On Wednesday 31 August 2005 23:40, David Boyes wrote:
> > > I think another aspect that we haven't seen a lot of
> >
> > discussion on is
> >
> > > transparency and accountability, which is often the big catch with
> > > commercial donors.
> >
> > I don't think this is a really big problem. First, I am
> > someone very open. I have no problem with keeping things
> > transparent. The few conversations I have off-list, for
> > example, are typically private or items that would interest
> > very few persons such as release packaging problems (bugs), ...
> > Concerning accountability, in general, that won't be a
> > problem either as I must have been an accountant in a former
> > life because I have no problem doing the bookkeeping for a
> > number of corporations that ran in the past.
>
> I would tend to disagree, but only on the grounds that people with money
> and resources have a nasty tendency to demand to know how their money is
> used in a regularized and formal manner, and (at least here in the US) they
> may be required to report that through other channels as part of their
> compliance regime in their industries. Most commercial entities would
> expect to have a formal audit report for how funds were spent, and how the
> choices are made.
>
> As a person, I don't think anyone has problems with you being honest and
> trustworthy. Corporations are a whole different kind of rat. My day
> employer probably would not allow contributing to the project without a
> formalized public method of dealing with the transparancy and accounting
> issues. Even my evening consulting business would probably be more likely
> to contribute if that process was in place.
Thanks for your confidence in me.
As I say, I don't think this will be a problem. I am used to accounting for
every cent of income and every cent of expenditures and producing balance
sheets.
>
> > > One idea I've been toying with proposing is the idea of having a
> > > formally reviewed proposal process (similar to applying for
> >
> > a grant)
> >
> > > for projects to be funded by the foundation. The formal
> >
> > review would
> >
> > > include estimates of time, level of effort, timelines, and formal
> > > requirements for documentation and code standards. Asking
> >
> > someone to
> >
> > > think about these things in advance tends to sort the serious
> > > contributors from the kibitzers. I believe the Apache and
> >
> > Samba folks have adopted this approach for this very reason.
> >
> > Yes, this is a good idea, but it is probably a bit early for
> > this simply because we don't have sufficient numbers of
> > contributors. If we had 10 programmers submitting code, this
> > would be critical, but when it is one or two as it is now,
> > there isn't much need.
>
> I would just observe that you should start out as you mean to continue. If
> you plan to hold people accountable for delivering what you provide them
> resources to do, then that's your model and you should stick to it. "Ask
> Kern" doesn't scale very well, and you *really* want this to scale.
Yes, I agree, and that is what I concider critical -- "Ask Kern" means there
is a problem, and the problem is quite simple. There is no other person that
has been working consistently on the core code for any length of time. I've
indicated my method of trying to resolve this:
1. Attend meetings, present Bacula (this will start next spring).
2. Stop implementing all the projects and wait for others to come along. As
long as I am doing most of the core programming, what is the incentive for
someone to help?
Other ideas would of course be welcome.
>
> > I'm thinking about transitioning into something like Debian
> > does, where a certain funding is really important, but they
> > don't actually pay programmers.
> > Paying programmers is what seems to create the conflicts or
> > "crowding out".
>
> Resources allocated by the foundation would not necessarily be monetary.
> Access to equipment and development tools could also be part of a "grant".
> For example, I've got development machines I personally own for about a
> dozen different OS and CPU architectures, and some tape changer hardware
> that's mine to play with. What I had considered doing was making access to
> that development lab for a autobuild farm and testing lab my contribution
> to the foundation. No money involved, but we would need to coordinate who's
> using it, and I'd like to know how it's being used (there are some tax
> advantages in the US to lending hardware to non-profit projects).
Yes, these kinds of resources are very valuable. Bacula is already receiving
this kind of help in an important way (maintenance of bugs database, hosting
the web site, allowing login to testing machines, ...).
I doubt that any foundation that I create will be considered as tax exempt in
the US because as I understand it, such an organization must be controlled in
the US.
>
> > As for funding those projects, I'm thinking that Bacula, at
> > least in the near future, will not fund them. However,
> > something that has worked in the past is that if one or more
> > corporations want a particular feature that is on this
> > project list, then they will have several options of getting it done:
> > 1. supply programmers to do it under Bacula supervision.
> > 2. submit a patch (not really recommended -- not so long ago,
> > I rejected a pretty big patch).
> > 3. provide funding incentives for programmers.
>
> All of which really require some kind of coordination to keep the code
> stable and clean.
Clearly, and that is what I currently spend a good deal of my time on. As
soon as there are other volunteers with a similar mentality, I would have no
problem turning this function over to someone or sharing it.
>
> I'll think about it a bit more. I still think there needs to be a clearly
> defined mechanism for how that problem list gets tackled, but it bears some
> skull sweat to think this through.
There is already a well defined procedure for this -- it just isn't written
down (I don't have the time to do everything). Take a look at the mail
archives after the last release ...
>
> > Well, I don't know if Bacula is really ready for the bigger
> > storage management
> > conferences, but they would be well worth attending so that I
> > can get a good
> > feeling of what is necessary in the longer run.
>
> I get good turnout when *I* talk about it -- 50-75 people in sessions. As
> the author, you're likely to get a much better turnout...8-)
Yes, I am not worried about turnout. Even in the disastrous DataQuest
conference, there were about 300, but there were a few loud-mouths from big
corporations that were getting financially burned by a tiny startup so they
were quite vocal -- very uncivilized. I pointed that out as a sort of
amusing story (for me), but I'm not concerned about it.
--
Best regards,
Kern
(">
/\
V_V
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
