@Peter From the discussion I take away the impression that Cameron et al have tried to keep the conversation going and not close any doors. You have called that word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow. The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it deal, is not conducive to a potential win-win. I appreciate your frankness, however. The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the power. Something most developers are familiar with.
As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our mission. Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that has this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching it would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive participative culture of the community at large. @Patrick No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not want to leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only borrow). But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To be invited by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less of an appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more incremental steps. Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I see two cultures clash. And one has held a door open. Vriendelijke groet, Marc Vloemans > Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) <patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> > het volgende geschreven: > > Dear OSGeo Community, > > This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and > stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as old > as some of us OS geospatial projects! > > We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily > experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and > accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising. > > At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together, encouraging > creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that celebrates our finite > resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open source solutions, regardless > of the path used to grow them. > > Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source > geospatial solutions, however they exist? > > A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe something > from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as Eleanor Roosevelt > “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” To > which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall have none. Open OSGeo Open. > . . > > Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble apologies > for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or she’s not there > at all. > > -Patrick > > From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Peter > Baumann > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM > To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org > Cc: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent > dictator" projects into OSGeo? > > Hi Cameron, > > I tried very much to make the situation transparent. Maybe the notion of > Principal Investigator helps here (cf Wikipedia - although biased towards > medical science): > > A principal investigator (PI) is the holder of an independent grant > administered by a university and the lead researcher for the grant project, > usually in the sciences, such as a laboratory study or a clinical trial. The > phrase is also often used as a synonym for "head of the laboratory" or > "research group leader." While the expression is common in the sciences, it > is used widely for the person or persons who make final decisions and > supervise funding and expenditures on a given research project. > > I am the PI of rasdaman, and that will not change, also not indirectly > through wordsmithing as proposed. > > OSGeo is entering new domains with rasdaman, which is: scientific research > projects. Like some other communities, these have existed long before OSGeo, > and have their own ethics, procedures, and rules. It is unlikely that science > will change and give up freedom of research based on its principles well > accepted by the whole community. If OSGeo intends to change these in general > then maybe starting with rasdaman as an isolated item in a vast universe is > not the optimal point. > > OSGeo may find out that it’s very special (although obviously not > unambiguously codified) views constrain it to particular ecosystems. But I am > not imposing nor judging. Just trying to explain. > > HTH, > Peter > > On 05/04/2016 09:18 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: > Hi Peter, > Could you please answer Even and Johan's question. > > I'm happy to use another term for the governance model. "Does one person have > ultimate control over the project? Or does ultimate control lie with a > committee, possibly with a tie breaker vote designated to one person or one > role (eg chair)?" > > Warm regards, Cameron > > On 5/05/2016 3:29 am, Even Rouault wrote: > Le mercredi 04 mai 2016 18:34:27, Peter Baumann a écrit : > > HI Cameron, > > first, as this word has been used too often now, the current model has > nothing at all to do with dictatorship. What is the suggested opposite, BTW - > "dictatorship of majorities"? ;-) > > Actually reading http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance it seems the > sentence that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be > reached then Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case > there's a tie in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as > currently), Peter breaks the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should > probably be rephrased in a more neutral way to say to designate the chair of > the PSC rather than a named individual). > > I actually see that Johan Van de Wauw asked the same question but this hasn't > been answered clearly. > > Perhaps http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance could gain in clarity by > defining precise voting rules (which majority, delays, etc...) As an example > of simple rules (not necessarily to follow them, but to show the plain > language used): > > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc / > http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html / > http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html ). > > If it would at least be called a "technocracy", that I could accept: > > rasdaman has always been driven by purely scientific elaboration _and_ > consensus orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless where it comes > from - this is at the heart of our scientific progress. > > It is the fundamental freedom of science that is at stake here. > > I guess that OSGeo needs to decide whether it can accept a model based on > scientific ethics ...or not. > > best, > Peter > > On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's current "benevolent > dictator" governance model? > > Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are managed similarly to your > description below. > > There is usually a sage or two amongst the community, typically someone who > founded the project. The sage(s) have more experience with the project, and > their opinion holds greater weight amongst the community. This informal > relationship continues even with a formal Project Steering Committee. > > As you would understand, building a successful Open Source community involves > a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual recognition of team > members. Community members typically show respect by giving extra weight to > the opinion of founders, and founders often show respect and trust of their > community by sharing project governance. > > If you are a good open source leader, and it appears you must be, there is > little risk you will lose your current influence on the project. It’s also > unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference between yourself and the > community. But if there is, and the project forks, whether you are head of > the official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little impact on the final > result. > > So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance model. > > If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent dictator" model, I agree with > Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo Charter members to vote, as > it would be a new direction for OSGeo. > > Warm regards, Cameron > > On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote: > interesting discussion, with valuable thoughts! > > True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman - on the contrary, we are > most happy about helping hands, and are constantly thinking about > opportunities for process improvements. Personally, I am so much overloaded > that I enjoy handing over tasks, and yes: with appropriate responsibility; in > practice that means that we openly discuss pros and cons with myself being > "primus inter pares" (first among equals). I have not received any complaint > over the years that anybody would not get heard appropriately. Regularly I > just need to lean back (metaphorically) and await the outcome of the > discussion of the experienced developers, and add my nodding to the group > consensus. > > We regularly try to involve the community in such design and implementation > discussions (and I am urging devers to do that), but feedback invariably was > minimal. Which I see as a sign of trust when looking at the download figures > at www.rasdaman.org. > > It may be worth noting that we have installed mechanisms for openly > commenting and voting on patches; ever clicked on the Review URL in the Patch > Manager? > > Actually, it is more about deciding not by election, but by qualification. > Concepts and code of rasdaman are extraordinarily complex; large and > experienced companies like Oracle, Teradata, and ESRI have tried to copy > rasdaman, and failed. Therefore, it unfortunately takes patience for a > newcomer to immerse to a degree that allows making suggestions that are fully > backed by the team. That said, we do not attach maturity labels to coders > ;-), rather the technical merit of each individual contribution is weighted > carefully. > > Another constraint, of course, are project considerations- there is a > contract behind where ESA, the European Commission, or whoever-else expects > fulfilment. > > Bottom line, the atmosphere in rasdaman is highly cooperative and > consensus-based, I just reserve jumping in as a last resort. Someone has > questioned the term used in this discussion as not quite adequate; I like the > diplomacy aspect raised. > > -Peter > > On 05/03/2016 01:54 AM, Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote: > > 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 accountable 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. > > > 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 > > 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 > > -- > Dr. Peter Baumann > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann > mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de > tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 > "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis > dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec > preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) > > _______________________________________________ > 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
