Just in case I have to mention that I
*DID* contribute and I got no answers, yet, on the questions that are still puzzling my mind. Everybody, tells me how good this consortium is supposed to be. I'm not convinced yet, sorry.
If a formal governance structure is stifling to Open Source, then how come it's working for Apache?
The proposals in this thread don't even come close to Apache.
The model parallels Apache governance: "the Board retains ultimate responsibility for the foundation, it delegates decision-making authority for the technical direction of projects to the Project Management Committees."
Al, I'm sorry, I don't agree that the consortium proposals/opinions expressed in this thread much the Apache model. In fact, the board of directors of the Apache Software Foundation is selected by the foundation members, not the other way around.
Otherwise, what good is it to promote the brand when you may fear the sword will be turned against you in the future. I think Microsoft was using this tactic quite successfully, but that is just my gut impression 😊.
Right. Rules only help avoid turning a situation into a living hell but cannot make the situation a paradise. What we all ask for is that there are provisions in the consortium's governing rules that "the sword will not be turned against the OpenACS community in the future." My gut feeling tells me that there's more than what have been said in this thread. I think that Sloan should come clean with their plans and the role of the consortium in those plans.
