RE: [forum] Suggestion for XFree86

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: forum-admin@XFree86.Org 
> [mailto:forum-admin@XFree86.Org] On Behalf Of Frank LaMonica
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 2:07 PM
> To: forum@XFree86.Org
> Subject: [forum] Suggestion for XFree86
> 

...

> I am the CEO of Tungsten Graphics, a development organization 
> that has a strong vested interest in the success of X and 
> XFree86, so it is very important to TG that XFree86 remain a 
> viable organization.  Most of the comments on this list have 
> been directed to specific complaints or technical issues 
> that, however important, are not the root cause of this 
> problem.  

Frank - I respect who you are and what you've contributed, but you don't
know the whole story.

> We are seeing Keith Packard, a loyal and dedicated 
> XFree86 contributor, publicly express his frustration with an 
> organization in which he has more personal control than the 
> vast majority of other people whose livelihood depends on 
> XFree86's continued success. 

"Loyal" is simply not the case. Refer to my post entitled "Some perspective
from the cheap seats...". Keith has been blindingly DIS-loyal to XFree86,
and deserves the boot. And wouldn't it have been a good idea for him to
PRIVATELY express his frustration, like with the other members of the team
he was supposedly being loyal to, BEFORE expressing them publicly?

Not to mention that there is NO viable explanation for telling bald-faced
lies to the Core Team.

I invite comment on how to prove these assertions I make; I am personally
uncomfortable with posting the email thread publicly, yet I don't expect you
to take my word for it either.

> David Dawes has turned to that 
> constituency to assist him in resolving this situation.  Both 
> of these actions imply there is an organizational problem 
> within XFree86 itself.

Well, I'm not convinced that's true. The organizational problem was Keith.

There are PROCESS problems, but I don't accept (at face value) that there
are organizational problems.

> 
> The best organizational model I know of that adequately 
> addresses both the need to have managers who are the most 
> knowledgeable and willing to work, and the need to have a 
> mechanism for all interested parties to voice their concerns, 
> is a representative democracy.  XFree86 has historically 
> resisted that model. 

Can you name for me any development projects that actually follow this
model?

> The increasing ubiquity of XFree86 has 
> widened the discrepancy between the desires of its 
> constituency and those of its managing cadre. Under those 
> circumstances, a fork was inevitable.  There is currently no 
> way for dissenting voices to have an opportunity to fairly 
> affect the direction of XFree86, no matter what percentage of 
> interested parties agree.

Of course there is. Get involved. Be productive. Get added to the Core Team
and/or get a Core Team member to advocate your position. As I stated in my
diatribe, XFree86 is, always has been, and (IMHO) always should be, a
meritocracy.

There is NO circumstance in which any party should be given special
consideration just because of who they are. Especially when they're not
footing the bills.

> 
> The ONLY thing XFree86 needs to do to correct this problem is 
> to establish a mechanism where any interested person may join 
> XFree86 and be given an equal vote to elect a slate of 
> candidates for a governing board of directors whose tenure is 
> fixed to some reasonable duration.  

Umm, how many privately-held corporations do you know of that work this way?
Tungsten Graphics, perhaps?

You are also confusing the role of the corporation (which was created to
have a legal entity to join the X Consortium, and hold the kitty of
contributions, and now pretty much exists solely to hold the kitty), and
that of the Core Team, which holds all development power, but has no legal
or formal constituency other than the meritocracy.

> That BOD will then elect 
> officers and establish strategic policy.  If the BOD fails to 
> measure up to the standards expected by the majority of 
> members, they will be replaced by people who will comply with 
> the majority view.  Forking would not be a viable option 
> because the majority of interested people would then have the 
> power to redirect the organization in a way that suites them. 

Shall we discuss again the differences between a Democracy and a Republic
(for those who believe that the US is a democracy when in fact it is not),
and also "The Tyranny of the Majority"? I remain unconvinced that the
majority is right about very many things...

>  Attempts to fork the project will fail because the majority 
> of users and interested parties will not support a fork, but, 
> even more importantly, the organization will assure its 
> longevity because it will have the ability to change as 
> required by the current needs of the industry.

Fundamentally, I believe you are expecting things of XFree86 that exist
nowhere in the Open Source universe.

Let's work on the process issues (of which I believe there are quite a few),
and forget about this organizational stuff.

And I believe the entire concept of "governance of X" is a good topic that
most people are ignoring in their frenzy to change structure of our project.

-- 
David Wexelblat, Chief Architect    mailto:DavidWexelblat@aol.com
America Online, Inc                 http://www.aol.com/
44900 Prentice Drive - 24B:P08      (703) 265-1158 (voice)
Dulles, VA 20166                    (703) 265-1301 (fax)
	
Please send private email to: mailto:dwex@xfree86.org





[Index of Archives]     [X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Questions]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [ARM Linux Kernel]     [Samba]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux