[opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520

[Ryan McDougall]

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Soft Linden <soft at lindenlab.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin)
> <maggie at matrisync.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden <soft at lindenlab.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A totally healthy open source project usually can be developed
>>> completely in the open, and in a way that's aligned with everybody's
>>> interests. But that takes an active commitment on all sides...
>>
>> True enough. But I think there's widespread perception that the Second
>> Life Viewer is already  not a "totally healthy open-source project",
>> and I don't think that perception can't be laid at the door of
>> "obstructionism".
>
> When discussions are poisoned to the point where folks are
> name-calling and ascribing twisted motives to others on the list, the
> people doing that are obstructive. That very much weighs against a
> Linden's decision as to whether their work would benefit from open
> development. I can also confidently say that the horrible signal to
> noise ratio of feedback to developers has been the biggest barrier to
> open development, prior to the viewer 2.0 development cycle.
>
>
>> If that's the case, are you threating even less cooperation with the
>> open source project unless people stop "obstructing" by becoming
>> cheerleaders for an agenda that you haven't even disclosed?
>
> I'm not threatening anything. I'm pointing out that if you work with a
> dev, they're more likely to want to work with you. If you work against
> them, they're not going to make an effort to include you. This comes
> down to individual Linden and team decisions on how they can be the
> most effective.
>
> Even sections of the Linux kernel, the open source flagship, have been
> developed in private and then taken back for submission. That's
> happened when the community stopped being productive. Sometimes that's
> even lead to nice projects, like the new scheduler.
>
> The implication that every last person has to have a say in every last
> aspect of development for something to be an open source project is
> false. That level of involvement is earned by merit. And demonizing
> Linden Lab and its developers or otherwise getting in the way
> certainly pisses away whatever developer karma one might have
> accumulated.

LL unilaterally designs and implements code behind closed doors, where
it is accepted and merged then deployed -- all without any outside
participation. In the linux kernel, design is discussed in the open,
occasionally implemented behind closed doors, then discussed again for
inclusion in Linus's kernel.

The only nod to "open" is the GPL source, this impotent mailing list,
and an equally ignored wiki. The community is "poisoned" from the
cognitive dissonance caused by not yet realizing they don't even
exist.

Let's face facts here: LL as an organization doesn't know how to do
open source, and those who even *like* open source are limited to a
handful stalwarts like Soft who mostly end up regretting their forays
here. Community contributions, beyond some free labor donated to a
for-profit company as bug fixes, will never be relevant.

Open source is a meritocracy where those who make the code, make the
decisions. Since the code of contributors is not welcome (outside of
free QA), decision-makers are nowhere to be found, and what you're
left with is whingers, bike-shedders, and blow-hards ruminating the
same stale cud thread-in and thread-out. When will the lobster
quadrille end?

If you like SL use SL. If you like doing free QA for SL, do free QA
for SL. If you want to fork SL viewer, join that party. If you want a
real open source community, those exist and *want* your help! Why stay
here an piss in the wind? Even monkeys learn after repetition.