X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=pWAJYRaBMCAKdlmGHaRsICFxeL7rxIclDOh77TCvAGM=;
	b=Sxm1uvb04xCBdtPCBzPBjkqzIq63ePDbF++2plK/F419MSecrvgjatYLps7hil7PJ9
	6ADZKUEUxv+nKT/QHJr3+ochvIs+r273EQ41e3ANDROWityiXMDOLJ5cHfiEQKuBbxRI
	UWr5guJTG+YgeKhx1hOXVI1bUMDCQKt5/YlURMEBflsO6vWLNcZqi6+UAxLzXZQkgbeA
	yPN+8zx+tTKsSQjvgrAtzjq9vXgkjdeJaS6yTNXsSa1xmo4yFzsekWV1Pcrk+gLt6+5e
	cNbl5l4FA9JKTrcd6/dZ2w8GJYl+ksYkgDCyZSPmxjtm7jV5S6ncBJF1pyALBjNO1Yxc
	bgGw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.182.225.132 with SMTP id rk4mr10747130obc.68.1450802609138;
	Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:43:29 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAJXU7q_3XwthnN_8mp7B+-ShHeK+=7J=54ZavKBUG3S3bSKp2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	[geda-user] Project leadership
From:	"Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	gEDA User Mailing List <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

So - having prepared the kindling, spread petrol - now for the spark...


One thing I took away from FOSDEM last year - is something that KiCAD
has done right.


They have a PROJECT LEADER. (Wayne Stambaugh at the moment).

KiCAD has had a clear project at most points in its history, and that
person has been responsible for shaping the development goals,
strategies and targeting what developer effort they had at their
disposal. Handover between leaders has (at least in recent times),
been clear and decisive within the project. (I'm less clear about the
hand-over from its original author to the first project leader).


gEDA has had no project leader since Ales' involvement declined.

By default - Peter Brett had been maintaining the suite at that time,
but without any formal blessing - or handover from the founder (Ales),
or the project community, there was a power vacuum.

Suddenly gEDA was whatever its disparate base of users wanted to
imagine it was, and they would (with some vitriol) slam down would-be
developers who dared to propose change they did not want.. (despite in
some cases having themselves contributed very little to the project).

Peter Brett (an excellent developer and engineer - but perhaps not the
worlds most diplomatic soul), eventually became disillusioned, and
stopped contributing in his free time - due to negativity within the
community. I myself, found less and less time for first gEDA, then PCB
- as other commitments grew, and detractors within the "community"
surrounding gEDA sucked more and more enthusiasm for making things
better.

There are certain individuals still - who would like (and have
achieved) keeping gEDA exactly the same. These are the people who you
could observe criticising new development efforts - preaching about
the holy truth of the Ales original vision, whilst simultaneously
ranting prolificly as to the limitations gnetlist (part of the holy
original) presents with its inbuilt assumptions.

We CANNOT please everyone, not the "we want 3D etc..", "new features",
"better integration".. camp (which I'm in), and simultaneously the
"Hmm - this gEDA stuff is nice, but you're using one of those
new-fangled X11 GUI things - that doesn't run on my PDP-10, can you
please port it to a VT100 terminal?" types. (We've had at least one of
those).


gEDA and PCB need leadership, direction, and it needs NOT (IMO), to be
a design by committee for each new patch or feature. The leadership
should be accepted (and / or decided) by the community, and left to
lead. This would have been far easier had Ales, or someone blessed a
successor when leaving involvement with the project.


Two years ago (or so), I would have stood up and volunteered for this
role within PCB. Go back 3-4, I would have volunteered for gEDA too,
but time has moved on.


The important take-away from my rant (I think), is that someone
(perhaps one or more of the currently active developers) needs to
decide they want to decide and direct the future of gEDA and PCB.
Decide this, ask the community for their backing - and if you get it -
take the lead. Come to FOSDEM, and speak on behalf of the project,
decide its future.

If you don't want to lead - don't hold back other people from taking
the reins, and possibly changing the project direction.
If you do want to lead - but don't get backing to do so - quit...
fork... life is short, and if you have a vision for making open-source
EDA software better, go achieve that.


(Oh - and for goodness sake, someone email me off list if I ever get
to be "that" guy you all end up groaning when I post to the list with
the same old tired content no-one wants to read for the hundredth
time. Remember I'm not currently an active developer, so my voice and
vote needs to count for very little regarding the future of the
project).


Best wishes,

Peter

- Raw text -