Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Organization Models Discussed
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.'"
If it's good, widely accepted, and works well - don't fix it. Open Source, GPL etc. should fit into this category.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Goodwill.
Removing the cobwebs. People almost never remove old stuff. For example: - old projects from sourceforge - old module owners from the mozilla.org list of module owners - old out of date documentation The older a project our the community gets, the more bloated it will get with incorrect information. Try to do some work, and find you wasted a day because of out of date stuff. Projects need a little, eek dare I say, management.
The article is titled The Organizational Model for Open Source, but is there really only one model? The Linux "benevolent dictator", Perl "pumpking"[1], FreeBSD "board" etc. are all different models (And there are more). Surely all these different models have different dynamics?
[1]: Fnur fnur
Access to capital comes at a price - Duh - If there are those who invest the funds to create an NP foundation to promote the development of open source they are going to want to influence things like organization and maangement discipline - Think of the larger charitable foundations that are out there - The investors are not interested in a profit, but they are interested in having their dollars drive a portion of the investor's vision - The price in this case may be the need to actually document code, keep it clean, and produce to somewhat of a schedule - The coders may be volunteers, but the price that the coders pay for access to the fountation's resources is a bit of formalism - Sounds like a fair trade to me
What's so surprising about that?
Most open source projects have been non-profitable so far.
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
#!/usr/bin/english
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!
The biggest challenge comes from those who lose when a particular model succeeds. Proprietary, closed-source, cash-strapped, IP wielding firms who employ (litigious bastards -to quote Slashdot) are bigger challenges.
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.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
The article didn't seem that coherent. There were some interesting questions asked, and completely different answers given.
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'?
---- I've fallen, and I can't get up.
Harvard publishes a magazine called "Harvard Business Review (HBR)". Previously they did not cover Linux/OpenSource. But recently I recently I read an in HBR that says Enterprises should look into OpenSource as a viable alternative to propritary products (specifically OpenOffice).
HBR is read by presidents/directors/managers, so it is interesting to see how the thinking is changing.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
The model I find that works best is Modularity and Interfaces (I don't think that's the actual model name, I forget). The lead designer focuses on code that can easily be seperated into individual components (modules). These modules then have interfaces defined but little to nothing about their internals are defined. This way these modules can be handed out to people to code and there needs to be very little interaction between coders of different modules.
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.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I don't have my copy of Anti-Patterns with me, but quoting from memory, the Lava Flow anti-pattern states something along the lines of:-
The only Good System is a Sound System
According to the article,
"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.
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.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
A short while ago, Dijkstra's papers were made available online. Slashdot article here.
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.
Laugh at my Lisp and I keeell you.
1. Blood, sweat and tears
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.
Ceci n'est pas une signature