Technical Ramblings

Anselm just posted what appears to be a random thought on twitter:

Are you more generative than consumptive in your particular field? … Create more than you consume?

In open source, I often rephrase this question as “Are you a source, or a sink?”

There are many people in the community who contribute more than they consume. Organizations, individuals, etc. There are also many sinks in the community — since entropy is every increasing, this seems a forgone conclusion — and one of the key things that causes an open source project to succeed or fail is the number of sources or sinks.

I personally try very hard to be a source in all that I do, rather than a sink. One way that I do this is that I try very hard to always followup any question I ask — for example, on a mailing list, on an IRC channel, or what have you — with at least two answers of my own. This means that, for example, when I hopped into #django to ask about best practices for packaging apps, I stuck around, and helped out two more people — one who was asking a question about PIL installation, and one about setting up foreign keys to different models.

Now, in the end, my answers were simple — no one with even a basic knowledge of Django would have had problems answering them. But by sticking around and answering them, I was able to make up to some extent for the time/energy that I consumed from someone more familiar with the project, by saving them from needing to answer as well.

It is often the case that users trying to get help will claim that once they get help, they will ‘contribute back’ to the community by, for example, writing documentation. This never happens. Though there are exceptions to every rule, it is almost always the case that users who ask a question, prefacing it with “I will document this for other users”, never follow through on the latter half. The exceptions to this — or rather, the alternate cases — are cases where a user has already investedлегла significant research, and likely already started writing documentation. Unless the process is started before the problem is solved, it is almost universally true — in my experience — that the user will act as a sink, taking the information from the source and disappearing with it.

I work very hard on supporting a number of open source projects that I work on. Though my involvement lately has been more hands off — by doing things like writing documentation instead of answering questions, acting as a release manager instead of fixing bugs, and so on — I work very hard to keep the karmic balance of my work on the positive side. I believe that this pays off in the long run — I have somewhat of a reputation of being helpful, which is beneficial to me since it means I’m more likely to receive help when I need it. I also work to keep karmic balance high on the part of the organization I work for, since many of the other people in the organization are less able to keep karmic balance high.

These rules don’t apply solely to open source — I have the same karmic balance issues going on in my work inside of MetaCarta — but I maintain the same attitude there. Coming in with the idea that it is okay to be a sink can lead to a nasty precedent. In the end, I think that everyone loses. Sinks — both in open source and other karmic ventures — will eventually use up the karma they start with, and be left out to dry. It is the case for more than one person that they have extended their information seeking without contributing back beyond the point where I am willing to continue to support their information entropy.

I joke sometimes about giving out “crschmidt karma points”. Though I don’t have an actual system in this regard, I do quite clearly delineate between constant sinks, and regular sources, and grey areas in-between. I try to stay on the source side, and I encourage anyone else to do the same — even if it’s only by answering easy questions on the mailing list, or doing a bit more research on your own. Expecting other people to fix your problems, in open source or otherwise, is simply a false economy of help, since in the end, it simply doesn’t work.