[openbeos] Re: Openness
- From: Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 01:49:04 +0200
On 2007-05-13 at 18:58:33 [+0200], "Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki)"
<koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ingo Weinhold wrote:
> > On 2007-05-12 at 19:23:14 [+0200], "Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki)"
> > <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Ingo Weinhold wrote:
> >> The current setup is quite unique and anomalous, most likely *by
> >> accident* as a result of Haiku Inc. being in the dysfunctional state
> >> that it is, and not *by design* for the benefit of Haiku.
> >
> > You're wrong here. Haiku Inc. was founded because the project needed a
> > corporate body particularly for handling things like donations, owning
> > trademarks, etc. In this respect Haiku Inc. is as functional as it was
> > when
> > it was founded, even if some BOD members are no longer active and should
> > be
> > replaced.
>
> I think I was taken out of context, but it may be my fault.
>
> I understand why the non-profit was created in the first place. However,
> I think it is not currently fulfilling it's role (which is why I wrote
> "present setup). In other words, I would want to think that the current
> (dysfunctional) status of Haiku Inc. was not by design.
You may deny it and keep calling Haiku Inc. dysfunctional as often as you
like, it still remains a fact that the relationship between admin group and
Haiku Inc. is still pretty much as it was intended when the corporation was
founded.
> > You may find the setup unique and anomalous, but it's nevertheless how it
> > was
> > intended. The admin group -- people who earned trust by contributing
> > significantly over a long period of time -- makes the decisions, the
> > corporation executes those that concern it (e.g. by providing funds).
>
> Yes, the corporation does provide funds and it should certainly find
> people to execute stuff. But a BOD is, by definition, a body that
> oversees and manages. That's where the anomaly is. Directors don't
> execute, they direct (that's why they are called directors). In the case
> of Haiku Inc., the BOD (which should have an admin/dev representation)
> should be defining the direction, finding the resources, and managing
> them so that things happen. That is the typical role of a BOD, I would say.
Whether our setup is atypical, anomalous, or whatever is irrelevant. It only
matters what we deem preferrable. And that is a corporation which serves the
project, which in turn is governed by the admin group.
> >> I am not talking about "tasks" or moving them. In broad terms, what I'm
> >> pointing at is defining clear roles and goals, and assigning those to
> >> individuals that both have the *skill set*, the *mindset* and the *time*
> >> to act on them.
> >
> > Perfect! Define the roles and goals, find the people for them, and let
> > them
> > join the admin group.
> >
>
> This is something that only Haiku Inc. can take the initiative on,
I fail to see, why *only* Haiku Inc. can do that.
> with
> input from the admins to at least define the general goals. I will try
> to be a bit more specific.
>
> IIRC, Michael had some sort of strategic plan for 2006; I thought it was
> quite good, and I even printed it out from the admin list archive. While
> this plan may have needed some adjustments, it had a clear vision and
> goals for Haiku Inc., and it would have been a great starting point for
> kick-starting Haiku Inc. in the areas that are now lacking.
>
> Refining that plan and making it available to the public would have not
> been only be very informational per se (by showing where the project is
> headed), but also a good source of motivation for the potential
> resources that the non-profit needs. It would also add to the
> "transparency" factor that people are also talking about. It is a pity
> that this plan was kept under wraps and not acted upon.
>
> >> In my paragraph that you quote, I was saying that for somebody to take
> >> care of the non-developmental issues that are one of the main topics of
> >> this discussion, Haiku Inc. is the natural place to be. For performing
> >> such a role, there is no real practical value being part of the admin
> >> group.
> >>
> >
> > That's your opinion. IMO there's absolutely no reason why a project
> > manager
> > (and other people with skill sets needed) should not be part of the admin
> > group.
> >
>
> I am sorry; I may not have explained myself correctly.
>
> As this thread was more about pursuing openness as a means to get more
> people involved in the areas that are not related to development, and
> which would be closely associated with Haiku Inc., I meant to say that
> the logical/natural place would be Haiku Inc., and not the admin group.
I don't see why.
> Please, do not think that I am trying to take power away from the admins
> or to be dismissive of the admins/devs; it is just a matter of being
> practical (more details below).
>
> >> You and some other developers admit not having the time, motivation or
> >> skill set to handle issues unrelated to development, and that as a
> >> result these issues are neglected and nobody feels responsible for them.
> >> If you go as far as to recognize that, what stops you from delegating to
> >> and empowering others with the skill set and time to fill in the gap?
> >>
> >
> > Nothing at all. If those people step forward they will be welcomed with
> > open
> > arms.
>
> Not to contradict you, but there are precedents to the contrary (though
> I would rather not go there again at this point).
Then I won't mention that it apparently has worked for a certain marketing
expert. :-P
> >> Is there a reluctance to relegate control of certain areas of the
> >> project? Because if there is, I think you are both denying potential
> >> contributors the opportunity be come engaged, and in a way also
> >> perpetuating the status quo of neglect that you yourself so well
> >> described.
> >>
> >
> > There is indeed a reluctance to give up control completely. The people who
> > mainly created Haiku naturally want to have a say in what happens with
> > their
> > work. I don't think there's anything wrong with a democratic approach (we
> > had
> > this discussion on the admin list and I know you think otherwise) and it
> > certainly doesn't hinder potential contributors from becoming engaged.
>
> Nobody is talking about giving up control completely. I actually also
> agree that the people who actively contribute to Haiku should definitely
> have a say in what happens to their work, at least as long as they
> considered to be active contributors and remain engaged. But that should
> not preclude the project/admin-group from being more open/transparent
> and actually empowering to take part. Let me give you an actual example.
>
> Look at the stark contrast of how the Google Summer of Code was handled
> in 2006 and 2007. Last year, it was a one-man effort. Nobody knew what
> the application looked like, nor was there an open effort to look for
> ideas or mentors beyond the small admin group.
>
> In comparison, this year we openly engaged the whole admin group as well
> as the community from the very beginning, and as a result several admins
> contributed to putting together a substantive list of ideas, a great
> articulation of our goals for the application and we even picked up
> three mentors from outside of the admin group (mmu_man, Oliver and Ryan).
>
> Would you not agree that the latter open approach is much better than
> the former closed one? I think this is the kind of transparency and
> openness that people are asking for. BTW, this is a good example that
> when you open up an initiative, there is potential for luring resources
> into taking part; with the closed approach, you deny yourself that
> opportunity.
I fully agree. This actually a wonderful example! And it shows that all this
has really nothing to do with Haiku Inc., since between 2006 and 2007 not the
slightest change has been made in this respect.
> Now, going back to what to do to actually address the issues, let me see
> if I can articulate this better. You have recognized areas in the
> project that are neglected and that the devs are not intrigued by or
> motivated to deal with. Given the dev-centric nature of the admin group
> and from past precedent, these areas are not likely to be addressed by
> the admins (nothing wrong with that, so please don't take it personal or
> as an offense).
>
> That leaves you with Haiku Inc. as the entity to fill in the gap,
This is where I think you again jump to a less obvious conclusion. If the
admin group is lacking non-dev contributors to address certain areas,
wouldn't it be the natural step to have those contributors join the admin
group?
> which
> anyway is the logical place to deal with this stuff, as you are talking
> about things like trademarks and funding, which are tightly tied to the
> non-profit. Please, don't misunderstand: this does not mean that control
> on these matters is taken away from the admins, but that Haiku Inc. is
> assigned the role of handling them.
I already said something to that effect in an earlier mail: In the end
matters are handled by people not by entities. Therefore, if we had the
people, that you are imagining would do that in the scope of Haiku Inc., why
couldn't those people do the same work as part of the admin group?
> Unfortunately, for some reason, Haiku Inc. has not been stepping up to
> the plate.
By design.
> So, given that you as devs are donating your time and work to
> Haiku Inc., I think you are in a unique position to urge reciprocity
> from the non-profit in the form of actually taking tangible action to
> address the above-mentioned shortcomings of the project.
Again, a corporate entity doesn't take action, people do.
> I don't think
> this is unreasonable, nor do I think such a request to Haiku Inc. should
> be taken as an offense. It is about doing what's best for Haiku.
>
> That will take re-shuffling the BOD with people that have the time to be
> engaged and proper representation from the admin group (which is lacking
> now), so that the devs have a say in the doings of the corporation that
> supports their project. I would actually take the 2006 strategic plan
> and rework it for 2007 as a starting point, and then make it available
> to the public. That would give Haiku Inc. a good base to start looking
> for BOD members. It will not be easy, and it will take some time, but it
> is needed.
I can only repeat myself: Ultimately it's about finding people for certain
tasks. I simply don't think that this has anything to do with Haiku Inc. And
your GSoC 2006/2007 example supports my position.
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
