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

Egbert,
I'd like to comment within your posting.
Regards,
Frank

> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:12:57 +0100
> From: Egbert Eich <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [forum] A Call For Open Governance Of X Development
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> 
> Keith,
> 
> I would like to comment on a few things. I could comment on more 
> but then the message would get too long and fewer people would 
> suffer thru it until the end.
> 
> I have moved the order of the quoted text a around a little bit
> as I want to comment on it in a different order.
> 
> 
> You have the intention to change governance of XFree86 so that you 
> want to introduce a new membership model in which "anyone with the 
> interest and ability to join and vote". 
> Specifically you state:
> 
>  > It is therefore essential for the community to be involved in the
>  > governance of X development. Two key elements in a community-governed
>  > project are:
>  > 
>  >    1. A low barrier to become a voting member.
>  >    2. Regular elections of the government by all of the members.
> 
> You also gave an account on who you expect the members to be:
> 
>  >     * Developers working on the X server and libraries.
>  >     * Developers working on ancillary X extensions and services such as
>  >       the DRI and GATOS projects.
>  >     * Developers working on Qt, Gtk+, Fltk, Tk, Motif and other toolkits.
>  >     * Application developers using either Xlib or an X toolkit.
>  >     * System integrators and distributors packaging X technology in
>  >       various forms.
>  >     * Consulting companies selling services based on X.
>  >     * Hardware vendors producing hardware to work with X.
>  >     * X End users.
> 
> Which is really a broad base. This is an interesting idea and it
> sounds very natural.
> Most OpenSource software development projects don't work that way.
> You say:
> 
>  > Community governed projects such as Gnome, KDE and Debian have
>  > well-established membership policies. All allow anyone with the interest
>  > and ability to join and vote.
> 
> Debian is different in nature, and for KDE this is simply not
> true. Membership in KDE e.V. (an organisation registered in 
> Germany according to German law) is to my knowledge by-invitation-only.
> Its purpose is purely administrational, organizing events, paying 
> bills, managing the bank account. Their board (in German 'Vorstand') 
> exercises no control over the development of KDE.
> 
> The Gnome Foundation is the only organization that comes to mind that
> has a turely elected board. 
> 
> Most OpenSource projects are led by individuals who have been 
> formally or informally been accepted as leaders for their long
> standing commitment, their experience and experise. If a formal
> governing body exists (in many cases because it is require by
> law) these boards perform purely administrational or political
> tasks. 
> The gcc steering committee is an example here: It administrates 
> the CVS and Web servers and - as this is a matter for the FSF 
> - watches over license issues. It consists of the original people 
> who initiated egcs, new members are invited in.
> Where is the flaw in your proposal?
> How would a serious developer feel who has worked his butt off
> if anyone with little to no involvment in his project would be
> able to elect who is to preside over it - on a one-man one vote
> basis - with the same voting rights as him?
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.


> How would this person feel if soemone happened to be elected 
> to take over the leadership who has not written a single line 
> of code for the project, but for example happens to be working 
> for a "System integrator and distributors packaging X technology 
> in various forms"?
> Do you expect any serious developer would continue to work on
> this project?
FL-> If the elected person were qualified to manage the organization, there is 
absolutely no need for that person to have ever written a line of code for any 
project.  Yes, I personally think it is very helpful for managers to also be 
technologists, that is NOT a prerequisite for great management.  I trust that 
the majority of people who would vote on a management team for XFree86 would 
care enough about the outcome that they would not care one iota if the person 
"paid his or her dues" as a developer.  Managing the organization should not be 
a reward for past technical achievements, it is a responsibility given to 
someone or some group of people, to ensure that the right people are given the 
right jobs within the organization to keep it successful into the future.  It is 
also the job of management to look beyond the technical issues themselves, and 
try to direct the organization's efforts in a manner that will best serve its 
constituency.  I agree with Keith that the XFree86 constituency is very large 
and that it must all be heard.  Good management doesn't interfere with good 
developers, it supports them.  It also, however, supports the larger community 
that depends on the technology being developed.


> 
> Now what we do need are interfaces to those project that group
> around XFree86. 
> This is an issue that needs to be worked out but it is a two
> way issue. 
> 
>  >     * Lack of cooperation with other projects
>  > 
>  >       The KDE and Gnome projects were forced to form the freedesktop.org
>  >       project to extend and enhance X Window System standards because
>  >       XFree86 refused even to participate in the process.
> 
> Now just for my curiosity:
> 
> On which occasion has XFree86 refused to participate in this 
> process?
> Maybe some of the UI people here can help me out? 
> As we also want to hear critizism this should be openly discussed
> here.
> 
> 
> Egbert.
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Forum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum
> 
> 
> End of Forum Digest