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.
== 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 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 what 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.
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.
