Open Source does it need a leader?

[destructaball]

Now just so I don't get a torrent of comments based upon my abriviations, when I say open source I mean open source freeware which is for the good of people for example Ubuntu.

I think that there should be an elected leader for all of the open source goings on in the world because they are all pushing for the same thing. It seems that many OS's have to effectively reinvent the wheel time and time again just to get their project working not only this but normally when you are looking for an open source program you find two both of which have a different shortcoming that could be easily fixed with a little more programing. If the community had a better direction then it would quickly become the prevalant form of computing.

With a leader of all of the community money could be directed efficiently from sucessful projects, such as firefox, that has more money than they know what to do with to smaller projects with little capitol.

Before I went onto ubuntu a few weeks ago I was doing it using the principle of "You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk dancing." with a leader there could be greater public awareness of Ubuntu.

[hhhhhx]

good idea, but who is worthy enough to elect a leader, and also who is worthy enough to be a leader. I think the FOSS is more about the community.

[kevin11951]

what about a community of leaders, like an ieee of foss!? creating standards, and fixing disputes between foss projects and what not!?

[Whiffle]

Seems to be fine as is. Its sort of a free market system...if there is enough demand for a project, it gets resources. There are standards (ex freedesktop.org, X.org, Linux Standard Base, IETF) as well. Besides, most people dont' like bearacracy, and voluntarily being led around from above by some elected leader isn't something people are readily going to do. I don't think it would be a good idea, even if it were practical.

[Istonian]

No need for change IMO. Things are fine to me.

[k2t0f12d]

Useless, pointless, a waste of time. Vaporing about "open source" is not advantageous to securing and advancing technology through the protection of human rights with respect to information and technology. See the following video for a concise argument about what started going wrong around a decade ago, and what we need to do to continue forward in the 21st century

http://blip.tv/file/337713/

[Bruce H. McCosar]

I think that there should be an elected leader for all of the open source goings on in the world because they are all pushing for the same thing.

Nope.

I teach middle school. When I assign groups, I am careful to avoid instructions like "Choose a team captain." Otherwise, they will spend 90% of the time arguing about who should be the leader, and maybe 10% working.

Instead I give them a goal, some resources, a few instructions, and a very short time limit.

Sounds pretty familiar to open source developers, no doubt!

[aimran]

Nope.

I teach middle school. When I assign groups, I am careful to avoid instructions like "Choose a team captain." Otherwise, they will spend 90% of the time arguing about who should be the leader, and maybe 10% working.

Instead I give them a goal, some resources, a few instructions, and a very short time limit.

Sounds pretty familiar to open source developers, no doubt!

I learn something new everyday :)

[akiratheoni]

To be honest, that's one "disadvantage" of open source; there's no centralization. But that also is an advantage; you get choice! With a leader of open source, I don't think we would get to develop the way we are now, with multiple distros and such.

[ubuntoy]

open source as a concept only needs a consortium or a guiding standards.

open source projects, community needs a leader.

[k2t0f12d]

In the politics of America, and other countries perhaps as well, the people have abdicated their roles as leaders and turned control over to chimps in suits and skirts. It is a great strength in free software that leadership roles are divided and spread out more effectively, and the true power is still available to everyone, if everyone in free software can remain cohesive and decisive enough to protect each others rights and set public policy, which in some cases we have and others we have not.

[23meg]

http://blip.tv/file/337713/

This is such a thought provoking, inspiring, alerting, hilarious, informative talk that you should start a separate thread about it and get more people to see it. Thanks a lot for posting. I've watched/attended many of Moglen's talks, but I'd never seen him get so directly confrontational, and so rightly.

[forrestcupp]

With a leader of all of the community money could be directed efficiently from sucessful projects, such as firefox, that has more money than they know what to do with to smaller projects with little capitol.

Sounds kind of like Communism to me. While Communism is theoretically a great idea, it doesn't usually work out too well in effect.

And let's look at it from the other side. If you worked your life away to build your project up to the point that it was bringing in a lot of revenue, would you want someone forcibly taking your revenue to apply toward other small projects that may not even be worthy?

The reason Firefox has so much money is because there are corporations and individuals backing them because they have an interest in the product. If I donated my money to a certain project that I had interest in, I wouldn't want someone to take that money away and apply it to another project that I don't care about.

[macogw]

If you haven't read it yet, I suggest everyone read CatB (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/) (Cathedral and the Bazaar) by Eric S Raymond. It's about the development models of open source and proprietary software, including leadership roles.

[kevin11951]

just thought i would bump it one last time, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

[23meg]

If you haven't read it yet, I suggest everyone read CatB (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/) (Cathedral and the Bazaar) by Eric S Raymond. It's about the development models of open source and proprietary software, including leadership roles.

In addition I'd suggest Homesteading The Noosphere (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_10/raymond/).

[k2t0f12d]

With a leader of all of the community money could be directed efficiently from sucessful projects, such as firefox, that has more money than they know what to do with to smaller projects with little capitol.

Sounds kind of like Communism to me. While Communism is theoretically a great idea, it doesn't usually work out too well in effect.

++

We do not need an authoritarian centralized power to decide for us who we give our money to. I am quite capable of deciding that myself. Funny enough, this is the first instance in the discussion of free software that someone has positively identified something that actually could parallel something in communism, and that something is contrary to the nature of free software.

[k2t0f12d]

This is such a thought provoking, inspiring, alerting, hilarious, informative talk that you should start a separate thread about it and get more people to see it. Thanks a lot for posting. I've watched/attended many of Moglen's talks, but I'd never seen him get so directly confrontational, and so rightly.

He is intellectually brilliant. Listening to him describe his ideas in language is almost better the the actual ideas themselves. For a good time watch the video dotCommunist Manifesto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgCKRN_Bzzs) for a brilliant speech on how culture became property.

[Washer]

http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/rms-20070401.jpeg

Bow before your God, nerds!

[barbedsaber]

this is really sad, I dont know who that is, oh, wait,is it stallman? :confused::confused::confused::confused: