Re: How To Proceed
Jon Lebkowsky
~ Jon
There has been a lot of talk about other groups and whether or not we
should associate. In my opinion, I think we are much to early in
development to consider this.
This is an exploratory group right now, and we need to give it some
time to mature. Before we can consider any sort of action, we need to
develop a framework for the way that our group operates.
The Open Source Party is not just a party that supports an open source
model of government, it is a group that, in of itself, operates on
open source principles. So, before we can start reaching out, we first
need to establish our own framework. This includes:
-Improving the wiki / considering alternative means to develop our
group:
Right now the wiki is feeling closed. The wiki should be available to
everyone to contribute to and edit, just like wikipedia. Maybe we
should consider moving to different technology.
-Establishing an identity: There is a lot of discussion about changing
the name / finding a symbol. Let's get this done.
-Do more research as to how open source projects are developed:
For example, what happens if we disagree, how do developers settle
that when developing on, say, github or wikipedia? Let's do more
research and get some expert input... I know that some of us have some
experience.
Alright... let's get focused and get to work!
Trevor
--
Jon Lebkowsky
- Internet expert and strategic web consultant/developer
- Chief Digital Officer, Plutopia Productions
- Blogs: Weblogsky and Plutopia News.
Ben Goertzel
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Chairman, Humanity+
Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, Xiamen University, China
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
b...@goertzel.org
"My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Ben Goertzel
> Right now the wiki is feeling closed. The wiki should be available to
> everyone to contribute to and edit, just like wikipedia. Maybe we
> should consider moving to different technology.
Yeah, I think we could just should use an ordinary wiki rather than
google sites.... There are plenty of hosters using mediawiki or
pbwiki or whatever....
> -Do more research as to how open source projects are developed:
> For example, what happens if we disagree, how do developers settle
> that when developing on, say, github or wikipedia? Let's do more
> research and get some expert input... I know that some of us have some
> experience.
This is an interesting point....
For instance, look at how Linux operates.... There's a kernel team,
which makes decisions about the kernel that everybody uses. It's not
that easy to get admitted to the kernel team (the choices being made
by the kernel team based mainly on prior code contributions), as I
understand it.... Then there are many people making contributions
outside the kernel. Then there are teams associated with different
distros, each of which operates sorta like the kernel team: there's a
group of closely-collaborating individuals who make the decisions
about what goes into the distro and what doesn't...
This is how the OpenCog project I work on functions, also. There are
a few of us who have been working on Opencog a while and understand it
thoroughly, and we collaborate on major decisions, getting input and
feedback from others as needed....
In some "core teams" there is a single key decision maker, like Linus
Torvalds was for a long while in the Linux kernel team (not sure if he
still really plays that role).... In others it's less centralized...
On the other hand, outside the core teams, things are more
heterogeneous and decentralized, with various programmers making
contributions of their own initiative.... But there's still a core
team (looking at Linux) deciding what goes into a distro....
So if some random guy has a great idea for a new application, and
builds it and it works ... or if he has a driver for an obscure piece
of hardware ... odds are high it will be welcomed into some Linux
distro. Or in the OpenCog case, if some random guy comes up with a
new AI algorithm and implements it non-buggily, odds are extremely
high we will include it in the main opencog release...
OTOH if someone has a great idea for refactoring the Linux kernel, or
the OpenCog core knowledge representation system, that's a little
different.... In that case they'd better be very compelling, or their
idea won't be adopted by the existing core teams. BUT, they still
have the option of forking the whole codebase and doing something on
their own, using their idea.... The downside for them is, if they do
fork, then they don't necessarily have a significant community to help
them with the things particular to their build... unless they want to
build that community....
The mapping to politics is somewhat clear...
"Power over code" in OSS projects is generally maintained by a group
due to its via having expertise and attentional resources and social
reputation, rather than via legal rights or money. Similarly, in OS
politics, a group of people might maintain its role as maintainers of
a given body of policy due to others generally respecting the
expertise and attention that they put into maintaining and updating
that policy....
The whuffle system "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" is obviously
relevant here...
Of course these are super complex matters and I've only touched on a
few small aspects above...
-- Ben G
Trevor Tomesh
should associate. In my opinion, I think we are much to early in
development to consider this.
This is an exploratory group right now, and we need to give it some
time to mature. Before we can consider any sort of action, we need to
develop a framework for the way that our group operates.
The Open Source Party is not just a party that supports an open source
model of government, it is a group that, in of itself, operates on
open source principles. So, before we can start reaching out, we first
need to establish our own framework. This includes:
-Improving the wiki / considering alternative means to develop our
group:
everyone to contribute to and edit, just like wikipedia. Maybe we
should consider moving to different technology.
the name / finding a symbol. Let's get this done.
For example, what happens if we disagree, how do developers settle
that when developing on, say, github or wikipedia? Let's do more
research and get some expert input... I know that some of us have some
experience.