Itowns Governance evolution proposal by Oslandia - take 1

[vpicavet]

This is a proposal for a more open governance, which would better correspond to a community project, and the criteria for an open project of OpenSource foundations like OSGeo.

I kept as much as possible of the previous organization, but inverted the decision process to be bottom-up instead of top-down, while keeping a sponsor committee with an indirect but effective operational power, processing decisions on funding and resource allocations ( and an extra right to veto, as discussed earlier ).

Consider this a proposal that feeds the discussion, not necessarily a final text, as there are most probably items to be explained with more details.

[alavenant]

Thank you for this valuable initiative. We greatly appreciate the time you've invested in improving the project's governance structure. Your expertise in Open Source is highly valued, and your insights are always welcome.
We apologize for the delayed response. Now that we're actively engaged with this matter, we're committed to maintaining more timely and fluid communication moving forward.

We are largely in agreement with your suggestions, though we believe a few adjustments would enhance both governance efficiency and daily collaboration, particularly regarding the current team size. Once we are able to finalize these details together, we plan to update our governance structure accordingly.

Fusion of PSC / PC

Past experiences in the itowns project have shown that limiting communication to developers can be detrimental. The current Project Committee (PC) and Project Steering Committee (PSC) structure provides an effective framework to address these concerns and support project growth. However, the project is currently in a critical growth phase where we believe a focused, compact leadership team is essential. We think this team should integrate both technical leadership (core developers) and strategic oversight (sponsors' representatives). Therefore, we suggest merging the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and PC committees, combining selected core contributors with PC members. A separation in two committes can still be re-evaluated once the team grows.

Furthermore, we think we should grant this merged committee a veto power, as currently outlined in the Steering Committee roles. While this power should be exercised judiciously, we believe it's crucial for maintaining clear direction and strong leadership during this critical phase of development.

Contribute with funds

o Your proposal : “Contribute an amount equivalent of a full-time annual commitment for one year to the project ( funding or resources ) ”
o We support the proposal to enable financial contributions from sponsors, which aligns with our objectives for the coming years. However, before we can incorporate this into our governance structure, we need to establish the appropriate legal framework, specifically by creating a dedicated legal entity for the project. If you are willing to take the initiative in establishing a foundation or other suitable organizational structure to facilitate funding contributions, we would welcome your leadership in this matter.

[vpicavet]

Regarding the following, I guess I have not been clear enough previously, and sorry also for the delay.

• We support the proposal to enable financial contributions from sponsors, which aligns with our objectives for the coming years. However, before we can incorporate this into our governance structure, we need to establish the appropriate legal framework, specifically by creating a dedicated legal entity for the project. If you are willing to take the initiative in establishing a foundation or other suitable organizational structure to facilitate funding contributions, we would welcome your leadership in this matter.

My proposal was actually a compromise, trying to keep things a bit balanced with your original text. But in the end, this is not what we defend : we develop community-driven opensource software, like OSGeo does. I would be able to accept a governance model which would be a compromise, but I would not be in a position to lead the effort, as it goes against our contributions principles.
Furthermore, we are not in a position where we can guarantee a full-time equivalent annual commitment to the project, given the very nature of our business model of service and our company size. If contributing, we would make efforts and do real contributions, but we cannot contractually commit to it. We would therefore contribute without the company being in any of the committees, but involve our collaborators to be core developers and PSC members if suitable. We cannot therefore lead an effort on a governance structure we could not afford to be part of.
And also I do not think establishing a new foundation specifically for itowns would be a good idea, when there are already so many of them, OSGeo being the most adapted to my mind.

[Desplandis]

Just a quick reply (currently on holiday) before letting a few more weeks slip by!

I don't think that the dual (or even triple?) representation of sponsors, core-contributors (and users at large?) is incompatible with the principles of community-driven free software. It depends on where we put the cursors between ensuring stable resources and what I'd call full openness, between developers and users representation,...

This is a classic balancing issue. In my option, we are good as long that we:

• find the right balance such as all groups are represented fairly without giving undue weight to a single group (which is unfortunately kinda the issue with the current governance)
• ensure transparent decision-making
• avoid blocking new participants (either through unrealistic conditions or other blocking mechanisms)

Which brings me to my second point. I agree with you that the "full time equivalent commitment" rule has actually deterred a lot of potential sponsors (including yourself). So I'm fully for removing it.

Finally, I agree that we should join existing foundations such as OSGeo. Not only for the visibility and legal framework but also to benefit from their advice and experience on governance and sustainability questions on FOSS projects.

P.S.: I don't think OSGeo provides a framework to manage project funding (if we accept financial contributions from sponsors) so we'll have to create our own organization...

[vpicavet]

If you want to join OSGeo ( and specifically OSGeo, rules are different elsewhere) as an official project, you have to be a community-driven project, which is not compatible with the governance model you propose with different groups and especially a "product manager" group. You will have to make a choice. Other projects have been refused incubation because of their governance model ( e.g. Rasdaman ).

This is exactly what I say from day 0, and being an OSGeo member for more almost 20 years now, I guess I had time to get advice and experience on governance and sustainability questions of OpenSource project.s

That said, governance by resources can (and should) be used to drive projects priorities in coordination with user's needs, but without having to mess with the actual project governance. There may even be an organization to coordinate efforts of resources, but it has to be external to the project's governance rules. OSGeo accepts financial contributions, but not targeted donations, neither QGIS.org for example. Targeted funding is managed out of projects.

Also, but this is my own opinion, at this stage of project development such an organization is too complex and more of a blocker than an enabler.

[vpicavet]

Just a note : there is a difference between "OSGeo Community projects" and "OSGeo projects". Community projects do not have to follow the strict rules of OSGeo projects, and do not go through incubation. But it also has less value as it does not guarantee users the level of quality, security and openness of OSGeo projects. You can see the difference at the bottom of this page : https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/incubation/

[jailln]

Thanks for these valuable discussions, we'll reassess your propositions and our governance model to make it simpler (less commitees), more community driven, with the aim of promoting the integration of new contributors. We'll try to be quick but there might be a little lag due to holidays..