►
From YouTube: The Maintainers: Shaun Walker, DotNetNuke and Oqtane
Description
In this series, I interview open source project maintainers to open the window of open source and why it's so important to the things that we do.
Shaun Walker
Shaun Walker has 25+ years professional experience in architecting and implementing enterprise software solutions for private and public organizations. Shaun is the original creator of Oqtane and DotNetNuke, web application frameworks which which have cultivated the largest and most successful Open Source community projects native to the Microsoft platform. He was one of the original founders of DNN Corp, a commercial software company providing products, services, and technical support for DotNetNuke, which raised 3 rounds of venture capital from top tier Silicon Valley investors. Based on his significant community contributions he has been recognized as a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP) as well as an ASPInsider for over 10 consecutive years. He was recognized by Business In Vancouver as a leading entrepreneur in their Forty Under 40 business awards, was a founding member of the Board of Directors of the Outercurve Foundation, and is currently the Chairman of the Advisory Council for Microsoft's .NET Foundation. Shaun is currently a Technical Director and Enterprise Guildmaster at Cognizant Softvision.
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/sbwalker
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shaunbrucewalker/
- Oqtane Blazor Framework: https://www.oqtane.org/
- Blog: https://www.siliqon.com/
A
A
I
actually
was
the
maintainer
of
that
open
source
project
from
2003
till
2014.,
so
it
was
a
bit
more
challenging
in
the
early
stages.
In
fact,
some
of
the
early
contributors
to
the
project
didn't
even
know
what
source
control
was.
I
remember
it
was.
It
was
pretty
challenging
and
then
codeplex
was
a
thing.
A
In
fact,
even
before
codeplex
there
was
something
called
got.net
that
provided
some
source
control
management
capabilities
and
so
managing
the
project
was
much
different
than
it
is
today
with
more
modern,
tooling,
like
github,
and
then
it
became
a
real
open
source
project
and
that's
when
the
fun
really
began-
and
you
know
that
obviously
carried
it
forward.
I
don't
think
I
knew
what
I
was
getting
into
in
those
early
stages.
A
So
I
knew
that
there
was
value
there,
but
as
far
as
you
know,
basically
creating
a
whole
career
out
of
that
which
is
what
ended
up
happening.
I
had
never
imagined
that
would
happen.
I
was
a
dotnet
developer.
I
had
created
a
web
application
framework
which
was
fairly
dynamic,
and
then
microsoft
came
along
with
sharepoint
and
sharepoint
shared
a
lot
of
similar
characteristics
in
the
sense
that
you
could
use
sharepoint
to
build
dynamic
web
applications
as
well.
I
think
what
was
interesting
is,
I
think
it
was
2004.
A
Microsoft
actually
sponsored
me.
So
basically,
I
think
I
was
one
of
the
very
first
open
source
projects
that
they
ever
sponsored
because
they
liked
what
I
was
doing
and
they
liked
the
fact
that
the
community
was
getting
involved,
and
especially
the
asp.net
team,
which
was
headed
up
by
scott
guthrie
at
the
time,
was
very
keen
on
open
source
and
developer
involvement,
and
so
I
mean
microsoft
funded
at
least
myself
to
work
full-time
on
on
this
open
source
project.
At
the
same
time
that
they
were,
you
know
promoting
sharepoint
commercially.
A
I
don't
think
they
ever
really
saw
nanook
as
a
huge
threat
and
in
fact,
sharepoint
grew
to
be
a
massive
business.
But
then,
after
that
second
year
they
basically
said
well.
At
this
point
you
know
you
should
figure
out
your
own
revenue
model,
your
own
business
model,
to
make
it
self-sustaining,
because
you
know
this
funding
that
you're,
basically
getting
from
us,
is
going
to
stop
soon.
I
had
to
think
long
hard
about.
You
know
how
I
was
going
to
convert
this
into
a
real
business.
A
licensing
is
always
a
very
important
topic
when
it
comes
to
open
source.
When
I
originally
released
the
first
version
of
dot
nuke,
which
was
called
the
I
by
spy
workshop,
I
actually
released
it
sort
of
under
a
public
domain
type
license,
because
I
wasn't
really
familiar
with
open
source
licensing
at
the
time
and
then,
when
I
actually
had
a
later
conversation
with
actually
with
scott
guthrie
from
microsoft,
he
said
you
know,
you
really
need
to
choose
a
an
open
source
license
for
this
application.
A
One,
that's
you
know
a
more
standard
license
and
one
that
spells
out.
You
know
the
rules
and
responsibilities
and
much
more
clearly,
and
so
I
did
my
research
and
at
the
time
I
chose
the
mit
license,
which
is
one
of
the
more
most
permissive
licenses,
and
that
actually
is
the
license
that
dotnetnuke
remained
under.
A
A
So
I'm
back
being
a
maintainer
of
an
open
source
project
again,
so
I
think
when
it
comes
to
open
source
projects,
if
you
develop
a
solution
that
solves
a
need
that
is
sort
of
fairly
common
amongst
developers
in
the
community,
then
you
have
a
greater
chance
of
attracting
people
who
want
to
contribute.
So,
of
course,
that's
not
immediate.
Usually
it
takes
some
time.
Managing
an
open
source
product
is
no
different
than
managing
a
commercial
product.
In
the
sense
that
you
you
have
to
do
some
promotion
of
it
right.
A
You
have
to
you
know,
talk
about
it.
You
have
to
share
a
lot
of
knowledge
through
blogs
and
through
articles
and
do
interviews
and
talk
about
it
at
conferences,
and
so
all
the
same
things
that
you
would
do
to
to
market
a
commercial
product.
You
need
to
do
for
your
open
source
project
and,
and
then
you
have
a
better
chance,
of
course,
of
attracting
the
right
people.
A
I
did
become
the
chairman
of
the
advisory
council,
and
so
I've
actually
been
working
closely
with
the.net
foundation
since
2014
as
a
volunteer
sort
of
providing.
You
know,
input
and
feedback
and
guidance
along
the
way.
I
think
every
every
open
source
foundation
has
a
different
value
proposition.
The
net
foundation.
A
I
think
initially,
microsoft
needed
a
way
so
that
it
could
collaborate
with
the
community
in
a
much
more
intimate
manner.
So
this
would
both
allow
their
employees
to
participate
in
open
source,
because
that
really
wasn't
possible
in
the
early
years
and
also
you
know,
allow
the
community
to
participate
in
the
products
that
they
create
and
so
creating
a
foundation
and
actually
moving
the
ip
to
that
foundation
was
a
critical
step
in
making
that
happen.
A
Some
of
them
are
more
technical
type
services,
right
code,
signing
and
supporting
user
groups,
and
you
know
there's
a
variety
of
things
that
it
does
in
that
regard,
I
think
the
other
thing
is
that
it
is
intended
to
ensure
that
open
source
projects,
at
least
the
projects
that
are
the
members
of
the
foundation,
will
maintain
the
same
level
of
freedom
around.
You
know
the
license
of
those
projects
indefinitely.
A
A
I
do
view
open
source
differently
after
spending,
so
many
years
involved
with
it.
I
think
that
I've
learned
a
lot
along
the
way
about
some
of
the
challenges
like
I
like
to
tell
people
that
open
source
is
a
bit
of
a
paradox,
because
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
people
believe
that
are
true
about
open
source
that
are,
in
fact
very
contradictory.
A
For
example,
I
would
say
people
like,
for
example,
open
source
is
a
full-time
job,
and
people
often
think
that
when
you
get
involved
in
open
source,
it's
just
a
very
sort
of
volunteer
effort.
You
know
you
can
invest
a
little
bit
of
time
here
and
there
the
reality
is.
I
mean
if
you're
the
person
who
releases
the
initial
open
source
project
and
you
are
in
fact
the
primary
maintainer.
It
is
like
an
unpaid
job
that
consumes
most
of
your
time
right.
A
So
most
of
the
time
that
you
have
available,
you
will
end
up
investing
into
that
open
source
project
in
terms
of
maintaining
it
spending
time,
interacting
with
the
various
contributors
of
the
project.
I
mean
it
actually
consumes.
So
much
of
your
time
that
I
know
a
number
of
maintainers
of
open
source
projects
that
eventually
get
burned
out
right,
they
get
what's
called
maintainer
fatigue
right.
A
They
spend
so
much
time
and
they're
so
focused
on
their
project
that
some
other
aspects
of
their
life
end
up
suffering
because
of
it,
and
this
is
an
aspect
of
open
source
that
I
don't
think
people
understand
right.
They
just
think
it's
a
lot
of
volunteers,
contributing
a
little
bit
of
time
here
and
there
and
producing
magical
results.
But
I
mean
there
are
some
people
investing
blood,
sweat
and
tears
behind
these
open
source
projects
and
does
take
a
lot
of
time.
A
I
think
another
paradox
is
that
often
when
you
start
an
open
source
project,
you
you're
just
trying
to
get
a
few
contributors
to
help
out
right,
you're,
just
you're,
just
hoping
that
you
get
a
few
people
who
want
to
submit
some
pull
requests
and
help
you
out
and
maybe
fix
a
few
bugs
and
or
maybe
add
a
feature
and
that's
great
initially.
But
if
your
project
is
successful,
you
know
the
saying
that
success
is
harder
than
failure.
A
If
you
start
getting
a
lot
of
contributors,
it
becomes
a
full-time
job,
just
managing
your
contributors
and
giving
them
real-time
sort
of
answers
right.
When
they
ask
questions
and-
and
I
mean
it
consumes
a
ton
of
time
and
so
actually
the
more
successful
your
open
source
project
is
the
more
work
it
becomes.
A
But
the
reality
is
a
lot
of
people
get
involved
in
open
source
because
they
have
a
very
specific
need
that
they
want
to
solve,
or
they
have
a
very
specific
feature
that
they
want
to
add
to
your
project
right
and
that's
very
selfish,
or
if
they
do
a
bunch
of
work,
they
do
expect
to
get
some
recognition
for
that
right.
So
again,
not
selfless
but
kind
of
selfish.