Like Apache, But Sexier...LABS? I can totally see that. Anyone want to start an Apache LABS podling?
I'm speaking as someone who lurks on a few prodling lists, plus the incubator. There's stuff I've picked up sort of by osmosis (absorbing through membranes and the skin, rather like how one learns in a college class by falling asleep on one's book), stuff I assume from what I perceive as the nature of the beast, and stuff I may well be dead wrong about. I like what you've said about community. I appreciate the idea of community over policy, community over bureaucracy, people over rules. Having said that...My understanding is that Apache is a legal entity. It has a registered life and purpose. It has assets, both tangible and non-tangible. It receives assets and distributes assets. And it does this, in cooperation with governments and financial institutions, by following specific rules. Rules that have to be followed so that various other legal entities, not limited to governments and financial institutions, don't take the assets away from it. I'm not sure, but I believe accepting contributions from people incurs certain rules in and of itself, along the lines of, "We will use the assets you transfer to us in such-and-such a way. You can trust us when we say that." I assume that to use assets for something other than what one says when one asks for them constitutes misrepresentation and can lead to civil incivility. Because of this, Apache has a duty to require that these rules be followed by people that Apache invites to participate in activities voluntarily. On the one hand, there are Ts that have to be crossed and Is that require a pixel or two over them. On the other hand, if people don't want to participate, for whatever reason (duty, fun, ego, a drive to participate in something bigger than oneself), they're not going to. It has to be hard to deal with both of these things at the same time. I think I've seen "The Apache Way" used to describe both rule adherence and social curling[1], though not typically in the same sentence. Depending on the person, one or the other may make more sense. Some people may be more bureaucractically sensitive, others may be more community savvy. Both people will, in response to a "What do I do now?" query, present their answers as they see them. These answers may seem contradictory, but nevertheless represent answers that need to be taken together. But while community can be flexible in a lot of ways, policy generally can't be. The rules are there; exceptions can be made, but in terms of law it's generally safer to assume they won't be. So, as much as I hate to say it, I don't think "community over policy" can actually work. "Community within policy", or "community in the context of policy", perhaps. But the policy kindasorta has to be there. It has to be visible, and it has to be explained. And in some cases someone might actually have to explain what a T is, and how it can be crossed. I look forward to being proven wrong. Don [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curling --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
