If open source projects operate as a meritocracy then why do they often develop so much politics? Projects often have a leader - I can understand why, someone needs to make the final decision or commit. These leaders come to the top because of their ability. However, when the leader stops having any interest in the project it seems to me that people are very wary of saying "X hasn't done anything for six months and is killing the project, Y (or I) want to be in charge". Here's advice to you: stop being touchy-feely about open source politics and JFDI.
(In some respect, this applies to companies too: salary should be linked to profit for the company rather than number of meetings or underlings).
Discuss.
Re:Politics is people!
Alias on 2007-03-04T19:33:22
I've now written, taken over, and given up control over a fair number of modules.
I very much think that one of the underlying problems with a lot of open source projects is that the leader themselves don't know how and when to clearly hand-off a project to the next person with 1. Enough time, and 2. The skills (in that order) to provide continuity for the project.
Re:Politics is people!
pudge on 2007-03-14T03:37:55
spake acme:If open source projects operate as a meritocracy then why do they often develop so much politics?Basically (although this can be summed up in the subject line), the merits of a particular person or idea are not always obvious, and are usually quite subjective, which leads to argument and faction.
Profit is a mostly objective form of merit in business (although I disagree that salary should be linked only to profit, but also to replacability and so on, though maybe acme would include that as well; it's not like he went into detail), but where's the objective merit in Perl? I wrote this module, you wrote that one. Mine is more useful, but yours is more clever (or vice versa if it pleases you:-). Maybe the measurement is speed, which can be objective, but maybe it differs on machines, and then you subjectively pick which machines are more important.
As long as merit is not objectively quantifiable, we will have disagreement; and as long as people are prone to defend their views, we will have argument; as long as people stick to their arguments and refuse to easily give in, we will have politics.
I think the key is simply to choose people to work with -- when possible -- who are capable of giving in easily, when appropriate. I disagree with lots of my coworkers (including my boss) on lots of things, but I pick my battles, and when the decision has been made, I accept it with no reservations (usually) and JFDI. I've been working with most of the same people now for seven years (four of us coders about that long, and three others more recently), and we really have almost no politics (except actual politics, which we discuss separately from our work:-). It's quite nice!
