Fwd: Gnome Foundation Charter

[Bart Decrem <bart eazel com>]

hi everyone,

here are some thoughtful comments I wanted to share with you.

bart

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Gnome Foundation Charter
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:33:43 -0500
From: Linas Vepstas <linas@linas.org>
To: bart@eazel.com, grib@gnumatic.com
CC: linas@linas.org


Hi Bart,

Bill Gribble showed me your draft charter for the gnome foundation.
Since I'd be the one writing a check, if any, for a Gnumatic corporate
membership, I felt like I should get a few words in.  I like what
I see, seems well done.  A few comments:

The question of 'why is a gnome foundation needed?' isn't ever clearly
asked, and is answered only indirectly in the section 'task of the
foundation' section.  I think you need to ask and answer this question
first, before you even adress many of the 'spiritual' ideas.

Section 'Tasks of the foundation'  might be better called
'responsibilites of the foundation'.   It may fail to accomplish its
tasks, but at least its responsible for them.

Section 'Tasks of the foundation', I'd suggest listing 'Releasing Gnome'
and 'disbursing cash' last instead of first.  I can't put my finger on
it, but my gut said 'huh?' when I read these, and it didn't start
gelling until 'public image' and 'point of contact'.  (and 'direction
and
vision').  Only after that would I say 'oh yeah, and coordinating
release schedules'.

'we need a mission statement'.  May I dutifully point out that 
the sections labelled 'public image', 'poiint of contact', 'direction 
and vision'  already pretty much state what a mission statement would
say.


'letter of the law' vs. 'spirit of the law'  At the begnining, you 
state 'letter of the law' refers to Tasks...  In fact, the 'letter of
the law' is spelled out II. Basic Structure and Operations, and in II,
IV, etc.

Q:'How does standards definition really work?' A: most of them don't.

I suggest that the board of directors delegate all decisions about
technology to the advisory board  (the board of directors retains
control over all basic proceedures, the funds, the PR campaign,
legalities, trademarks, brand certification, etc.)

It may be that the advisory board is not appropriate for tech issues, in
which case the charter should create a 'technical advisory board' or
'architecture review board'.  The board of directors does not have the
right to override any technical decisions made by the arch. review board
(although it has the right to disolve the board).  The tech review board
should have corporate members (I'm sure helixcode wants to have some
formal power) as well as some at-large members (elected by referndum).

In such a case, I'm not at all clear on why a non-technical advisory 
board is needed.  I suppose that if the board of directors is hard to 
reach, or only meets infrequently, then a non-technical advisory board 
would be good.


Standards definition only works when the members on the standards
committe are of the very highest technical calibre, with impeccable
credentials, and also do not operate with either hidden agendas, or with
explicitly corporate-centric agendas.   Standards committe members must
be technically brilliant, knowledgable in consensus building, and have
plenty of free time.  Any two of these three is not enough, and would be
a recipie for friction ending in disaster.

*All* members of the standards committee must be technically brilliant
consensus builders with free time.  Having even 1/4th of the members 
be second rate is enough to sink the whole thing (since they can cast
swing votes in the wrong direction).

The standards body should have ultimate authority on tech issues: 
the board of directors *cannot* override the standards body. They can
only dissolve it.  This prevents under-the-table dealings and improper
lobbying. 

The standards committe must also have rules for selcting members, for
voting for adoption of standards.  Membership should be by
representation.  It should be limited to no more than a dozen or so
voting members, and maybe 20-30 people in the room who have a right to
talk, to be recognized by the floor.  The meetings should be
open and allow observers, but observers have no inherent right to
interrupt the proceedings or heckle or whatever.

Attendance is *mandatory* not optional; failure to attend is grounds
for explusion.  (i.e. you shouldn't be voting on technical issues if you
don't have the time to read the spec.).  

------
I'm sure that gives you plenty to think about.  I suppose I should join
the mailing list and cc the list, but I'm under a lot of pressure at the
moment.  Feel free to cc anyone you need to.

I won't really argue about the charter, what you have seems
'good enough'.  However, I'll state that ignoring my comments about
standards commite would only imperil the efforts.   9 out of ten
standards comittees fall apart. 

Lots of luck, 
I hope the gnome foundation works out, and that my company can find some
suitable role within it.  We certainly have a real interest in having
gnome suceed.

--linas

Linas Vepstas
CEO
Gnumatic Incorporated
Developing and Supporting Gnucash and other Open Source Financial
Software