Frameworks and libraries

[zaksoup]

I disagree that frameworks and libraries should be open source whenever possible. I believe that a happiness driven developer should use frameworks and libraries that find a balance between openness, ease of use, and fulfilling their needs.

For instance, after days trying to get openVPN working we decided to purchase their proprietary front-end which ultimately saved more days of work and is incredibly easy to use.

I think the point is that a Happiness driven developer choose to use tools that provide balance. If there is a proprietary solution that is easy to use and within the budget than it should be considered.

[scottefein]

I'd argue that in that case, you could say that the open source solution didn't work for you-so you used the proprietary option. The disclaimer on whenever possible is to address that it's not always the best solution.

[milandobrota]

I think that these are good guidelines, but as with pretty much anything, there will always be exceptions.

I like agile as a concept, but not all projects need to be agile, and not all components of agile should be used if they don't add value (for example, in smaller teams daily scrums may be an overkill and IMO story points are complete B.S.)

Standards are important as an agreed way of doing things, but bad if they're too limiting. People should be able to change standards, and that's what the last point is all about.

Supportive environment conducive to all levels of experience is an absolute must. Most people need to feel accepted and respected to be happy and productive.

[scottefein]

Does the new framing address these issues?

[zaksoup]

As far as the frameworks and tools line, many open source tools ARE controlled by a single organization. Pull requests and commits are welcome from anybody but they are all accepted or rejected by a single org.

[nathany]

I value openness and collaboration.

As @zaksoup mentions, just having access to source code because it's "open source" doesn't necessarily mean anyone can change and improve the code.

Likewise, I've heard stories of large organizations where bureaucracy prevents a developer from changing code that is owned by some other team. Other large organizations are just the opposite. It may be that none of that code is open source, but openness and collaboration may still be present.

I think we can cover more ground by emphasizing the important values of open source rather than using the word directly.

And we already have a value of openness, so that's a start.

[scottefein]

I like the idea of adding the collaboration piece in there.

"We value frameworks and tools built in an open, collaborative process over tools controlled by a single organization"

[nathany]

:+1: