Hello Marc and Moritz, This is not just an issue relating to Academia and Open Source.
In the interests of full disclosure, there is also a proprietary interest here: - Rasdaman Gmbh [1] offers a dual licensed [2] version of Rasdaman. This has been discussed previously on the Incubation list. - at [3], you will see Peter Baumann listed as Managing Director of Rasdaman Gmbh. Bruce [1] http://www.rasdaman.com [2] http://www.rasdaman.com/commercial-free.php [3] http://www.rasdaman.com/index.php#imprint > ________________________________________ > From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Marc Vloemans > <marcvloema...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, 9 May 2016 12:56:08 AM > To: Peter Baumann > Cc: OSGeo Discussions; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent > dictator" projects into OSGeo? > > Peter, > > I did certainly not realise there was such a cultural gap between academia > and open source. > > Also, I gather that bazar style negotiation is not to your liking not > efficient. You perhaps rather have a single representative > speaking/negotiating on behalf of the OSGeo Foundation? Unfortunately, nobody > has that remit within OSGeo. So you need to be more convincing. Presently, a > take-it-or-leave-it attitude has not helped your cause. > > In order to grow 'your' project you are at the end of the day dependent on > additional skills and genius. Not for money, but for free (as in beer). Just > 'open sourcing' your project under the wings of OSGeo to do so requires some > careful consideration of your audience and joint planning in stead of blunt > negotiation. Laying down the law and emphasising how you want things will > IMHO not gain you followers, developers or others to do the hard Dev work, > the (easier, but still volunteer work) management, promotion etc. > > So I invite you to be more appealing to all the bright minds in our > community. Because, as far as this discussion goes I see no crowd jumping up > and say 'I want'.... > > To give you another pointer; perhaps a route to a mutually beneficial > solution could be found in the area of license-policy....(please, give it a > thought. It would take a new look at things that could work for all). > > And in case no consensus is arrived at, then consider Cameron and I and > anyone joining in (pro/neutral/contra) as activists for that matter. > Personally, I sometimes tear my hairs out of impatience, when I see that > building consensus takes so long. But during various recent online > discussions I learned a lot as well. From people I consider bright and > skilful even though 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> >> 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 >>>> 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 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 lose your current influence on the project. It’s 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 accountable of its decision to >>>> the community. The key ingredients are the same as other governance: - Be >>>> easy to contribute patches and features - Be open on the direction of the >>>> project - Be forkable >>>> >>>> If someone wants to contribute a new feature, they ask the mailing-list >>>> and the committer responsible for this part of the software, not the >>>> "dictator", will approve or suggest changes. The approach is less formal >>>> than with a PSC, but still works the same. >>>> >>>> This is of course an ideal scenario, but can be as open as a PSC, I think, >>>> as long as the project as a good "forkability". >>>> >>>> Back to the incubation discussion, Rasdaman seems to have multiple >>>> committers and 2 main organisation behind it. What I would like to ask is, >>>> what's the "bus number". Is there a second (or third) in command that >>>> could ultimately take care of the project after the dictator's >>>> "end-of-term"? From my point of view, a PSC of 3, 2 being from the same >>>> company, is a small PSC and will probably lack a bit of variety in >>>> opinions. Is there any other key contributors that the "dictator" refers >>>> to when trying to get inputs and defer technical decisions? >>>> >>>> Julien >>>> >>>> On 16-05-01 07:29 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: >>>> >>>> This is kind of a larger topic than just the incubation committee, but no >>>> I do not believe we should. It is a defining characteristic of our >>>> foundation to not place many restrictions on our projects - but demand >>>> that the projects be inclusive and open to collaboration. >>>> >>>> I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal. >>>> >>>> I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach as the one true >>>> way, smaller projects that only wish to have committers vote on decisions >>>> (rather than form a PSC) is perfectly acceptable - provided there is a >>>> provision for new committers to be added into the mix. >>>> >>>> We also have an outstanding request from our president to make the >>>> foundation more inclusive. With this in mind we are a lot less demanding >>>> on our community projects - which provides a way for projects that do not >>>> meet some of our ideal criteria to be part of the foundation. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter <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": >>>> 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 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>, >>>> Wwww.lisasoft.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Peter Baumann >>>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen >>>> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann >>>> mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de >>>> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 >>>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) >>>> www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com >>>> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 >>>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis >>>> ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli >>>> destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD >>>> 1083) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Baumann >> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen >> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann >> mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de >> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 >> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) >> www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com >> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 >> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis >> ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli >> destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD >> 1083) > _______________________________________________ > 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
