Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> I was going to post a long reply but have come to the conclusion that
> really it doesn't matter how we got to this point, what matters is where
> we go.

Personally, yes.  With regard to the evolution of the code; however, the _how_
of that is relevant and integral to understanding problems and formulating
solutions.  We need context.

> Yes we have a manpower issue. Yes I have not helped by not steering the
> boat. To be honest, though, after more than 25 years involvement in the
> project I see my role more as one of keeping POV-Ray stable and making
> sure that it works as designed on modern CPU's and modern operating systems.

I hear you, and the following statement is a point to consider, not to cast
blame on anyone, etc.
I've worked on a LOT of things with a LOT of people, and the bigger something
gets, the more it stagnates - because no one knows what to do, can't see the big
picture, doesn't want any of the responsibility, and so they resort to the safe,
blame-free option of "that's not my job."
Of course, no one else knows whose job it IS, and they don't have, or feel that
they have the authority to implement a solution (and then there's the 'no good
deed will go unpunished' phenomenon.  If YOU try to fix something, and it
'breaks' (it was rotten to the core and 'fixed' [badly] 30 times before, and
everyone was just waiting for it to break anyway) then it's obvious who to point
the finger at.
So in order to get people involved, and working on doing productive things, we
need to remedy that, and invite people in to participate in the development
side.

> I have not done feature development for some time and as I have moved
> away from C++ professionally (I primarily develop in C# in my day job
> nowadays) I'm really not the best person to be doing core work anymore
> (that's not to say I can't, just that I feel it's best left to someone
> who is using C++ on a regular basis).

I don't think that anyone really expects you to dive in and code a solution for
all of the things that need improvement or are missing.
But after 25 years, you surely have an excellent overview of everything, and are
privy to a lot of information.  That's a position that few, if no one else is
in.
You can provide illuminating information and context.
See below.

> Clipka has apparently moved on to doing other things. We had been hoping
> he was just taking some time off but it's pretty clear by now that we
> can't expect him back.

It's a hobby, after all, and for a young guy, he invested an astonishing amount
of time and talent working on the source code and helping clueless schmucks like
me to ascend the learning curve step by painful and hard-won step.
I hope someone is paying him well for his intelligence and skill, and he's
getting some enjoyment out of life.  He deserves it, and he will be missed.


> Where to go from here? What can you guys do to help? Good questions. Let
> me ping the other guys on our mailing list and see what they think.

There are 2 interrelated problems that I alluded to above.   One is the
monolithic "thing" that is POV-Ray, that invites stagnation, and the other -
which I only hinted at, is the opacity that ensures that it _does_ stagnate.

No one "here" knows what the positions of - responsibility - and decision-making
authority are, who holds them, how involved they are, how to contact them, or
what to do if they drop off the planet for reasons large or small.
If POV-Ray is some kind of corporation - and LLC or whatever, then no one really
knows how that works, and who the world-wide users of the product are.  That is
relevant, because for us it's a hobby image-renderer, whereas other people are
very well using it for scientific illustration, visualization of data, and other
more serious things in their professional lives. That's highly relevant when
solutions are needed and one has to understand the mechanisms under the hood and
the effects and repercussions of monkeying about with a giant pile of
25-year-old organically-grown code written by dozens of contributors who are
long gone.

There should at the very least be some redundancy in personnel, and a master
"key-ring" for things like important information files (development notes,
90%-done code snippets, etc), accounts, and administrative passwords (IIRC there
seems to be some issue regarding the object collection)

We don't know if there is money involved, where it comes from, what it's for, or
where it goes. (There must be, as there is a website, domain name, a server,
etc...)
POV-Ray is officially somehow in Australia, California, and Connecticut (in my
mind).

So, whether it's helpful or [perceived as] not, at the very least, I think it
would help educate the present collection of active users, clear the air, and
make "open" the _workings_ - the personal workings - of this "open source"
project to have a series of installments where things are just discussed, and
information is transferred.  A "board meeting" where people are kept in the
loop.
Some people are hanging on in quiet desperation - others are venting their
frustration, and others just --- give up and disappear.

None of what we do takes place in a vacuum, and the solutions won't magically
pop out of the Celestial interstitial space either. Narrowly, pedantically and
artificially restricting and compartmentalizing discussions to "raytracing with
POV-Ray as it exists at this exact point in time" don't really go anywhere -
what people using it on a voluntary basis need is context.

It would be great if there were a way to get some more long-time users a wiki
page so that their development work could more clearly be seen, and inspire
questions and possible solutions.

Maybe you could tell us some stories.  Bring up points of historical interest,
the current state of Dev team issues responsibility and workload, and enlighten
us about the actual usage of POV-Ray by people outside of this tiny forum, and
how "POV-Ray" finds new developers and advertises it existence, promotes
interest, raises funds, and appoints people to take on positions of
responsibility.   Give us context.

Thanks for being here for 25 years, and helping keep this thing alive in a
rapidly changing technological world.

Post a reply to this message