Re: Debian und Ubuntu - in the Press
Kevin Mark skrev:
(sorry about not responding before, I've been moving my email server as
well as busy on other fronts.)
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 09:50:05AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
All of them. There are people who are very much part of the core team
and who make substantial improvements in Ubuntu who are volunteers.
One of them being Matthew Garrett.
Hmm. I guess i'm confused as to who _is_ being paid and will have to
investigate this further. Ubuntu is a FLOSS business and a FLOSS
project, IIUC. I'm curious about how they interact, intersect and where
they are seperate a la 'venn diagrams'. And of the feelings of paid vs
non-paid participants in each. But I guess that is for an Ubuntu list.
If anybody feels this is offtopic here, please do tell me. (Can stuff
be offtopic for -curiosa?).
Some developers are paid. Most aren't. Local teams (teams doing
translations as well as local advocacy) aren't paid, but the Community
Manager is. So most groups have some paid and some volunteers. Ubuntu
has half-yearly developer summits where the specifications for the next
release are written. Those are attended by both Canonical employees as
well as volunteer developers, some of whom have their travel and lodging
sponsored by Canonical, some of whom get there on their own and pay for
themselves. There have also been visitors from other companies, like
rPath and Intel.
So how do they interact? In most cases, who pays for your food never
enters the discussion. If you have a great idea and am willing to put
work into it, all the more power to you, the only cases where ideas are
stopped/changed are if they don't fit into the big picture. In Ubuntu,
because you can do something doesn't mean it's a supported
configuration. (That's "supported" as in "bugs will not just be
rejected", not "Canonical is willing to support that configuration if
you give us money".) Employees can naturally be told "you will work on
this" even if it's not something that particular person really wants to
do; volunteers can't be told to do something in the same way, just like
in other companies.
Some people are afraid that Debian, if it funds developers, will change
into a place where people are only optimizing for maximum chance of
being hired and paid money. We do, to some extent have that in Ubuntu.
People who are decent (but often not great) developers who are quite
clearly trying to get hired. We have had the opposite too, where really
good developers have turned down an offer because they're happy being
volunteers and they're happy in their current job (or education).
> Obviously folks have
started to become more interested in keeping tighter controls on what
constitutes a <<civil discourse>> which may or may not be because of
Ubuntu. I think its a good change as long as it doesn't stifle people
from communicating at the expense of people feeling like <<one misspoke
word>> and they're being expelled.
While there is the "threat" of expellation in the Ubuntu Code of Conduct
I have never seen anybody use that as an argument. People say "please
behave, you're acting in an unacceptable fashion" rather than "IF YOU
DON'T STOP FLAMING, YOU WILL BE EXPELLED". Social pressure is very,
very effective at keeping people within the bounds of acceptable behaviour.