[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

Although it's not a perfect analogy, this sounds like various Wikipedia debates I've heard. On one hand, letting anyone edit pages leads to incorrect/biased information, sabotaged pages, and edit wars. On the other hand, Wikipedia is one of the largest, easily accessible sources of information--and most of the time other editors fix incorrect information.

Without any relevant experience, my guess on this would be that if FIRST decides to open source it, they open up the possibility that experienced mentors and students are able to help. However, they also open it to the risk that anyone can sabotage it if they like. Of course, there are far worse consequences to this than just a sabotaged Wikipedia page, which FIRST has to consider carefully.

It's important that to note that "open source" does not mean anyone can make edits without review, potentially allowing the system to be "sabotaged." Changes must still be reviewed and then accepted by the owner.