Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Ian Turton
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Peter Baumann
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Rob Emanuele

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Marc Vloemans-3
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

mafonso

Hi Marc,

Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing, governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other social science.

Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a scientific and independent methods.

Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate software using independent methods.

How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all sounds very wrong.

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Marc Vloemans-3
Hi Marco

I inferred that software quality was raised in defence of the benevolent dictatorship governance model. Which IMHO (and obviously yours) bears no relationship as quality derives from other factors. Apologies if my irony has been confusing ;-)

Cheers, Marc

Op zondag 15 mei 2016 heeft Marco Afonso <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Marc,

Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing, governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other social science.

Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a scientific and independent methods.

Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate software using independent methods.

How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all sounds very wrong.

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;marcvloemans1@gmail.com&#39;);" target="_blank">marcvloemans1@...> escreveu:
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;rdemanuele@gmail.com&#39;);" target="_blank">rdemanuele@...> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;p.baumann@jacobs-university.de&#39;);" target="_blank">p.baumann@...> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;Discuss@lists.osgeo.org&#39;);" target="_blank">Discuss@...
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;p.baumann@jacobs-university.de&#39;);" target="_blank">p.baumann@...
   tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;baumann@rasdaman.com&#39;);" target="_blank">baumann@...
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;Discuss@lists.osgeo.org&#39;);" target="_blank">Discuss@...
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;Discuss@lists.osgeo.org&#39;);" target="_blank">Discuss@...
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;Discuss@lists.osgeo.org&#39;);" target="_blank">Discuss@...
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Marc Vloemans-3
All,
I think most comments on this thread have been very constructive, focusing on the topic rather than the person. Thanks everyone. It aligns with our code of conduct [1] which includes:

"Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient.
We work together to resolve conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to act in an empathetic fashion. We may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. ..."

[1] http://www.osgeo.org/code_of_conduct

On 15/05/2016 11:22 am, Marc Vloemans wrote:
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Sanghee Shin
In reply to this post by mafonso
Hi Marco and Peter, 

Sorry for my ignorance. However I couldn’t tell the difference between ancient greek oracle, Bible and modern science. For me, those things are the same in terms that *The Absolute* should/will be conveyed through *Imperfect* human however the great virtue/categorical imperative those are though.

Kind regards, 
신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com 

2016. 5. 15., 오전 10:44, Marco Afonso <[hidden email]> 작성:

Hi Marc,

Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing, governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other social science.

Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a scientific and independent methods.

Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate software using independent methods.

How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all sounds very wrong.

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank" class="">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank" class="">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank" class="">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

mafonso

Hello,

Thanks for clarifying Marc.

Software quality is measured by scientific and technological tests like performance, usability, UI/UX, etc... In case of OpenSource software, the "social criteria" should be stricted to the FOSS freedoms.

Any evaluation not based on these independent criteria is wrong.

Yes it can be measured. Although, the tools for such an independent methods are not easy and always available. But this should not turn software evaluation based on social criteria.

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 04:29, "Sanghee Shin" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
Hi Marco and Peter, 

Sorry for my ignorance. However I couldn’t tell the difference between ancient greek oracle, Bible and modern science. For me, those things are the same in terms that *The Absolute* should/will be conveyed through *Imperfect* human however the great virtue/categorical imperative those are though.

Kind regards, 
신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com 

2016. 5. 15., 오전 10:44, Marco Afonso <[hidden email]> 작성:

Hi Marc,

Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing, governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other social science.

Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a scientific and independent methods.

Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate software using independent methods.

How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all sounds very wrong.

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Peter Baumann
In reply to this post by Rob Emanuele
- Kamalika Das (NASA - Ames Research Center), Thomas Clune (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), Kwo-Sen Kuo (Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center), Chris A Mattmann (Jet Propulsion Laboratory), Thomas Huang (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory), Daniel Duffy (NASA Center for Climate Simulation), Chaowei Phil Yang (George Mason University Fairfax, Ted Habermann (HDF Group): Evaluation of Big Data Containers for Popular Storage, Retrieval, and Computation Primitives in Earth Science Analysis . Poster, AGU Fall 2015. (Have only a bad take of a diagram, see attached)

- G. Merticariu, D. Misev, P. Baumann: Measuring Storage Access Performance in Array Databases. Proc. 7th Workshop on Big Data Benchmarking (WBDB), December 14-15, 2015, New Delhi, India

- rasdaman 30x faster than GeoServer (oral communication by DWD on a test conducted by DLR and EUMETSAT)

More under way by several groups.
-Peter



On 05/14/2016 03:00 PM, Rob Emanuele wrote:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

rasdaman-spark-hive.jpg (38K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Peter Baumann
In reply to this post by Marc Vloemans-3
Marc,

it puzzles me that all over the (derogative, right?) word "dictatorship" is eagerly used while you now frown on "activist".
If we are minding language now we should _all_ be careful.

-Peter



On 05/15/2016 03:22 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Peter Baumann
In reply to this post by Sanghee Shin
Hi Sanghee,

according to WIkipedia [1], Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2][2]

These testable explanations/predictions are tested against the part of the universe under exploration. Among the many competing explanations found the one is chosen which (i) best explains facts and (ii) is the simplest, in that order. Everybody is free to verify/falsify an explanation at any time.

As a painful history has shown (Giordano Bruno was burnt because he claimed the Earth being  a ball, rather than a disk; just  little later, Galileo Galilei was lucky enough to survive; nazis as well as socialism/communism suppressed scientific insights if they didn't fit the dogma...many more examples exist) explanations (ie, theories) should be established with an unbiased mind, and tests _must_ be conducted and evaluated with an unbiased mind. "Committees on truth" have not really contributed to scientific progress. This is why Freedom of Science is essential to human progress on insights "about the universe".

-Peter

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science


On 05/15/2016 05:29 AM, Sanghee Shin wrote:
Hi Marco and Peter, 

Sorry for my ignorance. However I couldn’t tell the difference between ancient greek oracle, Bible and modern science. For me, those things are the same in terms that *The Absolute* should/will be conveyed through *Imperfect* human however the great virtue/categorical imperative those are though.

Kind regards, 
신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com 

2016. 5. 15., 오전 10:44, Marco Afonso <[hidden email]> 작성:

Hi Marc,

Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing, governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other social science.

Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a scientific and independent methods.

Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate software using independent methods.

How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all sounds very wrong.

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank" class="">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank" class="">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank" class="">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Marc Vloemans-3
In reply to this post by Peter Baumann
Peter,

Again, I am still awaiting an answer that addresses the concerns raised in/by the community.....

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 15 mei 2016 om 10:59 heeft Peter Baumann <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Marc,

it puzzles me that all over the (derogative, right?) word "dictatorship" is eagerly used while you now frown on "activist".
If we are minding language now we should _all_ be careful.

-Peter



On 05/15/2016 03:22 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <[hidden email][hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

mafonso
In reply to this post by Peter Baumann

Hi,

Maybe all OSGeo software should be reviewed using independent methods and technological tests or else it can be seen as closed community with it's own truth like religion.

Please think about it.

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 10:15, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
Hi Sanghee,

according to WIkipedia [1], Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2][2]

These testable explanations/predictions are tested against the part of the universe under exploration. Among the many competing explanations found the one is chosen which (i) best explains facts and (ii) is the simplest, in that order. Everybody is free to verify/falsify an explanation at any time.

As a painful history has shown (Giordano Bruno was burnt because he claimed the Earth being  a ball, rather than a disk; just  little later, Galileo Galilei was lucky enough to survive; nazis as well as socialism/communism suppressed scientific insights if they didn't fit the dogma...many more examples exist) explanations (ie, theories) should be established with an unbiased mind, and tests _must_ be conducted and evaluated with an unbiased mind. "Committees on truth" have not really contributed to scientific progress. This is why Freedom of Science is essential to human progress on insights "about the universe".

-Peter

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science


On 05/15/2016 05:29 AM, Sanghee Shin wrote:
Hi Marco and Peter, 

Sorry for my ignorance. However I couldn’t tell the difference between ancient greek oracle, Bible and modern science. For me, those things are the same in terms that *The Absolute* should/will be conveyed through *Imperfect* human however the great virtue/categorical imperative those are though.

Kind regards, 
신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com 

2016. 5. 15., 오전 10:44, Marco Afonso <[hidden email]> 작성:

Hi Marc,

Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing, governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other social science.

Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a scientific and independent methods.

Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate software using independent methods.

How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all sounds very wrong.

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
Peter,

With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its project management.

In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention....

That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Peter,

This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.

Best,
Rob

On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <[hidden email]> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter

PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :)


On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio. 

Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone downloaded a copy last week).

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from running the project while never needing to give up having a say in the running.

Ian


PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Christian Willmes
In reply to this post by Peter Baumann
arguing in pro for science, to claim and use (at least in my view)
fraudulent/wrong organization for a project, like authoritarian
hierarchical structures, as (sadly and wrongly) also applied in most
educational organizations around the world, as a "suitable" governance
model, is not right.
The current hierarchical organization of the conduct of science is far
from perfect! It will change and adapt to more open structures and more
flat hierarchies and may be even go away from this hierarchical titles
(Dr., PhD, Prof., etc.) crap. Thus any entity (person, group,
company,..) can apply for research grands (by organizations,
individuals, governments, companies, ...) and conduct research openly
and transparent, without the need for a position at a university or
research center... Please look/research for "Open Science", its already
under way, nobody can really stop it from happening.

This may be ok or not for you. But this is completely irrelevant in this
context, because OSGeo is at the very first about the O for open. A
closed hierarchical authoritarian governance is just the contrary. OSGeo
should really stick to this principle of open, because it is the essence
of what it is (from my point of view). In conclusion, if you want to be
part of OSGeo, you first need to be open.

Best,
Christian

On 15.05.2016 11:15, Peter Baumann wrote:

> Hi Sanghee,
>
> according to WIkipedia [1], /*Science*//^[nb 1]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-2> //is a systematic
> enterprise that builds and organizes //knowledge
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge>//in the form of testable
> //explanations <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation>//and
> //predictions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions>//about the
> //universe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe>//.//^[nb 2]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-3> //^[2]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-EOWilson-4> /
>
> These testable explanations/predictions are tested against the part of
> the universe under exploration. Among the many competing explanations
> found the one is chosen which (i) best explains facts and (ii) is the
> simplest, in that order. Everybody is free to verify/falsify an
> explanation at any time.
>
> As a painful history has shown (Giordano Bruno was burnt because he
> claimed the Earth being  a ball, rather than a disk; just  little later,
> Galileo Galilei was lucky enough to survive; nazis as well as
> socialism/communism suppressed scientific insights if they didn't fit
> the dogma...many more examples exist) explanations (ie, theories) should
> be established with an unbiased mind, and tests _must_ be conducted and
> evaluated with an unbiased mind. "Committees on truth" have not really
> contributed to scientific progress. This is why Freedom of Science is
> essential to human progress on insights "about the universe".
> ^
> -Peter
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
>
>
> On 05/15/2016 05:29 AM, Sanghee Shin wrote:
>> Hi Marco and Peter,
>>
>> Sorry for my ignorance. However I couldn’t tell the difference between
>> ancient greek oracle, Bible and modern science. For me, those things
>> are the same in terms that *The Absolute* should/will be conveyed
>> through *Imperfect* human however the great virtue/categorical
>> imperative those are though.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> 신상희
>> ---
>> Shin, Sanghee
>> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
>> http://www.gaia3d.com
>>
>>> 2016. 5. 15., 오전 10:44, Marco Afonso
>>> <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> 작성:
>>>
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing,
>>> governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other
>>> social science.
>>>
>>> Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a
>>> scientific and independent methods.
>>>
>>> Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate
>>> software using independent methods.
>>>
>>> How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By
>>> comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all
>>> sounds very wrong.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> escreveu:
>>>
>>>     Peter,
>>>
>>>     With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various
>>>     commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of
>>>     reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty
>>>     sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the
>>>     software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob)
>>>     without clarifying that particular correlation to its project
>>>     management.
>>>
>>>     In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold
>>>     up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell
>>>     anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort.
>>>     And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an
>>>     odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.
>>>
>>>     Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are
>>>     not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still
>>>     cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have
>>>     even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many)
>>>     others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser
>>>     democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If
>>>     that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat
>>>     stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours,
>>>     then I fear you have shown our community your true
>>>     'colors'/face/intention....
>>>
>>>     That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss,
>>>     somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other
>>>     natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to
>>>     achieve what exactly ????
>>>
>>>     Vriendelijke groet,
>>>     Marc Vloemans
>>>
>>>
>>>     Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele
>>>     <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> het volgende
>>>     geschreven:
>>>
>>>>     Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>>     This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by
>>>>     simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever
>>>>     model you'd like for project governance, and mention some
>>>>     independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and
>>>>     "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified
>>>>     claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more
>>>>     detailed way. Please site your sources.
>>>>
>>>>     Best,
>>>>     Rob
>>>>
>>>>     On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann"
>>>>     <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]>
>>>>     wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even
>>>>         know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt
>>>>         discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in
>>>>         design by innovation and not design by committee, and that
>>>>         community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins
>>>>         all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
>>>>         -Peter
>>>>
>>>>         PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow
>>>>         principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown
>>>>         about the ideals behind :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
>>>>>         I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about
>>>>>         governance models because I prefer to write code than worry
>>>>>         about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a
>>>>>         some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of
>>>>>         FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in
>>>>>         charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools,
>>>>>         which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa
>>>>>         and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Both these libraries started out as academic projects that
>>>>>         solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a
>>>>>         result of the university claiming all the intellectual
>>>>>         property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?)
>>>>>         in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent
>>>>>         dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple
>>>>>         governance model that left us able to get on with coding
>>>>>         and researching and meant that things went the way we
>>>>>         wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people
>>>>>         started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while
>>>>>         James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time
>>>>>         with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some
>>>>>         more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we
>>>>>         sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength
>>>>>         to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which
>>>>>         makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome).
>>>>>         In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or
>>>>>         thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However
>>>>>         GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's
>>>>>         didn't want to give up control really) and never really
>>>>>         gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other
>>>>>         people to influence the direction of development (after all
>>>>>         the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus
>>>>>         there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had
>>>>>         no real interest in attracting new users (previous
>>>>>         experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and
>>>>>         then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though
>>>>>         apparently someone downloaded a copy last week)
>>>>>         <https://sourceforge.net/projects/geovistastudio/files/>.
>>>>>
>>>>>         I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling
>>>>>         is that to make the move from an academic to successful
>>>>>         FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to
>>>>>         committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some
>>>>>         down time from running the project while never needing to
>>>>>         give up having a say in the running.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance
>>>>>         doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is
>>>>>         a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork
>>>>>         RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
>>>>>         --
>>>>>         Ian Turton
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>         Discuss mailing list
>>>>>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>         http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>         --
>>>>         Dr. Peter Baumann
>>>>           - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>>>             www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>>>         <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann>
>>>>             mail:[hidden email]
>>>>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>             tel:+49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax:+49-421-200-493178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178>
>>>>           - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>>>             www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>, mail:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>             tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile:+49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882>
>>>>         "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         Discuss mailing list
>>>>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>         http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Baumann
>   - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>     www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>     mail:[hidden email]
>     tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>   - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>     www.rasdaman.com, mail:[hidden email]
>     tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

mafonso

Hi Christian,

From my point of view, Open Source software is still open source and software. It must be treated as an independent object. It is irrelevant who is the organization/person that created.

Once it respects the Open Source principles, the evaluation must be independent and upon the open source object it self. It's software. So it must be evaluated using technological tests.

It seems that you are mixing (by un undisclosed criteria) the software as a pure object (with measurable qualities), and, the people that created it (with it's governance model).

Once the software (as an object) is available on a public repository, it only matters it's license terms to evaluate it's restrictions. From there, it is irrelevant "whos behind it".

Software must be treated as software, not as a part of a person/organization. If this separation of concerns is not considered, then, it's evaluation is not valid.

Em 15/05/2016 11:18, "Christian Willmes" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
arguing in pro for science, to claim and use (at least in my view) fraudulent/wrong organization for a project, like authoritarian hierarchical structures, as (sadly and wrongly) also applied in most educational organizations around the world, as a "suitable" governance model, is not right.
The current hierarchical organization of the conduct of science is far from perfect! It will change and adapt to more open structures and more flat hierarchies and may be even go away from this hierarchical titles (Dr., PhD, Prof., etc.) crap. Thus any entity (person, group, company,..) can apply for research grands (by organizations, individuals, governments, companies, ...) and conduct research openly and transparent, without the need for a position at a university or research center... Please look/research for "Open Science", its already under way, nobody can really stop it from happening.

This may be ok or not for you. But this is completely irrelevant in this context, because OSGeo is at the very first about the O for open. A closed hierarchical authoritarian governance is just the contrary. OSGeo should really stick to this principle of open, because it is the essence of what it is (from my point of view). In conclusion, if you want to be part of OSGeo, you first need to be open.

Best,
Christian

On 15.05.2016 11:15, Peter Baumann wrote:
Hi Sanghee,

according to WIkipedia [1], /*Science*//^[nb 1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-2> //is a systematic
enterprise that builds and organizes //knowledge
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge>//in the form of testable
//explanations <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation>//and
//predictions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions>//about the
//universe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe>//.//^[nb 2]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-3> //^[2]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-EOWilson-4> /

These testable explanations/predictions are tested against the part of
the universe under exploration. Among the many competing explanations
found the one is chosen which (i) best explains facts and (ii) is the
simplest, in that order. Everybody is free to verify/falsify an
explanation at any time.

As a painful history has shown (Giordano Bruno was burnt because he
claimed the Earth being  a ball, rather than a disk; just  little later,
Galileo Galilei was lucky enough to survive; nazis as well as
socialism/communism suppressed scientific insights if they didn't fit
the dogma...many more examples exist) explanations (ie, theories) should
be established with an unbiased mind, and tests _must_ be conducted and
evaluated with an unbiased mind. "Committees on truth" have not really
contributed to scientific progress. This is why Freedom of Science is
essential to human progress on insights "about the universe".
^
-Peter

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science


On 05/15/2016 05:29 AM, Sanghee Shin wrote:
Hi Marco and Peter,

Sorry for my ignorance. However I couldn’t tell the difference between
ancient greek oracle, Bible and modern science. For me, those things
are the same in terms that *The Absolute* should/will be conveyed
through *Imperfect* human however the great virtue/categorical
imperative those are though.

Kind regards,
신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com

2016. 5. 15., 오전 10:44, Marco Afonso
<<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> 작성:

Hi Marc,

Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing,
governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other
social science.

Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a
scientific and independent methods.

Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate
software using independent methods.

How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By
comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all
sounds very wrong.

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email]>> escreveu:

    Peter,

    With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various
    commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of
    reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty
    sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the
    software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob)
    without clarifying that particular correlation to its project
    management.

    In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold
    up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell
    anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort.
    And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an
    odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.

    Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are
    not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still
    cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have
    even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many)
    others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser
    democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If
    that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat
    stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours,
    then I fear you have shown our community your true
    'colors'/face/intention....

    That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss,
    somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other
    natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to
    achieve what exactly ????

    Vriendelijke groet,
    Marc Vloemans


    Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele
    <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> het volgende
    geschreven:

    Hi Peter,

    This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by
    simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever
    model you'd like for project governance, and mention some
    independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and
    "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified
    claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more
    detailed way. Please site your sources.

    Best,
    Rob

    On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann"
    <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]>
    wrote:

        OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even
        know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt
        discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in
        design by innovation and not design by committee, and that
        community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins
        all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
        -Peter

        PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow
        principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown
        about the ideals behind :)


        On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
        I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about
        governance models because I prefer to write code than worry
        about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a
        some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of
        FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in
        charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools,
        which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa
        and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio.

        Both these libraries started out as academic projects that
        solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a
        result of the university claiming all the intellectual
        property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?)
        in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent
        dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple
        governance model that left us able to get on with coding
        and researching and meant that things went the way we
        wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people
        started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while
        James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time
        with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some
        more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we
        sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength
        to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which
        makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome).
        In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or
        thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However
        GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's
        didn't want to give up control really) and never really
        gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other
        people to influence the direction of development (after all
        the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus
        there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had
        no real interest in attracting new users (previous
        experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and
        then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though
        apparently someone downloaded a copy last week)
        <https://sourceforge.net/projects/geovistastudio/files/>.

        I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling
        is that to make the move from an academic to successful
        FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to
        committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some
        down time from running the project while never needing to
        give up having a say in the running.

        Ian


        PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance
        doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is
        a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork
        RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
        --
        Ian Turton


        _______________________________________________
        Discuss mailing list
        [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
        http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

        --
        Dr. Peter Baumann
          - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
            www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
        <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann>
            [hidden email]
        <mailto:[hidden email]>
            tel:<a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax:<a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178>
          - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
            www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>, [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
            tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile:<a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882>
        "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)



        _______________________________________________
        Discuss mailing list
        [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
        http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

    _______________________________________________
    Discuss mailing list
    [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
    http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

    _______________________________________________
    Discuss mailing list
    [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
    http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

--
Dr. Peter Baumann
  - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
    www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
    [hidden email]
    tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178
  - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
    www.rasdaman.com, [hidden email]
    tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)




_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Anita Graser
Hi Marco,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Marco Afonso <[hidden email]> wrote:

Once the software (as an object) is available on a public repository, it only matters it's license terms to evaluate it's restrictions. From there, it is irrelevant "whos behind it".

​Here I have to strongly disagree. Imho, the job of OSGeo incubation is to evaluate a software project (software and organisation) therefore it makes no sense to limit discussions to software quality.

Best wishes,
Anita​

 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

mafonso

Hi Anita,

Aha! So there is a ponderation weight on software quality evaluation AND project organization evaluation.

So you can exclude an open source software with high quality if their organization evaluation is low.

For me that seems wrong. A software on a public repository is only limited by it's licence terms, or unlimited at all. :)

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 13:14, "Anita Graser" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
Hi Marco,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Marco Afonso <[hidden email]> wrote:

Once the software (as an object) is available on a public repository, it only matters it's license terms to evaluate it's restrictions. From there, it is irrelevant "whos behind it".

​Here I have to strongly disagree. Imho, the job of OSGeo incubation is to evaluate a software project (software and organisation) therefore it makes no sense to limit discussions to software quality.

Best wishes,
Anita​

 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Massimiliano Cannata
Marco,
Open management of a project has nothing to do with the quality of the software (scientific evaluation).

Nevertheless OSGeo want to "label" projects that are considered a good option for production environment.
It means that when a company, organization or group select the software it doesn't just look at the software quality but also at the risk of this investment.
Like for example if a software is dependent on a single failure point.

That's why in incubation it is required that the community is composed by more then a single part and that the project is governed by multiple people so that the faiulure of one component do not affect the project.

That's all.

Maxi 



2016-05-15 14:40 GMT+02:00 Marco Afonso <[hidden email]>:

Hi Anita,

Aha! So there is a ponderation weight on software quality evaluation AND project organization evaluation.

So you can exclude an open source software with high quality if their organization evaluation is low.

For me that seems wrong. A software on a public repository is only limited by it's licence terms, or unlimited at all. :)

Cheers

Em 15/05/2016 13:14, "Anita Graser" <[hidden email]> escreveu:
Hi Marco,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Marco Afonso <[hidden email]> wrote:

Once the software (as an object) is available on a public repository, it only matters it's license terms to evaluate it's restrictions. From there, it is irrelevant "whos behind it".

​Here I have to strongly disagree. Imho, the job of OSGeo incubation is to evaluate a software project (software and organisation) therefore it makes no sense to limit discussions to software quality.

Best wishes,
Anita​

 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



--
Massimiliano Cannata

Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica

Responsabile settore Geomatica


Istituto scienze della Terra

Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design

Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana

Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio

Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14

Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09

[hidden email]

www.supsi.ch/ist


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Peter Baumann
In reply to this post by Christian Willmes
aside from the misconception about science, and that this discussion is all but
"open" spirit:

why then does OSGeo not have enough courage and refuse rasdaman publicly (after
6+ years!), instead of providing a forum for some (!) people to rant and insult?

-Peter

On 05/15/2016 12:06 PM, Christian Willmes wrote:

> arguing in pro for science, to claim and use (at least in my view)
> fraudulent/wrong organization for a project, like authoritarian hierarchical
> structures, as (sadly and wrongly) also applied in most educational
> organizations around the world, as a "suitable" governance model, is not right.
> The current hierarchical organization of the conduct of science is far from
> perfect! It will change and adapt to more open structures and more flat
> hierarchies and may be even go away from this hierarchical titles (Dr., PhD,
> Prof., etc.) crap. Thus any entity (person, group, company,..) can apply for
> research grands (by organizations, individuals, governments, companies, ...)
> and conduct research openly and transparent, without the need for a position
> at a university or research center... Please look/research for "Open Science",
> its already under way, nobody can really stop it from happening.
>
> This may be ok or not for you. But this is completely irrelevant in this
> context, because OSGeo is at the very first about the O for open. A closed
> hierarchical authoritarian governance is just the contrary. OSGeo should
> really stick to this principle of open, because it is the essence of what it
> is (from my point of view). In conclusion, if you want to be part of OSGeo,
> you first need to be open.
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
> On 15.05.2016 11:15, Peter Baumann wrote:
>> Hi Sanghee,
>>
>> according to WIkipedia [1], /*Science*//^[nb 1]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-2> //is a systematic
>> enterprise that builds and organizes //knowledge
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge>//in the form of testable
>> //explanations <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation>//and
>> //predictions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions>//about the
>> //universe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe>//.//^[nb 2]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-3> //^[2]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-EOWilson-4> /
>>
>> These testable explanations/predictions are tested against the part of
>> the universe under exploration. Among the many competing explanations
>> found the one is chosen which (i) best explains facts and (ii) is the
>> simplest, in that order. Everybody is free to verify/falsify an
>> explanation at any time.
>>
>> As a painful history has shown (Giordano Bruno was burnt because he
>> claimed the Earth being  a ball, rather than a disk; just  little later,
>> Galileo Galilei was lucky enough to survive; nazis as well as
>> socialism/communism suppressed scientific insights if they didn't fit
>> the dogma...many more examples exist) explanations (ie, theories) should
>> be established with an unbiased mind, and tests _must_ be conducted and
>> evaluated with an unbiased mind. "Committees on truth" have not really
>> contributed to scientific progress. This is why Freedom of Science is
>> essential to human progress on insights "about the universe".
>> ^
>> -Peter
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
>>
>>
>> On 05/15/2016 05:29 AM, Sanghee Shin wrote:
>>> Hi Marco and Peter,
>>>
>>> Sorry for my ignorance. However I couldn’t tell the difference between
>>> ancient greek oracle, Bible and modern science. For me, those things
>>> are the same in terms that *The Absolute* should/will be conveyed
>>> through *Imperfect* human however the great virtue/categorical
>>> imperative those are though.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 신상희
>>> ---
>>> Shin, Sanghee
>>> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
>>> http://www.gaia3d.com
>>>
>>>> 2016. 5. 15., 오전 10:44, Marco Afonso
>>>> <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> 작성:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>
>>>> Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing,
>>>> governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other
>>>> social science.
>>>>
>>>> Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a
>>>> scientific and independent methods.
>>>>
>>>> Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate
>>>> software using independent methods.
>>>>
>>>> How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By
>>>> comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all
>>>> sounds very wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>>     Peter,
>>>>
>>>>     With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various
>>>>     commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of
>>>>     reasoning is either based on a non-representative and even faulty
>>>>     sample of experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the
>>>>     software's quality and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob)
>>>>     without clarifying that particular correlation to its project
>>>>     management.
>>>>
>>>>     In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold
>>>>     up. By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell
>>>>     anything about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort.
>>>>     And comparing Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an
>>>>     odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.
>>>>
>>>>     Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are
>>>>     not: all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still
>>>>     cannot convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have
>>>>     even resorted to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many)
>>>>     others along the way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser
>>>>     democratic countries, organisations and political systems. If
>>>>     that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat
>>>>     stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours,
>>>>     then I fear you have shown our community your true
>>>>     'colors'/face/intention....
>>>>
>>>>     That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss,
>>>>     somewhere in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other
>>>>     natural allies, in an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to
>>>>     achieve what exactly ????
>>>>
>>>>     Vriendelijke groet,
>>>>     Marc Vloemans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele
>>>>     <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> het volgende
>>>>     geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>>     Hi Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>>     This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by
>>>>>     simply saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever
>>>>>     model you'd like for project governance, and mention some
>>>>>     independent study that claims your software is "way faster" and
>>>>>     "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general and unqualified
>>>>>     claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more
>>>>>     detailed way. Please site your sources.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>     Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>     On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann"
>>>>>     <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]>
>>>>>     wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even
>>>>>         know (and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt
>>>>>         discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in
>>>>>         design by innovation and not design by committee, and that
>>>>>         community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins
>>>>>         all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
>>>>>         -Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>         PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow
>>>>>         principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown
>>>>>         about the ideals behind :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
>>>>>>         I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about
>>>>>>         governance models because I prefer to write code than worry
>>>>>>         about licences or governance. But it may help if I share a
>>>>>>         some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a couple of
>>>>>>         FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in
>>>>>>         charge. One of these you may well have heard of GeoTools,
>>>>>>         which forms the base library of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa
>>>>>>         and others, the other you may not know GeoVista Studio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Both these libraries started out as academic projects that
>>>>>>         solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a
>>>>>>         result of the university claiming all the intellectual
>>>>>>         property of it's staff for ever (so why not give it away?)
>>>>>>         in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent
>>>>>>         dictators when the projects launched, it was a simple
>>>>>>         governance model that left us able to get on with coding
>>>>>>         and researching and meant that things went the way we
>>>>>>         wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people
>>>>>>         started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while
>>>>>>         James & I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time
>>>>>>         with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got some
>>>>>>         more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we
>>>>>>         sort of lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength
>>>>>>         to strength and now has a PSC that spans the globe (which
>>>>>>         makes meeting times hard to find but is otherwise awesome).
>>>>>>         In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or
>>>>>>         thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However
>>>>>>         GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly (the PI's
>>>>>>         didn't want to give up control really) and never really
>>>>>>         gained more than a few users because we didn't allow other
>>>>>>         people to influence the direction of development (after all
>>>>>>         the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus
>>>>>>         there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had
>>>>>>         no real interest in attracting new users (previous
>>>>>>         experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and
>>>>>>         then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though
>>>>>>         apparently someone downloaded a copy last week)
>>>>>>         <https://sourceforge.net/projects/geovistastudio/files/>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling
>>>>>>         is that to make the move from an academic to successful
>>>>>>         FOSS project you need to move from dictatorship to
>>>>>>         committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you some
>>>>>>         down time from running the project while never needing to
>>>>>>         give up having a say in the running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance
>>>>>>         doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is
>>>>>>         a flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork
>>>>>>         RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
>>>>>>         --
>>>>>>         Ian Turton
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>         Discuss mailing list
>>>>>>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>         http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>         --
>>>>>         Dr. Peter Baumann
>>>>>           - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>>>>             www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>>>>         <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann>
>>>>>             mail:[hidden email]
>>>>>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>             tel:+49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>,
>>>>> fax:+49-421-200-493178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178>
>>>>>           - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>>>>             www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>,
>>>>> mail:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>             tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile:+49-173-5837882
>>>>> <tel:%2B49-173-5837882>
>>>>>         "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola
>>>>> incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui
>>>>> soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer,
>>>>> AD 1083)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>         Discuss mailing list
>>>>>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>         http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>>   - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>     www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>     mail:[hidden email]
>>     tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>>   - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>     www.rasdaman.com, mail:[hidden email]
>>     tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis
>> dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec
>> preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

--
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
12