At 02:59 PM 6/07/2004 -0400, Jim Starkey wrote:

>I have recent become aware that the closed Firebird-admin list has
>become an architectural forum. I, for one, think this is a very bad way
>to run an open source project. Decent architecture, whether close or
>open source, requires full, open, critical discussion by project
>participants.

Huh? Any examples?

>Software architecture is the art of making the pieces fit together. It
>can't be done in secret. People who have expertise in particular
>corners need to see the big picture to ensure that their piece fits with
>the others and to raise a flag when it doesn't.

For sure.

>This project has an unfortunate history of people thinking that
>technical decisions can and should be made in private, then announced to
>world as a fait accompli.

If that accusation can be levelled at the project (which it probably can,
given some episodes in the past, when certain individuals, notably NOT
Admin members, have made unilateral decisions about architecture) then it's
*certainly* not in current plans to permit architectural decisions to be
made in private or even for it to be part of Admin's brief to do so. As
for Admin making architectural decisions, in the past it never happened and
there is no proposal for it to do so in the future.

>All designs should be discussed and
>criticisms answered before implementation. Designs that can't stand the
>light of day should not be candidates for inclusion in the product.

Exactly.

>I have no objection to the admin list being closed for posting, but I
>object strenuously to a tiny number of individuals presuming to make
>architectural decisions in secret that are presumably binding on the
>rest of the project.

So do the Admin members. Ask an Admin member near you what the recent
shake-up in Admin membership was about. There's no reason to keep Admin
proceedings secret and the fact that current proceedings are not available
at Atkin has nothing to do with a desire for secrecy and everything to do
with inertia and vacations.

Recent activities in Admin - after two years of doing sweet F.A. - have
been concentrated first, on getting the active coders, builders and driver
leads on board and all heading in the same direction. Latterly, the focus
has been on drafting a roadmap - emphasis on "drafting". In its current
state, it is but a collation of known issues (features, intentions) with a
theoretical timeline. It won't become "the roadmap" until it has been
digested, trimmed, expanded, exploded here in Architect. In other words,
Admin is doing "nuts and bolts". Do you think this kind of stuff just
happens by transference?

>Ladies and gentlemen, I protest.

Don't protest: if you were willing to make yourself available for input to
the noisome but essential task of getting procedures into shape (the job
that Admin has set itself) then you would be more than welcome.

Helen