[forum] A Call For Open Governance Of X Development

[Mark Vojkovich]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Keith Packard wrote:

>            A Call For Open Governance Of X Development
> 
> Persistent problems in XFree86 development have become widely recognised
> within the X community. I have talked to people throughout the X
> community in a search for solutions. These conversations were personal
> rather than public because I felt the need for council, not conflict.
> Some have suggested that this was a secret attempt to undermine the
> XFree86 project: this was not my intent. I have tried as hard as I can
> to work within the existing XFree86 structure.

     Keith, like Alan, I am completely baffled by your course of 
action.  Your position as a core XFree86 member and as member of
the larger open source community put you in a position to elicit 
change from within the existing XFree86 structure that you refer 
to, yet I have not heard any of these concerns from you before hearing
of threats of an imminent fork.


>     * Lack of cooperation with other projects
> 
>       The KDE and Gnome projects were forced to form the freedesktop.org
>       project to extend and enhance X Window System standards because
>       XFree86 refused even to participate in the process.

   Who is the "XFree86" you are refering to here?  I do not remember 
this issue coming up for discussion at any time.


> 
>     * Opacity of development processes
> 
>       There is no information available on the XFree86 home page on
>       becoming an XFree86 developer. Information for new developers
>       consists of the mention of a couple of mailing list addresses in
>       the README document included in the XFree86 4.3 release.

   Keith, you know very well that nothing is required to be a member.
Membership was removed long ago when we opened up the mailing lists.
If there are errors in the documentation, how come you haven't pointed
them out?  Furthermore, why are you allowing misconceptions like this,
that you know to be false, to continue?  You are using misconceptions
as arguments to support your point.  If those misconceptions were
cleared up, I think you'd have much less of a point to make.

> 
> I have made limited progress in my attempts to address these issues. The
> opening of the XFree86 CVS repository and developer mailing lists to
> public access has benefitted X development significantly. In order to
> improve the technical coordination with other open source projects, I
> have become personally involved in many of them.

  Yes, we know you have made progress in many aspects of the XFree86
project.  Your contributions to this project are why you were a
core XFree86 member.  You make it sound as though, despite being a core 
member of XFree86, you did not represent the XFree86 project in those
actions.  I always thought you were the XFree86 presence in those projects.
You make it sound more like you were merely the Keith Packard
presence in those projects.


> 
> Within the last couple of months I have come to understand why these
> persistent problems have not been solved by the X community. By X
> community, I mean:
> 
>     * Developers working on the X server and libraries.
>     * Developers working on ancillary X extensions and services such as
>       the DRI and GATOS projects.
>     * Developers working on Qt, Gtk+, Fltk, Tk, Motif and other toolkits.
>     * Application developers using either Xlib or an X toolkit.
>     * System integrators and distributors packaging X technology in
>       various forms.
>     * Consulting companies selling services based on X.
>     * Hardware vendors producing hardware to work with X.
>     * X End users.
> 
> The key issue is that XFree86 is not a community-governed project.

   All core members are part of both the open source and X-Window
community.  In fact, they have made substantial contributions to
these communities through their work.  As stated, I do not believe
your assertion is correct.

> 
> XFree86 processes and procedures originate with the Directors of the
> XFree86 Corporation. Technical leadership of the XFree86 project has
> traditionally been provided by the XFree86 Core Team, an informal
> association of leading XFree86 developers.
> 
> While the XFree86 Board of Directors is nominally in charge of XFree86,
> they have absented themselves from governing the project and left that
> to the XFree86 Core Team. The community is left wondering who is
> actually in charge of XFree86. As a result, community trust in XFree86
> leadership has suffered. Decisions appear to be arbitrary and are not
> seen to reflect the will of the community. The leadership has no
> accountability to the community: thus community members have no ability
> to change project direction and the Board has little incentive to do so.
> In addition, the lack of clear formal policies has made it difficult to
> resolve disputes when the usual consensus breaks down.
> 
> It is therefore essential for the community to be involved in the
> governance of X development. Two key elements in a community-governed
> project are:
> 
>    1. A low barrier to become a voting member.

   Why?  I don't see why people who haven't contributed to the
project should have such control over it.


>    2. Regular elections of the government by all of the members.
>
> Community governed projects such as Gnome, KDE and Debian have
> well-established membership policies. All allow anyone with the interest
> and ability to join and vote. As far as I know, only the XFree86 Board
> members are voting members of XFree86. Community governed projects elect
> officials who serve for a few years, after which elections must be held.
> To my knowledge, XFree86 has never held an election.


   Which government are you refering to?  It's not clear to me that
the BOD does anything other than make sure the bills are paid.
The technical direction of XFree86 is and has been deterimined
largely by whoever volunteers to do the work.  The core, as you
know, is pretty much the people who have made substantial contributions
and have been granted CVS access.  It's probably a mistake 
having this requirement for CVS access, but CVS access certainly
shouldn't be granted by vote.

   I think the core should probably be dissolved.  It doesn't
do anything that other developers cannot except access CVS.
If we move to the Linux kernel-like lieutenant scheme I am
advocating, the core gets replaced with maintainers. 

   So who is this government then?  What do they do?  As a member
of the core I don't recall ever having to vote on anything.
Decisions have usually come to an easy concensus.


     			Mark.