[GRASS5] A request for control

[Justin Hickey]

Bruce

I appreciate all that Baylor has done in jump starting Grass development
and then maintaining excellent support for Grass users. However, as a
developer, I have some concerns regarding your comments and I would like
to try to show you how I see things. Please note that some of my
comments could be interpreted as attacks on you (and Richard) but they
are not. I have been noted in the past that my writing style can be
interpreted that way since I tend to be straightforward when I am trying
to make a point. I will apologize in advance if you (or Richard) feel my
comments are harsh.

"B. Byars" wrote:
> Markus and I agreed a
> while back that there was the need for I guess what you would call
> "project managers" for each new version of GRASS.

This makes sense for grass 4 and grass 5 since they are drastically
different. But why do we need a separate "project manager" for the next
version of grass? Are your ideas for grass 6 going to drastically change
grass again?

> (why that negative post?)

I don't know which post you are referring to, but I can tell you why I
personally have resentment towards this thread (NOTE: the thread NOT the
people!!). From a developers point of view we were going along trying to
get the features we feel are needed for a good stable release such as
the new autoconf feature to improve installation, the environment
variable re-write so environment variables act as people expect them to,
and the new GUI startup procedure to simplify grass use. Then Richard
comes along and claims that there is a problem with the grass
development process but does not specify exactly what this problem is
except for a general statement that we are not heading in the right
direction. Then he suggests that we should turn to you to help us with
this problem.

I'm sorry, but to me this type of post seems like my boss coming to me
and saying I have a problem and that he knows how to fix it and then
walking away. This would obviously leave me in a state where I want to
run after him and say "I have no idea what you're talking about, please
explain". And yes, I would resent the way he informed me of my problem.

Do you (and Richard) now understand our bewilderment and confusion and
that we still don't really see the specific problem you are talking
about? Making a post claiming there is a problem and not stating
explicit examples of said problem leads to confusion and yes,
resentment.

So please, tell us what exactly is the problem. How are we going in the
wrong direction? Then we will understand and be able to address these
concerns.

> We here at Baylor have since
> been working on what will be GRASS 6.0 (real prelim stuff now),
> experimenting with certain things.

Why haven't you posted any details of your proposal to the developers?
This is the first time I have heard of grass 6.

>  See how this was working?

Yes, and I do not agree with it. I see grass 5 being developed into a
stable version and then being further developed into grass 6. I do not
see it becoming stable, then being frozen and a completely different
source tree being used for grass 6. Are you actually proposing two
separate development branches? One for grass 5 and one for grass 6?
Won't grass 6 be based on grass 5? In which case, the developers need to
know what the future plans are. That way, when we write code, we can
write in preparation for the future. If there is one thing that really
bothers me, it is writing code, then having someone say they wanted it
done this way to accomodate a future feature, then having to go back and
write the code again the way I would have done it if I had known of this
future feature in the first place. Therefore, all future ideas for the
advancement of code should be discussed.

Another point I would like to make is that you have said you have done
preliminary work on grass 6. What if (in this hypothetical and VERY
unlikely scenario) none of the developers like your ideas. Will you
throw all the work you have done away? I doubt this will actually
happen, I am only trying to make a point that in open source
development, new features need to be discussed among all developers
before, during, and after the work is done. It is the only way to ensure
that the overall code structure remains synchronized properly.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears this is not the case with what
you have done with grass 6.

> Our staff provides a tremendous amount of personalized support for the
> community, which we estimate has grown to 35-40k users (support can
> go upwards of 60-75 email per day).  We've been watching how things
> have been evolving and are very pleased with the response from users.

Great! That's super! I didn't realize we had so many users! I hope you
can maintain such a high level of support.
 
> However, I agree with Rich in that lately GRASS has become more of
> a hackers tool than a useful GIS in some respects.

Again, please explain the problem. We are failing to see your point of
view. We do not see grass getting more complex and bloated. We see it
getting simpler and more robust. Please show us what we're missing.

> We've had a vision statement that I will also post. I think that user
> feedback is extremely important and want to keep a positive dialogue.

Then why didn't you post it in this post? And your use of the past tense
indicates that you have had this vision statement for some time. Why
didn't you post it earlier? And if it has been finalized, why weren't
the developers consulted?

> However, in my past life experiences (away from academia) I can say
> that democracy does not work when it comes to getting things done.  

True, but the developers need the opportunity to provide their input.
Even if they never provide any input, they still need that opportunity. 
 
> Points about how we are not involved are TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT.

But how are we supposed to know this? Taking myself as an example,
before I read your post, the only thing I knew that Baylor was doing was
support for grass 4. Very few, if any, changes have been committed to
the CVS tree from Baylor in recent months. And you yourself have posted
no more than a few messages a month to the grass developers list in the
last three months. Please tell me what are the indicators that tell us
that Baylor has been actively contributing to the development of grass?
Please don't think I am attacking you. I realize that Baylor has other
things to do as do I and we can't dedicate all our time to the project.
I am just trying to show you how I see it as a developer. And as such, I
need participation from my leaders in order to determine if my work
conforms with the goals of the project. How am I supposed to know if my
code conforms to your vision statement when I don't even know what that
vision is? What do you think the lack of participation from Baylor in
recent discussions concerning code development signifies to us? What it
signifies to me, is that I have no idea whether or not you even know
what we are doing. Do you see my point of view? Yes, points about how
you are not involved may be without merit, but truly, how were we to
know?

-- 
Sincerely,

Jazzman (a.k.a. Justin Hickey)  e-mail: jhickey at hpcc.nectec.or.th
High Performance Computing Center
National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC)
Bangkok, Thailand
==================================================================
People who think they know everything are very irritating to those
of us who do.  ---Anonymous

Jazz and Trek Rule!!!
==================================================================

---------------------------------------- 
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo at geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'