Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: OpenStack: Foundation

Self-governing meritocracy

 

 

OpenStack foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


markmc at redhat

Jan 13, 2012, 9:55 AM

Post #1 of 4 (316 views)
Permalink
Self-governing meritocracy

Hey,

One of the things I raised on the previous thread was whether we could
enshrine the principle of "OpenStack is a self-governing meritocracy" on
the mission statement.

Maybe the lack of replies on that means that everyone agrees and this is
part of the consensus Jonathan mentioned. It be good to hear that
though :)

Related to this, I've quoted some the bits from the Apache and GNOME
Foundations' blurbs that I really like.

There are a couple of pieces of language in the discussion about the
Foundation that I think are very different in tone from the bits I
quoted and I'm not sure that's intentional, so I thought I'd mention it.

- "business friendly" - this *is* important and OpenStack *has* done
well on this front so far. Each time it was mentioned in the
webinar it as accompanied by well articulated reasons why this is
important and how to ensure the goal is met.

However, I'd be cautious about putting it front and centre too much
in the language of the foundation mission as I think it
de-emphasises the importance of individuals (affiliated or not)
contributing (in the broadest sense) to OpenStack as opposed to
the companies contributing.

Even though many of the individuals contributing are employees of
companies investing in OpenStack (as is the case for GNOME and
Apache), I think the emphasis in the governance and mission of the
foundation should be on individuals.

- "the foundation co-ordinates resources" - the point being made here
is important too. This legal entity isn't going to employ or
closely manage a phalanx of developers etc. to do the work of the
project. Nor will it own a bunch of hardware etc. Those "resources"
will continue to be contributed by companies or individuals
investing in the project.

However, this really makes it sound like the foundation is separate
from the individuals (the "resources"). The blurbs below talk more
about the individuals making up the foundation. We are the
foundation. So, the foundation is doing more than co-ordinating.
Through its membership, the foundation *is* in fact doing the work
of the project.

Cheers,
Mark.

http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/

"the foundation will provide a forum that is elected by the GNOME
community, that is accountable to that community, and that will
conduct its affairs in the open."

"The foundation should not be exclusionary or elitist. Every GNOME
contributor, however small his or her contribution, must have the
opportunity to participate in determining the direction and actions of
the project. "

"This principle has real, concrete meaning for the foundation: All
discussions must be publicly viewable, any person must have the
opportunity to contribute to the decision-making process, and every
GNOME contributor must have the direct ability to influence the
decisions which are made. The foundation must be democratic and
friendly to those responsible for making GNOME what it is. "

"Participation in the foundation is intended only for those
individuals who are making contributions to the GNOME project and the
software which makes up GNOME. A corporation, organization or
individual should not be granted a place in the foundation unless its
presence is justified by the merits of its contribution. Money cannot
buy influence in the GNOME project: show us the code (or
documentation, or translations, or leadership, or webmastering...). "

http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

"When the group felt that the person had "earned" the merit to be
part of the development community, they granted direct access to the
code repository, thus increasing the group and increasing the ability
of the group to develop the program, and to maintain and develop it
more effectively.

We call this basic principle "meritocracy": literally, government by
merit.

[..] newcomers were seen as volunteers that wanted to help, rather
than people that wanted to steal a position."

"We firmly believe in hats. Your role at the ASF is one assigned to
you personally, and is bestowed on you by your peers. It is not tied
to your job or current employer or company."

"Individuals compose the ASF

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.

Unless they specifically state otherwise, whatever they post on any
mailing list is done as themselves. It is the individual
point-of-view, wearing their personal hat and not as a mouthpiece for
whatever company happens to be signing their paychecks right now, and
not even as a director of the ASF.

All of those ASF people implicitly have multiple hats, especially the
Board, the other officers, and the PMC chairs. They sometimes need to
talk about a matter of policy, so to avoid appearing to be expressing
a personal opinion, they will state that they are talking in their
special capacity. However, most of the time this is not necessary,
personal opinions work well.

Some people declare their hats by using a special footer to their
email, others enclose their statements in special quotation marks,
others use their apache.org email address when otherwise they would
use their personal one. This latter method is not reliable, as many
people use their apache.org address all of the time."


lloydostack at gmail

Jan 13, 2012, 10:50 AM

Post #2 of 4 (294 views)
Permalink
Self-governing meritocracy [In reply to]

Unlike Apache, GNOME, Linux, and every other Open Source project I'm
familiar with, *diverse* commercial interest is in the DNA of
OpenStack.

Being transparent about our project being business friendly, even
business driven, and our often conflicting motivations is the only way
I see that we'll be able to have strong relationships within the
community, and succeed as a project -- a tight, secure, performant
core with programatic, but highly a flexible and extensible
architecture.

It's a fantastic, unique opportunity!
Lloyd


jaypipes at gmail

Jan 13, 2012, 11:32 AM

Post #3 of 4 (288 views)
Permalink
Self-governing meritocracy [In reply to]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> One of the things I raised on the previous thread was whether we could
> enshrine the principle of "OpenStack is a self-governing meritocracy" on
> the mission statement.
>
> Maybe the lack of replies on that means that everyone agrees and this is
> part of the consensus Jonathan mentioned. It be good to hear that
> though :)

No disagreement from me. I think it is supremely important to enshrine
the value of a meritocracy in the foundation's charter. Paretly

> Related to this, I've quoted some the bits from the Apache and GNOME
> Foundations' blurbs that I really like.
>
> There are a couple of pieces of language in the discussion about the
> Foundation that I think are very different in tone from the bits I
> quoted and I'm not sure that's intentional, so I thought I'd mention it.
>
> ?- "business friendly" - this *is* important and OpenStack *has* done
> ? ?well on this front so far. Each time it was mentioned in the
> ? ?webinar it as accompanied by well articulated reasons why this is
> ? ?important and how to ensure the goal is met.
>
> ? ?However, I'd be cautious about putting it front and centre too much
> ? ?in the language of the foundation mission as I think it
> ? ?de-emphasises the importance of individuals (affiliated or not)
> ? ?contributing (in the broadest sense) to OpenStack as opposed to
> ? ?the companies contributing.
>
> ? ?Even though many of the individuals contributing are employees of
> ? ?companies investing in OpenStack (as is the case for GNOME and
> ? ?Apache), I think the emphasis in the governance and mission of the
> ? ?foundation should be on individuals.

++

I'd also add that a number of individual contributors to OpenStack
have (and will) work for more than one company in the OpenStack
ecosystem. Just because an individual changes his or her employer
doesn't necessarily mean that the individual won't be driving the same
types of contribution to OpenStack or that the individual's
contributions should be considered more or less depending on which
company they happen to work for. IMHO, it is the quality of the
contribution and the impact the contribution makes that should speak
louder than any company affiliation.

> ?- "the foundation co-ordinates resources" - the point being made here
> ? ?is important too. This legal entity isn't going to employ or
> ? ?closely manage a phalanx of developers etc. to do the work of the
> ? ?project. Nor will it own a bunch of hardware etc. Those "resources"
> ? ?will continue to be contributed by companies or individuals
> ? ?investing in the project.
>
> ? ?However, this really makes it sound like the foundation is separate
> ? ?from the individuals (the "resources"). The blurbs below talk more
> ? ?about the individuals making up the foundation. We are the
> ? ?foundation. So, the foundation is doing more than co-ordinating.
> ? ?Through its membership, the foundation *is* in fact doing the work
> ? ?of the project.

Well said.

-jay


lloydostack at gmail

Jan 13, 2012, 2:17 PM

Post #4 of 4 (289 views)
Permalink
Self-governing meritocracy [In reply to]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> core with programatic, but highly a flexible and extensible architecture.

pragmatic*

OpenStack foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.