4 ms·

> AMP is not a "well-lit" project. How so? As the blog post points out, the whole thing is open-source with almost all discussion surrounding the project happe

> AMP is not a "well-lit" project. How so? As the blog post points out, the whole thing is open-source with almost all discussion surrounding the project happening out in the open on their GitHub repo. You might not agree with the direction the project is going, but I'd say it's about as well-lit as any open source project can be.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
It seems like that until you start asking questions. Then you discover that AMP4Email is controlled by Gmail team, that you can't get a straight answer to save your life, and when they don't like the topic, they subtly threaten the Code of Conduct when no violations are occurring to indicate they are actively searching for an excuse to close down discussion.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  AMP4Email has nothing to do with AMP as a validatable preloadable subset of HTML and the web packaging standard discussed in this article.
pathseeker 9y ago
Posting some discussions in the open doesn't make it well-lit. There are many projects following this path where the real decisions are made in private meetings by people in the controlling companies. Open washing is not open source.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Indeed, while discussing AMP4Email, it seemed that, despite being a proposal in the AMP Project, all decisions for it's implementation were already made (and committed to) by the Gmail team, it had already been "reviewed" by a security team (although any such security protections are limited to Gmail's own internal protections, other implementers are on their own), and there seemed to be no opportunity for the greater email community to comment before these things were decided. Having it up on GitHub after that doesn't really mean much. This is the same for Android and Chrome, of course.
- skybrian 9y ago
  Well, technically, it is. Open source doesn't imply governance by an independent standards body. There are just requirements for what counts as an open source license. A project run by a "benevolent dictator for life" (like Python or Elm) is entirely compatible with open source. The same is true for a project run by a corporation (like React).
username223 9y ago
> ... open-source with almost all discussion surrounding the project happening out in the open on their GitHub repo. Yeah, well... "Open-source" in the sense that they throw something over the wall from time to time. "Almost all discussion" in the sense that they use a heavily-moderated public newsgroup for some things. It's better than completely internal development, I guess, but don't kid yourself: it's a PR exercise coupled to a near-complete capture of the RFC process.
siimtalvik 9y ago
With difficult discussions being locked and limited to collaborators. With the main answer to questions being, we can discuss this somewhere else, some-other (unknown) time in the future, usually in a more private setting. Unless pressed further. Case in point: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13457#issuecomment-367213905 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13457#issuecomm... Or as carmforce(Ubl) so nicely put it. "our project, our rules" but those rules keep changing, are not public and the raised issue about defining/clearing up those rules is obviously not a priority. https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597#issuecomment-367512660 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597#issuecomm... https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13603 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13603

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

It seems like that until you start asking questions. Then you discover that AMP4Email is controlled by Gmail team, that you can't get a straight answer to save your life, and when they don't like the topic, they subtly threaten the Code of Conduct when no violations are occurring to indicate they are actively searching for an excuse to close down discussion.

lern_too_spel 9y ago
AMP4Email has nothing to do with AMP as a validatable preloadable subset of HTML and the web packaging standard discussed in this article.

pathseeker 9y ago

Posting some discussions in the open doesn't make it well-lit. There are many projects following this path where the real decisions are made in private meetings by people in the controlling companies. Open washing is not open source.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Indeed, while discussing AMP4Email, it seemed that, despite being a proposal in the AMP Project, all decisions for it's implementation were already made (and committed to) by the Gmail team, it had already been "reviewed" by a security team (although any such security protections are limited to Gmail's own internal protections, other implementers are on their own), and there seemed to be no opportunity for the greater email community to comment before these things were decided. Having it up on GitHub after that doesn't really mean much. This is the same for Android and Chrome, of course.
skybrian 9y ago
Well, technically, it is. Open source doesn't imply governance by an independent standards body. There are just requirements for what counts as an open source license. A project run by a "benevolent dictator for life" (like Python or Elm) is entirely compatible with open source. The same is true for a project run by a corporation (like React).

username223 9y ago

> ... open-source with almost all discussion surrounding the project happening out in the open on their GitHub repo. Yeah, well... "Open-source" in the sense that they throw something over the wall from time to time. "Almost all discussion" in the sense that they use a heavily-moderated public newsgroup for some things. It's better than completely internal development, I guess, but don't kid yourself: it's a PR exercise coupled to a near-complete capture of the RFC process.

siimtalvik 9y ago

With difficult discussions being locked and limited to collaborators. With the main answer to questions being, we can discuss this somewhere else, some-other (unknown) time in the future, usually in a more private setting. Unless pressed further. Case in point: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13457#issuecomment-367213905 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13457#issuecomm... Or as carmforce(Ubl) so nicely put it. "our project, our rules" but those rules keep changing, are not public and the raised issue about defining/clearing up those rules is obviously not a priority. https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597#issuecomment-367512660 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597#issuecomm... https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13603 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13603