Re: Companies Contributing to Open Source
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Companies Contributing to Open Source |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200612222243.kBMMhGR02005@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Companies Contributing to Open Source ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
OK, based on this feedback and others, I have made a new version of the article: http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/company_contributions/ There are no new concepts, just a more balance article with some of the awkward wording improved. I also added a link to the article from the developer's FAQ. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > O.k. below are some comments. Your article although well written has a > distinct, from the community perspective ;) and I think there are some > points from the business side that are missed. > > --- > Employees working in open source communities have two bosses -- the > companies that employ them, and the open source community, which must > review their proposals and patches. Ideally, both groups would want the > same thing, but often companies have different priorities in terms of > deadlines, time investment, and implementation details. And, > unfortunately for companies, open source communities rarely adjust their > requirements to match company needs. They would often rather "do > without" than tie their needs to those of a company. > --- > > Employees don't have two bosses at least not in the presentation above. > In the community the employee may choose to do it the communities way or > not. That choice is much more defined within a Boss purview. > > A companies priorities have a priority that is very powerful that the > community does not and I believe should be reflected in a document such > as this. To actually feed the employee. There is a tendency for the > community to forget that every minute spent on community work is a > direct neglect to the immediate (note that I say immediate) bottom line. > That means that priorities must be balanced so that profit can be made, > employees can get bonuses and god forbid a steady paycheck. > > --- > This makes the employee's job difficult. When working with the > community, it can be difficult to meet company demands. If the company > doesn't understand how the community works, the employee can be seen as > defiant, when in fact the employee has no choice but to work in the > community process and within the community timetable. > > By serving two masters, employees often exhibit various behaviors that > make their community involvement ineffective. Below I outline the steps > involved in open source development, and highlight the differences > experienced by employees involved in such activities. > --- > > The first paragraph seems to need some qualification. An employee is > hired to work at the best interests of the company, not the community. > Those two things may overlap, but that is subject to the companies > declaration. If the employee is not doing the task as delegated that is > defiant. > > I am suspecting that your clarification would be something to the effect > of: > > When a company sets forth to donate resources to the community, it can > make an employee's job difficult. It is important for the company to > understand exactly what it is giving and the process that gift entails. > > Or something like that. > > I take subject to the term serving two masters, I am certainly not the > master of my team but that may just be me. > > --- > Employees usually circulate their proposal inside their companies first > before sharing it with the community. Unfortunately, many employees > never take the additional step of sharing the proposal with the > community. This means the employee is not benefitting from community > oversight and suggestions, often leading to a major rewrite when a patch > is submitted to the community. > --- > > I think the above is not quite accurate. I see few proposals actually > come across to the community either and those that do seem to get bogged > down instead of progress being made. > > The most successful topics I have seen are those that usually have some > footing behind them *before* they bring it to the community. > > --- > For employees, patch review often happens in the company first. Only > when the company is satisfied is the patch submitted to the community. > This is often done because of the perception that poor patches reflect > badly on the company. The problem with this patch pre-screening is that > it prevents parallel review, where the company and community are both > reviewing the patch. Parallel review speeds completion and avoids > unnecessary refactoring. > --- > > It does effect the perception of the company. Maybe not to the community > but as someone who reads comments on the patches that comes through... I > do not look forward to the day when I have a customer that says, didn't > you submit that patch that was torn apart by... > > --- > As you can see, community involvement has unique challenges for company > employees. There are often many mismatches between company needs and > community needs, and the company must decide if it is worth honoring the > community needs or going it alone, without community involvement. > --- > > Hmmm... That seems a bit unfair don't you think? The people within the > company are likely members of the community. It seems that it makes > sense for the community to actually work with the company as well. > > I am not suggesting that the community develop code to the needs of a > company. I am suggesting that perhaps the community needs and the > company needs often overlap but both sides tend to ignore the overlap > and point at each other instead. > > --- > Company involvement in the community process usually has unforseen > benefits, but also unexpected burdens and restrictions. The bottom line > is that company and community priorities often diverge. If companies > want community feedback, they should plan for such divergence and decide > how hard they are willing to work to maintain community cooperation. If > a company is not willing to adjust to community needs, often it is wise > to avoid the community process. > --- > > O.k. in all Bruce I like your article but I must admit it seems to take > a "The community is god" perspective and that we must all bend to the > will of said community. > > The community could learn a great deal from adopting some of the more > common business practices when it comes to development as well. > > In short, I guess I think it is important to recognize that both are > partners in the open source world and that to ignore one over the other > is destined to fail. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === > Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 > Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 > http://www.commandprompt.com/ > > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: