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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] > > >>>> > > >>>> <mailto:[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/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 > > >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> Incubator mailing list > > >>>> [email protected] > > >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator > > -- > Spatialys - Geospatial professional services > http://www.spatialys.com > _______________________________________________ > Incubator mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
