Peter Maloney wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 08:56 AM, Vlad wrote:
>> We know what needs to be done in general, now it is time we start
>> systematizing things.
>> We need a TODO list and to prioritize our work IMO.
> I don't know why they decided to do it this way, but they seem to want
> to get some infrastructure like a build system, wiki, etc. first before
> this sort of basic organized planning. But you can probably go to
> #devuan and suggest something you are interested in, and ask if anyone
> is already working on it.
>

Well... historically, serious open source projects, including things as
big as Linux:

- start with one person or a small team taking the project to a first
release (or onward)
- THEN, the team starts to engage more people - as a way to get more
things done, and to provide for ongoing support
- sometime after that, they get organized (formal roles, legal
organization, etc.) - because longevity demands it

This process is generally the same, whether the project starts as a
grant funded academic project (say NCSA web daemon, which eventually
became Apache), or as an internal corporate project (e.g, Zope), or even
venture-funded open-source startups (I'm blanking on a good example).

I'm actually somewhat surprised that the Duvuan team announced so early,
rather than announcing once they had some core code running. Though
maybe the shakeout in the Linux world might warrant planting a flag. (I
might have said something more like "we're doing this, watch this space,
expect something in 3 months.")

Tools, though are another thing entirely. Better to have basic
development, build, distribution, and and documentation infrastructure
in place early - it simplifies development, and later you're too busy to
do it right. Also makes it easier to involve additional people if you
have that in place.

Just one man's observations and opinions, of course.

Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra