<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Evan wrote: "Actually reading </span><a href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" style="font-size:12.8px">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a><span style="font-size:12.8px"> it seems the sentence</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached then</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a tie</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as currently), Peter breaks</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased in</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">a more neutral way to say to designate the chair of the PSC rather than a</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">named individual)."</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Excellent comment and great solution.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Landon</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Even Rouault <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:even.rouault@spatialys.com" target="_blank">even.rouault@spatialys.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">Le mercredi 04 mai 2016 18:34:27, Peter Baumann a écrit :<br>
> 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>
<br>
</span>Actually reading <a href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance" rel="noreferrer" 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" rel="noreferrer" 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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc</a> /<br>
<a href="http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html" rel="noreferrer" 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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html</a> ).<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> 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>
> > 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>
> >> 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" rel="noreferrer" 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>
> >>> I found this nice description of the benevolent dictator governance:<br>
> >>> <a href="http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel" rel="noreferrer" 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>
> >>>> 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>
> >>><br>
> >>> Another good one from (linked from the above):<br>
> >>> <a href="http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolen" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolen</a><br>
> >>> t-dictator-qualifications<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>> 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>
> >>> 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>
> >>>> 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>
</div></div><span class="">> >>>> On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>>> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment<br>
> >>>> on this question:<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model<br>
> >>>> for incubating projects?<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> -0 from me, Cameron Shorter.<br>
> >>>><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>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> [1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":<br>
> >>>> <a href="http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s1</a><br>
</span>> >>>> 6.html [2] <a href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a><br>
<div><div class="h5">> >>>> [3]<br>
> >>>> <a href="http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.htm</a><br>
> >>>> l<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:<br>
> >>>>> Cameron-<br>
> >>>>><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>
> >>>>><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>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> best,<br>
> >>>>> Peter<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
> >>>>>> 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>
> >>>>>><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a><br>
> >>>>>><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" rel="noreferrer" 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" rel="noreferrer" 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>
> >>>>>><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>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Warm regards, Cameron<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> --<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>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> P+61 2 9009 5000 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,<br>
> >>>> <a href="http://Wwww.lisasoft.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Wwww.lisasoft.com</a><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> <<a href="http://www.lisasoft.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.lisasoft.com</a>>, F<a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099">+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">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">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>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>>> Incubator mailing list<br>
> >>>> <a href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">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>
<br>
--<br>
</div></div>Spatialys - Geospatial professional services<br>
<a href="http://www.spatialys.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.spatialys.com</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Incubator mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">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></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>