Organisation and Making Decisions
Ycros
Alternate ideas/proposals for various things (like say, how to do
module/resource loading) could be written up on a wiki page (which
could include pointers to existing projects out there), and then they
could be discussed/voted on.
My concern is that people are starting to post links to interesting
existing projects and ideas in various threads, and it could get hard
to keep track of all of them
Apart from that, I just wanted to kick off a discussion about how
we're actually going to go about this.
Kevin Dangoor
>
> I'm thinking perhaps a wiki would be a good idea.
I was ever so slightly ahead of you on that one:
https://developer.mozilla.org/ServerJS
I'm going to put up a skeleton based on the discussions so far, and I
was actually planning to do that before mentioning the URL. However,
since you brought it up, I'll post the URL now. There's nothing there
right now, but there will be this evening.
> Alternate ideas/proposals for various things (like say, how to do
> module/resource loading) could be written up on a wiki page (which
> could include pointers to existing projects out there), and then they
> could be discussed/voted on.
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
> Apart from that, I just wanted to kick off a discussion about how
> we're actually going to go about this.
Right now, I think we can play things pretty loose, because we're all
in a sort of information gathering stage. I think pretty soon, we'll
start having concrete proposals for things and we'll need to have a
bit of process, so it's not unreasonable to have thoughts on process
as part of the information gathering stage.
There is a distinct danger of not accomplishing anything, and I hope
we can get over that hurdle. Unlike Python, we have no benevolent
dictator. There are already more than 100 people on this list. That's
a lot of opinions to reconcile to ultimately produce code.
Design-by-committee often produces terrible results as well, so that's
something else to look out for.
And one more danger is "death by spiraling" as arguments go on
endlessly about what color the bikeshed should be. In software,
everything has tradeoffs and very often two choices are roughly
equivalent but have different feels. A dictator provides an easy way
to cut off discussion. Voting can as well.
And, at the end of it all, we want to have something we can *use* and
run for real life projects. It doesn't matter if we come up with the
ultimate File object if it never gets implemented. In the world of
open source, code speaks louder than words.
I'm thinking that we'll likely end up with some sort of process that
involves proposals and counter proposals, voting *and* people taking
on the dictator role for certain parts of the whole that they're very
committed to (ie are willing to take the lead on getting the code
done).
That's all capped with a big IMHO. I'm open to any usable process that
ultimately produces something I can build apps with :)
Kevin
Peter Svensson
a) Tanks for hosting the Wiki. We really need this. I'll make the topic/area lists there, to be changed and edited by the discussion, instead of in numerous emails
b) How about being the benevolent dictator? You're obviously already benevolent, since you started this list. :) OK, so that's settled. Kevin is final stop if we disagree.
Cheers,
PS
http://unclescript.blogspot.com
Kevin Dangoor
> a) Tanks for hosting the Wiki. We really need this. I'll make the topic/area
> lists there, to be changed and edited by the discussion, instead of in
> numerous emails
Personally, I like email for discussing things (IRC can be good when
you need more back-and-forth and, of course, face-to-face is the
ultimate :).
I especially like email with a good archive, like googlegroups. The
wiki is a good place to boil down the discussions into something
actionable.
> b) How about being the benevolent dictator? You're obviously already
> benevolent, since you started this list. :) OK, so that's settled. Kevin is
> final stop if we disagree.
I'm willing to help break deadlocks, if people want me to. My hope is
that we'd have people take charge of specific areas and act as
dictator there to make sure that things don't get stuck.
Kevin
mvalente
On Jan 30, 5:38 am, Peter Svensson <psvens...@gmail.com> wrote:
> b) How about being the benevolent dictator? You're obviously already
> benevolent, since you started this list. :) OK, so that's settled. Kevin is
> final stop if we disagree.
>
-- MV
mvalente
On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, Kevin Dangoor <dang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > b) How about being the benevolent dictator? You're obviously already
> > benevolent, since you started this list. :) OK, so that's settled. Kevin is
> > final stop if we disagree.
>
> I'm willing to help break deadlocks, if people want me to. My hope is
> that we'd have people take charge of specific areas and act as
> dictator there to make sure that things don't get stuck.
>
validation
and credibility available to underwrite the work that is done.
-- MV
Peter Michaux
>> b) How about being the benevolent dictator? You're obviously already
>> benevolent, since you started this list. :) OK, so that's settled. Kevin is
>> final stop if we disagree.
>
> I'm willing to help break deadlocks, if people want me to. My hope is
> that we'd have people take charge of specific areas and act as
> dictator there to make sure that things don't get stuck.
Benevolent dictator works if there is a canonical implementation
written and updated by the dictator. If all this group will produce is
a spec then it is mostly begging implementers to conform. A dictator
here cannot force implementers to conform. Without the implementer's
agreement the spec is worthless. I believe this is why ECMAScript is
designed by consensus committee. If everyone feels like they had their
say and were heard then the open web will benefit as everyone will
implement the spec.
Peter
Robin Berjon
>> b) How about being the benevolent dictator? You're obviously already
>> benevolent, since you started this list. :) OK, so that's settled.
>> Kevin is
>> final stop if we disagree.
>
> I'm willing to help break deadlocks, if people want me to.
+1
--
Robin Berjon
Robineko (http://robineko.com/)
Kevin Dangoor
> Benevolent dictator works if there is a canonical implementation
> written and updated by the dictator. If all this group will produce is
> a spec then it is mostly begging implementers to conform. A dictator
> here cannot force implementers to conform. Without the implementer's
> agreement the spec is worthless.
This is absolutely true.
> I believe this is why ECMAScript is
> designed by consensus committee. If everyone feels like they had their
> say and were heard then the open web will benefit as everyone will
> implement the spec.
Luckily, we have things better than in the world of ECMAScript. In the
case of ECMAScript, the implementation *and* distribution were both
locked up. If Microsoft decides they don't like something, they can
completely kill it by just not implementing it in IE. With open
source, even if one person disagrees with a path that is being taken,
others can pick it up and keep the implementation moving forward.
But, your point is spot on: the people implementing the APIs
necessarily have more say than anyone else.
Kevin
--
Kevin Dangoor
email: k...@blazingthings.com
blog: http://www.BlueSkyOnMars.com
Robin Berjon
Implementers naturally have more influence than others, but that
doesn't mean we can't have a benevolent dictator breaking deadlocks on
the specification. Everyone should come to the table that for the
purposes of this group consensus is the position that produces the
lowest level of objection, it isn't everyone agreeing (that would be
unanimity). Typically what happens is that you win some and you lose
some, but the value of reaching agreement is superior to that of the
arguments you lose.
Peter Svensson
Miguel Coquet
Ycros
Robert Thurnher
On Feb 3, 6:13 am, Ycros <waikur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree as well.
>
> On Feb 2, 3:27 am, Miguel Coquet <mcoq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I say Kevin is it too :)
>
> > Cheers
>
> > Miguel Coquet
>
> >http://mcoquet.com
>
> > On Jan 30, 2009, at 4:13 PM, mvalente wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 5:38 am, Peter Svensson <psvens...@gmail.com> wrote: