<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Jonathan,<br>
<br>
while OSGeo and rasdaman share the strive for quality we come from
different approaches: OSGeo believes in the power of committees and
strong regulation whereas rasdaman has a culture of unbureaucratic,
technocracy based collaboration. In other words: good ideas are
always welcome - we live this daily, based on humanistic ideals, not
on law enforcement.<br>
<br>
Scientific evidence? No, unfortunately not - we concentrate on
technology, and that IMHO is more a field for social scientists to
explore. Likely a research gap there, but I may miss something
existing.<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/09/2016 02:17 PM, Jonathan Moules
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1549572b7e8.11c20668758714.837969157887109009@lightpear.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div
style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hi
Peter,<br>
It seems you're concerned that the decisions made by a PSC
vote wouldn't necessarily be as good
scientifically/technologically good as those of a benevolent
dictator (in this case yourself).<br>
<br>
I realise this may be an ironic question, but do you have
any scientific basis for that claim - I'm sure social science
must have investigated this sort of thing? I believe the purpose
of the OSGeo incubator is to get the best outcome for a project,
so if there's evidence that that's done via the benevolent
dictator model it would make sense that OSGeo accept such a
model where it's desired.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Jonathan<br>
<div class="zmail_extra">
<div id="1"><br>
---- On Mon, 09 May 2016 12:39:14 +0100 <b>Peter
Baumann<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de"><p.baumann@jacobs-university.de></a></b> wrote
---- <br>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #0000FF;
padding-left: 6px; margin:0 0 0 5px">
<div>Hi Marc,<br>
<br>
I understand your position, and I appreciate your
thoughtful deliberations.<br>
Still, these are all on meta level, not fact level. This
is where voting-based<br>
decisions, rather than scientific/technologically sound
decision can lead to a<br>
failure indeed.<br>
<br>
-Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
On 05/09/2016 11:28 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:<br>
> Peter<br>
><br>
> Voting is not the issue for success, acceptance and
traction are.<br>
><br>
> And as my suggestions seem to upset you, then at
least read Jeroen Ticheler's message.....he's been there,
done it and boasts several T-shirts by now.<br>
><br>
> Vriendelijke groet,<br>
> Marc Vloemans<br>
><br>
><br>
>> Op 9 mei 2016 om 09:30 heeft Peter Baumann <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="p.baumann%40jacobs-university.de"
href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a></a>>
het volgende geschreven:<br>
>><br>
>> Marc-<br>
>><br>
>> bright minds do not need votes to get heard here,
there's no obstacle.<br>
>><br>
>> Servus,<br>
>> Peter<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 05/08/2016 04:56 PM, Marc Vloemans wrote:<br>
>>> Peter,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I did certainly not realise there was such a
cultural gap between academia and open source.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Also, I gather that bazar style negotiation
is not to your liking not efficient. You perhaps rather
have a single representative speaking/negotiating on
behalf of the OSGeo Foundation? Unfortunately, nobody has
that remit within OSGeo. So you need to be more
convincing. Presently, a take-it-or-leave-it attitude has
not helped your cause.<br>
>>><br>
>>> In order to grow 'your' project you are at
the end of the day dependent on additional skills and
genius. Not for money, but for free (as in beer). Just
'open sourcing' your project under the wings of OSGeo to
do so requires some careful consideration of your audience
and joint planning in stead of blunt negotiation. Laying
down the law and emphasising how you want things will IMHO
not gain you followers, developers or others to do the
hard Dev work, the (easier, but still volunteer work)
management, promotion etc.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So I invite you to be more appealing to all
the bright minds in our community. Because, as far as this
discussion goes I see no crowd jumping up and say 'I
want'....<br>
>>><br>
>>> To give you another pointer; perhaps a route
to a mutually beneficial solution could be found in the
area of license-policy....(please, give it a thought. It
would take a new look at things that could work for all).<br>
>>><br>
>>> And in case no consensus is arrived at, then
consider Cameron and I and anyone joining in
(pro/neutral/contra) as activists for that matter.<br>
>>> Personally, I sometimes tear my hairs out of
impatience, when I see that building consensus takes so
long. But during various recent online discussions I
learned a lot as well. From people I consider bright and
skilful even though I do not agree with them. And they
give me room to work on what I think is best, even though
they do not agree with a lot I am saying and doing. That's
both courageous of them and humbling for me. So ... the
top-down alternative is flat-out horrifying to me.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Vriendelijke groet,<br>
>>> Marc Vloemans<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> Op 8 mei 2016 om 14:48 heeft Peter
Baumann <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="p.baumann%40jacobs-university.de"
href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de"
target="_blank">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a>>
het volgende geschreven:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Marc-<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> if we just discuss on meta level we
bypass the real facts. It is not about<br>
>>>> bazaar style negotiation - both sides
have laid their cards open on the table,<br>
>>>> and now OSGeo needs to see what to do
with it.<br>
>>>> Also, I note in passing that science is
not really understood, discussion is all<br>
>>>> about money. Maybe look at my mail again,
it is about skills and genius in fact.<br>
>>>> (No pun intended!)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Tot ziens,<br>
>>>> Peter<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> PS: Just to remind, this code of conduct
discussion some time back was not<br>
>>>> guided by a general negotiation, and not
even by a vote of the OSGeo membership<br>
>>>> at large (just some activists).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On 05/07/2016 08:52 AM, Marc Vloemans
wrote:<br>
>>>>> @Peter<br>
>>>>> From the discussion I take away the
impression that Cameron et al have tried to keep the
conversation going and not close any doors. You have
called that word smithing, which raises a proverbial
eyebrow. <br>
>>>>> The fact that you have just turned it
into a take it or leave it deal, is not conducive to a
potential win-win.<br>
>>>>> I appreciate your frankness, however.<br>
>>>>> The role of PI is clear; the one who
holds the purse strings has the power. Something most
developers are familiar with.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> As a volunteer I am happy to give
time and brain cells to our mission. Attracting interest,
creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects support
(shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project
that has this form of dependency on a single person is not
"my-itch". Scratching it would make ultimately you(r
ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive participative
culture of the community at large.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> @Patrick<br>
>>>>> No disagreement with the daunting
task this world faces (I do not want to leave a mess for
my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only
borrow).<br>
>>>>> But if we justify the means by the
end(picture) it gets tricky. To be invited by a benevolent
dictator to be part of the solution seems less of an
appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in
more incremental steps.<br>
>>>>> Academia and OSGeo go well together.
Geo4All for example. But here I see two cultures clash.
And one has held a door open.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Vriendelijke groet,<br>
>>>>> Marc Vloemans<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft
Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="patrick.hogan%40nasa.gov"
href="mailto:patrick.hogan@nasa.gov" target="_blank">patrick.hogan@nasa.gov</a>>
het volgende geschreven:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Dear OSGeo Community,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> This seems a wonderful
opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and stretch
those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be
not as old as some of us OS geospatial projects!<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> We are accelerating into a new
world, one where climate chaos is a daily experience. We
are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and
accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day
and rising. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> At what point do we embrace our
collective need to work together, encouraging creativity
and adjusting adaptability for a world that celebrates our
finite resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open
source solutions, regardless of the path used to grow
them.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Might OSGEO be more adept at
encouraging and supporting open source geospatial
solutions, however they exist? <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> A smart quote goes here, but I am
at a loss for which one. Maybe something from the ‘Three
Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as Eleanor
Roosevelt “The future belongs to those who believe in the
beauty of their dreams.” To which I say, without a
beautiful future, we shall have none. Open OSGeo Open. . .<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Whether for naïveté or ignorance,
much I do not understand. Humble apologies for that.
Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or she’s
not there at all. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -Patrick<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> From: Discuss [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="discuss-bounces%40lists.osgeo.org"
href="mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.org">discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</a></a>] On
Behalf Of Peter Baumann<br>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25
AM<br>
>>>>>> To: Cameron Shorter; Even
Rouault; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="incubator%40lists.osgeo.org"
href="mailto:incubator@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>>>>>> Cc: OSGeo Discussions<br>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss]
[Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator"
projects into OSGeo?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> A principal investigator (PI) 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
clinical trial. 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.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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 it’s 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>
>>>>>> On 05/04/2016 09:18 PM, Cameron
Shorter wrote:<br>
>>>>>> 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. "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>
>>>>>> Le mercredi 04 mai 2016 18:34:27,
Peter Baumann a écrit : <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> HI Cameron, <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> first, as this word has been used
too often now, the current model has nothing at all to do
with dictatorship. What is the suggested opposite, BTW -
"dictatorship of majorities"? ;-) <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Actually reading <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a></a>
it seems the sentence that cause trouble is "Should such
consent exceptionally not be reached then Peter Baumann
has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a
tie in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as
currently), Peter breaks the tie ? If so, that seems
acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased in a more
neutral way to say to designate the chair of the PSC
rather than a named individual). <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I actually see that Johan Van de
Wauw asked the same question but this hasn't been answered
clearly. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Perhaps <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a></a>
could gain in clarity by defining precise voting rules
(which majority, delays, etc...) As an example of simple
rules (not necessarily to follow them, but to show the
plain language used):<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc"
target="_blank">https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc</a>
/ <br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html"
target="_blank">http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html</a>
/ <br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
>>>>>> If it would at least be called a
"technocracy", that I could accept: <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> rasdaman has always been driven
by purely scientific elaboration _and_ consensus
orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless where it
comes 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 scientific
ethics ...or not. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> best, <br>
>>>>>> Peter <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron
Shorter wrote: <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Hi Peter, <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Are you open to considering
relinquishing rasdaman's current "benevolent dictator"
governance model? <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Many (most?) OSGeo projects that
I'm aware of are managed similarly to your description
below. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> There is usually a sage or two
amongst the community, typically someone who founded the
project. The sage(s) have more experience with the
project, and their opinion holds greater weight amongst
the community. This informal relationship continues even
with a formal Project Steering Committee. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> As you would understand, building
a successful Open Source community involves a significant
amount of mutual respect, and mutual recognition of team
members. Community members typically show respect by
giving extra weight to the opinion of founders, and
founders often show respect 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 is little risk
you will lose your current influence on the project. It’s
also unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference
between yourself and the community. But if there is, and
the project forks, whether you are head of the official
PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little 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 with Andrea's that we
should put the question to OSGeo Charter members 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 are most happy
about helping hands, and are constantly thinking about
opportunities for process improvements. Personally, I am
so much overloaded that I enjoy handing over tasks, and
yes: with appropriate responsibility; in practice that
means that we openly discuss pros and cons with myself
being "primus inter pares" (first among equals). I have
not received any complaint over the years that anybody
would not get heard appropriately. Regularly I just need
to lean back (metaphorically) and await the outcome of the
discussion of the experienced developers, and add my
nodding to the group consensus. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> We regularly try to involve the
community in such design and implementation discussions
(and I am urging devers to do that), but feedback
invariably was minimal. Which I see as a sign of trust
when looking at the download figures at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rasdaman.org">www.rasdaman.org</a>.
<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It may be worth noting that we
have installed mechanisms for openly commenting and voting
on patches; ever clicked on the Review URL in the Patch
Manager? <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Actually, it is more about
deciding not by election, but by qualification. Concepts
and code of rasdaman are extraordinarily complex; large
and experienced companies like Oracle, Teradata, and ESRI
have tried to copy rasdaman, and failed. Therefore, it
unfortunately takes patience for a newcomer to immerse to
a degree that allows making suggestions that are fully
backed by the team. That said, we do not attach maturity
labels to coders ;-), rather the technical merit of each
individual contribution is weighted carefully. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Another constraint, of course,
are project considerations- there is a contract behind
where ESA, the European Commission, or whoever-else
expects fulfilment. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Bottom line, the atmosphere in
rasdaman is highly cooperative and consensus-based, I just
reserve jumping in as a last resort. Someone has
questioned the term used in this discussion as not quite
adequate; I like the diplomacy aspect raised. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -Peter <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 05/03/2016 01:54 AM,
Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote: <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I found this nice description of
the benevolent dictator governance: <br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
>>>>>> In many ways, the role of the
benevolent dictator is less about dictatorship and more
about diplomacy. The key is to ensure that, as the project
expands, the right people are given influence over it and
the community rallies behind the vision of the project
lead. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Another good one from (linked
from the above): <br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolent-dictator-qualifications"
target="_blank">http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolent-dictator-qualifications</a>
<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> they let things work themselves
out through discussion and experimentation whenever
possible. They participate in those discussions
themselves, but as regular developers, often deferring to
an area maintainer who has more expertise. Only when it is
clear that no consensus can be reached, and that most of
the group wants someone to guide the decision so that
development can move on, does she put 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 a do-ocracy were
the committers get the right, or influence, to lead parts
of the projects and where the "dictator" is accountable of
its decision to the community. The key ingredients are the
same as other governance: - Be easy to contribute patches
and features - Be open on the direction of the project -
Be forkable <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> If someone wants to contribute a
new feature, they ask the mailing-list and the committer
responsible for this part of the software, not the
"dictator", will approve or suggest changes. The approach
is less 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 think, as long as
the project as a good "forkability". <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Back to the incubation
discussion, Rasdaman seems to have multiple committers and
2 main organisation behind it. What I would like to ask
is, what's the "bus number". Is there a second (or third)
in command that could ultimately take care of the project
after the dictator's "end-of-term"? From my point of view,
a PSC of 3, 2 being from the same company, is a small PSC
and will probably lack a bit of variety in opinions. Is
there any other key contributors that the "dictator"
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>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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. <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 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. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron
Shorter <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="cameron.shorter%40gmail.com"
href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>
wrote: <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation,
OSGeo board, <br>
>>>>>> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo
community will consider and comment on this question: <br>
>>>>>> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent
dictator" [1] governance model for incubating projects? <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]. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> [1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading
the Noosphere": <br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance"
target="_blank">http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance</a>
<br>
>>>>>> [3] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html"
target="_blank">http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html</a>
<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter
Baumann wrote: <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron
Shorter wrote: <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Bruce, Peter, <br>
>>>>>><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>
>>>>>><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." <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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. <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> See Eric Raymond's "Homesteading
the Noosphere": <br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
>>>>>><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." Warm regards, Cameron <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>
>>>>>> P+61 2 9009 5000
<tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>, <br>
>>>>>> Wwww.lisasoft.com <br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -- <br>
>>>>>> Dr. Peter Baumann<br>
>>>>>> - Professor of Computer Science,
Jacobs University Bremen<br>
>>>>>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann">www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann</a><br>
>>>>>> mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="p.baumann%40jacobs-university.de"
href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de"
target="_blank">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a><br>
>>>>>> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax:
+49-421-200-493178<br>
>>>>>> - Executive Director, rasdaman
GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)<br>
>>>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rasdaman.com">www.rasdaman.com</a>, mail: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="baumann%40rasdaman.com"
href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com">baumann@rasdaman.com</a></a><br>
>>>>>> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax:
0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882<br>
>>>>>> "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)<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Discuss mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="Discuss%40lists.osgeo.org"
href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>>>> -- <br>
>>>> Dr. Peter Baumann<br>
>>>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs
University Bremen<br>
>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann">www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann</a><br>
>>>> mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="p.baumann%40jacobs-university.de"
href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de"
target="_blank">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a><br>
>>>> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax:
+49-421-200-493178<br>
>>>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH
Bremen (HRB 26793)<br>
>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rasdaman.com">www.rasdaman.com</a>, mail: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="baumann%40rasdaman.com"
href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com">baumann@rasdaman.com</a></a><br>
>>>> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax,
mobile: +49-173-5837882<br>
>>>> "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)<br>
>> -- <br>
>> Dr. Peter Baumann<br>
>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs
University Bremen<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann">www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann</a><br>
>> mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="p.baumann%40jacobs-university.de"
href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de"
target="_blank">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a><br>
>> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178<br>
>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB
26793)<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rasdaman.com">www.rasdaman.com</a>, mail: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="baumann%40rasdaman.com"
href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com">baumann@rasdaman.com</a></a><br>
>> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile:
+49-173-5837882<br>
>> "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)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Peter Baumann<br>
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann">www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann</a><br>
mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="p.baumann%40jacobs-university.de"
href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de"
target="_blank">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a><br>
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178<br>
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rasdaman.com">www.rasdaman.com</a>, mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="baumann%40rasdaman.com"
href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com" target="_blank">baumann@rasdaman.com</a><br>
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile:
+49-173-5837882<br>
"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)<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
subjmailid="Discuss%40lists.osgeo.org"
href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann">www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann</a>
mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a>
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rasdaman.com">www.rasdaman.com</a>, mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com">baumann@rasdaman.com</a>
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"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>
</body>
</html>