Forum OpenACS Q&A: Response to Priorities, Roles, and the future of OpenACS
Posted by
Don Baccus
on 07/14/01 04:22 AM
Let me make it clear that I don't view the "gang of four" or the "despotism of two" to be a static, unchangeable description of the leadership structure of openacs.org. I expect more folks to work their way into every increasing roles of responsibility. It wouldn't bother me in the least if I could duck the role in a year or so without causing disruption to the community and project. I might not do so, but it would be great to know that I *could* do so without throwing a monkey-wrench into the plans of others in that sort of time frame.
<p>
Talli has hit upon the path I favor, though:
<p><blockquote><i>
I volunteered Musea to rebuild openacs.org for the similar reasons. We want to be recognized as another leader in the community and in order to
convince clients of how OpenACS works we can't send them to the current embarrassment (I think it's fair to call what we have pretty embarrassing
considering the power of our software). I think that if and when we fulfill our promise it will be reasonable for us to ask for more decision making
power in the direction of the community (not that we don't have it now) since we're willing to sacrifice significant time, energy and money to not just
benefit ourselves but everyone who currently and in the future use OpenACS. </i></blockquote>
In other words, I like the "one earns one's leadership position" model, myself.
<p>Yes, Talli, Jerry's done a lot of OpenACS-related work, though as of yet I can't call it OpenACS work because he's not working with us.
<p> Ironically, if he had worked with us from the beginning and hadn't started down this path of trying to yank partial control of the project into his own hands by circuitous efforts to formalize the organization, I'd undoubtably be trying to delegate so much stuff in his direction that he wouldn't be able to keep up.
<p>Let me emphasize something I said in one of my earlier posts:
<p>I do believe the time will come when we will have to formalize the structure of OpenACS. It's not the time and frankly, one doesn't do it in order to settle issues of leadership but rather one does it to enable the organization to accept money, own copyrights, buy servers, etc. It makes organizational life harder, not easier - but at the same time it makes certain things possible that are legally impossible if you don't take this step.
<p>I hope we get there and, when we do, I'll be the among the first to suggest it. Actually, I have once or twice in the past, privately, in the context of suggesting that a certain software company near Central Square ought to partially fund our project.
<p>So I'm not opposed to formalism per se. I'm just opposed to doing it in order to dilute my role in the organization. If that motive were taken off the table, I'd still argue that this is not the time, but that's a different sort of discussion.
Not everyone who has spoken in favor of more formalism has as a motive the dilutio of my influence in the organization, and some of these folks haven't understood that this is one of Jerry's motivations for pushing the issue.
<p>So, once again ... I'm glad everything's out in the open and on the table.
<p>
Talli has hit upon the path I favor, though:
<p><blockquote><i>
I volunteered Musea to rebuild openacs.org for the similar reasons. We want to be recognized as another leader in the community and in order to
convince clients of how OpenACS works we can't send them to the current embarrassment (I think it's fair to call what we have pretty embarrassing
considering the power of our software). I think that if and when we fulfill our promise it will be reasonable for us to ask for more decision making
power in the direction of the community (not that we don't have it now) since we're willing to sacrifice significant time, energy and money to not just
benefit ourselves but everyone who currently and in the future use OpenACS. </i></blockquote>
In other words, I like the "one earns one's leadership position" model, myself.
<p>Yes, Talli, Jerry's done a lot of OpenACS-related work, though as of yet I can't call it OpenACS work because he's not working with us.
<p> Ironically, if he had worked with us from the beginning and hadn't started down this path of trying to yank partial control of the project into his own hands by circuitous efforts to formalize the organization, I'd undoubtably be trying to delegate so much stuff in his direction that he wouldn't be able to keep up.
<p>Let me emphasize something I said in one of my earlier posts:
<p>I do believe the time will come when we will have to formalize the structure of OpenACS. It's not the time and frankly, one doesn't do it in order to settle issues of leadership but rather one does it to enable the organization to accept money, own copyrights, buy servers, etc. It makes organizational life harder, not easier - but at the same time it makes certain things possible that are legally impossible if you don't take this step.
<p>I hope we get there and, when we do, I'll be the among the first to suggest it. Actually, I have once or twice in the past, privately, in the context of suggesting that a certain software company near Central Square ought to partially fund our project.
<p>So I'm not opposed to formalism per se. I'm just opposed to doing it in order to dilute my role in the organization. If that motive were taken off the table, I'd still argue that this is not the time, but that's a different sort of discussion.
Not everyone who has spoken in favor of more formalism has as a motive the dilutio of my influence in the organization, and some of these folks haven't understood that this is one of Jerry's motivations for pushing the issue.
<p>So, once again ... I'm glad everything's out in the open and on the table.
