[Foundation-discuss] Foundation Update
Daria Phoebe Brashear
dariaphoebe@your-file-system.com
Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:12:27 -0400
--001a113f2516bb5b4c0531037d58
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Stephan Wiesand <stephan.wiesand@desy.de>
wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> On Apr 18, 2016, at 17:06 , Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>
> > On 4/18/2016 9:03 AM, Dave Botsch wrote:
> >> =C2=A7 Release Managers
> >>
> >>
> >> The OpenAFS Release Managers, or Gatekeepers,
> >
> > David,
> >
> > 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.
>
>
I've said so, as well, for other reasons, but it seems like I am just
bashing my head against a wall.
So I stopped.
> 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.
>
>
hence the past tense reference, and the reference to board members who "are
today".
> > 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?
>
>
gatekeepers were a subset of elders by nominal charter of the elders. like
anything else, the right could
be renounced. he did.
> > Security Officers were appointed by Gatekeepers and report to the
> > Gatekeepers. Security decisions are not made outside of the technical
> > direction of the project.
> >
> > 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
(not)
> still an Elder but
(and)
> 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?
>
Well, obviously there is activity being led by not-Jeff, so, "was"
>
> > A Release
> > Manager has the discretion to bring bug fixes and features onto a stabl=
e
> > 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.
>
Concur.
>
> > 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
> >
> > Gatekeepers
> > |
> > --Elders
> > | |
> > | Foundation Board committee
> > |
> > --Security Officers
> > |
> > --Release Managers
> > |
> > --Testers
> > |
> > --Binary builders
>
> I'm having serious problems with that chart.
>
>
i have problems with it, too, but perhaps not the same ones.
> 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 u=
p
> here at all.
>
>
we failed to properly assign succession. we became moribund without ever
technically dissolving ourselves. still, we are dead. D E D dead.
In addition, it was my perception that before this the Gatekeepers reported
> to the Elders,
> not the other way around.
>
>
we inverted that model during the lifetime of the elders, but, moot.
> 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.
>
it was to the foundation, but we never did that in a manner which would
hold up in court, alas. hopefully it never matters.
>
> > The OpenAFS Foundation and its Board does not report into this hierarch=
y
> > 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 t=
o
> > use the "OpenAFS" registered mark which is property of IBM, it must be
> > noted that the OpenAFS Foundation's powers are limited.
> >
> > * The Foundation does not own the OpenAFS source code, documentation
> > or other intellectual property.
>
> Who does? The gatekeeper?
>
That was a flaw with the model we had. No one. The code was owned by the
contributor and subject to
the license they assigned. So, you can't take your ball and go home,
because you agreed to assign the rights you did
But it's still your code.
>
> > * The Foundation does not own nor manage the development
> > infrastructure including Git, Gerrit, web, mail, rt, buildbot, ...
>
> Who does? The gatekeeper?
>
the people who own the hardware and volunteer to run them, which was
effectively Jeff Hutzelman and Chaskiel Grundman; now it's also MIT.
none have been compensated for it, ever.
>
> > * 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.
It's true. You have resources which are being provided out of the
generosity of others. You rely on them to continue to be so,
and they have and probably will, but it's the truth.
> 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.
>
Then you buy resources and you do as you please with them. For a $0 outlay,
you're currently getting a very good deal, albeit not perfect.
>
> 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 t=
he
> foundation. All my hope for the future of OpenAFS would be lost.
>
...
>
> OpenAFS obviously needs changes to survive. Including changes in
> governance. Urgently.
>
>
You need to understand what OpenAFS *is* before you can decide what is
going to change... as well as what it isn't.
--=20
Daria Phoebe Brashear
AuriStor, Inc
dariaphoebe.com
--001a113f2516bb5b4c0531037d58
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Stephan Wiesand <span dir=3D"ltr"><=
<a href=3D"mailto:stephan.wiesand@desy.de" target=3D"_blank">stephan.wiesan=
d@desy.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Jeffrey,=
<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
On Apr 18, 2016, at 17:06 , Jeffrey Altman wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 4/18/2016 9:03 AM, Dave Botsch wrote:<br>
>> =C2=A7 Release Managers<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> The OpenAFS Release Managers, or Gatekeepers,<br>
><br>
> David,<br>
><br>
> As we have discussed privately many times before, the term "Gatek=
eeper"<br>
> and "Elder" have special meanings within the OpenAFS communi=
ty dating<br>
> back to the formation of the unincorporated association.<br>
<br>
</span>I agree on the terminology used in Dave's mail being problematic=
at best.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I've said so, as well, for other r=
easons, but it seems like I am just bashing my head against a wall.<br><br>=
</div><div>So I stopped.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Your reply is confusing me even more though.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
> Elders can be thought of as non-technical board members much as the<br=
>
> OpenAFS Foundation Board members are today.<br>
<br>
</span>I thought there are no more OpenAFS Elders.<br>
<span class=3D""><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>hence the past=
tense reference, and the reference to board members who "are today&qu=
ot;.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
> Gatekeepers can be thought of as C* level officers who not only are<br=
>
> responsible for day-to-day operations, technical direction, contract<b=
r>
> negotiations, staff supervision, etc.<br>
<br>
</span>Let's keep in mind that there's only a single gatekeeper lef=
t - you.<br></blockquote><div>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
">
>=C2=A0 Gatekeepers are also Elders.<br>
<br>
How does that match the fact that you stepped down as an Elder but remained=
a Gatekeeper?<br>
<span class=3D""><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>gatekeepers we=
re a subset of elders by nominal charter of the elders. like anything else,=
the right could<br></div><div>be renounced. he did.<br></div><div>=C2=A0<b=
r></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
> Security Officers were appointed by Gatekeepers and report to the<br>
> Gatekeepers.=C2=A0 Security decisions are not made outside of the tech=
nical<br>
> direction of the project.<br>
><br>
> Release Managers were appointed by Gatekeepers and report to the<br>
> Gatekeepers.<br>
<br>
</span>I note the use of past tense in both statements, as opposed to the s=
tatements above. So a Gatekeeper is </blockquote><div><br></div><div>(not)<=
br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">still an Elder but </bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>(and)<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">no longer appoints Security Officers or Release Managers?</blockquo=
te><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D""><br>
>=C2=A0 Release Managers have responsibility for a specific<br>
> release branch.=C2=A0 In particular the stable branches.=C2=A0 The dev=
elopment<br>
> branch (aka "master") was controlled by the "Gatekeeper=
s".<br>
<br>
</span>Was?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, obviously there is ac=
tivity being led by not-Jeff, so, "was"<br>=C2=A0<br></div><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D""><br>
>=C2=A0 A Release<br>
> Manager has the discretion to bring bug fixes and features onto a stab=
le<br>
> branch only after the feature is approved of and merged into the<br>
> repository on the "master" branch.=C2=A0 The "master&qu=
ot; branch represents the<br>
> future direction of the project.<br>
<br>
</span>These are indeed the boundary conditions as perceived by myself rega=
rding my activity as a Release Manager. I never considered myself a Gatekee=
per.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Concur.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D""><br>
> Below the Release Managers are the Testing and Binary Builder position=
s.<br>
<br>
</span>That's news to me, but it doesn't matter.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
> In summary the hierarchy is<br>
><br>
>=C2=A0 Gatekeepers<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 |<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 --Elders<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 |=C2=A0 |<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 |=C2=A0 Foundation Board committee<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 |<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 --Security Officers<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 |<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 --Release Managers<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 --Testers<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 --Binary builders<br>
<br>
</span>I'm having serious problems with that chart.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>i have problems with it, too, but perh=
aps not the same ones.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
To begin with, to my knowledge the Council of Elders disbanded itself, afte=
r you resigned from it. Thus it's surprising to see the Elders show up =
here at all.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>we failed to properly assign successio=
n. we became moribund without ever technically dissolving ourselves. still,=
we are dead. D E D dead.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In addition, it was my perception that before this the Gatekeepers reported=
to the Elders,<br>
not the other way around.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>we inverted that model during the life=
time of the elders, but, moot.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
:1ex">
Unfortunately I have no idea what the Council of Elders intended to give wa=
y to. I really hope it was not you as the sole Gatekeeper.<br></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>it was to the foundation, but we never did that in a ma=
nner which would hold up in court, alas. hopefully it never matters. <br></=
div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D""><br>
> The OpenAFS Foundation and its Board does not report into this hierarc=
hy<br>
> and it is expected that the Board will take responsibility for raising=
<br>
> money and spending those funds to support the developer and end user<b=
r>
> community.=C2=A0 Although the OpenAFS Foundation has an agreement with=
IBM to<br>
> use the "OpenAFS" registered mark which is property of IBM, =
it must be<br>
> noted that the OpenAFS Foundation's powers are limited.<br>
><br>
> * The Foundation does not own the OpenAFS source code, documentation<b=
r>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0or other intellectual property.<br>
<br>
</span>Who does? The gatekeeper?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That w=
as a flaw with the model we had. No one. The code was owned by the contribu=
tor and subject to<br></div><div>the license they assigned. So, you can'=
;t take your ball and go home, because you agreed to assign the rights you =
did<br><br></div><div>But it's still your code.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D""><br>
> * The Foundation does not own nor manage the development<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0infrastructure including Git, Gerrit, web, mail, rt, build=
bot, ...<br>
<br>
</span>Who does? The gatekeeper?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>the pe=
ople who own the hardware and volunteer to run them, which was effectively =
Jeff Hutzelman and Chaskiel Grundman; now it's also MIT.<br></div><div>=
none have been compensated for it, ever.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D""><br>
> * The Foundation neither has the ability to grant nor remove<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0permissions that individuals have in the aforementioned<br=
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0infrastructure.<br>
<br>
</span>I really hope that's not true. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
It's true. You have resources which are being provided out of the gener=
osity of others. You rely on them to continue to be so,<br></div><div>and t=
hey have and probably will, but it's the truth.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">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 pe=
rmissions to actually get something done.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><d=
iv>Then you buy resources and you do as you please with them. For a $0 outl=
ay, you're currently getting a very good deal, albeit not perfect.<br>=
=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
The org chart as outlined by you above would make you the one and only pers=
on to take important decisions in the project, and tie the hands of the fou=
ndation.=C2=A0 All my hope for the future of OpenAFS would be lost.<br></bl=
ockquote><div><br>...<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
OpenAFS obviously needs changes to survive. Including changes in governance=
. Urgently.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You need to understand =
what OpenAFS *is* before you can decide what is going to change... as well =
as what it isn't.<br><br></div></div><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_sig=
nature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span><div><div dir=3D"ltr">Daria Phoebe Brashear<=
br></div><div>AuriStor, Inc<br></div><div><a href=3D"http://dariaphoebe.com=
" target=3D"_blank">dariaphoebe.com</a><br><br></div></div></span></div></d=
iv>
</div></div>
--001a113f2516bb5b4c0531037d58--