BTW, would be nice if you could post links to these discussions, if they're public or whatever... :^^;:
Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
Nao
- Dadman with a boy
-
-
- Posts: 16,080
AngelinaBelle
-
- Still thinking...
- Posts: 92
And a Happy New Year to you!
The discussion about the Forks discussion board really was about the open source issue.
Of course, EVERYONE's most well-reasoned opinions may have been colored by their feelings toward the people involved.
As in -- "We went through a lot of trouble to switch to an open-source license, and we should promote open source", with a dash of "I'm a bit angry at those Wedge fellows at the moment, but I don't think that really influences my opinion on the license issue".
It is lovely to see people turn over a positive new leaf isn't it? A lovely way to start the new year!
The discussion about the Forks discussion board really was about the open source issue.
Of course, EVERYONE's most well-reasoned opinions may have been colored by their feelings toward the people involved.
As in -- "We went through a lot of trouble to switch to an open-source license, and we should promote open source", with a dash of "I'm a bit angry at those Wedge fellows at the moment, but I don't think that really influences my opinion on the license issue".
It is lovely to see people turn over a positive new leaf isn't it? A lovely way to start the new year!
I'm an SMF doc writer.
Arantor
-
-
- As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
- Posts: 14,278
As in -- "We went through a lot of trouble to switch to an open-source license, and we should promote open source"
How many forks have been started not by general people that want to, but by former product contributors that have been pushed out of the project one way or another? Let's see... Yourasoft, Wedge, ezForum, bloQS/ViennaBBS, Elkarte... the list goes on.
Yes, a positive leaf is one thing, however that's fine if you're going to turn that into positive *action*, and that isn't really happening.
When we unite against a common enemy that attacks our ethos, it nurtures group solidarity. Trolls are sensational, yes, but we keep everyone honest. | Game Memorial
AngelinaBelle
-
- Still thinking...
- Posts: 92
Arantor,
I agree with you that the SMF project is not in tip-top shape at the moment. We have 2 devs at the moment, and will be in better shape with more devs. "Too many decision-makers" is an interesting comment. That's the team. Everyone on the team is a decision maker. Everyone gets a vote.
Nao -- I am sorry I cannot post links to discussions made on the SMF team boards. They were made with every expectation of remaining "team only" in perpetuity, and won't be moved to "public" boards. I don't think I will be breaking anybody's expectations of privacy by assuring you that I saw no evidence that the team was concerned about Wedge "killing" SMF. I think anyone who has read the public boards here from about that time already knows that some SMF team members were not happy with the Wedge team at the time, and that they were under the impression that Wedge team members were not happy with them.
My statements about strong feelings coloring decisions is simply my own impression of the mood of the time -- certainly, it is plausible that emotion can affect decision-making, even when individuals strive for objectivity.
I agree with you that the SMF project is not in tip-top shape at the moment. We have 2 devs at the moment, and will be in better shape with more devs. "Too many decision-makers" is an interesting comment. That's the team. Everyone on the team is a decision maker. Everyone gets a vote.
Nao -- I am sorry I cannot post links to discussions made on the SMF team boards. They were made with every expectation of remaining "team only" in perpetuity, and won't be moved to "public" boards. I don't think I will be breaking anybody's expectations of privacy by assuring you that I saw no evidence that the team was concerned about Wedge "killing" SMF. I think anyone who has read the public boards here from about that time already knows that some SMF team members were not happy with the Wedge team at the time, and that they were under the impression that Wedge team members were not happy with them.
My statements about strong feelings coloring decisions is simply my own impression of the mood of the time -- certainly, it is plausible that emotion can affect decision-making, even when individuals strive for objectivity.
Arantor
-
-
- As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
- Posts: 14,278
I agree with you that the SMF project is not in tip-top shape at the moment. We have 2 devs at the moment, and will be in better shape with more devs. "Too many decision-makers" is an interesting comment. That's the team. Everyone on the team is a decision maker. Everyone gets a vote.
Therein lies your problem: there's too many decision makers. Too many people want their say and feel like they should have the right to a say. But in a project like SMF, where the code is what makes the project, the people who are the real decision makers are the people that build the damn thing. Not everyone else. There's too much freedom.
As far as I'm concerned, as far as I've always been concerned, unless you're developing the thing, unless you're actually the one putting your nose to the grindstone and actually cranking out the code, you have no more right to dictate development than anyone else. Input yes, opinion yes, but that's where the line is drawn.
I have, as recently as this morning, received suggestions that I should offer to return to the SMF team. Putting aside all of my personal feelings for the project and some of the people in it (which is a huge task), putting aside all of Wedge (which is an even bigger task), I have to ask myself one question: could I realistically do anything to save SMF? The answer is no, and for one reason, and only one reason. Even if I were recruited tomorrow as lead developer, I would not be given the reign to act in the manner which I saw fit for SMF's development - because all this 'freedom' would prevent me doing just that.
I find it interesting that the freedom that SMF fought so hard for will protect its legacy, but only because it enabled the rest of us to do exactly what we've done - escape from the 'freedom' and run very far away indeed. I have much more actual freedom now than I ever did as an SMF team member in terms of protecting SMF's legacy in a way that actually honours it.
I don't think I will be breaking anybody's expectations of privacy by assuring you that I saw no evidence that the team was concerned about Wedge "killing" SMF
I don't even need to see inside the team boards to have a gauge on where people feel things are going now, though I suspect they will not have publicly voiced their opinions. I will not say more of this part, that is not my tale to tell.
Kindred
-
- Posts: 166
Arantor.... and your very statement proves that people on the dev team either want "it all" (i.e. no input from anyone except them) or are misunderstanding the team roles.
The way it is SUPPOSED to be working is:
We start a new version. The whole team weighs in on what they think would be good enhancements, changes or other functionality.
the developers respond with reasons why X Y or Z may or may not be possible...
The dev lead sits down (virtually) with the steering committee and they (together) decide on what are "must-haves", "want-to'haves" and "won't be dones"
It is then up to the dev team to accomplish any of this.... and it is the dev lead's responsibility to see that his/her team is working toward the appropriate goals. When the release is close to ready, the rest of the team gets back into the mix by testing the first alpha versions and commenting on the good, the bad and the ugly...
No where in this flow does anyone ever tell the dev team how or what to code... (well, I suppose the dev lead does tell the rest of the devs what needs to be coded, but that's all within dev.)
So, despite many complaints from former devs about other people telling them what to do, I fail to see that ACTUALLY occuring anywhere in the mix...
The big deal in the last few months was made into a huge deal because one former developers made an unauthorized and incorrect change to the LEGAL statement portion of every file... the change was noted and called out as something which should not have been done, and suddenly devs started screaming that they were being repressed (by someone who was appointed by some tart in a lake handing out swords)
The way it is SUPPOSED to be working is:
We start a new version. The whole team weighs in on what they think would be good enhancements, changes or other functionality.
the developers respond with reasons why X Y or Z may or may not be possible...
The dev lead sits down (virtually) with the steering committee and they (together) decide on what are "must-haves", "want-to'haves" and "won't be dones"
It is then up to the dev team to accomplish any of this.... and it is the dev lead's responsibility to see that his/her team is working toward the appropriate goals. When the release is close to ready, the rest of the team gets back into the mix by testing the first alpha versions and commenting on the good, the bad and the ugly...
No where in this flow does anyone ever tell the dev team how or what to code... (well, I suppose the dev lead does tell the rest of the devs what needs to be coded, but that's all within dev.)
So, despite many complaints from former devs about other people telling them what to do, I fail to see that ACTUALLY occuring anywhere in the mix...
The big deal in the last few months was made into a huge deal because one former developers made an unauthorized and incorrect change to the LEGAL statement portion of every file... the change was noted and called out as something which should not have been done, and suddenly devs started screaming that they were being repressed (by someone who was appointed by some tart in a lake handing out swords)
Arantor
-
-
- As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
- Posts: 14,278
Arantor.... and your very statement proves that people on the dev team either want "it all" (i.e. no input from anyone except them) or are misunderstanding the team roles.
The way it is SUPPOSED to be working is:
the developers respond with reasons why X Y or Z may or may not be possible...
The dev lead sits down (virtually) with the steering committee and they (together) decide on what are "must-haves", "want-to'haves" and "won't be dones"
It is then up to the dev team to accomplish any of this.... and it is the dev lead's responsibility to see that his/her team is working toward the appropriate goals
the rest of the team gets back into the mix by testing the first alpha versions and commenting on the good, the bad and the ugly...
No where in this flow does anyone ever tell the dev team how or what to code... (well, I suppose the dev lead does tell the rest of the devs what needs to be coded, but that's all within dev.)
So, despite many complaints from former devs about other people telling them what to do, I fail to see that ACTUALLY occuring anywhere in the mix...
The big deal in the last few months was made into a huge deal because one former developers made an unauthorized and incorrect change to the LEGAL statement portion of every file... the change was noted and called out as something which should not have been done, and suddenly devs started screaming that they were being repressed
The real substance of that change was most interesting, notwithstanding the fact it was one of the main reasons why a number of your developers upped and left and forked your software.
The change that's being referred to, for those playing along at home, is over the copyright notice in the SMF files itself, which until the change referred to Simple Machines. As in the entire package's copyright is owned by SM NPO. This is interesting because the code I gave SMF, I certainly didn't allow SMF to claim copyright on it.
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, You hereby grant to Simple Machines and to
recipients of software distributed by Simple Machines a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your
Contributions and such derivative works. Entities other than Simple
Machines are also granted these rights for re-distribution of original
or derivative works as far as allowed by the Simple Machines License.
I suppose you could probably make a vague claim based on it being a derivative work, sublicensed back to SM and distributed in that fashion, but it doesn't change the fact that my code is still owned by me and that I'm giving you a licence to use it. IOW, the copyright is of SMF contributors, they are the ones who legally hold the copyright in the code, and they gave SM the licence to create a single package out of it, but they did NOT transfer ownership of it.
By comparison, Wedge's copyright is currently stated as copyright Wedgeward 2010-2013. Thing is, I'm not sure how much original SMF code is really left any more. Derivative work, sure. Sublicensed... well, it was sublicensed to BSD by SMF itself, and we've sublicensed it again. The copyright notice in our files is possibly incorrect at this time, however the reality is that our copyright doesn't cover the original SMF code - we know that, we understand it. Our copyright (and our sublicensing) is born out of the changes we've made to SMF's original code, we're not really claiming ownership of SMF's code, we're claiming ownership of our code that substantively transforms SMF's. I shudder to think how big a diff would be at this stage, but quite possibly it would be larger than SMF's entire code base at this time.[1]
You call it repression, but I'm not sure what happened actually is. I'm not entirely sure that what Norv did was wrong. But the fact that in the aftermath, you lost two developers, very likely a third very soon, leaving you with one of the most incapable people in the role of lead developer.
But if you're happy with that situation, the next saga of driving all the competent people away until you're left with the truly incompetent in positions of authority, I guess there's nothing more to be said.
Just one thought for you. In the 2 1/2 years since Wedge formed, you've had a team of how many developers working on SMF? In that time what's happened... now compare the scale of changes in SMF to what's happened in Wedge, when you leave two competent people the run to build it how they see fit, whilst taking into account the needs and desires expressed by the community.
Seems to me that Wedge and Elkarte are going to outlive SMF the way SMF is going and that's really quite sad.
| 1. | And that chasm is increasing all the time, only this week I've been rewriting the ban system, entirely. It doesn't have the ugly nasty query any more and should scale better. |
Kindred
-
- Posts: 166
See, the thing is Arantor... despite all of the screaming, yelling and leaving... No one has actually been telling the devs what to do.
That's what just gets my goat and boggles my mind.
Seriously... What I illustrated above is actually how Spuds and emanuele handled the 2.1 planning and implementation... and no one was demanding anything of them (other than the occasional request for an update on how they were doing and where they were in the process)
How are devs getting the shaft?
1- they get to discuss desired updates along with everyone else.
2- their team lead gets to decide the list of updates to be done with the SC. (that is the whole purpose of the SC, after all)
3- they get to work on the stuff that they want to work on, as previously discussed and decided...
As for copyright... you are correct. You hold the copyright to your own code. No one has ever claimed otherwise.
However, SM holds the copyright to the set of code that is SMF. This does not detract from or remove the copyright of each and every individual contributor, but SM holds the copyright to its software.
(BTW: the copyright statement that you reference was borrowed from the Apache foundation... and I don;t see any former contributors trying to claim that Apache doesn't hold the copyright to its software. So, for Norv or anyone else to claim otherwise for SMF is just silly.)
I am still not sure why devs left from the fall out of Norv's idiocy... It was so seriously blown out of proportion when all we originally did was ask that the change be reverted.
(I do agree on the permissions thing - there is no way that she ever should have had the permission to commit that change without review and approval)
You can shake your head all you want... but I seriously do not understand the dev's response... nor the ones who have recently left.
When I was PM, I was indeed trying to manage the RELEASE. I never tried to manage the development (despite what some folks have tried to claim - never once did I try to tell the devs how to code or what to code --- and, as far as I know, no one on the team has done so since then either. So, my only conclusion as to why the recent devs have left is that either they are childish gits who are so full of themselves that they can not conceive that anyone should be able to even suggest that there might be a good idea outside of their own minds (a possibility, I admit)... or (which is more likely) the whole thing is based on a series of misunderstandings and overreactions which folks are either too embarrassed or too stubborn to discuss.
See I like what you've done with Wedge. You guys have done a great job. Your model works GREAT for the initial product and even the first few versions... However, once you reach a certain size of community which you need to support though, you get into the need to have more than just the two of you. Which leads back to the process which I detailed above... there is nothing wrong with that process (as I said it is actually the process which spuds and emanuele used for 2.1 development)
When it breaks down is when people insist that they know better. (either devs saying "no one else should ever have any input, because we are the only ones that matter" or non-devs saying "we get to tell the devs what do do)
Both arguments are wrong... However, to this point, the only ones who have violated the process are the devs who have literally made that first statement... that devs are the only ones who matter and that the other teams just don't matter at all, since "anyone can do what the rest of you do"
I think that you are premature in declaring smf to be a dead project. People said the same thing before 2.0 came out... and while it was a long time coming, SMF did chug along... and like that, I have confidence that SMF will continue to chug along.
That's what just gets my goat and boggles my mind.
Seriously... What I illustrated above is actually how Spuds and emanuele handled the 2.1 planning and implementation... and no one was demanding anything of them (other than the occasional request for an update on how they were doing and where they were in the process)
How are devs getting the shaft?
1- they get to discuss desired updates along with everyone else.
2- their team lead gets to decide the list of updates to be done with the SC. (that is the whole purpose of the SC, after all)
3- they get to work on the stuff that they want to work on, as previously discussed and decided...
As for copyright... you are correct. You hold the copyright to your own code. No one has ever claimed otherwise.
However, SM holds the copyright to the set of code that is SMF. This does not detract from or remove the copyright of each and every individual contributor, but SM holds the copyright to its software.
(BTW: the copyright statement that you reference was borrowed from the Apache foundation... and I don;t see any former contributors trying to claim that Apache doesn't hold the copyright to its software. So, for Norv or anyone else to claim otherwise for SMF is just silly.)
I am still not sure why devs left from the fall out of Norv's idiocy... It was so seriously blown out of proportion when all we originally did was ask that the change be reverted.
(I do agree on the permissions thing - there is no way that she ever should have had the permission to commit that change without review and approval)
You can shake your head all you want... but I seriously do not understand the dev's response... nor the ones who have recently left.
When I was PM, I was indeed trying to manage the RELEASE. I never tried to manage the development (despite what some folks have tried to claim - never once did I try to tell the devs how to code or what to code --- and, as far as I know, no one on the team has done so since then either. So, my only conclusion as to why the recent devs have left is that either they are childish gits who are so full of themselves that they can not conceive that anyone should be able to even suggest that there might be a good idea outside of their own minds (a possibility, I admit)... or (which is more likely) the whole thing is based on a series of misunderstandings and overreactions which folks are either too embarrassed or too stubborn to discuss.
See I like what you've done with Wedge. You guys have done a great job. Your model works GREAT for the initial product and even the first few versions... However, once you reach a certain size of community which you need to support though, you get into the need to have more than just the two of you. Which leads back to the process which I detailed above... there is nothing wrong with that process (as I said it is actually the process which spuds and emanuele used for 2.1 development)
When it breaks down is when people insist that they know better. (either devs saying "no one else should ever have any input, because we are the only ones that matter" or non-devs saying "we get to tell the devs what do do)
Both arguments are wrong... However, to this point, the only ones who have violated the process are the devs who have literally made that first statement... that devs are the only ones who matter and that the other teams just don't matter at all, since "anyone can do what the rest of you do"
I think that you are premature in declaring smf to be a dead project. People said the same thing before 2.0 came out... and while it was a long time coming, SMF did chug along... and like that, I have confidence that SMF will continue to chug along.
Arantor
-
-
- As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
- Posts: 14,278
How are devs getting the shaft?
1- they get to discuss desired updates along with everyone else.
2- their team lead gets to decide the list of updates to be done with the SC. (that is the whole purpose of the SC, after all)
3- they get to work on the stuff that they want to work on, as previously discussed and decided...
As for copyright... you are correct. You hold the copyright to your own code. No one has ever claimed otherwise.
However, SM holds the copyright to the set of code that is SMF. This does not detract from or remove the copyright of each and every individual contributor, but SM holds the copyright to its software.
(BTW: the copyright statement that you reference was borrowed from the Apache foundation... and I don;t see any former contributors trying to claim that Apache doesn't hold the copyright to its software. So, for Norv or anyone else to claim otherwise for SMF is just silly.)
I checked the 'core' module in Apache 2.4 itself. The fundamental part of Apache, without which nothing will work. and hilariously it actually says what SMF should have been doing.
/* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
* contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
* this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
* The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
* (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/
See, Apache doesn't claim copyright of the project in its own source files. They're doing what you're doing in terms of ownership, and what Norv was trying to get you to do about telling people what's going on, albeit not the proper way. They don't claim ownership but they make it clear why not.
But I guess in your eyes, it doesn't matter because I'm silly and wrong. And I guess the example I just posted is also invalid for some stupid technicality, but it's right there in the httpd source tarball of Apache 2.4.3, in modules/core/mod_so.c
I am still not sure why devs left from the fall out of Norv's idiocy... It was so seriously blown out of proportion when all we originally did was ask that the change be reverted.
(I do agree on the permissions thing - there is no way that she ever should have had the permission to commit that change without review and approval)
When it breaks down is when people insist that they know better. (either devs saying "no one else should ever have any input, because we are the only ones that matter" or non-devs saying "we get to tell the devs what do do)
I still think you're missing the point of what I'm trying to get at. Devs have egos, yes. It's part of what we do. And now you're expecting people like us to accept that our opinion is not really any more important than someone who isn't a coder? That's where the problem has ALWAYS been - the devs have never, ever felt as though they are given due status. This whole 'equality' thing is nonsense. It devalues dev input and it pushes the devs out, whether you want to accept what I'm saying or not.
The fact is, you're now into what iteration of complete dev team change, with every single person singing the same hymn sheet? How much more is it going to take before you and the others are going to wake up and listen to what's actually being said?
However, to this point, the only ones who have violated the process are the devs who have literally made that first statement... that devs are the only ones who matter and that the other teams just don't matter at all, since "anyone can do what the rest of you do"
I think that you are premature in declaring smf to be a dead project. People said the same thing before 2.0 came out... and while it was a long time coming, SMF did chug along... and like that, I have confidence that SMF will continue to chug along.
Kindred
-
- Posts: 166
Hey, I never said you were silly...;)
I can't check now from my iPad, but I believe that the notice file of apache does actually have apache holding copyright to the product.
As for the devs saying that... It was recently said again... As justification for one of the devs not only leaving but withdrawing his planned submissions hat he had been working on, but had not yet committed.
And finally, it's not actually true. Most of the folks we have had as devs could not document their way outnof a paper bag. ;)
And support is something that most developers are equally poor at... You being one of the exceptions, not the rule. :)
Anyways... On the subject of lab... Not my choice nor did anyone ask my input... Lol
I can't check now from my iPad, but I believe that the notice file of apache does actually have apache holding copyright to the product.
As for the devs saying that... It was recently said again... As justification for one of the devs not only leaving but withdrawing his planned submissions hat he had been working on, but had not yet committed.
And finally, it's not actually true. Most of the folks we have had as devs could not document their way outnof a paper bag. ;)
And support is something that most developers are equally poor at... You being one of the exceptions, not the rule. :)
Anyways... On the subject of lab... Not my choice nor did anyone ask my input... Lol
Arantor
-
-
- As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
- Posts: 14,278
iPad snap!
Re silly, you did say the argument about Apache ownership was a silly one but I would draw your attention to http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html and particularly "why it was necessary"
I would disagree actually... Almost everyone who has been dev team the last few years started in the Support team. Even Norv.
Re silly, you did say the argument about Apache ownership was a silly one but I would draw your attention to http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html and particularly "why it was necessary"
I would disagree actually... Almost everyone who has been dev team the last few years started in the Support team. Even Norv.
Nao
- Dadman with a boy
-
-
- Posts: 16,080
The discussion about the Forks discussion board really was about the open source issue.
As in -- "We went through a lot of trouble to switch to an open-source license, and we should promote open source", with a dash of "I'm a bit angry at those Wedge fellows at the moment, but I don't think that really influences my opinion on the license issue".
So, if Wedge uses the SMF 1.0 license it's bound to fail, isn't it...?
Or maybe they should have listened to Pete and I back in the day...
Maybe they should have rethought of the 'reward' system for developers. Maybe they should have been cooler with talented developers who could add a lot to SMF, instead of rejecting multiple times their requested to be made developers.
Maybe they should reconsider why they're rejecting talents, and embracing mediocrity (Labradoodle, AFAIK.)
Heck, I wouldn't want to be on the same team as he is... Not because I hate him (I don't know him). It's just that a developer should know what they're doing. If you're in the same position as a wannabe developer, there's a problem somewhere.
It is lovely to see people turn over a positive new leaf isn't it? A lovely way to start the new year!
It's as I say everywhere. I don't think SMF is 'dead', but I don't think it's going to be back in the limelight either. It had its momentum back in the 1.1 era, and that's all... Too many team changes after that. SMF is really lacking a vision and motivation, rather than talent, you see.
That is, I agree with Pete on most on this conversation. I think the non-dev team should quiet down and be very, VERY happy that some talented developers are spending many hours adding new features, when they could be charging $100+ per hour for that work.
If there's one thing that free software needs the most, it's the drive to build something that's worth millions, without being paid a dime.
It's very hard to accomplish, and it's even harder to find people who are willing to do it.
For that reason, I understand that Norv would be bothered that her copyright terms change was rejected that way. But I don't think that Norv added a lot to the SMF community these last few years, so I also understand that the rest of the team took action against her (mostly because she was AWOL and never explained it.)
So, it's not really a situation where I'd like to take sides. I'm more interested in what Pete has to say about Apache. Maybe we should all modify our headers to make them super short, like:
* @package wedge (or SMF)
* @copyright and license information http://wedge.org/license/
Or a text file, or something. And then indicate something similar to Apache.
See, copyright info isn't even needed in a file. It's best to have it, but not having it doesn't deprive you of your rights.
Arantor
-
-
- As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
- Posts: 14,278
I'd prefer to take the Apache route, actually, because it means we don't have to update files every year or anything, and we can explain the rules much better in a single place.
Nao
- Dadman with a boy
-
-
- Posts: 16,080
If only we'd discussed that, like, yesterday... :lol:
When you say Apache route, you mean including a very large header file on every file..?
When you say Apache route, you mean including a very large header file on every file..?
Arantor
-
-
- As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
- Posts: 14,278
Not a 'very large' header - it's not exactly much bigger than the current one but we do it once and don't even have to change it every year.