Architel Overlords Rule!
Satadru noted that he “welcomed the new Architel overlords” in a comment responding to disgruntled open source people. The overlords welcome you , Satadru! The real subject of this post is Defining the Terms.
I think the main problem is that Peter and Kate misunderstand what open source means (or what we think it means). I think Kate makes it clear that her definition of open source is different than ours when she says, “I may have issues with Architel’s handling of the initial project and the fact that the keep promoting the Open Source aspects of project when I can’t seem to find anything “openâ€? about the current version”
Our understanding of open source is far different than that of Kate. We think the definition of open source is, “software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees.” Kate would disagree and suggest that “open source code evolves through community cooperation.” Community development is in fact how many projects evolve, but certainly not how they start.
Imagine trying to build software for ten different people with ten different specific needs. Now realize that the needs of 2 of the people would make the software useless for the other 8. How could you agree on what to write? Who is in charge? In the case of SimpleTicket we are building it for us. We made our project open so that others could a) use our code and contribute back bug fixes and needed features or b) use our code as a basis to build something that worked for them. Had we relied on Kate or Peter to build SimpleTicket it would not be very useful to our company.
We decided to release version one as an open source project and we plan to release version two as well. Perhaps version three will develop with the help of the a community? Or perhaps the community will simply extend the second version for the benefit of everyone… We shall see.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Maybe if you children could quit fucking squabbling I’d have my pretty, working, ruby-laden ticketing system. You release your code, but prefer to develop in-house. That’s totally cool with me, if it’s not with others, fuck ‘em. But don’t get involved in it and start throwing mud. It’s your project, how about taking some ownership.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:53 am
There is nothing professional about cursing. Puting F* in a message may be offensive to some, and certainly does not add any value what so ever to the comment. If it has any effect, it is probably the opposite of the desired.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:03 am
I really do appreciate the work that you guys are doing. If it were my project I would manage it the exact same way. I sit here anticipating the software’s release on the SVN and once it’s here it will be a huge benefit to me, as my business model is very similar to Architel’s, except in southern california. Every other ticketing system I’ve looked at just doesn’t really excite me, but yours has huge potential, and I want to say congratulations on getting it together and staying focused on your own plan. I hope that all of your devotion to this as your own project allows for a clean, stable, and well worth it release.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:03 am
I really do appreciate the work that you guys are doing. If it were my project I would manage it the exact same way. I sit here anticipating the software’s release on the SVN and once it’s here it will be a huge benefit to me, as my business model is very similar to Architel’s, except in southern california. Every other ticketing system I’ve looked at just doesn’t really excite me, but yours has huge potential, and I want to say congratulations on getting it together and staying focused on your own plan. I hope that all of your devotion to this as your own project allows for a clean, stable, and well worth it release. I found out ruby even existed by following this project, and now I’m learning it just so I can keep up! So good luck guys!
July 31st, 2006 at 11:07 am
Sorry, double posted.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
You guys might wanna start following the o’reilly radar a little bit as you might see some parallels in things they are noticing; Open Communities vs. Open Source. It might elaborate on your sudden backlash and revelations at the same time. Architel seems pretty adament as developing the open source component first and foremost with little success in developing the open community. Overall, Open communities really require a leader who is pushing forward technically, open source projects are hard to be lead from a “management” perspective. Leadership requires getting out in front, especially from a technical viewpoint in the community.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/open_communities_vs_open_sourc_1.html
July 31st, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Actually, one more follow up post. I stand corrected somewhat. I really liked your prior post talking about Zed Shaw and giving examples of how the community should work. Way to grab a hold of those crazy reins and take hold of that wild horse. And… Zed Shaw is the man… and a pirate!
July 31st, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Actually, one more follow up post. I stand corrected somewhat. I really liked your prior post talking about Zed Shaw and giving examples of how the community should work. Way to grab a hold of those crazy reins and take hold of that wild horse. And… Zed Shaw is the man… and a pirate!
Oh, and keep on truckin! I like what I see with this project and appreciate the work you guys are doing. Design for yourselves first, let the community add features to fit their needs later. No code fisting… that post was awesome.
July 31st, 2006 at 3:04 pm
actually, if you read my comment on “open source ticketing” I suggested that “…even just releasing the code into the wild, and doing nothing else, is still a contribution to the world at large that I, for one, appreciate from any company.” It is a perfectly valid expression of open source. It’s the least beneficial to the world at large but it’s still valid.
The reason i suggested that this wasn’t very open was because there has been no source code released (to my knowledge) for this version. Which means it isn’t even open by your definition. I was also careful to note that I was talking about the “current” version when I suggested there was nothing open about it.
“How could you agree on what to write? Who is in charge?”
In *most* open source projects the community who develops the software decides. In the case where the community can’t come to a definitive decision the project leader steps in and makes one for them. Linus Torvalds has done this on a number of occasions for the Linux kernel. This is how most companies decide what features to put into new software. I’d bet that that’s exactly how the current version of SimpleTicket came into being too.
“Had we relied on Kate or Peter to build SimpleTicket it would not be very useful to our company.” Not necessarily. We built what we thought would be helpful but lacked any real feature roadmap. Had we had one it is entirely possible that you would have gotten something useful to you.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:15 pm
The other Alex has asked me to be clear, “Kate has been very helpful in our project, we want to keep her around.” I of course know nothing other than what I am told. So Kate, please hang in there - we would love your involvement in the future!