Alan's Summary on the devel List about the latest Official FG world

[IAHM-COL]

On the Forum there is yet another acrimonious discussion. This time
(https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=28265 ) which has three
threads.

The first is about an particular author wanting to retain some copyright
control over his work.
The second is about the ethics of simulating military aircraft
The third is about the role of core developers.

The first is a natural consequence of being GPL, and my opinion is that we
should find a way to support non GPL additions in some manner. By doing
this Flightgear will likely have some greatly improved external content.
The Flightgear engine is superb but, with a few noticeable exceptions, the
average quality of the aircraft in the official hangar is heavily biased
towards cosmetics and novice pilot use rather than realism and accuracy.

The second is that Thorsten, a core developer, made the statement on the
Forum "there's a consensus among the core contributors that FG is supposed
to be a civilian simulator, so weapons support by and large faces a hard
time being committed." I respect his pacifist views, but do not think that
they should be forced on the FG community as a whole. Flying high
performance military aircraft is an entirely different experience than that
found in a Cessna or an Airbus. In particular I question his statement that
"FG is supposed to be a civilian simulator".

This brings me to the third part , which is probably the most important.

My opinion is that is time that Flightgear is established as a normal club,
which has some kind of constitution, rules, committee, roles, officers, aims
etc. At the moment it has none of these (at least not published), and
muddling on without them is likely to produce repeat performances. We have
lost several key developers/contributors in recent years, leaving big holes
in their wake. Most of these have left suddenly and silently, which has
left me with quite a few worries.

I have kept this post deliberately brief.

Seasons greetings

Alan

[legoboyvdlp]

Hit the nail on the head...

[bomber]

Seconded

[Lydiot]

I'm obviously not as knowledgeable about the politics of FG as some of you guys are, but doesn't some of what he says remind us of some of the points in the 'development push' thread? I'm thinking about restructuring and discussions about people suddenly leaving etc.....

Interesting stuff.... from a sociological perspective...

[bomber]

As I've had my oar in all those issues there's nothing that's not been asked for on many occasions. .

But I expect that yet again any fruitfull and constructive conversation will be kept off the forum, making..

Mailing list = good
Forum = bad

[IAHM-COL]

I hope you ammend as in

Curtis' Forum == bad

And that's a mathematical equality

[jwocky]

He he, IAHM-COL knows, I love mathematical correct equations!
But seriously, we can have the discussions about subjects here, but we have a way to copy them over and there is no guarantee, the "keepers of power" won't cut them down.

[SkyBoat]

Jwocky is quite right in his assessment regarding the "Keepers of the Power."

I can independently corroborate Alan Teeder's comment,

. We have
lost several key developers/contributors in recent years, leaving big holes
in their wake. Most of these have left suddenly and silently, which has
left me with quite a few worries.

I have read many transcripts of developers' letters, provided to me by Hooray, resigning from FlightGear over a period of years for a variety of reasons. The ones I read did not leave as suddenly or quietly as Alan suggests, although he may be aware of others who simply disappeared.

And based on the contents of those letters from at least five different individuals, the concerns are far from new and neither are a number of the key "reasons" those developers left, if you catch my drift.

Of, course, things being what they are, I no longer have access to those letters on the original forum. Which is for the best from my perspective.