1
edit
Changes
no edit summary
Paper finish date: tbaNov 4, 2008
===Topic Summary===
The presentation was unique. [http://fsoss.senecac.on.ca/2008/?q=user/14 David Eaves] played the role of an interviewer, tossing questions about the development of the Thunderbird community and how it compared to Firefox. [http://fsoss.senecac.on.ca/2008/?q=user/69 Dan Mosedale] answered those questions as a true Thunderbird community builder. It then became an open discussion about events that slowed Thunderbird's growth and techniques to speed progress along.
This freedom of expression also requires that your ideas aren't rejected indiscriminately (via trolling). Trolls must be dispatched tactfully. Sometimes, off-topic posts are in the best interest; those users simply feel that expressing the idea while it exists in their mind is more important than double-checking the community's forum structure. To harshly reprimand these users will quickly scare off future input, thus damaging the felt freedom of speech. Thunderbird has had relatively few such incidents, thankfully.
It brought the process of community building down to earth, so I could relate to it more. Before the symposium, I thought of open source community building as an arcane process, wrought through arcane magic by wizards who possessed an inexplicable mystic ability to solve disputes instantly. It seemed to be a process that happened gradually over eons, and through an impossible sequence of miracles.
Now, it feels like a process which is difficult but possible. Building a thriving open source community requires good negotiation skills, not just good coding skills. On that concept alone, the type of success Thunderbird enjoys can be duplicated.
The way David and Dan presented a person-to-person skit was a brilliant method of delivery. It removed the illusion that Mozilla developers were inapproachable legends and connected them with the audience. They immediately seemed like real people we could relate to and interact with.
After that skit, there was no doubt that David is a master negotiator, and that Dan is a veteran in interpersonal relationships.
I was expecting a new viewpoint on what Open Source meant for the world. Instead, I got a brief introduction on what Open Access was, and how it affected the economy of post-secondary institutions. I understand that efforts are being made to move the monopolistic dominance away from the publishers and towards online libraries that spread the journals to a larger audience. I don't know how successful it has been, or if it affects Seneca, or if it involves any open source projects or communities.
The presentation aimed to compare "production, sharing, reputation management, and sustainability models" of both open access and open source. He covered these topics for open access, but not for open source. That comparison, the crux of the talk, did not occur.
It was probably a timing issue. The speech was halted mid-topic. Chan simply did not have enough time to cover the topics in sufficient detail, but felt that detail was a duty that could not be ignored.
== Comparison on Open Source Opinions ==
David and Dan treat Open Source as a community, and promote its growth as such.They encourage the open participation of the public while steering growth in a constructive direction. With an excited community, member output will increase in quality, and new members will be attracted to the project. Grow the community, and the code shall prosper. Chan treats Open Source as a type of publication license. It defines how material can and should be distributed among the public, rather than the process by which journals are made. When everyone can access the journals (and not just the students of universities that can afford them), the true purpose of open access will be realized. Make the journals open, and the community will prosper.
These sets of opinions don't seem comparable to any fine degree. One deals with the community, while the other deals with the license to spread information freely. They are neither mutually inclusive or mutually exclusive.
David and Dan view open source as the process of building a community. If the community didn't grow, Thunderbird as a code project wouldn't grow fast enough to hold an identity against such popular clients as Microsoft Outlook and Gmail.
I am still not entirely certain how Chan views open source, but he is certainly not part of an open source community, nor has he witnessed the growth of one firsthand. It simply tends to be a cheaper method of distributing information, and has potential to replace the publishers who overcharge and provide relatively low distribution of information. These sets two opinions are the difference between looking at OS from the inside, and looking at OS from the outside. Knowing the difference leads to a healthy understanding of opinions don't seem comparablewhat Open Source is.
Were my views affected by FSOSS? I definitely had an informed view of OS before the conference, thanks to Dave Humphreys. [http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/raymond/ The paper] by Eric Raymond was pivotal in correcting those views; Open Source would not exist without the community building process. I'd like to think that my views were developed in class and strengthened by the examples of OS communities represented at the conference. The Thunderbird community was an amazing experience. I've never witnessed a community whose main purpose is to nurture the growth of the community. I had been told that OS isn't just about managing code, but David and Dan have really driven the point home. I wasn't touched by the concept of open access. If I needed information, Wikipedia and Google are always available through the web, and they both provide sufficient detail. For anything more sophisticated than what Wikipedia and Google can provide, I would seek a professional opinion. If it deals with medicine, I would need a professional opinion anyways to obtain a prescription. The use of journals just seems to be lost. In general, my interest in the Open Source lifestyle has grown. I'd really like to dive deeper into the communities to further my understanding; it isn't something I fully comprehend yet.
