Forum OpenACS Q&A: OpenACS Governance

Posted by defunct defunct on
Don, and all,

I've been following the (extensive) discussions about the dotLRN governance issues etc...and its all very interesting.

NB: Just to make it clear I have no opinions or comments to make on the dotLRN stuff. We neither make much use of it nor have any vested interest in its progression (other than dotWRK is our label ;). As I think Don's pointed out its a separate effort from OACS

Having said that, it seems to me that the reason there's so much cuffufle around the issue is that OpenACS lacks any clear governance of its own.
The best way to ensure no negative side effects from things like dotLRN is to have our own, clear, governance rules that organisations such as MIT/SLOAN etc would then have to respect as part of their own efforts

Its a good idea to have one anyway!

So I'd like to suggest (and I know we've discussed this before Don) that OpenACS looks to formalise its structure somewhat and perhaps create our own governance rules.

I suspect our requirements are slightly different in that the core ACS is primarily a general purpose development driven effort.

I can think of a number of issuse however that it might address i.e.

  • Who can change code?
  • Who makes the final design decisions where there is contention?
  • How we organise submission, solicited or otherwise?
  • How we ensure Quality (definately with a captial Q).

    I guess from my perspective I'd also like to see some kind of formalisation of the community. i.e. a foundation (or whatever the American equivalent is.)

    Is there any agreement that this is worth pursuing? I feel that once we have our own structure in place, the community in general can feel more secure its future (in a form eveyone accepts) is assured.

    (and of course we'll contribute to any such effort)

    Cheers all.... Simon

  • Collapse
    Posted by Don Baccus on
    About a year ago I said "I think we're probably a year or so away from needing to or being able to do something like form a foundation".

    Well, I'm sure I didn't say those *exact* words but that's the gist of my thinking last year when governance was heatedly debated.

    Here we are a year later ... and I think I agree with the need but I'm really uncertain about the "being able to" part.

    We're a larger community and have more talent available than we did a year ago.  Not just technical talent, either.  So maybe the right people to pull something together are here and have time ... but maybe not.

    My personal preference would be to hold off serious discussion until we get 4.6 out next month, to avoid losing focus.

    Posted by defunct defunct on
    Sounds good to me. It'll also give everyone a chance to think carefully about what they'd like to see and so forth, before we have a lively debate..

    I'll revisit when the 4.6 is nearer.

    Posted by Neophytos Demetriou on
    I'll revisit when the 4.6 is nearer.
    I will respect the 4.6 timeline but I want to say that I plan to post a proposal on the OpenACS Governance issue.
    Posted by defunct defunct on
    Its good to get all input... looking forward to it