content/editorial/ec16Jan01.html - openoffice-org - Git at Google

 <html><head>
 <meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
 </head>
 <body>

 <title>Editor's Column: 16 January 2001</title>

 <h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono">Editor's Column</font>
   <font face="Courier New, Courier, mono"><br>
   </font></h2>
 <p>-<a href="//lspintro.html">Louis Suarez-Potts</a><br>
 </p>
 <p> 16 January 2001<br>
 </p>
 <h4>Quo Vadis OpenOffice.org?</h4>
 <p>Where is OpenOffice.org headed? It is, of course, far too early to consider
   seriously answering that question. As I write this, OpenOffice.org is barely
   three months old; the community that has formed around the project is still,
   in fact, coming to terms with the enormity of the task. And although the next
   version of Sun's StarOffice, StarOffice 6, which will employ a good portion
   of the technology created by OpenOffice.org, is scheduled to be released <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2672703,00.html">later
   this year</a>, that release will hardly spell the end of the project. It goes
   without saying that the nature of an open-source project is precisely that it
   is never done. There is always something that can be improved.</p>
 <p>This incessant perfectionism does not mean that there must be no roadmap for
   open-source projects, however. It is to say, though, that the great strength--and
   perhaps also a small weakness--of open-source projects lies precisely in their
   anarchic creativity, which roadmaps try to contain and channel. But here lies
   the difficulty, for a roadmap that is too confining risks destroying the very
   thing that open source models engender. </p>
 <p>OpenOffice.org is often compared to Mozilla.org, and the comparisons are just.
   Both projects are enormous, and both aspire to run across platforms and in a
   way that allows users greater reliability and flexibility than current programs.
   For this reason, it is worthwhile glancing at Mozilla.org's recent <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html">roadmap</a>.</p>
 <p>To begin with, Mozilla.org's roadmap serves primarily as a list of stages and
   milestones that should be met. Underlying Mozilla.org's or any open-source's
   roadmap is the emphasis placed on the community's role in determining the actual
   product. This is not merely a marketing ploy to entice community members. The
   community quite clearly controls much of the direction of the project and obviously
   determines its actual success. But not entirely; the governing body--however
   it is defined and constituted--sets the goals and limits the activity. </p>
 <p>In Mozilla.org's roadmap, for instance, the community's imagination is almost
   bound to the more tedious chore of making the program perform stably and correctly.
   But even here, the binding terms are laced with implicit apologies to the plausibly
   frustrated contributors, and Brendan Eich, the author of the roadmap, goes out
   of his way to &quot;make clear here that useful and relevant (defined by the
   community) extensions are always welcome, provided&quot; that is, that they
   don't interfere with the charted goals. </p>
 <p>Much younger than Mozilla.org, OpenOffice.org is still very much in the period
   of creative growth. Ideas and suggestions are very much welcome, from anyone
   in the community; <a href="//www-discuss/current/msg01163.html">wishlists
   can become reality</a>. But all this depends on the nature of the dialectic
   established by the community (however defined: it may include users, too) and
   the governing body. </p>
 <p>This issue is far larger than any one article can encompass. In the coming
   weeks, I will be revisiting it. In my column for next week, I will begin an
   examination of the structure of another enormous open-source project, Apple's
   Darwin. </p>
 <p>&nbsp;</p>
 <h4>Previous columns</h4>
 <p>3 January 2001 <i><a href="SunsOpenDoor.html">Sun's
   open door</a></i></p>
 <p>9 January 2001 <i><a href="thebuild.html">The 613
   build:&nbsp; problems and opportunities</a></i></p>
 <h4>&nbsp;</h4>
 <h4>E-mail: louis at collab.net*</h4>
 <p>*By spelling out the mail address, I'm hoping to defeat
   spam crawlers.</p>
 </body>
 </html>
	<html><head>
	<meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
	</head>
	<body>

	<title>Editor's Column: 16 January 2001</title>

	<h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono">Editor's Column</font>
	<font face="Courier New, Courier, mono"><br>
	</font></h2>
	<p>-<a href="//lspintro.html">Louis Suarez-Potts</a><br>
	</p>
	<p> 16 January 2001<br>
	</p>
	<h4>Quo Vadis OpenOffice.org?</h4>
	<p>Where is OpenOffice.org headed? It is, of course, far too early to consider
	seriously answering that question. As I write this, OpenOffice.org is barely
	three months old; the community that has formed around the project is still,
	in fact, coming to terms with the enormity of the task. And although the next
	version of Sun's StarOffice, StarOffice 6, which will employ a good portion
	of the technology created by OpenOffice.org, is scheduled to be released <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2672703,00.html">later
	this year</a>, that release will hardly spell the end of the project. It goes
	without saying that the nature of an open-source project is precisely that it
	is never done. There is always something that can be improved.</p>
	<p>This incessant perfectionism does not mean that there must be no roadmap for
	open-source projects, however. It is to say, though, that the great strength--and
	perhaps also a small weakness--of open-source projects lies precisely in their
	anarchic creativity, which roadmaps try to contain and channel. But here lies
	the difficulty, for a roadmap that is too confining risks destroying the very
	thing that open source models engender. </p>
	<p>OpenOffice.org is often compared to Mozilla.org, and the comparisons are just.
	Both projects are enormous, and both aspire to run across platforms and in a
	way that allows users greater reliability and flexibility than current programs.
	For this reason, it is worthwhile glancing at Mozilla.org's recent <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html">roadmap</a>.</p>
	<p>To begin with, Mozilla.org's roadmap serves primarily as a list of stages and
	milestones that should be met. Underlying Mozilla.org's or any open-source's
	roadmap is the emphasis placed on the community's role in determining the actual
	product. This is not merely a marketing ploy to entice community members. The
	community quite clearly controls much of the direction of the project and obviously
	determines its actual success. But not entirely; the governing body--however
	it is defined and constituted--sets the goals and limits the activity. </p>
	<p>In Mozilla.org's roadmap, for instance, the community's imagination is almost
	bound to the more tedious chore of making the program perform stably and correctly.
	But even here, the binding terms are laced with implicit apologies to the plausibly
	frustrated contributors, and Brendan Eich, the author of the roadmap, goes out
	of his way to "make clear here that useful and relevant (defined by the
	community) extensions are always welcome, provided" that is, that they
	don't interfere with the charted goals. </p>
	<p>Much younger than Mozilla.org, OpenOffice.org is still very much in the period
	of creative growth. Ideas and suggestions are very much welcome, from anyone
	in the community; <a href="//www-discuss/current/msg01163.html">wishlists
	can become reality</a>. But all this depends on the nature of the dialectic
	established by the community (however defined: it may include users, too) and
	the governing body. </p>
	<p>This issue is far larger than any one article can encompass. In the coming
	weeks, I will be revisiting it. In my column for next week, I will begin an
	examination of the structure of another enormous open-source project, Apple's
	Darwin. </p>
	<p> </p>
	<h4>Previous columns</h4>
	<p>3 January 2001 <i><a href="SunsOpenDoor.html">Sun's
	open door</a></i></p>
	<p>9 January 2001 <i><a href="thebuild.html">The 613
	build:  problems and opportunities</a></i></p>
	<h4> </h4>
	<h4>E-mail: louis at collab.net*</h4>
	<p>*By spelling out the mail address, I'm hoping to defeat
	spam crawlers.</p>
	</body>
	</html>