Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 06/11/2007, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker writes: > > #3 I don't agree with at all. As the trademark holder, Sun should get > > to decide whether or not a core distribution exists. > > They can certainly do that. If they do so without taking into account > the wishes of the community, they can do that too, though the results > may be tragic. > > Regardless of what they do here, the OGB (and not Sun!) gets to decide > matters of day-to-day operation within the community, and the > community itself must decide community-wide matters. > > If you honestly feel that Sun gets to make choices on behalf of (and > in the name of) the community, and thus we shouldn't even be > discussing matters that are of community-wide interest, then I think > we're done here. There's no common ground. When it comes to the trademark; I don't feel those are "on behalf of the community" because that implies ownership by the community. This is the one point I strongly and resolutely disagree with on others. It's one thing to give others the ability to share their input with Sun; it's another for the community to have *control* over the final decision. Having a voice and having control are separate. At my place of employment, my input is always listened to, so I am part of the process, but I do not get to make the final decision. I look at it the same way with the trademark. > > In fact, I'd argue, without their ability to make that decision, what > > financial incentive do they have to support it? > > At least in the context of the OGB, I don't think it matters. Why Sun > chose to give up the source code and the control to an outside body, > and how it plans to make money of the deal, are Sun's own issues. I > don't think we can or should debate them here. As long as Sun is the source of continued, significant financial support that allows this community and its support infrastructure to exist; I think it is impossible to ignore it. Sun deserves a certain consideration for their financial support and their decision to open the source code which formed the nucleus around which our community is based. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
Shawn Walker writes: > #3 I don't agree with at all. As the trademark holder, Sun should get > to decide whether or not a core distribution exists. They can certainly do that. If they do so without taking into account the wishes of the community, they can do that too, though the results may be tragic. Regardless of what they do here, the OGB (and not Sun!) gets to decide matters of day-to-day operation within the community, and the community itself must decide community-wide matters. If you honestly feel that Sun gets to make choices on behalf of (and in the name of) the community, and thus we shouldn't even be discussing matters that are of community-wide interest, then I think we're done here. There's no common ground. > In fact, I'd argue, without their ability to make that decision, what > financial incentive do they have to support it? At least in the context of the OGB, I don't think it matters. Why Sun chose to give up the source code and the control to an outside body, and how it plans to make money of the deal, are Sun's own issues. I don't think we can or should debate them here. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
Shawn Walker wrote: > Time and time again it has been said that the OGB can only act as an > "arbiter" of sorts; it is my belief that they must be empowered to > actually *guide* the community. I strongly agree on this point. When I first went up for election, I thought the board was going to be much more of a leadership role, and was rather disappointed that the consensus was the act very much within the bounds of the constitution to be a governance board rather than try to be anything else. In one way, it makes sense, because it's encouraged me to participate in activities outside the OGB. In the other, despite best encouragement, the wider community hasn't chosen to take it as an opportunity. But I didn't believe strongly enough that the OGB could be this body, and it's my own fault for not pressing it further. As I've mentioned earlier, my involvement in GNOME has be *much* different on the Foundation Board. Our primary goal is to make sure the project has the resources it needs to be successful, and continues to be aware of topical issues that come up each year. Essentially that includes co-ordinating with our advisory board members, doing some fundraising, managing accounts, and making sure GNOME is both approachable and relevant as the environment changes. We very much include the time to link in different external communities to the project, and cheer lead from the sidelines. But obviously this is not GNOME - and you can't apply what works in one community to another (which is my personal primary beef with the constitution and its creation before the community had time to grow). As for Indiana/OpenSolaris. When I got the opportunity to work for the team, I jumped at it (well, after a little bit of convincing from Sara) not because it was an opportunity to build my own personal experience, though it was a welcome addition. It was because I saw a *massive* opportunity for the OpenSolaris community, and I still do [1]. Ian has talked about the 'binary platform' being more interesting, and I agree with him. We've seen the numbers of people registering their interest - huge user growth. The success of the starterkit has been a good measure of that growth. And now we're continuing to see it with Indiana. If the numbers of Marc's blog [2] are even *half* of the people who downloaded and run it, chances are, that OpenSolaris has been seen by at least one new user. FWIW, I'd very much support the idea of forming a steering committee (with selected members from the community and Sun) around the trademark guidelines. I think there's a great opportunity there to really come up with an incredible set of guidelines for use of the trademark *that we can't currently use* as a community. I don't think anyone, not even the mythical Sun, wants to alienate existing distributions who help grow the ecosystem. Glynn [1] Many, many, many people (for whatever reason) are expecting to be able to download and run OpenSolaris - you can see their requests on the mailing lists, on IRC, and in blogs. There is a *significant* demand to meet that expectation. [2] http://blogs.sun.com/marchamilton/entry/busy_weekend ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 06/11/2007, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker writes: > > If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use? > > I would have thought that this was obvious, but apparently it's not. I'm actually aware of these concerns, it's just I don't understand why they are a concern. For example, I can understand #1, and agree with #1. I can understand #2; but don't agree with it. #3 I don't agree with at all. As the trademark holder, Sun should get to decide whether or not a core distribution exists. In fact, I'd argue, without their ability to make that decision, what financial incentive do they have to support it? > Nobody disputes that Sun is the owner of that trademark and thus has > the legal right to specify how it is to be used. That wasn't -- and > still isn't -- the issue. Sorry that I gave this impression; I should have explained my position better :( However, I do think that your post will be very helpful to others. It certainly crystalises the points in a far more objective fashion than I've seen anywhere else so far. > > That is not to say that I believe that the community should not have > > input in it; but that they must remember that it is not theirs to own, > > support, finance, etc. > > That's exactly it. There's no input at all. If we (the OGB) allow > this to stand, then I believe that the community does not have control > over its own future. That's a sad development, as it means that the > already maligned OGB has even less that it can legitimately do. > > All that said, I don't see how annointing a benevolent ruler (of the > type you've requested) would necessarily address any of the problems > we've faced any better than the existing board does, or how it would > avoid the sorts of problems that clearly result from such a structure, > so, given that it sounds like a solution out looking for a problem, > I'd have to vote -1 on the proposal. (If it were an actual proposal > rather than just a talking point ...) If it were a "true proposal" though, it isn't just about having *a* leader; it's also about ensuring that: 1) folks realiase the need for clear leadership that don't have 2) that the OGB needs more authority (IMO) to address issues on behalf of the community (preventing everything from turning into a vote) 3) that the manner in which the community shares control with Sun must be well-defined 4) that current responsibilities that were indicated as being delegated in the constitution may not be sufficiently at the moment or those to whom it was delegated may not be fulfilling those roles Thanks for responding, it is appreciated. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
James Carlson wrote: > Shawn Walker writes: >> If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use? > > I would have thought that this was obvious, but apparently it's not. > > Nobody disputes that Sun is the owner of that trademark and thus has > the legal right to specify how it is to be used. That wasn't -- and > still isn't -- the issue. In the discussions I had with some people in Solaris management yesterday on this issue (and from what I've heard, they are painfully aware of this firestorm, all the way up the chain), I've tried to point out that the core underlying issue is that to the community Sun seems to be promising one thing and then doing another. Perhaps that's due to miscommunication between different people in Sun, or between different parts of Sun and the community. For instance, the VP's in charge of Solaris Engineering (first Glenn Weinberg, then Jeff Jackson) approved the OpenSolaris Charter & Constitution and otherwise made the community feel that they had the ability to control the important decisions about OpenSolaris, and then Ian (from Solaris marketing) announced that Sun had decided to anoint Indiana as the OpenSolaris distro. We had the branding policy project started by several community members based on discussions at the Developer Summit, and believed that Sun had blessed that process as deciding on how a distro could be named OpenSolaris, and then had Ian's announcement derail that by declaring the decision made already. In both of these aspects, we don't know if the OpenSolaris distro branding announcement was intended to be a change to the previous understanding with the community, or if it was different parts of Sun not communicating, or just a belief that the naming of a reference distro on behalf of the community was outside the scope of powers granted to the community and not restricted by the ongoing distro branding guidelines being developed. If Sun management has decided it wants to move from the democratic model of open source project to the benevolent dictator model, it needs to come out and say so. As Shawn pointed out, other projects have worked that way - certainly Ubuntu has managed to make it work with the core source of funding also being the final decision maker, but only because it was clear from day 1 that was the way things worked in their community. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
Shawn Walker writes: > If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use? I would have thought that this was obvious, but apparently it's not. Nobody disputes that Sun is the owner of that trademark and thus has the legal right to specify how it is to be used. That wasn't -- and still isn't -- the issue. The community, which obviously does not *own* the mark, has nonetheless been using that mark to identify itself. It's in virtually everything we do, including the identification of the two separate mailing lists you've copied. Quite apart from Sun's ownership of and control over the mark, the mark has value to the community because of its use. Thus, we walk right into several problems: 1. The hoped-for trademark policy, which was supposed to be completed before Indiana went public with anything, has not been completed. We've asked once again to have this, so we know what the limits may be. 2. Regardless of the name attached to the community -- let's just call it "Foo" to avoid the O-word -- the community has a clear interest in things bearing its name and done in its name. A "Foo Distribution" needs the support of the Foo community. 3. Whether there even _should be_ a single distribution identified as the unique output of a given community is a community-wide decision. It's not something that can be established by fiat, because there are clearly other interests here -- including the interests of those who worked on the distributions not chosen as the single reference distribution, and the interests of the projects that must now appeal to the reference distribution project for inclusion. None of those problems has been resolved by any community-wide action, and yet we've got a web site that (as of right now) still proclaims answers. That's why there is a dispute. If you need an analogy to make it clear, suppose H.J. Heinz (who owns the "Ketchup" trademark) decided that you couldn't use that mark if you were talking about applying it to any other food item, and could use it only for the familiar tomato-based stuff in a bottle with the Heinz 57 logo. They could clearly do that -- they own the mark -- but in doing so they'd alienate the customers. Nobody could offer brand-name catsup with fries. You couldn't talk about having it on a hotdog. It'd be within their rights to proscribe usage that way, but certainly not productive to do so. Similarly, Sun can place limits on the "OpenSolaris" trademark. Some limits may make the community stronger, but others might destroy it. To the extent that the OGB is involved in pursuing the former and avoiding the latter, we'll attempt to have a say in the matter. Having a say, though, doesn't mean that Sun somehow "owns" the mark any less. They can still tell us to pound sand. > That is not to say that I believe that the community should not have > input in it; but that they must remember that it is not theirs to own, > support, finance, etc. That's exactly it. There's no input at all. If we (the OGB) allow this to stand, then I believe that the community does not have control over its own future. That's a sad development, as it means that the already maligned OGB has even less that it can legitimately do. All that said, I don't see how annointing a benevolent ruler (of the type you've requested) would necessarily address any of the problems we've faced any better than the existing board does, or how it would avoid the sorts of problems that clearly result from such a structure, so, given that it sounds like a solution out looking for a problem, I'd have to vote -1 on the proposal. (If it were an actual proposal rather than just a talking point ...) -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
Shawn Walker wrote: [more stuff] Please don't cc me on any more mail on this subject, I won't be taking any further part, nor will I be reading the traffic on opensolaris-discuss. Thanks, -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > I have not proposed a discarding of structures though. I have instead
> > proposed a further empowerment of them, and then an alteration to
> > them.
>
> You've 'proposed' vesting an unknown amount of power in an unknown
> person ('a leader') for an unknown amount of time, with unknown
> responsibilities, an unknown reporting hierarchy and funded by an
> unknown body. That not helpful.
I disagree. Instead, it is an acknowledgment that the intent of the
proposal is to "provoke productive discussion" implying that such a
discussion would have productive results.
One of those results is to define such things.
As far as "unknown reporting hierarchy and funded by an unknown body";
I also disagree.
The reporting hierarchy is already defined, the funding obviously all
comes from Sun currently.
The point of this proposal is to open discussion on such an idea and
to allow others to have the opportunity to help define it.
If I had attempted to define everything in explicit detail, not only
do I fear I would have lost any last shreds of my sanity; I would not
have achieved my goals.
> > It does not to me; nor is my proposal intended to definitely define
> > every single detail. As I mentioned before, the purpose of the
> > proposal is to "provoke productive discussion."
>
> A worryingly small of the discussion on these lists is what I would term
> 'productive' Your 'proposal' with all due respect just adds to the heat
> and not to the light - it largely rehashes old arguments, it is not
> concrete enough to form any sort of proposal, and it avoids addressing
> the immediate issues.
Yet again I will have to disagree. The proposal points that we lack
clear leadership; that we lack well-defined areas of control and
responsibility; and that our current governance structure is
ineffective.
> > Just as a prosecutor in a criminal case does not have to always use
> > all the evidence available to him to prove the guilt of a defendant,
> > neither do I have to use all the evidence available to me to prove the
> > need for clear leadership.
>
> What on earth are you on about? We aren't in a court of law, and you
> aren't a prosecutor. If there *is* to be a discussion, it needs to be on
> the basis of *all* the available evidence, not just the subset which
> *you* think is appropriate.
Since, as a human being, it is impossible for me to know what all
available evidence might be, it is impossible for me to fulfill that
request. As far as "subset which you think is appropriate"; that is
the basis of every research paper and proposal ever written.
You can disagree with my choices; yet you cannot fault me for limiting
my citations to those I feel are appropriate. It is the right of an
author to limit his material on what he believes is most appropriate.
I respect that you believe I should have done otherwise; but I will
have to agree to disagree.
> > I did mention Apache; I merely chose not to use their governance model
> > for comparison because I do not have an adequate understanding of it.
> > I chose governance models that were clear to me and that I felt I
> > could look at in an unbiased manner.
>
> Then perhaps you should have familiarised yourself with it before
> posting your proposal. And you certainly seem to have an unique
> definition of the word 'unbiased'.
Every person does; human beings are biased by nature depending on whom
you ask :)
Again, I will have to agree to disagree.
> > I have never claimed that it wasn't a valid model; I just gave my
> > personal opinion of it. Having an opinion on something and feeling
> > qualified to use it as a basis for a proposal are two entirely
> > different things.
>
> You've just told us you don't have (I quote) 'adequate understanding of
> it', yet you feel qualified to discard it on the basis of (I quote)
> 'personal opinion'. Boggle.
I just don't see it that way.
> > If it is clear that Sun is the holder of the trademark, and holds all
> > rights to it, why are there arguments over how they can allow it to be
> > used ?
>
> It appears haven't been following the discussion. Once again:
I have actually.
> Nobody disputes that Sun owns the OpenSolaris trademark. What has been
> requested is that guidelines be drawn up governing its use.
If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use?
That is not to say that I believe that the community should not have
input in it; but that they must remember that it is not theirs to own,
support, finance, etc.
> > Even if I read it in context, it doesn't change the meaning for me. I
> > also fail to see the relevancy of making a distinction between
> > "restricted to" and "such as" here. Whether it is an example or a
> > definitive list is immaterial for the purpose of the proposal.
> >
> > Since it is an example listed in the constitution, one would assume,
> > logically, that it is something that should have
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
Shawn Walker wrote:
> I have not proposed a discarding of structures though. I have instead
> proposed a further empowerment of them, and then an alteration to
> them.
You've 'proposed' vesting an unknown amount of power in an unknown
person ('a leader') for an unknown amount of time, with unknown
responsibilities, an unknown reporting hierarchy and funded by an
unknown body. That not helpful.
> It does not to me; nor is my proposal intended to definitely define
> every single detail. As I mentioned before, the purpose of the
> proposal is to "provoke productive discussion."
A worryingly small of the discussion on these lists is what I would term
'productive' Your 'proposal' with all due respect just adds to the heat
and not to the light - it largely rehashes old arguments, it is not
concrete enough to form any sort of proposal, and it avoids addressing
the immediate issues.
> Just as a prosecutor in a criminal case does not have to always use
> all the evidence available to him to prove the guilt of a defendant,
> neither do I have to use all the evidence available to me to prove the
> need for clear leadership.
What on earth are you on about? We aren't in a court of law, and you
aren't a prosecutor. If there *is* to be a discussion, it needs to be on
the basis of *all* the available evidence, not just the subset which
*you* think is appropriate.
> I did mention Apache; I merely chose not to use their governance model
> for comparison because I do not have an adequate understanding of it.
> I chose governance models that were clear to me and that I felt I
> could look at in an unbiased manner.
Then perhaps you should have familiarised yourself with it before
posting your proposal. And you certainly seem to have an unique
definition of the word 'unbiased'.
> I have never claimed that it wasn't a valid model; I just gave my
> personal opinion of it. Having an opinion on something and feeling
> qualified to use it as a basis for a proposal are two entirely
> different things.
You've just told us you don't have (I quote) 'adequate understanding of
it', yet you feel qualified to discard it on the basis of (I quote)
'personal opinion'. Boggle.
> If it is clear that Sun is the holder of the trademark, and holds all
> rights to it, why are there arguments over how they can allow it to be
> used ?
It appears haven't been following the discussion. Once again:
Nobody disputes that Sun owns the OpenSolaris trademark. What has been
requested is that guidelines be drawn up governing its use.
> Even if I read it in context, it doesn't change the meaning for me. I
> also fail to see the relevancy of making a distinction between
> "restricted to" and "such as" here. Whether it is an example or a
> definitive list is immaterial for the purpose of the proposal.
>
> Since it is an example listed in the constitution, one would assume,
> logically, that it is something that should have been delegated. I,
> personally, do not believe that it has been adequately defined or
> delegated.
Sigh. Really, you want to come off the top of the semantic molehill
that you've built for yourself. it really won't support your argument.
[ Rest snipped, I really can't be bothered repeating myself again ].
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 06/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6-Nov-07, at 7:24 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 06/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing > >>> body. > >>> The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little > >>> progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do > >>> not > >>> work. > >> > >> What specific areas are you thinking of? How is progress hampered > >> and how could a more active governing body have helped? > > > > The constitution states communities are responsible for "product > > development and marketing tasks." So far, I do not believe there has > > been sufficient progress in those areas. If product development here > > means "technical aspects"; then certainly there has been progress. > > However, if "product development" means having an end-result of the > > collective efforts of our community, then Project Indiana is the only > > project *on* OpenSolaris.org that represents that at this time. The > > fact that no initiative existed on OpenSolaris.org before this bears > > further investigation as to why. > > Shawn. You're unfairly dismissing a lot of peoples' hard work here. > You are saying that only indiana managed to collect all the projects > and ship something, ignoring that our model so far seems to be > "bringover the tree, work on your stuff, then putback". Take for Quite the contrary. Note that I said *on* OpenSolaris.org. What is it that has detracted and discouraged community members from having their community distribution or starting one on OpenSolaris.org before now? Why is Project Indiana (that some see as started by Sun) the first project to make apparent the fruits of the community's labours? Your comment about "our cuurent model" is yet again a point about clear leadership. If, for example, we had clear leadership, we might have a lot more community distributions right now due to the drive towards ensuring that would happen. > example the xVM project's work, which integrated to ON and therefore > nevada quite aside from anything the indiana project is/was doing. > dwarf caiman was first seen in nevada, not indiana. Yes, but Solaris Express is a download link from OpenSolaris.org to Sun's website; it is very much Sun's product and there is very little communication about its internal workings, etc. Contrast that with Indiana, where: 1) it has a project on OpenSolaris.org 2) All of the key projects it depends on are represented on OpenSolaris.org 3) The work being done for the project (ignoring naming possibly) is fully represented here in the open on OpenSolaris.org 4) You can download it without giving any personal information to Sun or "registering" 5) It is freely redistributable 6) It is comprised as much as possible of open source components only > > > > > > Specifically, I think the following are what concerns me: > > > > 1) No end-product until recently (which when finally delivered was > > unfairly vilified over its name) > commented earlier > > > > 2) The lack of any community distributions having a presence on > > OpenSolaris.org other than Project Indiana (which some see as a Sun > > distribution) > > +1 to this. BeleniX, marTux and Nexenta need more airtime if the > website's going to promote indiana at all Precisely; what barriers exist to these distributions in participating here? Obviously, there must be something. That isn't to say that I believe that someone couldn't do that here now; just that there must be some sort of discouragement of it we don't know about. > > 3) The insufficient delegation or definition of "product development > > and marketing tasks" > > as someone mentioned earlier, we don't have an army of developers > itching to find a project to work on, we have a small handful of > developers interested in specific tasks ( I'm interested primarily in > emancipation and porting. if the OGB told me "go work on GNOME" i'd > laugh at them first and ignore them after i'm done with that ) I never said individuals; rather, I'm implying that the delegation *to community groups* should happen. The other point here though is that each project / community has not sufficiently defined what is available to do. I suspect we have a lot of potential contributors right now that do not contribute simply because we do not have: 1) A clearly defined contribution process 2) A clearly defined list of ways that they can contribute If you look at the Ubuntu website, as an example, they make it very apparent how you can get involved and contribute. The same with the FreeBSD project if I recall correctly. > > 4) The inability for the community to drive the content of this > > website directly > > suggestions for improvement? Again; which community group is responsible? This has been debated recently. > > 5) The lack of a defined contribution process for each project > > is this not the project leaders' re
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > >> premature to say that our existing mechanisms don't work. And the > > > > It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body. > > The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little > > progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do not > > work. > > That statement fails to distinguish between the mechanisms we have in > place already and our use (or lack of use) of them. Discarding the > structures we have because we haven't used them effectively doesn't seem > sensible. I have not proposed a discarding of structures though. I have instead proposed a further empowerment of them, and then an alteration to them. > > No, I mean Sun as a leader in the role defined in change #3 listed in > > the proposal. I do not mean a specific individual since those change > > at Sun quite frequently from what I've been told :) > > Then you don't have a workable proposal, sorry. I've already explained > that Sun is not a single entity, and the word 'leader' implies that > there is a named person who will represent Sun. It does not to me; nor is my proposal intended to definitely define every single detail. As I mentioned before, the purpose of the proposal is to "provoke productive discussion." I am not naive enough to believe that I have the answers to every question; or that I am qualified to define every detail. > >> You've ignored one of the main inspirations for the OpenSolaris > >> governance model - The Apache Software Foundation. In fact one of the > >> founder members of the ASF helped draw up the OpenSolaris constitution. > > > > No, I haven't ignored them. I merely omitted them from the document > > for the sake of my personal sanity and brevity. I also felt that I was > > not qualified to properly comment on their model as I have little to > > no experience with them and given one of our prominent community > > member's personal involvement; felt that it would not be appropriate. > > Eh? that's a *very* bizarre paragraph. You deliberately omitted to > mention the ASF model? That seems suspiciously like tailoring your > evidence to suit your agenda. And if *your* experience is valid, as you > claim, how can you simultaneously hold that the experience of others isn't? Just as a prosecutor in a criminal case does not have to always use all the evidence available to him to prove the guilt of a defendant, neither do I have to use all the evidence available to me to prove the need for clear leadership. I did mention Apache; I merely chose not to use their governance model for comparison because I do not have an adequate understanding of it. I chose governance models that were clear to me and that I felt I could look at in an unbiased manner. I have never claimed that it wasn't a valid model; I just gave my personal opinion of it. Having an opinion on something and feeling qualified to use it as a basis for a proposal are two entirely different things. > > That's great for Apache. However, I don't feel that their governance > > model works for us; they seem to have the strong leadership they > > already need. I believe that our community needs clearer direction. > > A paragraph ago you were claiming ignorance of all things ASF-related, > yet now you feel qualified to discard the applicability of their model > to OpenSolaris. On what basis? I didn't claim ignorance of all things ASF-related; I said that I was "not qualified to properly comment on it" -- in the form of a proposal is what I was implying. I do not claim to disqualify its applicability; rather, I was basing my comment on your comment that ours was a better match to it. So, based on your comment that ours is a better match to it; my conclusion is that it must not work very well for us then given our problems and lack of sustained growth and success in some areas. > >> That's far, far closer to the OpenSolaris situation than any of the > >> examples you've quoted. I wasn't involved in the drafting of the > >> constitution, but I can understand why the ASF model was chosen as an > >> inspiration, and I think it was a good choice for OpenSolaris. > > > > I'm quite aware that this was the "inspiration" given it's primary drafter. > > I'm not sure who you think the primary drafter was, but I suspect from > the above that you've got the wrong person. Perhaps. > > Yes, but the current constitution doesn't make it clear enough who has > > this authority. As a result, we have people arguing over exactly how > > much control the community does have over the usage of the trademark > > that bears our name, and how that can be used to represent us. Without > > that clear definition, we will continue to have disagreements over > > whom can do what. > > That's a clear misrepresentation of the situation. It is quite clear > that everyone understands that Sun is the holder of the trademark, what Which only reinfo
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 6-Nov-07, at 7:24 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 06/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing >>> body. >>> The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little >>> progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do >>> not >>> work. >> >> What specific areas are you thinking of? How is progress hampered >> and how could a more active governing body have helped? > > The constitution states communities are responsible for "product > development and marketing tasks." So far, I do not believe there has > been sufficient progress in those areas. If product development here > means "technical aspects"; then certainly there has been progress. > However, if "product development" means having an end-result of the > collective efforts of our community, then Project Indiana is the only > project *on* OpenSolaris.org that represents that at this time. The > fact that no initiative existed on OpenSolaris.org before this bears > further investigation as to why. Shawn. You're unfairly dismissing a lot of peoples' hard work here. You are saying that only indiana managed to collect all the projects and ship something, ignoring that our model so far seems to be "bringover the tree, work on your stuff, then putback". Take for example the xVM project's work, which integrated to ON and therefore nevada quite aside from anything the indiana project is/was doing. dwarf caiman was first seen in nevada, not indiana. > > > Specifically, I think the following are what concerns me: > > 1) No end-product until recently (which when finally delivered was > unfairly vilified over its name) commented earlier > > 2) The lack of any community distributions having a presence on > OpenSolaris.org other than Project Indiana (which some see as a Sun > distribution) +1 to this. BeleniX, marTux and Nexenta need more airtime if the website's going to promote indiana at all > 3) The insufficient delegation or definition of "product development > and marketing tasks" as someone mentioned earlier, we don't have an army of developers itching to find a project to work on, we have a small handful of developers interested in specific tasks ( I'm interested primarily in emancipation and porting. if the OGB told me "go work on GNOME" i'd laugh at them first and ignore them after i'm done with that ) > 4) The inability for the community to drive the content of this > website directly suggestions for improvement? > 5) The lack of a defined contribution process for each project is this not the project leaders' responsibility ? > 6) The lack of a better definition of what decisions the community > should vote on and when > > 7) The confusion over who has authority over what aspects / areas of > the community > >> Two things are needed for progress: doing stuff and deciding what >> needs to >> be done. >> >> I think we do not, at this point, have an abundant pool of labor that >> can be set to certain tasks, so I don't see how being more decisive >> is >> going to be of any help. > > Being decisive helps since I think we would have more contributors if > what needed to be done was clearly defined. Not only that, how to > contribute that work also needs clear definition. Comments earlier >> You can be a dictator but you need an army to control before you can >> make things happen. >> >> Or is it not clear enough what needs to happen? > > Yes. > >> A clear lists of tasks, perhaps? > > Yes, the "delegation of product development and marketing tasks"; I do > not feel that it has been sufficiently addressed. Comments earlier ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 06/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body. > >The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little > >progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do not > >work. > > What specific areas are you thinking of? How is progress hampered > and how could a more active governing body have helped? The constitution states communities are responsible for "product development and marketing tasks." So far, I do not believe there has been sufficient progress in those areas. If product development here means "technical aspects"; then certainly there has been progress. However, if "product development" means having an end-result of the collective efforts of our community, then Project Indiana is the only project *on* OpenSolaris.org that represents that at this time. The fact that no initiative existed on OpenSolaris.org before this bears further investigation as to why. Specifically, I think the following are what concerns me: 1) No end-product until recently (which when finally delivered was unfairly vilified over its name) 2) The lack of any community distributions having a presence on OpenSolaris.org other than Project Indiana (which some see as a Sun distribution) 3) The insufficient delegation or definition of "product development and marketing tasks" 4) The inability for the community to drive the content of this website directly 5) The lack of a defined contribution process for each project 6) The lack of a better definition of what decisions the community should vote on and when 7) The confusion over who has authority over what aspects / areas of the community > Two things are needed for progress: doing stuff and deciding what needs to > be done. > > I think we do not, at this point, have an abundant pool of labor that > can be set to certain tasks, so I don't see how being more decisive is > going to be of any help. Being decisive helps since I think we would have more contributors if what needed to be done was clearly defined. Not only that, how to contribute that work also needs clear definition. > You can be a dictator but you need an army to control before you can > make things happen. > > Or is it not clear enough what needs to happen? Yes. > A clear lists of tasks, perhaps? Yes, the "delegation of product development and marketing tasks"; I do not feel that it has been sufficiently addressed. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
Shawn Walker wrote: >> premature to say that our existing mechanisms don't work. And the > > It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body. > The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little > progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do not > work. That statement fails to distinguish between the mechanisms we have in place already and our use (or lack of use) of them. Discarding the structures we have because we haven't used them effectively doesn't seem sensible. > No, I mean Sun as a leader in the role defined in change #3 listed in > the proposal. I do not mean a specific individual since those change > at Sun quite frequently from what I've been told :) Then you don't have a workable proposal, sorry. I've already explained that Sun is not a single entity, and the word 'leader' implies that there is a named person who will represent Sun. >> You've ignored one of the main inspirations for the OpenSolaris >> governance model - The Apache Software Foundation. In fact one of the >> founder members of the ASF helped draw up the OpenSolaris constitution. > > No, I haven't ignored them. I merely omitted them from the document > for the sake of my personal sanity and brevity. I also felt that I was > not qualified to properly comment on their model as I have little to > no experience with them and given one of our prominent community > member's personal involvement; felt that it would not be appropriate. Eh? that's a *very* bizarre paragraph. You deliberately omitted to mention the ASF model? That seems suspiciously like tailoring your evidence to suit your agenda. And if *your* experience is valid, as you claim, how can you simultaneously hold that the experience of others isn't? > That's great for Apache. However, I don't feel that their governance > model works for us; they seem to have the strong leadership they > already need. I believe that our community needs clearer direction. A paragraph ago you were claiming ignorance of all things ASF-related, yet now you feel qualified to discard the applicability of their model to OpenSolaris. On what basis? >> That's far, far closer to the OpenSolaris situation than any of the >> examples you've quoted. I wasn't involved in the drafting of the >> constitution, but I can understand why the ASF model was chosen as an >> inspiration, and I think it was a good choice for OpenSolaris. > > I'm quite aware that this was the "inspiration" given it's primary drafter. I'm not sure who you think the primary drafter was, but I suspect from the above that you've got the wrong person. > Yes, but the current constitution doesn't make it clear enough who has > this authority. As a result, we have people arguing over exactly how > much control the community does have over the usage of the trademark > that bears our name, and how that can be used to represent us. Without > that clear definition, we will continue to have disagreements over > whom can do what. That's a clear misrepresentation of the situation. It is quite clear that everyone understands that Sun is the holder of the trademark, what has been asked for discussion and eventual joint agreement of the rules governing the use of the trademark - something that I believe was at on the drawing board for some time anyway. >>> 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. >> Unless I've missed it the constitution doesn't say anything relevant >> about product development and marketing - or are you referring to some > > The constitution does mention it; which is why I had citations in the > original proposal. Specifically, if you look at [25]: > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/governance/#ARTICLE_III.__Structure.2C_Participation.2C_and_Roles > > You will see that the link above is to a section where the first > paragraph specifically states: > "The OGB, in turn, delegates the organization and decision-making for > specific OpenSolaris activities, such as product development and > marketing tasks, through the creation of Community Groups." That's "such as" not "restricted to", it is an example of the sorts of areas the OGB should be involved in, not a prescriptive list. It needs to be read in context, not quoted out of it. It is talking about the mechanisms the OGB uses for devolving work, with those items being just examples. There are many others. >> future version of the constitution? And in any case, neither of those >> things requires constitutional change, all that is required is an >> agreement between the OpenSolaris community and the appropriate people >> and groups within Sun. It is unworkable to propose that we have to make >> constitutional changes for what are purely organisational issues. > > How is it unworkable? If it is, it is no mo
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 06/11/2007, Patrick Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > 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). > > I agree with this problem, although I am not sure which part of your > proposal addresses it. Regardless of the leadership question (which is > not to dismiss it), I think that there should be some closer engagement > between the leadership at the OGB level and at the project and community > level. > > Perhaps that the role of community facilitator be replicated at a > project level, or that the role is more clearly defined and more > visible. Have all communities even appointed a facilitator? That is certainly a possibility. Perhaps a designated leader at each level, and then one overall for our community would help. Whether that is merely making a particular member of the OGB a leader, etc. I don't know. I do know that we need strong leadership; and that the current governance structure does not sufficiently provide that. Thanks for your comments; this type of comment is exactly what I'm hoping for. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 06/11/2007, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What does 'with' mean? Who gets the final say? This person would br
> > doing what, exactly? ('leadership and vision' is way to vague). If it
> > is full-time, paid by who? What about conflicts of interest? Again,
> > far more detail is needed.
>
> Again, the proposal is intended to provoke productive discussion. I
> have merely pointed out a few examples of leadership with the subtle
> suggestion that they would have a similar level of authority. I would
> like the community to discuss and decide amongst themselves how such a
> role might work for us.
>
> As for the questions of full-time, paid, etc.; as an OGB member you
Sorry; wrong Alan. That's what I get for posting early in the morning.
Nonetheless, I'm certain the current members are willing to vouch for
the large time commitment it requires.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
"We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all
junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics
are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
>It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body. >The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little >progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do not >work. What specific areas are you thinking of? How is progress hampered and how could a more active governing body have helped? Two things are needed for progress: doing stuff and deciding what needs to be done. I think we do not, at this point, have an abundant pool of labor that can be set to certain tasks, so I don't see how being more decisive is going to be of any help. You can be a dictator but you need an army to control before you can make things happen. Or is it not clear enough what needs to happen? A clear lists of tasks, perhaps? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > 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. > > Bearing in mind there's only ever been one vote I think it's a little As was pointed out, there have been two: http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/ http://poll.opensolaris.org/2/ However, if you look at discussions among the community, you'll see that one of the problems we have right now is the lack of a clear way to achieve consensus. A bunch of emails with +1 or -1 flying around make things difficult. > premature to say that our existing mechanisms don't work. And the It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body. The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do not work. > voting system is specifically designed to prevent deadlock. And I don't > really care too much about minorities, vocal or not. What I care about > is majority opinion, measured by a vote when necessary. And no I'm > *not* advocating voting on everything, just when appropriate - and that > itself is a topic that needs further discussion. One of the primary purposes of this proposal is to provoke productive discussion. It is my hope that we can achieve better definition of these areas where the community does indeed have the right to vote. The current definition in the constitution is too vague. > > 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. > > Sun can't be a 'leader', whatever that is. Sun is a company, not a > person. When you say 'leader' you mean 'person'. Who would that person > be? Which part of the company would they be from? From outside Sun > it's tempting to view Sun as a homogeneous whole, but like any big > organisation, that isn't the case. If you are invoking 'Sun' as the > central point of control you aren't actually solving any issues, you are > just moving them from one place to another. No, I mean Sun as a leader in the role defined in change #3 listed in the proposal. I do not mean a specific individual since those change at Sun quite frequently from what I've been told :) > > 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. > > You've ignored one of the main inspirations for the OpenSolaris > governance model - The Apache Software Foundation. In fact one of the > founder members of the ASF helped draw up the OpenSolaris constitution. No, I haven't ignored them. I merely omitted them from the document for the sake of my personal sanity and brevity. I also felt that I was not qualified to properly comment on their model as I have little to no experience with them and given one of our prominent community member's personal involvement; felt that it would not be appropriate. > From http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html: > > "Unlike other software development efforts done under an open source > license, the Apache Web Server was not initiated by a single developer > (for example, like the Linux Kernel, or the Perl/ Python languages), but > started as a diverse group of people that shared common interests and > got to know each other by exchanging information, fixes and suggestions." That's great for Apache. However, I don't feel that their governance model works for us; they seem to have the strong leadership they already need. I believe that our community needs clearer direction. > That's far, far closer to the OpenSolaris situation than any of the > examples you've quoted. I wasn't involved in the drafting of the > constitution, but I can understand why the ASF model was chosen as an > inspiration, and I think it was a good choice for OpenSolaris. I'm quite aware that this was the "inspiration" given it's primary drafter.
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
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 se
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
Alan Burlison wrote: > Bearing in mind there's only ever been one vote Before someone points it out, there have been two - the Community priorities/Test vote and the OGB/Constitution vote. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
Shawn Walker wrote:
> 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.
Bearing in mind there's only ever been one vote I think it's a little
premature to say that our existing mechanisms don't work. And the
voting system is specifically designed to prevent deadlock. And I don't
really care too much about minorities, vocal or not. What I care about
is majority opinion, measured by a vote when necessary. And no I'm
*not* advocating voting on everything, just when appropriate - and that
itself is a topic that needs further discussion.
> 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.
Sun can't be a 'leader', whatever that is. Sun is a company, not a
person. When you say 'leader' you mean 'person'. Who would that person
be? Which part of the company would they be from? From outside Sun
it's tempting to view Sun as a homogeneous whole, but like any big
organisation, that isn't the case. If you are invoking 'Sun' as the
central point of control you aren't actually solving any issues, you are
just moving them from one place to another.
> 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.
You've ignored one of the main inspirations for the OpenSolaris
governance model - The Apache Software Foundation. In fact one of the
founder members of the ASF helped draw up the OpenSolaris constitution.
From http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html:
"Unlike other software development efforts done under an open source
license, the Apache Web Server was not initiated by a single developer
(for example, like the Linux Kernel, or the Perl/ Python languages), but
started as a diverse group of people that shared common interests and
got to know each other by exchanging information, fixes and suggestions."
That's far, far closer to the OpenSolaris situation than any of the
examples you've quoted. I wasn't involved in the drafting of the
constitution, but I can understand why the ASF model was chosen as an
inspiration, and I think it was a good choice for OpenSolaris.
Where I *do* agree with you is that the OGB has not been the guiding
force it should perhaps have been. It seems to me 'from the outside'
that the OGB has sometimes become bogged down by constitutional
minutiae. I know it must be very difficult when you are effectively the
'First Watch', but I think the OGB needs to try to see the constitution
as empowering it, not restricting what it can do. However I don't think
the answer to the current teething problems is to throw out what we have.
> 1) The OGB is empowered to make more decisions for the community.
Which decisions? When? How? If you are going to make a proposal for
constitutional change it needs to be *very* specific. I'd need to see
far more detail before I could agree or disagree with this assertion.
> 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.
What does 'with' mean? Who gets the final say? This person would br
doing what, exactly? ('leadership and vision' is way to vague). If it
is full-time, paid by who? What about conflicts of interest? Again,
far more detail is needed.
> 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
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Which only supports my proposal; in my view. The groups you mention have more power than our OGB does, and because of their limited size, they are able to reach consensus far easier than our much larger group of core contributors. In addition; they provide the strong, clear, inspired leadership of those communities. My proposal is not solely about electing a single leader; it is also about empowering the OGB. Your particular point is certainly worth considering; and provoking productive discussion is one of the central purposes of this proposal. Thanks for your feedback, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A proposal for ensuring sustained Community Growth and Success
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
