mark at openstack
Feb 10, 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #4 of 4
On 2/10/12 11:25 AM, "Dave Neary" <dneary at gnome.org> wrote:
>Thanks for pointing me at the list! It was fascinating to sit in on the
>developer meeting at FOSDEM and hear the discussions - it brought back
>memories of going through similar thought processes in the past with
>projects like MeeGo and OpenWengo.
>On 02/08/2012 08:11 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> Some discussions at FOSDEM prompted me to write up in detail my ideas
>> for the ideal foundation structure:
>> I've just had a productive conversation with Mark and Jonathan about
>> this and I'm glad to see they welcome the input. I was going to
>> summarize the main differences of opinion we discussed, but I guess that
>> might be an unwelcome pre-emptive disclosure of their ideas.
>> Anyway, just another perspective to add to the mix.
>One thing I think is important - and which is mentioned in the
>foundation mission statement that Mark posted a while back - is what
>exactly the foundation will do - this will affect the budget required to
>run the foundation, the staff that will need to be hired, and will also
>have an impact on participating members who are already doing those
>The main things that will be going into the foundation appear to be
>legal affairs, brand management, business/member development, marketing
>and promotion, community management (for want of a better word), project
>infrastructure, and event co-ordination.
>The mission statement does mention "Development process and release
>management" and "Meet the needs of real world users by producing great
>software, and fostering their involvement in the community to provide
>feedback and direction" as goals - so clearly there is an intention to
>provide a level playing field, somewhere developers can participate
>without any one party having a controlling influence on the project -
>but I'd encourage the foundation to avoid setting up too much technical
>I think it's better to have the projects governing themselves by the
>people who are doing the work, and providing the leadership on a
>per-project level, rather than adding organisational overhead for
>developers. That's a social issue, rather than something that should be
>part of the foundation process. Although there are definitely things the
>project leaders can do to encourage the growth of a project identity,
>have good technical leadership and a collaborative process for targeting
>new features, and so on.
>Some project-wide rules of engagement, agreed by the developer
>community, and of course useful - but I think they're completely
>orthogonal to the foundation discussion, especially if the Technical
>Board is to be a true meritocracy.
>Hope these comments are helpful in framing the discussion!
>GNOME Foundation member
>dneary at gnome.org
>Jabber: nearyd at gmail.com
>Foundation mailing list
>Foundation at lists.openstack.org