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

[Johan Van de Wauw]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Peter Baumann
 wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> while OSGeo and rasdaman share the strive for quality we come from different
> approaches: OSGeo believes in the power of committees and strong regulation
> whereas rasdaman has a culture of unbureaucratic, technocracy based
> collaboration. In other words: good ideas are always welcome - we live this
> daily, based on humanistic ideals, not on law enforcement.

I disagree with this conclusion. Both allowunbureaucratic and
technocracy based collaboration, as proven in many projects such as
QGis, OSGeo live, ...

It is only when a large part of the PSC has a different opinion then
the benevolent dictator that a difference between both arise.
If such occasions arise the project definitely has a problem, and I
don't think having one person deciding the way forward as the default
option is a good one.

I should add that the benevolent dictator style is not always
succesful, also in important projects. See eg glibc [1]. I do think it
can be succesful if the "BDFL" shows leadership and I think it is a
good model to avoid some bikeshedding. But in every sucessful BFDL
open source project you see that there is in fact a larger group of
people involved (similar to a PSC), and I don't know any examples
where the BDFL chose a direction which was opposite of this groups
opinion and where this worked out well.

Kind Regards,
Johan
[1] eg 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library#Debian_switches_to_EGLIBC_and_back
"In March 2012, the steering committee voted to disband itself and
remove Drepper in favor of a community-driven development process"
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Mateusz Loskot]

On 11 May 2016 at 10:56, Peter Baumann  wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> while OSGeo and rasdaman share the strive for quality we come from different
> approaches: OSGeo believes in the power of committees and strong regulation
> whereas rasdaman has a culture of unbureaucratic, technocracy based
> collaboration.

Then, I don't understand why rasdaman entered the incubation in the first place.
It sounds like a complete waste of efforts.

http://www.osgeo.org/faq
"PSC should operate openly and with a consensus based approach(...)
A benevolent dictatorship is not considered a suitable open and
consensus based approach to governance."


Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Peter Baumann]

ugh I do not agree with them. And they give me room to
> work on what I think is best, even though they do not agree with a lot I
> am saying and doing. That's both courageous of them and humbling for me.
> So ... the top-down alternative is flat-out horrifying to me.
> >>>
> >>> Vriendelijke groet,
> >>> Marc Vloemans
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Op 8 mei 2016 om 14:48 heeft Peter Baumann
> <p.baum...@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baum...@jacobs-university.de>>
> het volgende geschreven:
> >>>>
> >>>> Marc-
> >>>>
> >>>> if we just discuss on meta level we bypass the real facts. It is not
> about
> >>>> bazaar style negotiation - both sides have laid their cards open on
> the table,
> >>>> and now OSGeo needs to see what to do with it.
> >>>> Also, I note in passing that science is not really understood,
> discussion is all
> >>>> about money. Maybe look at my mail again, it is about skills and
> genius in fact.
> >>>> (No pun intended!)
> >>>>
> >>>> Tot ziens,
> >>>> Peter
> >>>>
> >>>> PS: Just to remind, this code of conduct discussion some time back
> was not
> >>>> guided by a general negotiation, and not even by a vote of the OSGeo
> membership
> >>>> at large (just some activists).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 05/07/2016 08:52 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
> >>>>> @Peter
> >>>>> From the discussion I take away the impression that Cameron et al
> have tried to keep the conversation going and not close any doors. You
> have called that word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow.
> >>>>> The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it
> deal, is not conducive to a potential win-win.
> >>>>> I appreciate your frankness, however.
> >>>>> The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the
> power. Something most developers are familiar with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our
> mission. Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our
> projects support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project
> that has this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch".
> Scratching it would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the
> inclusive participative culture of the community at large.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @Patrick
> >>>>> No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not
> want to leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO
> only borrow).
> >>>>> But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To
> be invited by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less
> of an appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more
> incremental steps.
> >>>>> Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I
> see two cultures clash. And one has held a door open.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vriendelijke groet,
> >>>>> Marc Vloemans
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX)
> <patrick.ho...@nasa.gov <mailto:patrick.ho...@nasa.gov>> het volgende
> geschreven:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dear OSGeo Community,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of
> growing, and stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though
> they be not as old as some of us OS geospatial projects!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a
> daily experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations
> and accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together,
> encouraging creativity and adjusting adaptability for

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

[Andrea Ross]

ity.de> het 
volgende geschreven:

Marc-

if we just discuss on meta level we bypass the real facts. It is not about
bazaar style negotiation - both sides have laid their cards open on the table,
and now OSGeo needs to see what to do with it.
Also, I note in passing that science is not really understood, discussion is all
about money. Maybe look at my mail again, it is about skills and genius in fact.
(No pun intended!)

Tot ziens,
Peter

PS: Just to remind, this code of conduct discussion some time back was not
guided by a general negotiation, and not even by a vote of the OSGeo membership
at large (just some activists).



On 05/07/2016 08:52 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
@Peter
 From the discussion I take away the impression that Cameron et al have tried 
to keep the conversation going and not close any doors. You have called that 
word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow.
The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it deal, is not 
conducive to a potential win-win.
I appreciate your frankness, however.
The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the power. 
Something most developers are familiar with.

As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our mission. Attracting 
interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects support (shout out to Jody 
and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that has this form of dependency on a single person 
is not "my-itch". Scratching it would make ultimately you(r ambitions) 
better-off, not the inclusive participative culture of the community at large.

@Patrick
No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not want to leave 
a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only borrow).
But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To be invited 
by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less of an appealing 
proposition. I propose we all go about it in more incremental steps.
Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I see two 
cultures clash. And one has held a door open.


Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans



Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) <patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> 
het volgende geschreven:

Dear OSGeo Community,

This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and 
stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as old 
as some of us OS geospatial projects!

We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily 
experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and 
accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising.

At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together, encouraging 
creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that celebrates our finite 
resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open source solutions, regardless 
of the path used to grow them.

Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source geospatial 
solutions, however they exist?

A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe something from 
the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as Eleanor Roosevelt “The 
future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” To which I 
say, without a beautiful future, we shall have none. Open OSGeo Open. . .

Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble apologies 
for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or she’s not there at 
all.

-Patrick

From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
Baumann
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
Cc: OSGeo Discussions
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. 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 princi

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

[Jonathan Moules]

 for our 
projects support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that 
has this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching it 
would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive 
participative culture of the community at large.

 @Patrick
 No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I 
do not want to leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO 
only borrow).
 But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets 
tricky. To be invited by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems 
less of an appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more 
incremental steps.
 Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. 
But here I see two cultures clash. And one has held a door open.


 Vriendelijke groet,
 Marc Vloemans


 Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) 
patrick.ho...@nasa.gov het volgende geschreven:

 Dear OSGeo Community,

 This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a 
bit of growing, and stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though 
they be not as old as some of us OS geospatial projects!

 We are accelerating into a new world, one where 
climate chaos is a daily experience. We are already witness to the resultant 
mass migrations and accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day 
and rising. 

 At what point do we embrace our collective need to 
work together, encouraging creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world 
that celebrates our finite resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open 
source solutions, regardless of the path used to grow them.

 Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and 
supporting open source geospatial solutions, however they exist? 

 A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which 
one. Maybe something from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such 
as Eleanor Roosevelt “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of 
their dreams.” To which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall have none. 
Open OSGeo Open. . .

 Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not 
understand. Humble apologies for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better 
nature or she’s not there at all. 

 -Patrick

 From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] 
On Behalf Of Peter Baumann
 Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
 To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; 
incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
 Cc: OSGeo Discussions
 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. 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 it’s very special (although 
obviously not unambiguously codified) views constrain it to particular 
ecosystems. But I am not imposing nor judging. Just trying to explain.

 HTH,
 Peter

 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 sentence that cause 
trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached the

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

[Peter Baumann]

, which raises a proverbial eyebrow. 
>>>>> The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it deal, is 
>>>>> not conducive to a potential win-win.
>>>>> I appreciate your frankness, however.
>>>>> The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the 
>>>>> power. Something most developers are familiar with.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our mission. 
>>>>> Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects 
>>>>> support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that has 
>>>>> this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching 
>>>>> it would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive 
>>>>> participative culture of the community at large.
>>>>>
>>>>> @Patrick
>>>>> No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not want to 
>>>>> leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only 
>>>>> borrow).
>>>>> But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To be 
>>>>> invited by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less of 
>>>>> an appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more 
>>>>> incremental steps.
>>>>> Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I see 
>>>>> two cultures clash. And one has held a door open.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>>>> Marc Vloemans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) 
>>>>>> <patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear OSGeo Community,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and 
>>>>>> stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not 
>>>>>> as old as some of us OS geospatial projects!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily 
>>>>>> experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and 
>>>>>> accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together, 
>>>>>> encouraging creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that 
>>>>>> celebrates our finite resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open 
>>>>>> source solutions, regardless of the path used to grow them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source 
>>>>>> geospatial solutions, however they exist? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe 
>>>>>> something from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as 
>>>>>> Eleanor Roosevelt “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty 
>>>>>> of their dreams.” To which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall 
>>>>>> have none. Open OSGeo Open. . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble 
>>>>>> apologies for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or 
>>>>>> she’s not there at all. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Patrick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of 
>>>>>> Peter Baumann
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
>>>>>> To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>> Cc: OSGeo Discussions
>>>>>> 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):
>>>>>>
>>>

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

[Marc Vloemans]

 
>>>> this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching it 
>>>> would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive 
>>>> participative culture of the community at large.
>>>> 
>>>> @Patrick
>>>> No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not want to 
>>>> leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only 
>>>> borrow).
>>>> But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To be 
>>>> invited by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less of 
>>>> an appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more incremental 
>>>> steps.
>>>> Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I see 
>>>> two cultures clash. And one has held a door open.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>>> Marc Vloemans
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) 
>>>>> <patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear OSGeo Community,
>>>>> 
>>>>> This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and 
>>>>> stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as 
>>>>> old as some of us OS geospatial projects!
>>>>> 
>>>>> We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily 
>>>>> experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and 
>>>>> accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together, 
>>>>> encouraging creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that 
>>>>> celebrates our finite resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open 
>>>>> source solutions, regardless of the path used to grow them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source 
>>>>> geospatial solutions, however they exist? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe 
>>>>> something from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as 
>>>>> Eleanor Roosevelt “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty 
>>>>> of their dreams.” To which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall 
>>>>> have none. Open OSGeo Open. . .
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble 
>>>>> apologies for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or 
>>>>> she’s not there at all. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Patrick
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
>>>>> Baumann
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
>>>>> To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> Cc: OSGeo Discussions
>>>>> 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. 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 
>>>&

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

[Peter Baumann]

ia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I see 
>>> two cultures clash. And one has held a door open.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>> Marc Vloemans
>>>
>>>
>>>> Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) 
>>>> <patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>> Dear OSGeo Community,
>>>>
>>>> This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and 
>>>> stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as 
>>>> old as some of us OS geospatial projects!
>>>>
>>>> We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily 
>>>> experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and 
>>>> accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising. 
>>>>
>>>> At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together, 
>>>> encouraging creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that 
>>>> celebrates our finite resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open 
>>>> source solutions, regardless of the path used to grow them.
>>>>
>>>> Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source 
>>>> geospatial solutions, however they exist? 
>>>>
>>>> A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe something 
>>>> from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as Eleanor 
>>>> Roosevelt “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their 
>>>> dreams.” To which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall have none. 
>>>> Open OSGeo Open. . .
>>>>
>>>> Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble 
>>>> apologies for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or 
>>>> she’s not there at all. 
>>>>
>>>> -Patrick
>>>>
>>>> From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
>>>> Baumann
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
>>>> To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
>>>> Cc: OSGeo Discussions
>>>> 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. 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 it’s very special (although obviously not 
>>>> unambiguously codified) views constrain it to particular ecosystems. But I 
>>>> am not imposing nor judging. Just trying to explain.
>>>>
>>>> HTH,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> 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. "

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

[Marc Vloemans]

limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as 
>>> old as some of us OS geospatial projects!
>>> 
>>> We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily 
>>> experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and 
>>> accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising. 
>>> 
>>> At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together, 
>>> encouraging creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that 
>>> celebrates our finite resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open 
>>> source solutions, regardless of the path used to grow them.
>>> 
>>> Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source 
>>> geospatial solutions, however they exist? 
>>> 
>>> A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe something 
>>> from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as Eleanor 
>>> Roosevelt “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their 
>>> dreams.” To which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall have none. 
>>> Open OSGeo Open. . .
>>> 
>>> Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble 
>>> apologies for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or 
>>> she’s not there at all. 
>>> 
>>> -Patrick
>>> 
>>> From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
>>> Baumann
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
>>> To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
>>> Cc: OSGeo Discussions
>>> 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. 
>>> 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 it’s very special (although obviously not 
>>> unambiguously codified) views constrain it to particular ecosystems. But I 
>>> am not imposing nor judging. Just trying to explain.
>>> 
>>> HTH,
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>> sentence that cause trouble is "Should such conse

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

[Peter Baumann]

Marc-

if we just discuss on meta level we bypass the real facts. It is not about
bazaar style negotiation - both sides have laid their cards open on the table,
and now OSGeo needs to see what to do with it.
Also, I note in passing that science is not really understood, discussion is all
about money. Maybe look at my mail again, it is about skills and genius in fact.
(No pun intended!)

Tot ziens,
Peter

PS: Just to remind, this code of conduct discussion some time back was not
guided by a general negotiation, and not even by a vote of the OSGeo membership
at large (just some activists).


On 05/07/2016 08:52 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
> @Peter
> From the discussion I take away the impression that Cameron et al have tried 
> to keep the conversation going and not close any doors. You have called that 
> word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow. 
> The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it deal, is not 
> conducive to a potential win-win.
> I appreciate your frankness, however.
> The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the power. 
> Something most developers are familiar with.
>
> As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our mission. 
> Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects 
> support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that has this 
> form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching it would 
> make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive participative 
> culture of the community at large.
>
> @Patrick
> No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not want to 
> leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only borrow).
> But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To be invited 
> by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less of an 
> appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more incremental steps.
> Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I see two 
> cultures clash. And one has held a door open.
>
>
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
>> Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) 
>> <patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Dear OSGeo Community,
>>
>> This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and 
>> stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as 
>> old as some of us OS geospatial projects!
>>
>> We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily 
>> experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and 
>> accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising. 
>>
>> At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together, 
>> encouraging creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that 
>> celebrates our finite resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open 
>> source solutions, regardless of the path used to grow them.
>>
>> Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source 
>> geospatial solutions, however they exist? 
>>
>> A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe something 
>> from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as Eleanor 
>> Roosevelt “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their 
>> dreams.” To which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall have none. 
>> Open OSGeo Open. . .
>>
>> Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble apologies 
>> for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or she’s not there 
>> at all. 
>>
>> -Patrick
>>
>> From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
>> Baumann
>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
>> To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
>> Cc: OSGeo Discussions
>> 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. The 
>> phrase is also often used as a synonym for "head of the laboratory" or 
>> "research group leader." While the express

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

[Moritz Lennert]

On 05/05/16 12:24, Peter Baumann wrote:

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.


AFAIK, there are many academics (including me), paid by grants or 
otherwise, that work on OSGeo projects, including for work paid with 
these grants, without this causing any problems. I have never seen any 
clash between the logic of the research community and that of OSGeo.


Moritz

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Marco Afonso]

Hi all,

Very interesting discussion :)
This is my opinion about general selection methods.

I think it should be:
1. the most independant and impartial as much as possible
2. transparent comunication
3. based on a mathematical expression of general properties
4. the weight of these properties should not be based on human opinions but
based on facts of the same nature (in this context, open source software).

In resume, a scientific selection method as much as possible. Any other
methods mostly based on human vote/judging may be biased and wrong.

In this specific context about selecting rasdaman software for incubation,
I did not see any scientific selection method. I hope I did understand well
whats the purpose of this discussion :)
Em 07/05/2016 07:53, "Marc Vloemans" <marcvloema...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> @Peter
> From the discussion I take away the impression that Cameron et al have
> tried to keep the conversation going and not close any doors. You have
> called that word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow.
> The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it deal, is
> not conducive to a potential win-win.
> I appreciate your frankness, however.
> The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the
> power. Something most developers are familiar with.
>
> As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our mission.
> Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects
> support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that has
> this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching it
> would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive
> participative culture of the community at large.
>
> @Patrick
> No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not want to
> leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only
> borrow).
> But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To be
> invited by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less of
> an appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more incremental
> steps.
> Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I see
> two cultures clash. And one has held a door open.
>
>
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
> > Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) <
> patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > Dear OSGeo Community,
> >
> > This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and
> stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as
> old as some of us OS geospatial projects!
> >
> > We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily
> experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and
> accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising.
> >
> > At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together,
> encouraging creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that
> celebrates our finite resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open
> source solutions, regardless of the path used to grow them.
> >
> > Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source
> geospatial solutions, however they exist?
> >
> > A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe
> something from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as
> Eleanor Roosevelt “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of
> their dreams.” To which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall have
> none. Open OSGeo Open. . .
> >
> > Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble
> apologies for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or
> she’s not there at all.
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
> > From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
> Peter Baumann
> > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
> > To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
> > Cc: OSGeo Discussions
> > 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.
> The phrase is also often used as a synonym for &qu

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

[Marc Vloemans]

@Peter
From the discussion I take away the impression that Cameron et al have tried to 
keep the conversation going and not close any doors. You have called that word 
smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow. 
The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it deal, is not 
conducive to a potential win-win.
I appreciate your frankness, however.
The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the power. 
Something most developers are familiar with.

As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our mission. 
Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects support 
(shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that has this form of 
dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching it would make 
ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive participative culture 
of the community at large.

@Patrick
No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not want to leave 
a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only borrow).
But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To be invited 
by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less of an appealing 
proposition. I propose we all go about it in more incremental steps.
Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I see two 
cultures clash. And one has held a door open.


Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


> Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) <patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> 
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Dear OSGeo Community,
> 
> This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and 
> stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as old 
> as some of us OS geospatial projects!
> 
> We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily 
> experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and 
> accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising. 
> 
> At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together, encouraging 
> creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that celebrates our finite 
> resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open source solutions, regardless 
> of the path used to grow them.
> 
> Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source 
> geospatial solutions, however they exist? 
> 
> A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe something 
> from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as Eleanor Roosevelt 
> “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” To 
> which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall have none. Open OSGeo Open. 
> . .
> 
> Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble apologies 
> for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or she’s not there 
> at all. 
> 
> -Patrick
> 
> From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
> Baumann
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
> To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
> Cc: OSGeo Discussions
> 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. 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 it’s very special (although obviously not 
> unambiguously codified) views constrain it to particular ecosystems. But I am 
> 

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

[Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX)]

Dear OSGeo Community,

This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and 
stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as old 
as some of us OS geospatial projects!

We are accelerating into a new world, one where climate chaos is a daily 
experience. We are already witness to the resultant mass migrations and 
accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day and rising. 

At what point do we embrace our collective need to work together, encouraging 
creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world that celebrates our finite 
resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open source solutions, regardless 
of the path used to grow them.

Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and supporting open source geospatial 
solutions, however they exist? 

A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which one. Maybe something from 
the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such as Eleanor Roosevelt “The 
future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” To which I 
say, without a beautiful future, we shall have none. Open OSGeo Open. . .

Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not understand. Humble apologies 
for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better nature or she’s not there at 
all. 

-Patrick

From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
Baumann
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
Cc: OSGeo Discussions
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. 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 it’s very special (although obviously not unambiguously 
codified) views constrain it to particular ecosystems. But I am not imposing 
nor judging. Just trying to explain.

HTH,
Peter

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 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 scienti

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

[Jonathan Moules]

Wikipedia has a page full of Open Source Benevolent Dictators For Life (BDFL) 
for very successful projects (Linux, Ruby, Python, Blender, Django, OpenBSD, 
Drupal, WordPress, Perl) - 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_for_Life
I'm not sure how many have foundational approval, or have the role documented 
in the applicable organisation's charter but there certainly appear to be a lot 
of them in the most prominent Open Source projects.


 On Thu, 05 May 2016 14:56:27 +0100 Jody 
Garnettjody.garn...@gmail.com wrote  

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






___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[James Klassen]

I have been quietly following this and find validity in both points.
However, one thing is puzzling me.  OSGeo has other projects that have come
from the research environment (Mapserver and Grass come to mind but there
are probably more).  What is different about rasdaman?
On May 5, 2016 05:25, "Peter Baumann" 
wrote:

> 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 **. 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.
>
> HTH,
> Peter
>
>
>
> 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
> 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 

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

[P Kishor]

Hi Peter,

Let me ask you: what do you hope to gain by getting an OSGeo mark? And, 
whatever that is, is that worth all this negotiation?

Personally, I use a product if it is good for me, not because it has a certain 
blessing on it. There are many non-OSGeo products I use, and there are many 
OSGeo products I don’t use. If Rasdaman suits my needs, I will use it whether 
or not it has been blessed by OSGeo.

Since it seems like what you want and what OSGeo is willing to give are at 
odds, I ask again: what do you hope to gain from OSGeo’s blessing?


> On May 5, 2016, at 6:24 AM, Peter Baumann  
> wrote:
> 
> 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. 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.
> 
> HTH,
> Peter
> 
> 
> …

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [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  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@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Cameron Shorter]

Ok,
We have reached an impass on progressing Rasdaman incubation.

* Peter has made it clear that he intends to personally remain in 
control of Rasdaman.
* We have an incubation criteria which suggests (without specifically 
mandating) shared control through a Project Management Committee. [1]
* We have 3 incubation committee members who have voted against 
graduation based on this criteria.


So, how do we resolve this issue?
I suggest the following decision making process:

A. Rasdaman community be invited to seriously consider aligning with 
OSGeo governance goals. (Done, but would love to see Rasdaman community 
reconsider to save us going through the following steps).


B. In order to confirm the sentiment of the incubation committee, ask 
remaining incubation committee members to vote on whether Rasdaman 
should be accepted into graduation under Rasdaman's proposed government 
framework. Committee members, please do respond and vote.


C. If incubation committee members express reservations about Rasdaman's 
governance not aligning with OSGeo, we set up a pole for OSGeo Charter 
members based on the question:
"Should OSGeo Incubation criteria be changed to accept projects which 
put ultimate governance control with a single person?"
Prior to the pole being presented, the OSGeo community will be invited 
to populate a wiki discussing pros and cons of such the decision.


D. Based on outcome of pole, the OSGeo Incubation process is updated, or 
not, by the incubation committee.


E. If the incubation process is updated, the incubation committee is 
re-polled to assess whether Rasdaman passes incubation against new criteria.


F. Incubation committee present decision to OSGeo Board for discussion 
and hopefully to confirm decision.


Any comments before we put this into practice? OSGeo Board?

[1] http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
/The project has a suitable open governance policy ensuring decisions 
are made, documented and adhered to in a public manner. //
//This typically means a Project Management Committee has been 
established with a process for adding new members. A robust Project 
Management Committee will typically draw upon developers, users and key 
stakeholders from multiple organisations as there will be a greater 
variety of technical visions and the project is more resilient to a 
sponsor leaving./


On 5/05/2016 8:24 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:

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 
//. 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.


HTH,
Peter



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 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 

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

[Peter Baumann]

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
//. 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.

HTH,
Peter



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 
>> 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 

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

[Cameron Shorter]

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 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, 

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

[Paolo Corti]

>
> I tend to agree with Patrick's position. I think what matters in the end is
> the license the code is released, as long as forking is allowed, whether is
> a committee or a single person taking decisions about developing may lead or
> may not to a successful project according to several factors, one being the
> leader, but also the quality of the product, the competitors on the market
> and so on.. there are so many variables involved, that excluding a project
> only based on that seems to me a little shortsighted (no offense intended).
> Also, wording is important! no one loves dictators!! But everyone love
> people who take responsibility and accountability for their job.
>

Totally agree with this. Licenses is what really matters in my opinion as well.
And I agree wording could be improved, but now this is a long term
definition and it needs to be accepted.
Also note that most of OSGeo projects would not exists if they were
not using underlying software from projects generated with a BDFL
model.
p



-- 
Paolo Corti
Geospatial software developer
web: http://www.paolocorti.net
twitter: @capooti
skype: capooti
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Landon Blake]

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 
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
> 

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

[Even Rouault]

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. 

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

[Ian Turton]

>From the discussion so far it sounds as all that is needed is for Rasdaman
to designate it's collection of committers as a PSC and carry on with out
all this fuss.
There is no restriction on how many people you have on your PSC if you can
manage them. And it is worth noting that the current PSCs don't spend all
their time rejecting PRs - mostly we just review and check that we have
committer agreements from people.

Ian

On 4 May 2016 at 17:34, Peter Baumann 
wrote:

> 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"? ;-)
>
> 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 

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

[Peter Baumann]

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"? ;-)

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 

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

[Cameron Shorter]

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#benevolent-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

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

[bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com]

Hello Johan,

Please see:

http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2016-May/003012.html

Bruce



> 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.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Johan Van de Wauw]

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@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Peter Baumann]

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#benevolent-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 

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

[Andrea Aime]

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Cameron Shorter 
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.
>

Hi Cameron,
I've been thinking about this one for a while, allowing benevolent
dictatorships as graduated
OSGeo projects looks like a significant departure from what OSGeo has been
so far.

As such, I'm wondering if the decision should not be made by consulting
directly all charter members,
to check if today's OSGeo is in agreement with such a direction?
A list discussion on list is good to allow pros and cons to be discussed,
but tends to favor the more
vocal people, leaving the "general opinion" largely unknown.

Cheers
Andrea

-- 
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.
==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054  Massarosa (LU)
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39  339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

*AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003*

Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o
nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il
loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio,
per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo
messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di
darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio
stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso,
divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od
utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.



The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for
the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or
proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act
(Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection
Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is
strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
information in this message that has been received in error. The sender
does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or
completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility  for changes
made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of
e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.

---
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Julien-Samuel Lacroix]

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#benevolent-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.
--
Jody

--
Jody Garnett

On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter > 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 

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

[Jody Garnett]

Since this particular topic is a hard discussion (with a projects status in
our community on the line) I do not wish to replay it for an audience.
OSGeo as an organization is responsible for fostering projects; working
through these issues needs to be supportive.

In incubation we try and tackle these topics on the incubation email list
(volunteers welcome - projects are waiting to join our foundation). For
sensitive topics each project has a mentor, a volunteer from OSGeo such as
yourself, to help project teams with these sometimes difficult ideas.

If you would like a panel discussion with project leads on how each project
does open source I would be game. A strength of OSGeo is that we have the
flexibility for a wide range of approaches.

--
Jody Garnett

On 2 May 2016 at 02:30, Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl) <
gert-...@osgeo.nl> wrote:

> Hi Jody and others,
>
> Apart from the discussion here at this list, this might be a nice subject
> for a "topic talk" (a discussion on a specific theme) in August at FOSS4G
> in Bonn.
> If annybody is willing to take the lead in this, we (=the Bonn LOC) can
> see if we can fit this in the program)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gert-Jan
>
>
>
>
> Jody Garnett schreef op 01-05-2016 22:05:
>
>> A PSC is not required for any OSGeo project (even a graduated project)
>> - being inclusive is. The GeoNode project is an example in incubation
>> that forms a leadership team based on recent committers as I
>> understand it. The benevolent dictator model does not meet this
>> inclusive requirement, Cameron suggested a steering committee formed
>> with one chair member with 1.5 votes (to prevent deadlock).
>>
>> The OSGeo incubation principles are often based on risk ... to users
>> of the software project. The "benevolent dictator" model, just like
>> having a project backed by a single company/organization, suffers from
>> a stability problem - what if the dictator or organization loses
>> interest? By splitting responsibility across multiple parties the
>> project has a much better chance of weathering these storms ... and
>> the risk for users of the software is lower.
>>
>> I am sorry I am not the best at talking through the pros/cons of the
>> benevolent dictator model - perhaps some who feels more passionately
>> about this subject (or who has first hand experience) could step in.
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>> On 1 May 2016 at 12:50, Rashad Kanavath 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, 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.

>>>
>>> I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in
>>> incubation is not a good idea.
>>>
>>> If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC
>>> should work.  Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever
>>> criteria, one being the "dictator" way.
>>>
>>> Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must
>>> be validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a
>>> checklist to validate working PSC and how it should work can filter
>>> projects with "benevolent dictator".
>>>
>>> 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 
>>> 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":
>>>

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

[Margherita Di Leo]

Hi,

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) <
patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> 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
>
>
>
I tend to agree with Patrick's position. I think what matters in the end is
the license the code is released, as long as forking is allowed, whether is
a committee or a single person taking decisions about developing may lead
or may not to a successful project according to several factors, one being
the leader, but also the quality of the product, the competitors on the
market and so on.. there are so many variables involved, that excluding a
project only based on that seems to me a little shortsighted (no offense
intended). Also, wording is important! no one loves dictators!! But
everyone love people who take responsibility and accountability for their
job.

My two cents

-- 
Margherita Di Leo
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Helena Mitasova]

Before commenting further I suggest to put the paragraph that is being
discussed on top of the email - benevolent dictator sounds much worse than
what is being proposed.

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 sounds pretty inclusive to me it but it seems to me that it needs to
be reformulated - it does not say how do you measure whether you have
consent (the discussions on dev issues can get pretty messy and open ended)
- you really need to have a vote on that which is what Cameron has
suggested.

Helena



On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Moritz Lennert  wrote:

> On 01/05/16 13:29, 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.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Moritz
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




-- 
Helena Mitasova
Professor
Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
North Carolina State University
1125 Jordan Hall
NCSU Box 8208
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~hmitaso/
http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/

email: hmit...@ncsu.edu
ph: 919-513-1327 (no voicemail)
fax 919 515-7802
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Moritz Lennert]

On 01/05/16 13:29, 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.


+1

Moritz
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)]

Hi Jody and others,

Apart from the discussion here at this list, this might be a nice 
subject for a "topic talk" (a discussion on a specific theme) in August 
at FOSS4G in Bonn.
If annybody is willing to take the lead in this, we (=the Bonn LOC) can 
see if we can fit this in the program)



Cheers,

Gert-Jan




Jody Garnett schreef op 01-05-2016 22:05:

A PSC is not required for any OSGeo project (even a graduated project)
- being inclusive is. The GeoNode project is an example in incubation
that forms a leadership team based on recent committers as I
understand it. The benevolent dictator model does not meet this
inclusive requirement, Cameron suggested a steering committee formed
with one chair member with 1.5 votes (to prevent deadlock).

The OSGeo incubation principles are often based on risk ... to users
of the software project. The "benevolent dictator" model, just like
having a project backed by a single company/organization, suffers from
a stability problem - what if the dictator or organization loses
interest? By splitting responsibility across multiple parties the
project has a much better chance of weathering these storms ... and
the risk for users of the software is lower.

I am sorry I am not the best at talking through the pros/cons of the
benevolent dictator model - perhaps some who feels more passionately
about this subject (or who has first hand experience) could step in.

--
Jody Garnett
On 1 May 2016 at 12:50, Rashad Kanavath 
wrote:


On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, 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.


I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in
incubation is not a good idea.

If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC
should work.  Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever
criteria, one being the "dictator" way.

Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must
be validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a
checklist to validate working PSC and how it should work can filter
projects with "benevolent dictator".

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 
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 

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

[Jody Garnett]

A PSC is not required for any OSGeo project (even a graduated project) -
being inclusive is. The GeoNode project is an example in incubation that
forms a leadership team based on recent committers as I understand it. The
benevolent dictator model does not meet this inclusive requirement, Cameron
suggested a steering committee formed with one chair member with 1.5 votes
(to prevent deadlock).

The OSGeo incubation principles are often based on risk ... to users of the
software project. The "benevolent dictator" model, just like having a
project backed by a single company/organization, suffers from a stability
problem - what if the dictator or organization loses interest? By splitting
responsibility across multiple parties the project has a much better chance
of weathering these storms ... and the risk for users of the software is
lower.

I am sorry I am not the best at talking through the pros/cons of
the benevolent dictator model - perhaps some who feels more passionately
about this subject (or who has first hand experience) could step in.

--
Jody Garnett

On 1 May 2016 at 12:50, Rashad Kanavath  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, 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.
>>
>
> I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in incubation is
> not a good idea.
>
> If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC should
> work.  Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever criteria, one being
> the "dictator" way.
>
> Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must be
> validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a checklist to
> validate working PSC and how it should work can filter projects with
> "benevolent dictator".
>
>
>> 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 
>> 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 

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

[Jody Garnett]

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) <patrick.ho...@nasa.gov>
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:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Jody
> Garnett
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 1, 2016 4:30 AM
> *To:* Cameron Shorter
> *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
> *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 <cameron.shor...@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/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

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

[Rashad Kanavath]

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, 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.
>

I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in incubation is
not a good idea.

If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC should
work.  Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever criteria, one being
the "dictator" way.

Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must be
validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a checklist to
validate working PSC and how it should work can filter projects with
"benevolent dictator".


> 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  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
>> 

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

[Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX)]

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:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jody Garnett
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 4:30 AM
To: Cameron Shorter
Cc: OSGeo Discussions; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
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 
<cameron.shor...@gmail.com<mailto:cameron.shor...@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/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"

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

[Jody Garnett]

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  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
> incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Cameron Shorter]

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

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss