Re: oVirt comminuty voting

On 09/09/2011 02:48 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 09/09/2011 01:08 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote: >> >> >> Please read, we can always vote in updates, so proof it and make sure it >> is good enough to get going with. >> >> (URL REDACTED - INFO: http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/project-planning/2011-September/000283.html) >> >> >> Jim, if you also proof, given your experience in this area >> >> I have linked it into the web site layout in the google doc, I'll be >> working all the key sections one by one to get us going for launch. > > I assume code doesn't mean code as in software, but some sort of > community code? > > One concern I have is that this seems to enforce that all projects are > managed via consensus. But many existing (and successful) Open Source > projects don't use an Apache-style consensus model but rather rely on > a benevolent dictatorship or some variation thereof. > > I think it's fine to use a consensus model for oVirt business, but I > think it's important to allow sub projects to use other types of > leadership models. Otherwise you're excluding large parts of the > existing community, most notably, libvirt, QEMU, and KVM. > > So I think for project specific things (like whether a project is > ready for a release) needs to be completely deferred to the sub project. > > If the sub project needs to somehow codify how it makes decisions, > that's fine, but the sub project should ultimately have the say over > how it makes decisions. The goal is for each sub-project to get to 3 or more maintainers, which rules out the benevolent dictatorship model for sub-projects. The goal here is to build a growing and sustainable community not reliant on single individuals.