Collaborating as a team or group for Puppy good

News, happenings
Message
Author
jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#81 Post by jamesbond »

mavrothal wrote:I'm not sure what this suppose to teach us but revisiting those links is striking how the discussion and the pupplet are so far apart!
You nailed it - this and all your previous posts.

Just to summarise:

Saluki-the-idea shows that collaboration at "ideas" level is not a problem at all.
Saluki-the-puplet shows that when it comes to implementation, it's totally different matter.

Why is a Puppy designed by wisdom of The Crowd run only by One Person?
Why didn't we see people rushing to claim their role in building Puppy for the Common Good?
(and I don't mean those who create pet packages for Saluki - I mean people who are responsible to maintain the *core* component of Saluki-the-puplet - like what Barry does with woof. Those people who would be able to continue Saluki-the-puplet even if / when Jemimah has to be absent for whatever reason.)

My take on the reason is this (from the same post quoted by mavrothal)
jemimah wrote:The fact is, no two people have exactly the same vision. If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Teamwork is compromise.
People come to Puppy and this forum for many different reasons. We use Puppy in different ways. Sometimes diametrically opposite.
Need proof? Just answer this without causing a flame war: "What is the web browser that should be included by default?"
That is the real reason why we have an explosion of puplets (and Linux distros in general) - and little, if any, hope of getting the One Puppy to rule them all.
Note that even Saluki-the-idea thread didn't end in any coherent conclusion or agreement.

But all is not lost. "Puppy for Common Good" does not need to be the Puppy to rule all puppies.
If you lower your sights and realise that "Puppy for Common Good" is just one of the many puplets - your chance of success only depends on how you sell the vision and attract people with the right skills. You don't need to attract all of them. Just enough to get it started and going. That's how it works in Valve. That's how it works around here.

I wish you good luck on your enterprise.

EDIT: typo.
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

cthisbear
Posts: 4422
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 22:07
Location: Sydney Australia

#82 Post by cthisbear »

" you know since I'm sitting on my butt not helping in anyway."

These people reading my emails...

Chris.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#83 Post by jpeps »

jamesbond wrote:
Why is a Puppy designed by wisdom of The Crowd run only by One Person?
Why didn't we see people rushing to claim their role in building Puppy for the Common Good?
The "Common Good" ?? ....sounds like some naive, sophomoric political propaganda.

Obviously it's useless to start taking votes on what constitutes the "Common Good." There is no Common Good. You like one browser, I like another...the end..

There are plenty of excellent linux projects currently in ongoing development for anyone who seriously wants to contribute. Linux is more for innovative people who want do things a little differently.

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#84 Post by jamesbond »

jpeps wrote:The "Common Good" ?? ....sounds like some naive, sophomoric political propaganda.
It wasn't exactly my word. From the very first post of this thread:
... to achieve something for Puppy good... er, I mean 'Public Good'.
Obviously it's useless to start taking votes on what constitutes the "Common Good." There is no Common Good. You like one browser, I like another...the end..
Exactly my point.
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#85 Post by Q5sys »

jamesbond wrote: Why didn't we see people rushing to claim their role in building Puppy for the Common Good?
I read this and instantly thought of the old line:

"Those who can't do... coach."

Which then reminded me of the wonderful Budweiser bit on this...
They say those who can't play coach
Apparently those who can't coach...
sit 30 rows back, shirtless, shouting obscenities.
Which made me laugh and I decided to share that with everyone. lol
(Now bringing humor to the table... that's real collaboration, haha)

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#86 Post by jpeps »

jamesbond wrote:
jpeps wrote:The "Common Good" ?? ....sounds like some naive, sophomoric political propaganda.
It wasn't exactly my word. From the very first post of this thread:
... to achieve something for Puppy good... er, I mean 'Public Good'.
I had assumed you were paraphrasing gcmartin.

gcmartin

#87 Post by gcmartin »

...
Saluki-the-idea shows that collaboration at "ideas" level is not a problem at all.
Saluki-the-puplet shows that when it comes to implementation, it's totally different matter. ...
Agreed. That's what we are discussing. Can we not just envision whether this is reasonable, but to develop an approach where we demonstrate that taking this to a little different level is reasonable, beneficial, and obvious.

If the approach we perfect performs usefully, we have demonstrated how loose-knit teaming (collaboration) works to generate an accomplishment. Be aware, that what is shown, above, is that there is the normal process of building something of value. The actual production DID, in fact, filter down into a single entity, but, could that process also have been a multitude of commoners, rather various contributers addressing the same goal, instead of just one carrying the full load?

Everyone here is adding pieces to this in their own way. But, step back a moment and I think each of us can see beneficial approaches. Our past was developed without the benefit of the tools, and ability we have in front of us, today. The technology has advanced with tools we never thought possible 20 years ago. We brought forth the practices of 20 years ago with us today. Now, we can see that "maybe" ...

Here to help
Edited: changed "commoners" to "various contributers addressing the same goal" in line with a suggestion.
Last edited by gcmartin on Thu 13 Dec 2012, 20:25, edited 2 times in total.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#88 Post by jpeps »

gcmartin wrote:The actual production DID, in fact, filter down into a single entity, but, could that process also have been a multitude of commoners instead of just one carrying the full load?
multitude of commoners?

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#89 Post by Q5sys »

jpeps wrote:
gcmartin wrote:The actual production DID, in fact, filter down into a single entity, but, could that process also have been a multitude of commoners instead of just one carrying the full load?
multitude of commoners?
Did I just wake up in Soviet Russia?

EDIT: Ah, I see the word choice was changed.

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#90 Post by Q5sys »

gcmartin wrote:Everyone here is adding pieces to this in their own way. But, step back a moment and I think each of us can see beneficial approaches. Our past was developed without the benefit of the tools, and ability we have in front of us, today. The technology has advanced with tools we never thought possible 20 years ago. We brought forth the practices of 20 years ago with us today. Now, we can see that "maybe" ...
Very eloquently spoken... however doesn't really mean much. Lets look at the past 20 years of Linux development... and see what we find...
Yup what I thought, people doing it the way they feel is best, and when someone disagreed... they went and did it the way they wanted.
That's how Puppy came to be! If it weren't for this attitude none of us would be there. Way back in the day Barry saw linux going one direction and he had an idea to go another. Instead of trying to rally people around and change the direction of the current linux development... he went his own direction, and look what it's spawned.
This forum has over 21000 users, and over 600000 "articles"... The status-quo seems to be working fine. The do-o-cracy method has been working great.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#91 Post by jpeps »

Q5sys wrote: Yup what I thought, people doing it the way they feel is best, and when someone disagreed... they went and did it the way they wanted.
Comrad Jeremiah...she will learn of our new ways!!

User avatar
darkcity
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sun 23 May 2010, 19:16
Location: near here
Contact:

#92 Post by darkcity »

To me it seems people have very different ideas of what collaborating is. There seems to be a lot of paranoia that it involves someone telling someone else what to do. Then talk of collectivism and hints at communism.

However, as we are volunteers here clearly that isn't the case. Maybe there are methods of working which allows us to get more done while at the same time retaining everyones autonomy?

Yes, the forum has served the community well. The question is can Puppy become accessible to everyday users?

The same question can be asked about Linux in general. How successful is it if its only used on about 1.5% desktops.

User avatar
Moose On The Loose
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2011, 14:54

#93 Post by Moose On The Loose »

darkcity wrote:To me it seems people have very different ideas of what collaborating is. There seems to be a lot of paranoia that it involves someone telling someone else what to do. Then talk of collectivism and hints at communism.
We almost need a new word because the word "collaborating" has so much baggage. "Volunteer based development" is perhaps a better term to use.
However, as we are volunteers here clearly that isn't the case. Maybe there are methods of working which allows us to get more done while at the same time retaining everyones autonomy?
Scientists seem to have a system that seems to work for this. Folks sort of agree upfront that others are going to aggressively attack every idea they have. With code, we sort of do that when folks look for bugs in each others code. There are some things that I think will help but none of these are software tools they are just things that people should all agree on. Here are a few suggestions:

Some words and terms we should all treat like "protected terms" like the fact that someone who is a doctor can't claim to be a doctor. A classic example is "works on Puppy Linux X.X.X". We should agree that ".. Oh but first you have to install XXX and YYY..." means that it should be said "can be made to work on Puppy Linux X.X.X"

We should agree to "document the heck out of" our code. The basic rule we should use when volunteering to code is the same one as I use for code I do for work purposes. "Assume the guy who has to maintain it is not as smart as you, under a lot of pressure and armed"

Yes, the forum has served the community well. The question is can Puppy become accessible to everyday users?
Puppy has already met that standard. I have given puppy Linux to 3 "everyday users" as I tend to define them. The only thing that we need to do is make some signs that say "remember not to double click" and put them along the roadside to be seen by those folks on their way into work and back home. We really should add a "click debounce" to trap and ignore the second click when they are too close together.
The same question can be asked about Linux in general. How successful is it if its only used on about 1.5% desktops.
At the bottom of the market, Android and other Linux are the OSes that are getting the most installs. At the supercomputer level, Linux dominates. The gap in the middle is slowly closing. More an more folks no longer have a desktop machine but instead use a tablet or the like.

User avatar
darkcity
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sun 23 May 2010, 19:16
Location: near here
Contact:

#94 Post by darkcity »

thanks for the detailed response.

This made me laugh 8)
"Assume the guy who has to maintain it is not as smart as you, under a lot of pressure and armed"
"click debounce" to trap and ignore the second click when they are too close together.
Thats no a bad idea actually, or make a double-click brings a message "only one click is necessary"

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#95 Post by Q5sys »

darkcity wrote:
"click debounce" to trap and ignore the second click when they are too close together.
Thats no a bad idea actually, or make a double-click brings a message "only one click is necessary"
or you could spend a whole 5 seconds and change it from single click navigation to double click navigation.

seems alot eaiser than spending the time to code something else.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#96 Post by jpeps »

Moose On The Loose wrote:
darkcity wrote:To me it seems people have very different ideas of what collaborating is. There seems to be a lot of paranoia that it involves someone telling someone else what to do. Then talk of collectivism and hints at communism.
We almost need a new word because the word "collaborating" has so much baggage. "Volunteer based development" is perhaps a better term to use.
No paranoia, it's just that linux is non-commercial, so those with the time and skills to develop are going to do it how and when they choose. I'm not sure where the desire for everyone to use linux comes from.

User avatar
darkcity
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sun 23 May 2010, 19:16
Location: near here
Contact:

#97 Post by darkcity »

the Linux kernel is a commercial project, the difference is anyone can see how its made, ie open source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh-cnaJoGCw35:32

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#98 Post by jpeps »

darkcity wrote:the Linux kernel is a commercial project, the difference is anyone can see how its made, ie open source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh-cnaJoGCw35:32
hm...I thought I was on the Puppy Linux Forum....

gcmartin

#99 Post by gcmartin »

There are several who express major concerns that an idea of this level of cooperation will not work.

So I ask those PLDF members who see the major obstacles to step back a moment and to share with us, if they will, if they see any way at all for something like this to work on any single project?

If the members I speak of were asked to imagine how this would work, what would they, individually, see as a manner to approach so that a cooperative would work. ("Bear in mind" that NONE of us are equal, so like any team, its a collection of people.)

Please dont run away as you have come to far, now. And give us your idea rather than pointing to something else done by someone else. I would like your creative juices here.

Here to help

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#100 Post by Q5sys »

gcmartin wrote:There are several who express major concerns that an idea of this level of cooperation will not work.

So I ask those PLDF members who see the major obstacles to step back a moment and to share with us, if they will, if they see any way at all for something like this to work on any single project?

If the members I speak of were asked to imagine how this would work, what would they, individually, see as a manner to approach so that a cooperative would work. ("Bear in mind" that NONE of us are equal, so like any team, its a collection of people.)

Please dont run away as you have come to far, now. And give us your idea rather than pointing to something else done by someone else. I would like your creative juices here.
I dont think anyone is running away... I think we have just decided against the concept and are going back to what we were doing before. Now you ask those of us who see obstacles to stop and step back a moment and think. Well let me return the favor...

Stop and step back... and read what ideas HAVE already been put forward in this thread that have for some reason been completely ignored by the 'collaboration' crowd. It's a perfect path to follow. (quoted below so you dont have to open a new page unless you want to)
p310don wrote:My solution (if that's the right word) would be to start in the planning stage, identifying what people actually want, and then finding developers who want to create that. To find what people want, a popular / democratic vote seems like a good way to go.

Areas to vote on might include:
Hardware to design for? eg laptops, tablets, desktops, legacy hardware etc
Window Manager / file manager?
Browser suite?
Media Player?
Office software?
etc

And then after a period of voting / discussion, devise a definition of exactly what the outcomes of the project are.

Then, and only then, find the developers who have an interest in working on individual tasks as part of the greater product. In this model, if a developer can no longer participate for whatever reason, there is a chunk that can be taken over by someone else to continue to original, stated goal.


So how could this work... well here's an idea... it might work if someone gets off their butt and starts doing something. That's not directed at anyone in particlar, but there is always 'talk' about collaboration, or talk about a community release, or talk about trying a new direction. Who is the person who is going to step forward and take that first step to make it happen? For obvious reasons it has to be someone who wants some part of puppy to go in that direction. So one of you pro-collaboration people... take that step. Start the discussion of a new community release or whatever you want to call it. If some part of it is something I'd like to work on, I'll pitch in. If nothing there interests me... I'll quietly work on the projects I already am working on. But I'm not going to commit to working on something without having any idea what that may be.
So follow the great suggestion that was put out already... and start doing something. Stop talking about doing something and actually do it.

To paraphrase the good book:
Talk is cheap.

Post Reply