Open Source

[t00fri]

So you ARE managed and you must accept this.

I don't want to start a flame war but IMHO the fact that you don't like to be managed is one of the main problems of this community.

Here of course I violently disagree.

Throughout my professional life I have done my research work in highly efficient and highly knowledgable teams, without anyone of the team being "managed" by anyone else. Of course my PhD students typically are less experienced and need guidance. But ok they are still in a learning phase.

Peer reviewing is also an inevitable element in scientific work. And ChrisL is certainly very competent with coding. So that's certainly fine with me.

Anyway, I probably have more experience with working in effective teams than many of you!

All scientific collaborations typically work on a model that is a bit like the musicians in a Jazz band as opposed to the members of a BIG classical orchestra. In a Jazz band there is no written music and notably you don't hierarchically distinguish 1st, 2nd 3d violonists for example. Rather every Jazzer is an individual participant of high artisitc standing and get's his chorus in time, yet everyone is integrated in a perfectly functioning musical team...
Finally, Jazz bands most often have a rather compact size. The classical analogon of the Jazz band set up is chamber music, of course.

From the knowledge and experience profile of our longstanding dev team, this comparison with the Jazz band is not so bad I think...

Bye Fridger

[ElChristou]

Guys, the problem of management depend on individuals. If you are lucky enough to have plenty of highly efficient people like Fridger and Chris, no need of management, those persons are enough skilled to achieve a "mind fusion". Now if you talk about a compartmentalized structure where people work in their corner without this "mind fusion", here of course you need a "head" to glue the pieces.
Both Fridger and Paolo are right, but both are talking about something really different...

[BobHegwood]

If I may...

Open Source implies that any Bozo who has the willingness to
help should be allowed to participate. In the practical application of
this theory, however, it does absolutely NO good to involve Bozos
who don't have the educational background and/or technical
know-how necessary in order to participate in a meaningful fashion.
THIS particular open-source project is very different from
most others simply because of its focus. In other words, most
other projects simply need programmers in order to get things
going. Celestia is different in this regard because it DEMANDS
technical accuracy in the science of physics, etc.

This is where all problems with Celestia's open-source policy lie, in
my opinion. The Good Doctor is CLEARLY the most knowledgeable
person in the room when it comes to the theory and science behind
Celestia, while Chris is CLEARLY the man with both the coding skills,
AND the knowledge required to convert the physics to coding.

The Good Doctor also has a way of expressing himself in a fashion
which puts off potential developers, because they think that he's
an egomaniac who simply doesn't WANT any outside help. Again,
in my opinion, this is simply not true. The Doctor just KNOWS
what he's talking about, and will NOT allow any contradiction.

While this is good from a technical stand-point, I'm not so sure
that it's good from a people view-point.

I know this to be true from discussions with many other people
who have contributed in the past, and who have simply gotten
tired of the Good Doctor's approach to criticism. Have you noticed
how many of the early contributors do not even show up here
anymore?

Now please don't take these comments in a negative fashion.
Were it not for Doctor Schrempp's leadership in technical accuracy,
we'd simply have another fancy "Gee-Whiz" program which was
very pretty, but of not much use to serious scientific researchers,
teachers, and space research. Hobbyists like myself simply
LOVE this program for its educational and explorational (for lack
of a better word) features.

Finally, let me just state that which I have stated before. If
someone really wishes to contribute to Celestia, then he or she
CAN do so. As long as you're willing to do the tasks for which
you are qualified, and can accept criticism without too much
personal injury, then you too can contribute. You may contribute
in mundane and simple ways too. This is actually very GOOD for
the open-source project, because it allows those with highly
technical backgrounds to concentrate on what they do best, and
ALL of us benefit from the process.

How's THAT for an opinion and expression of what goes on here?
Hee, hee. Gimme Hell now. Can't wait.

[t00fri]

If I may...

Gimme Hell now. Can't wait.

Hell!

F.

[BobHegwood]

Hell!

F.

Thanks Doc...
That's one of the NICEST things you've ever said to me.

Hee, hee again.

[chris]

The main way in which Celestia is departing from the bazaar model is on the 'release early, release often' motto, but that's mainly because we aren't that many working on it. As it has already been said by others we would all love to have a larger team, and we are open to new contributions, the problem is that not that many people come forward.

My big regret with Celestia development is that 1.5.0 has taken so long, suffering from too much feature creep. With my next round of atmosphere fixes however, we should be ready to release. With future versions, we'll limit the number of new features and attain something closer to 'release early, release often' with a small development team.

--Chris

[hank]

The main way in which Celestia is departing from the bazaar model is on the 'release early, release often' motto, but that's mainly because we aren't that many working on it. As it has already been said by others we would all love to have a larger team, and we are open to new contributions, the problem is that not that many people come forward.

My big regret with Celestia development is that 1.5.0 has taken so long, suffering from too much feature creep. With my next round of atmosphere fixes however, we should be ready to release. With future versions, we'll limit the number of new features and attain something closer to 'release early, release often' with a small development team.

--Chris

Glad to hear this. I was just about to mention that, despite the very encouraging recent increase in development activity, a new Celestia release did not make it out by the end of 2007 as I was hoping. Sounds like there's a good chance that it will make it out before the two-year anniversary of the last release (16 Feb). That would be great.

But try this thought experiment: suppose that, starting tomorrow, Chris was again unable to work on Celestia for six months. What would happen to the upcoming release?

- Hank

[t00fri]

But try this thought experiment: suppose that, starting tomorrow, Chris was again unable to work on Celestia for six months. What would happen to the upcoming release?

- Hank

Well we don't know about the future at this point.

But we do know something from the past:
-----------------------------------------------------------
When ChrisL had vanished last time (for about 1 year), I released TWO very successful Celestia-1.x-FT distributions with binaries both for Windows and LInux. These were the releases where we first presented our new 10000+ galaxies.
This was > 6 month of hard development work by Toti and myself. The FT-releases contained also other new stuff, like fixes for comets etc.

The reaction on these releases was VERY positive and the whole stuff was subsequently integrated into 1.4.0 by Chris after his reappearance.

The large resonance on these two FT releases can be perhaps estimated by the fact that my FT-1.1 thread has 48438 hits and 300 posts and my FT-1.2 thread has 49508 hits and 205 posts.

So what's so bad about this initiative in retrospect? Perhaps next time someone else takes a similar initiative or perhaps I'll do it again. So what, but there will be a solution!


Bye Fridger

[hank]

Why People like Selden is not included and cited as part of the dev team.

That's because I'm not. I'm an "advanced user." Celestia makes it possible for me finally to construct things I've dreamed about most of my life, so I tend to try to make it do things that are at the limits of its capabilities and sometimes are unexpected by its authors. That also means I've had to learn many of its complexities, which I enjoy explaining to others. I also enjoy testing software, but I don't understand either C++ or OpenGL well enough to write code. I lurk and occasionally make comments on the developers' mailing list, but anybody can do that.

Perhaps Paolo's point was that the development team should include testers. Selden's testing has contributed substantially to the quality of the Celestia software, even though he hasn't written a single line of the C++ code.

- Hank

[Epimetheus]

I would like more collaborators; I think it has nothing to do with any lack of openness in Celestia, and is mostly a matter of finding people with the both the time and the appropriate astronomical knowledge and/or programming skill.

--Chris

First off, Chris, let me just say a big thank you for the time and effort you've put into this project, and of course all the other developers and contributors as well. I'm blown away! Thanks for making it available to the rest of the world. I love Celestia. The possibilities are endless, like the universe.

About a year ago, I decided at mid-age to return to college and study computer science. I also will pursue a physics minor. I'm just now getting into discrete math and higher levels of math. (I'm not "there" yet folks, but I'm working on it! ) I was thrilled when I found an open-source program like Celestia. I'm in the process of becoming a C++ programmer. I'm in the process of becoming a true "scientist." Celestia not only offers me the ability to see how a complex graphical application works, but exposes me to a lot of fascinating mathematical principles.

You're building the foundation for something greater, maybe much greater. Celestia has really motivated and inspired me personally. I WILL be listening a lot closer during precalc classes this summer and thinking ways I can make useful contributions to this project!

Keep up the great work!

[Epimetheus]

Guys, the problem of management depend on individuals. If you are lucky enough to have plenty of highly efficient people like Fridger and Chris, no need of management, those persons are enough skilled to achieve a "mind fusion". Now if you talk about a compartmentalized structure where people work in their corner without this "mind fusion", here of course you need a "head" to glue the pieces.
Both Fridger and Paolo are right, but both are talking about something really different...

Excellent point.