Since this particular topic is a hard discussion (with a projects status in our community on the line) I do not wish to replay it for an audience. OSGeo as an organization is responsible for fostering projects; working through these issues needs to be supportive.
In incubation we try and tackle these topics on the incubation email list (volunteers welcome - projects are waiting to join our foundation). For sensitive topics each project has a mentor, a volunteer from OSGeo such as yourself, to help project teams with these sometimes difficult ideas. If you would like a panel discussion with project leads on how each project does open source I would be game. A strength of OSGeo is that we have the flexibility for a wide range of approaches. -- Jody Garnett On 2 May 2016 at 02:30, Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl) < gert-...@osgeo.nl> wrote: > Hi Jody and others, > > Apart from the discussion here at this list, this might be a nice subject > for a "topic talk" (a discussion on a specific theme) in August at FOSS4G > in Bonn. > If annybody is willing to take the lead in this, we (=the Bonn LOC) can > see if we can fit this in the program) > > > Cheers, > > Gert-Jan > > > > > Jody Garnett schreef op 01-05-2016 22:05: > >> A PSC is not required for any OSGeo project (even a graduated project) >> - being inclusive is. The GeoNode project is an example in incubation >> that forms a leadership team based on recent committers as I >> understand it. The benevolent dictator model does not meet this >> inclusive requirement, Cameron suggested a steering committee formed >> with one chair member with 1.5 votes (to prevent deadlock). >> >> The OSGeo incubation principles are often based on risk ... to users >> of the software project. The "benevolent dictator" model, just like >> having a project backed by a single company/organization, suffers from >> a stability problem - what if the dictator or organization loses >> interest? By splitting responsibility across multiple parties the >> project has a much better chance of weathering these storms ... and >> the risk for users of the software is lower. >> >> I am sorry I am not the best at talking through the pros/cons of the >> benevolent dictator model - perhaps some who feels more passionately >> about this subject (or who has first hand experience) could step in. >> >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> On 1 May 2016 at 12:50, Rashad Kanavath <mohammedrasha...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> 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": >>> >>> [1] >> 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 [2], W www.lisasoft.com [3], F +61 2 9009 5099 [4] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] >> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html >> [2] tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000 >> [3] http://www.lisasoft.com >> [4] tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099 >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss