How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People

Kenguin · **Joined:** Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:23 am **Posts:** 58

I found this talk at google recently about how large-scale open source projects deal with a lot of tricky problems involving people. I thought it might be good advice for some of the developers of Open Source Uru whenver the source actually gets released

It's long but worth it if you're interested in this kind of stuff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE

x-posted at openuru.org http://forums.openuru.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=246

Frisky Badger · **Joined:** Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:48 pm **Posts:** 746

Very interesting. We might want to make sure this gets bumped when we get closer to the release of the source code, whenever that is.

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:28 pm

Gotta love "Patches welcome."

Frisky Badger · **Joined:** Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:48 pm **Posts:** 746

JWPlatt wrote:

Gotta love "Patches welcome."

And "Bike shedding"

MustardJeep · **Posted:** Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:19 am

I don't know if I should be crying or laughing.

Every step of the video is a mess I've been stuck in the middle of. :lol:

Nalates · **Posted:** Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:41 pm

For anyone developing a project or running an online community the "Patches Welcome" philosophy is a winner.

zander_nyrond · **Posted:** Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:49 am

I think the concept of "poisonous people" is one that any community can well do without.

Emor D'ni Lap · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am **Posts:** 587

I second Zander's opinion on labelling individuals as "poisonous people".
It's an arbitrary, subjective tag that can far too easily be slapped on anyone that takes a position someone else doesn't like.
Once it sticks, that label can be nearly impossible to remove.

Additionally, I dislike the speakers' use of the phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good": again, both "good" and "perfect" are arbitrary and subjective labels that can be applied on a whim.
Unless these terms are defined up front - in other words, unless your team's goals are clearly stated at the beginning of the project - then the project's endpoint is continually haggled-over by the participants.

Look at Cyan's ages. Are they perfect? No, we can all find little flaws here and there. But it's clear, to me at least, that they were striving for as much perfection as possible, and that tons of effort went into polishing details far beyond what would be considered merely "good" by many a team manager...

Nalates · **Posted:** Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:39 pm

zander_nyrond wrote:

I think the concept of "poisonous people" is one that any community can well do without.

That seems like an ostridge-head in the sand philosophy... or may be you are referring to a labeling problem...

We could do well without 'poisonous people' but since they exist knowing how to deal with them and having a label is basic survival. There are people that run agendas and will say whatever to promote that agenda (American politics right now is an excellent example and parallels our open source discussions in many ways). We have seen that recently in our community in regard to a rogue shard. A number of people were putting out inaccurate information and others were correcting it. Knowing how to deal with it is important here and in RL.

One really needs to understand what the Google Team was talking about when they applied the label 'poisonous people' rather than make up one's own definition. While that unique and colorful label works well in their video context in the wild it is open to people being lazy and assuming they understand its meaning and reacting. But I have yet to hear a more accurate or definitive label for use in general context.

Emor D'ni Lap is correct, arbitrary labels and people applying them capriciously creates problems and confusion. But that is true of all labels. Racist is used capriciously for a captious advantage in debates/arguments all the time. There is really nothing one can do to preventatively defend against what another will say. Only by people understanding the problems and labels (knowing what is really racist and what is not) can the real problem be seen and dealt with.

When a knowledgeable group of people hears a speaker/writer put forth claims/ideas they know are false/inaccurate they discredit the speaker/writer and move on. The labels they apply to another then do more damage to the speaker/writer than the intended target. Only those ignorant of the situation and issue are duped. In RL politicians count on ignorance.

When people move to a discussion of how something was said rather than the point of what was said we move into the world of politically correct speak. That stalls the discussion. It is a propaganda tactic well known and well used in politics to shape opinion and belief. Emor's dislike of a usage and where it can lead are related to the importance defining a project. I don't really see the connection but it does make his point in an odd sort of way. He is right on in that defining a project and, I think, defining terms are important and his point.

The use of arbitrary and subjective terms is part of conversation. When one says "the perfect is the enemy of the good" we all know from the context what is being discussed and what the writer/speakers intent and meaning is, usually. While Engish is ambiguous and we often misunderstand the meaning that is what questions and clarifications are about. Getting tied up in side issues like word usage is part of what the overall concept of dealing with "poisonous people" is about. Someone demanding a 'perfect' solution for programming code or a social issue can block a 'good', read as usable, solution and delay everything. Eric seems to transfer away from the original point and use it as an example for his different point. That is what people do. If one stays on Eric's point how he says it or substantiates it is not an issue.

Handling 'poisonous people' is a harsh colorful euphemism for a complex concept about real issues and staying on point. Unfortunately many people instinctively have a sense of what type of person is meant so it works well. I don't really care about whether it is PC or not. I do care whether the community understands the concepts and grows.

semplerfi · **Posted:** Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:38 pm

"This is why we can’t have nice things…"

Frisky Badger · **Joined:** Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:48 pm **Posts:** 746

Emor D'ni Lap wrote:

Look at Cyan's ages. Are they perfect? No, we can all find little flaws here and there. But it's clear, to me at least, that they were striving for as much perfection as possible, and that tons of effort went into polishing details far beyond what would be considered merely "good" by many a team manager...

That's the whole point, though. At some point Cyan had to stop trying to make it perfect and say, "it's good enough." If they hadn't, Uru would never have existed as more than a concept. Striving for perfection is fine as long as you also recognize that at some point you will have to settle for "good enough".

Emor D'ni Lap · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am **Posts:** 587

Frisky Badger wrote:

That's the whole point, though. At some point Cyan had to stop trying to make it perfect and say, "it's good enough." If they hadn't, Uru would never have existed as more than a concept. Striving for perfection is fine as long as you also recognize that at some point you will have to settle for "good enough".

No, I'm sorry - my point was precisely that I believe Cyan pushed far beyond what most cost-conscious project managers would consider "good enough".

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:24 am

Emor D'ni Lap wrote:

my point was precisely that I believe Cyan pushed far beyond what most cost-conscious project managers would consider "good enough".

With world class talent whose "good enough" surpasses our "perfection."

You can both be right.

Ed Oscuro · **Posted:** Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:15 pm

"Perfection" isn't attainable or even possible, even though the games are an abstraction of reality. There's always something that could be done to enhance or extend a game.

Cyan put gameplay and looks first, and I agree they put a lot of effort into it (then again, the whole point of Uru is to look nice and have good puzzles; it's just an expensive type of game to make per hour of gameplay).

There's a good number of issues with the geometry that could stand being looked at and possibly corrected though. It also might be nice to give it a lighting overhaul, etc. although that seems definitely like a wish list sort of item - I'd be happy to keep it at the level it's already at so I can play it on my laptop and other people don't have to upgrade their computarz.

Karkadann · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:33 pm

How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People

Who is online