Posted on

My thoughts on the MySQL FOSDEM interaction – bilateral vs integral

I’ve been following the info from Kaj’s info/feedback session at FOSDEM. I was going to write my thoughts as a comment, but I think it can benefit from being a post by itself.

What strikes me is that the items raised and “voted on by hand” are all existing and actually long-standing issues., most even pre-date MySQL’s acquisition by Sun. Given this, why would raising the same issues once more have a different result this time? Doing the same thing again tends to yield similar results, but changing other parameters may change the outcome. Which parameters, specifically, are to be changed?

The good intentions of those involved are not in question. However, it just doesn’t appear to deliver. Announcements are not cool. Ongoing statements “we want a shorter release cycle”… sorry guys, that’s old news; I fully trust that you really want this, but nothing short of an actual shorter release cycle will make the point now. Likewise, it’s lovely to set up internal committees and groups for important topics, but purely going by timeline and current status, those groups appear to not have been effective.

One key aspect I’ve noticed is that interaction appears to be bilateral, with Sun/MySQL soliciting feedback, and the MySQL Community giving it. Then Sun/MySQL goes forth internally. I strongly believe this is fundamentally wrong, and possibly the cause of many of the problems. I think that for resolving the issues, Sun/MySQL must once again become an integral part of this community, not just be a publishing house while “interacting” with its ecosystem.

The Community can be involved with any ongoing processes including product development, feature design, and the development cycle. Issues would be caught earlier and results of better quality. Plus, because of the active involvement, the community will also “co-own” whatever is going on (not talking IP ownership, but process ownership).

So, my suggestion to Kaj and Sun/MySQL in this process is to work on removing the “internal vs external” in every conceivable part of the operation. We have common goals. Interacting with the real world is not the same as being in it. It’s really quite a different perspective! Speaking from personal experience, doing consulting, support and training, being “on the inside” is not the same as what I’m doing now. It’s been a very enlightening experience for me personally and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to everybody – I don’t think it’s necessary to be outside the vendor to get this perspective, but rather it is something in how a company operates that can either enable or sabotage this. I propose that it gets enabled once more.

Posted on