OpenNTF : What Would Work Better For Me
Monday, July 13, 2009 8:06 AM
Last Friday I made the decision to pull all my projects from OpenNTF until such a time that they have sorted out all the issues. I think many people reading the blog entry may have missed that one little word so here it is highlighted for you.
In the very first comment on my blog Nathan T. Freeman asks 'What Would Work Better for you?' So here is my answer...
Speak With One Voice.
OpenNTF needs to elect a communications officer. This one person should be responsible for all official communications from OpenNTF, This includes replying to blogs, tweets, emails etc. Minutes after posting that I was pulling my projects I had 3 Instant messages on my screen from different people involved in OpenNTF all asking why I did what I did and that I shouldn't be encouraging others to do the same. The proper response to this situation would have been a single reply saying that they regret my decision and that they hope they can resolve some of the factors that lead to my decision and that they hope to see me back at some stage in the future. What's not needed is the multitude of IM's , blog comments and even other blog entries on the subject all from different people involved in the process.
Leave the ego's at home.
Everybody involved with the reorganization of OpenNTF seems to be taking things way to personally. If you think you are being [stabbed in the back or being poked in the eye] then you are mistaken. The problem is with the process and not the people. Maybe speaking with a single voice would lessen this problem.
Get Rid of The Managed Catalog.
This is probably my biggest issue with the direction OpenNTF is heading. The Managed Catalog, in my opinion, is the single worst thing that OpenNTF could do. A special catalog for special projects that meet the criteria of the steering committee. All other projects are second class citizens. I honestly do not believe that there is a need for this. If you look at SourceForge, GitHub or Google Code do you see special catalog for approved projects, no you don't. All projects are equal. All projects clearly mark what license they use, all projects have access to the same resources.
The idea behind the managed catalog is that OpenNTF wants to provide businesses a list of 'quality applications that have passed IP clearance'. I say that this can still be done using a single list of projects by using filters. It would be easy, just go to the 'projects' area and select to look at all projects using a permissive copyleft license, Add a filter for 'Stable Release' ( as opposed to beta/test releases ) and you practically have the same info that you would in the managed catalog. You could even keep your link on the homepage that automatically applies the filter.
Don't Force The Apache License.
You can certainly encourage it but it should not be forced as the be all and end all of open source licenses. Do you see SourceForge, Github or Google Code telling anybody what license they should choose? For some the GNU GPL license is the one they WANT to use, for others a weaker copyleft license like MPL may make more sense. Lets not forget that the Apache license is not the only permissive copyleft license in the open source world either, the BSD license is probably just as popular. Forcing the Apache license as the only way to get into a special category of project is just plain wrong and also introduces the concept of second class projects for anybody not using the Apache License. Of course a single catalog of projects would also get rid of this problem.
Finish The Website Redesign Quickly.
OpenNTF should never have released a half-baked, half working website. I understand that the people working on the website redesign were doing it on their own time but it should never have been put into production until the ENTIRE site was overhauled and tested. Most of the people working on the site understand the concept of a software life cycle but it seems to me that none of their skills in this area were put into practice. Where was the planning and prototyping? Where was the user acceptance of these plans? Where was the user testing of the new site before it was put into production? A lot of the technical issues would not have existed if OpenNTF had treated this the same way the individuals treat client projects in their work environments.
Finalize Processes Before Publishing Them.
On May 12th when the OpenNTF Alliance was announced and the OpenNTF website updated with all the new procedures and policies it was a sudden and unexpected change. Some of the policies where you needed to have documents signed by employers were very different from what was needed before. I understand these policies were put in place BEFORE the steering committee had any say and that they are now trying to undo some of the damage by adjusting them so that signed documents are not always required and that anonymous code submissions can be accepted. The problem is the damage has already been done. These policies should have never been published in the first place. The discussions that are happening now should NOT be about reversing damaging policies but about creating policies that make sense to everybody.
Transparency only works when it's 100%.
Meeting minutes are a start, lets get the MP3's for the meetings up there also, and not just the Steering Committee, but also the other committees and working groups. Lets not forget the locked forums, shouldn't they be open as read only to people not on the committees. Of course there's still the question of the private emails and IM's that occur between committee members. I guess the process will never be 100% transparent.
And Finally....
There are 9 8 companies involved in the OpenNTF Alliance yet only two to three people from two to three companies SEEM to be doing anything. I'm not just talking about just Steering Committee members, I'm talking about all the people from the companies in the Alliance. If being part of the alliance means your company is supposed to help out, provide resources etc then why have we not heard a peep out of the other companies. Have they forgotten what they agreed to? How can they be part of the alliance if they are not actively being involved? Voting Yes or No on a conference call once every few weeks ( when they show up ) just does not cut it. Every company that is part of the alliance should have as many staff members as possible in the forums every day, answering question, discussing topics etc.