|
|
|
|
|
|
by everdev
3013 days ago
|
|
|
It would be helpful if there were levels of open source: Community - Fully open to discussion and contribution from everyone, decisions are made collectively and contribution / support responsibilities are shared by all. Committee - Open to input, but decisions are made by the project leadership. Leadership is voted on by the community and provides support and contribution guidelines. Ownership - There is a project owner or co-owners that make all decisions and offer support if available and set guidelines on contributions. Visible - Open source in the sense of being transparent or usable by others, but little to no support offered and contributions may not be accepted. I think many people think they're walking into a Community project when it's really a Leadership, Ownership or Visible project and feelings get hurt. Much better to set expectations early on in the README. |
|
|
> Committee - Open to input, but decisions are made by the project leadership. Leadership is voted on by the community and provides support and contribution guidelines.
> Ownership - There is a project owner or co-owners that make all decisions and offer support if available and set guidelines on contributions.
Committee is the Debian Project, which has explicit governance and formal process, correct?
Ownership would be the BDFL model, like Linux or Python or most other projects I could name. Linux breaks down into subsystems, each of which are owned by a specific person, so it's a recursive form of the Ownership model.
I can't think of any project using your Community model off the top of my head.
> Visible - Open source in the sense of being transparent or usable by others, but little to no support offered and contributions may not be accepted.
I think this should have a different name, to make sure people don't confuse it with the non-OSS Viewable Source licenses some companies use: You can see the code, but you can't fork it and distribute modified versions.