Fwd: Defining a Governance model for OpenRefine
Martin Magdinier
From: Martin Magdinier <martin.m...@gmail.com>
Date: 2014-04-20 11:53 GMT-04:00
Subject: Defining a Governance model for OpenRefine
To: Tom Morris <tfmo...@gmail.com>, Thad Guidry <thadg...@gmail.com>, David Huynh <dfh...@gmail.com>, Iain Sproat <iains...@gmail.com>
- defined responsability within the community
- defined a way to work together and find consensus.
- provide visibility for new person willing to join or help the project.
- Have a official 2.6 version (we are in beta since October 2013)
- Clear the pull request queue (16 pull request are currently pending and might turn potential / current contributor away)
- Some architecture questions are open in the dev discussion list but remain pending since we don't have a clear decision model
- Define a way to work with bountysource
Martin Magdinier
Subject: Re: Defining a Governance model for OpenRefine
To: Thad Guidry <thadg...@gmail.com>
Cc: David Huynh <dfh...@gmail.com>, Iain Sproat <iains...@gmail.com>, Tom Morris <tfmo...@gmail.com>
Please do. (we are a bit Lazy...but busy!)Thanks for putting this together Martin !On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Martin Magdinier <martin.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
Using the lazy consensus model I will go ahead with points listed in my previous email over the weekend.
Martin
On Apr 21, 2014 10:02 AM, "Martin Magdinier" <martin.m...@gmail.com> wrote:It is nice to have this discussion opening up. I think the question behind Thad bounty proposal and my governance model is how do we put some fuel back in OpenRefine engine and make this moving ahead.
Thad think that bounty will attract more contributor (or invite current one to spend more time on the project) when I think a clear governance will help us to have more committers to merge pull request and help with new release.
I'd like to make a couple of comment from what I've read in this thread
Bounty model
Moving the bounty reference out of the governance make sense, so we don't give it too much weight. Direction on how to use bounty within OpenRefine community can be explained separatly in the wiki or a blog post.
I still think bounty are a great to have a transparent and effective way to fund development and drive community interest for bug fix and development. Bounty can be set up for bug fix and foundraising campaing for new feature.
Governance document
In answer to Tom, we state no where that we are operating based on a meritocratic model. This might be obvious for us but not for new contributors. Moreover I think developer like Pablo Moyano, Sergio Fernández or Massimo Imparato (as recent active contributors) spent time learning refine code for their own project. They actively participated through the discussion list and pull request but we never promote them or give them more room in the project. They might be interested becoming committers.
Having a public and open governance model will clarify things and help new contributors to understand what they can expect from us and what we are expecting from them.
Project Direction
In the vision section of the governance document, I pulled comment I found in the wiki or mailing list. I'm feeling too that we are missing a clear direction for OpenRefine and what we want it to be.
This is a discussion we should have in the rest of community. We can update the vision section of the governance doc based on the result of this open discussion.
Next Step
I can
- clean up the governane model based on your comment
- summarize this discussion in a blog post / email on the dev discussion list
- open the conversation with the rest of the community on bounty usage, governance and project direction.
Let me know your thoughts
PS: Tom, I will dig up the discussion list for architecture discussion that I think was pending.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Thad Guidry <thadg...@gmail.com> wrote:On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Tom Morris <tfmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Thad Guidry <thadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
The bounty system and how it works, should not really be a part of the governance document...I agree with that.I would just rephrase it to say that the OpenRefine committers wiill accept bounties for feature enhancements or to work on issues that users find important and want to fund development.I don't see accepting bounties as a requirement for OpenRefine committers. They provide the horsepower that makes the engine run, so they should be free to decide whether they work for bounties or joy or the whim of the day.Sorry, didn't mean to say it THAT way... then guess no mention of the word "bounty" in the governance document.--
--