"Center" definition

The open discussion of hosting, forum, web-sites, community organisation and open voting

"Center" definition

Postby Ivan Denisov » Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:24 pm

I am suggesting:
BlackBox Framework Community "center" — group of people who are taking responsibility for maintaining BlackBox Framework, are making expert decisions and contributing in a project.
User avatar
Ivan Denisov
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:21 am
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: "Center" definition

Postby ReneK » Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:44 pm

AS we already have a group defined as "center", I do not see that this discussion should be "open".

I started a thread in teh "center only" area for this topic. It would be good, if you add your post there, too.
ReneK
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:16 am

Re: "Center" definition

Postby Ivan Denisov » Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:51 pm

ReneK wrote:AS we already have a group defined as "center", I do not see that this discussion should be "open".

I started a thread in teh "center only" area for this topic. It would be good, if you add your post there, too.
Rene, while the "center" is not defined, how do the people who wants to discuss will make the decision about join us? While the "center" is ambiguous the discussion should be open, from my point of view.
User avatar
Ivan Denisov
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:21 am
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: "Center" definition

Postby Ivan Denisov » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:17 pm

Copy from here

ReneK wrote:As Ivan D, OberonCore and I see the need to define the role of the "center", I'm starting this thread here.

In the beginning, OMI produced BB. They did all the work:

    analysis
    design
    programming
    testing
    marketing and sales
    provide communication between users and between OMI and users

Later on they shifted their focus and made BB OpenSource. They still did

    analysis
    design
    programming
    testing
    provide communication between users and between OMI and users,

but since BB was not sold but free to the downloader, marketing and sales became obsolete.

In making BB OpenSource, they probably wished for the Community to do

    testing
    proposal of bugfixing

But this didn't happen they way they thought.

So now they decided to discontinue their involvement with BB.

The community needs to fill this vacuum and it was proposed to form an "authorative center" to do that.

Based on this, I propose the center's job to be:

    analysis
    design
    programming
    marketing
    provide communication between users and between center and users

And all of it focussed on the subsystems currently in the last release of BB done by OMI.

Marketing is a central task in an OpenSource community project, because without a critical mass of users, the community is too small to carry on the project.

As further tasks of the Center, I propose

    Centralization
    Internationalization
    Ports

Centralization of the various BB fractions, producing ONE solidified stable version instead of the 6+ that are currently available, is necessary to get the critical mass of users.

Internationalization is necessary to grow the user base
Portability is the strength of a good framework, and it helps grow the user base. Ports to different systems and platforms are therefore necessary to keep a framework alive and useful.


Ivan Denisov wrote:I disagree. In open-source projects the analysis, design, programming should be done by any who wants, including the "center".

The "center" should make choice between suggested solutions (expert opinion), make additional testing.

"marketing" ? for open-source? I am not understand you... Do you mean "information distribution"?

"provide communication between users and between center and users" — that is the most important role of the "center", from my point of view.
It is providing with:
- forum
- static web-site
- wiki
- blogging platform
- issues tracker
- repository
User avatar
Ivan Denisov
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:21 am
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: "Center" definition

Postby ReneK » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:59 pm

I'd be interested in other opinions than yours and mine on the question, if this should be discussed openly or not, preferably from Center members.
ReneK
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:16 am

Re: "Center" definition

Postby ReneK » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:17 pm

Ivan Denisov wrote:Rene, while the "center" is not defined, how do the people who wants to discuss will make the decision about join us? While the "center" is ambiguous the discussion should be open, from my point of view.

This one's easy. You do not have to be registered to read what the center discussion is about. Every lurker can easily click on the "Center only" forums and read all he wants. Reading should be enough to make the decision if one wants to join or not.

But only those who are already committed to be the center have a right to discuss what the center is.

It's like in a democracy.

Assume I want to decide, if I should become a member of the Viennese city council. I will read up on lots of things before deciding, and one thing I will read up on is urban politics. I will get my hands on the protocols of the Viennese city council. I may even attend the city council meeting. And this is enough to decide.

But if I want to actually discuss things in the city council and be heard, I have to become a member of that council by the usual procedures. If I open my mouth to speak in the city council without being a member (or without being invited to do so by the members), the police will make sure that I do not disturb the meeting of the city council.

Same here. Everybody may read. I tested it, it works. But why should somebody clutter the discussion with his opinion, if he doesn't make the commitment to be a member, and if the members have not accepted him?
ReneK
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:16 am

Re: "Center" definition

Postby Peter Kushnir » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:34 pm

I think we should wait for Ominc. It's still unknown, what would they give us (in before "BB1.6").
Basing on further materials from Ominc we will think about what we CAN do and what we CAN NOT.
From these facilities we'll have purpose of "Center" and it's definition.
As for this moment, we have no information about this. Nothing to talk about.
Peter Kushnir
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:57 pm

Re: "Center" definition

Postby Ivan Denisov » Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:27 pm

Peter Kushnir wrote:I think we should wait for Ominc. It's still unknown, what would they give us (in before "BB1.6").
Basing on further materials from Ominc we will think about what we CAN do and what we CAN NOT.
From these facilities we'll have purpose of "Center" and it's definition.
As for this moment, we have no information about this. Nothing to talk about.

There is one good Russian saying: «Обещанного три года ждут».

That means if somebody promise something, you can wait very long time and promise still can be not done.

The BlackBox for several years is Open Source, so we can start the activity now to discuss a lot of organisation questions before possible Ominc final version. We already can do very much according to "The BlackBox Component Builder Open Source License".
User avatar
Ivan Denisov
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:21 am
Location: Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Re: "Center" definition

Postby Romiras » Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:31 am

I never heard of term "center membership" especially in open source area. Even that name/definition is ugly. I think that "BB maintainers" is a proper definition for such group, as Ivan proposed earlier.
Romiras
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:55 am
Location: Tel-Aviv

Re: "Center" definition

Postby ReneK » Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:06 pm

I'm not sure that the name is really what defines us, and so I see this currently as a non-issue. Just my 2c.
ReneK
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:16 am

Next

Return to Brainstorming

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron