Some of you might be wondering where this AudioMan project is going. That's a good question -- I don't know either. That's because I don't know what the users want yet. Well I have a general idea but no specifics. When I set up the new Bugzilla database and open it to the public, people can submit requests for new features and defect fixes (collectively called "bugs"). Then others can vote on the importance of submitted bugs, so popular bug requests will be handled first. The users are happy because of the quick feedback loop and developers are happy because there are (hopefully) more users.

I'm not expecting every AudioMan user to be able to use Bugzilla though -- it's not an easy piece of software to grasp because it's made for programmers, not end users. Maybe we'll get feedback another way -- verbally, email, a web form -- and we'll submit the new bugs ourselves. But the bottom line is that all of the change requests are in one system, where they can be prioritized and attacked one at a time. If a new feature request is rejected, the reason is spelled out for other people to see. Then in six months when someone else requests the same feature we can just point them to explanation, saving a lot of time communicating.

So I'm keen on seeing what people request from AudioMan, which is why I'm a little anxious to get Bugzilla set up. That's not to say I won't selfishly implement functionality that I personally want but if people don't like that stuff I'll probably be pressured to take it out again or they'll just take matters into their own hands.

That's the thing about open source software: you're not selling anything, people just want software that works well. As soon as you start to stray from that people won't have a problem telling you about how much you are screwing things up. After all, they can just take your code and fork it off into their own project, which is perfectly legal and acceptable. Maintainers of open source projects have to be cognisant of that all the time.