go. Maybe it's not about the code or the community but the code and the community. Maybe you simply can't separate the two. I've been saying it's all about the code, and I believe that. I just can't explain it, that's all. Who knows. It's a nice day out right now, so I'm taking the kid to the park. That I do understand.
Posted by Concerned Citizen on December 05, 2005 at 06:35 AM JST #
Posted by Stephen on December 05, 2005 at 07:10 AM JST #
Posted by William R. Walling on December 05, 2005 at 07:58 AM JST #
Posted by Christopher Mahan on December 06, 2005 at 02:24 AM JST #
Wow. That's excellent, Christopher. Thanks so much. It's very clear the way you put it. Especially this: "The key ... is that the code is first, is available, is hackable, and that the person who has absolute authority over the code is accessible, participates, and shares with others." Love it. But I have a question: What happens if the lead coder is not participating but the code is still available? Also, what would you say to a developer who is not familiar with working in the open? What do they have to look forward to? To me, even though I'm not a coder, I still get massive benefit from contributing to the community, but sometimes I'm not sure what some developers are thinking. On OpenSolaris, we a mix, our top kernel guys are certainly participating like crazy. But the organization is very, very large (about 1,000 developers) and so over time as we open more code more developers are getting involved. I just want to make sure I'm characterizing the benefit of all this to them properly.
And I know the line breaks suck. I'll tell the BSC guys. Sorry.
Posted by Jim Grisanzio on December 13, 2005 at 02:26 PM JST #
Jim,
<p style="border-top: #ff9900; margin-top: 2em"> What would I say to the code who is not familiar with working in the open?You ask:
"What happens if the lead coder is not available but the code is still available?"
Well, the code becomes an orphan, and it drifts on endlessly, left to its own sorry self until, at last, a new Guy shows up who says: "this poor lonely little code needs a bath and a manicure."
Then the guy takes the code, hacks on it, posts a new release out on his website, emails the mailing list (even if there's been no activity for the past 3 years -- you never know who's still subscribing) and emails the original owner to ask: "is is ok if I take this puppy for a ride?"
Generally, the previous guy, who no longer cares or has the time, will answer: "Go for it buddy", or he may not answer, being dead or having thrown away the PC and opened a swanky pastry shop on Santa Monica Blvd.
The new guy will become "the guy" and the dance will start all over again.
If your code can't stand to be peer-review by people who aren't paid to be on your team, it needs to be reworked.
Name the most famous people in the open-source world, and I'll show you great coders. I don't care what people say about RMS, he wrote Emacs, and that's an amazing piece of work. Look at Linus Torvalds, then look at the source code for the linux kernel. Look at Yukihiro Matsumoto (Matz) who created Ruby, and Larry Wall of Perl fame, and Guido van Rossum, who wrote Python. These people are the antithesis of the large corporation: a guy, lonely, broke, and with cheap hardware, who stays up at all hours of the night to work on "the code" because he "believes".
So this is what I say to the coders who code in the cubes: You think your code don't stink? You think your code will be around in 35 years? You think your little program will go to version 22 and be "required" by hackers on all linux distros? Put it on the web for all the hardcode hackers to break it. If it has any value whatsoever, they will see it. If it does not, then I guess you can go back to your cube and deliver substandard code to your employer and earn your 6 figures inflated salary.
What can they look forward to?
Excellent question! The recognition of the Community. Something Sun is working hard to achieve, mind you.
The other thing they can look forward to, of course, is the great software the community can use, which mean that they can use.
As far as your organization, you will note that your kernel hackers did not need any prompting to participate. They already knew they should be doing this. (And one has to ask themselves if they participate because they are top hackers or whether they are top hackers because they participate).
The other 900 need to know that participating will make them better: better hackers, better writers (even notice that hackers write very well?) better communicators, better friends and better coworkers. They will become more tolerant, more patient, more willing to teach, mentor, and help the stranded stranger.
You remember the story behind "free as in beer"? Well, it came about because a hacker wanted to buy a beer to another hacker, but being in a different country, sent him beer money instead. And people say hackers aren't friendly. Sheesh!
Finally, I would say that you've got a hard road ahead of yourself, and that some fundamental things at Sun are going to be left on the altar.
Here's the weirdest thing: AOL got so much flak from geeks everywhere for so many reasons for so many years. Yet, they earned street cred. You know how? They bought netscape but did not shut down the project. Developers all over netscape started working on mozilla. AOL didn't shut them down. Mozilla grew and grew, spawning firefox, and AOL didn't shut them down. Time Warner now has taken over, and AOL is but a shell of its former self, but still, they have not shut them down. The bulk of the developers for firefox are still netscape people (or were last I checked).
Posted by Christopher Mahan on December 14, 2005 at 02:24 AM JST #