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

Sun May 1 12:58:22 PDT 2016

When acting in this capacity I speak as a member of OSGeo (and not as a
boundless employee).

There are several aspects about our foundation that I personally disagree
with, never the less I try and respect the view point of each community I
work with. Personally I do respect your opinion on the benevolent dictator
model, I love the fact that someone is in position to take responsibility
and care for the project.

As indicated in my previous email OSGeo as a foundation really focuses on
being inclusive with the (possibly idealistic) notion of being open to a
new volunteer (or organization) being able to take an interest in a project
and gradually assume responsibility and governance as they become more
passionate.

--
Jody Garnett

On 1 May 2016 at 12:48, Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) <patrick.hogan at nasa.gov>
wrote:

> Jody,
>
>
>
> Despite the infinite respect I have for your opinion and the Boundless
> organization, sincerely, I couldn’t more heartily disagree. At least I
> think I am disagreeing.
>
>
>
> Open source is open source, there are many flavors, each one serving
> different tastes, and each with different paths if nirvana is to be
> experienced, or at least attempted.
>
>
>
> But open source is open source and geospatial is geospatial. Aren’t people
> free to take ‘benevolent dictator’ code and branch it to their interests?
> For certain projects to mature, they need to be spared the collective
> collaboration that also introduces the chaos of community. One size does
> not fit all at all stages of development.
>
>
>
> Copyleft, at the more ‘pure’ end of open source, seems far more ‘prickly’
> in terms of ongoing usability than benevolent dictator. Yet one might
> consider Copyleft the ‘true god’ of open source to some. I am more profane
> on the subject.
>
>
>
> OSGeo might want to rise to the occasion of a ‘big tent’ versus. . .
>
>
>
> IANAL, I am not a lawyer, nor a doctor for that matter. ;-)
>
> This world needs all the open source solutions it can get, from copyleft
> to benevolent dictator.
>
> -Patrick
>
>
>
> *From:* Discuss [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Jody
> Garnett
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 1, 2016 4:30 AM
> *To:* Cameron Shorter
> *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions; incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept
> "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160501/278798a4/attachment-0002.html>