Comments on: Lowering Open Source Contribution Barriers http://aniszczyk.org/2009/07/14/lowering-open-source-contribution-barriers/ work. life. open source. diatribes. Mon, 14 May 2012 23:38:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: andig http://aniszczyk.org/2009/07/14/lowering-open-source-contribution-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-1120 andig Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:59:01 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=979#comment-1120 Hi Chris, part of your feedback agent already exists with Mylyns capabilities to report bugs from inside eclipse. I believe it is time now for all eclipse projects to make use of Mylyns extension points. An actual agent or wizard could then go on top of it. Best regards, Andreas Hi Chris,
part of your feedback agent already exists with Mylyns capabilities to report bugs from inside eclipse. I believe it is time now for all eclipse projects to make use of Mylyns extension points. An actual agent or wizard could then go on top of it.
Best regards,
Andreas

]]> By: andig http://aniszczyk.org/2009/07/14/lowering-open-source-contribution-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-3067 andig Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:59:00 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=979#comment-3067 Hi Chris, part of your feedback agent already exists with Mylyns capabilities to report bugs from inside eclipse. I believe it is time now for all eclipse projects to make use of Mylyns extension points. An actual agent or wizard could then go on top of it. Best regards, Andreas Hi Chris,
part of your feedback agent already exists with Mylyns capabilities to report bugs from inside eclipse. I believe it is time now for all eclipse projects to make use of Mylyns extension points. An actual agent or wizard could then go on top of it.
Best regards,
Andreas

]]> By: Kim Sullivan http://aniszczyk.org/2009/07/14/lowering-open-source-contribution-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-1119 Kim Sullivan Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:10:41 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=979#comment-1119 I always had the impression that you have to be a paying member of the foundation to be eligible for commiter status. While trying to verify this I couldn't find anything that supports this claim, but some marketing efforts in this direction might be worthwhile. Interestingly, the same Bjorn who wants meaningful outside contributions is also the one who suggests removing free binary packages from the eclipse site in favor of "commercial" distros (http://eclipse-projects.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-product.html), thereby raising the bar to entry. Also, what happens if a volunteer contributor really wants to implement some feature, but that feature is the basis of one of the commercial offerings, and the free codebase is maintained by the developers of said offering? There is no second guessing of purpose in Mozilla, everyone is in the same boat and the feeling is that people doing it all share the same goal. Again, Bjorn wants to strengthen the position of individual member companies so they get enough bang for the buck. So, in my opinion, technical barriers to entry (like the ease of filing bugs or writing documentation on a wiki) are just one part of the puzzle. The other part is making people feel their contributions are welcomed and meaningful, that they won't be rejected or just silently ignored because the people who are in control of the code have their own commercial interests. I always had the impression that you have to be a paying member of the foundation to be eligible for commiter status. While trying to verify this I couldn’t find anything that supports this claim, but some marketing efforts in this direction might be worthwhile.

Interestingly, the same Bjorn who wants meaningful outside contributions is also the one who suggests removing free binary packages from the eclipse site in favor of “commercial” distros (http://eclipse-projects.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-product.html), thereby raising the bar to entry.

Also, what happens if a volunteer contributor really wants to implement some feature, but that feature is the basis of one of the commercial offerings, and the free codebase is maintained by the developers of said offering? There is no second guessing of purpose in Mozilla, everyone is in the same boat and the feeling is that people doing it all share the same goal. Again, Bjorn wants to strengthen the position of individual member companies so they get enough bang for the buck.

So, in my opinion, technical barriers to entry (like the ease of filing bugs or writing documentation on a wiki) are just one part of the puzzle. The other part is making people feel their contributions are welcomed and meaningful, that they won’t be rejected or just silently ignored because the people who are in control of the code have their own commercial interests.

]]> By: Kim Sullivan http://aniszczyk.org/2009/07/14/lowering-open-source-contribution-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-3066 Kim Sullivan Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:10:00 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=979#comment-3066 I always had the impression that you have to be a paying member of the foundation to be eligible for commiter status. While trying to verify this I couldn't find anything that supports this claim, but some marketing efforts in this direction might be worthwhile. Interestingly, the same Bjorn who wants meaningful outside contributions is also the one who suggests removing free binary packages from the eclipse site in favor of "commercial" distros (http://eclipse-projects.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-product.html), thereby raising the bar to entry. Also, what happens if a volunteer contributor really wants to implement some feature, but that feature is the basis of one of the commercial offerings, and the free codebase is maintained by the developers of said offering? There is no second guessing of purpose in Mozilla, everyone is in the same boat and the feeling is that people doing it all share the same goal. Again, Bjorn wants to strengthen the position of individual member companies so they get enough bang for the buck. So, in my opinion, technical barriers to entry (like the ease of filing bugs or writing documentation on a wiki) are just one part of the puzzle. The other part is making people feel their contributions are welcomed and meaningful, that they won't be rejected or just silently ignored because the people who are in control of the code have their own commercial interests. I always had the impression that you have to be a paying member of the foundation to be eligible for commiter status. While trying to verify this I couldn’t find anything that supports this claim, but some marketing efforts in this direction might be worthwhile.

Interestingly, the same Bjorn who wants meaningful outside contributions is also the one who suggests removing free binary packages from the eclipse site in favor of “commercial” distros (http://eclipse-projects.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-product.html), thereby raising the bar to entry.

Also, what happens if a volunteer contributor really wants to implement some feature, but that feature is the basis of one of the commercial offerings, and the free codebase is maintained by the developers of said offering? There is no second guessing of purpose in Mozilla, everyone is in the same boat and the feeling is that people doing it all share the same goal. Again, Bjorn wants to strengthen the position of individual member companies so they get enough bang for the buck.

So, in my opinion, technical barriers to entry (like the ease of filing bugs or writing documentation on a wiki) are just one part of the puzzle. The other part is making people feel their contributions are welcomed and meaningful, that they won’t be rejected or just silently ignored because the people who are in control of the code have their own commercial interests.

]]> By: Madhu http://aniszczyk.org/2009/07/14/lowering-open-source-contribution-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-1118 Madhu Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:15:33 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=979#comment-1118 In Eclipse we have lot of frameworks for which the ends users are the developers (engineers) itself. When it comes to Mozilla, the end users are lay users without technical knowledge. For eg, if you take the JDT team, the developers of the JDT editor are the end users for the JDT. Hence, does the 'Apple' comparison with 'Eclipse' make sense!!! But definitely, specialized areas where intensive graphics is used, we may need graphics specialists to lay their hands. In Eclipse we have lot of frameworks for which the ends users are the developers (engineers) itself. When it comes to Mozilla, the end users are lay users without technical knowledge.

For eg, if you take the JDT team, the developers of the JDT editor are the end users for the JDT.

Hence, does the ‘Apple’ comparison with ‘Eclipse’ make sense!!! But definitely, specialized areas where intensive graphics is used, we may need graphics specialists to lay their hands.

]]> By: Madhu http://aniszczyk.org/2009/07/14/lowering-open-source-contribution-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-3065 Madhu Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:15:00 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=979#comment-3065 In Eclipse we have lot of frameworks for which the ends users are the developers (engineers) itself. When it comes to Mozilla, the end users are lay users without technical knowledge. For eg, if you take the JDT team, the developers of the JDT editor are the end users for the JDT. Hence, does the 'Apple' comparison with 'Eclipse' make sense!!! But definitely, specialized areas where intensive graphics is used, we may need graphics specialists to lay their hands. In Eclipse we have lot of frameworks for which the ends users are the developers (engineers) itself. When it comes to Mozilla, the end users are lay users without technical knowledge.

For eg, if you take the JDT team, the developers of the JDT editor are the end users for the JDT.

Hence, does the ‘Apple’ comparison with ‘Eclipse’ make sense!!! But definitely, specialized areas where intensive graphics is used, we may need graphics specialists to lay their hands.

]]>