Community Committee and Adobe policy

[Matt Chotin]

Hey guys,

I went through reading the old threads just to see where the discussion was
going. It feels like the approach you guys are taking now is the right one,
but I saw some discussions that made some suggestions and just want to give
my feedback.

Having everyone blog or post to forums on the same issue: if your goal is to
have as many blog posts out there to drum up noise for a certain issue as
far as attracting the community to do something, fine. Make sure they see
what's going on. If your goal is to somehow show overwhelming force to
Adobe on a particular issue, I beg you to reconsider. Come up with a
proposal, say it's the consensus of the group, and post to our appropriate
forum. Multiple posts echoing a sentiment that was agreed upon separately
is just frankly annoying. I don't need the piling on, it just makes me not
want to read your email. This group can be powerful because if you want you
can "talk amongst yourselves" and then come back to the larger discussion
with a well-reasoned unified argument for whatever it is that you want. Use
this to avoid chaos and provide a better chance of us being able to respond
reasonably. Don't use this group to coordinate campaigns.

Thanks,
Matt

[Doug McCune]

I definitely agree that we don't want to be seen as an annoying and/or overwhelming voice. Regarding the "campaign coordination" effort, I think we're trying to figure out the right way to work within the system that Adobe has already setup without sidestepping it or undermining it. Right now the only way an issue will get looked at is if it meets the minimum number of votes, which is small and relatively easy to get (hell, if we as a group right here just coordinate which bugs we think are important we can get a solid dozen votes in a few minutes). But then the only way an issue that is initially deferred or "resolved" as not a bug will ever get re-looked at is with A LOT of vocal complaining. For example, the FX Prefix bug has 74 votes, and I'm willing to bet that even that many votes wasn't going to get it re-opened for discussion if it wasn't for some of the pretty harsh blog posts by Sim and others. So this is the system that is currently setup.

That means that if we want to get something done we have two options: organize a massive voting block to pump the number of votes on an issue WAY up (like, over 100 kind of numbers) or make harsh criticism publicly. I personally like being an asshole (you know it's all out of love), but as a group I don't want to have to resort to the "hey everyone, let's all go bitch in unison and call them out" tactic. I think that's a large part of why this group was formed. This gives us a small but (hopefully) influential single voice instead of having to scream at the top of our lungs on our own blogs.

So in terms of tactics, I think we want to play in the bug voting system if that's what Adobe wants, and we'll use blog posts to publicize the issues that we feel are important, to let others vote on them. Then I'm hoping that by presenting recommendations as a group we can avoid having to resort to the kind of harsh criticism that we've done with blogs in the past.

But think of the community like children throwing a tantrum. We try to play by your rules and can't seem to get items accomplished. Then we scream at the top of our lungs and start punching and biting and suddenly you give us candy. We start to learn how to get things done.

Doug

[Simeon Bateman]

Having gone through and read all the past posts just now, you may not
get the sense for the shift in the attitude of the group. You have to
keep in mind that this group started just after the first open forum,
and since then adobe has made several changes and posted a lot of
information.

In the beginning we felt like we needed to come together to force
change, but while we were sorting out what we really wanted from this
group, you guys started making some really positive changes. As such
I think you will notice that the more recent discussions are of a very
productive manner. And right down to our aggreed upon mission
statement:

"The Flex SDK Community Committee works for the betterment of the Flex
SDK. We represent the Flex community by proposing concrete and
actionable recommendations for Adobe's consideration, we coordinate
community participation in bug voting and patch submissions, and we
advocate the adoption of finalized SDK features to the community at
large."

Our ideas for this group are just as much about taking the information
to the community and helping them learn about what you have done, as
it is about making sure the communities voice is heard.

This group is for the betterment of the Flex SDK. We are aiming to
make sure it is all it can be. We can do this with you if you let
us. Or we can organize ourselves and work independently. But if the
last week is a sign, I think we will be working more with you than
not. It seems Adobe has made great effort to make more of the process
public and with that, we have no reason not to work with you to ensure
the SDK's success.

Thats my thoughts on it anyway :)

sim

[Matt Chotin]

I hate getting caught in the Fx prefix issue because I think the real problem on our end was that we never got the opportunity for you guys to have access to a build of Flex Builder and truly experiment with building apps.  In the end the difference between using Fx and having the multiple namespaces is going to be insignificant.  It’s not like we loved the prefix, but given all the issues we faced it seemed like the right approach to start, allowed us to get further along in building the components instead of getting sidetracked by fixing CSS (you guys who think you don’t have to solve the namespace problem are simply wrong, just look at the weight added by the selectors even if you don’t require both versions of the components which is what we instantly noticed when we had the overlap), and we would have preferred to see folks try to build actual apps with it before making big changes.   Anyway, all the ranting did was accelerate when we’ll look at this and probably push some other feature out of the beta or even the release.  But I’m trying to get that work scoped now.  Your point that we were ignoring all the voting is incorrect, we were simply hoping that you’d actually spend time building apps in practice and then evaluate instead of doing it in the abstract (everyone I know who has been building apps has gotten used to it).  

Anyway, that’s enough of me whining about you :-)

I agree with Sim that we’re hopefully finding the right balance and will be able to be responsive and work with everyone to make sure we make the right decisions, and once we do we’ll count on you guys to help spread the word and educate.

Matt

[Adam Flater]

Fair enough Matt... I think we're all guilty of jumping on the whining band wagon before actually trying out something first hand (at least I am sometimes)... However, I'm glad we (this group and Adobe) is taking a positive focus on resolving this issue and others going forward. I'd say that it is as much our responsibility to provide concise feedback representative of a large voice as it is Adobe's to respond to that feedback. 

I think one sentiment that has been echoed several times on this thread is that the distinction between an open source effort and a for-profit product. There will naturally be some points where these two collide. We feel compelled to give our feedback regarding the type of technology platform that will enable us to continue building great apps. In my opinion, Flex is still the most compelling platform for the work we do, and I think we'd all like to help keep it that way. The thread about building our own community based SDK is something I view as an extreme, last resort. 

It never hurts to remind ourselves that we're all on the same side ultimately. ;)

Thanks for stepping in and giving your point of view.