On the Current State of Affairs in FlightGear

[drdavid]

--An Open Letter to the Community

To My Friends in FlightGear:

The current controversy in FlightGear between FGMEMBERS and FGAddon has grown into a life that far exceeds a simple disagreement over particulars regarding a given project.

The posts have gone through numerous cycles: first provocative, followed with replies, refutations, and arguments that escalate, followed by periods of smoldering, until another post reignites the dispute.

To the casual FG reader, the ever-multiplying posts appear to be locked in a cycle, a mobius strip of infinitely repeating tit-for-tat verbal confrontations that appear to go nowhere.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

--My Initial Observation:

My observation is that FlightGear, as it moves through being a decade and a half old, is going through a massive generational change. Part of it is evolutionary, part revolutionary. However, it is a natural and, therefore, unstoppable, process.

All organizations experience change at about this time in their existence. I know, because in my doctoral dissertation I studied how organizations change. And specifically, I looked at how organizations survive when they enter periods of environmental turbulence that threaten their existence.

--Organizational Turbulence:

What I am about to say will not make everyone happy, but it is based on solid scholarship and cannot be dismissed out of hand simply because you don't like the conclusion of the authors.

I rely on the work of Cameron, Kim and Whetten (1987) titled "Organizational Effects of Decline and Turbulence" published in the Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 32, pp. 222-240. There are many others I could cite, but this article fits our situation most closely.

I will say at the outset, in that my reading of the article, I do not think that FlightGear fits what Cameron, Kim and Whetten describe as an organization in decline, i.e., "in which a substantial, absolute, decrease in an organization's resource base occurs over a specified period of time" (p. 224). I think we have plenty of resources, even a growing number of resources, so we can move to the issue of turbulence
.
--Defining FlightGear's Organizational Turbulence

The authors state: "Turbulence exists when changes faced by an organization are nontrivial, rapid, and discontinuous" (p. 225). That is what I see is happening in FlightGear. After a number of years of generally little in terms of real or perceived challenges to the roles of the core developers, now in the preceding months from 2014 into 2015, from several directions, there have been a number of individuals asking questions about how the core developers are doing their work, wanting more information, and some wanting a piece of the action
.
--How (Some) of the Core Developers Reacted:

Because of the other technical environmental changes facing FlightGear, the amount of time it was taking to address these issues, the frequent posts, from certain developers'/moderator's point of view, was looked upon with varying degrees of welcome. Upsetting the status quo at this time was met with everything from wrist-slapping to threats of being banned from the Forum and denial from more exclusive lists. The requests for change and involvement appear to have been regarded as has having come at the worst time possible. As the situation escalated, FG formally began experiencing "nontrivial, rapid, and discontinuous change: The verbal pushback on both sides became quite strident at times. Not only were sides taken; new sides literally were being created almost on a weekly basis. What, then, were the indicators driving this "discontinuous change?"

--Indicators for Organizational Turbulence:

Here, more context from Cameron, Kim and Whetten, needs to be provided. In their article, they put together a list of twelve items, compiled from their research, that are indicators of organizations that are in a state of dangerous turbulence.

No organization will exhibit all twelve. Many will only manifest perhaps four or five. They provide an essential wake-up call for the core developers. At the same time they also provide an alert to the members how their action may be contributing to the turbulence. But I will come back to that later. Here are the definitions without comment.

Turbulence:

1. Centralization. Decisions are passed upward. Rank and file participation declines.
2. No Long Term Planning. Crises drive out strategic planning.
3. No Innovation. Risk aversion. No experimentation permitted by management.
4. Scapegoating. Leaders and/or selected individuals blamed for all problems.
5. Resistance to Change: Conservatism and turfism lead to rejection of new alternatives
6. Turnover: Most competent leaders leave first.
7. Low Morale: Few needs are met. In-fighting is predominant.
8. No Slack: Uncommitted resources are used to cover operating expenses.
9. Fragmented Pluralism: Special interest groups organize and become more vocal.
10. Loss of Credibility: Leaders lose credibility of subordinates.
11. Non-prioritized Cuts: Attempts to minimize conflict leads to attempts to equalize cutbacks.
12. Conflict: Competition and infighting for control when resources are scarce.

--My Analysis of the CKW List: FlightGear is in Serious Trouble

My assessment of what I will refer in shorthand as the CKW list is that FlightGear is currently in a state of severe turbulence and experiencing no less than seven and maybe eight of the items on the list. Here are my seven. First I will list them, then I will explain my rationale.

2. No Long Term Planning. Crises drive out strategic planning.
3. No Innovation. Risk aversion. No experimentation permitted by management.
4. Scapegoating. Leaders and/or selected individuals blamed for all problems.
5. Resistance to Change. Conservatism and turfism lead to rejection of new alternatives
7. Low Morale. Few needs are met. In-fighting is predominant.
9. Fragmented Pluralism. Special interest groups organize and become more vocal.
10. Loss of Credibility. Leaders lose credibility of subordinates.
12. Conflict. Competition and infighting for control when resources are scarce.
and, probably,
1. Centralization (a variation on it) Decisions are passed upward. Rank and file participation declines

--How to Use the CKW List:

The presentation of the CKW list is not to point fingers as much as it is to illustrate a principle that the authors believe is critical in helping managers AND organization members understand: that unless you are aware of the indicators that are contributing to the turbulence you cannot make adjustments to correct it. We know in flying that is exactly what we have to do. Adjust the aircraft's trim to fly more smoothly through the turbulent air or find another flight level in which the air is smooth. In our relationships, however, we have a hard time applying the same principle. The enormous amount of posts of the forum in this regard is evidence we have not got the relational turbulence figured out.

Let me put it more bluntly with this quote from CKW: "…most managers respond to turbulent environment in a manner opposite to that which is predicted to lead to greater effectiveness." (quoting Bourgeois, McAllister & Mitchell 1978, p. 508). In the Forum environment that has been going round and round for the past few months, this quote, in all fairness, applies not just to the core developers, but on more than one occasion to those who have been challenging them, when they stepped over the bounds of civil discourse.

--To FG Members, FGMEMBERS and Other Developers:

To FG members FGMEMBERS and other developers who are unhappy with the Core Developers, in all fairness, it is essential to remember that many of these individuals have dedicated a significant portion of their professional lives, purely as an act of love, to create, maintain and improve FlightGear. Nobody twisted their arms to take on this often many-headed monster. They can tell more than a few stories where they made mistakes, hit dead ends, and wondered if the whole thing was going to fall apart. I am sure they have as many stories that would leave us gasping for air we would be laughing so hard as they stumbled upon solutions that ended with a big DUH!

FlightGear exists because they took the time to create it. They created it so they could have a flight simulator that was Open Source, not only for all the development and licensing advantages that provides, but so they could offer a free flight simulator to the worldwide community. They designed FlightGear so they could have fun and then they gave it to the entire world. That's the rest of us. We're now having fun, too--even though we may (or may not) have frustrations with the current situation. With a free, Open-Source flight simulator. Making friends around the world. Just as they envisioned. We need to show our appreciation for that, first. And never forget it.

--FlightGear's Second Generation Is Here:

But now I speak directly to the core developers. FlightGear is evolving in and around, through, above and below you. As CKW stated we are in the midst of "nontrivial, rapid, and discontinuous" change. You cannot stop it. No amount of wishing can even slow it down. Change is what organizations must do to continue to grow. Across generations. If they do not, they will die. FlightGear does not get a pass on this.

As such, you are faced with a challenge that you must confront. You have a choice--embrace with it grace and enthusiasm, for it is the promise of the new generation of what FlightGear can become. Or you can continue to present to us in the rank and file the perception that you are afraid of the change, are resistant toward it--as well as--toward us who see things from a different perspective, who bring a new history to FG. Your seeming to have an attitude of trying to thwart the efforts of those who have grabbed onto the excitement of the changes that are already happening and cannot be undone will only make you angrier and create a wave of resistance that will grow until it overwhelms you.

--Train New Core Developers Beginning NOW!

I am not saying that FGMEMBERS is the only solution to this generational change. What I am saying is that you now must begin preparing, carefully, prudently to plan to replace yourselves within the next period of years. Perhaps that is five, perhaps ten, even more. But, if I understand what changes are already at your doorstep, through the efforts of FGMEMBERS and others, a new cohort of Core Developers must be in training in the FlightGear system NOW and be fully trained in less than two years. Not only does this generational change require fresh blood, it requires a planned increase in the number of developers to keep up with the changes to ensure FlightGear operates on a day to day basis.

--Stop Scapegoating IH-COL, JWocky and Others-You've Lost That Fight:

As such, it is time for to stop wrongly seeing individuals such as IH-COL and JWocky, among others, as scapegoats as your adversaries, when, in fact, they could be your greatest allies, if you would acknowledge their unabashed enthusiasm for the game and willingness to spend countless hours improving it in their areas of expertise. Kind of like you. You have long lost the battle of words. The ongoing threats of banning them has cost you credibility from which you may never recover because you have no way to fairly enforce it in the eyes of the Forum participants.

--The Final Choice Is Yours--So Is the Fate of FlightGear:

The choice, solely, is yours. Everything that can be said, has been said. Read carefully through the CKW list and use it as a mirror to see how many times you find your face looking back at you. Is it worth it? Is this what you want your legacy to be in FlightGear? Staring back at yourself at six or seven items on the Turbulence List, each of which endangers the future of the flight simulator?

Every mirror you choose to smash and replace with a window opening toward the present and future, reaching out to the entire FlightGear Community, will redefine your FG legacy in a positive way. Change flight levels; find clear air.

To borrow a line out of a famous movie, (sort of): "Please choose wisely."

With Respect,
DrDavid/SkyBoat

[Thorsten]

Frankly, I've been around FG since 2009, I've been quite active on the mailing list and in the forum and... I haven't seen you around much,

Why would you think you have an accurate picture of the state of affairs? I mean, from my perspective you appeared essentially out of nowhere a few weeks ago.

So I would argue there's plenty of things you simply don't know.

[Hooray]

@drdavid: thanks for taking the time to write all this, and for making it so interesting, and "abstract". I may respond in more detail later on - but I wanted to say that I disagree with the notion that this is about "fgmembers": I don't know if you have done any research in the archives, but fgmembers really is just a symptom here, and the underlying issue (to which you are mostly referring above) has been discussed at great length on the devel list, dating even years back - and even core developers acknowledge that there are some challenges we're facing - "fgmembers" just happens to be an unfortunate example, because it is being promoted in such a verbose, persistent, and even aggressive, fashion.

So even without making this specific to fgmembers, many of the issues you raise, would still exist and have been discussed by long-time contributors - and I think it would help to look at this agnostic to the concrete manifestation of a "symptom".

For some background, I suggest to start with this posting, and focus on responses by some of the more senior folks (e.g. Curt): http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mai ... sg25250582

And here's a discussion with Stuart and Curt discussing pretty much the same thing: http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mai ... /15444433/

And in fact, anybody doing a little research, would find tons of related discussions - with the main keywords being "nonprofit", "funding", "sponsorship", "project management", "coordination".

But 5+ years later, you will also see that many issues have been addressed meanwhile.

To sum it up, instead of resurrecting such debates on the forum, I suggest to do a little research in the archives and see what Curt et al have previously said on the matter.

@Thorsten: once you take a look at the pre-2009 archives, you may also find that there're things that you may not have been aware of, discussed by people who are meanwhile core developers, or who used to be key contributors (think David Megginson, Andy Ross, Norman Vine - all of whom have stated similar concerns in the past, I wouldn't discard this just based on someone being relatively "new" in comparison to others - in fact, I do know of at least one former core developer, who's participating here without identifying himself as such)

[Thorsten]

@Thorsten: once you take a look at the pre-2009 archives, you may also find that there're things that you may not have been aware of,

I don't doubt that. But then again, how relevant are they today?

See, there's more than one counter-to-fact statement in the letter, so I naturally wonder how much insight drdavid really has.

[Hooray]

Well, I am not going to rip apart drdavid's posting quote-by-quote focusing on the controversial aspects (fgmembers, certain contributors) - but I suggest that people interested in getting to the meat of this (unrelated to fgmembers), actually do spend a little time looking at what Curt and others have previously said in this particular context - i.e. "project management/coordination", "delegating responsibility" and the whole FG "rejuvenation" process that's admittedly long overdue - people who have been involved for a couple of years, are fairly likely to face a form of "burn-out" at some point - equally, young contributors are much more likely to become crucial to the project:

Subject: Aircraft center: DNS lookup failed

I guess I feel like as long as the core developers hold the reins to the project then it is their responsibility to steward it in the most proficient and professional manner possible. Accordingly, they should be transparent in intent and I think they need to constantly communicate the projects direction regularly. The infrastructure for this is already available by way of the monthly news letter. But I guess were back to who is willing to take the time to summarize all the pertinent discussions over the course of the last evolution.

I'd say there are several factors involved here, spare time definitely being among them - but also experience/expertise and willingness to speak in an authoritative fashion on to actually present ongoing development trends. Just think about it - we keep seeing discussions about a "long-term roadmap" - the most recent example being this: 5-10 Year Goals?

So, basically people (including contributors) are very much interested in learning more about the direction in which the project is headed.
But there are very few people who want to commit to anything, in terms of concrete roadmaps and plans.
The only thing that has kind worked pretty well so far is actually individual developers presenting/maintaining their own roadmaps.
Equally, the priority of items on such "roadmaps" can be measured in terms of past, and especially, current FG involvement.
And honestly, there really isn't much else that counts beyond actual involvement, especially the degree of spare time "donated" to FlightGear.
Time has proven over and over again that the amount of spare time available is even more important than just "skils" and "expertise".

There are some enormously experienced contributors subscribed to the devel list, some of whom having exceptional credentials, including some holding multiple PhDs, some having made sizable contributions to the project at some point, but many/most of those have meanwhile primarily become "lurkers".

In contrast, there are some relatively uneducated, but really clever, individuals involved who have one major benefit: a lot of time on their hands. This usually applies to very young contributors, e.g. those just attending highschool or about to go to college. We've seen some of these people literally "graduate" into major FlightGear contributors over time.

Meanwhile, you could say that some of the most senior contributors also had their most active phase back when those criteria applied to them as well, i.e. being young, having plenty of time on their hands and not much in terms of obligations going on.

The fact is, FlightGear core developers generally acknowledge that the number of active core developers is far too low to properly maintain FlightGear. Some of the most senior core developers have either opted to manage other projects/infrastructure meanwhilee (think website, forum, wiki etc) or are busy with other aspects of their lives.

So FlightGear has kinda failed recognizing that a rejuvenation project is long overdue, and that it's indeed young contributors, those with a ton of time and motivation/dedication, that can realistically shoulder the project, while the older ones should resort to mentoring every now and then. This is something that Curt also touched on in one of his recent interviews about the FlightGear project: mentoring is an important part of managing a project, while still getting to delegate and direct ongoing development, without necessarily having to be as involved anymore: http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.p ... FlightGear

So far, FlightGear hs unfortunately failed at dealing with these challenges, i.e. more and more of the senior contributors having to take a backseat, while more and more younger developers are feeling left out of the loop, because their contributions aren't even considered for inclusion, equally they are not considered for getting commit access either.

Likewise, FlightGear as an OSS project has generally failed at recognizing the potential of attracting professional contributors, i,e. those doing contract work, or those using FlightGear professionally - i.e. those making a living using FlightGear on a daily basis, or even just temporarily. For example, this includes people like poweroftwo who were once contracted to implement osgEarth support in FlightGear, and who is obviously enormously experienced and qualified, while also willing to help integrate and maintain his work - yet, it's taken over two years meanwhile for his work to be recognized as what it really is.

There are, and used to be, other people who eventually became core developers/committers through contributions that wouldn't require the skills and background that the osgEarth integration took, yet, we're seeing skilled contributors not being accepted into the inner circle of core committers, despite a handful being definitely available - and even willing to help younger contributors, i.e. those with plenty time on their hands.

In other words, while core development is very much a recognized "bottleneck", there's very little if anything being done about it. Aspiring core developers are feeling left out of the loop, no matter if their motivation is due to a corresponding professional or hobby/private background. And even former core developers are referring to the devel list as an "unfriendly place" these days given the atmosphere there.

Given the current situation, there really is very little that you can do about this, e.g.:

• implement all the features yourself
• asking others to do it for you
• helping others interested related features implement those via pointers
• 1:1 mentoring
• documenting how to develop certain features
• providing infrastructure/APIs and frameworks to establish best practices
• establishing rules/roadmaps and actually committing to handle recurring chores/duties (think release plan, reviewing merge requests/patches, maintaining infrastructure like the wiki, forum, issue tracker)

[...]

Creating documentation and frameworks/platforms still is a fairly sure way to still "mentor" people without necessarily having to be "appreciated" or even without having to be actively involved/around at all, as could be seen by a number of recent developments that were kick-started by contributors who never made it into the inner circle of core developers.

So FlightGear as a project is still working, but without many people realizing why that is so, and how to use those dynamics to their advantage.
We have people interested in getting involved in FlightGear core development that have credentials and professional backgrounds that are hardly matched by the few remaining/active developers - so have even provided patches/merge requests or topic branches where no active contributor felt sufficiently qualified to review/merge and commit such work, which is another unfortunate and unnecessary common trend.

Back in the early days of the FlightGear project, back when CVS was still used, granting commit access would be considered based on someone's contributions, and if someone contributed patches to an unmaintained area, that someone would be considered a potential new maintainer - these days, a patch targeting an unmaintained component, renders the whole contribution useless, and the aspiring developer is no longer considered a potential future maintainer/FG core developer.

Thus, the underlying problem is not just lack of core developers, but lack of gitorious admins willing to regularly review the current situation and nominate new contributors to become core developers.
This isn't unlike having wiki/forum admins/moderators - and it isn't unlike the release plan: all of these are basically "additions" to the existing infrastructure, where people would commit to handle certain chores/duties semi-regularly, no matter if that means helping moderate the forum/wiki or helping preparing release candidates twice a year.

Those were major additions to FlightGear, as can be seen by comparing the predominant situation in the "pre-release plan" time when a single person would handle such duties.
Equally, the monthly newsletter works pretty well for something that people don't want to commit to.

So what is needed to tackle the current core developer shortage is adding a new policy to officially nominate core developer candidates 2-3 times per year, based on contributions made by non-core developers, especially in terms of active involvement. Unfortunately, nothing like this is in place - so that there's ton of potential core development manpower going wasted.

Obviously, unmaintained core components/areas should get higher priority than those having an active maintainer involved.

Maintaining contributor-specific roadmaps/todo lists also seems to work exceptionally well to help present the direction of the project based on developer involvement, i.e. traditionally heavily involved core developers like Zakalawe and TheTom tend to commit to roadmaps that actually present where the project is headed, while others much less involved primarily state ideas and features requests, without committing to working on those.

FlightGear, and especially core development, could be in a much better shape than it really is if we could establish a formal way to conduct core developer polls bi-annually, while also establishing a way to actually mentor new developers in terms of what to work on and how to proceed with certain developments. Equally, not leveraging all those "young" and "professional" contributors is a huge waste of potential developer manpower, with very little to be gained - especially by those simply opting to just "veto" developments, without themselves being as involved in FlightGear as some newcomers obviously are. Particularly, if those developments are actually features popular among community members (think osgEarth, better Nasal GC scheme etc)

You only need to look at the history of the project, its major contributors over time and their backgrounds to realize that .... "it's no country for old men"

A FlightGear fork dealing with these challenges by lowering the barrier to entry and getting those involved with plenty of time on their hands or those with professional stakes, possibly via github, could easily become much more relevant than FlightGear is meanwhile - especially if kick-started with contributions and contributors who are currently de-facto rejected by the "core" of remaining core developers who more often tend to veto or criticially discuss patches/merge requests, despite not having any visible track records of providing the same quality of contributions they're now asking others to provide.

[Thorsten]

Yeah, I can agree with some of that - but that has nothing to do with the turbulent process described by drdavid. As it stands, the letter mixes things up which should be discussed separately and creates causal relationships where there are none.

I'm not surprised to see you jump on that particular bandwagon - but I doubt anyone has the energy to open yet another front for discussion right now.

[Hooray]

Not disagreeing, it does mix up things - like I said, this has nothing with fgmembers, it being really just a symptom.
Then again, I wasn't aware of this "open letter", or I would have also suggested a different time and place.
Like you say, I am not expecting this to get the attention it deserves, but even without focusing on pre-2009 postings by key contributors, drdavid does raise valid concerns, many of which were repeatedly brought up by key people back in the day - including folks whose names/aliases you would probably not even recognize if they showed up in the commit logs.

Like you say, some issues were meanwhile addressed (e.g. the CVS->git move), but others still persist - and this isn't as much about people as it is about the lack of formalized and established processes (not unlike the release plan) to deal with these issues - i.e. challenges the project is facing due it being more successful/accessible than it can possibly deal with given the infrastructure and spare time/volunteer-based manpower in place, under the existing modus operandi (as per Curt's comments, linked to above).

Such an "open letter is not a new thing at all - other contributors have previously teamed up to create such write-ups, with varying success - the most prominent example being the "a new architecture for FlightGear" paper: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Technical_Re ... _Simulator

With other examples being the effects system created by Tim Moore, or Canvas implementeed by TheTom - all of which did cause quite some irritation on the devel list, which nicely matches the heuristics mentioned by drdavid.

And even others having gotten little, if any, attention (including RFCs posted by Jon S. Berndt and other seniors).

[drdavid]

@Thorsten and @hooray

[Edit] Text deleted by DrDavid.

[Hooray]

@Thorsten and @hooray

Interesting. Two posts submitted. Two posts vanished. Didn't think I'd catch on to your dirty little tricks? You've stooped to a new low.

I haven't deleted anything, so I don't know what you're referring to - and unless I missed something, Thorsten isn't currently a moderator either, so I suggest to delete your own posting until we've learnt what's going on, or this thread will become just as pointless as the others, and I will delete mine, too.

EDIT: I checked the moderator control panel, and I am not seeing any moderator edits having taken place today - so it seems you must be referring to something else, or maybe there's an actual issue on your end ? Either way, I suggest to stop spreading pointless accusations if you want to be taken seriously, you are doing a lot of harm to an otherwise mostly thoughtful posting, that is generally supported by postings made by quite a few long-term contributors over the course of several years.

[drdavid]

@hooray--

I apologize. But two of my replies to you and Thorsten have been deleted by someone. I will wait to see what happens and then, perhaps, contact Curt.

[Hooray]

...

[drdavid]

We have worked cordially in the past and I value our relationship. I accept your counsel on the matter. I ask, though, that you look thoughtfully at the 12 indicators that I provide and ponder which ones that might be part of your behavior that are adding to the turbulence FlightGear is currently experiencing. Only you know which are pertinant to you. As I said, if you can smash the mirror and change it into an open window of positive change, your ability to relate to individuals in FG that you disagree with will likely be less stressful for you, and also you will be more adaptable to the generational changes FG is undergoing.

[drdavid]

I decided to delete the text of the post accusing you of deleting my replies. At this point, with my previous post, I see no need to recover the replies I thought were deleted. They are now moot.

[clrCoda]

I may suggest that posts of relevance should never be typed directly into the forum editor.

They should be created in a local editor, saved, copy-pasted into a forum form and submitted.

If not, you will find that there are Xnum ways of losing a post that does not require the deletion of a moderator.

-- my respect
Ray

[drdavid]

Thanks for that suggestion. It's probably what happened. Live and learn!