<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Christopher Schmidt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crschmidt@metacarta.com">crschmidt@metacarta.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 02:32:39AM -0400, Erik Uzureau wrote:<br>
> solid +1 from me on all this, chris.<br>
><br>
> my only thoughts at this point are:<br>
><br>
> 1) management/infrastructure: what are the actual logisitics for getting<br>
> this money, dividing it up, allocating it? i would assume that osgeo has the<br>
> apparatus in place for the first part (taking it in, taking their 25%) but<br>
> then after that, how do we roll? are there any wierd tax issues with this?<br>
> will OpenLayers be making contributions to political parties?<br>
<br>
</div>OSGeo will handle invoicing sponsors, taking in the the money, and<br>
holding it. Since OSGeo is working on becoming a 501(c)3 organization, I<br>
believe that direct contributions to political campaigns would be<br>
against US Tax Law. :) (So if we hurry before OSGeo gains that status,<br>
we can go ahead and give all our money to Mickey Mouse's Campaign.)<br>
<br>
As far as spending money, the project sponsorship wiki page says it is<br>
the project's responsibility to:<br>
<br>
* Pass well documented motions for any expenditure of funds from the<br>
project sponsorship fund.<br>
* Provide clear direction (via the project chair/VP) to the OSGeo<br>
Treasurer for any payments to be made from the project sponsorship fund.<br>
<br>
-- <a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Sponsorship#Project_Reponsibilities" target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Sponsorship#Project_Reponsibilities</a><br>
<br>
So, the PSC makes a decision, and then we make it very clear as to what<br>
is supposed to happen to the OSGeo treasurer, and that person makes it<br>
happen.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> 2) having a "budget", even if it's not huge, I think adds a whole new<br>
> dimension to the responsibilities of the PSC. if this is something we want<br>
> to pursue seriously, i think it would be worth:<br>
><br>
> 2a) drawing up some formal guidelines for how this money is to be<br>
> spent: ie. votes by psc on propositions, etc<br>
<br>
</div>It is my belief that we should intentionally not pursue this unless we<br>
see evidence that sponsors are balking at the idea of not having such a<br>
thing put together. The entire point of the sponsorship support is to<br>
put together funds that the PSC can use *at its discretion* -- which<br>
means that setting up a formal list of guidelines constrains us from<br>
doing.<br>
<br>
The sponsorship document provides information to sponsors as to what the<br>
PSC expects to spend money on -- and if we see other things that we<br>
expect to spend money on, we should expand that informal list. However,<br>
this is not a contractual agreement, and sponsors are, to some extent,<br>
simply investing in OpenLayers and trusting the PSC to do the right<br>
thing.<br>
<br>
I have seen no cases I'm aware of where the PSC has completely ignored a<br>
request, or even, generally speaking, acted against the will of the<br>
project, so at this time it seems likely there is a fair amount of<br>
trust in the PSC. Fixing that, if there is not, is an important part of<br>
the process for gaining sponsors.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> 2b) reconsidering the current composition of the PSC: I know this<br>
> has been discussed on the side a bit recently, but I think your<br>
> comments in the below emails are spot on<br>
<br>
</div>I agree that this is an appropriate move for the PSC to take, and<br>
probably has been for the past year. There are a number of changes in<br>
the contribution makeup of the project, and the PSC should reflect that.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> and that companies who would like to be sponsors will want some sort<br>
> of semi-direct way of having their opinions voiced.<br>
<br>
</div>Having their opinions *voiced* is easy: PSC discussions take place in<br>
public on the developers list, and we also will need to pursue feedback<br>
from sponsors via surveys (as stated in the sponsorship doc). The PSC<br>
has never ignored the cries of a majority of the project.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> whether that is a direct seat on the PSC or some sort of wierd proxy, an<br>
> even and justified PSC is I think a prereq for going out and sellling this.<br>
<br>
</div>The first half of this sentence and the second half are not directly<br>
related. A 'fair and balanced' PSC is a fine prerequisite, but 'fair and<br>
balanced' should be related to the *project's* interests, not the<br>
sponsors.<br>
<br>
I doubt that we will see many people who are interested in sponsoring,<br>
but think there are members of the PSC (other than myself ;)) who don't<br>
have the project's interests at heart in their actions on the PSC.<br>
Sponsoring means that you have to trust the PSC members: If you don't,<br>
it's not clear to me that sponsoring the project makes sense until you<br>
do. (Building that trust may require a slow buildup of the sponsorship<br>
program, to be sure: It's hard to build trust related to money without<br>
having money that people trust you with.)<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> Notably, the creation of our PSC was made not on a whim but also certainly<br>
> not in a controlled laboratory setting*.<br>
><br>
> 3) if it were up to me, any money that we could somehow bring in from<br>
> sponsors should be directly invested in "bunker" weeks, as we have been<br>
> having in the past.<br>
<br>
</div>I disagree with this strongly. For a time, you were extremely successful<br>
in acting as a 'maintainer' for the project: ensuring that emails were<br>
responded to, tickets were opened, etc. At other times, I have managed<br>
the tickets: ensuring they're put in the correct milestone,<br>
handled/assigned to people, etc. I think this type of activity directly<br>
supports the project in a way that is hard to quantify: it increases the<br>
quality of *all* of our communications with our users and developers to<br>
have a coherent vision of the problems that people are having. Simply<br>
trolling the list regularly for questions/bugs that are encountered<br>
frequently, and pointing these things out to developers, is something<br>
which could help the project out -- and is hard to support on an ongoing<br>
basis without a significant time commitment (and in the end, all time is<br>
money, in one way or another).<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> there seems no question in my mind that these have<br>
> always been super successful and very positive social events that open up<br>
> communications channels, turn out a bunch of code, and allow otherwise petty<br>
> developers like myself to feel something like important businesspeople, what<br>
> with the "gotta catch a flight", and the casual droppings of "my colleague"<br>
> to skeptical concierges and waitresses around town.<br>
<br>
</div>Absolutely, but I don't think that these bunkers are the *only* way to<br>
help the project: there are others that we have done 'for free' and paid<br>
little attention to, but which could possibly be said to help out the<br>
project even more.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> In the past, the way the bunkers have always worked is that we have a fixed<br>
> number of days, and everyone sort of shows up to the bunker with their own<br>
> agenda. Agendas can either be merged in the leadup to the event or in the<br>
> first few hours/day... but it seems at any rate a mostly democratic way of<br>
> doing things. When it's the case that your company is paying to send you to<br>
> a bunker, the message is clear that you should at the very least make an<br>
> effort to promote the ideas for projects your company would like to have<br>
> moved forward. I imagine it would be no different with sponsors: "Well Apple<br>
> has given us $38,000, I guess we should port OL to the iphone" or something<br>
> of that nature.<br>
<br>
</div>This is exactly the type of behavior I'd like to have developers not<br>
follow directly. That kind of sponsor-led project development is<br>
intentionally ignoring what the *project* needs most -- and even with<br>
$40k in the bank, we still have a lot more total investment in time and<br>
energy by our various contributors, even if you value their time pretty<br>
cheaply.<br>
<br>
The key point I'm making here is that I don't think sponsorship should<br>
be seen as a way of controlling the project. It should be a way of<br>
helping the project to do what it wants to do anyway.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> What I wanted to get at, though, is the difference between the bunker<br>
> approach and the direct subcontracting approach is that, especially in the<br>
> case where we're not talking about a big chunk of money... it is I think<br>
> pretty easy to spend the money on common things that would effortlessly<br>
> benefit all bunker-attending contributors -- and therefore the openlayers<br>
> project as a whole. things like renting office space or internet<br>
> connections. paying for lunch or even some sort of lodging subsidy. The idea<br>
> being that if it could somehow be split evenly over all attendees, well all<br>
> that might just simply translate to less headaches for the PSC in terms of<br>
> taking heated decisions on who gets what, which I can see as a potential<br>
> nastiness that at least I personally would rather avoid if possible.<br>
<br>
</div>Sure, but code sprints don't achieve all the needs of the project. I<br>
agree that subcontracting for features is generally speaking a mistake,<br>
but I'm not sure that I agree that paying people for maintenance of the<br>
project in a number of ways is.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> Now, this is of course is assuming that when company x expresses interest to<br>
> sponsor us with HEAVY insinuations that this should be for "implementing the<br>
> blah control" or whatever, that desire should most certainly be taken into<br>
> consideration and hopefully carried out (either in bunker time, or if need<br>
> be via direct payment consulting).<br>
<br>
</div>I disagree. If companies want a feature done, they should pay someone to<br>
do it. If they want to support the PSC in whatever we want to do, they<br>
should sponsor it.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> it's now getting really late and I should be asleep. so if any of the above<br>
> doesn't make sense, you'll have to forgive me. I haven't yet gone through<br>
> and installed my MailGoggles[1] yet :-)<br>
<br>
</div>I think it makes sense, and actually matches what I thought the first<br>
time I passed my mind over the idea; but as time went on, I realized<br>
that really, direct impact on the direction of the project is not<br>
something to be encouraged via the sponsorship program. Instead,<br>
sponsorship should be seen as a way of helping the project to achieve<br>
its existing goals. The somewhat limited form of sponsors direct input<br>
into the project is an intentional side effect of this point of view,<br>
and is based in part on GDAL/OGR's successes with the project.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> * Most glarlingly, the fact that I happened to be the original "chair" of<br>
> this committee seems almost pulled out of a hat, and that I remain in office<br>
> now some 2.5 years later more a testament to social grace (or disorganized<br>
> mutiny) than any sort of reflection of my knowledge, coding style, ideas<br>
> about the future, or even my occasional, presumptive, 3/4-hearted attempts<br>
> at "managing".<br>
<br>
</div>Actually, although the original decision was somewhat ad-hoc (as I<br>
recall, the way it worked is everyone said "CHris should be chair!" and<br>
I said "No Way!" :)), I could not be happier with the choice. Of all of<br>
the current PSC members, I think that you have demonstrated the widest<br>
ability to take an accurate barometer of the social pressures pushing<br>
different members of the PSC and the project as a whole, and integrating<br>
them into ideal compromise situations, something that I think that other<br>
members of the PSC would have far more trouble achieving. (I know I<br>
would.)<br>
<br>
Your tenure as PSC chair is a testament to your continued ability to<br>
hold the project together better than anyone else could, as far as I'm<br>
concerned, stretching from your ability to chat for hours on the phone<br>
about the various issues related to a release, to the ability to step up<br>
as release manager, to your consensus driven comunication style, which<br>
has worked out perfectly for the 'chairman of the board' position that<br>
you hold. Given my druthers, I personally wouldn't have it any other way<br>
if I had to start all over. (Others, on the other hand, may feel<br>
differently. :))</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>It occurred to me over chana masala last night that in my response i didn't</div><div>make any acknowledgement of this very nice vote of support from you and </div>
<div>from others who have replied to this section of my original email. thank you!</div><div>it feels great to have this positive feedback.</div><div><br></div><div>that said i think it's pretty clear that i have some uncomfortability with the role...</div>
<div>i'm happy and proud to continue to do it, but i think this sponsorship idea would</div><div>be a great moment to take a step back and make things official. as you mention,</div><div>there are probably people out there who may not feel so glowingly about my </div>
<div>leadership, yet who might not feel comfortable speaking up about it.</div><div><br></div><div>in that vein... i-m going to start a new thread with some proposed proposals for</div><div>proposing to make some ammendments to the psc, etc. stay tuned.</div>
<div><br></div><div>and yeah, thanks again :-)</div><div>erik</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
Christopher Schmidt<br>
MetaCarta<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>