Shawn. You seem to be of the opinion that a strong leader is necessary to the success of a project.
Might I point out that the governance structure of FreeBSD (the most successful of the BSD's, and arguably the second most successful open- source operating system project in the world ) is governed by committers (analogous to our "core contributors" ) electing a 9-member core leadership team every 2 years who are responsible for overall project direction and granting of CVS commit access to new members. On 5-Nov-07, at 7:35 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > This proposal is intended to provoke productive discussion, > surrounding our current governance structure, by highlighting some of > the deficiencies that currently exist. While not exhaustive, it > attempts to explain why the current governance structure is > insufficient for the success and growth of the community, by comparing > and contrasting our existing governance model with that of other > organisations at a high level. It also suggests how our governance > structure might be changed to address those deficiencies. > > It is the author's hope that all recipients of this proposal will take > the time to reflect on and carefully consider the points made here > before responding. This proposal is primarily directed at the OGB, as > representatives of our current governing structure. However, all > recipients are encouraged to respond. The inspiration for this > proposal is a direct result of recent events which revealed that > governance of the community is at the heart of issues facing the > community today. > > The OpenSolaris community has existed as a self-governing entity since > Friday February 10th, 2006 [1]. Since that time, individual parts of > the community (and thus, the community as a whole) are continuing to > make progress in many areas, including: technical, communication, and > growth [2]. The community has grown slowly, but surely, into something > that we can continue to be proud of. The Advocacy (User Group), > Desktop, DTrace, and ZFS community groups are just a few examples of > that growth and progress. > > However, the majority of this progress is a result of Sun's indirect > leadership [3], involvement, and the contributions of many individuals > within the community. Many of those individuals are paid by Sun to > work on Solaris, OpenSolaris, and related community projects. It is > important to note the distinction of "paid by"; as many individuals > are not employees of Sun (contractors) or were not employed by Sun at > the beginning but currently are. By observation, it is apparent that > none of this progress would have been possible without Sun's > initiative to provide the source code that served as the nucleus > around which the OpenSolaris project formed, and without their > ongoing, significant financial support (which the author estimates to > be in the range of millions of dollars). > > Clearly, governance is one of the most important aspects of the > community. However, governance alone is not sufficient to achieve > sustained growth and success in a completely self-governing body, such > as the one we currently have. The leadership hierarchy must be clear, > and seen as inspirational [4], creative, shrewd, and fair. > > Upon reflection, it should become apparent that leadership and > guidance is a necessary part of governance. To help us better > understand our current governance model, it is helpful to compare and > contrast our own governance model with that of others. Narrowing our > focus, from the many governance models widely known, results in > several which we will briefly examine. Commercially related projects > include: Mac OS X [5], PostgreSQL [6], MySQL [7], and Ubuntu [8] > (created and supported by Canonical [9]). Other projects are those > such as Fedora [10], which are essentially alpha or beta > representations of commercial products [11]. Finally, we have Apache > [12] and OpenBSD [13]; which are organised around completely open > source [14] products. > > All these projects or products share several common characteristics. > However, some characteristics are common and clearly visible: > sustained growth and success. Each project or product has a parent > entity that continues to build a community providing sustained growth > and success, whether they are primarily proprietary in nature [5], > have taken a hybrid approach between open source and proprietary > add-ons [7], or have the primary focus of the project completely as > open source [6, 8, 10, 12, 13]. They may also be experimenting with > pay-for-contribution models. > > In each case, clear leadership within well-defined areas of expertise > is evident. There is a direct correlation between the quality of the > leadership and the sustained growth and success of each project or > product. The results are evident in a successfully delivered and > widely-adopted end-product within their respective target markets. > > For a moment then, let us consider the leadership that is integral to > these projects and products. In Apple's [15] case, few would dispute > that Steve Jobs is clearly the primary source of leadership, and has > been directly responsible for their current success [16]. Likewise, > the OpenBSD project is well known for its leader, Theo De Raadt, who, > while sometimes outspoken [17], has relentlessly driven the project > towards an admirable level of fervour and success [18] as defined by > its stated goals [19]. > > Investigating further, we see that each one of these projects has > structured its leadership or governance differently. The Fedora > project chose a mix of appointed and elected members with RedHat given > final veto power (with the intention that it is to be used > infrequently) [20]. The OpenBSD project seems to have chosen its > leader as a result of a meritocratic [21] view (Theo is responsible > for the project's existence and also responsible for a significant > portion of engineering and other efforts) [19]. Finally, the Ubuntu > community also chose to follow a meritocratic governance model [22] > that includes teams (similar to our community groups), a technical > board (similar to our ARC), a community council (similar to our OGB), > and a clear leader (otherwise known as SABDFL [23] to which we > currently have no equal). > > With the current governance structure of our community, the author > does not see a way for our community to achieve the required sustained > growth and success. The current governing board, as originally > intended, does not have the ability to provide the clear leadership > that our community requires. Recent discussions on our mailing lists > have made it quite clear [24] that community groups are responsible > for the day-to-day leadership and activities within our community > [25]. > > However, the constitution does not specify which community groups are > responsible for which activities and leadership roles. As a result, > recent discussions [26, 27] have lead to limited consensus about whom > has authority over these activities that are seen as representing the > entire community [28]. > > It is apparent, as a result of this, that our community is unable to > decide what the vision, purpose, and goals of our community really > are. This is surprising, given they were defined at one point [29]. > Clearly, our community has not decided who represents our leadership > in these areas. > > This leadership issue has resulted in the failure of our community to > achieve the level of sustained growth and success required for our > continued existence. It also illustrates the need for clear, inspired > leadership within our community. Clear, inspired leadership naturally > provides the sort of vision [4] that we require to determine a clear > direction, and a set of goals; while ensuring consensus about who > controls different areas of the community. > > The real issue behind our current troubles is not primarily technical > or logistical (as the author erroneously previously believed) in > nature; it is not about naming, trademarks, or branding; it is about > the failure of community groups to take up the responsibilities, that > the OGB, empowered by our constitution, has delegated to them [24] > (which may be because they were not informed of this delegation; > adequately or at all). > > The primary failure, as the author sees it, is that we currently have > no efficient, effective way to ensure that decisions will be made when > no clear consensus exists [30]. The OGB is currently unable to guide > our community in many situations, as they are not empowered to do so, > and voting on every issue is likely to end in deadlock either due to > the apathy of eligible voters [31] or a vocal minority that prevents > consensus from being achieved. > > Consequently, the author believes that our governance structure must > be revised to prevent the current retardation in the growth and > success of our community. To achieve this, a specific individual must > be designated to provide the clear, inspired leadership role that our > community needs, along with empowering the OGB, to ensure that an > overall direction and vision for our community can be established. > > We need to remember that Sun deserves special consideration as the > founding member of this community, the primary (and only as far as the > author is aware) financial supporter, and trademark holder. They > deserve, nay, must, have a key role in directing this community, > especially in the areas of product development and marketing. > > The author believes that Sun must be allowed to fulfil this role as a > key leader for many reasons. Sun is accountable to their shareholders > for their significant financial support they provide to the > OpenSolaris project; whether that is directly or through a foundation > is immaterial. The potential for our sustained growth and success, and > to a certain extent, Sun's, is directly tied to the community. Failure > or Success by either Sun or of the community will affect both. > > In conclusion, to resolve these deficiencies, it is the author's > belief that our existing governance structure must be revised to > ensure that clear, inspired leadership is provided to our community > (as a whole). Communities surrounding the Linux kernel [32], Ubuntu, > Python [33], OpenBSD, Apple, et al. have shown us how significant, > sustained growth and success can be achieved when a specific > individual helps provide the clear, inspired leadership every > community needs. Our community would not even exist today if were not > for the decision of leadership (notably, Jonathan Schwartz) [34] at > Sun to provide the source code that provides the reason for our > existence. > > The only remedy available, in the author's view, is to ensure that > four changes are made by amending our constitution: > > 1) The OGB is empowered to make more decisions for the community. > > 2) An individual is chosen by our community to work with the OGB. They > will provide clear, inspired leadership and vision. It must be made > known that this position is one that is likely to be full-time and > require their complete focus. Any individual that is part of our > community should be eligible for this position regardless of whom they > are or are not employed by. > > 3) That Sun is permitted, as the principal stakeholder in our > community, to play a key role in product development and marketing of > the OpenSolaris trademark (which they own) given their clear > experience, accountability to their shareholders, and success in this > area. This role must be given a greater degree of authority than what > is currently granted by the constitution. > > 4) That the role of product development and marketing, as outlined in > our constitution, should be shared with Sun in a well-defined manner > with qualified members of the community. > > Without Sun's continued support, the vision and clarity of inspired > leadership that a qualified individual can provide, and the further > empowerment of the OGB; the community will not achieve the sustained > growth and success that it requires for its continued existence [35]. > > -- > Shawn Walker > > P.S. The author appreciates and acknowledges the help of other > community members (you know who you are!) who persevered ( :-) ) > through earlier drafts of this document. This proposal would not have > been possible without your assistance. > > [1] http://opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/charter/ > [2] http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/opensolaris_at_two > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership > [4] http://depts.washington.edu/uwhonors/news/04spr/ran.htm > [5] http://www.apple.com/macosx/ > [6] http://www.postgresql.org/ > [7] http://www.mysql.com/ > [8] http://www.ubuntu.com/ > [9] http://www.canonical.com/ > [10] http://fedoraproject.org/ > [11] http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3628476 > [12] http://www.apache.org/ > [13] http://www.openbsd.org/ > [14] http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd > [15] http://www.apple.com/ > [16] http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=18621 > [17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt#Outspokenness > [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbsd#History_and_popularity > [19] http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html > [20] > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board#head-853c78cc83d0a15a9ce201879e676916c0ffcf54 > [21] http://m-w.com/dictionary/meritocracy > [22] http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/governance > [23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABDFL > [24] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-March/026018.html > [25] > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/governance/#ARTICLE_III.__Structure.2C_Participation.2C_and_Roles > [26] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-October/002653.html > [27] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-November/002928.html > [28] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-November/003116.html > [29] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/ > [30] http://m-w.com/dictionary/consensus > [31] > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/first_cab_election/cab_election_results/ > [32] http://www.kernel.org/ > [33] http://www.python.org/about/ > [34] http://blogs.sun.com/cmh/entry/jonathan_at_web2_0_conference > [35] http://leadership.franklin.edu/LL057p.htm > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
