9
edits
Changes
→community and collaboration
==community and collaborationBackground==
The processing.js project was started by John Resig who wanted to utilize the HTML5 canvas element and take advantage of the Java Processing language. It took about seven months to get a working version, consisting of 5000 lines of code but it was not a complete port of the Processing language. (Resig 2008).
The project, similarly to other open source products, was released with the hope that a developer community will converge around it and contribute to development. The Mozilla experience however, suggests that proprietary products may not be well-suited to distributed development if they have tightly-coupled architectures. There is a need to create an “architecture for participation,” one that promotes ease of understanding by limiting module size, and ease of contribution (MacCormack, Rusnak and Baldwin 2004). In order to facilitate an architecture for participation a number of things needed to happen. First and foremost the source code must be readily available. Secondly, the inner workings of the project and the missing functionality must be publicized and a dialog started.
"The Mozilla experience however, suggests that proprietary products may not be well-suited to distributed development if they have tightly-coupled architectures. There is a need to create an “architecture for participation,” one that promotes ease of understanding by limiting module size, and ease of contribution " - (MacCormack, Rusnak and Baldwin 2004).
In order to facilitate an architecture for
participation a number of things needed to happen. First and foremost the source code must be readily available. Secondly, the inner workings of the project and the missing functionality must be publicized and a dialog started.
/*Society has a vital interest in encouraging and rewarding innovation. Presently, there are two major models characterizing how this may be done. The first, the “private investment” model and the second, the “collective action” model (von Hippel and von Krogh 2003). Von Hippel and von Krogh go on to say that the private investment model assumes private returns to the innovator resulting from private goods and efficient rule of intellectual property protection. Whereas the collective action model assumes collaboration from multiple innovators resulting in a public good that can be accessed by anyone.
*/
