[dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.

Rawld Gill rgill at altoviso.com
Thu Oct 11 08:29:12 EDT 2012

> From: Dylan Schiemann
> Frankly, I don't care at all about competing with other toolkits. I'm tired of
> hearing about how we can win the war. Why are we at war, rather than
> working hard to grow with the community at large?

And I'm tired of investing time only to have a significant customer base complain dojo it "too complicated,  too big, etc.; that's why we use ...." And how many times have we heard one of our key contributors tried to convince management to use dojo...and failed.

There is much less to be learned looking at our successes than our failures. Alternative toolkits win in some areas because we have either (1) failed to provide a better solution or (2) failed to communicate the better solution that we have. So, I want to understand 
  * where we have lost
  * why
And then fix it.

To pretend this is not a competition is naive in the extreme. I don't care what you call it--"war" or "growing our customer base"--we cannot continue to cede market share because "we're so sophisticated and advanced that those customers are too stupid to use us"...which has been the attitude of some.

> Rather than focusing on building the one walled garden yet completely open
> toolkit to rule them all, Dojo and the Dojo Foundation should be thinking
> about how we can take our knowledge and make both our toolkit and any
> others that share our open ideals better.
> What I personally care about is creating a collection of tools (a
> toolkit) that continues to make it simpler to build well architected and highly
> performant apps, and that is easy to split up and scale up.
> The focus needs to be on the APIs and tools and features that we need to
> deliver on, and growing our community by becoming part of the bigger
> community. We didn't start Dojo to win the war, we started Dojo to change
> the web and make it more open and collaborative.

What do you think "winning a war" means? To me, it means winning the dominate market share. You don't want to do this? Why are some so afraid to say, "we want to be the best and we want everybody to use us"? ...which is a longer way of saying "we want to win".

> We need to focus on building an amazing foundation, pushing things
> forward, and people will continue to notice. We've had a lot more interest
> lately as people take another look at Dojo, and interesting group of new
> people that have become involved, or that want to see where
> 2.0 goes to see how they can help.
> One idea I've had involves sort of having the foundation be a bit less about
> silo-ed projects, and more about areas of interest that one or more projects
> can come together to collaborate on.
> For example, this might look something like:
> * Utilities
> * Modules
> * Language improvements and shims
> * UI (widgets, themes, mobile, effects, vector graphics, etc. ... this one is
> probably too big)
> * Data/MVC
> * Server-side integration/REST/Real-time
> with the idea being to encourage projects with overlap to more easily
> collaborate across projects where it makes sense. People could either be
> involved with projects, or just involved in an area of interest, or both. It might
> make the foundation a more inviting place to encourage collaboration, etc.?
> But more importantly I think, it would encourage projects to perhaps share
> some common APIs, so that each microtoolkit isn't reinventing the wheel.
> The goal for Dojo 2.0 should not be to try and take on the weight of the
> world and do everything, but should be to provide the right set of tools and
> community and vision so that our users can do everything with Dojo as part
> of that story.

What, precisely, are you saying we should not do? I keep hearing these kind of fuzzy statements, but nobody will tell me exactly where we are planning on not competing.

> Until we have that, I don't care about the competition, because it frankly
> doesn't matter and it's the wrong place to put the attention of an open
> source project as we're trying to plan towards 2.0.
> Looking at the various suggestions, those from Colin, Rick Waldron, & James
> Burke mesh most closely with what I think our priorities should be for 2.x, as
> well as what I wrote of course.

I don't see how any suggestions made so far by the collective community are inconsistent with competing against any of the other popular toolkits. If that's what we're doing, then we better understand where we've failed in the past and fix that before throwing another bunch of code out there and hoping it will work out better this time.


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list