[Incubator] Rasdaman as a Research Project? [was: Re: Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo? ]
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
Thu May 5 17:16:27 PDT 2016
Rasdaman is certainly an impressive collection of software, however I'm
concerned at this description of Rasdaman as a Research Project.
If we go down this route we are severely limiting the Project's potential
I have been discussing Rasdaman with a number of people over the last year
or so and am seeing a number of large organisations monitoring activities
and development within the community project to assess its potential for
collaboration and for use within their organisations.
These organisations will not be interested in deploying operational
software that has been sourced from a project that badges itself as a
This is why the Rasdaman Community Project needs wider representation in in
the PSC, so that it can achieve its true potential.
I suggest that we pause for a while and reflect on the discussions over the
last few weeks prior to taking further action.
OSGeo Mentor to the Rasdaman Project
From: Discuss <discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Peter Baumann <
> p.baumann at jacobs-university.de>
> Organization: Jacobs University Bremen
> Date: Thursday, 5 May 2016 at 20:24
> To: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>, Even Rouault <
> even.rouault at spatialys.com>, Incubator <Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
> Cc: Discuss OSGeo <discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent
> dictator" projects into OSGeo?
> Hi Cameron,
> I tried very much to make the situation transparent. Maybe the notion of
> Principal Investigator helps here (cf Wikipedia - although biased towards
> medical science):
> *A **principal investigator** (**PI**) is the holder of an independent
> grant administered by a university and the lead researcher for the grant
> project, usually in the sciences, such as a laboratory study or a **clinical
> trial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial>**. The phrase is
> also often used as a synonym for "head of the laboratory" or "research
> group leader." While the expression is common in the sciences, it is used
> widely for the person or persons who make final decisions and supervise
> funding and expenditures on a given research project.*
> I am the PI of rasdaman, and that will not change, also not indirectly
> through wordsmithing as proposed.
> OSGeo is entering new domains with rasdaman, which is: scientific research
> projects. Like some other communities, these have existed long before
> OSGeo, and have their own ethics, procedures, and rules. It is unlikely
> that science will change and give up freedom of research based on its
> principles well accepted by the whole community. If OSGeo intends to change
> these in general then maybe starting with rasdaman as an isolated item in a
> vast universe is not the optimal point.
> OSGeo may find out that its very special (although obviously not
> unambiguously codified) views constrain it to particular ecosystems. But I
> am not imposing nor judging. Just trying to explain.
> On 05/04/2016 09:18 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> Could you please answer Even and Johan's question.
> I'm happy to use another term for the governance model.
> "Does one person have ultimate control over the project? Or does ultimate
> control lie with a committee, possibly with a tie breaker vote designated
> to one person or one role (eg chair)?"
> Warm regards, Cameron
> On 5/05/2016 3:29 am, Even Rouault 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
> that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached
> Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a
> in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as currently), Peter
> the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
> On 05/03/2016 01:54 AM, Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote:
> I found this nice description of the benevolent dictator governance:
> 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
> Another good one from (linked from the above):
> 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
> 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?
> 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> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,
> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and
> on this question:
> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator"  governance
> for incubating projects?
> -0 from me, Cameron Shorter.
> * As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has
> requested a "benevolent dictatorship" governance model .
> 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. 
>  Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":
> 6.html  http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
> 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,
> 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).
> 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."
> 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":
> 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
> 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
> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
> P+61 2 9009 5000 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,
> <http://www.lisasoft.com> <http://www.lisasoft.com>, F+61 2 9009 5099
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
> <Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> Dr. Peter Baumann
> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
> mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
> www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Incubator