oVirt comminuty voting

[Jim Jagielski]

++1

On Sep 9, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Think of it as at least three benevolent dictators per sub-project, or
> if the project has less than three, the board helps provide
> accountability. For projects like KVM, QEMU, libvirt, if they joined in
> we would encourage them vote on additional maintainers. It is hard to
> argue any downside to doing that.
> 
> Carl.

--
Jim Jagielski | jimjag at redhat.com | 443-324-8390 (cell)