I found this nice description of the benevolent dictator governance:
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel

It's a nice read, but I want to highlight this part:

> In many ways, the role of the benevolent dictator is less about
> dictatorship and more about diplomacy. The key is to ensure
> that, as the project expands, the right people are given influence
> over it and the community rallies behind the vision of the project
> lead.

Another good one from (linked from the above):
http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolent-dictator-qualifications

> they let things work themselves out through discussion and
> experimentation whenever possible. They participate in those
> discussions themselves, but as regular developers, often deferring to
> an area maintainer who has more expertise. Only when it is clear that
> no consensus can be reached, and that most of the group wants someone
> to guide the decision so that development can move on, does she put
> her foot down and say "This is the way it's going to be."


From my (really) naive point of view, the "benevolent dictatorship" is a do-ocracy were the committers get the right, or influence, to lead parts of the projects and where the "dictator" is acountable of its decision to the community. The key ingredients are the same as other governance :
- Be easy to contribute patches and features
- Be open on the direction of the project
- Be forkable

If someone wants to contribute a new feature, they ask the mailing-list and the committer responsible for this part of the software, not the "dictator", will approve or suggest changes. The approach is less formal than with a PSC, but still works the same.

This is of course an ideal scenario, but can be as open as a PSC, I think, as long as the project as a good "forkability".

Back to the incubation discussion, Rasdaman seems to have multiple committers and 2 main organisation behind it. What I would like to ask is, what's the "bus number". Is there a second (or third) in command that could ultimately take care of the project after the dictator's "end-of-term"? From my point of view, a PSC of 3, 2 being from the same company, is a small PSC and will probably lack a bit of variety in opinions. Is there any other key contributors that the "dictator" refers to when trying to get inputs and defer technical decisions?

Julien

On 16-05-01 07:29 AM, Jody Garnett 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.

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
<mailto: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 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,  Wwww.lisasoft.com 
<http://www.lisasoft.com>,  F+61 2 9009 5099 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>


    _______________________________________________
    Incubator mailing list
    incuba...@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:incuba...@lists.osgeo.org>
    http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator




_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator


--
Julien-Samuel Lacroix
T: +1 418-696-5056 #202
Mapgears
http://www.mapgears.com/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to