FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Masters Of The Universe

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-02-2009, 11:56 AM
Matthew East
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Stefan Potyra
<stefan.potyra@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
> Thanks, Mark, that's at least a clear announcement, helping me better
> understand how the Ubuntu government works in reality, and to what degree
> government bodies value the community.

Stefan, that's rather harsh.

The CC is predominantly made up of community members. Only 2 out of 8
of its members work for Canonical. Of course we value the community.
The community is the reason for us being on the Council and we
represent it. Here we took action in consultation with the DMB to
ensure that two members of the seven members of the MC didn't expire
in circumstances where the MC is not going to exist in three months.
The alternative was an election which we felt was overkill given that
there is work going on to restructure the governance system in this
area. Frankly, I think I'm right in saying that we felt that this was
an easy decision and couldn't see any serious objection.

--
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 11-02-2009, 12:44 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:00:57 +0000 Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com>
wrote:
> If the CC need to,
>we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in
>Ubuntu, and will do so.
>

Certainly the CC can (and if they can't you, as SABDFL, can). That doesn't
mean you should.

While the outcome in this case is clearly reasonable, I think some push
back about how the decision was taken is also reasonable. As nearly as I
can determine, the discussion that led to this decision was all, or nearly
all, non-public. I understand that there was some sense of urgency, but
I'm not aware of any actual need for privacy.

Transparency in governance is an essential thing for Ubuntu (IMO).
Personally, I find the lack of transparency (and the negative reaction to
calls for transparency) unfortunate at best. Many of the people involved
in Ubuntu believe that working in an open and collaborative manner to
produce software (and a Linux dostribution) is the best, most effective way
to do it. It shouldn't be suprising to find that perspective generalized
to other aspects of the project.

Scott K

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 11-02-2009, 01:05 PM
Matthew East
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Matthew East <mdke@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> The CC is predominantly made up of community members. Only 2 out of 8
> of its members work for Canonical. Of course we value the community.

P.S. I've just realised that the above could be read as meaning that
the 2 people in the CC who work for Canonical don't value the
community - that's completely incorrect, of course. Anyway, I hope you
got the point.

In response to Scott's post, I think we can take the point. I don't
think that any lack of transparency here was intentional - it just
seemed to be a very easy decision and it was more or less coincidental
that the people copied into the email chain were the MC, the CC and
the DMB - we could just as easily have copied in the motu list, and
perhaps we should have done. It just didn't occur to us, probably
because the decision seemed to be so uncontroversial.

Anyway, the decision stands and hopefully everyone can agree with
Scott that the outcome is reasonable.

--
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 11-02-2009, 01:42 PM
Mark Shuttleworth
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

Scott Kitterman wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:00:57 +0000 Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com>
wrote:


If the CC need to,
we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in
Ubuntu, and will do so.




Certainly the CC can (and if they can't you, as SABDFL, can). That doesn't
mean you should.

While the outcome in this case is clearly reasonable, I think some push
back about how the decision was taken is also reasonable. As nearly as I
can determine, the discussion that led to this decision was all, or nearly
all, non-public. I understand that there was some sense of urgency, but
I'm not aware of any actual need for privacy.

Transparency in governance is an essential thing for Ubuntu (IMO).
Personally, I find the lack of transparency (and the negative reaction to
calls for transparency) unfortunate at best. Many of the people involved
in Ubuntu believe that working in an open and collaborative manner to
produce software (and a Linux dostribution) is the best, most effective way
to do it. It shouldn't be suprising to find that perspective generalized
to other aspects of the project.




"Information is a substitute for trust".



In other words, in environments where people don't trust each other,
they tend to demand more and more information. "Who took this decision?
Why did they take this decision? What was considered in taking the
decision?" etc.



In really sick communities you will observe endless discussions about
how a decision should be taken, followed by demands that the decision
be reconsidered because someone who wasn't paying attention at the time
now feels that they were excluded from a decision. That's a sign of a
community with low trust levels, and poor ability to delegate.



Remember, governance in the Ubuntu community is delegated from the CC
(and ultimately me). We believe in having a broad strong base of talent
to handle the huge scale of Ubuntu, but that's not the same as
believing that every decision should be taken in a completely
consultative and transparent manner. Don't confuse those two! That's as
bad as confusing Ubuntu and democracy - this is an appointed
meritocracy.



We try to nominate the most competent people to the right positions and
then trust them to make decisions which bind all of us. We DON'T second
guess those decisions except in extreme cases. The various teams lead
because we trust them to lead.



This thread was a clear example of a lack of trust. My point was that
in your positions you either trust the CC, and work with it, even in
cases where it is moving faster than you, or you step aside. If you
don't trust the CC, you won't get anything done in Ubuntu.



In any event, look at the scale of the decision taken. It was about
extending *delegated authority* to two people for a short period of
time. That does not warrant an extended conversation by all the people
cc'd. Be respectful of people's time. Trust decision makers to take
decisions, and focus on the things you can do in the area of your
responsibility and competence.



Mark



--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 11-02-2009, 01:43 PM
Nicolas Valcárcel Scerpella
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

I think we are going out of focus with this, and i think here are 2
relevant ideas here:

1) This was a MUST rather than an optional desition, speaking from
myself i wouldn't volunteer myself for a position that will be dismissed
in 3 months, and if this was found as a better way from the CC, i'm ok
with that, at the end, like with country governments, be elected them to
represent ALL of us for this kind of positions, and this obviusly wasn't
a canonical or marks desition keeping in mind that Canonical employees
are the less in the CC.

2) There could be a better way to communicate this, i think it would be
less objectable if the announcement said "We decided this and we are
going to do it unless there are good reasons against" rather than "We
just did this", though i still don't have clear if it has already been
done or is going to happen in the near future.

Just as a disclaimer, i'm speaking here from myself as a community
member, and as such, i think we have way more to do than arguing against
a good desition from our governance body, at the end, that's why it's
there.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:00:57 +0000 Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com>
> wrote:
> > If the CC need to,
> >we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in
> >Ubuntu, and will do so.
> >
>
> Certainly the CC can (and if they can't you, as SABDFL, can). That doesn't
> mean you should.
>
> While the outcome in this case is clearly reasonable, I think some push
> back about how the decision was taken is also reasonable. As nearly as I
> can determine, the discussion that led to this decision was all, or nearly
> all, non-public. I understand that there was some sense of urgency, but
> I'm not aware of any actual need for privacy.
>
> Transparency in governance is an essential thing for Ubuntu (IMO).
> Personally, I find the lack of transparency (and the negative reaction to
> calls for transparency) unfortunate at best. Many of the people involved
> in Ubuntu believe that working in an open and collaborative manner to
> produce software (and a Linux dostribution) is the best, most effective way
> to do it. It shouldn't be suprising to find that perspective generalized
> to other aspects of the project.
>
> Scott K
>
> --
> Motu-council mailing list
> Motu-council@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/motu-council

--
aka nxvl
Key fingerprint = 5C4D 0C85 D9C0 98FE 11F9 DD12 524E C3CD EF58 4970
gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 654597FE

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 11-02-2009, 01:57 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:05:36 +0000 Matthew East <mdke@ubuntu.com> wrote:
...
>In response to Scott's post, I think we can take the point. I don't
>think that any lack of transparency here was intentional - it just
>seemed to be a very easy decision and it was more or less coincidental
>that the people copied into the email chain were the MC, the CC and
>the DMB - we could just as easily have copied in the motu list, and
>perhaps we should have done. It just didn't occur to us, probably
>because the decision seemed to be so uncontroversial.
>
>Anyway, the decision stands and hopefully everyone can agree with
>Scott that the outcome is reasonable.

Personally, I'd be happy if there was a commitment to be more mindful of
working in public when possible in the future.

I suspect that this release cycle will see the archive reorganization in
place. I have seen indications that the MOTU Council is going to be folded
into the DMB and heard that "MOTU is going away", but really have no idea
what the plan is. I would encourage those in leadership positions to lean
in the direction of over-communicating.

MOTU is something that quite a number of people are proud of and have
invested in. I suspect there will be bumps along the road, but with early
and frequent communication and open decision making a lot of the potential
bumps can be avoided.

Scott K

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 11-02-2009, 02:03 PM
Morten Kjeldgaard
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

Scott Kitterman wrote:

> Personally, I'd be happy if there was a commitment to be more mindful of
> working in public when possible in the future.

+1

> I suspect that this release cycle will see the archive reorganization in
> place. I have seen indications that the MOTU Council is going to be folded
> into the DMB and heard that "MOTU is going away", but really have no idea
> what the plan is. I would encourage those in leadership positions to lean
> in the direction of over-communicating.

+1

> MOTU is something that quite a number of people are proud of and have
> invested in. I suspect there will be bumps along the road, but with early
> and frequent communication and open decision making a lot of the potential
> bumps can be avoided.

+1

That's a hattrick, I agree with ScottK 100%.

Cheers,
Morten

--
Morten Kjeldgaard <mok0@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 11-02-2009, 03:23 PM
"Benj. Mako Hill"
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

<quote who="Stefan Potyra" date="Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:43:22PM +0100">
> > Let's not bog ourselves down in procedural pedantry. If the CC need to,
> > we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in
> > Ubuntu, and will do so.
>
> Thanks, Mark, that's at least a clear announcement, helping me better
> understand how the Ubuntu government works in reality, and to what degree
> government bodies value the community.

Everyone involved values the community. If you doubt that, we have very
serious problems.

Mark's point, as I understand it, is something that's easy to let out of
sight: The rules we create are here to help us work more efficiently and
effectively. If they are getting in the way of accomplishing things --
like calling for the election of people who will not have time to serve
even a reasonable portion of their term -- not only can then be bent,
they should be.

The rules exist for a reason and, especially at the highest level of
governance like on the CC, TB, and MOTU Council, their application needs
to be driven by common sense and need to be enforced, or changed, based
on these underlying reasons.

Regards,
Mako

--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako@atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 11-02-2009, 03:24 PM
"Benj. Mako Hill"
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

<quote who="Scott Kitterman" date="Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 09:57:00AM -0500">
> Personally, I'd be happy if there was a commitment to be more mindful of
> working in public when possible in the future.

Sure.

> I suspect that this release cycle will see the archive reorganization in
> place. I have seen indications that the MOTU Council is going to be folded
> into the DMB and heard that "MOTU is going away", but really have no idea
> what the plan is. I would encourage those in leadership positions to lean
> in the direction of over-communicating.

I'm not sure anybody does. I certainly don't. The MOTU Council certainly
should be closely involved in any conversations and I'm sure that is the
plan.

Regards,
Mako

--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako@atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 11-02-2009, 04:49 PM
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)"
 
Default Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

Hi Mark

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Remember, governance in the Ubuntu community is delegated from the CC
> (and ultimately me). We believe in having a broad strong base of talent
> to handle the huge scale of Ubuntu, but that's not the same as believing
> that every decision should be taken in a completely consultative and
> transparent manner. Don't confuse those two! That's as bad as confusing
> Ubuntu and democracy - this is an appointed meritocracy.
>
> We try to nominate the most competent people to the right positions and
> then trust them to make decisions which bind all of us. We DON'T second
> guess those decisions except in extreme cases. The various teams lead
> because we trust them to lead.

The explanation you give above used to be quite easy to find on the
Ubuntu website. I used to paste the link to people who would say things
like "well that's not very democratic of Ubuntu", but it seems to have
faded away through all the website iterations. In my opinion it should
be at least easy to find from one of the links on
http://www.ubuntu.com/community, and there should probably be some
mention of the SABDFL role on http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes

IMHO it's crucial that contributors understand the meritocratic nature
of Ubuntu, and if it's explained more prominently there should be less
confusion.

-Jonathan

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org