Re: Maemo Council
Re: Maemo Council
Re: Maemo Council
2011-10-03 12:29 UTC
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah@jeremiahfoster.com
> wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 13:53, robert bauer wrote:
> > > I understand that there may be further objections on the general
> Council
> > > strategy, but lets try to discuss the ones that are preventing us to
> > > prepare a common statement.
> > Yes, please say what you disagree with rather than holding reservations.
>
> My focus _will_ be software development, so I disagree that the statement
> says that the council won't focus on that.
>
The point of the proposal is that Council is not to be selected for their
programming or other technical skills - nor should they be involved with the
technical decisions of those involved in projects. If somebody wants to get
involved in actually doing software development, then Council is not the
place for that. Council is more for management, facilitating, community
organization and advocacy, and representing the community to 3rd parties
(and taking on a heck of a lot of headaches).
> I also am not interested in changing the governance of Maemo - it seems to
> work and would just be confusing to move to a TSG model.
>
Well, Momcilo and I want to change the governance in ways that meet with
community approval. These proposals lessen the role of council in actual
software development and differ from changes in which council assumes more
authority for itself. We'll put out the proposals for comments and note
that you object to any change in governance.
>
> Other than those two objections I'm in agreement.
> >
> > It seems we need a balance then between Robert's urgency and a common
> agreement. I don't feel the same urgency but I'm willing to be flexible
> enough to try to support the goal of "getting something out now." If we want
> to create something common, then we'll have to take the time to come to an
> agreement. I did not sign up to run a non-profit, I don't have time for
> that, I signed up for helping ensure Free Software remains free and that
> developers know their options and that the community can preserve what it
> considers valuable to the best of its ability.
> > >
> > Well you did agree that Council should maket an announcement by October
> 1. It is now October 3. The council announcement says nothing about a
> non-profit.
> >
> > > We need to address later objections after announcement, and hopefully
> > > focus on real work.
> > >
> > > As Robert has pointed out, others are moving on as well, and for the
> > > moment, we as Council are invisible.
> >
> > This is why we should have these discussions on a mailing list - so it is
> public. Transparency is of the utmost importance. In fact, I'm going to cc a
> public list so that they can see these discussions and note that we are
> working and that the community can participate.
> > Of course, the community can participate. The announcement was to be put
> on the community list (I think this one should be on the developers mailing
> list as well). It contains two proposals, not two dictatorial decrees.
> >
> > >
> > > Having statement with reservations will not do us any good. I think it
> > > is very important to demonstrate the unity of the council in front of
> > > the community.
> >
> > What is the benefit of "unity" in this situation? Don't forget that most
> don't even see us as legitimate. :)
> > Qole is the only one I am aware of that sees us as illegitimate and he is
> wrong. My history from the last 6 months is the most important thing is to
> be active rather than inactive.
>
> I agree. Then lets move forward with the announcement - I don't want to
> hold it up.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeremiah
>
> [snip]
> wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 13:53, robert bauer wrote:
> > > I understand that there may be further objections on the general
> Council
> > > strategy, but lets try to discuss the ones that are preventing us to
> > > prepare a common statement.
> > Yes, please say what you disagree with rather than holding reservations.
>
> My focus _will_ be software development, so I disagree that the statement
> says that the council won't focus on that.
>
The point of the proposal is that Council is not to be selected for their
programming or other technical skills - nor should they be involved with the
technical decisions of those involved in projects. If somebody wants to get
involved in actually doing software development, then Council is not the
place for that. Council is more for management, facilitating, community
organization and advocacy, and representing the community to 3rd parties
(and taking on a heck of a lot of headaches).
> I also am not interested in changing the governance of Maemo - it seems to
> work and would just be confusing to move to a TSG model.
>
Well, Momcilo and I want to change the governance in ways that meet with
community approval. These proposals lessen the role of council in actual
software development and differ from changes in which council assumes more
authority for itself. We'll put out the proposals for comments and note
that you object to any change in governance.
>
> Other than those two objections I'm in agreement.
> >
> > It seems we need a balance then between Robert's urgency and a common
> agreement. I don't feel the same urgency but I'm willing to be flexible
> enough to try to support the goal of "getting something out now." If we want
> to create something common, then we'll have to take the time to come to an
> agreement. I did not sign up to run a non-profit, I don't have time for
> that, I signed up for helping ensure Free Software remains free and that
> developers know their options and that the community can preserve what it
> considers valuable to the best of its ability.
> > >
> > Well you did agree that Council should maket an announcement by October
> 1. It is now October 3. The council announcement says nothing about a
> non-profit.
> >
> > > We need to address later objections after announcement, and hopefully
> > > focus on real work.
> > >
> > > As Robert has pointed out, others are moving on as well, and for the
> > > moment, we as Council are invisible.
> >
> > This is why we should have these discussions on a mailing list - so it is
> public. Transparency is of the utmost importance. In fact, I'm going to cc a
> public list so that they can see these discussions and note that we are
> working and that the community can participate.
> > Of course, the community can participate. The announcement was to be put
> on the community list (I think this one should be on the developers mailing
> list as well). It contains two proposals, not two dictatorial decrees.
> >
> > >
> > > Having statement with reservations will not do us any good. I think it
> > > is very important to demonstrate the unity of the council in front of
> > > the community.
> >
> > What is the benefit of "unity" in this situation? Don't forget that most
> don't even see us as legitimate. :)
> > Qole is the only one I am aware of that sees us as illegitimate and he is
> wrong. My history from the last 6 months is the most important thing is to
> be active rather than inactive.
>
> I agree. Then lets move forward with the announcement - I don't want to
> hold it up.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeremiah
>
> [snip]
Re: Maemo Council
2011-10-03 12:59 UTC
Works for me!
On Oct 3, 2011, at 14:29, robert bauer wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah@jeremiahfoster.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 13:53, robert bauer wrote:
> > > I understand that there may be further objections on the general Council
> > > strategy, but lets try to discuss the ones that are preventing us to
> > > prepare a common statement.
> > Yes, please say what you disagree with rather than holding reservations.
>
> My focus _will_ be software development, so I disagree that the statement says that the council won't focus on that.
> The point of the proposal is that Council is not to be selected for their programming or other technical skills - nor should they be involved with the technical decisions of those involved in projects. If somebody wants to get involved in actually doing software development, then Council is not the place for that. Council is more for management, facilitating, community organization and advocacy, and representing the community to 3rd parties (and taking on a heck of a lot of headaches).
>
> I also am not interested in changing the governance of Maemo - it seems to work and would just be confusing to move to a TSG model.
> Well, Momcilo and I want to change the governance in ways that meet with community approval. These proposals lessen the role of council in actual software development and differ from changes in which council assumes more authority for itself. We'll put out the proposals for comments and note that you object to any change in governance.
>
> Other than those two objections I'm in agreement.
> >
> > It seems we need a balance then between Robert's urgency and a common agreement. I don't feel the same urgency but I'm willing to be flexible enough to try to support the goal of "getting something out now." If we want to create something common, then we'll have to take the time to come to an agreement. I did not sign up to run a non-profit, I don't have time for that, I signed up for helping ensure Free Software remains free and that developers know their options and that the community can preserve what it considers valuable to the best of its ability.
> > >
> > Well you did agree that Council should maket an announcement by October 1. It is now October 3. The council announcement says nothing about a non-profit.
> >
> > > We need to address later objections after announcement, and hopefully
> > > focus on real work.
> > >
> > > As Robert has pointed out, others are moving on as well, and for the
> > > moment, we as Council are invisible.
> >
> > This is why we should have these discussions on a mailing list - so it is public. Transparency is of the utmost importance. In fact, I'm going to cc a public list so that they can see these discussions and note that we are working and that the community can participate.
> > Of course, the community can participate. The announcement was to be put on the community list (I think this one should be on the developers mailing list as well). It contains two proposals, not two dictatorial decrees.
> >
> > >
> > > Having statement with reservations will not do us any good. I think it
> > > is very important to demonstrate the unity of the council in front of
> > > the community.
> >
> > What is the benefit of "unity" in this situation? Don't forget that most don't even see us as legitimate. :)
> > Qole is the only one I am aware of that sees us as illegitimate and he is wrong. My history from the last 6 months is the most important thing is to be active rather than inactive.
>
> I agree. Then lets move forward with the announcement - I don't want to hold it up.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeremiah
>
> [snip]
>
On Oct 3, 2011, at 14:29, robert bauer wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah@jeremiahfoster.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 13:53, robert bauer wrote:
> > > I understand that there may be further objections on the general Council
> > > strategy, but lets try to discuss the ones that are preventing us to
> > > prepare a common statement.
> > Yes, please say what you disagree with rather than holding reservations.
>
> My focus _will_ be software development, so I disagree that the statement says that the council won't focus on that.
> The point of the proposal is that Council is not to be selected for their programming or other technical skills - nor should they be involved with the technical decisions of those involved in projects. If somebody wants to get involved in actually doing software development, then Council is not the place for that. Council is more for management, facilitating, community organization and advocacy, and representing the community to 3rd parties (and taking on a heck of a lot of headaches).
>
> I also am not interested in changing the governance of Maemo - it seems to work and would just be confusing to move to a TSG model.
> Well, Momcilo and I want to change the governance in ways that meet with community approval. These proposals lessen the role of council in actual software development and differ from changes in which council assumes more authority for itself. We'll put out the proposals for comments and note that you object to any change in governance.
>
> Other than those two objections I'm in agreement.
> >
> > It seems we need a balance then between Robert's urgency and a common agreement. I don't feel the same urgency but I'm willing to be flexible enough to try to support the goal of "getting something out now." If we want to create something common, then we'll have to take the time to come to an agreement. I did not sign up to run a non-profit, I don't have time for that, I signed up for helping ensure Free Software remains free and that developers know their options and that the community can preserve what it considers valuable to the best of its ability.
> > >
> > Well you did agree that Council should maket an announcement by October 1. It is now October 3. The council announcement says nothing about a non-profit.
> >
> > > We need to address later objections after announcement, and hopefully
> > > focus on real work.
> > >
> > > As Robert has pointed out, others are moving on as well, and for the
> > > moment, we as Council are invisible.
> >
> > This is why we should have these discussions on a mailing list - so it is public. Transparency is of the utmost importance. In fact, I'm going to cc a public list so that they can see these discussions and note that we are working and that the community can participate.
> > Of course, the community can participate. The announcement was to be put on the community list (I think this one should be on the developers mailing list as well). It contains two proposals, not two dictatorial decrees.
> >
> > >
> > > Having statement with reservations will not do us any good. I think it
> > > is very important to demonstrate the unity of the council in front of
> > > the community.
> >
> > What is the benefit of "unity" in this situation? Don't forget that most don't even see us as legitimate. :)
> > Qole is the only one I am aware of that sees us as illegitimate and he is wrong. My history from the last 6 months is the most important thing is to be active rather than inactive.
>
> I agree. Then lets move forward with the announcement - I don't want to hold it up.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeremiah
>
> [snip]
>
Re: Maemo Council
2011-10-03 14:24 UTC
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 05:29, robert bauer <nybauer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The point of the proposal is that Council is not to be selected for their
> programming or other technical skills
Isn't this a strawman, whoever said that the Council *should* be
selected for their "programming or other technical skills"? A council
member should be selected because the community feel they represent
them when they do their "normal" participation; or when they've
previously commented on things.
The proposal of a TSG model, without looking at the details, is what
(exactly) would you be managing; and how would that be different to
today?
It's not clear to me (or others, I suspect) what you're planning on
changing the governance *of*.
Thanks in advance,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
>
> The point of the proposal is that Council is not to be selected for their
> programming or other technical skills
Isn't this a strawman, whoever said that the Council *should* be
selected for their "programming or other technical skills"? A council
member should be selected because the community feel they represent
them when they do their "normal" participation; or when they've
previously commented on things.
The proposal of a TSG model, without looking at the details, is what
(exactly) would you be managing; and how would that be different to
today?
It's not clear to me (or others, I suspect) what you're planning on
changing the governance *of*.
Thanks in advance,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
Re: Maemo Council
2011-10-03 16:02 UTC
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Andrew Flegg <andrew@bleb.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 05:29, robert bauer <nybauer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The point of the proposal is that Council is not to be selected for their
> > programming or other technical skills
>
> Isn't this a strawman, whoever said that the Council *should* be
> selected for their "programming or other technical skills"? A council
> member should be selected because the community feel they represent
> them when they do their "normal" participation; or when they've
> previously commented on things.
>
> Andrew, if you look at the context of that quote from me, it is in response
> from a comment by Jeremiah about him focusing on software development. What
> I meant by my response to him is that there are more direct ways to develop
> software than serving on council.
> The proposal of a TSG model, without looking at the details, is what
> (exactly) would you be managing; and how would that be different to
> today?
>
This is not proposing, strictly speaking, a TSG model. It is a meritocratic
model at the project level, although TSG may be the most well known
example of such a model. Of course, there are no TSGs in maemo today
and project management varies from good to almost none at all. It is my
hope that projects will think more about their governance and management,
and be reassured that if they have a good project, such as CSSU IMO, that
Council will support their independent decision making and the community
will benefit because Council can instead focus on funding, infrastructure,
resourcing of the websites & services on maemo.org. If they want to have a
TSG, that's fine. If they want to organize some other way (so long as it is
open), that's fine too. But let's try to improve the sustainability of
maemo projects. How would it be different than today? I guess project
promotion is a carrot encouraging projects to have good procedures. Then
hopefully, council won't have to step in as much or get complaints that it
is difficult to pick up a project.
> It's not clear to me (or others, I suspect) what you're planning on
> changing the governance *of*.
>
Personally, I don't think it changes the governance much. That was
Jeremiah's concern, not mine.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 05:29, robert bauer <nybauer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The point of the proposal is that Council is not to be selected for their
> > programming or other technical skills
>
> Isn't this a strawman, whoever said that the Council *should* be
> selected for their "programming or other technical skills"? A council
> member should be selected because the community feel they represent
> them when they do their "normal" participation; or when they've
> previously commented on things.
>
> Andrew, if you look at the context of that quote from me, it is in response
> from a comment by Jeremiah about him focusing on software development. What
> I meant by my response to him is that there are more direct ways to develop
> software than serving on council.
> The proposal of a TSG model, without looking at the details, is what
> (exactly) would you be managing; and how would that be different to
> today?
>
This is not proposing, strictly speaking, a TSG model. It is a meritocratic
model at the project level, although TSG may be the most well known
example of such a model. Of course, there are no TSGs in maemo today
and project management varies from good to almost none at all. It is my
hope that projects will think more about their governance and management,
and be reassured that if they have a good project, such as CSSU IMO, that
Council will support their independent decision making and the community
will benefit because Council can instead focus on funding, infrastructure,
resourcing of the websites & services on maemo.org. If they want to have a
TSG, that's fine. If they want to organize some other way (so long as it is
open), that's fine too. But let's try to improve the sustainability of
maemo projects. How would it be different than today? I guess project
promotion is a carrot encouraging projects to have good procedures. Then
hopefully, council won't have to step in as much or get complaints that it
is difficult to pick up a project.
> It's not clear to me (or others, I suspect) what you're planning on
> changing the governance *of*.
>
Personally, I don't think it changes the governance much. That was
Jeremiah's concern, not mine.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
>
> > I understand that there may be further objections on the general Council
> > strategy, but lets try to discuss the ones that are preventing us to
> > prepare a common statement.
> Yes, please say what you disagree with rather than holding reservations.
My focus _will_ be software development, so I disagree that the statement says that the council won't focus on that.
I also am not interested in changing the governance of Maemo - it seems to work and would just be confusing to move to a TSG model.
Other than those two objections I'm in agreement.
>
> It seems we need a balance then between Robert's urgency and a common agreement. I don't feel the same urgency but I'm willing to be flexible enough to try to support the goal of "getting something out now." If we want to create something common, then we'll have to take the time to come to an agreement. I did not sign up to run a non-profit, I don't have time for that, I signed up for helping ensure Free Software remains free and that developers know their options and that the community can preserve what it considers valuable to the best of its ability.
> >
> Well you did agree that Council should maket an announcement by October 1. It is now October 3. The council announcement says nothing about a non-profit.
>
> > We need to address later objections after announcement, and hopefully
> > focus on real work.
> >
> > As Robert has pointed out, others are moving on as well, and for the
> > moment, we as Council are invisible.
>
> This is why we should have these discussions on a mailing list - so it is public. Transparency is of the utmost importance. In fact, I'm going to cc a public list so that they can see these discussions and note that we are working and that the community can participate.
> Of course, the community can participate. The announcement was to be put on the community list (I think this one should be on the developers mailing list as well). It contains two proposals, not two dictatorial decrees.
>
> >
> > Having statement with reservations will not do us any good. I think it
> > is very important to demonstrate the unity of the council in front of
> > the community.
>
> What is the benefit of "unity" in this situation? Don't forget that most don't even see us as legitimate. :)
> Qole is the only one I am aware of that sees us as illegitimate and he is wrong. My history from the last 6 months is the most important thing is to be active rather than inactive.
I agree. Then lets move forward with the announcement - I don't want to hold it up.
Regards,
Jeremiah
[snip]