<div dir="ltr">A PSC is not required for any OSGeo project (even a graduated project) - being inclusive is. The GeoNode project is an example in incubation that forms a leadership team based on recent committers as I understand it. The <span style="font-size:13px">benevolent </span>dictator model does not meet this inclusive requirement, Cameron suggested a steering committee formed with one chair member with 1.5 votes (to prevent deadlock).<div><br></div><div>The OSGeo incubation principles are often based on risk ... to users of the software project. The "benevolent dictator" model, just like having a project backed by a single company/organization, suffers from a stability problem - what if the dictator or organization loses interest? By splitting responsibility across multiple parties the project has a much better chance of weathering these storms ... and the risk for users of the software is lower.<br><div><br></div><div>I am sorry I am not the best at talking through the pros/cons of the benevolent dictator model - perhaps some who feels more passionately about this subject (or who has first hand experience) could step in.</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 May 2016 at 12:50, Rashad Kanavath <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mohammedrashadkm@gmail.com" target="_blank">mohammedrashadkm@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Jody Garnett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" target="_blank">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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.<div><br></div><div>I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in incubation is not a good idea. </div><div><br></div><div>If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC should work. Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever criteria, one being the "dictator" way. </div><div><br></div><div>Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must be validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a checklist to validate working PSC and how it should work can filter projects with "benevolent dictator".</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div>--<br></div><div>Jody</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,<br>
<br>
I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on
this question:<br>
<br>
Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for
incubating projects?<br>
<br>
-0 from me, Cameron Shorter.<br>
<br>
Background:<br>
* 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]<br>
<br>
[1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":
<a href="http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html" target="_blank">http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html</a><br>
[2] <a href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance" target="_blank">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a><br>
[3]
<a href="http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html" target="_blank">http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html</a><br>
<br>
<div>On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Cameron-<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
best,<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<div>On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron
Shorter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Bruce, Peter,<br>
I've read through the incubation process documentation, and can
only see one thing which I think breaks our OSGeo principles.<br>
<br>
The Governance model includes a statement:<br>
"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."<br>
<a href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance" target="_blank">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a><br>
<br>
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": <a href="http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html" target="_blank">http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html</a><br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
Peter, are you open to changing the governance model to a "vote
by PSC"?<br>
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."<br>
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron
</blockquote><span><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000</a>, W <a href="http://www.lisasoft.com" target="_blank">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Incubator mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Regards,<br> Rashad</font></div></div>
</font></span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>