Hi, I was harsh on your other reply -- too harsh. Sorry.
Here, I totally agree. Mozilla grew a dysfunctional pattern of participants (more likely to be employees than not in my experience, but Mozilla hired most of the active contributors) stabbing projects, individuals, and other sub-groups in the back, under cover of "being open". This was inevitable given the framing in the "open vs. transparent" document:
Even now, Mozilla punches itself in the face too often, with punchers (and sometimes punchees!) claiming it's all for the best.
Taking care to give colleagues a chance to interact over a nascent or less-than-clear technical controversy, before blogging or tweeting, is not being "closed". It is standard peer review with scalability via layers-of-the-onion socializing combined with the "hermeneutic spiral".
Shooting first, fast, and in public in a large community with competitors and press listening is "open" in a vacuous sense, but it has the downside risks you note.
Here, I totally agree. Mozilla grew a dysfunctional pattern of participants (more likely to be employees than not in my experience, but Mozilla hired most of the active contributors) stabbing projects, individuals, and other sub-groups in the back, under cover of "being open". This was inevitable given the framing in the "open vs. transparent" document:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Working_open#Open_vs._Transparent
Even now, Mozilla punches itself in the face too often, with punchers (and sometimes punchees!) claiming it's all for the best.
Taking care to give colleagues a chance to interact over a nascent or less-than-clear technical controversy, before blogging or tweeting, is not being "closed". It is standard peer review with scalability via layers-of-the-onion socializing combined with the "hermeneutic spiral".
Shooting first, fast, and in public in a large community with competitors and press listening is "open" in a vacuous sense, but it has the downside risks you note.