[FM Discuss] scribn the bazaar

[Joshua Facemyer]

chris hofmann wrote:
>
> I don't think there is anything wrong with strong ownership for code 
> (that keeps the software running and improving), or for books (that 
> keeps things the work coherent, engaging, reflecting the authors 
> orginal point of view).  In fact I think it should be encouraged.
I have to agree (at least in part) with this.  Even if the sense of 
ownership is not so much "control" as "interest".  I think projects will 
almost always work better if there is a very strong leadership, but the 
leadership must (as your next point states) that the leadership should 
be as open to possible to contribution and, especially, shared ownership.

Ownership in the sense I'm thinking, as "interest", is more along the 
lines of "buy-in".  Someone(s) who has a strong interest in making the 
project do well, but also has a good head for making things happen 
(getting other people to buy-in) is, in this loose sense, an "owner".  
And, in this sense, ownership is likely to be effective in getting other 
people to become owners.

An important thing to realize is that, without a strong leadership (or 
at least without a strong sense of direction), any project can easily 
become disjointed and its quality suffer.  Two good contributors are 
going to make a stronger project than a thousand poor contributors.  
Fortunately, most open projects have a diversity of contributors, and 
the top contributors / maintainers help to give the sense of direction 
and maintain the quality that is needed for a the success of the project.

Some thoughts...
>
> The thing about open source software, and FLOSS Manuals, is that if 
> the "owner" is not respectful or interested in the contributions of 
> others, or invite or accept their contributions,  then the others have 
> the ability to fork the work.
>
> It goes back to a couple of few points in the cathedral and the bazzar.
>
> -treat your beta users [and contributors] as your most valuable 
> resource and they will become your most valuable resource.
>
> -forking [or in the case of books, remixing] is always an option
>
> -if you stop working on a project your last responsibility is to hand 
> it off to someone else
>
> I know Adam doesn't like the term benevolent dictator.   I'm not 
> exactly sure why.  As defined in the cathedral and the bazzar Adam and 
> knowledge experts that work at the book sprints to produce the work 
> are great examples of benevolent dictators:
I think it's the dictator part.  The ideal is to encourage a republic of 
contributors.
> I think the strong sense of ownership and responsibility Adam, Janet, 
> and others create at the sprints is a key element to their success.   
> Its possible you might loose a bit of that if the rules of the game 
> are that anyone can come along and change the repository of the team's 
> content at any time and turn it into something that was not intended 
> by the original creators.   forking and remixing works to preserve the 
> best of both worlds.  strong ownership but the creators, and the 
> ability for others to take the work in a different direction if they 
> think they have one.
Right.  That's what makes it a hard question - because ideally anyone 
can contribute, but realistically some contributions/contributors will 
be so poor as to destroy the content (or at least derail it) if not 
closely monitored.

JF