Ubuntu Governance: Reboot?

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Nathan Haines <nhaines at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2014 08:49 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>>
>> " So, no-one is denying the openness of these boards, and I don’t
>> question the intentions or focus of the people who join and operate
>> them. They are good people who act in the best interests of Ubuntu."
>>
>> Except for maybe the Community Council? Mark Shuttleworth appoints
>> candidates for the CC.
>
>
> And why do you feel the Community Council does not act in the best interest
> of Ubuntu?  Can you cite instances where they have done so?

I did not say I do not feel the Community Council does not act in the
best interest of Ubuntu. In fact I pointed out that I feel the
Community Council is very effective at the work it does. I do feel
that Canonical limits Ubuntu Community Members participation in
decision making however and these was earlier echoed by one Community
Council member on IRC.

>
>> " What I do question is the /purpose/ and /effectiveness/ of these
>> boards."
>>
>> Why? Their purpose is to govern the participation areas of the project
>> and I think they are pretty darn effective at that.
>
>
> Because he thinks there is a lost opportunity to be more effective, as he
> explains in the rest of his post.

Right and so I think one Community Council Member eloquently responded
to that position Jono made by saying this on IRC: "the board have no
power to be inspirational and forging new directions, Canonical does"


>
>> " Over the years though Ubuntu has changed, not just in terms of the
>> product, but also the community. Ubuntu is no longer just platform
>> contributors, but there are app and charm developers, a delicate balance
>> between Canonical and community strategic direction, and a different
>> market and world in which we operate."
>>
>> I would say that there is no community strategic direction but only the
>> direction that Mark and Canonical lay out for the community.
>
>
> And that is because the community is not participating.  Which can be solved
> by greater community participation.  Which is a problem that Jono has
> identified and is advocating a solution to.

I do not think he is advocating a specific solution but instead
raising a problem which unless Mark or others at Canonical make a move
to fix cannot be. Again I refer up to the comment made by a Community
Council Member in response to Jono's blog post.

>
>> I do not think the governance boards or community at large is given much
>> opportunity or support to explore, experiment and try new things.
>
>
> If the Ubuntu developer community came together and started working on
> changes, the only way they don't get into Ubuntu is if Canonical starts
> dropping packages.  It's ludicrous to say the community at large doesn't
> have an opportunity to try new things when they're the ones doing the
> majority of the work.

Wrong, there are entire portions of the desktop, phone and cloud that
only Canonical influences production decisions on. Canonical and Mark
for that matter can decide not to accept patches. If Ubuntu Developers
decided with consensus they wanted to switch to Gnome do you honestly
think Canonical would be ok with that? Unity was not even a favorite
choice among Developers when Canonical decided on its own it was the
new Desktop Environment.

>
> This is most starkly illustrated by the Ubuntu Core Apps project that
> generated most of the useful apps that will ship as a core part of the
> default phone experience.

With guidance and hand holding from Canonical and the Design Team. If
Canonical did not like certain aspects of the Core Apps they could
advise that that wasn't going to work. Canonical controls the
technical and design aspects of these projects.

>
> If they don't feel they have the agency that they do, that is a larger
> problem and one that can be addressed top down (and other ways as well, but
> top down would be one place to start).

Top down? So start at Mark? I know of things Jono was trying to make a
case for to Mark and Jane and never happened and he probably held a
lot more weight than the average contributor. It is hard to move
things from the top down when you have a project so closely controlled
by a company and one person at the top.

>
>> " I believe we need to transform and empower these governance boards to
>> be inspirational vessels that our wider community look to for guidance
>> and leadership, not for paper-shuffling and administrivia."
>>
>> Then Canonical needs to rethink its relationship with governance and the
>> community and start empowering both and making both stakeholders.
>
>
> Yeah, someone should start a conversation like that.  Oh wait, Jono did and
> we're in it.

He started years after the problem started and is not offering any
solution but instead casting a problem and blaming the governance for
not being able to do much more then they are currently allowed to.

How is this different from when others in the past have brought up
this issue and offered the solution that Canonical just needs to start
caring, empowering and making the community a stakeholder?