RE: OpenSource version of WebFacing (was: alternative to WebFacing)

Joe/Nathan/Brad?/All

Thanks for your all's replies.  Put some comments inline (>>).

As you know, my intention is to put together an IMHO column (or columns) on
this, eventually.  Meantime, I thought I'd float some ideas, to see what you
all think.

I'm taking a chance of putting people off by throwing down some half-baked
ideas.  But most will realize this is a WIP, and a barely-begun work, at
that...;)  Assuming I do write the column, I would guess my thoughts on the
subject will zig-zag a few times, before it's finally put together.  That's
another problem that comes from thinking out loud.  But I'm sure they'll be
a comment or two from you all, that will cause me to zig, when I was
planning to zag.  If so, that will be well worth it...:)



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
[mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 11:45 PM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: RE: alternative to WebFacing


> But the funny thing is that lately I've been told, quite frequently
> actually, that I rush in to things way, way too fast...  And I know there
> are a lot of folks, such as yourself, who have a h*lluva lot more
> experience
> at these things than I do.
>
> So, for the time being anyway, I'll wait and see who (if anyone)
> is willing
> to step up to the plate, and in what capacity.
>
> Now if I don't hear anything by midnight tonight...:-)

JT, over the years I've tried to cobble together a couple of efforts like
this.

>> I've tried a couple times to partner with somebody to work on my
code-generator.


They haven't been terribly successful.

>> Me neither.


For example, the free code I
give away on zappie.net (and its successor, www.java400.net) had only one
other contributor, Alex Garrison.  And while people are often (and I do mean
OFTEN) willing to help one another in remedying a specific problem, when it
comes to the amount of work required to actually develop some sort of open
source project for the AS/400, well, few of us have the time.

>> True.  Too bad the Universities, venture capitalists, and unsuspecting
stockholders can't subsidize our efforts like they have the Linux community.


Most of us
are probably working more hours than we care to, with less job security than
we've had in a long time.  To attempt to start what would in essence be a
"side job" is asking a lot.

>> Yes, but that isn't something you and I can decide for other people.
Just like we can't ask someone to do something like this, we can't assume
that nobody will want to try, and that nobody will be able to stick it out.


It's not that the idea is without merit, you understand.  It's just that
it's a whole lot of work for not a lot of perceived benefit,

>> I agree that an idea with "a lot of merit", sort of by definition, is one
that ain't gonna get done...

>> But I don't agree that this particular project is one that wouldn't have
a lot of obvious benefits.  To repeat what I said in my previous reply to
this same post of yours, Joe:

----------------
In this here example, there are a number of good principles to operate from.
(And I don't think you necessarily have to have one single principle.)

Some might be motivated by the goal of ending the "interactive tax".

Some people might stick this project out just to be part of an effort to
start OSS development in the 400 community.

Some might persevere in order to form a common-sense alternative to, what I
perceive as the madness of, the Linux movement.

Some (namely me) might be interested in an even loftier goal:  putting
together an organizational structure that could be adapted for the iSeries
Nation to use.

<snip>

But the one I like best is where you said in an earlier post "a company's
largest asset is not only its legacy programs, but also its legacy
programmers".
----------------


and with a
major stumbling block to boot.  I think in order to even attempt something
like this, you'd need one of the following:

>> It's interesting because, although we've never met or corresponded
off-list, our thoughts are very similar.  But it's sort of a paradox,
because I agree and I disagree with your ideas here:  My current thinking is
that it's absolutely necessary to have both.  I believe you were thinking
that one approach or the other would be necessary.  Where I'm thinking that
neither would be completely successful, by itself, but the combination is
unstoppable!  (OK, I exaggerate a little...;)


1. A specific project.  Not simply a goal, but a well-defined target with
specific requirements and restraints.  Consensus here is not easy to
achieve.

>> "Whoop! there it is."  (Tag Team...;)


For example, you have about five different factions here, some of
which have vested participatory interest.  Brad has e-RPG, Nathan has his
HTTP plug-in, I have revitalization, and I suspect that SPECIAL files, MI
hooks and some sort of TCP/IP redirection would each have their adherents as
well.

>> It's real easy for me to say the following, because I haven't invested
anywhere near as much as you three, in developing alternative ways of
solving this problem.  And I hope I don't sound naive.  But the fact is that
having a "vested participatory interest" is a mind-set, not an absolute
reality.  Not by a long stretch.

>> But I'll try to illustrate, by example, that I'm not just talking the
talk (and maybe get a little bragging in again...:)

>> Back last October, I proposed an idea to Mr. Zeitler (who heads up the
Server Group) that was, in my mind, essentially identical to the concept
behind the iNation.  (Before anyone gets the idea I'm taking any credit
here: Mr. Haines got the idea independently, turned an ad gimmick into the
founding principles of the iNation, and somehow managed to get it through
the approval process.  Mr. Haines made the iNation happen, no doubt about
that.)  It wouldn't surprise me if I've put more time and energy into
thinking about the iNation than what Mr. Haines has himself (if only because
I started on it 3 months before he did).

>> Now when they announced that the Freedom Council had been formed, I
thought it was too bad I wasn't on it.  But, naturally, who got on the
Freedom Council was directly related to who Mr. Haines knew the best.  No
offence intended to Neil or Don, but IMHO merit had nothing to do with it or
I would have been invited.  In all honesty, this setback was minor compared
to some, and it's not like Mr. Haines really had any option to pick an
unknown quantity, such as myself.

>> The point of all this is that, if you get involved with a project that is
bigger than what any one individual could possibly be, it CAN BE a whole lot
easier to forget your vested interests, IF YOU WANT.


So, your first issue would be to decide which of those architectures
are the one you want to pursue.  You can guess that if I were to participate
at this level, it would probably only be to continue with the revitalization
approach, and I doubt that Nathan or Brad would be interested in helping.

>> Could very well be.


Multiple agendas are unlikely to achieve results, unless you were able to
create:

2. An umbrella project.  This is the situation where the various ideas are
hashed out and reviewed.  Areas of commonality are identified, and
interfaces are designed to allow each of the various techniques to
interoperate.

>> "Whoop..."


Teams (a very loose term, as a team could conceivably be a
single individual) would choose to implement one or more of the various
components.  As they are designed, each would then go to a testing
environment.  This is the most democratic and the most productive
environment for long-term development, but it has some severe drawbacks.

>> True.


For our community, the most critical problem would be that it splinters the
development effort.  We don't have a lot of spare hours as it is; focusing
in several directions dilutes those hours even further.

>> I don't think we have a good idea, yet, of what the community will decide
to contribute (if anything).  IMHO this may, or may not be a problem.


Another potential
problem is that you still would need an architectural overseer for the high
level infrastructure.  This sort of design actually cannot be done by
committee.  Ideas can be floated, but one individual, or at most a team of
two or three, would have to be given the full oversight of the umbrella
interface design.

>> It's JMHO, but I'm firmly convinced you want a team of three.  No more,
no less.


Anybody working on the project would have to work within
those guidelines.  That would be quite a tall order.

>> True, again.  But the Linux community has proven the concept.  I'll give
that to them... grudgingly...;)


IMHO, it's not the technical difficulties.  I'm pretty close to a functional
subset of a full technical solution, written entirely by me, in my copious
free time.  It can be done.

>> Absolutely.


No, the far more difficult question for an open
source project is whether the community is willing to relinquish control in
any degree to an overseeing agency and work within that framework, even if
it might not directly promote their own personal agenda.

>> I think the trio assigned to oversee the umbrella interface design will
have a large influence on this.  ICBW, but I firmly believe that if the
leadership gets their act together, the community will see that and pitch in
a lot stronger than you think.

>> But I do think it will be extremely hard for the leadership, themselves,
to reliquish control.  I don't want to get in some deep "philosophical"
debate, but IMHO, sometimes it's better to reliquish some control, in order
to gain control in a wider sense.


This group?  Um.
Well.  Read some of the posts over the past months and you may come to some
opinion as to whether that would work.

>> I have, and am pursuing this anyway.  I'm not saying it can be done, or
it can't be done.  If anyone wants to be told "This can be done, and here's
how you're going to do it" they're going to have to hear it from someone
other than me.  The proof is in the pudding.  But, by the same token, I'm
not going to say it can't be done, until the best effort has been made and
it comes up short.  Even then, if that's what happens, I'll wait to judge
the results of that effort as a failure, until I see what kind of stepping
stone it provides.

>> I, and I'm sure many of you, have found that even mistakes can be used as
stepping-stones.  Especially mistakes...  Because it's real hard to use a
success as a stepping-stone to something else; it's much easier to stick
with the horse that brung you...


And to those who disagree with my assertion that software projects of any
magnitude require an autocratic rather than democratic model, please
remember that the most successful of the "open source" projects, namely
Linux, was primarily run by a single individual.

>> Again, I agree, but only in part.  First of all, I read today something
like "Since IBM has put $1 Billion into Linux, it's obvious that using Linux
is a no-brainer".  (I agree with that statement if he means you have to have
no-brain in order to choose Linux over OS/4I...ROFL)  Linux is riding high
right now, no doubt about that.  I intend to include a fair bit of analysis
of the successes and failures of Linux in the IMHO that is yet to be
written.

>> But, yeah, I see the strength of the autocratic model.  It's undeniable,
considering most all businesses run that way.

>> But if you temper the autocratic model by having three people serve as
the autocratic entity, you'll probably get good results...  IF (big if) the
three can work together.  This isn't really all that novel.  It's based on
an idea of either Noyce or Moore from Intel.  His theory of leadership was
that it took three personalities.  In Intel's case, the leadership was
formed of 3 people.  One was the "Organization Man" to keep things running
smoothly internally.  One was the "Outside Man" to be the face to the public
and community.  One was the "Thinker".  In the case of a technical project
like this one, you wouldn't necessarily break it down into these same types
of personalities.  But I think the principle holds.


Only because people were
willing to contribute work with the understanding that the final, inarguable
decisions were his, was the Linux project able to work.  Closer to home, the
most successful AS/400 software company was System Software Associates, and
it was only successful when run by a single individual.  When that person
left, and management by committee began, the company folded.

>> Joe, I'm assuming you're modestly referring to yourself.  Either way, I
wonder if that committee was even in the same league as the individual was?

>> In conclusion, if the committee approach I'm suggesting is tried, then
the strength of the individuals in this committee will be one factor in the
success of the project.  The ability of the leaders to collaborate is
another factor.

>> But the key is the ability of everyone to learn to follow, both the
leaders and developers.

IMHO.

>> Me too...:)

>> I hope this stimulates some discussion, because these are only my
opinions at this current time.  I plan for them to change, over time, and so
would appreciate "hearing" what everyone's views are on this subject.

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---