An Update on Forming the Foundation
David Recordon
actual organization and seeding membership in OWF.
Last week Scott retained Ater Wynne (http://www.aterwynne.com/) in
Portland, OR to create the bylaws for OWF and do all of the filing for
the 501(c)3. They helped to create the Open Source Development Labs
and the OpenID Foundation, so certainly have a background in what
we're needing to do. We're starting to work off of the bylaws of the
Apache Software Foundation (http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html)
and making small changes such as to allow for fully electronic voting.
We're working working on getting the actual Foundation together as
fast as possible so that we can have a member elected board and start
moving away from just a few of us working on stuff like this. In the
interim, DeWitt Clinton and I will serve as the two board members just
to get the paperwork filed with the state of Oregon.
We've also been working on seeding the initial OWF membership with the
idea being to seed membership with people who have already
demonstrated commitment to the OWF's principles. Ben, DeWitt, Eran,
Scott, and I have been using the following criteria when looking for
the initial seed members:
Qualifiers (at least 2):
1. Helped build a successful open specification community.
2. Has been the primary author or editor of an open specification.
3. Has worked on developing IPR policies or foundation bylaws.
4. Has directly impacted the adoption of open specifications.
Future Commitments (willing to make at least 2):
1. Create and facilitate OWF bylaws.
2. Create and facilitate OWF IPR policies.
3. Act as active ambassador to other foundations and organizations.
4. Mentor a specification through OWF incubation.
From this set of criteria we've come up the the following list of seed
members (and yes, we realize they are all white males mainly from the
USA but haven't come up with a way to fix this yet):
- Alex Russell
- Ben Laurie
- Chris Messina
- David Recordon
- DeWitt Clinton
- Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Gabe Wachob
- John Panzer
- Scott Kveton
Please remember that it is *not* at all necessary to be a member to
participate. Editors and contributors will make up the majority of
people contributing to projects within OWF and at least initially the
majority might not be members. Following the ASF model, members will
be those who have made a clear, long-term commitment to the
Foundation. Of course, right now, we can't actually find such people,
but we have to bootstrap somehow, so the idea is that seed members are
the closest approximation we can get to that: i.e. those who have
worked on open specs and have tried to improve the IPR position (and
been frustrated by both the time taken and the end result). We don't
anticipate this being a really long list, but we'd like to see it grow
through active participation once we get under way, and during the
formation process.
So, who are we missing that meets the criteria to be a seed member? I
know there are a lot of people who care about what we're all trying to
do, though they must also be willing to really directly help make OWF
successful to meet the criteria to be a seed member.
Any other questions?
Thanks,
--David
shawnee c
But as things come together, having some kind of conceptual map of specifics might be a good idea. The projects in the OSS directory @ zentu.net are also organized by functionality which might be useful if specific issues come up regarding some facet of a specification (or a potential specification). I was already thinking of adding a section relevant to the issue of IPR for future projects (e.g. "maximizing X when building your own Y") as a lightweight guide for people who might want to build / share their own projects at the site in the future. Something along the lines of "well if you're building a project from scratch this is a good way to simultaneously preserve your own IP while sharing the intangible benefits of it with the community." So such a section would be a good place for reference to the OWF or the principles of the OWF -- I'm thinking of it as a kind of tying together the whole conceptual puzzle.
I guess a question is: are the "bylaws" and "policy" in the second list being or going to be created with existing projects in mind, or for future unwritten projects? I'm attempting to understand how it might be beneficial to both from an implementation standpoint. It'll likely be much more difficult to write them for the ones that already exist, though I don't see harm in attempting to work with what's already been done. Though, of course, it could be really fun to attempt the "holy grail" of specs for that yet unwritten project, upon which all future specs could be based . . . just to see if it could be done. :)
- Shawnee
Stephen Paul Weber
> USA but haven't come up with a way to fix this yet):
May I just say that I feel that "fix this" is a poor choice of words?
Equal opportunity means if people of different ethnicities, genders,
backgrounds, nationalities, etc are *suited* for the position, that
you take them no easier or harder than anyone else. It *does not*
mean that if you find less qualified people of another group that you
should let them in anyway to "appear balanced".
I know that's probably not what you meant, but it may have been taken
that way from the wording (yes, I'm being pedantic).
--
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
Please see <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted.
Ben Laurie
I hope that we will not compromise the policies in order to acommodate
existing projects. Obviously it would be nice if it turns out that
some of them could adopt our policies once we've finalised them,
though.
David Recordon
--David
chris....@gmail.com
being off topic, but I don't think I can take your rebuttal at face
value, Stephen, until original opportunities such as exceeding
education are more widely distributed. I'm all for inclusivity based
on merit, but in examining the privileges and doorways that have been
opened for me *not* based on merit, I think there's yet an opportunity
to reach beyond superficial characteristics and offer education,
effort and inreach to ensure that the best and most have the
opportunities to compete on merit in the first place.
It isn't so much that "white males" need to be "fixed" but that the
non-merit based aspects of the system that favor that demographic are
moved to favor all demographics more evenly.
</rant>
Chris
--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
Open Source Advocate-at-Large
factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
Jonathan Vanasco
people on that list are not in the Bay Area.
I'm not saying this for any reason other than that current makeup
looks largely insular to the SF region -- and there are some great
tech corridors and open source projects rooted in Boston, NY, DC/VA,
Austin... not to mention Europe, Australia and the non-english
speaking regions.
Simon Phipps
As a European who watches global open source trends, I strongly agree.
Having said that, I'm not sure I'd be eligible - can non-Americans
serve on a US non-profit board?
S.
Geir Magnusson
David Recordon
I completly agree which is what I was trying to say in my initial
email. The problem is that we don't know others who meet the criteria
that will make them a great seed member to get OWF as an organization
off the ground. I certainly hope to see a very diverse group of
contributors get involved and then overtime become members as well.
If you know other people that meet the criteria, I'd love to hear
about them.
--David
On Aug 6, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Jonathan Vanasco <jona...@findmeon.com>
wrote:
Ian Lawrence
Since we are talking about geographic dispersion I might as well chime in.
I am English and I have been living and working for the past 9 years
in open source in Manaus in the Amazon .
There are a number of interesting things happening here regarding open
source, including the local Debian Users Group and ESLAM (Encontro
Software Livre in Amazonas). This attracted nearly 2000 people and we
even had 'Mad Dog' Hall and George Grieve from fsf Europe as
presenters.!
Things here are getting much more attention now from the outside world
(after Nokia set up their factory and Research Centre). Nokia were
working originally on the OPAM kernel but now do mainly Python stuff
for the N8xx range.
The problem was initially of course finding people with the necessary
skills here , by this I mean technical and language ones. Social
skills are of course *not* in short supply
The other thing that is not lacking here is education. Almost all
young people strive to educate themselves and this is the first thing
they think about after ensuring that they and their family have enough
food for the week. The problem is that the quality of education is
low...no books, no computers, generator power at night and so on. The
thing that strikes me is that even given these conditions the desire
is incredible. You can be pretty certain that a guy who brings his
whole family in a canoe along the river at night for a lesson will do
the best he can to learn and better his conditions.
IMO these are the people who will ultimately benefit from an open web
and I imagine that they are counting on you guys to do the best you
can for them, wherever you might happen to come from
Ian
Ben Laurie
Sure can. I served on the board of the ASF for years. Note, BTW, its a
list of seed members :-)
But, just like other forms of positive discrimination, the pool of
people who are suitable is self-determining - we can't co-opt
non-BayAreans unless they choose to participate.
>
> S.
>
>
> >
>
Jonathan Vanasco
Unfortunately I don't off the top of my head. I think thats more of a
chicken&egg situation from this whole industry. SF has become the de-
facto nexus -- which is great that so many people are able to meet up
and collaborate -- but it also serves as a sort of 'dictator' setting
the stage for everyone else.
Again, very personally speaking - I'd suggest setting up some sort of
quorum, where no more than 1/2 of the members can be from any one
geographic area... keep the list as-is as things start up -- but
actively search and recruit from other regions/points of view and not
add any more -- even deserving -- people to the rolls until you can
balance with other areas. Otherwise, you're going to keep
perpetuating the SF-Centrism of everything - which would be really
troubling for something with 'open' in the title.
I've had way too many conversations with people working on standards
and projects separated by a landmass or ocean, who would constantly
complain about how all-the-work-gets-done in _____. When you're
dealing with one spec/standard, that's annoying at most. But if OWF
takes off the way you want it to , it will pretty much require people
to be in SF to have the level of participation they want.
Ben Laurie
Why? All the work is to be done online.
Eran Hammer-Lahav
When I joined the OAuth list I was living in NJ - not exactly the capital of technology. It took a lot more effort initially to influence the specification but eventually my voice got established and I was able to do as much if not more than many of the bay area folks. Let's also not forget that the bay area is one of the most diverse places in the world, with a healthy mix of races and geographical origins.
I don't want to actively search and recruit people. I want the membership to grow organically from those active in creating new and updated specifications. As long as we make sure that the most important place work gets done is online, everyone can participate equally. The IETF is an example of a broken process where all decisions are made online, BUT, much of the work is discussed and initiated offline in global events. All they have done is replaced a bay area centric community with a community of folks with enough time and money to travel a few times a year.
I am a strong believer in affirmative action but only when applied to large groups of people, say, millions. At the end, all of this will boil down to what each member is going to do with his or her own vote when electing new members and the board. But personally, I will never vote for one person over another simply because of their location, race, gender, etc. In my mind individuals practicing affirmative action end up doing the same thing as those who discriminate, no matter how good their intentions are.
So when it's time to vote, we will each make sure we pick the best candidates - whatever that may mean to you.
EHL
John Kemp
[...]
> The IETF is an example of a broken process where all
> decisions are made online, BUT, much of the work is discussed and
> initiated offline in global events. All they have done is replaced a
> bay area centric community with a community of folks with enough time
> and money to travel a few times a year.
I can think of reasons why one might think the IETF process is broken,
but the fact that they have "offline" meetings does not strike me as one
of them.
I respectfully suggest that OWF should *plan* to have such meetings in
some manner (with IRC channels and live video streaming or other such
technologies perhaps involved), and I would note that OAuth has
certainly had "offline" meetings. Unsurprisingly, but disappointingly
(for some) they seem to have been exclusively on the West coast USA.
Although such meetings excluded me by a combination of date and
location, I still think they were a good idea.
AFAIK, ASF people also occasionally meet each other face to face (at the
very least at ApacheCon) and I suspect that's a useful thing to.
I would argue that occasional f2f meetings, both on specific OWF
projects, and for the OWF board are important. If you wish for (world-)
wide involvement, the location of such meetings should not always be on
the West coast of the USA. And to ensure that the latter occurs, you
actually might want to *actively* recruit some "seed member"
representation from places other than the West coast USA. Which is not
to say that they should otherwise be unqualified in the ways described
in David's initial email.
Regards,
- johnk
John Panzer
Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: [...]The IETF is an example of a broken process where all decisions are made online, BUT, much of the work is discussed and initiated offline in global events. All they have done is replaced a bay area centric community with a community of folks with enough time and money to travel a few times a year.I can think of reasons why one might think the IETF process is broken, but the fact that they have "offline" meetings does not strike me as one of them.
This aspect of the IETF is actually pretty good I think.
Christian Crumlish
From: Christian Crumlish <xi...@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: An Update on Forming the Foundation
>
> Equal opportunity means if people of different ethnicities, genders,
> backgrounds, nationalities, etc are *suited* for the position, that
> you take them no easier or harder than anyone else. It *does not*
> mean that if you find less qualified people of another group that you
> should let them in anyway to "appear balanced".
qualified people across a wide variety of characteristics and
circumstances, but I'm sure this list doesn't want to get into a
bigger discussion about diversity, active/passive inclusivity, and so
on.
btw, been lurking since introducing myself, but am following along -
just have nothing to add (yet) that someone else hasn't already said
better.
as far as contributing time and energy, I may be best suited to help
with writing/editorial tasks....
-x-
--
Christian Crumlish http://xianlandia.com
Curator, Yahoo! Design Pattern Library http://design.yahoo.com
User Experience Evangelist, Yahoo! Developer Network http://open.yahoo.com
Director, Information Architecture Institute http://iainstitute.org
--
Christian Crumlish http://xianlandia.com
Yahoo! pattern detective http://design.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Developer Network evangelist http://open.yahoo.com
IA Institute director of technology http://iainstitute.org
DeWitt Clinton
Accounts can be created for arbitrary email addresses here:
https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount
That said, I can manually add your @pobox.com address if you'd like.
Cheers,
-DeWitt
Singpolyma
> Please remember that it is *not* at all necessary to be a member to
> participate. Editors and contributors will make up the majority of
> people contributing to projects within OWF and at least initially the
> majority might not bemembers. Following the ASF model,memberswill
> be those who have made a clear, long-term commitment to the
> Foundation. Of course, right now, we can't actually find such people,
> but we have to bootstrap somehow, so the idea is thatseedmembersare
> the closest approximation we can get to that: i.e. those who have
> worked on open specs and have tried to improve the IPR position (and
> been frustrated by both the time taken and the end result). We don't
> anticipate this being a really long list, but we'd like to see it grow
> through active participation once we get under way, and during the
> formation process.
>