<p dir="ltr">I have been quietly following this and find validity in both points. However, one thing is puzzling me. OSGeo has other projects that have come from the research environment (Mapserver and Grass come to mind but there are probably more). What is different about rasdaman?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 5, 2016 05:25, "Peter Baumann" <<a href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Cameron,<br>
<br>
I tried very much to make the situation transparent. Maybe the
notion of Principal Investigator helps here (cf Wikipedia - although
biased towards medical science):<br>
<p><i>A </i><i><b>principal investigator</b></i><i> (</i><i><b>PI</b></i><i>)
is the holder of an independent grant administered by a
university and the lead researcher for the grant project,
usually in the sciences, such as a laboratory study or a </i><i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial" title="Clinical trial" target="_blank">clinical trial</a></i><i>. The phrase
is also often used as a synonym for "head of the laboratory" or
"research group leader." While the expression is common in the
sciences, it is used widely for the person or persons who make
final decisions and supervise funding and expenditures on a
given research project.</i></p>
I am the PI of rasdaman, and that will not change, also not
indirectly through wordsmithing as proposed.<br>
<br>
OSGeo is entering new domains with rasdaman, which is: scientific
research projects. Like some other communities, these have existed
long before OSGeo, and have their own ethics, procedures, and rules.
It is unlikely that science will change and give up freedom of
research based on its principles well accepted by the whole
community. If OSGeo intends to change these in general then maybe
starting with rasdaman as an isolated item in a vast universe is not
the optimal point.<br>
<br>
OSGeo may find out that its very special (although obviously not
unambiguously codified) views constrain it to particular ecosystems.
But I am not imposing nor judging. Just trying to explain.<br>
<br>
HTH,<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 05/04/2016 09:18 PM, Cameron Shorter
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi
Peter,
<br>
Could you please answer Even and Johan's question.
<br>
<br>
I'm happy to use another term for the governance model.
<br>
"Does one person have ultimate control over the project? Or does
ultimate control lie with a committee, possibly with a tie breaker
vote designated to one person or one role (eg chair)?"
<br>
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron
<br>
<br>
On 5/05/2016 3:29 am, Even Rouault wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Le mercredi 04 mai 2016 18:34:27, Peter
Baumann a écrit :
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">HI Cameron,
<br>
<br>
first, as this word has been used too often now, the current
model has
<br>
nothing at all to do with dictatorship. What is the suggested
opposite,
<br>
BTW - "dictatorship of majorities"? ;-)
<br>
</blockquote>
Actually reading <a href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance" target="_blank">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a> it
seems the sentence
<br>
that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be
reached then
<br>
Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case
there's a tie
<br>
in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as
currently), Peter breaks
<br>
the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should probably be
rephrased in
<br>
a more neutral way to say to designate the chair of the PSC
rather than a
<br>
named individual).
<br>
<br>
I actually see that Johan Van de Wauw asked the same question
but this hasn't
<br>
been answered clearly.
<br>
<br>
Perhaps <a href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance" target="_blank">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a> could gain in
clarity by
<br>
defining precise voting rules (which majority, delays, etc...)
As an example of
<br>
simple rules (not necessarily to follow them, but to show the
plain language
<br>
used): <a href="https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc" target="_blank">https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc</a> /
<br>
<a href="http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html" target="_blank">http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html</a> /
<br>
<a href="http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html" target="_blank">http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html</a>
).
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">If it would at least be called a
"technocracy", that I could accept:
<br>
rasdaman has always been driven by purely scientific
elaboration _and_
<br>
consensus orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless
where it comes
<br>
from - this is at the heart of our scientific progress.
<br>
<br>
It is the fundamental freedom of science that is at stake
here.
<br>
<br>
I guess that OSGeo needs to decide whether it can accept a
model based on
<br>
scientific ethics ...or not.
<br>
<br>
best,
<br>
Peter
<br>
<br>
On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Peter,
<br>
Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's current
"benevolent
<br>
dictator" governance model?
<br>
<br>
Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are managed
similarly to
<br>
your description below.
<br>
There is usually a sage or two amongst the community,
typically someone
<br>
who founded the project. The sage(s) have more experience
with the
<br>
project, and their opinion holds greater weight amongst the
community.
<br>
This informal relationship continues even with a formal
Project Steering
<br>
Committee.
<br>
<br>
As you would understand, building a successful Open Source
community
<br>
involves a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual
recognition
<br>
of team members. Community members typically show respect by
giving
<br>
extra weight to the opinion of founders, and founders often
show respect
<br>
and trust of their community by sharing project governance.
<br>
<br>
If you are a good open source leader, and it appears you
must be, there
<br>
is little risk you will loose your current influence on the
project. Its
<br>
also unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference
between yourself
<br>
and the community. But if there is, and the project forks,
whether you
<br>
are head of the official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have
little
<br>
impact on the final result.
<br>
<br>
So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance
model.
<br>
<br>
If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent dictator"
model, I agree
<br>
with Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo
Charter members
<br>
to vote, as it would be a new direction for OSGeo.
<br>
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron
<br>
<br>
On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">interesting discussion, with
valuable thoughts!
<br>
<br>
True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman - on
the contrary, we
<br>
are most happy about helping hands, and are constantly
thinking about
<br>
opportunities for process improvements. Personally, I am
so much
<br>
overloaded that I enjoy handing over tasks, and yes: with
appropriate
<br>
responsibility; in practice that means that we openly
discuss pros and
<br>
cons with myself being "primus inter pares" (first among
equals). I
<br>
have not received any complaint over the years that
anybody would not
<br>
get heard appropriately. Regularly I just need to lean
back
<br>
(metaphorically) and await the outcome of the discussion
of the
<br>
experienced developers, and add my nodding to the group
consensus.
<br>
<br>
We regularly try to involve the community in such design
and
<br>
implementation discussions (and I am urging devers to do
that), but
<br>
feedback invariably was minimal. Which I see as a sign of
trust when
<br>
looking at the download figures at <a href="http://www.rasdaman.org" target="_blank">www.rasdaman.org</a>.
<br>
<br>
It may be worth noting that we have installed mechanisms
for openly
<br>
commenting and voting on patches; ever clicked on the
Review URL in the
<br>
Patch Manager?
<br>
<br>
Actually, it is more about deciding not by election, but
by
<br>
qualification. Concepts and code of rasdaman are
extraordinarily
<br>
complex; large and experienced companies like Oracle,
Teradata, and
<br>
ESRI have tried to copy rasdaman, and failed. Therefore,
it
<br>
unfortunately takes patience for a newcomer to immerse to
a degree that
<br>
allows making suggestions that are fully backed by the
team. That said,
<br>
we do not attach maturity labels to coders ;-), rather the
technical
<br>
merit of each individual contribution is weighted
carefully.
<br>
<br>
Another constraint, of course, are project considerations-
there is a
<br>
contract behind where ESA, the European Commission, or
whoever-else
<br>
expects fulfilment.
<br>
<br>
Bottom line, the atmosphere in rasdaman is highly
cooperative and
<br>
consensus-based, I just reserve jumping in as a last
resort. Someone has
<br>
questioned the term used in this discussion as not quite
adequate; I
<br>
like the diplomacy aspect raised.
<br>
<br>
-Peter
<br>
<br>
On 05/03/2016 01:54 AM, Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I found this nice description of
the benevolent dictator governance:
<br>
<a href="http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel" target="_blank">http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel</a>
<br>
<br>
It's a nice read, but I want to highlight this part:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In many ways, the role of the
benevolent dictator is less about
<br>
dictatorship and more about diplomacy. The key is to
ensure
<br>
that, as the project expands, the right people are
given influence
<br>
over it and the community rallies behind the vision of
the project
<br>
lead.
<br>
</blockquote>
Another good one from (linked from the above):
<br>
<a href="http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolen" target="_blank">http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolen</a>
<br>
t-dictator-qualifications
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">they let things work themselves
out through discussion and
<br>
experimentation whenever possible. They participate in
those
<br>
discussions themselves, but as regular developers,
often deferring to
<br>
an area maintainer who has more expertise. Only when
it is clear that
<br>
no consensus can be reached, and that most of the
group wants someone
<br>
to guide the decision so that development can move on,
does she put
<br>
her foot down and say "This is the way it's going to
be."
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
From my (really) naive point of view, the "benevolent
dictatorship" is
<br>
a
<br>
<br>
do-ocracy were the committers get the right, or
influence, to lead
<br>
parts of the projects and where the "dictator" is
acountable of its
<br>
decision to the community. The key ingredients are the
same as other
<br>
governance : - Be easy to contribute patches and
features
<br>
- Be open on the direction of the project
<br>
- Be forkable
<br>
<br>
If someone wants to contribute a new feature, they ask
the mailing-list
<br>
and the committer responsible for this part of the
software, not the
<br>
"dictator", will approve or suggest changes. The
approach is less
<br>
formal than with a PSC, but still works the same.
<br>
<br>
This is of course an ideal scenario, but can be as open
as a PSC, I
<br>
think, as long as the project as a good "forkability".
<br>
<br>
Back to the incubation discussion, Rasdaman seems to
have multiple
<br>
committers and 2 main organisation behind it. What I
would like to ask
<br>
is, what's the "bus number". Is there a second (or
third) in command
<br>
that could ultimately take care of the project after the
dictator's
<br>
"end-of-term"? From my point of view, a PSC of 3, 2
being from the
<br>
same company, is a small PSC and will probably lack a
bit of variety
<br>
in opinions. Is there any other key contributors that
the "dictator"
<br>
refers to when trying to get inputs and defer technical
decisions?
<br>
<br>
Julien
<br>
<br>
On 16-05-01 07:29 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">This is kind of a larger topic
than just the incubation committee, but
<br>
no I do not believe we should. It is a defining
characteristic of our
<br>
foundation to not place many restrictions on our
projects - but demand
<br>
that the projects be inclusive and open to
collaboration.
<br>
<br>
I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits
this ideal.
<br>
<br>
I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach
as the one true
<br>
way, smaller projects that only wish to have
committers vote on
<br>
decisions (rather than form a PSC) is perfectly
acceptable - provided
<br>
there is a provision for new committers to be added
into the mix.
<br>
<br>
We also have an outstanding request from our president
to make the
<br>
foundation more inclusive. With this in mind we are a
lot less
<br>
demanding on our community projects - which provides a
way for
<br>
projects that do not meet some of our ideal criteria
to be part of
<br>
the foundation.
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter
<<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>
<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank"><mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a>> wrote:
<br>
OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,
<br>
I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community
will consider and comment
<br>
on this question:
<br>
Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent
dictator" [1] governance model
<br>
for incubating projects?
<br>
-0 from me, Cameron Shorter.
<br>
Background:
<br>
* As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from
Rasdaman has
<br>
requested a "benevolent dictatorship" governance
model [2].
<br>
While "benevolent dictatorships" often lead to
successful
<br>
projects, all prior OSGeo incubated projects
have selected
<br>
"equal vote by PSC members". Someone with better
legal training
<br>
than me might find "benevolent dictatorships" to
be
<br>
unconstitutional according to OSGeo bylaws. [3]
<br>
[1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the
Noosphere":
<br>
<a href="http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s1" target="_blank">http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s1</a>
<br>
6.html [2]
<a href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance" target="_blank">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a>
<br>
[3]
<br>
<a href="http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.htm" target="_blank">http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.htm</a>
<br>
l
<br>
On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Cameron-
<br>
I understand where you are coming from,
and your
<br>
characterization is definitely correct. While
our process is
<br>
and always has been absolutely open to
discussion so as to
<br>
obtain the scientifically and technically best
solution this
<br>
"benevolent dictatorship" has brought rasdaman
to where it
<br>
stands now - it is designed by innovation, not
by committee.
<br>
Just to get me right, our model is certainly
not the right one
<br>
for every endeavour. Here it is the most
appropriate, and hence
<br>
we will keep it.
<br>
As you observe, this model is not
contradicting OS as such, and
<br>
many projects run it. So ultimately it lies in
the hand of OSGeo
<br>
to decide whether they accept the existing
plurality of
<br>
approaches (in this case manifest with
rasdaman).
<br>
best,
<br>
Peter
<br>
On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Bruce, Peter,
<br>
I've read through the incubation process
documentation, and can
<br>
only see one thing which I think breaks our
OSGeo principles.
<br>
The Governance model includes a
statement:
<br>
"In all issues, the PSC strives to achieve
unanimous consent
<br>
based on a free, independent exchange of
facts and opinions.
<br>
Should such consent exceptionally not be
reached then Peter
<br>
Baumann has a casting vote."
<br>
<a href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance" target="_blank">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a>
<br>
This is describing a "benevolent
dictator" model, which has
<br>
proved to be an effective model for many
open source projects.
<br>
<br>
See Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the
Noosphere":
<br>
<<a href="http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16" target="_blank">http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16</a>.
<br>
html><a href="http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01" target="_blank">http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01</a>
<br>
s16.html
<br>
<br>
However, it is not in line with existing
OSGeo Incubated
<br>
projects, which have documented a "vote by
PSC" as the defining
<br>
governance process. In practice, the PSC
community debate
<br>
alternatives, and if needed, respectfully
revert to reasoned
<br>
advice provided by the "benevolent
dictator".
<br>
Peter, are you open to changing the
governance model to a "vote
<br>
by PSC"?
<br>
I'd be comfortable with a "vote by PSC, with
PSC chair being
<br>
given 1.5 votes to break any deadlocks. I'd
also be ok with PSC
<br>
chair defaulting to Peter (as founder),
until such time as
<br>
Peter resigns from the role."
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
--
<br>
Cameron Shorter,
<br>
Software and Data Solutions Manager
<br>
LISAsoft
<br>
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
<br>
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
<br>
P<a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000</a>
<tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,
<br>
<a href="http://Wwww.lisasoft.com" target="_blank">Wwww.lisasoft.com</a>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.lisasoft.com" target="_blank"><http://www.lisasoft.com></a>, F<a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099</a>
<br>
<tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Incubator mailing list
<br>
<a href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank"><mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<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" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="80">--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
<a href="http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann" target="_blank">www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann</a>
mail: <a href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de" target="_blank">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a>
tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178</a>, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178</a>
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
<a href="http://www.rasdaman.com" target="_blank">www.rasdaman.com</a>, mail: <a href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com" target="_blank">baumann@rasdaman.com</a>
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882</a>
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
</pre>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">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><br></blockquote></div>