Re: [forum] Re: A Call For Open Governance Of X Development (Egbert Eich)

[Egbert Eich <eich@XFree86.Org>]

Frank,

I'm not sure if you are not overestimating the amount of 'management'
an OpenSource project requires. I think there are a lot more
'administrative' tasks to be taken care of - such as making sure 
all servers and services run, dues are paid on time etc. to be done - 
and a lot fewer true 'governance' tasks. 
Ideally the administrative tasks would be spread among a number of 
volunteers having the required skills.
Currently David performs most of these administrative tasks as the
access rights required to do so can be and have been abused in the 
past.

Unlike businesses OpenSource projects don't rely on capital which
as a limited resource requires management decisions to be made.
For example if I needed Tungsten's services I would approach you
and you have to make management decisisons how and for how much
you much you are able to 'sell' your resources to me. 
This is fundamentally different from OpenSource: If I want
something to be done I have to get involved myself ie. bring
my own resources with me. I can try to convince others to
spent their resources on my idea. But the will only do so
by individual decision not management order.

Please also take into account that OpenSource development is highly
ego driven. Those who invest their spare time are much more willing 
to accept advice from and leadership by equally devoted knowledgeable 
individuals. Leadership is based on 'equal sweat' and quality of 
expertise.

The idea of governance elected by such a broad base of voters are 
novel and unprecedented in the OpenSource communtiy. I have found 
no project that was governed this way. If there was the model might
have failed and been abondoned.
I do acknowledge that it needs to be investigated were we have failed
to give developers who have 'worked their butt off' given the
attention they deserve.
Looking over the issues raised on this list a lot were technical 
in nature and can be solved without changing governance.

Egbert.

Frank LaMonica writes:
 > FL-> XFree86 has evolved into a project with a much broader scope, so it is 
 > logical to explore new ways to manage it if the current method is threatened. 
 > This discussion was precipitated by current XFree86 management, and by 
 > disgruntled developers who have "worked their butt off", but now feel they don't 
 > have the voice they feel they deserve.
 > 
 > My comments suggest just one possible way to manage diverse opinions in a way 
 > that allows all parties to feel their voice is at least being heard.  Achieving 
 > that *might* help to prevent a fork that would affect many, many people in an 
 > extremely negative way.
 > 
 > Successful organizations recognize the fact that it takes many people with many 
 > different skill sets to maintain a viable organization.  There are some 
 > excellent developers who also possess strong managerial skills.  Ideally, they 
 > are the type of person who would lead technical organizations.  unfortunately, 
 > there are many more great developers who not only lack managerial skills, but 
 > who don't even recognize the value that good management brings to an 
 > organization.  Technical people who start organizations that grow to global 
 > proportions almost always relinquish managerial control to experienced managers 
 > when the organization reaches a point where professional management is needed. 
 > This has happened in so many successful large organizations, that it is almost 
 > the expected evolution of a startup company.  Xfree86 has grown to global 
 > proportions, and it needs to seriously consider whether or not its management is 
 > best suited to continue into the future.  Only they have the power to make the 
 > changes, and I sincerely hope they will thoughtfully consider ALL options.
 >