On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is kind of a larger topic than just the incubation committee, but no > I do not believe we should. It is a defining characteristic of our > foundation to not place many restrictions on our projects - but demand that > the projects be inclusive and open to collaboration. > > I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal. > > I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach as the one true > way, smaller projects that only wish to have committers vote on decisions > (rather than form a PSC) is perfectly acceptable - provided there is a > provision for new committers to be added into the mix. > I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in incubation is not a good idea. If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC should work. Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever criteria, one being the "dictator" way. Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must be validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a checklist to validate working PSC and how it should work can filter projects with "benevolent dictator". > We also have an outstanding request from our president to make the > foundation more inclusive. With this in mind we are a lot less demanding on > our community projects - which provides a way for projects that do not meet > some of our ideal criteria to be part of the foundation. > -- > Jody > > -- > Jody Garnett > > On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board, >> >> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on this >> question: >> >> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for >> incubating projects? >> >> -0 from me, Cameron Shorter. >> >> Background: >> * As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has requested a >> "benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2]. While "benevolent >> dictatorships" often lead to successful projects, all prior OSGeo incubated >> projects have selected "equal vote by PSC members". Someone with better >> legal training than me might find "benevolent dictatorships" to be >> unconstitutional according to OSGeo bylaws. [3] >> >> [1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere": >> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html >> [2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance >> [3] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html >> >> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote: >> >> Cameron- >> >> I understand where you are coming from, and your characterization is >> definitely correct. While our process is and always has been absolutely >> open to discussion so as to obtain the scientifically and technically best >> solution this "benevolent dictatorship" has brought rasdaman to where it >> stands now - it is designed by innovation, not by committee. Just to get me >> right, our model is certainly not the right one for every endeavour. Here >> it is the most appropriate, and hence we will keep it. >> >> As you observe, this model is not contradicting OS as such, and many >> projects run it. So ultimately it lies in the hand of OSGeo to decide >> whether they accept the existing plurality of approaches (in this case >> manifest with rasdaman). >> >> best, >> Peter >> >> On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: >> >> Bruce, Peter, >> I've read through the incubation process documentation, and can only see >> one thing which I think breaks our OSGeo principles. >> >> The Governance model includes a statement: >> "In all issues, the PSC strives to achieve unanimous consent based on a >> free, independent exchange of facts and opinions. Should such consent >> exceptionally not be reached then Peter Baumann has a casting vote." >> http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance >> >> This is describing a "benevolent dictator" model, which has proved to be >> an effective model for many open source projects. See Eric Raymond's >> "Homesteading the Noosphere": >> <http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html> >> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html >> >> However, it is not in line with existing OSGeo Incubated projects, which >> have documented a "vote by PSC" as the defining governance process. In >> practice, the PSC community debate alternatives, and if needed, >> respectfully revert to reasoned advice provided by the "benevolent >> dictator". >> >> Peter, are you open to changing the governance model to a "vote by PSC"? >> I'd be comfortable with a "vote by PSC, with PSC chair being given 1.5 >> votes to break any deadlocks. I'd also be ok with PSC chair defaulting to >> Peter (as founder), until such time as Peter resigns from the role." >> >> Warm regards, Cameron >> >> >> -- >> Cameron Shorter, >> Software and Data Solutions Manager >> LISAsoft >> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf, >> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009 >> >> P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Incubator mailing list >> incuba...@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Regards, Rashad
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss