WARNING LEVEL High. FGMEMBERS under official Attack!

[IAHM-COL]

Hi and sorry for top post,

Don't be so eager on the ban hammer, instead see this confrontation as an opportunity to improve FG core processes. It may be that there are real issues that could be addresed, and misinformation towards the users can be combatted with clear and repeated statements clarifying why one method is better than the others. We did not fight flightprosim directly, we simply said.the truth and eventually it is Flightgear that survives not flightprosim.
Just resist the temptation to go authoritarian on the forums as that might put off some users.
My two cents as a former contributor.
Cheers,
Adrian

[IAHM-COL]

Adrian Musceac wrote:
> misinformation towards the
> users can be combatted with clear and repeated statements clarifying
> why one method is better than the others.

That's precisely the problem. We have better things to do than
repeating clear statements. Like, for example, improving aircraft
instead. The people who have made the clear and repeated statements
are getting tired of it and of the repeated statements that contradict
their *official* message on the *official* forum.

Free software is not a democracy, it is a do-ocracy. If you think
a ban (temporary or permanent) is overkill at this point, please step
forward as a moderator who will rectify each and every attempt to
disrupt the development of FGAddon, encourage forking without merging,
or encourage illegal practices like changing the license of a file
without the consent or knowledge of the copyright holder, or encourage
the inclusion of content of doubtful origin without any due diligence.
From what I see on the forums, that is a lot of work. I for one will
not waste my time doing this. As stated, I have better things to do.

[IAHM-COL]

Hi Adrian,

You are exactly right, we have largely let this situation play out on it's own and tried to exercise patience and understanding. Everyone here is eager for a happy successful FlightGear community, we are not eager for other suggested actions. We have been trying our best to steer a straight course, be open, honest, and fair. We all hope that this would work itself through and we could all come out with a better understanding of each other and in a stronger place as a flightgear community. That is how relationships typically develop if you stick with them and if everyone is honestly working for the best possible outcome. We often have different perspectives and ideas, but they usually make some sense once we understand the other side and realize we are all working for the common good. Sadly this situation has not seen movement in a positive direction, with the key proponent actively creating division and confusion within the community as one of his key stated tactics. It continues to create disruption, stress, and a lot of extra effort on the part of the key project personal dealing with this. We would much rather spend our time working together to improve and extend FlightGear.

Best regards,

Curt.

[IAHM-COL]

> Don't be so eager on the ban hammer, instead see this confrontation as
> an opportunity to improve FG core processes. It may be that there are
> real issues that could be addresed, and misinformation towards the users
> can be combatted with clear and repeated statements clarifying why one
> method is better than the others.

I agree that there are real issues to be addressed, and that the way we deal e.g. with prospective new contributors isn't optimal, neither is the information flow between people experiencing a problem and people who are able to help. However, as long as we are busy to make clear and repeated clarifying statements, we can't work on that. You can browse through my record of forum posts, I imagine at least 50% of my time has been spent trying to make clear statements against FGMembers misinformation. Clearly way too much - time I could have spent e.g. mentoring someone.

> We did not fight flightprosim directly, we simply said.the truth and eventually it is
> Flightgear that survives not flightprosim.

I think on the one occasion where the flightprosim person tried to post on the FG forum, he was banned an hour later. We did never let flightprosim advertize on FG infrastructure, make forum posts or insert the website into the wiki. So I think this is argument factually wrong - we did ban it from our infrastructure, and this contributed much to a reasonable solution.

> Just resist the temptation to go authoritarian on the forums as that might put off
> some users.

I think that's been done for the last months. Several developers have weathered personal insults in addition to the disruption and still the decision was to keep allowing FGMembers to use the FG infrastructure, have their own subforum and the wiki. Evaluating the past months, my conclusion is that this has significantly worsened the situation.

Yes, it will put off some users, but I see this as the lesser of two evils at this point. There are unfortunately no good choices left right now.

[IAHM-COL]

Personal insults are a nono, I'd definetely use the ban hammer for that. Sorry if I may sound silly, I've been out of the loop for a long time, I can hardly follow this list.
Cheers,

[jwocky]

Thanks for posting this. Of course, measure like "automatic harassment" of community members will cause some "recognition" in the wider field of the open source community. What about Ubutnu canonical for example ... is a project that is so dictatorial ruled still "open source" in their sense or would that cause them to rethink whether FG should be still distributed via the Software Center. Of course, the same question may comes up with other distributions. And what about Google and their "Summer of Code". There is a lot at stake, and as much I would like to stop our self-declared masters and their wilful helpers to damage themselves and the whole project, I have no idea how. So I have to assume in their delusion of power, they will escalate and will do more damage.

[IAHM-COL]

Hi All,

I've received a message about the following in my email this morning,
from someone concerned that I am comparing FlightProSim with
FGMEMBERS.

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Torsten D and I discussed the situation last night on the weekly
> hangout. We think it would be a good idea to produce an official
> "statement" regarding FGMEMBERS, as we did a while back when there was
> confusion about companies selling FlightGear commercially under a
> different name (http://www.flightgear.org/flightprosim.html). The
> idea is that it would reflect the consensus of the core development
> group, and include an FAQ to help answer questions users or aircraft
> developers may have.

To be absolutely clear, the reference was to the _process_ of
producing a statement from the core project, rather than to compare
FPS to FGMEMBERS. Clearly they are quite different challenges to the
project.

Apologies if that was not sufficiently clear.

[IAHM-COL]

I repost this here in case that it automagically dissapears from http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.p ... 15#p257373

I am very happy to read your answer Stuart, and realize that there is hope in understanding.
I totally agree with your post above.

1. About JWocky ban. We already interacted about this. You have your feeling of what was needed, and you did it. I can't agree or disagree. I never saw or read what happened. all the facts that motivated the decision were clean out. So for what's worth, you are right by default.

I thank your group for good sense, and not using moderation as a weapon in a flame war. I know you can realize that with great power comes greater responsibility.

2. Apologies accepted. The comparison sickens me. FPS can go to hell, and my alliance is 100% to the flightgear project.

Truly FGMEMBER can be a challenge (and it is a challenge) to the project. We are all learning to realize the full potential of FGMEMBERs and how it can help the project growth, aircraft testing, and developers base. I had seen lots of interest and popularity on FGMEMBERS as it eases not only contributions, but also new contributors to learn both SCMs and aircraft development. FG grows faster and stronger thanks to FGMEMBERS exist.

At the same time, FGADDon is providing a safe heaven, and a more robust and solid platform where aircraft is protected from the fast currents of FGMEMBERS.

I am definitely interested in see how FG project adapt to these challenges and funnels them for the common good of our community

[IAHM-COL]

Again makins usre htis answer does not disappear
http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.p ... 89#p257389

Hi Cain. These are my answers to your very valid questions.

[quote="cain071546";p=257388]can someone clarify some things for me?

1) FGADDON is the official aircraft repo correct?
[/quote]

Correct. FGADDon is the Official Aircraft repo. FGMEMBERS was offered to the core developers a few months back for replacing FGADDon with FGMEMBERS but they considered better to stick with the good old. From that day they make the decision to today, FGADDon stands as the Core Developers endorsed Aircraft repository.

2) and people seemed to think it was too difficult to get aircraft accepted into FGADDON so they created FGMEMBERS correct?

It certainly ain't easy. We have, per example, the DASH aircraft, which was rejected inclusion on several accounts, under several arguments. The core developers had drafted and will soon release a "modus operandi compendium" of what are the methods to include or not aircraft in FGADDon. But certainly it cannot be all inclusive. Also, gaining commits rights is a negotiation of its own, and new and inexpert developers may not have that clear of a path. Stability, safety reasons, others.

More importantly, FGADDon operates on the basis of Aircraft maintainers. Thus, people that have a final saying on what can be modified and what cannot. Some of them can be extremely jealous of their artistic creations. And thus, new changes or contributions have a very slim option to ever be accepted, if ever.

FGMEMBERS was created not only to ease those transitions, but also as a mechanisms to decentralize aircraft development for FG effectively. What this means is that aircraft can be developed elsewhere. The venerable hangars are an example of decentralization efforts that take a limited subset of aircraft.

FGMEMBERS had strived for inclusion. Even very old outdated aircrafts can be found. As well as the more modern and updated fleet of our simulator, and for this reason, and the fact that getting single aircraft from FGMEMBERS with the lastest of the changes the developers made (the most updated bleeding edge) is sooo easy, it has become rapidly some defacto library of Aircraft for flightgear, very popular and beloved. (except by a few).

3) why does FGMEMBERS impact the flightgear community at all? other then as a benefit ie: haveing models from all over the internet in one place

FGMEMBERS only impact the community as a benefit. Aircrafts are there rapidly available. It allows most users to become beta testers --that is, to potentially feel and fly the latest version, and produce bug reports on the latest aircraft (not an outdated stable). It also allow rapid incorporation of fresh blood of new developers that may or may not be very experienced in aircraft development, but be placed in a bench of creativity with other more experienced developers, allowing new users to get faster up to speed in both Source Code Management, and aircraft edition. All this with the added advantage that they are not compromising critical core infrastructure.

It is a big win win for the community.

The fear of a few core developers that FGMEMBERS is foreseen as the official aircraft repository leads to continuous flaming wars in the forum, and some had even proposed that speak about FGMEMBERS should be forbidden for the alledged good of the community. The flaming war is all caused by their continuous antagonisms when other forum users (FGMEMBERS proponents and not) are trying to guide other users into how to benefit for this really awesome tool in the FG ecosystem.

4) why don't the core developers simply continue their day to day work and just "cherry pick" the nicest aircraft in FGMEMBERS for admittance into FGADDON?

Great question. I really hope they do.
FGMEMBERS is benefited from their efforts concentrated in positive production as well. Weekly a cronjob upates all aircraft with changes they made, and keep the organization up to speed with the changes they --the core developers and FGADDon commiters-- propose!

Clearly the FGMEMBERS content is opensource, and the GPL area is clearly delimited. They could cherry pick nicest aircrafts, and even nicest commits in a two way road. and Let FGADDon and thus the community in general have the greater benefit.

The main leaders of the infrastructure could also see the great synergy FGMEMBERS has brought to our community and rejoice, for the great thrust the project has and thus benefit: So much new blood pushing hard and strong for a more inclusive and more open Flightgear Flight Simulator.

5) why is that hard?

Great question. I have no much to say.
There is a past written, and there is fear and uncertainty of, how Stuart says, how the Flightgear will face the new challenges. But certainly, the support of the core developers, will help ease the difficulties. We, in the user level, can't.

6) and why did this "argument" have to be taken this far?

Well... I guess you have to understand that the presence of an active FGMEMBERS is an unexpected benefit the core developers weren't calculating. Again, there has been fear of what there is for the project; which I find myself at great ease, because we all belong to the community, and we all belong to the project.

just asking =)

Thanks. I wonder what others have to say

Best,
IH-COL

[IAHM-COL]

Protecting more post of casual bin trash
http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.p ... 95#p257395


[quote="cain071546";p=257391]this doesn't make sense to me.
so we all know the core developers job can be hard, but they are the reason that Flightgear is here today, i respect that alot.
[/quote]

I don't know how hard it is. But it certainly requires intimate knowledge of the code and all its components. The project is large and complex, full of sub-routines, and dependencies. I personally don't understand core development of flightgear, even thou I had glazed over the source code, so others are more fit to enter in this topics if needed. We both respect that a lot. The most important thing is how the software had largely improved on the last releases, and continues an steady increase. Furthermore it is alone in the landscape of free flight simulators that are truly openSource. (XPlane people will excuse my opinion here, I guess!)

if they are so concerned with what goes into FGADDON then why do they still have lots of low quality models in the repo?

FGADDon inherited every aircraft previously existing on the FGDATA git repositories that existed in Gitorious until FG 3.2
Quality was not considered as a limit of exclusion for these.

Quality is, again, a new parameter of inclusion; and apparently, new aircrafts need to prove themselves worthy of the collection -- with this probably meaning they have to be better than the bunch.

Keep in mind thou it is a matter of classes. (Classes of people, off course). FGADDon commiters could easily add a new aircraft. They don't need votes or agreements. So, inclusion of both code and full aircrafts by a committer goes easy; almost unchecked. For people without commit priviledges, that seems not to be the case. New contributions go via the devel list where they can end up sparking a series of controversies, and be rejected unless a certain set of criteria are met. Think of HerbyW Antonovs series, which by the way are much better than most FG aircrafts!! Sure, they were spun off Helijah's Aircrafts, and thus it became hard to understand why allow a new aircraft when another variant of the aircraft (much undeveloped) existed.

Similar fate suffered by Herby's spun on the Shuttle, which faced heavy competition by Thorsten and his group, and with a similar fatal fate. The contributions as new aircrafts did not meet an unexplained quality value. While other aircrafts brake the unknown quality thresholds and either come in (dhc6, b788) or get scheduled for inclusion (crj700).

Finally, more directly addressing your question (again, purely my perspective) -- it is very hard to decide an aircraft is of an unmet quality and send it to the "Attic". How to judge an aircraft is tipically subjective, and determining thresholds very complex. Again, active maintainers could not only block contributions to certain un-impressive aircraft, but also be very jealous of letting their beauties go. And how they say in the devel list, aircrafts can be very useless for some, but great treasures for others.

All together, I do not say the core developers letting go a set of aircraft under pretenses of low quality. And we all are aware that some of those aircraft qualities are very far from the best of the lot.

why not unload all the low quality models onto FGMEMBERS?

They are already there!
Every aircraft in FGADDon also exists in FGMEMBERS!

And some of the low quality ones, have a few commits that make them more useable! So in certain cases, the FGMEMBERS' version is already arguably better and more functional.

This happens thanks to the fact that so much more contributors have an easier path to fix bugs. And the fact that contributors find a more expedite way to feel themselves of use to the project.

I can ease your worry thou that a low quality aircraft in FG is an excelsior in FGMEMBERS. We don't have those. We just have them a little less worse.

it would decrease the number and size of files in FGADDON making it easier to maintain, they would have 20-30 of the best models to include in future FG releases.

That's a cold-ice hardcore threshold :S
besides, why would the core developers rely on aircraft maintainance elsewhere (?!)

if one of the devs wants a model added to FGADDON then it should be just as hard for them and should be of the same very high quality ie: f-14/a-10/777/cap10b/cub ect.

Truly, other users, such as Vincent KL666 also have your same point of view, that FGADDon should really honor the guarantee that is the collection of La creme de la creme of aircrafts for Flightgear. I just find hard to judge who honors inclusion in such conditions.

otherwise why cant we (devs and community members) just work out of FGMEMBERS until it becomes apparent that the model should be added to FGADDON?

This is the really hard pressing question. Why can't we just work on FGMEMBERS and enjoy FG, and share planes, and enjoy a platform that allows us to modify aircrafts and have fun with them; while learning a lot and creating community?
Why there has to be Official Rejection, or Consider that Officially we should be limited to enjoy FG in this new way?
Who said we had to fly the aircraft as officially made, and we can't use the GPL license to modify them, and experiment them?
Why if we, as a community, enjoy of this, we had to be made prey of prosecution, and aggressions, of core developers that have to come every day with the same repeated you are not official storyline?

That is, I repeat, a really hard pressing question!

if the original author wants to LOCK access to an aircraft why not let them?
many of the authors also have the original version on their own websites/hangars
just fork it, but please rename it so i can have both installed!

That's the point. An author can fork the aircraft and manage his own fork as he seems fit. He can Lock access to every contribution as he seems fit, or allow openly the community to share and collaborate development. Currently, FGMEMBERS fork (repo) is open access to any "Member" as they have push access to the repo.

Github platform make completely possible to organize a very granular push access control on individual repositories to subgroups called teams. FGMEMBERS has about 18 teams. But not a central coordination to determine which team "owns" the write priviledges of any of the repositories. So, Yes, it is possilbe. No, currently we don't operate that way.

that's all my ideas.

Kuddos
IH-COL