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

[Jody Garnett]

This is not a new conversation; it has been the central work of incubation
- which is proving unsuccessful in this case.

It was raised some time ago - I remember heartfelt conversations in foss4g
2013, working on governance model is part of what osgeo incubation is about
(it is a bit of the advocacy we do as a foundation with the developer
community).

In this case we have failed to convince the project to adopt the open
governance model that we focus on as a foundation. Bruce has been very
patient on this, allowing time and the positive example of other projects
to speak for our approach.

I cannot think of any software foundation that allows benevolent dictator
style - since on of the main values of a foundation is vendor neutral
governance! Counter example welcome
--
Jody

--
Jody Garnett

On 3 May 2016 at 04:05, Johan Van de Wauw <johan.vandewauw at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> First of all, I'm a bit disappointed that this issue is only raised
> now, when the final vote for graduating is taking place. For the
> future I think it should be clearer for projects what rules have to be
> obliged much earlier.
>
> Just this week, in another conversation I mentioned that you need
> rules for when things go bad, and not when things are going well
> (which luckily is the case for Rasdaman). So I think we should focus
> on what resolution we want when things "go bad".
>
> It may be my knowledge of English, but I'm not sure how I should
> understand: "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached then
> Peter Baumann has a casting vote".
>
> If it means that if the PSC reaches 50% - 50% or a lot of abstintent
> voting, Peter can take the decision, then I think it is a logical rule
> and I see no issues with it.
>
> If it means that if a majority of the PSC votes for the proposal that
> it can still be overruled by Peter Baumann (or the chair of the PSC),
> then I'm against it. I do believe that would be an unlikely scenario
> but at such a time I don't think we can still call it an OSGeo project
> at that point.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Johan
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160505/efbcc7f4/attachment-0002.html>