I mean, why are you guys (and this includes some others like Tom Jackson and Frank Bergmann, to name the most serious culprits in my opinion) always trying to make a power game out of it. We are all in this because of a believe that the niche product OpenACS stands a chance to earn us money. The more energy is focused on bitching between core team members the weaker the toolkit will get.
Wow! How exactly do I make a power game out of anything? The only power here is committed code. If by a power game, you mean that I complain loudly when you and others force everyone else to follow your mostly ill-conceived code, okay. At some point everyone just gives up and says okay, just do it. Everytime I install a new OpenACS system, my original packages need to be modified, even though they only use the most basic conventions in OpenACS.
This is a great way to drive folks away, because if they ever decide to upgrade, they discover the pain involved and that gives them the opportunity to try something else.
But I guess simply informed comment from me, a user of OpenACS, is a power game. Why should users be able to comment? Should only developers who contribute code have a say? What if the developers are morons? Contributing moron code doesn't earn any points from the user perspective. Contributions which force users to do unnecessary work doesn't earn any points either.
If I was into a power game, I would be trying to commit all my code instead of talking about it as an example. But I agree with the community standards: pick one way of doing things and go with that. Remember that standard? Well it went out the window a long time ago, and Don has probably given up reminding everyone about it. Don actually has to be nice from time to time and work with people with different agendas. Usually I don't.
If I step over the line, someone lets me know, usually in terms like those above. Hey, usually they are right.
My working theory is that OpenACS core has issues, but it was put together pretty well. It works. Any change has the potential to make it not work. Developers who try to minimize this fact are dangerous. Developers who fail to consider the impact of their changes on current users are dangerous. Developers who think developers are more important than users are dangerous.
Power means you can force someone to do something they would rather not do. One way to do that here is to commit code which forces others to do work. Another way is to be able to prevent such changes. But, you can always make changes to your own copy, so this type of power doesn't prevent anyone from doing what they want.
