News @ Gameslate

If what you really mean to say is "Drupal 6 = Views + CCK", I have to disagree with you. Drupal 6 is not only complete, it is already on it's second point release, and it is a very usable and powerful platform. It is an especially attractive tool for module developers, as evidenced by the growing number of modules that are for D6 only. Any decision to use it should be made based on an analysis of core plus available module, not core plus modules you hope to use sometime in the future.

Views and CCK are still contrib modules, and there are whole teams of people working on them. Scolding the core team for doing their job as well as they can will not get Views and CCK built any faster.

You say:
...but the priorities of the companies that fuel most of the development are beginning to sit poorly with me.

I'd appreciate you putting a finer point on this. Your complaint seems to be with Views and CCK development; which companies are disgruntling you here?

Robert, from merlinofchaos' own blog concerning the migration of developers to core and away from integral modules like Views: http://www.angrydonuts.com/where-are-they

Note that was posted almost a month ago and that Views missed its expected April deadline. At this point, it's been said to be close so many times that you must please excuse me for not expecting it tomorrow.

The key modules lagging migration are Views 2, CCK and Organic Groups, although like OG there are many waiting on Views. It really should have been core for Drupal 6, because it is in all but name and Drupal 7 can't complete without it anyway.

My disappointment is that many of the developers calling the shots at Drupal are employed in contractual site design. That's the clear skew for priorities. There is very little emphasis on ease of upgrade paths, since those companies move onto the next project or at the most get contracted again and simply redesign. I'm sure that they're profitably happy with how things are, so why should they change to support others? But Drupal itself isn't a narrow site design / rollout package, it's intended to be a full CMS. A full CMS should contain migrational paths, especially to its own different versions (and certainly migration to/from other CMS' is very limited in Drupal as well).

To make it very clear, migration between versions does not bring profit to the major Drupal developers. In fact, it would be easy to argue that they profit from a lack of it, although I'm not about to start any conspiracy theories.

I'm not naming names, because I don't have anything against any of these individuals or their employers. Some of them are acquaintances of mine, even prior to Drupal's existance. I respect the work that's gone into Drupal, especially Views and CCK. I just think it's an unbalanced situation that's created a stall in development and for me personally a timeline of frustration. Much is getting worked on, but what gets done is skewed.

. . .

As an aside:

As far as unappreciative, it's a question of different priorities for different people. I believe my complaints are more than valid. It does also concern me that within the Drupal community there is a bad habit to label any complaints as traitors to the community, which is extremely unfortunate to see whenever someone makes constructive criticism or expresses their frustrations. Drupal as a whole should be able to accept valid criticism and develop solutions.

Unfortunately, that's part of the Catch-22, some of the developers more inclined to balance Drupal's development may have been scared off and moved on. Telling me I'm not paying attention when I point out problems in the development process are not encouraging words that they'll be fixed.

This is my first real complaint with Drupal. If I was truly unappreciative, I'd just move on to another CMS and discount this one as inappropriate for me. To put it bluntly, if I didn't love the software so much, this situation wouldn't be as frustrating as it is.

To add on the whole development skew thing. I dunno, Drupal is pretty well rounded so it's not like it's completely focussed this way, it just has some holes that you wouldn't expect.

Robert, it's funny how these kind of discussions grow in the wrong direction.

I feel I'm making myself clear, but you're trying to read between the lines things that aren't there, then taking insult on those assumptions. I stated directly that I wasn't giving in to any conspiracy theory, I absolutely do not think anything as absurd as anyone sabotaging development, so please stop and focus on things I've actually said.

I am hardly ungrateful of the results of open-source development, which is something I've contributed to for 17 years, both financially and in the kind of blood sweat and tears you've described. I have given a substantial portion of myself to projects such as these. I do not begrudge anyone making a living or even a substantial profit from such projects, I've already said as much. I do prefer that the full nature of the project itself dictates its development, but I also realize we do not live in the utopia of my dreams.

I am not the first or only person to question the logic of the order of development, clearly Views needs to be completed before Drupal 7 is done regardless. You want a constructive suggestion? That's it right there. You disagree, that's fine, but geez, I must defend my suggestion as good? Are we holding court or something here? Either the suggestion is taken, or it isn't.

I've already given my reasons, I think smooth upgrade / migration paths are paramount and sorely lacking in Drupal. That's intrinsic to the complaint, this IS an upgrade & migration issue versus a headlong pace to the next version. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this timeline the only thing that's keeping Views as contrib and not core as it was accepted? On these grounds my basic thesis as you put it, stays the same: I believe the core development is outpacing features that should have gone in the previous version and it looks as if that course will continue. Is that highly critical of Drupal as a whole? I suppose it is.

I think the development priorities are straightforward, obvious and natural, yet flawed. No hidden conspiracies, just worried where those priorities are rooted, because if they're deeply rooted then they won't change. That's the concern about money and business fueling the priorities, because those things are like glue. I feel those priorities are holding Drupal back.

I think Dries has done a good job coordinating Drupal development, I do not mean to imply this reflects on him, instead it's just the nature of any open source project when the majority of developers have shared and implicit priorities, the project goes where the manpower is. I am merely expressing my frustration that their emphasis runs against the grain of my own preference. Yes, I have self-interests too.

. . .

Again as the aside, since this is more personal:

The other problem that's come up here, is that I do not feel free to state my complaints, suggestions or concerns when the first time I do so someone highly visible from the project comes to my blog to issue heavy handed warnings to me, insisting I'm making an affront to the everyone on the project. That was intimidating and unnecessary.

http://xkcd.com/406/

... just kidding!

Did he just imply that you lack experience publishing on the web? Are you going to take that sitting down? Hit him over the head with your 300 baud modem, it probably weighs enough to get the point across. ;)

Go get him Rog! Round Two! Let's see the writers slag it out!