[OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Rashad Kanavath]

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal.
>
> 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.
>

I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in incubation is
not a good idea.

If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC should
work.  Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever criteria, one being
the "dictator" way.

Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must be
validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a checklist to
validate working PSC and how it should work can filter projects with
"benevolent dictator".


> 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.
> --
> Jody
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,
>>
>> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on this
>> question:
>>
>> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for
>> incubating projects?
>>
>> -0 from me, Cameron Shorter.
>>
>> Background:
>> * As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has requested a
>> "benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2]. 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]
>>
>> [1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":
>> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
>> [2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
>> [3] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>>
>> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
>>
>> Cameron-
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> best,
>> Peter
>>
>> On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Bruce, Peter,
>> I've read through the incubation process documentation, and can only see
>> one thing which I think breaks our OSGeo principles.
>>
>> The Governance model includes a statement:
>> "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."
>> http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
>>
>> This is describing a "benevolent dictator" model, which has proved to be
>> an effective model for many open source projects. See Eric Raymond's
>> "Homesteading the Noosphere":
>> <http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html>
>> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> Peter, are you open to changing the governance model to a "vote by PSC"?
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter,
>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>> LISAsoft
>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>
>> P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Incubator mailing list
>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Regards,
   Rashad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160501/2c32a388/attachment-0002.html>