Topic: SME Community - Poll - should we have a formal structure?

[pcowley]

It appears to me that there is general dissatisfaction with the lack of organisation and forward progress of the SME community, primarily around such things as:

- Who decides what is in a release and when it should go out?
- Who gets to decide the 'Roadmap' for SME?
- Do the teams have a leader or main driver?
- What problem and/or conflict resolution processes are in place?
- Who has technical oversight of the development work?
- Who organises the priority of work to gain the most benefits from the development effort?
- Where do you go to find out who is working on what projects and the progress or project status?

The list is probably endless.

It is my personal view that unless we start to organise ourselves, no good forward progress will ever be made and SME development will continue to crawl if not stop all together.  (I know for a fact that several people who would have been keen to get involved, have left due to the lack of response, structure and knowing what is going on).

THEREFORE I am running this poll to see if there is enough agreement within the SME community to get some sort of formal organisation going.

I have created a wiki page outlining a structure copied directly from the Debian folk (with their approval) at:- http://no.longer.valid/phpwiki/index.php/Proposed%20SME%20Server%20Organizational%20Structure

Please have a look at this and then vote - then we can start to decide our direction and make progress.

Cheers
Pete Cowley
down under in Wellington, New Zealand

[Buddha_Joe]

I also posted a link to this poll in the Experinced users forum.

[ki11er]

I like the structure for the most part, but I can think of a few issues with it.

The debian community is much larger then the SME community, so for them their structure works, but I see it as to involved for the SME Server project, so here is what I propose:

Leader + Technical Committe (with attached Secretary if needed)

The committee may be made up from the following persons and groups:

Leader - Overall vision (as agreed to by the committe with input from the community)

Lead (Security Team)
Release Manager
Package Assignment
Lead (Bug Team)
Lead (Doc Team)
Web Maintainer

Each subgroup leader will be responsible for their teams (and will organise them as they see fit) and will report to the committee.

[Buddha_Joe]

the debian community is much larger then the SME community, so for them their structure works, but I see it as to involved for the SME Server project, so here is what I propose:

Then you should cast your vote for the second option on the list.  

[Buddha_Joe]

Please keep in mind everyone that the proposed debian structure  is just that....... proposed..

The real question is about getting organized..

If you don't agree with the debian way but do agree on the need for some sort of structure then vote using the second choice.

[steve]

Debian is, IMHO, the preeminent example of how a successful distro-community is organized.

From reading all the examples on the devinfo and discussion lists I think formality is exactly what SME as a Linux Distro needs.

[ki11er]

I agree that SME does need some form of formal leadership. How that leadership of organised is up for discussion.

It's the biggest problem that I see with community driven projects is that no-one ever seems to decide anything unless a formal committee is formed and agreed to by the community (even them sometimes nothing happens)  

[Buddha_Joe]

also try not get hung up on details... that's the next step after every has voiced their opinions    

[Buddha_Joe]

come on folks ... this poll has been viewd over 90 times and only 10 people have an opinion? I find that hard to believe.

[wallyrp]

Good Evening,

Welcome to the world of SME. Polls are useless even though I did vote. RSI will make the decisions for contribs.org and/or SME as long as they own the domain. Example, the Lycoris fiasco. There is no formal trust, governing body, committee, CEO, CFO, etc. that runs this show. Until there is something like that formed where the ownership of contribs.org / SME is in the hands of the community organization, polls and other discussion regarding the positive or negative issues surrounding this whole thread, IMHO, is useless.

Others and myself have mentioned many different angles of attack regarding the organization of contribs.org / SME. I volunteered to check weblinks and the likes last summer. I started going through them and found a couple of incorrect links. I emailed the appropriate people regarding the information I found. I don't remember if I got a response or not and/or whether the links were corrected.

Now, having said all that, I still like SME and will continue to use it and give support where and when I can in whatever unorganized fashion I feel like at the time.

[Buddha_Joe]

There is no formal trust, governing body, committee, CEO, CFO, etc. that runs this show. Until there is something like that formed where the ownership of contribs.org / SME is in the hands of the community organization, polls and other discussion, IMHO, is useless.

valid points but the process has to begin some where.. no one is going to take the time to set up an organization like this unless there is documented interest.

I don't know anything about setting up non-profits but I will say here and now that I would be willing to go through process of learning how to do it and filling out papper work if there was enough interest from the community.. That is niether here nor there at this point.

Not saying anything and accepting the status quo, even if you are unhappy with the current state of affairs, is not going to bring about change.. apathy is not the answer. Thanks for casting your vote.[/quote]

[steve]

Wally -  I think that is the purpose of the poll.

To get an idea of what others think concerning the current growing pains of the community that surrounds SME Linux.
 
It is good you voted in the poll and remember the poll is only a tool.

[jcoleman]

I mean no offense to anyone, this is just my opinion.  It carries only the weight you give it.

I believe there are only a few types of people typically involved in online communities.  There is overlap, of course, in these groups and it is a gross generalization.

- people who simply use the site for their benefit and don't participate in the community (btw, I think this is just fine)

- people who genuinely want to help or are committed to the project but are not able to help with either code or support in the forums.  Sometimes these people donate money, most often not.

- people who genuinely want to help or are committed to the project and wish to offer organizational skills to help organize/lead a project.

- people who get their hands dirty, without asking permission, and build what they want because to them this is a passion and an art.  The guys building the core distro, the devs writing the contribs, docteam, bug fixers and contribs.org are examples of this group.

OK. Tell me which of these groups is mandatory for the project?

The few guys who build the core os got a small group together and without consulting anyone outside their own group they built a new release.  BRAVO!  They got it done.  They are following their vision of how things should be done.  Now the code is in the gpl so if you don't like what they wrote you can change it anyway you want.  I think this may be one of those rare occasions when Charlie and I agree on something.

The contribs devs follow their own vision and build whatever they want to.  BRAVO!  They are getting it done.  Once again the code is in the gpl so you can change it if you want to.

The people who respond to the bugs or the forum posts that interest them do it according to their own interests.  BRAVO!  They are getting it done.  And no one can force them to work on a specific bug or respond to a specific post.

I provide and run the site the way my vision points me.  I will continue to do that.  All of the code that runs this type of site is in the gpl so you can build a better site if you want.

This isn't to say that there can't be discussion and collaboration among us all, it just means that no one can force anyone to do anything.  I can't even enforce a ban on my own site. (think about that for a minute)

Question.  In a project of this size how viable is it to try to mandate rules on volunteers that ultimately have no desire to be told what to do?

I vote #4 - It can always be better but not by any of the above options

-jeff

Civility:
n 1: formal or perfunctory politeness [ant: incivility] 2: the act of showing regard for others [syn: politeness]

[ki11er]

I have to agree with you Jeff...

It is part of the reason why many Open Source projects fail, but in saying that, it is also a strong point of many projects...  

Talk about an Oxy-Moron...  

Anyway, I'm really sitting on the fence with this one...I have ideas of where I would like SME Server to head in the future (I'm sure quite a few in the community would disagree with me and that is fine by me - it is their right).

I personally would like to take more of a leadership role in the SME Server project (since I can't code to save myself - I have more of a IT project management background) but again, most members wouldn't know me or my background which is understandable.

I personally think all the different parts of the community complement each other. The Core Devs build the Core OS, other Devs build the contribs (of which some get included in the Core OS at some point), the DocTeam document everything (a life saver in and of itself - I have referred to the Docs a number of times to check how to do something - mainly because I forget), bug fixers (we all know that the Core and Contrib Devs are not perfect - humans never are) and of course I can't forget the people who look after the Contribs.Org website (without you Contribs wouldn't exist in it's current form).

[Buddha_Joe]

call it crazy but some people need structure..lol.. to some it may seem stuffy but others thrive in that type of enviornment.. your absolutely right about beeing able to spin off into another development branch, but I think most people would rather not fork the project.

I'm sure there could be some sort of compromise..

Jeff please be honest.. Do you or the developers you speak of feel that we are stepping on your toes by having this discussion?