Suggestion for XFree86

David Dawes has asked that anyone with an interest in X or XFree86
contribute to this discussion, so I am taking this opportunity to air a
suggestion that I hope the current BOD and slate of XFree86 officers will
seriously consider.

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.  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.  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.

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.  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.

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.  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.  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.