Ubuntu Governance: Reboot?

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 05:49:17 AM Vincent JOBARD wrote:

> Le mer. 19 nov. 2014 05:58, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 06:02:17 PM Randall Ross  wrote:
> > > Hi Ubuntu folks!
> > > 
> > > I'd like to echo a couple of points that Jono touched upon, and also
> > > toss in a couple of (possibly) new thoughts that were either overlooked
> > > or understated in the discussion that ensued after his initial post. I'm
> > > going to keep this brief.
> > > 
> > > First, I share Jono's delight in seeing the re-ignition of lively
> > > conversation. I've been feeling for some time that the Ubuntu
> > > (non-local) world was getting "too quiet". Though the topic-at-hand was
> > > a reboot, and even if that is not ultimately pursued, at least we will
> > > have exposed some new ideas and catalyzed the discussion.
> > > 
> > > In any project that is collaborative in nature, there will be dominant
> > > collaborators (stakeholders/partners) and less-dominant ones. We should
> > > recognize that although Canonical dominates some aspects of Ubuntu.
> > > 
> > > I would also like to point out that our community is not just a
> > > contributor community. Not everyone has the time or the opportunity to
> > > contribute now. Though I wish the situation were different, I think it's
> > > a reality that we should all consider as we discuss reform. Reform must
> > > include people that do not contribute, or only marginally contribute.
> > > 
> > > That touches on another word. I alluded to it in my comments on Jono's
> > > blog, but I think it bears repeating: I think the word to keep in mind
> > > is *reform*, and not only governance. (I think Charles pointed out that
> > > governance is not the same as leadership.) I believe that if we are to
> > > *reform* Ubuntu, then governance probably isn't the best place to start.
> > > I want to see an enthusiasm-building effort kicked off as a starting
> > 
> > point.
> > 
> > > Ubuntu is certainly special, as Jono pointed out. It is also at risk.
> > > The people who want Ubuntu to succeed in a big way have the opportunity
> > > to examine the project and its goals, and then to align a community to
> > > those goals. If we don't, we will create friction and ultimately we will
> > > lose.
> > > 
> > > If you are aware of any aspect of the project that is creating friction
> > > that works against success, then I would encourage you to challenge it
> > > by example, not only words.
> > > 
> > > Finally, and this will likely not come as a surprise, I encourage
> > > everyone to get *local*. When I say local, I mean in your village, town,
> > > or city. That's where the real progress can be made. Instead of trying
> > > to boil the ocean with an overarching structure, let's make thousands of
> > > nice cups of tea :)
> > 
> > Reform implies a problem to be solved.  I've read both Jono's an your blog
> > posts more than once, and I've yet to identify an actual problem that can
> > be
> > solved by an actual proposal.
> > 
> > "Reform - we should have some" isn't a plan.  Starting off with alienating
> > existing contributors isn't so great either.

> Hi
> 
> This is my point of view about this.
> 
> As I understand, at the beginning the governance of the project Ubuntu was
> share about Canonical and the Community, the goal was to design and build a
> Linux distribution usable for non tech people.
> 
> We pass this goal long time ago and Ubuntu became something else. Now
> Ubuntu is more than OS it's an entire ecosystem who compete with the
> bigger. Ubuntu is ready for business, so it need to be innovative, and some
> strategic decisions for some products of the Ubuntu ecosystem has to be
> taken, that is what Canonical is doing right now.
> 
> But we loose contributors that believe more in our old governance where
> community and Canonical walked together hand-by-hand and who don't
> understand why Canonical take the lead on some topics.
> 
> So what we need to do is defining what is the scope of each others. What is
> the projects that Canonical has to manage helped by the community for
> strategic and business reasons (Ubuntu Unity, Ubuntu phone, Ubuntu core...)
> and what is the scope managed by the Community (dedicated flavors, tiers
> apps, ...) and write it on the paper as our new governance. So if Canonical
> wants to add a bing scope after a partnership with MS, they have the right
> to do this without critics, it has no impact on others flavors and they
> manage their flavor as they want.
> 
> What do you think guys & girls ?

It depends on if you think parts of Ubuntu are Canonical's exclusive preserve.  
As the project has been defined to date, that's not how it works.  If they want 
participation from a broader community of contributors, there's going to be 
feedback from those people.  Some of it will be positive and some of it will 
be negative.  

While Canonical may get to drive decision making in areas where they 
predominate, I don't think they get a free pass from commentary.

Scott K