

Ask HN: Can you start an original, open source, project without writing a line of code? - nickmolnar

I'm wondering if you think it can be done. What would be the pitfalls? How would the founder provide value in the early development stages? What properties would the idea require to appeal to developers' self-interest? Has it been done before?<p>I've been asking around about this and have some ideas about how it could work, and how it could fail, but I'd love to hear what HN has to say about it.
======
there
i see this quite often and it's usually a good indicator that the project is
going to go nowhere.

non-developers post on a users mailing list about an idea, some other non-
developer joins in with "hey i'll setup a wiki!" and someone else chimes in
with "i'll make a logo and a website!" in the end you have all this planning
and meta-development for nothing, and no code ever gets written.

look on sourceforge and see how many projects are in pre-alpha/planning stages
with no code uploaded and how long they've been there.

a common phrase in the openbsd developer community is "shut up and hack." a
developer's time is much better spent writing code and showing it to someone
than writing up a technical spec about how something should quite possibly
maybe some day be if we're lucky and follow the roadmap exactly.

------
lethain
Could you be a bit more clear? Are you asking if an individual can come up
with some idea, write a blog post about it, and have other people build it?

Yes, that can definitely happen, but only if the original person has capital.
Most developers who do opensource work have a bunch of ideas and projects
they'd like to be working on, so you're going to have to pay them to work on
your project instead. Payment doesn't have to be money, it can be reputation
or an exchange of services, but basically you have to have something to
contribute.

Otherwise you're asking them to do something for you for goodness sake without
actually put any effort into the project yourself. In particular if you want
to be the legal or cultural head of the project, people will sniff that funk
immediately.

~~~
nickmolnar
That's about what I was imagining.

I've had people tell me that setting up the SVN, moderating discussions in a
mailing list, twittering project updates, and orchestrating the
cultural/public facing side of the organization are the most productive early
tasks.

My question is: will people start working on a project without even a line of
code, or will there be paralysis until there is something to work off of?

~~~
lethain
Although it depends on individuals, I imagine most of the crowd here, myself
included, doesn't have any hesitations about designing systems ground up from
scratch. Some times you screw up and have to redesign later, but that's part
of the process of learning.

That said, it would take exceptional circumstances for me to work on such a
project. Programmer time has a high market value, and--personally--I'm still
having a hard time not looking at your idea as asking programmers to work on
your idea for free.

Project management that your discussing is a non-issue until the project grows
considerably. I think for many programmers it would feel like you were just
taking credit for their work, rather than providing a valued service. People
become project leaders by contributing publicly recognized effort and talent
to the project, and I just don't believe the efforts you are suggesting would
be viewed as valuable.

~~~
nickmolnar
That brings up another important question. How do you find the ideal person to
take a leadership role for development? That is where the credit should go,
but it's a tough spot to fill.

~~~
nickmolnar
Another idea I have been thinking about is the necessity of having plans in
place, from the beginning, for if, and when, the project begins to have
commercial merit. If everyone knows that 90% of any ensuing corporation will
go to the top 6 developers on the project, they are much more likely to commit
valuable resources.

~~~
anamax
> If everyone knows that 90% of any ensuing corporation will go to the top 6
> developers on the project, they are much more likely to commit valuable
> resources.

You're confusing "my plan will work if other people behave this way" with
"other people will behave this way".

Moreover, it's an open source project, so you can't say anything about "any
ensuing corporation". You can only make committments for corporations that you
control; you can't stop other corporations from getting most of the benefits.

And, who's to say that 6 is the right number? What if a given project takes 10
people to do reasonably? Why will those last four people contribute?

~~~
nickmolnar
Fair point. Let's assume that the only goal is to make the project go forward.
All compensation and credit should be structured to further this goal.

I guess 100% is the best way to structure it. Possibly even with a disclaimer
saying the founder would not create any company out of the source code - but
could be hired by anyone who does. The founder's role would then, simply, be
an evangelist for the project(s).

I think the last four people would participate in the hopes of entering the
top six, but a more open plan would probably encourage more participation. I
think the last four would participate with the goal of entering the top 6,
just like the dozens of applicants for the winner-take-all Ansari X-Prize.

~~~
nickmolnar
Maybe all that is needed is a non-binding proposal that the top 6 developers
would, after the product reaches a particular milestone, band together and
start a company, dividing shares however they choose.

I just think that having any plan for the future would make developers more
likely to invest their scarce time.

