Choosing the Choosers

[Puneet Kishor]

On Dec 17, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Tyler Mitchell wrote:

> On December 17, 2005 09:56, Paul Spencer wrote:
>> I am starting to believe that from a user's point of view (that's me, 
>>  
>> I'm not a developer of MapServer) it will actually make very little  
>> difference to me in the long term since all I want to do is download  
>> the software and build tools on top of it.  As long as the  
>> contributors are happy that they can continue to develop and maintain 
>>  
>> MapServer, I'm ambivalent about where the project lives.
>
> Good points Paul S. and Bill.
>
> I am in a similar boat - I am mainly a user (definitely not a 
> developer).
> From one perspective all I care about is having access to the code.  I 
> trust
> the MTSC to be able to make logical commitments to the long term 
> direction of
> the code in the project.  That is, to do what is in the best interests 
> of the
> project and its community.  The spectre of a fork or (even worse) 
> general
> disinterest in a project is the open source peer pressure that keeps 
> thing
> open and honest.
>
> From another angle, I care less about the code in the project and more 
> about
> my user experience.  I have very high hopes that more project-level
> organisation (and joining the foundation) will help bring my user 
> experience
> to a whole new level.  Even if the code were to stay stagnant, there 
> are a
> lot of (non-technical) things that I would like to see happen so that 
> the
> user base grows and supports one another.

There's more than one way to think about it.

I too am a user, but I am definitely not ambivalent about where the 
project lives. But first, I think several issues are being mixed here. 
For my own edification, let me separate them --

1. Is a foundation needed, and why? Yes, it is needed, and for many 
reasons -- to guide the development of MapServer, to forge alliances 
with other projects, to provide legal protection, if needed, to serve 
as a recipient of funds, to project a unified marketing message, etc.

2. Is a technical steering committee needed, and is the current TSC 
appropriate? Yes, and yes. Everyone on the TSC deserves to be on the 
TSC.

3. Do I trust the TSC to make decisions that are good for the code? 
Yes, completely.

4. Do I trust the TSC to make decisions that are good for the 
foundation? Mostly, but the recent experience demonstrated a caveat. 
MapServer, the product, has a reason to exist because there is a 
user-community. Consulting the user community is always a good idea, 
even though the process is going to be messy. Democracy is always 
messy, but so what.

5. Do I distrust or trust Autodesk? Neither. I actually welcome 
Autodesk in the fold. My only problem lies with naming of the product. 
That may sound trivial, but given the names involved, actually it is 
not trivial. MapServer is a known quantity to me. I've spent several 
years learning, deploying, and evangelizing it. Autodesk's product is 
an unknown quantity to me, and I can't even use it as it is. I have no 
reason to feel warm and fuzzy toward it, but I also don't feel anything 
negative toward it. I just don't want it to be taking on a name that 
makes it seem as if it is a superior, more complete, more robust 
product than the product that I already know is more superior, 
complete, and robust than many existing alternatives.

6. Is this an emotional response? Perhaps, but that doesn't make it an 
irrational response. Open source is about a philosophy as much as it is 
about getting things done. I don't subscribe to the "them vs. us" camp, 
but I do subscribe to certain principles that transcend the, "As long 
as I can use it, I don't care where it comes from" viewpoint.

For the reasons above, I personally definitely want to be involved in 
decisions that concern  the foundation, whether it is by being an 
active on-board member of it, or by just being an occasional email on a 
mailing list.


--
Puneet Kishor