Open Source Organization Models Discussed 70
blogologue writes "Harvard Business School has an article up discussing The Organizational Model for Open Source. It has some good points, and I think it sums up what many of us know, but haven't quite been able to put into words yet: 'People are intimately aware of the fact that too much structure will disenfranchise the very people who make the most successful open source projects possible.'"
The golden rule, as always.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The golden rule, as always.. (Score:1, Interesting)
The golden rule is, "he who has the gold makes the rules".
Draw your own conclusions.
Re:The golden rule, as always.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The golden rule, as always.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You might wan't to check how many non-opensource programs are actually finished or the amount of crap in it...
Programming has become an industry of buzzwords and throwaway crap. No one builds on what has come before. No one really pays much attention to good design.
I don't think programming has become that... but indeed the industry certainly is.
The industry are managers who don't know shit about programming that are selling programs with a bunch of marketing buzzwords and throwaway crap. The programmers don't have much to do with that (except letting them abuse...)
The reason C is so popular is excactly the reason your argument is moot... Programmers (the real ones not those that think using a computer means using a game console and then move on to 'programming' in visual basic script) use it because they are not impressed with the latest buzzword compliant programming language that promisses to solve every problem.
They use what works, and for a lot of problems C just works.
Jeroen
Re:The golden rule, as always.. (Score:1)
photoplankton [photoplankton.com]
Re:The golden rule, as always.. (Score:2)
If all would have lived after your "golden" rule, we would still have manufactures, work with pen&paper only, etc.
pen&paper worked! Nobody needs computer eitherway, they just make anything simpler and process cheaper, getting a better output, but the technics that existed before worked!
The ultimate open-source organisation model: (Score:5, Interesting)
Fourth big challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fourth big challenge (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, in the last SourceForge newsletter they indicated that they will soon begin to remove dead projects from the database (Following a proper procedure to ensure the project really is dead). The primary candidates are those with 0% activity in the past six months, I believe.
dead@sf.net (Score:5, Informative)
Forgot SCO?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention being branded communists, success haters, neo-terrorists, non-conformists, traitors etc.
The fact that Open Source succeeds despite all the above does indeed speak very highly of it's underlying strength of purpose and motivation.
Re:Fourth big challenge (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yes, let's claim that people almost never remove old stuff while ignoring one of the largest open source projects out there.
Re:Fourth big challenge (Score:2)
Sounds like Lava Flow... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have my copy of Anti-Patterns [antipatterns.com] with me, but quoting from memory, the Lava Flow anti-pattern states something along the lines of:-
Re:Sounds like Lava Flow... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fourth big challenge (Score:3, Informative)
because sourceforge is designed so you CAN'T remove an old project. Lord knows I have tried.
and emails to admins get's a response of "that is against our policy."
It's sourceforges fault they have gobs of cruft there... they wont let you get rid of the abandoned stuff or even the ones that had a good intention but you found someone else doing it so you abandoned your's to help them... kind of projects.
Re:Fourth big challenge (Score:3, Interesting)
On an unrelated note, I almost deleted his email requesting the new ownership, because I thought that it was spam.
Re:Fourth big challenge (Score:1)
Re:Fourth big challenge (Score:1)
Nah for commercial organisations it the very same! There are a lot that have wonderful ideas, but down the line more than 80% of all new companies are in bankruptcy in the first 3 years. (almost 50% even in the first year)
Re:Fourth big challenge (Score:2)
So well have you ever tried to delete your abandoned project from sourceforge? If you find out please tell me! I did not manage to, because they won't let you, simple as that. (Mostly because if people want to continue their project closed source, the last open source version stays public, beyond their control!).
Only one? (Score:5, Insightful)
[1]: Fnur fnur
Re:Only one? (Score:5, Informative)
Moreover, you'll might notice that the second paragraph starts with :
So just read the article, it's quite good.
Re:Only one? (Score:2, Informative)
However, there is no such thing as a single "Open Source Organisation Model", and I believe that different models would be better suited to the sort of organisation that the Non Profit imposes. For example the F
Follow the money (Score:4, Insightful)
Surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
What's so surprising about that?
Most open source projects have been non-profitable so far.
Re:Surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
> non-profitable so far.
Perhaps not profitable for the project owner... but quite profitable for the users.
Re:Surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Informative)
well at least it renders correctly in Mozilla.
For some real insight into how/why/when the open source development model makes sense, read your classics:
the widely quoted but maybe a bit less widely read work of Eric S. Raymond
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Interesting)
If you haven't read them, by all means do so. All of the concepts you hear about 'scratching the itch' and 'organized chaos' here on Slashdot and on various OSS mailing lists, etc. are discussed in depth and in detail in those books. Despite what you might think of ESR and his politics, his books are *very* insightful.
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:2)
Here's a clue. Most of these people don't spit out code for you. That's the whole F'ing point. In fa
Structure (Score:4, Funny)
In other words, if you make open sores programmers move out of their parents basements, put on a decent set of clothing and get a haircut, they won't like you anymore.
DUH!
Re:Structure (Score:2, Insightful)
Most MUDs tend to work like that. Some players eventually volunteer to help you create stuff. Some rare cases can help with the actual programming part, but most can fill the equally (if not more) important part of writing content for that game.
And for some reason, they tend to attract a lot higher volunteers/users ratio than other projects. Maybe because you have them coming daily to your site anywa
Where is the article going? (Score:4, Interesting)
E.g.
"Could you explain why the emergence of nonprofit foundations in the hacker culture appears to be a contradiction in terms?"
Why anyone would think it is a contradiction in terms is possibly an interesting question, and it isn't answered. Yes, Open Source projects often operate on a meritocracy, and those who do the work, often make the decisions - and may become 'board members' etc when it makes sense to set up a non-profit foundation.
Also, how much of a model is a 'non-profit foundation'? As overlayed on an opensource project? It may not actually have that much relevance as to how decisions are made, and the project develops.
Also, could someone explain what Prof. Stark means when she refers to 'community forms'?
Re:Where is the article going? (Score:1)
As long as the media continues to run with this misperception that all hackers are just digital mischief makers, they will continue to be baffled as to why these individuals could possibly want to start non-profit organizations.
Harvard's interest in OpenSource (Score:5, Informative)
HBR is read by presidents/directors/managers, so it is interesting to see how the thinking is changing.
Re:Harvard's interest in OpenSource (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Harvard's interest in OpenSource (Score:1)
Modularity and Interfaces (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with this model is that performance will be lower because there is less interaction between the internals of modules. But this day in age, easy maintanence and stability are more important than a few cpu cycles.
One problem that crops up pretty often with this though is struct interfaces (I use a lot of C). When a member is added or deleted or a module owner notices the need for a new member, this can affect lots of other modules owners.
Re:Modularity and Interfaces (Score:1, Interesting)
Thats why you design the module interfaces well before you start. If you really really must change a struct though, try these guidelines:
o Always pass a pointer to the struct, not the struct itself. If you need to, memcpy() the data at the other end.
o Always add new members
Re:Modularity and Interfaces (Score:2, Informative)
--
Re:Modularity and Interfaces (Score:1)
Dude - you know that's just crazy talk
I Still Say... (Score:1, Funny)
2/3HBS=BS
Good managers vs PHB stereotype (Score:5, Insightful)
"Much of what is funny about Dilbert cartoons is the disgust that technical workers have for managers who do not have intimate knowledge of the content of their work."
That doesn't match my experience. The best managers, those who can clear the way for/get out of the way of their technical staff, don't earn disgust, but respect, despite not having "intimate knowledge of the content" of the techies' work.
Generalizing to all managers who don't understand the technical content misses the point.
Re:Good managers vs PHB stereotype (Score:4, Insightful)
Very true. It has long been my view that the best managers of technical people are those who act as motivators and facilitators. While a strong technical grounding is sometimes an advantage (especially when judging who to assign to a project) limited technical knowledge does not necessarily prevent a manager from doing his job. It is important that a non technical manager knows his limitations, though, and is willing to defer on technical matters to those with superior knowledge.
Re:Good managers vs PHB stereotype (Score:2)
Re:Good managers vs PHB stereotype (Score:1)
None of them had brilliant technical skills, but I still respected them.
Re:Good managers vs PHB stereotype (Score:2)
In my experience, those who move out of the way of their technical staff fall into two categories: th
ah, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
i don't think anybody would argue that a good manager's job is to manage staff well: give the amount of support and assistance to permit staffers (and not just developers) to reach objectives.
it's just that they seem in short supply.
ed
Harvard Business School? (Score:1, Insightful)
WTF do the people at Harvard Business School really know about open source?
Re:Harvard Business School? (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably more than you give them credit for.
I'd also be willing to bet my left nut that they know more about business than you do. I'd say that qualifies them to address the subject.
Didn't see "Organisational" (Score:2, Funny)
Daniel
AI Army of One (Score:1, Interesting)
Structure? We don't need no steenking structure.
As the war-criminal and oil-stealing U.S. Army alludes in its recruitment slogan, an "Army of One" is all you need as the vanguard of an Open Source(-Forge) [sourceforge.net] project to create artificial intelligence and bring about the Technological Singularity. [caltech.edu]
Anything beyond an AI Army of One [nanomagazine.com] will be unable to come up with a sufficiently complex Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind [sourceforge.net] to start coding True AI or Good Old Fashioned AI (GOFAI) in JavaScript [sourceforge.net] for teaching AI and
Dijkstra's Papers (Score:5, Interesting)
A pervasive theme was that managers don't like exceptional people... he decried "the collectivist desire to play down the potential role of the individual." Managers always scorn rugged individualists because they mess up the well ordered meetings.
This may be the reason, and the only reason, why open source is successful: because we've invented a system where brilliant individuals can work together.
There's only One True OSS Model (Score:5, Insightful)
2. ???
3. Kudos!!
Why Kudos and not Profit? Easy, and this is the key to OSS: you need money when you trade with strangers. When you trade with people you know, reciprocity is enough. OSS is possible because of community. The community is possible because of cheap communications.
...economics of cooperation... (Score:2, Insightful)
What kind of social good is software? (Score:1)
"The more fundamental question that firms and policy makers need to be thinking about is just what type of good is software? The answer to this question may be shifting just as economic and socia