[Koha] Foundation conversation

[Paul Poulain]

Le 15/10/2010 02:45, DeGroff, Amy a écrit :
> Thanks to MJ Ray for starting this conversation.
>
> PTFS realizes a compromise is the only way to go here – we need to get
> all of these great minds and talents working together to form a
> foundation.
>
> Please, everybody else, chime in.

OK, I chime in then,
(will repeat & rewrite what I just sent a few minuts ago, but I didn't
saw this thread before)

the main question here, according to me, is: which rule is important? Definetly, the main (only ?) rule that should gouvern us is MERIT, not assets !

Sorry Amy, but in Free Software, assets is something useless (and, to speak frankly, if you (you=ptfs) think you've bought something worth when acquiring "koha assets", you made a mistake. The only value you've bought is customers & contracts)

I add that the meritocracy is not related to COMPANIES, it's usually related to INDIVIDUALS.
Individuals represent companies, but it's not the company itself.

Just look at what happends with with Oracle/Sun on mySQL & OpenOffice.

At OpenWorldForum last week, I was at a conference by Eclipse & Apache foundations : the bylaws are clear = individuals have a voice. Not companies. You can see them here : http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html

Specificaly, look at : http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html and the "meritocracy" chapter

For Eclipse : http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process_2010.php#2_1_Open_Source_Rules_of_Engagement and http://www.eclipse.org/membership/become_a_member/membershipTypes.php

Back to Koha =
Look at commits, druth & jane are smart ppl, but obviously not key
people (no offense here, I really appreciate them, as every dev)
In history, no one from ptfs has had a key responsability: Release
Manager, Release Maintainer, Translation Manager, Doc Manager, ... Ppl
that used to be LL employees took such responsabilities, but they are no
more at LL or involved in the community.

So, definetly, giving 40% to ptfs in a foundation seems impossible to me
(should I say silly, crazy, un-understandable? I don't want to offend
anyone with a frenchism, but you've got the idea : i'm strongly against, and don't see why it should)

Something we could do : rewind the history & imagine what would have
happend with a "apache like foundation" from the origin.

It could look like something like that: (I hope I won't forget anyone
important. In case : apologize, just did it with my memory ;-) )
2000 : board Chris, Rachel & Russel
2001 : Steve (Tonnesen) added to the board.
2002 : Paul (me) & Nicolas (Rosasco) added to the board.
2003: Steve removed, Pate Eyler added
2004: MJ Ray added. Russel removed(but still member)
2005: Stephen (Hedges) & Henri-Damien added. Nicolas removed
2006: Joshua, Owen & Pierrick Le Gall added. Rachel & Pate removed
2007: Pierrick & Stephen removed
2008: Joe (Atz), Galen & Nicole added to the board
2009: Nahuel added to the board, Joe & Joshua removed
2010: Nahuel removed

" As of today, the board is : Chris, Paul, Henri-Damien, MJ, Owen,
Galen, Nicole "

Note : I'm not proposing that the Apache structure to be exactly our.
Mainly because Koha is a tool for front-office (Apache is a tool for
back-office : techies for techies). The board should have some
librarians onboard !

-- 
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08