On Jun 17, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:

Paul Everitt wrote:

Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite a bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.)


Eric has done some research recently on the different successful Open Source / Free Software foundations out there that have the mission to develop and promote great software.

We're looking for a model that is just as acceptable for the single developers (who are a very key elements in the community, and provide some of the best work around - see Stefan or Philip for instance, but there are many others whitout whom Zope and specially Zope3 would not exist as we know them today) but also for the companies and organisations that depend on Zope for their business and are willing to commit ressources to the development of the software (this includes software development houses like Zope Corp, Infrae, Nuxeo and 10s of others, but also companies or universities or non-profit that depend on Zope for their ongoing operation - like Chalmers university or like the SD houses customers).

:^)

IMHO, "vendor-neutral" means, in this context, that the Foundation must take into account the interests of all the stakeholders (individual hackers, vendors, customers), and shouldn't be interpreted as "vendor-free".

The governance model should take that into account, and not limit itself to "only individuals are members" (of course, companies are represented by individuals, but what happens if the individual in question leaves a member company for another?).

First, let's agree that this isn't pre-decided. That the community will get the governance model it wants. Agree?

Second, can you find examples that support this? For example, here's what Apache says:

http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
"""
All of the ASF including the board, the other officers, the committers, and the members, are participating as individuals. That is one strength of the ASF, affiliations do not cloud the personal contributions.
"""

Here's what GNOME Foundation says:
http://foundation.gnome.org/membership/
"""
Membership eligibility is an individual determination: while contributions made in the course of employment will be considered, they will generally be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a "contributing" corporation.
"""

These are two very successful open source projects. However, there is nothing to suggest that our culture is the same as these others. What's most important is that the rules are defined by the community. Let's ensure that the bootstrapping group is representative.

--Paul
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to