[Foundation-discuss] Foundation Update

[Stephan Wiesand]

Jeffrey,

On Apr 18, 2016, at 17:06 , Jeffrey Altman wrote:

> On 4/18/2016 9:03 AM, Dave Botsch wrote:
>> =A7 Release Managers
>>=20
>>=20
>> The OpenAFS Release Managers, or Gatekeepers,=20
>=20
> David,
>=20
> As we have discussed privately many times before, the term =
"Gatekeeper"
> and "Elder" have special meanings within the OpenAFS community dating
> back to the formation of the unincorporated association.

I agree on the terminology used in Dave's mail being problematic at =
best.

Your reply is confusing me even more though.

> Elders can be thought of as non-technical board members much as the
> OpenAFS Foundation Board members are today.

I thought there are no more OpenAFS Elders.

> Gatekeepers can be thought of as C* level officers who not only are
> responsible for day-to-day operations, technical direction, contract
> negotiations, staff supervision, etc.

Let's keep in mind that there's only a single gatekeeper left - you.

>  Gatekeepers are also Elders.

How does that match the fact that you stepped down as an Elder but =
remained a Gatekeeper?

> Security Officers were appointed by Gatekeepers and report to the
> Gatekeepers.  Security decisions are not made outside of the technical
> direction of the project.
>=20
> Release Managers were appointed by Gatekeepers and report to the
> Gatekeepers.

I note the use of past tense in both statements, as opposed to the =
statements above. So a Gatekeeper is still an Elder but no longer =
appoints Security Officers or Release Managers?

>  Release Managers have responsibility for a specific
> release branch.  In particular the stable branches.  The development
> branch (aka "master") was controlled by the "Gatekeepers".

Was?

>  A Release
> Manager has the discretion to bring bug fixes and features onto a =
stable
> branch only after the feature is approved of and merged into the
> repository on the "master" branch.  The "master" branch represents the
> future direction of the project.

These are indeed the boundary conditions as perceived by myself =
regarding my activity as a Release Manager. I never considered myself a =
Gatekeeper.

> Below the Release Managers are the Testing and Binary Builder =
positions.

That's news to me, but it doesn't matter.

> In summary the hierarchy is
>=20
>  Gatekeepers
>    |
>    --Elders
>    |  |
>    |  Foundation Board committee
>    |
>    --Security Officers
>    |
>    --Release Managers
>        |
>        --Testers
>        |
>        --Binary builders

I'm having serious problems with that chart.

To begin with, to my knowledge the Council of Elders disbanded itself, =
after you resigned from it. Thus it's surprising to see the Elders show =
up here at all.

In addition, it was my perception that before this the Gatekeepers =
reported to the Elders,=20
not the other way around.

Unfortunately I have no idea what the Council of Elders intended to give =
way to. I really hope it was not you as the sole Gatekeeper.

> The OpenAFS Foundation and its Board does not report into this =
hierarchy
> and it is expected that the Board will take responsibility for raising
> money and spending those funds to support the developer and end user
> community.  Although the OpenAFS Foundation has an agreement with IBM =
to
> use the "OpenAFS" registered mark which is property of IBM, it must be
> noted that the OpenAFS Foundation's powers are limited.
>=20
> * The Foundation does not own the OpenAFS source code, documentation
>   or other intellectual property.

Who does? The gatekeeper?

> * The Foundation does not own nor manage the development
>   infrastructure including Git, Gerrit, web, mail, rt, buildbot, ...

Who does? The gatekeeper?

> * The Foundation neither has the ability to grant nor remove
>   permissions that individuals have in the aforementioned
>   infrastructure.

I really hope that's not true. The foundation is the last entity =
commanding any resources and intending to use them to foster OpenAFS' =
future. It must be able to appoint individuals for work on the project =
*and* grant them permissions to actually get something done.

The org chart as outlined by you above would make you the one and only =
person to take important decisions in the project, and tie the hands of =
the foundation.  All my hope for the future of OpenAFS would be lost.

OpenAFS obviously needs changes to survive. Including changes in =
governance. Urgently.

[...]
> Jeffrey Altman
> OpenAFS Gatekeeper

Sincerely,

	Stephan Wiesand
	OpenAFS Release Manager