Community V. "Community

[Chan Chung Hang Christopher]

Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 08:57 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
>   
>> Ha! By your own words, it is necessary for a elite group to exclude
>> mere users from actual coding.
>>     
>
> No. It is necessary for an elite group that is responsible for critical
> code to make any users prove that their code is worth it and that they
> fit the existing group.
>
> And thank $DEITY I don't have to fear that Joe User threw his "Operating
> Systems 101" code into the kernel I use.
>   
I do not see how what you just said is anything different from what I said.
> Did you ever think it is a democracy? Well it's not, the kernel has
> always been a meritocracy.
>
> Note: this is different for userland projects, and you may have noticed
> that nobody is sending the black ninjas if you take it upon yourself to
> write a GUI tool for this or that.
>
>   
As Derek has managed to express better than me, the problem is that zero 
merit is afforded to users who point out valid problems. Users's input, 
be it suggestions, feature request or code, is simply discarded most of 
the time and especially in the case of difficult problems. This goes for 
ANY project.
>> The thing that I am driving at is the elite group has more often than 
>> not demonstrated aloofness to users except their employers which is
>> what Amber is driving at. 
>>     
>
> The main thing I read in that article is that Brainstorm was overrun by
> its own success and currently sucks. Which is true, but hardly a damning
> judgement. It was tried, sucks, and will be improved. Stop being sulky.
>   
No comment. Never been on Brainstorm the Bridge yet.
> In any case, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Con Kolivas and the
> kernel. Con did not try to do drive-by coding in the kernel and did not
> complain about not being part of the community after trying to read
> Brainstorm for 4 weeks. 
>
>   
No, this has everything to do with the problem. Con's example is one 
that highlights the difference from the Community and the "Community" 
where he has in part done some of the things that would be normally 
asked such as "where's the code?"

>> Users are not part of the 'Community'. Period.
>>     
>
> Depends on how you define community. Users are very much a part of the
> support, documentation and translation communities, for example. Users
> should be a part of the specification community, but you got to accept
> that this is not simple to do. Either you make the bar low, then you get
> Brainstorm, or you make it higher to sieve out anyone who does not want
> to put in some effort, then people whine.
>
> I mean, Amber is right that new users sometimes see issues better, and
> should be given the chance to comment easily. Brainstorm *does* this,
> but the result is thousands of ideas and overwhelmed devs.
>
> Much of what she complains about (can's see status of ideas, etc) would
> be solved with a wishlist bug in Launchpad, but that would require to
> familiarize oneself at least a little bit with LP.
>
>   
The two things that interests me in Amber's article is that 1) it was 
obvious that there are two communities, users and developers, and 2) 
there is this bridge called Brainstorm built/being built between them. 
Let me just say once again:

Will it be rickety, ugly and liable to collapse at the slightest step or will it be a solid and ornate one?


>> The interesting part here is that Ubuntu tries to change that by 
>> building a bridge between them. What I would like to see is the final 
>> outcome of the bridge. Will it be rickety, ugly and liable to collapse
>> at the slightest step or will it be a solid and ornate one?
>>     
>
> Another interesting part is that other OSes don't have anything like it
> in the slightest, but Ubuntu is being bashed for not being perfect at
> it. 
>
> Amber concludes with, 'Here's an example:
> http://www.ubuntu.com/news/spotlight/uds
> Look at "What the Ubuntu Developer Summit Is": Is open to the Public,
> then look in "Who Should Attend": It's not for end users.... So it's
> open to the pubic [sic] of developers, or did I get it wrong?'
>
> Well, guess what, all it says is that it is open to the public, but the
> devs won't bend over backwards to entertain you. If you have nothing to
> contribute, you might want to stay home, it's not a Linux fair.  Tough
> cookie.
>
> She conveniently leaves out to complete text, so that she can complain
> better:
>
> "What the Ubuntu Developer Summit Is
> At the beginning of a new development cycle, Ubuntu developers from
> around the world gather to help shape and scope the next release of
> Ubuntu. The summit is open to the public, but is not a traditional
> conference, exhibition or other audience-oriented event. Rather, it is
> an opportunity for Ubuntu developers - who usually collaborate online -
> to work together in person on specific tasks.
>
> Our development cycle is unique we think, even in the open source and
> free software world. Anyone can come and propose a feature and the
> discussion and propositions are all considered, approved and/or rejected
> entirely in the public domain. This openness and transparency, we
> believe, is what makes Ubuntu such a strong, community driven product."
>
>
> Twisting the UDS announcement in this way is already bad enough, but
> reading some of the comments I want to puke. Most of it seems like
> whiners who can't take that they don't get everything served on a silver
> plate, but have to, you know, earn it. No wonder the economy goes down
> the drain due to a credit crisis, it's always "but I want it now, now,
> now!".
>
>
>
>   

I am sorry but I still do not see any actual invitation to anybody else 
but developers. Take this line for example: "

The summit is open to the public, but is not a traditional
conference, exhibition or other audience-oriented event. Rather, it is
an opportunity for Ubuntu developers - who usually collaborate online -
to work together in person on specific tasks.

"

That is a nice way of saying - developers only.

It appears then that Amber is not quite as malicious as you make her to 
be. Do you have a problem if we have an intense interest in the state of 
the bridge?