The application period for candidates is over. We have 23 candidates. alfred and obrien jumped into the boat in the last hours. Although some candidates are still working on rewriting their statements, there are some interesting statements I like to cite, as the voting period will start tomorrow, and I have not yet decided who will sit in my dreamcore.
Are hackers not users? Do users have different needs than hackers? Does the Core team deal with user issues or kernel hackers issues?
Desktop users are important, because they are reporting a lot of bugs, that are not as easy to detect on servers, e.g. one of the best testing application for libpthread was XMMS, because users immediately reported, when their sound hiccups. But I don’t think we have the resources to compete with MacOSX or Windows at the Moment.
I am glad that I wrote kuriyama an encouraging email and that he decided to run for core again. I definetely like his attitude and I really hope he will get enough votes to continue working on core. FreeBSD has like many OpenSource project too many wannabe-leaders. The result are the endless bikesheds about the future. I think the role of core is not so much that they should lead FreeBSD into the future and all developers running behind them, but they should try to keep the different pieces together.
I have written last month in this blog, that I don’t agree with this statement. markm says “I do FreeBSD because its fun.” And I think bringing money into the project automagically takes away the fun.
I have to agree with obrien. Unfortunately it appears to be the nature of the project that you will get sucked into it the longer you contribute. And I really wonder why obrien is running for core, as although he is one of those 100% FreeBSD addicted, he is also one of those guys who already wears many hats (Toolchain maintainer, Being on RE for several platforms, FSF/GNU contact…).
It looks like he resisted from writing over-ambitous. I bet some of the goals for 5.x will not be fullfilled with 6.0. While I agree that it is necessary to define goals, it is not possible for OpenSource projects to define long-term timelines.
This is IMHO the main reason for the failure of the 5.x development. Instead of trying to finish the TODO list for 5.x, the developers should focus on making 5.x stable enough for branching 5-STABLE. (Note that I did not write stable but stable enough.)