[Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?
Landon Blake
sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com
Wed May 4 11:00:04 PDT 2016
Evan wrote: "Actually reading http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance it
seems the sentence
that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached then
Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a tie
in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as currently), Peter
breaks
the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased
in
a more neutral way to say to designate the chair of the PSC rather than a
named individual)."
Excellent comment and great solution.
Landon
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 mai 2016 18:34:27, Peter Baumann a écrit :
> > HI Cameron,
> >
> > first, as this word has been used too often now, the current model has
> > nothing at all to do with dictatorship. What is the suggested opposite,
> > BTW - "dictatorship of majorities"? ;-)
>
> Actually reading http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance it seems the
> sentence
> that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached
> then
> Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a
> tie
> in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as currently), Peter
> breaks
> the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased
> in
> a more neutral way to say to designate the chair of the PSC rather than a
> named individual).
>
> I actually see that Johan Van de Wauw asked the same question but this
> hasn't
> been answered clearly.
>
> Perhaps http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance could gain in clarity by
> defining precise voting rules (which majority, delays, etc...) As an
> example of
> simple rules (not necessarily to follow them, but to show the plain
> language
> used): https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc /
> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html /
> http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html ).
>
> >
> > If it would at least be called a "technocracy", that I could accept:
> > rasdaman has always been driven by purely scientific elaboration _and_
> > consensus orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless where it
> comes
> > from - this is at the heart of our scientific progress.
> >
> > It is the fundamental freedom of science that is at stake here.
> >
> > I guess that OSGeo needs to decide whether it can accept a model based on
> > scientific ethics ...or not.
> >
> > best,
> > Peter
> >
> > On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > > Hi Peter,
> > > Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's current
> "benevolent
> > > dictator" governance model?
> > >
> > > Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are managed similarly to
> > > your description below.
> > > There is usually a sage or two amongst the community, typically someone
> > > who founded the project. The sage(s) have more experience with the
> > > project, and their opinion holds greater weight amongst the community.
> > > This informal relationship continues even with a formal Project
> Steering
> > > Committee.
> > >
> > > As you would understand, building a successful Open Source community
> > > involves a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual recognition
> > > of team members. Community members typically show respect by giving
> > > extra weight to the opinion of founders, and founders often show
> respect
> > > and trust of their community by sharing project governance.
> > >
> > > If you are a good open source leader, and it appears you must be, there
> > > is little risk you will loose your current influence on the project.
> Its
> > > also unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference between yourself
> > > and the community. But if there is, and the project forks, whether you
> > > are head of the official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little
> > > impact on the final result.
> > >
> > > So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance model.
> > >
> > > If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent dictator" model, I agree
> > > with Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo Charter members
> > > to vote, as it would be a new direction for OSGeo.
> > >
> > > Warm regards, Cameron
> > >
> > > On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
> > >> interesting discussion, with valuable thoughts!
> > >>
> > >> True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman - on the contrary,
> we
> > >> are most happy about helping hands, and are constantly thinking about
> > >> opportunities for process improvements. Personally, I am so much
> > >> overloaded that I enjoy handing over tasks, and yes: with appropriate
> > >> responsibility; in practice that means that we openly discuss pros and
> > >> cons with myself being "primus inter pares" (first among equals). I
> > >> have not received any complaint over the years that anybody would not
> > >> get heard appropriately. Regularly I just need to lean back
> > >> (metaphorically) and await the outcome of the discussion of the
> > >> experienced developers, and add my nodding to the group consensus.
> > >>
> > >> We regularly try to involve the community in such design and
> > >> implementation discussions (and I am urging devers to do that), but
> > >> feedback invariably was minimal. Which I see as a sign of trust when
> > >> looking at the download figures at www.rasdaman.org.
> > >>
> > >> It may be worth noting that we have installed mechanisms for openly
> > >> commenting and voting on patches; ever clicked on the Review URL in
> the
> > >> Patch Manager?
> > >>
> > >> Actually, it is more about deciding not by election, but by
> > >> qualification. Concepts and code of rasdaman are extraordinarily
> > >> complex; large and experienced companies like Oracle, Teradata, and
> > >> ESRI have tried to copy rasdaman, and failed. Therefore, it
> > >> unfortunately takes patience for a newcomer to immerse to a degree
> that
> > >> allows making suggestions that are fully backed by the team. That
> said,
> > >> we do not attach maturity labels to coders ;-), rather the technical
> > >> merit of each individual contribution is weighted carefully.
> > >>
> > >> Another constraint, of course, are project considerations- there is a
> > >> contract behind where ESA, the European Commission, or whoever-else
> > >> expects fulfilment.
> > >>
> > >> Bottom line, the atmosphere in rasdaman is highly cooperative and
> > >> consensus-based, I just reserve jumping in as a last resort. Someone
> has
> > >> questioned the term used in this discussion as not quite adequate; I
> > >> like the diplomacy aspect raised.
> > >>
> > >> -Peter
> > >>
> > >> On 05/03/2016 01:54 AM, Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote:
> > >>> I found this nice description of the benevolent dictator governance:
> > >>> http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel
> > >>>
> > >>> It's a nice read, but I want to highlight this part:
> > >>>> In many ways, the role of the benevolent dictator is less about
> > >>>> dictatorship and more about diplomacy. The key is to ensure
> > >>>> that, as the project expands, the right people are given influence
> > >>>> over it and the community rallies behind the vision of the project
> > >>>> lead.
> > >>>
> > >>> Another good one from (linked from the above):
> > >>>
> http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolen
> > >>> t-dictator-qualifications
> > >>>
> > >>>> they let things work themselves out through discussion and
> > >>>> experimentation whenever possible. They participate in those
> > >>>> discussions themselves, but as regular developers, often deferring
> to
> > >>>> an area maintainer who has more expertise. Only when it is clear
> that
> > >>>> no consensus can be reached, and that most of the group wants
> someone
> > >>>> to guide the decision so that development can move on, does she put
> > >>>> her foot down and say "This is the way it's going to be."
> > >>>>
> > >>> From my (really) naive point of view, the "benevolent dictatorship"
> is
> > >>> a
> > >>>
> > >>> do-ocracy were the committers get the right, or influence, to lead
> > >>> parts of the projects and where the "dictator" is acountable of its
> > >>> decision to the community. The key ingredients are the same as other
> > >>> governance : - Be easy to contribute patches and features
> > >>> - Be open on the direction of the project
> > >>> - Be forkable
> > >>>
> > >>> If someone wants to contribute a new feature, they ask the
> mailing-list
> > >>> and the committer responsible for this part of the software, not the
> > >>> "dictator", will approve or suggest changes. The approach is less
> > >>> formal than with a PSC, but still works the same.
> > >>>
> > >>> This is of course an ideal scenario, but can be as open as a PSC, I
> > >>> think, as long as the project as a good "forkability".
> > >>>
> > >>> Back to the incubation discussion, Rasdaman seems to have multiple
> > >>> committers and 2 main organisation behind it. What I would like to
> ask
> > >>> is, what's the "bus number". Is there a second (or third) in command
> > >>> that could ultimately take care of the project after the dictator's
> > >>> "end-of-term"? From my point of view, a PSC of 3, 2 being from the
> > >>> same company, is a small PSC and will probably lack a bit of variety
> > >>> in opinions. Is there any other key contributors that the "dictator"
> > >>> refers to when trying to get inputs and defer technical decisions?
> > >>>
> > >>> Julien
> > >>>
> > >>> On 16-05-01 07:29 AM, Jody Garnett 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <mailto: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/ar01s1
> > >>>> 6.html [2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
> > >>>> [3]
> > >>>>
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.htm
> > >>>> l
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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/ar01
> > >>>>>> s16.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 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,
> > >>>> Wwww.lisasoft.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <http://www.lisasoft.com>, F+61 2 9009 5099
> > >>>> <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Incubator mailing list
> > >>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
> > >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Incubator mailing list
> > >>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> > >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
> http://www.spatialys.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/incubator/attachments/20160504/efdcb8c4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list