World: r4wp

Max, no need, we're already on it. For someone making a community 
site, you seem to have done so by fiat without consulting the community 
first.

(That was to MaxV, btw, not Maxim.)

transmitted by HostileFork - "Good points, all of them.  Let us discuss 
r3bazaar... on SO chat.

No need. We've already been dealing with this issue on SO chat, and 
in the other communication venues where the relevant developers are, 
for the last week, and we already have a plan. Like I said, we're 
already on it.

While I'm against blind copying, I think MaxV is simply trying to 
build some momentum. He's been very active, and I appreciate all 
his past efforts. If we open a dialog, we'll either come together 
or disagree in a friendly manner. :-) As much as I believe in talking 
first, sometimes that stalls efforts as well. Now at least we have 
something  to look at and use for further discussion.


And while I don't like having too many channels, and use only a few 
consistently, his new portal looks nice and incorporates a lot of 
functionality already.

Pekr, I suggested R2 because there is an enormous pile of useful 
code, and productive applications, that will likely never get ported 
to R3.  R3 will be great for developing new apps, but it's a darn 
shame to throw away all the work that's come before.

MaxV, I also agree that your involvement has been positive, and I 
always enjoy reading your posts :)  I also agree that it's great 
to offer more open channels of communication, but I think Andreas 
is 100% correct - links are preferrable to copied content.  Setting 
up a portal could certainly be helpful for anyone who prefers using 
that interface, but pointing to original content is critical.  The 
more sites that pop up and point to other important sources, the 
more easily people will be able to find what they need, no matter 
how they find their way into the community.  Helping to organize 
and guide people to the right places is helpful, but copying has 
all the problems Andreas pointed out.

sqlab, the fact that the "average Rebol user is just to much individualist 
to join" has always been a curiosity to me.

This community seems to need strong leadership and techical support 
by an established entity which replaces Carl.  Saphirion and Doc 
both appear to be in potentially good positions to achieve that role. 
 They're capable and willing to provide new REBOL tools to the community. 
 Perhaps they'll be able to fund the development of those tools with 
commercial work they expect to see down the road, but I have no idea 
how strong their business models are.  Donations are helpful, but 
somehow supporting a business model that encourages leadership efforts, 
should be an important goal for this community.  It seems necessary 
that REBOL achieve some sort of real foot hold - a clear reason for 
use - in industry, education, etc.  For my own purposes, I'd like 
to implement the "business programming for non-programmers" idea 
as a course at business schools (not CS departments).  To me, that's 
REBOL's most relevant potential mainstream use.  How else could the 
REBOL ecosystem potentially grow in a way that encourages others 
to become involved in supporting REBOL, and in ways that financially 
sustain new leadership?  I'd love to see that topic discussed in 
more detail.  I don't think community growth will happen without 
a business plan that addresses the problem.

Yup. Except for the "business plan" part. There will be community 
participants who have business plans, but we need to support business 
competition between community members. As a community though, we 
need a development plan for Rebol and also for the community, but 
not necessarily a business plan since the community is not itself 
a business.

Unless you mean a plan for business adoption :)

Perhaps a business plan for a foundation, the purpose of which is 
to enable business adoption :)

competition +1

There were some fleeting comments about a foundation.  Has there 
been any organized discussion about it?

I don't know the answer about what's best, just rustling the bushes 
a bit.

We haven't needed one yet. Foundations tend to do better when they're 
for well-established projects, since otherwise they don't tend to 
get enough funding to cover even their own overhead. So the first 
part of a foundation-building plan would be to grow the community 
to the point where a foundation would be a good idea :)

As an observer of open source projects since there were open scource 
projects, I see some challenges that no open source community that 
in my opinion have yet to be overcome, outside a limited vertical 
or academic market.

1.  Self-interest:  Each person views the code as their own opportunity 
to promote their own goals.  Since it costs nothing except time and 
effort and there is no remuneration, people develop forks that suit 
themselves.  When the need for them disappears, the support for them 
vanishes.  Result:  Whether a company owns the source or a company 
makes money with the source you are always dependent upon somebody 
who has more at stake than you do.  Right now that means Sapphirion.

2. Money:  Even with open source projects it takes money to push 
them forward.  If a company can make money they will pay for it themselves. 
 if somebody else needs the port or feature, they donate if there 
are enough people interested. So you either pay a company or pay 
into a project, either way you pay.

3. Leadership:  Usually a company ends up taking leadership because 
the original leaders begin to tire of the constant promotion and 
hard work.

I haven't seen a community able to sustain an open source effort 
for very long before it 1) forks into dozens of splinters 2) Loses 
or lacks leadership (which includes people willing to follow). 3) 
or is taken up by a company and exploited for its own purposes.

The solution to this would a very radical idea, one that isn't easy 
for a group of people to do.  Think of others as more important than 
themselves.  In this case I believe that R3 could become a movement 
against technology squeezing people into its own mold.  It could 
become technology that makes us smarter and better, rather than less 
adequate and worse.  It could become an enabling technology, but 
only if its people are devoted to enabling other people.

First enable programmers, then teachers, business people, artists. 
 Donald Norman does a nice job of articulating this vision in "Things 
that Make us Smart."  Human centered technology could become the 
clarion call of R3.

You'd have to use gen technology to change human nature

However, the new humans would morph back into the old ones in some 
generations

Does gen technology = nature, human or otherwise?

NickA, as Rebol is not mainstream, a programmer has to be independent 
or at least to think that.

Otherwise he would not be keen enough, to use such an exotic language.
At least I think that.

exotic is probably the wrong term,  maybe unknown

exotic is the good word.   especially since it goes against the mainstream 
trend of many things.

It's not everyones language, although it sounds like used by many.)

Nice, Kaj!

The only place I've seen othermindedness happen has been inside companies 
with strong leaders.  The results are always powerful.  The Humana 
Healthcare organization went from 4 rural hospitals to the second 
largest HMO in America that way. Waste Management also became the 
largest waste disposal company in America that way.   There is one 
part of Oracle that is experiencing a 4 fold increase in sales as 
a result of an othermined culture establish by the general manager 
of that department.  NewTek was another company that started out 
that way. It can be done, but I've never seen it in an open source 
community.

Never forget the talk I heard by Joe Green the former CEO of Humana. 
 He showed us an organizational chart written upside down with his 
name at the top.  He flipped over the chart which put himself at 
the bottom with the lettering now right side up.  He said, "When 
I realized that my job was to love the four people above me in the 
chart, the  organization really took off."

Did they do away with self-interest and money?

Of course not, Kaj!

While I believe that a man should be paid a fair wage for his mental 
or physical efforts, I disagree with coming up with exotic ways to 
extract money from others.  And the only reason that a wage needs 
to be paid at all is that living is currently not free for most people.

There is a difference between self-interest and selfishness.

It is on the same fine line between altruisme and stupidity.

Arnold agreed.  I'm suggesting that a group can be otherminded and 
in the process protect and promote the interests of the individuals 
in it.  It requires a clear vision that transcends the group and 
its members, a strong leader who can articulate that vision, and 
individuals who can consider the needs of others as more important 
than themselves.  It worked on the soccer field with my teams, it 
worked a some large companies and it works in small businesses that 
I am aware of around the United States.

Trust is a huge factor, in the vision, in the leadership and in the 
other members of the group.

the best structure is when bosses are told to empower employes (at 
all levels of management) and resonsabilities are properly attributed 
and taken.

Maxim. This + alot. But it is more than empowerment, it's other-mindedness 
with empowerment.  You can empower nacisistic people and get dysfunction.

The boss I ever had had a very healthy philosophy... when I'm doing 
nothing and everything is happening, I'm doing my job.  his philosophy 
was simple.  hire competent people, give them all the rope anyone 
needs to hang themself.  but make sure the noose is strong.

the boss == the best boss

a lot of bad human traits only flourish when they are cultivated 
in poor conditions.   when everyone is happy, feels like he's useful 
and appreciated... most unhealthy habits just leave because they 
have no place to root.  when everyone is happy, the rotten apple 
often, just leaves or gets told to change by everyone.

but... in ANY company... this is always a reflection of the person 
at the top.

The Fossil announcement would be more appropriate in ~Links.

Do you think so? It was an action of mine on the service of my Red 
bindings

I've made similar announcements on previous occasions

Yes, as I saw nothing Red-specific in it.

If a majority here feels the same way, I'll change my announcement 
policy

I don't mind seeing Kaj's announcements in the announce group.

I'm OK either way. I go back to Announce more for REBOL/Red related 
things, which this is related to.