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

Mon May 2 06:33:54 PDT 2016

Since this particular topic is a hard discussion (with a projects status in
our community on the line) I do not wish to replay it for an audience.
OSGeo as an organization is responsible for fostering projects; working
through these issues needs to be supportive.

In incubation we try and tackle these topics on the incubation email list
(volunteers welcome - projects are waiting to join our foundation). For
sensitive topics each project has a mentor, a volunteer from OSGeo such as
yourself, to help project teams with these sometimes difficult ideas.

If you would like a panel discussion with project leads on how each project
does open source I would be game. A strength of OSGeo is that we have the
flexibility for a wide range of approaches.

--
Jody Garnett

On 2 May 2016 at 02:30, Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl) <
gert-jan at osgeo.nl> wrote:

> Hi Jody and others,
>
> Apart from the discussion here at this list, this might be a nice subject
> for a "topic talk" (a discussion on a specific theme) in August at FOSS4G
> in Bonn.
> If annybody is willing to take the lead in this, we (=the Bonn LOC) can
> see if we can fit this in the program)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gert-Jan
>
>
>
>
> Jody Garnett schreef op 01-05-2016 22:05:
>
>> A PSC is not required for any OSGeo project (even a graduated project)
>> - being inclusive is. The GeoNode project is an example in incubation
>> that forms a leadership team based on recent committers as I
>> understand it. The benevolent dictator model does not meet this
>> inclusive requirement, Cameron suggested a steering committee formed
>> with one chair member with 1.5 votes (to prevent deadlock).
>>
>> The OSGeo incubation principles are often based on risk ... to users
>> of the software project. The "benevolent dictator" model, just like
>> having a project backed by a single company/organization, suffers from
>> a stability problem - what if the dictator or organization loses
>> interest? By splitting responsibility across multiple parties the
>> project has a much better chance of weathering these storms ... and
>> the risk for users of the software is lower.
>>
>> I am sorry I am not the best at talking through the pros/cons of the
>> benevolent dictator model - perhaps some who feels more passionately
>> about this subject (or who has first hand experience) could step in.
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>> On 1 May 2016 at 12:50, Rashad Kanavath <mohammedrashadkm at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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":
>>>
>>> [1]
>> 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 [2],  W www.lisasoft.com [3],  F +61 2 9009 5099 [4]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]
>> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
>> [2] tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000
>> [3] http://www.lisasoft.com
>> [4] tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160502/cd9c67d4/attachment-0002.html>