Community vs Centralized Development

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search


On the occasion of MediaWiki's move from volunteer to professional development, Aryeh Gregor comments on the distinction between the two models:

"Let me begin with definitions. I will draw a basic distinction between community development and centralized development. I'll start with two motivating examples.

Firefox is developed by a community. Everything involved in the project and its development is open. Most of the work is done by employees of Mozilla, and all important decisions are made by employees of Mozilla, but anyone on the Internet can view what's happening and get involved. Bugs you open might get ignored forever, and you might have to poke people a bunch to get patches reviewed, and you might have to tolerate a considerable amount of bluntness and follow other people's marching orders if you want to contribute anything. But in principle, any random person in the world can make largely the same contributions as a Mozilla employee.

Internet Explorer is developed by a centralized team. They have blogs where they sometimes share detailed info about their development process and reasoning. They very carefully read all user feedback left in the comments. They have a bug tracker where anyone can file bugs, and they guarantee that they'll look at and attempt to reproduce every single bug filed in a timely fashion. But although they pay close attention to feedback, giving feedback is the only way you can really participate without getting hired by Microsoft. You can't write any code, or have a voice in discussions at all comparable to an IE team member.

These examples illustrate some important things:

  • Community development does not mean democracy. Even in a totally

community-oriented project, all decisions might ultimately be made by a small group of individuals. (For instance, in the case of the Linux kernel, one person.)

  • Community development does not mean community members do most of the

work. From what I've heard, employees of Mozilla write most of Firefox's code, but it's still completely community-oriented development.

  • Listening to feedback is not the same as actually involving the

community. Even a totally closed project can be extremely attentive to feedback. In fact, it's common for community projects to be *less* receptive to feedback, taking a "we'll listen to you when you write the code" attitude.

Keeping these in mind, I'll characterize a perfectly community-based development process like this: your say in the project is proportional to your contributions, and nothing prevents you from contributing as much as your time and ability allow. If you happen to be paid, it doesn't give you any additional say -- you just happen to be able to spend more time contributing. The decision-making process is open and transparent, and arguments are weighed on the basis of their merits and the speaker's history of contributions. This is of course not fully attainable in practice, but one can see how close or far a project is from the ideal.

Centralized and community development processes both have advantages and disadvantages. Some of the advantages of centralized development (as relevant to open-source projects) are:

  • Paid employees don't have to spend time reviewing code from a lot of

people who will only ever contribute a few patches, so they don't duplicate effort teaching everyone their project's coding conventions, or even educating them on basic things like XSS.

  • Because discussion can be private and everyone is more likely to be

in similar time zones, it's possible to rely heavily on face-to-face or voice communication, which a lot of people are more comfortable with and which is a lot more efficient.

  • Since there are many fewer developers, they can socialize and get to

know each other, reducing conflict and argument.

  • Full-time developers don't have to try coordinating with volunteers

who may only be available at odd times or who may disappear randomly for weeks.

In short, centralized development allows employees' time to be spent more on actual coding, and less on communication. It's (at least superficially) more efficient. On the other hand, community development has advantages as well:

  • You get work done for free. If it's easier to volunteers to make a

meaningful difference, you'll get many more volunteers. Once they're up to speed, you don't have to watch over them much more than you would an employee, but you get their work for free.

  • You can hire community developers. You already know how good they

are and they don't need to be brought up to speed with your codebase, saving you a lot of money and trouble compared to advertising for applicants.

  • Your software becomes more versatile, because volunteers will work

on aspects that interest them even if they aren't in the interest of the controlling organization. This gets you more users and more developers.

Although there are superficial efficiency advantages to centralizing development, experience indicates that community-based development can be much more cost-effective in practice. Projects like Mozilla and Apache (and for that matter Wikimedia until recently) make software that's very competitive with centrally-developed competitors at a fraction of the cost.

On top of that, of course, the idea of centralized development is contrary to Wikimedia's ideals. Just as the Board is trying to pursue individual donations over corporate sponsorship, it fits with Wikimedia's goals and structure to have as community-oriented a structure as possible. Projects like Mozilla make it clear that this is attainable and productive.

Returning to the concept of community development, let's look at two key things: actual coding, and decision-making. In community-based development, anyone who's willing to write good code can get it submitted and included into the product. Someone with a greater history of contributions will be able to get their code included more easily, but only because the development community is willing to trust them more. They get by with less review, and the review is more readily given because of a greater expectation that it will be productive. Similarly, when it comes to decision-making, anyone has an equal opportunity to try convincing the decision-makers (who might be only one or a few people) of their point of view. In the end, the decision is made by appointed decision-makers, but with great deference toward the opinions of other established contributors." (