I had the privilege tonight to listen to Stephen Downes present the software that he uses to run his Stephen’s Web site. Stephen has created a fairly complex system in Perl that allows him to grab, read, remix and post information from a variety of sources/feeds.
In the Q&A time, I asked Stephen whether the vey nature of open source requires a hierarchy. The motivation behind the question was simply that I have noticed that for every great piece of software I’ve seen, it has begun with some person scratching their personal itch (ie. solving whatever workflow problem they have). This one person creates a (usually) complex system that allows them to do whatever they need to do. Then, once the software is usable, others begin to become interested in it, and collaboration begins. However, the person who started the project has a higher place on the totem pole, by virtue of the duration of their time with the project, as well as their greater familiarity with the code.
Stephen’s response was, if I understood him correctly (I’ll have to go back and listen to the recording again to be sure), was that heirarchy is not required, since a person can simply fork the code (begin their own version of the software) at any point. While this is true, I am not at all convinced that this removes the heirarchy. Does it not in fact simply create a second one (one in the original project, and one that begins with the new fork)? I am terribly intrigued with the collaborative process of open source software, but it seems to me that it must always begin with a “benevolant dictator” (to quote the Python community in reference to its creator, Guido Rossum).
I don’t think that beginning the collaboative, open source process with an individual makes it any less powerful. I just think it’s important to recognize that all good projects (that I can think of or imagine) must start through an individual, not a collective. Does anyone have a good example of when this has not been the case? I’d love to hear of it if it exists.
People who claim to be founders of projects, even open source projects, need to viewed with a critical lens. I believe that greatness often comes from at least a dynamic duo. A second person often causes each partner to reflect more critically over their own work Apple had the Steves, Jobs and Woz. Microsoft had Gates and Allen. Sonny had Cher. You assert that a person who begins an open source project is by default at a ‘higher place on the totem pole’. This may be self projected importance. The world is littered with folks who claim to be the sole person in charge and source of the brilliance. Did you know that Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia founding fame, was actually a co-founder?[1] Actually, Jimmy edited his own wikipedia entry to indicate that he was the founder (removing the letters “c” & “o”
[2]. The collaboration may not always begin with a team of people, but there are examples of a dynamic duo achieving remarkable success. Let’s not get distracted by what people tell others about their own self importance.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
[2] http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880
Comment by Ben Hazzard — March 11, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
Thanks for the examples, Ben. I’m not sure all of them hold water (from what I understand, Woz was the technical brains behind the original Apple machines, Jobs just acted as the brilliant sales/connection guy), but I appreciate the idea nonetheless. However, even if co-founders did make equal contributions to the project, are they not still the top two people in the hierarchical chain? Whether it is one, two or ten people at the top of the hierarchy does not change the answer to the question: “does the vey nature of open source requires a hierarchy?”.
Comment by danschellenberg — March 11, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
The issue that I take with your post is specifically focused on the claim that individuals create in isolation. This example of social creation begins to hint at your premise that hierarchy emerges which I will revisit later. The questions that your singular creator concept begs are:
1) What is the moment of creation?
2) Is it when an idea is hatched, or an object is created, or when the world learns about it?
Two people may take joint claim to a project if they work in parallel but with different roles contributing to the advancement of the idea. There were many initial computers being developed in the time frame of Jobs & Woz but Apple has the longevity. Could the interplay of two individuals with divergent talents have contributed to their success?
I agree with your premise that hierarchy emerges. Even within the previously cited partnerships (Jimmy Wales & Larry Sanger, Jobs and Woz, Gates and Allen, & let’s not forget Sonny & Cher) one person emerged as the figure head over time. The hierarchy does emerge within these partnerships. Our understanding of the initial partnership must not be clouded by our understanding of current dominance within the partnership (intellectual, creative, financial, or social dominance).
Open source communities also show a hierarchy over time. The “founder” (who may have survived the initial fight for dominance) does become the leader. This leadership may be embodied within the acts of the founder to facilitate the community’s work on the project. Dries from Drupal fame still organizes the large Drupal development community. [1] He also retains significant social capital as evidenced at his delivery of the ‘State of Drupal’ speaches. [2] This not only shows evidence of social capital but of a person who perceives his own dominance as well. The delivering a ‘State of Drupal’ speech indicated you believe yourself to be the leader as well. Dries is the leader within the Drupal community, and uses his social position to facilitate others and also proclaim information from the drupal point of view.
The one issue that Stephen neglected is hinted at within your hierarchy. Is learning social? Can we truly only have intellectual discussions without a social component? When multiple people come together the social dynamic emerges (even when people come together online).
[1] http://drupal.org/node/217702
[2] http://buytaert.net/state-of-drupal-presentation-september-2007
Comment by Ben Hazzard — March 12, 2008 @ 9:46 am
[...] following is a compilation / edit of comments on http://dansramblings.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/stephen-downes-and-open-source/. This followed a session that Stephen Downes held with Alec Couros’ grad class that I was [...]
Pingback by learning, together — March 12, 2008 @ 1:39 pm