<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>