[texworks] [tug-board] TeXwork is Under-Resourced - Was: LaTeX log parser script

[Paul A Norman]

Thank you Jonathan,

It is encouraging to see what UK TUG did with the donation of the laptop to
the original copyright Owner  for the development of TeXworks - that is the
real stuff. You have put money where policy should be leading.

You have opened up the issue that good volunteers like Stefan and others
are not aware of - this had to come out from the "inside", and it is
extremely important that you have done so.

People need to know, or remember, that that TeXworks is a TUG project, not
just some privately set up Google Code effort.

If my previous posting is re read, it may be seen that I am not talking
about TeXworks being cut loose from TUG but for TUG to
take responsibility for resourcing it and provide a goverance model that
reflects the things that FOSS has learnt.

And if things have to be forked (as I wrote, by TUG) to achieve that, then
let it be so

TeXworks is not just another Open Source project out there in the internet
ether, it is a TUG responsibility, it is relied on now all over the world
as a natural and inherent  part of major TeX* distributions -- this must be
recognised and proper thought put in.

TeXworks must grow from it origins to be grafted onto a proper governance
and resource model.

Its time for good resourcing to come through to these projects so that the
efforts of incredibly gifted developer people like Stefan and Charlie and
others, and documenters like Alain and so on, are enhanced, and people
don't end up unnecessarily stretched, and effectively being slave labour
when there is real money in the pot to use.

If funding were there for the  Stefan Löfflers and others to co-ordinate
efforts of other C++ and Scripters using the Blender FOSS model of
operations - virtually contracting out certain tasks as projects to be done
to specification, this would be a step forward.

Properly structured, this would leave people like Stefan and Charlie, (And
Jonathan Kew when he has time) to in a coordinated way (from within
a decision making process that does not just involve application/script
developers) trail blaze new developments which they have shown interest in,
while being able to coordinate  the necessary ongoing ground work and
maintaining of code.

Remember that TeXworks is a TUG project, not just some privately set up
Google Code effort  — but it in a sense it has a wider catchment and needs
a governance model  to operate by, which reflects the
ongoing responsibilities that the project has to a growing set of
stakeholders.

Perhaps a scaled down Libre Office FOSS style?

This will facilitate coordination between large end-users distributors that
will make development of things like, intelligent updating, possible.

And establish portfolios of responsibility so that there are
key identifiable people handling necessary areas and Stefan is not left
with primary responsibility for  everything right down to the operational
end User's  manual.

This present approach is *not sustainable* (I am speaking form hard
experience here).

(I am now about to deliberately try and keep personalities out of this, as
it is policy that must be looked at.)

For example, the Owner was intending to do the Scripting API, got
sidetracked, after a great many months I and others
actually functionally needed it to be able to make things happen that were
essential to some projects.

I am not a C++ programmer (but have developed in one other advanced
programming environment that Qt drew heavily upon in its inception) so I
wrote to the Owner offering to try and do it as no one else was stepping
up.

I never even heard back from the project Owner, so we did the Scripting Api
to meet our own needs  and made it available to the general *TeX commuity
as a courtesy, It has never been project 'official'.
http://twscript.paulanorman.com

It turned out that the Owner had been very busy in their personal life. I
know that others experienced problems when this was happening as well.

This is what has to be replaced with a real governance model, so that
things do not hang up on one person ever again.

And if things have to be forked (as I suggest by TUG) to achieve that, then
let it be so

Present governance  might be described as essentially a random feudal
style set-up.

If my previous posting is re read it may be seen that I am not talking
about TeXworks being cut loose from TUG but for TUG to
take responsibility for resourcing it and provide a goverance model that
reflects the things that FOSS has learnt, and bring the project into the
21st century in its operations and ability to coordinate with identifiable
 stakeholders (including the Users).

The future of  TeXworks is just going to be a randomly developed
enterprise, with poor results like incomplete spell checking in the 21st
century in a publishing tool - for goodness sakes!)  unless courage is
taken to look ahead and see what needs to be done to make it a growing and
sustainable venture.

Jonathan Kew wonderfully launched the project.

With Karl Berries encouragement, Stefan Löffler   fantastically rescued it
when it was virtually abandoned and about to founder (in fact was virtually
dead in the water), this is due highly to Stefan's professionalism and
an unacknowledged deep debt of gratitude is due to him by TUG (perhaps give
him a lap top?), and now Charlie has put great effort in.

Now the future needs to be better planned so that there is a sensible,
coordinated,  resourced, and purposeful future!

TeXworks is not just another Open Source project out there in the internet
ether, it is a TUG responsibility, it is relied on now all over the world
as a natural and inherent  part of major TeX* distributions -- this must be
recognised and proper thought put in.

TeXworks must grow from it origins to be grafted onto a proper governance
and resource model.

Paul


On 6 March 2012 05:34, J.Fine <j.fine at open.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I'm a TUG Board member and past Chair of UK TUG (who provided financial
> support to TeXworks, in the form of paying for a computer for Jonathan Kew
> to develop on).
>
> Speaking for myself (and not for the board) I'd like to see more of TUG's
> income going to projects such as this one, and less on administration and
> other overheads (roughly 60% of our income goes on payroll, 22% on
> production of TUGBoat, 12% on office overhead, which leaves about 6% for
> other things, such as TeX Live and TeX works).
>
> With best regards
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> --
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC
> 038302).
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texworks/attachments/20120306/7dbd69de/attachment-0001.html>