Ubuntu Governance: Reboot?

Wed Nov 19 13:15:36 UTC 2014

As this is an open source community we need to remember something, people
scratch their own itch. This, meaning that people will contribute to the
areas the like the most, where they can use the skills they have to benefit
the most.

Where does this drive us? I do not believe Canonical is scratching their
own itch. They are helping areas where the itch is not being scratched so
everything os fully ready for the release.

--
José Antonio Rey
On Nov 19, 2014 8:10 AM, "Vincent JOBARD" <vinzjobard at gmail.com> wrote:

> @scott
>
> I think that they have to drive the strategic and business part of the
> ecosystem but with help from the community. Decision will be good or bad,
> we have to have the opportunity to say what we think about it, but we need
> to clarify what scope they will drive and what scope the Community will
> drive for a clear governance.
>
> Cheers
>
> Le mer. 19 nov. 2014 13:13, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
>> Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
>> mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team
>>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
> Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/attachments/20141119/e8edb0ae/attachment-0001.html>