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) <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jody > Garnett > *Sent:* Sunday, May 1, 2016 4:30 AM > *To:* Cameron Shorter > *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions; [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator > > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
