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=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=YvEHgGpvgZjbyg2H6JpCwxO00VjeRf+nY/AIflA7CMs=;
	b=EdH1CyUMNsT60BTOo31ApRWDCHy0aq8XLEtojEN+GiRDCrdoq7UzAmRXW+zdY2g2Q4
	nOQHzVw01qumQayrLJYGtpXa7bAUqqwZ14zBtvHzOHr2ELUuEJeyXLjAWRffSK9ED/LL
	qAmHXCnXcbwvNn1+AwPE6OTJEI+Qhy+TUwDWcib7tFGCEFyQUdM78euOyCLpEiUIMyar
	HpzPeif+HqLadpZYpkEnQYFUR1iAegMEkQ4BgwPKYmxNfx0DMXLa3rf3hEY0U3K8GhjF
	OoefM4IJTeMU6PmtnGK9+LUZzY7027g/uIuiVu+0YLowUF/3VeHMbB8/tZ8lkISOTe3h
	9Nmg==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.140.94.198 with SMTP id g64mr21344098qge.57.1451328799798;
	Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:53:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<CAJXU7q_3XwthnN_8mp7B+-ShHeK+=7J=54ZavKBUG3S3bSKp2A@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAJXU7q_3XwthnN_8mp7B+-ShHeK+=7J=54ZavKBUG3S3bSKp2A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:53:19 -0500
Message-ID:	<CANEvwqiM7CKG+WpDRpG4L=HsmSEZ32=CBDyUhuk3ks-SNedL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Project leadership
From:	"Marvin Dickens (mpdickens AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

--001a113a7bc6907a0a0527f9d19a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Your thoughts are spot on. This project desperately needs a leader.
Currently, badly needed development rarely occurs because those
people who are capable do not contribute because they are put off
by a few users who want NOTHING to change because it does not
fit their personal work flow.

These are my thoughts on this subject - They are based on fact and
further, they are unlikely to change.

Regards


Marvin Dickens

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Peter Clifton (
petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <
geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> 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
>

--001a113a7bc6907a0a0527f9d19a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Your thoughts are spot on. This project desperately needs =
a leader.<div>Currently, badly needed development rarely occurs because tho=
se</div><div>people who are capable do not contribute because they are put =
off</div><div>by a few users who want NOTHING to change because it does not=
</div><div>fit their personal work flow.</div><div><br></div><div>These are=
 my thoughts on this subject - They are based on fact and</div><div>further=
, they are unlikely to change.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div>=
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Marvin Dickens</div></div><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:43 A=
M, Peter Clifton (<a href=3D"mailto:petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com">petercjc=
lifton AT googlemail DOT com</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">ge=
da-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user@=
delorie.com" target=3D"_blank">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<=
br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So - having prepared the kindling, spread=
 petrol - now for the spark...<br>
<br>
<br>
One thing I took away from FOSDEM last year - is something that KiCAD<br>
has done right.<br>
<br>
<br>
They have a PROJECT LEADER. (Wayne Stambaugh at the moment).<br>
<br>
KiCAD has had a clear project at most points in its history, and that<br>
person has been responsible for shaping the development goals,<br>
strategies and targeting what developer effort they had at their<br>
disposal. Handover between leaders has (at least in recent times),<br>
been clear and decisive within the project. (I&#39;m less clear about the<b=
r>
hand-over from its original author to the first project leader).<br>
<br>
<br>
gEDA has had no project leader since Ales&#39; involvement declined.<br>
<br>
By default - Peter Brett had been maintaining the suite at that time,<br>
but without any formal blessing - or handover from the founder (Ales),<br>
or the project community, there was a power vacuum.<br>
<br>
Suddenly gEDA was whatever its disparate base of users wanted to<br>
imagine it was, and they would (with some vitriol) slam down would-be<br>
developers who dared to propose change they did not want.. (despite in<br>
some cases having themselves contributed very little to the project).<br>
<br>
Peter Brett (an excellent developer and engineer - but perhaps not the<br>
worlds most diplomatic soul), eventually became disillusioned, and<br>
stopped contributing in his free time - due to negativity within the<br>
community. I myself, found less and less time for first gEDA, then PCB<br>
- as other commitments grew, and detractors within the &quot;community&quot=
;<br>
surrounding gEDA sucked more and more enthusiasm for making things<br>
better.<br>
<br>
There are certain individuals still - who would like (and have<br>
achieved) keeping gEDA exactly the same. These are the people who you<br>
could observe criticising new development efforts - preaching about<br>
the holy truth of the Ales original vision, whilst simultaneously<br>
ranting prolificly as to the limitations gnetlist (part of the holy<br>
original) presents with its inbuilt assumptions.<br>
<br>
We CANNOT please everyone, not the &quot;we want 3D etc..&quot;, &quot;new =
features&quot;,<br>
&quot;better integration&quot;.. camp (which I&#39;m in), and simultaneousl=
y the<br>
&quot;Hmm - this gEDA stuff is nice, but you&#39;re using one of those<br>
new-fangled X11 GUI things - that doesn&#39;t run on my PDP-10, can you<br>
please port it to a VT100 terminal?&quot; types. (We&#39;ve had at least on=
e of<br>
those).<br>
<br>
<br>
gEDA and PCB need leadership, direction, and it needs NOT (IMO), to be<br>
a design by committee for each new patch or feature. The leadership<br>
should be accepted (and / or decided) by the community, and left to<br>
lead. This would have been far easier had Ales, or someone blessed a<br>
successor when leaving involvement with the project.<br>
<br>
<br>
Two years ago (or so), I would have stood up and volunteered for this<br>
role within PCB. Go back 3-4, I would have volunteered for gEDA too,<br>
but time has moved on.<br>
<br>
<br>
The important take-away from my rant (I think), is that someone<br>
(perhaps one or more of the currently active developers) needs to<br>
decide they want to decide and direct the future of gEDA and PCB.<br>
Decide this, ask the community for their backing - and if you get it -<br>
take the lead. Come to FOSDEM, and speak on behalf of the project,<br>
decide its future.<br>
<br>
If you don&#39;t want to lead - don&#39;t hold back other people from takin=
g<br>
the reins, and possibly changing the project direction.<br>
If you do want to lead - but don&#39;t get backing to do so - quit...<br>
fork... life is short, and if you have a vision for making open-source<br>
EDA software better, go achieve that.<br>
<br>
<br>
(Oh - and for goodness sake, someone email me off list if I ever get<br>
to be &quot;that&quot; guy you all end up groaning when I post to the list =
with<br>
the same old tired content no-one wants to read for the hundredth<br>
time. Remember I&#39;m not currently an active developer, so my voice and<b=
r>
vote needs to count for very little regarding the future of the<br>
project).<br>
<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113a7bc6907a0a0527f9d19a--

- Raw text -