[OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to OSGeo Slack group

[Thomas Gertin]

Could an administrator please add me to the OSGeo Slack group?

Thanks,

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

[OSGeo-Discuss] Rasdaman and OSGeo Incubation: Proposed way forward

[Bruce Bannerman]

Dear Radaman Community and the OSGeo Incubation Committee,


I propose that we suspend a decision on the way forward with Rasdaman
Incubation for a period of three months.

This will provide time:

   - for all to reflect on incubation discussions events over the last two
   weeks; and


   - for the Rasdaman Community to discuss and decide on the way forward
   that they wish to take.


Should the Rasdaman Community wish to continue with OSGeo Incubation, then
I will be happy to continue as OSGeo Mentor for a short period of time to
work through the Project Governance approach with you. I will also be
prepared to stand aside, should you prefer an alternate mentor.


Should the Rasdaman Community decide that it does not wish to continue with
OSGeo Incubation, I am sure that you will be encouraged to continue your
association with OSGeo as an "OSGeo Community Project" [1]. You will be
able to do this using your current Governance Process.


We have come a long way over the last six years. I'm impressed by how well
the Rasdaman Community has developed and by the processes and the
functionality of the software developed. Rasdaman has great potential in
the future.

It is a credit to you all.


Bruce Bannerman

OSGeo Mentor to Rasdaman


[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Community_Projects
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] Rasdaman as a Research Project? [was: Re: Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo? ]

[Bruce Bannerman]

Hello Peter,

Rasdaman is certainly an impressive collection of software, however I'm
concerned at this description of Rasdaman as a Research Project.

If we go down this route we are severely limiting the Project's potential
and uptake.

I have been discussing Rasdaman with a number of people over the last year
or so and am seeing a number of large organisations monitoring activities
and development within the community project to assess its potential for
collaboration and for use within their organisations.

These organisations will not be interested in deploying operational
software that has been sourced from a project that badges itself as a
Research Project.

This is why the Rasdaman Community Project needs wider representation in in
the PSC, so that it can achieve its true potential.

I suggest that we pause for a while and reflect on the discussions over the
last few weeks prior to taking further action.

Bruce Bannerman
OSGeo Mentor to the Rasdaman Project




From: Discuss  on behalf of Peter Baumann <
> p.baum...@jacobs-university.de>
> Organization: Jacobs University Bremen
> Date: Thursday, 5 May 2016 at 20:24
> To: Cameron Shorter , Even Rouault <
> even.roua...@spatialys.com>, Incubator 
> Cc: Discuss OSGeo 
> 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 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 fundament

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 founders, and founders often show

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 b

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 diffe